Parti

Trotskyite slanderers given a fitting reply

The student paper of the Engineering Sc guage University of Montreal, Polyscope, October 16 an article by Sam Walsh which “Quebecois and l hing to do because the article

munist paper Combat entitled

| _tions.” This was a rather significant t ¢ ¢ "sharply criticized the Parti Quebecois for its policy of boycott of _ the elections and the University of Montreal is one of the main

centres of support for the P.Q.

In a subsequent issue of the pape to this article. Below is the rejoinde: -Polyscope:

—

In the last issue of Polyscope there is an article entitled: “The Communiste du Quebec and the National Question, a Re- ply to ‘Quebecois and the Fed-

- €ral Elections’,” of which I am the author of the latter. This

“reply was written by a Trots- kyist, which was quite evident by the distortions and lies con- tained in it, hardly requiring the Signature at the end.

In the first place, this article is presented a reply to mine, en- titled “Quebecois and the Fed- eral Elections.’ Readers will re- Call that, basically, it was an appeal to Quebecois to reject the harmful advice of the Parti Quebecois and to vote against

the bourgeois parties and for a

progressive bloc of Communists and New Democrats. The first

part of my article contained a

critique of the policies of the Other parties with respect to

‘their rejection of the right to

Self-determination of Quebec (which the Communist Party of Canada champions since 1935), their economic policies which

- €an only worsen unemployment

and inflation, and their policies which would tend to increase Canadian dependence on U.S. imperialism. After citing the broad lines of our program to meet these problems the article made the above-mentioned ap- peal to reject the advice of the Bo. |

But the Trotskyist response is limited to a shameless distor- tion of Leninism and of the na- tional policy of the Parti Com- muniste du Quebec, and on questions which have absolutely nothing to do with the federal elections, and hence not even mentioned in my article. The Trotskyists simply used this article as a peg to hang their anti-Communism and anti- Sovietism, which is par for the course.

For example, look at this Poisoned gem: “We have all heard of the problems of the na- tionalities in the USSR, of the Struggle of revolutionary Ukra- inians against the Soviet bureau- cracy.” From whom have we all heard this? From the bourgeois press fed by Zionists who are furious at the resolute aid given by the USSR to the Arab coun- tries and to the Palestinians; by the collaborators with the Nazi Occupiers of the Ukraine, even War criminals such as Dmytro Kupiak, Conservative candidate

in Toronto in the recent federal

elections; and, by the Trotsky- ists, who make themselves the

_ champions of the dregs of hu-

manity, provided that they are anti-Communist and anti-Soviet.

The article attributes to us a policy of support for bilingual- ism in Quebec, whereas the of- ficial declaration of our Party, entitled “‘For a Democratic Solu-

tion of the Language Question,”

published on September 17, 1968

and never changed since, says

in part:

“But meanwhile, we believe that the workers and other de- mocratic forces should demand that the government of Quebec undertake measures it has re- fused until now, such as: 1) That the French language be recog- nized as the principal and gen- eral language in Quebec, and that the policy of Bilingualism be rejected.”

The Trotskyists claim that the withdrawal of Law 63 would eliminate the linguistic priv- ileges of the English-speaking minority. But they supported an amendment to this law which would guarantee to Anglo- Saxons (or to those whose coun- try of origin is English-speaking) the right to education in the English language, while denying this right to immigrants coming from other lands. How can such an amendment eliminate the linguistic privileges of the Eng- lish-speaking minority? On the contrary, as long as the lan- guage of work is English, such a measure can only reinforce the privileges of this minority, while discriminating further against the immigrants and even against French-Canadians!

But the “booby” prize for dis- tortions (of which I can only mention a few from the multi- tude in this “reply”) is to be found in the following: ‘For Lenin, and for us, the right to self-determination of the op-

pressing nation is irreconcilable |

with the right to self-determina- tion of the oppressed nation.” For the Trotskyists, yes. But for Lenin, this is a distortion wor- thy only of the Trotskyists.

Lenin always demanded the right to self-determination for “all nations, big or small.’’ He insisted that the basis for the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, found- ed 50 years ago, recognize the right to self-determination of all the republics federated in the USSR, up to and including the right to secession. Nowhere can we find that the Russian repub- lic (and the Russians were for- merly the oppressing nation) do not enjoy this right.

The Trotskyists fabricated this lie to excuse their policy of licking the behinds of the petty- bourgeois _ national-chauvinists of the worst kind in Quebec. This forms an integral part of their policy of “entrism” (in- cluding where I have just indi- cated) in order to spread their anti-Communist, anti-Soviet poi- son designed to destroy the unity of the working class.

I want to thank the editorial staff of Polyscope for having re- printed my article from Combat, as well as this rejoiner to the dishonest attack coming from our class enemies, who dare to refer to Lenin with the aim, as it was of their spiritual father, Trotsky, of destroying what is indestructible—Leninism.

hool of the French-lan- republished in full on appeared in the Com- | the Federal Elec-

ra Trotskyist wrote a “reply” r of Sam Walsh, published in

/

iL 439

WV

®

‘TRIBUNE PHOTO—EDYA WEIR

The Massey-Ferguson strike in Toronto continued into its sixth week, the company refusing to bar-. gain in good faith. The morale on the picketlines still remains very high. Photo shows Tribune staff mem- ber Richard Orlandini talking with picketers.

