They were opposed only to the theory that these Soviets, recruited in a more or less haphazard manner, as such organizations must necessarily be, were better adapted to the governing of a great country like Russia than a legal body which received its mandate in elections based upon universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage.  No one ever pretended that the Soviets represented all the workers of Russia—­including peasants in that term—­or even a majority of them.  No one ever pretended that the Soviet, as such, was a stable and constant factor.  New Soviets were always springing up and others dying out.  Many existed only in name, on paper. There never has been an accurate list of the Soviets existing in Russia.  Many lists have been made, but always by the time they could be tabulated and published there have been many changes.  For these and other reasons which will suggest themselves to the mind of any thoughtful reader, many of the leaders of the revolutionary movement in Russia have doubted the value of the Soviet as a unit of government, while highly valuing it as a unit of working-class organization and struggle.

Back of all the strife between the Bolsheviki centered around the Soviets and the Socialist-Revolutionists and Mensheviki, centered around the Constituent Assembly, was a greater fact than any we have been discussing, however.  The Bolsheviki with their doctrinaire Marxism had carried the doctrine of the class struggle to such extreme lengths that they virtually placed the great mass of the peasants with the bourgeoisie.  The Revolution must be controlled by the proletariat, they argued.  The control of the government and of industry by the people, which was the slogan of the old democracy, will not do, for the term “the people” includes bourgeois elements.  Even if it is narrowed by excluding the great capitalists and landowners, still it embraces the lesser capitalists, small landowners, shopkeepers, and the petty bourgeoisie in general.  These elements weaken the militancy of the proletariat.  What is needed is the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Now, only a very small part of the peasantry, the very poor peasants, can be safely linked to the proletariat—­and even these must be carefully watched.  It was a phase of the old and familiar conflict between agrarian and industrial groups in the Socialist movement.  It is not very many years since the Socialist party of America was convulsed by a similar discussion.  Could the farmer ever be a genuine and sincere and trustworthy Socialist?  The question was asked in the party papers in all seriousness, and in one or two state organizations measures were taken to limit the number of farmers entering the party, so that at all times there might be the certainty of a preponderance of proletarian over farmer votes.