Readers of last week's Salient may have [unclear: Lotted] a curious fact. After having been [unclear: cpeatedly] told by various people that [unclear: jient] is run by a "Marxist-Maoist clique" [unclear: lr] some such group, we finally discovered [unclear: hat] the writings of Mao Zedong (I prefer [unclear: he] new Pinyin system the Chinese [unclear: hanselves] use) and Lenin were liberally [unclear: prinkled] through a full page article. That's bit bold, one might have thought.

But lo! It was no aspiring Marxist who [unclear: rote] that article, but one Robin C. Craw, [unclear: efl]-known supporter of the so-called 'reforms" a large SGM threw out last [unclear: nn]. Craw quotes the Marxist writers in an [unclear: ttetnpt] to establish the correct [unclear: icthodology] for investigating SRC. In [unclear: ssence], he points out that Marxism teaches [unclear: ne] to think independently and in an anti- [unclear: ogmatic] manner, seek truth from facts [unclear: nd] express one's views only when this has [unclear: een] done. Fair enough.

He also purports to use this method to [unclear: nalyse] SRC and the things some people [unclear: have] written about it. Which just goes to how that pretending to follow the right [unclear: icthod] won't guarantee you the correct [unclear: suits]. But Craw knows what he is doing, [unclear: nd] there is method in all his madness, [unclear: et's] look at what he is trying to imply.

[unclear: Ignoring] Differences

Craw finds it convenient to imply that all [unclear: jpporters] of the SRC system are Marxists, [unclear: le] says: "....surely if to be a Marxist is [unclear: nything], it is to be anti-dogmatic." He [unclear: en] says: "For instance...Lisa Sacksen [unclear: laimed] inaccurately..."; and "Likewise [unclear: vndrew] Beach...sees this institution..."; [unclear: nd] finally, "whilst Simon Terry..goes as [unclear: ir] as claiming...". Now these three people [unclear: II] hold (as far as I know) rather different [unclear: iews] to each other.

Later in the article, Craw uses the same [unclear: ick] of lumping in together everyone who olds a different view to his own. He says: SRC is used to ratify decisions that the [unclear: istablishment'] want ratified. Nowhere was [unclear: lis] more apparent than in the recent [unclear: ebacle] at SRC concerning the Massof residency... the Executive and their [unclear: jpporters] dragged out that SRC, on an [unclear: lready] defeated motion, for 1½ hours and [unclear: en] bogged down next week's SRC with [unclear: le] same issue for at least an hour!"

Even the most cursory investigation of [unclear: it] facts would have shown him that at the [unclear: econd] SRC the main debate occured over [unclear: upport] for the Election Committee's [unclear: commendation]. The principles in that [unclear: ebate] were the Chairperson of the Election [unclear: ommittee] on one side versus the mover of [unclear: ne] previous week's successful motion on [unclear: ne] other, with exec members split on the [unclear: sue]. Yet all these people are supposed to [unclear: e] Marxists operating as a bloc!

What Craw is doing is engaging in a [unclear: libtle] form of red-baiting. Rather than [unclear: articipate] in the debates on the issue of [unclear: iterim] President, he prefers to try to call [unclear: II] the people he doesn't like politically, [unclear: larxists], and bad ones at that, thereby [unclear: rying] to discredit what they say.

He may recognise that a lot of people he [unclear: riticises] are not Marxists at all, but by not [unclear: dmitting] it, he may hope to sow dissention [unclear: n] the ranks. The Government does the [unclear: ame] with unions who oppose it. By falsely [unclear: mplying] that communists have nobody's [unclear: nterests] but their own at heart, and that [unclear: they] are manipulating all those who line up [unclear: ith] them on a particular issue, the aim is to [unclear: liscredit] the communists and the issue [unclear: teself].

It is worth remembering that if one is [unclear: rying] to assess what Marxism and Marxists [unclear: xe] all about, one shouldn't fall into the rap of considering the actions of everyone [unclear: n] the liberal-left. It is also worth [unclear: emembering] that Marxists, as the quotes [unclear: hosen] by Craw last week show well, do [unclear: ictually] try to take a sensible outlook on [unclear: hings].

SRC vs. Exec.

Craw's argument seems to be that it is the Executive, not the SRC, that holds the real power in the association; following from this he argues that the SRC is and can be nothing more than the focus for sectarian left-wing imposition of policy.

Now in my view, an executive that abuses its position and starts making policy on its own behalf, or running the financial affairs of the association against the expressed wish of students, ought to be removed. It follows from this that we need a body, which all students can attend, that will be able to oversee the workings of the executive. SRC is such a body, and I have heard no suggestion of a better one.

Let's remember that SRC is held at a time when, by arrangement with the university, almost no lectures or other events are scheduled. It is up to the SRC Co-ordinator to ensure that SRC is well publicised, and up to students to make sure that the Executive is held accountable for its actions. No amount of "reform" can overcome the facts: sometimes we will get a bad SRC Co-ordinator; and many students don't want to attend SRC or take an active interest in the association. We must acknowledge these facts and work to overcome them, not simply try to reconstitute them out of existence.

Craw maintains that "the 'supporters' of SRC never take anything to that body if it can be more conveniently dealt with elsewhere". What nonsense. This year, as in previous years, many 'progressive' motions have gone down in a screaming heap at SRC. So have some 'reactionary' motions.

Craw maintains that the interim President issue was a good example of the 'establishment' trying to manipulate the democratic process. Yet what are the facts? At a very large SRC, the motion to appoint Caroline Massof interim President was defeated without any debate! SRC can only work if the people who go along are prepared to debate the issues in an open fashion. Yet on the occasion, the arguments against appointing Caroline had to be dragged out of people by some speakers on the floor because of the constitutional problem that had arisen!

What is Being Suggested?

Craw maintains that "a 'participatory democracy' system stifles rather than encourages debate." He later says that "SRC in fact docs not allow for 'the right to informed debate' because speaking rights and the content of speeches there can be, and often are, ruthlessly controlled by a variety of procedural motions." (SRC operates under more or less standard meeting procedure, which is designed to obstruct only those who would obstruct the meeting itself.) Craw also argues that Forums, as "an institution of free spoken expression" would solve all our problems.

Why does he like Forums and not SRCs? Is it because Forums, where policy is not decided, are a side issue in determining the action of the association and would therefore often have less people attending? How can he possibly argue that participatory democracy stifles debate? Contraversial matters, properly advertised, always receive extended debate at SRC and bring along large numbers of people.

My conclusion is that Robin Craw would like us to have a system whereby students were no longer encouraged to participate in the affairs of the association, both its policy making and its activities.

It is no coincidence that victoria, with its system of SRC and SRC officers, also has a long record of being able to involve large numbers of students in mass activity on issues to concern to them. Many students may feel isolated here, but this feeling is nowhere near as widespread as it is on those campuses where the Executive accident or design, really does rule the roost.

Kathy Jamieson.