Notes by the Way: The Hunt is Up—Profiteers on the Run (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Hunt is Up—Profiteers on the Run

Someday, someone who has the time and the interest will make a study of the way capitalism has corrupted thought and expression and debased language to such an extent that millions of people are incapable of making plain statements of fact and words rarely mean what they should mean. Most people know, in a general way, that the claims made for advertised goods are mostly false and irrelevant, yet always thousands of people will be taken in by the extravagant claims made for some new product or by a newly-phrased puff for an old one. Look at the description employers are allowed to give to the pay and conditions of their employees, the “high wages and bonuses,” the welfare services and the “good promotion prospects” and promise of security for the “right man”; yet, still under the Servants Characters Act of 1792, workers who use false references to get one of these falsely advertised jobs may be proceeded against. Read the tricky, deceitful language used by professional politicians, whose skill lies in gaining confidence and votes not in a truthful statement of the nature of the problems before the electorate. Notice the traditionally evasive and obscuring habits of expression of the majority of religious preachers and writers. They are probably the worst offenders, because they are so utterly dependent on the favour of the rich and powerful in their church, and even lack the robustness of the politician and journalist who, though similarly dependent, have the confidence that comes from the knowledge that they have behind them the backing of their own party or paper within well understood limits.

The hall-mark of expression under capitalism is that everything is twisted and blunted. The golden rule is that, all plain, unqualified statements of condemnation of anti-social conduct are sure to hit some individual or group among the propertied and influential and must therefore be avoided, or toned down, or clearly directed only against some sub-division of the evil doers. Thus all politicians declare themselves in favour of the abolition of “undeserved” poverty, but not, of course, of poverty itself—as if “deserts” had anything to do with the poverty of the working class. All denounce the “profiteer,” but not the profit-maker, though nobody knows what “profiteering” means if it does not mean the lauded capitalist aim of making as much profit as possible. All parsons and guardians of morality are agreed that lying and deceit are to be condemned; except, of course, for purposes of waging war or diplomacy, or to attract buyers for goods, or induce workers to vote for capitalism at elections; in short, except for nearly all the normal activities of capitalist life.

At the moment the hunt is up again for “profiteers,” and the News Chronicle blandly announces (July 25th, 1941) that “the days of the profiteers in clothing and other necessities of life are numbered.”

The News Chronicle does not care to recall that the profiteer was killed times without number, finally and forever, in the last war and in each and every year since 1918 up to 1939, and that when this war broke out it was universally agreed by the newspapers that there would not be, and could not be, any such person in this war.

The latest, and really the last, antidote for profiteers, according to the News Chronicle, lies in “thirty-four Board of Trade inspectors,” who are going “to track them down.”

They must forgive us if we smile at the spectacle of the 34 Board of Trade rabbits out hunting down the capitalist stoats. The advice of Socialists to the working class is to forget these whimsical side-shows and get on with the real work of ending capitalism.

A “Socialist” Councillor Hates Working-Class Ingratitude

According to the Evening News (July 24th, 1941) the Erith Council have decided to serve notices to quit on 20 tenants of Council houses in arrears with their rent. The report continues : —

“Councillor T. C. Pannell, leader of the Socialist Party, said these houses were not let at economic rents. Some of them were the cheapest in the town. Some people thought that because the Socialist Party was in power they could do what they liked.

Councillor T. Mantle, chairman of the Housing Committee, said:—”I am amazed at the unscrupulous and unprincipled way in which some of these tenants have dealt with us. Tenants have lied to me and taken advantage of me. Some are in good work, and get high wages. If they will not pay in these circumstances, they will not pay at all.”

It is hardly necessary to have to explain that it is not the Socialist Party in control at Erith, but the Labour Party, and probably the two Councillors mentioned are guiltless of having claimed to be Socialists, but they certainly must share responsibility with the rest of the Labour Party for the common misconception which regards Labourism as Socialism.

But see what happens ? Possibly some tenants have absorbed a vague idea that under Socialism, while they could not expect to do just what they liked if that meant looking after themselves regardless of others, they could expect that under Socialism they would have no rent to pay. Further, they may have heard the Labour Party propaganda, which represents Labourism as an approach to Socialism by degrees. What could be more natural than that they should interpret this as paying less and less rent until it reached zero.

