Market and Marxism
Sir: C. J. Arthur's first letter (October 13) claimed that the EEC only affected " the margins of national sovereignty" and so no anti-marketeer should vote for Wilsonian Marxism. I replied that this " better Hitler than Blum" approach failed on two counts and showed by numerous examples that the EEC meant the end of our independence and that Heath is at least as Marxist as Wilson in his acts. Mr Arthur's reply is to state that my " retort " is "ungenerous", " pettyfog-ging ", "nostalgic ", "of doubtful
validity ", " mythological '', "spurious ", showing "inverted patriotism " " a stunted form of patriotism ", "negativity ", and is "likely to result in totalitarianism ". Not one of my examples is even questioned, not one argument refuted; nothing but a torrent of personal abuse directed at me.
I compared Heath with Laval because both, as premier, betrayed their country into alien domination. An extensive participation in, and study of EEC correspondence convinces me that the analogy is valid from another point of view: virtually all marketeers invariably resort to naked force in their actions, as Heath did, and abuse in their arguments, and so show themselves to be totalitarians.
G. J. A. Stern 6b Eton Court, Shepherds Hill. London N6
Previous page
