ul THE NATION Why right-wing CCF support of pact | == lla if (=k bs rl . = 2 J Re wee By TIM BUCK if not to aid capitalism? ATTEMPTING to justify their unity with St. Laurent and Drew in. support of Wall Street’s predatory foreign policy and war. aims, the CCF national leader- Ship is associating itself with the most anti-working class arguments used by the defenders of the profit System. : ‘ A particularly brazen example of this trend was issued from the CCF national office recently for pub- lication in CCF papers as “National Office Commen- tary.” In that statement the CCF national leaders admit by implication that one of the reasons why they sup- Port the North Atlantic pact is because it appears to them to be the only means of preventing the defeat of the capitalist class in the countries of Western Europe. Repeating the lies which originatéd in Wall Street’s kept press and radio propaganda, the CCF leaders con- demn the strikes of hungry French and Italian workers as sabotage of economic recovery. They repeat Louis St. Laurent’s assertion that Wall Street’s war pact is rendered necessary because the United Nations is in- effective. In their pride at being in the same war camp With ‘Winston Churchill, General De Gaulle and Presi- dent Truman, they put forward a claim that the credit for initiating and Promoting the campaign which pre- Pared the ground for Wall Street’s war pact belongs < right to socialists like themselves. ye oe Why do these men who pretend to believe in the ideal of socialism support this central and decisive aim of monopoly capitalism? According to this recent CCF National office commentary, socialist support of Wall Street's plan for war is “justified” because it offers the one possibility of defeating the Communist parties in estern Europe. “Only a refusal to face the facts,” they assert hypocritically, “could blind one to the very real dangers of Communist aggression. Czezchoslo- Vakia has shown that although this aggression does not CANADA AND THE U.S. Economist sees necessarily take the form of actual armed attack, it is as effective a method of conquest as the old-fashioned military victory.” ‘ There is the crux of the policy of the CCF leader- ship, There may not be danger of “actual armed attack” but the Atlantic war pact wil] protect the capitalists in Western Europe and their profit system, against the working class and the possibility of a working class victory. : Thus the leaders of the CCF indicate in weasel words their unity with monopoly-capitalism and sup- port of its reactionary aims in countries such as France and Italy. Next they seek to placate those of their sup- porters who want an excuse for pretending that M. J. Coldwell’s policies differ fundamentally from those of .- Louis St. Laurent. Having argued all through the state- ment that U.S. imperialism is the true and only de- pendable guardian of democracy, they conclude with “regrets” that socialists like themselves should be sup- porting capitalism. “It is, of course, regrettable,” they write, “that the most powerful country in the western world is a capitalist one, and that its policies’ are frequently reactionary.” “Regrettable” but acceptable to the leaders of the CCF as to the leaders of the social democratic parties in Western Europe. The CCYM conference in Toronto which adopted a good resolution against CCF support of the Marshall Plan demonstrated that there are still politically healthy elements within the CCF who not only “regret” but also reject the reactionary policies and, aims of monopoly-capitalism. Official CCF support of St. Laurent’s proposal to commit Canada in advance to participate in an imperialist war in Europe is in fact a repudiation of the thousands of honest peace- loving reform-minded people who built that move- ment up. . By I. SOSENSKY isaster for Canada as outcome of trade policies CANADA nearly doubled its industrial capacities dur- ing the Second World War. This, coupled with ‘@bundant raw material resources, opened big prospects 40r the further development of the country’s indus- *s. To do so, however, Canada needed much bigger Markets than it had. ae The war also intensified the concentration of capi- ‘al in Canada and the penetration of American capital — ‘American investments in Canada reached the sum ef 5,000 million dollars, the biggest American invest- Ments in any: country), which brought with it greater “ubjugation of the country’s economy to Wall Street. _ Canada’s attempts to extend its markets have run up *eainst the opposition of American monopolies, : _ After the war every attempt by Canada to ae More advantageous sources of raw material (oil, for mple) or new markets for the sale of her products fas been met with undisguised irritation of United States monopolies, The U.S. is not interested in the fevelopment of Canadian industries which are poten- : competitors of American goods; it only needs Cana- dian raw materials—iron ore, aluminum, nickel lead, zing, uranium ore. ; On the other hand, Canada wishes to BrAcaes, i t@Ww materials into manufactured goods itself, = this js more profitable and promotes the See eat Velopment of industry, Thus, there is an neues ie opnttadiction between the economic aims of }\Can a er. caetioah “Aula adie gate co adm : _ News and Ward meson ae ‘its issue of Septemban ee 121948, the journal stated that a clash of aplerest ae ween Canadian and American industrialists wil oa rently take place very soon. American industrialists 4 acd that many new Canadian factories are senseless * auplicates of American plants. They will resist aan attempts Canada makes to sell her manufactured g00 : See rican market. This “resistance” is offered a ‘ANY in the U.S,, but also on world markets, in Latin Amer Western Europe, where American menprely pepital is driving for undivided domination a dis- C ng its competitors, the Canadian industria s. athe rutin circles of Canada decline to trade with kentries of Riatein gee though the latter a a e are advantageous’ to Canada, and they orienta’ Rate Doig YS economy toward the U:S. It is clear neneetes Peopi is not prompted by the interests of th og sper oe 1 aims of Can finaneiat tis, tietated by the selfish circles which expect to act as middlemen of tted by United States _ . Wall Street in exploiting their country’s national re- sources, and of Canadian munition makers who hope to make super-profits on the armaments race. : It is highly indicative that Trade and Commerce Minister D. C. Home