A WORD ON BOLSHEVISM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLV, Issue 10464, 17 December 1919, Page 9 (Supplement)

A WORD ON BOLSHEVISM

A year or two ago the "Maoriland Worker," the offical organ of the New Zealand Labour party, was much enamoured of Bolshevism, and was never weary of enlarging upon the merits of Lenin and his political system for the benefit of its readers. Lately, we have not heard bo much on this subject from Mr Holland and his friends for obvious reasons. They have been compelled to admit that at the time when they we.ro engaged in shouting the praises of Bolshevism to the skies they knew nest to nothing about it—so little, in fact, that they did not realise its true meaning and purpose. In those enthusiastic days, Mr Holland and his followers were fond of denouncing the iuiervention of the Allies in Russia on tho ground that it would undo the work of the revolution and was therefore a blow at the liard-won liberties of the Russian people. Of course, tho idpa fostered by the Holland-Semple party that Bolshevism spelt liberty, and that as tho Russian revolution was the work of tlie Bolsheviks, therefore tho Allies could not interfere with Lenin and Trotsky without menacing the freedom of Russia. All this was absurdly far distant from the truth. The Russian revolution was not the work of the Bolsheviks who seized power long after tho Czar wa3 overthrown; and Bolshevism, so far from standing for Liberty, is the direct negation of every form of Democratic Freedom.

The chief reason that the "Maoriland "Worker," in its ignorance, championed the Bolshevik cause was, of coarse, that the Bolshevik policy is the doctrine of the "class war" carried to its logical extreme hy violent revolution and the destruction of the hated bourgeoisie. As Marxiau Socialists, the" Labour extremists here applaud the "class -war." But apparently they do not know or have forgotten that Marx and his immediatefollowers i.e., Wilhelm Liebknecht —■ always maintained that the object of the "class war" must be simply to destroy the power of bourgeois capitalism and not to establish a "dictatorship of the. proletariat." It is this last purpose that Lenin and Trotsky have kept constantly in view, and this is vrhere they deviate wholly from the Marxian teaching.- But that would be unimportant if the effect of this modification of Marx's teaching had not produced the remarkable results manifest in Russia to-day. The Bolt sheviksz have not only destroyed the system of the bourgeoisie, but they have set up in its place a hierarchy of the proletariat which exercises supreme authority over the whole State or nation, and which is itself domina-fc-ed by a handful of officials, the "class conscious minority," with Lenin and Trotsky at their head. Thus, in the &.-st place 200,000 members of the Russian working classes have established

themselves in supreme control of about 150,000,000 people; and these 200,000 are themselves ruled with a rod of i»on by their solf-appointed master, Lenin and his colleagues. Now, it is evident that tho very constitution of the Bolshevik system and tho principles on which it is based are diametrically opposed to the theory of Democracy. So far from making for personal, social, and industrial and political freedom, Bolshevism denies any form of political self-government to the masses; it refuses them tho right to establish a representative national assembly, and it insists in the words of Lenin that the "self-conscious minority"' must be allowed to "impose its proletarian will" upon all the rest of the community. All this explains why Bolsheviks everywhere scoff at Democracy, deride National Parliaments as an absolute "bourgeois'' idea—like patriotism and religion—and do their best to glorify and deify the "hierarchy of the proletariat"—that is the tyranny oi the minority over the majority—even if, as in Russia, the "proletarian dictator" has to seize his power by force and maintain it by continual sanguinary crime. It would take a long time to explain how. far and in how many ways Bolshevism is opposed to Democracy and to every form of self-government, and to every type and phase of liberty such as the masses so far have ever desired or realised. It is enough to say again that Bolshevism means the antithesis of freed>fcn,.the direct negation of liberty—and as a natural consequence those who, suffer most severely under such a system are the people to whom social and political freedom are most irnportant-rthe industrial masses themselves. If we look at Bolshevism from this point .of view we see that the fundamental objection to the system built up by Lenin is not the _ abominable atrocities perpetrated in its name or the absolute eollapee and failure of its great industrial experiment.

