NALD GORD deput Sovernior of the, Bank. of ON, deputy & ecently in New.- ay D Canada, made an important speech r : : _ York. His speech. was important because it was in ffect a pronouncement on behalf of the government _ ©f Canada to the national convention of all the United States interests concerned with foreign trade. It was Significant beyond its surface importance however, because it was a carefully prefaced statement upon the Profound crisis of the capitalist system and a warning that the crisis will continue and deepen ainless some- _ thing drastic happens. z Let me explain that Gordon did before a meeting of workers, or Or ex-servicement; he made representatives of big business. explanation of university students ak His speech wasn’t an ; _ laws of motion” of capitalist society; _ 8gainst the danger of disaster that lies ahead. Wasn't a contribution tot _ to make the transition from : * _ ism less painful; it was an argument In favor aa er en “to slow down the transition, to make it as PAU Ni. the working class as it can be made, to stall f ‘ ‘ ‘i * Possible. ae . og the purpose of this speech, Pah “ of the analysis ‘held to until But, precisely beca his acknowledgement of the correctness - “Which only the Communist movement recently is extremely significant. 2 off by reminding his audience | Donald Gordon started _ that the capitalist system _ from one crisis to another. Of crises.” He emphasized th _ trade and foreign exchange.” him that term embraced the described it as “a series ae field of “international | To the men listening to capitalist system. _ lasting beneficial results for to Canada. st time since the. war “In 1949 we have just ticularly the United And, Gordon ‘added | “T1947, Canada for the fir - also faced a dollar crisis.” - -» Seen another crisis, affecting par - Kingdom and_ sterling area.” x ‘Somewhat lugubriously: : ‘ it Seid 3 “All concerned are beginning” ures, while they temporarily fi little’ cr nothing to reduce the . . a i eS to see that such meas- gap, of ‘the future. \ or digressing at this rested that Gordon tant and carefully hat the Pacific The reader must excuse me f Point to remind everyone who is inte in that opening part of his impo Prepared speech admitted in effect t _ Tribune was absolutely correct when _ Abbott Plan in November, 1947, AB Gees : one that time, the Pacific Tribune reeaeter J : flow out hevitable results that would iow Ghat Gordon now being developed—the very resu : deplores two years later. It should be mentioned, also, that our book Canada: the Communist Sewnoint et with that same question and, a year EORLCEe acknowledgement, describes the probleme Gordon how admits it to be. Gem Ros pe is Ras Ace righ oaty tel ‘ eo bails: Y - : 4 "However, parts of Gordo A yl rehee his admission that the measures adopted ane no® Sole cratic progress, while Gordon. poin €nd of 1949 to help 3 something of the character of the crisi _ longer be denied. : Aas _ -Having indicated the §° ‘Capitalist system, Gordon understanding of his audien _ Character by explaining to them, ’ n't make his speech oo it) xto a convention of “the economic — it was a, warning — : tad he shaping of policy aimed — the profit system ‘to social- “has recently gone, literally, ~ ary the general crisis of the — lj the dollar gap, do : it criticized the : ff j n’s { speech which followed stion of its peoples, * must ¢ exactly what the eee By TIM BUCK ; Gordon admits what — 5 Communists have said all along Abolish the thought — : eT HERE are a large number of amendments to be considered. Some highlight the dif- ferences of philosophy and trade union practice between the big United States unions, with their faith in free~ enterprise, and the European socialist unions, who in some aspects think along - Marxist lines. ; a cae ; ee One example is a Belgian proposal io include in the constitutional pbjective _ of the new body ‘the establishment of a classless society and the abolition of the wage system.’ This does not ‘ appeal to the American Federation of Labor, which believes in making wages higher, not abolishing them.” ‘ TEAR ——London dispatch to Vancouver Daily Prov- ince, November 23, reporting on formation of an Anglo-American-dominated interna- tional trade union organization in opposition ‘to the World Federation of Trade Unions. 2 é Fifth World Congress of the Communist International explained to the world working class movement in 1924; namely, that all the enormous loans, credits and other measures adopted through the international con- ference of bankers in Brussels, the Dawes plan, the Young plan, the Bank of International Settlements and passing several countries through a process akin to bankruptcy and writing down of debts, failed to restore health to the capitalist system. The Fifth World Congress of the Communist Inter- national, in. 1924, described the combined results of all those extraordinary measures as only “partial and temporary stabilization of capitalist economy.” At the time and for years afterwards, the bankers, the capital- ist press and their political serving men sneered at — that description of the condition of capitalist economy ‘but now, in his zealous effort to help U.S. capitalists to recognize the real character of the crisis which is besetting their system, Gordon describes it in the following words: tS “Full recovery was never achieved in Europe after 41918 even in Great Britain, the most dynamic economy of all. While some degree of stability was temporarily maintained by “American loans, the inevitable ending of such loans left Europe in a. desperate situation and was one of the factors contributing to the great agri- ath cultural and industrial depression of the thirties. .. .” There is a full, though not frank, acceptance of exactly the analysis upon which the world Communist movement based its attitude towards capitalism after the First World War. In less complete form but no Jess direct in its implications, Donald Gordon’s speech explained or suggested to his capitalist audience the warning that, in all essentials, the Marxist analysis of the general crisis of capitalism is correct and the capitalists might as well face it. @ ‘ : \ “So, the reader will probably think, Gordon prob- ably has a solution. The answer is, No. The contrast between