Page Six THE ADVOCATE Wovember 24, 19389 THE ADVOCATE Published Weekly by the Advecate Publishing Association, Room 20 163 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. Phone TRinity 2019 EDITOR - HAL GRIFRIN One Year $2.00 Three Months —_ _..-$ -60 Half Year $1.00 Single Copy $ .05 Make All Cheques Payable to: The People’s Adyocate Vancouver, B.C., Friday, November 24, 1939 CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE A Blow At Liberty Thus in the name of a war for democracy Canadian democ- racy is being strangled. In the name of a fight against Hitlerism Hitlerism is imitated. Hitler began his attacks on democracy by suppressing the Communist party and Communist newspapers. Now the Hep- burn-King axis follows suit. In Nazi Germany, suppression of the Socialist party and the trade unions soon followed. What now is left of Prime Minister King’s broadcast love of “freedom of mind and soul’? Where is his erstwhile admiration of men who speak the things that are on their conscience “regardless of what the world may think” in opposing the war? : A cause that is just would not need to be afraid even of unjust criticism. Only those who fear the truth seek to hide it by ruthless suppression, and—as Hitler is finding to his sor- row—they never succeed. : The lights of Canadian democracy are being extinguished by its false self-styled defenders. The Canadian working- elass, all supporters of free speech and free press must unite to put them on again. Deceit On The Right fA} Vancouver Province in a recent editorial deplores what it calls “incoherence on the left” and admiringly quotes the accusation addressed by Princess Antoine Bibesco to the New Statesman and Nation (London) that the attitude of the left to the present war is that “war was desirable until it oc- curred, and peace is desirable since the war has arrived.” The implication is that those who opposed the Munich treaty which placed Czechoslovakia under the Nazi heel wanted war against Germany last year while in opposing the present war and urg- ing a world peace conference they now favor Nazi aggression. Both these accusations are equally false and nonsensical. The alternate at Munich was not appeasement a la Ghamberlain or war. The alternate was honest adherence to the principle of collective security against aggression or the destruction of Czechoslovakia in the vain hope of isolating the Soviet Union and encouraging a Nazi drive on the Soviet Ukraine. The perpetrators and supporters of the Munich agree- ment hailed it as the assurance ot “peace in our time.” ‘Those who opposed it predicted it would bring not peace but war. Who has been proven right by events? Would we have had war then a year earlier if the Munich agreement had not been signed? Lloyd George in an open letter published in London this week points out that in Sept., 1938, “Germany had no Siegfried line on her southeastern fron- tiers. Whe tine army and equipment of Czechoslovakia were intact. The combined forces of France, Russia, Czechoslovakia and Great Britain would have been so overwhelming that the advisers of Hitler would have insisted upon his making peace, rather than tight a hopeless war.” Can those who now say that victory is assured, even though Czechoslovakia and half of Poland are overrun by Nazi armies and the German armies have only one land front (the Western) to detend, deny that peace was even more assured last Septem- ber by collective support to Czechoslovakia? Even if they had the erfrontery or naivety to deny it they would still have to contess that in that case war would have been preferable be- cause shorter and surer in outcome in Sept. 1958 than a year later. Those who opposed the Munich settlement from the left’ (and this paper was the only one in BC to do so) did so because they stood tor peace as against the diversified and conflicting imperialist purposes and aims of each of the four signers of the Whunich pact. We still stand for peace. We still oppose Hitler’s aims of a Nazi dominated Europe, of another Munich peace, leading only to recurrent aggression and war. We still oppose the imperialist aims of the Chamberlain and Daladier governments, whose past record and present deeds alike merit not one iota of confidence or support by the people. We still oppose another Versdilles peace, that would endeavor to restore the autocratic monarchies of the Hohenzollerns and the Hapsburgs whose overthrow by the peoples the first Ver- sailles reluctantly acknowledged. We stand for a democratic peace, a peace without annexa- tions or indemnities, a peace that recognizes the right of all oppressed nations and colonial peoples to self-determination and independence, a peace that establishes government of the people, by the people and for the people in all countries, Such a peace all peoples will support even though it means the end of all imperialisms. No falsehood on the right can deceive the people, no sup- pression can hide the truth. Canada’s Little Hitler See at St. Thomas, Ont., this week, Premier Hepburn remarked that people in the United States “are beginning to laugh at Canada’s war effort.” Ottawa, it is reported, de- cided to ignore the statement and “leave it to the public.” The public—the working people of Canada who are called upon to make the sacrifices in this war while those for whom Premier Hepburn speaks reap vast profits—will see through