Guerillas will never give up

Referring to Hee Kiang's letter which appeared in the issue no. 5 of Salient, I would like to make a few comments. He said, "There is no point in shouting revolution when the Sarawak government is already committed to social justice and progress."

Let us look at the present situation in Sarawak. The fact that the people in Sarawak are exploited by the comprador-bureaucrats with the support of imperialists has not been changed in the least over the past 10 years. The people become the victims of unemployment, inflation and soaring prices of commodities. The wide rural areas are plunged into bankruptcy and the livelihood of the peasants is poor and miserable. What sort of social justice and progress has the Sarawak government committed!

The aim of guerilla fighters is obviously to change the economic system and to liberate their homeland. With the surrender of Bong Kee Chok and his group (it is believed that the majority of the group was deceived and forced to surrender) when the economic system has shown no sign of improvement, we can see on which side Bong stands: collaboration with the government for his own interest or fighting for the liberation of the Sarawak people? The people of Sarawak have been betrayed by Bong and his group.

Hee Kiang also raised a question on "whether armed revolution is the only means to achieve social justice in a developing country". The failure of the Indonesian Communist Party by taking the Parliamentary elections to change the corrupted social and economic system is a good answer to the question. At that time, there were three million members in the Party, one million in the worker unions, one million in peasant organisations and lens of thousands of sympathisers. As the fascist forces started to attack, tens of thousands of revolutionaries were massacred! Another example shown by the unsuccessful overthrowing of foreign domination in Chile by Parliamentary elections further affirms that the only way to achieve social justice is by the people's armed struggle.

Over the past ten years or more, the reactionary government intended to eliminate the guerilla forces by spending the amount of tens of millions of dollars and gathering tens of thousands combined troops (Malaysian and Indonesian). However, they haven't been successful and will never be successful.

The surrender of Bong and his group is a setback to the revolutionary movement in Sarawak. But the guerilla fighters still remaining in the jungle, and the people of Sarawak under the leadership of the proletariat party, will learn a lesson from it and sum up the experience so that they will be more determined to fight until their homeland is liberated.

Michael Lim Hee Kiang, who thinks that the guerilla fighters have been defeated and is a spokesman for the reactionary government, has revealed himself as the enemy of the people of Sarawak.

Academic bourgeois arrogance

In Salient on April 3 you published an unsigned article called "Putting Screws on Student its Money" dealing with the attempt by Muldoon to introduce legislation which was to restrict student finances.

While being totally in agreement with the article, I was however, disturbed by the attitude expressed in one paragraph: "Mr Goldie said that these views were based on his experience of life. However persistent questioning from Frank O'Flynn revealed that Mr Goldie's experience was limited to a time as an apprentice carpenter and to some involvement with the Boy Scouts."

Without defending Mr Goldie's views or the Boy Scouts, I take strong objection to the inference that because one has been apprenticed then one's views are less valid than otherwise.

Having been an apprentice myself and having been subjected to similar examples of academic bourgeois arrogance, I wonder whether the correspondent would have questioned Mr Goldie's views had his "experience of life" contained three years within the safety of the sterilised walls of academia?

May I through Salient, suggest to your smug correspondent that most of present and future comfort in life and his privileged complacency have been at the expense of exploited groups in our society such as apprentices.

Neville Taylor

Not for BCA students

You should have your noses down.

This is my first letter to that radical, disruptive, left-wing, socialist (etc. etc.) thing called Salient. I am a conservative apathetic third year BCA student (doing stage II due to an unfortunate event in my first year—I failed my major subject).

Always, fellow BCA students—and myself—complain bitterly to each other about numerous tiling's which come under the nasty nebulous title of "the System", but the only alternative (to our conservative minds) is anarchy—and of course this is worse.

Finally, when an opportunity to do something positive comes up, where are all the dis contented students? At the inaugural meeting on Tuesday of the proposed Commerce and Administration students association, no loudmouthed critics (or supporters) were there. No supporters is understandable — in a discussion as to whether or not those present were representative of all BCA students, or only the dissatisfied ones, one bright spark stated that nobody could be satisfied with the system as it was—so if you're contented with it you are a nobody—or haven't thought about it.

