ocialism is not a set of ideas or concepts to be em-

braced or discarded at will; to be donned or cast

aside like a soiled garment at the opportunist whim of an
individual or an organization.

Socialism is indeed a mighty serious matter, not to be
and especially for those who lay claim to being Socialists.
Untold thousands of men and women have spent long years in
prison for being Socialists, many thousands have suffered and
died for it, and many more thousands have labored a lifetime
for its attainment, only to miss its glorious high noon, but
content that they had lived to see its bright dawn on a world
horizon.

Socialsim is indeed a mighty serious matter, not to be
taken lightly, not to be sneered at or scorned, primarily and
first and foremost because Socialism is the world of the
Future of man, the one and only future; the dynamics, coupled
with the monstrous and asinine stupidities of modern
capitalism has itself provided for the groundwork of that
future— Socialism.

In simple terms Socialism means that all the resources of
life, all the means and machines of production and distribution
of all the necessities and needs of life will be owned, run and
controlled by and for the people — the working people whose
hands and brain and sweat and toil produce all wealth in the
first place and, under Socialism will enjoy the full fruits of
their toil. 2

A big order, and yet not so big if one keeps in mind the vast
wealth produced — but not shared by those who produce it. In
point of fact and a basic argument for Socialism NOW, most of
the key industries in our capitalist-way-of-life could be, and are
run by the workers themselves, with the socalled “‘owners”’
trecking tearfully to the banks to deposit their unearned loot,
or ‘‘vacationing”’ in some posh summer resort for six months
of their ‘“‘working’’ year. Socialism would put a definite finale
to this chronic parasitism which robs the working people of
_their birthright.

Now comes an interesting thought; how come an organiza-
tion claiming a modicum, or professing to be “‘socialist (or
declared by others to be ‘“‘socialist’’) never once lets out a peep
about Socialist ‘“‘aims’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘goals’’ or what have
you? Worse, spurns, rejects and reviles that one prime
essential which in itself is the one guarantee of the ultimate
victory of Socialism — unity of labor and the mass of the
common people, unity and more unity. This Garbo “‘I-want-to-
be-alone”’ attitude is one sure indicator that such people care
less about Socialism than Herr Gaglardi cared about destitute
welfare recipients.

Of course Socialism may not be on the ‘‘agenda’”’ in the
changing times of our assorted political (capitalist) Estab-
lishments, but that doesn’t warrant or condone a complete
blackout on the subject. And Socialism is not and will not be
attained by ‘‘sneaking’’ it into phoney legislation on some
“public ownership”’ scheme or other.

Not so long ago some of these socalled “socialist” organiza-
tions used to “‘point with pride’’ to examples of ‘‘socialism”’ in
New Zealand, Sweden, the Scandanavian countries etc. and so
forth. They preferred those rather than ‘‘pointing with pride’
to the MacDonalds, Attlees, Gaitskells, Wilsons et al of Old
Blightey, perhaps with good reason at that.

Moreover some of those same “‘socialist’’ organizations
oft used to cite the Canada Post Office, the Canadian National
Railways, the Polymer Rubber Company etc., etc., as fine
“examples”’ of Canadian ‘‘socialism”’, that very ‘‘special’’
kind set forth in the long discarded Regina Manifesto of the
CCF..Ask-your Jocal postman or your CNR rail worker how
they like such “‘socialism’’— then head for cover.

It may be that Socialism in Canada, that ‘‘idea whose time
has come”’ just isn’t here yet, but that’s a poor excuse for any
self-styled Socialist not to talk about, agitate, or otherwise
espouse the eause of socialism, morning, noon and night. How
any Socialist can engage in an election campaign in this day
and age and not mention one word about Socialism will ever
remain a mystery to this scribe. In fact ‘‘Labor”’ itself got
scant — if any mention at all, itself (despite all of its socalled
shortcomings) the leading ‘“‘school’’ of Socialism in every
country.

But people have been known to vote in their overwhelming
majority for ‘“‘change’’ and for Socialism as Lenin said,
“instinctively”’ so it could be that those Socialists who so care-
fully managed to skip lightly over the subject on the hustings,
may per adventure run smack into the issue in their new roles.
Yes sir, Socialism is today a mighty big question— and mighty
persistent. ha-= ‘

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1972—PAGE 2

Vancouver must have say
in city port development

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

Should the City of Vancouver
have a voice in how the port of
Vancouver is to be developed?

Personally I think we should
have more than just a voice— in
my opinion port development
should take place only with the
consent of the city. But at the
present time it appears that
we're not even consulted.

