6
THE NORTHMAN
THE NEW MILITARISM OF RUSSIA
A/IUCH is being blamed upon the Bol-
1 1 shevism of Russia—undoubtedly alto
gether too much. As a matter of fact, we
know very little of the operation of what
is called the soviet system. We know this
much: That it is set up as an ideal in self-
government for men to struggle for. We
get glimpses from various views from va
rious angles by various individuals which
must be taken for what they are worth as
views undoubtedly possessing some and
probably, a deal of truth. It may be much
like sitting on the side lines of a motion
picture show—somewhat distorted—but
something of the true direct view will be
acquired.
The New York Tribune in a recent edi
torial article discussed an interview given
to John Clayton, its correspondent,
by Leon Trotzy at Moscow, on the Soviet
system, presenting a picture of commun
ism as it works out in reality. The fol
lowing is from The Tribune:
The picture offers a significant contrast
to the ideal design of a socialistic com
munity presented by theorists. We com
mend the comparison to our parlor pinks
and sentimental radicals.
Trotzky says that in organizing com
munist society “militarizing economic life”
must be resorted to. “This militarization,”
he explains, “is all the more necessary be
cause we have undertaken the mobilization
of peasantry on a large scale for the solv
ing of problems demanding application for
a large number of people.”
This is a mild phrase, “mobilization of
the peasantry,” but what does it mean?
It means that the farming masses of Rus
sia are molded into a working army by
force and in this disciplined and compact
form are used as their rulers will and di
rect. •
But Trotzky’s “militarization of eco
nomic life” does not stop with the peasant.
“Some comrades,” he goes on to remark,
“might say that while we may have re
course to militarization when applying to
labor (common) and mobilized peasants,
such militarization is not justified when
dealing with skilled labor because there are
the trade unions to organize.” But he holds
that the military structure is superior and
adds this significant statement: “In a
carefully planned organization like ours
labor ought to be transferred from one
front to another and commanded exactly
as soldiers are.”
No autocracy in modern or ancient times
has conceived, much less executed, such
mastery of a whole people’s energies and
individual freedom. The German system
of militarization for war is a pale shadow
of autocracy against this tremendous dom
ination. The “militarism” our pacifists are
prating about—that is, obligatory training
for a few months or even, as in France,
for two years, and obligatory service in
case of war—is a joke in comparison.
Wars, after all, do not occur oftener than
once or twice in a generation. But the
communist autocracy takes over the daily
life of all Russians, puts the individual in
the ranks for a perpetual daily servitude
to the will of his rulers. All life is a mob
ilization and men are “transferred from
one front to another and commanded ex
actly as soldiers are.”
How would the American skilled me
chanic or the American farmer or the
American day laborer like this system?
How would they like being mobilized and
under command “exactly as soldiers are,”
being dispatched to dig a canal in the trop
ics, to drain the swamps of the lower Mis
sissippi, to mine the coal of Alaska?”
“Citizen-Comrade Federal No. 3,417,802
will report May 15th, at a. m., with tools,
at mobilization station No. 11,708 under
mobilization order 702 for service in the
Death Valley irrigation project. By order
of Chief of Staff, Irrigation Division, Eco
nomic Army, Proletarian Republic of
America,” etc., etc.
Pleasant thought for Americans. We
do not know that such a system is not nec
essary to save Russia at this stage of her
development. It is clear the Russians can
not get along without despotism. They
cut down the inefficient despotism of the
czardom, but they were not ready for the
life of freemen, so a new despotism was
set up by the forces of life which always
compel order to emerge from the worst
chaos. The new despotism is very likely
better for Russia than the old. It is more
intelligent, more efficient, more powerful.
But it is despotism.
We speak of Russia because it is in Rus
sia the tremendous demonstration is going
on, but the lesson applies to the whole So
viet experiment. When Lenin and Trotzky
took over the revolution they undoubtedly
expected, as all Socialist theorists do, that
men would discipline themselves and work
for the common good. It did not turn out
that way. It never will while the nature of
man is what it is and has been since time
began. The Russian masses, released from
the tyranny of the old system and deprived
of the incentive of private profit, lost all
discipline and ceased to work. Chaos en
sued until Lenin and Trotzky were forced
to adopt measures of coercion. The czar
had his Cossacks and his courts. Lenin
and Trotzky formed the Red guard. There
was a change of names and personalities.