If you're dissatisfied-or positively satisfied, take an interest next time you hear of this group. They need your help to prevent BCA graduates from being mere machines.

Ex-disinterested

Communication

All students write essays. It is in their own interest that they he legible for marking case, and of course, it is a matter of courtesy. Unfortunately, this courtesy is not always reciprocated by 'markers', whose scrawly comments are too often illegible. Admittedly some student essays are unreadable, but a number of staff could definitely benefit from some lessons in handwriting. Courtesy, like communication, is a two-way process; a little more courtesy and there may be more communication.

B. Cook

Ethics for capitalists

It is generally accepted by true socialists, that a large proportion of business executives and company managers and owners are money-sucking capitalists aiming to make as much dough as they can at the expense of the workers and other non-capitalists.

May I suggest one way the university could perhaps help fight this evil: make a course in ethics a prerequisite for a BCA degree (I suppose such a prerequisite wouldn't do the law faculty any harm either), I'd just like to hear one good reason against this idea.

Dieter Katz

A distorted view of Singapore

I think the review on Singapore in Salient the week before last is the work of a narrow-minded, one-eyed treacherous prick! K. Menon puts out a very distorted view of Singapore and ignores the numerous impressive achievements of Lee's Government. I think Salient is better off without the likes of such people.

T. Ong

Big Jack

Once again the rugby season is upon us and we can bow down in awe before the person by the name of (dare I mention it?) Jack Sullivan, who I am sure we all hold in great reverence and who deserves all the adulation and acclamation he can get for his wonderful services to rugby, public relations, Bantus, the RSA and Godzone.

Where do our values lie?

The article in last week's Salient "Pensioners Protest" seems to indicate clearly just where the values in New Zealand society lie.

In a society with an economy based on profit, people are of interest only in so far as they can contribute to the profit making process, when this is no longer possible they are thrown aside. The neglect of the aged by family and by society in New Zealand is to my mind a good reason upon which the present capitalistic outlook in New Zealand should be reviewed. The aged in this case, are in a situation that is economically imposed.

At present in this country is a world expert on Geriatric Medicine, Professor M.R.P. Hall, who within his statements quoted by Canon Arnold in the Evening Post, Saturday, April 6, mentions two important points.

Firstly that"....the needs of the elderly.... (are)....dependent upon the structure of the community," and that"...neglect of the elderly often arose from prejudice to old age."

Here I think lies the crux of the whole issue, the structure of our society forces the elderly to retire and offers them from 65 onwards no real place in society, because where profit is the revered value in any society, anything unprofitable whether it be a machine or a human being is disposed of. Thus the prejudices in New Zealand today towards the elderly, resulting in their neglect, can be expected.

Society must be changed then, if we are to ever become responsible towards the aged, A statement by Michael J. Savage in the 1930s, shows that New Zealand possibly has the humanitarian heritage to one day bring this change in values and society about:

"Social justice must be the guiding principle and economic organisation must adapt itself to social needs."

Rosalie Smith

Petty Theft

If students are supposed to represent persons with a higher level of intelligence than the norm, then why must they sink to pocketing such items as pens, pencil cases etc when they are left in lecture rooms or labs. Is it too much to ask for them to tell a demonstrator or take the junk to the caretaker or the Enquiry Desk in Rankine Brown.

A pencil case full of pens etc can be as dear as $8 (it was in my case) or a set of dissecting tools, $5. God knows that's a lot of cash so how about handing other people's lost property in. It may happen to you someday.

The hypocrisy of Moral Rearmament

P. Aron fails to realise that he is being 'paternalised by MRA when he lets himself be subverted by its 'eachings.

Enclosed is a news clip from the "Dominion" (13.4.74) whose words Mr Aron will be doubt accept as "factual" and "unbiased". Please read it carefully. Then, ask youself: how can MRA's position be justified in respect of South Africa?

