FIVE YEAR PLAN IN RUSSIA.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18822, 10 March 1931, Page 9

FIVE YEAR PLAN IN RUSSIA.

Vast Scheme Outlined. RULE OF FORCE SUCCEEDS. TJnltott P’-ess Association —fry Electric Telegraph—Copyright (“The Times. 1 ') (Received March 9, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, March 9. The Berlin correspondent of “The Times’’ states that Professor Ashagen, ex-attache of the German Embassy at Moscow, whence he has been withdrawn, because his candour displeased the Soviet, declares that the Five Year Plan has attained at least a quantitative success, industrialisation and socialisation having entered on the decisive stages. The most dangerous undertaking, namely the collectivisation of the peasantry, has now broken the victims’ resistance by force, confiscation, eviction and taxation. Nearly half a million peasants, fifty thousand of whom are of German origin, are interned in Siberia, and forced to work in the forests. The Plan would make Russia a serious competitor in the world markets. Mining and industrial products would be exported without profit, owing to the centralised economy, and dumping, unless checked, would disastrously affect cereal, butter and sugar markets. But Germany would be wrong if she renounced a share in Russian reconstruction. German exports to Russia last year were worth £25,000,000. Hundreds of German engineers and workmen were employed in Russia, but the German peasant colonies are approaching misery decay and extinction. A returned German specialist advises his compatriots not to accept employment in Russia, at less than £SO per month, with half payable in Germany. WHITHER GOETH RUSSIA? FEATURES OF FIVE YEAR PLAN. A fortnight in Russia is too long. Even in that short period there is a danger of becoming resigned, or acclimatised to conditions. This is what many people, long resident in the country, have told me. They accept the situation, become callous, indifferent. The fatal “Nitchaivoo”—“it doesn’t matter” —possesses their soul (writes Robert F. Hyde, Director of the Industrial Welfare Society, in the “Daily Telegraph”). After spending a week in Moscow, that city became my standard, and when I returned to Leningrad I judged it by the standard I had now set up. In this I was wrong. What was required was that I should get out of Russia and check my impressions by conditions in a border country. There are some who will read these notes who will regard the whole thing as presumption. My reply is that one glance at the ocean is sufficient to show whether it is smooth or rough —there is no need to analyse each wave for its sodium content. My first impression was the true one, and there was a danger, towards the end of my visit, of getting my values all wrong. For a fortnight I had been living under a feeling of repression, an indefinable shadow, conscious of continuous surveillance, of someone always at my elbow; of furtive glances, of concealment, apart altogether from the scenes of desolation, shortage of food, lack of direction. Once over the border at Helsingfors everything was changed. Taxi-cabs, swift and smart, cost but a few pence per mile; no roads up; no queue; no depressed loungers; trains, laden with freight, passing along the quay; healthy, well-dressed crowds: teashops filled with brightly-dressed throngs; streets and gardens spotlessly clean; a vast market stocked with fish, meat, fruit, vegetables at prices absurdly low. All this brought about a natural reaction after all that I had experienced during the last fortnight, and as I watched the vivacious crowd on the quay, waving far/veil to their friends, T'fcould not but contrast it with the tragedy I had looked upor p Here, then, are some of my most vivid impressions. The first may appear fantastic, grotesque, impossible, but I cannot escape it. Sinister Trinity. There is as the background of the whole scheme an embryonic religious system—a modern Trinitarianism. The photographs of Karl Marx, both in portrayal and in situation, suggest more than anything else the old Israelitish conception of * their God, Yahweh, still to be seen in old Bibles and in some churches. As the revealer of his law stands Lenin, the human aspect, as it were, of Marx, and to support this fancy are the hundreds of pictures (ikons they may, perhaps, become some day), statues of Lenin in every possible human guise, Lenin as docker, sportsman, statesman, child. Guidance Is given vaguely by the proletariat, but the interpreter, the St. Paul, is Stalin. Any deviation from the law as stated by Lenin is fought word by word. This is no fancy picture, and I cannot help feeling that much of what is keeping back the more rapid development of the country is this slavish, stuhborn adherence to a theory laid down by Marx, revealed to the world by Lenin, and interpreted by Stalin, guided by the nebulous proletariat. Another impression was that the system of government which baffles the imagination makes it difficult to estimate either the cost of living or production. Practically all enterprise is controlled by one small body representing the State—there is even a Barbers’ Trust. There is one purse and one employer, but there is no effective opposition. Wages are paid in roubles, but it was extremely difficult to secure any figures worth quoting relative to wages. Real Wages. The number of roubles paid week by week or month by month means very little. Rent depends upon the amount of wage received—the landlord and the employer are one; food is rationed, so, too, is clothing and soap; insurance, games, picture houses, theatres, amusement parks are all controlled by the same power, and prices are fixed and subsidies arranged at their dictation. By means of the most staggering propaganda the world has ever seen the workers are urged to hand back part of their wages as contributions to State loans, wounded soldier funds, lotteries, all of which, since it goes back intq the one purse, can be regarded as deduction from wage. What is real wage is a question as difficult to answer as “What is the

