Browder’ S Revisionism’

A Page of Discussion Open To Men
Of The Labor-Progressive Par

3B

Before considering: some

By F. J. ey

of the special problems raised

by the discussions eentering on Browder’s revisionism, let us
first emphasize the need for clarity in the jeanne’ of words.

The vulgarization in terminol-
i " ogy that has “crept into our
: “every day’ language only makes

the Be blems we are.considering
OL: difficult. -Undoubtedly,
some ‘of the misunderstandings

that have arisen have been
caused by a misuse ofthe term
“policy,” a term that is fre-

quently. used in a broad. sense |

with~ no

Z ever.

; that it leads to:further and. more
serious ones. Policy means} =spe=
cifically, ‘the Pango es
which a, course of action is> bas-
ed,” it does not mean “‘*a course
of action,” nor ean it be used
to describe the results of that
action.

A tree generally has many
branches; likewise with the pol-
iey of a political party. We can
speak correctly, by using quali-
fication, of a “trade union pol-
icy,” an “election policy” or a
‘foreign policy,” to mention
only a few; but in doing so, we
must remember that these are
‘only. branches, they are in no
sense whatever the tree. If any
further -elaboration were neces-
sary on the need for clarity in
terminology, we should consider
the word “Socialism.” Here is
a term that today, without qua-
lification, is entirely unintel-
ligible; we clarify its meaning
by studying the user’s biogra-
phy!

A COMMON TENDENCY

The tendency to “discover” re-
visionism by applying the yard-
stick of “popularity” to past and
present policies is a common
one. We are all familiar with
the arguments: that many “old”
comrades did not trust the new

qualification whatso-

‘policy; that the “man in the
street instinctively distrusted
it; that the Communists had

turned “yellow,” etce., etc. Thus,
ipso facto, the party was guilty |
of revisionism.

What kind of childish patter is
this? Does our party formulate
policy on the premise that it.
must, in the first. place, be a
“popular” policy? Naturally
not. The policies’ of a Marxist
party are formulated only after
an exhaustive’ and = scientific
analysis of the objective condi-
tions that prevail at a given
time, as related to the political
and class relationships that. ob-
tain; such, of course is a trite-
ness. The important point is.
this; that the formulation of a
correct policy does not preclude
the possibility that such a policy
might be termed “unpopular.”

It is always more simple to
satisfy prejudice than wunder-
standing, and to illustrate our
' point, we would point out that,
in. the recent street-car strike,
it would have been a _ simple
matter for our party to have led
a general strike to assist the
strikers in their just demands.
Such a course would have been
simple, and it would have been
“popular.” It would not have
been correct! In seeking the
revisionism in our policies, then,
let us at least know the mechan-
ics -involyed. Let us at least

‘This is a serious error, in+

BS
on |:

F. J. ANDERSON

know the starting point for the
search,

Undoubtedly, jthis discussion
on revisionism will be used by a
great many persons as an occa-
sion to hold up their hands and
to utter piously, “I told you so.”
There will be rejoicing among
the ‘master dialecticians’ over
the ‘fact’ that they “knew all
along that the (policy) of our
party. was incorrect.’”- Naturally
it is a simple matter to be wise
after the évent, and there is
little hardship involved in being
a great “Monday morning quar-
terback.” But. are these gentle-
men being ‘wise’? Should
“what they knew all along” form
the basis of our discussion?
INTERPRETATION Ps

This tendency towards over-
simplification is -dangerous in
that it leads to the imputation of
motives and the consequent lack
of objectivity in our arguments.
Therefore, I believe it is neces-
sary at this time to assert flat-
ly that the policy of our party
is correct and that it has been
correct; that the task before us
is, not the task of formulating
a new and different policy, but
the task of interpreting that:
policy. correctly in our day to
aay struggles, and the task of
erasing: certain glaring mistakes
that have been made in that
interpretation.

This reaffirmation of the cor-
rectness of the Teheran per-
spective as applied to the post-
war years is not superflous for
the simple reason that many
people already have questioned
its validity. Why they have done
so is another matter. Perhaps
they were filled with aprehen-
sion by the actions of the
Churchill government in Greece,
Belgium, and Italy. The Polish
“episodes” must have disgusted
them. And undoubtedly the very
recent “thunder from the right”
during the period of the San
Francisco Conference could only
tend to confirm their worst
fears. But to claim that the ship
is headed for rocks and that the
crew should jump overboard is
sheer nonsense. ;

No one will deny that the

PACIFIC ADVOCATE — PAGE 3

aberrations between the stated

The Validity Of Teheran In The Light Of Revision:

policies of the Gapitalige signa-
tories of Yalta and Teheran and
the carrying out of those policies

|Jeaves much to be desired. But

did: we believe that the signing
of’ an: agreement would liquidate
at-once the fascist tendencies
Within these states? Did we ex-
pect the Fascist scum who direct
the barrage of world hate to
crawl into a hole and pull the
earth in after? Let us ask these
questions, and let us consider the
fact that the material conditions
that made Teheran accord “pos-
sible are not incompatible:,with
the. conditions that make further
strengthening of that pEcOrS de-
sirious and necessary.
BROWDER’S ERRORS

The question is’ asked, \how
could Browder have made such

gross errors in political theory,
from whence began his point of
departure from reality? In my
estimation, his first error was in
interpreting the policy of Te-
heran as a denial of the class
struggle during the period of
the war against Fascism. From
this point, it seems, he proceed-
ed logically to his next and
greater error, his denial of the
class struggle during the post-
war years. On the basis of these
two fundamental errors, Brow-
der then proceeded to erect a co-
lossal superstructure, all very
logical and all very correct
when we consider the premises
on which it was based. Unfor-
(Continued on page 7)
See VALIDITY

