Recession in the United States and Canada (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The United States is at present in the throes of the worst period of industrial stagnation it has experienced since the 1930s. And Canada, as number one U.S. satellite, with an economy closely interwoven with that of the U.S., fares no better. The seriousness of the situation may be indicated by the figures for unemployment, which in March reached 5,198,000 in the U.S., and 590,000 in Canada.

Political, business and other leaders in both countries respond to the condition m the same shallow manner.

When the existence of the “recession” was officially recognised some months ago, U.S. President Eisenhower proposed to deal with it by substantial tax reductions, which, he said, would increase purchasing power deplete, surpluses and start the wheels of industry turning again. Mr. Pearson, Canada’s Liberal leader, also advanced this thought in the last election campaign. The proposal has not yet been put into operation, perhaps because Mr. Eisenhower forgot about it and Mr. Pearson failed to become Prime Minister.

At present Mr. Eisenhower is lending his support to “operation optimism." Lack of confidence is now blamed for the recession and this confidence must be restored. People must in some way be encouraged to buy goods, even to the point of extravagance, they must, in Mr. Eisenhower’s words, be urged to “buy anything.”

Following this line of reasoning, U.S. capitalists are doing their best to propagandise themselves back to prosperity. The Advertising Council, a top advertising group, has started a four-month “confidence in a growing America” campaign, intended to improve the “economic attitudes” of consumers. Auto dealers in 110 cities have started sales drives featuring the slogan, “You Auto Buy Now.” It is expected that this campaign will spread to 200 more cities. Cleveland has started a “Buy Now” campaign, with a “V for Values” theme and a “Miss Prosperity.” Boston is planning a POPS (“Power of Positive Selling ”) drive to “combat loose recession talk.” In New York a “National Sales Crusade” is being launched. Some business men are wearing embroidered pocket handkerchiefs proclaiming “Business is GREAT.” An appliance concern has issued large lapel buttons saying “Business is Good.” The Public Relations Society of America has asked its members to send all optimistic news they can about their companies to a central clearing house for national distribution.

If empty prattle is an effective weapon against hard times, there is enough of it circulating at present in the U.S. to take care of all eventualities.

Canadians are not able to chase banshees with the same vigour and versatility as their American cousins, but they do have the same tendency to deliver sledgehammer blows at everything except the nail. Prime Minister Diefenbaker thought a while ago that diverting trade from the U.S. to Britain would help. Now he insists that he was misunderstood. Throughout the winter a Government-sponsored campaign to “Do It Now” was carried on. Billboards, radio, television newspapers, all were used to urge those who needed jobs done to have them done at once. More recently the trade union movement has been taking up Mr. Eisenhower's proposal of lower taxes. Claude Jodoin, Canadian Labour Congress president, at the recent CLC Convention, dealt at some length on this theme, seeing in lower taxes a billion extra dollars being put into the pockets of the consumers, “particularly the poorer consumers.”

Meanwhile the employing class, despite their playfulness, are not passing up a favourable opportunity to look after themselves. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that the income of Canadian labour in the one-month period from December to January had declined 4.5 per cent., and hourly wages in manufacturing declined from $1.65 on January 1st to $1.64 on February 1st. The decline between December and January can be attributed mainly to increasing unemployment, but that cannot be said of the later decline.

Mr. Jodoin and the trade unions should take a long look at these figures and then start grooming themselves for some independent working class activity.

What they ought not to be doing is looking to their masters for sensible or helpful suggestions.

Jim Milne,

(Socialist Party of Canada).

Politics in Canada (1958)

From the April 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the March 1958 issue.

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation

We have often been reproached because we criticise the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It is even said that we spend more time criticising the C.C.F. than we spend on all other groups combined. There may be some truth in this, but it must be pointed out that any group that professes, as the C.C.F. sometimes does, to stand for the same thing we stand for, is bound to find itself the object of more than ordinary attention  from us. After all, if the aim of the C.C.F. is the same as ours, why are we in the field as a separate organization, or, more appropriately, why did the original C.C.F. membership form a separate political organization when the Socialist Party was already in the field? These are questions that cannot be directed towards the Liberals and Conservatives. They are quite happy about capitalism and they don’t mind telling people about it.

