Dialogue ‘67

at Western

By PHYLLIS CLARKE

HE campus of the University of
Western Ontario was the scene
last week of a new and excit-

ing exchange of views when Dia-
logue ’67 was presented by the Society
of Graduate Students.

The theme was “processes of social
change” and the participants included
both those who favor revolutionary
social change, those who feel that
some changes need to be made in the
fabric of our society and those who
favor the status quo.

All of these are necessary for mean-
ingful dialogue. The students are to be
highly commended for ensuring that
along with the Conservative, Liberal
and Social Democratic viewpoints,

there was Communist representation. -

In this connection Dialogue ’67 un-
doubtedly marks a first in English Can-
ada and helped to deepen the discus-
sion and debate.

(For those who are interested, tape
recordings of Dialogue ’67 will be
broadcast in the near future on radio
Station CJRT-FM (91.1) and 17 other
FM stations.)

The sessions were divided into two
dialogues and four panels. The former
were a Marxist-Christian dialogue and
Capitalist- Communist dialogue res-
pectfully. The panels dealt with the
role of the individual in the processes
of social change, the politics of social
change, automation, labor and social
change and students and social change.

Attendance varied, with most atten-
tion given to the politics panel and the
capitalist-communist dialogue. In addi-
tion to the students and faculty mem-
bers present a sprinkling of Londoners
and out-of-town guests participated.

What were some of the points of
view expressed?

The first dialogue brought together
the Communist historian Stanley Ryer-
son and Dr. Eduardo Casas, a Roman
Catholic professor of psychology at
the University of Ottawa.

In opening this session Ryerson
said: “At the heart of the Christian-
Marxist dialogue is the problem ‘of re-
lations between people, of the order-
ing of society in a time of tremendous
crisis for mankind.”

He went on: “Certainly, a radical
disagreement prevails between us at
the level of philosophy and theology;
and we must pay heed to it. But I sus-
pect that this disagreement would re-
main the concern of theologians and
philosophers, were it not for the state
of human emergency on the planet—
the unending massacre: of the in-
nocents in Vietnam, the crying needs
of hundreds of millions over the face
of the earth, the threat of thermonu-

clear extinction of the species—and:

the counter-challenge of new answers,
new patterns of social order, new prin-
ciples of society in the making.”
Ryerson asks: “Is Christian love
strong enough to transcend the dimen-
sion of concern for the salvation of the
individual soul (and first of all, one’s
own!)—so as to embrace community?
For it to do so would mean to do what
the churches in the main have not done
—that is not only look class society
and class power in the face, but break
with it, and cease using the name of

love to stay the revolt of the exploited
and oppressed.”

He concluded: ‘For Marxists, the
Christian protest and concern hold pro-
mise, not only of a possible intercom-
munication, but of common action in
the cause of peace and ultimately in
the building of that new ‘city of the
sun’ that was the dream of Thomas
More and Campanella, of Marx and
Owen and William Morris: the society
founded on common ownership of the
means of social labor and the creation
of the material conditions for the-flow-
ering of the spirit of man—no longer
darkened with hate, or shadowed by
any fear.”

Dr. Casas for his part in the dialogue
borrowed heavily on experiences in his
native Cuba. He pointed out that un-
der the Batista tyranny the overwhelm-
ing majority of Catholics were against
the regime, but that the tyrant was
supported by the hierarchy. After the
defeat of Batista, so long as the revo-
lution did not seem to affect the mid-
die class, there was support from the
Catholic community, which’ in the
main was the religion of the middle
class.

However, as the revolution pro-
gressed further and began to adopt po-
sitions that moved to socialism, the
Catholic community split between
those that placed anti-communism
ahead of concern for the well-being of
the Cuban people and thus moved to
counter-revolution and those who tried
to find their identity within the new
society. :

Pointing out that for over 100 years
the Church and Marxism have been
enemies, he welcomed the beginning of
exchanges of views. However, he said,
this has “not progressed to the point
of intellectual cooperation.”

He felt that while each remains faith-
ful to his position, dialogue ‘should
produce a receptive enrichment.”

Casas put forward the view that
Christians should actively participate
in all aspects of political life, ““Ques-
tions of peace and war, economic de-
velopment, social injustice claim our
attention,” he ‘said, “and Christians
and Marxists can find identity in the
present suffering in the universe.”

The second dialogue was between
Dr. G. Warren Nutter, economic ad-
visor to Barry Goldwater in his presi-
dential campaign, and U.S. Marxist
historian, Dr. Herbert Aptheker. In
Strict honesty one would really have to
describe this session as a debate, since,
unlike others, there seemed to be no
points of intersection of views.