How would you as an Asian Christian like to live in South Africa and suffer for God's sake, what the coloured people there are undergoing. Do you seriously believe that an MRA person who preaches racial equality would at the same time connive to play games with people who uphold the evil practise of apartheid. This is against all the teachings of Chirst.

The news report merely serves to convince me of the hypocritical nature of MRA. What it wants is what employers want, a servile unquestioning working population which is gullible enough to think it is God's will they should maintain the status quo. Before you condemn yourself to the everlasting fires of hell, repent and stop thinking MRA thoughts because you are being exploited by them.

Anak Sarawak

Why me, Lord?

Peter Rotherham makes a 'Freudian slip' in his poorly researched answer to the letters of Auld and Franks. When he quite deceitfully claims the above mentioned writers "are reduced to mindlessly apologising for the outrages (!) which have been committed in the name of socialism by Stalin, Mao and company". He goes onto say that "large doses of blind faith are needed" in this most important field of political debate. He also says that faith only "stands in the way" in this field. These brave words are insufficient to convince the VUW Rationalist Society of Rotherha Ms. rejection of religious type thinking. His whole "argument" is nothing more than superstitious anticommunism, he simply laughs at the fact that he has been called "counter revolutionary", as if it were a ridiculous charge. In other words he has great (and blind) faith in the petty bourgeois prejudices of some sections of his student audience. Furthermore, Peter Rotherham has blind faith that all the specific points brought up against him by his critics—none, not one of which he answers—will have been forgotten by these same readers. Those of us in the VUW Rationalist Society who were originally reluctant to criticise the pro-religious leanings of Rotherham in our previous letters are now quite satisfied with that action. Peter Rotherham has fully exposed himself as a social-theist, that is—a socialist in words and a theist in deeds.

A review of MSA's Suara Siswa

The editorial [unclear: in Super Siewea is a nice] of sheer bloody bullshit. By 'criticising' the High Commission the editor tries to hoodwink and misrepresent to the first year students who are new to the scene at Victoria, that MSA is an independent and progressive body. And putting up a few bourgeoise dances and promoting pop music (their only programme each year) these sellouts are distorting and degrading the healthy culture of the Malaysian people. MSA was, still it and will always be a puppet of the 'Malaysian' High Commission. There is no need for me to go to lengths to prove this point to you freshies. Time will lay bare the dirty nature of this organisation and prove the truth.

Ken Kim is a first class coward of a president who doesn't even dare express his stand in a straight forward statement but to 'crawl round the bush' to arrive at hit reactionary shit jargon,—to fight for a revolution with religious and parliamentary democracy (in a fascist country)!

To be or not to be' and 'Bedtime story' are two articles equally racist, except one lengthier than the other, and both peddling racial chauvinism. Both writers are openly promoting the racist line of the 'Razak Government'. They provide no solution but incite haired among the races and insult the Indian and Chinese people in Malaya as 'chickens with no guts' to resist injustice. These two ignorant bastards have arrogantly violated the scientific truth that 'where there is oppression there is resistance'. These two also fail to see that this is a class issue rather thin a racial issue. Who are the real enemies of the Malayan masses? They are the British colonialist, American imperialist, Soviet social imperialist and the local reactionary puppet authorities.

Using the tactic of 'divide and rule', enforced by racist and fascist laws, the authorities slanderously proclaimed special rights for the Malays, and that the Malay language will be taken as the national language, in a vain attempt to win over the Malays, and promote frictions among the multiraces in our motherland. But have the poor Malay peasants and fishermen lives become any better ever since the so-called 'independence' in 1957. The answer is evidently no. The ones who do really benefit are the 10% Malay ruling class.

The present situation of mass unemployment, high rate of inflation, severe housing problems, underfed population and ever rising prices of commodities are the only apparent results achieved by the Razak Government. Aware of this rotting society, more people are awakening with each passing day. Malaya will soon see the day when a new society is born, rid of foreign domination and where the long oppressed masses are masters of their own land.