Ontario’s ‘Little Hitler,’ not.only for his obvious attempts to make political capital out of their sufferings but because he is the loud-mouthed jingoist who is proving to them that this is not a war for democracy. While from the public platform he would deny to others he prates about a ‘war for democracy, his vicious attacks on the labor movement give the lie to his utterances and prove him an enemy of the Canadian people. The fact that Premier. Hepburn’s remarks, like those of his spiritual bedfellow, Col. Drew, who openly calls for war on the Soviet Union, can be construed as violating the War Measures Act, only goes to prove that the Act is a weapon designed for use against the labor movement. WHAT 8 BEHIND TRE PROPAGANDA FOR A “FEDERATION OF NATIONS? By TIM BUCK a Pes DEMAND that all belligerent governments explore the possibilities for peace continues and grows in strength. In Britain, under the stimulus of Lloyd George’s Council of Action for Peace it embraces large sections of the population and several important organizations. With the war in Poland over and the idea of “restoring Poland” pushed to the background by British government propagandists, millions of people assume that the reasons for which the Chamberlain government went to war have disappeared and thereby fall into the swamp of pacifism. The imperialists reject all peace proposals just as they previously rejected all proposals for concerted action to prevent aggression. They are busily striving to popularize slogans other than those under which they started and to advance new and more popular reasons for continuing the war. The slogan now put forward as the positive, ‘inspirational’ com- plement to the hate propagan- da, is that of ‘a Federation of Wations.’” The persistent and sys- tematic efforts to work up en- thusiasm for an ‘ideological’ war all combine the idea of a ‘de-Hit- lerized’ Germany, back in the fold of 4 sort of United States of Europe, standing on guard against the spread of Commun- ism. A hundred newspaper and ma- gazine articles have been publish- ed on this theme during the past month. Erom ‘Wickham Steed in the Fortnightly Review, to the WNew York Times and the Toron- to Saturday Night, this slogan has been raised as the proclaim- ed, as the ‘sacred cause’ for which this war is being fought. Ibord Halifax deliberately fostered this propaganda in his world broadcast when he uttered non- committal and all but meaning- less phrases about “some form of international organization in which some degree of our SOVver- eignty may have to be surrender- ed.” Liberais, pacificts and social reformists have clambered aboard cheek by jowl with jingo- istic spokesmen of war-monger- By system- atic use of this propaganda the war-mongers have established a common ground upon which 2 startling variety of individuals and groups who claim to be against imperialist war, in gen- eral, are joining the chorus of support for this war in particu- lar on the basis of support for the beautiful and democratic ob- jective of a ‘Hederation of Na- tions.’ ing finance capital. Social Pacifism In Support of the War 4 PSS Federation of Nations pro- paganda which is seized upon avidly by thousands of sincere democrats is, in fact, propaganda in favor of the war- This is so obvious that support of it by paci- fists, etc., provides a striking commentary upon the facility with which the imperialists gain allies.. A typical example of this is to be seen in the case of Pro- fessor Laski in England and so- cial chauvinists of his type in Canada. Laski has jumped on the wagon with a demand for “re-organization of Hurope on the basis of a federal democratic union” and has become, objec- tively, one of the main defenders of the imperialist war. Laski’s formulation of “A Fed- eral Democrate Union’ for all its appearance of being more ‘left’ than the mere demand for ‘A Federation of Nations,’ is infin- itely more valuable to Chamber- lain precisely because it gives a Gemocratic tinge to the idea, and ‘infinitely dangerous to the work— ing class in its implication that such a ‘democratic union’ could be achieved by capitalist govern- ments. e What Is ‘A Federa= tion of Nations?’ 4 (eee Federation of Nations slog- an is obvious deception. A fed- eration of nations, a3 distinct from a league of nations, would involve surrender of such 2 large measure of sovereignty by its constituent states that it is ridi- culous to imagine that Anglo- French finance-capital would even consider it seriously, cer- tainly not after 2 victorious war. A ‘Federation of Nations’ would involve surrender by its constitu- ent states to its central authority, of control over foreign policy, de- fence, emigration and immigra- tion and currency. Federation in the full sense of the word would require surrender,~ also, of con- trol of communications, tariffs, and citizenship, and, in Europe, it would involve surrender by the constituent states ef the admin- istration of their colonies. In short it would require all the changes necessary to establish a relationship between the indivi- dual citizen and the central, i-e., federal, government such as ex ists in the United States; or the higher, socialist relationship which exists between Soviet citi- zen and the all-union governmenc of the USSR. Obviously imperialists are not going to surrender such powers. Dangerous For the Working Class FREE federation of