Peace or war...»

WO weeks ago the

;

big business men in Toronto.

deliberately,

nech.

et In view of the fact that

those made in the draft resolution.

QUESTION: The daily papers report Graham Towers as saying: The fundamental policy clearly must be the fiscal one of reduc- ing spending incomes by increas- ed taxes, to the extent that the available supply of gocds is being reduced by the demands of the defense program _

“So long ‘as ‘rearmament ex- penditures go on increasing, I be- lieve government revenues should anticipate the future level or re- “quirements dather than merely try to keep pace with current re-

‘ ~

quirements” \

Do. You attach any particular significance to those statements?

ANSWER: Yes, they are very significant. Read them again and note how carefully they are phras- ed to assure the well-to-do repres- entatives of industry and com~ merce at that meeting of two central aims of the government’s

(a) that increased taxation will be designed specifically to take money out of the pockets and pay anvidlopda jof the workers and farmers. . ? i

(b) that the government's aim should be to systematically reduce the purchasing power of the thas- ses of the people in favor of war production whether or mot the government needs the revenue..

‘

_ Whata ‘doctrine! It’s the devel- oping for of neo-fascism. Hitler’s lieutenants were simple people by comparison with Governor Tow- ers: théy put it bluntly: “Guns before butter.” e ; etic:

QUESTION: Didn't Brooke Claxton, the minister of national defense use that slogan in the House of Commons last Septem-

‘per? : ;

ANSWER: Yes, Claxton told _the members of the House that, in his opinion, Canadians can’t have the choice between “guns and butter”. He emphasized the idea that’ the government’s war ‘program is going to hurt some people. Governor Towers is now assuring big business that the hurt is for the workers—big bu- _ siness will get the war contracts. ' But brazen statements, such as those of Claxton are not encour- aged now. The government’s iron

of the preparations for that party's fortt cing few days after that document was published, Graham Towers, governor

of the Bank of Canada, delivered a prepared address to an audience of

' But, while the governor's address the central thesis of the LPP resolution, argument which completely contradicts the thesis of the concerning the inevitability of econamic crists.

: Trade Minister Howe and other members of the government harp upon the same queston, all with the same intent ds Towers’, and in view of the fact that these two related issues, peace and war and economic crisis or prosperity are de Tribune interviewed Tim Buck, LPP national leader, tion of the apparent contradiction between the statements of the governor of the Bank of Canada and the minister of .trade and conynerce, and The interview with Tim Buck, in the

form of question and answer, follows:

Pacific Tribune published the text of the draft res-

olution submitted to the members of the Labor-Progressive party as part rthcoming national convention. A

The main argument of Towers’ address was © along the line ‘‘guns before butter”. One of the most striking effects of the address however, was an emphatic confirmation of the correctness of © the central thesis of the LPP convention resolution. — Indeed, the emphasis upon war preparations in the governor's ad- dress made it abundantly clear that the war divic decisive element in the St. Laurent government s policy. Towers confirm- ed also the correctness of LPP warnings that the government ts planning, fo foist the burden of the cost of its enormous war program on the masses of the people—with the low income group getting it in the

drvie is the central and

testified to the correctness of he put forward in addition an draft resolution

decisye for Canada, the Pacific for an explana-

_ Saying: - part, on fear of deep depression

tant raw materials and so on. That sort of gambling is a sanc- .tified feature of capitalism.

QUESTION: But, the govern- or of the Bank of Canada assur- ed his Toronto audience that the economic system is in good .shape. The press quoted him as “Policies based, even in

are not justified by: the facts of the post-war world, nor do I

think they are really consistent

with certain other policies such

as those for mutual defense and

economic cooperation as exem- plifiéd in the Atlantic Pact.” Is that assurance well based?

ANSWER: The first part of it—“the facts of the post-war world” simply is not true. The second part—‘“certain other poli- cies .’ is no more and no less than an implied assurance that the contradictions which generate economie crisis can be overcome by expenditures for — war. :

QUESTION: Can they?

ANSWER: No, of course not. Capitalism cannot abolish the operation of the law of the cyc-

~ An interview with ‘TIM BUCK

new policy.. Those two points are: ,

a

hen iae:

fist is now being masked’ in vel- vet glove propaganda.

QUESTION: Are the industrial results. of that policy to be seen as yet or are we still in the pre- liminary stages? :

ANSWER: . In the main we are still in the preliminary stag-

es. For example, propaganda to the effect that governmental war expenditures are creating a boom is mainly government publicity in support of its war aims. Aggre- gate employment in the eight leading industries on August 1 was only one-tenth of one per-

- cent higher than it was in Dec.

1948—before the decline through 1949. There are still 150,000 un- employed and recently there has been an actual decline in employ- ment. The “war boom” of which there is so much propaganda, is as yet, very largely , speculative.

QUESTION: In

anticipation of war contracts? ; Reig

ANSWER: That is a factor. But others are more immediate. For example, a very large num- ber of shrewd men figure that the U.S. and Canadian govern- ment’s deliberately inflationary policy is bound to result in a tremendous increase in the gen- eral price level, perhaps even ‘re- valuation of gold. With the aim ‘of cashing in ‘on such a trend those men and the interests they direct have been putting their money into “real values”, (pro- ducts or claims upon products) extending their credit to the li- mit with the idea of being able to pay the debts later with mon- ey that is worth less, and so on.

