Red Papers on New Zealand.

Series One May 1976. Retailing at $1.50

Reviewed by Anthony Ward

The publication of 'Red Papers on New Zealand' is a major event. The purpose, according to the Preface, is "to bring together Marxist papers representing the postwar developments in the analysis of New Zealand capitalism". The Marxist Publishing Group ends the Preface with a "broader objective of advancing the development of revolutionary Marxist theory and practice".

One can but applaud the aims. If the results, as I shall argue, fall short of these goals this underlines the need for more work in the area. The effort and enterprise are commendable.

The "Red Papers" cover a wide variety of topics, contributed by a variety of writers. The topics split loosely into three areas: alternative analyses of New Zealand history; contemporary analysis of New Zealand society; and notes with particular reference for the question of foreign control.

Alternative History

The alternative views of New Zealand history are a powerful attempt to return history to the people. Not here the concentration on the ambitions of individual politicians, with occasional bows to egalitarianism. There is a very heated engine driving the refrigerator, and we begin to get some idea of it here.

Many articles (including pieces by Owen Gager, Pat Hickey, Jwger Kuczyaski and Willis Airey) centre on labour history and the trade union movement in the turbulent times of 1890-1913. As Kuczynski puts it "Such was the state of working and living conditions at a time when New Zealand was being praised as the promised land of the workers not only by liberals and reformers, but also by responsible trade unionists all over the world".

Between the mystery and the reality lies a great gulf, a gulf enshackled by the famed IC & A Act, - the act whose avowed intention was to control the differences between labour and capital and whose reality reduced workers' wages considerably. The description is succinct and timely.

More contemporary notes on the working class movement are contributed by Bruce Jesson and an extract from 'The Peoples' Voice". The inclusion of this last is a little hard to justify - it falls between the stools of analysis and polemic and gives neither a good account of the 1951 events nor a dear message to the people of the time. And why is the 1951 lockout referred to as the "Waterfront Dispute" (one later paper even calls it a 'strike')? Have we not yet exorcised the liberal demons?

Contemporary N.Z.

The contributions on the contemporary NZ situation are the highest standard in the collection. Particularly impressive are Stanton's work "Class Structure in New Zealand", Bruce Jesson's 'The Family Affair: Wealth and Power in New Zealand" and David Bedggood's "Notes on the Political Economy of the Welfare State".

Cherished myths of egalitarianism and general social progress are exploded. Bedggood finds the welfare state has neither equalised income between groups, nor attacked the problems of inequality of opportunity or poverty. Ken Stanton produces some basic statistics on concentration and monopoly, and suggests implications for Communist Party practice. Jesson, in true style, shows the existence of a "limited circle" of company directors or major companies tying the companies together.

The card houses of bourgeois 'social science' are tumbling. Yet ther e is little suggestion as to how or why they were built. Or why so many people believe in them. Analysis of this aspect of ideology is surely necessary to achieve the 'demystification' or 'role of the Marxist party as a scientific institution of learning" authors urge.

Colonial or Imperialist?

The third group of papers, and in my opinion the weakest, are those on the colonial question. There is considerable debate, at least amongst left-wingers, whether the struggle against foreign control is an important one. Is New Zealand essentially a colonial country, or an imperialist one?

Peter Rotherham provides an interesting outline of Samoan resistence to New Zealand colonialism, and Keith Locke backs him up by identifying relations with imperialist world. Wayne Robinson tends to take the alternative approach, arguing colonial status. Rob Campbell, whose notes could with value have been expanded, notes that N.Z. is a "kept woman of international finance", but we should still oppose foreign capital.

Theoretical Issues

Despite the general quality of the papers, and the range of material they have thrown up, there are still considerable qualms. Nevil Gibson, in "Labour's Post-Socialist Phase" notes' There is very little Marxist writing on New Zealand that could stand up to much examination despite a history rich in radicalism." I would suggest that, in terms of Marxist theory the same could be said of these contributions.