From Nov. 8 until Dec. 11, the Canadian membership of 710 Lo- cal Unions of the United Steel- workers of America will nomi- nate Canadian and International officers of their union. After a two-month campaign, balloting will commence on Feb. 13, 1973.

Ever since the first convention in 1942, the steel workers have been burdened by an undemoc- ratic structure and convention procedure. Its structures and procedures were strongly influ- enced by the United Mine Work- ers whose men dominated its early leadership. The union is a top-run union.

Frustrating inner-union demo- cracy is the practice of allowing paid staff members to serve as proxy-delegates from small lo- cals that cannot afford the $50-a- day expense for a delegate, plus fare. When a convention is thou- sands of miles distant, as was the last September International Convention in Las Vegas, it is indeed a problem. Often-times these proxy delegates carry cre- dentials from locals whose mem- bers have never heard of them, let alone approve of them. As appointees of the general office in Pittsburg, these staff people are usually far more concerned with the security of their jobs, paying $14,000 to $16,000 a year plus liberal expenses, than with the problems they vote on.

The only time the members really have an opportunity to

express their. will is in the sec- -

recy of the referendum ballot on election of officers and directors and tellers, as they will have next Feb. 13.

I. W. Abel was elected on a slogan to end “tuxedo union- ism.” But in the last U.S. steel negotiations he brought in ‘“com- pany unionism.” For the first time in the union’s history he agreed, “by contract”, to join hands with the companies to in- crease the industry’s profitabi- lity. The method was a produc- tivity clause resulting in speed- up and wholesale job elimina- tion. The result is that both the union and the company are now policing the working steelwork- ers in the U.S. In addition to this, they now tell American steelworkers, “Buy American.”

BY BRUCE MAGNUSON

LABOR SCENE Canadian steel workers

face important election

It is common sense to ask if Canadizn steelworkers can sur- vive four more years of the pre- sent international union leader- ship under I. W. Abel?

a * %

Fortunately for Canadian steel- workers, they have an alterna- tive. They can now nominate William Litch Jr., presently fin- ancial secretary of Local Union 1462, Youngstown, Ohio, for In- ternational President. He can also be elected. Four years ago the challenger got 43% of the vote.

At the same time they can also nominate Sam Stokes, a Black steel worker, for vice-pre- sident of the United Steelwork- ers of America and strike a blow against race discrimination.

Running for Secretary-Treas- urer against Walter J. Burke is George Edwards of Lorain, Ohio. He has been an active member of Local 1104 for 30-odd years.

The program of these men in- cludes elimination of the pro- ductivity clause from the U.S. contract and replacement with a job security clause to protect jobs, elimination of all forms of discrimination on the job and in the union, a concerted drive for the 6-hour day, 30-hour week at 40 hours pay for all of USWA,

Also cn a matter of specific concern to Canadian steelwork- ers, these men stand for con- stituticnal amendments to guar- antee full Canadian autonomy for the Canadian section as a distinct entity within the union.

bo * * National

Here, in Canada,

'|' “fh day-to-day leadership.’ "PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1972—PAGE 5.

Director William Mahoney is being opposed by Donald Mont- gomery, Toronto area supervisor

of the Steelworkrs. Mr. Mont- -

gomery can be described as a right-of-centre element in the union, who is presently presi- dent of the Metro Toronto Labor Council. His nomination for na- tional director in opposition to Mahoney is being promoted strongly by the District 6 leader- ship under the direction of Lar- ry Sefton.

_ Mr. Sefton is ill and is re- tiring as the District 6 Di- rector. He strongly supports Lynn Williams for District 6 Director, a post,he, now. virtu- ally occupies in view of Sefton’s illness. Mr. Williams is being challenged for the post by Harry Greenwood, presently secretary of Local 1005 in Hamilton.

Both Mr. Sefton and Mr. Mont- gomery are backing Williams.

While programmatic positions have been conspicuous so far by their total absence, it is a well known fact that for several years Mr. Sefton—in charge of organi- zing, servicing and contract ne- gotiations from the Quebec border to the Pacific coast — has sought to compete with, if not openly challenge and oppose, policy functions of the national office in Canada under direction of National Director Wm. Ma- honey.

As a consequence there are ample reasons to suspect that the open challenge to Mahoney in this campaign evolves around questions related to Canadian autonomy as opposed to a stronger influence in Canadian union affairs by Pittsburg and the I.W. Abel leadership, with District 6 officials under Mr. Sefton and Montgomery leaning

strongly towards Pittsburg and —

the Abel leadership.

It is to be hoped that the membership will not be divided by a campaign on personalities, but that issues will be the main consideration. These issues re- late to all-inclusive trade union unity, autonomy, and restructur- ing within the union in such a way as to strengthen inner-union democracy and membership par- ticipation in policy-making and

igen

off