Left holds g

By KERRY McCUAIG TORONTO — Populist mayor John Sewell lost his bid for re-election to big business backed Art Eggleton in the Nov. 10 elections. Sewell, who entered city council on an anti-

_ developer program in 1968, had been consistently

attacked by the media over his support for police Teform and minority groups during his two-year term.

In acknowledging his defeat, Sewell referred to the many ‘‘good and valid issues”’ he had fought for as mayor. Citing police reform, daycare and hous- ing, he noted that over 80,000 people had sup- ported these issues by voting for him. He reminded supporters that the battles he had begun were therefore not over. :

But Sewell was not the only loss in Toronto s elections. Going into the campaign there was a chance for reform majorities on both council and school board. Instead the reform group on city council dropped by one, to nine out of 23 seats. The reform caucus on metro council dropped from six to three, with the loss of David White’s metro seat in ward one to reactionary William Boychuk. In ward six, retiring Reform Metro alderman Alan rows place was lost to right winger Gordon

ong.

The New Democratic Party, supported by the Metro Labor Council, endorsed 59 candidates for Office (out of a possible 213). Their considerations Were limited to NDP members, with the exception of Mayor Sewell. They were successful in electing 32 although 20 were incumbents and three of these were acclaimed. Labor Council spokesman Mike Lyons in assessing the result’said he felt the NDP ‘would have done better if they had ran for

mayor.” Other left spokesmen have called the NDP/

Labor Council position ‘‘divisive”’ and accused it of being responsible for the defeat of some com- munity candidates, while allowing right-wing can- didates to sneak through. The influence of the NDP label was also questioned, noting that the incum- bents were most likely re-elected on their records rather than party affiliation. __ fe

That position was highlighted in ward two where a reform candidate was replaced by Ben Grys. Grys was barred from seeking public office back in 1972, but he managed to nip community candidate Susan Atkinson by only 16 votes. Atkinson had run a close third in 1978. The NDP candidate finished more than 800 votes behind her.

Using the old saying *‘if at first you don’t suc- ceed ...”’, Joe Pantalone, who pioneered running

_ on the NDP label back in 1976 was elected in ward

four after his fifth try. Arch conservative Tony O’Donohue takes the metro seat for the ward. Another new reform face will be David Reville __ who replaces Janet Howard in ward seven. Reville ran a joint NDP campaign with Gordon Cressy. Reformer Dorothy Thomas was re-elected in ward nine after a two-team absence, replacing the

JOHN SEWELL ... “we fought many tough issues. Those battles are not over.”

discredited Thomas Wardle Jr. The rest of the elected NDP labor council aldermen were incum- bents.

In ward eight first-time aldermanic candidate Jeanne McGuire ran third with 1,450 votes, McGuire is metro chairman of the Communist Par- ty. In ward five Jim Kabitsis came fifth out of six polling 940 votes.

The reform caucus on the Toronto school board remains pat. Eleven of the 22 seats went to refor- mers. Nine were backed by the NDP, plus two independents. Pat Case topped the polls in ward four and former board chairman Fiona Nelson was acclaimed. Two of the NDP-backed incumbents were defeated, but retiring reform candidates’ votes stayed with reform candidates in three areas and new seats were picked up in wards one and eight.

a ward two Wilf Szczesny polled 900 votes and Nick Prychodko in ward eight took 350.

THE BOROUGHS

The reform group on York Council lost one seat when NDPer Gord Garland failed to replace retir- ing communist alderman Oscar Kogan in ward two. The NDP put forward a slate of six alderman for the eight seats, but only incumbents Pat Cana- van and John Nunziata were returned.

Caroline DiGiovanni will be the only reform voice on York’s school board. The NDP ran in only two areas of York. In ward two community candidate Carol Schwartz lost to conservative Branko Jovanovich by less than 30 votes. The NDP candidate there ran‘fourth.

round in Toronto elections —

The NDP ran five candidates for 11 seats in North York, but only the three incumbents were elected. Four NDP candidates vied for 11 trustee positions. Jack Sweet who lost by only 71 votes in 1978 polled 400 votes to winner Sheila Lambrinos’ 827. Lambrinos will be the lone voice on the board, incumbent Harold Koehler was defeated and the other two candidates failed in their bids.

In East York acclaimed Gordon Crann stands alone on council. Crann was elected in 1978 on a Reform Metro ticket. Ruth Goldhar lost her seat in ward one for trustee but Micheal Wyatt picked up a seat in ward four. These were the only NDP candi- dates in the boroughs.

Etobicoke re-elected reformers David Robertson and Ruth Grier. Fred Stasiuk, running for alderman in ward three ran fourth out of five with 3,250 votes. Verna Ross was acclaimed in ward five and the only other NDP-backed candi- date lost her bid for school board.

In Scarborough incumbent mayor Gus Harris kept his seat against conservative controller John Wimbs. Barry Christensen who replaces labor council president Wally Majesky in ward two was the only successful candidate out of the four ran by the NDP for 12 seats. :

Incumbent Pat Collie kept his trustee seat on the Scarborough board; the other NDP candidate was not successful.

Following the election returns the media and establishment spokesmen began characterizing the results as a shift to the right.

