BOLSHEVISM, To the Editor of the "Norta-Cuina Dairy. News."
Sir.—In reading the article in the "N.-C. D. N." of January 12, headed "Thr rs of Bolshevisni," without wishing to raise a violent political discussion in your columns, would it be possible to ask some of our Russian friends, not what the Soviet has done, but, what it stands for.
Taking the French Revolution as a parallel, from a high authority I read "There was no historic preparation. for political freedom, the desire for such being in the main confined to the upper classes.'"
Yet when the movement did start. we know that it was the upper classes who suffered principally. Again "That a revolution largely inspired by generous and human feelings, should have issued in such havoc and such crime, is a paradox, and which has astounded spectators, and still perplexes the historian.'
Speaking of the leaders "Their sway proved so oppressive, that the very classes which had wel: comed them with most fervour, soon came to long for their expulsion, yet the invocation however hollow of the sovereignty of the people, - worked national feeling which had slumbered long, and prepared the struggle for national unity.""
Does the present situation in Russia, suggest in the end such a national unity? It would. T think, be interesting to read a few authortative letters in_your columns on such a_subject. The average person is I think, apt to have a very confused idea of both who is who, and what Russia as a whole stands for to-day.
This inquiry is for real information, and not to suggest any offend sive argument. The word Bolshevism to-day seems to be applied offhand to any spirit of unrest and discontent levelled against those in authority, whether right or wrong. but surely there must be something better and deeper in the present Russian situation than that.
I am, etc., Bavix. Shanghai, Jan. 14.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.