Communist versus Communist: The Affair of Yugoslavia (1951)

From the February 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the rulers of Yugoslavia decided to move out of the Russian sphere to seek better terms from the American-British groups a row started that is still going on between the Communist parties of that country and Russia. The quarrel had no more to do with ideas and systems of government than do any of the quarrels between the Powers. One person who has admitted this is the Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia, Mr. Edvard Kardelj. Speaking in March, 1950, as reported in the Yugoslav Fortnightly (Belgrade, 24th March, 1950) he said:—

    "You all know that our dispute with the Soviet Government was not about whether our Socialism was more or less Socialist than Soviet Socialism. No, the crux of the matter was this: We would not allow any foreign domination; we would not allow an alien will to be imposed on the Yugoslav peoples, even though it were veiled in revolutionary phrases.”

Where we, as socialists, join issue with Mr. Kardelj is on the claim that Yugoslavia or Russia have Socialism. Both are State capitalist dictatorships with all all usual dictatorship features of secret police, censorship, and the suppression of opposition parties, and with the main features of the capitalist economic system with which the rest of the capitalist world is familiar.

It is, however, not intended to deal with these aspects here, but to glance instead at some entertaining features of the bitter dispute between the former Communist allies.

Now the Communist parties of Yugoslavia and of the Cominform countries find nothing too harsh and insulting to say of each other, but that is only since 1948: before then they were mutually admiring friends. The Russian and British parties agreed that Yugoslavia was “socialist” and that Tito was a fine fellow, and Tito and his Communist party responded with loyal admiration for “socialist” Russia.

As late as September, 1947, Mr. William Rust, the British Communist, visited Yugoslavia and wrote in the Daily Worker telling what a fine place it was. Everyone was happy; eager to work hard, and Mr. Rust was happy to see Tito looking so bonny.

    "The Yugoslavs not only won the war, but also won their country. And out of that heroic struggle whose glory will never fade, there was born a new patriotism which now inspires feats of endurance and heroism in the labour front” (William Rust, Daily Worker, 13th Sept., 1947.)

The article was called “The People Rule in Yugoslavia” and Mr. Rust found it to be “the most advanced of the new democracies in Europe which in these days are drawing closer together because of their political affinities and close trading relationships.”

“It is,” he wrote, “a real democracy where the people rule and build a new life.”

Mr. Rust was not then to know that a few months later he and his fellow Russia-supporters wen going to be required to call Tito a scoundrelly tool of American imperialism, and to describe the Yugoslav workers as groaning under the tyranny of the Tito police state. 

And here is Mr. Rust on Tito:—

   “Before we left this wonderful new Yugoslavia which has shaken off its dark Balkan past, its backwardness and hatred between the nationalities, we spoke with Marshal Tito about our impressions. We were happy to find him looking so healthy, youthful and confident. He spoke with a quiet pride about the achievements of the people, the rising standard of living, the co-operation between town and countryside, and the achievements of the Five Year Plan.” (Mr. Rust, Daily Worker, 13th Sept., 1947.)

Those who are impressed by Communist eulogies on conditions in Russia and other satellite countries might usefully remember that this and similar Communist praise of Yugoslavia was to be completely repudiated by those who made it within a few months.

Mr. Rust died not long afterwards, but he lived long enough to be attacking the Yugloslav rulers in the columns of the Daily Worker (6th July, 1948).

On one point during his earlier admiration of the Yugoslav regime Mr. Rust accidentally turned out to be correct, for when he wrote in September, 1947, he quoted Tito as believing “that Angto-Yugoslav relations will continue to improve.”

Now let us turn to the Yugoslav spokesmen. Mr. Rust had referred to “close trading relations” between Yugoslavia and the “new democracies in Europe.” Tito on the other hand was later to complain that “ no ‘help’ had been received from the Eastern European countries, in fact they owed a considerable amount to Yugoslavia.” (Yugoslav Bulletin, London, 24th March, 1950.)

And on the same occasion Tito complained that Russia promised Yugoslavia 70 locomotives and railway wagons “ as part of war booty,” and then charged 6 million dollars for them.

But of more interest still is the Yugoslav Communists’ criticisms of the regime in Russia, made of course in flat contradiction of their earlier approval.

The following is an extract from an article in the Yugoslav Communist paper Borba, by Milovan Djilas, a leading Yugoslav Communist (reproduced in the Tanjug Telegraph Agency “Weekly Bulletin,” London, 24th November, 1950).

