Table Of ContentWORKERS 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 revo-
lution.” 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 pro-
gramme 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 ap-
pears 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 cur-
rents 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 so-
cial-reformism, its nationalism. In contradistinction to the interna-
tionalism 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-reform-
ism “distinctive” and which have influenced him to try to establish a
“Canadian School of Socialism.” These factors are: “American indi-
vidualism,” “British traditions,” and “Christian idealism.” What is
American individualism? It is obviously nothing else but private prop-
erty. What are “British traditions”? British traditions are British im-
perialism 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 move-
ment to the national interests of the capitalist class and to the institu-
3
tions of the capitalist class. The social-reformism of each country sup-
ports 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 coun-
try. While each “distinctive” social-reformism is adapted to its own
bourgeoisie, this adaptation is fundamentally the same in ALL coun-
tries. 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-reform-
ism 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 international-
ism 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 work-
ing-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-re-
formism 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
