Readers are invited to submit letters to The Guardian.
Letters may be e-mailed to guardian@cpa.org.au.
Letters of 300-400 words are preferred.

Letters to the Editor:

Where to begin?

There is a Luddite ring in the article "Capitalism & jobs — 
the fundamentals" (Guardian, May 19). Pat Barile states 
that "the main battles of the working class have to be aimed, 
ideologically and practically, at the job-killing use of more and 
more technology". As an afterthought, the connection is made 
between unemployment and exploitation. The big task "is to 
explain to millions of workers how and why (ideology) they are 
being ripped off (exploitation) and laid off (unemployment), and 
to help them to organise (the practical solution)".

This practical solution, however, is mere wishful thinking. "When 
workers see how they are being ripped off, who is doing it and 
that they can do something about it, they will get rightfully 
angry and demand jobs and control over the wealth they create."

The action foreseen does not follow from the premise particularly 
since, apart from being organised, it is not clear what the 
something is they can do. In any case, will they make the 
connection between the demand for jobs and the "control over the 
wealth they create"?

Australian workers know they are being ripped off and have a good 
idea how and why. Yet all the organised workers can see as a 
solution is for public money to be used to protect jobs through 
hand-outs to the capitalists.

That crucial "something they can do" is where the CPA is failing 
to carry out its vanguard role. For over a decade it has been 
calling for left, progressive and democratic forces to unite to 
form an alternative government. Even for this limited aim, what 
has the CPA done to gain the support of the working class, which 
must form its nucleus? What policies has it elaborated as its 
contribution? Nothing beyond social policies which people feel 
can be implemented by the Greens or by changing the ALP.

Where are the policies that can here and now begin the struggle 
for "control over the wealth" the workers create, policies that 
attack the private ownership of the means of production? Are such 
policies possible? The CPA began several congresses ago to demand 
the extension of the public sector, but it has not elaborated 
specific proposals.

Is it only a slogan designed to rally the people, a demand that 
can be implemented only by a future alternative government?

A left strategy must incorporate policies that propose the 
immediate transfer of the ownership of the means of production to 
the people in a way that is acceptable to the majority. 
Nationalisation is out of the question at present.

We need bold approaches to help us to move forward. We could try 
buying strategic parcels of shares in companies from the 
capitalists with their own money. It's been estimated that $80 
billion a year could come from taxing the rich, increasing 
company tax, stopping various handouts to the rich, etc, etc. And 
control must be given not to government bureaucrats but to the 
unions and other non-government organisations.

The use of the $80 billion to create jobs must be the Number One 
priority. There is the potential to activate the working class, 
to win the people away from the ALP which can only get the "best 
possible deal" for the workers within the system and leaves the 
basic cause of society's problems intact. Even such a demand as 
this which merely threatens the capitalist principle of private 
ownership would arouse the hostility of the ruling class. Therein 
lies its revolutionary potential.

The Chinese Party adopted bold programs to build socialism and is 
doing it successfully. The only reason why we can't is a fear 
that we haven't the strength (unlike the Chinese) to carry it 
through. The crisis facing the working class is the system itself 
and not technology.

Bob Saltis
Adelaide, SA

I am not confused. I am not bewildered. I read The Guardian 
in full. I am saddened however because of the prospect that 
my country will not be the vanguard of those who will embrace 
socialism. I am of the opinion that the Latin-Americas and the 
Caribbean and probably some Asian countries will be there before 
us.

Why? Because I think the capitalist influence is still too strong 
in our land.

It appears to me that our "socialist supporters" are more so in 
"lip service" than in actual fact. A foot in both camps! Two bob 
each way so to speak.

And why do I think this way? Simply, the response to The Guardian 
Press Fund. Nobody is prepared to boost the appeal, but every 
week the editor has to appeal, beg for contributions to try and 
reach the annual target.

I consider this a sad reflection on the real belief and sincerity 
of those who purport in the realisation of socialism.

It is not going to be handed to you on a platter. And one way to 
take part in this life changing struggle is to support the 
workers' paper.

B Appleton
Woy Woy, NSW

Jackie Kelly, the Member for Lindsay, talks about a 
"Renaissance Centre" for Science in Western Sydney.

There is such a centre already. It is called the University of 
Western Sydney, a centre of Science and all round excellence.

This University, like all Australian Universities, famed for 
their research and talent, has been hard hit by Howard's 
horrendous HECS hike!

A massive, crippling increase in student charges by the Member 
for Lindsay's government, to which she agreed without the whisp 
of a whimper.

Now we have promises about a "board" to discuss promises about 
promises, while talented young Australians are despairing, and 
descending into ever deepening and dangerous depression.

Hyperbolic, horrendous, hypocrisy from the Howard Government!

Denis Kevans
Wentworth Falls, NSW

Of course Rumsfeld approved torture. He brokered sales of 
lethal micro-organisms to Saddam Hussein knowing they would end 
up weaponised, so why would he have qualms about torture? 
(Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page 
S8987-S8998)

Gareth Smith
Byron Bay, NSW