The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1935. MARX AND RUSSIA

Southland Times, Issue 25311, 14 June 1935, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1935. MARX AND RUSSIA

It is to be presumed that Lenin and Trotsky, whatever may be thought of Stalin, knew something of the writings and of the hopes of Karl Marx, and it is through them, as well as through other exponents of the Marxian principles, one gathers that while he did not put forward a plan in full detail, out of his works was taken by the Bolsheviks of Russia more than a mere consideration of capitalistic economics. As a matter of fact, Marx went so far as to lay down how the change from the capitalistic state to what he believed to be a better state was to be achieved, and, as G. D. H. Cole shows, gave an indication of the system of government to be employed. It is, therefore, rather absurd to suggest that when one speaks of a Marxian plan and of the abandonment of some of its essential features by the Bolsheviks, one is referring to something that did not exist. A correspondent in another column of this morning’s issue takes us to task for mentioning Russia’s departure from the Marxian ideals, and he commits himself to the remarkable statement that the capitalist critics in criticizing these departures, suggest that they would have been ready to approve if Russia had stuck to the Marxian idea. Reference to Russia’s condition to-day is made to draw attention to the fact that in dealing with the problems confronting them, in building a new state from the very ground, the Bolsheviks found it necessary to throw. overboard part of the Marxian ideal and to mix certain ingredients of the capitalistic state. William Henry Chamberlain after twelve years in Russia, prophesies that the future of Russia will neither be Socialism nor a capitalistic monarchy, but that it will be something in between, and the working out of the problem will be of vast interest to the world. It is most unwise to place on an economic basis the attitude of the other

nations to Russia. In the first place the revolution, when it was given a pacifist turn by Lenin, who had been assisted to Russia by the Germans in the hope that he would assist in dragging Russia out of the war and so cut down the strength of the Allies, it was necessary to take measures to combat what was a line of action detrimental to the Allies’ power in the conflict. The brutalities of the revolution, the Russian government’s calm repudiation of debts, and its complete confiscation of the property of other nationales inspired the assistance given to the White Russians. That antagonism to the Red forces failed, and then the Bolsheviks, following the Marxian advice, made every effort to bring about world revolution which Marx considered essential to his plan. There is no need to recall the evidence of these efforts, but naturally they resulted in counter measures and antagonism to Russia. When the world revolution idea failed, Lenin had already seen that Marxianism could not succeed in Russia, and the New Economic Policy was launched. After. Lenin’s death, Stalin carried this on and Russia frankly renounced all ideas of interfering in the affairs of other countries and was admitted freely to the League of Nations. We have Leon Trotsky’s word written in 1932, and subsequently repeated with emphasis, that there is no such thing as Socialism in Russia, and that Marxian principles have been abandoned. That is the important point to consider to-day, because those in other countries who put forward the Marxian criticism and theory will frequently point to Russia as an instance of the success of those theories in practical application, whereas the facts are that something rather different is being worked out in that country. Our correspondent appears to contend that discrimination in wages does not suggest the idea of profit; but it must be remembered that the labour theory of value propounded by Marx, apart from requiring “socially necessary labour,” stipulated that the worker must receive sufficient to permit him to live, to maintain his capacity, and to rear and train children to take his place. This was the common basis required for the measurement of those hours which went to make up the value of the commodity. Marx’s argument suggests the equality of individuals, and this idea was certainly that which was adopted by the Bolsheviks in the early stages of their Communist plan, but when differential wages were introduced the worker himself become a receiver of profit, or, in other words, he was given more than his fellow, and although the price of his labour could not affect the value of the commodity under the Marxian theory in actual fact there was a surplus which he took. Several interpreters of Marx have touched upon this point, and have been unable to overcome it, while it must be remembered that Marx had never seen his theories in actual operation. There is another interesting nut for the Marxian theorists to crack. Marx attacked the profit element of the capitalist system and put on it the responsibility for the ultimate breakdown of the system. To-day the Soviet in Russia has established in great part a system through which the State becomes the exploiter of labour and the earner of profit, part of which it turns back into industry for the increase of production. The examination of this aspect of the Russian system, and of the effect of a universal State exploitation of labour would be of considerable interest, because it suggests that the very element which Marx considers to be fatal to the capitalistic system would be contained in a general StateSocialism system, and might possibly lead to a similar disaster, even though postponed. The correspondent should not make the mistake of considering that the condition of Russia at the time of the revolution was wholly disadvantageous to the Bolsheviks. As a matter of fact they welcomed it, because they had a clean slate and could build from the ground up. They have achieved a great deal, but their achievements have been very costly in spite of the fact that they have been able to draw upon technical skill and technical experience developed in the capitalistic system. The blunders in Russia have not been revealed in bankruptcy statistics for obvious reasons; but they have been shown in the high cost of products, the inefficiency of machinery, evidence of waste and incapacity, as well as in the death rate from starvation running into appalling figures produced by what Chamberlain has called avoidable famines. In estimating the achievements of the Bolsheviks in Russia it is necessary to look into the other .side of the ledger and in that account the ruthless slaughter of human beings must not be overlooked.