tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69204886562204633372024-03-08T16:18:45.001+11:00Left FocusWe welcome contributions with Green, Socialist (including Fabian), Social-Democratic, Left liberal, and Libertarian Left perspectives.
Supportive and critical commentary are also welcome. (but no trolling)
Please feel welcome to discuss the posts, or submit your own posts for consideration by the Moderator.Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comBlogger242125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-85417595709425507192024-03-08T16:08:00.007+11:002024-03-08T16:18:13.695+11:00State Power and the Left today<p> </p><p><b style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPOBxc7Ljn9VymVJCqrUxyGZdCssZWJtqbwEOXj9XJIsiMEyyb7qyA0QxKwhX0149QATFaIA_TaVLAOHfGSRjvdTm2U8QJP-NDTfIWIi-IF_4iQEw89NAcxddve2jk3T65g6UCtQH2j1DuHHonF795ycNKXY-X1sijMKAtPs7xx-8XQoPnI6OkSw/s2048/Gramsci.svg.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1445" height="444" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPOBxc7Ljn9VymVJCqrUxyGZdCssZWJtqbwEOXj9XJIsiMEyyb7qyA0QxKwhX0149QATFaIA_TaVLAOHfGSRjvdTm2U8QJP-NDTfIWIi-IF_4iQEw89NAcxddve2jk3T65g6UCtQH2j1DuHHonF795ycNKXY-X1sijMKAtPs7xx-8XQoPnI6OkSw/w313-h444/Gramsci.svg.png" width="313" /></a></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Above: Antonio Gramsci developed ideas of ‘War of Movement’ and ‘War of
Position’: arguing there was more than one road to change.</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div><b>Dr Tristan Ewins </b></div><div> </div><div>The other day I saw another post by a Conservative trashing Marxism, and
arguing that Marxism had never succeeded in practice. In response I argued that
it depends on how you measure success. There may never have been a communist
government of the sort Marx envisaged. Some regimes were a macabre parody of
Marx’s principles. But Marx also helped to unleash the social forces which at
the same time improved society, while perhaps preventing the kind of extreme
polarisation that may have driven revolution. So in a way perhaps Marx helped
mobilise forces which prevented the kind of final confrontation he envisaged.
Perhaps the success of democratic socialists and social democrats in achieving
reform actually prevented the polarisation which would lead to revolution.
Though from the 70s onward the Left has also declined with the embrace of
neo-liberalism, the collapse of the USSR, falling wages, declining unionisation,
working class militancy and class identity, and so on. In response to these
set-backs most alleged Leftists chose the strategy of capitulation ; and the
embrace of identity politics as an alternative to socialism. Not to say that
identity struggles aren’t important ; but they do not replace the need to have a
clear critique of political economy ; and an organised and conscious working
class.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>In response to those who argue there is nothing of value in reading Marxist
texts today, I say this: Marxism is fine so long as you don't take Marx's or
Lenin's writings as a closed book. Lots of socialist democrats were also
Marxists. Marxism influenced many Social Democratic countries in Europe who have
been prosperous. China is prosperous but fails to meet Marx's principles on
creative freedom and fulfilment. Lenin worked under perhaps the worst possible
circumstances and was driven to make terrible compromises. Then much of the
world socialist movement applied his (Lenin’s) ideas ''more or less straight'
into situations that demanded more nuanced and situational thinking.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Thinkers such as Gramsci, Habermas, Marcuse - remedied this to an extent.
Meanwhile Chantal Mouffe mixes Marxism with robust liberal pluralism to base a
strong theory of social change today that some call 'Post-Marxism'. (Mouffe
refers to her outlook as ‘Agonism’) But the Marxist tradition is both deep and
broad - and we shouldn't shy away from borrowing from it today. But perhaps with
more respect for liberalism than Lenin had. Because the ideology of liberalism
is a kind of defence in the sense that the State’s perceived legitimacy rests
upon certain liberal rights and freedoms. When those aspects of liberal
ideology recede the Left typically becomes more vulnerable to brute repression.
But at the same time it causes the capitalist state to face a legitimation
crisis where it's perceived legitimacy was based on liberalism. It 'cuts both
ways'. That said, today many workers are increasingly exploited and
impoverished in line with a decline of social resistance and class struggle. In
part we're to blame for that ourselves on the broad Left for reverting to
nebulous 'Third Way' thinking, and abandoning class and the critique of
capitalism in the rush to identity politics.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Though Marx himself knew his work wasn't complete, and there's still lots
of value in his works we can still draw on today. And as a tradition Marxism is
very diverse and broad. But indeed his works don't solve every problem on Earth
; and with the passage of well over a century many things have changed. We do
have to account for this.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>One of the key factors distinguishing Marxism from mainstream liberal
democracy is the Marxist critique of the State. Marx thought the working class
had to seize state power. Lenin, meanwhile, argued this was only possible if
the previous state was ‘smashed’ ; that socialists could not successfully take a
hold of the ‘ready made state machinery’ to govern on behalf of working people
and those who had been oppressed. The situation which followed Revolution was
referred to by Marx as ‘the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’. Many critics of
Marx see this as referring to the literal Stalinist dictatorship which
eventuated in the USSR.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Yet as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out dictatorship of the proletariat can be
interpreted as the democratic rule of the workers ; as opposed to Lenin for whom
it was the rule of the Communist Party. So 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
doesn't need to mean the dictatorship of one person or party. But Lenin worked
amidst a collapsing society where foreign intervention was everywhere ; and the
Entente powers (Britain, the Commonwealth, and France) were determined to
destroy the new government as that government had pulled out of the war. (that
is, World War One) The United States and Italy had also joined the Entente.
Unfortunately the logic of the crises which followed led to centralisation in
the hands of fewer and fewer people ; and the Bolsheviks turned in against
themselves ; until Stalin was the only one of the old Bolsheviks who was left.
(except for Alexandra Kollontai ; who became a diplomat for the ‘workers’ state’
; and ended up as ambassador to Sweden) Engels pointed out that some
authoritarianism was necessary in the midst of a Revolution – to protect the
infant Communist government from its enemies. But Gramsci pointed out that not
all revolutions are the same ; and this means we should not apply the Leninist
template universally. Perhaps the Bolsheviks should have maintained the Red
Army ; but allowed the Constituent Assembly to sit ; as well as the Soviets. In
other words freedom - but with a backup plan. The problem would be if the
Constituent Assembly tried to establish their own State ; and hence threaten
sustained working class democracy. This kind of arrangement is called ‘Dual
Power’ ; where all power is not centralised in one place. (but control of the
apparatus of force can still be a decisive factor) Also importantly: the State
involves the apparatus of administration and not merely the apparatus of force.
Seeking to 'smash' the state 'root and branch' - including the apparatus of
administration - could prove to be self-destructive in the final
analysis.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Considering the matter historically: Under immense pressure, The French
Revolution descended into Terror ; and eventually Bonapartism (dictatorship) ;
But this didn't cause liberal democrats to abandon their cause. Eventually they
succeeded. Neither should we on the Socialist Left abandon our cause. Most
importantly we need to be outspoken about our cause ; because without this we
will not mobilise anyone. Without this capitalist ideology and institutions
appear beyond question ; and alternatives are seen as practically unthinkable.
Also we need to be principled on issues like privatisation – as hypocrisy has a
demoralising and demobilising effect , and upcoming generations of activists
are thoroughly detached form the values of their predecessors.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Lenin was a democratic centralist ; which translated to the rule of the
Party - which in turn delegated power to decide and govern between Conferences
to a Central Committee. He was prepared to share power with like-minded Parties
such as the Left Social Revolutionaries ; but after he suffered an attempted
assassination by one of their members he abandoned this. Rosa Luxemburg was
scathing of over-centralisation ; pointing out that it smothered workers'
democracy ; and the self-corrective dynamics of that democracy. The wisest
Central Committee was no substitute for democratic practice. You could argue
that over-centralisation was a crisis-management measure - but the problem is
that the Crisis never ended. And we ended up with the personal dictatorship of
Stalin. The comparison between socialists and liberal democrats stands ; because
even if Lenin was an over-centralist - he did not speak for all socialists. The
aim should have been to balance crisis management with workers' freedom and
democracy.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Some liberals have a problem with forging a State which is sympathetic to
the Left ; and hence not likely to resort to extreme violence against the Left.
They presume that the modern state is democratic and impartial ; and hence all
the Left has to do to change society is to win a majority in Parliament.
Problem is: apply that to the Austrian instance. At the end of World War I the
Austrian Social Democrats controlled the Army. They achieved a liberal
democratic revolution. But after the war they gave up State power and allowed a
new conventional army to be set up. As an insurance policy they maintained their
own militia. In 1934 they achieved a majority in the Constituent Assembly.
Immediately the Fascists dissolved the Parliament by force - and in doing so
they were supported by the regular Army. For a time the Social Democrats
negotiated behind the scenes. While they did this the Army raided their arms
caches and arrested their leaders. Finally what was left of the workers' militia
(the Schutzbund) took up arms, fortifying the public housing estates in Vienna.
But they were crushed after about a week, and many of their remaining leaders
were executed. Austria was under the heel of a kind of fascism – years before
the Nazis occupied the country. (The Austrian fascist regime had clerical
sympathies ; and did not want German dominance ; like Franco’s regime in Spain
they were repressive ; but they did not have the Nazis’ racialized
Ideology)</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>The point is that unless progressive forces control the Armed Forces – or
otherwise influence it towards democracy - they have no guarantee they can
peacefully achieve a majority and govern for their constituents. They can allow
other parties to govern, yes. But they cannot afford to allow their enemies to
control the armed apparatus of State if they actually have a choice in the
matter. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>In Australia the prospect of radically reforming the Armed Forces seems
unlikely. Perhaps the best we can do is school the military in pluralism and
democracy ; and try and ensure they never intervene inappropriately.
Unfortunately, constitutionalism is not necessarily enough ; as Reserve Powers
can be used to undermine democracy. Such intervention is currently not likely as
what passes for the Left in Australia does little to challenge the status-quo.
The opportunity to radically reform the armed forces in Austria only occurred
after a State collapse with the defeat of Austria-Hungary ; and over a million
Austrian and Hungarian deaths in World War One. But with no opportunity to
radically reform the State, radicals always run the risk of falling afoul of
it.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Historically, though– in the instance of Revolutionary Russia - what I'm
arguing for is basically that there should have been a kind of dual power. Here,
again, the Bolsheviks would have controlled the Red Army and hence that would
comprise 'the last line of defense' . The Soviets would have had their sphere of
influence ; but the Constituent Assembly would be enabled to do its job of
representing voters as well. Though without forming a state that was hostile to
the Revolution.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>In a recent argument I put forward this view and was accused of hypocrisy.
I was accused of endorsing state repression ; and hence having double standards
on liberty. It was held that radically reforming the State so the apparatus of
force upheld democracy – including support for elected left-wing governments -
led to actual dictatorship in the common sense of the word.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>But that's not what I'm arguing. My argument is "hold on to control of the
apparatus of force if you can - AS AN INSURANCE POLICY against the violent or
repressive tendencies of your enemies." So THEY cannot use the state against you
in an oppressive way. More generally, I'm glad for my rivals to have free
speech. I'm not glad for them to have the option of using state power to repress
me when things don't go their way.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>In the Russian context, however, things were more complex ; as it was in
the middle of a Civil War - and with foreign intervention ; there was the
spectre of hunger and social collapse and so on. Once you’ve accepted that the
French Revolutionaries had to resort to crisis management under certain
circumstances, then the same ought apply to the socialist Left in its struggles.
But better still to avoid the kind of crises that warrant such tactics. Hence
'War of Position' is better than 'War of Movement'. (we’ll explain this shortly)
It all ended badly for the Bolsheviks anyway. There was a virtual 'repeat of
history' as the rise of Stalin shadowed the previous rise of Napoleon. So if
you could achieve stability on the basis of a progressive and democratic
pluralism that would be best. But it’s best if you can have that pluralism while
progressives control the apparatus of force as an insurance policy. Importantly,
the State is not homogenous. While I am not a structuralist, the structuralist
Marxist Nicos Poulantzas described the State as a ‘contested field’ ; upon which
the logic of class struggle was ‘imprinted’. The idea that the State can be
contested without being left as a homogenous ‘instrument’ across its breadth and
depth is a very important one.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>This is why what Antonio Gramsci called 'war of position' is preferable to
what he called 'war of movement'. In a 'war of movement' - eg: the 1917 Russian
Revolution - order is collapsing and competing interests and parties rush to
fill the void. In the process the struggle can become very violent. In the
Russia 1917 context there was foreign intervention and White Armies besieging
the Revolution. And if Communist Parties do 'whatever it takes' there's the
potential for it to end disastrously. (though in that context many feel they
have no choice ; it’s easy to judge when personally you live in conditions of
stability) By contrast a 'war of position' involves a long term struggle for
hegemony ; through institutions, organisations, traditions, practices,
movements. Power is gained by reaching pre-eminence in civil society -
potentially through democratic processes. And again the State can be penetrated
by the process of class struggle itself. But the fate of Salvador Allende –
whose democratic socialist government in Chile was overthrown in 1973 by
Pinochet with the assistance of the CIA - shows that if the armed forces are
hostile it can still end in slaughter. (against the Left) The massacre of
Leftists and labour movement activists in Indonesia in 1965-1966 is an even more
horrifying example: where over half a million were slain and the rivers
literally ran red with blood. The apparatus of force is perhaps the hardest
part of the State to penetrate and challenge. In Australia, also, the Labor
Government of Gough Whitlam was effectively overthrown in 1975 in a
‘constitutional coup’. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Of course bourgeois regimes don't mind wars ; and there is hypocrisy when
it comes to the matter of violence. Violence might become inevitable in defence
of a picket line for instance. But the modern Left has an interest in not
escalating violence too far ; because it does not stand a chance against the
violent power of the modern State if that state is hostile. Or more to the
point ; against the State’s apparatus of force. Perhaps the word ‘apparatus’
suggests an instrumental outlook – which is problematic – but the armed forces
can be isolated from any broader class struggle. At the end of World War One,
though, the establishment of workers’ armies was possible in a context where
millions of workers were mobilised in the armed forces by a horrific war which
had discredited the old regimes. And the class struggle in Australia is also
problematic because class consciousness is now at an all time low following the
demobilisation of the labour movement in the 1980s and thereafter. The Left has
a substantial task in front of it.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>So the modern struggle involves taking every opportunity to reform the
State ; while engaging in cultural and social struggles ; as well as civil
disobedience. This means always pushing the boundaries ; but having the wisdom
not to press them too far if there is a likely prospect of overwhelming
repression. Again: escalation beyond a certain point is not usually a wise
option for the Left. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>A strong and mobilised civil society is also a defence against repression ;
so achieving this is a high priority for both revolutionaries and reformers.
Perhaps the best way is a mix of reformist and revolutionary outlooks. That is:
seek qualitative change ; but be prepared to achieve this incrementally. While
at the same time taking advantage of ‘watershed’ scenarios to achieve radical
change more quickly. All this involves mobilising civil society and reforming
the State to contain the threat of repression.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><p>
</p><div>This may also seem distanced from the reality of day to day politics ; but
that current reality is one where progressive parties have limited power because
of the threat of international capital strike ; and the Left’s marginalisation
in Civil Society. The Left has also largely abandoned struggles or – and
ideologies of – radical democratisation, class liberation, and other progressive
causes. In other words, large parts of the modern Left have either lost their
reason for being ; became irrelevant ; or limited themselves to identity
struggles while only contesting political economy at the margins. Again:
Hypocrisy on issues like privatisation, and timidity on issues like tax reform,
Industrial Relations reform, and social wage expansion – leave newer generations
on the Left demobilised, disoriented and demoralised. But if the Left ever
rediscovers itself, all these issues discussed here will once again burn with
immediate relevance.</div>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-16775987602630922822021-10-24T11:05:00.004+11:002021-10-24T11:06:48.750+11:00Rejecting the Cashless Welfare Card A Good Start ; Labor needs deeper change on policy and culture as well<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirlAwXJYXVfl6TbFbz3BWnvE6uHuPd3Ogb7mU-V-Yv4E1c6tNVp3zoLA09Z08ZpCLt1klcGkT4VMlh3qm7hYv0uWprde3Z15mmuTTEMr5Loj1m1RB7Lz05chdlRPU-CwpzjtPwPVU/s2048/CS5279455052_29e323f771_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1202" data-original-width="2048" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirlAwXJYXVfl6TbFbz3BWnvE6uHuPd3Ogb7mU-V-Yv4E1c6tNVp3zoLA09Z08ZpCLt1klcGkT4VMlh3qm7hYv0uWprde3Z15mmuTTEMr5Loj1m1RB7Lz05chdlRPU-CwpzjtPwPVU/w349-h205/CS5279455052_29e323f771_o.jpg" width="349" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoTitle"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Dr Tristan Ewins<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It is now approaching a
decade since Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest was approached by then Prime Minister,
Tony Abbott, to advise on the creation of a ‘cashless welfare card’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Forrest intended for all income to be
‘quarantined’ for use only in approved areas (like groceries), the Indue card
which has emerged in trials set a floor of 80% of income to be with-held, and
available for ‘approved purposes’. Aimed largely at indigenous peoples, and the
welfare-dependent more broadly, the ‘Indue’ card follows after the failed
‘Basics card’ of 2007 - which attempted something similar as part of a
government ‘Intervention’ into indigenous communities in the Northern
Territory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The newer ‘Indue’ cashless
welfare card applies to the welfare-dependent more generally in the communities
in which it is being trialled. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All those
affected find themselves in the position of being restricted in what they can
spend their money on, including on food and second hand goods. While a
relatively small proportion are affected by gambling addiction or alcoholism,
the ‘card’ is a source of humiliation and control over the welfare-dependent
more generally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indue, which includes
Conservative Coalition party luminaries as shareholders, stands to make a
packet from the humiliation and micro-management of the every-day life of
already-disadvantaged Australians.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Instead of humiliating
marginalised Australians government ought instead be seeking to empower them,
perhaps including through the mechanism of a Guaranteed Minimum Income
(GMI).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arguments against a GMI include
the suggestion it may displace some existing pensions. (some of which are less
threadbare than others)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if a ‘no
disadvantage’ test were applied this need not be a problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Mutual obligation’ provisions have always
been worrisome; as in practice they became a source of effective labour
conscription.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This might also increase
competition for jobs at the ‘lower end’ of the labour market ; and in the
process reduce the bargaining power of those workers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
A good alternative could be the establishment of a ‘Social Bill of Rights’ ;
which would include rights to nutrition, adequate and dignified shelter, power,
comprehensive health care, communications-related empowerment (eg: internet
access), transport, education and social inclusion. A ‘Guaranteed Minimum
Income’ could then be deployed alongside pensions and other programs intended
to make this vision reality.<br />
<br />
In the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> Centuries the unemployed were driven
into ‘Poor Houses’ where they were exploited, humiliated and robbed of their
dignity. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a long history of
‘blaming the poor’ for their own disadvantage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Centuries later some of the same assumptions remain in play beneath the
surface.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Labor is arguing it will end
the long Conservative experiment with the ‘cashless welfare card’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Coalition has so far not mustered the
political courage (or political capital) to implement the program more
broadly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But as with ‘WorkChoices’ ; the
old agendas continue to ‘fester’ behind the scenes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The debate needs to be brought into the
glare of public scrutiny and buried decisively. <br />
<br />
Labor’s opposition to the Indue card is welcome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Labor needs a broader, stronger vision,
including reform of welfare, minimum wages and labour market regulation,
industrial rights, and embedded social human rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its retreat on the tax debate has regrettably
narrowed its options.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But a program for
change could re-emerge through a determined reform of the social wage and
welfare state ; which branched in various directions – including a Universal
Aged Care Insurance Scheme, as well as improvement of pensions, with rescission
of punitive mechanisms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And a bold
commitment to build a million new public housing units – as suggested by the
Greens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Labor really ought to be coming
up with these kind of ideas on its own initiative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is a minimum
standard of living which must apply to all citizens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This idea of a ‘floor’ beneath which none are
allowed to fall is reminiscent of the more progressive variations of the ‘Third
Way’ which emerged in the 1990s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But to
mobilise as broad a base as possible, and provide distributive justice for all
a more robust Social Democratic or Democratic Socialist agenda than Blairism is
necessary.<br />
<br />
It seems Social Democratic Parties have been on the defensive and on the back
foot for decades. And indeed they have been.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For some the logic of retreat has been internalised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to re-establish a notion of what
comprises ‘progress’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means fairer
distribution, industrial rights,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>social
rights, and the re-establishment of a robust mixed economy to help make this
vision reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Indue ‘cashless
welfare card’ is the current ‘Conservative frontier’ ; where it attempts to
reshape public ‘common sense’ on the further rescission of the welfare state,
and the re-establishment of a ‘Poor House’ mentality ; which ‘gives the whip
hand’ to employers through poverty, compulsion and labour conscription.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Labor needs to go back to
‘first principles’ and work out the consequences of that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which is that being a ‘broad church’, Labor
needs to be united behind ‘baseline’ social democratic and democratic socialist
values and agendas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Containing
inequality and ending poverty ought be non-negotiable ; as should the proposal that
this must be pursued through industrial rights, labour market regulation, a
mixed economy, progressive taxation system, expanded social wages and welfare
state provisions, and intervention into the capitalist system. (ultimately to
end exploitation ; but also to ameliorate the impact of its crises upon workers
and the vulnerable in the meantime)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The cashless welfare card
needs to be defeated and exposed for the punitive mentality it embodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we need a progressive movement which is
willing to ‘go onto the front foot as well’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A movement which has an idea what ‘progress’ entails, and which rejects
a logic of endless retreat ; ameliorated only by the ascendance of ‘social
liberal’ agendas as applied to gender, sexuality, and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And in the context of the marginalisation of
social conservatism, and its replacement by an ideology of neo-liberal
cosmopolitanism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
A ‘change of direction’ involves accepting class struggle as a progressive
phenomenon ; an ‘engine of social progress’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Only when that logic becomes entrenched does progress become undeniable.
And while Hawke’s vision of “Reconciliation” appealed to many ; bosses soon
became tired of ‘co-determination’ with unions once they had extracted crucial
concessions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And once organised labour
lost its bargaining position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">‘Reformists’ and
Revolutionaries were once agreed on the progressive nature of class
struggle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Within Labor factions and
others need, also, to combine behind such a shared notion. Bringing together
Labor members behind the idea of a progressive class struggle is crucial ; an
idea that we are all broadly in the same fight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Reinforced by daily experience everywhere from Party branches to unions,
and from student politics to the social movements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a fight for the heart and soul of
the ALP, and the heart and soul of Australia. There is no place for a punitive
cashless welfare card in a progressive Australia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>May solidarity in the name of renewed class
struggle relegate it to history.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-88659934228383076802021-04-18T19:38:00.004+10:002021-04-18T19:39:14.925+10:00Responding to ‘Cynical Theories’ – A Critique of Postmodern Theory<p><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLktByJgXUYe5oIfSrCQkPZypRV9bOIfRGLCgiV7jp6bZh7PZFQzJRvf1GFoA5m83ow_EYVe6AgfL6IicMo9hLpy0jrA8nm8zVsDGYedGqrpeT8VxghSGgTWFnTTjDgBNBNIxWwec/s2048/Cynical.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1331" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLktByJgXUYe5oIfSrCQkPZypRV9bOIfRGLCgiV7jp6bZh7PZFQzJRvf1GFoA5m83ow_EYVe6AgfL6IicMo9hLpy0jrA8nm8zVsDGYedGqrpeT8VxghSGgTWFnTTjDgBNBNIxWwec/s320/Cynical.jpg" /></a></b></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Pluckrose, Helen and Lindsay, James, </span></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">‘Cynical Theories – How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender
and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody</span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">, Swift Press, London, 2020</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Dr Tristan
Ewins<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“Cynical Theories” - by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay –
is a thorough critique of postmodernism as exemplified by Foucault, Derrida and
Lyotard from the 1960s onward ; as well as the Applied and ‘Reified’ (in the
authors’ words) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>postmodernist intellectual
movements which have followed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a
response that book.<br />
<br />
The period of ‘high postmodernity’ saw thinkers like Foucault, Derrida and
Lyotard adopt an approach of irony and ‘playfulness’ in response to capitalist
domination, the decline of communism as a perceived alternative, and the
hopelessness which followed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
‘applied’ phase sought to apply postmodernism to concrete issues, and in this
sense saw a re-emergence of some kind of hope on the Left after the decline of communism.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Meanwhile what the authors call the
‘reified phase’ saw postmodern Theory increasingly seen as representing ‘The
Truth’ about society, which cannot be questioned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The original postmodernists were sometimes
criticised for taking deconstruction too far, or because they could “afford” to
be ‘playful” and “ironic”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(being white,
middle class and male) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(p 48) The
objective reality of certain oppressed groups was to be accepted ; and not
subjected to deconstruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Reconstruction’
was seen as being as important as deconstruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(not entirely a bad thing!) What has come to
be described as “Standpoint Theory’ has seen an abandonment of ‘scientific
truth’ and its replacement with group experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What some people call ‘Identity Politics’.
