Why Canada Should Nationa
lts U.S.-Owned

By NELSON CLARKE

ATIONALIZATION of

United States monopolies
in Canada is a key demand ad-
vanced in the new policy state-
ment of the Communist Party
which is headed by the slogan,
“Let’s Be Masters In Our Own
House.”

This a far-reaching pro-
posal for democratic action to

is

restore to Canadians control
over the economy of our na-
tion.

There are many examples

which could be given to illus-
trate the necessity for nation-
alization of the U.S. trusts.
Here are a few:

CANADIAN AUTO —
OR INTEGRATION

(1) The manufacture of auto-
mobiles in Canada is under the

big U.S. companies — Ford,

General Motors and Chrysler.

Because of this U.S. domina-| tionai development, there is an
| urgent need and a wide patri-
been denied opportunities for | sé .
manufac-| hich will develop Canadian

ture of cars and trucks for| jetroleum for dhesaise of ail

ss There STO ee ene, Resstians: sn
a as fa > the a : z
ence that it ‘will be the policy| the same time permit us to ex-
of these U.S. companies to also}

deny work for Canadians on|

tion Canadian workers have

employment in the

exports either of vehicles or
automotive parts to Cuba.

Furthermore, the _ reason
which the Big Three had for

establishing car manufacturing |
plants in Canada in the first

place was to take advantage of
the British Commonwealth
-preferential tariffs. This is no

longer a big factor in the cal-|

culations of the U.S. auto mo-

guls.

If
into
they
the big plants
Oakville and Oshawa.
the drive for the so-called ‘“‘in-

they

the Canadian

tegration” of the auto industry |

in Canada and the Unite

States.

The net result would be the
all-out flooding of the Cana-
dian market with U.S. - made
ears while any promises made
to import cars or parts from
Canada would be speedily sab-

otaged by the big auto com-|
panies. This would be a “horse|

and rabbit stew’ — one Cana-
dian rabbit to one U.S. horse.

In the long run -the only
way in which Canadians can
develop an automobile manu-
facturing industry which will
serve our needs, and provide
us with an important export

commodity, is through the na-|

| tionalization of the plants|
; which make cars. |

COLOSSUS ACROSS
OUR OIL INDUSTRY

the railroaders’ standards of
living far behind those of
workers in comparable indus-
tries.

These depredations by the

Indust

(2) Underneath the plains of CPR are not a new story for|
western Canada lie rich depos-| Canadians. But they
its of oil. But this oil is owned | taken on even more sinister
and controlled in the main by| Significance as moves directed|
the U.S. oil trust. |against the interests of the

| Canadian nation, since the;

Our western oil is developed | ownership of the CPR has been
to the extent that it may be| transferred to U.S. financiers

needed in the western United |

: {
Again the way to effectively |

have |.

| thrown out of the Middle East
|and Venezuela. |

| Canadian
| Quebec and the Maritimes, is

|supplied by oil from U.S.-
,Ownership and control of the|

;nal trading relations with the
| developing economies of those

} wells and our pipe lines is the
| colossus of the great U.S. oil

|; would nationalize the
| holdings in Canada.

could secure entry |
market, |
wouldn’t hesitate to scrap|
in Windsor, |
Hence, |

| has made it possible for west-
j}ern Canadian grain to move to

States. A good part of it is de-|
liberately kept stored in the}
ground as a so-called “strategic |
reserve” against the day when
the Yankee oil barons will be

In the meantime, the eastern |
market, especially

owned wells is South America
and the Middle East.

In the interests of our na-

otic demand for an oil policy

which will at

port our oil surplus in such a
way as to develop close frater-

countries which have thrown
off colonial domination—such|
as, for example, Cuba.

But standing across our oil

monopoly. Its grip can be
broken through a policy which
US.

PROTECTING OUR
RAILWAYS

(3) The Canadian Pacific
Railway is intensifying sharp-
ly its arrogant demands for an
end to the Crow’s Nest Pass
reight rate structure which
ince the turn of the century

the seaboard for export under
relatively favorable. conditions.

At the same time the CPR
leads the fight across the coun-
try for the slashing of railway
services — under the general
slogan of “the public be damn-|
ed” — and. calls the tune in
railway wage negotiations.

