THE USELESSNESS OF REVOLUTION
MR. NORMAN ANGELL has written a book for -■31- which we have been waiting. Must Britain Travel the Moscow Road.? (Noel Douglas, 38 Great Ormond Street, W. 5s. net) is the best answer we have yet read to the pretension of the Russian Com- munists that they have something to teach the British wage-earner. It is indeed a shattering answer. Others have written profound and convincing criticisms of Sovietism which have gone far more into detail than Mr. Angell attempts to do ; but Mr. Angell has this advantage that throughout his writing he has the air of a man who is saying, " I have no prejudices whatever. I would sympathize with these people if I possibly could—but on the evidence I simply can't." His method is detached, cool, curious, purely scientific. He assumes the truth of certain political arguments with which we heartily disagree, but—let us say it again—it is just for that reason (because he would not object to being a revolutionary if he thought that revolu- tion was of the least use) that we find Mr. Angell extra- ordinarily persuasive. His creed is, " I believe in anything that will work. I do not believe in anything that won't work."
Mr. Angell leads up to his culminating point about the miserable failure of Russian Communism by gradual stages in which he discusses the proper functions of State control and individual enterprise. Although the book is small the writing has an air of leisure. It is easy to read because it is done with the gift of exposition. Mr. Angell takes ideas and principles and examines each in turn from various points of view. He reiterates yet he never seems to be repeating himself, because the whole thing is done deliberately, not carelessly. He is right to warn, us against false antitheses. It has long been impossible, and it is much more impossible in these days than it used to be, to draw a hard-and- fast definition between State action and individualism. It is all a matter of expediency. When horse traffic began to be superseded by railway locomotives the control of most of the transport by individual proprietors ceased to be practical. Even though the new railway com- panies were " private " they could not operate without having their whole existence conditioned by the State, which forced the sale of land and insisted in return that the nation shoUld be rewarded with certain permanent rights.
Although expediency often decides new political suits in favour of State intervention, " capitalism "- so to describe the present system—has been rightly left alone as not merely the most Practical, but by far the most advantageous basis upon which our society can be conducted. In a perfect world of the unimaginable future another basis might be possible, but even if we make that admisaion the change must be gradual and few writers have done better service than Mr. Angell in this book in demonstrating that gradualness is not a kind of timidity, but is the only practical way. Revolu- tion, he shows, belongs to the infancy of a nation.
But who, he asks in effect, is to be blamed if the hand- worker is still wondering whether or not revolution is desirable ? Die-hards and old-fashioned employers blame the " paid agitator," but, as Mr. Angell points out, no paid agitator ever yet made a revolution. The " agitator " may cause a great deal of trouble and may do a great deal of mischief, but he cannot bring off the big thing. If revolution comes it will come because the wage-earners do not get satisfaction in fields where they earn it and deierve it. They may be thwarted 4-"6 deserts by the foOlishness of their own leaders or by the stupidity or the selfishness of their employers. As for the second possible cause it is the duty, in our view, of the Unionist Party to prove to the wage-earner that capitalism can be a truly beneficent system, and that even if revolution could do what revolutionaries believe it would still be absolutely unnecessary.
So long as British industry on its present basis fails to keep the peace, fails to pay high wages and fails generally to improve the conditions of the worker, so long will there be a reason, or at all events an excuse, for the labourer to talk of revolution. Yet revolution, the speedy revolution of violence, settles nothing. Mr. Angell proceeds to a devastating analysis of exactly what the Russian Communists have accomplished, or rather have not accomplished. He dissects Trotsky's book, and with freezing scorn lays bare the calm assump- tion of the Bolshevists that they have done something which they have not come within a million miles of doing. Trotsky's pose, like that of all other Com- munists, is to say, " We Russians have achieved a revolution which is unique. We alone have done it. And now we are prepared to teach the rest of the world how they can do the same thing."
Mr. Angell's criticism is that the Bolshevists, one and all—particularly Trotsky—have wholly omitted to describe what their achievement is.
Trotsky is in the position of a conjurer who should say, " Ladies and gentlemen, you have been delighted and mystified by the way I produced a rabbit out of my hat. I shall now proceed to explain to you precisely how I did it." while all the time the audience have no reason for being either delighted or mystified because they have not- seen a rabbit at all. The Bolshevists announced that they would create the first Communistic nation. They have utterly failed to do so.
Their defeat began from the first moment when they were resisted by the peasants. The wonderful vie inertiae of that obstinate and conservative class brought Communism to naught. What is gradually being created in Russia now is a petite bourgeoisie—the very thing that Bolshevists abhor.
Among the peasants capitalism has been reborn and the happiest peasant is the successful profiteer. In the industry of the towns also Communism has collapsed. Lenin, that arch-realist, admitted the failure. He invented the New Economic Policy which leases industries to private enterprise. If Lenin had lived the trans. formation of Communism would have been even quicker. He did not hesitate to jeer at those who thought they could take over technical work without having learned how to do it. It is capitalism that has trained the technicians. In one breath the amazingly illogical Trotsky admits that the technicians are necessary and declares that they must be removed—because they are all bourgeois !
The truth is very old and very simple that you cannot get on without the people who know how to do things. British Labour is fond of speaking of its problem as though it were just a matter of capturing power from an interested class. But as Mr. Angell says, that is not the problem at all. The trade unions, he declares, must train themselves for their future responsibilities. Why do they not begin by the creation of a really efficient Press ? There would be the:beginning of discipline and solidarity. With the help of that Press they could promote a co-operative movement, organize Trade Union Banks and develop workers' credits. Such is the way of progress. Gradual con- struction is the secret. The talk of revolution—which is an un-doing—is misleading, silly, demoralizing.
Previous page
