The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 1, 1925, Page 4

yA MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION Trades Union Congress General Council Delegates HERBERT SMITH, J. P, Nineteen years president Yorkshire Miners’ Fe- Salford 1917. Seat held until 1924, Remained dockers’ general secretary deration. President, Miners’ Federa- | until amalgamation to Transport and tion of Great Britain since 1921. Vice- {General Workers’ Union, Now secret- president, 1907. Served on several}ary of Political and International De- royal commissions. President, Inter-| partment of Amalgamated Union, national Miners’ Committee. Member | Member of trades union congress gen- of school board, West Riding (Yorks).|eral council since 1922. Member of county council and other public bodies | parliament mmittee, trades for many years. Member, parliament- | union congress, ary committee, trades union congress, JOHN TE 1913-16, and general council, 19 i Appointed J, P. in 1915, Member, cen- tral committee, miners’ welfare and central committee, mining examining board. BEN of trade of Docke ssociated with nce 1884, In- d leatie: f thought, as Morris, Belfort E and other pio- neers. Closely associated with prince Kropotkin from 1886 until his return to Russia in 1917. A pioneer of shop ation and founder of Shop Union. Official .of . this ialist TILLETT, general secretary unions since 1889, Founder ’ Union which originated from the Tea Coopers and General Laborers’ Union established in 1887. A pioneer of trade union movement nationally, Contested several parlia mentary elections. Elected for North ants’ union from 1898 until retirement general secretary after twelve years in this position until 1924. Elected to general council, trades union congress, { 1924, THE DAILY, WORKER 1921; re-elected by congwess each year to 1924 for period to September, 1925. JOHN BROMLEY, M. P. A pioneer of railway trade unionism and held many pobitions of tftst~prior to ap- pointment as branch s@€pelary of As- sociated Society of Lox ive Engin- eers and Fireman, 1904, lected or- ganizing secretary of, th® union, 1910. Secretary also of congfliatton” boards. Elected general secretary. 6f ¢ e union, 1914, Elected member of labor party executive, 1920 and 1921. president, at pyesent occupying this position. Elected tg trades union con- gress general Goun@il, 1921, re-elected each year until 192%, for term ending September, 1925, A. A. PURCERY (chairman of dele- gation), Memberj|} Furnishing Trades Union since 18 Member, social-de- mocratic federat lh many years. Mem- ber, Salford Bor®ugh Council for six years. Sectional _secretary, subse- quently organizer,sfurnishing trades, Elected | Parliamentary Gandidate, West Sal- member of trades union oohgress gen- | ford, 1910, Contested Coventry, 1923- eral council, 1922-24. Member of la-|24. Elected 1923. Successful arbitra- bor party delegation to Ireland, Three | tor in co-operative and other disputes. times candidate for Barrow, elected | Elected to general council, trades Prominently associated with la-| union congress, 1919, re-elected each bor and socialist propaganda for many | year. Elected by trade union interna- years, tional conference, Vienna, 1924, as ALAN A. H, FINDLAY, member of | president. President at 1924 trades. United Patternmakers’ Association | union congress. Vice-Chairman, gen- since 1893. Branch secretary andjeral council, Appointed delegate to other offices. Elected assistant gen-| American labor conyention, 1925, Ac- eral secretary, executive department, | companied the delegation to Russia in 1913, Elected general secretary, 1917. | 1920. Ce labor movement. Sey: | ant secretary, trades. union congress, 1917; general secretary, 1923. Served on several government committees. with “@larion” newspaper. Formerly | Member of royal commission on na- organinzing secretary, Furnishing! tional health insurance and national Trades ASsociation. Appointed assist- | debt commission. eral years.full time lecturer on social and econgmic subject in connection Advisory Delegates ——_————$—_—— HAROLD G. GRENFELL, entered, ary 1st division clerk, 1919-23, navy, 1888; retired in 1920 with rank ” GEORGH YOUNG, educated at Eton of captain, Admiralty intelligence de- and foreign universities. M. V. O. partment, 1904-05; "Governor of Hong Diplomatic service (passing in Rus- Kong Naval Prison, 1907-08; Admiral- sian) 1896-1915, Admiralty intellig- ty war staff, 1910-11; naval attache, ence, 1915-18, : Volunteered in ranks, British embassy, St. Petersburg, April February, 1918 and commissioned R. 1912 to November 1917; head of naval M. A. August. Dafly News correspond- mission to Foland, December 1918-} ont thru German revolution, December June 1919; joined independent labor | 19;8-august 1919. Professor of Portu- party, 1919. Member of advisory com-| guese, 1919-1922 and examiner in Ot- mittee on army, navy and pensions, toman law, London University. Joined A. R. McDONELL, educated at St. Paul’s School, London. C. B. E. (Civil) Resident in Russia, 1902-1919; British vice-consul, Baku, South Russia, 1907- nied delegation to Russia in 1920. Member of advisory council on inter- national affairs. Parliamentary candi- Formerly treasurer, Engineering and FRED