EADERS of the Tribune, and all progressive Canalians,

will welcome some otf the opinions demonstrated and
some oi the decisions made by the recent CCF convention
in spite of the anti-labor and pro-imperialist attitude dis-
played by some. of its leaders.

The labor movement as a whole will welcome the fact

that the convention endorsed the
demand for a democratic national
labor code, for a national mini-
mum wage, a national minimum
age at which boys and girls may
be employed, vacations with pay,
equal pay for equal work, and so
on. Those are the demaxds that
labor as a whole supports. There
is no bona fide labor organization
in Canada that does not advocate

_ them—it is well that the national
convention of the CCF should
support them also.

The most welcome feature of
the convention was the evidence
of strengthening resistance to the
systematic “drift” to the right of
the top leadership. Combined with
that resistance there was evident
also of a growing will to place
confidence in the political under-
standing of the workers and in

their desire for social change.
The delegates who combined
those two attitudes constituted
but a quarter of the convention
but they were its most important
25 percent. Their speeches were
the part of the convention which
mirrored the sentiments and as-
pirations of those Socialist-mind-
ed members and supporters who
still hope for socialism via the

The political division between
the “left” and the dominant
right-wing majority in the con-
vention was not always evident
and their different ‘attitudes to
the capitalist class were never
defined as such. The differences
became evident upon various is-
sues however, despite the at-
tempts of the national council to
conceal the existence of right and
left trends in the convention.

The greatest political common.
denominator of the healthy desire
for action against monopoly capi-
tal was expressed by a delegate
from Gladstone, Man., who urged

More consistent efforts to unite
farmers and workers around is-
sues in which they have a com-
‘mon interest against exploiting’
big capital. The press quoted that
delegate as appealing for a joint

_ struggle to do away with “inter-
_€st, dividends, profits, watered
stock ...” as “inventions of the
devil.” ‘

_ The point of view personified
by the delegate from Gladstone

is the broadest anti-monopoly

opinion in Canada, The members
of the CCF who express it -are
mistaken when they describe it
as socialism and the leaders of
the CCF are sowing confusion in
the ranks of labor when they

_ pretend* that reform measures to
satisfy that opinion will consti-

_ tute socialization; but it is an

- opinion which commands respect
- and which deserves support. _

Put forward boldly and une-
quivocally as radical reforms,
legislative proposals which cor-

- respond with the sentiments ex-
pressed by the delegate from
Gladstone would command the
support of the overwhelming ma-
jority of forward-looking Cana-
- dians, 2

- Conflict between right and left

broke out on the first plank of
the so-called “First Term Pro-
gram” submitted to the conven-
tion. The national council pro-
posed that if and when a CCF
government is elected it should
not be expected to nationalize the
banks, Instead the national coun-
cil’s resolution proposed that a
CCF government should be in-
structed to extend the powers of
the Bank of Canada and recon-
struct the Industrial Develop-
ment Bank.

The resolution suggested that
if the privately owned banks re-
fuse to cooperate, or fail to con-
form to CCF public control re-
quirements, then “by gad, sir”

they should be nationalized—but -
that they should be left in private. .

hands if possible.

Speeches in support of that
resolution revealed the powerful
grip that bourgeois conceptions
have upon the top leaders of the
CCF, but the speeches against
testified even more clearly to the
fact that a,substantial body of
the members are serious in their
desire for unequivocal action
against finance-capital and its
monopolies. ;

Speaking in support of the na-
tional council’s proposal Prof.
Frank Scott, national chairman,
was reported as saying: “We al-
most certainly will have sufficient
control over the banks without
socialization. Central bank pow-
ers are not used to the full by
the Liberal government.” No
wonder M. J. Coldwell keeps on
reminding the capitalists that the
CCF intends to leave a large part
of capitalist enterprise alone.

Premier Douglas of Saskatche-
wan also argued in favor of the
stand taken by the national coun-
cil. His government, he argued,
had not found it necessary to
socialize the breweries in Sas-
katchewan, they had been able
to do what they wanted to do
about the prices paid by the
breweries for grain, about the
prices charged to consumers for
beer, and about the taxes accru-
ing to the provincial government,

and still leave the breweries un- —

der private ownership. If it can
be done with the breweries why
not with banks?
e@

Yes, indeed, why not? The
«bankers could probably get along
upon a rate of profit substan-
tially lower than the rate of
profit being made by the brew-
eries in Saskatchewan. But in
that case why all the demagogy
about socialism? The reason for
the combination was indicated by
Andrew Brewin, CCF, who urged
Support of the national council’s
proposal on the grounds that such
questions of high policy “must
not be decided on emotional
grounds ,..” No wonder Joe
Noseworthy voiced a fear that
the CCF. office in Toronto is too
close to Bay Street.

