Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

STRIKES AND SOCIALISM.
To the Editor.
Sir,-A few days ago you reported
that all strikes and absenteeism had
been prohibited in Russia for the
duration of the war, and in a leader
today (Monday) you say that So
cialism would inevitably cause bitter
and widespread industrial unrest.
Now I understand that the Soviet
Government claims that Russia is
a Socialist country. But if Russia
is living under a social system which,
as your leader-writer so ably proves,
must cause numerous industrial dis
putes, then how and by whom are
Russian anti-strike laws enforced?
On the other hand, if the system in
Russia is not really Socialism, could
you explain through your valued
columns what it is and how it differs
from (1) Socialism and (2) Capital
ism?-Yours, etc,
NEIL McPHERSON.
Nedlands.
[A system of government which
may be eminently suited to the
people of one country is not neces
sarily capable of being adapted to
the circumstances of another coun
try. Communism, with its inevit
able regimentation of the life of the
individual, works in Russia, where
for centuries the mass of the people
have been little more than serfs.
Obedience to authority, however far
reaching and heavy-handed, is to
them second nature. But the British
speaking peoples, bred in the tradi
tion of individual liberty, do not take
kindly to regimentation, even when
the exigent demands of war make
it necessary. The Fremantle water
side trouble was the result of a re
fusal to recognise even this tem
porary necessity. Any attempt to
enforce, in normal times, universal
regimentation, must fail where the
will of the people, expressed through
the ballot box, prevails. Socialism
or Communism implies the complete
supremacy of the State; democracy
the supremacy of the people. We
leave our correspondent to imagine
what would happen to strikers in
war-time Russia.--Ed.]
$