’ a>) 7

iD TRY 2

CENTENNIAL
DISCUSSION,

The Canadian Tribune’s Centennial Discussion, held last Sun-

day at Palermo,

was described by Tribune editor and chairman,

Rae Murphy, as the first of such events which will be sponsored

by this paper

Speakers included William Kashtan, leader of the Communist
Party, who’ dealt with Canadiun-U.S. relations, Claire Dasylva,

member of

Quebec, who dealt with French

the national committee of
-English Canadian relations and

the Communist Party of

Vladimir Sushchenko, of the Institute of World Economics and
International Relations in Moscow, who spoke on 50 years of the

Soviet economy.

Excerpts from the speeches are given on this page. The ses-
sions were concluded by the presentation by the Living Theatre of
Toronto of the mime which they had taken to Expo condemning
Canadian complicity in the war in Vietnam.

AN Canada over the next
period of time assert its
genuine national indepen-

dence and sovereignty or are we
fated by geography, by econo-
mics and by politics to be em-
braced more and more by the
United States and eventually
lose our identity and our exist-
ence as a separate state?

I think it could be said that
in some respects we are at a
new and much more dangerous
stage of relationships between
our country and the United

States. This arises from the gen- . #

eral crisis of imperialism itself
which on the one hand leads
American imperialism, because
of defeats of its foreign and
economic policy, to turn to-
wards strengthening its econo-
mic, political and military con-
trol of Canada while at the same
time the developments of a re-
volutionary character on a world
scale tends to stimulate the sen-
timents and consciousness of
Canadians that we should assert
our full independence and sov-
ereignty.

Our approach on the question
of independence does not lead
in the direction of strengthening
Canadian monopoly and streng-
thening capitalism in Canada.
What we strive for in the strug-
gle for genuine independence, is
sovereignty which would ensure
that the Canadian people be-
come masters of their own des-
tiny, and achieve control of the
Canadian economy.

There are some points ‘of dif-
ference in the labor and demo-
cratic movement on this ques-
tion. In the New Democratic
Party there is a viewpoint ex-
pressed of advancing the fight
for Canadian independence. But
if you look into the program and
positions of the NDP you would
have to conclude that they have
not yet deepened their approach
sufficiently. Because when the
NDP convention in effect refuses
to take up and fight for nationa-
lization as a means of wresting
control of American corpora-
tions and giving it to the Cana-
dian people, they in effect are
taking the position in which
they say, “well, we are opposed
to American control over the
Canadian economy, but we are
not opposed to Canadian mono-
poly control over Canada.”

By begging the issue of na-
tionalization which I think in

sw ws

stems from an opportunist
je A AUSIOT Dit! DAT ext

~ W090 M Yate

approach — that they will get
more votes by not fighting for
nationalization—they are at the
same time taking away the heart
of the fight to check and control
American domination over our
country.

How would we weaken Ameri-
can ‘control except by taking it
out of their hands? The question
of whether you can achieve the
independence of Canada short of

WILLIAM KASHTAN

nationalization has not been
proven.

When it is advanced in some
circles, also of’ the NDP, that
we should strive for the merger
of small industries into big in-
dustries, to help monopoly to
concentrate, what they are say-
ing in effect is that their aim is
not to bring about a fundamen-
tal change of relationships in
Canada but to strengthen Cana-
dian monopoly interests over
American monopoly interests.

While to some people it may

seem progress to have that, for °

the mass of the working people,
for the working class it will not
mean very much if they are ex-
ploited by Canadian monopoly
or exploited by American mono-
poly. So that if we are to achieve
steps that would lead to bring-
ing about a change in the rela-
tions between Canada and the
United States and to strengthen

the independence of our coun-
try, one of the most important
things is at this stage, short of
socialism, democratic. nationali-
zation. :

Theré is another view that is
advanced. That is the view held
by the ultra-left which takes the
position that it is wrong and
harmful to undertake a struggle
against American imperialism
and American control over the
Canadian economy. Their view
is that the struggle is against
monopoly in Canada and we
should ignore completely the ex-
tent to which the U.S. is able
to strengthen its control over
the Canadian economy. We can-
not agree with this point of
view which is a dangerous one,
which fails to see that on this
issue of the struggle to bring
about a changed relationship be-
tween Canada and the U.S., to
strengthen the independence of
our country, there is the basis
around which to unite wide sec-
tions of the Canadian people in
a genuine struggle against nono-
poly, Canadian and American
alike, and to strengthen the de-
mocratic forces of our country
leading eventually to being able
to achieve a.democratic majority
in parliament.