The last article entitled 'Truth' by MSA 'moralist' John Chin is a far cry from the reality and the needs of the students of this revolutionary era. It is a mere waste of the members money to have this supertitious Bible preaching article in print. The only line that is worth a glance in this two and a hall pages of shit is the caption 'Listen to that Fanatic'.

Suara Ra'ayat

Wilson stretching his neck

During the recent AGM held on April 9, Peter Wilson in his Presidential report adamantly refused to change the word Malayan High Commissioner to Malaysian High Commissioner on the ground (as he vaguely described) that Malaysia is a Nee-Colonialism connotation, and therefore is not accepted. Because he cannot accept it, he pretends that Malaysia as a political reality does not exist.

The funny thing here it why does he change his opinion so rapidly. If I am not mistaken he used the so-called neo-colonialism term, Malaysia, in both of press and presidential statements dated 10.9.73 and 12.9.73 respectively concerning the Malaysian High Commissioner's intimidation of Malaysian students last year. It seems to Wilson, that the word then was not a neo-colonialism term, but now it is. The most important thing, however, is not so much that he changes his mind so quickly as to what that change implies.

By using the term Malayan High Commissioner he immediately denies the existence of the two Eastern states namely, Sarawak and Sabah (because Malayan only refers to Malay Peninsula) and at the same time implies that Jack deSilva does not represent those two eastern states, of which to any sensible person, he does. Secondly this change of word could mean that there was no intimidation by the Malaysian High Commissioner, because in his Presidential report which the student body, confirmed, such intimidation was made by the Malayan High Commissioner, of which there is no such post here in New Zealand. Such a blunder is not out of character when a politically minded person clash with political reality.

Finally I would like to remind Wilson once more that we are not Malayan students but Malaysian students. Whatever, hit political inclination is he cannot deny the existence of Malaysia as a political entity. But if he must so insist in eradicating colonial and neo-colonial terms and memories why not begin at his own doorstep of New Zealand. There is an old saying which says: "If you stretch your neck too far you tend not to tee the dirt on your own body."

James Masing

page 14

Once again Mr Rotherham

Despite having had two weeks to compose a reply to my rejoinder Mr Rotherham's latest apology for Trotskyism is distinguished merely by its schoolboy evasion of the central points at issue. Anyone reading Salient for the first time last week would be justified in thinking that our discussion has nothing to do with Solzhenitsyn and the class struggle under socialism.

Rotherham's silence about Solzhentisyn came as no suprise to me. Three weeks ago I read in 'Intercontinental Press', an organ of the SWP of America, an article on Solzhenitsyn's letter to the Kremlin which revealed the acute embarrassment now being experienced by his Trotskyite defenders. And following its one constant principle—"If it rains in New York, all SALers will put up their umbrellas"—the Socialist Action League is ducking for cover.

The editor of 'Socialist Action' signalled the new line when he stated, in the course of evading points raised in a letter, that "it appears Solzhenitsyn's ideas are evolving to the right." ('Socialist Action', March 29, 1974). One can only assume that for Locke, Solzhenitsyn's attack years ago on the national liberation and revolutionary movements, defence of the South African racists, regurgitation of US lies about the NFL, etc were not right wing.

All three points raised by Rotherham further demonstrate his incapacity to understand basic Marixist-Leninist principles, particularly the reality of class struggle under socialism.

To summarise: Rotherham adheres to Trotsky's spurious theory of the Soviet bureaucracy which is mechanically transferred to all countries. But to Marxist-Leninists, socialist society covers a fairly long historical period. During this period classes, class contradictions and class struggle continue, the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road continues and the danger of capitalist restoration, spearheaded by new and old bourgeois forces, remains. This struggle is protracted, complex and becomes very acute at times.

Because he does not understand this, Rotherham is reduced to mouthing liberal phrases and debating tricks. To him the following is a crushing argument. He claims that with my 2customary clumsiness" I give further evidence for the correctness of the charge of monolithism when I "admit that dissidents will emerge in China and in the future". (Apparently Rotherham feels that redundancy is particularly nimble-witted.)

A naive reader might conclude from this that the skilful-Rotherham had trapped me into an admission of something I had previously denied. His argument is nothing more than a puerile attempt to cover up his own ignorance of past ideological struggles in China to which I had pointed in my previous letter.

