Specious argument

Sir—My first reaction to reading Owen Gager's searching analysis of the Cultural Revolution in China was one of amusement: a quite charming piece illustrating the art of specious argument.

But no; surely if the article was a spoof Salient would not have wasted a complete page on it!

If indeed the argument was meant to be a subtle hoax may I suggest that the following illustrates the same ploy somewhat more concisely.

Salt is Good

The late J. Christ the year before he died stated "Salt is Good".

Common salt is known among experts (see footnotes) to be none other than Sodium Chloride. Salt is found in salt water. Q.E.D

Returning however to the assumption that the article was genuine, and despite the pointlessness of semantic arguments I should like to make the following point as illustration. Gager's argument in no way bears any relevance to the bold opening statement, indeed it would seem to contradict that statement. Gager agrees that power has actually changed hands on the administrative level as a result of the mass action of a large section of the population. If this does not fall within the definition of 'revolution' then I should like the learned Gager to explain what does.

In fact it would appear that the only useful purpose of the article was to provide an opportunity to use the magical word "Stalinist", so evocative. like a veritable Pavlovian bell to the Trotskyite cerebral cortex.

[Mr. Gager does not think it necessary to reply—ed.]