ADDITIONAL READERS COMMENT

‘Whither B.C. NDP? —debate rages o

Disagrees with Hope

By JACQUES

our issue of January 10carr-

ied an article under the head-
ing: ‘‘NDPer gives views on the
way forward." Since you have
indicated that this is the second
contribution in what you hope
will be a continuing discussion
I am undertaking the task of
making a few comments on the
article.

After reading the John Hope
letter I had the distinct impress-
ion it was the offering of a
disgruntled petty bourgeois who
had lost his way and found him-
self on unfamiliar ground —
amongst militant workers.

Following his reference to the
need for ‘‘the cleansing wind of
constructive criticism’’, Mr,
Hope launches out on a destruc-
tive, vituperative attack app-
arently designed to smash the
only organized Left grouping in
the NDP — the Socialist Caucus.

Mr. Strachan must be chort-
ling with glee.

-“

A good third of the article is
taken up with aslanderous witch-
hunting attack against the mem-
bers of the caucus — *‘suspect
persons,’* misguided leadership,
people’s enemies, Trotskyites,
etc.

Since Mr. Hope sees the caucus
as an organization seeking to de-
stroy the party it seems to me,
instead of wasting effort writing
letters to the ‘‘ Pacific Tribune’’
he should align himself with the
right wing leadership inthe drive
to expel those wreckers. If he
makes haste he will be in time
to climb aboard for the drive
just now projected.

The Hope article saw the pro-
gressive move at the convention
as a revolt which developed spon-
taneously — without leadership
and needing none. Indeed there
is, throughout the article, a fine
thread of contempt for any idea
of organized leadership

Since Mr, Hope is obviously
not going anywhere politically,
this contempt is quite under-
standable.

In view of the fact that the
pure John Hope, who stands apart
from we impure swine, is ig-
norant of what is happening, let
me enlighten him just a little,

ova

The Socialist Caucus has, for
some time now, been carrying
on activity in all of the con-
stituencies in the Lower Main-
land and to some extent (although
certainly not sufficiently) in some
constituencies in the interior and
on Vancouver Island.

Most of the forward looking
resolutions and the election of
many Left delegates to the pro-
vincial convention were a direct
result of the organized efforts
of the Left. In one constituency
— much to the annoyance of the
Right leadership — an entire
Left delegation was elected.

The Right declared the election
null and void, called a second
meeting to undo the work but
the entire Left slate was again
unanimously returned. If Mr.
Hope thinks such things can be
accomplished without organizat-
ion, he must be smoking opium.

Both Ben Swankey and John
Hope complain about the caucus
fighting for some distant social-
ism (why they think it distant
in this era of capitalist crisis
and decline and how far distant
is left for the readers to guess)
and for their alleged failure to
put forward aprogram of immed-
iate needs in opposition to that

advanced by the right wing lead-
ership,

Let me correct this erroneous
point of view.

-

In the first place — as pointed
out above — much of the rel-
atively good program adopted
at the provincial convention was
largely due to the work of the
caucus, In addition, the caucus
has openly published its views in
a document titled: ‘‘A Suggested
Socialist Manifesto For the
NDP.”:

This manifesto, ofcourse, sets
forth the socialist objective which
the caucus contends (rightly, in
my view) is the only fundamental
solution to the ills which beset
us. However, the manifesto does
not stop at simply setting out
this ultimate goal, but goes on to
declare:

**Recognizing that the exis-
tence of immediate problems de-
mands immediate answers and
action’ and cannot wait for ul-
timate solutions, we therefore
propose the existing NDP pro-
gram be extended to include:”’

The manifesto then proceeds
to state a number of points for
a minimum program, around the
following demands:

(1) For Canadian withdrawal
from NATO and NORAD and
against participation in the OAS,

(2) Disarmament and against
Canadian participation in any
activities pertaining to the de-
velopment, possession and use
of atomic, chemical or bacter-
iological weapons,

(3) For normal trade relations
with all countries and active
support for the struggles for,
or maintenance of, national in-
dependence of all nations.

(4) Nationalization of all for-
eign-owned industries and the
planned development of second-
ary industries,

(5) Nationalization of all fin-
ancial institutions, including in-
surance companies.

(6) A section on unemployment
calling for the 30 hour week,
extended unemployed benefits,
longer vacations, etc.

(7) A section on education and
other youth needs,

(8) A section on civil rights.

Since much of what is contained
in the manifesto was made party
policy at the convention it should
be noted that this document was
being circulated and discussed
many months previous tothe con-
vention call.

