Where's the abortion

I am starting to get rather tired of all these letter etc you are always getting from the Trotsky-ist abortionists. Key Goodger end Jacqueline McCluggage. Despite their association with the "Socialist" Action League, the policies that they propoee for the women's movement, with primary emphasis being placed on the abortion issue can only be described as anti-Socialist and anti-Marxist.

Let me illustrate with a reference to Kay Goodger's letter in your May 1 Issue. She attacks the Catholic Church as being a pillar of sypport for the establishment. I will admit that this may be true in a country like Spain or Portugal, but It is hardly true of the world as a whole. All through Latin America, the Catholic Church is probably one of the mam progressive movements for social change. In New Zealand, the Catholic Church is probably the strongest church among the working classes. Vet because of one small point of difference, the abortion issue, these Trotakyists persist in trying to split a large group of exploted working-class women from the women's liberation movement. A better approach that a Marxist might adopt is to unite with these women, temporarily ignoring the differences until problems of women's rights-in other spheres have been resolved. I would recommend a reading of Lenin's pamphlet "Two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution".

I could, at this stage, proceed to a discussion of the problem that is frequently raised: that of the direction to be adopted by the women's movement once abortion is legalised. However I suspect that they would be wasted words. In the meantime. I suggest that the Trotsky-ist's support for what is primarily a movement among middle-class women for abortions is anti-working class, because of its paternalistic approach to working class women. Because the orientation given to the women's emphasizes religious divisions rather than class divisions, the approach is un-Marxist. In their emphasis on abortion, they imagine the Catholic Church to be a single unitary entity, and are hence undialectical. And finally, because these Trotskyist women are advocating reformist policies, they are showing themselves to be anti-socialist.

I am now awaiting the usual attempts at character assassination, because I am a male writing on the subject of abortion — but I support abortion. I also expect to be attacked as un-Marxist in my support for the Catholic Church, although I am an atheist. It is merely because I do not subscribe to any inane ultra-leftist line such as that which follows from the Trotakyist theory of Permanent Revolution.

Tol-keen

Somebody told us thai Marty had written an article on Tolkien's "Lord of the Ring", but that you didn't want to publish it because people would not be interested? Don't you mean you're not interested? We would have thought that the most obvious facet of a good editor would be to recognise a cult and cash in. Tolkien is a cult (indubitably a good one, as only those who have dabbled in it will know), and we think you would be pleasantly surprised at the reaction to such an article if you care to print it. Instead of yet another another spiel on Vietnam, China, abortion, or the like.

A letter from the former poetry editor — ruthlessly deposed

I had intended welcoming everyone into the second term by presenting several of what I consider to be sensitive and skilful poems. However, I have been given a new editorial directive: that all works at present submitted to Salient are of low quality, that they are the works of "literary wankers", and therefore not fit for publication. Henceforth, any submissions to Salient will be Judged by the resident expert, Roger Steele, possessor of the Witi Ihimaera seal of approval. His opinion alone will decide the merits of any work. As a rough guideline, submissions which do not present constructive criticism of society will be unwelcome; and poems which are designed simply to express some emotion rather than to provide an analysis of the inequalities of control of the means of production will be categorised as "literary wanking" and treated as such.

From time to time I have made the ill-informed statement that Salient is interested in printing original submissions. It was made in good faith; but as Salient now equals R. Steele it is utter nonsense and I retract it.

Poems of high quality, technically sound, describing the merits of the revolution, the achievements of Communist China, the furtherance of the workers' cause or well-reasoned social criticism will be most acceptable. In other words, keep your emotions out of literature and stick to politics.

Poetry fans........

There's been this thing worrying me over the past few months — namely: is your paper meant to represent the general student mob on campus, or is it a voice for radical political ideas, etc? It's just that there are some things happening around this university which could be helped/stopped/ or otherwise by getting publicity in Salient, only experience has shown that no amount of pushing can get you guys to show any interest above political expediency (or otherwise).

