Profit
I write concerning Jim Percy's positive article about the failure of perestroika (GL 4/9), particularly Gorby's statements re full privatisation.
The profit motive is very powerful among regrettably many individuals living in modern (money) economies, whatever their ethnic origin or national history! As Marx pointed out, profit is that part of the price of production extracted by the capitalist above the cost price. The problem, which Marx did not fully explain but which I give below, is this:
Among "vulgar left" parties and individuals the conception is that profit is inherently evil; the concept should be that profit is tendentially (i.e. more than potentially) evil and requires strict control, particularly over allocation of the means of production to individuals and groups.
While such a view of "inherently evil profit" is not unexpected among a heavily exploited working class, a working class whose conditions are ameliorated by living in a nation which traditionally obtains profits over and above the average rate should really view profit as something to be managed and harnessed to the common good. The failure to perceive profit as a tendential rather than inherent evil has contributed in no small way to the mess created by Stalin and many others in the name of socialism.
By declaring profit inherently evil, bureaucratic centralism has lost control of the economy by losing knowledge of the cost and price of production because total bureaucratic command prevents any meaningful buyer-seller interactions in markets.
Lenin's NEP proved that the USSR could feed itself, albeit with some difficulty, in view of the scarcity of agricultural land/climate.
-2>Recognising entrepreneurial (limited definition), organisational and accounting skills leading to specialised risk-dependent income is not abandoning socialism to laissez-faire capitalism but a sound antidote and a necessary lesson to those unfortunate souls twisted by bureaucratic centralism-inspired collectivisation.0>
Mark J. Lofts
Perth
[Edited for length.]
The Redneck's Register
Remarking correctly that people have flaws
the spokesman for the shooters sporting
says rifles are but means — not cause
and it is the users need controlling.
Thus he suggests compiling a list
of those who pose the greatest risk
who really should prohibited be
from owning domestic armoury.
Starts he off with the mentally ill —
seems they be most like to kill
No intelligence test does he desire
just add names as times require.
imbibers of alcohol (aye every tippler)
those who gentle animals slaughter
who have walls with trophies featured
drool over mags with weapons pictured
or watch those redneck video shows.
And —
they who underwent military training
or who the warrior type go feigning
all with traffic offences showing
with H.P. debts or mortgages owing
every he who lives with a she
each male hermit included be
add the young, also the old
list the meek along with the bold.
Everyone else can own a gun
for protection, or just for fun.
God bless all shooters whose great idea
aims for a future, free of fear.
Tony Smith
Cowra NSW
Cartoon commentary
re: Jack and Jill cartoon, GLW #27:
Fair go Horacek
C'mon Jill!
The two of them went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down.
Jill came tumbling
a result of the same fumbling
and not at the beckoned call of Jack.
Jack and Jill are good friends
who agree about the things they do
then with pleasure set out as two.
What more could one ever ask for.
And as we all know
when in distress
who's the one to sort out the mess
if you can't call a friend!
Arthur Baratta
Bienne, Switzerland
Sexist language
I am surprised to be writing this letter. I would have hoped that while reading the Green Left Weekly I would be saved the frustration and irritation of needing to draw attention to the issue of sexist language. Unfortunately this is not the case. Michael Lowy's article on "The Pope and the Poor" (GL #28) refers to the need to recognise some Christians as "brothers in arms". His two specific examples are both male but it seems unfortunate that he has chosen not to recognise the existence of women who come within tradition.
Admittedly the catholic church is chronically sexist — maybe Michael was attempting to emphasise the point by his use of sexist, exclusive language. However I think this point needs to be made explicitly rather than implicitly. His language could too easily endorse, rather than condemn, the church's sexism.
It may also be true that a disproportionate number of men have written on liberation theology — but this should not obscure the fact that there are many women within the catholic church who live out the tenets of liberation theology — women who have lived (and died) in the struggle against oppression — and who should be recognised by Marxists as " comrades in arms." It's a bit depressing to reflect that GLW has not only failed to give support to these women but has not even recognised their existence.
It may be excusable for someone working closely with catholic literature to slip up on this issue — but surely the appropriate editorial role is to pick up on these mistakes and ensure that such damaging uses of language are prevented?
Kirsty Magarey
Sydney
[We agree with Kirsty Margery's point about the language of the article. However, we don't normally edit reprinted articles. The fact that this feature was reprinted from International Viewpoint was accidentally omitted. — Editor.]