HG Wells: “I think I am more left-wing than you, Mr. Stalin”
In 1934 Wells arrived in Moscow to meet a group of russian writers. During his stay, Stalin interviewed him.
Written by H. G. Wells
In 1934, HG Wells came to Moscow to meet russian writers curious in joining the global PEN Club, which he was then president. During his stay, Stalin interviewed him. His respectful conversation met with criticism, among others, of J.M. Keynes and George Bernard Shaw in "New Statesman". It was first published as a peculiar addition to the "New Statesman" on 27 October 1934.
Wells: I'm very grateful to you, Mr. Stalin, for your approval to meet me. I was late in the United States. I had a long conversation with president Roosevelt, and I was trying to figure out what his main ideas were. Now I've come to ask you what you're doing to change the world...
Stalin: Not much.
Wells: I wander the planet as a specified human being and as a specified human being I observe what is happening around me.
Stalin: crucial public people like you are not “ordinary people”. Of course, past itself can show how crucial this or another public man was; in any case, you don't look at the planet like a "ordinary man."
Wells: I don't pretend to be humble. I mean, I'm trying to look at the planet through the eyes of a common man, not organization politics or a liable administrator. My visit to the United States touched my mind. The old financial planet is falling apart; the economical life of the country is being reorganized according to fresh rules.
Lenin said, “We must learn to do business” – learn it from capitalists. Today, capitalists must learn from you to realize the spirit of socialism. I think what's happening in the United States is simply a profound reorganization, creating a planned economy, or socialist economy. You and Roosevelt start with 2 different starting points. But isn't there an perfect relationship, a kinship of ideas between Moscow and Washington?
W Washington hit me with the same thing I see in us; they build offices, they form a number of state regulators, they organize the long-needed civilian service. Their need, like yours, is decision-making.
America and Russia
Stalin: The United States is pursuing a different goal than the 1 we are aiming for in the USSR. The goal that the Americans search was born from economical problems, from the economical crisis. The Americans want to free themselves from the crisis, based on private capitalist activity, without changing economical bases. They effort to minimize the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economical system.
However, we, as you know, have created a completely different, fresh economical base in place of an old destroyed economical base. Even if these Americans partially accomplish their goal, i.e. reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destruct the roots of anarchy within the existing capitalist system. They keep an economical strategy that inevitably has to lead, and must not lead, to anarchy in production. So, at best, it will be a substance of not reorganising society, not abolishing the old social strategy that generates anarchy and crises, but limiting any of its abuses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans believe they are reorganizing society; however, objectively they hold the current foundations of society. Therefore, objectively, there will be no reorganization of society.
There will besides be no planned economy. What is simply a planned economy? What are her qualities? The planned economy seeks to destruct unemployment. say with the preservation of the capitalist strategy it is possible to reduce unemployment to a minimum. But surely no capitalist would always agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of a reserve army of the unemployed, whose aim is to exert force on the labour market, to supply a supply of inexpensive labour. You will never force a capitalist to endure losses and agree to a lower profit rate in order to satisfy the needs of society.
Without disposing of capitalists, without abolishing the rule of private ownership of means of production, it is impossible to make a planned economy.
Wells: I agree with most of what you said. However, I would like to stress that if the country as a full adopts the rule of the planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins to apply it consistently, the financial oligarchy will yet be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the word, will be introduced.
Effect of the fresh Deal thought Roosevelt is highly strong and in my opinion these are socialist ideas. It seems to me that alternatively of emphasizing antagonism between the 2 worlds, we should, under the present circumstances, strive to find a common language for all constructive forces.
Stalin: Speaking of the inability to implement the principles of the planned economy while preserving the economical foundations of capitalism, I do not want to minimize Roosevelt's outstanding individual qualities, his initiatives, courage and determination to the least. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as 1 of the strongest figures among all the captains of the modern capitalist world. Therefore, I would like to stress one more time that my conviction that the planned economy cannot be introduced in terms of capitalism does not mean that I uncertainty president Roosevelt's individual abilities, talent and courage.