Sure, the politics has its place in a student newspaper, but I have noticed that with increasingly monotonous regularity your political articles have been seeping into the spaces previously set aside for such things as the arts, music and film reviews, and more particularly the poetry section (inside information tells me that the latter is the last section to be considered before each copy goes to press). Even though it mightn't be your ideal cup of tea, there are plenty of us who would rather read poetry written by fellow students, and articles directly related to campus life and problems. If you could only realise the important role you could play in breaking down the growing impersonallsa-tion of the University.....

Thank god you still seem to enjoy the letters to the editor.

Taste in pop music a social problem

I would first like to congratulate who-ever wrote the story on rock music (using my name) in last week's Salient. I feel the importance of taste in pop music is an important social problem and not yet property investigated. I would like to bring up several points about the article.

Concentration Camps

The letter written by Suara Ra'ayat is the greatest masterpiece indeed to quote William Chang's words.

I agree with Suara Ra'ayat that the articles "To be and not to be" and "Bed Time Story" are racist articles insulting the working people of being stupid and having no guts to tight injustice even though they are oppressed. This is irrelevant to reality. The author forgets that every year many people from all races are thrown into concentration camps for opposing injustice in Malaysia, Recently the bosses of MCA likw Tun Tan, Michael Chen etc. were calling for the Chinese to unite together to fight for their own rights and UMNO bosses are echoing the same thing. The UMNO bosses even accused the Chinese of controlling the economy. MCA bosses cooperate with the UMNO bosses in calling the Chinese to unite, but unite against whom, surely not against Michael Chen or Tun Tan or other Government heads, but against the other races. The point I want to stress is if the bosses really care for the welfare of the people, they should call on the races to unite rather than peddling racist lines.

In the letters to Salient criticising Suara Ra'ayat none of them dare clarify or deny this central issue, but only challenged him on minor points.

T

If the serving of tampon tea in the cafe is going to be continued next term, couldn't we at least have the string left on.

Gays not armed.........yet

It's a pity you chose to write an editorial about something you obviously know nothing about. Humblest thanks to thee, sir, for graciously allowing an article about us to appear in your paper. Spouting Stalinist dogma does not increase the validity of your statements. Homosexuality and the ability to love your own sex is part of the human condition — not a disorientation caused by capitalism. We are not "a case study" of anything, thank you. Liberation is a process of freeing from oppression, and the sexual field is as valid as any other. True, our struggle has not yet reached the intensity of armed combat — but do not fear, it will, if the oppression continues. Quoting Engels isn't going to do much good either as Engels in fact knew very little about sexuality, especially female sexuality. If one reads the quotation carefully it is obvious that he still sees the process of male desire and female "surrender" occurring after the revolution. This is because he no doubt thinks it is natural. All he says is it will be for love, not power prestige etc. This is good, but not good enough. Your crude economic materialistic interpretation of society is only one part of the story, mate.

A soggy stale of affairs

I would like to complain in the strongest possible terms about the wastefulness in the Union Building conveniences. Why can't we dry our hands on proper cloth from towel dis-pensers likes of which are found in buildings such as Kirk. It lakes about half a dozen papers to dry a wet pair of hands whereas with a towel dispenser one pull will do the trick and no wastage occurs as the towels are washed and sterilised etc and used again. If nothing is done about this sorry State of affairs within the next four weeks my cronies and I by dubious means will foreibly open the paper dispensers and re-place the used papers so that in a few days there will be a soggy mass pulp in them. Please give this your serious consideration.

Some burning questions

Perhaps the investingatory powers of the Salient state might be directed towards finding out the answers to some questions which concern the affairs of the Students Association:—

The young gnat

I think the best summation of what John MeDonald's presidency is going to mean is the conngratulatory advertisement sent by the Wellington Central Young Nats. The suggestion that he will represent the true feelings of students fallowed by "clean out Salient and what it stands for" (he means you) gave promise of the fascist things to come. This is borne out by the thugs who threatened you in the Salient Office. It seems that McDonald will represent all students except those who disagree with him. So watch out Roger, because should you and your Red mates climb out from under the bed, John will be ready to bash you. The question is will 1016 others?

For McDonald has already displayed that he doesn't give a damn for decisions made by the SRC but rather he will decide what students want himself. With a bit of luck (and even common sense) he may find at the next election that people don't give a damn about him.