BRAMLEY: (secretary to de- Shipbu: ng Trades Federation for |legation)., Many years actively asso- three years, subsequently appointed | ciated with political and industrial 1916, British military forces in Cou- easus and North Persia, 1916-19 (tem- porary major), Foreign office tempor- date, South Bucks., 1923 and 1924. Author of numerous works on foreign affairs, RUSSIA T | (Continued from Yesterday's Daily Worker ) SYNOPSIS—War Nationalism were among the interesting subjects which appeared in yester- day’s instalment of the official report of the British Trade Union Delegation to Soviet Russia, now appearing every day in the DAILY WORKER, ceding instalments have dealt with finances, and 4 description of the route taken by the seven British trade union leaders who reported so favorably on conditions in the Soviet Union. * * @ @ Communism and the New Economic Policy and Pre- Trusts and Syndicates The New Economic Policy restored not only the fundamen- tal right of private enterprise, but also re-erected on it some- what similar superstructures to those that have grown up in other countries, such as Trusts, Syndicates, and Banks. These were reproduced in Russia as State organisations operating on a self-governing and self-supporting basis. In other words, Big Business and High Finance in Russia are both under direct Government control, and do not, as elsewhere, indirectly control the Government. In some cases, as in the “Mixed Companies,” in which public and private capital participate, new forms havé been created.» And in all cases care must be taken not to con- fuse these Trusts and Syndicates, which are a development of nationalisation on a business basis, with European Trusts and Syndicates. The Russians, first, under War Communism na- tionalized all commerce and industry, and then, under the New Economic Policy denationalised all that was without direct national importance, but “‘socialised” Big Business and High Finance. With us private enterprise is preparing nationalisa- tion from a business basis by organising industry on national lines. In Russia the Revolution is reconstructing a nationalised industry and commerce on a business basis. The ultimate end will be much the same in both cases. But the present penulti- mate stage is very different. In Russia producers are rapidly acquiring sufficient freedom for the efficient conduct of their operations. In Europe the State is at present making little or no progress towards acquiring control over profiteers. The demobilisation of industry was put in hand with great promptitude. By the end of 1922 there had been created 426 Trusts, each composed of factories mostly occupied in the same branch. of industry. There were also by then 20 Syndicates or Combinations of Trusts for financial and commercial co-opera- tion. All these, as well as the “Mixed Com ies,” operate un- der concessions. i Concessions These are generally considered as originating in the New Economic Policy. But the first Congress of Councils of Na- tional Economy in April, 1918, issued a decree establishing a program of concessions for the attraction of foreign capital, and this decree was only suspended owing to the last invasion of Russia by the capitalist Powers. With the end of these hos- tilities in 1920 it again became applicable, a resumption that ante-dated somewhat the New Economic Policy. The difference under the New Economic Policy is that many of the powers given under concessions as privileged exemptions in the time of War Communism are now made generally applicable by the New Economic Policy Concessions in Russia have nothing peculiar in principle, only as nationalisation is still on a much larger scale than else- where concessions have a larger scope. In so far as they con- cern public services, lighting, transport, ete., they are very simi- i aracter to concessions in other States. But these Rus- ons for public services, industrial exploitation, sian conce’ banking, foreign commerce are subject to certain requirements. such as minimum of production, previously applicable for the most part only to mining and such matters. Another peculiarity is that Russian concessions are-in the form of contracts between the State and the private person, though in fact they are admin- istrative and unilateral. As to whether concessions confer a right of ownership or only usufruet, Article 55 of the Civil Code, which provides “that large industries may not come.into private ownership otherwise than by concession,” seems to allow the first. Whereas Article 22, which only allows nationalised enter- prises, buildings and vessels to be leased, contemplates the sec- ond, But as the concessionaire may neither sell, mortgage nor lease the conceded property, and must personally exploit it under pain of invalidating the concession, there can be in prac- tice no question of ownership. He is not even an owner in the sense that English railways are in private ownership, be- cause his exploitation is very strictly limited in time. He is still less an é6wner if he holds under lease. For a concession is for periods sufficient to allow of amortisation of installation expenditures, whereas a lease is for no more than 12 years, requires the return of all equipment, and does