Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol 36 No. 12. 6 June 1973

Revolution — Or How Salient Sold Out To The Labour Party

Revolution — Or How Salient Sold Out To The Labour Party

The time has come for something to happen—enough of this liberal ranting — it is time for action.

The Salient magazine as the spokesman for the university radicals must now decide exactly what their ideological position is. The magazine's editors preach socialism but they continually miss perhaps the most burning question involved in all discussions about the subject. Firstly it must be established how desirable this state of existance is and secondly to what ends are people prepared to go to achieve socialism. Thirdly, on the basis of previous findings, what tactics should be used to achieve the drastic change desirable and indeed necessary. It is my observation that what is happening at the present time is that small groups of Marxists are created by the University system and then because of a lack of any real action these people become disillusioned and either become student politicians (e.g. Peter Wilson) or worse start writing for Landfall (e.g. Chris Wainwright).

Even worse because they become frustrated by inactivity and the totally destructive bickering goes on between radical groups — e.g. the constant attacks on the Young Socialists who perhaps more than anyone have helped to raise the consciousness of various young people both on and off campus.

This is not a defence of the Socialist Action League but an attack on those pseudo-revolutionaries who when questioned display a total lack of comprehension about even the most basic doctrines and issues involved.

Thus the revolutionary movement has been led astray by band wagon jumpers who want to be in on the cool scene.

Perhaps even more destructive is the movements alignment with the Labour movement. For God's sake, it has been pointed out countless times that Trade Unionists can only achieve Trade Unionist's consciousness and this is a polite way of saying they remain the most conservative reactionary group in the entire society, at least most bourgeoise have some notions of freedom and equality.

Thus the movement hacks at its own members, of the Young Socialists, Socialist Action league etc etc and tries to strike an impossible friendship with the unions and the Labour Party.

It is interesting to note from what 'source' the Salient newspaper is now getting much of its material (usually) unacknowledged —although I suppose this stems mainly from shame that deceit — yes you guessed it the great liberal weekly the New Statesman, e.g. the article on the death penalty in the USA.

This unfortunate paper now under editorship of R. Grosman (a liberal newspaper if there ever was one) has attempted to align itself to the British Labour Party and yet remain true to the principles on which the paper was provided by the Webbs among others. The result has been a constant trade on non-action writing sacrificing any real discussion for sermons on the morality of the Conservative Government. Of course they are immoral — all Government in Western nations are.

Again and again the road to socialism has been led astray by Labour Governments. There will never be any real change if we continue to rely on the leadership of professional Labour Politicians and trade union leaders.

Let me summarise what I think has happened — in the present set up our education systems are producing enough misfits Who have the independence of mind to believe that the present social system is corrupted beyond reform and only total destruction and replacement of it by a Marxist state can solve the problem. On the other hand you have a large group of liberals and conservatives all equally unconvinced, unseeing and for the sake of revolutionary change — unimportant.

No amount of articles are going to persuade the unconvinced that they are wrong so why bother? In fact the very fact of compromising to these people is dangerous. You now have the means of production in your control, that is the means of producing a newspaper, if you can't use this to revolutionary ends why should you be able to use industry when we finally attain control for the same ends?

No newspaper must be produced for those people who agree with our aims. The democratic right of people to read what they want is the 'right' of a defunct and rotten society — after all the liberals have Time' magazine and the Conservatives have the daily papers.

We have been so corrupted by liberal western Christian ideology that the revolutionary movement has become afraid of the use of the very words revolution; violence, assassination, means justifying ends. The whole concept of blowing up railways and government buildings has become a rather amusing thought. And yet this is the way, probably the only way revolutions are won, we must be prepared to use violence. There are quite simply enough people who disagree with us, that it is inconceivable that they will give into our demands without a struggle.

An example of liberal reaction to you paper was to be experienced when I witnessed people laughing at your article on the use of explosives, as if it was some sort of substitute for the Freak Brothers.

Franks, Steele, Wilson, etc. you arc self appointed leaders of the Revolution, are you going to cop out when it comes to action. They have time on their hands, time to wait and let us become disillusioned and embittered rather than optimistic and determined. Other countries have had change violent and swift — it is possible.

We must I) Unify. 2) Exclude those hangers on who will never be prepared to go all the way 3) Decide tactics. 4) Carry these out.

The time has come
The time has come
to speak of many things
of revolution and change
of violence and guns.

The Walrus

P.S. Revolution is not acheived by waiting even if we wait forever.

[If the writer of this barely legible piece had looked beyond the cartoon in the New Statesman and the Salient article he mentions, he would have discovered that there was no further similarity. Our article on Politics and the Death Penalty was written by a member of the VUW Law Faculty. His claim that we get much of our material from the New Statesman is entirely without foundation. —Eds]