IFTY years ago, the Soviet
people, led by the Commun-

ist Party, began to_change
their society and even themsel-
ves. We had at our disposal a
big country.

First of all we had to over-
come our great backwardness.
Prerevolutionary’ Russia, while
third in world population, only
ranked fifth in industrial output.
Productivity was extremely low,
but what ‘productivity can one
expect in a country where 80
percent of the population was
illiterate?

Before the Second World War
the first and second five year
plans had proved the Soviet eco-

nomy’s rapid growth. The Soviet -

Union became an_ industrial
power. In the post-war years
the economic development con-
tinued at a growing tempo: In
some spheres we. scored a num-
ber of firsts.

For example, we were first
in the utilization of nuclear en-
ergy for electric generation, and
we are proud, of course, that the
first man in space was a Soviet
mat.

Some of you have read in de-
tail about the new economic re-
form in the USSR. The discus-
sion concerning the methods of
economic management and plan-
ning have been going on for
quite some time. This discussion
has become known as the Lie-
berman debate.

What was the reason for this
reform? The Soviet economy is
a dynamic entity. It has been
changing, and with it the me-
thod of management also chan-
ges. The system of management
that there was in pre-war years
was for that time quite effective.

But since then the scope of pro-
duction has grown. However the
activity of each individual enter-
prise continued to be rigidly
planned by top bodies. ©

Under the new system, indivi-
dual enterprises are accorded
much more freedom.. Only the
most important indicators of
economic activity are imposed
from above.. This permits enter-
prises to adopt the most econo-
mical decisions. The new system
ensures a greater material sti-
mulation for the workers. The
better are the results for the
enterprise, the higher are their
profits. From the profit the en-
terprise pays bonuses to the
workers.

A part of the profit is ‘of
course the fund which finances
the social and cultural under-
takings such as kindergartens
and housing construction for the
workers of that enterprise. This
fund is controlled by the direc-
tor in conjunction with the trade
union. :
~ Now the entire enterprise
wants to have a bigger plan,
but of course a real one, to have
a bigger profit. Until recently
there was a type of contradic-
tion between planning officials
and those who are engaged in
production. Directors thought
that the planning authorities
were attempting to plan too
high a target for their enter-
prises and so they expended
much energy to make their plans
easier. Planning authorities, on
the contrary, considered direc-
tors were having an easy life,
that is to put low figures in their
plans in order to fulfill it quick-
ly and without difficulties. The
plan was frequently the result
of in-bargaining between the
two parties. The reform is being
implemented over three years—
1966 to 1968.

What are the results of the
reform? In 1966 the new system
was extended to 800 enterpri-
ses. The output in these enter-
prises grew by 10 percent over
previous years. Now more than
500 enterprises are working
under the new system.

It does not mean that every-
thing is all right. But what step
is possible without difficulties.
If humanity would be stopped by
difficulties, we would now swing
axes in dense forests.

To raise the.living and cultu-

ral standards—that is the car-.

dinal objective of all economic
programs of the USSR. Indeed,
all means of production belong
to the people and the people
develop them in accordance with
their interests.

More apartments are being
built in the Soviet Union than
in all the West European coun-
tries taken together. As you
know there are practically no
limit to housing construction be-
cause of the rent. Rent doesn’t
exceed four to five percent of
the family budget. Rent doesn’t
even cover all the expenses of
maintaining the buildings. Hous-
ing construction is made up. by
the state, not a bad idea either.

There are other important
benefits that people get totally
free, for example medical ser-
vices. All this provides some-
thing like an additional 25 to

30 percent of rel
workers.. Thus if J! aif
rubles you have ne

30 to get the full ie

sion. When sovereibt y

determination As od,
1a

it is not recess
i ression.
concoct the stl
been in our coull df
In 1967, the YO jy
tennial of canadt og
deeper crisiS >” 1utid!
tions instead % aera
out a new conf ity
pact with equal

= =
B&

are in }
trade union C

lish.

1 would "wo
* ts
dian union tet iv! oft