Altogether it seems that Labourism in trying to administer capitalism at Erith has got in a bit of a mess. Socialists will not be surprised.

The Archbishop Speaks and Heaven Alone Knows What he Means

The following report is from The Times (July 3rd, 1941): —

“The Archbishop of York, Dr. Temple, in a broadcast last night, gave this four-point definition of Christian social principles :—

Property is necessary to fullness of personal life, and this is its justification.

The life of every individual is within the fellowship of the community, and property divorced from all social function or service forfeits that justification.

The mere lending of money should not be a means of acquiring control over another man or his activities, and the interest payable, if any, should be proportioned to the service rendered, not to the relative strength and weakness of the parties to the transaction.

Commerce should be an exchange at fair prices for the benefit of both parties and of the community generally—not a rivalry in which each seeks to buy cheap and to sell dear.”

The Archbishop’s admirers will say that this is an admirable statement of Christian social policy, bold but not Utopian, sympathetic without being sentimental, progressive, but statesmanlike. They will all interpret it to mean what suits their interests and outlook. None of them will be able to say what exactly it means in practice. Property, says Dr. Temple, is necessary to fullness of personal life; but what property and whose property? Socialists are all in favour of everybody having possessions in personal articles needed for comfort and convenience, but this cannot be until the capitalist class are deprived of their ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. The Archbishop is silent on this point, except that the third point (about the payment of interest) makes it clear that he does not see the necessity to abolish investment. As for fullness of personal life, how is the ownership of shares in dozens of companies necessary to the fullness of life of the capitalist investor ? How does Dr. Temple square it with the workers’ objection to being exploited ?

He denounces the “mere lending of money” (what is “mere” lending as distinct from lending?) if it means acquiring control over another man or his activities. But how can there be investment without such control over the activities of the workers ?

He also wants commerce on the basis of “an exchange at fair prices,” but what are fair prices? Prices which do not allow for any payment of rent, interest and profit as a property income to property owners? But the capitalists (and the administrators of Church funds) will soon tell him that they are not at all interested in commerce except for the purpose of such reaping where they have not sown.

In short, why does not Dr. Temple tell us plainly where he stands. Is he for capitalism or against it? Or just sitting on the fence making friendly (and empty) gestures to the workers on one side of it?

Helping Russia !

The Prime Minister has said that everyone in this country is anxious to help Russia. Roosevelt has said the same of U.S.A. It appears from the report below that a number of people are more concerned about helping themselves.

“Entry of Russia into the war is causing excitement in the London tin market, where prices bounded up £2 7s. 6d. yesterday, making a gain of £4 12s. 6d. a ton in two days.

Arrangements are being made, I understand, for Russia to buy considerable quantities of tin in the East.

At the end of 1938 she had built up substantial stocks, but it is believed that her purchases since then have been small.

Prospect that Russia will buy metals and other materials in the United States, is also accelerating the price rise in that country.”—(Daily Express, July 5th, 1941.)

The Ignorant, Selfish Workers

A Dr. Leslie Housden, of the National Association of Maternity and Child Welfare Centres, told the Evening Standard (July 4th, 1941) that she “would like an assurance to be given that parents will be taught how to spend family allowances for the benefit of their children.”

“The standard of living in poorer families depends greatly upon the ability of the mother to shop and housekeep properly,” she said.

In a recent address Dr. Housden remarked:—”You cannot turn ignorant, lazy, selfish men and women into cherishers of childhood by giving them money.”

This arose out of an announcement that a Treasury Committee are investigating how much family allowances will cost the Government.

The whole thing is an illustration of the typical condescension of the ruling class towards the workers. As the Bible does not exactly say: “To him that hath shall be given, and to him and her that hath not shall come a spate of impertinent advice from well-meaning busybodies.”

