If Only it were True

It's not surprising that few people at the Marxist-Leninist forum on the Labour Party supported Labour. If the Marxists didn't know it, then I can tell them that only a tiny proportion of Labour's electoral base, in universities or anywhere else, is Marxist-oriented; so I'm not surprised that few students were attracted to the forum to defend the Opposition. The story put about by Values and Marxist supporters is that Labour is no different to National, and hence should not be considered an alternative.

I don't know how Labour rates by Marxist standards, but I do know that most students are going to vote for the major party they consider best able to manage the present mixed capitalist system. It is according to this standard that most informed people must be forced to conclude that Labour is markedly superior to National. There are many reasons why I will vote Labour. National's tax scheme will force students to pay significantly higher taxes on their vacation earnings: — under Labour we'd pay less tax or no tax. Labour has promised to bring bursaries back to the 1975 level in real terms — a policy so specific that they won't be able to back down from it in government.

Labour stopped the raising of Lake Manapouri. Labour had a Clutha scheme much less environmentally bad than National's. Labour abolished compulsory military training. Labour had a moral foreign policy which meant New Zealand pressurised France to stop atmospheric nuclear tests on Muroroa Atoll, took a new independent and influential role in international affairs, and took a politically unpopular stand against South Africa. Long needed reforms in local government, health, and transport were started or prepared. A highly successful reform of arts administration was brought in. They brought in the second TV channel. Major improvements in early education and regional development were implemented.

By world standards NZ had very low domestic inflation and unemployment: under National there has been much higher unemployment and domestic inflation. The proven or alleged offences against civil liberties under Labour were minimal compared to what National has done. Private enterprise certainly did a lot better under Labour. And personnel? Well obviously Labour has lost a lot of its best talent, and probably could form only half a competent Cabinet out of their present crowd in parliament. But if they did get in, a lot of pretty bright and able people would be in parliament; and anyway, you couldn't get a crowd much worse than the bulk of Rob's Cabinet. Leadership? Rowling may seem weak, but I don't think he is really. He also has a fairly high academic qualification in Economics — and in this respect is better qualified than any other Prime Minister in NZ's history. I think he would overall be better than Muldoon — vastly better. Dr Rob (as they call him) is intelligent, but overrated economically, and a great danger to the future of democracy.

I disagree with Labour Club Chairman Phil Lewin, who curiously thinks his party are a load of old fogies. Only 5 in every 100 voters need to move From National to Labour to change the government, and no one who really looks at the record can say that such a change is not to be highly recommended.

— Anon.

Limits on Creche Availability

In a recent issue of Salient you reported that the Creche Supervisor in her annual report claimed that there was no student demand for a day-care centre.

The Victoria University Creche provides a very high standard of child care. However most students would not be aware that the creche provides a service Only for Students that are Doing 12 Credits or Less. What about students who do more than a 12 credit course? The University creche does not cater for them. They must either drop some credits (and take 9 years to get a degree!) or they must find alternative childcare (not an easy matter).

The principle behind University's providing childcare services is that people should not be discriminated against because they have children. Obviously student parents at Victoria do not have the same education opportunities as non-parents.

At the begining of the year, as Woman Vice President I organised a meeting on the Creche. One woman at the meeting told us how as an Architecture student she had block lectures for three hours of the day. At the beginning of the year when she approached the creche she was told there was no way her child could be catered for. How many other students are in this position? We don't know. It is likely however that there are quite a few. A survey of creche parents in 1974 found that approximately 60% of creche users were forced to find other sources of childcare to the creche to enable tham to do their university work. The Creche Supervisor is probably not aware of the demand because students realise that it is useless to ask for more than two hours childcare a day. This does not mean there is no demand!

A Challenge to all Thugs

In the September 25 edition of Salient on page 15 there appeared an article concerning a student who was disciplined for attacking another gentleman (apparently of the Vic Karate Club) who was acting in the capacity of bouncer for the Capping Dance.

I would like to rectify some points in this article in order to set the record straight. Firstly, the Victoria Karate Club was not approached by the executive in this instance for assistance at the Capping Dance. I understand from a member of the executive that the gentlemen who were appointed were in fact just a hodgepodge of various city clubs, with little, if any, association with the University. (The gentleman who was injured has no allegiance to the Vic Karate Club and it is doubtful that he has even trained on campus with any of the martial arts clubs.)

It is regrettable that the executive did Not approach the Vic Karate Club, as in the past when the club has worked in a security capacity for any function, no trouble has arisen. Also, it has been the club's policy to appoint only those members to perform such security functions, as are truly capable, thus avoiding such unpleasantness as occurred after the Capping Dance.

Further, the club has recently taken up the policy that violence breeds violence, and to have it be known that karate exponents are attending functions solely to 'keep the peace' May lead to violent incidents, such as the one that has occurred. (It is therefore a necessity to have people who are aware of this and are fully able to protect themselves.) In the past, Vic Karate Club has used diplomacy whereever possible in security work, always to good advantage. (Brute force alone does not the bouncer make.)