Getting worked up

Like, your paper is okay, but how come there isn't a regular poetry section, 'cos some of us cats get worked up by things like that more'n we do by politics — 'tis more artistical.

Roger Stalin

To us homosexuals your editorial "Not so Gay" (April 24, p.3) started off sounding encouraging. You support our movement because we are discriminated against and abused by the law, the police and the "bourgeoia-value-dominated society". And you support us too because our oppression stands as proof that behind the friendly, freedom-loving mask of the bourgeois state lies a brutal face. Excellent! But from the on it's all prejudice and distortion until Engels' bit of sense at the end.

We have heard your line before. It is roughly the party line of the pro-Moscow and Peking Communist Parties. "Gay Liberation is essentially a diversion....We are opposed to the repression of homosexuals on the basis of their being homosexuals....But it is a psychological problem...It's based on all kinds of pressures in the crisis and oppression and exploitation in society with people distorted and so on." That comes from a pamphlet put out by the youth section of the American Communist Party. (Janis Tyner "Build the Youth Front" published YWLL 25c).

First you slate us for devaluing the word 'gay'. We like 'gay' because it has positive connotations unlike "homosexuality" which sounds as if it were a clinical condition like 'claustrophobia'. And we like it because the gay population has used it for over a century as an antidote to 'poofter', 'dyke', 'queer' etc. In your view we 'cheapen' the name of liberation movements. Fighting off the shackles of class, race or imperialism (you left out sexism — a mistake?). We are fighting against the shackles of gay oppression, another of the iniquities spawned by class society. Our struggle for full acceptance as equal human beings with the same rights and dignities accorded others is no less legitimate than similar struggles of other oppressed sectors of humanity.

Your suspicions that our movement is the darling of the liberal bourgeoisie verge on paranoia. McGoven, the arch-representative of that strata refused to include gay rights in his party platform during the last US presidential elections and the liberals in the New York state legislature have, since 1972, consistently refused to pass a bill granting gays their civil rights in housing and employment.

As you say the Young Socialists have taken up the cause of gay liberation. Among all the political groups in the country they alone have given us their full and unconditional support. They correctly see that the struggle of gays for our rights is directed against the capitalist government and bourgeois morality and is in the interests of socialism. Like gay activists the Young Socialists ignore the 'cause' of homosexuality just as they ignore the cause of heterosexuality. As socialists they are scientific and endorse the scientific view that homosexuality occurs quite frequently among infra-human primates and all lower mammals as well as in almost every human society in the past and present. The anthropologist Frank Beach and 'he psychologist Clellan Ford in their book Patters of Sexual Behaviour' (Harper & Bros 1951) conclude that homosexuality is "the product of the fundamental mammalian heritage of general sexual responsiveness as modified under the impact of experience." (op. cit p.263)

So much then tor your theory that homosexuality is a 'disorientation' resulting from the distorted social relations which prevail under capitalism. It is pure fiction. It is also an insult since it assumes we have become disorientated from what is normal and natural i.e. heterosexuality and that we are therefore abnormal and unnatural. Your views, strangely enough, are close not only to those of the Stalinist Communist Parties but also to those of the learned bourgeoisie. The American Psychiatric Association also classifies gayness as a "sexual...disorientation" Could you be specific about the "social relations" which produce homosexuals. How about 'dominant mother', 'fear of the opposite sex', 'arrested development at puberty'?'

You distort our slogan 'Gay is Good' to mean 'the gay life is the good life' Our slogan is aimed to give gays a sense of pride in our orientation in place of the shame and disgust Bourgeois society teaches us to feel, not to convert straights — a pointless effort anyway. Your urge that we 'make the best of it and fight repression' is no more than a rehash of the liberal attitude "the poor dears. I pity them really" with a cheery bit of "keep up the struggle" thrown in.

Gay liberation is a part of the class struggle. The capitalists keep people in line with their sexual morality as well as with their police force and low wages. Sexual repression, as Reich said, is "one of the cardinal ideological means used by the ruling class to subjugate the working population". Gay liberation challenges some important bourgeois myths i.e. that sex is for procreation within marriage, and that sex roles are biologically determined.

