Plunket Soc ...

Sir—peter Butler has written criticising my article on the Plun-Ket Medal, making comments about my "reporting"but he seems to have missed the point that the article was just that, and made no pretention to being a "report". Its placing on the features page and not the news page should have conveyed this fact to all but the least observant, but mr Butler's inability to recognise the fact that its intention was humourous would seem to mark him as one of these unfortunates.

His emotive response would seem to indicate that my attempt to poke just the littlest bit of fun at the honourable Debating Society was fully justified.

... debating

Sir—This evening I anttended the Debating Societys annual Parliamentnry Debate. The nature of that debate, pitiful though it was I don't propose to discuss here. What I do propose to discuss are the actions of a certain member of the Society who in the late stages of the debate left the theatre to whip up some voting strength. The people he gathered heard posibly the last two minutes of the two-hour-long debate and yet had the effrontery to vote when the house was called upon to indicate which side had offered the best arguments for or against the motion. Not only did they vote but they voted as the member mentioned above directed them; crudely and enbloc.

I would suggest the the President of the Society declare the Houses decision annulled (or reversed as he please) and that both participating Members of Parliament bo officially informed of this decision. A gross injustice has been done and the Society's good name tarnished. Only prompt action can return a gloss to that name.

Bigotry

Sir—I feel I must acknowledge the justice of Andy Easton's reference to "criticism by the uninformed". It is precisely because I have not yet attained the exalted state of omniscience which Easton appears to claim for Prof. Buchanan that I criticised his attitude.

Perhaps even Prof. Buchanan would not, if pressed, claim to know everything about Asia. Despite his "particularly intimate study" of that area, I still consider he displayed a deplorable lack of acedemic impartiaility in so contemptuously refusing to accept an invitation to hear a speaker with whom he disagreed.

Easton should read the excellent article by Prof. I. D. Campbell in Salient 18. Speaking of Erasmus, Campbell said:

"One thing alone he wholeheartedly detested, and that was fanaticism, which he looked on as contrary to reason. Every form of intellectual intolerances was irksome to him ... He detested bigotry in all its manifestations, and bias whether in a priest or professor".

I remain, etc.,

For 2 cents ?

Sir—Re an article in 'Salient' of 30/7/68 concerning the shortage of telephones in the Student Union, well there's a phone in the new lecture block outside the botton entrance to L.B.I., only thing is, you have to pay two [unclear: to] make a call—Why?

Gee, with two cents I could buy nearby half a packet of chewing gum or two-thirds of a chocolate fish or one gob-stopper. Besides, what are Student Association fees for?

Take me now etc.,

fyson on gager

Sir—We would here like to express our utter contempt of the form and content of Mr Gager's reply to our letter published in Salient of July 16th. It consists of nothing but gross distortions and half truths, and descends to outright self-contradiction.

For example: Mr Gager sees the word "Cuba". His mind flashes to "nationalism", so down it goes—the Fourth International supports nationalism, and we are nationalists! Later, Mr Gager realises that the letter is chiefly concerned with Latin America, so his mind starts off again—result: we are not interested in our own nation! It is a fact that the Spartacist League split from the Fourth International on this very issue of guerilla warfare. How then can a Spartacist pretend that this is not an important issue?

To proceed. The very first accusation is a half-truth. Mr Clarke rejects any implication that he was a Spartacist he certainly would never describe the American Spartacist League as "the American Trotskyist organisation".

Mr Gager calls us "Pabloites" in mimicry of the sentence in which we referred to Mr Gager's line as "Spartacist". Mr Gager knows perfectly well that, whereas he publicly proclaims himself a Spartacist, Pablo was expelled from the Fourth International. Mr Gager banks on the fact that the term "Pabloite" is unknown to all but a few in New Zealand. He may say that we are Pabloites a thousand times but this will not make us so. We deny now as we always have done any connection with Pablo. Mr Gager seems only to want to confuse the issue. His naming us as "Pabloites"—without attempting to show "that we ore such even though we say the opposite"—is downright dishonest. It is also a typically Stalinist tactic.

His next point—that we and the Fourth International have surrendered completely to the Castro line—is an outright lie.

Mr Gager fails completely to understand the idea of giving wholehearted support to all socialist tendencies, while at the same time maintaining forthright criticism. He is glued in his own sectarian, conceited position of never supporting anything unless it is "perfect". In this he is totally un-Marxist.

Gager's statement that we support "patriotic" revolutions, and the implication that we do not support socialist revolutions is a pernicious slander. It also reveals that Mr Gager has no balanced conception of proletarian internationalism. The right of national groups to fight for national selfdetermination against a foreign oppressor( e.g. Ukranians vs. Great Russian chauvinism) was upheld by Lenin and Trotsky.

The statement that the use of "guilt by association" is Stalinist and was repudiated by Trotsky, is typically false. See for example Trotsky in In Defence of Marxism(New Park publ., 1966, p. 137).

Trotsky used this method in exactly the same way as we did, when he criticised Schachtman for being too soft on the liberals—and fraternising with one Eugene Lyons, who spoke also at banquets of the White Guards.

Gager accuses us of using a dishonest polemical device against him. He infers that we were saying "your position may be called Trotskyist but objectively is Stalinist". This masks the truth, and we emphatically deny the charge. We reiterate that we said (a I your position is not Trotskyist, and (b) In practice your position is the same as that of the Stalinists in Latin America. To justify his position Mr Gager would have to point out how his position differs in practice from the Stalinists', or indeed to show that the Stalinist position is the correct one. He does neither.

That we are inactive, and afraid to claim we are Trotskyists except in relation to Spartacists, is simply not true and merits no further attention.

