Write on: letters to the editor

April 3, 1996
Issue 

Write on
Stalinism

I vehemently reject Robert Dampf's suggestion (Write on, GLW #223) that we not criticise Stalinism too harshly lest we hurt some comrades' feelings. Indeed, his logic smacks of the reactionary palliations of the fascist regime of Mr At-Least-He-Made-The-Trains-Run-On-Time Mussolini.

Those comrades, having appointed themselves the purveyors of The Universal Panacea, cheered the debacle of Stalinism from the sidelines for fifty years. The consequence is that if you ask a thousand people at bus stops to define "communism", 999 of them will unhesitatingly define Stalinism.
Mark Blair
Perth

Superficial reports

I fully support Green Left's bias against the mainstream media as a method of exploring issues excluded by corporate news. I don't believe, however, that this justifies superficial reports of issues that make dubious implications and fail to fully explore the facts. Ben Courtice's piece

"Hobart Death in Custody" (27/3) is a typical example of criticising the mainstream media without any obvious merit or follow-through discussion.

As far as I can tell from first-hand reports, the "youths" who walked the streets of Hobart — breaking glass, abusing pedestrians and police, before finally overturning a car — sounded pretty much like a street gang with

plenty of anger but very little sense.

This is not to say that the police acted admirably, or that Hobart doesn't need better facilities and policies for the drunk, the homeless, and the alienated. I do say, however, that alienation is no excuse for abuse and violence in the streets. We get enough of that from the police, and there is little excuse for any more urban terrorism.

Ben Courtice, on the other hand, seems to think these people had some kind of absolution from personal responsibility. I'd like to know why.
Bruce Paterson
Hobart

Domestic violence

It's time that women are heard and not just seen. The domestic violence that women endure has reached the point where it must end. Why should women be manipulated by others? In country areas of Australia where there is usually no help and assistance for battered wives or women who have been physically or emotionally assaulted these women feel alone, they feel that nobody understands or in that case, wants to. It's time for the suffering to stop.

They say that more women suffer nervous breakdowns that men. Have they ever stopped to wonder why this is so? It is not just physical abuse either, emotional blackmail, verbal insults and accusations are a factor as well. Women need to be stronger, they need to open up about it and not hide it any longer.

It reminds me of the song "Luka" which came out in the late eighties. Abused victims think that if they ignore what's happening it will hopefully go away. Words hurt too!

However, when you are verbally abused the scars are hidden deep. The pain women suffer doesn't always show. When are the leaders of the pack going to address these issues? How many more women have to cry in silence? There is a self help group that is available for anyone who has suffered emotional or physical abuse and it is called Grow. It's a worldwide organization. In Grow you will build up your confidence and self esteem. Give it a go.
N.A. Habowermaw
Oatlands Tas
[Edited for length.]

Green politics

Jeff Richards (Write on, GLW #225) can stop worrying. The Democratic Socialist Party is not thinking of abandoning the Green Left project, has not made a "turn" of any sort lately, is not planning to dissolve into a national green organisation and does not intend to refound the Communist Party.

All these theories on Richards' part appear to have been prompted by no more than a few articles by DSP members discussing the politics of the green movement. To take criticism of reformist green positions as an abandonment of green politics generally makes sense only if the only "real" greens are reformists. That may be Jeff Richards' assumption, but the DSP does not share it.
John Percy
DSP national secretary
Sydney

Greens

I have found the recent articles on the experience and prospects of the Greens in GLW by members of the DSP useful because they has been thorough-going and nuanced. Letters opposed to their criticism, such as those of Steve Painter and Jeff Richards ("Write On", GLW #225), have been "scratching" around to find arguments, as the following two examples show:

1. Painter opens with the claim that "Jorge Jorquera [GLW #223] warns the Greens about the dangers of engaging in political activity" (emphasis added). Instead Jorquera warns against a fixation on parliamentary activity, and suggests an "orientation to mass struggle, action and organisation" and democratic centralist organisation to deal with the question of "how can ordinary people be encouraged to participate in political struggle".

2. Richards throws together phrases from various GLW articles, including Jorquera's, to substantiate his view that GLW engages in "unremitting attacks on the Green Movement". Yet Jorquera does not accuse the WA Greens of, for example, being "purely parliamentarist", but contrasts them with the Australian Greens in having "managed to walk the tightrope between parliamentary work and maintaining a link to the social movement activity from which they emerged in the 1980s".

In fact the assessment and examples of the character and practice of the WA Greens given by Jorquera struck a chord with me, as I was able to observe (and sometimes act alongside members of) the WA Greens for six years until leaving Perth last year.
Jonathan Strauss
Sydney
[Edited for length.]

Taiwan

I've been interested to read Eva Cheng's articles on Asian affairs, especially those on Taiwan. Her last article on Taiwan's election was informative and thought provoking.

My view of China's military posturing is contrary to that suggested in the mainstream media, who interpreted it as an attempt to warn Taiwanese voters off support for Lee Teng-Hui's KMT, Nationalist Party.

While President Lee has upset the Chinese by seeking a higher international profile for Taiwan, it is the main opposition party led by Mr Peng who actually support independence for Taiwan. The Nationalists maintain the fiction that Taiwan is a province of China.

China would have been more upset by a big vote for Mr Peng. To interpret a big vote for Mr Lee's Nationalists as a rebuff to China is wrong. A big rebuff to China would have been a vote for Mr Peng's opposition, who ended up with just 21%. China's policy of intimidation succeeded. Despite gains in earlier elections, the opposition has been marginalised and the independence cause set back. The Nationalists must share the blame for this for delaying democratisation for so long and for clinging to the fiction that Taiwan is part of China — a proposition which the Chinese government readily accepts.
John Baker
Dulwich Hill NSW

Victorian election

Jeffrey Kennett will win this election, and win it well. Then he will quietly go about selling off every last remaining asset we have in Victoria to the highest bidder, no matter who they are or where they come from.

He will spend the money gained filling the last remaining parks and river banks with great ugly venues for flashy entertainment, and we will love him for it, ensuring that in 4 years time we shall once more, carry him triumphantly into Parliament shouting "Let the party continue".

But in 8 years time, in the year 2004, when every single thing of value in Victoria has been sold, and all the money has been spent, when our fully grown children wake us from the drunken stupor of our indulgence to ask us accusingly, Why is the cupboard bare? Why do we sit in cardboard boxes in an empty room? What have your done with our common wealth?

Then and only then will Jeffrey Kennett follow his philosophical mentors, Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party of Great Britain — the greatest asset strippers of modern history — into Total Political Oblivion.
Ben Laycock
Castlemaine Vic

Industrial legislation

What a brilliant idea of the new federal government to have industrial relations legislation drafted by a committee of corporate executives! Who else could have a more impartial view of the matter?

I presume this principle will now be implemented across the board. That is, a committee of unionists and unemployed will redraft the corporate code. Officials from the Australian Consumers Association will draft new regulations on contents labelling, and pensioners will write banking laws. Taxation laws will be rewritten by a committee selected by lot from a homeless shelter. And, of course, let's have an anarchist collective devise the electoral laws and salary packages for parliamentarians.
Allen Myers
Sydney

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.