Population
Steve Davis's letter (GLW July 5) states that "if we don't limit our population size, how do you suggest we halt the decline of our environment". It appears that an argument has come into vogue that goes as follows: if a population of 10 is swelled to 12, then 12 people will consume more than 10.
This ignores the fact that 5 rich people can out-consume 12 poor people. And that is where the sustainability problem lies — not in the number of people but in "rates of consumption". 100 Californians can consume more energy and resources than 2 million Rwandans. Getting rid of 2 million Rwandans is not going to solve the problem of over-consumption by 100 rich Californians.
As the "endless consumption myth" underlying conservative economic theory meets its nemesis in the fact that you cannot have unlimited rapacious consumption within a closed finite system such as our biosphere — those believers in the sanctity of the market system start loudly propagating the idea that it's not "rates of consumption" that is the problem but "population numbers".
By focusing on population numbers rather than relative rates of consumption the flaws of the market system itself and the disproportional consumption rates between the rich (the tiny western minority) and the poor (the massive third world majority) are ignored. To suggest that too many people on the planet are causing a sustainability crisis after flying over a well lit Sydney at night is ludicrous.
Mark Dullow
Jannali NSW
[Edited for length.]
'60s counter culture
I was worried by Phil Shannon's review of Richard Neville's book, "The '60s that began in Mosman" (GLW June 21). He begins, "Capitalist society's high and mighty had every reason to hate the '60s". Yet in the last few paragraphs he explains the fundamental weakness of '60s-style counter culture. "Dropping acid and seeing salvation in the Hell's Angels rather than in the organised working class was easier, if totally deluded."
Quite so! It was totally deluded. Millions of parents and school teachers were terrified by their children's obsession with sex, drugs and the Rolling Stones, but the capitalists and especially the media were like pigs in shit. Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch are smiling yet.
The overall effect of the '60s counter culture was to distract the youth — and many of their elders — from the discipline and self-sacrifice which political action requires. In my view, the Left has still not recovered from the disaster.
We will not break the power of the Keating-Kennett axis, until the Left forgets its nostalgia for the adolescent rebelliousness of the '60s. It must get back to adult tasks, namely: detailed, clear-eyed analysis of the real situation; precise formulation of our political objectives; devising effective strategies for action; demanding disciplined behaviour from ourselves and our supporters.
It could be that Greenpeace is showing us the way forward. Nostalgia for the '60s never will.
Miles Maxwell
Balwyn Vic
Resentencing trial
On August 7, 1995 1 am scheduled to be taken from the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center here in Butts County, to the Cobb County Court House. At that time my resentencing trial will begin. I will be appealing to twelve new jurors. Let us hope they will be merciful, and that I will be spared the death penalty.
I know if it were in your power you would be there in that Court Room quietly sitting in moral support of my life, but since that is too expensive to consider, perhaps you could support me in other ways.
Positive energy — whether it be in the form of prayer, meditation or contemplation — can help me if you provide it; and, along with your positive energy I will desperately need funds for a host of personal needs while I am away (I should note too, that you can only send me funds via American Express money order). Needless to say my need is great, as it is my very life that is at stake. I will be eternally grateful for any help you feel moved to give. Know that peace and love is the wish and energy I send to you and yours.
Brandon Astor Jones
[Brandon's address is given at the end of his column on page 11.]
Bookshop raid
Barricade Books is a specialty bookshop with a wide range of literature on politics, history and social issues. On Monday 3rd July at 2pm five police officers raided the bookshop. With an unsigned warrant police searched the premises.
On entering the living quarters police aimed loaded firearms at the occupants — and made threats of violence if their wishes weren't met.
Three items of stock were confiscated: a pamphlet on the gay relationship of two political activists and two t-shirts, one with the word "fuck" on it, and the other with a picture of a penis. The organisers of the bookshop are expected to be charged with obscenity.
This is blatant censorship and an attack on all non-mainstream sexual groups attempt at expression. This is another example of the Victorian Police's disregard for basic civil liberties. These acts are inexcusable and should be publicly scrutinised.
In a further act of harassment against the bookshop, three neo-nazis smashed in the shop's windows on July 11.
Ring (03) 9387 6646 for more information.
Colin McNaughton
Friends of Barricade Books
Melbourne
Uranium
The Uranium = Bombs GLW cover and article by Jennifer Thompson (June 28) falls short of good political analysis.
Uranium, even when used for nuclear power alone, is an environmental disaster waiting for a place to happen. But uranium mining should be opposed and banned for that reason, not because it may (possibly) be made into nuclear weapons. If taken seriously, "uranium = bombs" is a technological determinist argument which robs us of political analysis. What makes the French use their uranium for bombs when other countries use it only for power? And what gives a European country the ability to test in the South Pacific? The real equation looks more like uranium + militarism + imperialism = bombs.
The movement to oppose French nuclear testing must focus on Australia's complicity in such events. But we need to look at Australia's own militarism in the Pacific, and the hosting of US bases. There is no reason to single out uranium mining as Australia's nuclear connection. In some ways it is a much weaker connection than Australian capital's imperial interests in the Pacific or our military ties to our nuclear ally, the US.
At one level the movement against French nuclear testing needs not to be diverted into other nuclear issues, and at another level it needs to address all the military, nuclear and economic connections which underlie this decision. The simplistic linking of uranium exports to nuclear testing does neither of these.
Greg Lance
Hackett ACT
[Edited for length.]
Unions
A belated comment on the relevance of unionism as per your article (GLW #189).
Personally, I believe that unions are absolutely vital to not only our country but every country in the world.
The facts of my experience as a community worker are unfortunately these. When my clients are being discriminated against at work, union support is rarely there.
A few months ago one of my clients decided to resign from his union and asked for our assistance in doing so. He was told over the phone by the person in the office that his reasons were not good enough and he could not leave. These experiences and others have stopped me from becoming a union member.
It is a shame that all the good work unions do for the community can be negated by these and other instances. There are probably many people such as myself who are neither fanatically for or against unions, and if membership drives can be directed at this group perhaps large gains can be made in increasing membership.
Julie Phillips
South Yarra Vic
World War II
Sean Healy (Write on, July 5) writes that there was a secret (but apparently known to him) clause in the Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939, according to which Stalin would not hinder Hitler's invasion of Poland.
"Oh, promise them anything", Stalin must have thought; and Hitler was probably not too surprised when the Soviets invaded East Poland in 1940. I have it on authority from a Polish Jewish friend here that from 1939 the Soviet government hurried many Jews from East Poland and neighboring West Russia away to the far-off Urals, to escape the all-devouring German monster they all expected, sooner or later. It doesn't matter that the Soviet government may have called Germany "peace-loving": Mr. Chamberlain had grovelled similarly at the Munich Agreement in 1938. (It meant no more than our nauseating and ubiquitous "Have a nice day"). Remember too that America continued trading with Germany till Pearl Harbor in 1941.
As invasion was expected, and as the USSR was still suffering from the effects of a civil war and invasion by 7 countries 17 years before plus trying to organize the world's first socialist state, it had to be sure its armies would be loyal, and would not indulge in what Mr. Healy rather sinisterly calls "independent action". We are now seeing the mess that results from such "independent action" in the former USSR. Maybe Stalin was paranoid, but it was understandable. The Red Army, the Communist Party and Stalin had to be loyal to each other, otherwise Germany would have won World War II.
Rosemary Evans
St Kilda Vic
[Edited for length.]