BOLSHEVISM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10272, 6 May 1919, Page 4

BOLSHEVISM

A writer in the last number of tho ‘‘Hound Table” contributes a careful study of Bolshevism, its history, its tenets, and its methods. An .Englishman ho is, tv ho has recently, returned from Russia, and set himself the task of giving an impartial verdict after the closest investigation. His conclusion is definite, and in no way surprising to those who have followed tho course of Bolshevik history from the beginning. Of the details of tho history as given from time to time, this writer does not go into particulars, and makes it clear that there is some exaggeration in tho accounts from time to time published. The details are, however, of minor importance. Tho broad sweep of tho policy is what matters. That the writer, after an exhaustive study of the facts and of the opinions printed by the Bolshevik leaders, describes in scathing terms : . “Out of the existing chans in Russia, however, one fact stands clear, Bolshevism is a .tyranny—a revolutionary tyranny, if you will—which is the complete abnegation of democracy and of all freedom of thought ami action. Based on force and ieyroristio violence, it is simply following out tho same philosophy which was preached by Nietzeho and . Haeckel, and which for the past twenty-five years has glorified; tho might of force as the final justification of all existence. By substituting one class domination for another it has merely reversed the former tyranny of the Romanoffs Into a tyran- • ny still more terrible and still more cruel in its one-sidedness. At a moment when the whole world is straining forward towards new .hopes and now ideas its uncompromising intoi- ' cranco and its ruthless suppression of all other forms of socialism and democratic progress have narrowed down tho socialist movement info a rigid doctrine which is both n weakness from the socialist point of view and a danger to all ideals of freedom. In its present form Bolshevism must either spread or die. It certainly cannot remain stationary. And at the present moment it stands as n very real menace to the nonce of Europe and to any successful establishment of a League of Nations/’ Lenin himself is quoted ns denying tho whole principle of democracy, and advocating violent revolution by means of the dictatorship of the whole proletariat, It is true that ho has declared that when this dictatorship is fully established it will build up a new world on tho principles of justice out of the anarchy of its revolution. But the best that can be said for this is that it is tho declaration of a madman. And that must ho accompanied by the conviction that, however exaggerated particular accounts of alleged atrocities may be, a vast amount oi cruelty and injustice has been porpo trated, more especially in tho systematic starvation of tho sections of tho people opposed to Bolshevism. In view of these facts and the demonstrated character of Bolshevism, it is reassuring to have indications that the, tido is turning against the cidt in Russia. The Bolshevik armies appear to be suffering defeat everywhere, and the first consequence is the evacuation of Pctrograd. Tho unrest and chaos continue, but the. probability seems to be that the weight of Bolshevism has

proved too oppressive, and is within measurable distance of complete defeat. , . A small knot of politicians here has seized the opportunity of the May Da> celebration to declare its sympathy with this wild, tyrannical anarchy, which it professes to regard as tho embodiment of working-class government. It lias succeeded only, m declaring its sympathy with the uttei negation of democratic principles; 111 ranging itself ou the side of a tyranny worse many times than the worst practices of Czardom; to supporting the spread of madness, ferocity, and chaos over every country under the sun. One of the leading Bolshevik writers— Bncharin—has justified the suppression ot the Constituent Assembly elected by tho people on the ground that the bourgeoisie had scats in it. Ho has said that “the experience of all countries shows that where the bourgeoisie enjoys full rights, it always deceives tho poor and the working classes. Here is something definite, and something as bad as it is definite, for it definitely means that throughout tho world only one class must rule. In every country that, whatever it may ho technically, is practically sedition with usurpation for its primary object. Does the sympathy expressed for this policy in Now Zealand mean a desire to overturn Ihe system of democratic government in order to substitute the usurpation of one class? Tho time lias conic for a clear statement on the subject.