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:

Transition to socialism

"Chinese Unions" (The Guardian 15/9/04) gives some details of the
problems of "building socialism with Chinese characteristics".
Although the Right and sections of the Left regarded the process
as "restoration of capitalism" there is another range of views.
Some see the process as a return to a Chinese version of the
"New Economic Policy" (NEP) of 1921-29 as introduced by Lenin
and the Soviet State. Not a slavish version. "Do not copy our
tactics." (V.I.L)

In this regard, it seems that Lenin had two degrees of NEP in 
mind. One, in the European region — Russia, Ukraine, Belarus 
where "islands" of industrialisation existed, kept a strict watch 
on the degree of private enterprise in the community, and a firm 
grip on the 'commanding heights". (Georgian Pravda)

However, in his article in Pravda Grazii No 55, 8-5-21 he 
expresses the view that the Caucasian republics, and, one 
supposes the other underdeveloped Soviet republics in Asia, 
should "establish co-existence and commercial intercourse with 
the capitalist West more quickly and easily."

"More mildness, caution and readiness to make concessions to the 
petty bourgeoisie, to the intelligentsia, and particularly to the 
peasantry. Make the utmost, intense and speedy economic use of 
the capitalist west by means of a policy of concessions and 
commercial intercourse."

"This must be done on a wide scale, firmly, wisely and 
circumspectly and it must be used in very possible way for the 
purpose of improving the conditions of workers and peasants."

"A slower, more cautious, more systematic transition to socialism 
— that is what is possible and necessary for the Republics of 
Caucasus, as distinct from the RSFSR. This is what must be 
understood, and what you must be able to carry out as distinct 
from our tactics". Perhaps those views of Lenin have some 
application to China today.

Some features of the Chinese transition have been startling to 
socialists in other countries. Uneasiness about multinationals' 
branches, concern for the (economically) bottom 20 percent of the 
workforce, user-pays medicines — all these affect two 
generations of socialists who had another mental picture of what 
contemporary socialism should be.

But the other side of the scale is very impressive indeed.

S Cooper
Annandale, NSW

The Guardian's always a good read, but naturally some 
issues are better than others depending on your 
interpretation.

One such issue — to me was that of August 11, 2004, with three 
outstanding articles, two on Russia and one on Venezuela. To me 
the two on Russia were confirmation of a statement I had made in 
a previous letter in regard to the "collapse" of Russia and 
socialism. I said that it was just capitalist talk and that to 
accept it as true was merely playing the capitalist's game.

It was real fairies at the bottom of the garden, wishful 
thinking. Close your eyes — repeat it three times — open your 
eyes and Presto! It will have happened.

Yet despite their best efforts and intense propaganda, those 
stubborn, stupid Russians are not convinced they are better under 
capitalism. "Poor" Proffer types — alarmed at the result of the 
polls. And what a misnomer for his article "Flight from freedom". 
What freedom? Free to be exploited, to have the choice every 
three years as a capitalist between A or B, freedom to live in 
poverty! Some freedom!

And article two on dirty tricks shows the battle still rages 
behind the scenes and even before this I was collating such 
points as if Russia's views and opinions were still sourced and 
given consideration.

And then there was the case of relieving the crew on the space 
station. The world super power seemed unable or unwilling to 
tackle the job. So without any great fanfare or hullabaloo, 
almost as a matter of routine, what nation took the relief crew 
up and brought the others safely back. Why none other than that 
"collapsed" nation Russia. So much for fairies at the bottom of 
the garden and wishful thinking. The capitalists will have to 
come up with something better than that.

B Appleton
Woy Woy, NSW

John Howard boasts that his government are great economic 
managers and that keeping interest rates down is the ultimate 
test of good government. This claim is falsified, however, by the 
reckless decision to participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq 
without considering the opportunity costs.

We have to make a choice between bread and bombs but it is clear 
that the Coalition not only ignored the anti-war wishes of a 
majority of Australians they also did not do their sums. They 
ignored what a billion dollar boost to health could do (how many 
hospitals is that, Mr Howard?) or how education, the environment, 
alternative energy research, rail infrastructure etc could 
benefit.

There are more subtle costs to take into account though. Take 
health, for example. It is well known that sporting success or 
failure affects the national mood so that illness rates rise when 
important matches are lost.

In similar fashion, images of limb-torn children cause guilt and 
disgust in most people and will probably exert a deleterious 
effect on our immune systems leading to higher risk of infection 
and direct economic costs through loss of productivity and health 
subsidies.

In meet the candidates forums on health and rail only the Nuclear 
Disarmament Party spelled out the true costs of the war, not only 
on Australia, but on Iraq itself, where 70% of the population is 
under 18.

Clearly this is a war of infanticide paid for by denying our 
children the benefits of at least a billion dollars. Despite the 
promise of Bob Hawke, many of our children are still living in 
poverty but perhaps Larry Anthony, Minister for Children and 
Family Affairs, is unaware of this fact. Certainly he complained 
bitterly when I asked him a question about these issues which he 
refused to answer.

"Without vision the nation perishes", said the prophet Isaiah, 
who must have been thinking of narcoleptic Nationals like Larry 
Anthony and legerdemain Liberals like John Howard!

Gareth Smith
Byron Bay, NSW

Why is it easy for John Howard to roll the term "pre-emptive 
strike", off his tongue? Because Australia has already done it to 
Iraq.

US and Oz "special forces" attacked Iraq 12 months before George 
Dubya's "declaration of war".

Maybe it was more a "pre-emptive invasion", than a "pre-emptive 
strike", but it was "pre-emptive", and it did not have 
parliamentary or popular approval.

Denis Kevans
Wentworth Falls, NSW