= a Jeet 1

ws AND LE

AVE. YOUR.
HAT AT HOME,

Yeking's false stand

he delegation of the People’s
ublic of China to the United
lons General assembly has
en to oppose the Soviet pro-
al for the convocation of a
ld disarmament conference
1a renewed attack on “su-
Powers,” equating the USSR
ithe USA—but attacking the
SR to the delight of Nixon’s
iesentatives. We here reprint
kent article in Pravda deal-
‘With this argument:

sistent propaganda of the
lgogic thesis on struggle
ist “two super-powers,” a
is absolutely alien to Marx-
‘Leninism, has become for
Chinese leadership. a means
Continuing its course hostile
he Soviet Union. The Chinese
ership tries to place U.S.
ftialism, which strives to
¥ the role of a guarantor and
pian of the international
lem of exploitation and op-
Ssion which brings destruc-
4, death and suffering to
“'y peoples of the world, side
pide with the Soviet Union —
homeland of Leninism, the
socialist country, the bul-

of the anti-imperialist
vsele of all the revolutionary
Tees,

The Peking leaders’ “theory
eeDorets serves the same
Tose as their old “theory of
Nggle of the world village
‘inst the world town.” In both
ithese “theories” nationalistic
i tpower motives take the
‘Hee of a class approach. Hav-
q failed in their attempts to
Jide the world into the econ-
‘Tically developed “town” and
2 developing “village,” or the
jillage” fighting for its libera-
1", Peking leaders decided to
ftow “the front of attack”
-( direct it, first of all, against
j Soviet Union. Now they urge

Countries — capitalist, deve-

~ Pacific Tribune

West Coast edition, Canadian Tribune

loping, and socialist — to fight
against the “two super-powers.”
More, the Chinese press empha-
sizes in every way that China
will never be a “Super-power, ”
and during personal contacts be-
tween Chinese leaders and re-
presentatives of different coun-
tries it is stressed that China
is the best defender of countries
fighting against the “two super-
powers.”

The term “super-power” was
borrowed by Chinese leaders
from the imperialist ideologists
of the USA. The latter invented
it in order to defend capitalist
principles, to mislead the Ameri-
can people and also the world
public and to camouflage in one
or another way the imperialist,
aggressive nature of the U.S.
foreign policy course. Character-
istically, the expression “one or
two super-powers” is used now
and then in Peking, as the estab-

‘lishment of Sino-American con-

tacts got under way. Apparent-
ly, in the expectation of Nixon’s
visit, it was decided to soften
the tone of propaganda, saying
as it were: “It is not you we
have in mind.”

Putting forward the utterly
false thesis of “two super-pow-
ers,” allegedly opposed to all the
other states, is in fact an act of
class betrayal. The Peking lead-
ers are trying in this way to ob-
scure the confrontation between
the two world systems, socialism
and capitalism, and to evade —
and evading in practice — the
real struggle against imperial-
ism. They even go to the length
of advising West European
states and monopolies on how
best to pool their efforts in
order to oppose “one or two
super-powers.” In the mean-
time, the Chinese leaders have

legalized their own political
flirting with the U.S. ruling
circles.

tt etatate’ ! ay

Editor—MAURICE RUSH
Published weekly at Ford Bidg., Mezzonine No. 3, 193 E. Hastings St.
Vancouver 4, B.C. Phone 685-5288.
Circulation Monager, ERNIE CRIST

Subscription Rate:

Canada, $5.00 one year, $2.75 tor six months.

North and South America and Commonwealth countries, $6.00 one year.

All other countrtes, $7.00 one year

Second class mail registration number 1560

Not cap in hand,
Mr. Trudeau!

The Prime Minister’s office has con-
firmed that Mr. Trudeau is going to
Washington to discuss with President
Nixon the 10 percent surtax and rela-
tions between Canada and the United
States.

In typically arrogant U.S. imperialist
manner the announcement was made
“prematurely” by Nixon’s press secre-
tary, which bodes no good for Canada
from that meeting. The way the an-
nouncement was made was not only
lacking in the common courtesy that
exists among states, but was like a big
boss ordering his “boy” to appear be-
fore him.

