Correspondence
A LETTER FROM MOSCOW. [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The signature of the Anglo-Soviet protocol in London was welcomed here as a success for Soviet diplomacy, but the tone of newspaper comment was more restrained than might have been expected: It is fully realized in Moscow that long and arduous negotiations must take place before any per- manent and satisfactory settlement can be reached, and although Soviet amour propre was gratified by Mr. Henderson's willingness to renew diplomatic relations beforehand, so that subsequent' discussions might be carried on "in complete mutual equality," as the phrase goes here, a certain measure of uncertainty persists and will not be wholly dispelled until the exchange of ambassadors, with the approval of Parliament, becomes a fait accompli.
The truth of the matter is that Russia believed, and to a certain extent continues to believe, that His Majesty's Govern- ment was far less eager to renew relations with the U.S.S.R. than its pre-election pledges would seem to indicate, and that it only decided to do so ,under pressure of the rank and file of the Labour, Party and of business interests anxious to share in the Soviet industrial expansion. It is not unlikely, there- fore, that the Soviet terms to-day will be somewhat stiffer than those of the MacDonald-Krassin agreement of 1924, which, if your correspondent's information is correct, is regarded by Moscow as little more than a general foundation on which to build negotiations. On one point in particular, that of debts and claims, it may be taken for granted that this country will refuse to contemplate any system of payments by the Soviet which does not involve at least an equivalent advance of British capital, in the form of a loan or long-term credits. There has been, however, a gradual but quite perceptible change in the Soviet attitude towards the Labour Government in the past few weeks. There is still a considerable degree of mistrust, bordering at times on hostility, but in much of the public comment there now appears a new note of respect, not openly expressed but to be read between the lines.
This is no doubt due to the success of the Hague Conference, which Moscow confidently expected to fail—the Press here was full of sneers at "victors squabbling over spoils," and "the breakdown of post-War capitalist stabilization "—but also to the improvement in Anglo-American relations, as shown by the visit of Mr. MacDonald to the United States. It has long been an article of faith in Communist dogma that Anglo-American rivalry would lead sooner or later to war, and much as Moscow professes to despise "pacifist gestures" or "pseudo-disarmament," Soviet statesmen are too clear- sighted to miss the significance of recent events.
The internal situation in Russia presents curious anomalies. On one hand the first of the five fiscal years, linked together in a comprehensive budget programme called the " Five Years Plan," or more colloquially, " Pyatiletka," was concluded on September 30th with unexpectedly good results as far as industrial expansion is concerned. Industrial production was found to have increased not by 21.4 per cent., as planned, but by 24 per cent., and there was an even more striking gain in the proportion of socialized or collective agriculture, which rose from 2 per cent. of all land cultivated in the year 1927-28 to 10 per cent, this autumn. Against that, however, the quality of goods produced was not kept up to standard, and the planned reductions in first costs were not achieved. It was found necessary, too, to increase the volume of paper currency by upwards of eight hundred and fifty million roubles during the past twelve months without a corresponding increase in sold reserve, which has produced many of the phenomena of inflation. Finally, the disparity. between prices of food products and manufactured goods and the inefficiency of distribution and sales on the part of the co-operatives, which have largely replaced private traders, have brought about so considerable a shortage of foodstuffs that almost everything is now rationed on a card system, including breadstuffs, despite an excellent harvest. As days pass it becomes more and more clear that the Kremlin is determined to force socialism upon this country willy-nilly, and no means are neglected to destroy the Old and establish the New. Thus it was recently decided to abolish Sunday altogether and introduce a new calendar of six five-day weeks per month—the "unbroken working week" as it is called. Each worker or employee (later each schoolchild too) will have one free day in every five, the day remaining constant throughout the year, but so arranged that one-fifth of the population will have its holiday each day of the week, thus abolishing the general weekend holiday with its religious and family associations. For the time being the old names, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, will be retained, but it is planned to change them at the begin- ning of 1931, when the reform is to become effective throughout the Union, to Hammer, Sickle, Star, &c. The remaining five days in the year will be Bolshevik Holidays, "outside the calendar" (the Anniversary of Lenin's death and the Revolution,, the first of May, &c.). Leap year, also outside the calendar, will be "Industrialization Day," presumably to be celebrated by working. During 1930 the new calendar and the old will function side by side, which is likely to prove no less confusing than it sounds.
A remarkable play has just been produced by the Meyerhold theatre called Komondarm 11 (the second army commander), written some years ago in verse by the post-revolutionary poet Selvinski. Meyerhold, as a good communist, always likes to give his productions a topical tone, and as at present there is much discussion in the communist party between the intellectual and the proletarian elements, he has utilized— and developed—Selvinski's play, in which the action is based on a struggle between the proletarian commander of a red partisan force, Choob, and his rival, the intellectual Okommy. The stage setting is novel and successful, but attempts to improve the already poor acoustics of the theatre have lamentably failed. For some unknown reason all actors, or at any rate all Russian actors, raise their voices when declaiming verse. The result is that the audience literally does not hear clearly more than three words in ten. This drawback is somewhat remedied by the fact that Selvinski's play is already fairly familiar to the more cultured Moscow public, but its most dramatic moments are spoilt by a chaos of incompre- hensible noise.
YOUR MOSCOW CORRESPONDENT.
Moscow, October 10th, 1929
Previous page
