LPP PRE-CONVENTION DISCUSSION of support to American imperial- ism and its accomplices at Ottawa, and therefore, it cannot be consid- ered correct.” This evaluation of our mistake of January, 1948 still leaves consid- erable room for unclarity. It leaves the impression that our position, our tactic was correct in 1948, but that our slogan incorrectly ex- pressed our tactic, that our mistake consisted in our inability to put into words the correct tactic which we projected—which included our posi- tion of “fundamental opposition to the policy of the right wing leader- ship of the CCF.” To leave the ana- lysis of the mistake at that would be to fail to draw all the neces- sary lessons from our mistake. e Further examination of the Draft Resolution and comparison with the report to the National Commit- tee meeting of January 1948, “Keep Canada Independent” reveal some very important differences of for- - mulation which lie at the heart of any discussion of the mistake. In the summary of the report “Keep Canada Independent” we read, “It must be admitted that the agents of finance-capital have found allies and servants among sections of the leadership of social democracy in Eusepe.” (P. 7). There is no men- tion in this section of the role of _ right-wing Social Democracy” in Canada. Later, on (P. 14), after stating that we have no illusion that the election of a CCF govern- ment will by itself be a guarantee against fascism and war and that we do not “endorse the policies or all the proposals of the CCF”; aft- er we point out that “It is quite possible that some CCF leaders may choose to denounce the idea of labor and democratic unity at _ the polls,’ the report somewhat _ airily dismisses the influence and role of rightwing social democracy with the words: “The election tac- tics. of the labor movement can- mot be made dependent upon the attitudes of such elements.” _ Contrast this with the forthright position taken in the Draft Resolu- tion in a section (Section VIII) - not dealing with the mistake: “The main reason the war-makers have not been defeated and repudiated by labor and its democratic allies, is the confusion, misrepresentation _ and division fostered by rightwing social democrats in the labor move- ment. On all fundamental issues _ vightwing social democrats—includ- - ing the CCF—are in the same camp with the avowedly imperialist poli- ticians . ..” ust such a thesis was _Jacking.in.the report to the Na- tional Committee meeting of Janu- ary» 1948—at least when referring to the CCF in Canada—whose leaders, incidentally, are not iden- tified in the report as the Cana- dian counterpart of European rightwing social democracy. Qn the other hand, the Draft - Resolution (in Section X) tends to justify the mistake as follows: “The _ content of the electoral policy By SAM WALSH Was slogan all that was wrong? HE Draft Resolution of the NEC states that “instead of strengthening our struggle for unity with the leftward moving masses who are turning away from the two old parties, the slogan ‘Elect a CCF Government’ actually tended to prevent development of a correct struggle for such unity. and obscured our position of fundamental opposition to the policy of the nghtwing leadership of the CCF, It obstructed which that slogan (Unite at the Polls—Elect a CCF government) was intended to express was: unity against the old-line parties, in sup- port of the CCF, as a means to de- veloping labor and people’s unity against reaction.” This then was the tactic, the policy, including “support the CCF,” at a time when every other Marxist party was fighting for unity of the working elass in clear opposition- to the rightwing social democrats—label- ling them correctly as agents of the bourgeosie in the ranks of the working class. The mistake, then, was not simp- ly one of bad formulation of a slo- gan, but was due to weakening be- fore bourgeois and social demo- cratic pressure and attacks from Without and within the labor move- ment. The mistake was a right op- portunist error in which the writer fully, even enthusiastically, shared. The problem we were (and are still) faced with is the attempt to isolate our Party from the masses of progressives, mainly CCF-sup- porting, workers on the part of the bourgeosie and their agents in the labor movement, and that they were making some headway. Fur- thermore, it had seemed to many of us, including the writer, that for some time we had been pursuing a policy towards the CCF which un- necessarily alienated ourselves from the supporters and rank-and- file members of the CCF and that we needed to change to a policy which would help to break down the barriers. The mistake of the writer was to disregard the warning of the Nine- Party Conference which correctly appraised the role of rightwing social democracy—fail- ure to understand its significance for Canada and in Canada, ing enthusiastic support for a tactic which, while it stretched out a friendly hand to CCF sup- porters, slurred over the treach- erous role of the leadership of the CCF as the agents of big business in the labor movement. eo One small example of this same tendency can be shown from the experience in Ward 4, Toronto, -in the Board of Education election campaign leading up to January 1, 1948 before the National Commit- tee meeting. The CCF candidate, Orliffe, did not hesitate to red-bait profusely, but in the interests of “unity” and