nations is possible only through defeat of the capitalist cliques who now control the machinery of govern- ment in all capitalist states and operate it for their own profit. How little ‘democracy’ enters into the considerations of the im- perialists who suddenly shouting their devotion to the federation of nations idea may be gatmered from the conditions which they themselves declare necessary for the establishment of their ‘federation’ and the pur- pose they expect it to serve. One example of this was pro-, vided by one Hugh S. Watt, in- troduced as a correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times, who announc- ed in Toronto recently that “Bri- tain’s leaders had virtually de- cided upon a federation of Hura- pean states.” “Britain is ready to give up some of the essential elements of her sovereign powers,” he de- eclared. But he hastened to add: “Such a plan, of course, depends upon Germany not going Com- munist. as seems possible right now.” The Economist which provides part of the ideological fuel for the* British bourgeoisie, gives steady and energetic support to that point of view: In its issue of October 14, in an article en- titled: ‘Germany at War, which was described as an objective analysis prepared from German and neutral sources, it revealed the fear of ‘The City’ in its com- plaint that political developments in Germany are very ‘contradic- tory. For example of the Econ- omist’s concern, anent this, note the following gem: “Hormer Marxist workers are now highly praised by Nazi authorities. Public speeches made by prominent Nazi lead- ers appeal especially to work- ers and employ the word ‘so— cialism’ more often than be- fore. Financiers, industrial ists and merchants on the oth- er hand, are said to be disturb- ed by rumors that the govern- ment intends to requisition all capital imvested abroad. The reconstruction of industry in Polish Upper Silesia is conduct— ed under the direct control of the state, and inspired articles are very vague about the ques- tion of private ownership in the occupied territory.” The deep concern of the Econ- omist over the possible embar- rassment of the German capital- ists is interesting in the extreme. The significance of such para- graphs does not depend upon the degree of truth in them but in the fact that they are part of the entire scheme to activize the class front; inside Germany a3 well as throughout the territories of Britain and France and their allies. are of London, an important Tt is the need to arouss con- sciousness of this ‘class front’ and to illustrate the sector of this front occupied by the ‘Federation of Nations’ propaganda that causes the ‘Toronto Saturday Wight to declare portentiously- “In that United States of Hur- ope, it is hardly possible that Russia could have a part, and indeed, one of its major objec- tives would necessarily be the preservation of the genuinely European heritage Gneaning cap- italism, T.B.) from Russian at tacks.” In face of the foregoing, it is easy to understand that the slo- gan: “reorganization of Hurope on the basis of a federal demo- cratic union’ as used by Laski, is confusing, misleading, and is dangerous for the working class. Its use may be defended by the ‘left? social reformists by assert- ing that it represents “sa form of advocacy of social revolution” but these specialists in verbal bel- licosity will fail to point out that it is not merely ‘a form’ but the essence of Trotskyite opportun- ism: a perfect example of what Lenin described as ‘the high flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies oppor- tunism.” Lenin’s Treatise On the Question ENIN dealt with the question of The United States of Hur ope in one paragraph in i915, when he wrote, in his famous treatise on the question: “The United States of the World (ot of Europe alone) is 2 state form of national free- dom which we connect with socialism — until the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance ef the state, including the dem- oecratic state. As a sepsrate slogan, however, the slogan of 2 United States of the World would hardly be 2 correct one, first, because it merges with socialism, second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of so- Cialism in 2 single country is impossible; it may also create misconceptions as to the rela- tions of such a country to the others.” Everything that Lenin wrote On the question in that famous treatise applies to the situation today completely and without qualification. If the imperialists of Europe did organize some sort of a ‘federation’ of BHuropean states following this war, it would only be to establish the hegemony of the victor group more firmly. It could only be a temporary agreement between *“European’ capitalists against their opponents. Its purpose would be, not to ensure peace, but to reduce the smaller states to complete yassalage, to crush socialist strivings in its weaker constituent states and toe units eapitalist Europe for war to the death against the socialist USSR on the one hand and the aggres- Sive, imperialistic United States on the other. Far from ensuring peace, such a ‘federation’ would be but the vehicle for waging war on 2 scale hitherto undreamed of. Support to this propaganda to- day aids the sinister schemes cf finance capital. A free feder— ation of mations is possible only through the victory of the work- ing class. e Threat to