He says "regardless of their political ideas and programme, Auld knows in advance that these people (i.e. dissidents) 'will be bearers of bourgeois ideology'. This kind of 'logic' has a practical usefulness, of course; it is much easier to crush political oppononts who have been tried and convicted in advance.'

Rotherham's argument has a certain practical usefulness. It is designed to obscure the fundamental question which divides us in this debate: Is there class struggle in socialist society?

Rotherham's nimble answer shows that he cannot come to grips with this question. Instead he chose to make a childish distortion of my arguments. Unlike Mr Rotherham, being a Marxist I believe in causal law. In all socialist countries without exception, the class struggle has raged in many different forms in the economic base and in the superstructure. Just as this struggle in the past has thrown up bourgeois elements, so it will in the future. It is inevitable. And unless people recognise this inevitability they will be ideologically unprepared to meet it head-on.

The struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology in a socialist society is one which is protracted and complex precisely because people who sincerely consider themselves proletarian revolutionaries advance policies which serve the interests of the old exploiting classes. Contrary to Rotherham's inventions, Mao Tsetung has spent a considerable part of his energies to bring home to the Chinese people the necessity for vigorous struggle to resolve the class Contradictions in the superstructure. "Never forget class struggle!", is one of his most important slogans.

Rotherham is simply being foolish when he implies that in China there is "suppression of all critical thought, around a system where the masses adhere to one line which is set 'for them", or else risk being labelled "reactionary'."

Firstly, it is completely un-Marxist to talk about "critical thought" in the abstract. All kinds of thinking in class society are stamped with the brand of a class. In the ideological sphere Marxists insist on the most vigorous debate to defeat non-proletarian ideology.

If Rotherham stopped reading 'The Militant', 'Intercontinental Press' and other tripe and started reading a few books and articles by people who have lived and worked, or visited China, he would learn that among the masses there is continuous debate about which path each neighbourhood, factory, commune or city and China as a whole should take: the socialist path or the capitalist path? The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the campaign to criticise and repudiate Lin Piao and Confucius are the most important manifestations of this debate.

To rid himself of his simplistic notions of socialist society, Rotherham should begin with the following: Hinton's "Turning Point in China" and "Hundred Day War"; Myrdal's "China: The Revolution Continued"; Jean Esmein's "The Chinese Cultural Revolution"; Jean and Elsie Collier's "China's Socialist Revolution"; and Wheelwright and McFarlane's "The Chinese Road to Socialism".

Rotherham reduces the dictatorship of the proletariat to "the working class in power". This is a discrete formulation which obscures its class essence and is designed to woo petty bourgeois elements who shrink from violence.

The dictatorship of the proletariat implies democracy among the people (the working class and its allies) and dictatorship over the old exploiting classes and their agents. This dictatorship may be exercised relatively leniently or it may involve limitations of movement, jailings and executions. When the contradictions between the Trotskyites. Zinovietvites and Bukharinites and the Soviet people, headed by Stalin, became antagonistic in the 1930s in the Soviet Union, they were dealt with by the punitive organs of the Soviet state.

People who shrink from violence in the course of revolution, who deplore the violent aspects of proletarian dictatorship, as the Trotskyites do, should admit that they are not revolutionaries and openly confine their activities to winning reforms within the framework of bourgeois democracy.

Rotherham says that "Auld and Franks proudly boast that if they had any say in the New Zealand revolution the 'Trots' will be among the First to go to the wall. After all, Trotskyists are 'counter-revolutionaries' and 'agents of the CIA', aren't they?"

It will not do Mr Rotherham. Save tricks like this for your schoolboy audiences.

I do not believe that you and your friends have any long-term viability. Trotskyism has some small significance at present because it influences a section of the progressive petty bourgeoisie. I do not believe that it will ever reach out into the broad masses of the working class.

Whether or not the Socialist Action League is in the pay of the CIA is irrelevant to me. Being a Marxist, I judge people not by their declarations but by the effect of their actions on the masses of society. The criterion for judging individuals and political parties is social practice and its effect.