The C.C.F., like the Social Credit movement, had its origin during the Hungry Thirties. The statement of its views was adopted at a gathering in Regina in 1933, which afterwards became known as the Regina Manifesto. This manifesto was highly regarded in C.C.F. circles for many years, being described frequently by one prominent C.C.F. member, the late John Queen, as a historical document. It is now almost forgotten, having been replaced by a new document identified as the Winnipeg Declaration of Principles. This declaration was said by many of the C.C.Fs. opponents to have scrapped the Party’s adherence to Socialism. In reality, it scrapped or partly scrapped what some C.C.F. members thought was Socialism, an act that brought some relief and some indignation amongst different groups within the Party—but no exodus towards the Socialist Party. The C.C.F. could not adhere to something it never understood and it could not scrap something it never accepted. C.C.F. ideas have always, even in the Regina Manifesto, been linked with those of the Social Democratic Parties of Europe, particularly the British Labour Party. The British Labour Party was formed in 1906. One of its founders and first leader was Keir Haidie, who expressed himself as bang favourable to Labourism, not Socialism. The second Labour Party leader was Ramsay MacDonald, who was prime minister of two Labour governments and completed his political career as prime minister of a national government made up mainly of Conservatives. The third Labour Party leader was Clement Attlee, who was prime minister of the post-war Labour government and who retired not long ago from active politics to become a peer of the British realm, a status so elevating that on his visit to Canada a year ago he avoided questions on political subjects and declared to press reporters that he was a statesman, not a politician. The C.C.F. has never been critical of this sort of thing. It evidently sees nothing in this to be critical about.

Like the British Labour Party, the C.C.F. has never advocated Socialism. It has sponsored and supported numerous schemes for public or government ownership and it has at times referred to these collectively as Socialism and individually as steps towards Socialism. To the C.C.F. the city-owned Winnipeg Hydro, the government-owned Canadian National Railways and all such concerns are Socialist in character. If there are certain evils attached to these establishments, that is because of Liberal or Conservative administration. Under C.C.F. administration they would lose these evils. This, of course, is foolishness, but it is the kind of thing the C.CJ7. has been putting forward for many years under the heading of advanced and responsible politics. Perhaps the acme of foolishness was reached recently when some of its official representatives declared that the pressing need of today was for the government ownership of the natural gas pipe line that is at present stretching in all directions from Alberta. That this is not a pressing need at all is something the C.C.F. will probably never find out

So much for the larger aims of the C.C.F. It gains much of its support, indeed, most of its support, not because it advocates government ownership. This just serves to give it a serious and learned appearance, so providing a credible base for other things, and it is these other things that are the main attraction to the average C.C.F. supporter. High wages, low prices (except to farmers), larger pensions and unemployment benefits, low taxes (except to “big shots”)—in brief, legislation to improve (or convey the impression that they will improve) the living conditions of the “common man.” These things usually come under the heading of reforms, and reforms are the main stock in trade of the C.C.F.

A vast amount of sincerity rests behind most of the activities of the C.C.F. But sometimes one feels that this term can only be used with the greatest charity. More than 23 years ago a convention of the C.C.F. was held in Winnipeg and a resolution was brought before the delegates calling for old age pensions of $40 a month. This resolution created a lot of discussion, but hardly any of it concerned itself about the needs of the old people. Mostly it centred around the response the $40 proposal would receive from the electorate. To some, it was pointed out, this figure would seem sufficient; to others, it might seem miserly; while a third group might regard it as extravagant. The C.C.F. hoped to gain support from all sections of the people, so it was desirable to frame the resolution in such a way that it would have wide appeal. The delegates saw the logic of this position and the amended resolution dropped the $40 proposal and called instead for an adequate pension. Over the years since this time the word “adequate” has relieved the C.C.F. of many a potentially embarrassing situation.

It might also be mentioned in passing that the $40 pension which the CC.F. found too hot to handle in 1934 has been in effect now for many years, introduced by a Liberal government The Liberals also increased the amount not long ago by $6, and the Conservatives more recently have increased it by an additional $9.

Time and circumstance very often nullify the effects of reform. Capitalism has a bad habit of throwing up new evils or new twists to old evils, and it can manage to do this with as much rapidity as the reformers can cope with. No sooner is a patch applied here than the need arises for a patch elsewhere, and while this is being attended to the old patch breaks out again. And while reformers often point with pride to the reforms they have enacted or helped to enact, they are less frequent in pointing with pride to the wholesome, healthy and happy living conditions of those who have benefited by these reforms. It is doubtful if a reformer can be found anywhere so foolhardy as to declare that the country with the greatest number of reforms is the country with the highest standard of living.

A great deal more could be said about the C.C.F., its policies and activities, but space will hardly permit. It must be added, however, that there is no good reason for the existence of the C.C.F. Its existence is actually harmful to the best interests of the workers, for it spreads wrong ideas about Socialism and helps to preserve the belief that the present system can be improved in such a way as to make life really worth while for the mass of people.

The Communist Party

Of the various other groups that seek the support of the Canadian electorate it is possible here to comment only, and briefly, on the Communist Party. This organization has been clamouring for the support of the workers ever since the early 1920s. It has existed under various names: the Workers' Party, the Communist Party, the Workers Unity League, the Labour-Progressive Party (its present name) and others. At election times it sometimes refers to itself as the Labour Election Committee. The reason for all this is partly to fool the authorities (who have sometimes been troublesome) and partly to fool the workers. That it has succeeded at any time in fooling the authorities is doubtful; but it has had some success in fooling workers.

