‘The CP and hew questions, new. directions Debate — genuine debate — of Left politics and perspectives is easier to talk about than accomplish. For decades the Left has been a collection of solitudes, each claiming allegiance of working people and a monopoly on the truth; each fighting not only a better-organized and more united class enemy, but the other Left forces as well. The main beneficiary of a fractured and divided Left isn’t hard to identify: it's Canadian capitalism. It’s the employer, the cold war supporter, it’s the right-winger and the free trader. But life is forcing every Left-thinking person and every progressive formation, grouping and party to re-examine political reality. The speed and scope of change in Canada and abroad makes tough, uncompromising re-assessment imperative. Yesterday’s cliches and outdated suppositions just won’t work today. A fractured, feuding Left won’t win many victories, let alone people’s power. The Communist Party has begun a public re-examination in preparation for its upcoming 28th convention in October — and on the table are subjects it once guarded as internal and others previously deemed non-debatable. The issues are nothing less than how Communists see socialism and their own party, and how this relates to their place on the Canadian Left. The following paper, written by CP leader George Hewison, was presented to a meeting of party leaders Jan. 12 and will be a topic for discussion over the next several months, leading to the October convention. Readers’ comments are invited. By GEORGE HEWISON The Communist Party faces a new decade with monumental questions before it. We are called on to look at a completely new international situation, a new Canadian situation, and a revised set of tasks for the working class and peoples’ movements. But above all, we are compelled to look at ourselves from a completely new perspective. ast year saw a re- write of Eastern Europe. We witnessed the biggest thaw in the cold war since Churchill made his 1947 “Iron Curtain” speech. Soviet international initiatives have pushed back the frontiers of a cold war which dominated world politics for 40 years. Just consider: the 1987 CPC convention was held under the slogan “Survival and Sovereignty.” The Tory White Paper on Defence had just been released with its “Soviet threat” language, and spy trials were underway in Newfoundland. Contrast this to today’s “‘open skies” flights over Hungary and Canada, and the promising moves in arms reduction, and we see that new thinking is more than an untested experiment or some tactical consideration of Soviet foreign policy. Rather, it is a fresh, new approach to foreign relations — one geared to meet the realities of the 1990s, identifying fundamental issues around which all other questions must be considered. Already the military-industrial complex has taken an ideological and economic beating. But can we yet say that the cold war is dead and buried? New thinking has facilitated the changes we’re seeing in the socialist. world. Eastern Europe has not witnessed such political upheavals since 1945, or since the bourgeois revolutions of 1848, which provided Marx and Engels such rich material to work from. Some communists argue these changes 6 Pacific Tribune, January 29, 1990 forecast the end of socialism. Others argue it’s too soon to pass judgement. I believe this upheaval signals a return to a genuinely Marxist approach to socialism. While socialism is paying a steep price for fundamental errors and the path ahead holds no guarantees for success, socialism, in a global sense, will rest on a firmer footing. More than one profound question has emerged from these epic changes, and from new thinking specifically. And the key for those struggling for socialism in Canada involves several questions: How does new thinking change the framework for the class struggle and the struggle for social liberation? Will internal class contradictions sharpen or lessen under its impact? Will conditions for class and democratic struggle become more favourable? Does new thinking change the fundamental character of the class struggle? we hat is the relationship of “universal human interests” to the “class struggle’? What is the character and role of the working class in the period ahead? What kind of a political party is required in such circumstances? In grappling with these questions we need to rally all our intellectual capacity. Theory should precede and guide practice, and be constantly tested against it. ~ Without diminishing any debate, we should ensure that references to new thinking don’t become pat cliches or sterile dogma. For example, one new thinking theorist, explaining why political parties in industrial capitalist countries ‘“‘which subscribe to proletarian ideology, lose prestige in the working class environment ...,” argues that much “can be explained away by perversions, distortions and retreats from principles. But perhaps the point lies elsewhere — in the principles themselves? Perhaps it is worthwhile to touch upon, at long last, the holy of holies and talk about the role of the working class in Marx’s theory of the class struggle, in the development of our and Western societies, and in the evolution of civilization itself ....” I’m not suggesting we withdraw into political agnosticism until we investigate this question fully and answer it definitively. But we must acknowledge the parameters of the debate are very broad. Our party can only grow theoretically by struggling within such a-process, without de-limiting the debate, and while forging ahead in unity on the pressing tasks before us. New thinking must take account of the deepening crisis of capitalism, andthe conditions we face in Canada. Imperialism, remains hostile to socialism, as it does to the working class. Of note however, is an element of realism within imperialist circles. This realism acknowledges that socialism, for all its problems, is a powerful force. Imperialism rises above its own propaganda about the death of socialism to assess the damage done to its system by neo-conservatism which has aggravated the capitalist crises. The question of a “soft” landing versus a “hard” landing of the capitalist economy is of no small consequence to capitalism, or the working class. A small recession, while unpredictable, can have, in the short run, a “therapeutic” effect for capitalism. It shakes out the _ weak links among capitalists; it disciplines the working class, and re-distributes wealth, creating a lean and mean economy in anticipation of the next cycle. The problem for the capitalist class is the unpredictability of crisis, particularly given the globalization of the economy. A hard landing could threaten the underpinnings of the system. While most capitalist economists are predicting a temporary downturn for 1990, there is considerable evidence that a major economic cataclysm is not far off. The debate in ruling circles is sharpening over the impact of military budgets on capitalist economies. There is also considerable debate over the continuing effectiveness of right wing, as opposed to more liberal, supply-side economics to reduce deficits and indebtedness, given the current track record. For a Canada’s distorted imperialist economy the prospects can be considerably more acute than for other imperialist states. It is in this context, rather than imperialist benevolence and the imminent collapse of socialism, that we should primarily judge the foot race by imperialist states to extend economic ties between West and East. The Mulroney-Gorbachev meeting could represent a positive advance in Canada-Soviet relations. A new atmosphere of trust between the heads of state of the two countries has been . established, moving away from prior relations which, from Canada’s perspective were distinctly hawkish. The first Canada-USSR summit in 18 years has opened certain new economic options for Canada. And while the struggle for a permanent shift to detente has not been completely won, new conditions now prevail. Canada’s business community has a new face: The Business Council of the Soviet Union and Canada — headed by Albert Reichman and involving 240 leading businessmen. They exert a powerful influence on the Mulroney government in its partial turn from a foreign policy based on the ‘Soviet threat” to proposals for “open skies.” Media forecasts about the “demise of socialism,” aimed at demobilizing popular opposition in Canada, today face the difficulty of sustaining the image of an -imminent Soviet menace, upon which the arms race rests. Our strategy to safeguard world peace must consider both the possibilities and the dangers built into the new situation. While public opinion favours greater steps for peace, the shift to detente is not irreversible, given the character of the forces for reaction. This is seen in Canada testing new weapons and militarizing the economy. At the same time, the political declaration between Canada and the USSR set a new tone and a legal framework for dialogue and co-operation. This framework involves the environment, investment, the Arctic and other bilateral issues. Fourteen protocols were signed, and three more are being negotiated. Fifteen joint ventures are in the works valued at almost $1-billion. Consulates are r iD tanh illnat ol QB I ih san Sx io AGRE ple Aad pis ala be cbc ian baa gai chee icctndiatee Lao sie