not, like the con- cession, allow the exporter to sell old equipment. But the con- cessionaire and leaseholder do have full ownership in their work- ing capital, and, broadly speaking, in that alone. Leases Besides concessions private capital can operate under lease. These are different from concessions, which may concern only rights in property, in that they deal with the property itself. short (6-12' years) to repay any great outlay, and there is not short (6-12 years) to repay any great outlay, and three is not the same guarantee against loss due to legislation as in the con- cessions. j In some cases private enterprises can be started with only a departmental permit, as in the case of a printing business (Decree, December 2nd, 1920). Russian “Mixed Companies” also can obtain rights to work minerals on a small scale without a@ concession UNION Thru Courtesy of the International Pub- lishers Co. DAY Organisation of Trusts : The powers and position to be accorded to the Trusts were first worked out in the controversy over the formation of the Flax Trust, established by decree, August 12th,.1921. It was followed two days later by the general decree regulating the Trusts under the New Economie Policy. This at first limited to 10 per cent. the amount of produce at free disposal of the Trusts, which was, however, socn raised to 50 per cent. But a whole series of Trusts sanctioned by decree of October 27th, 1921, were allowed to dispose of their whole production. .At first the management of these Trusts was restricted ahd over-regulated, but before long it had become completely auton- omous; even exceeding that allowed to limited companies else- where, as, for example, in conclusion of loans. Finally, a decree of May 23rd, 1922, recognised these Trusts as judicial personali- ties. They are indeed in some respects in a more responsible and autorvmous position than the nearest things of the kind in Eurepe, such as Government railways and institutions. The reason for this is the intention in Russia to put these Trusts in a position to attract capital on their own account, The other form ‘of “Mixed” enterprise in which the Government partici- pates in'shares, was considered in Russia suitable, only for the smaller. concerns. 1 Status of Trusts The-position of the Central Trusts is regulated by the de- cree of April 10th and July 17th, 1923, that of the local Trusts by a decree of September 17th, 1923. The statutes of all the Trusts have now, within the last six months, been’ brought into conformity with these decrees. These enterprises’ have thereby now been definitely separated from the State. This decree rec- ognises the autonomy of the Trusts in all that concerns their operations,and in accordance with their Articles of Association. It substitutes a “commercial basis” for their operations, i.e., the making of a profit, for the previous “economic basis,” which only required. a business-like bookkeeping. This again involves a renunciation by the State of all requisitions»oreven require- ments from the Trust incompatible with commereial prosperity. On the other hand, the Government is not re8ponsible for the liabilities of the Trust, or loss of capital, other than debts from State enterprises. This decree also defines for the first time the property rights of the Trust with a view to enabling it to get credit. In the first place it was necessary to guarantee the Trust against loss and liability due to State interference, which is done»very fully by Articles 5 and 14. The State is, moreover, only entitled to any net profit after provision for sinking fund and the ‘putting of 20 per cent. to reserves as well as to any assetS ‘after liquidation of all liabilities. is divided into capital and working capital; statutory capital does not include property. Basic capital cannot be alienated or mortgaged except by consent of the Supreme Economic Council,. This applies also to long term loans. These provisions give the Trust a basis for credit; which is, however, restricted to its working (Oborotny) capital, against which alone creditors can proceed (Article 17). Structures, machinery, and* equip- ment generally cannot consequen:y be used as security. The function of debentures is taken by a Government guarantte. Private capital is excluded from holding shares, though an ex- ception in this respect is made in favour of co-operatives. The reason for this is that in the case of the co-operators there is no reason to fear the ultimate predominance of private capital. Each Trust is based.on Articles of Association (Ustav), which should more properly be called a Charter (prolozhenie) ; for, in legal lingo, these Trusts are neither Associations nor Corporations, but “etablissements publiques personnifies.”” They are judicial persons. The division of powers as between the directors and the Government (Supreme Economic Council) is based on the prin- ciple that the State assumes the authority assigned in a limited company to the general meeting of shareholders appointing the directors, etc. (Auditors are appointed jointly by the Supreme Council and the competent Trade Union.) Indeed, the State is excluded from intervention in the management to an even greater extent than is the general meeting. ‘Th