As well the essence of official morality, the anti-gay aspect of which is codified in the sodomy and indecency laws, is that it discourages people from making decisions about their own lives. When a sector of oppressed people start asserting their right to determine their own future and demand that the capitalist government grant that right the effect is contagious. It spurs on other sectors of the oppressed to a new combativeness for their own liberation. The development of the gay movement which grew out of and was inspired by the feminist movement bears this out. Since the majority of gays are workers the pride and combativity they develop because of the gay movement will tend to make then active in other areas of the class struggle.

A gay movement will be necessary (after the revolution) to fight oppression hanging over from the capitalist era until we win full equality. The absence of a gay movement in the revolutions which created the workers states in China, Russia. Cuba etc is one reason why gays have it so bad there. Although the Bolsheviks scrapped the Czarist laws against homosexuality within months of taking power Stalin reinstated similar laws in 1934. Myths about homosexuality being "the fascist perversion" and a sign of capitalist degeneration were cultivated and are flourishing to this day. Roger Steele has a 40-year tradition of Stalinist anti-gay libel to back him up.

Crack in the Mangle

To people who use laundromats:

I would like to write a new advertisement for the Mangle Laundromat — one that not only describes the facilities there but describes them accurately.

True, there are many washers. But only five driers. One is reserved for the use of the laundromat staff who do laundry left by customers. At the time I was there two were broken. So that left two driers to do the laundry shared by the multitude of people who were using the multitude of washers.

There were no cards, no chess sets, but a collection of ragged magazines of some vintage did exist, and the tv was classically set near the, ceiling to ensure the lack of any attempt at a congenial, casual atmosphere.

The candy machine was also broken. The beverage machine did work. There were no tables Tor folding the laundry. One had to improvise using the chairs if one was lucky enough to he vacant. And last but not least in the comer was an ironing board (acceptable conditions) and an iron (unacceptable condition). The iron had a lovely black and brown design on the bottom, an accumulation of various burnt substances, and did not work efficiently. And one had to pay for the convenience of using this iron.

Since there are few laundromats in this vicinity, most of us have little choice. If you do not mind walking a few more blocks, there is a laundromat on Cuba Street. They do not have all those extra facilities of The Mangle anyway. So why not give them a try.

The concept of The Mangle is excellent. It would be nice if they could put that concept into action.

Sarawak Government will wipe off blood-spitters (?-Ed)

There is a time for criticism and another for praise. If 'Patriot' (Satlient No. 9) had read my latter without being so highly emotionally charged he would have realised that I did not deny the inflation problem in Sarawak (and throughout the world for that matter), and indeed it was agreed on the point. My stress was on the fact that a developing country like Sarawak could match well with even developed countries like New Zealand. Putting a side as to what la meant by his vague phrase "ordinary workera". there has been, panalleling with or crossing the admitted inflation, a general increase in wages tor all — ranging from domestic servants through to workers labourers, gardeners, to public servants and what not.

As I have pointed out previously, Sarawak has an immense area of undeveloped land and it is obvious that the trees therein, not being Christmas trees, do not need electricity and the orang utangstoilet seats! In the sparsely inhabited areas, the people have found it more rewarding to shit into the rivers where fishes we ready beneficiaries and the splashes of such 'boombs' moat melodical to the ears (stereo effects too). If 'Patriot' who seems to like figures and percentages, could tell me how many families do not possess a car, I would be happy to enlighten him with the number of those who do own one. So, please do some investigations himself first. And friend, get the fact straight: there are no such souls by the names of Lim Pang Siaw. Wong Kee Hui, and Yacob. Apart from a coincidence of three typing errors, it indicates that he it anything but well versed in affairs of my state. With due respects, his statements purporting to be tactual on the coats rising by 100%. 150% and 250% is all a cock and bull story.

