Called

aa eS

Geen FORUM

Election policies discussed

In response to Bryan. Wilson’s
letter, printed below, we asked
Tribune assistant editor Sean
Griffin, a candidate for the
Communist Party in Burnaby
North, to offer his comments.

Reade rs are invited to submit their
Views,

Bryan Wilson, Burnaby, writes:
Tam writing to ask your party for
Some information regarding your

Policy”? which perhaps you could
Publish (along with my letter) in
your newspaper.

In your campaign during the
Tecent election you continually
y for the election -of

Progressive forces” in order to
Keep out reactionary right-wing
big business interests.(a policy in
Which I concur). Your trade union
Policy, which comes to the floor
through the unions where your
Party has influence, is one of

unity” of the working people (a
Policy which I also agree with).

The recent election saw the
demise of the NDP which was the
Only mass party supported by

_ Working people. Not only was the

NDP defeated but also its leader,
ave Barrett. It is now apparent
at his Coquitlam seat, by some 30

Votes, is in the hands of a car

dealer,

The Communist Party ran a
Candidate in the Coquitlam riding
Who gathered a total of ap-
Proximately 100 votes. I presume
that of these 100 votes received by

_ Your candidate, had he (she) not

€n running against the NDP the
Majority of them would have gone
to Barrett and the NDP thus giving
mM the seat, and keeping the car

| dealer on his car. lot.

Which brings me to my question
you — why? What is the purpose

of your party’s participation in

~ elections?

Your policy continues to harp on
Unity, unity, unity — keep out

* Tight-wing forces! etc., etc. Why

€n do you run candidates in

Marginal ridings? Why split the

att

Vote of working people?

If you are opposed to the NDP
which is your right) then for God’s
ake come out and say so! Run
Your slate of candidates, expound
Your views and work to obtain your
8oals. But don’t scream about
Unity against big business and
. er. Political parties when your
andidates defeat NDP members.

f you’re against the NDP come

Sut and fight them.

* * *

I welcome the opportunity to
lett wPt to answer reader Wilson’s
€r Since his central question is

one that is frequently asked —

 Perha
el

ts PS more so in this past
ain 10n than in any previous one,
Ce the leader of the NDP, Dave
Ree was defeated by less votes
Were cast for the Communist

0; 4
Andidate, Christine Beynon.

me ee

Soin
da

Sa

hab candidate myself, in Bur-

y-North, I might have been ina
llar position since, for a few
YS, the election of NDP in-

=C . 2
jlmbent, Kileen Dailly, hung in

ome ance. Certainly the Com-
Quests. Party has given your
b 10n considerable thought —
before and after the
Cember 11 vote.
oe Ur position remains the same:
Stand for unity of working

‘People, whatever their political

ead

Bi, We

Beat S, around a common program
comm, what we consider the
or Mon enemy — monopoly
ang tations and the domination
Control they exercise over the
nomic and political life of this

Province,

« wlearly the key words here are
™Mmon program.” Unity of

orking people cannot be based on

the idea that everyone bows to the
policies outlined by the largest
single group; it can only be based
on all forces working together to
advance a common program which
becomes the basis for united
struggle.

We advanced such a policy long
before 1972, during the years of the
NDP government — and during the
election. In that policy, we stated
that the New Democratic Party as
well as the Communist Party
should become part of an “anti-
monopoly coalition” which would
embrace trade unions, tenant
organizations, pensioners’
organizations, professional groups
and small business people and
whose aim it would be to press
governments for new economic
policies and which would itself, as
a political force, seek to form a

government.
It was on the basis of such a
policy that Communist and

Socialists worked out. their Com-
mon Program in France — not by
the Communist Party discarding
its own program and candidates to
march behind the larger con-
tingent of Socialists, but by
working together toward common
aims and eventually affirming its
common struggle in an electoral
front. A socialist France is their
common objective.

Obviously the political align-
ments in this country are different.
Certainly your statement that the
NDP is ‘‘the only mass party
supported by working people’ is
essentially correct. But does that
imply that its policies and
legislative program are always
synonymous with the interests of

“working people? Does it also imply

that working people completely
support the legislation introduced
by the NDP government? Cer-
tainly the answers to these
questions are vital in un-
derstanding Communist Party
electoral policy.

