Bryan Palmer, Ontario, writes: Polemics
are supposed to draw blood. To judge
from Fred Wilson’s review of my book,
Solidarity: The Rise and Fall of an Oppo-
sition in British Columbia (No history,
just a diatribe on Solidarity, Pacific Trib-
une, March 4, 1987), that text opened up a
few Communist Party veins.

I won't bother to respond to the way the
review is structured around a trite per-
sonal assault. Nor are the reviewer’s sug-
gestions that the book is an attack on trade
unions and working people or that I depict
the issue of Solidarity as “Jack Munro,
Mike Kramer and Art Kube as being a
rotten revolutionaary vanguard” worth
addressing seriously. Anyone who reads
the book knows how ridiculous and idiotic
such charges are. But then the CP does not
want people to read.

It is worth my time, however, to make
two points. First, Wilson and the CP he
writes for may well like to forget what
position they took after the Kelowna ter-
mination of Solidarity. But it is the busi-
ness of communists, among other things,
to remember what happened in the past
because it is often informative about what
to do and what not to do in the present, as
well as being a guide to what can happen
in the future. Immediately following the
Sunday-night Munro-Bennett handshake,
the Pacific Tribune (November 16, 1983),
under a front-page headline, “Focus shifts
but fight over bills not settled,” declared:
“The public sector strike has been called
off, and with a limited victory (my empha-

| sis) in hand Operation Solidarity and the

Solidarity Coalition must now turn their
attention to a political process to fight out
their social and political demands.” Since
Wilson himself wrote this tripe, his cynical
denial of it three years later is all the more
galling. For some in politics, short memo-
ries are a great convenience. Second,
George Hewison also appears to want to

take advantage of what seems to be a CP ~

affliction — memory lapse. Given the
statements he made to me I can under-
stand his embarrassment and his desire to
repudiate the arguments and statements
that appear as quotes in my book. But
there is no denying that he made them. My
conversation with Hewison-took place in
Toronto during the summer of 1985 and
was, with Hewison’s consent, tape
recorded. The quotes are thus not “appar-

TRIBUNE NOVEMBER 16, 1983...
more to the story than the lead paragraph.

ently based on an interview,” as Wilson
states with deliberate ambiguity, but are
taken exactly from the statements Hewi-
son made to me, easily verified by the tape
in my possesion.

During the 1983 upheaval in British
Columbia, the CP functioned, as I argue in
Solidarity, as nothing more than a butler
for the bureaucracy, as yet another variant
of reformism. It now adorns its review of
my book with a picture of Art Kube
addressing a Solidarity crowd, neglecting
to add one solitary word of criticism of
Kube and the movement’s defeat. It
avoids, as well, any mention of the New
Democratic Party and its sorry record dur-

Sey, AN
8 sero iN
found pan Oeste
RUNS ty hg See Peat oe
we

ing the Solidarity summer and fall, a
record my book explores.

No wonder Wilson and the CP don’t
want my book to “be purchased, read or
debated by the left.” They'd prefer to burn
books like Solidarity, rather than allow
people to argue about them and draw out
the kinds of political conclusions needed if
defeats like Solidarity are not to be forced
on the working class yet again. For if they
don’t suppress critical histories such as my
study, there is always the possibility that
the Stalinist school of falsification will end
up with fewer students.

Yours for the rebirth of the fourth
international.

...andaresponse from Fred Wilson

Fred Wilson replies: As he has done
through much of his book, Palmer again
quotes selectively to make his point. I did
say there was a “limited victory” in the
comment I wrote Nov. 13, 1983. And
there was indeed a limited victory
achieved: public sector unions were able to
negotiate exemptions to Bill 3 (which
would have allowed employers to fire
workers without cause) and the B.C.
Government Employees Union was able
to sign a no-concessions agreement.
Neither would have been possible without
the job action launched by Solidarity.

