Literary Page

In an article debunking philosophical idealism as offering no relevant contribution to the material problems of society, I referred to the spontaneous and independent movement's of the masses of the people against capitalist exploitation, not only within the more technically developed western democracies, but also in the colonies and dependant countries, such as Indonesia and Greece. This I called "the significant movement of our time." and I believe that the language I used made it quite clear that I was referring to this struggle of the exploited majority against the exploiting minority. However I have been so grossly misinterpreted in the last issue of "Salient" by someone who signed himself "Pro Bono Publico, or Panem et circenses" that I am compelled to refute the statements in his letter with all the force I can.

While it is just as much nonsense as the essay I was criticizing, it is more dangerous nonsense, and I know quite well that the misinterpretation is a deliberate one. The writer stated that I was referring throughout to the Managerial revolution, and then proceeded to bray aloud his support of this movement, if indeed anything so hollow and superficial can be called a movement. It is well that he did not sign his name for he has branded himself as an ass.

When I clearly refer to a struggle of the masses against the forces of reaction, by what process can he deduce that I am supporting the managerial revolution? How can this theory relate to the future of oppressed peoples other than ns a guarantee of the technique of their exploitation? The plain fact is that the theory of the managerial revolution lacks any social dynamic precisely because it refuses to recognise the developing power and unity of the working class. In the face of a movement which proceeds with the inevitable logic of history, it is a feeble attempt to patch and justify the decadent status quo. The man who can support it is an hysteric clutching at straws.

In order to remove any misapprehensions, I would point out to take "future leader" that he cannot stand firmly alongside me, because between us there is the barrier of a completely different conception of the future of society. It is also rather amusing that in his ambition to make the patrician boxseats, he evidently still believes that the populace can be appeased with his "panem et circenses.'" Stale crusts aren't good enough, and people get tired of the same old gladiators.