It is notéworthy that the dele-
gates who opposed that proposal
and rallied a resounding majority
vote against it was largely made

The CCF Convention

“No wonder the delegates rebelled,” srites Tim
Buck, commenting on the Marshall Plan resolution.
“The position of the national council might well have
been dictated by Mr. Louis St. Laurent.” ;

By TIM BUCK

up of the younger men who have
been prominent in the CCF. Old-
timers were not lacking in the
fight against what William Ir-
vine of Cariboo described as
“watering down.” *

Arthur Williams of Oshawa
said what most of the delegates
who opposed the resolution were
thinking when he reminded the
convention that the first labor
government of Britain ‘dillied
and dallied because they were
more interested in holding office
than in bringing in socialism .. .
A similar condition could arise in
Canada,” he warned the conven-
tion and the vote of 56 for the
resolution and 94 against showed
that almost two-thirds of the
delegates there agreed with him.
e

‘As noted above, the division of
political opinion demonstrated
upon that first resolution ‘ sub-
mitted, casts some doubt upon
the reliability of the propaganda
put out by national council mem-.
bers later, that there was no left
and no right in the convention—
just that the national council held
to a “fundamentalist” position
and some delegates vacillated.

But, while the national council
was over-ruled by the convention
on the attitude to the banks, the
convention accepted the line of
right wing social democracy on
other and equally vital issues.

This was strikingly the case in

connection with the
Plan.

A substantial proportion of the
delegates arrived at the conven-
tion with a working-class under-
standing of the Marshall Plan as
an instrument of U.S. imperialism
in its drive to re-establish finance-
capitalist domination of Europe.

The Manitoba CCF in its pro-
vincial convention had condemned
the Marshall Plan as “designed to
support reactionary governments
against the development of social-
ism...” and had declared itself
in favor of “an international aid

Marshall

program under the United Na-
tions which respects the sover-

eignty of all nations concerned
and gives freedom of political
choice to all peoples in receipt of
such aid.”

The Saskatchewan CCF in pro-
vincial convention had recently
adopted a resolution calling upon
the CCF to work to “bring about
and maintain friendly and coop-
erative relations with Germany,
Japan and the U.S.S.R., and espe-
cially between the U.S.S.R. and
the western nations, particularly
Britain and the United States.”

e

The resolution committed the
Saskatchewan CCF to support
disarmament and called for an
end to struggles for colonies,
spheres of influence, naval bases
and airfields. The Saskatchewan
convention did not condemn the
Marshall Plan as the Manitoba
convention had, but its’ resolution
showed clearly that rank-and-file
sentiment in Saskatchewan would
not tolerate an endorsement of
the Marshall Plan,

In view of those developments
the members of the national
council were not surprised at the
spontaneous and broad opposi-

tion. which arose in the national’

convention against their imper-
jalistic support of the Marshall
Plan. No wonder the delegates
rebelled. The position of the na-
tional council might as well have

been dictated by Louis St. Laur-—

ent ,as was Shown when national
council speakers described the
Marshall Plan as a “remarkably
generous gesture.”

The surprising feature of that

debate was in the fact that M. J.
Coldwell, in his determination to
keep the official CCF position in
line with Mackenzie King and
General Marshall, warned the re-
bellious delegates: “Anybody who
votes against the national coun-
cil on ‘this issue is under Com-
munist influence’—and the fact
that his threat was so effective
against such a broad opposition.
e $

It is evident that the champions
of progressive policies in the
CCF will have to develop consid-
erably before they will influence
the fundamental line of their
party. The fact that several of
them expressed the opinion that
the issue of nationalization vs.
public control of the banks was
fundamental illustrates how little
real study they have given to the
problem. g

Sincere advocates of socialism
must learn that agitationa] dec-
larations can do even more harm
than good if they are followed by
acceptance of policies which iden-
tify. the CCF with anti-labor
forces,.

As a body, “lefts” at the CCF
convention failed the working-
class worst of all in their failure
to offer effective opposition to the
petty spite expressed in the reso-
lution which condemned the her-
oic seamen who are fighting Can-
ada Steamship Lines. It is easy
to understand why Millard and
other CCF leaders hate the Cana-
dian Seamen’s Union.

There is not a single union
under the leadershp of Millard.
or other members of the CCF
(and they contro] a large num-
ber) which has won even half
such gains in wages, working
condition and status as the fight-
ing seamen of Canada have won
for’ themselves united in their
CSU. Like the right wing social
democrats they are, they would
rather see the seamen’s union
smashed than be continually com-
pared with militant genuinely
working class leadership. In the
textile industry they are actually
helping the textile bosses in their
efforts to break such a union.

But that the body of delegates
who voted 94 to 56 against the
proposal to defer nationalization
of the banks should allow adop-
tion of a resolution condemning
a union at the moment when it is
engaged in a crucial strike, on
the excuse that its leaders are
Communists, is a challenge to
every member of the CCF who
considers himself or herself a
supporter of socialism,

M. J. COLDWELL

They held the ‘Left’

STANLEY KNOWLES
\ Z

Wavering “left” at CCF convention, while showing
evidence of stronger resistance to right-wing national

council, failed to influence fundamental line of the
parks i 2S |

in line

DAVID LEWIS

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 10, 1948—PAGE 4