Letters

Letters

‘we

: In your issue of July 10, you carry a letter
tom Geoff Meggs (“Stand on China misses

Mark”) which is critical of the statement by -

the Communist Party of Canada deploring

the tragic events of June 3 and 4 in Beijing.
_ “Or my part, I endorse the statement from
_ the CP Canada.
| I suggest that while every communist and
_ Workers party must-have the right to critic-

Ze other parties when it considers it
_ 4ppropriate, such criticism should be of a
_ Constructive nature, and care must be taken
_ AOtto play into the hands of those who seek

ie ndermine and destroy existing social-

In that respect, I welcome that part of the

_ CP Canada statement which reads: “We
_ Understand the complexities of the situation
_ 4nd the distortions from the international
1g business media which seeks to exploit

this tragedy to undermine and destabilize

Socialist China.”

“eggs questions whether China is a
Socialist country. He quotes an article in the
Moscow News of May 14, 1989 by a profes-
Sor from a central committee school of the
Communist Party of China. This academic

Toadly suggests that modern, industrial
_ Capitalism has entered “a stage of transfer

OVer to socialism.”

Anyone familiar with the contents of
oscow News over the past three years
knows that some Soviet academics and

Journalists have advanced similar argu-

ments. Are we to assume then, that the

Soviet Union is moving towards capitalism
_ 48 We know it in British Columbia?

, Certainly not: such pro-capitalist opin-
ae me are being advanced in that country in
© course of the’ ongoing! Explosive debate
Over how to improve and strengthen social-

CHINA* POLAND* USSR |

Big business media exploits weaknesses
to attack socialism.

ism. But they do not represent official pol-
icy. Further, such opinions do not have
majority support. I have no doubt that
socialism in the Soviet Union will emerge
stronger and better as a result of this debate,
and that those in the Western echelons of
power who seek to undermine and destroy
socialism in the USSR are in for a bitter
disappointment.

Is China a socialist country? I believe the
answer is yes. It is a socialist country at a
relatively low level of economic develop-
ment. But the socialist sector of the econ-
omy is the dominant one. Of course there
are problems ‘arising out of the fact that
private enterprise is being allowed to

. China: CP statement correct

develop under specific guidelines laid down
by the government and the party.

However, the long-term aim is to create a
stronger economic base for socialism by
gaining access to the most modern technol-
ogy. In the long run this will strengthen
socialism. What we are discussing here is a
mixed economy with the socialist sector and
state maintaining a paramount role. The
Chinese people will decide on the duration
of that stage.

Such problems as corruption, excessive
inequalities in payment for work performed
and protection at the work place for Chi-
nese workers in foreign concessions will be
dealt with by the people. The principled
question is not whether a mixed economy
should be encouraged in China but whether
it will strengthen the prospects for building
a modern and sustainable base for
advanced socialism, in the long run. I
believe the answer is yes.

Personally, I believe that the protesters in
Tiananmen Square had legitimate grievan-
ces they wished to air and that the govern-
ment and the party did not explore all the
avenues of dialogue and consultation.

But the fact remains that existing social-
ism in all socialist countries is striving to
make a better life for their people in the
context of internal and external difficulties.
Serious mistakes have been made at the
highest party and government level. Despite
these negative features socialism has proved
its superiority over capitalism and has
become a decisive factor in world progress
and in defence of peace. If I didn’t believe
that, I would be very pessimistic about the
future of humankind.

Jack Phillips,
Vancouver

Can't avoid the facts on this one

Ken Woodhouse’s letter in the July 3
tton of the Pacific Tribune (“China’s
80V't harsh, but no proof of massacre”’) is
pester Sad example of the tendency of
rae members of the Western left to apol-
fee for, defend or simply deny any
: tance of “bad behaviour” committed by
eels government. Such a tendency
ee undermines the credibility of the
€tt and the integrity of leftist analysis.
“Y0odhouse does make several good
Points before sinking into the quagmire of
“Pologism and denial. He’s right, of course
wie ©ur capitalist media are assaulting us
ria” a” orgy of anti-communism and hyste-
z On this story. However, that doesn’t
i ©an the June 4 slaughter of hundreds
uae thousands) of peacefully demon-
Fating students in Beijing’s Tiananmen
quare never occurred,
sat he’s right that the Western media
wa very selective in deciding who is a
ee tthy victim. Victims of U.S.-backed
cals Such as Guatemala, are, indeed, not
2 Se of coverage by our corpo-
pet then things get a little sticky. Wood-
oe asserts that we in the West have no
Ual evidence of the “alleged” slaughter.
ae how does he account for the video
i 48e shot from rooftops and hotel win-
th Ws, depicting the tanks of the 27th Unit of
Dad Sople’s Liberation Army flattening
pa reds of tents and their student occu-
Nts in the brightly lit square that night?
aged on a Hollywood backlot, per-

ed

ap

B apod how about the testimony from the

‘ing hospital staff describing the chaos
ce demonium as scores of maimed and
tal ng young people lay stacked in hospi-

©orridors? Or the eyewitnesses at the

Ware who said that as quickly as one line

of unarmed students was mowed down by
artillery fire another came forward to
replace them? I suppose all these folks were
paid by the CIA and Ted Koppel to say that
stuff.