Because of their right-wing ideas, whatever their personal beliefs may be, the activities of the Trotskyites in all countries serve the interests of the international capitalist class. As I attempted to explain to Rotherham earlier, people can serve bourgeois and petty bourgeois interests while picturing themselves as proletarian revolutionaries.

In whose interest docs the Socialist Action League operate when it: (i) supports socialism everywhere except where it exists; (ii) confuses the divergent aims and policies of China and the Khruschovite Soviet Union; (iii) attacks the Vietnamese revolution by working to prevent the implementation of the Paris agreement; (iv) attacks medical aid for the liberated areas in Indochina as "Corso for radicals"; (v) works to split the anti-war and anti-apartheid movements because these movement had rejected their opportunist and trivial policies; (vi) attacks Nyerere and Tanzania, the firmest African supporters of liberation movements in Southern Africa; (VII) defends a fascist like Solzhemnitsyn while failing to offer the slightest aid to two militant union delegates under attack in Wellington, etc?

In whose interest did Mr Rotherham operate when he became the mouthpiece for the police during a sit-down demonstration in Auckland in 1972? In attempting to break it up, the police had Mr Rotherham meekly relay their orders (which were ignored, of course) to the demonstrators.

In making this broad statement, I do not wish to imply that Trotskyites have never been the paid tools of reaction. Starting with Trotsky himself, there have been too many examples of Trotskyites in the role of conscious henchmen of the bourgeoisie.

"Democracy and freedom are relative not absolute'

As could be expected, the debate around the exile of Solzhenitsyn from the Soviet Union has been 'deftly' shifted by Mr Rotherham onto 'a number of broader issues'. What does this mean? A glance at Mr Rotherham's weekly bible 'international Press' reveals that the fascist Solzhenitsyn has become too embarrassing even for American Trotskyites. Consequently the nigged fringes of the Fourth International—i.e. Rotherham and Co are in a state of great disorder, although for them the situation is not excellent. I will spare our one-time defender of the dissident to end all dissidents from further embarrassment. But what smokescreen does our hero put up in order to retreat from his untenable position?

In his letter Rotherham claims to have explained how "in Stalinist Russia (which is his term for the Soviet Union—P.f.) and China a system of monolithism has been established". This claim is empty. Rotherham did indeed proffer a few cob-webbed cold war phrases in reply to Terry Auld's concrete analysis. So have Trotskyites and fascists "argued" since their emergence. And, one might very fairly ask—so what? In his reply to the letters of Terry Auld and Don Franks Rotherham employs neither a single fact nor any logic whatever, let alone the concrete analysis of concrete conditions demanded by Lenin.

To attempt to debate with such a person is tiresome and would indeed be entirely futile, were it not for the fact that the 'Marxist' Rotherham has, like all phenomena, a positive side to him.

Rotherham is like Trotsky before him, a great teacher by negative example. Rotherham is no Marxist-Leninist, neither is he an openly reactionary right-winger. He is simply a miserable liberal, dedicated to vulgarising Marxism in a manner scarcely equalled by Trotsky himself. Witness his attitude to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Rotherham repeats Don Franks' quotation from Lenin that "proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy'. He then goes on to draw the conclusion that only in 'times of intense crisis such as during the civil war following the Russian Revolution(it is) necessary to suppress oppositon viewpoints." He then emphasis the democracy and freedom of the proletarian dictatorship to such a degree, and in such a vague and classless way as to merely pay lip service to the other aspect of the contradiction.

Lenin himself makes nonsense of Rotherham's liberalism, pointing out that "The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a man powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow." and that "The dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, education and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society." (Foundations of Leninism, Moscow 1950. page 63).

