The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1919, IS BOLSHEVISM TOTTERING?

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 171, 14 April 1919, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1919, IS BOLSHEVISM TOTTERING?

The dark shadow which has been thrown over Europe, and, indeed, over tho whole world, by tho"rapicl growth and spread of Bolshevism, is lightened somewhat by recent news from Russia. It is plain that Bolshevism there is not now flourishing; that it is oven in danger of collapse. According to ono of today's cablegrams Tkotsky is urging the Red Army on tho East front— an army which in recent days has suffered heavy defeat—to resume its "victorious advance." It is significantly added that ho appeals to the troop's to "remember that they arc a military organisation, and not a debating club." The form of the appeal suggests that the Bolshcviki stand in some danger of being hoist with their own petard; in other word's, that the Red Army is showing a tendency to disintegrate like the Russian armies in 1917. It is fairly safe to assume that if Trotsky is uneasy about the prevalence of debate in the Red Army it is because the troops are increasingly inclined to find fault with the bloodthirsty ruffians—as the British Home Secretary justly calls them— who now wield authority in Russia. This may very well ho the actual state of affairs. _ It is astonishing that the Bolshevik regime, with its military power, has endured so long. There would be no reason for surprise if_ it suddenly fell to pieces. Much light has been thrown upon the methods by which the Bolshoyiki have thii6 far kept their fightins forces under control. They have exhausted' the possibilities of terrorism, coercion, and espionage, but it seems to be tho essential key to the situation that they control the limited food supplies available in a country which is fast in the grip of an awful famine. "Every man who joins the Red Army," to quote an Englishman who recently esoaped from Russia, "is sure of his own fopd, and also gets food for his wife and children. ... If they try any tricks, they are not only punished— i.e., shot—themselves, but their wives and families and parents are starved. A' man will stand almost anything rather than see his wife and children' and parents starved to death, _ and the use they (the Bolshevik!) make of this kind of coercion is devilish."

Hitherto such methods hayc served the_ Bolsheviki only too well. It remains to be seen how long they will prove effective now that these terrorists are underthc necessity of maintaining- armies on a considerable scale to cope with the counter-mea-sures that are being organised in various parts of Russia. To a very grcat_ extent, though not solely, the question must be determined 1 by Bolshevik control over economic factors and resources. Particularly valuable information on tKis aspect of the Russian situation is supplied by Dr. Arthur Shad-well, in an article in the Nineteenth Century. His statement of the facts is the more impressive since it is based in the main upon damaging admissions made by Lenin and Trotsky themselves in recent publications. Dr. Shadwell adds in this way to the overwhelming evidence already available in regard to Bolshevik atrocities and to the existence of a state of developing famine and ccomonic chaos in Russia. His citations are above all interesting, however, as showing how far the Bolsheviki are from having any remedy for this state of affairs, or from being headed forsuch a defined objective as would in any degree palliate their frightful career of erfme. Lenin is quoted, for instance, as declaring that no attempt can be made to remedy the conditions of famine and industrial paralysis that_ obtain without enlisting the services of financial and industrial experts—a class belonging to the bourgeoisie, and suppressed with it. Such experts, the arch-enemy of the bourgeoisie ■now declares, must be retained at very large salaries, He admits that this is "reactionary." but holds that it is indispensable until the Bolsheviki have learned these arts for themselves. Lenin's hand is even more plainly shown in the references he makes to an absolute dictatorship in a report on The Immediate, Task* of the Sovyet— Power, which was. adopted as it stood by the Central Executive Committee of the Bolshevik organisations, and its chief points embodied in an official memorandum.

With regard (he writes) to the second question, namely, the significance of the dictatorial power of individuals from the standpoint of the particular problem of tho moment, this must be said: that every great machine industry—that is, the very source of material production and the basis of Socialism—demands the unqualified and strictest unity in the will which guides the common labours of hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of men. . . . But how can the strictest unity of will be secured? By the subordination of the will of the thousands to the will of a single person. When ideal recognition and discipline on the part of all engaged in a common task are present, this subordination may rather resemble the gentle leading of an orchestral conductor. It may take the sharp form of a dictatorship when they are not present. But either way,' the unquestioning submission to a single will is unconditionally necessary for the success of industrial processes organised after the type of a great machine industry. For the railways it is doubly and trebly necessary, . .' . Tho Revolution has just struck off tho oldest, strongest, and heaviest fetters that bound the masses wider the knout. That was yesterday, but to-day the'same Revolution demands, and that in tho interests of Socialism, the unquestioning subordination of the masses under tho singlo will of the director of the process.

This utterance is noteworthy, first of' all as branding Bolshevism, not only as a colossal crime against a great part of the Eussian population, hut as a sham and imposture upon the specified section of the population on whose behalf and for whose benefit it was ostensibly organised. Under Lenin's proposal the "redemption" of the proletariat is to amount to unquestioning obedience to a dictator who will rule it as a conductor rules an orchestra if jts members do exactly what they are told, and will take "sharp" measures if they do not. The "oldest, strongest, and heaviest" fetters of pro-Revolution days are to bo replaced by fetters even heavier and stronger. But Lenin's words are of still greater practical significance as a confessor of the absolute bankruptcy of Bolshevism. It has attained its present dimensions by appealing to debased and criminal instincts, and by the ruthless destruction of order and discipline. Its fruits are visible in a weltering chaos of humanity such as tho world had never seen. That its chief author should now appeal for a miraculous transformation of i these conditions into those of a

mechanically perfect tyranny—"the unquestioning subordination of the masses under the single will of the director of the process"—is proof not (lint he desires to build, but only that he doos D,?.t know how to build. As the news shows from day to day it is by no means certain that Bolshevism will bo prevented from sweeping other countries than Russia, but if its onset is stemmed a littlo longer the object-lesson of lliißsia should surely suffice to save these countries. All available information regarding Russia goes to show that Lenin's appeal to the masses to accept a more unbridled tyranny and a harsher discipline than was dreamt of in the days of Tsardom i« absolutely devoid of any practical bearing on the situation, and that the famine and economic chaos the Bolsheviki have so frightfully _ intensified are going rapidly and inevitably from bad to worse. Unless appearances are strangely deceptive the Bolshevik regime in Russia is' doomed, because it must presently lose the power of giving immunity even to its hirelings from the calamities of want and starvation it has brought upon the nation at large. The unrest in the Red Army which has inspired Trotsky's appeal possibly marks the beginning oj the end.