- Browder’ s Revisionism ’ A Page Of Discussion Open To Mem Of The Labor-Progressive Part) 7 How’ Much Revisionism? By ART READ As a rank and -file member ofthe’ ‘LLabor-Progressive Party, and one who is keenly desirious of! 4"searching analy- sis into Our, . position,® clarification. One of the--basic.. revisionist policies of the CPA during the last period has.been traced .to an incorrect interpretation. of the -perspectives opened up by the Teheran Accord. Quoting from 2 spéech by Gilbert Green, a mem- ber of the National Committee, be says, “Comrade Browder has declared that he can never,.agree that the Teheran Accord was a ‘mere diplomatic incident.’ But the words ‘mere’ and ‘incident’ are his own, certainly not those of Duclos. The fact that Tehe- ran was a diplomatic accord does not make it unimportant, all it means is that this was an agree- ment entered into by govern- meets and not a platform for ‘ postwar class peace in the U.S.” Further, to quote from another National Committee member, Roy Hudson, as follows “As a result of a wrong estimate of Teheran, we stressed the ‘pro- gressive’ position of sections of monopoly capital as new and de- cisive, thus giving rise to illus- ions that the remaining con- flicts of interests were only secondary.” Also quoting from a letter by Samuel Donchin thus “Our re- visionist interpretation of Tehe- ran has weakened us in utilizing the Teheran agreement in the fight for jobs and peace. “In ad- dition to the above, remarks by Foster himself in his letter to the National Committee, under the heading of ‘American mon- opoly capital and the Teheran decisions’ are of Special interest. Likewise, special consideration is given to it in the Duclos article. It has been stated by our lead- er, Tim Buck, that one of our main errors here, was to. con- done without question the theor- etical conclusions of Comrade Browder. Comparing Browder’s “Teheran and America,” and Tim ~Buck’s analysis of Teheran in his booklet “Unity or.Chaos,” it is indeed difficult for a rank and file member to discern a funda- mental difference in attitude. It is to be noted that while we were not guilty of utopian promises as envisaged by Browder, we nevertheless - interpreted (quot- ing from Unity or Chaos Tehe- ran as “pointing to the fact that the agreement marks a turning point in the relationship of the first socialist state and the great capitalist states” also “that the Teheran agreement is a pledge of cooperation between the so- cialist and capitalist sectors of the world” and finally that it indicates both the political framework and the economic basis for the fulfilment of the ideal of a durable peace and a word as- sociation of sovereign states. It opens up possibilities for a period of great and far- “reaching | eco- nomic and social progress.’ The, latter conclusion surely contradictS the aforementioned statements by C.P.A. National Board members, who point out that the Teheran decisions while tremendous in their historic sig- nificance, was fundamentally a diplomatic accord, concluded for the most part, to defeat the com- mon enemy, fascism: It does not, the following. Points — will however, signify the elimination of American | for Canadian) Im- perialism,.nor.does it lay a basis for a means towards an era of cconomic prosperity or progress. Theory leads to practice. While no one, least of all Du- clos or Foster denies the essential importance of supporting the de- cisions made at Teheran and while national unity is desirable to implement these decisions, it is equally important to recog- nize those forces capable of carrying out these decisions. To explain this, it is necessary to quote from Foster in his letter to the National Committee, in which he says, ‘The plain fact, and we must never lose sight of it, is that American big capital cannot be depended upon to co- operate with the workers and other classes in carrying out the decisions of. Teheran, much less lead the nation in doing so.” Particularly with regard to the latter part of this quotation, it is difficult to understand our policy of Liberal-Labor Coalition in the last Federal Election, in respect of the following. In his pamphlet “What kind of Government” Tim Buck calls for a democratic coalition of Progressive _ forces, to defeat Toryism and to carry through the decisions at Teheran. In his evalution of the comparative forces of the parties in the field, the Tories are rejected for their extreme reaction, and the CCF for their policy of isolationism and anti-Teheran spirit. The Lib- eral party therefore is the only major party with which such a coalition could be effected—albe- it a section of the Liberal party whose policy must be termed ‘progressive.’ This is confirmed by the section in. his pamphlet which states, “The proposal for Liberal Labor coalition expresses the realities of the situation. The Liberal Party ‘is a capitalist party, one of the traditional parties in Canada. But the over- whelming majority of Canadians still support the capitalist par- ties and the government which lyf require |. “Phis our discussion on revision-. week, continuing ism, we “publish two articles Ww idely divergent We would “welcome comment in future ‘with points of view: contributions on these two articles. Contributions to this discussion should reach this office not later than of the Let- ters are published unedited Tuesday morning week of publication. * and express the opinion of the sarily those of P.A. —E ditor. writer and not neces- ‘| fusion -that has, been -created in comes to power' after the next election will be the government of a capitalist country. The point is that Mackenzie King is responding to the possibilities cpened up at Teheran and with a powerful. group of Labor as partner in the House, represent- ing powerful labor support out- side, he will go considerably further.” It is obvious therefore, that with the rejection of the major social-democratic force (CCF) as partners in the coalition, the forces jwithin the resultant coali- tion government must be over- whelmingly in favor of a capital- ist class. This, irrespective of whether the majority of LPP and Ind. Labor candidates were elected or not. Does this not im- ply a situation parallel to that warned of by Foster where the class interests of the workers are subordinated to the class interests of the capitalists? These questions, and others are uppermost in the minds of many Party members, at this critical stage of our historical develop- ment. While by all means let us be careful as our national leader has warned us, of not throwing out the baby with the bath water, let us not hesitate to remove the dirty water and clean out the bath if “necessary. Towards a better Marxist und: erstanding. Their country is free from Japanese aggression after many long years of suffering in the war against Fascism. in Principled Discussion By C. H. PALMGREN discussion on the question of revisionisny It- will help to clarify the con- many minds as to eur attitude towards the Teheran Accord and our strugle for national unity. The Teheran -Declaration. and. the principles ‘and aspirations it contains should not scale program of reforé. should be launched imme to include reseeding of areas; reclaiming of was’! ber for pulp and other bi ucts; building of roads t. up new forest areas; cleat (Continued on Page ‘|