The Common Market Special Survey: 3. The Workers’ Position (1962)

From the January 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing in December we still do not know whether the British Government will enter the European Common Market, or whether their conditions for entry will prove inacceptable to the six countries already in. And if the outcome is that Britain becomes a member, no-one yet knew what special arrangement may be made for the Commonwealth and Colonial territories, nor what the Scandinavian and other European countries may decide to do in this new situation.

All of these uncertain factors have a bearing on the effect that joining the Common Market will have on particular industries and firms and on workers’ jobs.

Some British workers will find their occupations gone through redundancy and will have to seek a job in another industry or in another place, perhaps across the Channel.

Unions in printing, entertainment and tailoring are among those that have expressed fears about jobs, or wages, or the incursion of workers from other Common Market countries looking for work here.

But in some industries the expectation is that prospects would improve for the firms centred in Britain, and the workers whose jobs may in consequence be made more precarious will be those now working in one of the Common Market countries. Among the industries in which this may happen are engineering, motor car manufacture and chemicals. Mine-workers have also been encouraged by the Coal Board to believe that more British coal would be sold and that employment prospects in the coal industry here would improve.

Sometimes the forecasters who tell workers what they think will happen are not trade union leaders but employers. The British Employers’ Confederation issued a statement that entry to the Market would make wage increases out of the question unless preceded by increases in productivity. (Financial Times, 8/8/61); and Lord Chandos, chief of Associated Electrical Industries, who spoke in favour of Britain’s entry, told his fellow members of the House of Lords (3/8/61) that the consequent sharper competition and other changes

”will impinge upon the workers . . . very much more than on the employers, This kind of thing will make the ‘ wild-cat’ strike, the demarcation dispute, and shorter hours with less work at lower productivity an impossible luxury.” He instanced Coventry as a place where the motor workers would not be exhilarated to see a flood of Italian and French cars, or Italian workers coming here for jobs.

As would be expected, when manufacturers and traders ponder the case for joining, it is not the workers’ comfort they have in mind except in the sense that the ” European cold wind of change” may help them to discipline British workers, or so they think.” (Financial Times 24.7.61).

Workers worrying about these chilling prophecies are mostly upsetting themselves to no purpose. Of course, they may find themselves out of a job or faced with an employer’s refusal to give a wage increase, or see their employer unable lo stand up to competition. But these are things that will happen anyway; they happen all the time and all over the place, not just in the Common Market.

The end of 1961 gave us news of redundancy and short time in the motor car industry; notice that 15 Scottish coal mines will be closed in 1962, affecting 5,000 workers; the forthcoming closure of the De Havilland aircraft factory at Christchurch, Hants, with 2,000 men looking for jobs in an area which depended heavily for employment on the firm; and Courtaulds closing down one of the British Enka plants which it recently bought, so that nearly 4,000 people at Aintree, Liverpool, are expected to lose their jobs.

Unemployment

And those who think that the Common Market will end the workers’ troubles are equally in error. Their argument is on the lines that a great home market of 170 million people is a guarantee of efficient production, steady marketing, high wages and secure employment. But the U.S.A. also has 170 million people and recently had over five million unemployed and in the depression years of the nineteen ‘thirties had unemployment ranging at times up to 10 million and even 15 million.

Within the past few years America has seen its motor car industry and steel at times in the doldrums, with tens of thousands unemployed. And there is no reason to suppose that the Common Market will escape the kind of regional or local bad trade that can exist in all countries, the United States included.

Though at present Germany has very little unemployment, Italy, one of the partners in the Common Market, has about 1,350,000 unemployed or nearly 7 per cent., and it has never averaged less than that figure in the past 10 years.

Immigration

The Common Market aims at unfettered movement of workers throughout the area, but in practice it will probably be long before it becomes effective, and various hindrances of movement will exist even then. There are no legal barriers in the way of the movement of workers within Great Britain, but that does not prevent unemployment being persistently heavy in one district and light in another, one per cent, in the London and South Eastern Region and 7½ times as heavy in Northern Ireland. Housing is a big factor in this. And as was recently pointed out by the Times, even if the movement of workers in the Common Market were completely free already (which it is not), “differences in wages and conditions are not sufficient to induce many workers to seek employment in a strange country. The only likely movement of any size would be from countries where there is a substantial unemployment, which at present means Southern Italy.”

Figures published in July, 1961, showed that there were 200,000 Italians working in Germany along with much smaller numbers from many other countries, making a total of 470,000 immigrant workers.

