SOCIAL PURPOSE’

—aTt cross-purposes

irpose Foy Canada
y Michael Oliver
of Toronto Press
'Pp., $4.95 paper
$7.95 cloth
mad * *
NLEY RYERSON
ve “an understand-
e€ sort of society
-€volving in Canada”
ited aim of the con-
| to this. symposium.
by “a sense of the
Y Of social change,” they
don the task, in the
t Editor Oliver, at a
en “Canadians were
led into accepting a
of prosperity which

“Mediocrity and in-

nd which, moreover,
eir awareness both of
Bers of a post-Hiro-
orld and of its poten-

00k is the collective

on of sixteen intel-

(twelve of them uni-

ofessors) to the think-

he New Democratic

thus offers a close

* With Social Planning

da (by the League for

nstruction, 1935) as

| to the program and
f the CCF.

Purpose for Canada

ur main areas; these

N indication of some of] ,

mes) are as follows:
Issues”. (ethics, free-
power, democracy);
roblems” (mass me-
WUcation, ‘welfare  ser-
e@ Economy” (econ-
Ocial democracy, con-
and monopoly, eco-
anning, agriculture,
nism); and ‘‘Politics”
m, municipal affairs,

essay invites com-
“fre, I can do no more
t to what seem to,
Oblems, hoping that
take up the debate
ecific issues and the
proach.

* ae ie
tying degree, the
Show awareness of
t by no means all)
tures of our present-
“iety, Thus George
the opening essay on

Lumumba, 45c. A
Of documents which
the truth about the
the Congo, and places
the names of the
f the African peo-
Contains Lumumba’s
Nd statements to the
Poems and letters.
“ing Other People’s
by Naomi Mitchison,
S delightful book is
bout children from
€r of the earth in a
~ Sympathetic under-
°f children. It has
€autiful photographs
Many of the world’s
10tographers.
at People’s Co-op-
SOkstore, 307 West
et, Vancouver, B.C.

“An Ethic of Community”’ des-
cribes the existing social struc-
ture as one “in and by which
some men are dominated by
others.’”’ He designates it “late
state capitalism’, and provides
some description of what
Marxists describe as “state
monopoly capitalism.’ In es-
says on “Power and Freedom”
and “Concentration and Mono-
poly” John Porter and Gideon
Rosenbluth describe the cor-
porate power of finance-capi-
tal. The facts presented pro-
vide ample ground for both a
broad immediate program of
anti-monopoly action, and a
radical long-range program of
reconstruction of the social
order. However, with near-
unanimity, the authors of So-
cial Purpose for Canada shrink
from taking up the challenge.

In the first place, several
contributors make a strenuous

‘effort to discourage any idea

of nationalization of monopo-
lies. This measure is ‘“old-fash-
ioned,” and its place has been
taken by new “techniques of
general economic control” (Ol-
iver, p..422). Proposals for na-
tionalization give “an exagger-
ated emphasis to ownership as
such’, whereas ‘“‘the new tech-
niques have lessened the role
seen for nationalizatiion and
direct controls . . . Nothing
. can be done by nationaliza-
tion to redistribute wealth and
income that cannot be done
more easily and equitably by
taxation, by transfer payments
and by the provision of social
capital” (Weldon, pp. 172-5).
The retreat to liberalism is out-
spoken and emphatic. Baptiz-
ing it “revitalized socialist
thinking” or “democratic so-
cialism” hardly helps.

Secondly, incredible as_ it
may seem, the issue of United
States domination is largely
evaded. It is hard to imagine
what kind of “understanding
of the society evolving in Ca-
nada” can be expected of peo-
ple who—with a couple of ex-
ceptions—blandly ignore the
most glaringly evident feature
of that society. One exception
is Kenneth McNaught, who de-
elares in a concluding essay on
“Foreign Policy” that “A so-

cialist foreign policy must be-| -

gin by reasserting the goal of
national independence” (p.
466); and goes on to develop a
strong argument for withdraw-
al from NORAD and NATO.

This sound position, regret-
tably, is at startling variance
with the tone of the rest of the
book. Of the economists, only
two so much as touch on the
question of U.S. overlordship
and its effects. G. Rosenbluth,
whose approach to the issue of
nationalization is generally
more positive than that of his
colleagues, nonetheless con-
cludes: “In view of the quali-
fied character of Canada’s pol-
itical independence, it is likely
that nationalization of existing
firms could not in fact be car-
ried through on any appreci-
able scale” (p. 241). :

As to the deepseated distor-
tion of this country’s economic
growth, H. S. Gordon is quite
broadminded about it: “It is
not necessarily true-that Cana-
da would be wealthier if we

processed our own raw mate-
rials at home.” We might well
“be better off by continuing
the present specialization.’ The
attack on this is merely a “red
herring”; “Hewers of wood
and drawers of water can be
very wealthy—provided they
are efficient hewers and draw-
ers ‘and that they charge
enough for their wood and
water” (p. 268).

This militant spirit of capit-
ulation helps explain why the
collective authors nearly all
steer clear of the one policy
that now would really chal-
lenge monopoly ‘capital; the
policy of united popular strug-
gle against U.S. domination,
against the U.S.-Canadian olig-
archy that is betraying the na-
tional interest.