But if the circumstances are unfavorable, even the most capable captain will not accomplish the goal you talk of. Theoretically, of course, there is no exclusion of the anticipation of gradual march, step by step, under conditions of capitalism, towards the intent which the Lord calls socialism in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the word. But what will this “socialism” be? At best, by limiting to any degree the most unrestrained capitalist profit representatives, any increase in the application of the regulation of regulation in the national economy. It's all very good. But as shortly as Roosevelt, or any another captain of the modern bourgeois world, takes serious action against the foundations of capitalism, will inevitably endure complete defeat. Banks, industry, large businesses, large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All of this is private property. Railways, trading fleet, all of this belongs to private owners. And finally, an army of skilled workers, engineers, technicians, they're besides not under Roosevelt's command, they're under private ownership; they all work for private owners.
We must not forget the functions of the state in the bourgeois world. The State is an institution that organises the defence of the country, organises the maintenance of the ‘order’; it is simply a taxation collection apparatus. The capitalist state has small to do with the economy in the strict sense of the word; the second is not in the hands of the state. On the contrary, the state is in the hands of the capitalist economy. That's why I'm afraid, despite all his energy and ability, Roosevelt won't accomplish your stated goal if he is. possibly within a fewer generations it will be possible to bring this to any extent; but I personally believe that even that is unlikely.
Socialism and Individualism
Wells: possibly I believe more powerfully than you in economical explanation of politics. large forces aiming for a better organization, for a better functioning society, or socialism, were set in motion by inventiveness
And modern science. Organization and regulation of individual activities became a mechanical necessity, regardless of social theory. If we start with state control of banks and then decision on to control of dense industry, manufacture in general, trade, etc., specified omnipotent control will be equivalent to state ownership of all sectors of the national economy.
Socialism and individualism are not opposites like black and white. There are many intermediate stages between them. There is individualism bordering on robbery and discipline and organization, which are equivalent to socialism. The introduction of the planned economy depends mostly on the organizers of the economy, on qualified method intelligence, which can be converted step by step to the socialist principles of the organization. And that's the most crucial thing due to the fact that the organization is ahead of socialism. That's more important. Without organization, the socialist thought is just an idea.
Stalin: There is no and should not be unacceptable contrast between individual and collective, between individual interests and collective interests. There should not be specified a contrast, due to the fact that collectiveism, socialism, does not negate, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstrate from individual interests.
Only a socialist society can full satisfy these individual interests. Moreover, only a socialist society can safe the interests of the individual. In this sense, there is no irreconcilable contrast between individualism and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between the classes, between the class possessing, the capitalist class, and the working class, the proletarian class? On the 1 hand we have a class that owns banks, factories, mines, transport, plantations in colonies. These people see only their own interests, their pursuit of profit. They do not submit to the will of the collective; they search to submit to themselves collectively, according to their will. On the another hand, we have a mediocre class, a exploited class that does not have factories, jobs, or banks that are forced to live off the sale of their labour to capitalists and which cannot meet their most simple needs.
How can specified conflicting interests and interests be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt failed to find a way to reconcile these interests. And it's impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the U.S. better than I do, due to the fact that I've never been there and I'm observing American affairs mostly from literature. However, I have any experience in the conflict for socialism and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real effort to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the second will give way to another president. Capitalists will say, Presidents come and go, but we endure forever; If this or any another president doesn't defend our interests, we'll find another. What can the president argue the will of the capitalist class?
Wells: I argue this simplified division of humanity into the mediocre and the rich. Of course, there is simply a category of people who search nothing but profit. But aren't they seen in the West as much as they are in our midst as a nuisance? Are there not many people in the West for whom profit is not an end in itself, who have a certain wealth, who want to invest and profit from it, but do not respect it as a primary goal? In my opinion, there are many people who admit that the current strategy is unsatisfactory and who are destined to play an crucial function in the future capitalist society.
Over the last fewer years, I have been intensely active in propaganda for socialism and cosmopolitanism in broad circles of engineers, airmen, military technicians, etc. and have been reasoning about it. There is no point in addressing these circles with two-track class fighting propaganda. These people realize the state of the world. They realize it's a bloody mess, but they find your simple class fighting antagonism nonsense.
Class War
Stalin: You argue the simplified division of the rich and the poor. Of course there is simply a average layer, there is simply a method intelligence you mention, among which are very good and very honest people. There are besides dishonest and wicked people among them; there are all kinds of people among them. But above all, humanity is divided into the rich and the poor, into the owners and the exploits; and abstraction from this fundamental division and from antagonism between the mediocre and the rich means abstraction from the fundamental fact.
