Elvis debate rages on (and on).

After some consideration we have decided 'o re-ex plain the reasons that led us to attack on Franks' "Renumbering Elvis".

On the day that [unclear: Elwis] died many of our fellow workers openly expressed regret at his parting, reminiscing about his songs and the rock and roll era of which he was the pioneer. A couple of workers even wore black armbands, so deeply were they affected by his death.

And yet Don Franks' comments on Elvis seemed at odds with these feelings and comments - so much at odds that they led to ask whether this discrepancy was not, in fact, a sympton of a difference in politcal outlook.

As hopefully could be seen from our reply, it was not our intention to confront D.F.'s blanket condemnation of Elvis' music with blanket approval. It was more our aim to show that in writing his article D.F. was not starting from the spontaneous ideas of the people around him, but trying to impose his ideas on them.

The objective fact is that many workers could not recognise in D.F.'s article a systemisation of their thoughts at the time of Elvis' death. We are not so concerned with whether D.F 's ideas on Elvis are right or wrong as we are with the fact that he has worked these ideas up with total disregard for the thoughts of many Wokers on the subject.

To many of these workers Elvis was, quite literally, a God, and so for a Marxist it is no more acceptable to try and draw people away from the bourgeois influences of Elvis' music by condemnation than it is to draw people away from Christianity by condemnation of God.

In straight terms D.F"s article shows that he does not treat seriously (i.e. with sensitivty) the ideas of the workers around him. He therefore does not see that the depth of commitment which many of the workers hold (or held) for Elvis' music will when transferred to Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-tung thought emerge as a revolutionary quality.

D. F.'s open contempt for the music of Elvis is, in fact, a veiled contempt for the ability of the masses to hold dear convicttions other than the ones D.F. wishes them to hold. His condemnation stems from their refusal to work with nothing more than it: orally based categories of good and bad.

Thus, Don Franks, unable to contribute to the progress of social change, can only condemn it for taking a different direction from that he wishes it to take—whether it be developments in popular music or in any other of his sacred cows.

This approach has characterised issue movements and other rallying points of the petit-bourgeoisie over the years - all of which have left the working class untouched.