Swing (Jan-Dec 1945)

what's the matter with RUSSIA? two, three, four, up to twelve — and slapped them down and said, 'Thank you ver>' much,' and walked away, and they said, 'Mr. White! Mr. White! Come back!' You see? "Well, I didn't come back but as I came down with my bags, the hotel manager was standing there at attention and he had a little slip of paper which he handed to me and it was a receipt for 1200 rubles. And I said, "Well, thank you very much,' and I hope they understood and said, 'By the way, was that the exact amount of it? Are you sure I don't ovje you any more money?' as I was only guessing as to what the bill was. And he said, 'Our instructions are to accept whatever you offer.' "Now! — how are you going to beat that one? We made every effort. I, as a reporter particularly, wanted to be under no obligations, to feel that I had every right to render what I though v;as an honest report to the American people. There was nothing that they refused point blank to let us see except the actual fighting front. I will say that maybe we were derelict and possibly we should have asked to see more things . . . but we didn't." By the time Young Bill answered all the questions, it was twenty minutes of two, and the long lunch hour was over. But the shape of things to come in the Soviet Union was much plainer in the minds of those who attended. The son of the man who wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas" has done a good job of reporting what's wrong — and right — with Russia. THE DIFFERENCE HERE (With peTtjiission of The Reader's Digest we reprint an excerpt from W. L. White's "Report on the Russians. "J In America a man who saves money is regarded as a sound and valuable citizen. He performs a useful act, for out of such savings our industries are built and our farms improved. In Russia he is viewed with suspicion as a hoarder, a potential capitalist, someone to be watched for criminal tendencies toward exploiting his fellow workers by means of giving them jobs. These Socialists argue that panicky saving can stop all business activity and throw millions out of work. They say that the greatest waste of capitalism is the valuable man-hours of work which our natfon loses when these millions are idle. But are the capitalist depressions any more wasteful of liuman energy than this bureaucratic society with its inefficient methods, where almost every activity is a State monopoly, and where there is no competition to force inefficient businesses to reform or go broke.* True, these people don't stand in line at employment agencies. They work terribly hard and stand in line to pay $1.25 for a fresh egg. Although they work so hard, they produce so little that their living standard is less than was that of our jobless on work relief. During our depression as many as 5,000,000 of our people were for a few years down to this low WPA living standard. But in the Soviet Union about 180,000,000 people have been on an even lower living standard for 25 years. And only a few privileged millions know anything better. During this quarter century the Soviets have controlled one-seventh of the world's land surface, an area rich in natural resources. They explain this low living standard by pointing out that the Russian people lack technical experience and that Russia's resources are largely undeveloped. But to correct these things they had a quarter century of peace — which is a long time. The whole picture was nicely summed by William Henry Chamberlin, the veteran Moscow correspondent, who has written several scholarly books on the Soviet Union. Chamberlin was caught in Bordeaux the week that France fell. People were sleeping five and six in a room; grocery stores were sold out; there were long lines waiting to get into restaurants. Chamberlin surveyed all this and remarked to a fellow correspondent (who quoted it to me in Moscow): "You know, it takes a catastrophic defeat in war and a national convulsion to reduce France to that state of affairs which is normal' everj'day life in the Soviet Union!"