The theoretical issues posed here have been extensively discussed in the debate between Nicos Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband (for which the best summary is Ernests Lacian in 'Economy and Society' Vol 4 No 1 1975). I will not go much into them here, beyond emphasising the distinction between approaching bourgeois theory on its own terms, rather than in a separate Marxist problematic.

To illustrate, Ken Stanton describes, with statistics, the process of concentration in New Zealand. Concentration (like the statistics) is used very much in a descriptive way - there is no attempt to realise the differences in the Marxist definition of concentration. Further, David Bedggood's article on the Welfare State outlines four tests for 'welfarism' theory. When these all turn up failures, the Marxist theory is looked to as a "solution".

The alternative, although it is very abstract from, can be seen in Michael Dunn's outline of the "National Question" The more rigorous definition developed there - of seperate modes of production and dominant class - suggest a Marxist problematic requires a different form of analysis.

The need for a correct theory is a vital one. As Lenin (who is cited) wrote: "Theory without practice is sterile. Practice without theory is blind". Most of the articles here are important in developing a critique of accepted theories, but on their own terms Thus bourgeois history is modified by the inclusion of aspects of class conflict (or the "secret history of World War Two"), but it is still bourgeois history - the underlying assumptions and implicit understandings have not been challenged.

The problems in developing a fundamental understanding are best illustrated by David Bedggood's definition of the core of Marxism: 'This is the definition of human needs and their realisation which consitutes the concept of alienation". At the risk of appearing uncharitable, this is totally wrong. "Human needs" is an idealist concept - characteristic of the young Marx before 1845. The materialist Marx, and scientific Marxism, get away from such notions to the rigorous concept of surplus value. This, not alienation, is the core of Marxist theory.

There are some aspects of production (eg bad typing, the absence of page numbers) which can be criticised but the tone is getting somewhat negative. "Red Papers on New Zealand" is an important advance in our understanding of the country we live in. If the epistemology is suspect, then it is at least good that such issues can be raised and hopefully discussed. "Red Papers" is an excellent context.

Marxist theory internationally in the postwar period, with some notable exceptions, advanced little. From the mid sixties, spurred on by Vietnam, May 1968 and increasing economic crises, interest and developments have been growing. "The Red Papers on New Zealand" collect and formalise some of that work, as well as earlier material, on our own situation.

Very highly recommended reading.

Against the Softness of Woman:

This book is called "Against the Softness of Woman", the title of the first poem, and I presume that it was chosen because this poem is the keynote of the collection. If so, it seems an appropriate choice, because this poem says something about being a woman, and by extension a woman poet. That seems to me to be reflected in all her poetry.

The poem's message to women is: don't act like a woman: "don't let the quick spring flow/hide it behind." Women, she says, are prone to "vacillation", they are "vagrant".

A man, on the other hand, "has bared himself translucent/like the rings of honesty", "He has paved down his spare image." If a woman wants to be more like a man she should "let his singularity teach (her)", she should "become like him."

This is of course an anti-woman poem. Certainly many women, including women poets, whose talents are respected in the male world have chosen this path of survival; to deny their woman-ness, except, if they're "liberated" types, to fuck with men.

However the time has now come for many women - and women poets - when they now feel it is possible for them to "let the quick spring flow": to speak in their own voices.

However I rarely got the feeling from Jan Kemp's poems that she is speaking in her own voice. She gives the impression of posing, in each poem, for carefully taken, "artistic" photographs: the Poet and her Lover; the Poet talks to a Railway Guard; the Poet at the Poet's Funeral. Similarly, her technique often seems studied and "Poetic", without the guts of the experience described to give the forms and metaphors a kick.

She uses commas too so this does not replace it; why not just finish the dash comes? And why use the spelling "masque" in the title "Balloon Masque": the poem makes it clear that she does mean a mask, not a masque.

This is a frustrating book of poems. Every now and then there is a flash of real communication, a sense of a real live person behind. For instance she exuberantly expresses happiness in fucking that

"makes us hustle
& lick the world
& our own
ice cream faces."

Personally, I wouldn't buy this book. I might get it out of the library though. But what good is it to a woman, or a poet, and expecially a woman poet if she won't "let the quick spring flow."

—Deborah Jones