THE FAILURE OF COMMUNISM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3527, 21 August 1926, Page 4

THE FAILURE OF COMMUNISM.

STORY OP THE BOLSHEVIKS’ EXPERIENCE.

Many people think of Communism as an advanced form of socialism which has yet to be tried. The truth is that the experiment has been made by the .Bolsheviks in Russia and proved an absolute failure. LENIN’S PLAIN PRONOUNCEMENTS. Lenin was very outspoken, after his wont. He said that in 1918 they had committed 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. He excused the error on the ground of the C’zecho-Slovak rising and the civil war; but the dates given show that the error was committed long before those events, in fact from 1 the very outset of their rule. The land policy, which was initiated on the day after the coup d’etat, rested on the belief that the peasants would acquiesce in a communal administration and hand over their grain under a requisition system; this corn would then be distributed to factories and workshops and ve should thus arrive at a Communist system of production and distribution. “Urifortunately” he goes on, “experience, a very short experience too, showed the error of this conception. During, this period, as a result of this error, we underwent a severe economic defeat after which we began a strategic retreat; although we were not absolutely beaten, we could only retire to reconstruct the whole ,in a more solid fashion.” He refers presumably to tno abandonment of force against the peasantry and the change, to the policy of trying to win them over But matters had gone too far and reconstruction —such as it was failed again. Lenin again speaks, “the attempt to introduce communism cost us, in the spring of 1921, a defeat on the economic front far more serious than we had previously sustained at the hands of Koltchak, 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 the masses, jand was not even able to restore production. \ ny such restoration was prevented by requisition in the villages and, in the towns, by the immediate introduction of communist methods, it is this policy which provoked the profound crisis, economic and political, which broke out in the spring of 1921. Here, from the. stanc - point of our general policy, is a defeat; a serious defeat and a retreat, nor can we say, as of the Red army, that it was a retreat r in perfect order to positions prepared in advance.” The retreat was a return to capitalism. He proceeds—“ The new economic policy, represented by the substitution of a tax in kind for requisitioning, marks the, transition to the re-establishment of capitalism to a certain degree. To what decree we do not know. Concessions to foreign capitalists of which very few have been actually carried through in proportion to our erforts —like the guarantees to private capitalists —are nothing more or less than the direct re-estab-lishment of capitalism, and that is radically bound up with our new economic policy.” . This entailed an economic va between Bolshevism and capitalism, inside Bolshevist Russia, and the question was which would come out on top, for the Bolsheviks had not abandoned their ultimate aims but had retreated only to spung again. ' ... , “The question is who will o et in first? If the capitalists are the first to get organised, they will drive oiit the Communists— theie 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 m the minds of the workers and peasants. It is there that reside the greatest difficulties of our struggle. fi cannofi common any immediate trail sition 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 the 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 entire 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 the smallest hesitation direct more firmly than the capialist 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 militarised industry as well as to the army, and gives the whole case for Socialism away. A passage which appeared in the original publication but was afler-

wards excised by the censor, has been restored in the I.L.P. translation. It shows Lenin at. his best. “If we work badly now, we shall all go to the 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. Communism has failed. Russia has returned to Capitalism, State and private. It is but a question 'now, of the extent to which it will revert to private enterprise and-freedom of trade. This is the counter revolution being fought without arms. The question of which wing of the Bolshevik Party shall control is of very minor consideration. (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League);