State, like the general meeting, has authority over financial operations and all questions affecting the constitution and control of the Trust. To this must be added the usual authority assumed by the State over corporations under western legislation. All Trusts must be members of the Bourse and register their transactions. (Article 48, decree 10 IV. 23.) jl The Supreme Economic Council, the Council of Labour and Defence, and the Commissariat of Internal Trade, can, in “cases of necessity,” fix the selling price of its products (Article 48 ib.). In equal conditions Trusts must give preference to State organs and to co-operatives over private enterprises. _ By 1923, there were already 423 Trusts employing about one million workers. . Mixed Companies and Private Enterprises The mixed companies operate like private companies and in virtue of a concession, The only complicated feature of their structure is the State participation, which is not in money, but in material, land, building, etc. But as this nationalised prop- erty cannot be alienated, the State’s participation has to be expressed in the form of a remission of rent for a term, which complicates the balance sheet. Another peculiarity is that in- stead of the directors being appointed by the shareholders as a body, the State and the shareholders each appoint repre- sentatives. Be i In spite of these peculiarities, the mixed eompanies are, in respect of status, private companies. And, though there is a constant pressure,for hteir conversion into official organs, they are likely to retain their private character, But further juristic definition of their status is probable and desirable. —_ | THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE BRITISH TRADE The statutory capital . DELEGATION TO SOVIET RUSSIA Copyright in the United States by the International Publishers Co, All Rights Reserved. Copyright by the Trades Union Congress General Council in Great Britain. Concessions and Leases The function of the State, which is limited in principle to supervising mixed and private companies, may become in prac- tice a more serious control. For example, concessions and leases all-impose a minimum production, and Article 162 of the Civil Code requires its fulfilment. This, therefore, imposes on private enterprises a public responsibility in the interest of national production and public property. To this extent, these private exploitations are still public enterprises. State Syndicates These are institutions very illustrative of the adaptatbility and spontaneity of the present economic structure. The Syn- dicate is a combine of Trusts somewhat similar in organisation and object to the Syndicates organised by Big Business else- where. It is like them, a free association; by Articles, of autono- mous enterprises under a central management; which has in Russia a judicial personality. But whereas the Trust is a State organ, the Syndicate is a private association which as yet has not even been regulated. The functions of the Syndicate are defined in an official thesis issued by the Supreme Economic Council as being the better co-ordination and co-operation of the Trusts in financial-commercial operations in the sale of their products, and in the acquisition of raw material. © The Syndicates are directly under authority of the Supreme Economic Council. This authority is concerned with consent for the syndicalisation of any Trust with the confirmation of directors and auditors, the appointment of its own auditors, the inspection of audit and accounting, confirmation of distribution of dividends, and with dissolution. The Syndicate usually acts through an agent of its'members nad consequently does not require working capital. The Syndicates are in rapid process of development. They are, in fact, an amalgamation on a national basis of the indi- vidual Trusts engaged in each industry; and the more important industries, such as textile, oil, hides, tobacco, metals, etc., are all syndicated. Industrial Congresses These are conventions of representatives of all the ‘Trusts engaged in any industry, with a permanent secretariat. They have no legal status, but are recognised and even summoned by the Supreme Economic Council, and their resolutions are generally reproduced in its decisions. They are both interesting and important institutions in the reorganisation of production on a basis of national autonomous industries. Private Enterprise . Under the New Economic Policy private enterprise is in no way obstructed in the largest area of Russian production— that is in agriculture, home industry, and handicrafts (Ku- starni). Large mechanical industry is nationalised, but its machinery and equipment may be practically privately owned, which obviously will cause complicated questions of ownership. All industry, national and private, is now on a business basis, but national industry is conducted and private’industry in vari- ous degrees controlled in the interests of the National Economic Budget (Gosplan). National industrial enterprises can contract and even compete between themselves, but there is as yet little opportunity for such competition. On the other hand, the com- petition of private enterprise is encouraged in so far as it is a stimulant