A WORD ON BOLSHEVISM

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 71, 17 December 1919, Page 11

A WORD ON BOLSHEVISM

(Published by Arrangement.)

A year or two ago tho "Maorihuid Worker," the official, organ of tho. New Zealand Labour Pai'iy, was much enamoured iof Bolshevism, and was never weary of enlarging upon tho merits' of Lenin and his political system tor the benefit of its readers. Lately, we have not beam so much on this subject from Mr. Holland and his friends for oliviouu reasons. They have been compelled to admit that at tho time when they vcro engaged in shouting the praises of Bolshevism to the skies they knew next to nothing about it—so little, in fact, that they did not then realise its true meaning Rnd purpose In those enthusiastic days, Mr. Holland and his followers wcro l'nnd of denouncing the intervention of tho Allies in Russia on the ground that it would undo tho work of tho Revolution, and was, therefore, a blow at the hard-won liberties of the Russian people. Of course, the idea fostered by the Ilolland-Scmplo party, that Bolshevism spelt Liberty, and that, as tho Russian Revolution was tho work of tho Bolsheviki, therefore tho Allies could not interfere with Lenin and Trotsky without menacing tho freedom of Russia—all this was absurdly far distant from the truth. The Russian Revolution was not tho work of tho Bolshoviki, who seized power long after (iho Tsar was overthrown; and Bolshevism, so far from standing for Liberty, is tho direct negation of every form of Democratic Freedom.

The. chief reason that the' "Maoriland. Workor," in its ignorance, championed the Bolshevik cause was, of course, that tho Bolshevik policy is the doctrine of the "class war" carried to its logical cxtremeby violent revolution and the destruction of tho hatod bourgeoisie. As Marxian Socialists, tho Labour extremists here applaud tho "class war." But apparently thev do not. know or have forgotten that Marx and his immediate followers—i.e., Wilhelm Liebknocht—always maintained that the object of'tho "class war" must bo simply So. destroy the power of bourgeoisie capitalism and not to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat." It is this last purpose that Lenin nnd Trotsky havo kept constantly in view, and this is whero they deviate wholly from the Marxian teaching. - But that would be unimportant if the effect of this.modification of Marx's teaching had not produced tho remarkable results manifest in Russia to-day. The Bol.shoviki havo hot only destroyed the s; stem of the bourgeoisie, but they have set, up in its place a hierarchy r.f the proletariat which exercises supremo authority over the Whole Stato or nation, and which is itself dominated by a handful of officials, tho "class conscious minoritv," with Lenin and Trotsky at their head. Thus, in the_ first place, 2C0.000 members of the Eussinn working classes havo established themselves in supremo control of about 150,00(1,000 people; and thes? 200,000 are.themselves ruled with a rod of iron by their self-appointed masters, Lenin nnd his colleagues. ■

Now, it is evident that tho very constitution of tho Bolshevik system and tho principles on which it is lw6ed nro diametrically opposed to tho theory of Democracy; So far from making for personal social and industrial - and political freedom, Bolshevism denies any form of political self-government to tho masses; it refuses them tho right to establish a representative national assembly, and it insists in the words of Lenin that the "self-conscious-minority" must ■ho ' allowed to "impose- its proletarian will" upon all tho rest of tho ■community. All this explains why Bolshoyiks everywhere scoff at democracy, dorldo National Parliaments as an obsolete "bourgeois" idea —like patriotism and do their best to glorify and deify tho "hierarchy of the proletariat"—that is, the tyranny of tho minority over tho majority—cvon if, as in I'uesia, tho "proletarian dictator" has to seize his power-by force and maintain it by continual sanguinary crime. It would take a long timo to explain how far mid in how many ways Bolshevism is opposed to democracy and to every form of self-government, nnd to every typo and phnso of liberty such as the masses so -far have ever desired or realised; It i.t chough to 'say Again that Bolshevism ■ means the antithesis of freedom, the direct negation of liberty—and as a natural consequence those who suffer most severely under such a system arn tho people to whom social and political freedom aro most important—the industrial mntses themselves.

