cher, the correspondent of L'Illustration has given a detailed account of the enthusiasm with which the Albanian flag was greeted and the extraordinary rapidity with which Albanian schools, previously forbidden under heavy penalties, were opened and crowded with pupils. The Albanians cried 'Vive la France,' only to be cruelly disappointed. When once firmly established Colonel Descouins summoned Greek gendarmes, took down Albania's flag, and suppressed the Albanian Government. Temistokle Germenli, a much beloved Nationalist, was arrested and executed, to the dismay of his compatriots, who knew that his only crime was love of his motherland. The American mission also, it may be observed, regarded him as wholly innocent of the charges brought against him. Greek officials now replaced Albanian ones and threatened Albanian parents with court-martial, says report, if they refused to send their children to Greek schools. The land has copper and lignite in it, which may help Greece to pay her debts to France. Italy made a counter-march. She proclaimed at Argyrokastro, in June, 1917, that she would protect all Albania. She even penetrated Greek territory and roused wild hopes that she meant to restore Albania to her ethnographical frontiers. For a brief moment France, Greece, and Italy bared their teeth. Then Italy retired, and the luckless Albanians who had risen to her call, paid the penalty. Hard on this came the publication of the Secret Treaty of 1915, and a thrill of horror ran through Albania. How could Italy, who had all through professed to be Albania's friend, have signed away three quarters of it? 'Russia clapped a pistol to her head,' was the reply. People clung to the hope that the collapse of Russia had made it void. The treaties then revealed were all strenuously denied

by the parties who had signed them. They were said to be 'inaccurate and incomplete,' by Lloyd George. They were buried. But they rose again, in much the same form, and are the cause of much unholy squabble in Paris.

The débâcle of the Central Powers was followed by a neck-and-neck race through the coveted lands by Italy and France. France trying to be first to occupy all that she desires to bestow on her Serb and Greek protégés, Italy striving to get there first and occupy the land for Albania - and herself. Since the growth to power of the South Slavs Italy has struggled fiercely to form a make-weight.

Italy arrived first at Elbassan. France was first in Kossovo Vilayet. Here she was welcomed by the Albanian population. She, however, having once entered, withdrew in favor of the Serbs, who, so far as recent information goes, have massacred or expelled the bulk of the Albanians in order to prove a Serb majority there. Gusinje, Plava, Jakova, and Ipek have all during the past months of 'armistice' been bombarded and bombed. And Italy, the friend who promised to protect Albania, has stirred no finger to help.

Up till last January the Albanians were willing to accept Italian protection, though they looked askance upon the wide lands Italy has seized around Valona. But now they ask themselves, 'What good is a protector who does not protect?' Moreover, Italy, though she held the trump cards in Albania, has played badly and lost. She has estranged Albanian sympathies by her reckless attempts at Italianization. Italian colonists are poured into the land, and settled on the sites of the villages burned in 1914. Italian schools are opened in numbers, and, worst of all, the Albanians are not permitted to open schools of their own. It was for their national schools that they fought

the Turk. They say the Italian is as bad as he. They have now appealed urgently and earnestly to America to take over the mandate and give them shelter till they can stand alone. If given this chance those who know them believe that in fifty years they would be second to none in the Balkans. They are more intelligent than the Bulgar; they are far more industrious than the Serb, and they have all the Greek's aptitude for commerce. Will they be given this chance? If not, they say that there is nothing to choose between denationalization by Italy, Greece, or Serbia. If one is to be made the unwilling subject of another race, it does not much matter which.

The Franco-Greco-Serb group now holds out offers. "The Balkans for the Balkan people, and no Italian need in

The Contemporary Review

trude,' is their catchword. Albania looks on all as equally unreliable. Italy, she says, will fight Jugo-Slavia at no distant date. Albania would then be a battleground. Italy's attention would all be riveted on Trieste and Fiume. Thither would go all her troops. Of what value would her 'protection' then be to Albania?

As my dear old dragoman said when he saw the coil of intrigue which threatened to throttle his land: "The Great Powers, lady, are like a band of brigands. By day they quarrel with one another. At night they all go out robbing together.' It is a perfect definition of foreign policy.

But Albania knows also that 'When thieves fall out honest men come by their own,' and awaits what the future may bring.