“The State monopoly in the Soviet Union, continues Djilas,  

.  .  .  has acquired monstrous, despotic forms in all fields of life. Thirty-three years have passed, but rotten and effete Capitalism does not fear the influence of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the Soviet Union is, unlike in Lenin's day, defending itself and shutting itself from that world. The Soviet leaders are hiding their system and its features, which are monstrous, even when compared with bourgeois democracy. Furthermore, writes Djilas, a class is in power in the Soviet Union which makes use of all class capitalist privileges. This is borne out by the periodical ‘purges' due to national ‘deviations’ in all Soviet Republics of the U.S.S.R. These deviations are either the expression of the imperialist strivings of domestic national State capitalisms against the hegemony of the dominating over-all State capitalism, or the democratic and socialist strivings of the working masses.
    “At a definite Leninist phase of the Soviet Union, the national question was solved, but it has come into a blind alley, and is becoming more and more a constitutional formality with which nobody now complies in the new bureaucratic conditions. As shown by the experiences in, the last war, in which all republics except greater Russia proved themselves relatively weak because of such an anti-socialist policy, the sharpening of the national question is not diminishing, but is becoming more acute and has led to the annihilation of entire nations, which even German capitalism under Hitler was not able to carry out except towards the Jews.
   "Leaders of the Soviet Union, concluded Djilas, are not only ‘revisionists' in theory, but also in practice, and they are acquiring and have already acquired a more expressive aspect of the enemies of Marxism, and they do not deny that distorted and false as it is, it helps them as a mask which they remodel and adjust according to the necessity of concealing their real features. They are, will be, and must be, against every resolution and democracy, which does not mean that they will not use them for definite practical hegemonistic aims.”

Readers of the Socialist Standard can well form their own opinion of these various recriminations and belated discoveries. It need only be added that now Yugoslavia is moving into the Western group of Powers the British Press is cautiously “discovering” that that dictatorship is not such a nasty kind as the Russian one.

Edgar Hardcastle

Much Ado About Nothing (1951)

From the February 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Listeners tuning in late to the Light programme at 8 p.m. on 11th January probably thought they were hearing a knockabout cross talk act by the Crazy Gang. A perusal of the “Radio Times” however would inform them that it was an "argument between two controversialists from opposite sides of the House of Commons.” Dr. Chas. Hill, erstwhile Radio Doctor and Lib.-Cons. members for Luton and Beds., and Douglas Houghton, Labour member, Sowerby, Yorks. The Doctor kicked off by expressing his ardent desire for a stronger Government. After he had reiterated this several times we begin to feel that his proposed ideal government would be so strong it would positively stink. Sounding very much like an irate and peppery Colonel about to throw an apoplectic fit or burst a bloodvessel, he ranted of the Fuel Crises, Housing shortages. Rising Costs and Government expenditure. His opponent tried to keep his end up, questioning if Conservatives had in the past or would in the future do any better. He hadn’t the Doctor’s booming volume or bulldozer approach and was bogged down like a centipede in wet sand. The "argument” more or less developed into a slanging match, at times both speakers "hogged” the air simultaneously, the Chairman endeavouring to maintain some semblance of order and guide the course, not very successfully. Houghton got in a dirty crack about the Drs. "bedside manner,” the point of it we lost in the general melee. He also called attention to the Labour Government’s “achievements” since 1945. But spluttering like a damp squib on firework night the Doctor once again asserted that a stronger government was needed and called passionately for an early General Election. Again he poured his wrath on the Fuel Crisis, the Chairman headed him off but he dived back again later like a homing rabbit or a dog to its juiciest bone. Towards the end Houghton recovered his wind a bit and made a brave try. (The Daily Graphic of 12th January, referred to the whole thing as a “Hot talk with a tepid reception.")

The Chairman then spoke a few soothing words and said they are not really cross, they’re grinning at one another. Possibly because each flattered himself he had put up a good show—in raucous cacophony they certainly had, but reasoned or intelligent argument, definitely no. In future when we read in our daily papers that “pandemonium reigned in the House” we shall visualise this exhibition multiplied and magnified, a veritable Tower of Babel.

This “argument” was the 2nd of a series of three. The writer missed the first by accident and will miss the third by design.

F. M. Robins

The Ineffectuals: Old and New (1951)

From the February 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Monday, the 15th January, the B.B.C. produced another of their programmes on the present half-century. It covered the twenties and was written by Rebecca West. The whole of it was an example of the ignorance, inexperience and fatuousness of the "Bright young things" who emerged into the practical world from the "upper class." We were told about the "treasure hunts" lasting most of the night, and of various futile capers, which Rebecca West defended on the ground that behind it all they were searching for a solution of the problem of war and of poverty; that the feminine section were let loose on the world to enter the professions and the like for the first time and that their freedom temporarily went to their heads. She herself belonged to that generation and she told us how their hopes were built on the expectation of abolishing war—and then these hopes were shattered; of their hopes to abolish poverty by supporting "Labour," and how thrilled they were when the first real Labour Government was voted to power in 1929—and again how their hopes were shattered. In fact the whole programme was a record of the fatuous illusions and the inevitable disillusionment of the self-styled "Intellectuals." The facts of social life and the essentials of its economic basis seemed to be outside of their knowledge and experience and they lost themselves in airy futilities. From the programme one gleaned nothing of the fact that working-class girls had been working and wrestling with the problems of life for long years before the women of Rebecca West's circle had emerged from the cocoon of pampered privilege and became writers, artists, and so forth.

But the "Intellectuals" never learn. Convinced that the sun shines out of them, they go on blowing their coloured bubbles, changing the colours as each bubble bursts without any conception of the reason the bubbles burst.

A recent example of their bubble-blowing was the "Congress of Cultural Freedom" held from June 25th to the 30th, 1950. From the Report of this Congress, published under the title "Freedom Takes the Offensive," the reader can satisfy himself on the type of people who took part in the Congress.