I do not deny the existence of intermediate average layers that either side with 1 or the another of these 2 conflicted classes, or occupy a neutral or semi-neutral position in combat. But, I repeat, abstraction from this fundamental division in society and from the fundamental conflict between the 2 main classes means ignoring the facts. The fight continues and will continue. The consequence will be determined by the proletarian class – the working class.
Wells: But aren't there many people who aren't poor, but who work and work efficiently?
Stalin: Of course, there are tiny landowners, craftsmen, tiny merchants, but they do not decide the destiny of the country, but working masses that produce everything society needs.
Wells: But there are very different types of capitalists. There are capitalists who think only of profit, of wealth; but there are those who are willing to sacrifice. Take Morgan's old [J.P.], for example. He thought only of profit; he was a parasite of society, he simply accumulated wealth. But let's take [John D.] Rockefeller. He is simply a superb organizer; he set an example of how to organize oil supplies, worthy of imitation.
Or take [Henry] Ford. Of course Ford is selfish. But isn't he a keen organizer of rational production from which you learn? I would like to emphasise the fact that there has late been a crucial change in attitudes towards the USSR in English-speaking countries. This is mainly due to Japan's position and events in Germany. But there are also reasons beyond global policy. There is simply a deeper reason, namely the designation by many people of the fact that a strategy based on private gain is falling apart. Under these circumstances, I think we should not put antagonism between 2 worlds first, but strive to combine all constructive movements, all constructive forces into 1 line, as far as possible. I think I'm more left-wing than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old strategy is closer to the end than you think.
Technical class
Stalin: Speaking of capitalists who search profit only, only wealth, I do not want to say that they are the most worthless people, capable of anything else. Many of them undoubtedly have large organizational talent, which I do not intend to negate. We russian people learn a lot from capitalists. And the Morgan you're so negative about was undoubtedly a good, capable organizer. But if you mean people who are ready to rebuild the world, of course you will not find them in the ranks of those who faithfully service the origin of profit. We and them stand on other poles.
You mentioned Ford. Of course, he is simply a capable producer. But don't you know his attitude toward the working class? Don't you know how many workers he throws on the street? The capitalist is chained to profit; and no force in the planet can take him distant from him. Capitalism will be abolished not by the “organizers” of production, not by method intelligence, but by the working class, due to the fact that these layers do not play an independent role. An engineer, producer, does not work as he wishes, but as he is told, in specified a way as to service the interests of his employers. Of course, there are exceptions; there are people in this layer who have awakened from the intoxication of capitalism. method intelligence can, under certain conditions, work miracles and bring large benefits to mankind. But it can besides do large damage.
We, the russian people, have considerable experience with method intelligence. After the October Revolution, any of it refused to participate in the construction of a fresh society; it opposed and sabotaged the construction work. We did everything we could to get method intelligence into this work; we tried in various ways. It was not long before our method intelligence agreed to actively support the fresh system. Today, the best part of this method intelligence is at the forefront of socialist society. Having this experience, we do not underestimate either the good or the bad sides of method intelligence, and we know that on the 1 hand it can harm, and on the another hand it can do “miracles”.
Of course, things would have been different if it were possible to take distant method intelligence from the capitalist planet spiritually. But it's a utopia. Would many representatives of method intelligence dare to break distant from the bourgeois planet and decision on to the rebuilding of society? Do you think there are many specified people, say, in England or France? No; fewer would be willing to break up with employers and start rebuilding the world.
Gaining political power
Stalin: Besides, can we lose sight of the request for political power to change the world? It seems to me, Mr. Wells, that you very much underestimate the issue of political power, that you are completely eluded from your understanding.
What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do if they are incapable to rise the issue of gaining power and do not have it? At best, they can aid a class that takes over, but they can't change the world. Only a large class can do that, which will take the place of the capitalist class and become sovereign master, as the second was before. This class is the working class. Of course, method intelligence must be accepted; this in turn must be supported. However, it should not be believed that method intelligence can play a stand-alone historical role.
The transformation of the planet is simply a great, complicated and painful process. You request a large class to do this. large ships travel long.
Wells: Yes, but you request a captain and a navigator for long trips.
