Notes by the Way: A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers (1949)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Tip for Hire Purchase Financiers

The Daily Worker (12/10/49) had an article on “Hire Purchase—New Style ” in Hungary. It appears that in “Socialist” Hungary “hire purchase . . . . is now organised as a State enterprise,” and is “no longer a means whereby manufacturers can sell expensive goods to poor people, but one designed to help the poorest and largest families.”

The Worker correspondent does not explain how it is that in “Socialist” Hungary there should be “poorest families” unable to get what they need without hire purchase, but he describes a feature that will make the financiers of hire purchase here and in U.S.A. turn green with envy. One of their bugbears is the worker who gets the goods and defaults on payments or manages to disappear before he has paid them off. If they would take a tip from Budapest it need never happen again, for in that blessed land “hire purchase payments are deducted from pay at work. If the purchaser changes his job the payments are transferred to the new job.”

* * *

Cupboard Love for the Trade Unions

The Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties are all, so they say, anxious to save the trade unions. In 1927 the Tories “saved” them by introducing the Trade Disputes Act which among other things made it more difficult for trade unions to provide funds for the Labour Party and compelled the Civil Service and Post Office unions to disaffiliate. The Act made it necessary for each member of a trade union to indicate his desire to pay the political contribution, thus reversing the clause of the 1913 Act which required those who objected to paying the political contribution to register their objection. It was designed, as everybody realised, to hit at Labour Party funds, and did so effectively. Labour Party trade union membership dropped in 1927 from 3,240,000 to 2,025,000, and income from affiliation fees dropped by £15,000.

In 1946 the Labour Government restored the pre-1927 position with a consequent big increase in trade union affiliated membership and funds. Trade union affiliated membership in 1947 showed an increase from 2,635,000 to 4,386,000, and trade union affiliation fees jumped by about £25,000 to £77,000.

Now the Tories are proposing if returned to power to reopen the question and Mr. Churchill claims— though on what evidence is not known—that about a third of the members of trade unions are Conservatives.

As the accumulated funds of the “registered” trade unions (representing about 85 per cent. of the total trade union membership) amount now to over £50 million, the interest taken in them by the three political parties is not surprising.

Even under the present arrangement of “ contracting out” of political contributions, a considerable proportion of trade unionists do not pay, as can be seen by the difference between total membership of the unions and the number of members who pay the political contribution, i.e.,‘ membership on which the unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. In 1947 the Agricultural Workers' Union, with 130,000 members, was affiliated to the Labour Party on a membership of 71,000. The Transport and General Workers' Union (membership 1,264,000) was affiliated on 800,000; and the A.E.U. (742,000) was affiliated on 609,000.

* * *

Whither India?

Nehru, Prime Minister of India, calls himself a Socialist and declared in 1946 that his party intended to set up a “Socialist Republic of India” (News Chronicle, 22/11/46). Like his friends and admirers, Attlee and Cripps, all he meant was that he would make use of socialist phrases as a bait to keep the Indian workers acquiescent while his government got on with the job of building up India into a first-class capitalist Power. India needs foreign capital which British investors under present conditions are unable to supply in anything like the amount needed; hence Nehru’s wooing of the U.S.A. capitalists, who in their turn are anxious to find a safe area for foreign investments. On October 13th Nehru addressed both Houses of Congress at Washington and had not a word to say about his proclaimed intention of establishing Socialism—that is only for home consumption before working class audiences. Instead he buttered up the Congressmen and Senators with the usual poppycock about how the Indian Constitution “had been greatly influenced by the principles and ideals enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence ” (Times 14/10/49.) The whole of his speech requires interpretation in this way, but his audience would certainly know how to “read between the lines.” What, in effect, he was saying was that his Government have the workers well in hand, will not line up with Russia, and will give security for American capital.

What he asked in return, and this of course was the real purpose of the visit, was in the concluding phrases—“But we . . . need much mechanical and technological aid,” and “we shall, therefore, gladly welcome such aid and co-operation on terms which are of mutual benefit.”

