ourselves to recognizing and proclaiming the union of the workers of all countries.  It is henceforth necessary to pursue the realization of the strictest union of all the national and colonial movements of emancipation with Soviet Russia, by giving to this union forms corresponding to the degree of evolution of the proletarian movement among the proletariat of each country, or of the democratic-bourgeois movement of emancipation among the workers and peasants of backward countries or backward nationalities.

    The federal principle appears to us as a transitory form
    towards the complete unity of the workers of all countries.

This is the formula for co-operation with Sinn Fein or with Egyptian and Indian nationalism.  It is further defined later.  In regard to backward countries, Lenin says, we must have in view:—­

    The necessity of the co-operation of all Communists in the
    democratic-bourgeois movement of emancipation in those
    countries.

Again: 

“The Communist International must conclude temporary alliances with the bourgeois democracy of backward countries, but must never fuse with it.”  The class-conscious proletariat must “show itself particularly circumspect towards the survivals of national sentiment in countries long oppressed,” and must “consent to certain useful concessions.”

The Asiatic policy of the Russian Government was adopted as a move against the British Empire, and as a method of inducing the British Government to make peace.  It plays a larger part in the schemes of the leading Bolsheviks than is realized by the Labour Party in this country.  Its method is not, for the present, to preach Communism, since the Persians and Hindoos are considered scarcely ripe for the doctrines of Marx.  It is nationalist movements that are supported by money and agitators from Moscow.  The method of quasi-independent states under Bolshevik protection is well understood.  It is obvious that this policy affords opportunities for imperialism, under the cover of propaganda, and there is no doubt that some among the Bolsheviks are fascinated by its imperialist aspect.  The importance officially attached to the Eastern policy is illustrated by the fact that it was the subject of the concluding portion of Lenin’s speech to the recent Congress of the Third International (July 1920).

Bolshevism, like everything Russian, is partly Asiatic in character.  One may distinguish two distinct trends, developing into two distinct policies.  On the one side are the practical men, who wish to develop Russia industrially, to secure the gains of the Revolution nationally, to trade with the West, and gradually settle down into a more or less ordinary State.  These men have on their side the fact of the economic exhaustion of Russia, the danger of ultimate revolt against Bolshevism if life continues to be as painful as it is at present, and the natural sentiment of humanity that wishes to relieve the sufferings of the people; also the fact that, if revolutions elsewhere produce a similar collapse of industry, they will make it impossible for Russia to receive the outside help which is urgently needed.  In the early days, when the Government was weak, they had unchallenged control of policy, but success has made their position less secure.