Stalin It is true; but for a long journey a large ship is needed above all. What is simply a navigator without a ship? An idle man.
Wells: The large ship is humanity, not class.
Stalin: You, Mr. Wells, seemingly presume that all people are good. But I do not forget that there are many bad people. I don't believe in the goodness of bourgeoisie.
Wells: I remember the situation of method intelligence a fewer decades ago. At the time method intelligence was tiny in numbers, but there was much to do and all engineer, technician and intellectual found his chance. Therefore, method intelligence was the least revolutionary class. But now there is an excess of method intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very rapidly. A qualified man who in the past has never listened to revolutionary talk is now much curious in this.
I late had dinner with the Royal Society, our large English technological company. The president's speech was a speech for social planning and technological control. 30 years ago, they wouldn't perceive to what I'm telling them now. Today, the man leading the Royal Society professes revolutionary views and insists on technological reorganization of society. Your class-fighting propaganda is not keeping up with these facts. Mentality is changing.
Stalin: Yes, I know that and it can be explained by the fact that capitalist society is now in a dead end. The capitalists are looking, but they can't find a way out of this dead end that would conform to the dignity of this class, according to her interests. They could, to any extent, crawl out of the crisis on all fours, but they cannot find a way out of it that would let them to come out of it with their head lifted up, an exit that would not compromise the fundamental interests of capitalism.
Of course, they realize it's a wide scope of method intelligence. A crucial part of it begins to see the community of its interests with the interests of the class, which is able to indicate the exit from a dead end.
Wells: You, Mr. Stalin, of all people know something about applicable revolutions. Do masses always rise? Is it not common cognition that all revolutions are made by a minority?
Stalin: To trigger the revolution, a leading revolutionary number is needed; but the most talented, devoted and energetic number would be helpless if it did not trust on at least passive support from millions.
Wells at least passive? What about the subconscious?
Stalin partially besides semi-instinctive and semi-conscious, but without the support of millions the best number is powerless.
Place of violence
Wells I observe communist propaganda in the West and it seems to me that in today's conditions this propaganda sounds very old-fashioned due to the fact that it is insurgent propaganda.
Propaganda for the violent overthrow of the social strategy was rather good erstwhile it was directed against tyranny. However, in today's circumstances, erstwhile the strategy is already falling apart, emphasis should be placed on productivity, competence, productivity and not on emergence.
I think the insurgent speech is outdated. Communist propaganda in the West is burdensome for people with constructive views.
Stalin: Of course, the old strategy is falling apart, rotting. It's true. But it is besides actual that fresh efforts are being made, another methods, all ways to protect, to save this dying system. You draw the incorrect conclusion from the correct postulate. You're right to say the old planet is falling apart. But you're incorrect to think it's falling apart. No; replacing 1 social strategy with another is simply a complicated and long-term revolutionary process. It's not just a spontaneous process, it's a struggle; it's a class clash process.
Capitalism rots, but it cannot be compared simply to a tree that rots to specified an degree that it must fall from itself. No, the revolution, replacing 1 social strategy with another, has always been a struggle, a painful and cruel fight, a fight to the death. And all time the people of the fresh planet came to power, they had to defend themselves against the trials of the old planet to forcely reconstruct the erstwhile power; these people of the fresh planet always had to be vigilant, always had to be ready to defy the attacks of the old planet on the fresh system.
Yes, you're right, saying the old social strategy is falling apart; but it's not falling apart. Take fascism, for example. Fascism is simply a reactionary force that tries to preserve the old strategy with violence. What are you gonna do with fascists? Are you gonna argue with them? Will you effort to convince them? But it won't affect them at all. In no way do communists idealize methods of violence. But they, the communists, do not want to be surprised; they cannot number on the old planet to voluntarily come off the stage; they see that the old strategy defends itself violently, and that is why the communists say to the working class: respond with force to violence; do everything in your power, so that the old dying order does not crush you, do not let it put shackles on your hands, on the hands you will overthrow the old system.
As you can see, the communists perceive replacing 1 social strategy with another not only as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists can't ignore facts.
Wells: But look at what's happening in the capitalist planet now. Falling is not easy; it is an detonation of reactionary force that degrades itself to gangsterism. And it seems to me that erstwhile there is simply a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law and alternatively of considering the police as an enemy, they should support it in fighting reactionaries. I believe it is pointless to operate by the methods of old insurgent socialism.