Our letter obviously does not state our policy in relations to issuess other than guerilla war and Spartacism. Mr Gager's childish inference from this, that we therefore have no policy distinct from the Stalinists in New Zealand, is also dishonest—he well knows that this is not the case.

In conclusion, we should like to make a clear that our feelings, in dredging through the slime of Mr Gager's reply, are similar to those expressed by Trotsky, Trotsk, when in The Permanent Revolution, he regretted having to pick through the mass of Stalinist falsifications in order to reject them and re-clarify the truth. Readers may feel that our method of reply is tedious; we agree, but we reaffirm that Mr Gager's position and methods must be exposed.

Mr Gager is quite prepared to treat a serious us subject frivolously—this throws light on the nature of his sincerity and the force of his arguments. His dishonest reply to our last letter reaffirms our belief that certain of his practical positions are undeniably Stalinist.

Yours faithfully.

G. A. Fyson.

M. H. Fyson.

P.S.: Our attitude to guerrila warfare was clarified in an article on Che Guevara published in Salient.

P.P.S. 30 July: I have just read the second string of falsehoods concocted by the obscurantist in reply to our original letter. Most of the points raised are disposed of in the above.

Mr Gager accuses me of not having read am Trotsky. I do not wish to develop this childish dispute over this. However, it is clear that I have read enough of Trotsky and of Trotskyist publications to see that Mr Gager sides with the Stalinists as against those fighting for socialism in Latin America. He has not yet answered this point—G.A.F.

gager on fyson

Sir—It is always good to discover what genuine Marxism is. therefore I was very glad to read Hugh Fyson's article on Che Guevara, which gave me this essential information. I now know that once you attack Che you "cease to have any resemblance to a Marxist"—certainly something. I would never have worked out by reading any of the currently available literature on Marxism.

Some people thoughtlessly cry down any comparison between Guevara and Marx, pointing out that Marx had some interest in Political action by the working class while Guevara, as well as fighting for Tshombe, "tends to ignore the character of the workers uprising" and "fails to mention that Socialism entails participant planning, not bureaucratic planning and authoritarian, almost capitalistic labour relations." (Mr Fyson's words, both times.) But it is good to see Mr Fyson is not deceived by these superficial dissimilarities, and points them out, quite oblivious to the thoughtless jibes and sneers which such words may attract from Spartacists and similar proto-Stalinists. Rarely do we find such intellectual courage in a writer for Salient. When this courge is coupled with Mr Fyson's originality—he links Lenin, Engels and, yes, Bolivar for the first time ever in the history of socialist thought—we can see what a shining light has been hid under a bushel for too long at this University.

The way Mr Fyson handled criticisms of the "elitist" character of guerilla warfare can only be admired as a model of polemical skill. The separation of the guerilla leadership from the people, he tells us, is only "initial"—you just have to stop peasants leading their movement to recover their own land in the early stages of guerilla activity, so turning things into an "armed peasant uprising". But even at the end of guerilla war it is not the peasants but 'Mr Fysons words again) the "guerilla leaders" who "become the new government".

Some of these turgid sectarians might argue that this meant the separation of the petit-bourgeois leadership from the peasantry was more than just "initial' but, as Mr Fyson has pointed out, these people are not Marxists, anyway.

From Marx, the advocate of workilng-class revolution we move in an unbroken line of tradition to Guevara, who does't really worry about working-class revolution at all, which all confirms that the more things change the more they remain the same. It is unfortunate that Mr Fyson's view of the Marxist tradition is shared only with a small groupuscle in France claiming to be Trotskyist and part of the Cuban governing part) and every other declared Marxist grouping rejects it. But, then, this probably shows the power of Stalinism, or something like that. If it is a choice between Hugh Fyson and the entire inter national Marxist movement, give me Hugh Fyson any day. He has made a few factual errors—like misstating the reasons for the Sparticist League's expulsion from the American Socialist Workers Party—but only a pedant would demand mere accuracy about the record of a small Trotskyist grouping.

It is particularly good to have on record so brilliant a eulogy for Che, immediately after the spectacular failure of his guerilla tactics in Bolivia, which Mr Fyson quite properly does not discuss—it might needlessly em barrass his position. After all he has said "at no stage do the peasants push aside these (guerilla) leaders", and it would be mere empiricism to point out that the reason Che is dead is because the Bolivian peasants did precisely this. Like all good revolutionaries, Mr Fyson is never a slave of mere historical facts.

S.G.M.'s

Sir—I feel the part of the con stitution dealing with S.G.M.' needs amending.

Recently an S.G.M. passed [unclear: motion] directing the President to send a cable to Russia censuring Russia's attitude to Czechoslovakia. There is no doubt (to me) that most students would consider this action a waste of the President's time and energy, and of their money. ($14).

Because the meeting had dragged on and everyone was a bit bored, a motion to this effect was rushed through without anyone being able to speak on it. (A motion was passed to put the issue to the house before anyone spoke on it).

Although here it was only $14, next time it might be $140.

To prevent motions being passed without reasonable thought and consideration I would like to suggest an amendment to set a minimum number of speakers for and against a motion.

I would also suggest that a minimum number of students should be present before a motion can be passed.

Anyway, where can this constitution be found if students wish to read it?

[There is a quorum of 50 for a general meeting. Copies of the constitution can be obtained at the Students' Association Office—ed.]

Fame ?

Sir—I wish to thank you for saving me from the consequences of fame.

However, just this once (I mean, you may never publish anything of mine again), please give me credit for having written "Young Man Going Places".

Humbly,