Let us say also a change in purpose and
ideals. But the method was identical.
Force was a necessity and force was or
ganized and today rules the people of Rus
sia as they never have been ruled before.
The Socialist state must always do this.
Remove the private incentive, the force of
private need or private ambition, and col
lective force must be used. The Socialist
state can never be anything but a despot
ism, reaching deeper into private life, con
trolling more of men’s activities than any
other form of organization known yet to
mankind. It may provide material security
and provision for the masses of men more
uniformly than individualist society. But
it can only do so by the abolition of all
private liberty.
The American prefers to take his chance
with life as a freeman, his chance to suf
fer or to achieve. He prefers to grow and
to progress through individual effort and
not to surrender his all to a collective will
even if it purports and sincerely purposes
to rule him for his own welfare.
Perhaps the Russians must pass through
this experience before they can be efficient
as freemen. We must hope the new des
potism will become and remain benevolent
although despotism does not tend to re
main benevolent. But to be benevolently
ruled does not lead men toward freedom.
Every man’s task is his life-preserver.
THE TRUTH IN TEXTILES.
lUf UCH legislation the past few years has
1 been directed toward preventing the
producer from palming off on the public
inferior products thru various flim-flam
methods of marketing. The fruit industry
presents an example. Efforts are being
made to carry similar protection for the
consuming public into manufacturing
lines, and needless to say, the movement
is meeting with strenuous opposition.
One of these is the “truth-in-fabrics bill,”
introduced in Congress by Representative
Burton L. French, of Idaho. The measure
requires cloth manufacturers to stamp on
each and every piece of cloth the per
centage of virgin wool contained, and the
amount of shoddy, if any, with the same
requirement for clothing made up for the
market. In defense of his bill Represen
tative French says:
It is, of course, apparent who the ones are
who are opposed to the bill. They are not the
consuming public, but they are the ones who are
handling woolen fabrics that the public cannot
know as to the contents of virgin wool and
shoddy. Their arguments against the bill are the
stock arguments that were made against the
pure food and drug law, the oleomargarine law,
and every other law that has sought to protect
the public from the unscrupulous.
One dealer says that there would be great dif
ficulty in the marking—that is, the mechanical
process.
We showed to the committee by abundant
evidence that this is not correct. Some manu
facturers are today branding and marking their
fabrics to show their trade marks, to show their
firm name, or to show the contents of the fabric.
We showed the committee that the cost would
be approximately one-fifth cent per yard, or in
other words, less than one cent for a suit of
clothes.
Without the text of the bill discussion of
its provisions, is of course, out of the
question. But if its object is honestly
aimed, and works no hardship or mischief
to the manufacturer, opposition appears
in a poor light. The* reliable manufac
turers should welcome such a measure as
protection against the unscrupulous.
There is no reason Why the public should
not be apprised of what goes into fabrics
as well as what goes into an apple box, or
a milk bottle.
HOW BRITAIN DEALS WITH
RADICALS.
'T'HE British government, functioning
with noiseless precision, is shipping to
Russia hundreds of what her public offi
cials are pleased to call extreme radicals.
There are no soviet arks ; no pleadings be
fore federal judges and no dock-side dem
onstrations. As fast as these destruction-
ists are overtaken in their missionary work
they arè sent aboard a vessel whose
destination is nearest the Soviet coast
and ticketed for their former homes with
instructions to remain there under penalty
of severer punishment if they return.
THE BEAUTIFUL NAME
(L. M. Montgomery)
I think people make their names nice or ugly
just by what they are themselves. . . . Live
so that you beautify your name, even if it wasn’t
beautiful to begin with, making it stand in peo
ple’s thoughts for something so lovely and pleas
ant that they never think of it by itself.
The best known American road in Europe is
the Columbia Highway, which rivals the famous
Alpine thoroughfares of Switzerland; and the
Riviera road along the Mediterranean, in the
south of France, famous thoroughfare which
passes the Louvre, palace of the former kings of
France and present leading art gallery of the
world, was laid out by Julius Caesar 55 years be
fore Christ.