In short Nehru was assuring them that they need not take seriously anything he may have said about destroying Capitalism and putting Socialism in its place.

* * *

The Tito-Stalin Slanging Match

The root of the Tito-Stalin conflict is the desire of the Russian ruling clique to incorporate Yugoslavia economically and militarily into the Russian system and the counter efforts of Tito’s group to strike a better bargain with U.S.A. A fairly close parallel can be found in the way the Italian ruling class changed sides in both world wars; both countries are industrially weak and both occupy a strategically important position, but nevertheless one that is exposed to pressure from those who wield combined naval and air power in the Mediterranean.

The Yugoslav spokesmen have complained that the Russian Government tried to control the Yugoslav army, installed its own agents in the country; compelled Yugoslavia to export to the Russian market at prices below world level, and by setting up so-called joint industrial enterprises that are in fact controlled by Russia alone, sought to turn all the Balkan satellites into Russian colonies. This is the normal relationship that the stronger Powers try to impose on the weaker ones and it did not surprise socialists. The communists have been very much surprised because they have fallen into a trap set by their own tortuous propaganda. Having decided to pretend that Russian State Capitalism is Socialism they have ended by believing it, and have in consequence thought that the economic and class forces that push all capitalist states into rivalry and imperialism would cease to operate East of the “iron curtain." Forgetting their once-held view that international politics could only be explained by looking at the underlying economic forces the communists have been forced into the absurd “idealistic” explanation of the Yugoslav attitude that it is due to Tito and his colleagues having been got at, bribed and flattered by American agents.

An entertaining though tragic aspect of the conflict is the way both sides present their case under a cloud of Marxist phrases. In between blackguarding each other in the choicest invective the Stalinites accuse Tito of betraying Socialism—as if he ever had any to betray—while Tito smartly retorts with references to and quotations from Marx and Lenin. Telling the miners in Belgrade that Russia must not interfere in Yugoslav affairs, because Yugoslavia is one of the countries “which are building up Socialism,” Tito added: “ We must clear this matter up and say—as Lenin once said against Trotsky—it is possible to create Socialism in one country ” (Times 12/9/49).

A little later we find Tito working up the war spirit with talk about fighting to the death in defence “Marxist Leninism”—the enemy of course being the Russians who will be told they are fighting for the same principles. He was addressing high-ranking army officers after the manoeuvres:—

“It is better to die in battle honestly fighting for justice and truth than allow yourselves to be trampled on or bend your necks like slaves and sec the great principles of Marxist-Leninism destroyed without resistance.

"We have carried out these manoeuvres when attempts are being made to frighten our people, disrupt our unity, and render impossible the successful building of Socialism."

The Army, he said, would defend Yugoslavia “until the last breath and regardless when the attack came."— (Daily Mail, October 10th, 1949.)

It only remains now for the British and American Governments to “discover” that Tito is defending democracy. Already Mr. Bevin has dug out the old phrases about a small nation bullied by a big one (at the United Nations), and various articles and speeches have been made on the theme that Tito is really a very fine fellow.

* * *

Ship-owners and Shipyard Workers

Workers in the shipyards are worried. During October many hundreds were stood off, and we are told that “shipyards all over Britain are expected in the next few weeks to declare thousands of workers redundant” (People, 9/10/49). Most of them are skilled workers.

"They have been kept busy ever since the war ended on reconversion of liners and freighters back to peace-time requirements. Now that work is coming to an end. The rush is over. Demand for new ships is also slackening off and there is only enough work in sight in the shipyards to keep occupied the regular peace-time ship workers.” 

Among the factors disturbing the owners and workers is “growing foreign competition.” The Daily Telegraph (4/10/49) quotes an official of the Confederation of Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Operatives as saying that with the re-entry of Japan and Germany into the shipbuilding market, “there is no saying what might happen in the future.” And according to the Liverpool Dai Post (3/10/49, quoted in Daily Worker, 8/10/49) shipowners are also worried about the threatened undercutting of Atlantic fares by big, fast Russian liners and on 5th October the first Russian ship to dock at Montreal for years “undercut British and Canadian freight rates and secured a cargo of cereals for Britain” (Herald, 6/10/49).

