5 not a genuine cople, but was ofits of giant COT- '_buSlfleSS, f1: I oil. agfmple, is still irrigated and ion" has spelled ts» [and by weal-

“t3

.—

ment is not the gy, raw mater- e shortages are example, at the pment plants 1n the vast army‘ of

er (gage of poverty,

, ontinent are lit- which often hes

nmuons (roads; ‘ agricultural and - fiction.

. any intention of la! revolutionof

itions . ’ " By‘ the

of agricultural ot afford to eat.

m Commoner benign applica- ‘ wealth to the (1 peoples have I of producing

,\ \\ \

5:

,voiution" do not -

5 unemployed _

millions were '

\[ou

. [N / ’

regarded as a wilful attempt to‘deceive those who are honestly questioning the present un- just order. ‘ One of Commoner’s basic errors is the simp- listic description of imperialism as mere “pol- icy”. If it is just a “policy”, that is, a reversible decision by men who have the intelligence, JOWCI‘, and independence to chmse any of a number of courses, then it can be. turned around, to the benefit of the former victim. C’est tout simple! Just a friendly visit to Nel- son Rockefeller, a persuasive chat, and four centuries of mismanagement are 'undone! Fortunately, the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America have long since dispensed with such naiVeté, and now not only recognize the essential characteristics of imperialism,but are also taking the actions consequent with

" eradicating that blight from their lands.

If he had a real desire to purge the world of glaring inequalities of wealth and poWer, Commoner could learn a' few lessons from the Indian people fighting imperialism. I *-

And, even more nonsense from the man who . brought us imperialism as a “policy”, Com- moner founds his argument for a minor redis- tribution of wealth on a false notion of ‘ ‘quality of life” ‘in the “developed” World. 'He claims “there is a powerful social force which, paradoxically, both reduces the death rate (and . thereby stimulates population growth) and also leads people voluntarily to‘restrict the produc- tion of children (and thereby reduces popula- tion growth). That force, simply stated, is the quality of lifew-a high standard of living, a sense of well-being and of security in the fu- ture." _

It is indisputable that life in the heartland of monopoly capitalism contains real pressures

'for a reduction of population. But those pres- sures have nothing in common with “high

' standard of living, a sense of well-being and of z

security in the future.’ ’ - _ In fact, the peopie of North America, Europe

and the Soviet Union are steadily losing what .-

few benefits and rights they had. Mention that high standard ofliv ing to the unemployed in the U.S., who passed last winter in endiess queues for meagre welfare, aid, and have no brighter prospect for next winter. Speak of a sense of well-being to Michael Slobodian, who only months ago killed a teacher and a'fellow stu- dent, then himself, in a Brampton high school. Tell workers who daily put thelr lives in jedpardy about security in the future. ‘

gusoyrhufba"§ "nae: NW“ ' have, veshic’tea

i Q elician your his

children

+0} 1.3+ ,

i

The reality of life in the “developed” world shames Commoner’s claims for this “quality of life’ ’. Ratesof birth are declining. But they are falling because the salary of a yOung worker is not equal to .the costs of sustaining a family, because family housing is not available and day-care inadequate. . ‘

Nor is it an accident that a rising ethic among young people renounces responsible, lOng- standing personal relations, scorns children, and makes a virtue of the necessity of com— munal living (that is, housing several frag- mented families under the roof that once shel- tered one united family). '

Life in a" decadent, stagnant monopoly capitalist society is a bleak prospect. And the quality life that Commoner claims exists will

.only be guaranteed when that system is de-

stroyed.

Yet Commoner is not satisfied with this ex- isting offensive against the life of working peo- ple in the “developed” world. No, he seeks to extend the robbery and to justifyit by calling it charity to poorer people!

This argument can only encourage and lend credence to , the ongoing theft of ’ working

' people’s incomes—through inflation, unjus-

tified price hikes, and higher taxes. The figure

» of $800 per capita income is more than simply

an optimum target to which to raise the people of the poor nations. It is also implicitly pre-

sented as the minimum to which the incomes of ‘

those in the “developed” world may be re-

duced; , And by What twisted logic does Commoner

make these calculations? It stands on the

’ idiocy that it is the people of “developed” na-

tions who exploit the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America! Worse still, he seeks to en- shrine this as truth by adopting pseudo- scientific terminology, citing something called “demographic parasitism”. Yet the scientific phrase “imperialism” is nowhere to be found. No mention of the corporations and govern- ments of the two imperialist superpowers-the U.S.A. and the.U.S.S.R.— which are the real culprits in this pervasive system of exploita- tion. '

Lenin’s answer to the despair fostered by such pessimism and deceipt is striking: '

O “Yes, we workers and small owners, too, ' lead an unbearable life, filled with oppression’ '

and suffering. Our generation has fared worse than our fathers, But in one respect we are better off than our parents. We have learned

The Cadre, November 28,

(

1975, page 7

and are learning fast to stru 1,; e—an - to strug- gle, not singly as the best of our fathers fought, not’in the name of petty bourgeois slogans alien to us, but in the name of our own slogans, the slogans of our class. We are fighting better than our fathers did. Our children will fight still bet- ter, and “they will win. . .This—and this

' alone—is why we are the absolute enemies of

neo-Malthusianism . . ‘

No wonder, then, there is such urgency in Commoner’s plea to have more crumbs passed out. Let more people enjoy the “benefits” of untrammeled monopoly capitalism! For Com- moner sees the people'of Asia, Africa and Latin America rising up to free themselves, and sees the children of those nations fighting with even greater ferocity and skill towards the same end. And, moreover, providing a potent example to ' us, the people of the “developed” countries who also suffer—although not to the same degree—the “benefits” of monopoly capitalism. r 7

Finally, to quell the fears of those who foresee the possibility of a standing-room—only _ earth, even after the universal triumph of socialism. Engels said: “There is of course/the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that the limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obliged to regu— late the production of human beings, just as it has ‘already come to regulate the production of things, it will precisely be this society, and this society alOne, which can carry this out without difficulty. At any rate, it is for the people in the communist society themselves to decide whether, when and how this is to be done, and what means they wish toemploy for the pur- pose.” _ . '

Similarly, China insists that population policies and targets are entirely the internal affairs of each country. As for its own popula- tion policy, it is not simply a question of birth control, but of birth planning, as each area of China has distinct requirements. China’s posi- tion at the 1974 United Nations World Popula- tion Conference stressed that: “In densely- populated areas (of China), late marriage and birth control are encouraged on the basis of voluntariness . . . In national mincrity areas and other sparsely-popuiated areas, approp- riate measures are taken to facilitate popula— tion growth, while birth control advice and help are given those parents who have too many children and desire birth control.”