: LABOR FRONT BY WILLIAM KASHTAN Big business is increasingly turning to the use of injunc- tions to smash strikes and weaken unions. In fact very few strikes take place these days without this anti-union weapon being applied, the latest such example being the Dominion Glass Company strike in Hamilton. It is interesting to note how easy it is for employers io. get such injunctions from courts and judges — how in fact the law is being used to impose injustice and take the side of Big Business against the trade union movement and working class. The labor acts were supposed to give workers the right to organize and to strike but, having, after ceaseless pressure by democratic opinion, given these concessions with one hand, gov- ernments and employers have made sure these rights would be seriously undermined; or negated by other laws which apparently and actually supercede the right to strike. Workers have the right to strike but this right is thrown to the winds through a liberal use of injunctions prohibiting mass picketting without which the strike itself becomes ineffective. : The law and the courts are thus thrown behind Big Busi- ness and become a weapon of Big Business in its continuing offensive against the rights, the jobs and standards of the working class. * * ... The trade union movement cannot afford to ignore either the class character of the laws which are used against the interests of the working people, nor fail to devise effective, tactics to cope with this menacing situation. The history of the struggle against injunction shows that this bosses weapon can be defeated by an effective combina- tion of political action ,and solidarity. Unfortunately, the right-wing leaders of the trade union movement, rather than advancing such policies, sit on and stifle militant action. The Royal York Hotel strike and its results indicate where that leads to. And the inaction, to put it mildly, of the right-wing leaders of the Hamilton Labor Coun- cil, in face of injunctions and the liberal use of the police to break the strike at Dominion Glass, is a further example of harmful policies and of a lack of understanding of the most elementary principles of solidarity action. * * * Underneath this attitude of the right-wing leaders is their excessive addiction to legalism. But what sort of working-class policy is it which sits idly by and allows the courts to be used to smash strikes and unions one at a time under the mistaken illusion that the fire won’t spread? What sort of policy is it that refuses to face up to what. is obviously needed to combat and defeat the strike-breaking and union-busting weapon of injunctions? Have the right-wing leaders forgotten that the unions were built in face of resistance of employers and governments? Have they forgotten that the right to strike was won through ceaseless and difficult struggle, again in the face of opposition of employers, governments and courts? Have they forgoten that injunctions were defeated before through united solidarity action and mass picketting partici- pated in by the families of strikers, by other unions and through the involvement of the community? » * * These lessons of the past which have stood the test of time and which now the right wing wants to throw overboard, need to be brought to the fore again. Nothing but grief will come to the trade union movement if this is not done. The various federation conventions taking place this fall and winter cannot but draw conclusions from the anti-union drive undertaken by employers and governments and develop: the appropriate tactics to meet the situation. Amittedly there are difficulties in the way but the task of leadership is to surmount these difficulties, not succumb ito them. CHINA FORGES AHEAD. This mcnth marks the lJth An- niversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, which will be celebrated in Vancouver with a film showing and banquet. Photo above shows an up-to-date paper mill in Sept. 21, 1962—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 2 The evidence has accumu- jated since 1917, and. particu- larly since Khrushchey came to the leadership in the Sov- iet Union, that Communists would like to guarantee peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist states by means of general and complete disarmament. If anyone is still in doubt as to that being the objective of Soviet foreign policy, he is duty bound to study the record and form his con- clusions. This obligation is primary, because nearly all other questions are affected by one’s opinion as to the Soviet government’s sincerity in its numerous disarmament initiatives. Many people, including myself, are convinced from the content of these propo- sals and from the course of the negotiations (as well as from general considerations about the character of social- ism) that the Soviet govern- ment does want to disarm. The American government, of course, tries to make us believe that Soviet foreign policy is something quite dif- ferent, something sinister. It discredits Soviet ment proposals as specious tricks designed to weaken U.S. military power while the Soviet Union preserves and prepares its own military forces in secret for a surprise attack. Perhaps American officals really believe this. Perhaps on the other hand, they have reasons other than fear of Soviet treachery for wanting to keep the U.S. heavily arm- ed. The history of the nego- tiations (as well as general considerations as to the nature of capitalism) lead us to believe that the USS. ‘government clutches its ar- maments for these other