To deal with the first question,
consider for a moment, the labor
legislation long sought by the
largest organization of working
people in this province, the B.C.
Federation of Labor. Upon the
election of the NDP in 1972, the
Federation made representation to
the new. government to bring ina
labor code that would bring a
measure of equity to labor
relations and would ensure the
freedom of the trade union
movement to organize. That repre-
sentation was based on the policy
that it was working people who had
elected the government and
therefore the government should,
in turn, legislate on their behalf.

Instead, the NDP ad-
ministration, although correcting
many of the injustices left by the
Socreds, created a new set of
inequities, gave enormous power
to an unrepresented Labor
Relations Board and, in sub-
sequent amendments, laid the

2

basis for compulsory arbitration of ©

disputes. Trade unionists felt
justifiably betrayed.
Tenants also turned to a

government which they felt would .

legislate on their behalf. But they,
too, found little redress as illegal
rent increases were imposed with
impunity, tenants were evicted
without recourse and a provin-
cially-appointed rentalsman
openly stated his opposition to rent
controls. 2

But perhaps the worst stroke
came in October 1975 when the
government legislated 60,000
workers back to their jobs. It
betrayed thousands of workers
who had_ faced injunctions,
lawsuits and even jail to defend the
right to free collective bargaining.

It cost workers in the food industry
a considerable cut in their ex-
pected pay increases. And it cost
the NDP a substantial number of
votes. -

Thus while the NDP may be the
only mass party supported in large
numbers by working people, it does
not necessarily support the in-
terests of working people. On the
contrary, the Barrett government
clung to the illusory belief that it
could be the party and _ the
government for “‘all the people.” It
sought to neutralize the power of
the right-wing forces by adopting
their policies, but ended up
disarming and confusing its most
consistent supporters.

In that situation, for the-Com-
munist Party to refrain from
fielding candidates in the hope that
their absence would facilitate the
election of NDP candidates, would
be unthinkable. At best, it would be
opportunistic, based on the false
hope that our tacit support for a
beleaguered NDP government
would bring us new allies. At
worst, it would be a terrible
betrayal of the long-term interests
of working people.

As for the votes that defeated
premier Barrett, the 100-odd votes
that the Communist candidate won
can hardly explain the 12,000-odd
votes that Barrett lost from his
standing in 1972. Nor can it be
assumed for a moment that
Barrett would have won had a
Communist not been in the field.
The margin, in fact, may have
been greater yet. I say that
because, in every case, the
Communist candidates were far
more critical of Socred policies,
past and present, than were many
NDP. candidates, including the
premier. In many cases, voters
who had pondered voting for the
refurbished Social Credit Party,
turned away as a result of the
campaign waged by the Com-

munist Party. Certainly that was”

my own experience.

Thus we are not “‘opposed”’ to the
NDP — not in those bald terms.
Certainly thousands of working
people see it as a party which
roughly represents their views.
But many of those people see the
need to create a much bigger,
more embracing political force
which is capable of, and dedicated
to, wresting control of this
province away from the multi-
national corporations.

The NDP cannot, and will not
embark on such a course itself.
Much less will it advance a
socialist program — which the
Communist Party sees as the
future for the working class in this
country.

Ultimately, that is where the
differences lie. The NDP is a
social-democratic party which
sees reform as an objective in it-
self. Ours is a party which ad-
vances reform as an integral part
of the struggle for. socialism.
Members of the Communist Party
work together to achieve those
reforms but that struggle doesn’t
end at the ballot box with the
election of an NDP government —
it continues, aimed at achieving
thorough-going social change that
will end monopoly domination of
this country and eventually put it
on a socialist course.