But if Palmer had continued reading the
article in that Nov. 13 issue, he would have
seen that | made some additional remarks
about the Kelowna accord, remarks that
were intended both to register criticism
and to point in the direction of future
struggle. For example:

“But the strike action has terminated

short of concrete accomplishments to
meet the demands of the Solidarity Coali-
tion for the withdrawal of the legislation
introduced to implement the Social Credit
budget ...

“The short-lived strike did reveal weak-
nesses in Operation Solidarity’s battle
plan which indicated that its leadership
was not prepared for the social conflict
that would have been required to actually
win on social or economic policy. While
the threat of charges were responded to by
threats of escalating industrial action and
even a general strike, there was no actual
plan to deal with the rash of court actions
and injunctions against teachers. And
when the government and media resorted
to anti-union hysteria, the massive public
relations campaign needed by Operation
Solidarity was nowhere in sight. Most
important, massive public demonstrations
were needed to focus the outstanding pub-
lic support that was there for the strikers,

but these actions were never even consi-
dered.”

Finally, I wrote: “The dramatic conflict
of the past weeks has been a vivid por-
trayal of class conflict at it highest level. It
is unfortunate that the leadership of the
labor movement at this juncture was
unable to see in the developing situation
the opportunity not just to return B.C. to

before July 7 when the budget was

brought down, but to bring about the pol-
itical defeat of the government and to
change fundamentally the political direc-
tion of the province. But that lesson will
not be lost on thousands of trade unionists
who will be looking ahead for class con-
scious leadership prepared to address the
fundamental issues, not least that of
government.”

Four years later, I think those com-
ments still have validity, particularly at a
time the labor movement is again in a
battle to preserve fundamental democratic
rights.

Race track
. proposal —

10 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 22, 1987

a bad bet

Eunice Parker, alderman, district of Coq-
uitlam, writes: The Colony Farm race track
proposal amounts to a lot of horse manurev
And, to land preservationists and like-
minded citizens, it smells like it.

The promoters claim to have the ear =
and the approval, if the financing can be
assured — of the provincial government. If
they can be taken seriously, their proposal
means the conversion of more thaii 500
acres of Colony Farm’s prime agricultural
land into a playground for the rich. And this |
merry band of entrepreneurs have glibly
included in their plans Douglas Island fot
conversion to an offshore private golf
course (of 36 holes, no less).

Traffic? “No problem,” they say. The
ALRT will just be extended to meet the
demand. That’s very interesting in view 0
the fact that the debt for the rapid transit
line is already astronomical and there will
have be a variety of new taxes to pay for it

Port Coquitlam council, apparently
struck with delusions of grandeur, has give
its approval to this scheme. Coquitlam
council, I am pleased to. report, has
unanimously rejected it.

We should send a clear message to these
promoters, and to the Vander Zalm
government, that we do not agree with the
“B.C. is for sale” philosophy. B.C. belongs
to us, the people, and we want our agricul
tural land preserved.

(Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam resident
have waged a years-long battle, first agains!
the closure and later against the privatizatio
of Colony Farm, a former provincial gove
ment food-producing facility, A private co
pany, the Cattle Land and Resources Corp.
has proposed to the two municipal councils)
and the provincial cabinet a scheme to build)
horse-racing facility and stables on the sit@
Premier Bill Vander Zalm has announced le
favors the proposal. Colony Farm is in t a
Agricultural Land Reserve.)

Letters reach
wide audience

Bill Campbell, Kamloops, writes: Althoug! |
any of our readers’ local papers may be —
and probably is — owned by one of the bi
corporations they all rely in the main of”
advertising income. This in turn is linkee —
directly with the number of copies bought |
i.e. readership. And there is no question that 4
one of the most eagerly sought parts of the |
paper is the Letters to the Editor section
This is particularly true in the smaller co
munities.

My city has two papers, one of which
goes to 26,000 homes six days a week. Pretty
good coverage for a progressive viewpoint! :
via your “Dear Mr. Editor letter!”

Readers should use it. I suggest it’s best ©
keep the letter as brief as possible, stick !®
one main issue at a time and back up you
point of view with all the facts you ca?
muster. <4