Oh! So the struggle has been going on for 12 years in Sarawak. No doubt there will be 12 more and 12 more...perhaps here I am putting too much confidence that it could last that long. When will those disillusoned guerillas put on their 1974 glasses and see that theirs is a futile exercise? If they had the people's support, why is this struggle taking so long to achieve victory? 'Patriot' wonders if three million communist supporters form the majority of the people in Indonesia. My conclusion is that he is either blind or can't even count properly. Why not try adding one plus one for over 140 million times. It is with much amusement that he refers me to an article in Salient No. 6. No doubt the opinions expressed there will carry much weight in the Privy Council: the last last word. He says tens of thousands were massaored and still thousands are being inhumanly tortured in the prisons in Chile and Indonesia. But he chose not to mention the inhuman acts of the terrorists in Sarawak who did not even allow the corpse of a police detective to rest in peace. Instead after digging up bis coffin they let him rest in pieces. Nor the slaylngs of civilians. It makes one wonder whether the guerillas are fighting for the people or against the people.

I respect differing opinions and welcome disagreement. No doubt 'Patriot' and myself differ in our approaches to achieving social progress. That is the price we pay for being humans, not machines.

Reference la also made to the letter "Only government spokesmen can sign their namea", where the writer expressed the windy opinion that I can only speak for the government. That virgin and immature confused mind first agrees with one person; then he suddenly finds another's contrary view more convincing. In short, he cannot even think or speak for himself. Hence he is ashamed to use his own name. He might as well not have one. I agree be is but a first year BCA student.

A reply to Pip Desmond

In Salient April 24 Pip Desmond made a number of debaters points against the case for legalised abortion. But the issue deserves more serious consideration than this for the anti-abortlonists take high ground. Setting aside "merely" humane or pragmatic considerations they claim to speak for the "right to life". The essence of their case is that a division of life into pre-natal and post-natal is arbitary, and therefore to terminate a pregnancy is synonymous with murder. They muster all the emotional devices they can to reinforce this association, and insist that advocates of abortion are by implication, harpies and murderers, reversing all the conventional priorities of female nature by perpetrating violence upon helpless victims. As such advocates of abortion are made to fit into the conventional picture of feminists as aggressive, castrating women, devoid of the 'charm' that makes women 'safe'. The innvocation of these deep fears of women, and their exploitation by the pro-life advocates is one reason why the issue is so emotionally charged, not to mention paranoid.

The reply to these charges is that the position is itself arbitary. We do in fact distinguish between a child and a foetus. If we say that a foetus must be treated as a human being because It has a potential to become one, then we must treat a sperm or an ova with the same respect: rejecting birth control and taking steps to ensure that each sperm of ova will eventuate in a person. If we treated cells in terms of their potential every menstruating woman, or priest who jerked off would be a "murderer". To be consistent we would have to argue that the "life" of a sperm begins when it leaves the scrotum. Clearly we do not do this, despite the fact that both ova and sperm have a potential for life, we do not give them a "right to life" becauae we make arbitary and pragmatic judgements about these differences. Arguments about when "life" begins are therefore unanswerable and pointless, the definition of 'life' therefore depends on moral decisions which are properly the province of individual choice not group coercion or legislative control.

You can not legalise morality. Since it is not logical, the credibility of the anti-abortionist argument depends heavily upon the portrayal of the advocates of legalised abortion as immoral antagonists of helpless childhood. This characterisation as child haters rests I believe on considerable hypocrisy. Opposition to abolition comes generally from socially conservative groups whose claim to care deeply about the santity of human life must be evaluated in the light of their inactivity in doing anything to actually improve it. Neither the two thirds of New Zealand MPs, who belong to SPUC, nor the Church was volueble in opposition to New Zealand's participation in killing Vietnamese children. Their right to life was less clear. The Church bans the pill but not napalm.

Clearly men who fail to speak against bombing children with anti-tank bombs from six miles up in the air have a poor claim to speak for the right to life. But the full inconsistency of their argument did not become clear to me until I faced the situation myself. Faced with an unwanted pregnancy due to contraceptive failure I 'chose' to risk my life with an abortion not because I am hostile to children or indifferent to the value of human life, but on the contrary because I life in a society which values children so little that it penalises women for having them. Society does not concede, let alone guarantee, their right to life except in the specific situation in which the mother is, or is forced to become, a dependant. Social conformity is the actual price of the 'right to life'.