‘Standpoint theory’ has it that people are defined by their social location in
a landscape of privilege and oppression.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Indeed science, empirical knowledge and notions of
‘progress’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>are sometimes seen as part of
the “Western Enlightenment’ tradition ; and that is dismissed as an Ideology of
Western domination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As well as being
oppressive of ‘other ways of knowing’. (for example mystical spiritual
traditions, paganism, witchcraft)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in reality these traditions should also be
open to criticism ; but the Enlightenment saw a general scepticism about ‘the
spiritual’ ; and an unwillingness to engage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(though arguably if the Enlightenment should be subjected to criticism,
so too should ‘other ways of knowing’) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science especially is seen as holding great
“prestige” ; and that can be a cover for domination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(as in the past, where racist colonialist
discourses were legitimised (falsely) in its name)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certain racial, sexual, gender and other
groups are seen as oppressed by dominant discourses ; and therefore are
represented as ‘authentic’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After
Foucault ; ‘Power’ is seen as operating in all discourses and social
relationships ; sometimes rendered invisible or obscured by dominant
ideologies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many also accept Derrida’s
critique of ‘binaries’ such as sex (male/female) which are maintained through
language ; and believe those binaries need to be ‘blurred’, ‘disrupted’ or
‘turned on their heads’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence there has
arisen notions of ‘Intersex’ and ‘Queer’ sexuality which are not ‘heteronormative’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The authors object to the way in which this ‘postmodern
Ideology’ is enforced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they
identify ‘applied postmodernism’ and ‘reified postmodernism’ as being
intolerant of debate ; ostensibly to prevent hostile discourse causing trauma
to marginalised groups ; instead they promote liberal notions of free
speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here, ideas must be subjected to
criticism if they are to develop and evolve. Marxists would argue that the
“dialectic” must be enabled to do its work through open class struggle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
they see dialectical logic at work in other social relationships as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Suppression of debate is counter-productive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This reminds the reader of the stance taken
by communist, Rosa Luxemburg in supporting free speech in Revolutionary Russia
; just as the Bolsheviks were consolidating their control. For the authors the
‘authoritarianism’ of postmodernism runs parallel to that of Communism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That many communists (Martov, Kautsky,
Luxemburg) opposed the suppression of the working class ‘supposedly for its own
good’ is not acknowledged ; and it can be assumed that the authors simply
haven’t engaged with Marxism in such a way as to be aware of this diversity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors also assume capitalism is
‘self-correcting’ ;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>going ‘hand in hand
with Liberalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But capitalism makes
the same old mistakes – overproduction, monopolism, planned obsolescence, gross
inequality. There is a self-correcting element in liberalism – interpreted as
liberty -but liberty can be applied to socialism as well as capitalism.<br />
<br />
In the name of liberalism, the authors also defend universalism, science and
secular humanism. They believe “truth” can be arrived at via
scientific/empirical method, and that science points towards our common
humanity. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence ; although a ‘scientific
Ideology’ had been distorted in the past to justify colonialist racism ;
eventually the rigorous and authentic Scientific Method itself helped break
down the very Ideologies of racism which previously tried to use science as a
‘cover’. Here they actually share cause with orthodox Marxism. For many
postmodernists, however, oppressed groups have their own “ways of knowing”
which only they have access to ; and which need to be empowered for their
liberation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here the oppressed must
speak for themselves ; hence diversity quotas and the like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In response it could be argued that highly developed empathy
enables some people to identify with and begin to understand the positions of
oppressed groups and individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
is the Weberian notion of social-scientific ‘Understanding’. (Verstehen) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also some arguments deserve to be heard
because of the quality of their arguments, and the broader social urgency ; as
opposed simply to the Identity of the speaker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Finally ; ‘white’, ‘male’ and ‘straight’ people have the potential to
develop discourses of self-understanding which do not simply reinforce or
render invisible previous binaries of domination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the authors such perspectives should be
rigorously criticised ; but not silenced. For instance: Whereas it might be
useful for a white male to subject himself to criticism using Feminist methods
; he should be able to arrive at critical self-understandings of his own as
well. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He should not be banned from
speaking for himself because in some contexts he is seen as enjoying privilege.
But he must listen to Others also.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At
the end of the day, however, ‘inclusion’ brings us into relation and dialogue
with one another, and that itself can lead to ‘progress’. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“Applied” and “Reified” postmodernism attempt to read racism,
sexism and prejudice into all manner of discourses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Often this simply involves rigorous analysis
revealing past prejudices ; which can lead to recognition, and ultimately
healing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A ‘critical’ perspective can
simply involve SENSITIIVTY to the perspectives of Others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But on the other hand it can be taken to
extremes ; where any ‘slip’ can lead to ostracism, or even the destruction of
careers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the authors write:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">“At best, this has a chilling
effect on the culture of free expression…as good people self-censor to avoid
saying the ‘wrong’ things. At worst, it is a malicious form of bullying and –
when institutionalised – a kind of authoritarianism in our midst.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(pp 14-15)<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Furthermore:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">“We see radical relativism in the
form of double standards, such as assertions that only men can be sexists and
only white people can be racist, and in the wholesale rejection of consistent
principles of non-discrimination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
face of this, it grows increasingly difficult and even dangerous to argue that
people should be treated as individuals or to urge recognition of our shared
humanity in the face of divisive and constraining identity politics.” (pp
17-18)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i></b> desirable to include marginalised
groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And efforts must be made to
create a welcoming environment. But representative democracy is also about<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>electing a person who has the belief systems
and policies which accord with one’s own beliefs and interests. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or at least it should.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(there is a ‘tribal’ element to politics
also)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quotas can potentially prioritise
representation of groups over representation on the basis of preferred ideology
and policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Marginalised groups can be
included via various bodies ; such as the ‘Voice to Parliament’ suggested for
indigenous Australians. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They can also be
included via ‘deliberative democracy’ and ‘co-determination’. And affirmative
action for women can proceed in the form of reserved seats in parliament ; so
there is still a contest of ideas and values during pre-selections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But where people no longer have the choice to
elect the person who best represents their values and interests – on the basis
of the quality of their politics and policies - <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>representative democracy is circumvented. <br />
<br />
All that said, there is a history of racism ; expressed through Colonialism,
Imperialism, Capitalism, Slavery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
there is a history of sexism as expressed through a Patriarchy which employed a
binary Ideological logic to render women (falsely, but according to its
premises) irrational, fragile, unsuited to public life, and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the West, much of this Patriarchy has been
broken down by Second Wave feminism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
women are still excluded from many professions ; are disadvantaged in the
labour market with the devalorisation of professions which are dominated by
women (eg: aged care) ; and in many Western countries women are still restricted
in their participation in public life, and the relative levels of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>prestige of some women’s sport. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, until relatively recently homophobia was entrenched
in law and culture ; but is now being broken down in popular culture, with gay
marriage, and the permeation of postmodern scepticism of strict binaries
through broader society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors argue, however, that it is
liberalism which has seen non-hetero-normative sexualities accepted as
‘natural’ and ‘normal’.<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Traditionally, postmodern approaches have been critical of
‘metanarratives’. (eg: Western Progress through Liberal Capitalism and Science;
or the Marxist critique of Capitalism and of Class Struggle leading to
socialism)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors acknowledge that
metanarratives can be restrictive and exclusive ; but they believe ironically what
they call [postmodern] Theory has become a metanarrative of its own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In reality we need metanarratives to contest
economy and society in a globalised world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If Leftists do not have their own metanarratives, right-wing
metanarratives will ‘fill the vacuum’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But we must be careful not to let metanarratives silence more localised
narratives. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">As conceived of by Marx, the working class is still the
majority class world-wide. Many postmodern approaches tend to downplay the
unifying power of class, as opposed to tensions based on race, sexuality,
gender and so on. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Class is often problematized as a matter of equalising
life-chances through educational equal opportunity and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But class oppression is different. By its
very definition it involves exploitation, and is anti-democratic with regards
economic life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, by its nature it
involves the majority of human beings - who are engaged in capitalist
production. Perhaps the working class might no longer be considered the
‘universal historic subject’ as once assumed by Marxists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The working class needs allies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And oppressed minorities could do with the
solidarity of a conscious, organised working class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Above everything the working class needs to
recover its sense of self.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that
condition is satisfied the working class is still strategically positioned –
industrially, culturally, electorally – to exert significant power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this involves a metanarrative of
socialism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">For Marx Ideology served the interests of the Bourgeois
Ruling Class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It ‘naturalised’
capitalist social relations through nationalism, much of religion, Liberal
Ideology ; and it obscured working peoples’ self-interest. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By contrast, the common Theoretical approach
is to see discourses of domination which are often ‘invisible’ , but from which
white, male, cis-normative people benefit from.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here, Ideology is seen as benefiting the majority, including working
people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(as opposed to benefiting mainly
the ruling class minority)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">There is truth in the argument that Power can be subtle, and
is not at all limited to class. The Foucauldian approach traditionally neglects
class and a broader critique of capitalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Certainly it has no sense that capitalism could be ‘negated’, except in
localised ‘micronarratives’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it has
its strengths.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Language is not everything.
There is a reality outside of language. But language is still powerful ; it can
be a vehicle for Power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can be laden
with Ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a PRACTICE which
influences how we see ourselves and the world around us on an everyday
basis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Giddens would have it that we are
all interpreters and active participants in the shaping of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>language and not just passive recipients. Though
Ideological relations of domination and manipulation should not be understated
; even though they are not absolute. Though language and knowledge are not
necessarily oppressive in of themselves. In the right hands, and of the right
quality, they can be liberating.<br />
<br />
But from a Marxist perspective, the working class is still an exploited class ;
and a class which widely suffers alienation. (ie: trauma from the menial,
physically demanding, meaningless and unfulfilling, repetitive nature of much
work)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inequality has reached alarming
levels ; yet somehow the working class is ‘invisible’ in much postmodern
discourse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The authors are at pains to reject Marxism ; and see both
Marxism and Postmodern Theory as ‘authoritarian ideologies’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they see Marxism as ‘in decline’ from
the 1960s, Marxism continued for several decades ; and morphed into the New
Left and Eurocommunism for example. Socialism progressed for several decades in
Scandinavia ; there were class struggles in Britain and France.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes Marxism morphed into Postmarxism
and the works of radical theorists such as Chantal Mouffe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Socialism should not be ‘written off’ with
liberalism ‘the only contender left standing’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But neither should liberalism be written off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether we describe it as ‘liberal
socialism’ or ‘libertarian socialism’ (a term sometimes applied to Luxemburg)
there is a socialism which is possible that is open to criticism, development,
and account of new realities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though
that socialism should nonetheless ground itself in class struggles and other
progressive struggles.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> (</b>P 25)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According to the authors (effectively by the words of Lyotard)
postmodern theory “seeks not to be factually true but to be strategically
useful: in order to bring about its own aims, morally virtuous<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and politically useful by its own
definitions.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(p 38)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theory SHOULD be useful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It shouldn’t exist in a detached sense as if in
some kind of ‘ivory tower’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But just
because sometimes “the truth” is hard to ascertain doesn’t mean we shouldn’t
strive towards it, and apply even our own works to rigorous criticism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is potentially dangerous to suggest
‘striving for the truth’ does not matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In the Notes section at the back of the book the authors
recognise that Critical Theory originated with the Frankfurt School, and
included figures such as Jurgen Habermas – who was a defender of ‘the
unfinished project of Modernity’ ; and who believed in the power of
‘Communicative Action’ to ‘reach understanding’ even in the context of
pluralism. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s important to acknowledge
this as there are realms of ‘critical theory’ radically at odds with the model
put forward by the authors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Habermas believed
a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ could result in a non-oppressive kind of socialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is achieved by bringing various critical
traditions – each with its own legitimacy and lines of empirical enquiry - into
relation which each other. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
manifests as ‘liberation by consensus’. Which is possible because there is an
‘objective truth’ on human liberation which people can arrive at through
communication. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The later Habermas
doubted ethical consensus, but insisted there was a truth which could be ‘got
at’ by relating to an objective world. This requires rigorous ‘dialectical’
testing of propositions. But that process is obstructed by the ‘colonisation of
lifeworld by system’ ; where (non-linguistic) systems of power based on money,
state and bureaucracy<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>get in the way of
Communicative Action. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arguably these are
not merely matters of systemic logic ; but of class agency. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The working class must arrive at class
consciousness (and socialist consciousness), and must organise in order to change
the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bourgeoisie, while
sometimes captive to their own Ideology, are also often not beyond deliberately
distorting the truth to preserve their position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But limiting oneself to language ; as opposed
to the objective functioning of capitalist economies ; can create a veritable
“prison house” (Jameson) which limits clarity, perception and understanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For some however (eg: Mouffe and Laclau) the
earlier Habermas is too optimistic. Mouffe proposes a counter-hegemony in the
context of robust pluralism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She
doesn’t presume humanity to be capable of a rational consensus on values and
socio-economic organisation. But she does presume a majority can accept
pluralism on the basis of shared freedoms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">‘Intersectionality’ is seen as stemming from the work of
postmodern feminist, Kimberle Crenshaw.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>‘Intersectionality’ is a powerful concept which has come to be deployed
by Theorists to explain how people experience ‘intersections’ of multiple
oppressions, determined by their social location and Identity. That includes
race, gender, sexuality, disability, body type, class and so on. Hence<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a black lesbian woman is ‘triply
oppressed’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a sense this is nuanced ;
as it accounts for multiple experiences and social locations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By comparison, the original Marxism focused
on the labour-capital dialectic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Crenshaw wanted to both keep the Theoretical Understanding of
race and gender as social constructs and use deconstructive methods to critique
them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She also wanted to assert a “stable
truth claim” : that some people were discriminated against on the grounds of
their racial and sexual identities, a discrimination she planned to address
legally, using identity politics. She claims that identity categories “have
meaning and consequences”, that is, they are objectively real.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(P 57)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For the original postmodernists “endless examination and deconstruction
of categories can enable us to liberate those who do not fit neatly into
categories.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(p 55)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By contrast, from a radical modernist
perspective Gloria Watkins is a black feminist who criticises the quest for
‘unstable’ identities ; because this prevents oppressed people (such as black
women and the working class) from forming an identity from which they can
strive for liberation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(p 55)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Crenshaw’s position can be seen, also, as a
kind of response to those such as Watkins ; advocating social constructivism ;
but also arguing those constructions have significant weight.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">But the weakness of Intersectionality, and of Identity
Politics more broadly is that it does not account for the true uniqueness of
individuals’ experiences. For instance ; a white working class man who is part
of the working poor could be worse off than a black middle class woman ; on
account of poverty, class stigma, educational disadvantage, and a dead end
alienating job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such nuances are not
always considered when people are categorised according to ‘intersections’
which simply establish their Identity with regard various marginalised groups.
People also have unique belief systems ; and this will affect their life
experience as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On the other
hand, there is the assumption that ANY relation between a “privileged” and
“oppressed” person is one of “power imbalance”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Because marginalised voices MUST be considered “authentic” their
interpretations are accepted without question, and are indisputable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors conclude: this “leaves wide open
the door to the unscrupulous.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Pp
132-133)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Crenshaw writes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
“social power in delineating difference need not be<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the power of domination ; It can instead be
the source of social empowerment and reconstruction.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Hence a
break with foundational postmodernism even while continuing it in other
ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(P 125)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to this logic, antagonistic
identity groups can reconceive of themselves, and in-so-doing resolve their
antagonism constructively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
important, as it suggests dominant groups can reconceive of themselves in ways
which recognise the Other; and when this is acted upon it can end relations of
oppression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On these assumptions there
is nothing ‘essentially bad’ about ‘whiteness’, masculinity etc. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
oppression of the working class, however, will not end under capitalism as the
labour-capital relationship has a mechanism of exploitation which is intrinsic
to it. Though relations can be reconceived in ways which lead to historic
compromises that advance working class interests compared with neo-liberalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(eg: Nordic Social Democracy ; though even
here Social Democracy is in retreat)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Applied postmodern theory tends to see ‘system’ (via
knowledge/language/power) as being the problem more so than willing, dominating
agents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And again, from a Modernist
perspective Habermas also saw [capitalist] system as ‘colonising’ ‘lifeworld’. The
reality is an interplay of system and agency. Capitalism itself has systemic
imperatives ; and those imperatives have achieved a global scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the same time capitalist Ideology is
hegemonic and virtually unchallenged. Even Social Democratic parties have accepted
the retreat of the welfare state, not only embracing the consequences of
capitalist imperatives ; but sometimes even internally embracing aspects of its
neo-liberal variant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But amidst all this
there are political actors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
bourgeoisie understands its interests and is organised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those oppressed under capitalism must also
collectively perceive their position, and organise for socialism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There’s
nothing wrong with an applied theory which aims to inform historical agents who
will change the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem is an
arbitrary hierarchy of perceived identity-based oppression – which does not
strictly accord to the real world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
is, the categories aren’t sufficient to explain things in their complexity ;
and some are often arbitrarily prioritised over others. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reality is more complex . And along the way the
objective reality of class has been abandoned ; or treated like ‘just another
identity’. This is important because CLASS is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social relationship</i> and potential identity and source of consciousness
which can unite the majority rather than just dividing them against each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sensitivity to the problems of various
identity groups could be integral to healing the divisions within the working
class. But class is the central social relationship of capitalism. Social
Justice activism has been so successful that in some cases it has turned
oppression on its head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But ‘turning
oppression on its head’ is not the same as abolishing it. The way forward is to
roll back all oppression and alienation ; and work towards the kind of society
where <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all </i>can lead happy, free,
meaningful lives – without oppression, alienation, exploitation or prejudice.</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Bibliography
;<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Pluckrose,
Helen and Lindsay, James, </span></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">‘Cynical
Theories – How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender and Identity –
and Why This Harms Everybody</span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">, Swift Press, London, 2020</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-53030911872572256212021-03-06T15:22:00.002+11:002021-04-03T07:47:38.612+11:00Funding and Services Crucial for Aged Care in Australia<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9Je9HU5-12ZgGQF6OvkZewmrcwgpLAY0CA4nsuYQYcirWXmmvRpsPhcAZFT7Crtc30CSxzeqDOZYo8SWcOr_xMZog6BhYEHt3QqI3loTh66dA_3hrbclUUJVEsr-QvWgCRrw5-EE/s600/questions.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9Je9HU5-12ZgGQF6OvkZewmrcwgpLAY0CA4nsuYQYcirWXmmvRpsPhcAZFT7Crtc30CSxzeqDOZYo8SWcOr_xMZog6BhYEHt3QqI3loTh66dA_3hrbclUUJVEsr-QvWgCRrw5-EE/s320/questions.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><b> above: access to sunlight, fresh air and gardens can improve quality of life in aged care</b></p><p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 21.4667px; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Dr Tristan Ewins<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">The Aged Care Royal Commission had laid down its findings. These should be the source of great shame for the Government. But also for Labor – who failed to prioritise the issue over the decades as well. It now falls to Labor Federal Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese to drop the ‘small target, ‘no new taxes’ policy and promise to fund comprehensive, needs-based Aged Care with ongoing and significant progressive tax reform. Labor could plan for incremental reform over a ten year timeframe, peaking at 5 per cent of GDP in new progressive taxation. But aiming for 1% to 1.5% of GDP in a first term.<br /><br />After scrutiny from the ABC especially in recent years, It should come as little surprise that the Australian Aged Care system has been found to be subject to appalling neglect. ‘The Guardian’ reports that after over 20 years of ‘efficiency dividends’ </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/01/australias-aged-care-system-needs-massive-investment-royal-commission-report-finds"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">almost $10 billion</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> a year had effectively been ripped out of the Aged Care budget. This funding – and more – needs to be restored.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">The Royal Commission has found that since its inception – with the 1997 Aged Care Act – the aim of the system has been to cap costs rather than ensure quality. Australia spends </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px;"><a href="https://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/royal-commission/australia-spending-less-than-international-counterparts/"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">less than half</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> the amount provided for proportionately in the Netherlands for instance. To improve quality, and wind back inequitable user-pays, funding needs to at least double. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">On the understanding that the system has been under-resourced for decades, now, Aged Care has lacked nurse and aged care worker ratios. Many workers lack skills, are under-paid, and are demoralised. Casualised labour is common, and makes it difficult for staff to form relationships with residents. Workers often need to move between several workplaces. </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Experts
informing the Royal Commission </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/05/relying-on-casuals-in-aged-care-will-weaken-royal-commissions-reforms-experts-warn?fbclid=IwAR3usdn9onP0vjyRcv0ytEUWbceB3mQK1w8zGir_ubsmJfIxJLIEU8ujHM0"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">have
concluded</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> that residents require at least 215 minutes of
personalised care a day. (including 44 minutes
with a Registered Nurse)</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><br />It is also notable that </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px;"><a href="https://hayylo.com/blog/2021/02/18/aged-care-royal-commission-time-for-the-aged-care-industry-to-be-wiser/?utm_term=aged%20care%20royal%20commission&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=RM+%7C+Search+%7C+Royal+Commission&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_grp=120812943507&hsa_mt=e&hsa_tgt=kwd-548844265828&hsa_kw=aged%20care%20royal%20commission&hsa_src=g&hsa_acc=2050774136&hsa_cam=12354347992&hsa_ver=3&hsa_ad=502322364933&gclid=Cj0KCQiAyoeCBhCTARIsAOfpKxij74tSBfQzk8FoCw0EAuJc5bPtSscsCh5diNzF0YxcIpghX0QseF0aAjMVEALw_wcB"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">about 25% of elderly Australians (over 70)</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> suffer chronic social isolation ; and this needs to be addressed as much as purely-physical needs. <br /><br />Abuse also affects between 13% and 18% of residents, and much greater oversight is necessary to defend their rights and dignity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Because of inadequate ratios it is not uncommon for aged care workers to try and dress and shower elderly residents </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 15.3333px;"><a href="https://hellocare.com.au/5-6-minutes-long-enough-staff-get-resident-ready-morning/"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">in around 6 minutes</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">: which must surely impact on the quality of care. And involve significant trauma. Food is often cheap and un-nutritious. Dental care and other Allied health services are not always adequate. Often ‘life’ consists of being sat down in front of a TV in a common room all day. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Sometimes people develop bedsores or lay in their own urine or excrement because there is inadequate supervision. There is a desperate need for more facilitated social interaction, and excursions for those capable. People need sunlight, privacy, pleasant surrounds, gardens, books, things to do and aspire to. Rather than receiving specialist care, those with dementia are often literally ‘tied down’, or ‘knocked out’ by heavy application of anti-psychotic medications. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">A largely privatised system has faced inadequate government scrutiny. With funding already critically low, pressures to provide profits and dividends have driven a culture of ‘cutting corners’ in the industry, to residents’ detriment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Many who require Aged Care would prefer to stay at home with assistance packages. (this is also more efficient in terms of necessary funding) But waiting lists have hovered at around the 100,000 mark. Many thousands die every year waiting for care that is never delivered. This is also unfair for Carers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Scott Morrison has injected almost half a billion into the system in response to the Commission’s findings. But this is only a small fraction of what is needed. He claims reform will take ‘years’ ; but in fact the government is still focused on containing costs as opposed to fixing the system. They hope that – with time – people will ‘forget’ – and pressures for tax reform will recede. Their ‘low tax credentials’ are more important to them than our vulnerable elderly. Over the long term, Labor is partly to blame as well. If Aged Care was prioritised as much as Covid, reform could be implemented more rapidly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> Aged Care ‘for profit’ is part of the problem ; but not-for-profits have a hard time sustaining the necessary staff, infrastructure and services also. Profiteers should be driven out of the system. Government and not-for-profits should step in to fill the void.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">A robust, dedicated and progressively-structured Aged Care Levy could raise at least $16 billion to be redirected into the system ; enhancing health and social services, improving ratios of aged care workers and nurses , ensuring more personal attention for residents and those requiring care-at-home. Capital should also pay its share, with Company Tax rising by at least one per cent. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Overall, progressive tax should rise as soon as possible (over the short term) by over one per cent of GDP – maybe even 1.5% of GDP. (ie: somewhere between about $16 billion and $24 billion a year) The Morrison Government needs to be pressed to implement these reforms immediately ; but otherwise a new Labor Government needs to implement such change in its first term.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Labor needs to ‘break the bipartisan consensus of neglect’ and run hard on tax reform for Aged Care, as well as mental health and supporting the National Disability Insurance Scheme. (NDIS) Jobseeker needs to rise by at least $100 a week, and maybe more. Other pensions could also be strengthened. There is widespread public support for tax reform if tied to crucial areas of public need.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">More is needed over the long term to achieve a social wage and welfare state of Nordic proportions. Provision of care needs to be ‘needs based’ rather than ‘capped’ regardless of what that means for cost. Government oversight needs to consider ‘basics’ like food and staffing ratios ; but also broader ‘quality of life’ issues. In the future one priority should be keeping the elderly ‘connected’ with internet access.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Labor needs to mobilise its resources to campaign for extensive Aged Care reform now ; as well as reform for mental health, NDIS, Jobseeker, and other pensions. Aged Care and Mental Health especially are ‘in the public eye’ for now. We need to maintain and increase the momentum for change while we have the chance. These need to be key issues for the coming election, and also in the development of Labor’s National Platform. (a Special Conference is being held near the end of March 2021– this month!) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">Labor activists and parliamentarians are placed to make a difference in unions, social movements, government and the broader Party. We need to attempt to lead debate and apply pressure as best we can while there is a ‘window of opportunity’ for change.</span></p><p></p>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-20759710425713592142021-02-04T16:23:00.006+11:002021-02-04T16:26:30.629+11:00A Zionism of Mutual Recognition and Hope: Reconsidering Judah Magnes<p><b style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"></span></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8OIZP2x4pledrW_1mgxAGR-Xt27cyHelFr5HuN_Qrz7GEuwreByXR5Yfr8W7ju8ESuOM0RdXDqN_PeH59CyeHvp1dOZM6nxXKd2UTkKWTBHZ4yb5EdIutbcLN0gPyeMEXYbZ1wpo/s1879/Judah_Leon_Magnes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1879" data-original-width="1300" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8OIZP2x4pledrW_1mgxAGR-Xt27cyHelFr5HuN_Qrz7GEuwreByXR5Yfr8W7ju8ESuOM0RdXDqN_PeH59CyeHvp1dOZM6nxXKd2UTkKWTBHZ4yb5EdIutbcLN0gPyeMEXYbZ1wpo/s320/Judah_Leon_Magnes.jpg" /></a></b></div><b style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><br /></b><p></p><div><b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b></div><div> </div><div> </div><div>In today’s ‘modern Left’ ‘Zionism’ is often taken as a term of abuse. The
oppression and dispossession of the Palestinians is widely seen as negating the
very right of the ‘Jewish State’ to exist. Judah Magnes himself is commonly
dismissed in modern Zionism as a ‘destructive and naïve influence’. (we will
discuss these claims at some length) But Magnes’s legacy ; as well as the
legacy of others such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber ; show “another kind of
Zionism is possible”. On the other hand, modern anti-Zionism is itself at best
naïve in believing that the defeat of the Jewish state would lead to a secular,
democratic, pluralistic and inclusive Palestine. There is a cycle of revenge
and Terror going back from before Israel’s formation, and to the current day.
