EDITOR'S NOTE: In this paper Theodore Dreiser the greatly celebrated American novelist whose conscientious industry and acumen in observing and judging nations and men have been sufficiently established, presents a picture, several conclusions and an opinion of present-day Russia, whence he has lately returned. The mammoth, almost impudent, attempt of the Soviet to abolish all distinctions of class, private property, economic ambition and everything associated with them, in the face of all history and established institutions, is the magnificent theme of Mr. Dreiser's article. Famous as an observer of life, his name stands behind his reporting of facts, but Vanity Fair must emphasize the fact that the opinions expressed in the article are not its own, but Mr. Dreiser's.

THE chief interest of the English or American observer in modern Russia is directed, of course, to the differences between the form of government functioning there and that in his own country. The Soviet government holds power, as we know, from the successful revolution in November 1917. The first revolution in February which overthrew the Czar and brought Russian liberalism to the helm, was accompanied in all parts of the country by the formation of soviets which almost everywhere relieved the old administrative organs, municipal, provincial, etc., of their tasks. These soviets were not unknown to the Russian workers, soldiers and peasants, for they had been formed spontaneously in many parts of the country during the abortive revolution in 1905. In the period between the February and the November revolutions, the bolshevik wing of the old part of the Russian working class gradually increased its influence over these soviets everywhere, until it finally won a majority in the Soviet of Workers, Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies in St. Petersburg.

The main card with which this success was won was, in my opinion, the uncompromising opposition of the bolshevists to the continuation of the war against the Central Powers, plus the obstinate efforts of Kerensky at the bidding of the allied powers to whip a half-starved and despairing people into further slaughter. Typical for the frame of mind of the soldiers and the people in general was the action of a Russian regiment quartered in St. Petersburg shortly before the second revolution. Upon receiving orders to leave for the front to take part in a new offensive, the troops marched without their officers to the war office, forced their way into the place and thrashed every official of any importance they could find. Small wonder then that when it came to the point and on November 7th the bolshevists seized power in St. Petersburg, Kerensky could not find sufficient trustworthy troops to repulse the attack. The nation was heartily sick of war and ready to support those people who promised to free them from it. The bolshevists promised to do this, the people supported the bolshevists, and from that day to this the promise has been kept. The extraordinarily conciliatory attitude of the Russian government in all crises since is ample proof of this.

Having captured political power, the problem for the bolshevists was to hold it against the attempts of the counter-revolutionaries to wrest it from them. There followed a period in Russia, known to the Russians as the period of war communism. This was the period during which the whole forces of the State had but one aim—to win the civil war, wipe out the counter-revolutionaries, and thus establish international peace as a basis for the second great task, the reconstruction of the shattered economic system of Russia. Here again the bolshevists succeeded in their task. With iron will, and, if necessary, with iron brutality, they crushed their enemies, despite the fact that these latter had the moral and material support of the Entente State and the United States. In one small city, Feodosia, on the Black Sea, about six thousand White Guards and suspected reactionaries were shot. The support here referred to had expressed itself in the form of an almost unlimited supply of money, huge quantities of war material, and direct military assistance. British and American soldiers were in Archangel, the Japanese in Vladivostock, the Poles and White Russians in Kiev and Odessa and along the Black Sea generally.