Of course no one is advocating abortion as a positive good. It is a pragmatic solution to immediate problems. Of course I would rather live in a society where we could approach our bodies and accept our sexuality directly, and therefore seek contraception in a forthright way, and where children are so valued that their birth need not be avoided, or women penalised, ostracised, or damaged for life by the sin of giving birth. But alas, we live now in a society where a woman's life can be ruined, married or not, by an unwanted pregnancy. She and she alone will carry the burden and bear the damage. All we are seeking is a humane and less destructive option to this social barbarism. This is the sane way to deal with a social problem.

Allowing abortion is part of rationalising our attitude to conception. Reliable (accurate within 3%) figures tell us that there are 2½ million cases of child battery a year in the US. (No similar figures exist for New Zealand). This means that one child in ten suffers gross physical abuse. Most of these pregnancies are planned, but we encourage pregnancy for all kinds of reasons other than concern with children. The infertile are made to feel less than human. Fertility is consistently confused with virility, and conception is celebrated as an achievement a personal affirmation which in its egotism has little indeed to do with respecting the right to life of any other being. A 'proof of fertility is been as an essential affirmation of sexual identity. Our society, quite irrationally, makes the person who does not bear children less than real, and the refusal of abortion is one of these pressures toward pregnancy. To allow it would be in my opinion a step toward making pregnancy a matter of deliberate choice, undertaken not from egotism, but as a step toward an appreciation of the full meaning of the right to life.

The aspect of the anti-abortion position that I most dislike, apart from the obvious distortion of abortion advocates, is its punative tone. Far from being concerned with the quality of human life they totally dismiss the welfare of the people involved to insist that sexual sin must be paid for, Dr Dunn. SPUC's founder and leading light insists that any woman desiring contraception is neurotic. He is of course being consistent, every ova and sperm must be given its 'right'. Dunn may be an embarrasment to Ms Desmond, with his hostility to sex education and birth control, but what he shows so clearly is the fear of separating sexuality from its 'natural' function — and penalty. Having an abortion is seen as an escape from the just price that society Inflicts on the unmarried mother. The anti-abortionists concentrate on this immorality, rather than on the situation of the married women, who, as experience in countries where abortion is legal shows, are the people most affected by unwanted pregnancy. There seems to be an unspoken concern that if abortion is allowed women will escape their penality and there wilt be no sanction, and therefore no control of morality. It is this desire to enforce morality which I find particularly objectionable. To refuse women the ability to control their own[bodies is to try and coerce morality, and hence denies the very foundation of moral choice.

It is. I think, this vindictiveness which gives the key to the virulence of the emotions which the issue arouses. This coercive quality gives the clue as to why the most repressive persons should be the most worked up over the issue, The view of sexual morality they seek to defend is manifestly out of line with social behaviour. We life in a society where 53% of all first births are conceived before marriage, and in which 31% of all brides have children within seven months of marriage. In the younger age group pregnancy is the normal precipitant of marriage. It is I think this disparity between belief and practice which explains the hysteria the question evokes. The attempt to insist upon a totally different pattern of sexual morality is an attempt to deny this reality. We live in a society which makes sexuality a cause of guilt, and it is this uncase which drives people to the impassioned denial. Hence the paradox that it is the most coercive and conservative sections of the population, and the most repressed who oppose abortion.

This, perhaps more than consistency, is my strongest reason for rejecting the anti-abortionist position. I see the denial of control of ones body as part of a sexual repression which teaches women to feel guilty about their sexuality. To feel that their bodies are a source of shame, which have to be hidden, disguised, made-up, compressed, enlarged, deoderised, denles-and eventually paid for. Female sexuality has persistently been seen as a disruptive force and its control as vital to social stability. I see this legislation therefore as a punative attempt at social manipulation, a totally illegitimate form of social control.

To suggest that I made any kind of moral choice when I had an abortion is to make a mockery of choice. My choice was neither moral nor immoral because I risked my life, I can assure you, from hard necessity not from depraved preference.

Shindig

In connection with 'Shindig' held on April 20 1974, we would like to state the following: —

'The Shindig was organised with two main objectives in mind. To provide social entertainment for members and to raise funds to finance the Pan NZ Photo Culture Exhibition' to be staged in the latter part of May.

The article in the last issue of Salient over magnified the situation as did the letter by Revolutionary Culture.