to the energy and efficiency of the national enter- prises. Competition of Public and Private Trading Although under War Communism private property was in principle abolished and private capital wherever possible con- fiscated, yet with the introduction of the New Economic Policy private enterprise revived immediately and seemed to have al: the financial resources it required. Private enterprise was in- deed at first over-capitalised; and the result, combined with excessive profits, was a “boom” with all its usual accompani- ments of profusion and profligacy. Private enterprise having succeeded somehow or another in preserving or even accumulating reserves of capital under War Communism secured a great start under the new economic system in its competition with the co-operatives and Govern- ment Trusts. The co-operatives were slow in reorganising, and so private enterprise secured the greater part, in some cases the whole, of the new retail business. It .may be of interest to trace the course of this competition in a representative manu- facture and raw material. In textiles, Government enterprises transacted in 1922— the first year of the New Economic Policy—about 60 per cent. of all retail trade, co-operatives about 6 per cent., and private traders 34 per cent. In salt the proportions, were: Govern- ment, 33 per cent; co-operatives, 20 per cent; private, 47 per cent. But this start secured by private enterprise, owing to its being quicker off its moorings, was gradually lost as the co- operatives and Government Trusts got under way and gath- ered momentum. By 1923 we find the Textile Trust selling to its own Trading Syndicate 36 per cent. of its output instead of 12 per cent; the Wool Trust 25 per cent instead of 5 per cent; the Linen Trust, which was left at the post, 2 per cent. instead of /3 per cent. While'the general average of output taken by aerate enterprise was only about 20 per cent. In the following first half-year of 1923-4 the Government tSyndicate took of cotton textiles 30 per cent., of wool, 45 per cent., of linen, 16 per cent., while private enterprise recovered a general average of about 30 per cent. In salt the official syndicate took as much as 47 per cent. in 1923, which, however, fell again to 30 per cent. in the,first half of 1923-4. (To be continued in next issue) MOSCOW SAVED ARMENIA SAYS _ ENGLISH WOMAN People Are Now Happy Under Soviet Rule The London Daily Herald carried the following story of an Englishwo- man’s experience in Soviet Armenia: Returned from a journey never be- fore made by an Englishwoman since the Russian revolution, Miss Magda Coe, Joint secretary of the Armenian the labor party, 1915, and accompa-|fund, nominated by the British gov- ernment to deal with Armenian settle- ment, declares: “Moscow has saved Russian Armenia.” For three months Miss Coe travel- led in the Caucasus, and thru the whole of the Armenian republic. “Having worked for so many years with and on behalf of Armenians, whom I have seen in the. depths of profoundest misery, what I have lately witnessed has come as a complete re- velation,” Miss Coe told a Reuter’s ‘Agency representative. “Never have I seen among Ar- menians such unaffected happiness, freedom from fear, and evident well- being. Three years ago Erivan,. the capital, was a city of starving people— today its streets ring with happy laughter. Free From Massacre. “For the first time these Armenians are free from massacre—and worse— and if the western world will try to understand something of what this freedom means it will realize that Moscow has saved Russian Armenia. “I am convinced,’ said Miss Coe, in reply to a question, “that people here do not realize how conditions have changed in Russia. Just before my arrival Chicherin and Rykoff passed thru Armenia. Told of a man who had been imprisoned for giving his father christian burial, Chicherin had the responsible officer before him and sen- tenced him to imprisonment. All churches .in Armenia—except two— are open daily, and bells are rung for srevice twice on week days and three times on Sundays. Doesn’t Need Revolver. “All this was to me a complete sur- prise. Before I left London on my mission I was told it was necessary to carry a revolver. I did not do so, and I never experienced anything but courtesy and consideration. “As to the movements against re- ligion, it was impressed upon me that the present reaction was one against parties rather than religion. A com- missar, from whose lips I never ex- pected such a view, said to me: ‘What we want is universal love and peace.’ “I asked about the dreaded Cheka, and was told that everything had been changed since three years ago, and that no one was put before it without proper trial and the right of appeal to the minister of the interior.” That will lead to an under- standing of COMMUNISM “The Source of All Com- munist Literature.” The Communist Manifesto Marx-Engels Cloth, 60 Cents Paper, 10 Cents The A. B. C. of Communism Bucharin-Preobrazhensky Paper,.50 Cents The Peoples Marx Julian hardt * Paper, 75 Cents The State and Revolution V. 1. Ulianov (Lenin) Duroflex Cover, 25 Cents Theory and Practice of Leninism 1, Stalin Duroflex Cover, 35 Cents The Daily Worker 1113 W. Washington Blvd. Chicago, Ill.