The Rise of Yugoslavia - Part 1 (1962)

From the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The creation of Yugoslavia (the word means "State of South Slavs") was the culmination of an historical process which began fourteen to fifteen centuries ago.

The Slavs came originally from the Russian Steppes and the northern forests of Byelorussia and their history over the years had been very turbulent. Wars and skirmishes had been waged back and forth between various Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian Princes, each trying to extend the territory under his control.

But these rulers all had to submit to a more powerful enemy when the Turks invaded Europe during the fourteenth century. Bloody indeed were the battles, but the invaders relentlessly forced their way north as far as Vienna, eventually retreating some way under pressure from the forces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The new line of demarcation split the territory roughly in half, bringing Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Monte Negro and Macedonia under Turkish rule, while Austria-Hungary retained control of Croatia and Slovenia. The new conquerors lost no time in imposing their religious ideas. Worship under the old Bosnian Church was forbidden. The Roman Catholic Church replaced it in the north, and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the South. Although there was considerable resistance to this, it would be a mistake to think that the many peasant revolts during the next six centuries were over religious issues.

Eighteenth century poets and philosophers of that unhappy land often scratched their heads over the cause of these conflicts. Only by Marx's Materialist Conception of History are we able to grasp their true significance and realise that they had their origin in the oppressive social conditions of feudalism. Religion served only to mask the more deeply rooted troubles. For instance, the feudal set-up peculiar to the area was such that peasants owned no land whatever. They were allowed merely to work the lord's land, surrendering about fifty per cent. of the products to him. This was a constant source of struggle over the centuries and peasant claims to land ownership met with stubborn refusal. Then again, large numbers had been driven to the Velebit Mountains along the coast during the Turkish invasion, but this was very poor land. Subsequently migration took place eastwards to the fertile plain lands of Vojvodina in Serbia, to be met with fierce resistance from those already established there.

The Turks were eventually ousted from the Balkans in 1877. The Serbs did this with Russian backing, and Serbia became an independent kingdom. King Alexander 1 of the Obrenovich Dynasty was the first ruler, but he was assassinated in 1878 and was succeeded by King Peter Karadjordjevicb. Independent Serbia, it seemed, set the pace for Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia still under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. She was a living inspiration to nationalist dreamers, and for the power-hungry in Belgrade this was indeed a time of plotting and intrigue.

From the turn of the century there were popular demonstrations in favour of Slav unity and in opposition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Cries of working class discontent were now added to those of the frustrated petty nobility and a thwarted Bourgeoisie. Such was the state of affairs when on that fateful June day in 1914, one student Gavrilo Princip felled the Archduke Franz Ferdinand with a gunshot which rang round the world and sparked the dry tinder of European capitalist conflict into the flame of World War 1. Four years later, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had collapsed and the Versailles Peace Treaty established a new unified Balkan State under King Peter Karadjordjevicb. Yugoslavia had arrived.

Six different regions were incorporated in the new state, each of them still under the influence of one or other of the major powers. Economic development had been patchy and uneven. Most industrialisation had taken place in the north which had been influenced by the rapid growth of European capitalism. The rest of the nation was still largely feudal with peasants representing about eighty per cent. of the population.

Yugoslavia was now a political democracy, but in 1918 the Royalists still held popular sway. Organisations such as The Social Democratic Party, the Nationalist groups “Young Bosnia" and “Serbian Youth” and the Yugoslav Communist Party, were left standing. At the general elections of 1921, however, the Communist Party won 59 seats and came within an ace of forming a government. There followed a bitter struggle with the Royalists that reached its peak with the assassination of Minister of the Interior Drashkovich. The Royalists promptly blamed the C.P. for this crime, imprisoned its leaders and declared it an illegal organisation.

From now on, the C.P. had to exist, clandestinely. It received financial support from Moscow and followed faithfully (or should we say slavishly) the Russian party line. In 1936 the Party was dealt a further blow. Its General Secretary Gorkich disappeared while in Moscow during the trials and his office was handed over to Josip Broz, otherwise Tito.

