Parti

Trotskyite slanderers
given a fitting reply

The student paper of the Engineering Sc
guage University of Montreal, Polyscope,
October 16 an article by Sam Walsh which
“Quebecois and l
hing to do because the article

munist paper Combat entitled

| _tions.” This was a rather significant t ¢ ¢
"sharply criticized the Parti Quebecois for its policy of boycott of
_ the elections and the University of Montreal is one of the main

centres of support for the P.Q.

In a subsequent issue of the pape
to this article. Below is the rejoinde:
-Polyscope:

—

In the last issue of Polyscope
there is an article entitled: “The
Communiste du Quebec
and the National Question, a Re-
ply to ‘Quebecois and the Fed-

- €ral Elections’,” of which I am
the author of the latter. This

“reply was written by a Trots-
kyist, which was quite evident
by the distortions and lies con-
tained in it, hardly requiring the
Signature at the end.

In the first place, this article
is presented a reply to mine, en-
titled “Quebecois and the Fed-
eral Elections.’ Readers will re-
Call that, basically, it was an
appeal to Quebecois to reject
the harmful advice of the Parti
Quebecois and to vote against

the bourgeois parties and for a

progressive bloc of Communists
and New Democrats. The first

part of my article contained a

critique of the policies of the
Other parties with respect to

‘their rejection of the right to

Self-determination of Quebec
(which the Communist Party of
Canada champions since 1935),
their economic policies which

- €an only worsen unemployment

and inflation, and their policies
which would tend to increase
Canadian dependence on U.S.
imperialism. After citing the
broad lines of our program to
meet these problems the article
made the above-mentioned ap-
peal to reject the advice of the
Bo. |

But the Trotskyist response is
limited to a shameless distor-
tion of Leninism and of the na-
tional policy of the Parti Com-
muniste du Quebec, and on
questions which have absolutely
nothing to do with the federal
elections, and hence not even
mentioned in my article. The
Trotskyists simply used this
article as a peg to hang
their anti-Communism and anti-
Sovietism, which is par for the
course.

For example, look at this
Poisoned gem: “We have all
heard of the problems of the na-
tionalities in the USSR, of the
Struggle of revolutionary Ukra-
inians against the Soviet bureau-
cracy.” From whom have we all
heard this? From the bourgeois
press fed by Zionists who are
furious at the resolute aid given
by the USSR to the Arab coun-
tries and to the Palestinians; by
the collaborators with the Nazi
Occupiers of the Ukraine, even
War criminals such as Dmytro
Kupiak, Conservative candidate

in Toronto in the recent federal

elections; and, by the Trotsky-
ists, who make themselves the

_ champions of the dregs of hu-

manity, provided that they are
anti-Communist and anti-Soviet.

The article attributes to us a
policy of support for bilingual-
ism in Quebec, whereas the of-
ficial declaration of our Party,
entitled “‘For a Democratic Solu-

tion of the Language Question,”

published on September 17, 1968

and never changed since, says

in part:

“But meanwhile, we believe
that the workers and other de-
mocratic forces should demand
that the government of Quebec
undertake measures it has re-
fused until now, such as: 1) That
the French language be recog-
nized as the principal and gen-
eral language in Quebec, and
that the policy of Bilingualism
be rejected.”

The Trotskyists claim that the
withdrawal of Law 63 would
eliminate the linguistic priv-
ileges of the English-speaking
minority. But they supported an
amendment to this law which
would guarantee to Anglo-
Saxons (or to those whose coun-
try of origin is English-speaking)
the right to education in the
English language, while denying
this right to immigrants coming
from other lands. How can such
an amendment eliminate the
linguistic privileges of the Eng-
lish-speaking minority? On the
contrary, as long as the lan-
guage of work is English, such
a measure can only reinforce
the privileges of this minority,
while discriminating further
against the immigrants and even
against French-Canadians!

But the “booby” prize for dis-
tortions (of which I can only
mention a few from the multi-
tude in this “reply”) is to be
found in the following: ‘For
Lenin, and for us, the right to
self-determination of the op-

pressing nation is irreconcilable |

with the right to self-determina-
tion of the oppressed nation.”
For the Trotskyists, yes. But for
Lenin, this is a distortion wor-
thy only of the Trotskyists.

Lenin always demanded the
right to self-determination for
“all nations, big or small.’’ He
insisted that the basis for the
constitution of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, found-
ed 50 years ago, recognize the
right to self-determination of all
the republics federated in the
USSR, up to and including the
right to secession. Nowhere can
we find that the Russian repub-
lic (and the Russians were for-
merly the oppressing nation) do
not enjoy this right.

The Trotskyists fabricated
this lie to excuse their policy of
licking the behinds of the petty-
bourgeois _ national-chauvinists
of the worst kind in Quebec.
This forms an integral part of
their policy of “entrism” (in-
cluding where I have just indi-
cated) in order to spread their
anti-Communist, anti-Soviet poi-
son designed to destroy the
unity of the working class.

I want to thank the editorial
staff of Polyscope for having re-
printed my article from Combat,
as well as this rejoiner to the
dishonest attack coming from
our class enemies, who dare to
refer to Lenin with the aim, as
it was of their spiritual father,
Trotsky, of destroying what is
indestructible—Leninism.

hool of the French-lan-
republished in full on
appeared in the Com- |
the Federal Elec-

ra Trotskyist wrote a “reply”
r of Sam Walsh, published in

/

iL 439

WV

®

‘TRIBUNE PHOTO—EDYA WEIR

The Massey-Ferguson strike in Toronto continued into its sixth week, the company refusing to bar-.
gain in good faith. The morale on the picketlines still remains very high. Photo shows Tribune staff mem-
ber Richard Orlandini talking with picketers.