We hear much about the workers’ reactions to the incursions of immigrants, but the employers have a problem too. When workers leave their home town it enables those who stay behind to put more pressure into their struggle for higher wages. German employers welcome Italian immigrants, but it looks different to the Italian factory owners.

“Some factory owners complain about the fact that agents of German or Swiss employers stand outside their factory gates offering contracts to workers as they finish their shifts.”

Trade Unions

No particular difficulty should arise in the trade union field. Though British rank and file trade unionists have mostly not been as much aware of international organisation and its problems as Continental workers, the union officials and executives have often had long and fairly close contact with Continental unions, particularly through their own Internationals (Miners, Transport workers, Post office workers, Agricultural workers, Printers, etc., etc.).

This is not to say that unions will easily forget their nationalist prejudices, but at least they will get used to working together in day to day matters on a European basis. Still less does it mean as claimed by Ludwig Rosenberg, Deputy Chairman of the German Trade Union Federation, that formation of the European Common Market is an expression of the fact that “international co-operation and solidarity beyond national frontiers are among the basic aims of the Labour movement throughout the world.”

The grouping of small units into a larger one, with one of its objects to stand up industrially, commercially (and militarily) against other world blocs no more depends on an “international” outlook than did the forging of unity in the 19th century in Italy or the German customs union which lead to German unity, though it does achieve the breakdown of the narrower isolations and prejudices. Certainly it should be easier for workers in all of the Common Market countries to avoid being played-off against each other in the name of the “national interest.”

Wages

Opinions differ about the complex question of comparing wages in this country with those on the Continent. What is true of one industry or country may not be true of another, but, for what it is worth the Times recently gave the following summary of comparative pay and conditions in the Common Market countries:

“Their wages are still probably lower, but not very much so except in Italy and to a lesser extent the Netherlands, but they are rising more rapidly. Their hours worked are shorter, though the working week in some cases is still longer. They get more paid holidays. They devote a higher proportion of their national income to social security. Their occupational training schemes are probably mostly better. At the present rate of progress, Britain looks like becoming a backward country by European standards, before many years have gone.”

For many years, ever since German industry got on its feet again after the war, British politicians and business men have told the British workers that they should model themselves on the hard-working, thrifty, non-striking German workers, who from the German employers’ point of view were exemplary. This idea has helped a little to colour the views of many employers in favour of getting inside: but perhaps they were wrong after all.

Last November it was being discovered by German business men and economists that the German worker was up to the same tricks as British workers, taking advantage of low employment to push up wages. The Financial Times diagram published on November 22nd, showing wages forging ahead of output per hour and of employers’ sales receipts referred to German workers, but it might easily have been taken for an article about British workers any time in the post-war years.

This should not surprise anyone. The European Common Market is not a different kind of capitalist entity—only a larger one. Whether the British Government goes in or not, British workers should be looking to promote their own Socialist working class unity with workers everywhere, not just in Western Europe.

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: Britain Enters the Common Market (2023)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the beginning of this month Britain has been part of the ‘European Economic Community’, to give the Common Market its official name. This means that the British government is pledged to pursue, along with eight other West European governments, common policies in such fields as foreign trade, transport and agriculture. By 1978 all trade barriers between Britain and the other eight countries should have been removed and all nine should have erected a uniform tariff against goods coming from outside their ‘common market’.

For the capitalists of Britain, or most of them, this will open up a vast new market in which to try to sell their goods at a profit. But what about the workers? How will the Common Market affect the ordinary wage- or salary-earner in the factories and offices of Britain?

First, and this has already begun to happen, there’ll be a rise in food prices as a result of the British government having to change its method of subsidising agriculture. (…)

The second change the ordinary wage-earner will notice is in the way the goods he buys are taxed. From 1 April this year purchase tax and SET will be abolished and replaced by a Value Added Tax (VAT). (….)

Thirdly, workers from Britain will be free to move to the other countries in search of a job and will be able to carry social security rights with them. And workers from the other countries will be free to come here on the same terms, of course.

Within ten years, however, we could be using a common European currency and voting in elections for the European Parliament at Strasbourg. And after that, perhaps, there’ll be progress towards a ‘United States of Europe’ as another Great Power challenging the current world hegemony of America and Russia (…).

