ADDITIONAL READERS COMMENT

‘Whither B.C. NDP? —debate rages o

Disagrees with Hope

By JACQUES

our issue of January 10carr-

ied an article under the head- ing: ‘‘NDPer gives views on the way forward." Since you have indicated that this is the second contribution in what you hope will be a continuing discussion I am undertaking the task of making a few comments on the article.

After reading the John Hope letter I had the distinct impress- ion it was the offering of a disgruntled petty bourgeois who had lost his way and found him- self on unfamiliar ground — amongst militant workers.

Following his reference to the need for ‘‘the cleansing wind of constructive criticism’’, Mr, Hope launches out on a destruc- tive, vituperative attack app- arently designed to smash the only organized Left grouping in the NDP — the Socialist Caucus.

Mr. Strachan must be chort- ling with glee.

-“

A good third of the article is taken up with aslanderous witch- hunting attack against the mem- bers of the caucus — *‘suspect persons,’* misguided leadership, people’s enemies, Trotskyites, etc.

Since Mr. Hope sees the caucus as an organization seeking to de- stroy the party it seems to me, instead of wasting effort writing letters to the ‘‘ Pacific Tribune’’ he should align himself with the right wing leadership inthe drive to expel those wreckers. If he makes haste he will be in time to climb aboard for the drive just now projected.

The Hope article saw the pro- gressive move at the convention as a revolt which developed spon- taneously — without leadership and needing none. Indeed there is, throughout the article, a fine thread of contempt for any idea of organized leadership

Since Mr, Hope is obviously not going anywhere politically, this contempt is quite under- standable.

In view of the fact that the pure John Hope, who stands apart from we impure swine, is ig- norant of what is happening, let me enlighten him just a little,

ova

The Socialist Caucus has, for some time now, been carrying on activity in all of the con- stituencies in the Lower Main- land and to some extent (although certainly not sufficiently) in some constituencies in the interior and on Vancouver Island.

Most of the forward looking resolutions and the election of many Left delegates to the pro- vincial convention were a direct result of the organized efforts of the Left. In one constituency — much to the annoyance of the Right leadership — an entire Left delegation was elected.

The Right declared the election null and void, called a second meeting to undo the work but the entire Left slate was again unanimously returned. If Mr. Hope thinks such things can be accomplished without organizat- ion, he must be smoking opium.

Both Ben Swankey and John Hope complain about the caucus fighting for some distant social- ism (why they think it distant in this era of capitalist crisis and decline and how far distant is left for the readers to guess) and for their alleged failure to put forward aprogram of immed- iate needs in opposition to that

advanced by the right wing lead- ership,

Let me correct this erroneous point of view.

-

In the first place — as pointed out above — much of the rel- atively good program adopted at the provincial convention was largely due to the work of the caucus, In addition, the caucus has openly published its views in a document titled: ‘‘A Suggested Socialist Manifesto For the NDP.”:

This manifesto, ofcourse, sets forth the socialist objective which the caucus contends (rightly, in my view) is the only fundamental solution to the ills which beset us. However, the manifesto does not stop at simply setting out this ultimate goal, but goes on to declare:

**Recognizing that the exis- tence of immediate problems de- mands immediate answers and action’ and cannot wait for ul- timate solutions, we therefore propose the existing NDP pro- gram be extended to include:”’

The manifesto then proceeds to state a number of points for a minimum program, around the following demands:

(1) For Canadian withdrawal from NATO and NORAD and against participation in the OAS,

(2) Disarmament and against Canadian participation in any activities pertaining to the de- velopment, possession and use of atomic, chemical or bacter- iological weapons,

(3) For normal trade relations with all countries and active support for the struggles for, or maintenance of, national in- dependence of all nations.

(4) Nationalization of all for- eign-owned industries and the planned development of second- ary industries,

(5) Nationalization of all fin- ancial institutions, including in- surance companies.

(6) A section on unemployment calling for the 30 hour week, extended unemployed benefits, longer vacations, etc.

(7) A section on education and other youth needs,

(8) A section on civil rights.

Since much of what is contained in the manifesto was made party policy at the convention it should be noted that this document was being circulated and discussed many months previous tothe con- vention call.