The Communist Party has always claimed to represent the workers, but it has never at any time concerned itself about the interests of the workers. It began as a section of the so-called Third or Communist International, which was organized and controlled by the Russian government, and it has at all times since then been completely subservient to that government. Whatever ideas and policies have been considered to be in line with the interests of Russia's rulers at any given time, these have been the ideas and policies of the Communist Party. There has never been a time when the C.P. has opposed a position taken by the Russian 'government, even when, as has frequently occurred, that position has been at variance with the interests of the workers. To show the unwholesome nature of this party one needs only to note that Stalin, who is so roundly condemned today, was worshipped and fawned upon by Communists during all the years he was dictator of Russia, praised in the most revolting way even in the midst of his greatest villainies, and is criticised today only because he is criticised by the Russian government

The record of the C.P. is almost unbelievable in a group professing to represent the working class. During its earlier years it sought to control movements of workers and tried to destroy those it could not control. For many years it carried on mudslinging campaigns and violent attacks against other groups. On various occasions it sponsored strike breaking activities. And during the second world war it supported both sides at different times, in line with Moscow's changing fortunes. At no time has it taken an independent working class stand on any issue. At all times it has been an enemy of the workers.

The Socialist Party

The Socialist Party of Canada is different from the parties named above in various ways, but it is different in one very important respect: it advocates Socialism. This is something none of the others do or have ever done. Often have spokesmen for the C.C.F. complained about “old line" parties (Liberal and Conservative) stealing planks from their platform. It would be impossible to imagine a Socialist complaining about any part of the Socialist platform being stolen. We have only one plank; it is not necessary for anyone to steal it; we urge everyone to accept it. It calls for the establishment of a system of society in which the means of life will be owned, controlled and operated by and for the whole of the members of society. This plank forms the objective of the S.P.C. It is the one tiling we ask people to accept and support, and we ask people to support it because it is the one thing that can bring about an effective treatment to the major problems of today. Poverty, wars, depressions, all the evils that loom large in the lives of people, have a common origin in the nature of existing society. They can be ended only with the ending of capitalism. The Socialists have been carrying this message to the workers continuously over the years. Today, at what may be the closing of another of capitalism's booms, with the world standing on the brink either of war or depression, the message becomes more urgent. How much longer will the workers disregard it and continue to place their trust in the system that is bringing them ever closer to destruction?

Jim Milne

(Socialist Party of Canada.)

(Concluded.)

Obituary: Fred Neale (1973)

Obituary from issue number 5 (1973) of The Western Socialist

It Is with sadness that we record the passing of another old stalwart.

Fred Neale, for some twenty years a member of the World Socialist Party in Los Angeles and Seattle and previously a member of the Socialist Party of Canada in Winnipeg and Vancouver, has been forced out of the struggle after a lengthy and painful illness.

Fred became a member of the Winnipeg Local shortly after the first world war and never lost interest in the work of spreading Socialism. During the interval between the decline of the old S. P. of C. in the 1920s and its reorganization at the beginning of the 1930s he was a one-man distributor of Socialist literature and for part of this time his name and address appeared regularly in the Socialist Standard as a source of copies and subscriptions to that journal.

Fred was active in the Party's reorganization and its adoption of the Socialist Party of Great Britain's Declaration of Principles and became its first Local and Dominion Executive Committee Secretary, offices he held for several years. Through this period he was also a regular soap boxer.

During the second world war he lived for a time in Vancouver and was active there in the Party’s work. Later he moved to the United States and became a member of the Los Angeles Local of the W.S.P.. sending regular donations to The Western Socialist and helping in its circulation

To his family in Winnipeg and Seattle, our deepest sympathy. His kind are rare.

Jim Milne

War of Nerves in Canada (1959)

From the January 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the latter part of November much concern was expressed in official and other quarters over the strike of railway shop workers that was to have started on December 1st. No concern at all was expressed over the fact that the workers had been led around by the nose for a year prior to their decision to strike.

The railway unions had expressed their willingness to settle on the terms of a government conciliation board award which provided something less than half the amount originally demanded. In announcing the strike decision, F. H. Hall, chairman of the unions’ negotiating committee said: “The pattern of recent years has been a gradual falling behind industrial wages generally, and even the recommended increase will not halt this deterioration.”