I’m afraid this one’s pretty clear. The
Chinese government committed a heinous,
contemptible act of oppression that night.
Western media are using this incident to
critique socialism. Why should the left let

these newspeak corporations hold a
monopoly on criticism and set the terms of
the debate?

The actions of the People’s Army in Tia-
nanmen Square on June 4 were not a result
of socialism. They were a gross abuse of
power. We needn’t be bashful about mak-
ing this distinction.

Kim Goldberg,
Nanaimo

Don't jump on the bandwagon

Regarding your issue of June 12 on
China, I feel it is folly to climb on the band
wagon with Bush, Mulroney and Vander
Zalm as these scum are known agents of the
multinationals.

Time will tell, but I presume that billions
of dollars of Bush’s covert money have gone
down the tube in the CIA bid to overthrow
the government of China.

As an activist in the peace movement for
40 years, I feel that the actions of the Soviet
Union and China and the new alignment of
forces has cut the head off the snake. Never
again will the military industrial complex be
able to threaten us with nuclear war if we
play our cards right.

Harry Worth,
Nanoose Bay

ical letter from Al Warrington carried

“Ginger” Goodwin reportage (“Mil-

more qualified than he to have written
it. —

1986.” As an old practitioner of the

and nothing but..." _

but not totally. The missing part is

sons also became, in 1962 when Mine
of America and attacking Mine Mill.

| “picture taken ‘with the "headstone
_ Ginger Goodwin’s grave.
I am equally delighted that R

_ August, 1967.

and yours truly, in my own humble

Regrettably our efforts were unsu
cessful. ae neue

Cutline on |
Mine Mill
off-base —

My appreciation for the fine histor- : ;

In your June 19 issue regarding the —

itary, not RCMP shot Goodwin”) is -
very great indeed. It isa fine job, beau-
tifully done, andI can think of no one _

Not so my reaction to the cutline

under your photo of the ‘wreath lay- __
ing at Ginger Goodwin’s grave on ©
Workers Memorial Day June 21 —

“art” (if so it may be called) of labour |
journalism, I have always held the —
view that “accurate news coverage, _
accurately on the page permits events _|
_ to speak for themselves.” The opera-
tive word is “accurate,” which inturn |
of course must mean “the whole truth _

So when you say that Barney |
McGuire is a “former Mine Mill acti- _
vist”’ I, as well as many others, includ- _
ing Al Warrington, can vouch that is —

not totally accurate — partially so, —

that Barney McGuire, for his own rea-

Mill was fighting for its life, an “anti-
Mine Mill activist” by throwing in his _
fortunes with the United Steelworkers _

That is a matter of historical record. —
Of course lam delighted that Brother —
ee

Griggs of Local 598 and its president _
_ also saw fit to do the same thing. But _
again, at the risk of sounding a bit _
_ picky, Local 598 Mine Mill didin fact —
vote itself out of the merger of the _
_ Mine Mill and Smelter Workers in —
Canada and the United Steelworkers —
of America that was completed with —
the national referendum vote of —

‘Thus the division of the nickel
workers of Sudbury was established
at that time and in fact continues to
this day. That can only be to the
benefit of Inco and Falconbridge. I _
might add that Harvey Murphy, Ken —
Smith, Bill Longridge, Nels Thibault, —
Bill Kennedy thousands of others, —

way, sought to avert that division. |

In the ongoing public debate concern-
ing the Wilson Tory budget, we note with
interest and enthusiasm the broad demo-
cratic content of the 10 points of the
emerging coalition program against the
Wilson byidget taken in conjunction with
the Free Trade Agreement.

We note with regret, however, that no
reference occurs among the 10 points to
either the substantial allocations for
armaments and armed forces or to a pol-
icy intended to meet the need of working
people for full employment. =»

We propose, therefore that there be
added the following:

“All funds allocated directly or indi-
rectly to war production or preparations

Military missing
from 10-pt. program

for war be re-directed to converting war-
related industry to peace-time production,
which statistically has been shown to pro-
vide more jobs than war-related industry.
Consequently, far from mortgaging the
future of our children, policies that sup-
port provisions of social services would
provide social security for present and
future generations and the achievement of
ongoing full employment.”

We further feel that the national secur-
ity and democratic character of our coun-
try would be best guaranteed through

withdrawal from NORAD and the reor-
ganization of the three arms of our defence
forces — along independent, democratic
lines. Further, that it would be in the best
interests of world peace as a whole if Can-
ada pursued the objective of disbanding
both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and
intensified support for the United Nations
as the guarantor of world peace.

It is our conviction that we, the people
of Canada can achieve well-being and
security as both a nation and as individu-
als through rejection of militarism and
unemployment.

Effie Jones Club,
Communist Party of Canada,
Vancouver

Pacific Tribune, July 17, 1989 « 5