# The Red Insurrection in Finland in 1918/Part 2/Chapter 4

4. THE LEADERSHIP OF THE RED.
Not without self-confidence did the Red often declare in their papers that they were doing as another leading people in history had done: they were building their temple with the trowel in one hand and the sword in the other. The simile is right enough, but with the restriction that the right hand seldom knew what the left hand was doing. For what the trowel built was not respected by the sword.
The great reform programme of the Red Government was, of course, never carried through. But it was at once subjected to criticism also from their own adherents. A written communication published on the 8th February reflects the disappointment felt in the Labour circles which had expected a real social revolution. It is the workmen at Kymmene Works—the largest in the country—who express their disappointment at a meeting "attended by thousands." The programme vacillates between efforts for petty reform and economical revolutionary principles "it says very truly in the communication to the Government, and it is therefore not entirely satisfactory to the revolutionary Labour Class. For this reason the meeting desire that the Government will at the earliest opportunity acquaint our People with the main features of their programme, which, according to the unanimous wish of the meeting, should rest on the basis of economical revolution."
The "Government" did not, however, comply with this wish. On the contrary, its members sought in speech and writings to convince their adherents that a social revolution was neither aimed at nor possible. The fact of the matter was that on account of their corruption, the citizens had not been able to do their duty, and therefore the working-men had been obliged to undertake the, by the way, difficult task of governing the country. ​In reality all the old government offices were kept, only new and quite inexperienced people were appointed to the offices, and the names were altered. All "boards" made into "councils." The railway board became the railway council, the school board the school council, and so on.
An eager legislative activity was, however, started at once, but its underlying intention was obvious enough: the object was to procure adherents also outside the Government's own circle. Judging from everything, it was a great disappointment to the Red that the country population was so little revolutionary as it proved to be. It was therefore hastily overwhelmed with benefits. First it was the turn of the proletariat in the country: crofters and small-holders. By an act of the 31st January, it was proclaimed that the latter could continue to cultivate their soil, and that even without paying any sort of rent. A later decree did, however, in certain cases compensate the owner, and in the shape of State bonds. Also the freeholders obtained easements: the duty of making and keeping up roads was shifted to the State in return for a certain tax, the amount of which was to be fixed later on.
Another group of citizens, whose animosity to the Red rule roused the great resentment and indignation of the new men in power, was the teachers, especially the teaching staff of the board schools. About one-fourth of all the persuasive articles published were meant for the teaching class. It is funny to see how completely the Red were puzzled by the opposition of these men and women. So convinced were they that everything in this world turned on money that they could not make out why poor people should side with capitalists. Salaries were therefore raised considerably, and it was expected that the teachers would come forward and thank. ​They did not come. It was then guessed that there was something "ideal" at the bottom, and elaborate programmes for the reform of the school teaching were published—an odd contribution to the psychology of the Red. How complete was the entanglement in the "capitalist" view of the world is pregnantly seen from an article for the consolation of the relatives of the killed. Why, it is here asked, did we mourn for a husband, a son, who died? Because the wage-earner died with him. But now that the State takes care that no one shall suffer want, now there is no reason to mourn for those that have been killed!
It was not much the revolutionary Government managed to do to build up the new community, in spite of the mass of "acts" published. Besides those stated above, an act was issued about easements in the municipal rates, several decrees concerning the regulation of food consumption, an act concerning the abolishment of all church dues, one concerning the abolishment of the old servants' law, one concerning the "interimistic arrangement of the administration of the interior," one concerning the taxing of rent, and finally acts concerning the taking over by the State of factories that had proclaimed lock-outs, and of properties whose owners had fled. These laws took no real effect. None of the White cared for them of course, and the Red awaited further developments.
Yet the leaders of the revolution came to play a decisive part in two very important social domains, those of the administration of justice and of finance, where it was now felt what the new men in power could do.
Just as Kerenski in time past showed the Russian Revolution the way to a higher humanity by abolishing capital punishment, so the Red, also, inaugurated the ​new era in Finland by the same measure. This was, however, a mere formality, as in accordance with Finnish law no executions had taken place since the beginning of the last century. It became a formality, too, by the fact that it was disregarded. But the measure of abolishing all existing courts of Justice and in their place establishing "revolutionary courts" was, however, no formality. Such were established in every township, and above all they took up cases concerning "counter-revolutionary activity." The judge's office was to be held by a person enjoying the confidence of the working-men, and sentence was to be passed in accordance with conscience and common sense, not according to any previously settled system. So both the choice of the judge and the passing of the sentence was quite arbitrary. The only guide found was a list of the punishments to be applied. They consisted in warnings, fines, dismissal from office, seizure of part or all of the chattels of the convicted person, imprisonment, hard labour, and the loss of certain personal and social advantages. The accused could be sentenced to several of these punishments simultaneously. In theory, this institution was thus very humane; in practice, as we shall soon see, it became quite otherwise. A revolutionary supreme court of justice was also established, but there are no signs of it having ever acted.
