What’s happenin in the CCF? 66"T"HERE has been a’ notable absence of any effective and concerted presentation of posi- tive socialist ideas. Instead, there has been a growing tendency to make common cause with the Liberals, until by the time the election rolled around both Liberals and Conservatives were in the happy position of being able to dismiss the CCF as mere ‘Liberals in a hurry. “This tragic and ludicrous position has not been atiained overnight. It is the result of a long series of compromises, a whole catalogue of delicate eva- sions, of careful efforts to appease and placate various elements in our society.”—Colin Cameron in the CCF News (Vancouver), July 6. “The ‘voice of the people’ was heard very distinct- ly on June 27. Whether it was an ‘intelligent voice’ is open to question . . . All it proves is that the little man with the vote, the man who elects parties and defeats them, is as gullible as ever.”—Hon. C. M. Fines, CCF provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, in The Commonwealth (Regina), July 6. “We failed ... to build the broader, deeper understanding of our policies which alone would have withstood the tide of negative anti-Drew sentiment which swept the Liberals back into power in increased numbers.” —Editorial, The Commonwealth, July 6. “All that is required is some dynamic leadership on the part of those who have been charged with the responsibility of government. I can assure the Dom- inion government that we in Saskatchewan are pre- pared to do our full share in cooperating with them in the implementing of these socially useful and econ- omically necessary undertakings, and I want to warn the government at Ottawa that further delay may be dangerous to the future economic stability of Western Canada.”—Premier T. C. Douglas, The Common- wealth, July 6. : “However, we wish the new government well, and _ we sincerely hopé that it will proceed to enact the numerous benefits that have been promised to alleviate the lot of the common man.”’—Editorial, The Com- monwealth, June 29. Ze e 66W0U money and takes your choice!” These coninaiiend oe soul by CCF spokesmen give an idea of the chagrin and sour- grapes philosophizing which permeates the official cir- cles of the CCF these days. They range all the way from a doleful forecast by Premier T.C. Douglas of Saskatchewan about the effects upon prairie economy of the collapse of the Marshall plan (‘So far our export trade has been maintained very largely by ERP dollars under the Marshall plan. These dollars are becoming less and less available . . . it (means) that it is going to be more difficult to sell wheat . . -""); to speculations as to what the effect of the outlawing of the Labor- Progressive party would have on CCF fortunes: “There are great and perilous difficulties involved in declaring the Communist party illegal, but at least such a procedure would put all suspected .people” (these are said earlier to be liberals “who hardly know what to say’—L.M.) “to some extent under the democratic guarantees of personal security and / By LESLIE MORRIS presumption of innocence prior to legally proven guilt.” —Editorial, The Canadian Forum, July. Such rumblings, for all Colin Cameron’s criticism portrays the growth in the top circles of the CCF of a stiffer and more enthusiastic pogrom against the “‘left-wingers’” in the party: They are also an acknowledgment of fear of rank-and-file revolt within the CCF in that they are an attempt to head it off. While Douglas, with his tongue in his cheek, tells Saskatchewan farmers that the CCF-approved Mar- shall plan won't save them, the Manitoba convention of the CCF, carrying out orders from above, expels two members of the provincial legislature for daring to criticize the support given to the. Marshall plan - Atlantic pact strategy of U.S, trusts! Words, and deeds! © The most important of the articles to appear so far is by Colin Cameron, former MLA-and a provincial vice-president of the CCF in British Columbia. Cam- eron takes a page of the CCF News to analyze the election results. He rejects the glib explanations usual- ly given by CCF spokesmen for the defeat of the CCF in the B.C. provincial election, and shortly afterwards in the Dominion contest. He declares that it was not the criticism of the Atlantic pact in the C. section which was responsible, as Coldwell main- tains, and points out that when J. S. Woodsworth “denounced the war and dissociated himself from CCF war policy” Cin -1939) the CCF vote in B.C. did not decrease, but gains were made. He will not, either, accept the “prosperity” theory of the decline of the CCF vote, pointing out that people were pros- perous also in 194] and 1945 when the CCF made gains. Cameron declares: ‘‘We shall have to look farther back than the election campaign uself if we are to find the answer to our riddle. It is true enough