NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18549, 6 November 1923, Page 8

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

FAILURE OF COMMUNISM. ' It has often been supposed that the Communist experiments of the Bolsheviks were tolerated because 1 the Russian peasants, forming 85 per cent, of the population, are by nature and training Communists. In a recently published book, Baron Sergius A. .Korff, professor of political scienco at Georgetown University, says this assumption is wholly erroneous The peasant mir was not a spontaneous organisation of rural life in Russia, but was in fact a device of tho Central Government to facilitate tax-collecting and recruiting. As soon as the Government felt strong enough to dispense with it, the mir began to deteriorate; tho peasants themselves had never been attached to it. Of course, as long as the Communist mode of life was in a manner thrust upon them the peasants scarcely realised the meaning of private property, liut with the revolution, the peasants ob tained possession of the land. "As soon as they got it, they meant to keep it; hence Communism was doomed." When the peasants found they were not really to own tho land which they had seized, they simply turned their backs on the 80l shevik Government. "The same happened with labour. The new regime did not brinfj with it the anticipated millennium : improvement of the conditions of lile did not set in. On the contrary, these conditions steadily became worse. This caused a great disillusionment among the working men and forced many of them to change their views of Bolshevism, weakening in consequence the position of the Government." There is no occasion, in view of all this, for supposing that the Russian is by nature and by race a lovei of anarchy and a creature of < perverse thought. There are on tho contrary two very striking reasons for thinking quite otherwise. Despite appearances to the contrary, "the Russian people,'' writes Baron iTorff, " have acquired in the new, stronger, and better bonds of family life, a remarkable assurance of a more promising future." Moreover, "private property emerges from the Revolution much better guaranteed and much more stable than ever it was in the Czar's times." It is in respect of its chief doctrine, the abolition of private property, that Bolshevism has most conspicuously failed. REPLACING DEBASED CURRENCY. The introduction by the' Soviet Government of a new unit, the " chevronets," which is to replaco th? paper rouble this year, and various projects for the stabilisation of currency in Germany, have directed attention to. the question whether such efforts are likely to bo successful. The history of currency suggests that such changes, if made by a resolute Government, need occasion little or no disturbance, says a correspondent of the Morning Post. Most of the inhabitants of any country have very little money in their possession at any one moment; the minority of well-to-do people are not greatly affected by the cancelling of a currency which has become so much depreciated as to be almost uselsss. Thus the Germans who were living on investments in marks were ruined long ago, and have nothing more to lose if the mark ceases to be & legal unity of value. Tho workmen, who form the vast major it*', have had their nominal wages raised as the mark fell and are not directly affected by the chaos of the currency. For these reasons one would suppose that, apart from the inconvenience, the social effects of the cancellation of a much depreciated currency may be greatly overrated. The classic instance of the demonetisation of a large mass of paper money was, of course, tho cancelling of the French Revolutionary assignate in March 1796. The mere fact that it excited little attention either then or afterwards is significant. The first -issue of asignats was made by the National' Assembly in tho autumn of 1789, and eventually there were in circulation, assignats and mandats to the nominal value of 45,000 millions of francs. A decree was issued declaring that they had ceased to be lecal tender, and instead of business being paralysed by lack of currency, foreign gold as well as the old French money emerged from the stockings of the thrifty, and within the year the assignat was no more than an unhappy memory. Historv will doubtless repeat itself if, like the French Directory, the German, Government,, having repudiated the old paper is bold enough and wise enough to deal honestly with the new currency.

PEOPLE OF THE EMPIRE. What are the right names for the inhabitants of the United Kingdom and for the members of the British Empire, or. as some prefer to call it, the British Commonwealth? This question is asked on behalf of the Society for Pure English by Dr. Bridges, the Poet Laureate, who, pursuing an inquiry begun by the Into Dr. Henry Bradley, has examined, in a tract just published by tho society, the philology and historic uses of the words " Briton," " British," and " Britisher," and promises to give his conclusions in another tract. Meanwhile, he and the society are open to receive expressions of opinion. At present, if we apply the historic method, we appear to be left with no noun and only one adjective—" British "which has to perform an ambiguous duty, says the London Times. The Society for Pure Enelish forbids both " Briton " and " Britisher "; tho former because there is an ineradicable tinge of the woad about it, and because of certain " patriotic" associations which it conveys, that are not of the " best sort"; and the latter because it is an Americanism which has now been disowned even by its inventors. It is an almost unparalleled instance of the bankruptcy of nomenclature. Our race has apparently outstripped its powers of -description; by growing great and übiquitous it has become nameless and perhaps unnameable. In this strange state of affairs there are, however, several things which it is to be hoped will not be done. Let not the analogy of " Anzac " —successful inven tion as it was in the circumstances—encourage attempts at similar formations. Neither let any ill-timed endeavour be made to spread the names of England and of the English farther than they will naturally go. He that is touchy on that point, let him remain touchy. Englishmen, who are noted for their modesty, have their compensations. Theirs is the language, but not the responsibility for every one who misuses it. But the " British " Government, if the nomEnglish elements will havs it so, by all means, and the British Association also, the British Lion, and the British Workman. For the still larger unit—nothing, or nothing but an inadequate makeshift. The imag ination of mankind does occasionally aspire to conceptions too vast for expression ; and then a deliberate forbearance from nomenclature may be the most impressivf procedure.