These things, it might conceivably be argued, are not essential to Bolshevism, and they happen because Russia is exhausted b.v the war convulsed and chaotic: therefore they need not elsewhere accompany the evolution of society from the bourgeois to the Bolshevik stage. Well, the answer still is that Bolshevism does not stand or fall" by these things, but through its fundamental principle which is the assertion, of. tyranny and the denial or freedom. In. brief, Bolshevism is jtwt as much despotism as the autocracy which it. has superseded. "Czardom inverted" it has been aptly termed; but it is therefore like all such unnatural and baneful forms of government predestined to complete and final destruction.

But the present point is the hearing of Bolsehvism as a political system on the beliefs and fortunes of the workand on this subject it is easy to procure first-class evidence by appealing to the numerous writings of the highest available authority—Lenin himself. In his well-known pamphlet, "The Sovfdta at Work," the Bolshevik

Autocrat expresses regret that among ! the mass of the workers "the nocessity for compulsion in tiio form of dictatorship is not generally oomprehend- . od," and he argues at length that his despotic power must be exercisod in' the most rigorous way to ensure, the maximum output in production. Incidentally, Lenin admits in the same work that it is impossible to carry on the great industry wthout the help of bourgeois export's and technicians, whose services must bo secured, even at a high price, and thus ho confesses tho impossibility of doing witiwut 'the hated bourgeoisie. But what is needled most in Leniu's opinion is a higher degree of productive efficiency among tho workers, and to secure this he makos the following remarkable suggestion : "Wo should immediately introduce piece-work and try it out in practice; the possibility of Socialism will be determined by our success in combining the Soviet rule and the Soviet organisation with the latest progressive measures of capitalism. We must commence in ilussia the study and the teaching of the Taylor system and its systematic trial and adaptation." Now, it should hardly be necessary to remark that tho Taylor system stands for the extremist form of industrial pressure yet devised. It .is a system regarded by the workers of America'as absolute slave-driving, and it is so generally detested that tho mere- suspicion that it was going to be introduced caused a strike in Australia, a -few months ago. But Lenin, to do him justice, will not stick at trifles. If the workers don't liko this sort of thing they must learn what the "dictatorship of the proletariat'' really means. There is . a necessity, says Lenin, for ''iron discipline during work, with absolute submission to the will of one person, the Soviet dictator." And if t'he workers resist or fail in their duty, so as to fall below tho requisite level of efficiency, the "Soviet dictator'' will know "what to do. "Responsibility for tho pangs of famine and joss- of employment," says Lenin, "falls on everyone who violates Labour discipiino in any enterprise or business—those who are responsible should be discovered, tried, and punished without mercy." This is not a fantastic picture of Bolshevism dashed off in lurid colours by an unfriendly hand. These are tho words of Lenin himself, and we can only offer our condolences to those unfortunate workers in New Zealand and elsewhere who have been deluded by incendiary agitators into accepting the dreams of a Bolshevist system as a vision of millennial bliss. What the genuine Labourites here would make of a new industrial order in which "stern discipline" is enforced by Air Holland as irresponsible Autocrat, with Mr Semple running tho Taylor system to its utmost capacity arid inflicting "punishment without mercy'' upon all and sundry indulging in "go-slow"—what the workers here would think about these things does not yet appear, for the sufficient rea-

son that the agitators who lavished ahoir praises unon Bolshevism knew nothing or cared litt.'e about this particular aspect of tlio question. But tho workers who reflect upon these facts—certified and guaranteed as they aro by Lenin himself—may well hesitate to entrust themselves to guides or leaders who would 'persuade them to exchange Liberal Democracy as we have it hero for the degrading and barbarous tyranny that Lenin so faithfully and ruthlessly describes. LPublishcd by Arrangement.]