SEVEN TO ONE

Otago Witness, Issue 3400, 14 May 1919, Page 59

SEVEN TO ONE

AGAINST BOLSHEVISM. DEBATE AT BERNE CONFERENCE. GREAT SOCIALIST DISCUSSION. Writing on the recent Socialist Conference at -Berne, in the New York Evening Post, Simeon Strunsky says: Either the managers of the Socialist Conference did not foresee that the debate on questions nationalistic and territorial would consume an entire week, or else they supposed that the question of passing judgment on the Bolshevist regime in Russia would be disposed of in a few hours. The fact is that the subject of Democracy and Dictatorship' did not come up until what was planned to be the last afternoon of the conference. It did not take very many minutes to show that the matter was not so easily to be disposed of. Actually tho sitting was prolonged for two days. The debate was marked by some of the _ most passionate discussion and stirring incidents of the entire conference.

The resolution submitted by the Commission on Democracy and Dictatorship was strongly' anti-Bolshevist. Without mentioning the name, pretty nearly everything that Bolshevism in Russia stands for was ' denounced. The seizure of private property by "small groups of people was characterised as not Socialism, but capitalism with "a large number of shareholders." As against Bolshevist hostility to parliamentary government, the resolution affirmed that the parliamentary field offered sufficient opportunity for the vindication of th 9 Socialist ideal. As a concession to the minority settlement in the conference, the resolution pi-ovided for tho despatch of a commission to Russia to report on conditions under the Bolshevist regime. STRAIGHT TALKING. There was no reticence about naming names in tho debates which ensued. Branting, Karl Kauteky, Arthur Henderson, Ramsay MacDonald, in supporting the resolution, pronounced sentence on the- Bolshevists as the enemy of true Socialism. Kautsky declared that while the majority had consented to an investigating commission in deference to the minority, enough was known about tho failure and iniquities of the Bolshevist regime to justify a verdict. The Bolshevists had sapped the economic life of Russia, he declared, and had thus proven that there could be something worse than capitalistic waste and inefficiency. Socialism had for its boast that it was creative, but there was just one thing the Bolshevist had created —an army. Even more outspoken was Branting; and the powerful oratory of Henderson and MacDonald drove home the indictment.

The apologists for the Bolshevists confined themselves virtually to a single agreement. Whatever might be the truth about Russia, it would only be putting weapons into the hands of capitalistic reaction if a Socialist conference should pass judgment on a Socialist Government. The French Majority Socialists declared that Clemenceau and Pichon were looking hopefully to Berne lor their justification of a policy of intervention in Russia. Fritz Adler stressed the same point. Their counter-proposition that the major portion of the resolution condemnatory of the Bolshevists should be rejected, leaving only the proposal for a commission of investigation, wa.s quickly repudiated by the majority of the conference. ~ . Nevertheless, out of fear, presumably, of a split in the conference, it was decided that no formal vote should bo taken on the resolution, but that each delegation should state its attitude towards the resolution; in other words, should not vote, but say how it would have voted if it had voted. In favour of the resolution in its entirety were the delegations from Great Britain, the French Minority, Alsace, the German Majority, a number of the German _ Independents, including Kautsky and Eisner, half of the Austrian delegation, Sweden, Russia, Esthonia. Lettonia, Georgia, Argentina, Armenia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Poland, and Italy. In the minority were the French Majesty Socialist, Fritz Adler (from Austria), Holland, Norway, and tho Greek delegate. Thus the conference, with a, membership of more than a hundred, virtually expressed its condemnation of Bolshevism" by a vote of about 7 to 1.

IMPRESSION OF THE CONFERENCE. If ono were to sum up in a few words his impression of what must be, in the nature of things, a notable event, the convocation of tho first international SocialistConference since tho outbreak of the war, constituting tho first large-sized contact between representatives of the belligerent peoples, it would be as follows: There is no violent contrast or dissonance between the Socialists at Berne and the peacemakers at Paris. Tho reason is found, of course, in tho war, with its sharp testing of hearts, and of creeds, and its compelling influence

on all parties and dogmas towards the recognition of certain common necessities if the wounded structure of civilisation is to bo rebuilt.