Mr. Swankey also stressed the importance (quite correctly) of the need for the NDP to become a true, and not a sham, federated party. Allow me to quote the

* Manifesto on this question:

‘‘The federated character of the NDP, an inheritance from the CCF, provides a political vehicle whereby various schools of radical and socialist thought may work together in the interests of the common man, This feder- ated feature of the party must not only be maintained . . . but expanded.’’

The above program is the pro- duct of a group where there is often quite sharp conflict of op-

inion on many of the problems involved. It has, naturally, all

of the weaknesses that such an environment bequeaths upon it.

It needs to be kept under con- stant review and critical exam- ination, but it does not deserve to be ignored as indicated by statements to the effect that it does not exist.

There are, in the caucus, many divergent opinions as to what

With this issue, the ‘Pacific Tribune”’ sumes the debate opened up following therecent provincial convention of the NDP by Ben Swankey, in an article printed in the December 13 issue and entitled: ‘‘Whither the NDP in B.C.?”

The discussion below represents three letters submitted to the “‘PT’’, two by long time readers and the third by a Vancouver member of the NDP who took up pen to disagree with the opinions of a fellow-member from the Interior.

We will continue to publish further views on this topic as they arrive in our office.

re-

socialism really is and how to achieve it, We do try to recon- cile these differences in the in- terest of working together for the common good,

If Mr. Hope, because of his

ideas, finds this hard to believe let me assure him that we will be prepared to tolerate dis- cussion of even his strange brand of socialism—which apparently grows on mulberry bushes.

‘Go Left or go out’

By E. H. TUDOR ay I put in my two-bits

worth re Ben Swankey and.

the NDP, and the reply by ‘Nom- de-Plume’ which intrigued me. Is he afraid of the ‘Brass’ or the people?

I am glad he mentioned the **Mulberry Bush”’ as it brings to mind a game played by junior girls nearly 70-years ago. ‘‘Here we go round the mulberry bush, on a cold and frosty morning’’, etc. 70-years are now past, the mornings frosty, but so far no mulberry bushes, therefore no food for silkworms, but we are still trying to make ‘‘silk purses out of sow’s ears’’?

The gentleman, or is it a lady, (shades of Mrs. Pankhurst) refers to the Pearsons and Ben- netts. There are still dozens of these, call them what you like, they would smell no sweeter in the hatcheries of capitalism. We even got one of them elevated

to the ‘‘peerage’’, and our Pear- .

son is a product of the ‘‘things we get from the brains wetrust’’ as it should be.

“Trust? is an appropriate word. The Nobel Peace Prize winner of 1956, the ‘‘greatest statesman of our age and cen- tury’? yelped our wise men mostly Liberals, has developed into the greatest nuclear warhead advocate. Premier of the 1960s,

Someone once _ remarked ‘Don’t name a street or avenue or mountain after them until they are dead’’, He sure hit the spot with Lester. Of course the Pent- agon doesn’t see eye-to-eye with

me, as our NDP friend: says.

The bulk of the people don’t see or realize the nature of Yan- kee imperialism.

Can the blind lead the blind? When the NDP openly supports NATO they encourage Yankee imperialism and here our NDP friend refers to his own leaders who consciously or unconsciously are working-for the big corpora- tions.

- But if the people do not know, certainly the big corporations do. And these same big corporations could mean the armament pro- ducers who benefit greatly by NATO. In fact are they not the promoters of NATO?

I have just read the book ‘‘Un- fullfilled’? by Dr. W.G. Hardy who says, ‘‘We financed Hitler until 1938. This paved the way to Dieppe . . . and the stench of rotting bodies among the hedgerows of Normandy’’. Can- adian youth principally, mainly because we ‘financed Hitler’’.

And so again we go’round the imulberry bush, to Cuba, or as Noel Baker says, ‘‘To the Brink of Oblivion’, or heedless of William Liebnecht’s classical warning that ‘‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’’,

In one of his last letters tome, my good friend Bill Irvine’ of Alberta wrote: ‘‘The NDP must go Left—or go out. There is no room in Canada for four ‘free enterprise’ parties’’!