But, in any event, the emergence of such a new capitalist super-State, or the creation of a single European capitalist economy, is of no concern to the working class. Though it will affect them nevertheless. To try to mitigate these effects they will have to start thinking in terms of united action with their fellow workers in Europe. Already some trade unions, and trade unionists, have — wisely — been making contact with their opposite numbers in the other countries.

(Socialist Standard, January 1973)

Britain Enters The Common Market (1973)

From the January 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the beginning of this month Britain has been part of the “European Economic Community", to give the Common Market its official name. This means that the British government is pledged to pursue, along with eight other West European governments, common policies in such fields as foreign trade, transport and agriculture. By 1978 all trade barriers between Britain and the other eight countries should have been removed and all nine should have erected a uniform tariff against goods coming from outside their “common market”.

For the capitalists of Britain, or most of them, this will open up a vast new market in which to try to sell their goods at a profit. But what about the workers? How will the Common Market affect the ordinary wage- or salary-earner in the factories and offices of Britain?

First, and this has already begun to happen, there'll be a rise in food prices as a result of the British government having to change its method of subsidising agriculture. Till now Britain has followed a “cheap food” policy of letting food in at lower, world prices and paying farmers the difference between this and a previously-agreed higher, notional price. The Common Market agriculture policy, on the other hand, is based on subsidising farmers and peasants by fixing selling prices, with the help of tariffs and levies, above world market level.

Rising food prices of course mean, without a compensating rise in wages, a cut in living standards. It is this that has made the Common Market so unpopular amongst workers in Britain and why the Tory government was afraid to hold a referendum on the issue: they knew it would have been seen as a vote not about the abstract question of “Britain’s destiny in Europe” Heath likes to specify about, but as a vote for or against rising food prices, with the result a foregone conclusion. The Labour Party has cynically exploited this ordinary working-class reaction and has used it, with the help of the so-called Communist Party, to stir up latent anti-foreign prejudices. Rising food prices do represent a threat to living standards, but the way to fight back is on the industrial field by pressing for higher wages not by sterile and dangerous jingoism.

The second change the ordinary wage-earner will notice is in the way the goods he buys are taxed. From 1 April this year purchase tax and SET will be abolished and replaced by a Value Added Tax (VAT). This probably won’t make much difference to the overall price level but, being something new, will (like decimilization) tend to be blamed for inflation. In any event, tax changes are insignificant from a working-class point of view.

Thirdly, workers from Britain will be free to move to the other countries in search of a job and will be able to carry social security rights with them. And workers from the other countries will be free to come here on the same terms, of course.

Within ten years, however, we could be using a common European currency and voting in elections for the European Parliament at Strasbourg. And after that, perhaps, there’ll be progress towards a “United States of Europe” as another Great Power challenging the current world hegemony of America and Russia — on condition, that is, that the various nation-States can agree to give up a great deal of the power they now have to protect their national capitalist interests even against the other members of the EEC. Which must remain very much open to doubt, since up to now the EEC has been a permanent inter-governmental conference rather than a embryo super-State.

But, in any event, the emergence of such a new capitalist super-State, or the creation of a single European capitalist economy, is of no concern to the working class. Though it will affect them nevertheless. To try to mitigate these effects they will have to start thinking in terms of united action with their fellow workers in Europe. Already some trade unions, and trade unionists, have — wisely — been making contact with their opposite numbers in the other countries.

But such actions, though necessarily, are only defensive of working-class interests under capitalism. The need will remain to go beyond them and build up a political movement on a world-scale aimed at establishing a united Socialist world making frontiers a thing of the past.

Freedom of Movement: Another Euromyth (2019)

From the July 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

The freedom of movement for workers is one of the European Union’s ‘four economic freedoms’. Freedom of movement is one of the key elements of membership and is championed by Liberal and Social Democratic parties. How then, do socialists engage with and redirect support for this concept, to support for socialism?

Genuine socialists seek to abolish class, and with it the money, wages and nation states which facilitate its reproduction. As such, one could say that the freedom of labour will become as irrelevant in socialist society as the freedom of capital. However, socialists accept that work of some form – in contrast to wage labour – will continue to exist in a democratic society. It follows then that there will still be ‘workers’ who would benefit from an enhanced and genuine freedom of movement. In a border-free world, workers will be able to reside where best suits their abilities and needs, without the constraints of economic and social mobility.