Mr. Swankey also stressed the
importance (quite correctly) of
the need for the NDP to become
a true, and not a sham, federated
party. Allow me to quote the

* Manifesto on this question:

‘‘The federated character of
the NDP, an inheritance from the
CCF, provides a political vehicle
whereby various schools of
radical and socialist thought may
work together in the interests
of the common man, This feder-
ated feature of the party must
not only be maintained . . . but
expanded.’’

The above program is the pro-
duct of a group where there is
often quite sharp conflict of op-

inion on many of the problems
involved. It has, naturally, all

of the weaknesses that such an
environment bequeaths upon it.

It needs to be kept under con-
stant review and critical exam-
ination, but it does not deserve
to be ignored as indicated by
statements to the effect that it
does not exist.

There are, in the caucus, many
divergent opinions as to what

With this issue, the ‘Pacific Tribune”’
sumes the debate opened up following therecent
provincial convention of the NDP by Ben Swankey,
in an article printed in the December 13 issue and
entitled: ‘‘Whither the NDP in B.C.?”

The discussion below represents three letters
submitted to the “‘PT’’, two by long time readers
and the third by a Vancouver member of the NDP
who took up pen to disagree with the opinions of
a fellow-member from the Interior.

We will continue to publish further views on
this topic as they arrive in our office.

re-

socialism really is and how to
achieve it, We do try to recon-
cile these differences in the in-
terest of working together for
the common good,

If Mr. Hope, because of his

ideas, finds this hard to believe
let me assure him that we will
be prepared to tolerate dis-
cussion of even his strange brand
of socialism—which apparently
grows on mulberry bushes.

‘Go Left or go out’

By E. H. TUDOR
ay I put in my two-bits

worth re Ben Swankey and.

the NDP, and the reply by ‘Nom-
de-Plume’ which intrigued me.
Is he afraid of the ‘Brass’ or
the people?

I am glad he mentioned the
**Mulberry Bush”’ as it brings to
mind a game played by junior
girls nearly 70-years ago. ‘‘Here
we go round the mulberry bush,
on a cold and frosty morning’’,
etc. 70-years are now past, the
mornings frosty, but so far no
mulberry bushes, therefore no
food for silkworms, but we are
still trying to make ‘‘silk purses
out of sow’s ears’’?

The gentleman, or is it a lady,
(shades of Mrs. Pankhurst)
refers to the Pearsons and Ben-
netts. There are still dozens
of these, call them what you
like, they would smell no sweeter
in the hatcheries of capitalism.
We even got one of them elevated

to the ‘‘peerage’’, and our Pear- .

son is a product of the ‘‘things
we get from the brains wetrust’’
as it should be.

“Trust? is an appropriate
word. The Nobel Peace Prize
winner of 1956, the ‘‘greatest
statesman of our age and cen-
tury’? yelped our wise men
mostly Liberals, has developed
into the greatest nuclear warhead
advocate. Premier of the 1960s,

Someone once _ remarked
‘Don’t name a street or avenue
or mountain after them until they
are dead’’, He sure hit the spot
with Lester. Of course the Pent-
agon doesn’t see eye-to-eye with

me, as our NDP friend: says.

The bulk of the people don’t
see or realize the nature of Yan-
kee imperialism.

Can the blind lead the blind?
When the NDP openly supports
NATO they encourage Yankee
imperialism and here our NDP
friend refers to his own leaders
who consciously or unconsciously
are working-for the big corpora-
tions.

- But if the people do not know,
certainly the big corporations do.
And these same big corporations
could mean the armament pro-
ducers who benefit greatly by
NATO. In fact are they not the
promoters of NATO?

I have just read the book ‘‘Un-
fullfilled’? by Dr. W.G. Hardy
who says, ‘‘We financed Hitler
until 1938. This paved the way
to Dieppe . . . and the stench
of rotting bodies among the
hedgerows of Normandy’’. Can-
adian youth principally, mainly
because we ‘financed Hitler’’.

And so again we go’round the
imulberry bush, to Cuba, or as
Noel Baker says, ‘‘To the Brink
of Oblivion’, or heedless of
William Liebnecht’s classical
warning that ‘‘the road to Hell
is paved with good intentions’’,

In one of his last letters tome,
my good friend Bill Irvine’ of
Alberta wrote: ‘‘The NDP must
go Left—or go out. There is no
room in Canada for four ‘free
enterprise’ parties’’!