There are problems here for both owners and workers. The sacked workers are assured by the Herald (14/10/49) that they have not much to be worried about, for they “will be quickly absorbed in other jobs,” the industries named being engineering and the building trades. They may be absorbed in these industries for a time, but the Herald does not take into account either the likely restriction of building or what will happen to these and all industries when Capitalism develops a major crisis. For the building trade there is already talk of curtailing of building plans as part of the plans the Government is considering in order to enforce concentration on the export trades.

The shipowners are also thinking ahead. On October 13th, when Mr. Attlee attended the annual dinner of the Chamber of Shipping at the Dorchester Hotel, Mr. Colin Anderson, the President, let fall a delicate hint that when they are in serious difficulties the shipowners will turn to the Government for some kind of assistance.

“We face a cold decade—we are already feeling the first frosts. Where shall we stand when the winter is really upon us? Rather than be slowly frozen even we may be forced to contemplate applying for the shelter of some form of counter-action—a garment which, in this case, perhaps only the State would be able to provide."— (Daily Telegraph, October 10th, 1949.)

Mr. Anderson (who by the way made his remarks in the course of a speech “ proposing the toast of the Government”) said that the shipowners are trying to work out a sensible way of retaining the valuable aspects of private enterprise, but doubtless “if winter comes” they won’t much mind the Labour Government buying them out with State-guaranteed bonds which will save them from the icy blast that will send the shipyard workers to the Labour Exchange and the dole.

* * *

The Co-operatives and the Sugar Industry

The Daily Express (16/9/49) suggested that the Co-operative societies may not be enthusiastic about the suggested nationalisation of the sugar industry by the Labour Government. It was pointed out that the Co-operative Wholesale Society was not represented at the meeting of Tate & Lyle shareholders when nationalisation was discussed and opposed. And there is a curious item of information in the same issue of the Daily Express, to the effect that the C.W.S., in addition to being Tate & Lyle's biggest customers are also “ the largest single shareholder in Tate & Lyle.”

* * *

Herald Editors Slip Up

On October 6th the Daily Herald editorial described the frigid reception Sir Stafford Cripps received at the Guildhall. Their comment was: —

”We might say that if the bankers and merchants of the City of London received with enthusiasm a pronouncement by a Socialist Chancellor, that would be sensational news. It would also be sinister news.”

But on the same page of the Herald we read the following about a meeting of Wall Street stockbrokers in New York addressed by Mr. Maurice Webb, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party: —

”. . . Webb was asked to explain Labour policy to the 24 most important stockbrokers on Wall Street. He was surprised when his only critic turned out to be an Englishman who had emigrated to the States years ago.”

* * *

Another Cotton Revolution on the Way

The industrial revolution made the cotton industry largely a woman’s industry and at present about two- thirds of the workers in the weaving section are women. Now as a result of technical changes recommended by the Cotton Manufacturing Commission it is forecast that men will replace women.

”Thirteen men sitting as the Cotton Manufacturing Commission have come to the conclusion that married women weavers—the bulk of the labour force in the industry—cannot adapt themselves as well as men to redeployment.”—(News-Chronicle, October 5th, 1949.) 

Another report (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49) says: “The industry must ‘redeploy' or perish. Redeployment—the rearrangement of machines giving highly- skilled operatives more looms, and increasing output and wages by up to 25 per cent.—was the essential part of the Commission’s recommendations.”

The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, K.C., told a Press Conference that “he wanted the industry to pay a wage sufficient for a married man to keep a family without his wife going out to work. He visualised the industry becoming predominantly
male instead of female” (Daily Telegraph, 5/10/49).


* * *

A Scientist on Scientists

Professor J. D. Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, London, caused a stir by a speech in Moscow in which he said that science outside Russia and her satellites is under the direction of war makers. He subsequently explained in a letter to the Times (8/10/49) that when he spoke of “capitalist countries” he meant mainly America and not “Socialist Britain.”