Modern right-Zionism (including in the Revisionist legacy of Likud ; which
follows after the Irgun Zionist faction) presumes that conciliation is
impossible ; that only Israel will stand for its own interests ; and that
political and military ruthlessness is the only road to survival.</div><div> </div><div>Though his binationalism is often held by dissenters in opposition to
modern Zionism, it is forgotten often that Magnes himself was a Zionist. Raised
in the United States, Magnes adopted a pacifist posture during the horrors of
World War One. He also adopted what he saw as American ideals of democracy and
pluralism. But Magnes also came to oppose assimilation in the US amongst Jews
most strongly. Though he was later identified as a liberal Reform Rabbi, he was
Conservative in the sense of holding strongly to Jewish tradition and a strong
Jewish identity. His compromise position became known as 'cultural Zionism'.
(Kotzin, p 119) For Magnes a pluralistic US could accommodate Jewish
nationalism (Zionism) within a broader national identity.</div><div> </div><div>As Daniel P.Kotzin argues: “His “progressive” “Zionist ideal” reveals “a
larger agenda”. Hence: “Magnes was trying to fashion American Jews as an ethnic
group wherein diversity was possible within a construct of Jewish solidarity.”
He “forged” “an ethical-liberal Zionist ideal” based on “his cultural Zionism,
Reform Judaism and American progressive ideals that combined ethical
universalism with Jewish particularism within a pluralistic framework.” Magnes
wanted Arab “national autonomy in equilibrium with Jewish national autonomy.”
(Kotzin, pp 5-6) </div><div> </div><div>But in his eagerness to preserve Jewish identity, Magnes had sympathy for
the Orthodox position as well. Indeed, Magnes openly embraced Zionism at a time
when many Jews in America were not willing to make the same leap. Importantly,
Magnes came to support the ‘Jewish Defence Association’ (JDA) which aimed to arm
Jewish communities to defend against pogroms and the like. (Kotzin, p 66) He
tried to embrace Chanukah as a celebration of Jewish nation-hood. He also
embraced the teaching of Yiddish as part of a “cultural Zionist program” which
actually promoted unity instead of fragmentation. (Kotzin, p 73)</div><div> </div><div>Specifically, Magnes supported a Jewish national home in Palestine as
opposed to proposals for elsewhere – like Uganda. But importantly, he felt it
was essential to come to an understanding with Palestine’s Arab residents ; to
consult with them and arrive at a kind of co-determination.</div><div> </div><div>Rather than pure majoritarianism, Magnes promoted ‘deliberative democracy’
within the broader Jewish community as the road to unity. His perspective of
‘equal opportunity’ extended to Arabs in Palestine ; and for him a large Arab
community there had to be accepted and worked with. (Kotzin, pp 135-140)</div><div> </div><div>During World War One Magnes defended civil liberties and free speech in the
context of his pacifism. He also came to oppose the ‘Red Scare’ following the
Bolshevik Revolution.</div><div> </div><div>Following World War One, the Balfour declaration – establishing a Jewish
national home in Palestine – heightened tensions between Jews and Arabs. Arabs
launched anti-Jewish riots in Palestine. Some Zionists thought Jewish
migration would bring benefits to Arab society and thus would eventually be
accepted. But the Zionist Organisation of America held that “the land, natural
resources and public utilities would be owned by Jews, and all schools would be
conducted in Hebrew.” By contrast Magnes interpreted Jewish ethics as “radical
pacifism”. (Kotzin, pp 155-156) He only reconsidered this uncompromising
pacifism in the context of World War Two and the threat posed by Hitler.</div><div> </div><div>Again, Magnes’ position on ‘national self-determination’ translated as
co-determination between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. For Magnes: “[the] very
prestige and reputation of the Jewish nation, which presented itself as liberal
and ethical, depended on this.” </div><div> </div><div>Upon migrating to Palestine, Magnes was appointed as Chancellor of the
Hebrew University which was being established there. </div><div> </div><div>The Faculty of Humanities opened in 1928. Magnes also promoted the
teaching of Yiddish language and culture ; though conducted in Hebrew. He
thought it was important to be inclusive while establishing Hebrew as the
national language. But many protested - finding Yiddish a threat to Hebrew
culture. Magnes wanted the Hebrew University to be inclusive of all Jewish
culture – ancient and modern. (Kotzin, p 194-196)</div><div> </div><div>The British tried to appease both Jews and Arabs ; and in the 1920s said
they had no intention of creating a Jewish State. Transjordan was established
in an appeal to Arabs. Arab resistance was minimal by 1924.</div><div> </div><div>BUT critical of the other Zionists’ willingness to compromise with the
British, the controversial Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky resigned from the World
Zionist Executive in January 1923. Jabotinsky recognised the existence of Arab
nationalism, but he believed Jews had a moral right to Palestine. Declaring a
maximalist Zionist objective, he demanded a Jewish State that included
Transjordan. According to him, Arabs must accept the inevitability of Zionism.
Once they did they could live peacefully with Jews in a Jewish State.”
Jabotinsky called his new movement "Revisionist Zionism”. (Kotzin, p 197)</div><div> </div><div>In response, “Arthur Rippon, a member of the World Zionist Executive who
was also active in the expansion of Jewish settlement in Palestine, presented a
program for a Binational Palestine at the 1925 Zionist Congress. He argued that
Jews should work with Arabs to obtain their consent to the Zionist movement
rather than engaging in an endless conflict.” (Kotzin, p 197)</div><div> </div><div>Hans Kohn and Robert Weltsch, students of Martin Buber – along with their
mentor – believed co-operation with Arabs could be achieved by renouncing any
exclusive claim to Palestine. They believed in a Zionism based on ethics and
justice that “transcended mere political aims.” An organisation called “Brit
Shalom” (Covenant of Peace) was established. Magnes built relations with the
members of Brit Shalom. Though he did not join. (Kotzin, p 198)</div><div> </div><div>With the rise of Nazism in Germany Magnes feared that Jews were threatened
with “Systematic extermination”. He wanted the University to be a refuge for
Jewish scholars. (Kotzin, p 213-214)</div><div> </div><div>But as a binationalist, Magnes was willing to let go the dream of a Jewish
State for a reality of liberal democracy ; where Palestine was ‘the Jewish
national home’ ; but where Arabs and Jews lived and governed together as
equals. He believed in the Israeli nation’s “ability to act as a moral and
liberal beacon for the world.” And he believed Arabs and Jews should actually
support and assist each other in their national aspirations. Though secretly,
Magnes feared Arabs would stop Jewish migration outright if given the chance.
(Kotzin, p 220, pp 226-227)</div><div> </div><div>Magnes enunciated “three conditions” as a framework for Zionism in
Palestine: “the right for Jews to immigrate to Palestine based on the country’s
economic absorptive capacity, the rights for Jews to buy and sell land in
Palestine, and the right for Jews to build their own cultural and religious
institutions in Palestine.” (Kotzin, p 224)</div><div> </div><div>But as Kotzin explains:</div><div> </div><div>“such views had little meaning for the Zionist leadership, and in their
eyes had no tactical merit.” “They viewed him as a rogue American Jew, one who
could have dangerous influence because of his connections but who acted
recklessly, without respect for official bodies like the Jewish Agency and
without consideration for the political consequences of his actions.” (Kotzin,
p 221)</div><div> </div><div>In 1928/1929 there was an Arab/Jewish dispute over the Western Wall. This
led to Arab attacks on Jews. Over a week 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed, and
many others wounded. Labor Zionists made comparisons with pogroms in Russia.
Most rejected the need for Jewish/Arab co-operation. (this was seen as
unrealistic) As Kotzin explains: “Jews who called for peace and understanding,
like the members of Brit Shalom, were condemned on the streets of Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem in the belief that they demonstrated Jewish weakness, not Jewish
strength.” (Kotzin, p 222)</div><div> </div><div>P 233 “[Chaim] Weizmann, while sympathetic to Magnes’s ideas, found his
political tactics problematic. Magnes ignored the fragile political situation”
and hence could “damage…the Zionist project.” He believed “Arab intransigence”
made it “impossible to negotiate with them.” He accused Manges of “breaking
our united front”. Some Arabs tried to play Magnes off against other Zionists,
depicting the others as “extremists”. (Kotzin, p 233)</div><div> </div><div>Stephen Wise also feared Magnes was turning liberal opinion against Zionism
in the US. Zionists were worried at the prospect of democratic institutions
before there was a Jewish majority. But moderate Opposition Arabs within ‘the
Arab Executive’ had long favoured co-operation with Jews and wanted to defeat
the Grand Mufti (of Jerusalem) – who was to go so far as to collaborate with
Hitler. (Kotzin, pp 234-235) </div><div> </div><div>The rise of Hitler in Germany accelerated Jewish migration into the tens of
thousands – over 66,000 in 1935. By 1936 Jews were more than one fourth of the
population in Palestine. Arabs feared this ; including migration and land
purchases ; but turned most of their anger against the British. Meanwhile
Revisionist Zionists promoted a hate campaign against Ben-Gurion and the Labor
Zionists for their willingness to negotiate with the Arabs. David Ben-Gurion
now felt the improved Zionist position would force Arabs to the table.
Revisionism began to retreat at this time as well. (Kotzin, P 247-248)</div><div> </div><div>But Ben-Gurion still had an end objective of a Jewish State as opposed to
Magnes’ ‘Binational’ state. </div><div> </div><div>Magnes was desperate to make a difference. In negotiations Magnes was
interested if Arabs would be willing to compromise on Palestinian Arab national
aspirations for the sake of broader Pan Arab aspirations. (pp P 250 -251)</div><div> </div><div>Magnes and the Partition Plain</div><div> </div><div>During 1935-37 the British developed a partition plan ; to partition
Palestine and Transjordan between Jews and Arabs. Some thought the proposed
Jewish State was too small ; but for Ben-Gurion the prospect of sovereignty was
appealing. American Zionists led by Stephen Wise opposed the plan as the
proposed Jewish State could not absorb all Jewish migrants – it was too small.
For his part Magnes was partly sympathetic – but feared partition could sow the
seeds of future war. Magnes came around to Felix Warburg’s anti-partition
perspective. (Kotzin, Pp 259-260)</div><div> </div><div>Instead Magnes proposed “a binational state” to the Jewish Agency – as an
alternative to partition. He “believed that he could make Zionist discussions
about democracy and establishing solidarity with the Arabs.” (Kotzin, P 261)
</div><div> </div><div>He feared if Zionism neglected the importance of “consent” it would become
“oppressive”. Ha-Kibbutz Haartzi shel Hashomer Hatzair (“The Country-wide
Kibbutz of the Young Guard”) accepted the principle of binationalism, but under
conditions of a Jewish majority. They believed worker solidarity could
overcome Arab-Jewish conflict. (Kotzin, P 262)</div><div> </div><div>While Magnes focused on Jewish-Arab relations he was also strongly
concerned in the mid to late 30s with the situation of Jews in Europe and
especially Germany. He came to the view that Jews must free themselves from
dependence on Britain because Britain was susceptible to Arab influence for
strategic purposes at their time of greatest need.</div><div> </div><div>Jews attempted to subvert British immigration restrictions. Magnes became
a mediator between the Haganah (an organisation of Jewish self-defence and
illegal immigration) and the British. Despite his pacifism Magnes supported
WWII as ‘a war for humanity’. He said “the incarnation of the Devil sits on the
German throne.” When pressed hard he chose “the preservation of the Jewish
people over his pacifist ideals”. </div><div> </div><div>In the midst of World War Two Magnes combined with over a hundred other
like-minded individuals to form the ‘Ihud’ (‘unity’ or ‘union’) organisation –
which favoured a binational solution as opposed to partition.</div><div> </div><div>Progressive Zionists wanted to find a solution “that would open up
Palestine for European Jewry but would not infringe on Arab rights.” Many who
were already sympathetic to “the notion of a binational Palestine” “became more
overt supporters” of Ihud ; though others didn’t want to be linked with Ihud “in
the public mind”. By 1942 most American Zionists believed free migration and a
Jewish State in Palestine had become necessary. (Kotzin, p 294) </div><div> </div><div>But after the war Magnes did not endorse the offensive (military and
terroristic) strategies against the British. He opposed “offensive violence”.
Following the Holocaust many Jews demanded control over Jewish migration to
Palestine, but Magnes believed a peaceful Palestine was better for Jews in the
end. (Kotzin, pp 274-276) In short, the Holocaust changed everything ; and
linked the creation of a Jewish State with an existential question of Jewish
survival. Magnes’ binational vision was progressively sidelined. </div><div> </div><div>Magnes was in the end proven correct that partition and a ‘Jewish State’
would lead to war. But the Jewish State managed to survive regardless. However,
the Yom Kippur war of 1973 demonstrated that Israel’s security was in some ways
still precarious ; and should Israel lose any broader conflict with Arab
nations Jews would probably be treated no better than Arabs were treated with
the Palestinian ‘Nakba’. (the displacement of hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians)</div><div> </div><div>Leading up to the creation of modern Israel, Kotzin explains how:</div><div> </div><div>“Whereas [Magnes] was previously portrayed as a fool, now he was
characterised as an ‘anti-Zionist’, a traitor to the Jewish people and the
Zionist cause.” Hevdah Ben-Israel thought he “was a traitor advocating an
insane idea.” “Zionists increasingly insisted that the very existence of the
Jewish people depended on acting with power and strength, which would be
undermined by compromise.” (Kotzin, p 288)</div><div> </div><div>Kotzin explains how both Arab and Jewish leaders failed to back
binationalism in practice. “Magnes’s Reform Judaism and Buber’s religious
socialism both emphasised that religious morality must influence politics.”
“They hoped Ihud would introduce moral and ethical values into the politics of
the Arab-Jewish conflict.” Magnes suggested a universalism based on a “Strong
Jewish identity” ; while Buber claimed the Jewish nation had a “supernational
task” of becoming “a true people” by submitting to God’s demands of “truth and
righteousness”. “According to Buber, Jews will be a “humanitarian nation” if
they say “we will not do more injustice to others than we are forced to do in
order to exist. Only by saying this do we begin to be responsible for life.”
(Kotzin, pp 297-299)</div><div> </div><div>Magnes was convinced there was an Arab constituency for peace – but that
they were cowed by ‘internal Terror’. Together with others like Martin Buber
and Hannah Arendt he attempted to form a ‘loyal opposition’ to the mainstream
Zionist position from within Zionism. Towards the end of his life, Magnes
continued to promote federalism as a solution to the conflict. He was glad to
see a national home for the Jews created with Israel’s declaration of
Independence ; but was deeply troubled by the displacement of hundreds of
thousands of Arab refugees. Sadly, while he had spent a great deal of time in
the old Palestine, he passed away outside of Israel and never set foot in the
newly created state.</div><div> </div><div>In the 1940s Magnes lost support because “he failed to understand…that the
Arab-Jewish conflict was no longer [considered the] primary concern.” (instead
the focus shifted to the Holocaust, Nazism, refugees) Kotzin concludes that
“by not focusing on the best means to help Jewish refugees, he failed to sell
the binational plan.”</div><div> </div><div>Today, though, a two-state solution seems a long way away. Jerusalem is
united ; and Zionist leaders loathe to consider significant compromise. It seems
there may be ‘one Jewish state’ ; but without meaningful co-determination or
mutual recognition between Jews and Palestinians. But with the Two State
Solution retreating, the project of One State based on co-determination deserves
serious reconsideration. Today - with the rejection of Zionism on most of the
Left – it is easy to forget that those such as Magnes, Arendt and Buber were
also Zionists. Jewish security could be preserved with a monopoly on the
apparatus of force ; but with structures of self-governance and identity for
both Jews and Palestinians beyond that. For instance, Arabs have always been at
the margins of Israeli democracy. That needs to change in a binational state
which is at the same time a safe haven and Jewish National Home. ‘Deliberative’
and inclusive democracy as the way forward.</div><div> </div><div>And the Israeli Left needs to become a voice for co-existence and
co-determination over the long term. </div><div> </div><div>Magnes stands as an example which demonstrates for the broad Left that not
all Zionism ought be ‘tarred with the same brush’. Hence “Zionism” ought not be
a ‘term of abuse’ on the Left. Though the obstacles are great ; with cautious
hope the kind of mutual recognition and coexistence imagined by Magnes may still
prevail over the long term.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><b>Bibliography:</b></div><div><b> </b></div><div>Kotzin, Daniel.P , ‘Judah L.Magnes – An American Jewish Non-Conformist’,
Syracuse, New York, 2010</div><div> </div><div>Loewenstein, Anthony ; ‘My Israel Question’ ; Melbourne University Press,
Melbourne, 2006</div><div> </div><p align="left">
</p><div>Warburg, James.P , ‘Crosscurrents in the Middle East’, Gollancz, London,
1969</div>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-36207287627507053422020-11-08T13:02:00.006+11:002020-11-11T10:41:11.025+11:00Democrats need to Galvanise the Working Class to Ensure Future Victories<div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8lt-B9PvecYFC1rImqAxw_7byWpCbWtbgR-9VpX5ldFdOHIbLlZl7HIiSMN_aoqy5_Mctpfi4i3lCLenZiaVRutP6BgR8m97JrdYLIyR1fcWHsAQe4oKwR6z6JFUM7gHj3dc6qtE/s850/GettyImages-1228132611.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="478" data-original-width="850" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8lt-B9PvecYFC1rImqAxw_7byWpCbWtbgR-9VpX5ldFdOHIbLlZl7HIiSMN_aoqy5_Mctpfi4i3lCLenZiaVRutP6BgR8m97JrdYLIyR1fcWHsAQe4oKwR6z6JFUM7gHj3dc6qtE/w359-h202/GettyImages-1228132611.jpg" width="359" /></a></div><br /> </span></b><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;"> above: Court Appeals aside, a Biden-Harris victory now seems certain </span></b></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b></div>
<div> </div>
<div>As a Biden-Harris victory becomes apparent in the United States
Presidential race it’s well to consider the various stratum of voters and how
they have determined the result. The future is still in question. Although
Trump has lost, voters came out for both tickets in record numbers. The
Democrats need to sustain their current base, and indeed improve upon it in the
future. There’s the question of how the Democrats might in the future do even
better and win control of Congress as a whole, including the Senate. At the
moment policy gridlock is a real prospect.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Despite Trump's loss people are now speaking of the white working class as
if it is a 'natural' Republican constituency.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In a way the Left in the US let this happen. Not only did the white working
class turn away from the Democrats ; the US Left turned away from the white
working class as well. Today class is seen as secondary to racial, sexual and
gender identity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In reality all of these things matter and the Left needs to build a united
front. But be careful telling a white working class man on minimum wage how
privileged they are. Intersectionality needs to be more complex and nuanced. We
need to do more than just stacking a number of identity categories on top of
each other. Rather we need to look at specific individual circumstance. The
working poor – whether black, latino, white - are not 'privileged' in the big
picture. We also need to look at the social and economic ‘structure’ (ie:
patterned social relations) , and the strategic position of the working class in
this.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another problem is the myth of the US 'middle class' ; standing in the way
of solidarity between workers more broadly. The US class structure locks the
working poor in place to support the consumption of middle income Americans ;
but leaves 'middle income' Americans insecure enough to be vulnerable
industrially. (the old reserve army of labour again ; with lack of labour market
regulation and industrial rights ; and a lack of a ‘social safety net’ as well)
We need solidarity across the whole working class ; against the top 10% - the
rich and elements of the self-interested labour aristocracy. 'Middle income' is
not the same as 'middle class'.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again we need to emphasise solidarity across the whole working class ; but
I think the privilege of working poor white people can be exaggerated. Race,
gender and sexuality are seen as more important in determining privilege than
class. Again: In reality it all matters. That said, black people have problems
with the police which white people don't have. Men don't have to worry about
reproductive rights. There's still homophobia out there. But it's not helped
when some people talk of 'poor white trash' and so on. The Right understands the
meaning of 'divide and conquer', and the Left should not fall for it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm not saying ignore sexuality, race and gender. I'm saying what we are
doing to a large extent is ignoring class. I'm saying we're hurting ourselves
electorally and culturally by not attempting to mobilise the working class as a
whole. I'm saying you should not just write someone off because they're a white
male. And our language should reflect this. They could be working poor,
unemployed, disabled and so on. Or they could just be working class ; which is
the layer with a broad enough and strategically placed base to potentially
transition from capitalism.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm saying we should also look at peoples' individual circumstances when
working out privilege. The New Social Movements arising from the 60s onwards are
a crucial constituency, and reinvigorated the Left in many ways. But the fact is
workers are still alienated, imiserated and exploited under capitalism. And the
fact is the American Left needs a strategy to win back white workers - not
because they're more important in of themselves ; but because the working class
is stronger when united ; and there's an important (and sizeable) constituency
which can be the difference between victory and defeat. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>For instance, there is the US Senate where a Republican majority could
potentially stymie meaningful change. A stronger electoral showing could
overcome this. Race, sexuality and gender are important ; but we can't allow
them to become all-encompassing fault lines. Again ; it's about divide and
conquer. Don't let it happen. So don’t 'write people off' because of identity
categories. Take each person as an individual. The point is many workers are
voting Republican and they shouldn't be. What's gone wrong here and how can we
fix it?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some people are trying to pin the blame on ‘academic elites’ ; with
‘Critical theory’ and ‘Cultural Marxism’ depicted as alienating the working
class. But critical theory is diverse. Habermas is less about 'identity' than
Marcuse. While Habermas looks at 'Legitimation Crisis' stemming from attacks on
the welfare state, Marcuse looks to New Social Movements to 'fill the vacuum'.
