SS TS oS

—_———

 SOciations
~ English; it comes into scores

Sees

HOW LONG IS 40 YEARS?

than a month ago.
“Forty” has much richer as-
in Russia than in

©f phrases and folk-sayings,
élways with a cheerful, good-
Smened ring to it,. and “forty
forties” is the measure of
abundance in almost every-

_ thing.

That is probably because the
Word for forty (sorok), unlike
Sther multiples of ten in Rus-
Slan and other languages, is
Centuries older than the now
Universal system of. counting
M tens: originally it meant
Not an abstract arithmetical
40, but a hunter’s bundle of
Skins, “enough to make a
Coat.”

So the 40th anniversary is

' almost as important as a cen-

tenary and XL is being cele-
rated accordingly.

It seems to me that before
*nyone can get a general idea
Sf how far the Soviet Union
has: advanced in 40 years he

“Must first decide: “How long

1s 40 years?”

That sounds _ suspiciously
like “How long is a piece of
String” but the confusing pic-
ture of fantastic gains in
Some sectors and a_ strange
®ging behind in others can
make a fairly clear pattern—
and a very attractive one —

“When we calculate how long

“nd how short 40 years can
© in different spheres of life.
At one extreme (and in the
“Material” sphere) 40 years
S literally the whole of exis-
Nce—the entire lifetime of

Ny branches of science and
fechnology.

This was the scene fiv

_*Y linking five seas.

By ARCHIE JOHNSTONE

At the other extreme (and
in the “psychological” sphere)
40 years is only about one-
thousandth part of the life of
man as a species; and man as
an individual has not (accord-
ing to-many scientists) grown
noticeably in: pure _ brain-
power since the beginnings of
Greek civilization. .

In other words, Homo Sap-
iens of 1957 at his best does
not seem to have a much high-
er I. Q. than Aristotle or Soc-
rates.

That, by the way, -is not a
point of view that is often ex-
pressed here, and it is true
that it leaves out of account
the vital factors of the accum-
ulatibn and distribution c*
knowledge which can :add
rapidly and immeasurably to
a country’s total (or “collect-
ive’) brain power, especially
when a country deliberately
plans to increase that total.

However, if you care to ex-
amine any of the really great
advances here you will, I
think, find that they occur in
sectors where this fast-grow-
ing “collective ” brain power
is in action and that any lag-
ging behind is in sectors where
the slower - growing .“indi-
vidual” brain power is domin-
ant.

If that is an axiom then it
is an axiom many of us. (I

don’t exclude myself) failed to
keep in mind when it.seemed
to clash with some of our
deepest loyalties. There is still
a temptation to think of the
terrible events of the latter
part of “the Stalin era” as

Soviet achievements span

MOSCOW

_ Before all traces of the World Youth Festival symbol (a circle of intersecting circles)

had disappeared from the face of Moscow another symbol had begun to appear — XL.
Usually the anniversary of the revolution is a one-day affair, on November 7, but
the 40th (or XL) anniversary is a very special occasion, and some phases of it started more

“something contrary to na-
ture” — which amounts to
calling them supernatural.

There is,’ of course, no hu-
man remedy for ‘‘supernatural”
evils — and I think you will
notice that the remedies now
being applied consist in giving
more and more scope to “‘col-
lective” wisdom.

That is not always possible,
of course, and often the prob-
lem here is “Is this a case
where many hands make light
work or where too many cooks
spoil the broth?”

Naturally enough, the 40-
year reviews and reports here
bristle with statistics about
progress in the material
sphere, but heart - to - heart
talks I nave had with old-
timers remind me of a point
(often forgotten even here by
the younger generation) that
give these statistics an even
more favorable sound than
they have naturally.

These 40 years have been
beset by mountain-sized ob-
stacles which no other great
country has had to face, and
this is as good a time as any
for recaling some of them—the
heavy legacy of backwardness
of Czarist Russia (something
almost beyond the imagina-
tion of people in industrially
developed countries with wide
facilities for education even in
those days); the destruction
and poverty left in the wake
of the First World War; the
Civil War; foreign interven-
tion; the Second World War
(in which areas supporting 75
million Russians were over-

Beet Roe

: me years ago, ARE ORE 1952, when the Volga-Don Canal, named for Lenin,
; More than 100,000 people crowded the banks at the entrance to the canal as the first vessels sailed through the great water-

re =

8

" Pride of the Soviet
new Moscow University in the Lenin Hills on the outskirts
of the capital.

run); the cold war; encircle-
ment by hundreds of bases of
U.S.-led military blocs and—
without interruption during
all these 40 years — economic
blockade in varying forms and

a stream of threats from highy

placed military and other of-
ficials whose words have never
been disclaimed by their gov-
ernments.

In these circumstances any
advance is a remarkable ad-
vance, but in many import-
ant sectors of the Soviet econ-
omy the increase over the peak
Czarist year (1913) is more
than a hundredfold — not a
mere 100 percent but more
than 10,000 percent.

That is true even of annual
output in many cases (elec-
tricity and ‘niachine building

are examples) and, although
the gross annual industrial
output is only — only! — a

little more than 3,000 percent
of 1913, the total existing
stock of this essentially “dur-

able” production must be
many, hundred times greater

than all the plant, machinery
and “utilities” existing in 1913.

Production for consumption
does not show this fantastic
increase, (partly, of course, be-
cause it does not accumulate,
but is consumed!); by the end
of this year it will be 11 times

2 saan
‘ eae

was officially opened.

ion’s

great educational system is the

greater than in 1913. But even
that is fantastic compared with
the figures in any non-socialist
country.

How much of these ad-
vances is reflected in today’s
standard of living?

Accofding to the USSR
Labor Research Institute
“goods which in 1947 cost 1,000
rubles can now be bought for
430 rubles.”’ That coincides
closely with my own experi-
ence over these last 10 years.
Try to imagine buying for $43
today what cost $100 in 1947.

The gain for lower - paid
workers is even higher, be-
cause price reductions affected
necessities and near-necessities
more than luxuries. That is
true, too, of items of “income”
that do not come in the pay
envelope — pension and social
Security rights, school and uni-
versity stipends, maternity and
family grants, medical serv-
ice, holiday and sanatorium fa-
cilities, and so on. This “in-
visible income” equals one-
third of the wages of factory
and efficeworkers.

In this connection even ap-
proximate comparison - with
Czarist times is difficult, for
officialdom then very natur-
ally made no statistical inquiry
into the workers’ living stand-
ards. But any old-timer will
tell you that the situation was
well summed up in a jingle
of the period, “Shchee da kasha
pishcha nasha (“Our food —
sauerkraut soup and porridge,
or “Twas cruel with nowt but
gruel and kraut.”

And they will assure you it
Was no ordinary day when
there was a bit of butter or
fat to liven up the porridge or
a bone to give a bit of body
to the soup .. . “Meat? Often

*We didn’t see meat from one

year’s end to another” — and
now the aim is to reach par-
ity with the U.S. in meat con-
sumption by 1960 or 1961!
. How then does the total
“score” stand for the Soviet
side after 40 years in the field?
An old-timer wouldn’t hesi-
tate: he would tell you that
his country’s score after 40
years is “forty forties.”

November 8, 1957 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE 3