THE CANADIAN ECONOMY

AND DISARMAMENT by Gi-
deon Rosenbluth, Macmillan
of Canada, 1967. $5.50.

Professor. Rosenbluth provides
solid economic backing for Can-
ada to push ahead with disarma-
ment. Although he does not ex-
plicitly argue for unilateral dis-
armament, his careful study
shows that the shift from mili-
tary to civilian economic acti-
vity would be beneficial. The
prerequisites for a smooth tran-
sition are the maintenance of a
high level of aggregate demand,
an efficiently functioning labor
market and some advance plan-
ning. Little pictorial devices at
the head of each chapter show
significant progression: from a
stockpile of ten items in chapter
one, to a stockpile of nine and
one olive leaf in chapter two, to
a stockpile of one and an olive
branch with nine leaves in chap-
ter ten. The study was commis-
sioned and financed by the Cana-
dian Peace Research Institute.
The author’s dedication is to his
children. '

‘The scope and nature of Cana-
da’s military business is first
analysed. Professor Rosenbluth
is very .critical of the informa-
tion available, particularly on in-
direct impacts of military spend-
ing, and he has laboriously con-
structed his own estimates based
on D.B.S. input-output tables.
The results are somewhat inpre-
cise and out of date. But they
show, for example, that total
direct and indirect U.S. military
expenditure in Canada was ap-
proximately $580 million in 1962
and $560 million in’ 1963—equi-
valent to between 6 and 7 per-
cent of all Canadian exports of
goods and services. . The main
areas of concern under drastic
disarmament would be metro-
politan Halifax, Montreal, Otta-
wa and Victoria, the area of

Camp Gagetown, N.B., and Kings
County, N.S. The principal in-
dustries affected would be air-
craft, electronics, scientific in-

struments, shipbuilding and ex- ~

plosives, A chapter on Research
and Development effectively de-
molishes the argument that the
military ‘program is useful in

providing a civilian fallout of.

new technology. Rosenbluth
says: “The extent and impor-
tance of such spillover is ex-
tremely controversial . .. it
stands to reason that a dollar
spent on defense research can-
not benefit civilian technology
as much as a dollar spent on re-
search specifically devoted to the
latter end.” :

A good review of reconversion
in Canada following the Second
World War demonstrates the ef-
fectiveness of advance plan-
ning, of fiscal measures to main-
tain aggregate demand, of re-
moving from the shoulders of de-
fense workers and military per-
sonnel the financial burden en-
tailed in the transition to civi-
lian occupations. For the future,

‘ the author recommends that

military contractors be required
to make plans for reducing man-
power displacement arising from
contract termination and to in-
troduce severance pay provi-

sions, that the government pro-

vide training allowances, mov-
ing and resettlement grants. Re-
commended alternatives to mili-
tary spending which would pro-
vide the basis for maintaining
the level of economic activity
include:

—higher education: additional |

$500-$1,000 million a year by
1970-1.

—medical and health services:
additional $500 million a year
needed by 1971.

—war on poverty and crime:
additional $200 million-plus re-
quired..

a a aie

Byte

—correction of urban conges-
tion, air and water pollution:
applied research in substitution
for defense research. =

—aid to underdeveloped areas.

—reduced taxes.

—increased transfer payments.

The chapter dealing with
these alternatives concludes:

“Our review suggests that
there are no economic obstacles
to the maintenance of an ade-
quate level of demand through
worthwhile public expenditures,
tax reductions, and transfer pay-
ments ... The serious difficul-
ties regarding maintenance of
aggregate demand are political.”

The author’s last paragraph in
the chapter of Defense Procure-
ment Policies is a bit equivocal:

“Considered strictly from the
point of view of the economic
impact of disarmament, a policy
of neutralism, which requires a
domestic industrial defense base,
would create greater problems
of transition to a disarmed state.
It may, however, offer better
prospects for the achievement
of a peaceful and disarmed
world. This is a problem with
which the present study: cannot
deal.” 5

The concluding paragraph in
the book, however, is admirably

forthright:

“With a modicum of planning,
the economic consequences of
disarmament can be viewed en-
tirely as opportunities rather
than as ‘problems’. The services

_ of labor and resources valued at

about $1.5 billion per year can
be freed for uses that will bene-
fit the welfare, health, and edu-
cation of the community, raise
the rate of technical progress,

‘and enable us to contribute more

to the development of less for-
tunate areas.”

(UE Research Bulletin) '

One of the most moving
events of the national congress
of the French Peace Movement
was the reading of a poem by
-the Vietnamese, Che Lan Vien:
“On the day of unity, tomorrow.”
We publish here a_ transla-
tion of this poem which is to be
read out at meetings throughout
France, posted up and distributed
on all possible occasions, in par-
ticular during rallies arranged
by the Peace Movement during
the coming Tet holiday.

ON THE DAY OF UNITY, TOMORROW

By CHEN LAN VIEN

They tortured her brothers.

But she did not speak,

They tortured her body ;
But her lips remained closed;
They tortured her mother

She thought of the thousands of ordiriary people.

They tortured her children

m Her laugh welled out into a cry
‘And she fainted,

A clot of violet blood

Gushed from her lips.

But they were not satisfied,
They took up their weapons—
She is dead, dead.

But in the night the brutes writhe
In a nightmare, drenched in cold sweat
And still hear her laugh;

They waken, their souls ~
Lashed by a thousand whips.
We have dug her grave

At the foot of our wall of bronze.