The controversy produced a useful admission about the limitations of some scientists when they wander out of their own field, from Sir Edward V. Appleton, Principal of Edinburgh University. Speaking in Edinburgh on October 3rd, Sir Edward Appleton, who was formerly Professor of Physics and is Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, said: —

‘‘The statement by Professor Bernal is a striking illustration of the fact that the reliability of the scientist does not always extend beyond his own laboratory, and one often finds a scientist who, while not ready to accept any scientific result until it is fully tested, is quite ready to voice wholly untested opinions about other matters in the most prejudicial and dogmatic manner.”—(Manchester Guardian, October 4th, 1949.)

If any other evidence is required that the above criticism fits Professor Bernal we have the latter’s own letter to the Times; for without any evidence at all— all the evidence is against it—and obviously without any serious thought, he describes Capitalist Britain as “ Socialist.”

Edgar Hardcastle

The Life of Uncle Joe (2005)

Book Review from the June 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Stalin: a biography by Robert Service. (528 pages. Macmillan. £25,  ISBN 033726278) 

Service deliberately, and bravely, tries to dig for the true story of Stalin’s life beyond the hagiography or demonography that usually represents him.

He presents the case that Stalin, or Joseph Dzughashvili, or Soso, or Koba — as he was variously known — was a central character in the pre-revolutionary Bolshevik party. He was keen acolyte of Lenin, a hardman — he organised the campaign of bank robbery and extortion in the Caucasian areas of the Tsarist empire at Lenin’s behest, even when the latter promised to cease such activities. He edited Pravda, was on the Bolshevik central committee and was Lenin’s close collaborator on the ‘National Question’. 

He was imprisoned several times, and though taciturn with fellow prisoners, he took his beatings at the hands of prison guards with equanimity. During the civil war, he commanded the Red Army on the south fronts, where he proved to be a ruthless if not effective commander.

So, hardly the grey man Trotsky liked to pretend him to be — but Trotsky could hardly criticise Stalin for brutality, when he was as nearly as ruthless. In fact, Service makes a good case that Stalin rose to power as part of a stop-Trotsky faction.

Stalin was able to present himself as the acme of Leninist orthodoxy, and possibly — and Service does make this case — believed he really was creating some form of socialism in the Soviet Union. Socialists — unlike Leninists — have no need to shy away from this fact. Our argument never was that Stalin was a bad man, a monster (although, obviously, he was) but that he was acting upon a false and dangerous theory — that a band of dedicated leaders could force the world to socialism.

Service makes clear that much of Stalin’s apparent paranoia was based on the simple fact that he and his fellows had risen to power suddenly and almost out of nowhere against the might of Tsarism. He believed, apparently, that a similar cabal could unseat him — what comes round goes around.

His callousness was relentless, ranging from bullying subordinates at informal parties, to personally poring over the list of names and faces of victims of his terror. Service alleges a desire to be at the centre of things, to assert himself that grew from childhood and was fostered by his membership of the Bolshevik party. As he notes, Stalin was among the few genuinely working class members of the inner sanctum of the party — which goes to show that having genuine workers in charge doesn’t make that much difference.

In his desk, when he died, were some keepsakes — a letter from Bukharin begging to know why he Stalin wanted to murder him when he was already politically dead, and a letter from Tito, threatening to try and assassinate him if he didn’t stop trying to bump the Yugoslav dictator off — as Service notes, one gangster to another. Even his intimate moments were blood-soaked and ruthless. This is a tidy account of the life of a utopian who thought that through ruthless will alone he could shape the world. As in some parts of his former empire, his statues are being resurrected and his reputation repaired, it also serves as a timely warning against leaders past, present and future.