cost of production?” It is because of this, which appears to our Western minds to be a topsy-turvy system, that one cannot foretell whether the Fiveyear Plan will succeed or even define with satisfaction what success means. Here and there one finds outward enthusiasm for the Five-year Plan, but this is undoubtedly due to the frenzied nature of the ceaseless propaganda. Belts are admittedly tight at present, and whilst the older people may regard the whole scheme with a wistful smile, there is growing up a generation which knows nothing of conditions in other countries or of a standard of living other than to which they are now accustomed. Taught that conditions in other countries are worse than their own, given no opportunity of proving the falsity of this, buoyed up with hope that a good time is coming, they seem to be willing to carry on. High Overhead. On the other hand, judging by the standards and methods of other countries, there seems to me to be several snags in the carrying out of their industrialisation plans. The first is the appalling overhead charge on production represented by bureaucracy. Everything is checked and counterchecked, examined, passed, discussed, labelled, docketed—even the flowerpots in the hotels have numbered brass labels attached to them, and it is the multiplication of these non-producti/e tasks that makes it easy for every man and woman to be employed. Delay, procrastination, lack of initiative, for each fears the other, in the simplest transaction, clog the wheels—and the five-day calendar makes confusion more confounded. There is fear but little discipline, planning but little direction, talk but little done. In spite of well-thought-out schemes in every department of national life, execution falls far short of the plan. , One cannot avoid the conclusion that Lenin was a man of outstanding ability, both in conceiving a plan and putting it into execution, but perhaps greatest of all in being ready to compromise where expediency so suggested. Had he lived to administer his plans the whole story might have been different. As it is, direction and directive ability are lamentably and obviously lacking. The shortage of skilled workers and technicians is being felt, and the importation of such grades from Germany and America is not nearly sufficient to meet the need. Much Achieved. Yet one is forced to admit that much has been achieved, especially when the tremendous difficulties the country has had to face in recent years are remembered. The many institutions organised for the benefit of the workers, of which can be cited as examples the Workers’ Rest Homes, the Rest and Culture Parks, Peasants’ Museum and Homes, health propaganda, are all excellent; so, too, is the opening up of art galleries, drama, and music to the masses.

During the Tsarist regime only the wealthiest inhabitants could enjoy these things. That the sense of ownership in the workers —“all this is ours” —should have been created in so short a time is a wonderful performance. But during the same period vast progress has been made in other countries in the administration and technique of industry, and whilst Russia has gained ground she has not been able to keep pace in this vital matter. So I cannot picture Russia under the present system of control being able to compete with the more flexible and more direct methods in vogue elsewhere. This, however, may not be so serious as perhaps appears, because the country is fabulously rich in natural gifts. Russia may be able to dump her produce in other lands (but at the cost of the tightened belts of the people), and ultimately bring about the world revolution which is her one great hope. But what I have seen convinces me that the crux of the whole situation lies in the word “maintenance.” As is apparent to every intelligent observer, Russia is suffering hardship at the moment, self-admittedly great hardship and sacrifice, in order to make the Five-year Plan a success. Reason for Export. Everything saleable—butter, eggs, fruit, timber, produce—as well as manufactured articles, is being exported in Order that money may be secured for spending on machinery, equipment, tools for the industrialisation plan. In the meantime, in spite of efforts in the big towns to build, to repair roads, drainage, and so on, decay and dilapidation may be their Nemesis. Roads, houses, cables, trams, rails, locomotives are already far below the standard expected in a civilised, wellrun country. None can escape the evidences of this. The day I left Russia the “Pravda” stated that on the eve of the harvest 50 per cent, of the agricultural machinery was not repaired. Collective farm implements were not repaired; a thousand reapers in another place were not repaired. A much-travelled engineer told me that

Moscow and Leningrad were “admirable paradises” compared with towns of, say, 200,000 inhabitants, for the streets in such places were impassable. Therefore, the opinion has been growing in my mind that there is need for highly-skilled technical direction In all the main departments of productive industry, transport, and distribution. And since, for reasons given, other nations have advanced beyond the Russian standard, such direction must come from outside. Were capable men appointed at salaries commensurate with their tasks, they would need to be given far-reaching powers, personal responsibility, and freedom to exercise initiative, as well as relief from many of the existing regulations that hinder progress. Such a policy would involve some reconsideration of first or second line programmes, but sooner or later, unless belts are to remain tight, I do not see any other solution.