THIS period ended approximately with the signing of peace with the Poles after the failure of the attempt to take Warsaw, and the final crushing of the White armies. The military achievements of the Red army in this period, badly fed, badly clothed and badly equipped, can only be compared with the achievements of the revolutionary armies of France, and could only have been performed by revolutionary armies. With the end of this period of civil war ended also the period of war-communism. The basis had been created for the next great task, the reconstruction of Russia's shattered industry and transport. The transformation from war-communism to the New Economic Policy of Lenin in the beginning of 1921, i.c., immediately following the victorious conclusion of the civil war, has been regarded generally in the outside world, and even by some ultra-revolutionaries in Russia itself, to have been a retreat from communism, and a great step towards the reintroduction of the economic system understood by us under the name of capitalism. It was represented that the Russian government under Lenin had attempted to introduce communism and had failed, and then recognizing its failure had taken the logical step of permitting the reintroduction, at least to a certain extent, of capitalism. In my opinion, this view is not correct. The ultra-revolutionaries mentioned previously may have been, and probably were, of the opinion that a violent and sudden introduction of pure communism—at the point of the bayonet, so to speak—was possible and necessary. Not so a man of Lenin's capacity, —the greatest of all modern leaders, I think. For evolution was a necessary preliminary condition for revolution. In fact, his scheme of revolution may best be compared with the process of gestation accompanying conception and child-birth in a woman—a period of nine months' evolution, followed by the painful and destructive (for the tissue of the mother) revolution accompanying the birth of the child, followed again by a period of evolution represented by the growth of the child.

FOR Lenin and his supporters, the period of war-communism was not the instrument for the reconstruction of Russia, but simply and solely the economic and political regime most suited to the aim in hand, i.e., the victorious ending of the civil war. Immediately this aim was achieved, the weapon with which it was achieved was placed back in the armory of the bolsheviks and we shall only see it again, so I was told in Russia, if and when the capitalist world attempts a second intervention. The New Economic Policy as introduced by Lenin was then not a retreat in the face of victorious capitalism, but rather the real beginning of the economic struggle against it. A new weapon for a new aim.

This new weapon has now been in action for almost seven years, and its results can already be judged to a certain extent. In these seven years Russia's shattered economic system, as I found in my tour, has been rebuilt until today the pre-war level of production has been reached and passed. (Data in support of this fact is furnished in volume by the current heads of all departments in Russia and is rather easily substantiated.) At any rate, with change a new period opened up for the Russian government, the period termed by them the period of the building up of socialism.

And now comes the difference between Russian industry as it existed before the war and as it exists today. Large-scale industry, the immense electrical schemes, the harnessing of Russia's immense water power, etc., are to the extent of almost ninety percent State undertakings. Foreign commerce is to the extent of a hundred percent under the control of the State through the State monopoly of foreign commerce. Transport is almost completely, if not completely, under the control of the State and the Co-operatives. In the commercial world alone, (and that to an ever-lessening degree), does that economic thing known to us as private initiative play any role, and even here it is a subordinate one. Something like seventy percent of all commerce, both wholesale and retail, is now in the hands of the State and co-operative organizations. The influence of the business man (the NEPman, as he is called in Russia), is limited almost exclusively to commerce, and he is strongest in retail trade. But even here, as anyone can see for himself in Russia, the course of development is gradually eliminating him. The private shops are the poorest of all. Those of the State and of the Co-operatives (unions of buyers) are the best. It is the aim of the State organizations and above all of the cooperatives, to eliminate the private trader entirely, not with administrative measures, i.e., not at the point of the bayonet, but by producing better goods at a cheaper price.

THE figures in all branches of industry and commerce for recent years show that the share of the State and co-operative organizations in the economic system of the country is steadily increasing, both relatively and absolutely, both with regard to turnover as well as invested capital. The last stronghold of the NEPman is, of course, in the villages. Here the land is officially the property of the State loaned out to the peasantry for usage. There are three types of peasantry—the well-to-do (for Russia), known as the Kulaks, the middle-scale peasantry and the poor peasantry and direct land-workers. It is the alliance of the factory ivorkers and soldiers with these two latter categories, i.e., the middle-scale peasantry and the poor peasantry and land-workers, which forms the basis for the present government in Russia. The break-up of this alliance would make it impossible for any purely proletarian government to maintain itself with only the support of the workers. The policy of the government in Russia is now, therefore, directed towards maintaining this alliance by sharing the achievements of the development of industry and agriculture between the workers and peasants and reducing the distance between the two classes of those who work, and by making the peasant a participant as well as the worker in the building up of socialism. This latter is achieved by the growth of the cooperative idea amongst the peasantry, by the rational re-distribution of the land, by the establishment of direct connection between the workers in the towns and the peasants on the land through so-called adoptions, etc., i.e., the workers of one factory or one industrial district adopt a special agricultural district, collect money to buy tractors and farm implements for this district, distribute literature, make special journeys at the week-end, as far as this latter is practically possible, etc., etc. Thus, the peasants observe their share in the advance of industry in the ever-increasing number of tractors and modern agricultural machinery making their way into the country, also in the coming of the radio, telephone, electric light, phonograph, bus, street car, rural free delivery, etc., etc.

