THE WAR IN RUSSIA.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3512, 17 July 1926, Page 4

THE WAR IN RUSSIA.

PEASANTS VERSUS COM-

MUNISTS.

Peoplo in general think present day Rtfssia is a country which has wholly gone over to communism or to State Socialism. This is an error. It is true that politically only one party is legally allowed to exist —the Communist Party. This Communist Oligarchy certainly tyrannises over Russia, by means of the Party, the International and the Soviet Government, but this power is not Russia.

Side by side with the socialist forces, which at present are in in command politically, there are also powerful individualist forces which are actively engaged in combat with the despotic regime under whcli they have to live. Of these latter forces the peasant is the strongest power the bolshevist rulers have to contend with. In a sense the rural population are in command economically as agricultural products the Soviet Government require whilst the peasants may grant or refuse what is needed.’

This -is the war which is being fought continuously in Russia. The arms being used are not lethal weapons, though even these are resorted to at times. It is the clash of economic interests and powers. So keen, determined and continuous is the combat that it will probably change the whole political constitution before the war is ended. Under the existing system of government the basis of representation is a mockery so far as the country dwellers are concerned. The urban resident has conceded to him live votes to one given to the rural elector. This false standard of representation shows that the Soviet Authorities fear the people of the country districts who constitute the vast majority of the population.

In 1923 according to the Soviets, lhe total population of 132 million inhabitants was divided into —rural population 111,270,000 (80 per cent.) and urban 20,700,000 (14 per cent.) The policy of the Soviet government is to exploit the agricultural population for the maintenance of their socialist rule. The movement of the peasants is to free themselves from all forms of exploitation and secure self government. It rests with time to show which shall win out in this struggle of titanic forces. Already the peasantry have won in the chief skirmishes which have taken place. They hold a mighty weapon in their control of the land and their power io produce or withhold production ns suits their ends. good harvest AND bad RETURNS. Agricultural production is the ■trn’jlitonnl production of Russia. The industrial production is recent; it was imported by foreigners, inby their capital and confiscated by the Soviets. Communism has never been extended to agriculture. The peasants threw themselves upon the big estates only to seize portions of them — not to make them common property. Their part; in the revolution was in-

dividualist and their movements remain so.

The peasants aimed at independence. They carried on small industry in addition to Agriculture. These were named the Koustari. Bolshevism has destroyed this kind of industry. Independence and enslavement are in conflict. The bolshevik leaders .set out with the idea that they could force the peasants to deliver up their produce. Events showed them that if the peasants did not produce thero was nothing to take from them. The Government adopted another course, after many failures, it offered the peasants manufactured goods for their produce. If however, the prices are too high tho peasants refuse to buy, so the Government cannot count on the harvest. This is actually what is happening. The harvest of 1925-20 promised well. It was in fact the best since the war. The trouble was that the Government was powerless to provide the peasants with the necessary goods in exchange for their produce. In September .1925, it was able to buy 88 million poods of cereals. In October this dropped to G 7 and November 49. The small purchases show that the peasants would not give up their stocks. In the Urals and in Siberia the Government was only able to collect 1(1,200,000 poods in 1925 (good harvest year) against 34,300,000 during the same time in 1924. The peasants preferred to burn the maize than put'it on the market. The powerlessness of the Soviet government to procure agricultural products arises from two causes: —> 1. Political and moral; the peasants opposition to its practices. 2. Economic cause, showing the bolshevik government cannot function effectively. Here then, is another government in Russia —the Agriculturalists. They hold in possession a most important economic key. Given freedom to trade they would no doubt prefer to send their produce overseas and receive goods in exchange. Such freedom, however, the Soviet Government will not allow. It holds monopoly of all foreign trade. Another ground of conflict. Meantime the peasants are pressing for more representation, a larger share in government, and are gradually getting this added poAver because they hold supplies. The war is in many respects a

silent one, yet it is being fought with deadly earnestness. The moujik (peasant) is not so stupid as not to know his own interest, the ma,n on the land has killed most visionary revolutions. Will it prove so in Russia as it has in other countries? At any rate the bolsheviks have not proved victorious yet —even in Russia. (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League.)