The Introduction informs us that the "Manifesto on Cultural Freedom" was "draw up . . . by leading intellectuals from 24 nations." Let us glance at some of the statements made by these "men of brains."

Pages 1 to 3 of the Report contain messages from nine people, all of whom see intellectual freedom in the West and intellectual chains in the East. No reference is made to the economic bondage that exists in both East and West and hampers working-class aspirations in both spheres. But as we shall see the "intellectuals" are not concerned about any but their own little circle of wind-bags.

The first contribution is by Arthur Koestler. He makes a series of muddled statements, without any clear definitions, that leave the reader in the air. His second paragraph runs as follows:—

"In fact, the thesis which I wish to put before you is that the antinomies "Socialism and Capitalism," "Left and Right," have to-day become virtually empty of meaning, and that so long as Europe remains bogged down in these false alternatives which obstruct clear thinking, it cannot hope to find a constructive solution for its problems."

After this one would expect some definition of Socialism, but it is not given, and, although there is some criticism of nationalisation, one is left with the idea that Mr. Koestler identifies nationalisation with Socialism. For instance on page 8 he says, "Equally problematic is the question: just how much nationalisation makes a country Socialist or Capitalist?" The concluding paragraph of his contribution is a pearl. It is an excellent example of the impotence of his tribe:

"Sometimes I have a feeling in my bones that the terrible pressure which this conflict [between Capitalism and Socialism] exerts on all humanity might perhaps represent a challenge, a biological stimulus as it were, which will release the new mutation of human consciousness; and that its content might be a new spiritual awareness, born of anguish and suffering, of the full meaning of freedom. And I don't mean by that freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the rest. Since the dawn of civilization people have fought under the slogan of freedom; but it was always freedom from some particularly irksome oppression, freedom in a restricted sense. I mean freedom in a much deeper and fuller sense than any we can conceive to-day or see realized anywhere in organic nature. If that is the case, then we are indeed living in an interesting time, and the answer we shall give to destiny's challenge is not without import for the future of our species."

What a pity he did not reveal that which is inconceivable to-day.

Sidney Hook poses a number of questions but does not give the answers, and James T. Farrell makes a fervent plea for "artists, thinkers and scientists," and gives an imaginary picture of freedom in the West, ending with a plea for the "moral impulse." Here are some extracts from his contribution: —

"Our task is to make as clear and as explicit as we can the meaning of freedom of culture, and, having done this, to show . . . what differentiates us from totalitarianism. To show how we live under different conditions of cultural life than do artists, thinkers and scientists in the stricken lands behind the Iron Curtain . . .
"We are free to admire what we value, and to reject what we do not value. We can criticize and we can oppose. We can participate in or ignore politics, as we think best. We can act as free artists, thinkers and scientists. And it is these rights which we should defend, use and expand. In these rights, we find the essence of cultural freedom . . .
"The freedom we possess should impose an obligation and a sense of duty upon us. In one of his great speeches, Abraham Lincoln used the phrase: 'With malice towards none, with charity for all . . . ' I hope that, without any sacrifice of firmness of purpose, we all permeate our thinking with the spirit implied in these words of Lincoln. Especially when we look towards Soviet-dominated countries where artists and thinkers and scientists are forced to wear the uniform of totalitarianism, and where the dignity of men and women has been ground into dust. To these suffering people, to the terrorised artists and thinkers behind the Iron Curtain, we cannot and should not bear malice."

Lack of space deprives us of the opportunity of tearing to pieces the above and the rest of the nonsense Mr. Farrell has contributed about the "traditions of civilisation." If Mr. Farrell could tear his attention away from the "artists, thinkers, and scientists" for a few moments he might notice the existence of conscripts, of wage-freezing, of heresy hunting, of form-filling that puts our life-histories at the disposal of the State, the lack of housing accommodation, the armaments drive, and the numerous other joys of our jolly old Western democracy.

Another contributor, Richard Lowenthal, finishes his little piece with what reads like a plea for war: —

"The defence of freedom, then, is nothing else but the defence of this vital Western capacity for growth, and it resolves itself into a dual task: the task of going on to find creative solutions to the West's internal problems, and the task of defending the Western society's territory against the pressure of Soviet totalitarianism from outside."

Like the rest of the contributors, Mr. Lowenthal offers no solution "to the West's internal problems." However, if his remarks read like a plea for war, James Burnham is quite open about it, as the following remarks of his show: —

"Moreover, I must add, in order to be fully honest, that I am not, under any and all circumstances, against atomic bombs. I am against those bombs, now stored or to be stored later in Siberia or the Caucasus, which are designed for the destruction of Paris, London, Rome, Brussels, Stockholm, New York, Chicago . . . Berlin, and of Western Civilisation generally. But I am—yesterday and to-day at any rate—for those bombs made in Los Alamos, Hanford, and Oak Ridge, and guarded I know not where in the Rockies  or American deserts."

A nice discriminating and humane lover of peace and freedom is Mr. Burnham! This final example of the wisdom of the intellectuals is perhaps a fitting point at which to finish.

Gilmac.