FAILURE OF COMMUNISM

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 46, 23 August 1926, Page 4

FAILURE OF COMMUNISM

STORY OF THE BOLSHEViKS'

EXPERIENCE

The Welfare League writes: —

Many people think of Communism as an advanced form of Socialism which has yet to bo tried. The truth is that tho experiment has been made by tho Bolsheviks in Bussia and proved an absolute failure.

Lenin was very outspoken, after bis wont. He said that in 101S they had comii 'ttod an error in deciding to make an immediate transition to Communist production and distribution, instead of proceeding gradually through a long period of Socialist control and regulation.. Ho excused the error on the ground of the Czeeho-Slovak rising and tho civil war, but the dates given show that tho error was committed long before those events; in fact, from the very outset of their rule. Tho land policy, which was initiated on tho day after tho coup d'etat, rested on tho belief that tho peasants would acquiesce in a communal administration and hand over their grain under a requisition system; this corn would then bo distributed to factories and workshops and we should thus arrive at a Communist system of production and distribution. "Unfortunately," he goes on:—

Experience, a very, short experience, too, showed the error of this conception. . . . During this period, as result of this error, no underwent a severe economic defeat, after which we began a strategic retreat; although wo wero not absolutely beaten, we could only retire to reconstruct the whole in a more solid fashion. He refers presumably to tho abandonment of force against the peasantry and tho change to tho policy of -trying to win them over. But matters had gone too far, and reconstruction —such as it was—failed again.

Lenin again speaks:—"Tho attempt to introduce Communism cost us, in the spring of 1921, a defeat on the economic front far .more serioui than we had previously sustained at the hands of Eoltchak, Denikin, or Pilsudsky. At this period our economic policy, as conceived by the authorities, did not in the least correspond with what was going on among tho masses, and was not even able to restore production. Any such restoration was prevented by requisition in the villages and in tho towns by tho immediate introduction of. Communist methods. It is this policy which provoked the profound crisis, economic . and political, which broke out in tho spring of 1921. Here,! from the standpoint of our general policy, is a defeat; a serious defeat and a retreat, nor can wo say, as of the Red Army, that it was a retreat, in perfect order to positions prepared in advance."

The retreat was a return to capitalism. . He proceeds:—"Tho now economic policy, represented by the substitution of a tax in kind for requisitioning, marks the transition to the re-establish-ment of capitalism to a certain degree. To what degree we do not know. Concessions to foreign capitalists, of which very few have been actually carried through in proportion to our efforts — like the guarantees to private capitalists —are nothing more or less than the direct re-establishment of capitalisn, and that is radically bound up with ? our new economic policy." This entailed an economic war between Bolshevism and capitalism, inside Bolshevik Russia, and the question was .which would come out on top, for tK Bolsheviks had not abandoned their ultimate • aims, but had retreated only to spring. again. •

"Tho question is who will get in first? If the capitalists are the first to get organised, they will drive out the Communists—there is no need to mince words about that —one must face the issue."

Words and phrases, Lenin continues, are no good. "Our only support can be in the minds of tho workers and peasants. It is there that reside tho greatest difficulties of our struggle. We cannot count on any immediate transition of Bolshevism. We must build on the personal interest of the peasant—the real difficulty is in reviving personal interest. Every specialist must be so interested that tho development of_ production, concerns him. Have we done that? No, we have failed. We thought that production and distribution would go on according to Communist. rules in a country where the proletariat is declassed. "We must change our method—-our frontal attack has failed; we have been defeated; we must sit down and begin sapping and mining. The en tiro national economy must be based on personal interest. Discussion must go on in common, but responsibility must be personal. . . Most of our congresses have ended in nothing but words. Have meetings, if you like, but direct without tho smallest hesitation, direct more firmly than the capitalist did. Otherwise you will never beat him. Direction must be more severe, more rigid than before. In the Red Army, after months of meetings, discipline was as severe as under the old regime. Penalties were adopted, including that of death, unknown even to the old Government."

An instructive admission, which applies to the militarist industry as well as to the army, and gives the whole caso for Socialism away. ' A passage which appeared in the original publication, but was afterwards excised by the censor, has been restored in the I.L.P. translation. It shows Lenin at his best.

"If we work badly now, wo shall all go to tho devil. They will hang .the lot of us, and will do well. They ought to hang us if we fail." This, then, is the story told not by the opponents of. Bolshevism, but by the great leader of that party. Comnmnisin has failed. Russia has returned to capitalism—State and private. It is but a question, now of tho extent to which it will revert to private enterprise and freedom of trade. This is, the couhter-revoluti/i being fought without arms. Tho question of which wing of tho Bolshevik Party shall control is of a very minor consideration.