USELESSNESS OF REVOLUTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 221, 4 September 1926, Page 9

USELESSNESS OF REVOLUTION

Answers to Russian Communism

Review of Norman Angell’s Latest Work

ITR NORMAN ANGELL'S book, “Must Britain Trave] the Moscow Road!” is the best answer yet given to the pretension of the Russian Communists that they have something to teach the British wage-earner. It is indeed a shattering answer. Others have written profound and convincing criticisms of Sovietism wl -h have gone far more into detai ian Mr Angel) attempts to do; but Mr Angell has thie advantage that throughout his writing he has the air of a man who is saying, “I have no prejudices whatever. I would sympathise with these people if I possibly could—but on the evidence I simply can’t.” His method is detached, cool, curious, purely scientific. He assumes the truth of certain political arguments with which wc heartily disagree, butlet us say it again—it is just for that reason (because he would not object to being a revolutionary i:f he thought that revolution was of the least use) that we find Mr Angell extrairdinarily persuasive. His creed is, “I believe in anything that will work. I do not believe in anything that won’t work.” Mr Angell leads up to his culminating point about the miserable failure of Russian Communism by gradual stages in which he discusses the proper functions of State control and individual enterprise. Although the nook is small the writing has an air of leisure It is easy to read because it is dong with the gift of exposition. Mr. Angell takes idbas and principles and examines each in turn from various points of view. He reiterates yet he never seems to be repeating himself, because the whole thing is done deliberately, not carelessly. He is right to warn us against false antitheses. It has long been impossible, and it is much more impossible in these

days than it used to be, to draw a hard-and-fast definition between State action and individualism. It is all a matter of expediency. When horse traffic began to be superseded by railway locomotives the control of most of the transport by individual proprietors ceased to be practical. Even though the new railway companies were “private” they could not operate without having their whole existence conditioned by the State, which forced the sale of land and insisted in return that the nation should bo rewarded with certain permanent rights. Although expediency often decides new political suits in favour of State intervention, “capitalism’’ —so to describe the present system —has been rightly left alone as not merely the most practical, but by far the most advantageous basis upon which our society can be conducted. In a perfect World of the unimaginable future another basis might be possible, but even if we make that admission the change must be gradual and few writers have done better service than Mr. Angell in this book in demonstrating that gradualness is not a kind of timidity, but is the only practical way. Revolution, he shows, belongs to the infancy of a nation.

But who, he asks in effect, is to be blamed if the handworker is still wondering whether or not revolution is desirable? Die-hards and old-fashioned employers blame the “paid agitator,” but, as Mr. Angell points out, no paid agitator ever yet made a revolution. The 'agitator” may cause a great deal of trouble and may do a great deal of mischief, but he cannot bring off the big thing. If revolution comes it will come because the wageearners do not get satisfaction in fields where they earn it and deserve it. 'They m::v be thwarted of their deserts by (he foolishness of llieir own leaders or liy the still id il v or ibc el T - 'c ■= of ill”: I imi 1 ;c.-. As f-.-i LLc .-..nJ 1 -S-

sible cause it is the duty, in our view, of the Unionist Party to prove to the wage-earner that capitalism can be a truly beneficent system, and that even if revolution could do what revolutionaries believe it would still be absolutely unnecessary.

So long as British industry on its present basis fails to keep the peace, fails to pay high wages and fails generally to improve the conditions of the worker, so long will there be a reason, or at all events an excuse, for the labourer to talk of revolution. Yet revolution, the speedy revolution of violence, settles nothing. Mr. Angell proceeds to a devastating analysis of exactly what ’he Russian Com munists ha’ accomplished, or rather have i iccomplished. He dissects Trotsay’s book, and with freezing scorn lays bare the calm assumption of the Bolshevists that they have done something which they have not come within a million miles of doing Trotsky’s pose, like that of all other Communists, is to say, “We Russians have achieved a revolution which is unique. We alone have done it. And now we are prepared to teach the rest of the world how they can do the same thing.’’ Mr, Angell’s criticism is that the Bolshevists, one and 'all—particu larly Trotsky—have wholly omitted to describe what their achievement is.

Trotsky is in the position of a conjurer who should say, “Ladies and gentlemen, you have been delighted and mystified by the way 1 produced a rabbit out of my hat. I shall now proceed to explain to you precisely how I did it," while all the time the audience have no reason for being either delighted or mystified because they have not seen a rabbit at all. The Bolshevists announced that they would

create the first Communistic nation. They have utterly failed to do so. Their defeat began from the first moment when they were resisted by the peasants. This wonderfm vis inertiae of that obstinate and conservative class brought Communism to naught. What- is gradually being created in Russia now is a- petite bourgeoisie—the very thing that Bolshevists abhor.

Among the peasants capitalism has been reborn and the happiest peasant is the successful profiteer. Tn the industry of the tow.ns also Communism has collapsed. Lenin, that arch-realist, admitted the failure. He invented the New Economic Policy which leases industries to private enterprise. tf Lenin had lived, the transformation of Communism would have been even quicker. He did not hesitate to jeer at those who themglit they could take over techi\’al work without- having learned how to do it. It is capital that has trained the technicians. In one breath the amazingly illogical Trotsky admits that the technicians are necessary and declares that they must be removed—because they are all bourgeois! The truth is very old and simple that you cannot get on without people who know how to do things. British Labour is fond of speaking of its problem as though it were just a matter of capturing power from an interested class. But as Mr Angell says, that is not the problem al all. The trade unions, he declares, must train themselves for their future responsibilities. Why de they not begin by the creation of a really efficient Press ? There would be the beginning of discipline and solidarity. With the help of that Press they could promote a co-operative movement, organise Trade Union Banks and develop workers’ credits. Sm-li is I lie tva vof progress. Gru hial con--Irnefi'-i is the secret. The talk f rv , 1 ■ ■ v.liii-h is mi un di.ii'.-i -is mJ’ y. ?iily ; deiiigralis'irg.