Canada’s Nationhood - SHOULD be emphasized that the Sandwells and social re- formists are doing an ill-service to Canads as a whole by giving support to the present campaign of ‘Federation of Nations’ propa- ganda. A ‘Hederation’ of Eur- opéean states dominated by An- glo-French finance-capital would, by the conflicts its interests would engender, place Canada’s very existence as a nation in jeopardy. If she remained hitched to Bri- tish war policies as today, she would be headed for conflict with United States. At the same time the increasing subordination of her economy to. Britain’s war needs tends to increase the dif ficulty of separating her foreign policy from that of Britain by its collossal bribery of Canadian profiteers. Any ‘federation’ of European states under capital- ism would be catastrophic for Canada. Only a free union of socialist republics of Europe will bring a just and durable peace. VIEWS and OPINIONS : dayout editorializing, i Abe (commercial) publisher or A editor of today, realizing the editorial page is innocuous, puts his editorial on the first page if he really wants it to be read — and even then prints it in a type a few sizes larger than that of the news text. But for his run- of-the-mill, staple, day-in-and- he simply doctors the news columns. Does he want to attack the local WPA? Very well; the editorial conference delegates its stroke- Car man to do a six hundred word routine attack. But the Main assault is managed through the news columns. One picture of a WPA worker (real or faked) leaning on his shovel is worth ten thousand words under the masthead on page 18. (By the way, has anyone ever seen 2a publisher leaning on his shovel on the 18th hole at the golf course? No pictures, please.) Qf course there are some things that even a powerful newspaper publisher can’t swing, no matter how he colors, distorts, blows up, fakes, or suppresses the news. Ninety percent of the press whooping it up for Landon seemed only to make Joe Doaks, the man with the three pennies and the last say at the ballot box, more obstinate. That catastrophe, however, was unusual. More typical was the triumph of conservative publish- ing in creating, through the news columns and not the editorials, a build-up for the Hon. Martin Dies. He was voted by the Wash- ington correspondents as the sec- ond biggest bore in the capital, first place going by courtesy and tradition to the Hon. Ham Wish. But tne papers gave the Dies Committee such a play that willy— nilly they got under the readers’ skins, and the Texas Tornado (or windbag) got his appropriation. The extent of the victory went far beyond the $10,000 appropria- tidn triumph. The Dies Committee, through the editorialized news columns, scared the pants off ali the liber- als in the country. At the same time the newspapers, by playing down the much more sensational disclosures of the La Folletts committee, practically hamstrune that investigation. So, if you’re curious to Enow where your opinions and convic- sions come from, leave Brain Alley out of account, and next time you plank down your pen- nies for the paper whose comics you can’s live without, gaze with a fresh eye on the news stories, looking for the ‘angie,’ the ‘color, the ‘slant.’ The work that Gree ley, Bowles, Dana did directly is now being done by headline in- nuendo, by position in the paper, by pictures, and by sneaking lit- tie phrases such as ‘idle’ for ‘un- employed,’ and ‘federal easy mon- ey’ for ‘government appropria- tions.’ —IARTIN TORRENCE, in Esquire. oe HE. BATTLE—CRY of the old Roman times was: Carthage must be destroyed! And with the first call to war for the destruc- tion of Hitlerism there was prac-— tical Canadian unity. Wot until Mackenzie King abdicated from his “freedom of mind and sow ied for all Canadians and left La- pointe and Conant in charge of our civil liberties was there any sign of protest against and unbe liefs in the declared abjectives of the war. Now these ‘patriots are injecting the very spirit of Hitler into Canadian life im 2 vain and inglorious attempt to sabotage economic protest in the interests of the predatory class, thousands of men and women are -Tosing faith in the declared ob- jective of the war. Wothing more “subversive” has happened so far than this perse- ecution of economic protestants. For... You cannot put ideas in jail; You can’t deport opinion. But the objective is real, and the dictatorship of Lapointe can- not entirely cloud it. —ALFRED BUCKLEY, in the Highland Echo, Yancouver. ECENT statistics show that whereas it takes $2,000 a yest to fill the stomachs of one sm group of Americans, there are some 13 million other families and individuals who have to get by on only $236 a year for food. The figures are taken from the recent report of the National R& sources Planning Board on con- sumer expenditures, The report shows that one-third of the population of the United States have not enough income to cover food, clothing and shelter at even the most miserable level. Such conditions are contrary te American principles of equality of opportunity. They deny to mil- lions of Americans their full right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: —LEN DE CAUX, in CIO News. Vie Fuentes eet cic tp lintinmaiia testa abate aie ont “ier wryeer le ee arnt reateneiminnnmeettinint LEST — 3 is i i SE. tees SN a FP In et bet oo ed pole sel ep yeery Pes pag ©)