Comrade,

Thanks for letting T.S. Auld's views on Marxism-Leninism appear in Salient. That Mr. Auld revises Marxism-Leninism in the name of Marxism becomes obvious as he writes. In his second paragraph Terry demonstrates that at the Anti-Apartheid Conference he followed, not Marx, but the BBC commentator Michael Dean and his estimation of what constitutes Marxism.

Says Terry, "Michael Dean correctly characterised Devereux as a 19th Century economic determinist". Like Dean, Terry gives no information as to what constitutes my "economic determinism'. His definition of this phenomenon is "the attempt to explain mechanically the whole historical process in its infinite variety directly by the economic factor." This certainly has no application to my thinking or what I had to say at the conference.

What I said, and what Terry does not attempt to rebutt, is that South African and N.Z. societies are divided into classes, that is groups of people having differing relations to the means of production and hence to each other. In South Africa this inter-relationship of class forces has produced the social-political system of apartheid - the South African variant of Fascism. Such is the Marxist conclusion with which Terry implies agreement when he says "The Marxist recognises that the state of the productive forces in the long run determines all social relations...." But having agreed thus, he attacks the CPNZ because it recognises this truth as applied in the particular case of South Africa.

From this confusion Terry goes on to another, by affirming "Marxists recognise that there are times when political and cultural changes are decisive for changing the economic basis." Our Party sees these changes as the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the universal recognition of Marxist-Leninist philosophy as the most powerful cultural force in bringing about and consolidating this change. But for Terry such aims of the CPNZ are "pseudo-revolutionary phrase mongering."

The social and economic conditions in which these changes can be brought about have existed for a long time, but revisionists of whom Terry [unclear: Auldis] a typical representative, pretend that the political and cultural changes which will "promote economic development and change the economic basis" of Society do not need to include, in fact specifically exclude, the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Because Terry and his revisionist cronies have thus abandoned Marxism-Leninism, they attack the CPNZ. They have deliberately buried Lenin's affirmation that he who does not accept the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat as his guide to action is not a Marxist. If Terry and his revisionist friends proclaimed this truth while pursuing their present policies, their revisionism of Marxism-Leninism would be clear for all to see.

Their line is clear. I paraphrase their programme. All the demands being made by different social groups, if they are pressed strongly enough, can be realised in practice. The resulting changes in the political and cultural superstructure will have a decisive effect on changing the economic basis of society. It is therefore politically correct to give complete uncritical support to all groups which are drawn into opposition to the policies of the ruling class.

Terry's stand suggests his belief that Apartheid can be eliminated without a change of class relationships. But he now goes much further than this and implies that the defeat of Apartheid would in itself be a political and cultural change which would change the economic basis of South African Society. Could revisionism be more open?

Is it not obvious to all that Apartheid is the last resource of a decrepit and desperate ruling class? And does it not follow that this class cannot abandon this form of its class rule no matter how much moral pressure is brought to bear on it? To do so would place their ruling class in immediate jeopardy.

S. Devereux

C.O.'s About -turn

As egotistical as it seems I'd like to have a letter published by Salient. This one preferably. The scene being that I registered C.O. on Friday 21st after they'd chased me for two years when I refused to comply with the C.M.T. Act and register on my 19th Birthday or thereabouts. Because, as I told the C.O. Committee. I thought the act was a bad one. I still think it is, although the Committee (and the "Post") obviously thought that I'd accepted it due to my preference for fighting C.M.T. on moral rather than legal grounds.

