Anarchism misrepresented
As an anarchist, I find it necessary to respond to "Socialism Versus Anarchism" by Yanni Cotis and Jo Ellis. It is a perfect example of the kind of misrepresentation of our views that we have come to expect from others on the left. They begin by saying that anarchist want to "smash the state because any form of government is oppressive", whereas socialists want to replace the capitalist state with a different kind of state (at least temporarily, until it "withers away").
This is blatantly false. Anarchists are not against government per se, but against top-down government. What we want is a government organised from the people-up in the form of a federation of direct democratic councils. You could call this a different form of "state" if you want to — its just a word anyway. Anarchists are not against all forms of organisation, only hierarchical forms.
The latter part of the article indicates that the authors think that all anarchists are individualist anarchists who "prioritise individual forms of political action over mass action". They name the anarchist group Angry People as an example, but there is no mention of other types of anarchists (by far more numerous), such as communist anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists. The true opposition is thus not between "anarchists" and "socialists", but between "libertarian socialists" and "authoritarian socialists".
Melbourne
[Abridged.]
Homeopathy
Once again you have reprinted an excellent article from Rachel's Weekly (GLW, #348). Unfortunately, as with so many articles concerning medicine and health the crux of the problem is missed.
The fundamental "drug'" problem began last century when the pragmatic practice of medicine was outlawed to allow the capitalist pharmaceutical industry a monopoly which they maintain to this day. Hence in most places on the planet only orthodox medicine (read profitable for multinationals) is taught in universities and orthodox treatment is the only method subsidised by the taxpayer.
Only when using animal research is it true to say "Side effects cannot be anticipated." All homoeopathic drugs, for instance, are tested exclusively on humans and thus all the effects are known before usage. And the recommendations offered by the orthodox "medical experts" [sic] in Peter Montague's article — i.e. to monitor the number of injuries and deaths and make sure doctors are aware of the dangers of their prescriptions — might be amusing except that we are talking here about killing patients.
A saner solution is to use safe drugs, so as to be able to do research on humans not animals, so we stop killing patients with unforeseen effects.
Modern research means animal research precisely because it is misleading. This enables multinationals to make huge profits selling "medications" almost certain to be deadly, and as long as the industry wastes vast sums of money trying to simulate a parody of human diseases by mutilating animals there is not the slightest hope in hell of them ever curing anything. In fact the terrible number of iatorgenic drug deaths, which was the topic of the article, are a direct result of animal research: a fraudulent pseudo science. Every cent we give to medical research helps perpetuate the fraud of vivisection and kills more patients.
Homoeopathic drugs are a very different story. They are so dilute they are safely researched on people. The research costs very little, can be done very quickly, and is 100% accurate.
Denmark WA
[Abridged.]
Nationalisation
Geoff Payne's article in the Democratic Socialist insert (10/2/99) "Workers can run society better" was correct to point out that a militant and powerful fight back in Newcastle could still save steelworkers' jobs. Unfortunately, I believe Geoff is wrong to suggest that "nationalisation" is the solution.
I was with the Wollongong miners and steelworkers when they went through the doors of parliament in 1982 and as Geoff put it "helped bring down the Fraser government". I also marched from Wollongong to Sydney on the "Right to Work March" which mobilised thousands of workers.
While the militant fight back of Wollongong workers was significant, the end result was the election of Bob Hawke, the introduction of the Accord, the injection of $500 million of taxpayers' money into BHP's coffers and the eventual loss of more than 20,000 jobs in the local steel industry. There are now officially 30,000 people unemployed in Wollongong, a figure which continues to rise.
As Geoff points out, even the ALP pledges to support "socialisation" rather than "nationalisation". Just looking at, and comparing, those two words indicates fairly clearly where socialists should stand. The concept of socialisation I can understand and support, but what exactly is "nationalisation" and why should workers support this demand? To provide workers with leadership we must be determined, but we must also be clear about what we are saying.
Wollongong NSW
[Abridged.]
The Australian-Indonesian State Treaty, signed December 18 1995, which NSW Democrat Senator Vicki Bourne, as reported in Weekly Senate Hansard of May 2 1996, described as "the most outrageous abuse of the democratic process which I have seen in a very long time", obliges Australia to come to the assistance of Indonesia in the event of external or internal threats to Indonesia's security.
In exchange for Australia's generosity Indonesia awarded it an equally generous share in East Timor's off-shore oil reserve.
Mr Keating was quoted in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of December 16 1995 as saying that the Government was not going to "hock" this relationship with Indonesia over East Timor.
Labor Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurie Brereton, now has strongly criticised his Labor colleagues for their past failure to support East Timorese aspirations for self-determination. Suddenly, the Indonesian government has declared a willingness, albeit tentative, to grant East Timor autonomy or even independence, providing other powers assume responsibility for East Timor's future well-being.
Is Brereton, unmindful of the terms of the State Treaty, propelling Australia into a position of open-ended commitment for monitoring in East Timor which would most likely end in the reimposition of Indonesian authority in East Timor.
Brereton will be wise to heed the subtle currents which underlie the carefully tended age-old Javanese landscape and he may wish to borrow a word of local caution as he advances into unknown territory. Hati-Hati, Laurie Brereton
Toowong Qld
Women's liberation
Germaine is so right. The tyranny of housework, the tyranny of the cleanliness fostered by the capitalistic fury to push ever more unnecessary products into the shopping trolleys of eager consumers who misguidingly think that these are necessary for their families' survival. Well, they are not.
Indeed, they may be very harmful; we need germs in our houses and lives. How many cleaners are necessary to clean a bathroom? The advertisements zooming into our controlled lives say many. The truth is soap and a brush are completely adequate.
As for the overwhelming need to wash clothes every day, or even more frequently — how stupid. More reliance on washing machines, more use of power, and of course the inevitably more frequent replacement, thus the consumer plays into the dominant paradigm again.
Greer has captured the domestic picture completely when she describes the disregard family members display towards the performer of these domestic feats of perfection. Where are these attitudes learnt? Television, of course — the dominant culture.
Women, try as they will to break the stereotypes of the good, sacrificing mother, are having their efforts continuously eroded by the patriarchy and capitalism's need to keep mother and her young captive to their never-ending array of unnecessary products. And if we dare fight it and not be good mothers, the guilt may be too much to bare.
Women's liberation was to be about freedom from such oppressive roles, yet we are now doubly oppressed: we still have the house, the kids, maybe a man, and now we have the career as well, plus the guilt that we can't do any of it to the standard that is set by ourselves and society. Is this freedom?
Melbourne
[Abridged.]