the traditional “gentle- manly” campaign for the Board of Education, the writer, who was also a candidate, didn't really “join battle” with Orliffe. This mistake will be sharply corrected in the current campaign. The general slogan: “Defeat the parties of big business and their agents in the labor movement! Elect fighters for peace, economic security and Canadian independ- ence!” is a correct and realistic slogan which reflects a correct and realistic tactic. No concessions are : May the World Soon Be Able to Rejoice © withthe People of Spainat a Xmas Without Franco VETERANS OF MacKENZIE-PAPINEAU Compliments of the-Season to All Readers! from given to the supporters of the im- eae hae ba baer bear bar be bee be her he be) ber bar bar * MR VRAR RRR 7 | perialist Marshall Plan in the labor movement; our call for unity is ‘directed against them as well as against the recognized spokesmen for big business. The slogan is realistic because *it does‘ not call upon the left-wing of the labor movement to extend itself beyond _its present strength—to go for gov- ‘ernment—but points the way to progress towards achieving a farm- er-labor government. The party in _Toronto will concentrate every ounce of political and organiza- ; tional energy to elect Comrade {Buck to the House of Commons ‘from Trinity Riding. Comrade :Buck’s election will make a quali: tative difference in Canadian poli- tical life, in the struggle for united ‘etion for peace and independence In order to arm ourselves thor- oughly for the fight for united ac- |tion in the coming economic, poli- | tical and electoral battles, we need complete clarity on our united front | tactic successfully in the teeth of and opposed to the rightwing of social democracy—winning support and united action for a genuine program for peace and independ- ence, for the immediate needs of the people against the treacherous policies of the rightwing of social democracy. However vitally import- ant the correct wording of slogans is, the main lessons to be drawn should help us to avoid making right opportunist errors in the struggle for unity. lear lead should deal with these forces. to help us impede their betrayal Canadian forces. As Comrade Sam Walsh has pointed out, the evaluation of “our mistake of January 1948, still leaves considerable room for unelarity.” Elaborating, Comrade Walsh cor- rectly underscores the lack of crit- icism in the resolution, which I be- lieve contributes greatly to the lack of clarity on the tactic we must pursue in order to isolate the right- wing social democrats from the Canadian people. A major aspect of the dangerous position of the right-wing elements in the CCF was clearly shown ‘during the recent convention of the Canadian Congress of Labor. It was proven then that the right- wing social democrats were not an “undecisive force” and were above “swaying by the democratic upsurge.” They were exposed for all time as completely ruthless and without any regard for their own movement, for the grass roots of the labor movement, or for any sec- tion of the Canadian working class. The Millard-Conroy machine and wire-pulling Mosher showed their hand completely. The great lesson we did learn from this convention was that without the machine they were shells. And even within were many delegates who would not vote with the leadership. The fact re- recall that in discussmg a_ slogan, followers of the CCF movement and disallow effacement of independent LPP positions—many were worried that a slogan calling to “Unite at the Polls, Defeat the old line par- ties,” is too negative, that it does not convey a positive message. Yes, it may be true that such a call has a negative ring about it. However, a slogan must very con- cisely reflect the need of the day and that is, indeed, the need of the day, namely, to administer de- feats to Big Business, if peace, de- mocracy and the road to progress is to be kept open. It is no use rais- ing misleading or illusory slogans when the conditions all around us are such that this task becomes primary. The so-called negative el- ement would cease to be negative the moment its realization would take shape. When we state in our resolution the reasons the slogan adopted at the beginning of the year cannot be considered correct at this time, I think we must also point out that at that time we were anxious to indicate an avenue through which people who were opposed to the old line parties, opposed to war, opposed to red-baiting, opposed to capitulation to Wall Street, can give expression to such opposition. It would now be misleading to resort to this avenue without qualifica- followers of the CCF movement and tions, when the position taken on these vital issues by so many right- wing CCF candidates is in direct opposition to the needs and inter- ests of the working people. e In connection with the whole question of unity with CCF mem- bers and supporters, dealt with in section X, I think -the resolution suffers from a lack of concrete- ness; of positive proposals which can be applied within the labor movement. In order to implement the idea of unity with CCF mem- bers and supporters, I believe it would be necessary to bring forth a definite minimum program, which shall serve as a basis for LATRE joint action whenever and where- Seeks minimum program for CCF-LPP action By MUNI TAUB HAVE very carefully read the Party Draft Resolution and was pleased with its content, its uncompromising and fighting spirit.