Briefly, over 300 people attended the function. Four doormen were employed for door-collection and they were given strict instructions not to allow bottled-drinks to be brought into the hall. It became apparent that they did not live up to our expectation, as bottles of beer were later found to be in the possession of some people in the hall.

The main cause of the trouble at the Shindig was largely due to the poor co-ordination of the Agency which was responsible for the set up of the musical instruments for the two bands in attendance on that night. Undue delay ted to throwing of empty beer cans (not bottles as alleged). This was soon stopped temporarily by the organisers. However at about lam, two distinctive groups whose presence was obviously to create trouble Initiated disturbance. This resulted in the police being called to prevent any further serious incident. There was no truth whatsoever in allegations like widespread fightings or smashed windows.

Referring to Revolutionary Culture's misinformed letter (one wonders if he was even at the (unction), we would like to emphasise that the present Executive Committee believes in organising functions primarily for the interest of its members and is completely unconcerned with profit motives. Revolutionary Culture and others may wish to know that Wellington MSSA has so far assisted in well over 40 students in finding suitable accommodation. Also, much time was spent last year in correspondence to intending students from Malaysia and Singapore. Our programmes for this year do not consist of just 'dances or rock music' as generalised by Revolutionary Culture. Our programmes include a ski trip down Queenstown during the August vacation, excursion trips to Napier and other places of interest, coffee evenings cum cultural nights where film shows depicting scenes and other cultural back-home interests will be shown. We hope by the revelation of these programmes. Revolutionary Culture will realise that the present MSSA Executive Committee is not having a lop-sided programme for this year.

To sum up, I would like to apologise on behalf of the Executive Committee to all present at our function for the seeming lack of organisation which could be attributed to breach of agreement by the artists hired for the evening.

Poetry lover sick of politics - typical!

I'm getting very sick of politics. Being inundat-ed with the need for solidarity with the working classes/the oppressed Maoris-Polynesians-South African blacks/Ugandan Asians etc/the most recent recent crimes of the middle-class capitalist bourgeois society etc etc etc. My heart is breaking under the strain of carrying the burdens of responsibility toward the Ideal society:

Ah for some light relief, a breath of optimism! Something to read that will delight the soul not oppress it! Occasionally a ray of inspirational sunlight peeps through the pages of Salient — but all too rarely, I crave more.

Surely with 6000 on campus there must be some writers of prose or poetry who could contribute to the cause of raising my morale with gems of wisdom, pearls of profundity, sparkles of Auatenian wit....Why have they not appeared in Salient? Please let us poor wearied hungry souls see somthing of these mute inglorious Miltons...

"We defend Solzhenitsyn's civil rights not his politics"

When I first spoke out (through the pages of Salient) against the exile of Solzhenitsyn from the Soviet Union, I predicted that a rash of slanders about "Trotskyite counter-revolutionaries" would most likely follow. And they did. Through letters to the editor by Terry Auld Don Franks, and Peter Franks, students were treated to a disgusting display of fabrication, along with the usual apologies for the repressive politices of Stalin, Brezhnev, and Mao. I will deal with a few of the major points here, and take up some of the others in future letters.

The fact is, of course, that we defended Solzhenitsyn's civil rights, not his politics; and we clearly explained all this in our activities at the time of his expulsion.

So why must Auld and company deliberately contuse this point? When people are defending the repression in the Soviet Union and China it is only be these methods of falsification that they can hope to manufacture a "credible" case.

Marx and Lenin explained that the establishment of a workers state does not in Itself abolish the class struggle and the influence of bourgeois ideology in society. The working class and its allies must constantly struggle against these forces in defence of their state and their ultimate goal of socialism.

But Auld and company twist these facts to their own purposes. By their "logic", any disagreement with the dictates and policies of Stalin. Brezhnev, or Mao, is automatically an expreaalon of ' alien class forces", which must obviously be suppressed. These "Marxists" thereby condemn. In advance all dissent and critical thought in the Soviet Union and China. To them, it is all simply a reflection of the continuing influence of bourgeois ideology.

Stalin used this "rationale" when he annihilated all his political opponents in the late 1920s and 1930s, among them almost all the leaders of the Bolshevik Party which led the Russian revolution of 1917. And Auld and company employ the same formula when talking about the repression of dissidents in the Soviet Union.