THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1927. BOLSHEVISM REBUFFED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19740, 13 September 1927, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1927. BOLSHEVISM REBUFFED.

The spectacle of the British Trade Unions Congress deciding, by an overwhelming vote, for a rupture of relations with Russia has speedily been seized upon and interpreted as a sign of the times. It has been aligned with the British Government's rupture of diplomatic rela-. tionis, with the persistent American refusal to recognise the Soviet Government, with happenings in France, Italy, China, and even Queensland, as evidence to prove a general revulsion against the Bolshevik policy in theory and practice. The accumulation of instances is impressive, but a distinction can easily be drawn between several items, and should be drawn in considering their significance. The action of Governments, especially of the British Government, shows how the Soviet regime has been tried and found impossible in the diplomatic sense. From various motives, not the least being the desire to live on good terms with European neighbours, an attempt has been made to treat Russia like a normal member of the European community. It has had results of little value. Hospitality has been abused, diplomatic immunity has been misused, treaties have been flagrantly and flauntingly broken, the Russian Government has proved itself one in whose pledged word no reliance could be placed. It has, in fact, made the maintenance of relations increasingly difficult. Diplomacy in the ordinary way may be a tortuous process where the nations pursue their own interests unceasingly, but there are limits to what may be done by the embassy in a foreign capital. The Russians, with a cynical disregard for points of honour, as well a3 of courtesy, earned their own ostracism. When Britain made the break, the marvel was not that the action was taken, but that it had been so long delayed. The same has been said about what the Trade Unions Congress did, but its significance is very different. "

Few people of normal and balanced mind have failed to readjust first* impressions of revolutionary Russia. When first the regime of the Tsars was overthrown, it appeared as though one of the few remaining autocracies in the world had fallen before the onward march of democracy. Subsequent revelations have proved just how badly the foundations of that old system had decayed, how its collapse was inevitable. It was soon proved by events that a democracy as already known and fully classified was not to succeed the old regime, but that something new and difficult to place had appeared. Impressions wei-e naturally confused. Realisation that Russia was experiencing not only a political but a social revolution inflamed the minds of many who were impatient with the slow evolutionary processes of social betterment. The Russian revolution was idealised; it needed idealisation before its stark horrors, its unbridled brutality and its naked tyranny could be tolerable even to those who prided themselves on being advanced in thought. Over the years there has come a clearer insight into the methods and aims of those into whose hands the destinies of Russia had passed. Apologists for the Bolshevik regime often suggested that the end justified the means when called on to defend the terrorism and bloodthirstiness which characterised the Soviets. Gradually doubts about the end in view began to arise. At first it was supposed to be the emancipation of the Russian masses. Emancipated they were from what had oppressed them under the Tsars, but not to enjoy any real degree of freedom. Even when it was possible to assert that their material fortunes were improving, nobody could show that they enjoyed personal liberty, or the ordinary justice guaranteed by the laws of a democratic country. As the dust of revolution subsided, as the truth about Russia began to spread abroad, enthusiasm for the revolution and ail desire to emulate it began to evaporate, until in most European countries it became the possession of those minorities of extreme views to be found in every place where opinion can be freely expressed. The British Trade Unions Congress, in specifically declaring it would not be dragged behind the chariot of Moscow, has crystallised a feeling that has been indicated in part through a large section of the Labour movement. Responsible leaders, one after another, have said that whatever sympathy might be felt for the Russian people, Russian methods could not be applied to British conditions. Sometimes, in stronger terms, they have resented the dictatorial pronouncements of Moscow and Russian abuse of themselves. The congress, by refusing time after time to admit Communists, - has shown how far its sympathies have gone from the system on. which the Russian revolution was founded. Now it has denied to the Third International, the Soviet Government, or the Communist Party, whichever voice may happen to speak from Moscow, any chance of interfering directly with its own affairs. It has swept away any pretence that trade unionism, as known in Gi*eat Britain, has any existence in Russia. It has resented, and properly resented, the attempts, inspired from Moscow, and financed by Moscow, to secure Communist domination of the British Labour movement. The Trade Unions Congress is not always wise, or always moderate, by any means, but through this action shows that

in the. ultimate it has its share of sound British common sense. It has done something to disperse the fiction that Russia is a model of progress aud enlightenment, or anything but an unhappy country in the grip of a tyrannical junta that places selfpreservation before everything. The world revolution, on which the Bolshevik movement pinned its hopes at the outset, very soon proved a chimera, the product of an abnormal mentality. The campaign for it has grown progressively more hopeless as European conditions have stabilised. The Trade Unions Congress has driven another nail into it|i coffin, In this sense, though Russian influence could not conceivably rob British Labour of its common sense, the action of the congress is more significant of defeat for Russian plans than any formal act of any Government.