SOVIET CITIZENS MAY HAVE PROPERTY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 295, 14 December 1936, Page 10

SOVIET CITIZENS MAY HAVE PROPERTY

Income Sets the Standard

J|J[ANY TOURISTS Io Soviet Russia have been confused by their mistaken understanding that, private property has been abolished under the Soviets, writes Demaree Bess in the *• Christian Science Monitor.” The Soviets have not abolished private property, but private ownership in the ‘‘means of production.” That is to say, no individual may own land, banks, factories, shops, buildings for rental, transport facilities, and so forth, which might enable him to “exploit” the latour of another. Everything of this sort is owned by the State, either directly or indirectly through State-con-trolled co-operatives. But the individual Soviet citizen may own a considerable amount of property. Be may own one apartment in a city and one house in the country. He may own all the clothes, furniture, jewelry and such which he and his family desire and are able to buy. He may own interest-bearing government bonds to an extent limited only by his ability to pay for them. If an individual owns a city apartment and a country home, he may rent one or both. Maximum rentals are fixed by the income-tax law, but individual owners often evade this by private understandings. Co-operatives build apartment houses in cities for individual owners, and also groups of country' homes, which begin to dot Soviet suburbs. The individual may buy as much as he can of the goods for sale in Soviet shops If he tries to re-sell goods at a profit, he may be charged with speculation. But he may sell any of his personal possessions in State-owned “commission shops.” which charge a commission of 15 per cent, on each transaction. Government bonds pay 4 per cent, interest, and any individual may buy' as many’ bonds as he likes. Outstanding Government bonds may total over 18 billion rubles, which means an annual income of 744 million rubles for their owners. If a Soviet citizen owns 125,Oflo rubles in bonds—and there is no law to prevent his doing so—the Stale pays him an annual income of 5000 rubles, twice that of an average work •r’s wages. As the country’s prosperity increases. the upper limit for the most successful citizens rises steadily. A few years ago most people lived very much alike, because the goods shortage was to acute that more money was of little

use. favoured groups had closed shops in which they could buy goods not available elsewhere. Now almost, all shops are open to everyone with money. With a few exceptions, money income sets the standard of living. These exceptions are the highest Government and Communist party' officials who receive modest money incomes. Commissars, for example, receive only 600 rubles a month. But this group has perquisites for which no ordinary’ worker can hope. They have the use of motor-cars with chauffeurs, country homes, -large apartments, and access to closed shops in which they can buy luxury food and clothing at special low prices. Some unusually successful Soviet citizens have incomes of 25,000 rubles per month, more than 100 times the wage of an average worker. These include successful playwrights, motion picture directors, and the like. Leading industrial executives receive as much as 5000 rubles per month in salary' and bonuses, in addition to such perquisites as the exclusive use of motor-cars with chauffeurs, private cars on railways and the like. But the most skilled manual work-ers-—Stakhanovists—average about 4l)0 rubles per month, and few perquisites. The present organisation of Soviet society enables a successful individual lu build up a considerable estate in Government bonds, one city apartment, one country' home, one motor-car, an unlimited amount of clothing, furniture, jewelry, works of art, and such things. The individual may use this property as he likes during his lifetime, and may leave it to his immediate relatives.

After all the calendar is merely a mechanical device the world has found handy for carrying on its daily business. It can scarcely be called sacred, even though the Church as well as the State uses it for recording events. Julius Caesar saw fit to appropriate a day from February to give his own month of “July” 31 days, and Augustus Caesar likewise stole from Febru ary to fatten his namesake “August,” so why should the powers in 1935 hesitate to change things round for the sake of convenience rather than selfish pride?—Journal of Calendar Reform.