In spite of this, a war of nerves was carried on against the workers. Politicians shook their heads at the potentially sad consequences to the nation, press editorials spoke learnedly about the dangers of inflation, preachers expressed the hope that moderation would triumph, business men talked about being priced out of to protect their living standard are not to be treated lightly

Meanwhile, the government organised a gathering of provincial government representatives and held “hearings” on the advisability of allowing the freight rate increase which the railway companies insisted they must have to meet the demands of the workers. These hearings could have gone on for months, but they were hurried along by the strike deadline, much to the undoubted irritation of the participants. A few days before the strike was to have started the railways were awarded their freight increase and came to terms with the workers.

In prolonging the dispute beyond the expressed willingness of the workers to accept the small change awarded by the conciliation board, the Government no doubt, had an eye to the future. That it hoped for a settlement more favourable to the employers is doubtful, for the unions had repeatedly slated they would not accept less. But another day is coming and the Government no doubt hopes that workers whose nerves are frayed by long months of “negotiations” and offensive propaganda will be less ready to put forward a determined position when the present contract expires. May the actual response be quite different!

In the midst of the railway “crisis” the C.C.F.. in the person of Harold Winch C.C.F.. M.P., from Vancouver. demanded that Prime Minister Diefenbaker be brought back to Canada to take personal charge. The prime minister was on a world tour.

This piece of grandstanding might have provided some comic relief, except for the unpleasant fact that antics of this kind tend to further the attitude that ruling class representatives can approach a conflict between workers and masters from an impartial and altruistic position. Mr. Winch is supposed to be one of the better informed members of the C.C.F. and ought to know this.

However, viewed from the standpoint of the uninformed and impressionable worker. Mr. Winch’s contribution might have been impressive, except for the fact that his own leader, Mr. Coldwell. was also galivanting in the far places.

Jim Milne

Politics in Canada (1958)

From the March 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The worker of today is so little interested in politics that in all the parliaments of the present day world there is not a single individual who can be said to represent his interests. This is true in Britain where there is a large Labour Party representation and where there have been three labour governments in recent years. It is true in the United States where there is no Labour Party representation and where there has never been a Labour government. It is true in Russia where the government for the last forty years has called itself Communist. And it is true in Canada where Liberals and Conservatives have been changing places and holding hands in governing the country ever since Confederation.

Nothing is more certain than that the workers of Canada are content to give their continued support to the system that enslaves them. At every election there are four major parties and a varying number of smaller parties seeking the support of the electorate, and all of them propose to preserve the present order of society. They have this in common regardless of the features that seem to distinguish them. Leading the list are the Liberals and Conservatives. Behind them a few paces are the Social Creditors and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. And bringing up the rear are the Union National group of Quebec, the Communist Party and occasional new groups or offshoots from existing groups.

The “Old-Liners”

Up until last June, and for 22 years previously, the Liberal Party held undisputed control of the government. Capitalism was in vogue at the time of its rise to power; it was still in full bloom at the end of this period; and at no time in between was there any suggestion by any member of the Liberal Party that it ought to be replaced by another system of society—in spite of the fact that its 22 continuous years in office saw the country pass through the world's worst depression and the world's worst war. This period in office, combined with all the other periods it has held office during the 90 years that have passed since the country became self-governing, show that in spite of a surface radicalism that affects some of its members at times, the Liberal Party is constitutionally incapable of harbouring a single thought that reaches beyond the limitations of capitalist society, no matter how rotten this society may become.

It is true that Liberal governments over the years have brought into effect an impressive assortment of reforms (such as unemployment insurance, family allowances, and so on), which were all supposed to have added up to a better life; but it is also true that life has not improved to the point where people generally, even the Liberals, are over-exerting themselves boasting about it. Tins is a subject to which the reformers could well devote a considerable amount of thought.

The Conservative Party evolved a few years back into the Progressive Conservative Party. This bit of face lifting was instigated by John Bracken, who had been for many years the premier of a “Liberal-Progressive” government in Manitoba and who rose from the ranks of the Liberal-Progressives to become the leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Bracken failed to win any elections for the Conservatives and he was hurried out of politics and back to Manitoba, where he became an authority on model liquor legislation; but the “Progressive" prefix which was his historic contribution to Conservatism in Canada is still with us and is still as rich in content as it was in the days before Mr. Bracken found that Manitoba needed his expert consideration to the cup that cheers. Progressive-Conservatism today is still the staunch unyielding upholder of capitalism that plain, simple, unprogressive Conservatism was a generation ago.

To determine the differences between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Patty would require microscopic perception. And what the electioneering was all about last May and June is something that very few people today could tell about. The Liberal Party didn’t stand for very much except its record. And not to be outdone the Progressive-Conservative Party, too, didn’t stand for very much except the Liberal Party's record. And since they both stood for the same thing they both came very close to being elected. There is no doubt that Mr. Diefenbaker, the Progressive-Conservative leader, was just as surprised as Mr. St. Laurent, the Liberal leader, who in turn must have been just as surprised as the average person to learn that Tweedledee had just nosed out Tweedledum. At any rate, last June saw the passing, for the present at least, of Liberalism in Canada, whatever that was, to be replaced in the places of power by Progressive-Conservatism, whatever that may be that is different, and the workers may look forward to the next four or five years without surprises—at least pleasant ones.