Quoting Karl Marx, Lenin said further that, "It will be necessary under the dictatorship of the proletariat to re-educate 'millions of peasants and small masters, hundreds of thousands of office employees, officials and bourgeois intellectuals,' to subordinate them all to the proletarian state and to proletarian leadership (my italics) to overcome 'their bourgeois habits and traditions...." just as we must "....in a protracted struggle waged on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat re-educate the proletarians themselves(my italics) who do not abandon their petty bourgeoise prejudices at one stroke, by a miracle, at the behest of the Virgin Man', at the behest of a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against mass petty bourgeois influences" (Ibid, page 64).

Fortunately Rotherham does not have a monopoly over ideas on freedom and democracy under proletarian dictatorship. As if in reply to Rotherham's milk and water idealism, Mao Tsetung clearly points out the dialectical nature of these phenomena.

"Both democracy and freedom are relative, not absolute, and they come unto being and develop in specific historical conditions. Within the ranks of the people democracy is correlative with centralism and freedom with discipline. They are the two opposites of a single entity, contradictory as well as united and we should not over ideally emphasise one to the denial of the other.....This unity of democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline constitutes our democratic centralism. Under this system, the people enjoy extensive democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have to keep within the bounds of socialist discipline." (Four Essays on Philosophy, page 86).

In contrast to Mr Rotherham's shambolic version of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in which "different working class tendencies" (i.e. Trotskyists and Solzhenitsyns) are free to spread their idealistic, unscientific and downright reactionary ideas we see that proletarian democracy proper is militant, scientific and based on a clear class understanding and foundation.

Perhaps this may help to explain why no Trotskyite party has yet led a successful revolution, why Rotherham's 'Young Socialists' are so utterly divorced from the working class and an understanding of scientific socialism and why liberals like Rotherham spend their time defending parasitic Russian fascists instead of the prominent militant union delegates recently sacked from Ford Motors and the Gear Meat Company.

The guts on Malaya

A friend of mine who returned to Malaya recently wrote a letter which I felt might interest both New Zealanders and overseas students particularly from Malaya. Part of the letter is quoted as follows:

"......after several years away from home, I

find that not much has changed at my home village. Most young people swarm into the cities hunting for jobs. Soon after I arrived home, I felt instantly the serious problem of inflation. The prices of almost every commodity have been increased but the workers' wages do not seem to have had any substantial rise. The living conditions of the labouring people are increasingly difficult. The price of food has shot up three or even four times higher. The situation in Singapore seems worse and more serious from what I have seen there during my brief stay...."

"Another distinctive phenomenon is that the number of beggars seems to be greater than in the past. During my stop-over in Kuala Lumpur, I saw a couple of Indian children begging for money from Customers at the roadside foodstalls, I gave them some coins. Within a short while, about a dozen other children surrounded me begging me for money. I gave away all the coins I had. Later, more and more children came and surrounded me. Finally my friends and I had to leave the place Some of the customers laughed over our behaviour and some showed no sign of sympathy. Most of these beggars are Indians."

"The Chinese Club of Malaya University together with more than 40 other cultural organisations throughout Malaya, organises a cultural concert to raise funds for private secondary schools which have long been suppressed by the government. The concert will be on stage from April 28 to May 10. The concert was originally planned to be held at Negara Stadium. However, the show is forced to change the venue to the Assembly Hall of the Chinese Association which can only accommodate a much smaller audience. The government would not allow the concert to be held at the Negara Stadium under the pretext that it warned to use the place at the same date and time. This is in fact a means of oppression by the government which tried every possible manoeuvre to stop the concert. One of the organisers was arrested. The Hai Yin Choir of Chin Chow Association was blamed for taking part in the concert and their cultural activities were banned due to the pressure from the government."

"It seems that the government is exerting great pressure to stop the staging of the cultural concert. Whether the concert will be allowed is in doubt. However, my friends told me that the concert was strongly supported by the Chinese Schools Board of Directors and Teachers' Association. I believe the concert will be successfully held as planned with the support of the people and with the determination of the cultural organisers and workers....."

It should be pointed out that MSA always claims to represent Malaysian students in New Zealand and if its existence is not serving the reactionaries, it should stand firm and condemn the government oppression of cultural activities in Malaya.