Pik Smeet

Passing Comments: Tito (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tito

In the last analysis, the Stalinist opinion of any country depends solely on whether the country concerned accepts unquestioningly the leadership of Stalin, or not. What is laudable in Bulgaria becomes blameworthy in Yugoslavia. Indeed, the very same attributes which are supposed to make Poland and Rumania Socialist countries earn for Yugoslavia the label of “Fascist.” The nationalisation of industry, the suppression of free speech, the dictatorship of a single party, all these, when found in Albania and Hungary, show those countries to be People’s Republics, while, when found in Yugoslavia, they prove conclusively that Tito is a tyrant and a reactionary. The latest example of this occurs in connection with the nationalisation of industry. When jt was announced in November 1947 that the Polish government had agreed to pay compensation to British shareholders in respect of shares that they had held in Poland’s nationalised industries, the Daily Worker made no complaint; but on March 8th, 1951, the Daily Worker comments sourly on the payment of compensation by Yugoslavia for exactly the same purpose. The same measure, in fact, which is praiseworthy in Poland warrants, in Yugoslavia, the statement that British capitalist interests “appear to have found Tito’s methods of nationalisation quite helpful.”

#    #    #    #

Guarantees

The leaders of the Western world claim that, in their hands, the atom bomb and large armed forces are guarantees for peace. The Soviets are making the same claim. “The Great Soviet Encylopaedia” says that “the atomic weapon in the hands of the U.S.S.R. is one of the decisive measures for the defence of peace” (Daily Express, 7-3-51). These arguments may be useful in persuading the workers on each side of the Iron Curtain to accept further reductions in their standard of living, but they are not new. As far back as 1911, General von Schlieffen said of the German army: “On the fear inspired by this army, depends the peace of Europe.”

The peoples of the world could do without these guarantees of peace.

#    #    #    #

The Family

What, in the orthodox view, are the glories of our Western way of life? Among them the Sanctity of the Family finds a prominent place.

But look at this news item: “A six-year-old girl, Robin Strasser, was taken from her mother in New York and given into the care of her grandmother by order of the Supreme Court Referee, today, because of her mother’s Communist activities.” (Daily Express, 9-2-51).

Theories are all right in their place: but when it comes to the case of a person who is against the regime, the Sanctity of the Family and the feelings of a six-year-old child are alike blatantly disregarded.

#    #    #    #

Back to Work

“General von Falkenhausen was convicted of having authorised the execution of 240 Belgian refugees while he was German Military Governor of Belgium and Northern France, and having deported Jewish and Belgian workers” (Manchester Guardian, 10-3-51). For this, the General was sentenced to twelve years’ hard labour: and since there is a Belgian law allowing a good-conduct prisoner Ho be released after serving one-third of this term, the time the General will have to spend in jail may be as low as four years. Lieutenant-General von Ravenstein, a former Panzer Division commander, is horrified at the judgment: he has remarked publicly that he would be very proud if he had acted “in the way General von Falkenhausen acted in his lifelong service for the Fatherland.” Von Ravenstein went so far as to say: “If we old German soldiers are appealed to now to become active again in military affairs, none of us will be ready for such work after this sentence.” 

Is this a threat or a promise? For if the “work” von Ravenstein mentions is of the same order as that for which von Falkenhausen has just been sentenced, few ordinary people will be worried by his statement.

#    #    #    #

Sanctuary—from what?

In one of his reports to the Security Council General MacArthur has remarked on "the avidity with which the North Korean citizens have sought sanctuary behind the United Nations lines” (Observer, 25-2-51).

This, in his opinion, is because of their “complete aversion to Communist rule and their fervent desire, at whatever hazard, for refuge within the protection of the United Nations.”

General MacArthur should know that the Chinese and North Koreans are far weaker in the air than the Americans, and therefore cannot bomb cities behind the enemy lines so efficiently. But it seems not to have occurred to him that the refugees may be inspired more by a desire to escape American bombing than by any choice they may have made between Chinese and American imperialism.

#    #    #    #

Sleepless nights?

The outlook before the British people is gloomy. Nationalisation has been found to be no solution for the problems of the working class, though, in certain rundown industries, it has solved very satisfactorily the problems of the managers and the investors. The increasing world tension brings with it further shortages and sacrifices, and the threat of the atomic bomb. But the British workers are not suffering alone. They have their companions in misery: for example, his majesty the King.

