MONSTROUS DOGMAS.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1920, Page 11 (Supplement)

MONSTROUS DOGMAS.

WUMXG THROUGH ELCOD TO SLAVERY. * LENIN'S LETTER CRITICISED. (By Robert Blandford.) Mr. Tom Shaw, who recently returned from that mysterious land of whirling shadows, where there are waitings and weepings and gnashings of teeth, oxpresses the opinion that Lenin, the die- 1 tator, is ''incredibly ignorant" about Britain and the British people. That is obvious from his message, but is Lenin more incredibly ignorant about us than many of our native champions of Bolshevism are about Russia? Lenin imagines that our workers have been as wickedly and ruthlessly dragooned by the British bourgeoisie and the British capitalist as were the Russian peasants and mechanics by their autocratic Tsars and barbarous barons, and that as a natural consequence the masses are bitter with hatred and resentment, and are only prevented from breaking out into sanguinary insurrection by the machinations of recreant Labor leaders who hp. .e been bribed or cajoled into joining forces with the exploiter and the tyrant. It would be impossible to convince Lenin of his error. Even if he came to live in England he would probably be unable to convince himself. He belongs to another world—he lives in another age—he thinks in a different language. LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY. Onr British Bolshevists, on the other hand are under the impression that Lenin and Bolshevism stand for "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity." They do not stand for anything of the kind, but onr revolutionary fanatics do not realise, and seem incapable of understanding that Russians arc not British, and do not act, nor think, like Britons. Even when such Britons as those in question go to Russia, they take with them their insular spectacles. Mr. Churchill wears his consistently at home. To Mr. Churchill the exhortations and reprobations of Lenin's message sound like gibberings from a padded cell. To our Bolshevist workers they are the expression of eternal verities. It is sufficient for us as reasonable democrats to insist that the manifesto and policy of Lenin are undemocratic. We reject the dogmas of the Russian prophet fo r the same reason for which we reject the direct action of the railway workers or the Dockers' Union; because we we democrats, and because Bolshevism and direct action are inimical to democracy. What is the fundamental purpose of democracy? Is it not to protect the people against tyranny! If that be so, will a true democrat, as an enemy of tyrants, distinguish between the tyranny of a despotic monarch and the tyranny of a clique or oligarchy, or an organised minority of any class. Real liberty is incompatible with tyranny in any form, benevolent or other. Let me try to 'explain what I mean by benevolent tyranny; and lirst I will quote a well-known and popular passage from Carlyle:— "It is well said, in every sense, tliat a man's religion is the chief fact with regard to him. A man's or a nation of men's. By religion I do not mean here the church creed which he professes, the articles of faith which he will sign and, in words or otherwise, assent; not this wholly, in manj r cases not this at all. We see men of all kinds of professed creeds attain to almost all degrees of worth or worthlessness under ea«h or any of them. This is not what I call religion, this profession and assertion; which is often only a profession and assertion from the outworks of the man, from the mere argumentative region of him, even if so deep as that. But a thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less in others; the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and knows for certain, concerning his vital' relations to this mystery universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all eases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. This is his religion, or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion; the manner in which he feels himself to bo spiritually related to the Unseen World or NoWorld; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of thing he will do is." PERSUASION AND COMPULSION. Now, with regard to 'this religion or theory of life,- one of the things a man will assuredly do, if his faith be deep and living, is to proselytise, to try, by all such means as he considers right, to win over his fellow-men to this belief. If he regards compulsion as right he will endeavor to compel. The eudeavpr to compel or force others' to accept our faith or theories ia what I meant by benevolent tyranny. It is much more common than a careless thinker would suppose. It is, and it has been, terribly common, and its results have been tragically evil. It is this form of despotism Lenin is now forcing upon the Russian people, and it is this form of despotism ho counsels our Bolshevist visionaries to force upon us. The action of such despots is based upon their belief that they know better than their fellow-men what is good for them, and that it is right that they should compel others to believe with them for their own good. Democracy by the nature of it is posed to any form of tyranny, and to benevolent tyranny among the rest. Democracy tells us that no man or group of men shall enslave, or coerce, or dictate to the rest of mankind that the thing which a man believes he shall be free to speak or to write, to preacli or to teach, but that in no circumstances nor for any excuse shall he be permitted to injure another man for refusing to accept his faith, nor to force his faith or policy upon other men by threats or arras. Democracy says that all men shall be free to think, to speak, and to believe, that in any ease of faith each shall decide for himself, and that in any matter of policy the decision shall be left to the majority. The spirit of democracy ig unquestionably hostile to dictation and to terrorism. The Lenin manifesto is more obnoxious to a British democrat than the Toryism of early states of the factory system. Jacobean days or the capitalism of the INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE AND EGOTISM. The idea that the British people are to wade through blood in order that they may be organised as slaves under some sea-green, incorruptible tyrant with a bee in his bonnet will not appeal) to our people. It is only Lenin's incredible ignorance and incredible egoti