Lessons in History
Stalin: Communists are based on a rich historical experience that teaches that outdated classes do not descend voluntarily from the scene of history.
Let us callback the past of England in the 17th century. Didn't many say the old social strategy was going down? But didn't it take Cromwell to crush him by force?
Wells: Cromwell acted on the basis of the constitution and in the name of the constitutional order.
Stalin: In the name of the Constitution, he resorted to violence, cut off the king, spread the parliament, arrested any and cut down others!
How about we take an example from our history? Has it not been clear for a long time that the Tsar strategy is falling apart? But how much blood did it take to break it down?
What about the October Revolution? Were there not many people who knew that we, the Bolsheviks, were the only right thing to do? Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had fallen? But you know how much opposition there was, how much blood you had to shed to defend the October Revolution from all its enemies.
Or take France in the late 18th century. Long before 1789, it was clear to many how corrupt the royal power, the feudal system, was. But the folk uprising, the clashes of classes, could not be avoided. Why? due to the fact that the classes that gotta leave the scene of past are the last to find that their function has come to an end. There's no way to convince them to do that. They believe that cracks in the decaying old order building can be repaired and saved.
Hence, the dying classes catch weapons and hotel to all means to save their existence as the ruling class.
Wells: But were there not a fewer lawyers at the head of the large French Revolution?
Stalin: I do not deny the function of intelligence in revolutionary movements. Was the large French Revolution a revolution of lawyers alternatively than a folk revolution that achieved victory, inciting immense masses of people against feudalism and defending the interests of the 3rd State? And were the lawyers among the leaders of the large French Revolution acting in accordance with the laws of the old order? Have they not introduced a fresh bourgeois-revolutionary law?
The rich experience of past teaches that so far no class has voluntarily given way to another class. There is no precedent in history. The Communists learned a lesson in history. The communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But specified a turn of events is unlikely, as experience teaches. That is why the communists want to be prepared for the worst and call on the working class to be alert, to be ready to fight.
Who wants a captain who puts his army to sleep, a captain who doesn't realize that the enemy won't give up, that he must be crushed? Being a captain like that is cheating, cheating on the working class. Therefore, I believe that what seems old-fashioned to you is in fact a measurement of revolutionary ad hocness for the working class.
How to Make a Revolution
Wells: I do not deny that force must be used, but I believe that the forms of combat should be as adapted as possible to the possibilities created by the existing laws that must be defended against reactionary attacks. There is no request to disorganize the old strategy due to the fact that it will disorganize itself adequate anyway. Therefore, it seems to me that the rebellion against the old order, against the law, is obsolete, old-fashioned. By the way, I'm exaggerating to make the fact clear. My point of view is as follows: first, I am in favour of order; Secondly, I am attacking the current strategy to the degree that it is not able to guarantee order; thirdly, I believe that the propaganda of class conflict can separate only those educated people whom socialism needs from socialism.
Stalin: In order to accomplish a large goal, an crucial social goal, a main force, a bastion, a revolutionary class is needed. It is then essential to organise the support of auxiliary forces for this main force; in this case, this auxiliary force is the organization to which the best intelligence forces belong. You were just talking about "educated people." But what educated people did you mean? Were there not many educated people on the side of the old order in England in the 17th century, in France in the late 18th century and in Russia in the age of the October Revolution? The old order had many educated men on work who defended the old order who opposed the fresh order.
Education is simply a weapon, Its effect is determined by the hands that regulation it, by those who are to overthrow it. Of course, proletariat, socialism, needs educated people. Of course, the primitives cannot aid the proletariat in the fight for socialism, in building a fresh society.
I do not underestimate the function of intelligence; on the contrary, I emphasise it. But the question is, what intelligence are we talking about? due to the fact that there are different kinds of intelligence.
Wells: There can be no revolution without a extremist change in the education system. It is adequate to mention 2 examples – an example of the German Republic that has not touched the old education strategy and so has never become a republic; and an example of the British Labour organization that lacks determination to request a extremist change in the education system.
Stalin: That's a good point. Let me answer your 3 points now. Firstly, the most crucial thing for the revolution is the existence of a social bastion. This bastion of revolution is the working class.