Social Credit

Canada holds the distinction of having given birth to the first government devoted to the idea that money is neither more nor less than pieces of paper identified as money simply (to use its own term) by the scratch of the banker's pen. This group is the Social Credit Party and it now holds control of two provincial governments, the governments of Alberta and British Columbia. In Alberta Social Credit has held office for more than 21 years, first gaining power in 1936. The B.C. group has been in office a smaller period of time.

The theories of Social Credit were originated a generation ago by a certain Major Douglas of England, whose central proposition came under the heading of an A plus B theorem which was intended to explain a condition that Major Douglas described as an absolute deficiency in purchasing power. In depression times this sort of thing sounded good to a lot of people who didn't have enough to eat, and Social Credit gained a certain support in England, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. An amusing thing about this movement is the fact that it gained its greatest support in Alberta, where it was probably least understood. None of the leading members of the Alberta Social Credit group has ever shown that he understood Social Credit Even the late Wm. Aberhart, the first Social Credit premier of Alberta, who was so highly regarded by his supporters that he was once described as a man with God-given guidance, proved many times that he never had the faintest grasp of what Major Douglas was talking about. Not that it mattered. The theories of Majojr Douglas and Mr. Aberhart were equally foolish. Mr. Aberhart, who was a preacher, gave expression to a mixture of backwoods bible-thumping and false, but popular notions on why people were hungry, and he called this Social Credit. Major Douglas was quite disturbed at this and for a time Social Credit in England would have nothing to do with Social Credit in Alberta. But this is old and unimportant history and all that needs now to be mentioned is that the Social Credit movement today makes no effort to justify its existence on a theoretical base. It gives no noticeable lip service to the ideas of either Major Douglas or Mr. Aberhart. It rides the crest of the boom that has come to Alberta and B.C., takes to itself credit for the boom, promises more of the same, and in all respects behaves as if it had never heard of the funny money theories that helped so much to bring it to prominence in Canadian politics. Social Credit has settled down to the comfortable and orthodox behaviour that workers whose brains are politically at ease find so acceptable today.

Jim Milne

(Socialist Party of Canada.)

(To be continued.)

Problems of Trade Unions in Canada (1958)

From the December 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Rail Workers Take a Beating
The Socialist Standard frequently comments on government stumbling blocks placed in the way of organised workers trying to gain improvements in wages and working conditions. Regular readers of the Socialist Standard will not be surprised to learn that Canadian workers also have troubles of this kind.

A trade union in Canada establishes its right to become the legal bargaining agent for a group of workers only after a government-supervised vote of the workers has been taken. It must also, of course, convince the employer of the advisability of conceding this representation. In this it is not always successful, and the law does not compel the employer to deal with the union.

When a union has become “certified” or legally recognised as a bargaining agent, and is so recognised as well by the employer, its next step is to approach the employer for a contract that will govern the wages and working conditions of its members for the duration of the contract. If the union had been previously certified and is already under contract, it must, in order to change the contract, serve notice of this desire with the employer at least thirty days before the contract expires. Then the long journey begins.

The employer and the worker, in the persons of their respective representatives, get together at a time and place agreed upon and talk things over. These talks are usually continued as long as the employer can manage. Why hurry? The law requires that a lot of red tape be unwound before a strike is legally permissible, and no matter how slowly it unwinds the employer is protected. And prolonged negotiations usually tend to wear down the determination of the workers to stand by their original demands, causing a settlement more favourable to the employer. So it is not unusual for the preliminary conversations to break down.

The next step is the appointment by the government of an arbitrator, whose ostensible function it is to get the contending parties together again and see if something can be accomplished that wasn’t accomplished before. The arbitrator can generally be depended upon to devote as much time to the task as possible. This writer knows no instance of an arbitrator helping to bring about a settlement.

Next comes the main event—a conciliation board.

The conciliation board is also appointed by the government. It is made up of three members, one named by the employer, one by the union or unions concerned, and one by the government. The government nominee is the chairman. The findings of this board are not legally binding on the disputing parties, but they often form a base from which a settlement develops.

It is the stated purpose of the conciliation board to hear the case of the parties in dispute, sift the material presented, and try to agree on what they would consider to be a “just settlement.” This type of board will hold hearings for a long time and often stays in business for several months.

Then, after being subjected to all this pompous time-wasting, if he has gotten nowhere, which often is the case, the worker may, by permission of the government, and if he has any steam left, go on strike—although, in certain instances, the government may insist on compulsory arbitration, according to a bill passed recently through Parliament.