But the war clouds were gathering again, and in April, 1941. Yugoslavia was overrun by the Nazis. King Peter fled to England. From then until 1945, it was the familiar story of a peasants’ resistance movement to the German occupiers, but this again was divided broadly into two opposing sections. First there were the Royalists, known as the Chetniki, under the command of General Milhailovich. The Partisans were the other major group, organised and led by members of the Communist Party. Both groups had their eye on the future and fought with the intention of establishing their own type of government after the war.

Various minor parties such as the Social Democrats, Trotskyists, and Liberals hated both Royalists and Communists and were quite prepared to support the Nazis against the resistance movement. The Nazis were quick to see the value of "divide and rule" tactics and in 1943 by promising the Royalists a share in post-war government, managed to enlist their aid against the Partisans.

The Partisans fought on against gigantic odds, but it would be wrong to suppose that their heroism and courage were inspired only by a desire to be rid of the German invader. The peasants sighed for an end to the conditions of pre-war Yugoslavia, which had many similarities to Tzarist Russia. They lent a ready ear to the Communists who promised land reform and industrial development, and clearly compromise with the old order to any extent was impossible. Capitalist development was due for a fillip after the war.

"Peoples Republic"
In 1945 a plebiscite was held and declared heavily in favour of the establishment of a "people’s republic”. The Communist Party won the ensuing General Election by a large majority and the Royalists were eliminated as a political force. A formidable task faced the new government. Forty per cent. of the towns were in ruins and one-tenth of the population had perished during the war. The survivors were asked by their rulers to work hard and deny themselves now for happier times in the future. Millions gave their enthusiastic but misguided support to the government having been told that this was the path to Socialism Where have we heard all this before?

The Communist Party leaders were now in control of the state machine and theirs was the job of changing the feudal face of Yugoslavia into a Capitalist one —with the co-operation of the workers, of course. What matter that they called the new conditions "Socialism” or the "transitional period to Communism"? Mass working class ignorance would see that they remained in power for some time to come at least. Marshal Tito, the tireless underground leader in pre-war days and fearless partisan during the war, became the dictator of the new Yugoslavia, the man at the helm of the young capitalist State.

Like their brothers elsewhere, the Yugoslav Communist Party had many times said that they would grab the state machine as a temporary measure only, and use it to usher in Socialist society, It would then wither away, they claimed. How little they understood the role of the state machine. Since their rise to power it has become progressively stronger in the administration of Yugoslavia's private property society.

The C.P. cry of "Electrification and Industrialisation" meant sweeping changes in favour of the industrial capitalists. But there had to be a compromise because agriculture was and still is a major industry, and the transformation of the peasant into a wage worker had to slow down. The average peasant had no desire anyway to exchange the devil he knew for one he did not, and stoutly resisted attempts to drive him into the factories and workshops. Collectivisation of farms was then abandoned, at least for the time being.

Remy Starc.

[To be concluded]

Link to Part 2

Editorial: Labour's Prospects (1962)

Editorial from the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that it is Conference time for the Labour Party once more, one question will occupy the minds of its members. What are their prospects of returning to power? For some of them, we hope, another question will be even more important. What will a Labour government be worth, to the working class of this country and of the world?

Mr. Gaitskell seems to think that he has an election winner in the Common Market. Judging that the government will find it difficult to put over the idea of abandoning the Commonwealth preference system to join Europe, the Labour leader is demanding that a general election be held before Great Britain commits itself either way. This attitude is justified with some blatantly jingoistic arguments. Some Labour leaders now talk of the British Commonwealth as affectionately as does Lord Beaverbrook. Gone are the days when the Labour old timers scorned the British Empire as a great exploit of capitalist imperialism.

This brings us to our second, and more important, question. Would a Labour government benefit the working class? Some pioneers of the Labour Party used to think that it stood for peace, security and prosperity. That was their dream. What is the reality?

