38
H.
STUART HUGHES
ism or Social Democracy of Europe has lost its self-confidence and
its moral drive: its official leaders have become scarcely distinguish–
able from their "bourgeois" opponents. Perhaps for that reason they
have found few imitators in the non-European world. Beyond Eu–
rope's shores what remains of Socialism's old message is little more
than a few practical precepts for collectivist action. Their tone has
ceased to be evangelical- it has become managerial and businesslike.
In this sense the socialism or quasi-socialism of the newly-liberated
countries owes far more to Soviet or Yugoslav experience than it docs
to that of European Social Democracy. In tone and emphasis the
collectivism of the underdeveloped world bears the Moscow stamp.
That means that the United States suffers under a grave handi–
cap in dealing with formerly colonial areas. I am convinced that
if our society at home were more collectivist, we would find less
difficulty in understanding the aspirations of newly-liberated peoples.
Failing that, we could at least make it clear that we would accept
with equanimity the nationalization of American enterprises overseas.
And by so doing we would have put ourselves in a far better position
to express our point of view on violations of basic human rights
(which, most people now agree, do not include a right to hold large
property). We would no longer be vulnerable to the old accusation
of a special hypocrisy inherent in Anglo-Saxon speech. The disinter–
estedness of our concern for individual human beings suffering op–
pression would be more apparent once it could no longer be dis–
missed .as a smoke screen for economic egoism.
Thus we should have reduced our quarrel with the Soviet Union
to its essentials--our opposition to Communism's tyranny over the
mind of man. And I mean this in the widest sense. I mean terror
and censorship, arbitrary imprisonment and forced labor, the falsi–
fication of history and barefaced lying in international assemblies–
every aspect of conduct and policy that is deceitful and inhumane.
But where does this leave us in the cold war? Is it really pos–
sible to choose to oppose the Russians in one sphere of action, and
to refrain from doing so in another? Aren't we engaged in a struggle
for national and cultural survival, in which such distinctions may
dangerously weaken our resolve?
I confess that I find questions like these hard to answer.
J