QUESTION: But isn’t the gov- ernment restricting credit?

ANSWER: Not the credit of those fellows. The “restrictions of consumer credit” is aimed to make it even harder for the average worker to buy a home, refrigerator, an automobile. People with substantial incomes don’t need that sort of credit. The restrictions don’t touch the use of bank credit, the accumu- lation of huge stocks of impor-

lical ecdnomic crisis and remain capitalism. As Marx demonstra- ted, and as the history of the profit system has reaffirmed con- tinuously ever since, the contra-

“dictions which generate econo- mic crises are inherent in capi- talism. To get rid of them in- ‘volves getting ‘rid of capitalism. Let me illustrate:

Consider the, general contradic- tion between social production and private appropriation; That central all-persuasive contradic- tion is now an anachronism; it has to be abolished. We-suffer continuing deepening crises and imperialist wars as a result of it, but the capitalists won’t abo- lish it — or even admit its evil.

\

Or consider the inherent con- tradiction which finds expression in the fact that the capitalist . class always expands the capa- city of the industries to produce faster than it allows the purch- asing power of the masses of the people to increase. An ines- capable result is that during per- iods of economic expansion the proportion of workers, raw ma- terials and industrial equipment that is devoted to expanding pro- ductive capacity increases much more rapidly than does the pro- portion devoted to the produc- tion of goods for immediate con- sumption; that, in fact, is an important factor in creating boom condition, If, for any. reason whatever, boom conditions are interrupted by a halt in the ex- pansion of capacity to produce, an economic crisis ensues, (That isn’t the only factor that will bring a crisis, of course; it is one example).

_Apparently Towers assumes the government can solve that in- herent contradiction by spending upon war preparations to fill the gap between our total capacity to produce and the demands of . privately-owned investment capi- tal upon the “producer goods in- dustry.” Furthermore, he seems to figure that, through the use of war propaganda and the as- sistance of the leaders of the

‘ing bigger profits than ever for -

C.C.F., the working people will ©

be persuaded to accept less, leav-

the monopoly corporations.

Towers is mistaken, The out- break of an economic crisis may be delayed somewhat by that technique, but only at the price of deepening still further the contradictions that he pretends are being overcome.

Fat war profits will revive the recently lagging demands upon - the “production goods industries” ” —But, the only way the demand could be kept equal to the more rapid expansion of capacity would be by steadily increasing the size of the armament expendi- tures.

It is a gruesome fact that, im- plicit in. Towers’ easy assurance | to his Toronto audience was the thesis that the Truman and St. Laurent governments will have the third world war in full swing before economic realities compel | them to stop expanding peace- time war expenditures. The pa- rallel with Nazi Germany dur- ing the thirties is startling. —

QUESTION: Do you mean from this that their policies make a third world war inevitable?

' ANSWER: Their policy is bas-* ed upon their idea of the inevi- tability of a third world war; that is its purpose. But, I think it would be entirely wrong to suggest that their policy makes— a third world war inevitable. It can still be prevented. :

QUESTION: What should be done to prevent it? ;

ANSWER: The main task is Canada is to bring home the fact to the masses of the people, show them the danger and convince them of the need for action. The people must reject the St. Lau- rent government’s war program, ‘must insist upon a peace pro- gram, a

QUESTION: Is it possible to have , full employment without war or war preparations?

ANSWER: Yes, definitely. Jobs and peace go together as related results of the peaceful’ coexistence of the capitalist and socialist systems. As Stalin has

Prosperity or crisis?

emphasized more than once, the peaceful co-existence of the cap- italist and socialist systems is fully; possible provided there is a “will to peace’. Until they choose the policy of deliberately seeking war the leaders of capi- talist economy in Canada and

the U.S. also agreed that peace-

ful co-existence was possible and to the advantage of both. They agreed that the productive capa- city of North America could be kept fully employed for 25 years at least producing the « goods; needed by the Soviet Union and

China alone. ‘

.Don’t you remember Donald Nelson, the wartime “production tsar” in the United States, As the war reached its crashing climax the president sent Nelson to China and to the Soviet Union to study their probable post-war needs and the extent to which

“they coincided with the probable ‘post-war interests of U.S. econo-

my. Donald Nelson returned from each of these trips enthu- siastic. He discovered in both China and the USSR needs for goods from North America and needed goods for North America both in quantities which, to use his own terms, made it possible to plan the post-war entirely on the basis of reconversion-accord- ing to what we need.

Those needs, and a million new ones are there today. As we point out in the draft resolution, the Soviet Union and the peo- ple’s democratic republics would gladly buy from Canada, for — peace, a great deal more than — the St. Laurent government can spend upon war preparations and stay out of war. ee

Two weeks ago, in;a conversa- — tion with Jacob Malik, St. Lau-— rent declared he believed the people of the Soviet Union want ‘peace—he added the significant hint: “that ... if our leaders — didn’t make fools of themselves _ we would have peace.” i

Every Canadian should demand of the St. Laurent government — that it pursues policies which © correspond with that statement instead of the policies now being introduced, a

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 3, 1950 — PAGE 5