® ® ®

Just as national independ-
ence is- shrugged -off as an
issue (hy all but McNaught), so
national equality. for French
Canada is evaded also. Passing
references to the French Cana-
dians simply as a “cultural
group” (pp 384, 403) or as one
of “our ethnic groups” (p. 35)
betray a mixture of theoretical
incomprehension* and accept-
ance of “Anglo-Saxon superior-
ity” prejudice. The French Ca-
nadian delegates’ demand at
the NDP founding convention

‘for recogntion of the two-na-|.

tion character of the Canadian
state, and of the right of self-
determination, was in marked
contrast to the position taken
here (the book was published
prior to the convention): but

there can be no doubt that pro-

gressives in English-speaking
Canada have a big job of en-

‘lightenment on their hands, to

explain the rudiments of the
“national question”, both with-
in the labor movement and
among intellectuals.

* * *

Further light on the pre-
dominant outlook of the auth-
ors is shed by Stuart Jamie-
son’s piece on “Labour Union-
ism”: what he stresses is the
threat that “unions and busi-
ness managements” would “ex-
ploit the rest of the commun-
ity”: and a “democratic social-
ist administration” could help
. . to create greater stability
in industrial relations” (pp
358-9-362). The capital/labor
relationship, he evidently
thinks, is with us for all time:
“Under a democratic system of
government, regardless of the
idealogy and philosophy of the
political party in power, there

A DITCH NAMED ‘WIDOWS MOURNING SIGN’. This ditch
in southern Somali, was dug with forced Somali labor in 1936
when Italian colonialists were bent on plundering the banana
plantations. Some 3,000 people lost their lives, which caused
the people in Somali to give the ditch its present name.. This
is an example of how the “civilized” Western imperialist? powers
brought “‘civilization” to the colonial peoples.

is and can be no over-all ‘solu-
tion’ to the ‘problem of indus-
trial conflict? ... Or, if there
were such a ‘solution’ it would
almost inevitably create new
problems worse than the ones
it set out to solve, and in the
process. it would in all likeli-
hood undermine and. destroy
our democratic traditions” (pp
366-7).

In other words, democracy
forbids the abolition of the

rule of capital. So “democratic

socialists’”” must, by. definition,
accept the status quo. This
spineless acceptance of things
as they are is nothing else but
a surrender to the idealogical
pressure of the ruling corpora-
tions.
* * ®

The authors of this book pre-
sent plenty of evidence point-
ing to the need for fundamen-
tal change in our society. They
infer that such change is in-
deed necessary—then strive
feverishly to evade the logic
of it. For the logic of that
change is struggle.

Ownership of the means of
production, we are told, is not
one of the “main problems” in
the capital-labor relationship
(p. 361). Nationalization of
monopolies faces a “fundamen-
tal difficulty’—“resistance of
the owners’, which “may be
so great as to render the meas-
ure not feasible in many
cases” (p. 241). The idea of
revolutionary transformation
of the existing social order be-
longs with “the dreams of an
innocent past” (p. 17).

The existence of a real, liv-
ing socialist system, embracing
a third of mankind and blazing
new highways to the future—
this is almost wholly ignored.
When a rare reference creeps
in, about the immense dynam-
ism released by socialist socie-
ty, the writer hastens nervous-
ly to bce “Few among us

her.

A slave at last will cease

FOR MY COUNTRY

By LOUISE HARVEY
Proud is our couniry but lost in her young dreams still,

Half unaware of chains which subily bind her.

More than half-dazzled by siripes and stars which blind

Only half-conscious of her own true sirength,

“A slave who knows his slavery

At last our Canada, awakened to that fact,

Will gain true independence, exulting in the act,
And from the mighty tree of liberty

She'll eat the fruit which sets all peoples free.

to be.”

MAT Ts et

oT Ae eros oes a

would want to buy it at the
price which has been paid else-
where” (and then, complacent-
ly) “but there is no reason to
believe that this price is neces-
sary” (p. 444).

Indeed no, gentlemen: if you
feel better clinging to capital-
ism, cling to it, as tightly as
you will. But do not blame us,
who are for socialism, for deal-
ing rudely with your ration-
alizations. :

And that is what they are.
One of you, holding up the ill-
defined menace of the “mass
society”, urges “an
religious foundation for equal-
ity”—instead of what Engels

-called “the proletarian demand

for equality: the demand for

the abolition of classes.“ To

the “mass society” you count-
erpose respect for the “moral
personality” (alleging, falsely, —
that Marxism accords it no
place). But what kind of cult
of “moral personality” is it,
that flinches from social strug-
gle, preaches renunciation of
fundamental social change,
and then calls itself “demo-
cratic socialism’? What kind of
“ethic of community” is it,
that will do as a makeshift in
lieu of establishing—through
however hard a_ struggle—a
community in which an ethic
founded upon humanism can
indeed become a reality?
* * *

Oh, that just one worker
from the bench had managed
to get a word in edgewise, to
bring this learned symposium
a breath of. the militancy that
was present in not a few of the
rank-and-file delegates to the
NDP founding convention!

No such rude intrusion was,
likely, even thought of.

Yet, inescapably, out of the
hard facts of today’s reality,
out of the living experience of
vast numbers of Canadians,
there comes the call to act. So
when George Grant asserts (p.
22): ‘‘As the history of Canada
manifests, common political
ends can be sought without
theoretical agreement” — we
agree with him. Let us discuss

‘our theoretical disagreements,

they are many and run deep;

| but let us act together on the

issues that face us all in com-
mon, and that seugesines action
now.

It is in the common seston of
labor, farmers, professionals—
against monopoly, for peace

|and independence—that Cana-

dians will indeed achieve “so
cial purpose”.

In the process, all of us, it
is to be hoped, will learn not a
little.