The Gisborne Herald. IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." GISBORNE, MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1948. “WHAT IS A COMMUNIST?”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22621, 26 April 1948, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." GISBORNE, MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1948. “WHAT IS A COMMUNIST?”

rpi-IE simple inquiry, “What is a Communist?” has come to this office. Obviously an answer is expected—especially, no doubt, because of the unprecedented amount of newspaper space the Communists and their activities are taking up. Actually so much attention is being devoted to what the Communists are doing that people not well versed in the beginning of the movement may be a little hazy on the point as to what they really are. Hence the above query. . Since a Communist is a devotee of communism, it is best to introduce the answer with a standard dictionary definition of communism—“ The vesting of property in the community, each member working according to his capacity and receiving according to his wants.” . Chambers’ Encyclopaedia elaborates on this by “Socialism must not be identified with communism. Yet it is largely coloured with communistic conceptions. About 1920 a quite fresh meaning of the word communism, imported from the Com tinent of Europe, became widely current in England. . fn 184/ Marx used the word as equivalent to socialism in the important “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” written by him and Engels. The Russian Bolshevists called themselves Communists (Bolshevist is a nickname like Tory or Quaker), and their followers in England, Germany and elsewhere have adopted the same name. Russian bolshevism is Marxian socialism, with stress laid on some special doctrines, and the word Communist, as now most commonly used by and of certain groups of extreme Socialists, simply means Socialists who approve of the teachings and policy of the Russian Bolshevists.”

Further Revolutionary Aims

Since the days when, immediately following the Russian revolution, the name Bolshevist was frequently in the news, the world has become increasingly aware that the Bolshevists or Communists (call them what you will) were harbouring revolutionary aims extending far beyond the frontiers of the Soviet Union. That was where the trouble facing many countries today originally started. The people of the nations which have been gradually building up and improving on a political system founded on Magna Carta have been strenuously objecting—and rightly so—to the intrusion of a drastic revolutionary system that threatens to rob them of the freedom their forbears have been slowly but soundly establishing during many years of constitutional battling. That is mainly why British and British Commonwealth Socialists have always rejected Communist approaches for party affiliations with Labour. Although the policy of some Labour adherents seems closely to approximate Communist ideals, there are certain essential differences that can never ho the subject of compromise.

What, for instance, would happen if Ihe Communists ever gained control of New Zealand? It is impossible to be dogmatic on the point, but if the Soviet campaign - against capitalism were carried out we would almost certainly experience a huge “land grab” by the State and the confiscation of all manufacturing and business concerns from the employers of labour—all without the payment of compensation. The resultant end to private enterprise, except perhaps in the ease of a man who ran his business alone and at no time employed labour, might suit a section of our more militant Socialists quite well. Dangerous Implications Now Realised

Fortunately, however, there is a dawning realisation that a Communist regime would mean the end of personal liberty for thousands in business in a small way as well as for the big man, and that everybody and everything would be subjugated (most likely with the aid of spies and secret police) to the will of the State. And, for the reason that democratic elections as we have always known them would have come to an end, there would be no chance of throwing off the yoke without staging a counter-revolution. Countries now under the domination of Russia will find it impossible, without outside intervention from a powerful nation or alliance of nations, to regain their freedom; all the effective arms are in the possession of the Communist State. Sympathy with and admiration for the Russian people must not be confused with flirting with communism. It is difficult to argue against the contention that the Communist Party has built up a strong, united and enterprising Russia. But conditions in that vast country before the revolution were pitiable. Virtually. any new development would' have been an improvement. Victor Kravchenko, from whose book “I Chose Freedom” wc recently quoted extracts, makes it plain that all Russians are not enamoured of their regime and that there is a body of them who would welcome a day of “liberation.” Of the Russian Communists, however, it can be said that they fought a magnificent fight in the war and were a tremendous factor in the defeat of Hitler. Also, it can never be denied that they are loyal to their own and that, if their attitude is fanatical, it is at least sincere in its application to political ideologies. What we in British countries must continue to oppose strenuously is the spread of their political doctrine into countries which are developing along lines both truly democratic and freedom-preserving. The, solution of the world’s problems today lies not in a world revolution but in a moderating of Communist policy and a decision on the part of the Kremlin to abandon its aggressive political infiltration. In short, the Communist is not wanted outside Russia.