It we look nt Bolshevism from this point'of view-wo ece that the fundamental objection to the system built up by Lenin is not tho a'bominablo atrocities perpetrated in its name or tho absol tite collapso and failure of its great industrial experiment. These things, it might conceivably be argued,' nro not essential to Bolshevism, and they happen because liussia is exhausted by . tho war—convulsed and chaotic; therefore they need not elsewhere accompany tho evolution of society from the ' bourgeois to the Bolshcvi); slago. Well, tho answer still is that Bolshevism does Hot stand or fall by theso things, but through its fundamental -principle'which' is the assertion of tyranny and the denial of freedom. In brief, Bolshevism is just as much despot'sm as tho autocracy which it has superseded. "Tsardom inverted" it lias been aptly termed; and it is, therefore, like all such unnatural and baneful forms of government, pre-destincd to complete and final destruction.

But the present point, is the hearing of Bolshevism as a political system on the beliefs and forhuils o.f tho workers, and on this subject it is easy to procure first-class evidence by appealing lo tho numerous writings of tho highest available authority—Lenin .himself. In hit well-known, pamphlet,. "The Soviets at Work," tho Bolshevik autocrat expresses regret that among the mass of the workers "the necessity, for compulsion 'in tho form of dictatorship is not generally comprehended," and he argues at length that his despotic power must be exercised ui tin* most rigorous way to ensure the maximum output in production. Incidentally, Lenin admits in tho same work that it is-impossible, to carry on the groat industry without tho help of bourgeois experts and technicians, whose scrviops must 'bo. secured oven at a high price, and thus he confesses tho impos-. sibilily of doing without tho hated bourgeoisie. But what is needed most in Lenin's opinion, is ii higher-degree of productive efficiency among the workers, and lo secure tlr.s he makes tho following remarkable suggestion.:—"We. should immediately introduce piece-work and try it out in practice; the possibility ot Socialism will be determined by our success in combining 1 lie Soviet rulo and tho Soviet organisation with the latest progressive measures of..Capitalism. We must commence in Kussia thiystudy and the teaching of the Taylor system and its systematic trial and .adaptation." ISow," it should hardly bo necessary to remark that the Taylor system stands ior the extremist form of industrial pressure yet devised. It is a system regarded l> ; the workers, of America as absolute slave-driving, and it is so generally do-, tested that the mere suspicion that it was going to bo introduced caused a strike in Australia a few months ago. But Lenin, to do him justice, will not stick fit trifles- If tho workers don't like this sort of thing they must learn what the "dictatorship of tho proletariat" really means. There, is a necessity, says Lenin, for "iron discipline doling work with absolute submission to the will of one jiersun. the Soviet dictator.*' And if the workers resist or fail in their duty, so as to fall below thi) -requisite level of efficiency, the "Soviet dictator" will know what to do. "Responsibility for the Jiangs of famine and loss of employment," says Lenin, "falls on everyone who violates Labour d sciplino in any enterprise or business— tlioso who are responsible should be dis«>\e.ed, tried and punished without mercy." This is not a fantastic picture of Bolshevism dashed oft" -n lurid colours In an unfriendly hand. These are tho words of Lenin himself, and we can <iii;y oiler uuv condolences to those until lunate workers in .\ow Zealand and elsewhere who have been deluded by ineciid.nry agitators into accepting tho dream of a Bolshevist system as a vision of millennial bliss. What the genuine Labourites here would make of a new industrial order in which "stern di-ei'i'pi"'' is enforced bv Mr. Holland as .irresponsible Autocrat, with Mr. Semplo I'iiiiiiiii'.; Ine Taylor system In its utmost capacity and inflicting "punis'iniPiit without mercy" upon all and sundry indulging in "go-slow"--what llio workers here would think about these tilings does not yet appear, for the sufficient, reason that, the agitators who lavished their praises upon. Bolshevism knoiv

nothing or eared littlo alxiut this particular aspect of tho quostioji. )3ut tlin workers who reflect upon theso facts —certified and guaranteed as they are by Lenin himself—may well hesitato to entrust themselves to guides or leaders who would persuade them to exchango Liberal democracy as we have it hero for the degrading and barbarous tyranny that Lenin bo faithfully and ruthlessly describes.