THE first of the immediate tasks which confront us is the protection, strengthening, and development of democracy. It is not by mere chance that we have been Social Democrats from the beginning. We have never been able to conceive of the realization of Socialism otherwise than by the path marked out by democracy. Equal rights for all that was the principle on which we built up our programme, for which we fought, for which we endured the persecution of the law against Socialists, and challenged the police to conflict over equal electoral

rights in Prussia. Hence I cannot understand how anyone who hesitates to accept the principle of equal political rights can continue to call himself a Social Democrat. I must say that I am grateful to the Extreme Left for calling themselves, not Social Democrats, but Communists. I hope that all who consider democracy - the equal right of all-an obsolete affair, consigned by the revolution to the scrap heap, will possess in equal measure the courage of their convictions. If, however, we examine the party which continues to call itself 'Independent Social Democ

racy,' we find that it consists, not only of genuine Social Democrats who differ from us only in questions of policy, but also of others who, by abandoning the principle of general political equality, have forfeited the right to call themselves Social Democrats. It is to be hoped that these people also will have the courage of their convictions, and will show themselves in their true colors. There is no Social Democrat alive who wishes for the political supremacy of a councils' government in place of the general sovereignty of the people. What is so extraordinary with regard to this system of government by councils, is that no one can exactly define its nature. Its supporters wrangle in the Independent journals over its fundamentals, without coming to any conclusion. Crispien, for example, says that everyone, except actual capitalists, is to have an electoral vote for the councils, and even capitalists may acquire it by declaring themselves members of a Social Revolutionary party. Any man, however, even a workman, is to be deprived of his franchise if he is condemned by a Socialist tribunal to lose his privileges as a Socialist. Truly, such a system leaves scope for every kind of oppression. Any profiteer who had the art of currying favor would have the suffrage, while an honest workman who for decades had striven for the emancipation of his class, would be deprived of rights and privileges, if his political methods did not please those who happened at the moment to be in power. But then comes Max Siewers, who repudiates Crispien's views, proposing to exclude from the franchise all who employ workmen in any fashion whatever; thus farmers, artisans, small tradesmen, and innkeepers would be excluded. It is impossible to estimate the bitterness which would naturally arise from a new suffrage of this kind, based on privilege.

Moreover, of these Social Revolutionaries, who designate me and my friends as traitors or blockheads, because we do not at once adopt every new catchword, not one, for all their bold front, has produced a single original idea. They copy, without exception, Russian models. We cannot escape from the capitalist system at a single bound we cannot, with one swoop, socialize everything, down to the last little barber's shop! What right have we to deny political rights and privileges to any man who has become, by any means whatever, an employer of labor in the society in which he lives? If it were a question of disfranchising the real drones of society, the shirkers and exploiters of the labors of others, there would be matter for discussion. But even for this purpose the most complex laws, the most elaborate investigations, the most painful legal procedure would be necessary, for the sole purpose of erasing from the electoral registers the names of a few thousand people whose numbers were not sufficient to be of consequence one way or the other. In this way we should arrive at the political councils system, which does not differ in the slightest, in practice, from misplaced Parliamentarianism. I therefore beg the advocates of the political councils system, as a first step, to reach a clear understanding among themselves, as to the fundamentals of their scheme. Hitherto they seem to me to belong to the people of whom our late colleague, Victor Adler, used to say: "They do not precisely know what they want, but they want to decide the matter.'

But we must defend ourselves most resolutely against the attempt to force a system upon our people of which no one yet knows exactly what it looks like. They may put into the government whom they will, for every gov

ernment will be compelled to defend itself against such attempts and to oppose force, if such be used, with force. This brings me to a theme which has already given us the greatest pain and which my colleague Noske dealt with recently the theme of the theme of the armed force whose task is to protect the democratic order against any coup d'état from the Left or from the Right. We all have a very clear picture of this armed force. And it is to consist purely of convinced supporters of the new government, of men who know exactly for what they are risking their skins, of spotless knights of liberty who detest any arbitrary force and only intervene when the defense of justice demands it. This ideal hovers before all our eyes. We are all united in the endeavor to realize it, but we are also all at one in realizing that we are still far removed from it. Let us also be clear on this point: the gravest obstacle on this path is civil war among the working classes. Nothing can be done with a troop of which one third are Majority Socialists, another third In dependents, and the other third Spartacists. We are trying with all our strength to root out all reactionary spirit, all arbitrary force which inclines to excesses, from the armed formations which still exist. And I admit that it can do us no harm if our backs are stiffened in this struggle. But as for all the advantages which the reaction can be said to have won, they have only been won by the disunion of the proletariat and the horrible confusion which has fallen upon its ranks. The Social Democratic party must, however, be on its guard in the defense of this dearly-bought democracy, and not only against the Left but against the Right. Signs are not wanting that the old forces are once more trying to seize power. I do not want to exaggerate this danger at the moment, for any