Are the workers ignorant ? They learned what they know at capitalist provided schools. Are they lazy and selfish ? If so, who robbed them of initiative and incentive and taught them that the way of life is to look after number one ? And what right have the rich and well-to-do to argue that the receipt of an income sufficient to buy the bare necessities of life should be dependent on the possession of all the social virtues : What about the ignorant, lazy, selfish property owners ?

In passing, we are expectantly awaiting the appointment of another Treasury Committee to find out what, in poverty, blood and tears, the capitalist system has cost to the human race.

In and Out the Barrack Window

We all know how the Communists have been in the war and out again, and are now in full support once more. The former Editor of the Daily Worker, Mr. William Rust, in a letter to the News Chronicle (July 7th) has said that he and Professor Haldane “are quite prepared to give personal assurances to the Government …. that the Daily Worker, if allowed to reappear, will vigorously campaign in the factories in order to achieve the maximum production for victory and to bring about the widest possible unity in the fight to defeat and crush the Nazis.”

It seems that the Communists have their opposite numbers, men who are also in and out, but contrariwise. A Catholic, Fascist, conscientious objector recently told the Tribunal that he was at first opposed to the war (that will presumably have been in the early days when the Communists supported it). Then he became a supporter of the war when France collapsed and invasion of this country seemed to be imminent (that will have been when the Communists were opposing the war). Now, he says, he is a conscientious objector, and quoted from a Papal Encyclical that a Catholic could not collaborate with Communism (at this stage, Russia being invaded, the Communists are in again.).

It all comes of trying to wage war in accordance with ideologies.

Mothers’ Sons who became World Conquerors

When the Kaiser died the newspapers dug out the old story that he had a withered arm and was disliked by his mother and this embittered him and led him to dream dreams of world conquest. We seem to have read that Hitler was his mother’s darling, and this spoiled him and made him dream dreams of world conquest. It is all very puzzling. The only sure conclusion appears to be that the result will be the same however mothers treat their sons. Perhaps, after all, this explanation of war is a trifle inadequate.

Why they did not hang the Kaiser

Two versions : —

“Wilhelm II. ruled Germany for 30 years, and he fled to Holland with all Europe crying, “Hang the Kaiser.” But the Dutch would not hand him over for trial.”—(Evening Standard, June 4th, 1941.)

The Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941) reproduced from Mr. Winston Churchill’s works his account of the matter, and in it he delicately hints, without, however, committing himself one way or the other, that “the subterranean intrigues of old-world secret diplomacy” may have conveyed to the Dutch Government that nobody proposed to do anything to the Dutch Government to compel them to hand him over.

You draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that at the time there were rumours that before the Allied Governments asked Holland to hand over the Kaiser they had informed the Dutch that the request was not intended to be taken seriously.

Have what you like ; if you can pay for it

In the Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941), Mr. F. C. Hooper, “one of the biggest business men in the Midlands and North,” wrote a strongly worded denunciation of “the cranks who want to change Britain.” His main argument was that things were not at all bad in this country before the war. “Generally speaking,” he wrote, “life in this country was on a higher standard of material enjoyment and well-being than in any other country in the world.”

The first of his reasons for his belief was: —

“We were free and unfettered. We could go where we liked, live where we liked, and, within our means, do what we liked.”

It all depends, of course, on those three little words, “within our means.” Paupers may dine at the Ritz, spend half the year holidaying abroad, or live like biggest noises in the Midlands, if it is within their means, but, although Mr. Hooper goes on to say that “most people did do what they liked,” he does not go so far as to say that these things of anything like them were within the means of the great majority. He does not express an opinion on the point whether the under-nourished third of the whole population liked their enforced condition.

We will not argue about his claim that generally speaking things were even worse in other parts of the capitalist world. We doubt if Mr. Hooper would happily accept a suggestion that he give up his wealth and become a labourer merely because some other labourers in Timbuctoo would still be worse off.

The following, from the Sunday Express of the same day, throws more light on the claim made by Mr. Hooper.

“There is more money in the West End than ever before,” said a man who knows the inside story of the ration racket. “Everything is got from some ramp or another.”

“You can have what you like, if you are ready to pay the right price. It may be a cask of butter, a side of bacon, or a chest of tea. Whatever it is, the ‘boys’ can get it.