~ I replacing that of “Elect a CCF Government,”” which shall maintain both &n open door to unity with ever such unity does in fact ‘take shape. Such minimum program can revolve around: e Fight specific and direct detri- mental effects’ of Marshall and Ab- bott Plans; hs @ Keep out every alien political issue injected by Big Business into unions which distract from imme- diate action on common problems; e@ Endorsation to all labor can- didates in the community, partic- ularly where transfer of votes can defeat Big Business candidates; @ United campaigns against high prices; for social security measures; higher unemployment in- surance, etc. e@ A joint struggle for a pat- tern re wage increases in the in- dustry or community concerned. Other specific issues of a given locality could be added. There is nothing in such a pro- gram that presupposes that CCF- ers or LLP’ers would have to break with their parties in order to par- ticipate. It is a program upon which they can unite \for concrete joint action. In regard to the section on the farmers’ movement, we state that we are against the attempts of rich farmers transforming that movement into an instrument for the Jiberal-Tory machines. But the program presented is so gener- al and all-embracing that there is little differentiation between rich and poor farmers on the country- side. We cannot be:satisfied with general demands or with general rights for all farmers. We should rather become the spokesmen for the poorer and middle-class far- mers and their particular griev- ances and interests. PDB BiB BB BD SB BB BB DPB DD DD BBR MAT DIS FONG—TAILOR HIGH TOP PANTS MADE TO MEASURE MEN’S FURNISHINGS - No. 7 Ww. LAI PRP bate baer bye beer br PACIFIC ight anti- By DAVID BRUCE complete destruction of these anti-, TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 24, needed to labor evil —TORONTO HILE the Draft Resolution exposes the betrayal of the right- wing social democrats, it‘still remains confused as to how we It does not give the leadership required immediately and lay the basis for ‘mains, however, the right-wing so- sial democrats were far from an “undecisive force” at that conven- tion. By the same token it should be pointed out that they have con- tributed a great deal to the con- fusion and stalemating of the peo- ple’s objectives since last January, both in the trade union movement and the broader aspects of Cana- dian political life. They were not a year ago, even as they are not now “an “undecisive force.” e In ‘sections 2, 4 and 5, of Part XVI, “The Fight for the Party» only passing reference has been given to the need for strengthen- ing our work on both the public and internal fronts. The weaknes- ses of both these cannot be traced simply to a question of educational work in our Party, a simplification that occurs time and again in our criticism on this score and is one that has been brought out in the discussion. This position is used by many of us to absolve ourselves of our own responsibility for bureau- cratic methods and sloppy work, the real roots of the problem. The lack of educational work, or even the desire to come and “be educat- ed” is, an expression of the real malady. The lack of self criticism and lack of confidence in the Party work- ing both from the top and the bot- tom, is becoming more and more evident. ‘There must be sharp crit- icism of this situation in the draft resolution and at the nationa} con- vention. We are still fighting remnants of Browderism in our Party, but not nearly hard enough, because of the lack of criticism of this period. How can we allow this sit- uation to exist, particularly after our own experiences during the period? The main mistake then was to believe that we along with the bourgeoise could postpone the cy- clical crisis, the basic character- istic of capitalism. Our national committee, our clubs, our whole Party endorsed that idea, What a colossal errer in the light of recent history? ' Again we draw attention to the “overwhelming support” given by our Party to the slogan “Elect a CCF Government.” We cannot con- tinue to overwhelmingly endorse anything without sharp examina- tion and criticism. It was the lack of criticism at that time which allowed us to support that proposal and allowed the national executive to make it in the first place. e i A worse aspect of this period was the way in which the new tactic was put in action. Certain features of the slogan were adopt- ed in the civic elections before the decision had been fully understood by Party members or even dis- cussed, members who were expect- ed to carry out work arising from this tactic. We worked to elect CCF candidates in the Toronto muicipal elections who were known for their opportunist right-wing records. Dis- cussion was inadequate and excus- ed in the name of a time shortage and the election. No election can be important enough to allow by-passing of the democratic procedure of our Party. Our approach then was typical of our methods of recent hitsory. A pattern of deadlines is becoming more evident in our Party work. More exhaustive criticism of our past policies should be made. Clear- ly enunciated leadership must be given by the national executive and all other leading levels of the | Party which will encourage this cziticism at every level and stage of our work, PENDER 1948 — PAGE 6 .