.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 37, No. 11. May 29, 1974
The Trotskyist school of falsification
The Trotskyist school of falsification
Dear Roger,
I am disappointed to see that you have chosen to open the columns of Salient to a common liar. Readers of Salient may have noticed Rotherham's latest retort in the debate that has taken place on the subject of Solzhenitsyn and class struggle under socialism. The reader will have noticed that Rotherham has finally abandoned all pretence of political argument, and has been driven to the last refuge of all apologists for fascism and reaction — brazen and hysterical deceit.
I do not make such claims lightly. To state the facts plainly, so that no mistake may be made I refer to Rotherham's comment in the May 2 issue of Salient that T. Auld, P. Franks and myself "treat (students) to the usual apologies for the repressive policies of Stalin, Brezhnev and Mao". This allegation is a lie.
At no time, in Salient or any where else have any of the "accused" apologised for or in any way defended the treacherous social imperialist politics of Leonid Brezhnev. In fact the opposite is true. On many occasions T. Auld, P. Franks and myself have made clear our bitter opposition to the Brezhnev clique of social imperialists and have always attempted to expose these traitors as enemies of the world's people.
This is not to say that we in any way condemn the correct proletarian repression of the bourgeoisie by J.V. Stalin and Mao Tsetung. But these facts are well known to Mr Rotherham. I have personally told Mr Rotherham my views on these issues to his face. I have written letters not only to Salient but also to Socialist Action expressing these views and Rotherham has read these letters. It would seem that the Trotskyist school of falsification dies hard.
| 1) | It has already been pointed out that T. Auld, P. Franks and myself have not "attempted to justify bureaucracy" in the Soviet Union. |
| 2) | Rotherham, like the liberal he is, uses vague terms like "bureaucracy", etc to blur the real concrete class nature of Soviet society; fascist state capitalism and aggressive counterrevolutionary social imperialism. |
| 3) | Rotherham equates socialist China and fascist Russia, as though they were alike in their class composition, world outlook and ideology as two peas. Our previous letters disputed this bourgeois notion. Rotherham has yet to challenge our arguments with anything better than school boyish reiteration of the BrezhnevMao bogey. Is this a higher level of argument than that which is employed by people such as the Hon. J.R. Marshall? Can one possibly find any qualitative difference in the attitudes of these two gentlemen towards China and the Soviet Union? |
| 4) | Our reference to the works of K. Marx and V.I. Lenin is seen by Rotherham as a "disgusting spectacle". Any reader glancing back over the correspondence will immediately see that the use of quotations from the Marxist classics was employed by us to illustrate points of scientific socialism as applied to the nature of class struggle under socialism. Rotherham, note carefully, describes the use of the quotes as a "disgusting spectacle", a device to "cover justifications of bureaucratic regimes". He does not come out forthrightly and say that the quotes were wrenched out of context, he does not give any explanation or examples of our alleged distortions of the Marxist teachings. This is because he cannot. And because he is unable to prove that we have distorted the science of Marxism Leninism he does not label our use of quotations "incorrect", he labels it "disgusting". Is this not the vulgar mudslinging of the most philistine order? |
There are many other points that Rotherham makes in his tearful little letter, all of them distinguished in one way or another by dishonesty, anti-communism and a quaint stupidity. Space dictates that these points wait for another time. On the general subject of Solzhenitsyn however I recall giving materials explaining the Marxist Leninist view of the question to a proSolzhcnitsyn, anti-communist workmate of mine, a refugee from eastern Europe. She returned after having read the documents and declined to argue the matter further.
"Donald," she said, "I still like Solzhenitsyn, I just don't like the socialist system!!" Perhaps this is the objective basis for Rotherham's position on the matter also.
Yours fraternally,
Don Franks.