The revolutionary tribunals sentenced "the people's enemies." Those who had formerly been sentenced to lose their liberty by the verdicts of the "bourgeois" tribunals were, of course, on a different level. They were victims of the oppression of the capitalist system, and measures must be taken for their benefit. Already on the 6th February the Government decrees that the staffs of the prisons and houses of correction are to work out lists of all such prisoners who may be regarded as ​harmless to the community, and may therefore be set free. Although the prison staffs seem to have been exceedingly liberal in their conception—one prison alone (the district gaol at Helsingfors) setting free 135 prisoners—the prisoners themselves were not satisfied. On the 17th February the Red Press published a communication from the prisoners in the house of correction at Abo under the fine title: "Hopes of the Prisoners. Profound Remorse and Yearning for Liberty." In this the prisoners thank their benefactors, and aver that "the greater part" of the liberated prisoners will no doubt behave well. "For a friendly action pledges us prisoners, too, to reward friendship with friendship, whereas cruelty, hard-heartedness and indifference excites animosity, vindictiveness, hatred, and indifference, which will swell the ranks of the robbers with all sorts of instigators of trouble and strike-breakers." But one item of the conditions "makes the prisoners very sad." "It is this, that only such prisoners are liberated as are not considered dangerous to the community. To this we shall only remark that, if the prisoners are only liberated after the manner in which the officials of the old Tsardom in their partiality have blackened us in their reports, then there are not many who can hope to be set free at once."
The Red Government seems to have seen this, too, for on the 11th March it is decided that the term of punishment for all convicts is to be reduced by half. Prisoners for life are liberated when they have been in prison for five years, All that are liberated regain their civic rights. It need hardly be remarked that there is no question here of "political offenders," but only of gross criminals. The reason for this great leniency must again be put down to the fact that the army needed reinforcement.
What it meant to the community as a whole that the ​prisons were emptied of criminals is easy to perceive. No less harm was done to the country in other ways by the financial activity of the Red. The latter, of course, played a very prominent part, for a revolution, as is well known, always makes great demands on the cash-box. In the first place, it was important to the Russian Government to get the State bank, the Bank of Finland, into its own hands. They succeeded in this after some trouble. The bank building was easily accessible, but the keys to the bank vaults were not to be got hold of. It proved, however, that a messenger at the bank belonged to the Red, and he directed them to where the reserve keys were kept. They were found in a safe placed in a vault of earlier construction. The Red called in a whole band of locksmiths with modern housebreaking tools, and so they succeeded in opening the vault as well as the safe. So the Red Government were in possession of the keys. The Minister of Finance had honourably begun his career by burglary, and the accommodating messenger was appointed chief cashier at the bank. The sum the Red got into possession of was considerable; it amounted to over 160 millions at the chief office, and about 25 millions at the branch office in South Finland, which was opened in a similar manner. The store of gold and the greater part of the securities had, however, already long ago been taken to a place of safety in North Finland.
The 185 millions were, however, soon gone, and fresh expedients had to be found. All sorts of "acts" designed to increase the revenue were issued, but were only of little help. The worst hindrance was of course the fact that the private banks were obstinately kept closed, and that the State bank enjoyed the confidence of no one. The money went out of circulation as soon as it had been issued. An order was given, in consequence of ​which all houses of business were forced to deposit all their returns in the Bank of Finland, but it was not obeyed. An attempt was made to get hold of the foreign dues of the bank, but it failed. Finally, the largest private bank was burglared and its stock of drafts taken over. The bills due were not honoured. The want of money was felt most because the army must necessarily be paid at the proper time and in full, so that the men should not become discontented. And yet it was at last necessary to retrench on this tender point too. The men only got part of their pay in cash, the rest in cheques drawn to the order of certain persons, and to be paid "later on."
In the meanwhile, already on the 8th February it had been resolved to follow the way shown by the Bolsheviks—a forced printing of paper money. As soon as the printing press had been set going the work was kept going indefatigably with a working day of twelve hours for the workmen, and up to the 8th April, when the Government fled from Helsingfors, notes at a nominal value of 77,288,000 Finnish marks were printed. These notes must be considered counterfeit, as the Red did not dare write their own names on the notes, but furnished them all with the signatures of the officials they had themselves dismissed. When they fled from Helsingfors the Red took all cash, about 17 millions, with them, and, besides, about 13 millions had some days before been dispatched east. It is also worth mentioning that the Red Government, shortly before they disappeared to Russia at the beginning of May, made preparations for a continued printing of paper money at St. Petersburg. Whether this led to any result is not known.
