Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, MAY 23, 1949.

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 90, 23 May 1949, Page 4

Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, MAY 23, 1949.

LENIN

First leader of the Soviet government after the revolution of November, 1917, Lenin died at the beginning of 1924 as the indirect result of having been shot by an assassin espousing a different brand of Socialism from his own. Looking back over the 25 years that have passed since then, one wonders whether Russia’s place in world affairs would have been any different today had he lived.

A lifelong radical, Lenin was both a man of action and a profound theoretician. One disinterested and qualified writer, W. H. Chamberlain (in “Soviet Russia: A Living Record and A History”) has claimed that Lenin probably “did more to deflect the course of world history than any political figure since Napoleon.” That was written, though, in 1930—before Adolf Hitler did nis worst.

Whatever one might' think of Lenin’s life work, it cannot be denied that he was one of the really big figures in contemporary history and, in fact, still is.

Here was no semi-illiterate tub-thumper. He was a deep and shrewd thinker, with a good educational background and undeniable qualities of leadership, though democrats the world over believe he led along the wrong path. Lenin’s father was a government schools inspector, who had received a patent of nobility in recognition of his services, and the young Lenin, graduated from a classical preparatory school, entered the University of ‘Kazan. He was expelled from there on account of his political activities. Later he took work as a non-resident at the University of St Petersburg, at which he oassed his final examination in 1891/. 1 I

Banished to Siberia for subversive activities, he devoted himself to the further development and clarification of his political ideas, based on the Marxist philosophy, and to the preparation of his first important books. He also took the opportunity to master several foreign languages.

For 20 years following the founding of the Social Democratic party of Russia, Lenin, though most of the time an exile in a number of European countries, was the dominant force behind the growing power of the Bolsheviki, whose more or less underground tactics he directed, ‘.eading them to power in 1917 to become the directing genius of the first Soviet government. Though a professional revolutionary, Lenin was a man with strong human sympathies and an astute bargainer in international relations.

Had he lived, today’s political picture might have been a vastly different one. He was more concerned with the achievement

of true and complete Communism—as distinct from the “dictatorship of the proletariat”— in Russia than with aggressive internationalism.

DOING “WHAT BILL SAYS” In an address at Newmarket on Monday night, Mrs G. H. Ross, Opposition M.P. for Hamilton, cautioned women not to listen to their husbands when they go to the polls at the next election. Too many of them, she said, took the line, “Bill will tell me what to do.” She counselled women electors not to listen to Bill, but to think for themselves and vote as they • thought. Her advice is sound, arid not only for women. There are many people who never take the trouble to study questions of the day sufficiently to form an intelligent opinion for themselves and who, when it- comes to voting, very often give this, their most important civic duty, little thought at all. Experiences of Germany, Italy, Russia in recent years should show us clearly enough the danger in mass acceptance of ready-made opinions. Every elector should do his or her best to be well-informed as to the records and policies of the contending parties, and as to the character, background and personality of the candidates. Armed with that information, they should then vote for the candidate and party likely their opinion to do the most good for the most) New Zealanders. But to'vote for a mere party label or a string of fantastic promises is to throw awaf a vote and possibly to do a grave disservice to one’s country. As Mrs Ross has pointed out, the women, as a body, have probably suffered more from the inconveniences and shortages of the day than any other section of the community. They, as the ones who have to make the family income buv the family’s needs, know* better than anyone else just what our present “prosperity” is worth. They, as no other section of the community, have felt the widespread impact of the industrial disputes the general dissatisfaction with a spurious prosperity has engendered. They, if they set their minds to a bit of intensive independent thinking, will be in a position to decide whether those things are the fault of the Government or not, and whether the National Party has a constructive alternative to offer. If Mrs Ross’s remarks are taken as seriously as they should be by every woman in the country, then we mav hope to see a Government elected for what it intends to do towards making the providing for and the rearing of families an easier task in this richly endowed country of ■ ours