TAKE the manifesto issued by the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union, i.e., the supreme governing organ of the country, in connection with the tenth anniversary of the 1917 revolution, which was celebrated while I was there. This manifesto promised the workers the introduction of the seven hour day, and instructed the executive organs to commence with the gradual carrying out of this decision within the space of one year. This decrease of working hours is not to be accompanied by any reduction of wages. A further concession to the workers was the sum of fifty million roubles for the building of workers' dwellings, in addition to an equal sum already set aside for this purpose in the State Budget for 1927-28. Today, the peasants, in practice, receive still greater immediate benefits. Before the manifesto referred to, twenty-five percent of the peasants were totally freed from the necessity of paying the single agricultural tax. Yet that manifesto ordered that a further ten percent be also freed; that is, that thirty-five percent of the peasantry from now on be further freed from the necessity of paying the agricultural tax. Further, the manifesto freed the peasants from the necessity of repaying the loans received as a credit from the State in connection with the bad harvest of the year 1924-25. The poor peasantry were declared freed from .paying their outstanding taxes, and the middle-scale peasants were furnished favourable conditions for repayment of what they used. More, the State also agreed in this manifesto to take over the complete costs for supplying the poor and middle-scale peasants with land, and a further sum of ten million roubles was laid aside for this purpose. A scheme for old-age pensions for poor peasants was promised and is to be put through. Incidentally, the death sentence for all crimes with the exception of crimes against the State, military crimes and armed banditry, was abolished, and the sentences of all prisoners with the exception of those sentenced for any of the above crimes, plus that of malicious defalcation, were to be reduced.

From this manifesto, issued when I was in Moscow, one can see, I think, that the peasant class is neither downtrodden nor exploited. My subsequent travels confirmed me in this. If anything, my general impression was that the Central Government was trying to do more than the industries and the labour of the people would warrant at this time.

But now as to the people who actually rule Russia. The actual mechanism of the soviets I need not go into. It is rather well known by now, I think. Sufficient to say that the main principle of the franchise in Russia is votes for all those who are working for the aim of the government, i.e., the building up of socialism, and none for those who are not, such as NEPmen working for their own personal profit. In other words, modern Russia presents us with a class State almost in pure culture, a class State where one class openly dominates, if you will, in contradistinction to other States where the dominance of a class is concealed by the normal methods of democratic liberalism. The men who are the leaders of the State are poor. When they die, as all men must, they leave no estate behind them. This is a most tremendous fact for an outside observer. Whatever one may think of the present-day rulers of Russia, one cannot deny their honesty and, as measured by all our tests, their selflessness with regard to the good things of this world. During the latter part of his life, Lenin, in my opinion the greatest personality of our generation, lived with his wife and sister in two small rooms in the Kremlin. With the exception of that last part of his life when he lived as a reconvalescent at Gorki. The rooms of Lenin in the Kremlin have been maintained intact, with everything in them, as far as I know. They offer perhaps a classical example of the simplicity and frugality of the present-day rulers of Russia. Lenin, however, was not alone in this. Most of the leaders live in simple hotel rooms or in single rooms in the Kremlin, and the actual wage of all officials and leaders from Stalin down is 225 roubles a month—about $112. There is no question of personal accumulation of wealth. There can be none, save by graft and outside hoarding, and the men I met did not look like grafters. As a matter of fact, compared with our political leaders and those of some other countries that I have chanced to meet in my time, I rank them as high as any—more earnest, more thoughtful and sincere, more capable of thinking—and that is the highest compliment I can pay them.

