Letters to the Editor:

should be given to one of the editors, left in the box outside the office or posted to Box 1347. If at all possible they should be typed, or printed legibly, double-spaced on one side of the paper only.

We try to impose a limit of 300 words per letter - if you find yourself unable to work within these limits then come and see us about the possibility of putting it in the form of an article.

Hopefully we will not receive any more forged letters from the pens of well-meaning but, nevertheless misguided correspondents who seek to propagate their foul smears while remaining anonymous. Letters should be signed by the writers real name even if a nom-de- plume is used.

Tony's Baby — An Unbiased Reply

I have read your article on the Values Party, entitled "The Growing Pains of Tony's Baby" and have tried to learn some lessons from it. But the report is so biased and unfactual that the task is almost not worth the effort.

A point-by-point rebuttal and correction would be about as long and boring as the article, and what's the use anyway — most people know that Salient 1973 will try to screw any political party that does not expound the required form of juvenile Marxist diarrhoea.

It is interesting — and revealing — to note that the author of the article, Mr Les Atkins, choose to hide behind the pen-name of "Lynette Collins".

It just goes to prove the old journalistic axiom that if a writer is too gutless to sign his article then it should not be printed.

Salient readers will be interested to know that Mr Atkins was the anonymous reporter who conducted a taped interview with me for a recent issue. Dear old Lynette went to great pains to reproduce all my "ums" and "ahs" but edited his own questions so that they came out smooth, assured and mumble-free.

Letter?

How can we hope to? When we have. And the other. In reply to. Of 6th inst.... There are in that letter. Against people who would rather. The aforementioned. With reference to somewhat. Briefly. Norm Kirk. Secondly. Have you given any thought? Or. Students turned to Trots by Circe. Not to mention. Respectfully. Respectively. May I be so bold as to. Fourthly. Or perhaps sixthly. Far be it from me to in any way foster any kind of. Nevertheless. There are indications of, on campus. Which there have never been before. Twelfthy. To begin. It had been my intention. Formerly. Not to mention formally. Similarly. May I add. Simile. The above is not considerably dissimilar to what has hithertoo. At this point in time. Unfortunate though that may be. Finally. In case of. Which poses a problem. In the face of severe.

Morally. A car park is necessary, (if disagreement occurs, read 'is not') This point clarifies. But to return. Secondly. Time docs not permit be to be bried. And time and tide wait for no. Gin and tonic. Or something. There have been occasions. As a necessary result of. In consequence of the above. Soon. The bomb is not. And others like him. Whenceforward. Under these same conditions which exist in a way which I have difficulty in adequately bringing to bear on those who. Or vice versa. In the interests of. The important issue. Short-sightedness on the part of those who could well afford to be. Word' fail me. There are aspects of. A well-ordered life safely within the bounds of Bounds of. And these things do not come free. Which brings me to my next point. Kentucky Fried. Delicious. How can I tell you. In other words. That I'm always thinking of.

Vague Bleatings About Courts

In its coverage about the exacting task of court reporting. Salient has chosen to highlight the views of two anonymous persons — both claiming experience in court reporting.

As yet another journalist, I thought the fearless Jon Bowie had something more substantive to offer on the subject. But I notice his contribution was tucked away on the letters page (beneath the picture of the little Victorian bloke labouring over his Greek.)

In most cases an experienced journalist will give more weight and therefore more prominence to the remarks of a source who is prepared to be identified.

By featuring the vague bleatings of two anonymous persons, is not Salient committing the same sin of which the popular press is accused? That of bolstering its own bias about court reportage? Sure, court coverage in newspapers leaves a lot to be desired. But the remedy to a very large extent lies in the hands of the court reporter himself.

He, after all, is the person who in the first instance relays the information to his paper.

If he can't reach the defense counsel to check evidence, just whose fault is it.