From Nov. 8 until Dec. 11, the
Canadian membership of 710 Lo-
cal Unions of the United Steel-
workers of America will nomi-
nate Canadian and International
officers of their union. After a
two-month campaign, balloting
will commence on Feb. 13, 1973.

Ever since the first convention
in 1942, the steel workers have
been burdened by an undemoc-
ratic structure and convention
procedure. Its structures and
procedures were strongly influ-
enced by the United Mine Work-
ers whose men dominated its
early leadership. The union is a
top-run union.

Frustrating inner-union demo-
cracy is the practice of allowing
paid staff members to serve as
proxy-delegates from small lo-
cals that cannot afford the $50-a-
day expense for a delegate, plus
fare. When a convention is thou-
sands of miles distant, as was
the last September International
Convention in Las Vegas, it is
indeed a problem. Often-times
these proxy delegates carry cre-
dentials from locals whose mem-
bers have never heard of them,
let alone approve of them. As
appointees of the general office
in Pittsburg, these staff people
are usually far more concerned
with the security of their jobs,
paying $14,000 to $16,000 a year
plus liberal expenses, than with
the problems they vote on.

The only time the members
really have an opportunity to

express their. will is in the sec- -

recy of the referendum ballot on
election of officers and directors
and tellers, as they will have
next Feb. 13.

I. W. Abel was elected on a
slogan to end “tuxedo union-
ism.” But in the last U.S. steel
negotiations he brought in ‘“com-
pany unionism.” For the first
time in the union’s history he
agreed, “by contract”, to join
hands with the companies to in-
crease the industry’s profitabi-
lity. The method was a produc-
tivity clause resulting in speed-
up and wholesale job elimina-
tion. The result is that both the
union and the company are now
policing the working steelwork-
ers in the U.S. In addition to
this, they now tell American
steelworkers, “Buy American.”

BY BRUCE MAGNUSON

LABOR SCENE Canadian steel workers

face important election

It is common sense to ask if
Canadizn steelworkers can sur-
vive four more years of the pre-
sent international union leader-
ship under I. W. Abel?

a * %

Fortunately for Canadian steel-
workers, they have an alterna-
tive. They can now nominate
William Litch Jr., presently fin-
ancial secretary of Local Union
1462, Youngstown, Ohio, for In-
ternational President. He can
also be elected. Four years ago
the challenger got 43% of the
vote.

At the same time they can
also nominate Sam Stokes, a
Black steel worker, for vice-pre-
sident of the United Steelwork-
ers of America and strike a blow
against race discrimination.

Running for Secretary-Treas-
urer against Walter J. Burke is
George Edwards of Lorain, Ohio.
He has been an active member
of Local 1104 for 30-odd years.

The program of these men in-
cludes elimination of the pro-
ductivity clause from the U.S.
contract and replacement with
a job security clause to protect
jobs, elimination of all forms of
discrimination on the job and in
the union, a concerted drive for
the 6-hour day, 30-hour week at
40 hours pay for all of USWA,

Also cn a matter of specific
concern to Canadian steelwork-
ers, these men stand for con-
stituticnal amendments to guar-
antee full Canadian autonomy
for the Canadian section as a
distinct entity within the union.

bo * *
National

Here, in Canada,

'|' “fh day-to-day leadership.’
"PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1972—PAGE 5.

Director William Mahoney is
being opposed by Donald Mont-
gomery, Toronto area supervisor

of the Steelworkrs. Mr. Mont- -

gomery can be described as a
right-of-centre element in the
union, who is presently presi-
dent of the Metro Toronto Labor
Council. His nomination for na-
tional director in opposition to
Mahoney is being promoted
strongly by the District 6 leader-
ship under the direction of Lar-
ry Sefton.

_ Mr. Sefton is ill and is re-
tiring as the District 6 Di-
rector. He strongly supports
Lynn Williams for District
6 Director, a post,he, now. virtu-
ally occupies in view of Sefton’s
illness. Mr. Williams is being
challenged for the post by Harry
Greenwood, presently secretary
of Local 1005 in Hamilton.

Both Mr. Sefton and Mr. Mont-
gomery are backing Williams.

While programmatic positions
have been conspicuous so far by
their total absence, it is a well
known fact that for several years
Mr. Sefton—in charge of organi-
zing, servicing and contract ne-
gotiations from the Quebec
border to the Pacific coast — has
sought to compete with, if not
openly challenge and oppose,
policy functions of the national
office in Canada under direction
of National Director Wm. Ma-
honey.

As a consequence there are
ample reasons to suspect that
the open challenge to Mahoney
in this campaign evolves around
questions related to Canadian
autonomy as opposed to a
stronger influence in Canadian
union affairs by Pittsburg and
the I.W. Abel leadership, with
District 6 officials under Mr.
Sefton and Montgomery leaning

strongly towards Pittsburg and —

the Abel leadership.

It is to be hoped that the
membership will not be divided
by a campaign on personalities,
but that issues will be the main
consideration. These issues re-
late to all-inclusive trade union
unity, autonomy, and restructur-
ing within the union in such a
way as to strengthen inner-union
democracy and membership par-
ticipation in policy-making and

igen

off