The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1933. RUSSIAN TRADE.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 September 1933, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1933. RUSSIAN TRADE.

An interesting account of trading com ditions in Russia in respect to the general situation ot tiie country, was brought to the fore at a recent meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce. The President (Lord Leverhulme) in introducing Sir Bernard , Pares, who Mas to .speak on the subject, said there were two schools of thought on the subject of trade with Russia. There were those who believed that the present order in that country had some to stay, or fit any rate, that it was no affair of ours what political, social, or economic systems that country cared to adopt, but that if tibde was going this country should obtain as large a share of it as possible. This school argued that if this country did not supply the goods, some other country would; that if this country shut out imports from Russia, those Russian goods would find ian outlet in some other market where their competition would have to be met. The second school argued that the Russian system stood for principles and policies so antagonistic to those 1 for which Anglo-Saxon evilisation stood, that to latttempt to mix them was like trying to mix oil and water; that conflict between them was, in the long run, inevitable, and that by financing anti supplying equipment to Russia we were preparing a rod for our own backs. They felt- also that it was definitely wrong that the British Government should enter treaties with the Soviet Government, covering i'nture trade relations, without any provision being made for compensation to British companies and individuals who-e property had been confiscated by the Soviet Government. The feeling that compensation should first tie guaranteed was held by the Russian Section of the London Chamber supported by the Council. The principal speaker, Sir Bernard Flares said there were three distinct periods of the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia. From 1918 to 1921 there was the sharp advance; from 1921 to 1928 was the retreat, which was nearly fatal to them; and from 1928 to the present time there was another still sharper advance which was now at its climax. In regard to industry, Stalin was able to- point to certain relative successes, and it was said by some business authorities who had visited Russia that the goods turned out by Russians were very satisfactory; but, in the main, the balance of opinion wins iu quite an opposite direction. In the collectivization of agriculture they were now meetng with the greatest failure. They compelled men to go into the collective farms by making life impossible outside, and the difficulties which Stalin had previously met with in the individual peasant had reappeared inside the collective farms, wth the result that there was a “flux” —a, clearing out. There whs n<> organised opposition in Russia which would destroy the Soviet system, but this “flux” might become a first class factor jn the collapse of the system. Speaking cf til© resumption of trade with Russia, Sir Bernard Pares said that this was entirely a. matter for the individual trader, whose risk should on no account be backed by the money of the taxpayers. Traders should insist on trading on their own principles and on their own terms—otherwise they . should refuse to trade. Our ignorance of Russia was one of the greatest gaps in our equipment to-dav, and this had , got to be, remedied. The challenge of communism was to change the whole system of government and public life as we had it to-dayi Twenty years ago lie raised the question with the Governent, as to whether they should not give adequate training for consular officers in Russia as they did in the Far East. Tie had raised it again, and it was now being considered in conjunction with the Foreign Office and the Department of Overseas Trade. H.e hoped the London Chamber would be able to give the matter its moral support. Then in regard to university training, at the j London University, honours could no"' j ho taken in Russian history and eeo- j nom'es, but it was an unhill task and they needed the support of the business , community, for at the present time there was nothing to give t/hem any latitude. The latest international news is to the effect that Russia is negotiating treaties 'nth other European nations, and this seems to suggest that the solo aim of communism lias missed its mark. TT it is realised that-Russia cannot live as a composite nation on its 1 own resources, then the inte’•national ! associations must have a general effect all for the good. After the drastic revolution an evolution is coming to pass which wall align Russia with the other European nations again.

“Tn ask whether war is inevitable is about equivalent to asking whether suicide is inevitable,” writes Sir Norman Angell in To-day and To-morrow. “Although writers sometimes speak cf war as we speak of storms and earthquakes, the difference is plain enough; man does not make the earthquake and he does make war. War is not the result of forces outside himself; budgets do not get voted, viarships built, armies painfully driled, -poison gas invented, apart from tho wills of men. Behind these efforts are definite but fallacious ideas of defence—defence of possessions of opportunities or wealth, of political independence, cf views of right, and what not. Broadly, the fallacy arises I'rom supposing that defence of such things can be based on the individual action of each; whereas tho things necessary to civilisation can only bo defended by the common action of the community—the community of nations in the international field.' Civilisation depends upon keeping processes working smoothly, upon keeping the traffic moving m the.highways, as it were; if the traffic stops, civilised life stops. But you cannot secure the defence and safety of those using the roads and prevent collisions, congestion land jams by each user acting individually, making his own rules, driving to the left or the rights as he sees fit. Thei> mustbe agreement as to the rules, otherwise no one can be safe. But so little 1 has our education equipped us to understand the world in which we live that most educated men cannot even see the relevance of this analogy to the causes of war, And that is broadly why we have war. But there is nothing inevitable about it.” f