The problem is that the working class as seen by Marcuse in the 1960s is not the
same as today's working class. Today's working class has not been 'bought off'
by prosperity ; but is highly exploited and alienated. In particular there is
job insecurity, a weakened labour movement, and a falling wage share of the
economy. But a 'popular front' of working class and New Social Movements is the
only way to win today. So the Right pays great attention to dividing us against
one another with narratives on ‘political correctness’ and the like. The Left
needs a narrative which engages with more socially-conservative workers while
not compromising on principle.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In Australia we don't campaign effectively on class either. We need to make
peoples' economic self-interest transparent. If we could do that we wouldn't
have to worry so much about "aspirationals".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Looking at how many votes Sanders got the liberals still do need the
socialists in the Democratic Party. (and vice-versa) Biden's victory is
largely because the Left base turned out. This needs to be impressed upon Biden
so that Biden makes it a top priority to deliver on policy. An active industry
policy creating new manufacturing jobs – especially in ‘rust belt’ states –
could be offered in return for health reform (a public option) and a $15 minimum
wage. (indexed) If the Republicans refuse to come to the table here they turn
their backs on the working class constituency the Democrats must try and win
back. So perhaps they will be open to a compromise favouring the Democrat policy
agenda. And then the Democrats can take credit for the policy as well.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Antonio Gramsci talked of a ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’ ; an
articulated alliance of forces – including the organised and conscious working
class ; and ‘organic intellectuals’ embedded in that class – as the key to
socialist transition. To this today we must add the New Social Movements. A
counter-hegemonic historic bloc must include the broad working class ; and if meaningful
progress is to be attained the Left cannot allow large swathes of that class to
remain feeling alienated from, and over-looked by the Left. <br /><br />In short, this means appealing to the working class as a whole ; and emphasising class at least as much as race, gender and sexuality. It means not allowing a critique of race and gender to prevent us from identifying class-based disadvantage. It means not "writing off" white male workers because of race and gender ; but rather applying a nuanced intersectionality which appreciates peoples' unique circumstances. And building solidarity based on this inclusive approach.</div>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-61001608670105017952020-10-14T10:17:00.006+11:002020-10-17T14:03:19.913+11:00Responding to the Legacy of George Orwell<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzwV-b-kIOAEx7OEV5D-ic6vYL1bhUAAZPusgDFFk3buBzTdxHhHzfl01YigFRiIYESao0zTiZi74OevJnNEx7HjqOWB9wZPOwkwTC0ulpoi1gNiOmgTPHxcJ_OKDoOJtB8DfSXFc/s575/BDD88776-CC7F-485F-AA30-0FA1EE871796-e1602500358526.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="575" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzwV-b-kIOAEx7OEV5D-ic6vYL1bhUAAZPusgDFFk3buBzTdxHhHzfl01YigFRiIYESao0zTiZi74OevJnNEx7HjqOWB9wZPOwkwTC0ulpoi1gNiOmgTPHxcJ_OKDoOJtB8DfSXFc/w351-h204/BDD88776-CC7F-485F-AA30-0FA1EE871796-e1602500358526.jpeg" width="351" /></a></div><br /><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><b>When Rightists use Orwell to discredit Socialism and Antifa they often neglect that he was a socialist himself. And his critique of Totalitarianism is broader than a critique of Stalinism.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Dr Tristan Ewins <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><br />
Just today I was a participant in a debate on George Orwell. One person argued
that Orwell was opposed to Left Authoritarianism, and as a consequence would be
opposed to ‘Antifa.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For those who
don’t know, ‘Antifa’ is a broad anti-fascist popular front, often led by
anarchists)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another person responded by
saying Orwell was really a social democrat, and spent his life fighting
fascism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Orwell is used to discredit the
Antifa cause – in a process that is, well, ‘Orwellian’.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Both people were right in their own way ; but despite the problems with
Leninism it is best not to get it entirely mixed up with Stalinism. (though
they are historically linked)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Orwell himself was a socialist, and fought in
Spain against Franco.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(with the POUM –
which translates as ‘Workers Party of Marxist Unification’)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
legacy of George Orwell is too important to reduce it to a critique of
‘socialist totalitarianism’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, there
is an anti-Stalinist aspect to ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Orwell’s opposition to ‘totalitarianism’
is deeper than this ; and capitalism is increasingly portrayed as an
‘absolute’: ‘total capitalism’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Tactically and in principle it’s also dangerous to avoid the use of the
word ‘socialism’ by arguing for ‘social democracy’ instead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By using both terms<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> together</i></b> we get a better
sense that ‘socialism’ and ‘social democracy’ once meant the same thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(and
perhaps could again)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Social Democracy’
is more complex than just ‘the post-war mixed economy, Keynesianism and welfare
state’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the original social
democratic (socialist) tradition deserves to be rescued, despite Rosa
Luxemburg’s insistence it had become a “rotting corpse” on account of its
response to World War One.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
In truth, most of global social democracy did capitulate on the issue of the War
; and this was the flashpoint which saw the rise of Leninism and its opposition
to the rest of the Left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(importantly,
Luxemburg herself was what we may call a ‘libertarian socialist’ and was
critical of Leninism’s practice of ‘democratic centralism’ following the
revolution as well)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here we have to
distinguish, also, between ‘democratic centralism’ as a mode of organisation prior
to 1917 on the one hand, and what it mutated into later under Lenin ; and worse
so under Stalin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But figures like Julius
Martov and Karl Kaustsky resonated with their criticisms of Bolshevism, also,
and in so doing left a legacy for radical social democracy. (socialism)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Austro-Marxists and their so-called ‘Two
and a Half international’ also stand as a reminder that there were alternatives
between Leninism and Right Social Democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For many years ‘Red Vienna’ was considered a model of radical (socialist)
social democracy. It also involved a ‘workers army’ (Schutzbund) which was
meant to be a ‘final defence’ for ‘the democratic path’) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ironically,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>it succumbed to an indigenous ‘clerical fascism’ itself because it could
not decide how to fight ; or when.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But Austria’s levels of high quality public housing are an enduring
legacy as well.<br />
<br />
When people criticise Leninism they often neglect that Leninism originally
still allowed for mass participation in the Vanguard Party. (ie: a party of
professional revolutionaries whose job it is to lead the revolutionary working
class ; often under conditions of capitalist state repression)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
goes to the question of whether a ‘one party state’ can be truly democratic.
The answer depends on freedom of participation and organisation, and the
absence of internal Terror) Stalin went one step further than Lenin and imposed
Terror WITHIN the Party and the whole of society. Up until after the Revolution
Leninism allowed for factions as well. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Terror is undesirable anyway, and tends to expand as centralism
increases beyond a certain point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus
far, Rosa Luxemburg is correct in her critique of Leninism. The problem is that
war and foreign intervention left limited choices ; and this helped lead to
tragedy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">So it depends what you mean by Leninism. There's democratic centralism
and the Vanguard Party. Following the Menshevist/Bolshevist split of 1903 (see:
'What is to be Done?' - it is the definitive text on Bolshevist organisation ;
written in 1901, published in 1902) And then there's certain policies which
followed: Terror (first outside of, then inside of the Party as well –
increasingly pervasive and indiscriminate), labour militarisation, banning of
factions and of other socialist parties, and so on. The point is that Stalinism
took all this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">to a different level</i> ;
and democratic centralism was originally predicated on freedom WITHIN the party
(but discipline in between Conferences ; partly as a defence against state
repression). <br />
<br />
That said, there was a logic to Leninism, which in the context of Entente and
other foreign intervention, civil war, the threat of starvation and of people
freezing to death – helped lead eventually to Stalinism. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More and more extreme measures were taken
(largely defensively) ; and led to permanent repression.<br />
<br />
In contrast, though, I don't believe in Leninist centralism. One reason is that
in certain contexts it means the suppression of debate between Conferences. I
also believe it's inevitable factions will organise ; and suppressing factions
just favours the ruling stratum. Finally, I share Rosa Luxemburg’s love of
freedom, and recognise that while Leninism and then Stalinism resulted in
certain ‘victories’, over the long term these resulted in an object lesson
which was used to discredit the Left, and justify policies like McCarthyism. (anti-socialist
hysteria and repression) <br />
<br />
The problem is: What was the 'way out' in Russia at the time? A purely liberal
response may have ended in White victory, a continuation of the slaughter of
World War One, and Tsarist Restoration. Also remember that the Bolsheviks were
the only Party willing to pull out of World War One pretty much
unconditionally. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe the solution was
‘dual power’ – with co-existence of Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and the
Red Army.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Leninism - warts and all - has problems ; but remember the context of
World War One, threatened starvation and social collapse as well. And the
liberal parties wanted to continue that war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even the Left Social Revolutionaries took this approach - resulting in
an assassination attempt on Lenin. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Remember that the French Revolution was bloody as well ; but the tactics
of the Jacobins didn't forever discredit democracy or liberalism. By contrast
we are constantly told that Leninism and Stalinism have forever discredited
socialism. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Better to avoid the dilemmas the Bolsheviks faced in the first place -
because it was bound to end tragically. But appreciate the moral complexity. The
Russian Revolution came on the tail end of a War that killed over 20 million
people. Some of the same people who are critical on Leninism will try and
justify the First World War. And ignore the long list of Western Cold War
atrocities. (for example, the brutal mass murder of half a million communists
and labour movement activists in 1960s Indonesia)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"> <br />
Importantly: liberal democracy ultimately triumphed. But only because it was
able to ‘tame’ and internalise the broad left within a practical capitalist
consensus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And eventually a virtual
neo-liberal success.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still: “liberal
democracy” is worth defending as opposed to the alternative of Stalinism or a
Corporatist State. (ie: fascism)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now
that it lacks opponents on the Left, we see liberal democracy attracting
critics on the Right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(so much for ‘The End of History – a term
coined by the liberal Hegelian, Francis Fukuyama after the collapse of the
Soviet Union) Here it is well to defend Liberal Democracy . At least it retains
freedoms which make liberation imaginable ; and even its limited freedoms are
preferable to the Rightist alternative)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Libertarianism of both the Right and the Left when authentically
expressed are not as bad as fascism. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
true libertarian would defend the rights of unions and their workers to
withdraw labour. And would treat free speech as a universal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A fascist would work through a corporatist nationalist
state that suppressed opposition violently, and promoted a literally illiberal
Ideology. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By ‘corporatism’ we mean the
forcible union of capital and labour under authoritarian nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A true Left libertarian would be sympathetic
to the cause of ‘Antifa.’ <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
right-libertarian would accept their right to participate and exist. Personally,
I consider myself a socialist liberal. That said, all organisations can be
penetrated by agent provocateurs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
‘ultra-leftism’ is often mistaken.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Remember, also, Marx said of the bourgeoisie that it would 'snort' at
its republic "Better end with Terror than Terror without End". (written
in 1852, largely in response to the context of the 1848 Revolutions) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trump understands this and seeks a predicate
for repression based on 'law and order'. Agent provocateurs understand this
also and act accordingly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(‘End with
Terror’ itself can also lead to ‘Terror without End’ under Fascism ; and Hitler
came close to winning the Second World War at several points)<br />
<br />
The Left needs to respond strategically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We should not disavow militancy generally ; and practically disarm
ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But neither should we support
every act of militancy when this will result in our isolation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a dilemma.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rosa Luxemburg talked of “spontaneity of the
masses” : a ‘dialectic’ between revolutionary working class self-initiative and
the leadership of a revolutionary party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In a way she is right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
other hand, unrestrained rebellion can work as a pretext for State Terror.
Think of the rise of Mussolini and fascism in the 1920s in Italy following a
period of revolutionary upsurge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">Also, under Stalinism Western Communist Parties were often restrained to
further Soviet Foreign policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dulling
‘the class struggle’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But sometimes
there is wisdom in restraint.<br />
<br />
There is also wisdom in taking the initiative at the right time ; including
militant strategies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Left needs to
be nuanced enough to know the difference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial","sans-serif"" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">This
article was originally published at ‘The Australian Independent Media Network’<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-9598906747479652872020-07-05T17:25:00.001+10:002020-07-05T17:26:55.246+10:00CoVid 19 has hit the economy ; But where is the Recovery going to come from?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEFq7tqIpXknvWQiua6nmyx8-tUF7msBBo-4ip5dG9UJT2xUzvS8LjwnX1u2Lxte2OWLsB0kL3x8XlfkQIrMHIzqPMctcjPsF4RCX3gSU7RjEC2N2JBkJiU6QWF-tAORNSx__IfSE/s1600/richard-denniss.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="260" data-original-width="390" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEFq7tqIpXknvWQiua6nmyx8-tUF7msBBo-4ip5dG9UJT2xUzvS8LjwnX1u2Lxte2OWLsB0kL3x8XlfkQIrMHIzqPMctcjPsF4RCX3gSU7RjEC2N2JBkJiU6QWF-tAORNSx__IfSE/s320/richard-denniss.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;">above: Australia Institute Economist, Richard Denniss</span></b><br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Dr Tristan Ewins<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
CoVid 19 has hit the Australian economy hard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By some estimates the Australian economy
will shrink by approximately 7 per cent in 2020.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s a virtually unprecedented recession.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-15/how-coronavirus-crisis-compares-to-1990s-recession-australia/12148020">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-15/how-coronavirus-crisis-compares-to-1990s-recession-australia/12148020</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Shutting down workplaces: hospitality and tourism, higher education and some
manufacturing: comes at an enormous cost.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can’t put a price on peoples’ lives and peoples’
health.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But many people will need to
sacrifice to ‘spread the burden’ of funding recovery.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some have suggested a ‘HECS-style loan’ for those unemployed
as a consequence of this crisis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because
this discriminates, it is unfair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Richard Denniss – speaking on ABC radio – is correct about this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though I think he is wrong about HECS more
broadly. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Income contingent loans to pay
for government<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>support of individuals
during the crisis would mean a veritable ‘labour market lottery’ as to who was
left with debt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But also ‘income
contingent loans’ have a longer history of losing their progressivity as
governments reduce thresholds to help pay for other endeavours – such as
ubiquitous corporate welfare.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Also will the government temporarily increase corporate tax <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>during the recovery period to service debts
incurred supporting the private sector during the crisis?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/the-lasting-economic-damage-from-the-covid-19/12223194">https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/the-lasting-economic-damage-from-the-covid-19/12223194</a><br />
<br />
The government’s stimulus has provided a lifeline for many.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But one rational assumption is that the economy won’t simply
‘snap back’ at the end of a six month period ; and as a consequence the
government cannot afford to ‘step back’ and just let the private sector ‘fill
the breach’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real economy doesn’t
work like this.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In hospitality and tourism the structural effects on the
economy could last quite some time. We don’t know whether there will be a
‘second wave’ or whether we will ‘break the back’ of the spread in this country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But global travel will take years to ‘get
back to normal’, and the US and the UK are still deep in crisis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ACT and Northern Territory also
understandably want to reap the benefits of wiping out the virus, and don’t
want it reintroduced from interstate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the other hand the crisis provides an opportunity to broaden
and deepen the public sector to create the ‘economic infrastructure’ around
which recovery will occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Make
strategic infrastructure investments, as well as structural improvements in
public services ; unemployment services ; in Health, Aged care and disability
services ; in welfare, transport, communications, arts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fix
the NBN with ‘fibre-to-the-home’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And coming
out of the crisis: Have an active industry policy which strategically supports
and invests in high wage manufacturing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On ABC radio high speed rail was inferred as perhaps a
‘dubious investment’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it could drive
growth in the regions, with a flow on of jobs and affordable housing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As well as containment of urban sprawl and
the transport crises that ensue from that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The simple truth is that the public sector might have to
pick up the slack on the economy for some time to come if there is to be any
chance of a recovery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if we navigate
this in the right way it can present an opportunity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) holds that as the issuer of the
currency the government can create money at will to invest and ensure a ‘full
employment guarantee’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though this is
limited by real economic constraints concerning the scale and nature of goods
and services actually produced in the economy at the end of the day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In some instances there might also be
inflation ; and you cannot ‘create money’ to fund an infinite influx of imports.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
But full employment is in everyone’s interests: so long as
there is an ‘efficiency dividend’ which provides benefits for all ; and so long
as consultation with unions ensures there is no endless ‘wage-price
spiral’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Higher employment has a ‘multiplier effect’ on
the broader economy that also makes debts easier to service. At the same time,
the wage share of the economy has been falling for decades ; and long term
there is a need for a structural correction which could also create extra
demand in the economy. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As part of this
picture there should be reform of the labour market improving compensation in
low-paid jobs – either with regulation, or through the social wage. (or both)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Modern Monetary Theory has been somewhat sceptical of the
role of taxation, claiming it ‘takes money out of the economy’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this need not be the case if all that
money is spent ; if indeed there is a stimulus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Taxation also allows for a much more finely targeted redistribution of
wealth: which should be desirable for progressives.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The current public health crisis is going to cause much more
pain before it is overcome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the
right kind of policies on investment, industry policy, welfare and stimulus can
minimise that pain, and even help ensure in the end we come out of the crisis
stronger.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-88065854268798006212020-05-13T16:53:00.000+10:002020-05-13T16:53:04.826+10:00On Socialism Today - Planning a Way Forward<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VEdMp9bzqjiwbA07omCGqJJP2Z2Va80LbNBulSwR_sPhlpz27eD6fkStMXzpGEwR8O9gaqisGr4RWZEsEikX9Radq4KCdsppb9Ue5Z41my_YaEmxMFrQgfaq72oj2jh07pTONQo/s1600/karlmarx1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="600" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VEdMp9bzqjiwbA07omCGqJJP2Z2Va80LbNBulSwR_sPhlpz27eD6fkStMXzpGEwR8O9gaqisGr4RWZEsEikX9Radq4KCdsppb9Ue5Z41my_YaEmxMFrQgfaq72oj2jh07pTONQo/s400/karlmarx1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;">The following article - which the author plans to submit for publication by the Australian Fabians - is an in depth survey of the background and options for democratic socialism in Australia and the world. The idea is to spark debate in the lead up to a series of events in Victoria planned for 2020. Your contributions to the debate are also welcome!</span></b></div>
<br /><br /><b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b><br /><br /><br />Socialistic sentiment can be traced back to the slave revolt of Spartacus and Peasant uprisings in Europe ; for instance that led by Thomas Muntzer in Germany. But ‘modern socialism’ began with those labelled as ‘utopians’ by Karl Marx. Figures like Robert Owen – who personally wanted to convince the bourgeoisie (and nobility) of an egalitarian, communal society based around the means of production. (specifically communes of up to 3,000 people) And all those others who depended on a ‘socialist vision’ to convince people of the desirability of a socialist order ; as opposed to Marxists who based their approach on ‘the fact of class struggle’.<br /><br />Generally, socialists preferred equality ; an end to exploitation ; extension of democracy to the economy. Marxists wanted to socialise the means of production to end both exploitation and the destructiveness and wastefulness of capitalism and its boom-bust cycle.<br /><br />But Marx had another criticism of capitalism ; and that was the way in which the division of labour and demanding nature of much work traumatised workers. This was his theory of Alienation. Today in Australia for instance we are a world away from the working conditions of the 19th Century. But in call centres, offices and factories the division of labour can still exclude creative control and work fulfilment. Indeed, work conditions can still be traumatising.<br /><br />In Germany where the class struggle was advanced the Social Democrats arose as a combination of the Marxists (Eisenachers) and the Lassalleans. Lassalleans (led originally by Ferdinand Lasssalle) believed in industry-wide co-operatives with state aid. Eventually Marxism became dominant. But by 1914 in Germany right-wing ‘socialists’ had come to predominate in unions and the parliament, and those people eschewed internationalism and supported the First World War.<br /><br />Before World War One both the European and British socialists supported the class struggle and the fight for universal suffrage to advance workers’ rights. But Britain was relatively liberal ; and this resulted in less emphasis on revolution and more emphasis on incrementalism.<br /><br />Fabianism arose in the 1880s ; and came to represent a movement to influence opinion in liberal and progressive circles. Especially in the Labour Party in Britain. Beatrice and Sidney Webb (prominent British Fabians) expressed sympathy with the achievements of Soviet Communism – but that view did not last. Some Fabians would focus on practical public policy ; others on the more radical aim of incrementally replacing capitalism. Again: Generally Fabians were gradualist rather than supporting a ‘sudden rupture’.<br /><br />Modern Australian Fabianism shared the British Fabian principles and was formed organisationally in 1947. The height of Fabian influence was in the Whitlam Labor Government.<br /><br />After World War One the broad Left was generally divided into Communist, Social <br />Democratic and Labourist Camps. Although pockets of Social Democracy remained highly radical – as in Austria in the 1917 to 1934 period. (Austro-Marxism) These sought a ‘middle path’ between Bolshevism and ‘mainstream’ international social democracy. And there were anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists – who were significant in the Spanish Republican forces and the fight against the Nazi-backed fascist insurgency of Franco in the Spanish Civil War.<br /><br />From the 1940s through to the 1980s Swedish Social Democracy enjoyed remarkable success (replicated to various degrees in other Nordic countries) with full employment, active industry policy, strong unions, and a strong welfare state. For the overwhelming majority of this period Social Democrats held government. Basically workers received social security in return for a ‘corporatist settlement’ including wage restraint. The full employment achieved under the ‘Rehn-Meidner model’ also made a stronger welfare state possible. Though Walter Korpi conceived of the Swedish situation differently: as a ‘democratic class struggle’, involving mobilisation of ‘Power Resources’ and compromise depending on the balance of class power. But in the 70s and 80s Sweden also had to respond to the Oil Shocks and devalue the Krona. The ‘Meidner Wage Earner Funds’ plan sought to compensate workers for wage restraint by giving them collective capital share. But this implied a radical redistribution of wealth over time. Also - because it appealed only to workers and not to citizens, it could be argued that the funds could have included a wider base. (which is democratically preferable anyway) Capitalists went on the offensive : socialists on the defensive. And there has been a slow retreat since.<br /><br />Up until and including the 1970s and 1980s there remained strong pockets of radicalism in many Labourist and Social Democratic Parties. But the Oil Shocks of the 70s and the drive to restore profits divided the Left and led to Socialist retreat. Also the Soviet Collapse during 1989-1991 had an enormously demoralising effect on the Western Left ; despite the fact the Western Left had long distanced itself from Stalinism. It’s not unreasonable to see the Gorbachev reform movement as a window of opportunity ; and a missed opportunity.<br /><br />From Hawke and Keating onwards Australian Labor has broadly internalised neo-liberal Ideology. Small government, privatisation, free trade, limits on the liberties of organised labour, trade agreements which give capital an effective ‘veto’ on regulation and public sector expansion. Marxism used to have a strong base in the Socialist Left. But increasingly the factions have lost ideological cohesion ; and have been subsumed in the mainstream political discourse.