that our organization was poor and weak, and that aston- ishing and inexcusable blunders were made in_ the mechanical details of the campaign. But back of that poor organization lay something much more ser- tous—a deterioration in the morale of the CCF.” That is the nearest approach to concrete self-critical examination that has been made by any member of the leadership of the CCF so far. As a public effect of false policies upon the CCF it will be welcomed by all who are genuinely motivated by the ideal of socialism. We must emphasize, it opens up the whole question of the political and moral content of CCF policies and is therefore to be welcomed, Cameron’s Present approach will not lead to the elimination of the evils which he deplores be- cause he does not grapple with those evils—only with their effects. In putting alternatives before his party Cameron does not go into matters of struggle and policy against the present capitalist program, Does he cut himself ‘aw. fr Atlantic pact? Heed, HPror or the Will he take the stand of F i Manitoba CCF? (See page 9.) /iPPing of the Does he come to the defense of the a] leyko and Richards of Manitoba Soe ee fight against pro-capitalist policy? Does condemn Coldwell’s abandonment of the Regina Manifesto in connection with involving the F in wars for the defense of Capitalism, or the repudiation even of the timid and mild policy of nationalization put forward in the Manifesto? Does Cameron publicly condemn ; iti of the CCF, or the shameful cea sre staas gies Uphill, the veteran labor member for Fernie, by run- ~ ning a CCF candidate against him? Does he break with the anti-Soviet record of . CCF? y ever, that while - In short, does Cameron, for all his ap} “criticism’’ and “independence of mind place for the consideration of CCF memb native policy of struggle, the essence of be socialist in that it would take the workel path of socialist experience? © ; Unfortunately Cameron does none of ne He takes refuge in “socialism in the a He says: “What a few years ago was crusade driving right to the heart of the ec |: social ills of our age has become a mere politi engaged in clever footwork to outwit our Ol “Instead of bending every effort: to th presentation of truth, however unpalatable, men have fallen into the disastrous and imn of trying to please. ° “More damning than any position on the Atlantic pact, more suicidal than any singing ” ‘Red Flag’ (notice how ‘‘non-committal’” Cam® here—L.M.) has been the gentle, piecemeal ment of socialist ideals and and principles W! finally resulted in the CCF being held up to ie as the lackey of the Liberal party.” This is stinging criticism, and well-merited it falls short of what is required if the suppome” | the CCF are to be given effective Jeadersh! struggle. That fatal weakness of evading the things count by taking shelter in phrasy abstracy shown in Cameron’s dismissal of the North pact as inconsequential in the light of the 2 going back to “socialist ideals”, What are socialist ideals, Colin Cameron? Opposition to the united front of imperialism socialism and against the colonial revolutio! that the very essence of the socialist ideal? can call himself a socialist who rejects the fight against imperialism——in this particular TW fight against the world domination schemes me Street, which the CCF leadership endorses- There is small doubt that Clement Attlee Chifley, prime ministers of Britain and Austral if they lived in Canada, would be membels CCF, “‘justify” the use of troops to break sum” © invoking the “ideal’’ of “‘socialism’’. Many crimes have been committed in the ™ “socialism’’, and not the least of these is the ‘ of the practical struggle by hiding behind Ie to that noble word. cp No, Colin Cameron. Your article, pro it is in the sense that it takes up a discussi policy in a critical vein, does not do the job- as a safety-valve, not a call to action. You say: ; ’ : “The set-back of 1949 may yet prove a” disguise if it results in discrediting those inj the CCF which for some years have been genlld ing us down the primrose path of respectabill? caution. — : a “The most disastrous result of these electt¢ inl be for the CCF to be stampeded in its tur? oe more caution, still further attempts to placate list im our society who will never accept the tal no matter how the pill be sweetened. i _ “That way lies complete oblivion.” is In all seriousness, Colin Cameron, these # words, 4 : ae For example, the qualities you criticiZé Pye article (caution, practicality, clever footwo! es ¢0 liamentary work, etc.) are not in themselY a condemned. ‘ What working class party 15 "4, the need for exercising tactics and constantly. them to achieve its main strategy? phe C% Tt all depends who you are fighting. "its eadership is not fighting anybody; it saute PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 29, 1949-PAGE "