[To the -Editor of TILE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Mr. Strachey's article in
your last week's issue gives at least a simple definition of -Communism which is illuminating. State ownership of all means of production (and presumably, of distribution), and the abolition of private ownership of any such means, is straightforward in theory, if not in practice. All men have then equal opportunity to gain unequal rewards according to their abilities. They enjoy the fruits of their labour, which may be large for those of outstanding ability, or small for those only capable of unskilled work. If this definition of Communism be accept- able to the party itself, what, then, is the difference between Socialism and Communism ? Why, if their ideals are the same, are so many members of the Labour Party afraid of being associated with Communism ? Is the distinction only one of method and of acceleration ?
The question as to which means of production and dis- tribution should be owned and organised by the State is surely one to be decided on the merits of each ease by the canons of efficiency, economy and expediency. It is time that such problems were settled as far aj3 possible by econo- mists and scientists, by civil servants and men of affairs, in the impartial atmosphere of the office and laboratory. The issues are too technical and too much complicated to be made into party war-cries for the attraction of those who have no knowledge or experience of their difficulties. The State-owned telephone service in England is fully as efficient and economical as the privately-owned service in the United States and elsewhere ; but equally, some privately-owned railways are as satisfactory as others which are owned by the State.
Dean Inge condemns Communism because of its use a force. Here we must, I think, remember to distinguish between the force used and misused in the attainment of power, and that used and misused after power has been attained. One cannot condone the atrocities of the Russian, any more than those of the French or Spanish revolutions. But in all fairness it must be admitted that these horrors do not necessarily invalidate the claims of Communism any more than the wars of religion invalidated the claims of Christianity. It is, however, pertinent to ask Mr. Strachey how he proposes to attain his Communistic ideal in this and other countries. Does he contemplate, the end justifying the means, a similar series of horrors in England, or has he some kindly anaesthetic with which to put out of action, temporarily or permanently, those who oppose his revolution ?
We come now, I think, to the crux of the question. Having attained power, how does Mr. Strachey propose that his totalitarian State be organised and governed ? Ideals, however worthy, must have some practical basis for their realisation. Is a Lenin or a Stalin essential to the Com- munist State ? Where are those to be found who have the ability to organise a State in which all the means of pro- duction and of distribution are run by one gigantic Civil Service ? It may be an exaggeration to say that the system matters less than the men who run it, but one would like to know how our existing organisation is to be replaced, and by whom. How are the rulers of the Communist State to be chosen, and who is to make the final decisions ? If one may judge by the expressed opinions of our present-day Communists and Socialists, there is likely to be some con- siderable differences of opinion amongst them when, if ever, they attain power. The present so-called governing classes would presumably be in exile, at the least ; has the Com- munist Party enough leaders of distinction, enough unanimity of aim and method, enough experience of practical affairs, even enough intelligence adequately to replace them ? It must be remembered that the Communists will have a much more complicated State to organise, and that, in order to justify themselves, they will have to make a greater success of their government than their less ambitious predecessors.
We are forced to the conclusion that Communism implies a Dictatorship just as much as does Fascism. This is an issue of more vital importance to the man, in the street than that of the extent of State interference and ownership. Does Mr. Strachey admit this ? And if so, are even his ideals worth the price ?—I am, Sir, yours obediently,
Previous page