Nixon has not given any indication
that he is prepared to change his
course, treat with Canada as an equal
and take our country’s independence
and interests into consideration. To the
contrary, he is acting as high-handedly
as ever.

Does our Prime Minister’s docility
ask for such treatment?

Mr. Trudeau can go to Washington

_ with one of two attitudes. He can go to »

beg, cap in hand, for some crumbs for

Canadian capitalists while selling more
and more of Canada for “the Yankee
dollar” (however floundering and
“floating” that dollar is today). Or he
can go to demand the removal of the
punitive and unfair surtax, with a
straight-from-the-shoulder declaration
that U.S. subsidiaries will be national-
ized before they are permitted to close
or cut’ down operations, reviewing
Canada-U.8. trading relations with an
eye to halt those that operate against
Canada’s interests, demanding an end
to the military actions in which Canada
is involved as an ally and supplier of
material, and for the establishment of
equality in every way.

That’s not anti-Americanism. That’s
good Canadianism.

Plan for progress
budget for peace

Last week the Supreme Soviet (Par-
liament) of the Soviet Union endorsed
the five-year plan targets, according to
which, as Premier Alexei Kosygin re-
ported, by 1975 the industrial and agri-
cultural output of the USSR will sur-
pass the present level of the United
States, while production of consumer
goods will increase by 49 percent and
Ben cape income will grow by 31 per-
cent.

We, who are dedicated to the cause
of winning socialism for Canada, are
glad to see the socialist economy of our
northern neighbor achieving such great
successes for the well-being of the peo-
ple. And we take this occasion to once
more stress the benefits that Canada
and our people stand to gain by ener-

getically pursuing the course for great-
er trade and all-round exchanges initia-
ted by the protocols and agreement
signed during Prime Minister Tru-
deau’s visit to the USSR and Premier
Kosygin’s visit to Canada.

Their planned\ socialist economy
makes the Soviet Union and other so-
» cialist countries reliable business part-
ners. Their rapid advance in education,
science and culture provides grounds
for profitable exchanges. Their social-
ist way of life that excludes exploita-
tion of man by man or nation by nation,
that promotes peace and friendship
among all states and peoples, makes
them truly good neighbors.

The unremitting drive of the Soviet
Union to extinguish the fires of war

rhere they exist, to establish mutual
security and proceed with world dis-
armament has been called the “Soviet
peace offensive.” It is an offensive that
does not destroy but preserves cities,
does not kill but saves human lives.

Just as we have greater benefits to
gain from developing trade with the
USSR than from the blows directed at
us by the Nixonomics, so we have more
in common with the peace offensive of
the Soviet Union than the imperialist
war ventures of the Pentagon and US.
monopolists.

The Soviet peace policy is backed up
by the entire economic might of the
country. This is clearly demonstrated
by the budget for 1972 which was adop-
ted by the Supreme Soviet.

This budget, in which revenues are
set at 173,700 million roubles and ex-
penditures at 200 million roubles less
(there is no currency crisis to afflict it,
no interest charges to drain it), ear-
marks 90 percent of expenditures for
civic needs—to keep the economy grow-
ing, increase the living and cultural
standards of the people—and only 10
percent for defence.

In other words, military expenditures
not only won’t rise as compared to 1971,
but the rate will actually drop from 11.1
percent: in the 1971 budget to 10.3 per-
cent in the 1972 budget.

While “keeping its powder dry” (so
long as mutual security and disarma-
ment are still not reached), the Soviet
Union is “betting on peace.” The funds
allocated to cover social and cultural
needs alone, for example, are three and.

a half times those for defence.

Where’s the money coming from?
More than 90 percent of the revenue is
derived from receipts from socialist
enterprises and only 8.6 percent from
taxes on the population.

As Canada stands at the crossroads;
contemplating whether it should sink
further into the mire of “eontinental-
ism” and integration with the US. im-
perialist system or strike out on a
genuinely independent course of doing
what is good for our country and peo-
ple, these facts about the planning for
progress and budgeting for peace in the
Soviet Union should weigh heavily in
helping our people to choose the road

to genuine Canadian independence.
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1971—PAGE s