“The goods are either stolen (gangs are operating around the docks) or got through bribery. I know one hotel under manager who was offered a fat sum if he could hand over £500 worth of butter. He turned it down flat; others are not always so honest.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Can there be Freedom of the Press? (1941)

From the April 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The suppression of the Daily Worker by the Home Secretary has led to lively arguments about the whole question of the freedom of the Press, freedom of meetings and freedom of discussion, and it is something on which the S.P.G.B. has a unique contribution to make. The attitude taken up by the various persons concerned can be briefly summarised as follows. The Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, says that while he wishes to interfere as little as possible with the freedom of the Press, a line has to be drawn when there is “systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue.” The Liberal Manchester Guardian, while recalling John Stuart Mill’s famous defence of freedom of the Press, nevertheless finds itself in agreement with the suppression. To the extent that there is criticism of the Home Secretary it has, in the main, turned only on the method, not the suppression itself. These critics would have preferred that the Daily Worker, instead of being suppressed by order of the Home Secretary, should have been charged with some specific offence and brought before the Courts, where it could have defended itself. The News Chronicle went so far as to say that “if it had been any other paper …. suppression without proceedings would have raised a storm of protest” (News Chronicle, January 29th, 1941). The Daily Worker itself, through its editor, Mr. W. Rust, retorted that though quite prepared to face a Court of Law, “for our part we object to the assassination of liberty whatever the method employed” (News Chronicle, January 28th, 1941).

Since there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary, the Manchester Guardian and the News Chronicle, when they say that they have not wanted a policy of suppression but have been led by circumstances to support it in a particular case, it is at once apparent that they find it in practice impossible to apply their professed principle of freedom. Is it the principle that is wrong or must the circumstances be changed? In other words, is the S.P.G.B. right in its claim that there is not and never can be unfettered freedom of expression until Socialism has been established?

John Stuart Mill on Liberty

John Stuart Mill, in his essay “On Liberty,” written in 1849, stated the classic case for freedom of discussion, etc. He considered all the arguments for and against suppression and firmly declared his conclusion that “There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” (See Everyman edition—”Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government.” Page 78.)

“We can never be sure,” he wrote, “that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still” (p. 79).

His argument was not concerned primarily with the right of the individual, but with the loss to society, for, he said, it is in the interest of mankind that every view should be freely stated and every criticism of accepted opinions heard and considered. Only by such a clash of views can the truth be established. Among many interesting points in his essay is his demonstration of the falsity of the sentimental opinion that “truth always triumphs over persecution” (p. 89). With many examples, he shows that history “teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries.”

He did not forget to stress the obligation of minorities to state their unpopular views temperately and with restraint if they wish them to make their way against prejudice and inertia.

Communists always against Freedom of Speech

When the editor of the Daily Worker stated that the Communists’ “object to the assassination of liberty, whatever the method employed,” he must have been counting on the ignorance of those who read his statement. It is utterly untrue. From first to last, and in every place where they have had the opportunity, the Communists have sought to prevent their opponents, of whatever kind, from expressing their views. In the early days Lenin was frankly contemptuous of the facilities that exist under capitalist democracy for workers’ organisations to exist and to express their views. In a document presented to the First Congress of the Communist International at Moscow, March 6th, 1919, Lenin describes “freedom of meeting” as “an empty phrase,” “Liberty of the Press” as “a delusion,” and roundly declared that “even in the most democratic republics there reigns in practice the terrorism and dictatorship ol the bourgeoisie.” (“The Bolshevik Theory,” Postgate, 1920, pages 205-207). He was able to reach these conclusions by taking the handicaps that actually do exist for workers’ organisations under capitalist democracy and exaggerating and distorting them to the degree necessary to fit his description. It all helped to justify his and Trotsky’s defence of terrorism and dictatorship in Russia. It was only in later years that the Communists in Great Britain quietly shelved their talk of dictatorship, civil war, etc., and posed as defenders of the workers’ “democratic rights.” In 1920, however, when the Communist, Mr. R. Palme Dutt, wrote his “The Two Internationals,” he had no hesitation in saying that the Communist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat meant the exclusion of any conceptions of ‘liberty’ which militate against it and therefore capitalist interests.”