So let’s stop expecting silk
purses from sow’s earsand cease
to be an ‘‘also ran’’ in a world
community of socialist states,

Frankly, don’t know

By JOE IVENS

he ‘‘ Pacific Tribune’’ has in-
vited its readers to give their
opinions on ‘Whither the NDP in
B.C.’. It appears to me that this
question should go to the
members of the NDP themselves.
I doubt whether readers of the
‘PT’ are qualified to answer that
question, for the very obvious
reason that very few readers of

the ‘PT’ are members of the NDP. -

But I may be wrong on that score?
Do the members of the NDP
know where they are heading,
have they any primary objective,
and if so has it ever been stated
exactly what it stands for ?

I suppose the’ now discarded
‘Regina Manifesto?’ came clo-
sest to what the CCF represented,
a certain brand of Socialism that
would fit in with the capitalist
structure, to reform as_ it were
the capitalist-way-of-life here in
Canada. Its founder, J.S. Woods-
worth was a very sincere man,
as were many of those who helped

him found the CCF,

I recall some of the men who
worked with Mr. Woodsworth:
the late Mr. E.E. Winch, William
(Bill) Irvine of Alberta, William
Ivens of Winnipeg and others,
sincere in their efforts to reform
the capitalist structure of Canada
around 50-years ago.

The CCF sent many of its best
men and women to Parliament
and provincial legislatures, and
looked as though it had a long

and bright future. But it also had —

its right-wing who opposed, as
for instance, the Russian
Revolution, and that alone caused
many progressive thinkers to
steer clear of the CCF and look
for “a more active Party that
wanted socialism here inCanada.

Moreover because the CCF did
not make headway fast enough,
it changed its name and consti-
tution and became the NDP. This
is now so much water under the

bridge but it isnecessaryto know —

its past history, since without
knowing that it is impossible to

ca =

‘they want no party of the “‘left’

apply the lessons learned, or
these lessons to become a
guide to the future,

I have yet to meet anyone
from its very foundation do
to the present, can tell me
aims and objectives of the ND.
Is it its intention to reform
parliamentary system of
country, to try and give
working class and the farm
a better deal, to make Cana
a better place for everybo'

Or is its objective to oust
old Tory and Liberal and ni
Social Crediters from office,
run the country better than
of these parties?

So far I have never found
its objectives, and therefore ¢
not see where it is heading. TH
problem is, can they see the
selves?

One might ask what is
reason the people do not supp
the NDP more fully. Are they
so well fed and prosperous

approach?
This poses another question,
is the NDP ‘‘leftist’?? To D
sure the NDP has its ‘‘le
and ‘‘right’’, and it could well
that this is exactly what is hold-
ing it back.
As I see it the NDP is a pa:
of social democracy, and allp:
history of this social democrac¢.
has played into the hands 0
reaction and imperialism.
The ‘*PT’’ hasaskeda quest
that cannot be answered by any
short letter - to- the- editor.
would take a book as large a8
any modern Bible to deal full
with every aspect as to why am
where the NDP is going.
It could be going the way of |
other political parties to. total
extinction. It could also groW
if it followed correct policies;
and by that I mean getting to-
gether, dropping its right-wing
practices, coming out as a part:
for genuine people’s unity, and
showing the people that it is in
deed a socialist party.
No, Mr. Editor, it will take 3
better mind than mine to answe!
such questions. Frankly I don’!
know, and I don’t believe the NDP
know themselves. I should like
to have a few NDPers tell uS
themselves ‘Whither the NDP?”

Douglas denies

Liberal merger

National NDP leader Tommy
Douglas has ruled out any mer-
ger with the Liberal party. ID
so doing, however, he defend
the so-called ‘‘right’* of NDP
members to discuss merger
Possibilities without officially
representing the party. This
was seen by observers as al
attempt by Douglas to get cer-
tain trade union leaders (nota-
bly from Steel) ‘‘off the hook”
for the abortive merger at-
tempt.

Seoveececesoceecoeocevcceccc?

Workers
Benevolent Assn.
Of Canada

Progressive Fraternal Society .
Caters to all your needs in the
Life Insurance field

LIFE INSURANCE
ENDOWMENTS
PENSION PLANS
WEEKLY BENEFITS
Apply to: B.C. office at

805 East Pender St. or

National Office at
595 Pritchard Ave.
Winipeg 4, Manitoba

SPRCPOSESHEHOSEHSEHOHSSEHSOHOHOEHOSOOSOEOHOTOOEOESOOEEOE