Ex-mayor William Rathie,
who was appointed by the
Liberal government as head of
the Vancouver Port Authority
as well as a member of the
National Harbours Board at
Ottawa, is proceeding with
filling in a two acre site in Coal
Harbour between Bute and
Burrard Streets without so much
as notifying City Council. In fact
he has been reluctant to even
discuss the matter.

He has refused to say why and
for what reason the site is being

filled in and for whom. But he
has stated, under pressure, that
he is acting in accordance with
an agreement signed in 1966
between the National Harbours
Board (read’ Liberal govern-
ment) and the C.P.R.

Rumour has it that the site is
for a heavy duty port facility,
namely a container terminal.
But apparently the agreement is
so secret that Rathie hasn’t even
informed the Vancouver Port
Authority (which is supposed to
make decisions about port
development) about it.

William Rathie is, of course,
not acting on his own whims. He
is regarded in business circles
as a C.P.R. man and not without
reason, I’m sure. He is carrying
out the wishes of a government
agency — The National Harbours
Board, that has always been
heavily influenced by the C.P.R.

The point I am raising at the
moment is not that of what this

particular site will be used for:
That can come later. What lam
arguing now is that neither
Rathie nor the C.P.R. nor the
National Harbours Board havé
any business going ahead with
this fill without discussing tt
first with City Council. AM
Council should see that this work
is stopped until the matter is dis
cussed.

If and when the C.P.R. outlines
its plans, then Council cam
discuss the advisability of them:

It should then be thrown open for

public hearings, because the
future of our waterfront is 10?
big a question to be left for
decision by Council or the C.P-8-
before the public has a chance
be heard.

Any decision on the future of
our port should in the fina
analysis be made by the citizens
of Vancouver, not by secté
deals between the feder@
government and the C.P.R.

——

Facts prove: profits not wages
to blame for high living costs

By JACK WARDEN

Wages are the convenient
wicked witeh in the propaganda
box of the food processors when
discussing increasing food
prices. The mass media are
quick to provide plenty of
column inches to emphasize this
point.

This past week W. Gaten
Weston of Loblaws Companies
Ltd., was quick to trot out this
argument when he said the retail
food industry was in turmoil and
transition and that rising labor
costs are outstripping produc-
tivity gains. He added this
howler: “‘The industry has found
it difficult to pass these costs on
to the consumer in the form of
increased prices.”

At the same time Charles
Gracy, of the Canadian
Cattlemen’s Association stated:
“Despite lower prices, many
retail chains have increased the
price of most beef cuts.’’ He
cited examples from three
major retail outlets in the
Toronto area where the average
price of beef cuts rose 5.3 and 6
percent and 8.1 percent
respectively since May 31st of
this year. In the same period the
farm gate price for slaughter
cattle had declined at least 8
percent. ‘‘Thus,’’ he said,
“retailers are paying substanti-
ally less for carcass beef, and
charging consumers substanti-
ally more for retail cuts.”’

Statistics Canada states the
latest food price increase was
the largest recorded between
July and August since the start
of the 1960’s. Yet, from good
authority, we learn that meat
prices to the producer has
declined and there has been no
wage increase in the same
period.

Donald Rumsfield, director of
the US Cost of Living Council,
stated recently there is no
precedent for the current gap
between wholesale beef prices
and the prices being charged by
most of the retail food industry.
He said the gap in August
between the carcass price of

REGISTER NOW!

Is your name on the voter’s
list for the city election this
fall?
phoning 666-3311, and it is
important to do so at once for
the deadline is September
21st. That’s right— Thursday,
September 2st!

Tenants will be left off the
lists in many cases unless
they take action on their own
to see they are registered.
The ‘Tenant’s Council says

You can check by]

“Do it now!”’

;
i. on :

beef and the retail price was JT
cents per pound compared W!
28.8 percent in August 1971.

j r dated
In their monthly lette Meat

admits that wages are 00 ye
percent higher in 1972 than des
were a year ago and this inclu

all wages, executive ‘0
manufacturing workers. Yeh

again quote Charles Grade
cattle prices have declined ae
5.3 percent to 8.1 percent 1owe®

See PROFITS, pg. 12__-

|

“FIGHT FOR PEACE, JOBS, INDEPENDENCE — FOR YOUR 445
reads a poster of the Young Communist League of Canade ‘yc!
being put up in public places all across the country.
determined to bring the issues facing youth into thec

election campaign.

uRE
i ich i

entre 2