But the point behind my wind-change is that, while I consider the Act a bad one, which was meant to be shown by my deferring registration for almost 3 years, I place more importance on a carefully-listened-to (they was out to get me, you better believe it) vocal and written (they each still have copies of my carefully consistent statement) declarations of protest Not against the Act so much, but against the army, its corruption of the morons who go off "just ter 'ave a good coupla weeks roughin' it a bit, y'know?" amidst all the cheap piss the army somehow flogs (up the taxpayer!) and come out looking for a fight to prove how tough they've become in a few weeks, and how many deadly tricks they learnt; and the brainwashing of their tender, half-cooked minds. These guys obviously haven't learnt to think (otherwise they wouldn't go near the place) and they come out believing because they are told so that the only way to save the world is to start a war and blow it up; and against the reactionary goddamn Government for poking all of our noses into "immoral, unjust and unGodly wars" (a quote from my statement) — and I don't just mean Vietnam, I made emphatically clear, but any war (or support of same) which might be undertaken as a token gesture, which is about all bloody New Zealand could ever do — the fingers would be a lot better. I also made it quite clear that how could anyone who could not morally justify every single one of these bitter mistakes register anything but C.O., or even tacitly condone the whole system? which they interpreted correctly as saying that everyone should register C.O. Then if we have any megalomaniac's wishing to rule the world they wouldn't have a hell of a lot of help to do it.

Which sort of vaguely reaches my point - which is more or less a question. There are a hell of a lot more fucked laws than the C. M.T. Act, so why try so hard to get rid of it right now? The Army isn't ready yet (and won't be for a long time—neither yet are all the beautiful people of this country) to back down, let their screws out of so many of our brave young patriots, and admit that we don't even need a bloody army. I don't like anything compulsory, especially something like this, but moral grounds gets anyone whose head can hold more than half a thought out of C.M.T. anyway, and accomplishes the double purpose of registering some protest against the Govt, the Army, and "the clods" (or are they all clods), as well as protesting against immorality, wholesale slaughter, and even just everyday aggression. On the strength of that, I'd like to hear (I would like to support O.H.M.S. if I can justify it — the idea of anarchy appeals) why I should have continued to refuse to register. Because I don't know (and neither do a few others I assume) exactly why we must have this Act abolished at the expense of a few martyrs.

Grant M.

Educating Examiners

On Monday 17th April, students in Education I sat a multiple choice test. There are two Education I classes, I attend the first session and on the morning of the test we were instructed Not to take a copy of the questions out of the room as the afternoon class would be given the same exam. We would, however, be given a copy of the questions later on. Today the lecturer, Professor Fieldhouse, informed us that 2 copies of the exam paper had been taken from the room and a student had told him that a few members of the afternoon class had been seen with the exam questions before the second exam was held. As a result, this exam will not be taken into consideration for the granting of terms, at the next test students won't be allowed to take bags, papers etc. into the exam room, and furthermore staff will stand at the doors to check nothing is taken out of the room at the conclusion of the test. I'd like to express my contempt for the actions of the student or students who took the exam papers, and to say I think they are infantile, untrustworthy stupid twits.

Blanaid FitzGerald.

It is very good news to hear we are to have an Independent Labour candidate in the General Elections

Shands claim to fame is "I'm 26, a Senior, mature lecturer in Muldoon's Cost-Benefits Analysis Accountancy systems. This is better handled, by Muldoon's henchmen, than a pleasant nice glamour boy calling himself Labour. Cost Benefits belong to the 19th Century and are outdated. Mr Shands other dynamic effort was to waste hours of time and effort the University Club, so that the graduates in Labour philosophy can sip tea, drink booze and butter each other up. — Are the old age pensioners welcome, the solo parents, the so called dropouts, "Trade Union Members, in fact the populace who need somewhere to go? O.K. if they are a Dandy-Shandy type and been "educated" in what?

All these dynamic qualifications, for a Labour? candidate aged 26, God what will he be like at 36, pregnant with ideas for a super-Post Graduate Club, or Muldoon's shadow minister or rubber stamps? Thank goodness, we shall have these coming months, an independent Labour Candidate, who claims only a modicum of guts but at least genuine Labour guts.

Albert Rhodes.

During the AGM of the Association, the Treasurer was booed and heckled as he tried to amend a motion. The mood of the meeting was for giving a donation to O.H.M.S. Was the Treasurer against this move? No, he was trying to give, more.