<br /><br />Indeed, the experience of Hawke and Keating inspired Tony Blair and Antony Giddens with their ‘Third Way’ or ‘Radical Social Democratic Centre’. In the 19th and early 20th Centuries ‘Centrism’ had been a largely Catholic phenomenon including limited support for trade unions, labour market regulation and welfare. Since Giddens and Blair the ‘Third Way’ has come to represent ‘neo-liberalism with a human face’. Punitive welfare on the one hand, but also the principle there should be an economic and social ‘floor’ below which no-one should be allowed to fall. Blair also marginally increased tax. (will Australian Labor still consider tax reform for the next election?) But he would not retreat an inch in opposing any re-socialisation – no matter how badly privatisation had failed. (eg: of railways) In Australia more recently ‘Centrism’ as epitomised by the ‘Centre Alliance’ struggles to maintain a credible liberalism – let alone any kind of social democracy. For instance there is conditional support for the ‘Ensuring Integrity’ union-busting legislation. Today ‘Centrism’ in Australia can mean a shallow populism cashing in on broad disillusionment with the two party system. Significant parts of the ALP Right consider themselves ‘Centrist’ after the Blairite model. Blairites also generally accept capitalism as a given.<br /><br />Fast-forward to 2019 and ‘What is to be done?’.<br /><br />Capitalism remains more vulnerable than people think. There is much focus on public debt, but private debt is a ‘ticking time bomb’ that could lead to loss of confidence, panic and collapse. In Australia, the US and much of the world private debt is many times the level of public debt. The Australian economy especially has come to rest on the housing bubble. Millions are locked out of home ownership ; but sudden and radical devaluation would cause panic and collapse. The boom-bust cycle remains a fact: but governments focused on public debt are less likely to engage in counter-cyclical measures. This could one day mean recession (or Depression) as the ‘solution’ to indebtedness. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has it that government can ‘create money’ at will ; but this is not without limits. It involves a degree of redistribution which capitalists hate – but also inflation. Progressive tax is still more effective at redistributing wealth in a targeted and progressive way. But certainly the MMT crowd are on to something.<br /><br />The Labor Party today is probably inclined to want to ‘save capitalism from itself’. The welfare state and higher minimum wages can assist by boosting expenditure and demand. A return to a meaningfully mixed economy can help by reducing cost structures via natural public monopolies. This could flow on to the private sector as well. As well, this could counter oligopolistic collusion – for instance in banking. (actually promoting competition) Higher government expenditure can also add money to the economy ; increase demand ; and ameliorate the explosion of private debt – which is a ticking time-bomb for the economy. (here and globally) <br /><br />An expanded social wage, welfare state, collective consumption and social insurance – can also provide social justice and social security. Think reformed pensions – easing means testing and increasing payments. Public housing. Better-funded schools and hospitals. More money for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. More efficient public provision of infrastructure. (because of a better rate of borrowing and a ‘public interest test’ rather than share value and dividend maximisation) Also consider National Aged Care Insurance and a withdrawal of regressive user-pays mechanisms. As well as a retreat of user-pays in Education.<br /><br />These are ameliorative reforms that can improve peoples’ lives. But Australia is still captive to the global economy and will suffer along the rest of the world in any ‘general downturn’ or ‘collapse’.<br /><br />Over the long term we still need to think about an alternative to capitalism. Sub-Prime and the Global Financial Crisis did not only reveal instability – It also revealed the gap between Use Value and Exchange Value as Marx would put it. That is: there was an abundance of housing amidst widespread destitution and homelessness. This is a real capitalist failing and vulnerability.<br /><br />Marx’s weakness was that he did not propose any concrete alternative vision to capitalism. He assumed ‘the class struggle would take care of things’. So maybe in part the ‘Utopian Socialists’ were on to something? The context of class struggle had to be engaged with ; but also concrete visions for the future. Today perhaps we need ‘provisional utopias’. We cannot afford to be ‘a force of pure negation’ with no vision for the future. Especially after the real historical experience of Stalinism.<br /><br />But capitalism is a globally-reinforcing system. You can’t just ‘go it alone’ in revolutionising the entire economy. There are economic AND political constraints.<br /><br />But what can be done is to begin a process of ‘revolutionary reforms’. Say in the spirit of the interwar Austrian Social Democrats. Even today in Austria there is a legacy in Vienna of 60% public housing – and overwhelmingly high quality public housing. A ‘democratic mixed economy’ would stabilise capitalism (through strategic socialisation and redistribution) while at the same time advancing towards an alternative. As in Austria this would also involve a counter culture: a rebuilding and reassertion of the labour movement ; but also a coalition with other social movements. What Gramsci would have called a ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’. That also involves establishing online presences ; other publications ; public meetings ; progressive radio and television ; social events of various kinds ; plays ; workers’ sport ; radical music etc. Establishing footholds where-ever possible.<br /><br />Importantly the decline of industrial labour (with ‘deindustrialisation’) has widely meant a decline in class consciousness. Service sector workers can be just as exploited ; but are more likely to think themselves ‘middle class’ or lack class consciousness. We can and should fight this. But the industrial working class might not any longer be seen (in the Marxist sense) as a ‘finally redemptive’ ‘universal historic subject’. The labour movement is central: but the modern Left also needs alliances.<br /><br />And should another Global Financial Crisis occur the big finance houses should not be ‘bailed out at the public’s expense’. Where the public sector steps in (if that occurs) it should retain a share in ownership.<br /><br />Of course when it comes to advanced socialist transition bourgeois economic and political resistance has to be expected. <br /><br />The ‘democratic mixed economy’ should be the short to medium term model. That includes a key place for natural public monopolies, strategic government business enterprises , consumers and workers co-operatives of various sorts (including multi-stakeholder co-ops which bring workers, governments and regions together) , mutualist associations . As well as ‘collective capital formation’. ( The Meidner Funds were such ; In Australia superannuation was a very pale imitation which may actually endanger welfare into the future by narrowing its base) ‘Multi-stakeholder co-ops’ are an important idea - as they could enable expansions of economies of scale to retain competitiveness under capitalism. All these are part of a concrete alternative. <br /><br />There is also a need to restore and consolidate industrial liberties ; to increase organised labour’s power ; its ability to deliver ; and hence its coverage, strength, and ability to contribute to change.<br /><br />Furthermore: how do we tackle ‘alienation’ today in Marx’s sense? Even with deindustrialisation, workers still find themselves alienated in modern professions – for instance call centre workers. The ‘post-industrial utopia’ has so far failed to emerge. At the least we can improve wages and conditions for the most exploited and alienated workers with low-end labour market regulation. (and maybe government subsidies where the market will not bear higher wages) Perhaps enabling a reduction of the working week for many. (though others would crave longer hours) ‘Free time’ is perhaps one alternative (for now) to Marx’s vision of a communism where workers regained creative control ; and labour becomes ‘life’s prime want’. (a quote from Marx) But ‘alienation’ is a feature of broader Modernity and not only capitalism. The rise of co-operatives could at least facilitate worker control – also ameliorating alienation.<br /><br />In the final instance we need to think of where improvements in productivity could lead. Either to greater equality, plenty and free time for everyone. Or in the capitalist context only the intensification of growth, profit and exploitation. And possibly greater inequality if we do not socialise much of the gains of productivity. What Marx called the ‘coercive laws of competition’ means that competition forces a focus on productivity for capitalist profit and short term economic advantage. The problem is finding a way out of this ‘circuit’. (as well as the intensification of exploitation ; and a 'lagging behind in wages' in labour intensive areas where productivity improvements are hard to come by) We need to think where free trade and internationalism fit in to this problem. There are environmental implications as well. Capitalism by its very nature will trend towards the ‘endless growth’ option. Perhaps if the emphasis is on information and service industries it could be more environmentally sustainable.<br /><br />But Sweden is also a warning. Again: there has been retreat since the Meidner Wage Earner Funds. The ‘corporatist consensus’ delivered for several decades in Sweden. But since the bourgeoisie ‘got cold feet’ and organised more overtly against Swedish social democracy – there has been a retreat. Swedish social democracy now has to work with Swedish Liberalism to keep the right-wing parties out ; and the price has been a retreat of the Swedish welfare state and progressive tax. In short: Socialists and social democrats have to be ready for capitalist backlash.<br /><br />Class struggle creates change. That remains true. But so too do broader coalitions, cultural and electoral strategies. The Fabian Society in Australia is placed to mount cultural interventions ; and hence influence the electoral strategies of the Labor Party and the broader Left. We won’t get all that we want all at once. But we need a critique of capitalism. We have to be prepared for future crises. We have to think what a transition would look like: under what circumstances and what time frame? But all the time considering the reality of power – economic and political ; including the power of the State. And all in a global context: where global progress remains limited without global consciousness and organisation. Which is something the Fabians also need to be thinking about. Building ties with Democratic Socialists of America, for instance, could be a fruitful endeavour.<br /><br />The Fabian Society re-embracing its place as an organisation of democratic socialism means engaging with these problems. For the short to medium term it is to be hoped we have an important strategic place in developing a ‘democratic mixed economy’ ; critiquing capitalism ; and imagining ‘revolutionary reforms’ which could decisively shift economic and political power over the long term.Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-75096963084552629972019-08-29T15:05:00.001+10:002019-08-29T16:22:15.102+10:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDteSRI-Vxxo4h1_ZK5zvDQB_BTrE-2uIrRyf6ter8e8KDhyhUcSIQv8CRHQU6EpiFcY5Z5mUXmzeNtbfQyRjWOjkZoA-qvTUgPw-rI3SXyCOYNJSJ9LtI8QoresSOXOANIe0sNI/s1600/67682280_906722849688202_3489287953040015360_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="960" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDteSRI-Vxxo4h1_ZK5zvDQB_BTrE-2uIrRyf6ter8e8KDhyhUcSIQv8CRHQU6EpiFcY5Z5mUXmzeNtbfQyRjWOjkZoA-qvTUgPw-rI3SXyCOYNJSJ9LtI8QoresSOXOANIe0sNI/s400/67682280_906722849688202_3489287953040015360_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 18.4px;"><o:p><b><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><i><br />above: While Menzies was far from without fault, on many issues today's Liberal Party would be unrecognizable for him.</i> </span></b></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 18.4px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Dr Tristan Ewins<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<br />
Much is said about the clash between the liberal and Conservative wings of the Liberal Party of Australia. Usually leading figures will speak of a ‘broad church’ which includes a diverse membership. But the truth is that the Liberals continue to drift ever deeper into the hard Right. Liberals will stand up for religious liberties (which there may be some kind of argument for) ; but John Stuart Mill would turn in his grave if he was aware of Liberal policies on trade unions, charities, and attempts to shut down grassroots mass organisations such as GetUp!<br />
<div>
<br />
<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism/Classical-liberalism">The Encyclopedia Britannica identifies</a> various rights as central to Classical Liberalism. Freedom of association, assembly and speech amongst them. Also: “freedom from fear of reprisal”, and of arbitrary arrest and punishment. It also identifies free industrial organisation of workers as a necessary counter-balance in the marketplace.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, iconic British liberal John Stuart Mill was even in some ways sympathetic with the socialist social experiments of Robert Owen in the 19th Century. (see: ‘On Socialism’, J.S.Mill, Prometheus Books, New York, 1976)<br />
<br />
And while free markets are crucial to classical liberalism, various liberals are divided on the balance between public and private. All liberals would oppose a ‘command economy’, and would demand a central space for ‘personal determination of needs structures via markets’. For some liberals, however, Hayek and Rand are seen as occupying ‘the extreme end of the spectrum’ ; but those theorists’ ideas are exactly those promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs - which has a powerful role influencing Liberal Party policy. Before the 1970s, Hayek and Rand were ‘on the fringes’ in most Liberal and Conservative parties. Fanatical commitment to the progressive and open-ended dismantling the welfare state, social wage, social insurance and public sector would have once have been ‘out of place’ in ‘the Party of Menzies’. Now those ideas are in ‘the mainstream’. And for Conservatives, adherence to economic neo-liberalism has eclipsed ‘compassionate conservative’ tendencies.<br />
<br />
By contrast with the original liberals, today’s Liberal Party of Australia is committed to the <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/morrison-union-busting-laws-will-further-repress-right-strike">total dismantling of the power of organised labour</a>. Its ‘Ensuring integrity’ Bill has several aims. Firstly, the bill (if passed) will take non-protected industrial action as being ‘criminal in nature’ ; and union leaders could thus be charged and imprisoned ; and unions themselves deregistered and ‘dismantled’. It will enable government to “sack” union officials convicted of criminal offenses: which includes ‘industrial’ offenses such as unprotected industrial action, and entering workplaces to organise or inspect working conditions without notice. Also: even ‘protected’ rights to industrial action will be able to be withdrawn if an ‘interested party’ argues it affects their interests. The legislation will establish in many ways arbitrary punitive powers for government against workers and union officials. While freedom to withdraw labour is a liberal right ; so too is freedom of association.<br />
<br />
The Liberal Party is also now endeavouring to have mass-based progressive lobby group ‘GetUp!’ considered a branch of the ALP and the Greens ; and hence to restrict its rights to campaign in the lead up to elections, and on election day. With a membership base of over a million Australians ‘GetUp!’ is obviously much broader than the ALP or Greens, and has organisational independence. But these days the Liberal Party is simply interested in shutting down all opposition in a display of crude power politics. This is the opposite of liberalism ; even if defined narrowly as ‘classical liberalism’. True, the Liberals abrogated liberalism when they attempted to ban the Communist Party under Menzies as well. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 16px;">('Doc' Evatt's defense of the liberal rights of Communists was an important victory for Labor at the time) </span>But the Communists never had over a million members: mums, dads, students, retirees. People who want a political voice: but many of whom are not ready to join a Party.<br />
<br />
Another example of Liberals abrogating liberal principles regards their treatment of charities and other organisations who must fear their tax-deductibility status being withdrawn if they criticise the government. ‘Political’ speech is seen as compromising the work of charities by the Liberal-National Coalition ; but in fact this is just another rejection of real free speech: sacrificed on the altar of brute power politics. Despite a decision by the High Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-inquiry-takes-aim-at-green-charities-that-get-political-40166">upholding the right</a> of civic organisations like charities to engage in political advocacy, the Liberals and Nationals are still looking for ways to shut-down resistance. Arguments have been made to ‘withdraw support’ for organisations ‘out of step’ with majority opinion. (whatever that is) <br />
<br />
The other side of this involves calls on the Left to tax churches ; which may include lay organisations at the grassroots level. While the Liberal Party has largely abandoned liberalism in practice, the Left could do worse than to integrate liberal and socialist principles.<br />
<br />
Finally we must consider the treatment of refugees and the unemployed by callous governments of the Australian Right-Wing. Open-ended incarceration with the effect of breaking the spirit and the will to live of those affected has no place in any account of liberal human rights. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, ‘Work for the Dole’ comprises a form of labour conscription, and we must consider the real power relationships underlying these arrangements – as opposed to the fantasies of Hayek and Rand who only see ‘individuals freely entering into voluntary economic relationships’. Sophisticated liberals deal with ‘the world as it is’ and not merely as it is supposed to be in the theories of the economic hard right. In reality, both major parties are supportive of a policy of a “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”. (ie: unemployment of approximately 5% with the point of containing inflation and wage pressures) The point of this is exactly to restrict workers’ bargaining power at a time when the unemployed are vilified, wages are stagnant, and there is restricted consumer demand in the broader economy. (in turn impacting on growth)<br />
<br />
In times past liberals would be capable of recognising the real-world imbalances of power in economic relationships: and hence support rights for trade unions, and a decent welfare safety net without punitive, unfair and unrealistic mutual obligation provisions. <br />
<br />
While some Conservative figures <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-18/barnaby-joyce-joins-calls-to-increase-newstart-allowance/11322992">like Barnaby Joyce</a> are finally recognising the threadbare and punitive nature of ‘Newstart’ unemployment insurance in Australia, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is determined to keep existing policies as a wedge against Labor. While 'Robodebt' policies drive innocent people to desperation and suicide, the hope of decent bipartisanship has been cruelly crushed. An ugly sentiment against the welfare-dependent and job seekers has been whipped up in the monopoly mass media in Australia for decades. But the Liberals have all-too-readily seized upon the consequent public sentiment ; and have exploited it.<br />
<br />
While progressives should always prefer a Labor Government to a Liberal Government in Australia, it is to be hoped that genuine liberals like John Hewson - who have not been ideologically captured by the Institute of Public Affairs – improve their fortunes in internal debates. While this author is opposed to Blairite ‘Third Ways’ it would nonetheless be a relief to have bipartisanship on issues of basic human liberty and decency. While the Liberals increasingly embrace Hayek and Rand on the economy, on social liberty they are effectively against libertarianism. (eg: on the rights of organised labour)<br />
<br />
In Australia the nominal party of liberalism is anything but liberal. Even in the narrow sense of classical liberalism they fail to uphold core principles. Labor could reconceive of itself as a liberal Party ; and occupy that space abandoned by the Liberal Party. But for social democrats and democratic socialists that is not the answer if it means abrogating our own historic principles, and the rights and interests we defend. But a more libertarian position on liberal rights on the Australian Left would apply significant pressure to the parties of the Australian Right. To a some degree this is already happening. It is a trend that needs to be developed further. </div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-46261704532180155302019-03-17T16:30:00.000+11:002019-03-17T16:30:41.889+11:00The Prospects for Socialism Today<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZTkAJYhDHgLIoR8G46rFRuA2Tuz3j9EQAxVmjguGfttk8kCW4eXytTc3dQWFScectTvQ7PDwuffcW_nAaB_-el_JwvgvS8HwVNgo6N6d5XWQ-bzzSRsCjzC0ZFatrcassxmQ7-an5qQI/s1600/socialism-768x348.gif"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZTkAJYhDHgLIoR8G46rFRuA2Tuz3j9EQAxVmjguGfttk8kCW4eXytTc3dQWFScectTvQ7PDwuffcW_nAaB_-el_JwvgvS8HwVNgo6N6d5XWQ-bzzSRsCjzC0ZFatrcassxmQ7-an5qQI/s400/socialism-768x348.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Writing in the Herald-Sun, Chris Collins (11/1/19 ) argues that the Nordic countries have never been “socialist” because they have not conformed to the original Marxist definition of the centralisation of the means of production in state hands. In reality, though, there were always a variety of definitions, and even Marxists themselves have revised their understandings.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialist aspirations include ending exploitation and the class system ; and reducing inequalities to a fair level. In Marx’s words, to advance the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need’. That should include a strong welfare state and social wage ; involving not only natural public monopolies and strategic state ownership ; but also producers’ and consumers’ co-operatives, democratic funds, and a mix of competition, markets and planning.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialism also means building an economy focused on ‘use values’. (ie: not just maximising abstract exchange value ; eg: preserving the natural environment) But we’re in a global economy: which means we have to live with the transnational corporations. They are at best ‘a mixed blessing’: at times spurring innovations and job creation ; but also unacceptable inequalities in wealth and power ; as well as collusion, monopolism, planned obsolescence and so on. But also arguably the consequence of bourgeois dominance is that we live in a ‘One Dimensional Society’ where substantially different social alternatives are excluded from mainstream discussion. What’s needed is robust pluralism: where socialism is part of the debate ; and hence a genuine option in the broader context of democracy.<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to writers who attempt to put Swedish Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in opposition to one another: for key Swedish thinkers and politicians such as Wigforss, Palme, Rehn, Meidner etc the Nordic Model was definitely a kind of socialism. The 'high water mark' was with the Meidner Wage Earner Funds proposals of the 70s and 80s. That marked the end of a 'corporatist consensus' (institutionalised consultation and co-operation) which developed over several decades starting from the 1930s. The model has been in slow retreat since. But its past successes over many decades still give a sense of what is possible.<br />
<br />
<br />
Importantly, the wage earner funds were to be structured in such a way as to compensate workers for prior wage restraint. But the extent of that wage restraint had been such that the funds would eventually deliver economic control to workers over many years. One of the biggest problems with the funds is that they focused on workers alone rather than the broader category of 'citizens'. (hence excluding pensioners for instance) In 1983 Australian Leftists like Laurie Carmichael wanted ‘Nordic Style’ policies in return for wage restraint under the the Government of Bob Hawke and 'The Accord'. Unfortunately nothing of the sort was actually delivered.<br />
<br />
<br />
That said: what kind of state is in a position to deliver on socialism?<br />
<br />
<br />
Leninists are inclined to oppose the ‘liberal bourgeois state’ to the kind of state which existed under the Bolsheviks. A ‘workers’ state’. Trotskyists would argue it had become a ‘degenerated workers’ state’ under the domination of Stalin.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, by certain interpretations a genuine workers' state is a democratic state ; where we can interpret 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' as a 'manner of applying democracy' ; the 'democratic dictatorship' of the working class majority. (widely misinterpreted, the term always referred to the democratic rule of the working class as opposed to the rule of a single man such as Stalin) The ultimate aim is to create a ‘pure democracy’ where the state represents all people ; and the class system is permanently transcended. Finally, the State itself is presumed by Marxists to ‘wither away’ with the end of all class divisions and antagonisms. One flaw of this thinking, however, is the presumption that over the long run 'only class antagonisms matter' to such a degree that some kind of state power is necessary either as arbiter ; or to enforce interests.<br />
<br />
<br />
Arguably Sweden enjoyed a decades-long 'equilibrium in the class struggle' or otherwise what Korpi called a 'democratic class struggle'. Where the class struggle was in some ways 'institutionalised' between social democrats, unions, employers. Concessions were made based on ‘the balance of class forces’ ; but open escalation of conflict was avoided as being in no-one’s interest. Then in the 1970s and 80s the Social Democrats and the LO (‘Landsorganisationen’ ; or Swedish Trade Union Confederation) attempted to assert their democratic leverage to achieve previously unheard of economic redistribution and democratisation. Again: even with over 80% unionisation coverage they still failed. And Social Democracy has been on the defensive there largely ever since. If anything, this gives an idea just how difficult the struggle can be.<br />
<br />
What we need is a democratic state which is not a medium for direct OR indirect bourgeois rule. Nicos Poulanztas wrote about a 'logic of the class struggle' which 'imprinted itself upon the state field'. I'm not a structuralist (as Poulantzas was) ; but in a way that makes sense. The state tends to defend bourgeois interests ; but not totally. It is not a 'simple instrument'. It is much more complex than that. Rather, it has its own internal contradictions and internal struggles. What we need is a state which is fully committed to the implications of democracy: as opposed to the direct or indirect rule of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
The problem is that capitalism is supported by a clear majority of states ; as well as by the transnationals which are an expression of and foundation for global bourgeois dominance. Even assuming a state which breaks POLITICAL bourgeois dominance at a local level ; there are still the remainder of bourgeois states internationally; and global bourgeois economic power ; and economic co-dependence. <br />
<br />
<br />
Think about revolutionary France. The Revolution was diverted into Bonapartism. (the rule of the French Emperor, Napoleon I) And eventually with the Congress of Vienna there was total Restoration of the "Ancien Regime" in France, and the consolidation of monarchies and their traditional bloodlines elsewhere in Europe. Liberal Democracy did not really take hold through much of the world until the Bolsheviks put much of the European bourgeoisie under such pressure as to implement the crucial concession of universal suffrage. This had long been a key Social Democratic and Marxist demand. We're talking about a period spanning over 100 years. (throughout which we had other revolutions and struggles ; eg: 1830, 1848, 1871) Thereafter the bourgeoisie and its representatives have spent another 100-odd years thinking of ways to divide the working class against itself to prevent it from realising the potential of the suffrage. The splintering of the working class culturally and economically has made it increasingly hard to realise the solidarity we need to bring about the change we want. Narratives on ‘political correctness’ and ‘left elites’ have just this effect ; and sometimes by neglecting class interests we play into the bourgeoisie’s hands.<br />
<br />
<br />
Critics of socialism often declare that they don’t want ‘statism’ or state domination. And this they associate with socialism. Well, no - we don't want Stalinist-style 'statism'. (though I hate the term 'statism' as it is commonly used to stigmatise any place for the state ; even a democratic state) But 'wresting capital by degrees' from the bourgeoisie still sounds like a good idea - if done properly – and if only it were possible. The problems of exploitation and economic polarisation still demand our attention as practical and moral questions. And after all, radical redistribution of wealth is what the Swedes were attempting with the Meidner wage earner funds in the 1970s and 1980s . <br />
<br />
Arguably the Mixed Economy represents progress towards that goal. Though the ‘mixed economy’, social wage and welfare state can be supported by far more ‘moderate’ forces who want nothing more over the long term than to ameliorate inequality and ‘save capitalism from itself’.<br />
<br />
<br />
"Wresting capital by degrees" from the bourgeoisie can imaginably involve a mix of public, co-operative and other democratic ownership - as opposed to 'Stalinist Statism'. But the process cannot be finished because bourgeois interests reinforce each other globally. Currently, there is no (acceptable) ‘way out’ of capitalism. But if we mobilise we can at least force compromises which are in workers' and citizens' interests. And we can convince the bourgeoisie that compromise is sometimes in its own interests. (again ; 'saving capitalism from itself') For example: natural public monopolies can reduce cost structures not just for citizens/consumers/workers – but also for business. And a state-owned savings and loans bank (with a charter promoting competition and ethical banking) could inject competition into the sector of benefit both to business, and to most ordinary people.<br />
<br />
<br />
Importantly - forcing compromise through struggle is in some ways more involved than just 'gaming the system'. Over the long term who knows what's possible? Again: think about Revolutionary France - and the hegemony of liberal democracies which only finally arose more than 100 years later. We can only hope it will not take a catastrophe such as the First World War was to provide enough impetus to drive qualitative change ; to challenge the class system and the ‘defacto rule’ of Capital. <br />
<br />