body who would essay an adventurous coup from the Right to-day must have taken leave of his senses. It would end most disastrously for him. But in these chaotic times the scenes change swiftly. And if Spartacism continues to pave the way as it has hitherto done, then it is impossible to say whether one day other conditions may not materialize. Therefore, comrades, I call to you: Be on your guard. If reaction tries to rear its head again, then it must be swept away for all time.

We want to move, not backward, but forward into freedom. Therefore, we long for the day which will relieve us of the painful duty of resorting to measures of force which are utterly repugnant to us.

I say with the deepest conviction: Down with the state of siege! On the day on which Spartacus renounces its policy of basing its rule of force upon the state of siege, its antagonists will at once concede that this régime be done with. When shall we at last be able to end domestic conflict with domestic peace, in which all sections recognize the rights and liberties of others, and freely acknowledge the sovereign will of the people? It must be the aim of all sincere friends of the working classes, no matter what their political views, to bring about such a peace, even, if need be, at heavy personal sacrifice. I myself would count my life cheap to attain such an end, but I will never submit to the base betrayal of the fundamental democratic principles of our Social Democratic programme, or to compromise over matters which do not admit of compromise. I would continue to fight to the last, as a party member among the rank and file, for our original programme. But, though our position is thus completely clear on the political side, we are perplexed by a multitude of problems in the economic sphere. This is, I admit, per

fectly natural, since, whereas democracy, on the one hand, is an old and well-known political system-in spite of the fact that it has never been so boldly and consistently developed as in our young republic - Socialism, on the other hand, is completely new territory. There are many other reasons as well. To start with, the form of government of any state is so entirely a domestic matter that even a defeated people can choose freely in this respect, while the economic system is bound up with the entire economic life and relationships of the country. The ultimate intention of the treaty is that the economic system of Germany shall be dictated by victorious capitalism. The whole German nation is to be reduced to the condition of a nation in bondage, obliged to labor to the point of exhaustion, in the service of foreign capitalism, for a bare living wage. These are measures directed, not against German Kaiserism, but against German Socialism. They are dictated by Western capitalism, which recognizes in German Socialism a formidable foe, all the more formidable as capitalism must be afraid that its methods might not be the haphazard and blundering experiments of Russian Bolshevism, which serves as a deterrent example, but might be the foundation for a methodical system and its successful application. This is the problem which confronts us in our foreign relationships. But, in addition, we are faced with a domestic problem in the fact that, although there is a Social Democratic majority in many large districts, there is as yet none in the separate states (excepting in the instance of a few small states), or in the Imperial Parliament. All Socialistic measures taken by the Imperial Parliament are dependent upon the approval of at least a part of the bourgeois party, and it is easy to conceive that they

have to be watered down a good deal.

But the last and most formidable obstacle is that which is involved in the nature of Socialism itself, as an unfamiliar and untried system. All economic systems which have hitherto been operative in the world have developed naturally and imperceptibly, in such a way, moreover, that each permeated and merged into the other, until finally, in the course of development, the new grew out of the old. No official record reports the hour of capital's birth, and I believe that none will report the hour of its death, for successive economic systems do not follow one upon the other in precise chronological order; the old persists for a time after the birth of the new. How can it be otherwise in our generation? Even before the war we had hot disputes over this matter. One section believed that the proletariat would be able, after securing political power, to reform the entire capitalist economic system all at once, according to the new guiding principle of Socialism, just as one reverses, with a single movement of the wheel, the whole motion of a piece of machinery. The other section was convinced, on the contrary, that the complete realization of Socialistic theory is only possible through organic development and advance by experiment. I believe that even a purely Socialist government, such as we do not yet possess in the Empire, must be impelled by the heavy responsibility it bears, to adopt the method of a slow experimental advance, and it will court disaster if it believes itself capable of mastering economics by obstinacy and force. It will never be able to take too great risks in its experiments, for it would forfeit by one failure the confidence of the masses, the most essential condition for the further development of its pol