recently went to Washington not _ to conduct negotiations on development of Canada’s foreign trade (its size has long been predetermined in Washington), but to draft an agreement on the stan- _dardization of armaments. Development of war industry and the armament race are the only things in Canada Wall street does not restrict. This, however, does not solve the problem of markets for those branches of Canadian industry which are working for peaceful needs. By its clamor about a “boom,” the right-wing Ca- nadian press seeks to conceal the weak points in ’ Canada’s economy and its growing instability. It is known that Canadian exports in 1948 increased not because of the expansion of markets, but due to pur- chases of agricultural produce under the Marshall plan which, it is admitted, will soon stop. Another arti- ‘ficial factor which maintained Canadian exports at a high level was the granting by Canada of 2,000 million dollar credits to Britain and other West European countries. Big Canadian export figures are also due to the sharp rise in prices, which in. some cases are 250 percent. of the 1941 level, It is clear that when the effect of these temporary factors making for a “boom” wear off, when “artificial respiration,” as it is termed by heads of the Royal - Bank of Canada, is discontinued, industry and agricul- ture will face disaster. It should be noted that the gravity of this disaster will be intensified by the crisis in the U.S. Canada undoubtedly will be the first vic- tim of economic crisis in the U.S., since the American monopolists will not fail to shift some of the burden onto the back of Canada’s people. Consequently Canada’s fate, her future depend first and foremost on how quickly her policy is changed. The threat to Canada’s national independence eman- ates not from the Soviet Union which is engaged in peaceful construction and seeks to cooperate and trade with all countries. This threat emanates from American imperialism, this new claimant to, world domination. @ I. Sosensky is a Soviet economist who has been following economic trends in the U.S. and Canada. His book, “War and the Economy of Canada,” was published in the Soviet Union in 1947, ~ the AFL’s false cry that Communists, soi LABOR FOCUS By J. B. SALSBERG Now is the time to fight back ) _HAT happened in Miami, where the AFL ex- ecutive issued its diktat to its Canadian member- ship, is worse than even pessimists expected. According to the official statement of the Trades and Labor Con- gress, the “Joint Co-ordinating Committee of the AFL and TLC which was created to consider and advise on all matters of dispute between these two trade union centers, Was nol permitted to function ai the Miami meeting, and . .. no time was given to the elected of- ficers of this Congress to reply to the voluminous, docu- mentary and oral testimony submitted by some Canadian officers of the AFL affiliates in the Dominién of Can- ada, a great deal of which was not in accordance with the facts.” In other words, the machinery previously set up to handle differences between the AFL and TLC was ‘scrapped. The spokesmen of the Canadian AFL mem- bership were not given a chance to present their case. Yet the Yabor lackeys of Wall Street issued directives. and threats to Canadian workers as if they were back- ward subjects in an obscure colony. Even George III Was more “Tefined.”’ The action of the AFL executive can be con- sidered only as a defiant attempt to nullify with one stroke the autonomous rights which Canadian AFL members have established over 65 years. The humiliating order is clear enough: “chop limbs off your body to suit — our political specifications; give us complete voting con- trol at your convention or... ! ~ In the face of this cruel attack the statement of the’ TLC smacks of appeasement. But you cannot appease agents of Wall Street any more than you can Wall Street itself. Every concession paves the way only for further concessions, for it unloosens a chain of events that could lead only to complete capitulation, no matter what the intentions were when the first concession was made. t is wrong to lend even a shadow of credence to : mehow, misuse their democratic nights in the TLC. There isn’t a shred of evidence for such charges. It isn’t Canadian Com- munists who have harmed the Congress and its unions On the contrary, they have been among the foremost builders of AFL-Congress unions and defenders of the workers’ interests. It is the Frank Halls who are be- © traying and menacing Canadian labor and the TLC. It is they who should stand on trial. : The isue, of course, is not communism. The issue is the autonomy of Canadian labor, the inner democracy of the trade union movement, the unity of labor and the defense of labor's immediate and future welfare. The — cry of communism is but a camouflage to conceal what is really at stake. Frank Hall and the big business press are already clamoring for “‘more concrete” evidence of the Congress” intentions to implement the decisions of the AFL execu- — tive.. Not enough, cry the bloodhounds! Nothing will be enough until they divide and ruin the Congress and what- ever may be left of its affiliates. There is reason to think that the TLC executive - believes that it is best defending the Congress by rear- _guard defensive actions. We are convinced that such strategy is wrong and can lead only to defeat! € It is os FT oye ee ste ee are preparing for another blow at mg land meeting of the AFL executive. They believe they have scored the first round, and intend to push their advantage in the second. The TLC rank and file have — but one course open: they must go over to the offensive. The AFL executive and the heads of the respective international unions must be made to feel the wrath of their Canadian members. The determination to defend — the unity, autonomy and the democratic rights of the TLC must be heard in Washington. But it is obvious that this alone is not enough right now. It is necessary that the TLC leadership must tes : feel the unwavering determination of their members to stand by the Victoria decisions and avoid a policy of appeasement, which can lead only to catastrophe. Up to now TLC leaders could count on the loyal support of their members. They need have no fear about the continuation of that support if they defend the rights of Congress. No appeasement and no surrender! The lime to fight back is now! ~~ PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH li, 1949 — PAGE §