So let’s stop expecting silk purses from sow’s earsand cease to be an ‘‘also ran’’ in a world community of socialist states,

Frankly, don’t know

By JOE IVENS

he ‘‘ Pacific Tribune’’ has in- vited its readers to give their opinions on ‘Whither the NDP in B.C.’. It appears to me that this question should go to the members of the NDP themselves. I doubt whether readers of the ‘PT’ are qualified to answer that question, for the very obvious reason that very few readers of

the ‘PT’ are members of the NDP. -

But I may be wrong on that score? Do the members of the NDP know where they are heading, have they any primary objective, and if so has it ever been stated exactly what it stands for ?

I suppose the’ now discarded ‘Regina Manifesto?’ came clo- sest to what the CCF represented, a certain brand of Socialism that would fit in with the capitalist structure, to reform as_ it were the capitalist-way-of-life here in Canada. Its founder, J.S. Woods- worth was a very sincere man, as were many of those who helped

him found the CCF,

I recall some of the men who worked with Mr. Woodsworth: the late Mr. E.E. Winch, William (Bill) Irvine of Alberta, William Ivens of Winnipeg and others, sincere in their efforts to reform the capitalist structure of Canada around 50-years ago.

The CCF sent many of its best men and women to Parliament and provincial legislatures, and looked as though it had a long

and bright future. But it also had —

its right-wing who opposed, as for instance, the Russian Revolution, and that alone caused many progressive thinkers to steer clear of the CCF and look for “a more active Party that wanted socialism here inCanada.

Moreover because the CCF did not make headway fast enough, it changed its name and consti- tution and became the NDP. This is now so much water under the

bridge but it isnecessaryto know —

its past history, since without knowing that it is impossible to

ca =

‘they want no party of the “‘left’

apply the lessons learned, or these lessons to become a guide to the future,

I have yet to meet anyone from its very foundation do to the present, can tell me aims and objectives of the ND. Is it its intention to reform parliamentary system of country, to try and give working class and the farm a better deal, to make Cana a better place for everybo'

Or is its objective to oust old Tory and Liberal and ni Social Crediters from office, run the country better than of these parties?

So far I have never found its objectives, and therefore ¢ not see where it is heading. TH problem is, can they see the selves?

One might ask what is reason the people do not supp the NDP more fully. Are they so well fed and prosperous

approach? This poses another question, is the NDP ‘‘leftist’?? To D sure the NDP has its ‘‘le and ‘‘right’’, and it could well that this is exactly what is hold- ing it back. As I see it the NDP is a pa: of social democracy, and allp: history of this social democrac¢. has played into the hands 0 reaction and imperialism. The ‘*PT’’ hasaskeda quest that cannot be answered by any short letter - to- the- editor. would take a book as large a8 any modern Bible to deal full with every aspect as to why am where the NDP is going. It could be going the way of | other political parties to. total extinction. It could also groW if it followed correct policies; and by that I mean getting to- gether, dropping its right-wing practices, coming out as a part: for genuine people’s unity, and showing the people that it is in deed a socialist party. No, Mr. Editor, it will take 3 better mind than mine to answe! such questions. Frankly I don’! know, and I don’t believe the NDP know themselves. I should like to have a few NDPers tell uS themselves ‘Whither the NDP?”

Douglas denies

Liberal merger

National NDP leader Tommy Douglas has ruled out any mer- ger with the Liberal party. ID so doing, however, he defend the so-called ‘‘right’* of NDP members to discuss merger Possibilities without officially representing the party. This was seen by observers as al attempt by Douglas to get cer- tain trade union leaders (nota- bly from Steel) ‘‘off the hook” for the abortive merger at- tempt.

Seoveececesoceecoeocevcceccc?

Workers Benevolent Assn. Of Canada

Progressive Fraternal Society . Caters to all your needs in the Life Insurance field

LIFE INSURANCE ENDOWMENTS PENSION PLANS WEEKLY BENEFITS Apply to: B.C. office at

805 East Pender St. or

National Office at 595 Pritchard Ave. Winipeg 4, Manitoba

SPRCPOSESHEHOSEHSEHOHSSEHSOHOHOEHOSOOSOEOHOTOOEOESOOEEOE