If anything the Global Financial Crisis gave a sense of capitalism’s enduring instability ; and that (should another crisis occur) radical interventions may be necessary ‘to save the system from itself’. But public dissatisfaction with “bailouts at the peoples’ expense” may drive strategic socialisations sooner than we think.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialism is not ‘inevitable’ as the old Marxist Centrists used to insist. We cannot anticipate all the policy innovations which may help ‘save the system from itself’. But over the long term a more generalised breakdown cannot be ruled out either. Socialists need to stand prepared for all manner of contingencies. Global organisation and dialogue are necessary to best prepare for those contingencies. That means not responding to discourse on ‘globalisation’ as an excuse for defeatism. It means working out the possibilities of domestic social democracy/democratic socialism ; but also building the organisation and dialogue necessary to give rise to internationalist responses. The current Socialist International is not an effective vehicle for this. Can it be reformed? Or do we need new forms of international organisation and dialogue?Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-68839313356940626842019-01-22T17:20:00.000+11:002020-05-15T13:38:00.787+10:00Remembering Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJbPtxN6iQWG4Vz7gjiQdzfd2UjJGoU5GoJWFrBc2ErdRD2Sr2yrPDJhKpPsgNTDn7hclPV3YctT90tPYBNaBIM9ODb45rwWlZSxkdwJVMChG3CasS6iONUDKFybj88UdpVb9xTAo/s1600/49389706_10157972768492977_2122575895699914752_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJbPtxN6iQWG4Vz7gjiQdzfd2UjJGoU5GoJWFrBc2ErdRD2Sr2yrPDJhKpPsgNTDn7hclPV3YctT90tPYBNaBIM9ODb45rwWlZSxkdwJVMChG3CasS6iONUDKFybj88UdpVb9xTAo/s320/49389706_10157972768492977_2122575895699914752_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;">Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht</span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>16/1/2019</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Comrade Marcus Strom alerted me and many others on Facebook that 15/1/19 was the 100th Anniversary of the brutal murder of Communist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht ; and the dumping of their bodies in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin. Liebnecht was an outstanding orator and leader. Meanwhile, Rosa Luxemburg (a Jewish Communist ; born in Poland – but migrating to Germany where the class struggle appeared the most advanced) is the best remembered today. This is largely because she is survived by a plethora of theoretical and practical political-literary work – much of it still relevant for the Left. <br />
<br />
<br />
The broad example of the slide into war ; and the murder of Rosa and Karl is still instructive today of the dangers of certain kinds of ‘social patriotism’. In 1914 the parliamentary caucus of the SPD (German Social Democrats) voted in favour of war credits – to fund the War. This was against the standing policy of the Second International. Specifically it was the right-wing leadership of the Social Democratic Government following the 1918-19 Revolution who ordered the murders. For genuine socialists, the names “Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann” will forever live in infamy. And deservedly so.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is disturbing to think that the SPD was perhaps the leading Social Democratic Party in Europe in 1914 – and yet it crumbled under pressure at the first real hurdle. Many socialists – including Karl Liebnecht and Rosa – tried to agitate against the coming blood-bath. Rosa was imprisoned for the duration of the war after distributing anti-war material. For years social democratic parties had talked about internationalism in the instance of a conflict. But in practice the German trade unions had been subverted ; had embraced a kind of ‘ethno-nationalism’.<br />
<br />
<br />
And they effectively fell into line in return for a handful of reforms.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore perhaps there was no social or economic basis for stopping the war. But the capitulation of the SPD parliamentary caucus set a demoralising example – which resulted in the split in the Social Democratic movement ; with the most uncompromising anti-war elements re-forming as Communist parties.<br />
<br />
<br />
Right Social Democrats ; people like Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann ; were sold on ethno-nationalism in Germany since the start (of the war). They capitulated again when some social democrats argued the war should only be supported insofar as it was concerned with ‘national defence' ; and never be allowed to turn into 'a war of conquest'. But the German Army hierarchy demanded open ended support for the war instead. Again, in 1914 the caucus rolled over entirely. <br />
<br />
<br />
Karl Kautsky – the leader of the ‘Marxist Centre’ – and for a time the most authoritative Marxist intellectual in Europe and the world - argued for a symbolic abstention on the issue of war credits. But this gained little traction. Lenin was to revisit Kautsky’s position following the October 1917 Russian Revolution, branding him a ‘Renegade’. But more on Kautsky later.<br />
<br />
<br />
The real worry is how the unions remained so conservative at the start of the war. And swallowed militarist nationalism hook, line and sinker. In any case the war was to destroy those same unions ; as worker’s organisation collapsed in the face of total war mobilisation. It shows that achieving intellectual leadership of a socialist movement is not enough unless socialist, anti-imperialist and internationalist values can be successfully imparted to a broader base. As well as a willingness to fight when the situation demands it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
Who knows what motivations drove the German Social Democrats to support war in 1914? Fear of imprisonment or execution? Fear of the organisational destruction of the party? (False) assumptions the war would be short? Penetration of the caucus by government agents? Again: many social democrats insisted that support for the war be withdrawn once it became 'a war of conquest'. But the reality was that the Army had the guns. Again: the parliamentary caucus folded in the face of military pressure.<br />
<br />
<br />
But what many Leninist and Stalinist critics do not recognise is that by 1915 the 'Centrists' (ie: as in the Marxist Centrists) had began agitating for peace at Zimmerwald. Those people argued for a separate peace. So did the Revisionist Socialist, Eduard Bernstein. By comparison, Lenin argued for civil war - to turn the war into Revolution across all Europe if possible. For all Lenin’s criticisms of Karl Kautsky – by 1915 he (Kautsky) was himself openly fighting against the war. The critiques of Bolshevism by such diverse figures as Luxemburg, Martov and Kautsky – are still worth reading today as we grapple with the meaning and legacy of the Russian Revolution and its eventual descent into Stalinism. (though many critics under-play the severity of the conditions faced by the Bolsheviks ; and the role of Western intervention in fuelling the centralisation and resort to Terror which opened the way for Stalinism ; That includes destabilisation and support for the White Armies – which meant the threat of starvation and heating fuel shortages for ordinary Russians )<br />
<br />
<br />
Rosa Luxemburg is famed for her unique, libertarian Marxist contributions to socialist theory and practice. Her theory of the ‘spontaneity of the masses’ is more nuanced than shallow critics would allow for ; positing a dialectical relationship between Party leadership and proletarian initiative. She recognised early on the potential of the Mass Strike. Also, she feared the consequences of over-centralisation within the Bolshevik Party for any revolution ; and particularly the substitution of the Party – and later the Central Committee – for real, grassroots and participatory proletarian democracy. For her there could be no compromise or ‘middle way’ between Reform and Revolution. She was a strong critic of Revisionism ; including the positions of Eduard Bernstein.<br />
<br />
<br />
But there are traditions of Left Social Democracy which are not stained by that. For instance the Austro-Marxists. The Austro-Marxists built a participatory counter-culture (workers’ sports, radio stations, libraries, forums, orchestras) ; and progressively funded public housing and amenities like laundries and pools for workers. They even maintained their own militia to defend ‘the democratic path to socialism’. This contributed to the sense that ‘Red Vienna’ was ‘a showcase of Social Democracy’. Though they also made certain fatal mistakes (eg: letting go of their grip on the state apparatus of force in the 1920s) which made it easier in the end for fascists to seize power in 1934.<br />
<br />
<br />
So as against Rosa Luxemburg I believe a ‘middle way’ of ‘revolutionary reforms’ is possible. But on the 100th Anniversary of her death it is better to honour her very significant legacy. The legacy of her bravery and self-sacrifice. Of her intellect ; her uncompromising values ; her commitment to the working class and her faith in what she believed to be the coming revolution.<br />
<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the example of the 20th and early 21st centuries (including the rise of fascism ; and also of neo-liberalism) appear to have put paid to a sense that some ‘inevitable teleology towards socialism’ can be counted on. Historical outcomes are far more contingent and uncertain than the old Marxists were willing to admit. Even though the continuation of neo-liberal capitalism is likely to cause intense human suffering – with increases in the intensity of labour ; and further cyclical crises and class bifurcation. And environmental crises also. Perhaps old Marxist claims to ‘inevitability’ provided morale and confidence. (as Kautsky put it – “the proletariat’s belief in its own strength”) <br />
<br />
<br />
But while there is *hope*, notions of inevitability can no longer be maintained. Barbarism is as likely as socialism ; and that itself is a good reason to fight.<br />
<br />
<br />
Rosa’s fears were realised in the end as Bolshevism gave way to Stalinism. For Communists it is instructive to read her critiques of Bolshevism to get a sense of the dangers associated with Stalinism. And also even with Trotskyism and Leninism. Trotsky wrote of a ‘Soviet Thermidor’ in his critique of Stalinism, ‘The Revolution Betrayed’. But in reality Trotksy supported the same policies of centralisation which led to a situation akin to the demise of the French Revolution - with the rise of the Napoleonic Empire in the place of the Republic. (Stalin is seen as a ‘Bonpartist’ figure) ; Only Stalin’s repression of his own people – and his Terror against them - was far more extensive than under other ‘Bonapartist’ regimes.<br />
<br />
<br />
Compared not only with Stalin – but also with Lenin and Trotsky – Luxemburg stands for a kind of libertarian communism. To this day the leadership she provided with her activism and her writings – set a redemptive example for a Left which is often accused of ‘authoritarianism’ or ‘totalitarianism’. Luxemburg was a democrat and libertarian-revolutionary-communist ; and an uncompromising opponent of the wholesale slaughter of War ; and the Imperialist designs of the ‘Great Powers’.<br />
<br />
<br />
My personal inclination is more towards the example of the reformed relative (Marxist) centre following World War One. Especially the Austro-Marxists. (though I am critical of them on certain counts as well) But Rosa’s steadfast bravery ; her self-sacrifice in pursuit of peace, and for the liberation of the working class ; should always be honoured on the Left.<br />
<br />
<br />
Today’s Left needs to engage with past Social Democracy (and Communism) if it is to understand its past ; draw the necessary lessons ; and better plan for its future. This should also include a consideration of the sources of the split in Social Democracy in 1914 ; and the historical ramifications of that. Rosa Luxemburg ; and others like Karl Korsch ; showed that a different kind of (libertarian) communism is possible. <br />
<br />
<br />
A different kind of social democracy is also possible: committed over the long term to the pursuit of ‘revolutionary reforms’ which would deepen democracy, transform the economy , and over time challenge the class system.<br />
<br />
<br />
May Rosa Luxemburg (and Karl Liebknecht) always be honoured and remembered on the Left.</div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-55980253360829322782018-01-19T14:56:00.001+11:002018-04-05T09:01:12.166+10:00'For an Equal and Democratic Australia' model ALP Platform - Updated for 2018<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHmcvTNoNWOZHidE6KD9uBhTW3FpvwiDUQoHbz9TBinD3Tyf4j8jVmE8Fzdy6PIoCNdu2H5MUmZNM53y06l01jS6nvBRYJjGbeOnv3GeU4eCJ2A-yf_NIbT6MPzktu8rwAPk8Inz0/s1600/th2ZGQZ2H8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="474" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHmcvTNoNWOZHidE6KD9uBhTW3FpvwiDUQoHbz9TBinD3Tyf4j8jVmE8Fzdy6PIoCNdu2H5MUmZNM53y06l01jS6nvBRYJjGbeOnv3GeU4eCJ2A-yf_NIbT6MPzktu8rwAPk8Inz0/s320/th2ZGQZ2H8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Dear Friends and Comrades;</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b></b><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
We’re Promoting an Updated version of the ‘For an Equal and Democratic Australia’ Model Platform for the ALP. The program is updated for 2018 from a very similar version platform I promoted for the 2015 Conference. <br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">At this point we’re still considering suggestions to expand the document</span><span style="color: blue;"> – and your ideas are welcome. <span style="color: red;"><i>Contact Tristan Vaughan Ewins</i> at Facebook</span> if you have a suggestion you would like to make.</span></b> <br />
<br />
The ALP needs a vision for the ‘big picture’ of social welfare, democratic and nation-building reforms it needs to implement in government. <br />
<br />
Included are proposals on tax and welfare reform, social insurance, environmental reform, a ‘democratic mixed economy’ and much, much more. <br />
<br />
Please also propose motions in support of this program at your local branch, or your ALP student club. Or you may belong to a ‘third party organisation’ (eg: a welfare organisation, charity, student union or other advocacy group). Motions of support from these organisations are also welcome! If you successfully pass a motion in favour of this document please leave a comment to Tristan Vaughan Ewins at Facebook so I am aware of this and can promote our success in garnering support.<br />
<br />
With enough support and wide enough distribution we may influence debate on the ALP National Platform – to be decided upon this year in 2018.<br />
<br />
If you are a delegate we would especially be interested – pls let us know. <br />
<br />
But we will keep on campaigning after that also: to continue to build momentum for a genuinely progressive Federal Labor Government for 2018 or 2019 and onwards. <br />
<br />
Again: if you support the goals of this ‘minimum platform’ please respond to this paper by ‘liking’ it at our Facebook group – and that support will be noted for purposes of our campaign.<br />
<br />
see: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ALPequalanddemocratic?focus_composer=true">https://www.facebook.com/ALPequalanddemocratic?focus_composer=true</a> <br />
<br />
<b>We may also see if we can promote this cause via the ‘Megaphone’ Petition Platform to mobilise further support ahead of Conference.</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8UuPMJTDgf_8LEehSFt1jAv6hA3N25maOvmd6gnoG2T8uqQAilqurfPBE5k5zkEamoeKmJPkxlc3d38ZMeeFFj2tE_Hi1_92TZu5CHD_7pCjrAnOj2FuZhoY3PyKgM6sj64AyowI/s1600/untitled.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="165" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8UuPMJTDgf_8LEehSFt1jAv6hA3N25maOvmd6gnoG2T8uqQAilqurfPBE5k5zkEamoeKmJPkxlc3d38ZMeeFFj2tE_Hi1_92TZu5CHD_7pCjrAnOj2FuZhoY3PyKgM6sj64AyowI/s320/untitled.bmp" width="272" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><i>As supporters of this Program we endorse the incorporation of the following into the ALP Platform for 2018:</i></b></div>
<b></b><i></i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>a) ALP Core Mission:</b> We believe that the ALP exists for the purpose of improving fairness, democracy and equity. We support the promotion of a robust civil society characterised by informed and active citizenship ; and civil rights and liberties (including industrial rights and liberties), as well as preservation of the natural environment upon which human survival itself depends. Also we support separation of church and state - amidst freedom of faith and worship. We support the advancement of ‘political’, ‘social’ and ‘economic’ citizenship; That includes the defence of civil and democratic rights and liberties; the provision of social wage and welfare rights; and finally the pursuit of a ‘democratic mixed economy’.</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>b) A Democratic Mixed Economy:</b> We support a variety of strategies for a ‘democratic mixed economy’. That includes a mixture of public and co-operative ownership and control (including but not necessarily limited to public ownership of critical infrastructure and natural public monopolies, and strategic Government Business Enterprises), as well as mutualism, 'union-friendly' co-determination and other related strategies; and also crucially including ‘democratic collective capital formation. (‘collective capital formation’ was a term used by Swedish social democrats to describe their Meidner Wage Earner Funds ; but might also be applied to superannuation for instance). Specifically we support a stronger role for producers and consumers co-operatives in the Australian economy on both a large and a small scale. For instance, government co-investment may be required to help co-operative enterprise increase its scale so as to remain competitive and hence viable. We support very significant but initially-capped aid to co-operatives via cheap credit, tax concessions and free advice/economic counselling - with co-operative enterprise supported in a variety of spheres, including credit unions, insurance, child care and aged care, manufacturing; as well as co-operative small and medium businesses. (for example in hospitality) </blockquote>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>c) Reform Tax to Extend Social Investment and Expenditure:</b> We have as a medium term objective the goal of <b><i>meeting the OECD average</i></b> regarding our Tax to GDP Ratio. That means an increase in the Tax to GDP ratio by 5% ideally over as long as three terms of Labor Government. Specifically this translates to an increase of <b>$80 billion/year in today’s terms. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>d) Specific Revenue Measures:</b> To fund these new commitments we support measures including but not necessarily limited to the following: <br />
<br />
<br />
· very significant strategic and equitable rescission of superannuation tax concessions (perhaps $10 billion/year or even more)<br />
<br />
· Progressive expansion of the Medicare Levy<br />
<br />
· restoration of a robust Mining Super Profits Tax<br />
<br />
· the establishment of a progressively structured Aged Care Levy. <br />
<br />
· Progressively restructure the income tax mix, and thereafter fully index the bottom three thresholds.<br />
<br />
· Restoration of Company Tax and strong measures on Corporate Tax Evasion ; network with like-minded parties to create a global shift against the ‘race to the bottom’ on corporate tax<br />
<br />
· Halving the rate of Dividend Imputation (perhaps $10 billion/year)<br />
<br />
· An inheritance tax on inheritances valued over $2 million and over. (indexed)<br />
<br />
· Consider stronger measures further limiting Negative Gearing for investors holding portfolios including several properties.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>The total measures implemented must provide for the aforementioned increases in social expenditure, and very significantly add to rather than detract from the progressive nature of the overall tax and spending mix.</i></b> <br />
<br />
<br />
e) Specific social expenditure/infrastructure measures we support for implementation in the first term of an incoming Federal Labor Government include: </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li>a progressively-funded <b>National Aged Care Insurance Scheme</b> providing a broad range of high quality aged care services for all those aged 65 and over with the need (including high intensity care, low intensity care , and ‘ageing at home’) – and without forcing disadvantaged and working class families to sell or take equity against the family home to achieve the highest quality care. Also mandate a nursing skills mix in every aged care facility that includes a Registered Nurse on-site 24 hours a day.<br /><br />· Robust and progressively applied increases in state school funding; including improvements in funding formulae as proposed in <b>‘Gonski 1.0’ ; </b>over the longer term we aim to improve the quality of state education (including infrastructure and student to teacher ratios) to the point where demand for private schooling is very significantly reduced. The point is to achieve true equality of opportunity in education.<br /><br />· <b>Completion of the National Broadband Network</b> – publicly owned and with Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) technology; as well as other public-funded and owned infrastructure in areas such as transport, communications, water and energy; keep it public and provide as a social and economic good – not just ‘to realise a profit’.<br /><br /><br />· Construction of ‘East Coast Fast Rail’ and State-Owned Centralised Renewable Power Generation<br /><br />· greater public support and funding for pure and applied scientific research via the CSIRO.<br /><br />· A review of existing job network services; considering the possibility of re-consolidation of a single provider in the public sector (Centrelink); And regardless of this ensuring an emphasis on a more compassionate, patient and understanding approach to case management; especially considering the special needs of the long term unemployed, the under-employed, disability pensioners, those with differing skill types and levels; and for older job-seekers, <br /><br /><b>f) Welfare Reform:</b> We reject the ‘blame the victim’ and ‘blame the vulnerable’ mentality promoted by the Conservatives. Along with that we reject all forms of ‘Punitive Welfare’. <b>Specifically we propose raising the Aged and Disability Pensions, Youth Allowance, Austudy, ABStudy by a minimum $50/week. (then indexed)</b> <b>Newstart to be raised by $75/week (also fully indexed).</b> We also support a more generous Carers’ Allowance ; and reject effective labour conscription for ‘Work for the Dole’ , <b>as well as rejecting waiting periods for Newstart </b>which force vulnerable Australians to exhaust their personal savings. (or even drive some into homelessness) We understand that many pensioners – for instance the disabled – require flexibility which existing labour markets do not provide. To overcome ‘poverty traps’ we support ‘positive incentives’ and ‘flexible work’ without loss of pensions. FINALLY: We believe the ALP should consider – and conduct research into – the replacement of NewStart with a Guaranteed Minimum Income. (GMI) <br /><br /><b>g) Retirement Age:</b> We are committed to maintaining a retirement age of 65 instead of raising it to 67 or 70. Indeed we are also open to the possibility of reducing the retirement age below 65 into the future. Specifically we support reducing the retirement age for those who have suffered physical debilitation as a consequence of demanding work. (eg: manual labourers)<br /><br /><b>h) Industrial/labour rights:</b> We support a legislated real increase in the minimum wage as well as pattern bargaining rights for unions. As well as stronger re-regulation of the lower end of the labour market more generally. And we support effective subsidies for some of the most exploited and underpaid workers (including in child care, cleaning, aged care and elsewhere)– whether through direct subsidies, tax concessions, enhanced social wage provision and other effective measures. We also support the industrial rights and liberties of workers; including a right to withdraw labour ‘in good faith’ (including political strike action), and including a right to secondary boycott when ‘in good faith’ in solidarity with ‘industrially weak’ workers<br /><br /><b>i) Further Educational Reform</b></li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<ul>
<li><b>Curricula for ‘active/critical citizenship’</b>: We are committed to reform of school curricula for the purposes of promoting ‘active and critical citizenship’. Without bias, the point of such reform would be to impart balanced and inclusive understandings of political values, movements and ideas, and social interests. We believe active and informed citizenship means a stronger pluralist democracy.<br /><br />· We support restoration and expansion of tertiary education funding; including for universities and the TAFE sector; with an expansion of tertiary education placements on the basis of an understanding of education as a modern social right, and not an exclusive privilege. <br /><br />· We also support the humanities and social sciences for the sake of effective pluralism in the Australian public sphere. And we support provision for tertiary academics’ participation as ‘public intellectuals’ and not only on the basis of the bulk of published academic works. <br /><br />· Furthermore we support progressive reform of the HECS system: reversing any fee deregulation, and <b>with real increases in the repayment threshold significantly above Average Weekly Earnings</b>; and forgiveness of debts of those who have a good reason for not being able to benefit from the prior education. (eg: because of disability) <b>Over the medium to longer term we support reversion to free tertiary education.</b><br /><br /><b>· Gender equality:</b> Finally, here, we support and strive for equal participation, and on-average equal achievement - between men and women in higher education, and greater participation and opportunity for those from disadvantaged and working class families.<br /><br /><br /><b>j) Treaty and a Republic:</b> We are committed to beginning formal dialogue with representatives from the entire range of indigenous peoples with the aim of negotiating a Treaty. We support an incoming ALP government initiating such a process in its first term. Also we support <b>the realisation of an Australian Republic</b> at such a time that public opinion is such as to achieve the change.<br /><br /><br />k) <b>Environment:</b> We are committed to increasing the proportion of renewable energy sources so as to achieve a real reduction of emissions even as the economy and population grow. Specifically we aspire to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 2000 levels by 2025. To this end we support large scale public investment in renewables, as well as generous subsidies for lower income households to acquire micro-renewable energy systems; and incentives for landlords to invest in micro-renewable energy. In further environmental reforms we are committed to sustainable land use and water management, achieving ‘world’s best practice’ in food production.<br /><br /><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">We also support an Emissions Intensity Scheme that would set an emissions intensity benchmark for the whole electricity sector, which will reduce in line with emissions reduction targets; 50% by 2030. To ensure that this mechanism would successfully reduce emissions, benchmarks will be set five years in advance as recommended by the Grattan Institute, and revised as the need for greater emissions reduction appears. The EIS would be accompanied by the maintenance of the Renewable Energy Target, and large scale investment in renewable energy through reverse auctions, provided the assets are held in public ownership at the end of construction. We also support providing microgeneration grants to households and businesses to promote uptake of renewable generation technologies, and reform of feed-in tariffs so consumers producing their own energy are paid an appropriate amount when selling the excess back into the grid.</span></span><br /><br /><b>l) Humanitarian Migration:</b> We support a very significant expansion of Australia’s humanitarian migrant intake. Additionally, we want for an ALP government to pursue diplomatic channels to encourage other prosperous countries in the region to also increase their humanitarian intake very significantly. For asylum seekers we support humane onshore community-based processing. (that means close detention centres including in Nauru)<br /><br /><b>m) ABC and SBS:</b> We support continued (and extended) funding of the ABC and SBS – and the pursuit of ‘participatory media’ principles and strategies through these channels. We support a role for the ABC and SBS in pursuing an ‘authentic’ public sphere, and an inclusive pluralism. (with the exception of not providing a platform for the far right) And we support representative ‘popular’ participation on the ABC and SBS boards of management</li>
</ul>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>n) Public and Social Housing:</b> We support very substantial new investment in high quality public housing (a minimum ‘surge’ of $10 billion) facilitated through tied Federal grants to the States, and also social housing where it is more cost-effective - to increase supply, and hence also affordability. (combined with the necessary public investment in local infrastructure in emerging suburbs) That includes expansion of ( largely ‘non-clustered’) public housing stock to at least 10% of total stock over perhaps three terms of Labor Government. Where appropriate we support a mix of low, medium and high density stock. Further: High density housing development in capital CBDs, and amongst strategic activity/transport hubs - should not be left ‘only to the private sector’ ; and public developments could include more generous provision of space, and high quality amenities such as common rooms, gyms, pools, parks and gardens. Planning laws should also be rigorous to ensure a viable spread of amenities and services where-ever housing developments occur.</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>o) Internal Reform:</b> We support internal democratic reform of the ALP; including a direct role for union members in supporting particular policies and platform items; as well as direct election for ALP National Conference delegates; actual adherence to State and National Platforms; and a ‘mixed model’ for election of the Party Leader which may include rank and file, Parliamentary Labor and trade union components. We also support the establishment of a ‘progressive public sphere’ in this country, including (for our part) ALP related forums, and policy and ideas conferences and publications which are inclusive, authentic, progressive, and which accommodate difficult debates.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>p) Strategic industry policy:</b> We support an active industry policy aimed at the maintenance of ‘strategic industries’ with ‘strategic capacities’ in Australia; including through automotive production and shipping-construction. This means a public investment rather than a public subsidy or handout. And it could create the basis for a more-independent foreign policy as well. Said industries can also involve high wage, high skill labour. And there are a variety of potential models, including joint multi-stakeholder co-operative-state ventures – involving workers, regions and government. This ought also be supported by attempts to emulate <b><i>Denmark's success</i></b> in related Education and Training.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<b>q) Multilateral Disarmament and Peace:</b> At the same time we support a policy of realistic multilateral disarmament with the aim of freeing resources for purposes which meaningfully improve peoples’ material; quality of life <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>r) On Health Care we support the following:</b><br />
