mR EIN ‘) AN EVALUA TION F THE RECENT NDP PARLEY By BEN SWANKEY t least two important new de- | velopments marked the third anual convention of the NDP Ss in Burnaby November 16, oh One was the emergence of a Strong and vocal left wing soc- lalist grouping calling itself the | NDP Socialist Caucus’. The | Other was a bitter and heated de- bate over electoral policies pur- Sued by the right wing leader-: Ship which saw that policy | Severely criticized, and resulted in the convention adopting ‘‘dem- | cratic socialism’’ ~ as _ its | Ultimate objective. : In their reports to the con- |} Vention, the provincial officers |} Made it abundantly clear that _ they were entirely satisfied with | the policies and tactics pursued | in the September 30 provincial €lection campaign. Labelled as ‘‘soft-sell’’ by op- _ Ponents and proponents alike, | these policies had been the sub- |} Ject of much criticism follow- ing the elections both inside and Outside the party. |. The essential features of this Policy were: A. No attack on the Social Credit government and its sell- Out of B.C.’s resources to for- Sign interests; no program of re- _ Patriating these resources; no Program for the development of basic and secondary industries; Tefusal to endorse the McNaught- | plan for the development of the Power potential of the Columbia iver; avoidance of the peace Ssue, B. Instead of the above, the &mphasis was placed on points ike medicare and car insurance, - Westions that did not threaten the profits of the big U.S. and anadian corporations that con- Tol B.C.’s economy. These pol- —Ieies sought to create a public _ ‘Mage of the party and its pro- Vincial leader as being ‘‘respect- — 8ble’? and ‘responsible’, who Could pe depended on to spurn a Tadical demands emanating ©m labor or from socialists Within the party. ‘Socialist caucus’ 5 ke €se policies came under at- k at the convention, especially Tom the members and sup- crters of the “Socialist eau. This broad grouping the left and center wanted a NDP to stand for socialism, . 2dopt more militant policies oN develope closer ties. with rr : ae the support of at least Wane” of the voting delegates, € it did define its own con- Q of socialism to convention an ates, it did not spell out er ecto al program that could : i as an alternative program Sty he “soft - sell’ of the chan leadership. _ E the ing from the discussion E the Majority of delegates felt that Por oe weakness in the eleet- 4 4 OE, Ben cies of the NDP was its Quten to embrace socialism. It When Y became apparent that Tacy Vancouver Sun columnist Scott publigly criticized leader Robert Strachan for é © away from socialism, he |. Speaking for wide sections P members and a consid- & Section of the leadership. Sh LS rat ied -Doctors Om SERRATE Ie tle et oa The recent NDP convention has created wide discussion in B.C. Where is the NDP going and how can it be built into a genuine alter- native to the Socreds in B.C. politics? What is needed in the way of policy? These are some of the q article. The PT invites its reade vestions aired in this discussion rs to join in this discussion bywriting bated before the convention, and 14 different resolutions submit- ted to the gathering called for socialism. A substitute resolution brought in by the Conventions Committee on Policy said the NDP ‘‘will work to elect agovernment pledg- ed to the development of demo- cratically administered institu- tions in order to bring under public ownership or control our natural resouces and our basic industries.’’ Policy difference This resolution was angrily opposed on the convention floor by Robert Strachan and Tom Berger and enthusiastically sup- ported by many. Anticipating it, Robert Strachan earlier in his report had labelled as *‘the reac- tionaries of the NDP’? those who wanted the party to *freturn to the concept of socialism’’. (For this statement he had been booed). After a heated debate the dele- gates adopted this resolution, as a preamble to the party’s con- stitution, by an overwhelming majority. It was a decided de- feat for Strachan and Berger. But will this reolution, by it- self, bring the changes that so many NDP members want? Will it contribute to changing the Strachan ‘‘soft-sell’’ policies, especially when the convention voted the same leadership back into office? It should be said first of all that there is a decided difference of opinion even within the NDP as to what constitutes socialism., The ‘‘Socialist Caucus’’ de- fined its conception of socialism as follows: = = **Essentially we offer the prop- osition that welfare programs, while good in themselves, are no solution to the major problems which confront us today; neither can they be adequately supported by any form of planned economy based on managed capitalism. Our duty as socialists is to urge social ownership of the natural resources and means of produc- tion as the only practical econ- omic basis upon which to build a new society.’’ The resolution adopted by the convention makes no such clear definition. It speaks of ‘*public ownership or control’? and ‘‘soc- ial ownership or administra- tion.’’ How can you have control or administration without owner- ship? It is the ownership of the industries and resources that gives the monopolies the power they have, and they will keep it as long as they keep the owner- ship. But apparently most NDP leaders think otherwise. It was at this same convention that national NDP leader T.C. Douglas spoke in glowing terms of the ‘‘democratic socialism’’ of Sweden and West Germany, two countries that are as much under the control of monopolies as is Canada, _ Furthermore Robert Strachan said in his report to the con- vention that the way to trans- late into reality the old phrase of ‘fan end to the exploitation of man by man”’ is to bring *‘equal- ity as well as responsibility to labor’’ by the-adoption of NDP proposals for a better Hours of Work Act, Minimum Wage Act and Workmen’s Act. As to the limited and very general economic development proposals which he advanced in the election campaign, he said that they ‘‘are a realistic interp- retation of the old phrase ‘pro- Compensation > _ Whither NDP in B.C.? duction for use and not for prof- It It is obvious that many NDP leaders consider public owner- ship under capitalism or even reforms such as medicare the same thing as socialism. Of course they aren’t. Socialism means public ownership of the ba- sic means of production plus working class control of the state, The NDP today advocates neither of these. Program for left Aside from all this however, the adoption ef a resolution on ‘democratic socialism’’ still leaves unsolved the whole ques- tion of how to apply socialist principles in an election plat- form, in electoral tactics and in everyday politics. Robert Strachan, Tom Berger and other NDP leaders have made it very clear that they believe in and will continue to follow the same sort of policies they followed in the September 30 elections. They insist that this is a realistic application of the principles of socialism to the realities of the modern world, Convention endorsation of‘*dem- ocratic socialism’’, despite their objections, is unlikely to cause them to change their policies or tactics. : It would seem, therefore, that it is necessary for those on the NDP who want changes to come See NDP, pg. 6 Doctors need There is widespread criticism of B.C. doctors over the projected six per cent increase in fees due to go into effect in January. The trade unions of the province have an- nounced their intention to fight the increase. This article gives a na- tional picture of the problem. By STAN LYNN hree recent unflattering self- portraits should force Cana- da’s medical doctors to sit up and take stock of themselves. Surely they’re not as bad as they look from the public point of view? The bluntest description of all came from a Hamilton, Ontario general practitioner who said the medical profession is hood- winking the public about govern- ment- sponsored medical pro- grams. : Dr. William Howe (NDP, Ham- ilton South) recently told the Commons that he was almost ashamed to admit he was a medi- cal doctor after seeing some of ‘the letters written by Saskatch- ewan doctors about that prov- ince’s medicare plan. The doctors, he said, ‘‘can’t manipulate statistics forever. and medical bodies should stop hoodwinking the public.’’ He added that medical asso-— ciations have given the impres- sion that all doctors are opposed to government if@dical insurance. The propaganda is so strong that doctors who believe in medicare ‘tare afraid to go against this norm ... and say what they truly believe.” Howe mitigates his blunt pic- ture slightly when he says itis a ‘‘false impression’’ that the medical. associations truly rep- resent the feelings of their mem- bers, They rather express ‘‘their own feelings.”’ Widespread ignorance andfear about medicare ‘‘prompted the Ontario Medical Association to produce a small booklet entitled, ‘Doctor, What About Medicare’ ?”’ Circulated to all the province’s doctors, the booklet ‘‘is full of propaganda against government- sponsored plans,” and is avail- able at a slight cost for putting into doctor’s waiting rooms ‘‘so that this propaganda would spread even further.’’ The Hamilton general practi- tioner said that no private medi- cal plan in Canada, including’ those run by the medical asso- ciations, gives adequate care, He stocktaking added that the private schemes are riddled with escape hatches to prevent companies from being saddled with heavy expenses. * * * The second revealing look at the medical profession came from the national revenue de- partment in Ottawa. Its-calcula- tions showed that in 1961, as previously, the medical profess- ion formed Canada’s highest in- come earners—with an average of $17,006. This was their fourth straight year at the top. Following close behind, after lawyers and engin- eers, were the dentists. Next time you. get socked in the jaw with a big dentist bill, think of a letter from a Mont- workers, — real dentist, published in the Nov. 30 Financial Post, This dentist apparently made so much taxable income that he could afford to work ‘‘only three and a half days in my dental office because our inequitable and antiquated tax system would penalize me if I did not take half of my week at leisure.’’ The final sickening look at the profession came out of a public hearing before the Ontario Com- mittee on Taxation, where, as reported by Lex Schrag of the Globe and Mail, ‘‘patients should pay more and doetors should pay less, the Ontario Medical Association urged’’ in its brief, What the doctors proposed is a daily surcharge for patients in hospital, to reduce the over- utilization of hospitals by those who want to get their money’s worth out of hospital insurance. (Of course these charges would only. be levied on those econo- mically able to pay, the assocta- tion hastened to add). On the other hand, the asso- © ciation asked that doctors be allowed to pay income ¢ax on five-year averages of income, rather than on each cerrent year’s income. The probable effect would be to lower the amount of taxes paid by doctors. For example, tf a worker, un- employed for a significant time in any two-year period, could calculate his tax for the two- year period instead of a year, he might end up paying no taxes at all, Unfortunately, the OMA‘s proposal is for doctors, not for