The most representative example of what can happen to workers in Canada in dispute with employers is provided by the railway shop workers, presently trying to increase their wages and improve their working conditions. A review of their travels might be of interest.

The rail workers' contract with the railways (Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, etc.) expired on December 31st, 1957. On the previous November 12th, in line with government regulations, they informed the railways of their desire to sign a new contract embodying improvements in wages and working conditions and asking the railways to meet them in discussions. The discussions were held, but did not last long, being described in a report of the railway unions to their members as having been “brief and abortive.”

The brevity in this instance was a departure from the usual practice. The railways rejected the union proposals and made no substitute proposals, claiming they were not in a financial position to consider an improved contract for the workers. As became apparent later, this unyielding abruptness arose from an intention to use the demands of the workers as a lever to gain increased transport rates on freight, these being regulated by a government board.

Ordinarily, the next step would have been the appointment of an arbitrator, but the unions, momentarily aware of what was going on, asked the government to waive this appointment, since the railways had made no offer and there was nothing to arbitrate. They asked instead that the conciliation board be appointed.

The government concurred in this request, perhaps knowing no good reason for declining. But it managed to delay matters in another way, by naming as chairman of the conciliation board a well known and consistent nominee of employers on other conciliation boards, which raised a clamour of protest from the unions and his ultimate replacement by another who, the unions felt, would be more impartial. A prominent union spokesman described this replacement as a victory for the railway workers. It was also the source of a time lapse of more than two months.

It must be pointed out that the unions are to a large extent to blame for the delay that followed. In spite of all their previous experiences they still, gravely and in detail, follow the devious course mapped out for them by the government, and they still accept, as something akin to gospel, the government's mumbo-jumbo on employee-employer relations. In the present instance they hired an “economist” to help in the preparation of their submission to the conciliation board. The result was not surprising. In another of their reports to the men the union representatives declared that “during the first eight days of presentations, some 250,000 words of testimony were placed on the record.” The old time trade unionist, who often made his presentations before lunch and completed his business after lunch, could not have thought up that many words in a lifetime.

The hearings before the conciliation board lasted nearly four months. Then the board went into seclusion, presumably to sift these mountains of words into the substance of a “just settlement.” This took another six weeks, which in the charitable eyes of the rail workers indicated “a long period of sifting evidence and reaching conclusions.”

The findings of the board were released on July 21st This was followed by a period of silence during which the wisdom of its content was digested by the parties concerned. After an interval the unions declared their willingness to accept its provisions. After another interval the railways rejected its provisions. At the moment of writing, nearly twelve months after the unions served notice on the railways of their desire for a new contract, a strike vote has been taken the result of which has not yet been made known. The purpose of the strike will be to enforce acceptance by the railways of the settlement proposed by the conciliation board, which will provide the workers with less than half the amount of their original demands!

The railway workers, even if they gain a complete victory, will at the same time be getting a bad beating, having allowed themselves to be manoeuvred into the position of being willing to go on strike for trifling ends. An important thought for their future guidance is to refrain from allowing their time, energy and stamina to be frittered away by those whose chief concern must always be to protect the interests of the ruling class.

The workers need also to learn that the size and quality of the material brought before a conciliation board is not important to the final outcome., No matter how impressive or convincing this material may be, the board, with promptings from the government, is guided by considerations designed to leave the worker not far from subsistence level. Evidence of this may frequently be found in board reports, an example being the following from the report of the railway conciliation board:

  The Chairman throughout was concerned about the conditions of the economy as a whole and the need for moderation in wage demands.  . . . 

What caused the chairman to become concerned about these things was certainly not contained in the material submitted for his consideration!

An even more blatant disregard for the alleged functions of a conciliation board is contained in the report of the board conciliating the recent dispute between the Steel Company of Canada and its employees at Hamilton, from which the following is taken:—

   “It is our view that in coming to a decision on what should be done about wage and other economic demands, made by the Union at this time, our decision must be governed to a very considerable degree on our interpretation, of what is in the national interest and what effect should be given to it.
   "The interpretation of the Government itself as to what is presently in the national interest as far as wages and prices are concerned, is to be found in the speeches and statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and need not be quoted here at length. In general, both Employers and Unions have been aborted to 'hold the line'." . . . 

This conciliation board awarded nothing at all, and although its deliberations were given the added weight, prestige and genius of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, it is with some satisfaction that we are able to report that its findings were ignored and the steel workers went on strike, gaining an increase in wages of some 26 cents an hour.

Railway and other workers are at present showing too great a tendency to place their problems of wages and working conditions at the discretion of government boards. That this is an unsafe thing to do is shown by the quotations above. The lesson provided by the steel workers is quite plain. The strike is still their most effective argument.