<br />
· <b>provision of comprehensive Medicare Dental</b> – with a wide array of dental services provided at minimal cost and promptly for pensioners and low income groups; The main aim here must be to radically slash waiting lists which currently can be in the vicinity of two years unless in the case of a ‘dental emergency!’ This means that vulnerable people are denied help until things reach ‘the critical point’. <b>With new funding and resources public dental waiting periods must be no more than six months.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
· Also increase investment in the <b>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</b> to extend its coverage <br />
<br />
· Improve the rate of Bulk Billing<br />
<br />
· <b>Tighten means tests for ‘Lifetime Health Cover’</b> in order to pay for the removal of penalties for low income individuals (including pensioners) who let their policies lapse; Over the longer term we aim to <b>improve the quality of public health</b> to such an extent as to significantly reduce demand for private health insurance. <b><i>During the interim</i></b> we also support the growth of <b>Health Insurance Mutual Associations</b> as alternatives to Private Health Insurance.<br />
<br />
· Also <b>extend Medicare</b> to cover physio, optometry (including glasses or contact lenses), speech therapy, podiatry, psychology; provision of hearing aids where necessary; and also cosmetic surgery for those in extreme need (for instance as a consequence of physical injury)<br />
<br />
· Improvement of and substantial new investment in mental health services to <b>‘close the gap’ regarding the life expectancy of those with mental illness</b>; as well as to improve productivity and quality of life. (for example there are in the vicinity of 200,000 to 300,000 Australians with Schizophrenia who on average live 25 years less than the general population) <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>s) ‘Physical and virtual commons’ ; ‘Public Space for Public Use’ ;</b> We believe that ‘physical and virtual commons’ are necessary to provide support for a strong, participatory and democratic civil society’ ; In part this means <b>decoupling public space from any strict and/or exclusive relation to consumption.</b> Local communities must have centrally-located meeting and gathering spaces – and this requires a significant public investment, and associated regulations. In part this can also be supported with dedicated space in local business districts – including in shopping malls. Such developments should be dependent upon the provision of <b>‘community kiosks’</b> which would provide comprehensive information on how to become active in community organisations and clubs, social movements, political parties and so on. But excluding the far-right. Once-off public meetings and gatherings could also be promoted via these ‘community kiosks’ ; and citizens could ‘sign up’ for mail outs and/or emails regarding ‘what is going on’ in communities on a month-to-month basis.<br />
<br />
<b>t) A Comprehensive Bill of Modern Human Rights:</b> Finally: We support a comprehensive ‘Bill of Rights’ in this country, supporting liberal and civil rights of suffrage, speech, assembly, association, faith, conscience. As well we support ‘social rights’ including education and health, a guaranteed minimum income; housing; access to communications and information technology; access to transport; access to fulfilling employment with a remission of exploitation; social inclusion including opportunity for recreation and participatory citizenship; respect and human dignity.</blockquote>
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"></span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">
</span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-62364866201939947682017-10-21T16:42:00.000+11:002017-10-24T14:30:00.962+11:00What does 'Revolutionary' mean to Socialist Democrats today?<span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; margin: 0px;"><b></b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8lRnHSkQALAgEX2osjtFev4M2sSUDaNuSnld2MDHTWt-f26jzYKxthLvyWkFU4vACwly1SdUAJFbkzfIYQO-wcjTJ4Pa904MSvsEyH0ajF6AT8rh_LeNXf4lYolnid1ET7_rl7Dw/s1600/.importupload_mutschlechner_3oegz_h1703_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="357" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8lRnHSkQALAgEX2osjtFev4M2sSUDaNuSnld2MDHTWt-f26jzYKxthLvyWkFU4vACwly1SdUAJFbkzfIYQO-wcjTJ4Pa904MSvsEyH0ajF6AT8rh_LeNXf4lYolnid1ET7_rl7Dw/s320/.importupload_mutschlechner_3oegz_h1703_2.jpg" width="259" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>Above: Austro-Marxist leader and Theoretician, Otto Bauer</b></span><b></b><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b> Does (and should) 'Revolutionary' mean anything anymore to the Democratic Socialist Left?<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Should it mean anything anymore within the ALP Socialist Left?</b></span><br /><br /> <br /><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b></div>
<b></b><div style="text-align: left;">
<br /><br />A comrade in the ALP Socialist Left recently rebuked me for discussing "revolutionary" politics ; and said that "thankfully" the vast majority in the ALP SL are NOT revolutionaries and that that's "the beginning and the end of the discussion thankfully".<br /><br /><br /><br />This was my response:<br /><br /><br /><br />"When we speak of 'revolutionary' aims not everyone is talking of the same thing. Personally I'm NOT talking about an insurrection ; armed or otherwise. What I am talking about is qualitative change ; preferably through democratic channels ; though being prepared for whatever resistance may arise against said qualitative change through democratic channels when push comes to shove. So I'm talking about what various Leftists have described as 'slow revolution' or 'revolutionary reforms'. <br /><br />What would be a 'revolutionary reform'? Well the Meidner Plan held that promise for a start. (ie: an economic plan which would have rewarded workers with collective capital share in return for wage restraint ; with the consequence workers collectively would over time become the dominant force in the Swedish economy) Going back further: free, universal and equal suffrage comprised a kind of 'democratic and political revolution' which only became possible in many countries following the end of World War I - and the fear of Bolshevism. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />Were we around in the 19th Century - or in the 1917-19 period , would we have fought for the suffrage ; or would we have rejected 'revolutionary' changes of all sorts as a matter of policy so as not to rock the boat? <br /><br /><br />When I talk about a democratic economic revolution I'm talking about democratic collective capital formation ; restoring a robust mixed economy ; supporting co-operatives (producers' and consumers') with state aid. I'm also talking about decisive state support for the voluntary and domestic sectors. I'm talking about going down that road to the point where 'the democratic sector' becomes dominant. And hence a pivotal shift in the balance of class forces. <br /><br /><br />I'm also talking about a 'democratic cultural and political revolution' : driven by an exponential increase in political participation and consciousness. Where there is a qualitative change (a revolution) in our democracy which takes the form of said consciousness and participation. <br /><br /><br />For Marxists the final aim is to replace wage labour with economic democracy ; and then to transition to stateless communism. I'm not a full blown communist because I tend to believe human nature is not perfectible ; and therefore I think some kind of state power (albeit democratised) will be necessary for a long time to come. <br /><br /><br />I think the suppression of wage labour (ie: typified by the exploitation of labour by capital) can be taken so far ; But at a point you run into very serious resistance from the transnational corporations and often by their state-facilitators. Look what happened to Gough ; and look what happened under Rudd re: the Mining Tax. Also there’s the problem of ‘workers exploiting themselves’. Collective capital formation (workers - and hopefully citizens - holding what collectively is a significant share in capital) is a potentially democratising force. (I specify 'citizens' as well so as not to exclude non-capitalist citizens who for whatever reason are outside of the workforce ; eg: pensioners) Hence my support for democratic collective capital formation as policy. At this point it’s a good outcome. But it also creates complexities which would be hard to resolve. So importantly I'm talking about a process - in this country and globally - which spans decades - and maybe more. The transition from feudalism to capitalism was a kind of revolution - which took maybe a couple of centuries. Why not be a revolutionary over the long run? <br /><br /><br />Indeed the Guaranteed Minimum Income that some of my critics support (and I support as well) itself has revolutionary potential - by getting rid of workers' dependence on selling their labour power to capital in order to survive. Perhaps critics are just worried some Liberal will take the word "revolutionary" out of context ; and depict us all as terrorists or the like? But where do you draw the line then? Do we stop talking about socialism as well? Do we stop talking about 'capitalism' as anything less than 'an eternal absolute'? A truly 'closed system' ; which cannot be relativised or criticised ; and with no way out?<br /><br /><br /><br />I'm a 'revolutionary' in the sense I support not only political citizenship ; but also social citizenship and economic citizenship. That's how some Swedish radicals viewed the question interestingly enough. 'Economic citizenship' would be a revolution to democratise the economy. 'Social Citizenship' involves the extension of social rights ; including those delivered via the welfare state, regulated labour market and social wage. 'Political citizenship' WAS the political and liberal revolution. And it's not necessarily finished yet either. So what's really so objectionable about all this at the end of the day?"<br /><br /><br />Finally and interestingly: the ‘Austro-Marxists’ (arguably one of the theoretically-most-significant tendencies in 20th Century European Marxism) talked about "slow revolution" ; especially during the interwar period ; Which they meant in a very similar way in which I use the word. They were also amongst the first to theorise 'multi-culturalism' - in the context of the pre-WWI Austro-Hungarian Empire. (ie: 'what would replace the Empire?')<br /><br /><br /><br />The idea of 'revolution via democracy' is not new or unprecedented. And Yes - if Bill Shorten started talking about it at this point then it would confuse people. I doubt it reflects his world-view in any case. But here on the relative margins we can discuss it ; and maybe we should discuss it within the ALP Socialist Left (internally) as well ; as part of a process of working out what the ALP Socialist Left really stands for these days. It’s a long struggle to rehabilitate the language and substance of democratic revolution from shallow understandings. (ie: that 'revolution' means 'violence'.) But I think it's worth it in the long run. And it is crucial that people see we're NOT suggesting a 'revolution against democracy' ; but rather "a gradual, democratic (and hopefully peaceful) revolution FROM WITHIN democracy - to EXTEND democracy.</div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-9593432233277666752017-09-11T12:04:00.001+10:002017-09-11T12:04:52.661+10:00150th Anniversary of Capital : Marx still Highly-Relevant Despite the Critics<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman";"><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4yYZmznbe4BKnzs3jP29l3mfZInOZbs-CI5U1lzohtfzjhy06FNkta163z_EhptFZCUSFiURSDBwvFWTOjlLFqZ6bpe6DdZPOkiG_Y7krR2SD05w_MzqmlVJwTb49EGlDy4iFHL8/s1600/A046588666-c982e862fd7c60fead8f22112b50af09.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="666" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4yYZmznbe4BKnzs3jP29l3mfZInOZbs-CI5U1lzohtfzjhy06FNkta163z_EhptFZCUSFiURSDBwvFWTOjlLFqZ6bpe6DdZPOkiG_Y7krR2SD05w_MzqmlVJwTb49EGlDy4iFHL8/s320/A046588666-c982e862fd7c60fead8f22112b50af09.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman";"><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman";"><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><b><i>Debating Marx's ‘Labour Theory of Value’ and 'Marx on the Environment' on the 150th Anniversary of Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ (Vol I) ; Responding to the Critics.</i></b></span></span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";"><i><br /></i></span></span></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></span></b><div style="text-align: left;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Dr Tristan Ewins<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>; September 2017</span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><!-- x-tinymce/html -->At the ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’ Facebook group we’ve been discussing Marx’s ‘Labour Theory of Value’. This is notable because this year is the 150th Anniversary of the publication of Marx’s ‘Das Capital’ (Volume One).<br /><br /> In the relatively-near future I intend restructuring, editing and partially-re-writing a speech I made on that subject.<br /><br /> But for now I would like to discuss Marx's famous 'Labour Theory of Value' specifically. (and also whether or not Marx 'valued' the natural environment) Another contributor basically argued that ‘labour theory of value’ (as argued in Capital Volume One) was defunct ; and that it led a lot of people to reject Marx. This is a pretty common response ; and certainly ‘bourgeois’ responses to Marx have often fixated on discrediting his ‘labour theory of value’. This has arguably been partly for reasons of interest – and hence a wish to discredit the argument that labour is responsible for all ‘values’ in terms of goods and services. (with the exceptions of land and the natural environment) But there have been philosophical arguments about the nature of ‘value’ as well. And there has been much confusion because for Marx ‘value’ is an <strong>analytical category</strong> with a specific (non-mundane) meaning.<br /><br /> Typically respondents have argued that ‘value is subjective’. And indeed in my PhD Thesis I approved of (Marxist Revisionist) Eduard Bernstein’s merging of ‘objectivist’ and ‘subjectivist’ elements in his critique of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value. Therein I argued that Marx did not account sufficiently for the relative privilege of what may be called the ‘labour aristocracy’.</span></span><br /><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Anyway: Having studied Capital more closely now, though, I feel in a better position to respond with greater confidence. Here’s my understanding, now, of ‘Labour Theory of Value’.</span></span><br /><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /> My understanding is that Marx's labour theory of value is in some ways a self-referential system ; and it makes sense on its own terms. To begin you have to distinguish between the <em><strong>price of labour power sold to employers as a commodity</strong></em> and <em><strong>'labour theory of value' where ‘value’ is ‘the amount of labour congealed in commodities’.</strong></em> Though truly the idea of "average socially necessary labour time" does not distinguish between different *kinds* of labour. That said: Marx does not deny a subjective element to items' values - or to the use values AND exchange values of different kinds of labour power ; He even recognises differences in the relative value of different kinds of labour power at some points in Capital ; but it's true that he doesn't explore that in enough detail. It’s a complication with regard his system and perhaps hence he neglects it. We are unclear how different qualities of labour should be recompensed under socialism for instance. So yes, there are deficiencies in some of Marx’s notions even though they are internally consistent.<br /><br /> To elaborate: There is a problem not only with the *mechanism* or ‘process’ of Surplus Value Extraction (in the context where all value is ultimately created by labour ; so Surplus Value can be argued for as ‘unpaid labour time’) ; there is also a problem that while some workers experience extreme alienation (ruinous working conditions, lack of creative control or fulfilment) in return for bare-subsistence, other workers (while technically exploited) experience superior conditions (including pay, creative control, prestige, career paths) ; and historically this is played upon to disrupt solidarity within and across the working class.<br /><br /> But also: While Marx DOES recognise the role of Demand and Supply on the price of labour power ; he does not consider as such ‘the relative worth’ of different kinds of labour once skill, difficulty etc are accounted for. So under democratic socialism what kind of differences of recompense are possible – or even desirable? How for instance do we promote solidarity and mutual respect ; but also some reward for skill, difficulty, effort and so on?<br /><br /> Nonetheless *Surplus Value* makes perfect sense. That is: workers *broadly* are paid the means of (relative) subsistence (a privileged minority (labour aristocracy) receive considerably more than the average) ; but there is not "an exchange of equivalents" ; the employer extracts surplus value from workers' labour. The worker is only recompensed proportionate to a fraction of what he or she creates. That much makes sense. Also 'Labour theory of value' makes sense in that values (as defined by Marx) are created by labour ; and Capital is 'value in motion' ; a process for the cyclical creation of values ; and the production of surplus value ; and hence the reproduction of the capital relationship ; and capitalism generally. Wages maintain workers at the relative level necessary for subsistence. The surplus is extracted both to pay for the maintenance and expansion of production ; and also for the maintenance of bourgeois lifestyles. All that makes sense. And no wonder capitalists and their apologists have strived to discredit Marx ; because the analytical category of surplus value implies a devastating moral critique of capitalism.<br /><br /> Theoretically some return on (small) investments of capital may be warranted ; because of the real sacrifices the small (working class) investors and some petty bourgeois make. But once you start talking about the bourgeoisie proper it's a different story. Only the bourgeoisie proper has access to such credit or reserves so as to overcome the barriers to entry into certain markets. And whatever risks and initiatives the bourgeoisie take ; the fact remains that Surplus Value is extracted. And what is more that the working class is separated from the means of production ; does not control the means of production ; must labour under the capitalists’ terms and labour discipline ; does not usually have creative control over its labour ; is often employed in monotonous, partial tasks which are profoundly alienating.<br /><br /> So there are big problems with capitalism that Marx is still very useful in analysing. Though he also observes capitalism's inbuilt tendency to drive innovations ; in search of what he calls Relative Surplus Value. (think of it as a 'temporary advantage' in terms of quality or productivity - often driven by technological advances) That - in tandem with what Marx calls 'the Coercive Laws of Competition' - means that capitalism still drives an enormous amount of innovation and technological development. But capitalism proceeds at a terrible cost to some workers. Especially if you're at the wrong end of the Imiseration process ; ie: if you're a textiles labourer in Bangladesh.<br /><br /> ‘Imiseration’ refers to class bifurcation ; as well as absolute impoverishment and ruination – which Marx anticipated. Relative Western prosperity – largely delivered by technological innovation, qualitative developments, as well as improvements in technology-driven productivity ; has been argued as a refutation of this. But arguably absolute ‘Imiseration’ has also been ‘displaced to the Third World’ ; with an ‘outer dialectic’ where Colonial/Imperialistic exploitation of ‘peripheral’ economies provides ‘relief’ in Western (core) economies. (eg: cheap consumer goods for Western workers) Nonetheless we do see ‘relative imiseration’ WITHIN Western (core) economies as well ; as with the exploitation of the working poor within the United States. (hence perhaps an ‘external’ aspect to the ‘inner’ dialectic of class struggle within the US ; ie: middle income (working class) living standards are supported by the exploitation of the working poor) And the global capitalist economy (having integrated economies the world over ; and having integrated the labour-power of women) is again pressing its limits ; leaving the question “what next for growth (and hence capitalism) – if not greater intensity of labour? (and hence further attacks of the rights of labour)<br /><br /> In summary, David Harvey argues that Marx's Capital (Vol I) makes the most sense when applied to 'economically Liberal' or 'neo-liberal' capitalism especially. This makes Capital (Vol I) highly useful for understanding Anglosphere economies which have largely gone down that path. But admittedly Marx did not anticipate the rise of modern mixed economies, advanced welfare states, Keynesian demand management and so on. Arguably these could comprise ‘stepping stones’ towards a socialist economy and society – while at the same time ‘stabilizing capitalism’. (reducing cost structures and the like) Marx is still highly RELEVANT ; but perhaps he is not on his own SUFFICIENT in responding to modern economic and social problems.<br /><br /> As for arguments that Marx did not recognise the ‘value’ of Nature (one person at our Facebook Forum argued this) ; that is demonstrably untrue if you understand Marx in context. Marx defines between use values and exchange values. Hence 'a beautiful rainforest' may have no 'value' in the sense of exchange value ; or Marx's schema of 'value' according to his specific (non-mundane) definition as ‘the labour congealed in commodities’. But remember this is just a technicality based on Marx's definitions... It does not mean (literally) that Marx thinks 'nature has no value'. Again; In Marx's scheme 'value' refers to the labour congealed in a commodity. But 'USE VALUES' are something else entirely. Marx recognises that things can have USE VALUE without comprising 'values' according to Marx's particular (contextual) definition. So 'a beautiful rainforest' can have a 'use value' in the sense that human beings can appreciate its beauty. And 'nature' may have the 'use value' of being necessary for the reproduction, health and happiness of the human species. Though it’s true Marx doesn't consider what some might call the 'intrinsic value' of nature. Deep Ecologists may not find as much of interest to them in Marx.<br /><br /> Similarly “work/life balance” has value ; as do domestic and voluntary labour ; as does education, philosophical and scientific enquiry , and art ‘in their own right and for their own sake’. But capitalism does not ‘see’ or ‘encourage’ the identification of these – EXCEPT insofar as they can be manipulated to somehow magnify exchange value ; ‘creation of ‘values’ in the capitalist context ; production of surplus value ; the self-expansion and reproduction of the capital relationship on which bourgeois power, privilege (and arguably purpose) rest.<br /><br /> On the 150th Anniversary of Capital (Volume I) it is worth revisiting Marx ; and questioning some common assumptions. In-so-doing we encounter a thinker still highly relevant for the current day. <br />Even though some (eg: the ‘Post Marxists’ Mouffe, Laclau and others) have suggested revisions and alterations which are also highly useful, and sometimes inspiring. The 150th Anniversary is as good a time as any to ‘return to Marx’ and to work out what he’s really saying ; and not just depend on the second-hand accounts of bourgeois-Liberal economists.</span></span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-20653017694641837332017-08-23T17:52:00.001+10:002017-08-23T17:57:03.995+10:00Das Kapital by Karl Marx - 150th Anniversary Event -- NIB Melbourne September 7th, 7pm<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkXg05y8m-8cGZeqp_XDGNX_OYh6nSsHDNdXunHu45y0NXnlM6ktGeFzW_9kyLVU18BskDLyg8NL6pkRmLLUCLsKPypjy6lElz-4a7AdtTr6GngczToFUQN6_3zWb8x6jX8F2Iz0g/s1600/Marx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkXg05y8m-8cGZeqp_XDGNX_OYh6nSsHDNdXunHu45y0NXnlM6ktGeFzW_9kyLVU18BskDLyg8NL6pkRmLLUCLsKPypjy6lElz-4a7AdtTr6GngczToFUQN6_3zWb8x6jX8F2Iz0g/s640/Marx.jpg" width="451" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">150th Anniversary Of Marx's Das Kapital ; Questions and Answers Event ; New International Bookshop Melbourne, September 7th. Please come along and show your interest and support. I will be there as an ALP Left activist who draws deeply from Marx and Marxism. PLS SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NETWORKS.</span></b></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-40193730230042787982017-02-26T15:09:00.001+11:002017-02-26T15:09:19.477+11:00Why and how the Fair Work Commission’s cuts to Sunday penalty rates can be Defeated.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjme7lFIO_EvA98mksuEpCqBmVqGhAeQqzwoAWPQlYKcBCnhVv2H1xiyd_rzWtRMXXSr5PhEzmyx97neDn50zTGlH58JmOvGhuphAMt-JW_w_28s-g4RSsv2F53vsf-F0XJmMQFEr4/s1600/1929460_8493546493_5204_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjme7lFIO_EvA98mksuEpCqBmVqGhAeQqzwoAWPQlYKcBCnhVv2H1xiyd_rzWtRMXXSr5PhEzmyx97neDn50zTGlH58JmOvGhuphAMt-JW_w_28s-g4RSsv2F53vsf-F0XJmMQFEr4/s400/1929460_8493546493_5204_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b><br /><br />above: Former Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union organiser, Don Sutherland</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<!-- end of .post-meta --> <strong><br /></strong><strong><span style="color: blue;">In this article guest writer <span style="color: red;">Don Sutherland</span> argues the case for a strategy to reverse the decision of the Fair Work Commission - promoted by Employers - to slash Penalty Rates for Hospitality and other workers. He foresees it will have to be a long struggle led by workers - and workers cannot just sit back and depend on the Parliamentary Labor Party. It is a strategy which - amongst other things - will involve targeting specific employers so they do not take advantage of the FWC's decision and exploit their workers.</span></strong></div>
<strong><div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
</strong><div class="post-entry">
<strong></strong><strong>b</strong><strong>y Don Sutherland, 25/2/17</strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Last week Australia’s industrial “umpire”, the Fair Work Commission, legalized a big cut to penalty rates for Sunday work for Australia’s lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in precarious work. (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/23/sunday-penalty-rates-to-be-cut-by-25-to-50-fair-work-commission-rules?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">Click here</a> and <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/2017fwcfb1001-summary.pdf">click here</a> for the official summary of the decision.) Implementing the cuts is not compulsory. Anyone who thinks neoliberalism is dying needs to take a deep breath and step into the real world.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Like many others across the union movement and beyond I am very angry on several counts with this decision. Above all it does great harm to the lives of thousands of workers (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/the-penalty-rates-cut-rewards-exploiters-at-the-expense-of-the-exploited">click here</a> for example), even though it will increase the take home profit of their employers.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
There is a lot of material being posted in both mainstream media and in many sources across social media about why this decision is bad, some of it before the decision was handed down and of course a lot since. This article does not add to that.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Rather I focus on ideas about how the workers and union movement can respond.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><u><br />How should the workers’ movement respond? </u></strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
In my view not just with anger, but with a widely, deeply discussed and developed strategy to win the reversal of the decision or to prevent its actual implementation.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
I am against a “strategy” based on immediate anger that sets our movement up for an urgent, satisfying day out and another “glorious defeat”. And I am also against a defeatist walk into the arms of the ALP as the heroic solution.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><u><br />Rationale for a strategy</u></strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
This Full Bench decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) comes out of an Award review that is required by the Fair Work Act (FWA). The Award review is very much an industrial relations club exercise. The FWA review involves either union peak bodies or employer peak bodies putting to the FWC ways in which Awards should be changed, with the capacity for others, especially governments and political parties, to join in. The parties present their claims and counter claims, then provide evidence in an increasingly judicial process that involves “expert” research and / or witnesses. There is not much industrial organising that goes on in support of union claims or counter claims these days.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
In this current review all Awards are under the microscope. The focus in these particular Awards for workers in hospitality, pharmacy, fast foods has been on their penalty rates, especially the penalty rate paid for working on Sunday.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Employers in the industry and beyond have <strong>over several years</strong> invested big money and resources to convince the FWC to agree to cut penalty rates for Sunday work. They have been supported by the Murdoch press, a big posse of commentators from right wing think tanks, and all major employer organisations. The union movement has been the major source of opposition. Originally, employers wanted cuts to all penalty rates but decided for a strategic reason to focus on Sundays. Do not doubt that their “victory” last week to get Sunday rates cut is a foundation for a renewed assault at some time in the future for further cuts into both Sunday and Saturday rates and public holiday rates.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
While the employers were investing big in their own way to achieve their victory, the workers’ effort – mainly through their unions – was valiant and well-intentioned but puny in comparison. It was entirely defensive, and accepted the rules of the Commission and the Fair Work Act.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
The employer strategy successfully used prominent Labor politicians, some of them willingly, and ex politicians (most notably perhaps Martin Ferguson, formerly a President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions).</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