The socialist response to this is to categorise freedom of movement in the EU as freedom of movement of wage labour. This, of course, is oxymoronic. Under a wage labour system, freedom of movement is utilised to facilitate economic and political regression. Freedom of movement undoubtedly generates national and ‘racial’ divisions between workers in a context of false scarcity. It is also, in reality, a contradictory concept to say the least. At its southern frontiers, workers from outside the EU are often presented with a grave fate quite polarised from that of freedom.

Economic migration is seen as undermining wage rates, and placing a strain on welfare resources. To many in deprived areas, these arguments against immigration have become intrinsically logical and deeply engrained. Despite its considerable merits in comparison to a system of economic migration such as ‘hukou’ in China, Liberals and Social Democrats obnoxiously replicate and encourage support for right-wing populism by acting as dogmatic apologists for the EU.

Unfortunately, recent political developments have provided increasingly fertile ground for smug liberal apologism in certain circles as well as right-wing populism in deprived economic regions. As this binary divide deepens, it increasingly becomes perceived as a question of good and evil. Going by results in the recent EU elections, potential socialist sympathisers seem to have been unable to not prioritise supporting the supposed ‘good’ option.

As socialists, we are right not to take sides in capitalist debates such as Leave or Remain, but we must be forthright in our economic critique. In other words, we must challenge, engage with and supersede capitalist debates and binaries. It is up to us to present the objective and inherent forces of capitalism as being to blame for economic deprivation, monotony, strife and the working class’s distance from any influence over their communities and society in general. It is only the socialist critique of capitalism that can reconcile the interests of workers. Only socialism can rebuild a sense of empathy between deprived workers inside relatively desirable borders, and those who are desperately trying to reach them. Ultimately, all workers are driven by a sense of fear regarding our own ongoing economic security – it is socialism’s job to bring those in the same economic class together politically.

It is vitally important that socialists provide a critique of EU freedom of movement, if we don’t, right-wing nationalists and vacuous liberals will continue to be able to frame a capitalist binary divide and prevent socialism from taking root in the working class.

James Clark

Letters: Should Immigration be Controlled (1968)

Letters to the Editors from the August 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

Agreed that the new Commonwealth Immigrants Act, passed in March, is racialist even more than the previous ones, I cannot fully agree with the complete freedom of labour movement in the existing structures.

You say that “economics demands free immigration”. This is opinion, not fact. Asians are prepared to work long hours, weekends, in order to send home money to families left in the move. If by a strenuous (as it is) effort, disregarding leisure time completely, an Indian or Pakistani can earn a large wage, this holds back any claims for higher basic wages and/or a shorter working week. Labour becomes ‘cheap’ — or cheaper — whether this is economically true or not, it will seem to native factory workers who will feel resentment. This leads to prejudice in other matters.

Make labour available cheaply and one makes automation unnecessary. Already Japan, USA, etc. have managed, by increased technical efficiency, to increase industrial productivity. Thus it can be argued that allowing free immigration—especially of unskilled workers—holds back efficiency. I am no economist. There are perhaps faults in my reasoning, but surely you are aware of these arguments. Why not then deal with them in your article? Or is it that the above arguments are sound?

What is abhorrent is the limitation of entry into a country because of race, or religion, etc. Commonwealth citizens have no more right to come to Britain than we have to go to their countries—and yet they all impose strict control on immigration. It was all very well to cling to the 19th century ‘mother country’ idea when the influx was small and the immigrants, like the Hugenots, Poles, etc., seemed to be 'refugees’. Their numbers were small and they were assimilated with few pains. But now if it is a source of economic or social instability some control seems necessary. But anyone who comes to Britain should be subject to the same rules regarding entry—whether European, Canadian, South African or Indian. And if any check is to be made on entry, it should take place in the country of origin, to avoid disappointment when in a strange environment.

I am sympathetic to the immigrant, especially to the Asians whom I have taught. They represent a real problem, and frankly our education service is so understaffed and under-equipped that we cannot hope to teach our language and customs to an unlimited number. Uneducated immigrants cause greater prejudice than those who have overcome the language barrier and understand English attitudes and customs.

D. Green, 

14 Ena Crescent,

Leigh, 

Lancs.

Capitalism brought our Blacks to create the racial hatred and colour bar to crush all resistance of the natives of this island, and to cheapen labour and force up the cost of living. Most of our unemployed are Whites and poorly housed in hostels like the Salvation Army, Church Army and Rowton Houses (on Board and Lodging Vouchers) who are making fortunes out of our homeless and half-starved workers. Blacks have created mass unemployment for our workers. Blacks are selfish and grab everything then can get for themselves. Capitalism is cunning as a rattlesnake and apparently cannot be beaten by small groups like the SPGB, who while you print a load of twaddle, have no real policy and favour Blacks before the English who have supported you from the start. Socialism! but National it will be! It’s on the way now! At least the SPGB gives an easy living to its leaders — that's all.

