How they see socialism in Italy

Excerpts from the report of
Luigi Longo, to the central com-
mittee of the Commun-
ist Party of Italy, as reported in
PUnita, March 27, 1968, trans-
lated for the Tribune.

Italy needs new political and
social conditions of development,
in order to confront the prob-
lems of its modernization and

progress. We are convinced that:

the very develcpment of the
productive forces will more and
more pose as an objective neces-
sity the transformation of a capi-
talist society into a socialist so-
ciety of which the working class
will need to be not only the pro-
tagonist but the leading and
conscious force.

Advancing with this perspec-
tive, we present solutidns for the

Sa a a a SS ee

SSacee

realization of which there exists
already real possibilities, if ef-
forts are combined on the part
of all those who feel the ur-
gency of the need to resolve
these problems. It is in the direc-
tion of socialism that Italy will
have to mcve if it does not wish
to remain trailing behind at the
tail of the world historical pro-
cess.

Without parliament's approval

NORAD renewed

Without any regard to the oft-
raised demand that there be a
debate in parliament, the Liberal
administration has renewed the
NORAD agreement for a further

five years. =

Signed originally on May 12,
1958, also without reference to
parliament, NORAD has’ now
had nearly 10 years of existence.

From many sides over the past-

year—ranging from the Conser-
vative Party and the Financial
Post to the NDP, the labor

movement and the Communist,

Party—has come the demand
on the prime minister that it be
discussed before renewal. But
the pressure from Washington
for renewal seems to have been
a stronger factor and once again
the elected representatives of
Canada have been bypassed.

So somewhere in a Colorado
mountain behind the 30-ton
steel doors and under the 1,700
feet of concrete, in the 60-foot-
high Combat Operation Centre
built at a cost of $142 million,
the NORAD officers will con-
tinue to watch for the flights of
geese over the radar screens.

NORAD, established months
before the actual signing of the
agreement (September 1957),
started out of secret talks be-
tween the Liberal St. Laurent
government and--the United
States. When the two letters
recording the existence
NORAD were finally tabled in
parliament, only the CCF with-
held approval.

The cold-war_ intent of
NORAD was apparent from the
beginning, and also the fact that
Canada’s sovereignty was seri-
ously jeopardized.

Writing in the Toronto Star
in May, 1958, their Washington
pores Harold Greer,
said:

“The NORAD agreement an-
nounced this week reveals that
Canada is no more able to pre-
vent some jittery U.S. officer
from reaching for the panic but-
‘ton than it was before the agree-
ment was signed. :

“With or without the agree
ment the North American De-
fense Command continues to be
a joint U.S.-Canadian agreement
for collecting information which
the U.S. needs to decide whe-
ther to start U.S. airpower wing-

ing. on_its nuclear way.” .......
TAcd BCE Naw. CAST yy HOS
968\PACTFIC TRIBUNE—Page'

of:

At that time also, the Cana-
dian Tribune warned of the dan-
gers in the Agreement. Alf Dew-
hurst, for example, said this in
the Tribune:

“When the resolution to en-

dorse NORAD is placed before:

parliament, members will be
asked by the government to
vote to tie Canada for the next
fateful 10 years to an agreement
which arms the NORAD com-
mander (a U.S. general) with
power to order Canadian combat
planes into action without con-
sultation with Canadian authori-
ties; meaning that Canada would

be committed to war on the

say-so of a foreign general and
without the authorization of our
government, to say nothing of
parliament.”

And these 10 years saw the
imposition of nuclear weapons
on Canada; false flurries. be-
cause of Canadian geese flights;
the Cuba crisis with no consul-
tation with parliament; and
above all a growing realization

.that the whole context within

which NORAD had been estab-
lished — of. the danger of an

~ attack from the U.S.S.R. — was

a lie.

In 1960 Canada’s military his-

torian, Dr. G. F. G. Stanley, in
his book, Soldiers, wrote: .

