FADING RED OF RUSSIA.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 253, 24 October 1936, Page 6 (Supplement)

FADING RED OF RUSSIA.

"Economic Equality" Abandoned.

STALIN'S NEW STIMULANT TO EFFORT.

Worn by the starvation and suffering of "classlessness," Russia to-day is saving itself by throwing Socialism overboard. Oncehated "bourgeois" customs and methods are sweeping the land as this remarkable about-face takes effect.

(By ALEXANDER I. NAZAROFF. —Copyright.)

rHESE last two years have been a time of deep "geological" changes in the life of the Soviet Union — changes which, although they have come about imperceptibly and without the blowing of publicity trumpets, are regenerating the cultural and social tissues of Russia far more profoundly than did the much-heralded Five Year Plan or the collectivisation of peasant farms. We have noted the rapid rise of the '"Great Moscow," with its broad avenues and quays, impressive "new Empire style" buildings and ultra modern improvements from beneath the discarded shell of the Moscow of the Czars. We have watched the equally rapid crystallisation of the potent new Russian nationalism, which has boldly tossed aside the long since worn out Utopia of internationalism and of the World Revolution. We have applauded the return to healthy, human morals after long years of disastrous blundering in "revolutionary morality." And. finally, we have observed the birth of the "new man" who is neither fire-eating purveyor of subversive propaganda of the first years of Bolshevism nor the hypocritical zealot of the Five Year Plan and of so many million tons of coal and pigiron a year, but merely a human being. The orgy of the first days of revolutionary zeal is over. Slowly—very elowly-—the former Empire of the Czars is coming down to some new normalicy, a normalicy the chief outlines of which begin to become dimly discernible. The "buying boom," through which Moscow has been living is one amusing indication of this trend. Hundreds of thousands of people daily have been besieging Soviet stores; the country has not wit-' nessed such a boom since the days of Czarism. For the first time in these 18 years the people have a chance to satisfy their human needs in a human, normal way. Blow to Socialism. But this evolution is not confined to the items which I have enumerated. _ It goes much deeper. At the present time it is striking at the very heart of the Soviet regime, at it 3 central divinity— at Socialism. Let us, however, first agree on the meaning of the word Socialism. It is used in a dozen varying or.even partially contradictory senses. • In Russia, during the years of the great upheaval, this word had a very definite meaning which implied two essential elements. First—and that was by. far the most important — it meant "economic equality," or equality of living standards; an organisation of society under which "there would be no rich and no poor." It was with this aspect of Socialism that Lenin seduced the Russian masses; and it was for this that the masses fought, died, and killed others. The second element was the abolition of private property and the establishment of State ownership over the "means of production." The wholesale annihilation of Old Russia's nobility and bourgeoisie, along with the immense cultural wealth; Joseph Stalin's famous drive for the establishment of "100 per cent Socialism" in the years from 1928 to 1932, whenmillons "of "kulaks," or thrifty peasants, were dispossessed, shot or banished, and salaries and wages were ruthlessly equalised so that a valuable technical expert received the same pitiful "food ration" as a day labourer —such, in brief, was this struggle for the realisation of the Socialist ideal. Stalin won. Russian society became "classless" —it was all reduced to a common denominator. True, this was a common denominator of pitiful misery and- starvation. It was. during these years that the Five Year Plan of Russia's industrialisation pressed truly superhuman demand's upon human energies and the country's resources. This, however, did not discourage the Communist leaders: they asserted that soon (when the industrialisation was' pushed far enough) the nation would pass from equality in poverty to equality in "Socialistic, prosperity." What the Party Overlooked. But the Communist party had overlooked one thing. Deprived of the possibility of rising by individual effort and achievement above the miserable level of his neighbour, the Russian—no matter whether he was &n engineer, a professor or a farm hand —began • to work so desperately, apathetically and badly that factories turned out articles which could not be used, the railroad system almost completely broke down, a real economic anarchy set in and the whole structure of Russia-in-tlie-process-of-industrialisa-tion found itself on the verge of collapse. Soviet authorities were utterly helpless; daily executions of "sabotaging" workmen and engineers were without effect.. For, having tried Socialism (in its Stalinist version, at least) all Russia was instinctively and unanimously sabotaging it. And so, confronted with disaster, Stalin found himself obliged to utter his "historical words": "Socialism," he said, "is not economic equality." In other words, instead ol frankly admitting that he was renouncing Socialism, Stalin set out to prove that economic equality never had been the idea of Lenin or of other creators of Socialism. The only way to organise production and establish "real" Socialism, he argued, was "to stimulate human energies by encouraging individual effort in every possible way." Indeed, that was a complete aboutface. Instead of the old slogan, "Lower yourself to the level of others," the Communist party zealously began to enforce the new one: "Distinguish yourself, rise above others!" In the ensuing two years all of Russia's industrial structure was rebuilt. High salaries ■were introduced for engineers, managers of factories, etc., and labour was put on. the piecework system (which formerly had been termed "a bloodsucking capitalist device"), with all sorts of premiums (from a pair of