Nutter may have been an unfortu-
nate choice for the purpose of this
event, since his conservative economic
views, which include reversion to 19th
century capitalism, did not fully ex-
press the reality of capitalism as it is
in America, and as liberal capitalist
enthusiasts would defend and uphold
it.

Nutter, as would be expected, saw
no grand design in history. He saw
dangers in the approach that progress
can come through governments. The
main way ahead from his view was
less restriction by government, free-

dom from arbitrary power. For him
there could not be a free society un-
less property were dispersed and
private. 3

Nutter said that he viewed the Octo-
ber Revolution as one of the great
backward steps in history. To him the
most pernicious ‘piece of American
legislation was the minimum wage law
since it deprived people of the impetus
of fighting to move ahead.

Dr. Aptheker for his part carefully
documented his view that capitalism
in the United States today does not
and cannot serve the interest of the
people, but only of a smaller and small-
er handful of big monopolists.

“Structurally the United States is
intensely monopoly capitalist,” he said,
“therefore dominant political priorities
in that country are generally anti-
human and outside the country are re-
gressive, aggressive and violent with
each reinforcing the other.” ;

Pointing out that throughout its his-
tory the United States has been a ra-
cist society which has infected every
sphere of U.S. life, Aptheker added,
“no meaningful social advance can be
possible in the United States without
it reflecting the centrality of the so-
called Negro question. No social ad-
vance can even be begun which does
not base itself on Negro-white unity
and does not comprehend that the
single most urgent domestic question
in the United States today is the termi-
nantion of the crucifiction of 20 million
black Americans.”

On the future of the United States,
Aptheker said:

“With the weaponry now in the pos-
session of the United States, with the
more terrible instruments of death now
on the drafting board, if there is to be
any future for the United States it will
have to be one that sheds the class rule
which has brought my nation to its
present nadir... A socialist society

. in the United States, building upon our

own finest traditions and the best in
the traditions and experience of other
peoples and having the collosal pro-
ductivity of the American plant, will
mean a community worthy of Benja-
min Franklin’s dream. uttered in the
midst of our great revolution in 1777;
‘our cause,’ said Franklin then, ‘is the
cause of all mankind.’ ”

Space doesn’t permit dealing with
all that was said by all the partici-
pants in the panels. However, atten-

_ tion should particularly be drawn to

the one on politics for the lively de-

‘bate that ensued between Minister of

External Affairs Paul Martin for the
Liberals, George Hees for the Conser-

meaningful political change ’

Gesrae Blumson (London
Members of the panel on Politics of Social Change chat during 4

vatives, New Democratic Pal
T. C. Dauglas and Tim Buck”
Communist Party. fh
In their prepared texts all 8
deal on the effects of the om
and scientific revolution
change that would result 4 i
quence. Whether these would
lutionary changes or not ¥
pend, as one panelist put i)
far people were prepared 10 >”
ting solutions into effect. gh
In this, the position of ™
who spelled out a program 7,
cal change to socialism wé§ 4
relief. As he said, “Now, J a
that there is not much evidely

place in Canada, or even 0! ’
agreement that such change ®.
But the deepening contra -
tween the social and_politi@
quo and the new possibilitie
pirations that grow out of
tionary advance of science ©
denied.” :
This panel also brought!
sharply a question which wa
ing the whole session, that bei
cetn of the audience about th
Vietnam. Martin had put fot
view that the world was 4 an
lage” and from the audienc®
the questions, “Why is Canty
ing silent diplomacy game
neighbor burns down huts at
village pond?” 0
This was neither the first re
time that concern over Viel
from the audience. In a sens? y)
of thinking of those present if
intensely moral questions th@
in Vietnam throws up. ie
As the dialogue proceeded ! {e
a pattern emerging of intens® d
about questions of humanis ‘he
nation, of the fullfillment °
vidual within a better society §
The dissatisfaction with "j
quo, the desire for extension 4
logue into fields of action W"y
indicated, the seriousness
panelists and audience mad@
"67 a useful exchange. yal
This perhaps helps to ex? ig
only the presence of Comm i
this dialogue, but also the y
in which they were receive@ 9
One felt on the broad ©
Western that in the seare sf
swers to social evils, the ar
participation in the decision iy
process of society, the vie pf
Communists that socialis™ (j
the solution is more and more f
become a central question
right across this country.

967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE— Padi