That is questionable. The actual number of votes © going to reform candidates increased in 1980 over 1978. Sewell’s was a narrow defeat. Only two more votes in each poll would have returned him as mayor. : ’

Metro Toronto Communist Party chairperson Jeanne McGuire laid the blame for this at the feet of the NDP. ‘The right wing forces united in this election,”’ she said. ‘*They had learned the neces- sity of unity better than the forces of reform.”’

She charged the NDP with failing to work with reform candidates and ‘‘not full working for Sewell’. Their opposition to some reform candi- dates ‘‘destroyed the possibility of reform majorities.”’

‘*This doesn’t mean people have stopped want- ing reform’’, McGuire said. But warned that *‘sec- tarian’’ politics can only lead to victories by big business interests.

The change in council representation she said, ‘‘demands the increased mobilization and unity by reform-minded people to fight for needed changes in the next two years.”

The Maoist leaders of the WCP follow the same classless policies at home as they do on the international scene. This 18 quite understandable because they suf-

fer from the same malady when it comes

_ toclass struggle in Canada as they do in

tio:

World politics, i.e., the lack of a

porking-class outlook, which, concrete-

Y, Means lack of a socialist perspective. * * *

| The Forge article, which we examined ‘ast Week in respect to the present situa- nN in Poland, charges the Communist CLa of Canada with ‘‘cozying up”’ to N President McDermott and “his

Cw Democratic Party buddies”, of

_ “hanging onto the coat tails of Broadbent

oe

company’s NDP’’. And why? Be- “use the CPC calls for an electoral al- liance in these words: ‘‘For real change

_ 7 elect a progressive majority, including

‘_ommunists to parliament’’. They dis- Tt that into a call to vote NDP. This, Y assert, is ‘‘opportunism’’ on the

_ Part of the CPC.

However, there is no call in the CPC’s

¢lectoral slogan to vote NDP. Rather the

Call is to build working-class and demo- eae unity to change the class make up

Parliament and for a government based on

thi a@ new class alignment. From S Poi

_ mt of view, the charge of

the Portunism”” needs to be looked at in ws light of what kind of election result wuld best serve the interests of the

orking people, and what result would

St Serve the interests of the monopoly

=-

Marxism-Leninism in Today’s World

italists? The answer to this question aaibevident But not to the WCP Maoist leaders. They are living proof of the old adage that “‘there are none so blind as those who will not see’’. * * :

In the name of ‘‘revolution” the WCP’s classless leaders reject out-of-

hand Lenin’s time-tested theory of class -

alliances as the path to achieving work- ers’ power and the building of a'socialist society. Such rejection demonstrates a woefully low level of class conscious- ness. It demonstrates also an inability to understand the Canadian labor move- ment. And, because of this failure, the WCP leaders are unable to develop an independent policy toward that move- ment. They, like the reformists, which the WCP leaders dismiss with a stroke of the pen, seize upon a single aspect of the movement *and elevate this one- sidedness toatheory. _ Lenin consistently reminds working- class revolutionaries of the absolute necessity to approach every aspect of class struggle from the outlook of the working class. This the leaders of the

WCP are not able to do, because they do mot possess a working-class outlook.-

Rather they are the prisoners of an ideol- ogy that is a distortion or variation, of the outlook of the capitalist class.

* * *

A central fact of political life in Canada is that state power is in the hands of monopoly capital. The state is an instru- ment of the rule of the monopolists. Another central fact of Canadian politi- cal life is that the vast majority of the non-monopoly population still vote for the parties of monopoly. Those who break with those parties vote, in their considerable majority, for the NDP, that

is: for social reformist policies. This

considerable majority is composed of working people in the main, small and medium farmers, intellectuals and small business people. This, too, is an impor- tant feature of the Canadian reality. The defeat of monopoly capitalism, which includes the defeat of its political parties, will not be achieved without unity of the working class and demo- cratic forces, and the isolation of monopoly and its governments. This is so, whether the power of monopoly is overturned by violent means or by rela- tively peaceful means. Whatever the means, the overthrow of monopoly power represents a distinct stage of the struggle for socialism — the struggle for which will open the door to the next stage. The power which will break the stranglehold of monopoly over the eco- nomic and political life of our country, will be that of a democratic alliance based on the’strength and discipline of a

Neither Marxist nor Leninist con't.

united, organized working class. * * *

The democratic alliance projected by the CPC includes in its scope the social forces within which the NDP finds most of its eiectoral support as well as its underpinning. These forces are basically

‘reformist in nature, and not revolution-

ary. But most of them constitute the working masses from whose ranks are drawn the organized sections of the working class. However, the leaders of the WCP dismiss these masses as being **social reformist’’ and chide the CPC as being ‘‘opportunist’’, in striving to har- ness the great revolutionary potential that resides in the ranks of the working masses, in order to advance the whole working-class and democratic move- ment closer to the goal of socialism.

It is quite apparent that the WCP’s conception of fighting social reformist ideology .is to fence themselves off in splendid isolation, shouting directions from afar. They do not seem to know that Lenin taught that the masses learn from their own experiences. Nor do they seem to understand that the outlook of the working masses can, and does change as they are impelled in their: own self- interest to fight back against the crisis policies of monopoly. ;

In 1916, Lenin wrote: ‘‘Whoever ex- pects a ‘pure’ revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOV. 21, 1980—Page 9