Jim Milne

News from the Branches (1959)

Party News from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Conference, 1959

The Comrades who were fortunate enough to attend the Annual Conference this year must have been heartened by the enthusiasm and interest apparent throughout the discussions, and most certainly all enjoyed the social arrangements. There was a good delegation in number and the contributions made by the delegates were interesting and useful. For the first time in the history of the Party two delegates from Canada were present, Comrades Greta and Jim Milne from Winnipeg. Needless to say, it is hoped that these Comrades are the first of many Companion Parties' delegates to attend our Conferences and we look forward also to the sending of delegates regularly to America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Agenda was completed and recommendations have been referred to the E.C. for consideration, most of them dealing with the expansion and improvement of Party propaganda.

The Social side of the Conference was excellent. On the Friday a get-together evening was held at Head Office, and the Dance at Conway Hall on the Saturday was even jollier than last year and from the financial aspect a credit balance of £29 was reported. A Rally of mainly Party Comrades was held at Conway Hall on the Sunday evening to round off the weekend. Comrades R. Critchfield and H. Young spoke on Darwin and Marx, and tape recordings were relayed of greetings from the Companion Parties in Canada, U.SA, Australia, and New Zealand and our Comrades in Vienna.

Camberwell Branch

Camberwell Branch, in addition to organising three weekly outdoor meetings, East Street and Clapham Common on Sundays, and Rushcroft Road on Saturdays, is still canvassing the Socialist Standard every week. The Branch hopes to extend this activity, Currently, one branch meeting each month is being devoted to a lecture-discussion. These meetings have been very interesting, the most recent was given by Comrade Coster who spoke on Marx and Darwin. This stimulated a good discussion by Branch members. On May 11th a discussion in the form of a debate is being held by Comrades Baldwin and Michael, the idea being that it will help Comrades to learn the art of debate. Details of this event are shown in the Meetings column.

Mitcham Group

Since the beginning of the year, this Group has had a more centrally situated meeting place, namely a room in the “White Hart” at Mitcham Cricket Green. Regular, well attended lecture discussion meetings have been held once a month on Tuesdays. A report of Branch meetings has been sent to the local paper and an extract of “what the speaker said" has usually been published. These notices which have always included the full and correct name of the Party, plus the several letters by Party members printed in the correspondence columns have been useful in letting people know of the S.P.G.B.'s activity. Already the Group has served to bring some Central Branch members into touch with one another, and provided an opportunity for them to air their views on the general subjects discussed. With a few more Central Branch members attending, the Group could function as a Branch and thereby provide an opportunity for members in this area to more effectively express themselves on Party matters. Meanwhile, the Group is going ahead with its Summer programme of meetings and literature selling in an endeavour to increase its membership in the district.

Ealing

The Branch's first effort at holding a Film Show proved to be a great success. The subject was “Automation” and Comrade Hardy gave the accompanying talk, followed as usual by questions and discussion. There was an audience of thirty, and a very good collection of two pounds was taken. This will certainly be the first of many such shows.

The Branch has decided to have a thousand each printed of a short introductory leaflet to the Party's pamphlets Russia Since 1917 and War. These will be distributed to readers of the S.S. and will be followed up by canvassing of the pamphlets concerned.

Canvassing activity is still continuing, and new areas are being opened up. At present, efforts are being concentrated on the Wembley area and encouraging results have so far been reported. Paddington Branch have requested that we assist them with a canvass in their area and we have agreed to give them as much help as we can.

Arrangements are being made for a further series of lectures to be given by Party members during the next few months. Details will be announced later.

Members are asked to note that the annual Branch outing will be on 13th June to Eastbourne. They arc asked to notify the Secretary as soon as possible of the number of seats they will require.

Nottingham

Commencing on May Day, Sunday, May 3rd, speakers are going from London every week for propaganda meetings in Nottingham. It is hoped that most speakers will be able to get there on Saturday evenings in time for a meeting on arrival, followed by Sunday morning and evening meetings. These arrangements of course will depend on the travelling times from London. A debate is being organised and details are shown under “Meetings” in this issue.

Phyllis Howard

#    #    #    #

Islington Branch

Social & Dance

Saturday, 23 May, 7 p.m.


Co-op Hall, 179 Seven Sisters Rd., N.7


Live Music, by Joe’s Group


Admission 2/6 (including refreshments)

The Canadian Scene (1967)

From the Seven Days for Socialism! International Supplement (August 1967)

Like all nations that dazzle the world with their riches, Canada is well to the fore in such displays—and less forward in showing its poverty.

But riches and poverty go together, as also do the defenders of the one and the champions of the other, who are in fact less far apart than they suspect.