Peace? One of the first jobs of the Attlee government was to represent the British ruling class at the Potsdam conference. Here the leaders of the victorious Allies drew afresh the frontiers of Europe, carving up Germany and dividing Berlin. We all know that these are now among capitalism’s sorest spots. If they should erupt into World War III the Labour Party will stand foursquare behind the war effort of British capitalism.

Security? It was the Attlee government, again, which condoned the A-bomb attacks upon the two Japanese cities, which started the programme to make a British H:bomb and a fleet of missiles to deliver it.

Prosperity? The sternest government restrictions on wages since the war were those imposed in the Cripps wage freeze. And when the freeze was not as successful as they had hoped, the Labour government indirectly cut wages by devaluing the pound. Since then, Labour leaders have often boasted that, because they have such strong connections with the trade union movement, they would be better able to control wages than a Conservative government would. Mr. James Callaghan, who is the Labour Party's shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, touched on this last August when he spoke to the Yorkshire miners’ summer school. According to The Guardian of 28th August. 1962 he “. . . hinted yesterday that a Labour Government would limit the freedom of wage-fixing together with the freedom to fix prices, dividends and rents."

A future Labour government, then, would he as keen to protect the interests of the British capitalist class by holding wages in check as is the Tory government we have at present.

There are other reasons for deciding that no worker should waste his time by voting for a Labour government. The Labour Party did none of these things because they lacked knowledge, or had the wrong leaders or for any of the other excuses which are offered to explain away the melancholy records of capitalist governments. They acted as they did because they are a capitalist party, which aims for power to run British capitalism. And no party has yet succeeded in doing that to the benefit of the great majority of the people.

Workers everywhere—who are the majority-should see through the false propaganda of the Labour Party and of the other organisations which stand for capitalism. There is an alternative to them all. Socialism will bring us a world of peace and plenty That is a world worth working for, because it is a world worth living for.

Lunacy: The Struggle for Space (1962)

From the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

A schoolboy fantasy is fast approaching realisation. There may be a man on the moon in the next three or four years if the latest Russian achievement is any indication. Recently two men—Major Nikolayev and Lt.-Colonel Popovich—were sent up within twenty-four hours of each other, about 150 miles above the earth.

“Quite fantastic,” said Sir Bernard Lovell. This man of science at Jodrell Bank was quick to point out the depth of Russian resources which must have been behind their double space shot, and there is general agreement that it brings a lunar expedition very much nearer. According to Colin Frame in the Evening News, the preliminary to a moon landing would be a space base assembled about 500 miles up, from which further rockets would be launched. Professor Lovell thinks that the Soviet experiment may well have this in view.

From the available evidence then, the Soviets seem still to hold the lead in this field, but it need not mean that they will continue to do so. President Kennedy has admitted that America does lag behind, but for some time now desperate efforts have been made to shorten the gap, and contracts have already been placed in connection with a future U.S. Moon Shot, estimated to cost $30 thousand millions. It makes nonsense incidentally, of the rather silly suggestion in the Evening News editorial that the American failure is because money has been diverted to other things more urgent, such as houses, roads, etc. In fact, the budget of the National Space and Aeronautics Administration has increased this year from $1,700 millions to $3,000 millions, and it has been said that none of its work in the space programme is hampered for lack of funds.

So the Russian advantage is a technical one, and this must be causing the American government some concern in more ways than one. It seems almost too obvious to say that this is a severely competitive world and the space race is no exception. Linked with it is the struggle for prestige between the two giants of capitalism, U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., and prestige means a lot when you are jostling for influence among the newly rising states.

Nor should we lose sight of another and much more sinister aspect which Sir Bernard Lovell himself has mentioned. Talking about the Soviet feat on August 13th, for example, he told reporters that “. . .  you cannot divide the military and peaceful significance.” And again, on August 15th, he spoke of the ". . . terrible avenue of the militarisation of space which is now obviously opening before our eyes.” In this respect, he was not concerned merely with the Russians, but was critical of their combined failure with U.S.A. to achieve ". . .  co-operation on a big scale . . .  to further the peaceful exploration of space.”