At the moment it is engaged
in callous resistance to the de-
mands of the non-operating

rail workers: which even if
they are met would still leave

protect the Canadian economy
and to solve the “railway
problem” in this country is to
nationalize the CPR.

NATIONALIZATION NOT
SAME AS SOCIALISM

In dealing with proposals
for nationalization, there are
two mistakes which socialists
need to avoid. One is to con-
fuse nationalization with so-
cialism. The other is to under-
estimate the highly positive
role which nationalization can
play in curbing the monopo-
lies, and in the fight for demo-
cracy. and national independ-
ence.

Nationalization and _ social-
ism are not the same thing.
Many nationalized industries:
exist under capitalism.

-In Canada, the CNR was
brought under national owner-
ship over 40 years ago. The
Tory government of Sir Rob-

| ert Borden did not take this

action out of any socialist con-
siderations. It was concerned
primarily with salvaging at
public expense the bond and
stock holders of the bankrupt
Canadian Northern and Grand
Trunk Western railways.

The production and distribu-
tion of electric power in the
province of Ontario has been
under public ownership for
decades (several other prov-
inces have followed - Ontario’s
example). Capitalist industry
has benefitted from the cheap
power thus made available.

There has been a widespread
development of nationalization
in the capitalist countries of
Western Europe, especially
since the last war. In Austria,
for example, iron and steel is
manufactured in state-owned
plants, and sections of the cap-
italists have made super-profits
out of the difference between
the price they paid for this
iron and steel, and the price
they were able to charge for
the goods manufactured from
these metals.

Photo shows the first batch of the new Chinese-produced
“Phoenix” cars on a test run after coming off the assem-
bly line at the Shanghai Motor plant. Canada does not
produce its own car because the industry is owned and »
controlled by U.S. monopolies. Only way Canada can pro-
duce its own automobile is by nationalizing the industry, |

says Nelson Clarke in this important article.

MANY CAPITALISTS
WOULD ALSO BENEFIT

Nationalization, then, does
not eliminate the exploitation
of man by man. ~The national-
ized industries instead of being
privately owned by an indiv-
idual capitalist or a group of
capitalists are owned by the
capitalist state — in other
words by the capitalists col-
lectively.

The establishment of social-
ism on the other hand means
the elimination of the capital-
ist state — the transfer of state
power to the hands of the
working class. Then and only
then will capitalist profits de-
rived from the exploitation of
the working class be abolished
forever.

IMPORTANT WEAPONS
FOR WORKERS

But once we have made this
point clear, it must also be em-
phasized that nationalization
is a very important weapon in
the hands of the working class
and all progressive forces in
their fight at first to limit,
and then to end the power of
the monopolies.

The demand for nationaliza-
tion in our country can pro-
vide the focal point for broad
anti-monopoly movements ded-
icated to the cause of Canadian
independence. The proposals
for nationalization which will
best serve the interests of the
working class and the nation
will stress the need for demo-
cratic control of the national-
ized industries through repre-
sentative boards of manage-
ment, on which labor and the
farmer must take their place.

This approach enables the
working class to advance and
fight for programs for the far-
reaching strengthening of the
Canadian economy, for the
building of job-creating indus-
tries for the processing of our
rich resources here at home.

The state will thus be made
responsible in a new way for
the economic direction to be

itaken by the country.

In this connection, an article
in the November - December
issue of Marxist Review en-
titled, “Lenin’s Theory of So-
cialist Revolution in Modern

Times” makes this important |

point:

“The Communists do not at |
all oppose state regulation of |
the economy in principle. The |
working class gives battle in |
the field created by the objec- |

tive development of capitalism
itself. I¢ the monopoly-capital-
ist ruling groups resort to ex-
tensive measures of state inter-
ference in economic affairs,
the working class does ‘not
necessarily have to reject state
interference as such.

“There is another point in-
volved here: Is it not possible
by means of the organized

‘struggle -of the working class

and the masses of people to
bring about such regulating
measures that would be direct |

ed: against the ruling part of |

the bourgeoisie (the capitalists)

namely the monopolies, in. the @

interests of the people?

“In short, state regulation |
becomes one of the new ob- |

See NATTONALIZATION

ne, 7

December 2, 1960—PACIFIC ITRIBUNE—Page 6 |