Puerile Political Pamphleteering

This article is an attempt to analyse and criticise recent publications of a high emotional tenor.

These pamphlets, if analysed closely, reveal little sense and much bad taste. "Communism"—a word often used—can only be applied to a definite economic and political concept. The theory of Communism is as dispassionate in analysis as any comparative analysis of Capitalism. Can "Communism" be likened emotively to cancer, and yet convey any real meaning?

The Executive were tagged "Communist" How can they be "Communist" when, not one has experience of Communism in practice; not one has understood Marxism and Leninism as Marx and Lenin did; not one would be capable of applying the Marxist dialectic to the present NZ or world economic condition. To claim that they are "Communist" because of a resolution which supported the coup in Czechoslovakia is not only stupid, but childish. Consequently, all supporters of Mao Tse Tung, Mr. Gallagher or Tito would then be declaimed or honoured with the tag "Communist." "The only true Communists are within the Soviet Union. ..." So spake Stalin. These party members know of Communism. They can appreciate and apply communist theory.

"Democracy," another term widely used and abused, in these articles, has as a term a high emotional value. What form of democracy do they mean? The democracy of China, where the people are fighting for a Social Democracy which is opposite to the political ideals of the Nationalistic Kuomintang. Or the "American Way of Life" which, has in the Negro question the most damning illustration of the lack of freedom to vote, demonstrate or organise. Is this the pamphleteers' democracy? Do they mean the democracy of South Africa which does not permit coloured peoples the right to equal participation in South Africa's "Democratic" institutions. European South Africans, like most Europeans in equatorial countries, perpetuate the adage of "White Man's Burden" and presume on their intelligence by insisting on the "Superiority of white over black." Does "democracy" have room for racial prejudice? Does then "Democracy" permit the full expression of the individual in society? Any utterance contrary "to the preservation of life, liberty and property" of individuals in the state is suppressed. This the tyranny of the majority has much to answer for. Can the party system be justified in pandering to the majority? Can the "abysmal thuggery of nurges" as a phrase be applied religiously to the alleged satellites of the USSR? Is not the purge of public and state servants in Australia, USA and England "abysmal thuggery," or is it a constitutional necessity? The recently formed Commission of Unamerican Activities is doing nothing more than impossibly sterilising the film industry. Can the suppression of this form of Art be likened to "abysmal thuggery?"

Is the Communist in a "mental straight-jacket?" This is a contentious argument but "Communists" forcing one into a "physical straight jacket" is both silly and ludicrous. It appears that the pamphleteer himself has a fear of straight-jackets—should he know?

Did the meeting show that "the light of freedom glows in this University?" The meeting only showed the tyranny of the majority, who recognise the need for an opposition in a democracy, but wished them to be a silent opposition. This constituted opposition was greeted with scant respect or regard by the democratic 26 who saw no democratic reason in refusing to hear those against the motion. "Don't be misled," they screamed to their cohorts. This was their answer for democracy.

"... a conclusion supported by a large number of students . . ." presumed that many students knew accurately the political situation in Czechoslovakia. Their first article commenced, "Some may not have read the paper. . . ." Do the students know or do they not know the situation in that country? And are our newspapers free from taint of half-truths? How can this large body of students support the conclusion and yet "may not have read the papers?" All this reveals is an attempt to subdue intelligent reason, by the emotions. This "large number" evidently followed where the emotional exhibitionism of the pamphleteer blustered. Reason was defeated and intellectual dishonesty prevailed.

In conclusion, "do not be misled" "by the masters of organisation" who will use any (every) method to distort the truth. This sentence is typical of the articles, so read them again with a critical mind.