During the tour debate Bishop Baines was rudely told to speak up or leave by some supporters of Hart. Was the Bishop supporting the tour? No, he was giving a reasoned account of why the vast majority of the Christian church in New Zealand opposses the tour.

During the same debate I overheard someone singing the praises of Ken Gray's reasoned speech in favour of the tour. Does Ken Gray support the tour? No, he is one of the few Rugby players in this country with enough mental capacity to see past the Springboks to apartheid. His opposition to the tour is no secret.

Is not this a wonder, is not this a mystery, that here in this community which steadfastly seeks wisdom and knowledge, we find so many post-students, persons who have ceased to study because they know it all. People who know what all treasurers say, who know what all Bishops say, who know what all Rugby players believe Is this another achievement of our age, that our knowledge is such that we no longer have to listen to others, but can wipe out minds of them in advance?

We should bear in mind that in the words of our neighbours are found our greatest hopes We should respond to the words of our oppressed neighbours in southern Africa. We should also hear, with sorrow or with joy, the words of our neighbours in Wellington.

david [unclear: I] Cunningham.

Blunders

Those people who read my article Irish Muck Raked in the last Salient will have noticed at least two places where the article did not make any sense. Some Protestant proof-reader had obviously been at work.

In the second paragraph of the fourth column on page nine, the article as printed reads: "Fention noted several other incidents where Protestants in safe areas have been blown up, which "have been credibly disowned by the I.R.A. The most celebrated about 100lb, had been left in a corridor." With the 22 words ommitted it should read: "The most celebrated", he says, "is the explosion in the Four Step Inn, in the Protestant heartland of Shankill, where a huge amount of gelignite, about 100lb had been left in a corridor."

In the third column on the top half of page 11, a quote from Conor Cruise O'Brien reads: "The Irish News continued, "Dr. O'Brien said most newspaper reports at the time and pinned the blame on the now defunct 'B' specials. "This should read: "The Irish News continued, "Dr O'Brien said most newspaper reports at the time and studies by impartial writers showed it was the R.U.C. who ran amok. The report to some extent 'white washed' the R.U.C. role at the time and pinned the blame on the now defunct 'B' specials".

Also in the second paragraph of the fourth column on page 9 James Fention is quoted as saying about John McKeague, leader of the Shankill Defence Committee, "There is no evidence that his activities have divided the Protestant ranks."

Peter Franks

Racist Pub

Last Friday night myself and a group of other students were having our Friday night drink in the Grand and as usual we were very casually dressed; as were the majority of other students. At about 7 pm a group of young Maori guys, likewise casually dressed, came and sat beside us in the corner. Shortly after their arrival a large security man came up and asked them to leave because their dress was offensive to the public. They refused to go and were given 10 minutes to reconsider their decision. Ten minutes later the hefty security man backed up by half a dozen equally hefty mates moved in and demanded they go. Their protests that all students were dressed the same, and they were being picked on because they were Maori's were ignored.

On being asked why the Maoris and not us were given the boot we were told to mind our own business. This is terrible and I for one will not drink there again.

D. Wright.

With reference to John Hales' missal of the 27th inst:- although this young man may well have left school only recently, to the best of her knowledge 'different to' has not become acceptable. John Hales sociolect may be acceptable in his world, but, for her part, he appears not to have studied his suprasegmentals. Therefore she sees no need for John Hales to come the old uncooked crustacean with her. Despite her delight in seeing his use of 'more than'.

Victoria Beatrice Jones

I mean that. Its a very blue sunny sky here at NaeNae. I'm just happily dialogueing away with my and your friend, Roger (non-student full-time contributor to this paper) who has very considerately written two pseudonymed replys to that thing of mine the other week which suggested to your questing beneficient readers that life was much too beautiful to ignore by burying oneself in hate escapades. The point being that the South Africa protest was just one of those. That's all. Hope you have a good time.

Peter Simpson.