RUSSIA IN THE THROES.

Evening Star, Issue 21292, 22 December 1932, Page 11

RUSSIA IN THE THROES.

to mm EDITOR. Sir, —Under the above headings you publish statements from a British diplomat’s letter on Russia. As his figures are taken from the paper ‘ Izvestia,’ they will not likely be correct. Figures of the Five-year Plan quoted for one week or month or year are apt to change so quickly, that one cannot be sure of keeping abreast of the plan of operations unless we are in constant touch with its operation. The figures quoted are for July, August, and September only, and figures given in the October 30 issue of the Moscow ‘ Daily News ’ show a distinct rise. Just to show how these figures have jumped, even according to this diplomat’s letter, “ July’s plan for the whole republic was 40.5 per cent., in August it rose to 68 per cent., and in September it rose to 87 per cent.” Then he says the August plan for North Caucasia was only 32 per cent., but this had risen to 61.5 m October, as stated in the paper the Moscow ‘ Daily News.’ Ho says the Lower Volga was 45.7 per cent., but for October this had gone up to 94 per cent. The Ukraine was 57.6 per cent., and I find, Karkov province, Ukraine, has carried out its plan in full and is still sowing, and the Karkov State farms have exceeded their plan by 21 per cent. 1 have also before me the latest Soviet bulletin (November issue), and under the section headed ‘ Successes of Collec-

tive Farming, I find this: At the time of the individual farm the income of a farm (less the proceeds of gardening and livestock) on the Lower Volga amounted to about 300 roubles yearly. In 1930 the income of a collective farmer had risen to 439 roubles yearly. In 1931 this income dropped to 340 roubles in this district m consequence of the failure of crops. In 1932 it rose again, in spite of a partial failure of crops on th© left bank of the Volga, to 628 roubles. The income of the collective farmer depends on the work which he accomplishes for the collective farm to a great extent. A peasant named Averkin, for instance, a member of the collective farm, Lipleic Acre, who had worked 268, working days for the collective, received sixteen double hundredweights of grain and 439 roubles in cash. A peasant named Taktaschov (collective farm Alga) worked 325 days, and received twentytwo double hundredweights of grain and 500 roubles cash.” The next stage in the development of agriculture, this bulletin states, is to concentrate now not so much on increased acreage sown, as on iihproved methods, and tne use of fertilisers and better quality seed. Another striking fact, m all the Soviet’s literature is this, it appears to bo transparently honest in pointing out its failures just as trenchantly as eulogising its successes. But the one thing critics should remember is this, that immediately the Soviet Administration sets about at once to repair the error and try another method. This is possible .under a unified economy, and points the road to the elimination of waste and uneconomic methods before the dry rot has done much damage. This applies to its whole system, and as waste is eliminated the standards of living will to this extent be raised. This is exactly what is happoning. I am, etc., p December 21.