Correction

Press, 10 January 1984, Page 14

Correction

An error occurred in the article “Fear, hope and nuclear arms,” by Elsie Locke, on this page yesterday. In the fourth paragraph of Mrs Locke’s article a passage should have read: “If we think objectively about the last 40 years we see many other factors operating. We should include the communications revolution, the existence of many forums of international debate...”

together contribute another 10.7 per cent. In 1918 one civilian died for every 20 soldier deaths; in 1975 (Vietnam) the ratio was reversed. This year (Central America and Afghanistan) will see a continuation of the super-Powers drowning their enemies in blood, while Christian New Zealand performs verbal gymnastics rationalising it all. — Yours, etc.,

G. R. YARDLEY. January 6, 1984.

Sir,—lt is incredible to read so much ill-willed ignorance about communism, especially from people whose allegiance is to religion, which, to an atheist, would seem to impose on them the moral obligation to know what communism really is and not merely parrot misrepresentations of it concocted by its enemies. P. B. Wye commits a gross error typical of those who vilify the Soviet Union, knowing very little about it. There is no “fearsome display of military might and devastating weapons” in Moscow’s May Day parades. Many communists gave their lives for the Russian poor when the poor overthrew the tsarist autocracy, the landed aristocracy and the wealthy merchant class in the Russian Revolution, which did more for the poor than Mother Theresa and her Sisters of Mercy. Atheism is not a theory, simply disbelief in supernatural beings.—Yours, etc.,

Sir,—The very great majority of communism’s peoples want communism, some want reforms. Some, sometimes, order repression; few practise it. Possibly the majority do not know that it unjustly happens. A small minority know it as hell. Another minority migrate or escape from communist countries. Communism needs reforms, not revolution, of which there is no sign. Will Neville Rush name his sources for calling “communism, socialism, atheism and capitalism” “anti-social and destructive”? How are they so? Was our socialist, first Labour Government “anti-social and destructive”? I try to keep the Golden Rule myself, but I want Neville Rush to say who will govern and for whom. R. H. Denton says Earth’s historical purpose proves God’s existence. Purposegiving God surely proves God also was, created. ' — Yours, etc., SUSAN TAYLOR. January 6, 1984.

Sir,—lt is sad that V. H. Anderson feels as he does about socialism. The system that exists today in Russia is not socialism but state capitalism masquerading as socialism to fool the workers. Genuine socialists are aware that inequality, privilege and coercion exist in Russia and its satellite countries, and constantly have to explain that the Soviets have put a term that once had a good press to a bad use. Neither socialism nor communism exist anywhere in the world today, only fake versions of them. It is like Christianity. There is the genuine article and the substitute version. Genuine socialists would no more think of killing or oppressing their fellow workers for the capitalist bosses than genuine Christians would. They have always been conscientious objectors against military service regardless of subsequent persecution by society.—Yours, etc.,

Sir,—l read defenders of Neville Rush and M. Creel with scepticism. Communism is its exploitation of the strong by the weak. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence, whereas materialism coarsens and petrifies everything vulgar, and every truth false. God defend me from the man of one book (Emerson). — Yours, etc.,

Mrs M. E. MYERS. January 8, 1984.

Sir,—The correspondence on disarmament highlights the apparent perversity of man. Both sides say they want peace, but their actions are not consistent with their words. Even the apostle Paul said that in his mind he was a slave to God’s law, but in his sinful nature he acted otherwise. This does not make the fruit of an atheistic life or society the same as the fruit of a Christian life or society. In the latter, a higher law is more habitually at work. One consequence is we see more, freerespect for the individual

in Western democracies than in Communist countries. Forceful criticism can sometimes be mistaken as incitement to hatred, and I feel Caroline Letherington has unfortunately misjudged Neville Rush and other Christians in this respect. She and other nuclear protesters are a little intolerant and in need of forgiveness at times.—Yours, etc., JOHN CANHAM. January 6, 1984.

[This correspondence is now closed. — Editor.]