Letters Letters Industry ad ‘more biased propaganda’ The following letter was sent to Ian Donald, the chief executive officer of Fletcher Challenge Canada. I would like to congratulate you and the board of directors of Fletcher Challenge on the recent announcement of the proposed effluent settling ponds and paper recycling plant. When implemented, these projects, I’m sure, will have significant effects on the environment. I would also like to say as an employee of Fletcher Challenge, Elks Falls Division, I’m well aware of the tremendous capital expenditure to upgrade production. These are positive advances. I’ve worked at Elk Falls for over 20 years so naturally I’ve seen many changes in the Weir article was valuable The article by Fred Weir on “sep- aratism” in the USSR (‘‘Separatism puts CPSU debate in stark relief,” Tribune Sept. 25, 1989) I found very interesting. Some of the terms used were strong but appropriate —words like “racial purists” especially in regards to the thinking of Baltic eth- nics who presumably grew up in Soviet schools but are thinking “west.” Socialism is seeking a better society for its subjects but it seems the going continues to be rough because of cer- tain sections of humanity who like looking at the mirror more than working for the world’s good. Because of the article I thought maybe it rated at least a modest dona- tion. George Collins, Vancouver Conference was ‘not the first’ Regarding the article, “Arctic zone of peace urged,” (Tribune, Sept. 25), I did not indicate in my file that the _ conferencé was ‘“‘a Canadian first”, as stated in the story’s lead paragraph. My file notes: “The white paper has led to several conferences on the future of the region.” In the past year, a Science for Peace conference and a True North Strong and Free conference in Alberta were devoted to the issue. In late 1987, a large consultative group in the Cana- dian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament also met to discuss the issue. I would not want the Tribune or the other anonymous contributor to provide a wrong impression that the Canadian Peace Congress, the Quebec Peace Council or the U.S. Peace Council are making a claim which they could not rightly make. Darrell Rankin, Ottawa industry. One of the most insidious is the forest companies’ ad campaign and when I say this I mean it as constructive criticism. MacMillan Bloedel for years bombarded the public with full page ads on how wond- erful they were and how well they were treating the forests. These ads had the oppo- site effect and were eventually retracted. The Forests Forever were also withdrawn from CBC when people wishing to give another viewpoint asked to have their ads aired. These ads continue on TV, on BCTV, and I believe Fletcher Challenger is part of this campaign. I consider this type of advertising detri- mental to the people in the industry and are designed to give the impression that the forest companies are doing a great job in the forests under their tree farm licence tenure. Many loggers and outdoor people like me say this isn’t so. Fletcher Challenge’s Newsletter is another form in which employees are given biased reporting. The first one that caught my eye was an anti-wilderness, anti-park editorial on South Moresby in your 1987 newsletter. Since then the employees have had one arti- cle after another in a similarly biased fashion sent to their homes. The lowest blow I think we the employees received, was the Share The Stein pam- phlets, to which a formal complaint has been, addressed by, Local 1123, Pulp and Paper Workers. I think it would be safe to assume that the men and women who work for Fletcher Challenge would like to have factual infor- mation minus political bias in the com- pany’s newsletter. As I said at the beginning of this letter I believe you are doing some positive things. However, the company’s public relations propaganda is not one of them! Thomas J: Black, Black Creek preserving the f moe CT As people who earn their livi = iving diet om te et: Ape et —— management practices which restock iisee of ltchr Challenga . harvested forest areas, Sea feeling UP K Y of our peop! rte eavionment , & ee g EDD) ardent users of the BC out hey know that only abun. \ ms - doors for hiking fi 5 = Bs cant el menage pint ss] Le / and scenic enjoyment. Others tain our industry and pro . Ge ipie ly ge their jobs. That's why they “A pee % a eee sv : such care and attention to environm : : Se pene = ii, control procedures whj ental caring use and ion of our fores ich ecHOlh ases : “nd protection of our forest and waterways. And to reforestation and Fletcher Challenge ad. environment, Now and for Senerations to come, Overcoming the problems of bureaucracy I honestly believe that the debate on Stal- inism has focused only on the symptoms of bureaucratic centralism and not the methods or cause of that problem. It is really a problem of power and how we, the socialist left, take power away from the mul- tinational corporations and how we, fairly -and democratically, manage the affairs of a workers’ state after the revolution. If, for example, we were able to destroy the Tory neo-conservative agenda, reverse “free” trade and begin building socialism in Canada, how would we do it? The obvious answer is building a powerful system of coalitions, including political parties, that would embrace all those opposed to Tory capitalism but would take the leadership of the working people as its principal founda- tion, Bureaucratic centralism excludes honest debate and treats those who sincerely dis- agree with a majority decision as “enemies of the party” or the people. Once you expel people who disagree with the leaders of a movement, you have lost them forever. Even if you profoundly disagree with them today, you may need them tomorrow. How did Stalin become a dictator? Simple. In the politbureau, there was a majority vote (say 5-3) and Stalin had the minority removed and destroyed. On the next day, there was a smaller politbureau and, on the next day it was smaller yet. Pretty soon, you had a situation in which there was only Stalin, Molotov and Beria. And in the meantime, they drew up lists of pro-Stalinists to replace the dissidents further down the line in the larger organizations. Democratic central- ism was subverted within by bureaucrats who then had their people appointed (not elected) to lower positions. Could that happen here? You’re damned right it could. The struggle for us on the left today is to maintain a strong fighting organization — a true united front, that does not sacrifice democracy to expediency. The problem of Stalinism is a lesson for us today. We must understand the metho- dology in which Stalin and his clique of bureaucrats undermined the gains of the 1917 revolution and replaced Soviet power with Stalin’s party. Democratic centralism isn’t really a new thing, invented by Lenin. We all use Robert’s rules of order in our meetings and groups. Few of us really understand the meaning of “‘majority rule” and “respect for the right of the minority” within democratic procedure. In Lenin’s party there was a true respect for debate and the views of all. We have forgotten this: but we do so at our own peril. While the Communists have been famous for their powers of organization and discipline, they have been despised for their lack of tolerance and sectarianism. What we must do, in Canada and B.C. now, is to learn how to debate’and to turn our party into a movement of scientific socialism not Stalinist dogma. I am not advocating the return of factionalism because I believe that the minority must respect the majority but I believe that we ignore the minority at our own risk. An idea that may seem absurd or stupid today may turn out to hold the key for the solutions we have been looking for ... give new ideas a chance! We have to respect the old-timers like Elgin Neish who have fought so many bat- tles on behalf of the working class of Canada — their finest hours were in that battle, and in internationalism for Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua. The Soviets are big enough to look after themselves. We do not need to defend them religiously. They can still be an example of socialism and I am sure that perestroika, in the long run, will see the Soviet Union emerge stronger for it. What we have to do is apply the lessons of history to building our own movement here in Canada. And we don’t ‘have much time to waste. Peter Ramsey, Vancouver Pacific Tribune, October 23, 1989. 5