"Bourgeois"' Paris and Socialist Berno are not as far apart as in theory they should be, because the war has driven' them nearer to each other, and inevitably. The Paris Conference has moved nearer to internationalism in the Coven« ant of the Leaguo and in its international charter of Labour. The Socialist Conference had felt in its turn the forced of a new nationalism released by the vr; to the extent sometimes of regulating tna' Socialist motive to the background, WAR AND COMMON HUMANITY'. In other words the bitter test of war* by probing down to tho very vitals of Europe, has shown the existence of & common humanity -which pre-war formula* about bourgeois and Socialist were wont to neglect. Bolshevism to-day eti"l asserts thai ancient formulas in intensified form, and that Is why Socialism, feeling that the need of the world is reconstruction, has turned here in Berne upon Bolshevism as a forcq for utter destruction and chaos. The spirit of nationalism at the Confer* enoe showed itself strongest, and naturally* in the little nations born out of the war. They are just out of the egg and theili fresh vitality runs to limits which tima. may modify. As you watched the prooession of do* legates of the littlo nations and nationalities^—Poles, Czechs, Armenians, Georgians, Jews —-and listened to thohf Aspirations and claims, it was not easy to remember that one was present at a Social \ list conference. To be sure, due deference ' was paid to the decencies of Socialist terminology ; as when tho representative of tha| Armenians saw fit to explain that tha massacre of a million of his people by tha. Turks was largely under the inspiration of Western "capitalism." Often there was no attempt even at such concession to tha proprieties. The attitude of the Czech delegates, for instance, on the question of eelf-determination, would have been described as capitalistic jingoism if displayed at a "bourgeois" conference. The righK of German Bohemia to separate itself from the new Czech State was vehemently repudiated. The Czechs declared that a mora plebiscite taken to-day -was of no authority if tho outcome violated historic and economic facts. More than once in the course of the proceedings- the doubt has been expressed whether a plebiscite on the question of self-determination should be taken until thai re-establishment of normal- conditions. Ins other Words, there is recognition of tho fact that the voice of God, speaking through? the voice of the people,, needs interpretation and preparation. ■■ A hostile critio might suggest that preparation irt this sense is not far from manipulation. A CZECH EXPERIENCE. At any rate, hero in the bosom of a Socialist Assembly, it was made manifest, by the little nations that have themselvesj come into being because. of the principle of self-determination that there are very serious exceptions to the application of tha principle. We learn, for example—this from the Czechs, —that there is such a thing:' as denationalisation. That is to say, in the! course of years a Czech population may ba converted by force or conciliation into speaking German and thinking itself Ger- ■ man to the point of voting for separation j from a Czech State, _ though in the eye of 1 * history and economic law such denationalised' folk are really Czechs. Again, we hear from the Bulgarian representatives that a vote in Macedonia would to-day carry no authority, because Turkish ruthlessness —and perhaps" other nations were implied without being mentioned —had left a possible antiBulgarian majority. In a tragic 6ensc the Bulgarians virtually claimed that the dead should be allowed to vote. There is no intention at satiro in these! ! lines* They are obviously_ the very serious facts and states of mind with which the Paris Conference is concerned, and with which the Leaguo of Nations will have to sit up nights. Their reality and imminence are attested by the fact that even Socialists and Internationalists feel their pressure. Karl Kautsky, himself a native of Bohemia, thought it necessary to warn his fellow countrymen/ against the excesses of nationalism. Tactfully, he remarked that he could very well understand how . the spirit of Bohemian nationalism, so long _ under" Hapsburg oppression, should now in tho moment of dazzling victory tend to get out of hand. But he warned the Czech delegates as Socialists not to render themselves the dupes of their own bourgeoisie, which, as soon as its political ends _ Avere gained, would forget its national kinship with the Czech working people in a re- - newed class war. / In sharp contrast with the attitude of the little nations at the conference has been that of the British delegates. In the debates on the Leagu.3 of Nations and in the framing of the final scheme, the British took a leading part. And hero again the resemblance is close between Berne and Paris, where the British have concentrated so heavily on the actual spade work of at League of Nations. Arthur Henderson! said bluntly: "When I remember some or the difficulties that have been encountered in the Commission on Territorial Questions, I am inclined to think that there are many delegates who have not yet begun to tmnfc internationally, and are more concerned! whether persons shall live on one side c or the other of the frontiers. -Only when;, they readjusted their values on territorial, questions would they be able to give to; any Leagu.3 of Nations, however formed, its proper chance of carrying out its work." Another British delegate, J. ED. Thomas,in tho most statesmanlike speech of thoj conference, called plainly on the German delegates to acknowledge their faults of tho past by a clear repudiation _of that past. But he preceded his admonition with thai promise: " The British delegation do not believe in a leaguo of a few nations. They want a league of all nations, otherwise • it will be impossible to have any guarantee for the future."

In other words, to the extent that tho delegates bare were free from national anxieties or concerned about their national future, they held close to the older Socialist formulas or diverged. And for one or the other it could not be humanly otherwise.