“The weapons are American.
The strategic decisions are
American. The fingers on the
trigger are American. Whether
Canadians like it or not, their
country is becoming more and
more America’s front ‘line of
defense, an -expendable land
mass in the eyes of American
strategists.”

His statements have echoed

and re-echoed. Last July the

NDP went on record oppos-

_ ing NORAD. Only a few weeks

ago on March 18, in the House

of Commons, Andrew Bréwin

for the NDP said this:

_ “To deal first with the ques-
tion of NORAD, the govern-
ment has indicated quite clear-
ly its intention to renew the

NORAD agreement which ex-

’ pires in May of this year ... I

cannot imagine anything more
irresponsible than the course
being pursued by the minister
and, the government at this pre-
sent time.

—s 3 ee eee ee ee ee ee

“The government proposes to
involve the Canadian people in
a continuing expenditure of ap-
proximately $140 million a year
on an anti-bomber defence. .
This larie duck government ;ro-
poses, without any attempt to
consult parliament, to impose an
onerous burden on the backs of
the Canadian people. A conser-
vative estimate of that burden
is $1 billion. ...

“|... the government will
come to the house after the fait
accompli, after the new agree-
ment is signed, and say that
they want a vote of confidence
on foreign policy. Assuming that
we are not prepared at that time
to turn out the government, the
house will be bound to accept
what: has been done in its name.
I suggest it is irresponsible on

~the part of the government to

commit us to this type of expen-
diture or treaty, binding us to a
$1 billion burden in the future,
without first of all fully explain-
ing the matter to this house.

‘The government has failed to do.

this.”

The irresponsibility of the
Liberal government is well illus-
trated by the fact that among
the critics of NORAD was for-
mer U.S. Defense Secretary
Robert MacNamara. In 1965 he
was already saying that NORAD
was either obsolete or of mar-
ginal value.

But this is not the first time
that this government, continu-

ing its slavish pro-U.S. foreign-

policy, has.committed Canada to
something of no value.

Let us hope though that the
main consideration, when this
question does finally come to
‘parliament for approval, will not
be answered in the context of
whether or not one wants an
election, but whether or not
cne is concerned to see the de-
velopment of a truly indepen-
dent foreign policy.

The statements on foreign
policy by the candidates of the
Liberal Party for leadership
(with the exception of Eric
Kierns) indicate that there will
be a continuation of the Liberal
policy. :

All the more reason why those
who oppose NORAD and the
dangers that it represents will
‘have to speak out loud and clear
-so that Ottawa will hear them

' instead of only Washington. ° <~

*.

= een eA OP eel UL

(At this point Longo empha-
sizes the path.traversed in the
last 20 years by the socialist
countries in terms of industrial
progress, technical, cultural and
social advance.)

Even though starting from
levels that were often very
backward, even though having
to confront immense difficulties,
despite errors and grave distor-
tions, these countries today are
in the very front rank of modern
countries. It is not a matter
only of the U.S.S.R. that today
stands in first place in the world
in relation to technical develop-
ment and industrial and social
progress and scientific advance,
nuclear energy, the conquest of
space, but also of the other so-
cialist countries, many of which

today are much more advanced -

than we in fields that most
characterize the level of civili-
zation and culture of a country.

Incapable of giving a reply to
the deep-going ferment that stirs
the Catholic and_ socialist
masses, the Democratic Chris-
tian and Social-Democratic lead-
ers and their press are trying
these days to focus attention on
the limits, the inadequacies, the
delays that still exist in the so-
cialist countries in relation to
the free expression of criticism
and of various artistic and cul-
tural currents.

For our part, we have never
closed our eyes to these limita-
tions; rather we have frankly
pointed them out, underlining
the necessity of overcoming
them.

