LEADERSHIP IN HISTORY

Southland Times, Issue 25347, 26 April 1944, Page 4

LEADERSHIP IN HISTORY

.Sir, —It would appear that two definitions are required before much more can be said on the question of workers education. First of all, the word “education.” My definition is that method of imparting’ and assimilating facts which are based on the objective material conditions of life for the purpose of improving the lot of humanity. In my opinion, Dr McLintock’s lecturedid not come within this category. Secondly, the words “working class philosophy.” It must be understood that each group or class in society develops a philosophy or outlook necessary for the improvement or maintainance of that class or group, as witness the philosophy or outlook of fascism, which is designed to maintain or extend the frontiers of fascism. This philosophy naturally includes the glorification of war. At the other end of the scale is the philosophy of the working class, which is designed to improve the lot of the working class—i.e, 90 per cent, of the people-r-with the ultimate objective of the establishment of socialism. The objective of the W.E.A. should be to impart knowledge which will assist in fulfilling the lastnamed objective. Dr McLintock’s lecture, in my opinion, would tend to have the opposite effect. And now to the three letters which appeared. in your columns on Monday. First of. ! all I note that Hugh Graham can distinguish between truth and fact. A fellow, countryman of mine once said “Facts are cheils that winna ding.” So for Robbie Bums facts are synonymous with truth, as they are with me. Mr Graham states that “no particular party or sect or shade of opinion shall be specially favoured—either the socalled (why so-called?) working class or any other class.” I did not imply that any party should be favoured, but I did hope that the lectures would provide a weapon in the hands of the workers for social advancement. So long as there are two opposing classes in society, education must be in the interest of either one or the other; and therefore the “impartial” survey, far from being impartial, landed Dr McLintock in the camp of what workers call the “capitalist class. In reply to “W.E.A. Member,” one can only say that from his opening sentence to his last there was confusion of the worst type. When did I say that “nothing but Marxism should be allowed a hearing at W.EA. lectures? All I criticized was the fact that Marxism was attacked in the name of “workers’ education.” Secondly, I never suggested that the W.E.A. should “muzzle free speech.” Thirdly, when did I refuse the right of free speech to those who disagree with me? But I do say that Dr McLintock’s lecture would have been more suited for a. National Party meeting, or a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce. Let us not call it “workers’ education.” Dr McLintock’s “impartiality” ended up with an attack on the only working class viewpoint he presented. , This automatically means that he boosted the other viewpoint—namely, the capitalist viewpoint. Finally in reply to W.EA. Member,” might I suggest that he dr die make a study of materialism, and he or she will discover that the materialist philosophy is that philosophy which accepts the outside material world as primary, and thoughts or ideas as being derived from our perceptions of the outside world. “W.EA. Member” is unable to distinguish be-; tween “gross materialism” and the materialist philosophy. Gustav Deimel, like Hugh Graham, is able to differentiate between truth and fact. How he does it, I don’t know. I never denied that Dr McLintock “was perfectly entitled to. say what he did.” I merely ask “why call it workers’ education?' lAN JAMIESON. Otago and Southland Organizer, Communist Party of New Zealand.