Mark Metherell

Dominion Versus China

The following paragraph was not included by the "Dominion" when I wrote recently to spurious charges of illicit dope dealings on the part of the People's Republic China. The accusations were originally made by the Nationalist Chinese Minister of the Interior and further "evidence" produced by one Oscar Summerville in a letter to the editor of the "Dominion". There was no mention to the effect that my letter had been edited or abridged.

If Mr Summerville wants further details of CIA and US ally involvement in the South East Asia Opium trade I refer him to the "New Opium War", a study originally printed in Ramparts and reprinted locally in "Salient", July 1971. Further evidence of the complicity of the Central Intelligence Agency, Nationalist Chinese and other US allies in illegal narcotics was suggested when President Nixon in his recent damp-down on opiates focused attention on the Middle East poppy fields and completely neglected the South East Asian area. I believe this was done deliberately to avoid embarassing the US and its few remaining "friends" in the region, and bringing the Indochina war into even greater disrepute.

Readers Guide Queries

Don Franks in the first part of his "Readers Guide to Salient" (Salient, June 27 1973) invited criticism of his treatment of the subject in that article. I am taking up his offer by submitting the following points.

Franks states: "These commodities are sold for a profit, of which the workers receive a part as wages." (10th paragraph) It is not clear to me what Franks' definition of profit is. If he means by the word profit what 'capitalist economists' mean by it then he is using it wrongly. To 'capitalist economists' profits are not distributed to workers but to entrepreneurs and suppliers of capital cither in the form of normal profit for their services (which no doubt Mr Franks would deny they give) or in the form of excess profits for the monopolistic element of their market position.

Possibly Franks is using Marx's definition of profit, but according to Marx, "the surplus value or that part of the total value of the commodity in which the surplus labour or unpaid labour of the working man is realised I call profit." (K.Marx and F.Engels, "Selected Works"

Vol 1. London, Lawrence and Wishert, 1962, p.431.) Thus to Marx, workers do not receive do not receive profits.

There are two possibilities, either Franks is using some other definition of profit given by Marx which is inconsistent with the one quoted above, or he is using another definition not by Marx. If the former is the case he might be kind and point it out to us and comment on the inconsistency of his mentor. If the latter is the case then, as he wrote himself in the article, "aspiring Marxist writers have only themselves to blame if they alienate themselves from progressive and potentially progressive people by a careless attitude to the meanings of words."(second paragraph) My contention is not that Franks has erred bv not using either the capitalists' or (quoted) Marx's definition of profit but that he has done so by introducing an ambiguous term without defining it in an article which professes to attempt to, "....outline some definitions of important words......"

According to Franks, "The reason the capitalist is able to take the larger share of his firm's profit is simply because he owns the tools necessary for the means of production."

Franks states: "The 1968 National Development Conference unintentionally showed up the exploiting character of our society when it suggested that the capital of New Zealand (Le. that of the New Zealand manufacturer) should be increased. It was suggested that production should be increased to 4.5% per annum and wages 2-5% per annum. Who gets the difference? The manufacturers get the difference. Who decides who gets the difference? The manufacturers of course."

I would much appreciate it if Franks would enlighten me on the source of his information that the 1968 NDC suggested that wages should rise by 2.5% per annum. I have searched the "Report of the Proceedings of the National Development Conference, Plenary' Session 27—28 August 1968" which included the "Report of the Targets Committee" without finding any reference to a suggestion that wages should rise by 2.5% per annum. The Targets Committee did suggest a 4.5% per annum rise in (real) GNP and as Franks may know, this and other targets have been revised and reviewed since 1968.

When Franks points out his source to us it would be helpful it he defined the word wages as it is used in that context. If by the word wages is meant "wages rates" then Franks is wrong in inferring that the 1968 NDC was proposing that the difference between the 4.5% per annum growth in output and the 2.5% per annum growth in wages go to manufacturers (or even all non-labour factors). Franks would be correct only if the NDC also proposed no increase in the size of the labour force which it definitely did not. Moreover, if the 2.5% per annum rise in wage rates Franks maintains was suggested was the suggestion of the Targets Committee he was wrong in stating that manufacturers made the decision. Of the thirteen members of that committee only one could ever loosely be described as a manufacturer (Mr A.R. Dellow, Director, NZ Manufacturers' Federation).

