COMMUNISM.

 A surprisingly large number of people obviously imagine that Communism is of recent origin, and is likely to be of mushroom duration. They have a vague notion that it is a political importation from Russia, that it can appeal only to men of debased ideals and destitute of morals.

 It would clear the intellectual air, it would even sweeten public discussion, if some people who talk ominously of Communism would devote the time they spend in denouncing it to understanding it. It is a fact, which any one may proceed at once to prove, that comparatively few can give an intelligent informed account of this thing to which so many profess themselves bitterly opposed. For their own satisfaction, as well as in fairness to Communist propagandists, such citizens ought to acquaint themselves with the true nature of the doctrine. It is extremely likely that thereby their antagonism to Communism will become more intense than before, but their objections will be based on definite knowledge, not on stupid prejudice. Ignorance on the subject is inexcusable. Communism has a copious literature. Much of it, however, is disfigured by extreme views on one side or the other.

 In contrast to writing of that class there has just been issued a volume which, may be regarded as authoritative and impartial; it will also be found eminently lucid and readable. In the Home University Library series (Williams and Norgate) them is now included "Communism," by Harold J. Laski, (Professor of Political Science in the University of London. Professor Laski's final judgment is that Communism is a dangerous doctrine. Even if the possibility of its success be assumed, he considers that the cost of establishing it would be enormously high, while an attempt that ended in failure might easily come near to the destruction of civilised life. In his volume Professor Laski traces the process by which he reaches his conclusion.

 Communism aims at a society in which classes have been abolished as a result of the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It believes that this aim can be realised only by means of a social revolution, in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is the effective instrument of change. The world's attitude to these things is extremely divided. Some people do not regard the aim with disfavor, but they deplore the means, they distrust the instrument. Quite a host of people are prepared to include aim, means and instrument in one vehement comprehensive anathema.

 It is desirable to realise that Communism is no mere modern craze. It is old, and has a history that is for the most part honorable. It dates back to the birth of Western political thought. Christianity was impregnated with it. Throughout the Middle Ages numerous sects aspired to practise it. Admittedly it was not practised as an economic theory, but as an expression of piety.

 On the other hand, many able men with no claim to piety felt that the practice of private property led to economic inequality, and that economic inequality was fatal to human equality. For centuries the social structure continued to be simple, and men vaguely sought a solution to obvious evils along the line of ethics rather than that of economics. The French Revolution, however, transformed the worker's mode of thinking; the Industrial Revolution transformed his mode of earning his living.

 Men were for a time confused by the new society which sprang up as a result of the use of steam-driven machinery. The evils of industrial capitalism were discerned by men like Robert Owen, who sought to combat them with moral communism. But, despite Owen's practical experiments, men's ideas continued in a state of confusion. That confusion was cleared up by the advent of Karl Marx. Whether it be counted for good or evil, it is undeniable that Marx imparted to Communism a philosophy, and was the means of creating an international organisation which lays continuous emphasis upon the unified interest of the working classes of all countries.

 Professor Laski furnishes a judicial account and careful analysis of Communist economics; these are almost entirely a polemic in defence of Marx's "Capital." He subjects the Communist "Theory of the State" and "Communist Strategy" to similar treatment. The Communist will talk of the present social system only in terms of class war. His creed is that capitalism must be overthrown, and that it can be overthrown only by revolution. However that creed be regarded, it is impossible to ignore the fact that its adherents draw inspiration from it. They are eager to have the world converted: they are determined to have the gospel preached. People must realise that, in dealing with modern Communism, they are dealing with a new religion. Nothing is gained by dismissing it as intellectual or moral error. The only effective answer to Communism will be supplied when the champions of the existing social-economic system proceed to put their house in better order.

 Even those who reject Communist principles must admit there is much truth in the Communist indictment of modern capitalism. The productive and distributive methods of the latter are incapable of explanation in terms of social justice. Not unnaturally, workers whose employment is insecure and whose future contains no ray of hope, are inclined to succumb to Communism's radiant promises.

 And yet, these promises are as deceptive as they seem attractive. The fundamental defect of Communism is its refusal to recognise that this is a complex world; its problems are as intricate as they are varied. No single economic solution can hope to be all-embracing; no single method of social arrangement will meet humanity's diverse needs. To the average person the solution would seem to lie in more complete co-operation between the economic forces. Communism offers the formulæ of conflict and the class war.

 In a world that is striving to get rid of international war any appeal to carry on a class war is unlikely to evoke a wide response. Communists are not the only persons who are eager to establish economic justice and to increase opportunities for human happiness. Of the vast hosts of citizens who are sceptical as to the claims of Communism many would gladly co-operate in the work of ushering in a worthier social order. But they repudiate the barbarous theory that revolution and war, class or any other kind, are a necessary preliminary.

 Even if these things could be proved necessary, there would still be grave doubts if the political and economic organisation called Communism would be satisfactory. It is significant that, even in Russia, the Communistic Mecca, the movement has been defeated, not by armed forces which capitalism is supposed to be able to command, but by the stolid refusal of the Russian peasantry to play the part assigned to them in the new system.

 The fatal defect in the Communist is his foreshortened vision. The only goal he can see is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The rest of the world, however will continue to reject the Communist doctrine until they can see a good deal further into the Communistic future.

Age (Melbourne, Vic. ), August 1927 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article206166395