It is undeniable that ... steps
ahead have been carried out in
the socialist countries to con-
front, to face up to with a criti-
cal spirit and in open debate
many situations and problems,
particularly those relating to
economic construction, to meth-
ods of planning and their pro-
gressive transformation, espe-
cially those arising from the
technical and scientific revolu-
tion, from the fact of the gran-
diose development of productive
forces and the heightened well-
being of the masses,

Also as regards the internal
relations among Workers and
Communist Parties, notable steps
have been made in the direction
of the independence and auton-
omy of each party. In this sense
we consider positive, even
though it did not witness as was
desirable the participation of all
parties, the Consultative Meet-
ing in Budapest to decide on
the calling of a conference of
Communist and Workers Parties
of the world. There was in’ this
meeting a frank and open con-

frontation of ideas and opinions -

without condemnations or ex-
communications in the full
autonomy and independence of
each party.

We greet with satisfaction all
the s:eps that have been taken
and are still being taken in the
direction of an ever greater de-
mocratization of the socialist
countries and of the Communist
Parties. We understand that in
endeavoring to break with a
situation that has been too long
protracted it isnot easy or sim-
ple to turn to the observation
of the just Leninist norms in
the matter of democracy. Also,
by virtue of the fact that con-
servative currents as well as the
provocatory action of foreign
centres try to counteract, to dis-

tort,’ for -ahti:Soviet * and” anti- ~

- tries which, if they corresp®

socialist purposes, the drive al ;

wards the affirmation in
fields of the just norms of 9)
cialist democracy. 4
But we think that the or
rades who are now leading
Communist Party of Czech0s?
vakia have done well in the®
selves taking the initiative a
the leadership of the moveme?,
adopting concrete measures")
renovation and. of democrati2®)
tion of the whole political, ©
nomic, social and cultural sit
tion in order to assure t0 f
socialist regime an ever proadé :
consensus and an ever more 4
tive ‘participation of the mas"
of the people, giving thus toe
cialist society ever increasing ;
its true face of freedom, huma™
ity and democracy. sale
It is evident that each socl#
ist country has its own way | te
rhythm of development. We ?
fighting in Italy for a socialis®
whose characteristic features we
wish to be those of liberty, IY
manity and democracy. ‘
struggle has in fact the objectiv®
of the establishment of a SOC!
ist democracy that will put #”
end to all exploitation of 1
guarantee effectively the SoC?
equality of all citizens, a5s¥”
them the plenitude of. democr
tic rights and create the co™ 7
tions for the free developme”
of their personality. We belie”
that this socialist democra
must take form in a networ® a
autonomous movements becay
from the autonomy of the t#@” »
unions and the social orga il
tions, from the autonomy of ©
ture, from the autonomy i!
plurality of parties, there ¥
flow a dialectic of socialist ©
mocracy, certainly complex # f
rich in contradictions but oe
will constitute a precious Sout ‘
of democratic forward driv
and affirmations of freedo™
against the dangers of turn
inward and of bureaucratic we
authoritarian degeneration. "|
are pursuing then, as we ass@”
ed at our 11th National Con
gress, the objective of a social
state that is effectively and id
solutely secular, neither athe
nor confessional, pluralist. «|
which no ideology or religio™”
faith or cultural and artistic
rent shall have positions of &
clusivism or of privilege in rele
tion to the others.
_ We intend to move, that a
along a course that we call the”
Italian path to socialism, to 9 ;
{

1

-~t gs

Oo =
ey ees pees ee ee ce ee ae Ee (eee tee eS

gS me a nee a a ah ae ae oe

tinguish it precisely from the
paths followed by other co)

ed to conditions and historic
necessities of their own, do 2? |

however correspond to the ©”
ditions in which we are waging :
our struggle in Italy and to oF hs
objective that we propose |
building a socialist state 1? é R
manner and in forms correspO” |
ing with our conditions and: re | |
possibilities. So true is it, tha gz
we want to conduct this strue
gle with the union of all wot ‘|

ing-class and democratic force"

communist and socialist, secu” i
|

and Catholic, because of the f@°
that we are convinced of the
r-placeable value of a pluralilY ,
oi contributions to the construt |
tion and the management of a |
socialist state and of the poss |
bility also that secular att |
Catholic forces will be able ©
participate in common in effor's
together with us to bring ab?

this construction and this mé@

ageribnte tech GS