Brent Layton

Capitalist and Worker Complementary

I must say that I found the article "Is Work Man's Destiny?" one of the most reasoned attempts yet at explaining what it is that makes this world tick. Particularly well-grounded was che assertion that workers and capitalists with their different qualities, complement each other.

Opinion had it that either the differences between the classes was wholly conditioned by society or that the workers were just innately inferior. Palaeontologists and economists today however are in agreement that there are certain distinguishing biological differences, the workers having developed muscles, the capitalists money, these qualities resulting in character differences between the classes. Although experts find the classes different in certain areas of psychology and behaviour patters, these in no way mean that there is inequality between the classes. I mean the chap on $2000 per year is just as good as the bloke on $20,000. It makes no difference. There is no case for superior/ inferior talk.

Even eminent American archaeologists and sociologists state that there are character differences between the classes which have their roots in biology. When a capitalist responds to the distinctly capitalist fear of failure and his need for prestige, he can develop positive attributes of initiative, activity and courage. And of course the worker too in responding to his main fear of frustration and dependency can and often is unable to stand on his own feet, needing Government handouts and all that.

But given the right conditions, the worker can become a source of great patience and reliability. He can even respond with intensity of love if he has to wait long enough and has no other option. This in itself is charming, erotic, almost.

The worker therefore has the same emotional, intellectual and cultural abilities as the capitalist. He is really very lucky that the selfsacrifice involved in his equal role gives him the very special qualities as well. Because deeper than any differences is the equality between worker and capitalist. They belong to the same big happy human family. They work together, each performing the function he is best suited to for the greater happiness of all.

Some people can sec differences only in terms of inferiority and superiority. These people are misguided. I say that the class system by colouring the personalities of worker and capitalist, greatly enriches and broadens human culture. How uninteresting it would be if we were all the same!

These unique characteristics and charming differences do not mean for the classes social, economic or political differentiation — not really, it just depends on whose glasses you are looking through.

Simone Simon—Rockefeller.

Trots a la Carte

I just had to write to you to tell you about a fabulous dish which comes in handy when you want to piss someone off, the dish is called "Trots a la Carte" and to those who don't read or contribute to toilet walls it is commonly termed shit.

Undoubtedly

I thought you just might like to know the reason why the world is in such a mess today. Basically it all stems from the repressive potty training methods used in the past.

Trots Exploit Students

It has come to my attention that the "Socialist Action League" and the "Young Socialists" cosponsor periodic forums on topics relevant to their political views and aims. Those people who wish to attend these forums are forced to pay an admission fee of $0.40. The rooms used for these functions are booked by the Young Socialists, and they pay nothing at all for the use of these rooms. Since the only costs incurred by the organisers then are the minimal costs of publicity; it would seem that students attending these forums are obliged to make a donation to an organisation whose aims could well be different from their own.

I'm sure this contradicts the Student Association Constitution or the Bill of Human Rights or something, and I would appreciate comment from the organisers.

Nuclear Hypocrisy

End your hypocrisy! You criticise France for atmospheric nuclear tests, yet you support the Chinese "People's " Republic's recent effort. It seems to me, that you are saying that an action in itself is not right or wrong, it depends on who commits it. If an action is done by the New Zealand Government, USA, France South Vietnam, South Africa, Cambodia, Singapore, etc......it's wrong, whatever it is; and if the same thing is done by USSR, China, Albania, North Vietnam, etc........, it is right. This recent issue of atmospheric nuclear testing highlights this. It's about time you ended your own hypocrisy — it's the actions in themselves that are right or wrong, it does not depend on who does them.

Jones out of Context?

My first reaction on viewing the publication of your interview with me was one of surprise at the absence of hostile editorial comment.

Further reading, however, disappoints and shows that you have achieved the same expected end in a somewhat more devious manner.