The Daily Express draws our attention to the situation in which the King finds himself (9-2-51). Britain’s total “bill for the Monarchy,” it says, is just over £1,000,000 a year: of this the King himself draws £410,000. “Out of the grant the King must pay salaries, pensions, and expenses of the Royal Household, and gifts to charities,” What is left—£110,000—is the King’s Privy Purse, his personal fund for expenses.” Well, the King has been overspending by some £60,000 a year, so the Government is generously taking over an annual £40,000 of the royal liabilities; and the King is making economies to the extent of £20,000 a year.

So the working class family, as it plans to save a few shillings on the weekly budget, may take comfort in the fact that the King himself is voluntarily cutting down his rate of personal expenditure from £2,100 to £1,700 a week.

Alwyn Edgar

The Rise of Yugoslavia - Part 2 (1962)

From the November 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

The new constitution of 1945 brought ninety per cent. of Yugoslav industry under State control. Only those which were not worth bothering about were allowed to escape, such as shoe making, watch repairing, inn-keeping, etc. Agrarian reform dispossessed the old landlords and distributed the land to the peasants according to family size. “The land should belong to those who cultivate it,” was the cry, but this was no common ownership, only the handing over of land from one set of private owners to another.

In any case, the peasants’ troubles were by no means at an end. They still had to sell their agricultural produce in a market, capricious and uncertain as markets are. So that in times of glut it was less costly to leave salad stuff and soft fruit to rot, than to try and sell it. An old and familiar problem, by the way, and one of the many which prompted the start of collectivisation in 1949.

As we mentioned in Part 1, there was much reconstruction and industrialisation to complete, and as early as 1946, the government had announced a five year plan aiming at 400 per cent. increase in industrial production. Belgrade called for workers to assist with voluntary labour, and the response found expression in such projects as the gigantic iron works "Lilostroy” of Ljublijana, the Samac-Sarajevo and Doboj-Banjaluka Railroads and the Cetinje hydro-electric power station.

But in other ways also, Yugoslavia was making her presence felt. Tito had visited Stalin in 1945, and signed a treaty of mutual assistance. Russian technicians and military advisers went to Yugoslavia as a “help to fraternal countries” and quite clearly the country was earmarked for inclusion in the Soviet sphere of influence. Tito and his henchmen began to doubt the wisdom of allowing so much Soviet infiltration and signs of a rift were apparent at an early stage.

It has been said that the 1948 disagreement between the two states was a battle waged for Yugoslavia’s “Socialism” against Russian “Stalinism,” but this is quite untrue, if only for the reason that there never was any Socialism in Yugoslavia anyway. Tito himself came nearer to the mark when he said at the time:

  The real issue is the relation between one state and another. In my view they are using ideological questions as a pretext for putting pressure on us and our state.

The Yugoslav government strongly resented the Russian attempts to regulate buying and selling between the Cominform Stales, seeing it as a threat to their already weak economy.

Nor must we forget the part that Yugoslav/Albanian relations played in widening the breach. Moscow and Belgrade had agreed in principle to the unification of the two states and already their economies were becoming linked, with Yugoslav influence predominating. But the Russians were taken unawares by the subsequent agreements (signed without consulting them) to allow Yugoslav forces to be stationed in Albanian territory. According to Milovan Djilas, who was deeply involved in the dispute with Moscow, it was this military move most of all which persuaded Stalin that in Tito he had a rival rather than an ally. Yugoslavia was promptly expelled from the Cominform to the accompaniment of the most violent abuse.

In 1955, there was some reconciliation between Yugoslavia and the USSR, and since then Tito has managed to sit precariously on a rather wobbly fence, obtaining economic aid from both sides of the Iron Curtain, but refusing to join either power bloc, at least for the time being. It remains to be seen how long he can play one side off against the other in his efforts to win economic elbow room for his ruling class. Only recently, America has scaled down her financial assistance to Yugoslavia, causing Belgrade to go into a panic-stricken huddle. One result has been a renewed demand for farm collectivisation, although many of Tito’s colleagues remember its previous failure and are not enthusiastic. Neither are the peasants, who want to remain proprietors in their own right and not become agricultural wage workers.