It is unfortunate that in a tertiary institution such as Victoria there could be such an appalling lack of intelligence as to assume that it is 'fun' to 'beat up a karate man', or to assume that two or three onto one is a fair fight because the 'one' does karate. I would therefore like to extend an invitation to the student(s) involved in attacking the karate exponent to attend any of the Vic Karate (Jul. training sessions. Since you obviously set store by your ability to punch and kick a downed man, feel free to come along and show us. Don't be shy, introduce yourself at the door so that everyone knows who you are. I am sure that you will be given quite a welcome. Perhaps, however, facing One standing, able karate student is more daunting than having a friend to help you kick and punch a downed man. At any rate, the invitation is open to you, feel free to come along.

Society's to Blame

I write this letter in disgust. I am but a simple student (sic-ed) who rides to University every day on a ten speed two-wheel pedal bike. I did, that is. And now? I walk, because some kind considerate person stole my bike whilst I worked in the Library.

It depresses me that my fellow students are such nasty, vicious people as to steal my only means of transport. I would be appreciative if the above person could put it back where he found, it, as it means life becomes rather more difficult without it, and I don't think I can afford another just now.

Beware all Cyclists, we have thieves in our midst. So be careful.

Imperialism and Trotskyism

The report on the "Detente" forum written by Simon Wilson has created a new low in Salient journalism. Like the previous Progressive Student Alliance forum where various leftwing groups spoke, this report was written by a partisan of one of the viewpoints expressed. Moreover it involved the distortion of the other speakers' viewpoints. "Bias" in journalism, ie. the expression of one's own viewpoint is of course acceptable, but it is incumbent on the reporter of a debate, in particular if they side with one view, to report the views of the other side accurately and honestly. Simon Wilson's report of my views at the forum was totally inaccurate and dishonest.

In 9 paragraphs dealing with my views there is not One accurate presentation of what I said. There are no less than 12 deliberate distortions or lies. Unfortunately space will not allow me to deal with them all but I would like to take a few examples.

Wilson writes: "The main reason that war will not come, said Treen, was that there will be revolutions in second world countries (like France, Germany, i.e. Secondary imperialist powers) to avert it." Then further on he contradicts himself and writes that I said "that war was on the cards, but that it was likely to come from one of the imperialist countries (France, USA, Belgium even) invading the workers' states. Is it possible that Belgium is thinking of invading the USSR? Sounds ridiculous.... And if Belgium was attacked by the Soviet Union? Treen advises them to build air raid shelters."

Firstly I never said that war will not come. But unlike David Murray who also spoke at the forum, I do not believe world war to be Inevitable, that it cannot be prevented. I explained that the only way to prevent war is by working people disarming the imperialists through a socialist revolution. If you believe that war is Inevitable then the wisest thing would be to build atomic raid shelters instead of supporting the arms race of one side as David Murray and China recommend.

China's position, which David Murray supports, is to promote the building up of the arms race in the West. They support NATO, France's nuclear arms programme, they oppose the "shelving" of the Neutron Bomb. This essentially means that you give up the struggle for socialism because you are in fact supporting the strengthening of the military establishment in the capitalist state.

I explained that the threat of war came from Imperialism as a system, that there are no "good" and "bad" imperialists. I explained the marxist view of imperialism and its war drive, which is that developed capitalist countries are driven to launch wars because of a compulsion in their economies to expand, find and guarantee markets and investment outlets. The bureaucratic dictatorships in the USSR, China and Eastern Europe don't have this compulsion in their economies. That is why I believe the war danger comes from the imperialist powers who seek to open up the "closed" markets in the USSR and China or to prevent the closing off of markets and fields for investment in colonial countries through socialist overturns.

Of course its absurd to suggest that Belgium will invade the USSR but the imperialist alliance NATO, is preparing for just that as well as opposing the colonial revolution. But even little Belgium has invaded its former colony Zaire (formerly the Belgium Congo) to protect its investments from a popular insurrection.

The second point I would like to deal with is the distortion contained in the following paragraph of Wilson's article when he wrote that I "accused China of betraying the revolution in the third world countries by pointing out that the Chinese leadership had diplomatic relations with some very reactionary regimes. This he said, was not a revolutionary foreign policy, ignoring the fact that at the same time as China recognised the governments it gave aid to the liberation movements in those same countries."

In fact I said that China has the right to establish diplomatic relations with any country. But that should not involve giving political support to those regimes or abandoning support for liberation movements which is what China is doing. For instance, as I explained at the forum, until recently China gave aid to guerrilla movements in Zaire against the corrupt dictatorship. Now China has a high ranking military delegation in Zaire training the Zairean army in counter-insurgency.

Chinese aid to the Eritrean rebels in Ethiopia ceased after the Ethiopian Emporer Haile Selassie visited China in 1971 only to be resumed after this feudal monarch was overthrown in a military coup and the new regime turned to the Soviet Union for aid. Aid has also ceased for the Front for the Liberation of Occupied Oman in deference to the Shah of Iran who has troops fighting them. The list can go on and on.

In fact as general policy China supports any anti-soviet government. They also support the strengthening of economic, political, and military ties between third world countries and the second world which includes all the major imperialist powers except the USA, ie. Germany Britain, Japan. That is, they in effect support imperialism's continued domination of the third world. This policy leads them to supporting French, US and Belgium intervention in Zaire.

These points I have made were all explained at the forum in some detail and go to show how far from reality Wilson's report was. I can only conclude that Wilson's dishonest reporting was an admission that he could not counter my real viewpoint which only confirms for me the weakness in both his and Murray's arguments.

Mike Treen