I wonder how many of your readers will pick the anomolies in the article, and I refer, of course to the fact that my remarks regarding Maoris and shooting of trespassers have been published in bold type boxed captions, but with out being included in the text of the article so that they may be seen in their actual context.

As you know, the subject under discussion which brought about my remarks on Maoris was the degree of boredom of Salient material and we were thumbing through copies when we encountered reference to an attack on Professor Eysenck at an address in London.

I then told you that I had corresponded with Eysenck on the relationship of Catholicism to Irish genetic patterns and from that we launched into a discussion on New Zealand racial patterns in which I claimed that the propagation of Maoritunga (sic) was a rationalisation for Maori failure in European society and that Polynesian aspirations were, in my view, largely similar to European. I contrasted NZ Samoan success in this regard to NZ Maori failure. If anything, your out of context quotations achieved an opposite effect of the points I made and as such this was dishonest reporting.

As I shall not be here to defend myself against attacks I trust you will publish this letter in its entirety.

Pissed Off

Having recently failed the two exams for which I sat I am tempted to blame my unfortunate results upon the stupid system or internal assessment. However to do this would be dishonest and I am forced to admit that I just haven't worked as I should Perhaps this conclusion also fits other would-be critics. You see I came here at first with the intention of getting a degree but this thought got lost somewhere along the line and I have just managed to resurrect the fact that university is no social club but plain hard work. I have also come to realise that our chances are obtained through the pockets of ordinary working citizens who, like ourselves, expect to see some good results when hard-earned money is spent.

This brings me to the main reason why I am pissed off with this place. I am pissed off with the social stigma attached to university students. Perhaps you have not experienced being told that all students are wankers and lazy bastards — I have and of course I didn't like hearing what I believe to be lies. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that students do indeed deserve such a stigma. I am referring to the likes of our dear writers of Salient and all their cronies. It is obvious that they can't get their dirty communist minds out of their soiled underpants and I am personally sick of being classed with scum.

Awakened Worker.

Alarming Position

After last week's inspiring forum on Salient, I found myself (temporarily) in the alarming position of agreement with honourable Tripe (quel horreur!) I heaved a great sigh of relief, therefore, to sec the front page of the latest issue — it has made me realise that basically I am more pissed off than ever with the propaganda dished out each week as an apology for a student newspaper. For I do not believe that even the editors' undying concern to educate the bourgeoisie (or is it proletariat?) on campus justifies the publication of such blatant and irrational worship of all that begins with China as "Norm's Damp Squib and China's Atomic Blast".

It seems just a little unreasonable to my unsophisticated brain to condemn France outright lor her part in nuclear testing and, in the same breath, to pat China on the back for her efforts to kepp up with the "big kids" in the arms race. Sorry, I keep forgetting — it's all a matter of principles. China's promised that she won't become "a superpower subjecting others to aggression, subversion, control, interference or bullying" (Heil Hitler!), and that she's developing nuclear weapons "solely for the purposes of defence and for breaking the nuclear monopoly and ultimately eliminating weapons and nuclear war." So we can all go calmly back to our frigates in the Pacific, knowing that everything is well under control in the fatherland.

Abortion Truth

Having taken part in the campaigns against the Vietnam War and more recently the Springbok Tour, we are very aware of situations which might violate human dignity and the respect for life. This is why abortion involves much heated debate. We cannot pass this matter over lightly, or avoid coming to the truth about it because it involves the same grave concerns as War or apartheid.

What we can't understand is the way the pro-abortionists disregard even the possibility of human life in the womb. If they do, they disregard the consequences of such life. But they never prove that there is no life there. They must know this to be impossible.

To come down to the facts again we see that the foetus's heart starts beating between the 18th and 25th day after conception. This is even before the woman realises that she is pregnant. The brain itself is completely present after the second month. At the third month the foetus sucks his/her thumb.

The mother docs not have the right to have an abortion for one's own rights must always stop short of violating another's basic right.