Yet this may well be the future tendency, as industry develops and the demand for labour increases. The old peasant family proprietorship will be regarded as wasteful of labour and efficiency, and there is likely to be increasing interference by the State. There is a growing working class today in Yugoslavia facing the same sort of problems as their brothers elsewhere. Sooner or later they will have to get down to an appreciation of the need for Socialism, but there is no sign of this happening, as yet.

In the meantime, it is interesting to speculate on the future role of Yugoslavia in the changing pattern of capitalist world politics. A glance at the map will show the strategy of her position with an Adriatic coastline facing Italy and frontiers with Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Austria and Italy. As her industries develop, we may well see her jostling for a share of the markets in an increasingly competitive world. But it is difficult to view her future as other than that of a minor capitalist power at most. This does after all make sense in a world where even Germany, France and Britain—the major powers of yesterday—have been ousted from dominance, and the arena left to America and Russia, two colossi of capitalism, glaring at each other in sullen anger.

(Concluded)

Remy Starc.

More Light On The Stalin-Tito Quarrel (1950)

From the August 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

A recent broadcast by Konni Zilliacus, reported in the “Listener” of May 11th, throws some interesting light on the dispute between Russia and Yugoslavia. It is also revealing in the matter of Zilliacus’ own position as a fellow-traveller of late, and as the broadcast was certainly sympathetic to the Tito regime he must be in grave danger of being branded as a Trotskyist-Titoist-Fascist.

The theme of the broadcast was that if the conflict between these two “Communist” countries could be settled then it might even be possible to “discover the answer to the most important question in the world— that is how to end the arms race and turn the cold war into at least tepid peace between the capitalist and communist world.” (Conclusion of his article.)

Ignoring this somewhat naive assumption regarding the problem of maintaining even a “tepid peace” in the present state of Capitalist Society, having given in his broadcast only a few examples of Soviet methods and duplicity when confronted with a recalcitrant satellite, it is incredible that Zilliacus could believe that Stalin would even come to regard an independent Yugoslavia as anything but a menace to an internally troubled Russia.

Zilliacus says for instance

  “While I was in Belgrade Moshe Pijade, a leading member of the Politburo of the Yugoslav Communist Party, published an account of the relations between Yugoslav Partisans and the Soviet Government during the war. It was backed by the actual text of telegrams and messages. It showed quite clearly that the Russians refused all help for a long time, on the ground that it was technically impossible, but really because they were trying to bring about some kind of arrangement between Draža Mihailović, representing the émigré Royalist Government in London supported by the Western Allies, and Tito’s Partisans. Moshe Pijade also related how, when he was in Moscow during the conference between the Russians and their Western Allies in 1944, Molotov in reply to his question patted him on the shoulder and said: 'The position as regards Yugoslavia is excellent.' It was only later that the Yugoslavs discovered, according to their account, that what was really discussed was dividing their country into Russian and British spheres of influence on a fifty-fifty basis.”

Further, after the breaking point between the two countries had been reached when the Soviet military and civilian advisers were withdrawn, the dispute went beyond a mere exchange of letters and an economic boycott was applied by Russia which was accompanied by “notes couched in threatening language, troop movements and frontier incidents, and a tornado of propaganda inciting the people to rebellion.”

The attempt to wreck Yugoslavia failed however, and now according to Zilliacus, “The people and the government are united and on their mettle.” He goes on to list the great changes which he claims are taking place, including the freeing of literature, science and art from political controls; economic decentralization and a vigorous campaign against bureaucracy; experiments in workers’ control. The sting however is in the tail: —

   “At the same time Yugoslav leaders are candid about how much remains to be done. One of the chief of them said to me, ‘We must admit that in the Socialist States we have not yet solved the problem of freedom.’"

One finds it difficult to reconcile “a united government and people” with the unsolved “problem of freedom.” The latter expression is reminiscent of the problem of maintaining law and order which so frequently occurs in bourgeois society.

J. L.

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