The financial rule of the Red was not successful. It began by burglary, and ended by theft. But, besides, the opposition of the "bourgoisie" was specially ​perceptible on this point. A smash would have been unavoidable if the Red rule had lasted any longer.
Two "great" feats of government are due to the Red leaders. These were a proposal for a constitution, and an agreement with Russia. The constitution, which, after the definite victory of the people, was to be decided by a general plebiscite—or, "at least," by the general vote of the working-men, is only of interest in so far as it shows once more that the Red did not think of any social revolution. It contains nothing about the nationalisation of the means of production, but implies contract between private individuals. It, however, aims at a far-reaching democracy where every citizen becomes a professional politician. The power is with an assembly of two hundred members—a single-chamber like the one already in existence—but elected by universal and equal suffrage for all who have completed their twentieth year (not twenty-four, as before). The executive organ is a people's commission elected for three years from out of this assembly, which continually controls its activity through committees. Every decision taken by the Commission in a matter of administration may be referred by the committee of investigation to the test of the Single-Chamber, if the committee consider the decision to be opposed to what the Single-Chamber would probably resolve! In legislation, administration, and administration of justice, the people itself take part directly, both by the fact that 10,000 voters have the right of bringing in bills, and by the fact that one-twentieth of the members that have taken part in the last elections have the right to demand a plebiscite for the annulment of any decision taken by the Single-Chamber, the Commission or any other administrative authority, and for the repeal of the verdict of any tribunal. In order to "crush the bureaucracy," it ​is decided that all offices in the administration and the courts of justice can only be held for five years at the outside.
The proposal is undoubtedly democratic. From a psychological point of view, it denotes suspicion systematised. It is taken for granted that anyone in power yearns to abuse his power. Therefore, he is to be under the intensified control of the "people."
The agreement between the "Council of the People's Commissioners in the Federative Republic of Russia" and the "People's Commission in the Socialistic Labour Republic of Finland" need not here be communicated in detail. It is an apparently highly advantageous agreement, in the twenty paragraphs of which there are, however, many pitfalls concealed. The agreement was to be a beautiful proof of the patriotic disposition of the Red, but in reality, it gave Russia wide possibilities of interfering in the affairs of Finland. It particularly gave to the Labour Party the possibility of always asserting its majority in the parliament, as the Russian working-men residing in Finland would get full political rights. It would be so easy to secure a lively importation of Bolsheviks before each election.
The chief features of the positive work of the Red have been indicated above. Very much they did not accomplish, partly, of course, because their attention was directed most towards the war operations, partly on account of the strong opposition of the bourgeoisie, but chiefly because they themselves lacked a well-defined programme. The only thing they had yearned for was to get into power, but when the power was in their hands they did not know what to use if for. What they were most interested in was to fill all offices with their own men. During the three months their rule lasted they managed to create a bureaucracy as ignorant, as inefficient, as ​unworthy as it was possible. There was a swarm of "councillors," commissioners, committees, and authorities. And of these there were many who thought power really existed to be abused. Book-keeping and accounts were complicated things; no wonder, therefore, if they often showed all sorts of peculiarities.
A really naïve proof of the inefficiency of the rulers was an energetic appeal from the municipal government at Helsingfors inviting all the working-men of the city to "creative activity." And this was to consist in everyone trying to think out some system or other by which the complicated affairs of the city could be governed. The sixty members themselves of the municipal council declare that they are at a loss how to cope with all the difficulties.
Another trait that shows how little the Red respected their own most sacred principles is this, that they order a longer working-day than the eight hours they had fought so energetically for, and which they had succeeded in establishing by law. It has already been mentioned that the working-hours in the money printing press had been extended to twelve hours. And when all the tailors of the country in March were ordered to work exclusively for the Red Guard, their working-day was fixed at ten hours. It is expressly said that the tailors who refuse are to be sent to the front.
In the meanwhile there was great official satisfaction at all of it. One paper says: "In this country slavery is beginning to be on its last legs. If now the bourgeoisie press could shake off their nose-band, we should be drowned in an ocean of the most disgusting abuse. Only think how this lying press will writhe in their strait-waistcoats when they see one link after another in the chain of slavery being cut away!" Yes, here was the source of the greatest joy: the triumph over an opponent ​who one tried to imagine had been beaten, the gloating over the fact that "the bourgeoisie had now been forced on their knees to the Labour class."