Yet it is precisely this peacefulness which is an impossibility in a private property set up. A mere absence of actual fighting does little to conceal [that] the vicious RAT Race in Space undertones working to another horror later on. Research into new weapons and perfection of the old are going on all the time, and it is futile for Professor Lovell to talk of peaceful co-operation when on his own admission there is really no such thing. And for all their talk, the actions of the U.S. and Russian governments show that they don't believe it either. Both sides have been developing rockets capable of delivering nuclear warheads, and it is interesting also to see from The Guardian of 16/8/62 that twenty unidentified American satellites have been launched under military secrecy since last November. At least some of them have been designed for missile warning and reconnaissance work.

Indeed, Max Freedman put his finger on the sort of dilemma which confronts capitalist powers when he wrote:

  The Kennedy Administration is unshaken in its central belief that outer space should be reserved for peaceful purposes alone. But it is aware that it cannot allow Russia to achieve an acknowledged lead in outer space without running the risk that the U.S. one day may find itself at a formidable disadvantage in measuring its ultimate military power against the Soviet Arsenal.

Even Britain, barely an also ran in the race so far, is thinking of edging into it by way of a high performance aircraft capable of eventual orbit. The R.A.F. is said to be seeking support for such a programme and its possibility is being studied, according to Aviation Minister Julian Amery speaking at the Society of British Aircraft Constructors dinner in London last month.

What a prospect then, for the future! Maybe a man on the moon in three or four years and the certainty anyway of a frantic arms race pushing itself more and more into space. Already nuclear bombs have been exploded high above the earth's atmosphere by both America and Russia, and Professor Lovell thinks that the Russians may well be able to shoot down American satellites. Incidentally, this sparked off an interesting but largely futile speculation in one newspaper on the legality of such action. Futile, because legality is just about the last thing capitalist powers will allow to stand in the way of their interests.

And then Soviet scientist Fyodorov innocently says: “There is room for everybody in space — and nobody need fight over it.” Well, don’t you believe it! Capitalist powers will fight over anything if they think their interests justify it. And these need not be only of a military nature. A new and specialised market is in prospect with the advent of space exploration. In Britain, for instance, eight large industrial firms have formed British Space Developments Ltd., and one of the backers, Sir Robert Renwick, believes that: " . . . there is more money in space than ever dreamed of. The use of space in the next two decades will be a major key to continued prosperity."

Having said all this, the outstanding thing to remember is the shocking wastefulness of it. This is not to decry space exploration as such. We might well have it under Socialism, though in its proper sequence of priority and in any case not for the destructive and harmful purposes behind today’s efforts. It was bitterly ironical that the latest Russian astronauts burst through the natural wall of gravity almost exactly one year after the building of the man-made wall across Berlin. But such incongruity probably never occurred to the flying young men Nikotayev and Popovich, or for that matter countless other people here on earth. And those who did notice it do not seem to have gone so far as to question the whole social system which can solve the tricky problems of space travel, but cannot even feed clothe and house most of its earthly population decently.

Eddie Critchfield

Finance and Industry: The Common Market and the old Corn Laws (1962)

The Finance and Industry column from the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Economist in a recent article on the difficulty Macmillan will face in trying to get Parliamentary approval for entry into the Common Market, described it as potentially “the most explosive internal situation since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.” The writer was warning of the possibility that the Tory Party might split and the Government suffer defeat by an alliance between “Tory reactionaries seeking disentanglement from Europe," and the Labour Party seeking to win an election on anti-Common Market votes.

It is an interesting parallel. The repeal of the Corn Laws (duties on imported corn), and the removal of the import duties on a wide range of other goods and the earlier abolition of duties on exports, marked the great changeover of British trading policy from high protection to free trade. Among other consequences it was expected to bring speedy ruin to farmers and landlords as floods of cheap imported food started coming in. These agricultural interests were influential in the Conservative Party which was then in power with Sir Robert Peel as Prime Minister. He however favoured Repeal, both on general grounds and because of the disastrous potato famine that occurred in Ireland in 1845, but his fellow ministers in the Cabinet would not agree. He thereupon resigned, but the Liberal leader. Sir John Russell, was unable to get enough support in Parliament for a Liberal government and Peel was soon back in office. He then forced the Repeal of the Corn Laws through the House of Commons against the will of his own Party. He was able to do this because the Liberal opposition M.P.'s who voted for it were joined by over a hundred Conservative “free-traders," many of whom later joined the Liberal Party. Peel had got his way, but it cost him his Premiership, and the Government for the next six years was Liberal.

