Canada’s role “quiet” as usuc!

CCORDING to the latest
findings of Dr. George
Gallup’s busy pollsters,

four out of every five Canadians
think that it is very important
“that we try to make the United
Nations a success.”

This bears witness to the
heart-felt longing of Canadians
for lasting peace. It also poses
another question: what do we
need to DO to make the UN a
success?

There has already been enough
said in the opening days of the
22nd Session of the General As-
sembly so that we can see how
the main issues before it, and
before mankind, are shaping up.

First of all, on Vietnam:

The United Nations has never
been able to deal effectively with
the issue of Vietnam because
neither the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam nor the Peoples Re-
public of China are represented
there. Their membership has
been blocked by the United
States.

The only international mach-
chinery capable of effective ac-
tion leading to peace in Vietnam
would be a reconvened Geneva
Conference. But such a confer-
ence to have any hope of suc-
cess would have to be reconven-
ed on the basis of restoring the
original Geneva Agreement of

AT THE UNITED NATIONS

1954 which provided for the
withdrawal of all foreign troops.
This would mean that the United
States would have to get out of
Vietnam. At least, the first step
that would have to be taken be-
fore anything could be done
would be the unconditional and
permanent cessation of the U.S.
bombing of north Vietnam.

At the moment the United
States is accompanying its ex-
tension of bombing of North
Vietnam. At least, the first step
that would have to be taken be-
fore anything could be done
would be the unconditional and
permanent cessation of the U.S.
bombing of north Vietnam.

At the moment the. United
States is accompanying its. ex-
tension of bombing in North
Vietnam, with a “peace offen-
sive”, with their U.N. Ambassa-
dor, Arthur Goldberg disguised
for the occasion as a dove.

All Mr. Goldberg wants now
is that Hanoi guarantee that ces-
sation of bombing “would” be
followed by peace negotiations.
But, as Soviet Foreign Minister
Andrei Gromyko was quick to
point out, the United States had
its answer on this question back
last Jan. 25 when the govern-
ment of north Vietnam made a
“statement . . . about readiness

to begin negotiations on a set-
tlement of the Vietnam problem
after the cessation by the United
States of the bombing . . . and
other aggressive acts against”
the Democratic Republic of Viet-
nam.”

Therefore Goldberg is only
quibbling and stalling while the
bombs continue to rain down.

What can the General Assem-
bly do in these circumstances?
It was the Soviet foreign minis-
ter who gave the lead: “con-
demnation of the United States
aggression in Vietnam” should
“ring out and . . . the peoples,
including the American people
should see that the wall of moral
and political isolation around the
aggressor is growing.”

That this plea is already heed-
ed in some quarters was shown
by the response of Sweden,
whose foreign minister the next
day appealed to the United
States to stop the bombing. “We
appeal to the most powerful
party in the conflict to take the
initial step.”

On the Middle East: Here the
United Nations has accepted the
responsibility for the restoration
of lasting peace. Secretary-
General U Thant laid down five
principles which he _ believes
must be embodied in such a
settlement: ©

VIEWPOINT

e Respect for the territorial
integrity of'évery state;

e No condoning of occupation
by military force of the territory
of one state by another;

e Respect for every state’s
right to exist and to be secure
within its frontiers;

e The natural right of people
everywhere “and this certainly:
applies to the Palestinian refu-
gees,” to be in their homeland
and to have a future there;

e Free and unimpeded naviga-
tion for all through international
waterways according to interna-
tioial conventions.

Here is certainly, at the least,
a reasonable basis for discussion.

Goldberg answered in genera-
lities with a pious little lecture
on the absence of a “will to
peace” on all sides in the area.

Gromyko came right to the

, point. He made it clear that the

Soviet government was “in favor
of all states of this region...
being guaranteed peace and
security.” But he warned that it
was impossible “to move in this
direction without making the
first step, which is to free Arab
lands from the forces of the
Israeli aggressors.”

Where was Canada, where
was our great quiet diplomat

Socialist nationalization is the

By GARY MORTENSON

ECENTLY (Vancouver Sun,

July 22), Colin Cameron

(MP Nanaimo-Cowichan on
the Islands) presented some
ideas on economic policy for the
NDP which ‘he and Max Salts-
man (MP Waterloo South) have
been working on.

In my opinion, the article ex-
hibits several misconceptions re-
garding some basic socialist the-
ory which is surprising when
one considers the contributions
Cameron has made, in the past,
to the left sections of the old
CCF and the present NDP. My
criticism is advanced with the
hope that the membership of the
NDP will seriously consider and
revaluate the direction their
Party is taking.

After establishing that the eco-
nomic machine producing goods
and services, has failed badly in
achieving desirable social objec-
tives, Cameron concludes that
this is not the fault of owners
and managers of industry. In
fact, he states: “Their respon-
sibility is to operate their part of
the machine as efficiently and
profitably as possible and not to
determine how ill or well their
operations serve broader social
purposes.” Cameron, then, is
saying that, in principle, it is cor-
rect that one segment of society
should not be concerned with
the welfare of the whole of so-
ciety. He goes further and as-
signs this function to another
elite section of society, “This is
the responsibility of the politi-
cian, of government .. .”

