COMMUNIST CHALLENGE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 11 January 1928, Page 4

COMMUNIST CHALLENGE

+ TH E MAT XI A X Til EOT V. WHERE THE SOLUTION LIES. TJ.tOEESSOIJ BELSH.VW'S LECTURE Marxian was examined by Rroies-xor il' Belsiutw m a lecture before students o. tire W.E.A. at Haulil ton iccjiitiv. 1 lie pro lessor out Tied lus subject “’1 He Cualleuge of Communism ” ~ ..... •, , T.lic lecturer rreports tho 'Waikato Times”) said’ the* Communistic "-lea aimed at the. attainment of a state el syeiui life in which all classes were abolished and thy means of production, distribution and exchange controlled by Cue producers. The Communistic method was founded oil the belief that, ijilch a state could not be obtained without a social revolution, which would probably involve bloodshed, as the economic power was in the bands of those who were likely to resist Coinmunistie ideals. Communism was the challenge both of an ideal and ot a method.

NOT' A NEW THEORY. Comui an ism liad been in existence as an Utopian ideal from the time ot Plato, but the trend, of modern industry had brought, about a change in that ideal. With the Marxian statement of Communism a new set of ideas were introduced, and the influence of Marx resulted in the Russian revolution. Marx joined the staff of a democratic paper, the revolutionary ideas which lie published therein causing him to be deported from Berlin. He then went to Paris, but was deported thence for hi,si revolutionary ideas. He spent most" of the rest of his life in London, where- he wrote his scathing indictment of capitalism. He was largely responsible for the practical development of Communism, which he found a chaos and left a system. He built up a new theory of social economy which was in many ways a direct challenge not only to capitalism, hut also to the Utopians. He held the idea that the economic Organisation of society was responsible to a great extent for the whole social organisation. Thus it followed 1 according to Marxism that those who controlled the production of wealth also controlled the political power and, administered that power in their own interests to a great extent. Therefore the interests of this class must he opposite to the interests of the proletariat. His theory of social development postulated a struggle between these two classes which would, result in the setting up of a new state of society. This social revolution, ac ceding to the Marxists, would come about firstly through a new increase' of class consciousness on the part- of the. proletariat, which, resulting in a widening of the chasm between the classes, would lead to social disintegration. When society was tottering in this state a sharp revolution would take place, wip'd] would he followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which "•ould place the control in the hands of the leaders of the proletariat. Society would then, in all probability. go through a stage of nationalisation, hut this would not he the final form of government oi control.

BY REVOLUTION ONLY. The Communist ideal, continued the speaker, would be fostered by the formation of a- minority movement within Labour and Socialist parties in all countries, and through trade, unions, etc. This co-operation would not be due to a desire to give present help, but to- a desire to show the workers the futility ot any means other than revolution. The workers, thus prepared, would be ready to revolt at the psychological moment. The economic theory of the Marxist was that goods winch had’ the same amount of work put into them should be exchanged for each other. They said that the whole results of production were not employed’ to pay those who produced, and that the capitalist gradually gained more and more of the results of Labour's efforts, thus concentrating the economic power in fewer. and fewer bands and increasing the disparity between worker and capitalist. Their theory was that if this process was continued beyond a certain limit the misery of the proletariat would increase to such an, extent that revolution would be inevitable. Many parts of this economic theory were, said the professor, economically unsound, and the position as a whole' was untenable. Politically, the theorists had a far more accurate idea of the ist-ate of society. They saw rightly that economic control involved in appreciable measure control of social laws, of democracy itself, and even control, in some measure, of the interpretation of religion. Thus political power was likely to use its influence to maintain the status quo. but political codes _ in many instances, together wit-li. religious principles, might work in the opposite! direction to economic forces. Then, although capitalistic control might be greatly concentrated, yet there- was an increase in the number of ismall capitalists which wa-s a bar to revolution. Then, too, the misery of the- proletariat. far from increasing, had, since the time of Marx, greatly decreased. The very discovery of class war liad tended to decrease it by appealing to the humanity and interests of both classes, making them tend rather to unite’ than to separate. Then again the manifestation of the class in the form of strikes, lock-outs. etc., had led the capitalist, through fear of loss of profits, to make concessions even before they were asked for.

The greatest changes in history had, been the result of gradual changes, and only absolute intolerance on the part of the controlling class made a violent revolution necessary, so that the modern policv of conciliation- and concession tended to keep modern development to tbe.se lines of gradual change. Thus a world-wide- Communistic revolution seemed to grow unlikely as time passed. Even if a revolution took place-—not its a world-wide movement, which would mean chaos, but within individual nations, it need not necessarily result in the power of Communism. Tt would depend’ on the presence of a leader who know when +o strike and who was capable of taking up the reins of government;, and upon his Dcrsona! oniiiions would depend the form taken bv I lie- new state. It was doubtful, too. whether. even in ft Communistic state, there could- ever bo complete social equality, since the original dictators would tend' to retain the power and there might be a distinct. cleavage between the agricultural labourer and the- city worker, or between the manual and the mental worker.

The challenge of Communism lay in the inability of capitalism and democracy to satisfy all the need* of all the people, ns it involved nil at. Mas really a m liter itt control —the answer to it lay in the removal of capitalist imperfectiono.