He went on to say: —

“Against the “ideologies” of “liberty,” “democracy,” individual rights,” etc., which have always formed the historical cover of capitalist activity . . . must be set the concrete principle of the proletarian state . . .” (Page 32.)

The Communists nowadays talk a different language and do not openly avow their preference for dictatorship and suppression and contempt for democratic methods and tolerance. Posing as democrats and as representatives of working-class interests, they put forward a more cautiously phrased policy. To start with, they are in favour of suppressing Fascist papers and organisations on the ground that the Fascists are “enemies of the people”; but, as Mr. Frank Owen records, when Mr. Rust, editor of the Daily Worker was asked to be more explicit about this, he replied “that he regarded all capitalist newspapers as enemies of the people, too ” (Evening Standard, January 28th, 1941). So, it appears, as Mr. Frank Owen puts it, “my colleagues and I are due for a short, sharp ride if ever Comrade Rust comes to sit in Home Secretary Morrison’s seat.”

Then Mr. Harry Pollitt has on occasion amplified the scope of “enemies of the people.” In his election address, when he stood as Parliamentary candidate at Whitechapel a few years ago, he lumped the Labour Party along with Liberals, Tories and Fascists. His cry was: “Away with these enemies of the workers !”

And in the Daily Worker of January 29th, 1930, Mr. Pollitt issued a stirring call to action He urged the workers to smash up meetings of the Labour Party.

“. . . The mere passing uf resolutions is not enough. There should not be a Labour meeting held anywhere but what the revolutionary workers in that district attend such meetings and fight against the speakers whoever they are, so-called “left,”‘ “right,” or “centre.”

They should never be allowed to address the workers. This will bring us into conflict with the authorities, but this must be done. The fight can no longer be conducted in a passive manner.”

Needless to say, Communists have often told us that if they got power the Socialist Standard would naturally be “dealt with.”

In short, the Communist idea of freedom of the Press is the suppression of every journal except those approved by themselves, all on the model of the Soviet dictatorship.

The Socialist Point of View

While accepting broadly the arguments of John Stuart Mill, Socialists point out how impossible it is to expect his case to be accepted under capitalism. The S.P.G.B. has always taken its stand on the method of argument and persuasion to gain acceptance of the Socialist case. Knowing that there can be no Socialism except through the use of democratic methods, we need to win over the majority to our side. The Socialist case is true and can be shown to be true. It is in line with the discernible facts of the modern world, and what has convinced us will in due time convince the majority of the workers. It is for this reason that the S.P.G.B. allows and invites opposition and discussion on our platform and at our meetings. We do not believe, as do the Communists, that Socialism can be attained by a minority who do understand Socialism acting as guides and leaders to a majority who do not understand. We reject as dangerous and impracticable the Communist policy enunciated in 1920 by Mr. Palme Dutt: —

“The workers as a whole rebel against a regime of which they feel the pricks, without any pre-conceived doctrinaire theory. It is the business of the communist to guide their movement into its realisation in the dictatorship of the proletariat.”—(“Two Internationals,” page 32.)

For the Communist, the idea of suppression and controlling the ideas of the workers fits in naturally with the idea of the “intelligent minority” who lead the non-Socialist masses. Rejecting the latter policy, the Socialist likewise rejects the doctrine of suppression and control of ideas.

But what chance have Mill’s principles of being applied under capitalism ? Obviously no Government at war (and no Government which holds Communist views of political struggle being of the nature of “heavy civil war”) will ever consent to completely unfettered freedom of the Press in wartime. To do so would be to risk endangering war effort. Even in peace-time it is unthinkable that all the various restrictions on publication and utterance in the shape of laws against libel, blasphemy, publication of official secrets, etc., could be removed ; if only for the reason that the libel laws are based on property rights, and capitalism is a system in which property rights are of supreme importance. Moreover, no amendment of laws directly affecting the Press can serve to redress the inequality that must exist between the propertied class, who can go to any expenditure to finance the publication of journals representing their interests and point of view, and the propertyless working-class, who must make do with publishing organs of opinion within the limit of their meagre resources.

