But how is the situation in Soviet Russia? The price of bread rose from 9 to 75 Kopeks per kilogramm within the years between 1928 and 1935. The monthly wage of a Soviet worker has fallen 78.5 percent measured by the quantity of bread which the worker can buy. If the Russian worker wants to earn enough to live he has to work according to the Stachanoff system which has raised the norm so much above the average that the mass of workers can never reach it. The result is that the average Russian worker gets lower wages.
In 1932 the Rote Fahne published a report on the housing conditions, which had been sent in by a comrade working in the Soviet Union. He wrote that he had two large rooms for himself, with electricity and central heating.
And now a true picture of reality: A working woman writes in Leningradskaja Prawda, a Communist paper, “We, that is I myself and my little boy, who is a year-and-a-half old, my brother and my sister who suffers from tuberculosis, live in one small and dark room. Our complaints brought before the Communist municipal commission have been fruitless. We are still living as before in these unbelievable conditions.”
The Russian worker has to spend for his simple food which consists only of bread, cabbage soup and gruel, not less than 75 percent of his total income. He would have to spend twice the amount of the average wage to attain the standard of living which the German worker has.
A well-known Bolshevist slogan promises the establishment of the free right to work. On June 20, 1932, the Rote Fahne wrote, “Look towards Moscow, Leningrad, Baku, Nowosibirsk and know: work, bread and liberty can only be attained if we fight and follow the example of the Bolshiviki.”
The way in which the Soviet workers are urged to work by the Stachanoff system may rightly be called slavery. But the Soviet Union even reintroduced slavery in the verbal meaning of the word. About 6.5 million people who work in the forced labour camps of the Soviet Union are living in a state of hell-on-earth. In three hundred giant forced-labour camps, Bolshevism is squeezing the last ounce of work and energy out of these workers.
Some hundred thousands of people had to be buried when the Stalin-Caspian Channel was built by forced-labour gangs. The following Jewish leaders of the OGPU forced the Channel to be built in such murderous speed: Herrschel Jagoda, Davidsohn, Kwasnitzki, Isaaksohn, Rottenberg, Ginsburg, Brodski, Berensohn, Dorfmann, Kagner, Angert and others. Judaism flourishes the whip over the “Fatherland of the Proletariat.”
Bolshevist propaganda boasts of having freed the working class among the peasants from the claws of capitalistic exploitation. To allure the innocent peasants and to get their confidence, Bolshevism founded the “Peasants’ International.” In its programme we find the following proclamation: “We demand that the burden of taxes be lifted from the middle-class of the peasants, that their taxes be decreased; we demand the expropriation of the large estates, which shall be made available free of charge for the sons of the peasants who till the soil.”
Let us have a look at the situation as it exists in reality! The granaries of Soviet-Russia, which formerly helped to supply Western Europe with the necessary cereals, are no longer in a position to feed their own population. Millions of people are starving. A bitter war is being waged between the terroristic apparatus of the OGPU and the peasants. The Jews Kaganowitsch, Jagoda and Baumann, enforced a radical collectivisation on the peasants which simply killed more than 15 million peasants and members of peasant families.
The main achievement of the peasant policy carried out by the Bolshevists is the terroristic law of August 7, 1932, which, for any kind of “wrong” committed by a peasant enacts the death penalty, ten years of hard labour or forced labour sentences. Judeo-Bolshevism even abuses the relation of child to parent in applying this law. Iswestia reports, on May 28, 1934, how a girl denounced her father, who had kept back grain that had been commissioned by the collective. Under the terror law her father was subject to the death penalty. The child received official congratulation for her act.
In pre-National Socialist Germany the Communist Party put forward the following demands in their programme for the soldiers: Point 12: Abolition of all undesirable persons in command, Point 20: Annulment of the order to live in barracks . “Emancipation from blind Obedience” and the “Democratisation of the Army” were the slogans.
Compulsory mobilization of the workpeople was introduced forthwith after the Bolshevist dictatorship had been set up. Those who did not obey the order were shot or sent to the blood dungeons of the Tscheka. Instead of the voluntary people’s militia, there was central authoritarian command, iron proletarian discipline, the forced conscripts were interned in barracks and the strictest laws, courts-martial, were set up. From the “Comrade Commandants” the whole army aristocracy was chosen, including lieutenants, captains etc. up to the Red marshals. The Soviet Jew, Rabinowitsch, cynically admitted that the simulated “democratisation” of the army was “only a ruse to gain control of the army.”
Another Bolshevist slogan, which is widely believed, is the “Emancipation of Woman.” The pretension is that the woman must be freed from the domestic yoke and placed on an equal footing with the man. In the year 1924 the Comintern Congress explicitly stated: “The revolution is powerless as long as the family and family conditions remain.” But in the practical administration of the Soviet Union the actual way of this highly vaunted “Emancipation of Woman” shows itself in the fact that, without having the right to appeal for protection, women are forced to submit and surrender themselves to the arbitrary demands of the men and they have to earn their livelihood by heavy manual labour. Even in the labour-camps, which have the worst reputation, there are more than one million women.
Furthermore Bolshevist propaganda asserts that the woman is released from the burden of having to look after her children. This task is taken over by the Soviet State itself. At the same time the official party press is forced to acknowledge that the army of waifs and youthful criminals is steadily on the increase. A special and influential appeal in the system of Bolshevist propaganda is the demand for the abrogation of the legal veto against abortion. The practice of abortion, which went on without hindrance for eighteen years, has become so prevalent that the Soviets would now like to forbid this practice of abortion.
Bolshevist propaganda in regard to the position of women in the social order reaches the peak of mental aberration when it declares that in the bourgeois social order prostitution is a necessary evil, but that this will finally disappear with the establishment of Communism. There is no country in the world where the spectacle of prostitution is so universal as in the Soviet Union. Even in order to hold their jobs, working women have to submit to the desires of their bosses. In the truest sense of the term, women in this “Paradise of Women” are the open prey of the Jewish Soviet bullies.
The “study-trip” made by the French statistician, Herriot, during the famine period of 1933, offers a specially crass example of how the bemused politicians of Western liberalism may be allured by Soviet propaganda. On this point the Jewish New York paper Forward, which certainly cannot be suspected of pro-Nazi leanings, declared as follows: “On the day preceding the arrival of the delegation, the whole population of Kiew was mobilised at two o’clock in the night, to clean the main streets. Ten thousand hands worked feverishly to give a European aspect to the neglected and filthy town. All relief centres, cooperative stores were closed. Queues were forbidden. The imposing army of waifs, beggars and starvelings were all removed. Militiamen on highly groomed horses strutted at the street crossings, manes of their horses entwined with white ribbons—a picture which Kiew saw never before, or after” (this is a retranslation).