S. J. Deal, 

London, SE1.

Your article on Race Relations makes one think that you are in favour of the white man having to work, live and feel at home with coloured people. Such a thing is impossible. Our tradition and outlook is totally different from anything the coloured people have ever known. I agree with your assertion that a coloured man is every bit as capable as a white man given the chance and the conditions.

Socialism does not mean a free for all will take place when it comes. Black and While will not be forced to earn a living in a strange land. A free and full outlet will be the right of mankind to express the best that is in him without having to go to another part of the world to get a job. Marx’s declaration “Workers of the World Unite” meant politically and not nationally.

This country is too small for a larger population. In many parts there is no place for the native white people to live and the seeds are already being sown by the enormous number of coloured workers buying houses in an already overcrowded country. Already the dockers are supporting the criticism of their overcrowding here and those responsible for their coming here will have a lot to answer for before many more years.

W. Harding, 

London, E17.

Reply: 

Prejudice is defined as an opinion formed without proper consideration of the facts or arguments. Both Mr. Deal and Mr. Harding are prejudiced.

There is one simple reason why most of the unemployed in Britain are “white" and that is because 98 per cent of the population is.

Has “coloured immigration” cheapened labour, i.e., depressed wage levels? Alan Day, in an article in the Observer on 28 April, suggested that immigration had held back, rather than depressed, the wages of certain sections of the working class: those in the unskilled jobs that immigrants tend to do. He reckons that, without immigration (and this is the argument put forward by Mr. Green in the previous letter) employers would have been forced to introduce labour-saving machinery. It is quite true that one of the factors under capitalism which decides whether or not machinery is used is the level of wages. A labour shortage forces up wages and so could make machinery profitable. It is true also that London Transport in a bid to overcome an acute labour shortage did recruit workers in the West Indies. The hospitals, too, have had an acute labour shortage. But even if we concede that by restrictions on immigration certain workers could have pushed up their wages and that therefore immigration has harmed them, is this a reason why Socialists should support immigration control? Of course it is not. Socialists stand for the interest of workers all over the world. All who work for a wage or salary, no matter where they live or work or what language they speak or the colour of their skin, have a common interest; in working together to protect living standards while capitalism lasts and, more important, to replace capitalism with Socialism. One section of the working class may for a time improve its lot by keeping out other sections. But Socialists are opposed to sectionalism, whether it is by trade, nationality or colour. It hampers effective united action and spreads the pernicious theories of nationalism and racialism. We state frankly: we would not support immigration control even if it would maintain the living standards of some workers in Britain.

Has “coloured immigration" forced up the cost of living? We confess we are unable to fathom this one. It seems to be a prime example of the working of a prejudiced mind. Take something you don't like (rising cost of living) and blame it on some scapegoat (immigrants).

Has “coloured immigration” created mass unemployment? Unemployment there is. and will be as long as capitalism lasts, but at the moment there is not “mass” unemployment. Immigration is not the cause of unemployment. Rather the post-war immigration is itself the result of a relative labour shortage, as the Confederation of British Industries has pointed out.

Is it impossible for “white” and “coloured” people to work and live together? Mr. Harding says it is, on the grounds that the tradition and outlook of the two are completely different. Let’s clear up one point first: different peoples do have different traditions but it is not true that all “whites” share one common tradition and all “coloureds” another. If you are going to argue from different ways of life you must throw overboard arguments based on colour and so-called race, unless you are prepared to argue that a man's skin colour and other physical features determine how he must behave. All human beings are members of the same animal species, homo sapiens. All human beings are capable of learning and of absorbing the culture of the society in which they live. Such differences as exist between the peoples of the world are not the result of different natures, but of living in different environments. All peoples are quite capable of absorbing modern culture in a comparatively short time (see for instance, New Lives for Old by Margaret Mead). Obviously, people born and bred in a capitalist-industrial society are better equipped to live in it than people who have recently come to it from backward agricultural villages. This does not mean, however, that such immigrants must remain ill-equipped for ever.