Socialism alone will bring about conditions in which all will enjoy the rights and obligations of free utterance and discussion, and the human race will gain to the full the benefits of such freedom.

Edgar Hardcastle

"Daily Worker" Unity Conference (1944)

From the May 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Sunday, April 2nd, at the Stoll Theatre, London, a conference of delegates from various working class organisations was organised by the Daily Worker, It was proclaimed as a tremendous success in the Daily Worker the following day—in the words of Mr. William Rust, the "Conference has spoken the will of the people."

Here we might well question whether the conference was representative of the people as it has been claimed. The Daily Worker (April 8, 1944) giving details of the representation states that there were 1762 delegates present, (we have totalled up the figures as given and make it 1803, but that is by the way!)

The vast majority of these represented trade union branches, district committees, shop stewards' committees, etc. The Communist Party sent 73 delegates, the Co-operative movement 66, Common Wealth 32, and local and divisional Labour Parties 17. The Labour Party had officially boycotted the conference, the Liberal Party was not represented although Mrs. Corbett Ashby, late Vice-President, claiming to speak for an enormous number of the rank and file of that party, was present as an independent, neither was the I.L.P., nor, needless to say, the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

It would seem, therefore, that Mr. William Rust has been tempted to exaggerate a little, like a proud father, perhaps over the achievements of the baby he had helped to bring into the world, especially in view of the fact that his paper claimed that the delegates represented only 2,000,000 of "the people."

Passing over this doubtful claim of speaking the will of that nebulous entity "the people," let us examine the "will" that was expressed. The conference was called to face the "urgency of unity for victory in the war, for overcoming all obstacles to the mobilisation of resources and power in the war effort, and for laying the foundations for victory in the peace, too."

In the morning session the problem of winning the war was dealt with, the chief bone of contention being picked by the Common Wealth (Mr. Tom Wintringham) and the Communist Party (Mr. W. Gallacher) on the question of the Coalition government. Wintringham wanted to see the ending of the coalition whilst Gallacher stated that it was futile to discuss getting national unity by breaking up the National Government yet at the same time we should not have a Tory-dominated coalition.

In the afternoon session dealing with post-war problems, however, more diversity of opinion was expressed. Sir Richard Acland wanted nationalisation of the mines; Krishna Menon wanted Amery sacked and the Indian leaders freed;- somebody else wanted better education; another wanted to build houses after the war; R. G. McKay of Common Wealth said that "it would not worry him which progressive M.P.s got in —so long as we got a Socialist majority in the House of Commons;" and so forth and so on.

Amidst all the welter of diverse opinions there was, however, agreement on the fact that "Unity and progress are possible only by the united action of the great mass organisations of the Labour movement—the Labour Party, the trade unions and the Conservatives."

It was stressed throughout the meeting that nothing could be done without the Labour Party, but we want to know what they want to do. We doubt whether the words "unity" and "progressive" have been used so frequently in one day before, with so little regard for what unity was wanted for or to what it was wanted to progress.

As a generalisation of the speeches made it is our impression that all the delegates were concerned with was getting rid of the Tory domination of Parliament and substituting a United Progressive Left Front Government in its place and this would appear to be the intention behind the resolution which was passed, viz.,

  "This Conference greets the decision of the Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union calling on the Labour Party to convene a conference to formulate a common policy for the working class movement in readiness for the next general election and pledges itself to do all in its power in support."

It will be noted that the conference pledged its support for a "common policy" not yet decided upon at a conference to be called by the Labour Party which officially banned this one!

Thus we see that the result was that nobody got very far although everybody was in a hurry to get somewhere. The trouble was that nobody knew exactly where to go.

How much longer will the S.P.G.B. have to point out to the working class that as long as they make these futile attempts at unity simply on the flimsy basis of getting rid of the Tories or some such specious plea they will still have to travel the same old capitalist road. Unity for Socialism alone is what the working class should bother about—when this is achieved all these other pettifogging problems will disappear like chaff before the wind.

N.S.

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