The argument teminds one of

Plato’s Republic in which three
strata exist: the military, the
workers, and the philosopher-
rulers or governors. What hap-
pened to the socialistic concept
of workers’ power, of the peo-
ples’ participation in the deci-
sion-making processes in every
sphere affecting their life?

That a socialist could present
this type of analysis is explained

by another quotation: “One as-—

sumption we made was that sov-
ereign power resides in govern-
ment. No exercise of economic
power is possible save by leave
of government.” Obviously, Ca-
meron misconceives the status
of the state. The state arises in
society because of (1) the exist-
ence of antagonistic classes with-
in the society, and (2) the irre-
concilability of class antagon-
isms.

The state, then, arises with the
function of establishing order
between antagonistic classes.
This order does not mean re-
conciling classes. The class strug-
gle cannot co-exist peacefully,
since the means of establishing
maximum profit and efficiency
are fundamentally opposed to
the interests of the working class
and public in general. The state
is an instrument for the oppres-
sion of one class by another,
and, the order it creates, results
in the legalization and perpetua-
tion of this oppression, and in
depriving the people of definite
means and methods of resisting
and overthrowing their oppres-
sors.

What is the nature of the “sov-
ereign power” residing in the

state apparatus? It is character-
ized generally by the institutions
of bureaucracy and the military
(the standing army and police
forces). The attack on labor by
indiscriminate granting of in-
junctions, exparte or otherwise,
is made possible through police
enforcement, and the representa-
tives of bourgeois ideology in
the judicial bureaucracy. Govern-
ment interference in strikes al-
legedly against the public’s inter-
est; wage guide-lines but never
price guidelines; B.C. Labor Min-
ister Péterson’s verbal support
of the employers in the present
IWA dispute in the interior of
B.C.: all are examples of the
class nature of the exercise of
state power.

Wealth, based on private pro-
perty, exercises its influence in
a variety of ways. Direct corrup-
tion of officials is always pres-
ent, but the primary method is
the alliance established between
the government and the Stock
Exchange. One only has to re-
view the number of politicians
coming from the Boards of Di-
rectors of industry, and return-
ing to these Boards after their
political life ceases, to recognize
the validity of this argument.
These are the owners and mana-
gers whom Cameron states oper-
ate, and should operate, on the
profit motive, and have no re-
sponsibility for the welfare of
society as a whole.

With the representatives of
capitalism permeating the exe-
cutive, judicial, legislative bu-
reaucracies, with the bourgeois
ideology permeating our educa-

tional system, our police forces,
all aspects of life, Cameron
thinks that all that is demanded
of a socialist party, is to regu-
late a capitalist economy in or-
der for it to work in the inter-
ests of the working class. Cam-
eron is talking about “socialist
planning,” he is speaking of
“managed capitalism.”

As long as the institution of
private property exists, the state
apparatus will continue to op-
erate against the working class,
and in the interests of the capi-
talists. But, what does Cameron
have to say about nationaliza-
tion? “In some fields, it is the
obvious answer . . . public own-
ership is required to eliminate
wasteful competition and waste-
ful use of resources.”

If nationalization is not a
mechanism for the abolishment
of industrial power and estab-
lishment of peoples’ power, then
it must be suspect of being ‘“‘ca-
pitalist” not “socialist nationali-
zation.” Capitalist nationaliza-
tion is instituted against the
short term interests of one busi-
ness group, but in the long run,
benefits the capitalist class as a
whole, by providing services or
resources cheaper than if the in-
dustry had remained private. Is
this was Cameron means by eli-
minating wasteful competition,
and wasteful use of resources?

And, how does Cameron pro-
pose to combat the dangers of
American ownership? By govern-
ment initiative and investment
to group together, modernize and
rationalize units ..of uneconomic
size, so that: ‘American subsidi-

the United Nati

Paul Martin in a
uiet. He was neaiy ie
M"He did think it
good idea to appoll | gil
Nations representa ath
the Middle East tO 9° gt
and see what mig f
He had nothing > oth
usual, on stopping
of Vietnam. my
He had nothing to :
the necessity of Ist 4
ing from all selZ
tory. Nor for that Pi ogit
ing either about
by the Arab states rr
other words not done
really needs to Dé
peace to the M
Which brings 2 i
where we started dial
per cent of the a “0
who think it 1S ces
to make: the. UN # pel
achieve their cherish ne
by making it cleat ag ib,
ernment of Canad? ist
ternal Affairs Minit ters i
toadying to the cot,
the Johnsons, © pe
foursquare for
which will StOP {ir
restore peace" ig
adopts at indore
olicy of peace” thal im
AOE - able ‘to say
contributing t ” a

‘

ons a

parent compamé
ing with t
will then -facé

anize ich

Canadian Arms Nit
suffer from d

Reorganization. an
zation is tO rest n
of the ecqnomy
the foreign SU irtull
backgroune: _ cond

key areas 0
are already
subsidiaries» yall

Cameron Bei ula
ing a theory On, aM ch!
ism, not soe ain
of struggle 28° in

litical i, fac
: jalis™) Coe
impel ene
a inB ie by
Socialist te work / fi
only y f the Pet ed
majority th po ated ts
to achieve j the ev? F