shoes to a trip to the Crimea) for increased productivity. The trick has worked; under the vivifying influence of inequality, Russia's productive machinery has begun to function. It still functions badly —the cost of production still remains too high, the "industrial giants" still turn out a great deal of defective merchandise, and so forth. Yet, in comparison with the nightmare of 1931, the improvement is great and telling. No Longer "Classless." The Soviet Union's society no longer is a "classless" society. Once more in Moscow there are the rich and the poor —and the "classes" and the masses. And the difference between the former and the latter tends to become more profound every day. The new upper class is composed of the high Communists, Soviet officials and Red Army officers; of the more outstanding engineers, doctors, various technical experts and "scientifice workers"; finally, of artists, writers, composers, etc. These people are excellently paid —their earnings run up as high as 50,000 or 70,000 roribles a year. Compare this with about 2000 roubles a year which, according to Soviet statistics, are the average wages of the Russian industrial workman, or with the position of many millions of other Soviet citizens, such as the poorer elements of the peasantry, the inhabitants of labour camps, etc., who live on much, very much, less than that. Then you will have an idea of the social disparity in the Soviet Union. How can the Soviet worker live on his 2000 roubles a year, or 170 a month, when one pound of white bread costs 70 kepecks, one pound of meat about one rouble, a pair of shoes 165 roubles and a suit of clothes 500 roubles? Formerly there was "a card system" to help him. With his card he could buy things at artificially low prices at the co-opera-tive store. But recently the card system has been abolished. Soviet citizens, no matter to what "category" they belong, can go to a Soviet store and buy anything they wish—and, < incidentally, herein lies one of the causes of the buying boom in Moscow. But now the workman has to pay prices such as those quoted above. The result is poverty. He no longer starves as he starved in 1931 —to this extent inequality has helped him too. But, crowded with his family in a squalid room, he . hardly manages to live—and he looks not without hostility at the 'lords" of the privileged class. True, there are workmen, highly skilled, who earn up to 12,000 roubles a year; these, in their position, approach the privileged .class. But such workmen are few. Those who make much less than 2000 roubles a year, and live in permanent semi-starvation, are infinitely more numerous. The Peasant Won. In 1929-1931', during the drive for "100 per cent rural Socialism," the peasants, reluctant as they were, were forced to i give up their economic individualism and pool their holdings into collective farms. But when the Government forced them to sell their crops at ridiculously low prices, the peasants burned their own crops and slaughtered their own cattle, following the example of the Oriental slave who, in order to punish his cruel master, starved himself. And the peasant won. In 1932 Russia was stricken with a terrific famine. It cost 5,000,000 human lives. After that Stalin was obliged to give in., So after that the peasant was allowed to have individual land holdings of his own, wherein he could grow his own grain and vegetables, and also keep his own cattle—;one cow, two calves, some hogs, sheep and poultry. And he has now the right to trade, in his own time and at his own prices. This has stimulated work on the Statecontrolled farms. On his own plot the peasant works like a beaver for obvious reasons. On the- State farm he works hard because he understands that he is conscientiously fulfilling the Government quota, and he is defending his own plot—that is to say, his right to live. •Such, then, is the process of Russia's drift from Socialism to—rwhat should we call it? Perhaps State-controlled individualism might be the word.