The British industrial and commercial capitalists had truly come into their own. British manufacturers and British-owned ships dominated the markets and shipping lanes of the world. The Free-trader, Dr. Bowring, might declare “Jesus Christ is Free Trade and Free Trade is Jesus Christ." But what the manufacturers were aiming at was low-priced raw material and food imports so that wages could be reduced, selling prices of manufacturers kept down and profits raised. They hid their real aim under promises of benefits for everybody — for the worker, cheap food and high wages; and for the whole human race, the dawn of an era of brotherhood and peace. They were, however, not able to convince the farmers and landowners that it would be good for them also, but as things turned out the repeal of the import duties on food did not have the feared disastrous effects at once. For one thing the duties on imported corn were not abolished at one stroke, but by stages over a period of years. Secondly, it took time to organise the import of food from abroad and it was not till many years later that the floods of cheap food started coming in from across the Atlantic. Also the big discoveries of easily-mined gold in California and Australia had the effect of raising the general price level,

The enthusiasts for Free Trade convinced themselves that it was a doctrine for universal application and were surprised to find that it was not everywhere accepted. Free Trade suited the triumphant British exporters of manufactured goods, but not their less successful rivals on the Continent.

  On the Continent—the backbone of the Protectionist Party was formed by the manufacturers who feared the English imports; the Free-Trade Party were the agriculturalists who wanted cheap manufactures. Thus in Germany the Agrarians or Junkers were Free-Trade, so were the great landowners of Russia, the wine-producers of France and the cotton growers of the South in the United States. They were all exporters and wanted markets abroad and were willing to take manufactures in return.
(Knowles, Industrial and Commercial Revolutions in Great Britain during the 19th Century. P.I32).

Later on when British capitalists ceased to determine the world market for manufactured goods and had to face thrusting competitors from overseas, many of them abandoned Free Trade.

In 1923 the Baldwin Tory Government and its big business backers had decided to go over to Protection. They fought an election on the issue, but were defeated and it was not until nine years later under the Import Duties Act, 1932. that a general ten per cent. import duty was imposed on all imported goods except raw materials and foodstuffs.

Baldwin's failure to carry the electors with him in 1923 (his policy was opposed by both Liberals and Labour) is a reminder of the different political situation in 1846. At that time the workers had no votes and the electorate was well under a million in a population of 18 million; now it is about 36 million in a population of 52 million.

One other difference is that nowadays hardly anyone can be found in this country crusading for Free Trade in the way the old Corn Law abolitionists did. The supporters of the European Common Market (including the formerly Free Trade Liberals) want Free Trade inside the Market, but a quite high tariff wall against imports from outside; and their opponents who want to keep out of the Market and develop Commonwealth trade are likewise supporters of Protective Tariffs.

Where some big backing for Free Trade can be found now is in the United States, and the reason is the same as that which operated in Britain in 1846. The Kennedy Administration has been trying to move towards freer trade; naturally against the opposition of those groups that favour high tariff protection for their own products. A correspondent writing in the Financial Times (11/9/62) says:

  In fighting for freer trade the President has enjoyed the support of the most progressive section of American industry—capital goods—which have been chiefly responsible for expanding the U.S. export surplus in recent years. While the U.S. is now a net importer of finished consumer goods, exports of capital equipment- construction machinery, rolling machinery, and the like—are some 6,000 million dollars larger than imports.

One factor does not change. All of the industrial and commercial groups whose financial interest leans this way or that over free trade, protection, common market and the like will go on proclaiming that all they are concerned with is the well-being of the workers—just as it was in 1846.

Edgar Hardcastle