Is Britain overcrowded? This is a big myth. In any event the figures for population per square mile do not allow us to say that an area is inhabited by too many people because it cannot sustain them. There is another factor which must be taken into account: the man-made means of production. In 1801 there were 12 million people in Britain, in 1851 22 million, in 1901 38 million and today about 54 million (of whom less than one million are “coloured”). Britain has been able to sustain an increasing population because of the ever-increasing productivity of the man-made means of production. In fact, of course, it does not make sense to take one part of the world in isolation from the rest. Britain, through the international division of labour, is part of the world economy and the earth could sustain many times its present population. If the politicians who talk about Britain being overcrowded really believed it they would also be advocating increased emigration, birth control, abolition of family allowances, the end of tax discrimination against single people and childless couples, and so on. They would also be instituting internal migration controls (giving us all “passes” as in Russia and South Africa): if Wolverhampton or London were overcrowded then they would be trying to stop people moving there from Glasgow and Wales as well as from overseas. But they are not, are they? This “overcrowded” argument is pure nonsense. It is only in vogue because it appears to be a respectable, rational argument for an immigration colour bar.

Now, for the odd ideas about the Socialist Party of Great Britain and Marx.

Have the English always supported us from the start? First, who are the English, anyway? It is true that till now the bulk of die members and supporters of the Socialist Party (but by no means all) have been what our correspondents would label “white”, but that is not by choice but by accident. Socialism is a system of society which the workers in the industrialisted parts of the world must strive for. The fact that most such workers at present happen to be “white” is irrelevant. We seek the support of all workers and have declared right from the start that we seek the emancipation of all mankind, irrespective of race or sex.

Do our leaders have an easy living? No, we have no leaders, just ordinary workers carrying out Socialist activity in their spare time.

Who said Socialism would be a free-for- all? We are sure that in a Socialist society people will be pleased to travel and work anywhere in the world. Certainly they will be free to do so.

What did Marx mean by “workers of the world, unite”? Perhaps Mr. Harding can tell us how workers can unite politically without workers from all nations joining together. He might also ponder over this one: Why did Marx let his daughter marry a “coloured” man from Cuba?

Editorial Committee.

Workers of All Lands Unite—But not with foreigners (1947)

Editorial from the May 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Biblical legend tells us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter paradise. It never occurred to the writer to stress the extreme difficulty of getting out again, it being assumed quite naturally that it is only prisons and suchlike purgatories that have to make escape impossible. Only in our own day do we witness the spectacle of Russia being held up as a Paradise, while the inhabitants are strictly forbidden to leave; they, it seems, must serve their life sentences to the very end.

This has been brought to prominence by the plight of the few Russian women who married British and other foreigners during the war and vainly tried to get out of Russia to rejoin their husbands; and by the new decree against such marriages. "Marriage between Soviet citizens and aliens was prohibited by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., published yesterday."—(Daily Worker, 22/3/47).

In the mid-nineteenth century it was taken for granted by those who thought themselves progressive that the ending of slavery and serfdom would be followed by the eventual removal of all restrictions on movement. Instead, the comparative ease of movement that then existed and which permitted Marx and Johan Most, the anarchist, for example to leave the continent and settle in England, has been followed by our own era in which registrations, passports and other obstacles to migration have reached a new perfection, more pernicious because the machinery of coercion is go much more efficient. Russia, the so-called land of internationalism, is now about the worst of the lot; its present attitude to marriage with aliens being different in motive but just as reactionary as the laws which prohibit marriages between whites and negroes in various parts of the world.

Russia was one of the countries that subscribed to the principles of the Atlantic Charter. One of these principles proclaimed the intention to establish such a peace as “should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance." How they are to reach the high seas and how to enter port again is not explained.

It is amusing to recall that the First Soviet Constitution (1918) contained a clause favouring “the widest possible fraternising between the workers and peasants in the ranks of the opposing armies." Now the unfortunate Soviet citizen must not even fraternise with members of an “allied" army!

When in 1860 Jacob Burckhardt wrote his “Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy," and wanted to show the depths of tyranny and intolerance of some of the 13th century despotisms he selected as an example Frederick II's "disciplined multitude of subjects; who were forbidden, for example, to marry out of the country without special permission." (Phaidon Press edition 1944, P. 3). Another instance was Bologna where it was the rule "that every passing traveller who entered at one gate must obtain a ticket in order to go out at another" (p. 33). If Burckhardt were writing to-day all he need do would he to say how little things had changed between the 13th and the 20th centuries, except that the coercion of the individual has been renamed "Communism," or Labour Planning, or National Service.