Knocking Debbie

I know that Marshall McLuhan has been saying for years that the printed word is a totally fucked form of communication, but it took Debbie Jone's article in last week's Salient to finally prove that point. Since some of it referred directly to me I'd like to clean up some areas of difference.

1) I thought I'd said in the last bit of my article that because I had personal doubts about much of the women's movement I wouldn't put in print any final suggestions. According to Debbie Jones though I am the "type" (?1) of "radical man who insists that he agrees with women's liberation but spends a lot of time trying to give us good advice". About the only thing she got right there is that I am a male. I'm not a type, I'm not a radical, I don't insist on agreeing with anyone, certainly not women's liberation and I can't remember any advice I gave that was much good to anyone.

It seems to me Debbie Jones is dipping into those categories that as an upfront emotional person she claims to reject. I write for Salient she thinks; therefore I must be a radical. My article was not 100% antagonistic to women; therefore I must be patronising them, or (paranoia, paranoia) making a superficial identification only to I can shape it to that page break "theoretical framework" I'm supposed to have. Let's liberate ourselves from these categories, huh Debbie? I'm an individual. You're an individual. But nah, I don't want to ball you.

2) Debbie (I hope you don't mind me calling you Debbie) says my article "arose in part from a compulsion to fit feminism into a theoretical framework". Now I don't want to make anyone suspect their "gut level identification!" but I thought my article was a protest against the damage that rigid theorising does to reality. I wanted particularly to complain about the way people, especially dead ones, get the reality of their lives twitted to fit the theories and needs of other people. That's one reason why I'm not a radical, even though I confess to knowing Roger Steele.

3) It's good to hear from Debbie that there is no card carrying women's movement, no elite leadership, nor even "primarily any ideological or tactical analysis" beyond "learning to trust and act on our feelings". Sort of like "in your heart you know you're right", as Barry Goldwater used to say.

But I get confused. Because while Debbie says at one point that "women have no common culture and few adequate models" at another place she says that women's revolutionary spirit derives from "a shared consciousness of pain and oppression". And in one small article she can cite, with approval, four females as models of one kind or another. Similarly, after telling us how the women's movement is a product of "extremely distorted" male views she begins the next paragraph with "now, about our beautiful Janis". Who's "us"? Not that illusory women's movement I hope, actually I didn't realise anyone had taken out ownership papers on Janis.

But the really interesting part of Debbie's article comes when she gives an example of how a truly liberated woman conducts a sexual relationship. Its Janis again; she was playing at a concert with this guy and dug him, so she told him she wanted to ball him. In Debbie's scornful words "he fled". Seems he just couldn't handle "a woman who doesn't play games".

If you want to see how wierd this reasoning is just reverse the sexes. You'll get the typical Saturday night party scene, guy moving in on chick, she refuses, he assumes she must be frigid. According to Debbie Jones this is the model we should look to with approval.

So how can any male avoid being at least patronising and at worst downright antagonistic to feminist rhetoric? White males have been on the other end of two little consciousness raising scenes in the last year or so. Playing Mister Charley to the blacks and Pig Oink to the feminists. It didn't matter too much that these groups were trading in stereotypes, creating non existent enemies and so on, because the point of the rhetoric was internal, not external; to raise the morale of the troops. The hope was that blacks and women would one day be secure enough to see white males as something other than enemies, patronising conmen and take-over artists. But that stage never really arrived. The blacks have collapsed into phallic fantasies and revolutionary posturing, and I don't really see much point in going through the same crap with the feminists.

Finally, if as Debbie says "women face a conflict between the desire to be loved and protected and the desire to be free" then that's for the individual to sort out. You can't have independence and Prince Charming as well. But this desire for maximum experience and minimal responsibility (if I can avoid sounding Muggeridge) crops up again and again. It seems so easy to confuse the problems of being a woman with the problems of being alive, period. Society doesn't have an obligation to resolve the loneliness of the individual. That kind of pathetic "love me, I'm just doing my thing" is what finally messed up the hip movement. And as Midge Dector says (New York Times Magazine Sept. 1973) it was also the story of Janis Joplin.

Gordon Campbell