On the day of unity, tomorrow,

The murderers will be called to account.
_No longer will her lips let forth a cry
But shine radiantly in an immense smile,

On the day of unity,
Tomorrow...

(Translated from the French)

—

2

ee

FEBRUARY 23, 1968——-PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Pag

pits

PAGE 24

HIS week the. postman
brought me an attractive
_ little folder, a sort of
multiple questionnaire _ be-
ginning with the poser, “What
have you to say about the
‘status of women?”
Well, I’ve never had. much

to say about the status of

women, but as a normally in-
telligent bloke (I hope), a
good deal to say about the
rights of women. Now.lo and
behold, a ‘Royal Commission
on the Status of Women in
Canada invites your written
“opinions”.

Well here goes, but to be-
gin with, and. in order to
avoid a mere excercise in se-
mantics, a- little clarification
from this Royal Commission
might be helpful as to just
what it means by status, and
does social status imply so-
cial rights? With:class divi-
sions as they are in modern
capitalist society it is next to
impossible to assess the sta-
tus of My Lady and plain
Judy O’Grady with the same
standard of weights and mea-
sures. As is generally known,
My Lady is invariably loaded
with status which provides
her with all the rights she is
ever likely to want, whereas
poor Judy O’Grady in her mil-
lions has damn little of either.

Most modern dictionaries
define status in relation to
people, in terms of social posi-
tion, rank, influence, etc.,
while rights have a many-
sided definition. But for pur-
poses of simplicity in this
‘case; rights are that to which
a man or a woman have a
moral and legal claim.

In feudal times, and even
in our own time and our own
country, women are still held
to be ‘non-persons’, a chattel
to be-used or disposed of at
will, with no status or rights
other than those permitted by
the ‘superior’ male, whether
husband, male parent or male
‘guardian’.

Even the ‘holy bonds of
matrimony’, rooted deeply in
the equally ‘sacred’ and domi-
nant institution of private

1

._ property, places women in an .

economically subordinate po-
sition to the male sex. And
while it may be a blunt way
to put it, compels her to pro-
mise to ‘love, honor and
obey,’ in return for an un-

certain meal ticket—a ticket’

perhaps differing in value ac-
cording to economic status,
but a meal ticket neverthe-
less. And a million sexy-load-
ed shampoo and soap ads give
out hourly with homey tips to
women on how best to use
their credit cards.

Not so long ago the old
solid Deutsch bourgeois sim-
plified capitalisms concept of
the status of women in three
words: ‘Kinder, Kueche, Kir-
che,” (children, kitchen and
church) . . . a bit more solid
than the shampoo glamor ads,
but equally degrading to the
nobility and the rights of wo-
men. Her ‘place was in the
home’, chained to it by a bas-
tardized ‘religion,’ an endless
cooking pot, and an unplan-
‘ned swarm of children—with
stupid stringent ‘laws’ against
any and all family planning.

And how did our society in

its remarkable ‘wisdom
bring that status to a tempo
rary halt? War. War required
the superior male in its mass
murder industry—to kill an
be killed — and the inferiof

female in its armament fac- |

tories, on the farms, in the
shipyards. To hell with status
and the ‘sanctity’ of the home

and all that bilge about |

‘church, cooking and child:
ren.” Your King and Country

need you — and Rosie the |

Rivetter stepped out of the
kitchen in her millions to toss
hot rivets, fill shells, build
ships, man offices, fill the
fighting ranks — step into
every phase of modern pro-
duction —and prove to hef
self and the world at large @

two World Wars that she was

the equal of the ‘superio
male any day — and at any

job. Only a few short years

ago her Russian sister Valen

tina .Tereshkova demonstra-

ted the point again in her epic
journey to the stars.
‘weaker sex’ indeed?
Yet while Judy O'’Grad!
has fully established her claim

the scheme of things, we stil
manage to deny her ‘equ
pay for equal work’ as 4
means of preserving ad infini-
tum her ‘inferior’ status —
society’s penalty for being
born a woman and its cheap
labor gift to monopoly: profit.
Then we have periods wi
‘something of a backfire from.
status to stupor, from the
temporary exercise of a right

iods of economic ‘crisis an
mass unemployment, , which
our Establishments are mas

ters at creating, one ‘solution’ |
rarely fails to be loudly trum: —

peted forth;-‘send the work-
ing women back where they
belong . . . in the home’ 80

that the menfolk can have,
their jobs back. We even heart |
swivel-chair -labor fakers re* >

‘to its emasculation. In perf |

to equal status and right in

citing that one with all the —

wisdom of a dumb owl.

In brief I’d say that the |

status of women should be |

what they (or she) decide to
make it, with full equality
and right to make it what she

damn well wants to. If she |

wants to work outside the
home part-time, full-time. of
no-time, that’s her right. If
she wants no family or 4
round dozen, that’s
choice. In such case the food,
clothing and housing mono-
polists will probably ‘get’ her
long before the ‘population
explosion’ does, so she need
have no worries here.

There’s an awful lot more

could be said on the status ©
and rights of that decisive |

her

section of humanity which ~

daily faces pain and death to
procreate life. I just hope this

Royal Commission will get |
started off on the right foot |

and not get the status of the
useless Madams of the Upper
Crust mixed up with that ter-

ribly discriminated, victim- |

ized and hard-working Darl-
ing of the common people—

Judy O’Grady. That its powers |
of perception will enable it |
to distinguish between status |

and right.

ores *s %. Pee

AINE ASS 9

Fe ea AT ES RT RN ee aT TT a Re

tae

2 ee