ism which eiiablo him to suggest that our nation shall rise in armed revolt and sack the Foreign Office for the purpose of finding out whether any secret treaties are concealed there. This is a form of political foolishness which the British have outgrown. It is a long time since the Chinamen burnt down their houses to roast their pork. Englishmen never contracted so extravagant, a habit. In fine, Lenin's letter will do harm only to his own cause. Very few British 1 workers will take seriously either his complacent pedantry or his fanatical class prejudice. The nature of our Constitution and the genius of our people make it unnecessary for us to import the monstrous dogmas of the Soviets. Our people fought for and established democracy as a safeguard against Leninism in all its forms, and wo shall not be likely to barter our British substance for a Russian shadow. At the same time we shall do well to avoid going to the other extreme and attempting to "thrust our island bylaws down the throats" of foreign States. Russia is not England, nor are we Russia's rulers or keepers. There has, doubtless, been a reign of terror in Russia since the revolution. If we did not interfere between the Czars and their people why should we dictate to the Soviets?

We cannot' undertake i to settle the internal quarrels of foreign nations. We have not, nor have the United States, made the revolutions and civil wars of South' American countries or of Mexico an excuse for armed intervention, nor a reason for refusing to recognise a Government, once the Government has been shown to exist in fact- We have, quite recently, recognised the Republican Government of Portugal, China and Prussia. If the Soviet Government exists de facto: If the Russian people, willingly or unwillingly—who shall say? —accept the Soviet rule, and the Lenin sovereignty it is not in consonance with the hereditary policy of the British nation to refuse due recognition of the established fact whether or not we approve of the form or personnel of the Government.

Germany committed horrible crimes during the late war. But we have acknowledged the German Republic. Turkey, before • and since the war, has dipped her hands in blood. But we have never refused to recognise the Turkish Government. If we could maintain "friendly relations" with Czardom after the historic Black Sunday, and avoid a diplomatic rupture with the Porte after the Bulgarian massacres, we are surely too squeamish in our attitude towards the Soviet Government of Russia. THE STATE OF RUSSIA. Be the Russian Government what it may, we cannot overturn it. We could not hope to carry on a war with the Russian people, nor to reform them by force of arms, oven if our own people would consent, to fight in such a cause as they most certainly would not. Russia is ir ' a terrible state, no doubt. She has just passed through a desperate war, and is now passing through a- desperate revolution. Since we cannot coerce her, even if we would, will it not be wiser to help her, if we can? Truly she must save herself at the long last. , But our hostility aud interference will only make her task more difficult, and will leave her embittered and indignant, and perhaps revengeful, a potential ally for an enemy of ours in the futurg. Without a great war we cannot force upon Russia the blessing of an English Constitution, and we are not in a position to wage a great war, nor would our people consent to it. If, on the other hand, we can decide to let Russia work out her own salvation, we might, it seems to me, be able to help materially in the work without compromising ourselves morally or condoning atrocities and follies which we deplore. It is to the interest of the world's peace and prosp-rity that Russia should be regenerated and consolidated, and it behoves us and our Allies therefore to help and not to hinder her in her almost hopeless struggle to retrieve a tragic and a terrible past. Of course it may bo urged that the Soviet Government and the dictatorship of Lenin are established facts. Of there does not appear to be any absolutely conclusive evidence. If a state of civil war or insurrection still exists in Russia, if a policy of extermination and plunder is still being pursued and resisted, then any recognition of a provisional Government not yet a Government de facto would be premature. But iu that ease it is open to argument as to whether friendly overtures and peace conditions would not be a better policy for Russia and for us and for the rest of the world. Half-measures will not s,.rve. If we are not prepared to enter upon a great and doubtful war, interference would be madness. Conciliation is the only hopeful policy. If Britain and France and America would adopt an attitude of conciliation and sympathy towards the distracted people of Russia, counsels of reason and of mercy might prevail.