Second, you request a small help, what the communists call a party. The organization includes intelligent workers and those elements of method intelligence that are closely related to the working class. Intelligence can only be strong if it joins the working class. If he opposes the working class, he becomes zero.
Thirdly, political power is needed as a lever for change. fresh political power creates fresh laws, a fresh order, which is simply a revolutionary order.
I don't advocate any order. I'm in favour of the order that is liable for the business of the working class. However, if any of the old order rights can be utilized in the interests of fighting for a fresh order, the old rights should be used.
And finally, you're incorrect if you think the communists love violence. They would gladly abandon the methods of force if the ruling class agreed to quit the working class. However, historical experience speaks against specified an assumption.
Wells: In England's history, however, there was a case erstwhile the class voluntarily gave power to another class. In 1830–1870, the aristocracy, whose influences in the late 18th century were inactive very significant, voluntarily, without fierce struggle, gave power to the bourgeoisie, which is the sentimental support of the monarchy. This transfer of power subsequently led to the establishment of financial oligarchy governments.
Stalin: But you went from revolution to reform. It's not the same. Don't you think the Charmed Movement played a large function in reforms in England in the 19th century?
Wells: The witches did small and disappeared without a trace.
Stalin: I disagree with you. The sorcerers and their organized strike movement played a large role; They forced the ruling class to make a number of concessions on electoral law, the abolition of alleged " rotten districts" and any of the "Carts" points. Czartism played a prominent historical function and forced any ruling classes to make certain concessions, reforms to prevent large shocks. In general, it must be said that of all the ruling classes, the ruling classes of England, both aristocracy and bourgeoisie, they proved to be the smartest and most flexible in terms of their class interests, in terms of maintaining power.
Take as an example, let's say from modern history, a general strike in England in 1926. The first thing any another bourgeoisie would do in the face of specified an event erstwhile the Trade Union General Council called for a strike would be to arrest union leaders. The British bourgeoisie did not and acted cleverly from the point of view of its own interests. I cannot imagine specified a flexible strategy utilized by bourgeoisie in the United States, Germany or France. To keep their rule, the ruling classes of Britain never renounced insignificant concessions, reforms. But it would be a mistake to think that these reforms were revolutionary.
Wells: You have a better opinion of the ruling classes of my country than I do. But is there a large difference between a tiny revolution and a large reform? Isn't improvement a tiny revolution?
Stalin: Under the force of the bottom up, the force of the masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes agree to certain partial reforms, remaining with the existing socio-economic system. In doing so, he calculates that these concessions are essential to keep her class rule. This is the essence of reform. However, revolution means the transfer of power from 1 class to another. Therefore, no improvement can be described as a revolution.
What's Russia doing wrong?
Wells: I'm very grateful for this conversation that meant a lot to me. Explaining any things to me, you most likely remembered how you had to explain the basics of socialism in illegal circles before the revolution. At the minute there are only 2 people whose opinions, all word heard by millions – you and Roosevelt. Others can preach as much as they want; what they say will never be printed or heard.
I cannot yet appreciate what was done in your country; I only arrived yesterday. But I've seen the happy faces of healthy men and women, and I know there's something very crucial going on here. The contrast with 1920 is astonishing.
Stalin: A lot more could be done if we Bolsheviks were smarter.
Wells: Not if people were smarter. It would be good to come up with a Five-Year Plan for the Reconstruction of the Human Brain, which clearly lacks many elements essential for an perfect social order. [Laughter]
Stalin: Aren’t you going to stay at the russian Writers’ Union Convention?
Wells: Unfortunately, I have different obligations to fulfill and I can only stay in the USSR for a week. I'm here to see you, and I'm very happy to talk to you. However, I am going to talk to specified russian writers as I will be able to meet, about their ability to belong to the PEN Club. The organization is inactive weak, but has branches in many countries, and more importantly, its members' speeches are widely reported in the press. He insists on this, free expression of opinion – even opposition opinions. I hope to discuss this with Gorki. I don't know if you're ready for that kind of freedom...
Stalin: We Bolsheviks call it “self-criticism”. This is commonly utilized in the USSR. If there's anything I can do, I'd love to.
for: https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/1934/10/h-g-wells-it-seems-me-i-am-more-left-you-mr-stalin
Audio Appendix:
(choice and crowd. PZ)