the large measure in which Gordon was able to give a correct description of characteristic features of the general erisis of capitalism and the utterly _puerile proposals that he asked his audience to adopt _.to solve the’ crisis illustrates, perfectly, that the crisis in capitalist economy is paralleled by a crisis ini capital- ist politics and in capitalist thought. | His “solution” is that “North America, and es- “pecially the’ United States provides a much larger more accessible and more reliable market ‘for the goods which other nations have forsale. y Ss z aed % Z ei aN my f eas " A , To explain the pollyanna character of that “solution” would require another column. It can be understood py anybody who takes the trouble to read the article “Canada and the World Economic Crisis” in National Affairs Monthly for October. : The difference between the “solution” proposed by Gordon and the policies advocated in the Pacific Tribune ‘consitently for more than two ‘years now is revealing. The Pacific Tribune points out correctly that we can ‘meet the problem here effectively only by policies which keep Canada independent. Gordon merely re- iterates the “solution” advocated by U.S. and Canadian politicians and monopolists who don’t want to,see the crisis solved—they only want to utilize it for the further advantage of the United States. ‘ ; FOREIGN AFFAIRS Facts refute Pearson, Martin [Ts THE House of Commons and at the UN, External Affairs Minister L. B. Pearson and Health Minister Paul Martin attémpted to carry the ball for Washington- Ottawa war policies before the Canadian people and the world. ‘Because their entire speeches were based on turning’ the truth inside out, Labor News Service here presents a tabulation of the truth behind the main lies on which the St. Laurent government has based its suicidal foreign policy: : Who is blocking the ban on the bomb? External Affairs Minister L. B. Pearson, on atomic control was reported in Toronto Globe fand Mail (Nov ember 17) as follows: “Until the Russians gave some indication of readiness to accept ‘genuime, not spurious - international control and inspection,” he told the House it was difficult to see how’any progress could be made. “The Soviet leaders stubbornly maintained they could not possibly accept the necessary limitations to their soveriegnty. Canada maintained that nations could not cling to any ancient concept of sovereignty when they were seeking a chance for survival... .. : “The Russians are’ not willing to entrust to an international atomic development authority, which they claim would be under Anglo-American domination, adequate functions of’ control agreed beforehand and embodied in the treaty. It is a problem of establish- ing sufficient mutual confidence to tackle not only “disarmament and the bomb but the whole range of major friction points, political, strategic and economic.” The truth Soviet Foreign Minister. Andrei Vishinsky, at the UN November 10, repeated, “‘the Soviet Union opens its doors wide open to inspection” under a genuine control plan, but not the kind that the American Baruch Plan envisaged, in which “inspectors would _ put their feet on the table’ in the Soviet Union, and ‘try to dominate its peaceful atomic development in the imterests of a “super-trust” acting for American monopolists. erat . The Soviet Union favors certain limits on national sovereignty, Vishinsky stressed, for-that is the “ABC | of international cooperation.” But a “super-trust” which subjugates the sovereign development of peace- ful uses for atomic power while leaving the U.S. free to stockpile atomic bombs would never be acceptable to the Soviet Union. : (The Soviet Union has proposed simultaneous ban- ning of the bomb, destruction of stockpiles, and estab- lishment of international control without operation of the veto in the day-to-day operation of control once it is established—as well as a count of bombs and other arms as a first step.) Who believes war to be inevitable? Health Minister Paul Martin, at the UN November 15, reiterated the lie that the Soviet Union and Com- munists generally see war between socialism and capi- talism as inevitable.’ Canadian Press Novembér 15 said: “Martin called on Vishinsky to brand as false the Communist philoso- phy that war is inevitable between Communists and non- Communist states. He added: “Those who really pre- pare for war are those who believe in its. inevitability. We do not believe war is inevitable. It is a basic principle of our political philosophy that there is no political problem which cannot be solved by discussion’.” _A few days before Defense Minister Claxton told the House that Canada would spend $594 million for war purposes this year and arm “the nucleus” of a Canadian armed force that would operate “as far away from Canada as possible.” : ; And the Toronto Star November 11 said Canada’s Chalk River atom plant is working “on radioactive materials that might be distributed over enemy terri- tory in the form of death dust.” The truth | vee. Soviet Premier Stalin in 1936 told American corres- pondent Roy Howard: “American democracy and the Soviet system may peacefully exist side by side and compete with each other. } “The export of revolution is nonsense. ‘Every coun- try will make its own revolution if it wants ‘to, and if it does not want to there will be no revolution. Our country, for example, wanted to ‘make a revolution, and did make it, and we are now building a classléss society. But to assert that we want to make a revolu- tion in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never ad- vocated.” In 1947 Soviet Communist spokesman, the late Andrei Zhdanov, told the Communist Information Bu- reaus’ founding conference: “Soviet foreign policy pro- ceeds from the’ premise‘ of the co-existence, over a lengthy period, of two systems—capitalism and social = MIS ej pe cer ay Re ; ‘ ~ , x ° Look who's talking! AKE. .SUCCESS, N.Y; (CP)—Philip C. Jessup of the United Stated said today there is evidence of another Russian attempt to dismem- ber China. He called on the Soviet Union and all countries to keep hands off China and let the Chinese settle their own future—Vancouver. Daily _ Province, November 29, 1949. — PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 2, 1949 — PAGE 9