No less so in Canada than elsewhere, Mr. Diefenbaker, the ex-prime minister, waxed eloquently on Canada’s greatness—and raised the old age pension. Mr. Pearson, the present prime minister, is not less rapturous in flag-flapping and boosted the pension a bit more. Mr. Douglas, the aspiring Prime Minister, would keep profits in Canada away from Americans and give the old age pension another hoist.

Only Mr. Thompson, erstwhile top banana of social credit, fond of his country though he is, had nary a mite for the pensioners —and was dumped by the wayside. Canada then is just another capitalist country. It is a giant in size, in industry and agriculture. It ranks among the first half-dozen producing nations, despite a sparse population of twenty million. But it exploits its wage slaves as much as the traffic will bear, searches the world for outlets for its commodities, and takes sides in international squabbles, having been involved in nearly all the talking and fighting adventures of this century.

It has its demands for higher wages and better working conditions which are sometimes made to stick; a wearisome burden to government and industry, whose appeals for moderation in the national interest have not always convinced workers that low wages are a mark of distinction.

It has its mods, its diggers, its hippies, its peace meetings, freedom marches, petitions to Parliament and all the churning, raging, futile produce of a world turned away from the vital need to really know its own nature.

It is just another capitalist country.

French Canada

Canada was originally taken from the Indians by the French and English, the latter then dispossessing the former, the descendants of both presently snarling at one another over their respective tongues’, ‘cultures’ and other ‘differences’ as vital as the output of the representative ‘love-in’. French Canada, located almost entirely in Quebec, has been prodded by the church and Quebec capital for many years for reasons less than altruistic, and has been belted and catered to by English Canada with motives of no greater merit.

Traditionally, the Quebec political scene has been dominated by the Liberal Party which has had to tread warily to offset the work of ‘nationalistic’ elements in the province. Liberal influence has waned in recent years, provincial politics becoming dominated by the Union Nationale Party, an organisation existing entirely in Quebec and aiming at almost every kind of ‘independence’ for the province, short of complete separation from the rest of Canada. On the federal field the Quebec Liberals have been weakened by the rise of a group originally part of the National Social Credit Party which broke away from the parent body and established itself as an independent social credit party. The reason for the breakaway is believed to be the need to reflect Quebec nationalism, a must these days for all parties searching for votes in Quebec.

None of Canada’s five social credit groups having federal or provincial representation is interested in social credit, or even talks about it.

Liberals and Conservatives

The Liberal Party, patterned after the Liberals of Great Britain, controls the Ottawa Government but without an overall majority and can retain hold on power only with the support of one of the other parties. Sometimes this support comes from one or both of the social credit parties and sometimes from the New Democratic Party. Its hold on power has not been seriously threatened, opinion being that no other party feels confident of strengthening its position in another election.

The Conservative Party (or Progressive-Conservative Party, as it has preferred to be called for some years now) is the Canadian equivalent of the Conservative Party in Britain. It is the leading contender for power if this should be lost by the Liberals. These two parties, in fact, have alternated in power since confederation, surviving a number of political windstorms without damage.

There is little to distinguish between the Liberal and Conservative parties. With minor differences on how best to run the affairs of the capitalist class, they have never been divided when these affairs have conflicted with the interests of workers—who have suffered this unity and have so far learned little from it.

The New Democratic Party
The ‘party of labor’ is the New Democratic Party. It is the result of a deal between the former Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the trade union movement, the latter deciding a few years ago that the time was ripe for labor to come to power. Successive elections, despite considerable trade union support, did not bring ‘labor’ to power and trade union enthusiasm, even, interest, has declined. The initial gain through trade union support was matched by the loss in farmer support that had formerly gone to the CCF, leaving the NDP parliamentary representation practically unchanged from that of the CCF.

Socialists were critical of the CCF through all the years of its existence. Coming on the scene professing Socialism as its aim, it spread a number of wrong ideas in the name of socialism. In its later years it came to the view that its advocacy of ‘socialism’ did not help its election chances and it dropped the use of the term and all suggestions that it held any aims that could not be approved by Liberal and Conservative supporters. It was then ripe for a complete break with its rebellious past and the New Democratic Party was born. This body, if anything, is an even more watery collection than the British Labour Party, reaching its odious depth in the 1963 anti-American crusading of its leader Mr. Douglas.

There are other parties that run candidates for Parliament, two social credit groups being among the successful one, although their combined representation is less than that of the NDP. All in all, the ruling class has little to grumble about, being represented one way or another by every member in Parliament.

The Socialist Party of Canada

The Socialist Party is of course also on deck, working always to keep the message of Socialism to the fore. Its membership now reaches from Montreal to Victoria and although still not numerous we would record the reply of the lion when told brashly by the rabbit of its numerous offspring, “But each of my progeny is a lion”.

Jim Milne