un- confessed, reasons; and that it misleads the American people as to the import of the Soviet proposals. Needless to say, the govern- ment is stimulated and sup- disarma- The Sept. 10 issue of the U.S. Guardian carried an ar- ticle by J. P. Morray, author of From Yalta to Disarma- ment. Morray is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Académy and Harvard Law School. He served for five years in Am- erican embassies as a naval attache, and taught at the University of California. The PT presents part of his ar- ticle on this page. ported in this anti-Soviet line by the ruling class of Ameri- can. capitalism. This class does not have to examine the record. It knows by instinct that what is good for social- ism is bad for capitalism. If the Soviet Union wants gen- eral disarmament, then this must be bad for capitalism. Whether there is truth in this bourgeois instinct is really of secondary importance to the American people. For us, the salvation of the capitalist system is not worth a nuclear war. If socialism is destined to prosper more than capital- ism in a disarmed world, so be it. The picture promises to be interesting, providing nuclear war can be prevent- ed. = : e The prevention of nuclear war is the supreme task. Dis- armament is the surest means to accomplish it. That is why the Soviet government de- serves our whole-hearted sup- port in its disarmament in- itiatives? But as yet there is no agreement to disarm. Soviet policy must be adjusted to that reality. Is there danger that the NATO powers will force a war on the Sovict Union? In 1948, Winston Churchill called on the US., then at “the pinnacle of power” with its monopoly of the atomic bomb, to deliver an ultimatum to the Soviet Union: Get out of Eastern Europe or we will drive you out. This was a call for war, plausible and attractive be- "S Some views on Soviet ¢ tests and disarmament — cause of the nucleé superiority of the U.S. The GUARDIAN editorla (Aug. 6, issue) declares an UP alterable opposition to any clear testing “by any natio! under any circumstances: This is clearly too sweeping ' statement. It would even 00 demn the first tests of Soviet Union which serv to stabilize peace by redres sing a military balance ae making Churchill’s prop? more obviously dangerov® and therefore less attractiV® It is regrettable that tho first Soviet tests were nec? sary. They increased radio activity. But they were neces” sary, in order to prevent ae far worse injury to mankin t than thé increase in fall from testing. Those soviel tests were a necessary © given the real circumstane They increased our secul from the disaster of being © into a Churchillian anti-co™ munist crusade. e 2 Churchill has passed £0 active leadership, oo anti-Soviet war has not dis” appeared from the agenda ? the Western governme? They are constantly tryiné improve their military SUPY iority over the Soviet be They justify this om 1% ground that they must de the Soviet Union. This a deceit by the Western 60 2 : ernments. The Soviet unio is trying to get rid of power to commit military gression, but cannot § do so because the West Wea not agree to destroy its ony weapons. This is 2 fact © life. to Does the U.S. conta : build up “position strength” against the sovie Union? Are nuclear we a part of that strength? it U.S. has announced that will never again accept - od a inhibitations of an unpoli, moratorium on_ testin& — 6 See VIEWS — Page U.S. trusts plan expansion of capital in Canadian plants Canada is likely to get ano- ther increasing inflow of U.S. capital. This conclusion can be drawn from U.S. Department of Commerce figures showing what American businessmen plan to spend on plant and equipment expansion in Canada this year and next. In 1960, U.S. business spent $1259 million on this type of expansion. Last year, the spending fell to $1041 million. The Department of Com- merce says that U.S. business spending is climbing again. This year it will be $1102 mil- lion for plant and equipment expansion in Canada. Next year it will be about the same. Much of the increase this year and next will come from U.S.-owned manufacturing companies streamlining their operations in Canada. This year, they are investing $391 million in new and im- proved plans and equipment— $30 million more than last year. U.S.-owned mining and smelting operations are expect- ed to have a big increase in plant and equipment spending. Last year’s figure was $165 mil- lion. This year, the figure is $200 million. Plant and equipment spend- ing for U.S.-owned petroleum interests has been rising stead- ily. Last year it is expected to jump to $360 million. It has been estimated that total U.S. investment in Canada is now more than $18 billion. In 1958, it was estimated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that the U.S. controlled 69 per-' cent of the petroleum and ost industry in Canada, 51 pera of mining and smelting, an percent of manufacturing: on Foreign ownership 2? ind trol of Canadian manufactl” re industry in 1958 totalled than 51 percent. {pe The figures released U.S. Department of Co™ ake! show that the piefen? 10" government’s austeritY ‘ine gram has not slowed 40M ian U.S. take-over of the C4. ted economy. In fact, the ; increase in the inflow % | ser capital is taking place ; the introduction of 24% measures. According to the Dep of Commerce, the export ° world capital to the rest of the | jn has been 14 percent hig 1962 than in 1961. Export of U.S. capita European Common Marke i A the 1 (0H en has jumped by 25 pee was big factor in this jw™ 0D spending by -U.S. aute companies.