Table Of Content

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! SOCIALISM AND THE CCF by G. Pierce ISBN: 978-1-387-95211-3 CONTEMPORARY PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION MONTREAL 1934 THE NOVEMBER 8TH PUBLISHING HOUSE TORONTO 2022 CONTENTS I. Liberal-Labourism and Revision of Marxism ......................... 1 II. The CCF Panaceas for Capitalism ...................................... 27 III. State Capitalism in the Guise of Socialism ........................ 59 IV. The Fallacy of ‘Peaceful Revolution’ ................................. 99 V. The Role of Social-Reformism as the Twin of Fascism ..... 133 VI. The Only Way Out ........................................................ 218 I. Liberal-Labourism and Revision of Marxism A. The CCF Programme. B. The Two Main Currents in the CCF. C. The Necessity for Con- fusion. A. THE CCF PROGRAMME A serious examination of the programme and policy of the Co- operative Commonwealth Federation involves a wide range of sub- jects. In the first place, we will be compelled to take up a series of liberal-capitalist theories for “curing” capitalism of its “ills,” which the CCF leaders have adopted from capitalist economists. We will pro- ceed further to examine the “socialization” proposals of the CCF, i.e., the theory that state capitalism is Socialism. Finally, we will take up the fundamental theory of social-reformism in general and the CCF in particular, the theory of the “democratic” state and “peaceful revolution.” On this basis, we will be able to examine the role of this new party in the present situation in Canada. We will commence this sys- tematic survey of the CCF programme in Chapter 2. Before delving into the subject matter proper, it will be in place to make some important observations concerning the CCF programme in general and to note the relation of the above mentioned “elements” in the CCF programme to the currents within the CCF itself. The reader will bear with us, if we anticipate to some extent our later detailed examination of the CCF programme. The CCF programme, adopted at the Regina convention of the CCF, consists of a short introduction, followed by 14 points. The main statement of the preamble to the programme declares: “The CCF is a federation of organizations whose purpose is the establishment in Canada of a Co-operative Commonwealth in which the basic principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs and not the mak- 1 ing of profits.” The 14 points of the programme are as follows: “1. Planning. 2. Socialization of Finance. 3. Social Ownership. 4. Agriculture. 5. Ex- ternal Trade 6. Co-operative institutions. 7. Labour Code. 8. Social- ized Health Service. 9. BNA Act. 10. External Relations. 11. Taxation and Public Finance. 12. Freedom. 13. Social Justice. 14. An Emer- gency Programme.” In introducing this programme at the Regina Convention of the CCF, Mr. Woodsworth called it a “distinctive Canadian type of So- cialism.” He said: “Socialism has so many variations that we hesitate to use the class name. Utopian Socialism and Christian Socialism, Marxian Socialism and Fabianism, the Latin type, the German type, the Russian type — why not a Canadian type? “Perhaps it is because I am a Canadian of several generations, and have inherited the individualism common to all born on the American continent; yet with political and social ideals pro- foundly influenced by British traditions and so-called Christian idealism; further with a wide and varied knowledge of the various sections of the Canadian people — in any case, I am convinced that we may develop in Canada a distinctive type of Socialism.” (Toronto Daily Star, July 19, 1933.) In these words, Mr. Woodsworth introduced “the Canadian School of Socialism.” Mr. Woodsworth waves aside the fact that the fundamental position of the working class in all capitalist countries is the same. He waves aside the internationalism of Marxism and appears to produce a new school of Socialism, untarnished and un- tainted with any of the “many variations.” Mr. Woodsworth lists Marxism together with a dozen different shades and varieties of social-reformism. When Mr. Woodsworth speaks of Utopian Socialism, Christian Socialism, Fabianism, the Latin type and the German type, the British model and the American 2 model, he is speaking of so many varieties of social-reformism, all of which stand on common ground against Marxism. By making such a list, he obscures the fact that in reality there are only two main currents in the labour movement throughout the whole world: on the one hand Marxism, which is international, scientific socialism, and on the other hand, social-reformism. To which of these does the new “School of Canadian Socialism” belong? Mr. Woodsworth clearly established the fact that this “new school” does not adhere to the international, working-class science of Marxism. It is a “distinctive” national school. In establishing this fact, Mr. Woodsworth has done an uncon- scious service to the Canadian, working-class movement. He has de- fined one of the essential and inseparable qualities of all shades of social-reformism, its nationalism. In contradistinction to the internationalism of the working-class science of Marxism-Leninism, social- reformism is nationalistic in scope and character. Why is this the case? Mr. Woodsworth answered this question also. He stated the main factors which make Canadian social-reformism “distinctive” and which have influenced him to try to establish a “Canadian School of Socialism.” These factors are: “American individualism,” “British traditions,” and “Christian idealism.” What is American individualism? It is obviously nothing else but private property. What are “British traditions”? British traditions are British imperialism and the patriotism and loyalty to British imperialism and the interests of the British ruling class, which the capitalist class at- tempts to imbue in the minds of the masses in order to be able to use the workers and farmers as cannon fodder in capitalist wars. What is Christian idealism? It is religion. With such an “inheritance,” it is clear that Mr. Woodsworth’s “Socialism” must be of a “distinctive” nation- alist type. Social-reformism in every country is of a “distinctive” national type. We shall see that it is the adaptation of the working-class movement to the national interests of the capitalist class and to the institu- 3 tions of the capitalist class. The social-reformism of each country supports the private property of “its own” bourgeoisie. It supports the patriotism and the religion of “its own” bourgeoisie. For this reason, it can never be internationalist in character, because the imperialist powers are embroiled in the most feverish rivalries, one with the other. Social-reformism is an appendage of the imperialist bourgeoisie of its respective country. In this consists its “national distinctiveness.” But social-reformism fulfils this same role in every capitalist country. While each “distinctive” social-reformism is adapted to its own bourgeoisie, this adaptation is fundamentally the same in ALL countries. The betrayals of social-reformism in countries where the class struggle has reached a higher and sharper stage, mirror the future de- velopment of the tactics and methods of deception of social-reformism of the countries where the class struggle is less advanced. The attempt to create a “distinctive Canadian Socialism,” appears on the surface to be nothing more than childish boastfulness. This is not the case. It is a fundamental declaration against the internationalism of the revolutionary, working-class movement. Such a declaration against internationalism in favour of “American individualism,” “Brit- ish traditions” and “Christian idealism” has quite obvious purposes. In the first place, it is an attempt to divorce the Canadian working-class movement from international, working-class experience. In England, Germany, France, Australia, Tzarist Russia and many other countries, the working class has had a wealth of experience with the prototypes of the CCF. They have experienced the policy and role of such parties as the CCF in every important phase and form of the class struggle. Now we are to be told that this experience is of no value. The CCF is different. It is distinctive. The Canadian working class cannot accept the theory of CCF “distinctiveness” in this regard. Social-reformism is a common current found in every country, and history shows that its essential character and role in the service of its national bourgeoisie is the same in every country. With “American individualism,” “British traditions” and “Chris- 4