THE " SPECTATOR " AND SOVIET RUSSIA.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I am not accustomed to entering into controversy with Bishops, but the letter which appears in your issue of June 22nd, from the Right Reverend Bishop of Cashel and Water- ford is so intolerant in its attitude that it has stimulated me to take up my pen. I had not thought that a dignitary of the Christian Church could show such a lack of what I should call "the Spirit of Christ," and beg you to allow me to add the present note to your own short reply to his attack. The Spectator has adequately answered the Bishop from its own point of view ; may I but add some remarks on the ground chosen by the Bishop himself ?
First of all, is it true that "every moral principle ever bordering upon Christianity has been thrown to the winds" in Russia ? It is indeed true that the slaughter and brutality which formed a part of the revolution was indeed contrary to such principles ; but in so far as only that is concerned, we cannot judge, for the Great War and all our previous history have shown that we are not above slaughtering our neighbours where to do so has been deemed necessary. Let us judge not, lest we too be judged.
Again, it is indeed true that since the Revolution, morality, in the sense of "Morality-according-to-the-dictates-of-the- Churches," has been thrown to the winds in Russia ; but does this mean that the morality of Christ was abandoned ? Surely the ideal of Communism is the modem counterpart of the Ideal of Christ concerning man's earthly behaviour, slightly adapted to present-day conditions ; and the ideal of freedom of action on the part of individuals, so long as it is in accordance with the command, "Love thy neighbour as thyself," is also according to the teaching of Jesus ! Simply because the Russians have seen fit to close down some of the Churches and to allow greater freedom in marriage, this does not mean that they have abandoned morality. I agree, of course, that the paramount reliance on Force as the means to the end desired is contrary to the teaching of Christ ; but since we, like all other peoples, have established our Empire by such Force, surely we dare not judge others lest we ourselves be judged.
On the subject of " honour " there is little to be said. It is true that Russia has renounced certain debts abroad ; but that has been done by other States without their " honour " being questioned. Surely the obligations of Governments cannot as a rule be judged as simply as the Bishop suggests : the degree to which one Government may undertake or renounce the obligations incurred by a previous one is an intricate question of political science, and the condemnation of the Bishop, without proof or argument, seems slender and malicious.
The Bishop of Cashel writes of an attempt on the
part of Russia to "drag down" other countries to her own level. I should like to know on what basis the Bishop so places Russia on a low level. Is it merely her attitude to the Church ?—or her economic condition ?—or merely because the Soviet Government and the Bishop do not see eye to eye on certain metaphysical and ethical problems ? Russia is, at the present time, passing through her Industrial Revolution. She is organizing this change so as to equalize its hardships and to minimize its suffering. Surely when we consider our- own Industrial Revolution, the prosperity of the few on the one side, and the labouring of the little children and the , women on the other, we realize what merits a socialistic form of control might have had, and we see the potentialities of - Russia's form a Government at the present time; especially when it can learn the methods of large-scale organization from the United _States and the rest of Europe.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
