RUSSIA, THE ENIGMA

Taranaki Daily News, 18 July 1929, Page 17

RUSSIA, THE ENIGMA

WHITHER IS IT ENDING?

AMERICAN OBSERVER'S SURVEY. LIGHT THROWN ON MYSTERIES. (From a Correspondent.) London, May 28. What an enigma Russia is I On the one hand the wish being father to the thought, Marxian Cpmmunism is declared by many to be on the verge of collapse, famine to be once more endemic and inevitable in a country which has a hundred million people still on the land, still individualistic and rebelling—if not outwardly at least by a go-slow policy which means reduced food production (we hear’ only this week of a desperate recourse to rabbit-breeding as a source of food) — against a Utopian equalitarianism, which has so far meant only equality of sacrifice. On the other hand, one has'reports from visitors of the Union of Soviet Republics which tell us of marvellous progress of a hitherto unindu strialised country in which are stirring gigantic up-to-date factories replete with modern amenities for the workers, who are happy and full of enthusiasm for the Communist regime.

Judgment . is difficult, but even so, the attempt must be made, and for that' reason “Dreiser Looks at Russia” (Constable) is an' important book, for it cannot be denied that Dreiser is a keen observer, and can see what lies behind the outward mask of things. It was, I think, J. Maynard Keynes who first described the Communist faith as a religion, and Dreiser confirms this in his discussion of the gap between practice and theory which is so striking, for he says:—“And yet not a city, not a village or hamlet in all Russia to-day is not feeling the thrill of the new intellectual and social life emanating from the leaders and theorists at Moscow. In God’s name, may they not try for a better day?”

EQUAL PAYMENT.

This faith has certainly produced .a country in which equal pay for whatever job one has to do functions. This is the system which G.B.S. laid before the Fabian Society years ago as the objective for the real Socialist Dreiser says:—“ls Edison to be paid the same as a swineherd? Well, in Russia, at this hour, some such attempt is under way. Monsieur Stalin, the voice and directing spirit of all tlie soviets and unions in Russia at this hour, receives for himself 225 roubles per month (about £22), plus three rooms in the Kremlin, now the seat of Government. And Monsieur Tchicherin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, no more. Lunacharsky, the Minister of Education, with perhaps as great a power for good or evil as any man in Russia or the world, since he controls and checks all the sources of education—schools, courses, books, newspapers, motion pictures, the stage, the educational programmes of the radio —receives no more! In fact, I could find no one in any high position who received a penny more, although many of them, in connection with their official duties, are furnished with a car or cars, one or two or ten or twenty secretaries, an apartment, special means of equipment for transportation —but all incidental to their labours, of course.” Dreiser has his doubts about the equalitarianisin of the Communist scheme of things, “You will find that Communism or no Communism, it is brain, or cunning, or both —that mysterious something called ability or personality, and which same you cannot distribute by law or force —that makes all the difference between who is respected and who is not—who is sought after and who is not, who is in authority and who is not, in Russia as elsewhere. According to all of the Communistic leaders, there are to be no classes. But look about you and see. With one exception, here are all of the classes you have ever known anywhere —professional, scientific, social. The only one that appears to be missing is the moneyed class. And you are likely to find the equivalent of that even here —moneyless—to be sure, but still in possession of the one thing that its former wealth represented, power and position.”

DIVISION OF THE FRUITS.

How will it work out? In Dreiser’s view a little too much labour and too little of the brains necessary to direct it; that labour was being given an undue share of the fruits of the land; and that the elimination of the old-time creative or constructive business man, with all that hie self-interest and consequent industry, ingenuity, etc., implied, was likely to result in a kind of slowness or seeming indifferences or quiescence which would not be likely to work out for the best interests of all concerned. And, as one goes about any where naturally centre most of the city or town apart from Moscow, political 'and official, if not exactly mental, opportunities of the country at thie time, there is to be noted just this ease or slowness, not to say indifference. In factories, in order to speed up production and prevent slack, piece-work is the rule. But in offices, on trains, in stores, you will find that ease which one might expect in a, society from which the urge and tang of competition has been extracted.

“But is this best? Wise? Can society endure unless everybody works hard? Coming from America, where nearly everybody works, and likes to — in order to pass the time—and in consequence piles up an amazing amount of material possessions, I for one was inclined to quarrel with this slowness and predict' this, that and the other fatal result for Russia. Yet why, exactly? Must we have or do we-need really all the speed and energy and material plethora which is now being heaped up before us in America? Might we not do with less and are we not already a little wearing of too much of everything and sighing for a simpler, less plethoric state of affairs? I, for one, am beginning to think so. “And, if not, can such a huge Communistic experiment as this be made to go? In Russia they will tell you yes, certainly. Pray, look about you. Elsewhere in the world, no. ■ Yet is the temperament of man naturally greedy, cruel, this, that? And unless his evil heart is taken into consideration, will not any society or organism fail? The Russians say yes, unless he is sociologically re-educated. But this re-educa-tion they propose to effect through, the child now in their hands,” And this work for the children,,...

Dreiser says of it: “As early as six or seven, I was told, the school children of 'Russia to-day begin to listen to talks on current events and facts in connection with Russia’s recent history, and by the time they are in the fourth or fifth grade there are regular periods devoted to events in other countries —England, Frances, China, America —and the social . conditions which give rise to these events. And here are, of course, patriotic Communist songs and Communist school societies. Each school also has its ‘collective’ committee of students, elected by the rest to carry out self-manage-ment, in which the children are trained by actual example in the processes of Soviet Government. And, in addition, each school has its octobrist, pioneer and consomal organisations, all preparatory for the Communist' Party, and these are for kindergarten, grade school and high school ages.” But over all there broods a fear. He heard of the executions in the earlier years —there are some even within the last month, according to recent accounts —and, as Dreiser says: “So to this hour —ten years after all the pains of the royalist overthrow —and when .Russia or rather Communists may be said to be fairly well entrenched in their economic and political positions (a great army, a fairly powerful and certainly fairly well devised and operated economic as well as legal system), the shadow of this same early terror over all.”

What, then, in fine, is this keensighted American’s view? ‘And yet, by turns, and according to- what one is looking at or thinking about at the time, one can become either abnormally optimistic or deeply depressed. I sometimes believe it is truly so with all in Russia, even the leaders of the Communist Party.”