THERE is then, of course, the problem of the Party. The Communist Party is openly the yeast of the revolution, or, as Lenin termed it, the locomotive of the revolution. Through this Party and its nation-wide organization, the hegemony of the working class is maintained, the soviets influenced, (controlled if you like), but once again, not at the point of the bayonet but by organized work among the masses, the communist agents or workers winning the confidence of the latter and acting as their leader. In every working class of peasant organization there is a communist fraction with its members and officials and leaders who definitely and openly work in an organized fashion to guide the policy of the whole organization. So it is in the soviets themselves and in the soviet congresses which finally elect the government of the country. The Party, of .course, has a monopoly and it tolerates no other party at its side. Hence the recent ousting of Trotzky and his followers who wished to organize a second or rival party and so wrest the power from the present group.

The regime which now exists in Russia is a dictatorship, openly, a dictatorship of the proletariat, as it is termed. No oppositional parties are tolerated, no bourgeois press and no bourgeois organizations. This dictatorship is a weapon for a particular end—the bringing of that classless, brother-loving society in which no dictatorship will be needed.

And now, as to the final aim of all this, the establishment of the classless society, the abolition of the dictatorship and the State. The aim of this workers' dictatorship is not to perpetuate the working class as we understand it today, indefinitely. The aim is to abolish it. This class is the first class in history that set out to abolish itself. It intends to do this by abolishing all classes. That is its future aim.

As to the result or end, we have the privilege of watching this huge experiment. For that is what it is. Personally, I am dubious of the result because I cannot even conceive of a classless society any more than I can conceive of life without variations and distinctions. It is these same which give us our sense or illusion of reality and without these no reality. As a matter of fact in the Russia of 1928 with private property practically abolished there are as many classes—or almost as many—as ever. The Communists say not. And in their schools they teach the children that the day of a Classless society, brotherly love, all for one and one for all is at hand. But step forth into the streets, the offices, the factories, the stores, universities—what or where you will and see. Is the ditchdigger any less a ditch-digger or any less unimportant for being one in Communist Russia than would elsewhere be the case? Never believe it. Nor the beggar or the servant either. All appear to function as before—not oppressed of course—better taken care of than elsewhere in the world may be, but still ditch-diggers, servants, beggars and looked upon as such by all the superior intellects. Whereas the Communist official, with his assistants, his official car or cars, his offices and authority is as much if no more a big-wig than he was before the revolution. Certainly he is as much kowtowed to and respected as any other official in any other part of the world. I could not see any difference in his state here from elsewhere.

Similarly the learned doctor or professor is still the learned doctor or professor looked upon as such—and as superior mentally and by training to one who lacks the capacity for such a development. Similarly the manager or director of a great store or factory or hotel—or the chemist or physicist or scientist of any of the important institutions or universities of Russia. All are looked up to as being above the common worker or servant and so they will continue to be, I fear. On the contrary the working man or servant or beggar, except for the security of life, shelter and food which the new system affords them are still workers, servants, beggars, and the Communistic system does not seem to help them much. True, with native ability they can rise—but what laborer or servant or beggar anywhere today cannot do as much. But the class sense remains. I am a doctor, you are a beggar, and as such we can scarcely mingle on equal terms, can we? And communism cannot remedy that, I fear, any more than it can make a brilliant brain associate with a dull one.

On the other hand one result of all this effort has been to shake up the whole country, to generate such tremendous stores of energy in a whole people that the whole world is talking about and looking towards Russia. And much in the way of improvement is certain to come of it. Communism may not work, but if it does not some form of democracy or improved dictatorship on the part of such people as wish to better things will. Under the circumstances I am not inclined to complain but applaud. What is more I would like to see Russia as it is now, recognized and aided financially in order that this great impetus to something better may be strengthened. For here is a thinking people. And out of Russia, as out of no other country today, I feel is destined to come great things mentally as well practically, or such is my faith at least. And with such a possibility in so troubled and needful a world as ours it is only common sense to aid it to do the best it can.