If the course of world events — in
France, in Italy, in Portugal —
indicates anything, it is that the
need for radically new policies, for
nationalization and democratic
control over our economic and

political future, is more pressing

than ever. History would soon
replace the Communist Party if it
discarded those policies — or
abdicated from the struggle to
achieve them. :

Camosun College and several high schools, staged a motorcade and rally
on the steps of the legislature recently to protest high ICBC rates and
the discriminatory exorbitant rates imposed on young people.

Rankin hits Barrie Clark

Cont'd from pg. 2

they are unpopular with ‘“‘in-
visible’ tenants. I have never
heard of a creature called an
‘invisible’ tenant, but I do know
(and so does the Province) that
well over half of Vancouver’s
population consists of tenants, very
‘visible tenants, who are registered
and on the voter’s list and for
whom rent controls are a life-
saver.

But I must give the Province and
Clark credit where credit is due.
They both state that private en-
terprise will not build rental ac-
commodation as long as we have
rent controls. They both want rent
controls dropped. They both want,
as the Province so nicely puts it,
“more and better incentives to
investors, landlords,”’

Alright, let’s just consider what
would happen if rent controls were
dropped. Instead of paying $250 a
month for an apartment, you would
pay $500. Let’s suppose that in-
vestors, developers, real estate

sharks and all the other quick-buck
artists build a thousand new
apartment units that would rent at
$500 or $600 a month. How is this
going to help the tenants we have
now? How is this going to help the
“invisible”? tenants, presumably
the Province means people who
want to become tenants? Ob-
viously the only ones who will
benefit will be the owners — the big
insurance and trust companies,
developers and others who are in
the building business.

There is only one way to get
more rental accommodation at
rates people can afford and that is
for governments — at all levels —
to go into the apartment building
business. There is enough
municipally-owned and Crown-
owned land to do this and govern- °
ments have the money. It’s only a
question of priorities.

Until we are able to pressure the
government into building more
rental housing, rent controls must
stay.

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING

COMING EVENTS

WANTED

FEBRUARY 14 and. 15 — Fur-
niture, household effects, etc.
Garage and basement sale, 1402
Hamilton St. (at 14th St.), New
Westminster. Saturday, Feb. 14
and Sunday, Feb. 15, 10 a.m. to 6
p.m. Special preview sale for
Tribune readers, Friday, Feb.
13, 7 p.m. to ? Wine and cheese.
All proceeds to PT.

FEBRUARY 14 Saturday,
February 14, VALENTINE’S
Social Evening. Card games,
refreshments. 4824 Dumfries St.
All welcome. South Van Club,
CPE.

FEBRUARY 14 Saturday,
February 14 CABARET NIGHT
Russian People’s Home, 600
Campbell Ave. at 8 p.m. Good
music, refreshments (food will
be served at 10:30 p.m.) Ad-
mission $4.00. Spons. by F.R.C.
Everyone welcome.

FEBRUARY = 21 SOCIAL
EVENING, Hal Griffin — slides
and commentary on Iraq,
Saturday, Feb. 21 at 8 p.m.,
Dorothy Lynas, 832 Calverhall.
Everyone welcome. Adults $1.75,
children 75¢c. North Van Club
CRE:

WANTED

ARTICLES for resale — proceeds
to P.T. Phone 526-5226.

MATURE COUPLE to caretake
my home in D’Arcy area for
summer months. For further
information write Mr. G.
‘Langstaff, D’Arcy, B.C.

STORAGE space, preferably in
Burnaby for articles for
resale. Phone 526-5226.

FOR SALE

ARTICLES for sale. We might
have something you need. Try
us. Proceeds to P.T. Phone 526-
5226.

BUSINESS PERSONALS

RON SOSTAD, Writer-Researcher.
Ph. 922-6980

HALLS FOR RENT

RUSSIAN PEOPLE’S. HOME —
Now available for rentals, For
reservations phone 254-3430

WEBSTER’S CORNERS HAL —
Available for banquets,
meetings, etc. For rates: Ozzie,
325-4171 or 685-5836

UKRAINIAN CANADIAN
CULTURAL CENTRE 805
East Pender St., Vancouver 4.
Available for banquets, wed-
dings, meetings” Ph. 254-3436

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEBRUARY 13, 1976—Page 11