Young Socialist Denies Being Out of his Depth on Fishing

In reply to some of the criticisms made of my article on the 200-mile fishing limit (Salient May 23):

First, the argument that by opposing the 200mile limit I have 'lined right up with a big power against a small country' (better by Tevita Tuakalau. June 5). This is a misunderstanding, if the writer thinks that I would like to see any country come and overfish the resources around New Zealand. I said in the article that "No one has any right to overexploit fishing resources — neither foreign nor local fields". I argue that the 200-mile limit is an adequate measure as far as conservation is concerned (because overexploitation is inevitable while the industry is governed by a capitalist market system, and this is true for NZ capitalism as well as foreign capitalism) and that any campaign in support of one captialism against another is a diversion form the course which will make conservation possible - socialist planning, of the industry.

Captain Ahab (letter, May 30) says that we should "put the blame for overexploitation where it be lings" (ie. on the foreign fleets). No one would deny that the foreign fleets are capable of worse overexploitation than the NZ fleets at present — for the reasons Ahab gives: that the foreign industries are more highly developed, have more sophisticated equipment etc. But is the NZ industry good from a conservation point of view simply because it is undeveloped and inefficient? What happens when, With the Assistance of this Campaign, the local industry becomes as highly developed as the foreign ones and carries out the same overexploitation — do you go on supporting it? No — the examples I gave of overfishing by the NZ industry showed that the capitalist nature if the industry makes overfishing inevitable, even when that industry is relatively backward.

Socialist planning of the industry is what is required, not underdeveloped unplanned capitalist control.

The question of the Soviet Union — how a country with a post-capitalist economy can be responsible for overfishing — was touched on in the article, but deserves further clarification. The reason, is that although getting rid of capitalist control of the industry is the necessary prerequisite for conservationist industry, it does not follow that conservation automatically 'happens' with the overthrow of capitalism. It is still necessary to plan the industry in a way that will ensure conservation — something that the Soviet bureaucracy obviously does not do. The bureaucracy is clearly not acting in the interests of the Russian workers, is ignoring fish conservation? But the remedy for this bad planning is not to support unplanned capitalist exploitation of the resources as an alternative!

None of the letters challenged my basic assertions: that overexploitation is a necessary and [unclear: ategral] part of a capitalist fishing industry, and that therefore supporting New Zealand capitalism against foreign capitalism is not the answer to the problems.

James Robb.