Revisionist Factionalism

As I read Mr Devereux's reply to me (Salient, May 4,) my admiration grew at his ability to draw conclusions about my alleged views on specific questions from an abstract and cursory treatment of historical materialism. Not everybody, I fear, has this remarkable facility.

"Dev" asserts that my "revisionist cronies" and I believe that all demands raised by social groups if pressed strongly enough, are realisable and that we give uncritical support to all groups opposed to the ruling class. Both these propositions are clumsy fabrications. The first is patently absurd, and so is the second. Certain social groupings i.e churches believe in and demand resurrection but I fear they will be disappointed. Do we give uncritical support to the S.A.L? Anyone reading the distortions of our policies in the report on the Anti-War Conference in Auckland in Socialist Action would find this claim difficult to swallow! Do we give uncritical support to Mr Devereux's grouplet? His letter is his own refutation!

Our theoretical position is that we work together with other groups and individuals in the people's organisations to help mobilise and organise the masses as widely as possible at the highest level of the sturggle in order to promote and defend the interests of the working class and the popular, masses. Applying the principles of independence and initiative, unity and independence, we seek common ground with these groups and individuals. If we make concessions we see them as part of overall policy, as one turn in a zigzag course. In any of the people's organisations (eg the Wellington Committee of Vietnam), we advance certain ideas, support others and oppose still others. But, at no time do we try to impose our policies on these organisations, and we combat any attempts to make them the preserves of any particular political grouping.

Mr Devereux clamied that I failed to back my charges of pseudo-revolutionary phrasemongering with examples. Apart from his letter, typical examples are: (i) his two attempts to get the April 30 Mobilisation to take as us main slogan "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!"; (ii) his advice, given on two separate occasions, to meetings of the Engineer's Union that instead of negotiating for wage rises, members should fight the boss with guns; (iii) CP leader Hegman's lamentable advice to Dunedin CP'ers: "You only engage in day to day struggle if you can bring out the politics involved."

Mr. Devereux's alter ego, Mr N. Wright, in a "Left sounding article compares leaders of mass marches in New Zealand today with Father Gapon (Salient, May 4, p.7.) Who but an incorrigible phrase monger would compare Tsarist Russia in 1905 (on the brink of revolution) with New Zealand in 1972? Mr Wright also called for more demonstrations against U.S. warships. But Neil, first you have to get your warship! If you had actually taken any part in C.O.V. activity over the years, you would have been able to take part in many such demonstrations. But then you only advise others about what they should do, you do not actually do any organising work yourself.

Using peculiar logic, "Dev", says that I follow Dean and not Marxism because I agree with him on a single point. Perhaps that is why the People's Voice mis-reported the Anti-Apartheid Conference - "Dev" and his comrades did not want to be seen agreeing with certain liberals in case they were charged with following them.

Actually, I try to follow Engels such matters: "Marx and I are ourselves to blame for the fact that the younger people lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. . . . . Unfortunately however, it happens too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly." "But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian" (Letters to Bioch and Schmidt, 1890)

"Dev" says" that I am a typical revisionist because I allegedly do not extend recognition of the class struggle to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is sheer fabrication. I and my "cronies" believe that the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class will eventually lead to armed revolution, the smashing of bourgeois state power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We are "merely" opposed to the view which appears to motivate "Dev" and his mentors: "First you got to have a revolution to improve rubbish collection in Island Bay."