‘This week we-cont-
cussion through our

on the basis of Tin
statement on Revisig

its effect on the Li
urge that contribut .
kept short. 74

A discussion Carg
along the right lines,
in a constructive m
do much to clear up
standings and confusi;
ed by interpretations
ward through the pag;
bourgeoise and soci -
cratic press. The contr
on this page express {]:
of the writers and a
sarily those of P.A-

For A Stronger Party 5. ten

The present historic situation,

durifig which it has just

been necessary to destroy first the Third Reich before cr ushing
the Jap imperialists, is characterized as a period of transition

from total war to total peace.
come Home every week. Taken in
the light of the present crisis in
most Marxist parties in the
western hemisphere, this pro-
vides a breathing-spell in which
to review the disastrous possi-

bilities inherent in Browder’s
postwar perspective.
Here in Canada the CMA

trusts have begun an offensive
already, as witness the disputes

cf the packing plants, BCElec-
tric and American Can Co.
against union shop, ete. But the

most immediate threat, consider-

ring the approach of provincial

elections, is rather the baseless
self-righteousness claimed by
the CCF as they accuse our party
of having followed during the
war no other pclicy than ‘to
wipe out-the CCF as a political
force.” “(Grant MacNeill, CCF
News, July 26.) °
COALITION POLICY

Clearly our main strategy in
the past election was summed up
in our slogan: Defeat the Tor-
ies! And we were successful too,
insofar as keeping out of office
the most reactionary political
bloe of the trusts. In order to
clear up confusion, however, it
is essential to admit the mistake
of posing a coalition of Liberals
and Labor members, as to policy
and to means of arriving at that
policy. Following CCF rejection
ef such a coalition the strength
of labor in such a government
would have been so small as to
have left such ministers doing
business for the big bourgeoise.

What MacNeill refuses to rec-
cgnize is that nearly every sec-
tion of monopoly capital was
compelled, to varying degrees,
to join the anti-Axis struggle.
The Communists throughout the
war realized that even such par-
ticipation in the war was depen-
dent on two things — national
unity at home and the second
front. We had no illusions about
the trusts waging war right to
unconditional surrender, but ra-
ther accused them of desiring a
negotiated peace, thus providing
their German flunkies with a
chance to beat the Soviet Union.
All they did, themselves, was to
keep the factories open while the
people did the fighting.

Thousands of Canadian vets

NO STRIKE PLEDGE. 3

Consequently, together with
the overwhelming. majority of
the unions, we Communists sup-
ported labor’s no-strike pledge.
And never forget that this
pledge had to be fought for
against provocations by employ-
ers who were willing to use it
to their advantage and sabotage
the war effort. Let MacNeill and
social-democrats like Arthur

Turner admit where they stood
on this question: if “the boys
everseas were aware of their

strike tactics they never would
have supported such impostors to
any great extent. But again we
cannot deny our faulty extension
of the no-strike pledge into
peacetime. We can, however, také
credit for having organized and
led the unions in the basic indus-

tries — woodworkers, miners — |

and war
the AFL

industries, particularly
in Quebec. And take
credit for being the only party
with guts enough to ask the
Quebecois to vote yes in the con-

i we

scription plebisctite in the name |

of Tim Buck.

Resulting from exceptionalist
tendencies, which Lenin warned
the British workers against in
connection with bourgeois parlia-
ments, errors have crept into our
line imperceptibly. The seeds
may be traced as far back as in

applying the United Front pol- |

icy, but with the Teheran Dee-
laration, we fell in to such a
morass of reformism ‘that we
rlace the parliamentary fight
ahead of the economic fight. We
formed a mass party in 1943 but
we overlooked the basic unit of

a Leninis party, the industrial
hranch.

When MacNeill states, how-
ever, that he knew all along that
Teheran was “a desirable inter-
national accord, but not a com-
rlete platform for class collabor-
ation” he is a liar. The social-
democrats feared Teheran simply
because of the presence of Jead-
ers of the Communists of the
Soviet Union and the rising
strength of -resistance move-
ments all over Europe. CCF
statements about the poor little
London Poles and slanders

| partisan

| precisely by ignoring @ ;

| Judging from, federal 3

against life ande gover
der socialism in the U§
their true intentions. —

REAL PURPOSE

I do agree with Mr;
when he admits that in «
policy of “socialism or |
does not apply, due te |
possibility of getting 4}
reaching reforms in | }
province. But here he ex :
1eal purpose in: accusing
of wishing to wipe out i °
by proposing that we
ourselves «as a parli; —
force. ““Working class.
position to CCF candid: .
eeffct a declaration of bh }
CCF policy is not ini]
est of the working cj :
goes on to say that?
nominate in every rida

Besides being a beat: |
ognition that there ist.

one influential wor
party, MacNeill here & |

“position. of # |
ieft parties will-be ae ;
increase the 29,000 7)
received in B.C. on Jw 1

posals by the Winches» {
Neills.

Let the CCF make ne i

coalition is twice as str
ly as CCF and LPP:
and will be far from a’ A
Our party must run th :
dates having a reasonat
of being elected, so tha
have beaten the Torit
CCF government is it”
see social-democracy fo. :
. We can see whether
go very far to impleme
gemands or not. And —
portant, the widest sé
the workers will alsi
form such legislation as §
ed as well as from the :
and capitulation to big}
that will accompany it. §

IMMEDIATE PROGRA

This poses the need £
mediate program in th
fighting program wi
forge labor unity on
iron of, struggle. Dei
confusion spread by —
bosses the workers wil:
gether to fight for t a
needs. ah

(Continued on paéf
See PARTY —

SATURDAY, AUGUST }