The employer strategy relied very much on today’s working class <strong>historic memory loss</strong> about what an Award actually is. Nothing significant has been done by unions to counter this with worker education. Australian unions, generally, have opted to devote most resources to enterprise agreements as the vehicle to protect and improve wages and conditions.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Remember, the employers originated and escalated this war on living standards, not the Fair Work Commission.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
This very bad outcome is a reflection of the current balance of power between Australia’s 21st century capitalist class relative to that of the working class.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
That is the situation that our strategy must change.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><u><br /></u></strong> <strong><u>A working class based approach to our strategy</u></strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Can we build a strategy, loaded with mindful militancy, that can reverse this decision and also the whole current momentum against working people? (Facilitated in the bosses’ favour by the Fair Work Act, e.g. lockouts, agreement cancellations, and the new Building Industry Code to be enforced by the construction industry’s own industrial police force against construction workers and their unions.)</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Of course we can. Here are some ideas.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><br />The first big strategic decision</strong> for all union leaders no matter what level of the union movement we are active in: should we leave the reversing or whatever of the decision to heroic leaders, those at the “top” of the union movement and especially those in the ALP and the Greens in the parliament? Will calls to the government for the government to change the statute re-build our numbers and our power?</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Or, should we return en masse to a conviction that the workers in these industries, and their brothers and sisters in others, can grow together as a socio-political force to reverse the decision themselves through their own industrial and political action?</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
The union movement at all levels must, absolutely MUST, embrace this second approach. Why? Because we must see workers of the twenty first century as capable of learning to struggle for their objectives not as objects whose conditions of existence are decided for them by elites, well-meaning or otherwise?)</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
That still means lots of education work and lots of communication that is educational (not cheap slogans or cute and clever memes,) leading to days of action on carefully selected dates. Days of action can be seen as the building blocks to more serious forms of action, including a national strike that can decide the struggle in favour of the workers.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><u><br /></u></strong> <strong><u>Industrial strategy leading the way</u></strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
The Commission is now waiting for submissions from the parties about the timing and process for phasing in the new reduced rates. Depending on each award, the critical dates seem to be in late March and early May.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
After that the Commission will set dates for the start of the new reduced rates, probably later this year.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
So, for example, this year these union / workers days of action might be 2-3 days before or on the day of the “submissions” hearing and then again 3 days before the start date.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
Remember, employers can chose not to reduce rates. Embedded in these days of action there must be a workplace, public, social and political demand that each individual employer NOT implement the decision, but infused also with basic education and learning about “what is an Award”, “who are the employers”, “what is their strategy”, and “what is the Commission”. (Of course, many employers will try to “stay sweet” with their workers by telling them that it’s not their fault and they have no choice but to implement it.)</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
To the extent that it is necessary, a secondary level of campaigning in these 2 periods might help reinforce worker pressure on MP’s to come out at a local level to urge local employers not to implement the decision.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><u><br /></u></strong> <strong><u>How long will it take to win – the trajectory for winning?</u></strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><br /></strong> <strong>The second big strategic decision</strong> is a notional time frame that this campaign will take 2 to 5 years to win. It would be nice to win sooner but expectation that we can – in my view – misjudges the power of those who want this decision against the current power of those of us who oppose it.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
We need time for education work and union growth organising to build the power to win. We do not have it right now, just the same as the employers did not have enough power to win their objective in 2007. The employers have understood strategy much better than us and have been ruthless enough against working people and their unions to stick to their strategy and be flexible in applying it.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
We have to be every bit as cold and calculating as they have been and more.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Therefore, these days of action MUST be educational and must be seen as building blocks to very big and powerful actions in the future that will be more decisive.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Our strategy will have to escalate over that 2-5 year period in the spread and depth of awareness among the workers immediately affected and those who will experience the flow on effects of it.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
A strategy of this type must culminate with the consequence of economic pain for the employers who wanted this decision and who decide to implement it.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
The next award review will be in 4 years or so, possibly less. That is the moment for the first “really big culmination” of our strategy in which employers can face the prospect of real economic consequences for their actions.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Within it there is the opportunity for the union movement to actively regrow from within the 21 st century working class, basing that on education-driven organising of both union members and potential members.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
This decision to cut penalty rates is one element of ruling class momentum against all workers … the whole of the working class.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
We can add to that the employers threat to re-locate operations to off shore low wage havens, use of lock outs during bargaining, demand for major concessions in enterprise agreements, and refusing to bargain for any improvements about job security or wages or safety, employer applications to cancel agreements and drive their workers back to the minimum wages and conditions in Awards, penal powers against any workers who take industrial action that is not approved by the FWC, and the government’s new Building Industry Code policed by the building industry commission. This is a considerable array of power for employers that is facilitated by the Fair Work Act.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><u><br /></u></strong> <strong><u>Penalty Rates Plus</u></strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Genuine working class power can be built to demand at the next Award review and even before not just the restoration of current penalty rates but also a significant increase in the minimum Award rate, and automatic casual conversion after 3 months for those who want it.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
These issues are relevant to all other Awards as well. We are talking about common, multi industry actions to take on common big employment problems.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<strong><br /></strong> <strong>This will be a campaign for all workers because the huge gap between award rates and union negotiated agreement rates is contrary to the fundamental rationale for unionism, and should </strong><strong>not be acceptable to any unionist. </strong></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<b><br /></b> The focus of the whole movement must turn steadily (although not absolutely) to AWARDS and away from enterprise agreements.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
Finally, this “ordinarily people” rooted strategy will require that the Fair Work Act (including its penal powers against workers) be defied, and probably broken, and ultimately genuinely re-written for workers’ benefit.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
That’s not a reason not to do it but it is a reason for a lot of educational work in preparation.</div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-entry">
<i><br />This article was also published at Don's blog - which can be found here: <br /><br />https://donsutherland.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/why-and-how-the-fair-work-commissions-cuts-to-sunday-penalty-rates-can-be-defeated/</i><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-56843213866671364622017-02-01T13:13:00.001+11:002017-02-04T13:27:45.880+11:00Unpublished Letters from a Left Activst<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhkp8ck_nXQnfGS45tKsFykxUpVPWD7LWcdWOuxmb-MsseBIEYqKNMPdTdIRUy4NZW9odEQvQxbsHw0cnLYkBwsQ3eKPlNY8Ir0OoVJ9g0ikHOCWPhyphenhyphen3RMMcsI1GAHuDTpBMGxj68/s1600/2015-423--Helping-the-poor-today%252C-WORLD-SOCIAL-POVERTY-AUSTRALIA-WORLD-SOCIAL-POVERTY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhkp8ck_nXQnfGS45tKsFykxUpVPWD7LWcdWOuxmb-MsseBIEYqKNMPdTdIRUy4NZW9odEQvQxbsHw0cnLYkBwsQ3eKPlNY8Ir0OoVJ9g0ikHOCWPhyphenhyphen3RMMcsI1GAHuDTpBMGxj68/s400/2015-423--Helping-the-poor-today%252C-WORLD-SOCIAL-POVERTY-AUSTRALIA-WORLD-SOCIAL-POVERTY.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";"><b><br />What follows are another series of letters I have written to the ‘Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’during the December 2016 to January 2017 period.</b></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";"><b> </b></span></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";"><b>None were published.</b></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";"><b> </b></span></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";"><b>But I hope it sparks some thought and some debate amongst readers here at Left Focus.<br /><br />Topics include 'Cultural Marxism' , Labor Policy, Pensions, Green Energy and who pays?, Islam and Education, Female Genital Mutilation, What to do about Poverty?, and 'Bolt and Panahi need to Work Out Which Side they are On on Civil Liberties.....</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Hysteria on ‘Cultural Marxism’</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">"P.Jones (Letters, 29/12/16) again raises the spectre of ‘cultural Marxism’ ; evoking the remnants of Cold War era fear of those movements bearing the name of Karl Marx.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But ‘Critical Theory’ and the ‘Frankfurt School’ (the proper names of the traditions referred to as ‘cultural Marxism’) are radical intellectual traditions which have very little to do with the Totalitarianism and Stalinism which once prevailed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Critical theorists promoted personal freedom, dignity and fulfilment ; and they rejected attempts by Stalin and his successors to crush the independence of radical thought.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Some critical theorists have also promoted the peaceful transition to a democratic socialist order through mutual engagement based on the powers of human reason.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">They also subjected past Marxism to criticism on the basis that radicals needed to be open-minded about confronting past errors.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Considered in context, ‘cultural Marxism’ does not deserve ‘the bogey status’ imposed on it by Conservative intellectuals and others who either do not really understand its content ; or otherwise want to distort perceptions in order to create fear and prevent change."</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Labor needs a Stronger Agenda ; and not only Defensiveness on Company Tax</span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Responding to ‘The Age Letters 7/1/17’: While Labor’s opposition to Company Tax cuts is welcome, Australia needs a more robust reform agenda: improving our social wage and welfare state, and providing for vital infrastructure. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Hence a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme to roll back regressive user pays;</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">and improve quality of life for our most vulnerable. Superannuation tax concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class could be cut, bringing in tens of billions.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">In addition to Capital Gains Tax and Negative Gearing reforms, Australia could also look to phased withdrawal of Dividend Imputation. Reversion to a 75% credit alone could save over $5 billion/year.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Because of their progressive potential, reform of income and other progressive taxes (eg: Medicare-style Levies) should not be ‘taboo’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Presumed ‘pull factors’ regarding Corporate Taxation can neglect the impact of education and infrastructure in attracting investment.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Infrastructure privatisation increases cost-structures.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And there are economic and moral dilemmas associated with ‘corporate welfare’. Citizens and taxpayers effectively subsidize corporations benefitting from services and infrastructure ; because of a more regressive tax mix (flatter, and/or focusing on consumption) and also indirectly through austerity. Poverty and inequality also affect consumption power, damaging the broader economy. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span></b></div>
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Problems with Tightening Pension Eligibility</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Frank Stubbs (Herald-Sun Letters, 7/1/17) argues “the pension is not a right” ; that it should only go to the most needy.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But there are problems with this argument.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">In the 1980s Labor introduced superannuation while means-testing pensions.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">This enabled a focus on ‘targeted welfare’ ; where we could have both a regime of low taxation – and necessary supports for the genuinely vulnerable.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Superannuation made all this possible.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But before this the Aged Pension was considered a right.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Primarily because people had paid their taxes their entire working lives – and had earned that security.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But “rights” must also be a matter of human decency ; such that we must not allow the vulnerable to struggle in poverty – even if they cannot work.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The problem with superannuation is that it might increasingly see the marginalisation of the Aged Pension, and those dependent upon it.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The consumption power of low income Australians is also affected, harming the economy. In the future conservatives may demand further tightening of pension eligibility; and that would marginalise pensioners, giving rise to further self-interested cries from business, the middle classes, the wealthy - </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">for pension cuts.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">There’s a potential future social cost to cutting pension eligibility.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">AN Important Question on Green Energy:</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Who Pays?</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span> </div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In response to Matt Johnston (13/1): It is necessary to take action on renewable energy to respond to global warming.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But an additional concern is “who pays?”</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Currently, renewable energy is more expensive.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And while many households are taking up ‘micro-renewable energy’, a great many others are ‘locked out’ because they simply cannot afford the investment. But as middle class families opt for micro-renewable energy, this damages the ‘economies of scale’ of the legacy centralised energy industry.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The cost of ‘poles and wires’ and other infrastructure is divided amongst a smaller consumer base.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">So consumers on low incomes are forced to pay more. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">This is worsened by privatisation: which means providers will pursue profits and avoid cross subsidies for the financially disadvantaged. “Micro-renewables’ are probably the way of the future: but in the meantime governments need to take stronger action to ensure financially disadvantaged customers don’t bear the cost.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Subsidies of various kinds need to negate the entire effect on affordability for low income customers during this transitional period. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">(Until technology improves and prices fall)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The timeframe depends on the priorities of government and the progress of research and development.</span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Responding to Kevin Donnelly on Islam and Education</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"> Kevin Donnelly (Herald Sun, 2/1/17) criticises Islam as ‘inherently violent’ while defending ‘the Western tradition’ against its apparent detractors on ‘the Left’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Some things need to be stated in response to this.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Firstly, it is partly a matter of convenience.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The ‘West’ supported the Mujahedeen (Islamic fundamentalists) against the Soviets during the Cold War, despite what this meant for women in Afghanistan. Further, Islam is diverse – and potentially open to reform – perhaps like Christianity and Judaism have been. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">(partly because of the historic intersection of Christianity with liberalism) In some places ‘a (liberal) Islamic reformation’ may actually be a good thing. (further reform of the Roman Catholic Church would also be good) But in the meantime we should not promote notions of ‘cultural superiority’ to justify interventions which are really geo-political in nature. Also when we defend ‘the Western tradition’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ we should be clear what that means.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It means supporting free and critical enquiry.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The consequence of this also must be that education is not only for ‘fundamentals’ of numeracy and literacy.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">There is a crucial place for the Humanities and Social Sciences – in combination with a progressive civics agenda – which promotes political literacy and active citizenship.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Authoritarian responses to protest and civil disobedience are counter to the freedoms we celebrate which originated with the Enlightenment – and the liberal and democratic revolutions that followed.</span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Responding to FGM:</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">How Prevalent is it in Australia?</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Rita Panahi (16/1) makes some points about the most reactionary practices </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Islam, mentioning child brides, ‘honour killings’, and female genital mutilation. Despite allusions to a so-called ‘regressive Left’ any Leftist worth their salt could not help but oppose those practices.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Of course we must support women and girls who oppose and fight against these practices. But there are other complications. Firstly it is unclear how widespread</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">FGM is in Australia.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">In 2010 the ABC reported that 700 cases were presented to the Melbourne Royal Women’s Hospital.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But in 2011 the total Australian Islamic population (all creeds considered) was nearing half a million.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">So its important to keep perspective: to support the rights of women and girls ; but also to be aware of possible ulterior motives. Strong cultural differences can be exploited to justify geo-political and strategic objectives.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">We need to keep cultural difference and strategic/geo-political issues separate so as to avoid confusion and remain clear about the real motivations and interests behind our foreign policy.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">References:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-06/female-circumcision-happening-in-australia/2594496"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-06/female-circumcision-happening-in-australia/2594496</span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia</span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">What Must we actually Do in Response to Poverty?</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In the Herald-Sun letters section recently there has been some good discussion of poverty. But the problem is on such a scale that it will never be overcome through charity ; and we need action - not only talk. Only government can provide the resources for a definitive solution. That calls for a stronger, fairer welfare system for disadvantaged groups, the elderly and the unemployed ; a fairer, progressive tax mix ; and labour market re-regulation at the lower end.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It also calls for a stronger social wage ;</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">including more funding for public health and education ; as well as for public housing and emergency accommodation, and energy and water subsidies.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It might also include better-subsidised public transport and internet access. (these are now essentials - for instance it is virtually impossible to search effectively for work now without them)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It could include an active industry policy which offers ‘flexible’ work favourable to employees’ needs ; preventing those such as retrenched auto workers being relegated permanently to unemployment.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And it could involve greater flexibility for pensioners to take on casual or part-time work without foregoing their pensions ; hence avoiding poverty traps.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Bolt and Panahi Need to work out where they Stand on Civil Rights</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Andrew Bolt claims “Leftists hate our freedoms” while Rita Panahi gives thanks for liberal freedoms she enjoys in Australia compared with theocratic Iran.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But at the same time Rita Panahi has dismissed civil libertarians as ‘do-gooders’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And for all his talk, Andrew Bolt has never had anything to say against anti-protest laws introduced by past Liberal governments in New South Wales and Victoria. That includes ‘move on’ laws that criminalised freedom of assembly ; and laws in NSW which could see protestors jailed for several years for civil disobedience.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">As well as Federal laws criminalising ‘whistle-blowers’ who reveal details on the treatment of refugees.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Journalists like Panahi and Bolt need to decide what side they are on when it comes to liberal and democratic rights.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It is true that parts of the Left qualify freedom of speech where they believe that speech could be socially harmful.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Other Leftists are nonetheless concerned at possible precedents which could help result in a far more general retreat of liberties.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And the ‘pressure cooker’ effect of suppressed (and sometimes manufactured) grievances which can explode with the rise of populist, far-right-wing movements.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Reality is more complex than you would think reading Panahi and Bolt.</span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-22203035014480200102016-12-10T14:27:00.001+11:002016-12-12T12:09:57.857+11:00Letters from a Labor Activist ; November/December 2016 <div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq5Z-kfZjxzGDnQTcT2Fni9uHf95uzWjUpBNL7J7nTUBtjcUX1TUgg-axeJ4NL-uh5_ZSaGBY8fLJkagy6ko_9fn9RLTtLOM2se6XFerVq9bKg39j37FtQsfSY3R-BX80-ZX2BBs0/s1600/civic-education.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq5Z-kfZjxzGDnQTcT2Fni9uHf95uzWjUpBNL7J7nTUBtjcUX1TUgg-axeJ4NL-uh5_ZSaGBY8fLJkagy6ko_9fn9RLTtLOM2se6XFerVq9bKg39j37FtQsfSY3R-BX80-ZX2BBs0/s400/civic-education.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><b>above: Humanity does not Live by Bread Alone ; What about Democracy and Political Literacy in our Educational Curricula?</b><br /><b><br /></b><span style="color: blue;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> Progressive Letters to 'The Age' and 'The Herald-Sun' ; (November/December 2016) ; Everything from ‘Public Debt Shibboleths’ to Privatisation, Defending Democracy,</span></b></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="color: blue;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></b></span></span><span style="color: blue;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Right Protest, Education for Politically Literate and Active Citizenship, and more ; Please feel welcome to read and comment on the articles, share via Facebook and so on.</span></b></span></span></div>
<b></b><b></b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<b>
</b>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Dr Tristan Ewins</b></div>
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /> Is there a public debt crisis?</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Or is the Crisis one of Private Debt?</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Debt letter One)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Unpublished)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Regularly we are warned of the ‘immense threat’ of government debt. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But its best, here, to use the measure of ‘net debt’ which also includes revenue from government assets. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(instead of ‘gross debt’ - which does not)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For example, with the privatisation of assets like the Commonwealth Bank gross debt fell, but net debt worsened significantly. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Australian Government</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">net debt was recently measured around 18 per cent of GDP : approximately $285 billion in an economy around AUS $1.6 billion.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But HOUSEHOLD debt – ie: the debt owed by Australian individuals and families – is over 100% of GDP -</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">over $2 TRILLION.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Private debt is clearly the bigger threat. The Liberals try and offset private debt with public austerity – in health, education, welfare, infrastructure. But these areas are often more crucial to our well-being than private consumption.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So arguably we need a BIGGER social investment in these areas as opposed to cuts. We need a more balanced approach ; containing debt long term – without gutting public services and infrastructure, or destroying</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">jobs and growth. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And now is a good time to invest in potential income bearing (and other) government assets – on account of low interest rates.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A big investment in public housing could also make housing more affordable –</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">making significant inroads into private household debt.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We also need an industry policy to achieve full employment –and full time jobs for those who want them.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That could offset an ageing population without resort to measures like raising the age of retirement.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">References:</span></span></i></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span> <a href="http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/natsem-budget/natsem-pre-budget-2016-state-of-play/how-much-public-debt-do-australians-have/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/natsem-budget/natsem-pre-budget-2016-state-of-play/how-much-public-debt-do-australians-have/</span></a></span></div>
<u></u><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-100-billion-been-added-to-australias-national-debt-under-the-current-government-60701"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-100-billion-been-added-to-australias-national-debt-under-the-current-government-60701</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<u></u><br /></div>
<u></u><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Debt letter Two)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Published)</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Bruce Hambour (Herald-Sun Letters, November 2016) </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">writes that debt is getting so out of control that welfare must be cut to rein it in. But why start by cutting the payments for some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians when there are other options?</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why not drop massive corporate tax cuts, and other tax cuts for the well off?</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why not cut back Superannuation Tax Concessions – mainly beneficial to the well-off – whom taxpayers are effectively subsidising by tens of billions every year?</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also public sector debt is actually negligible compared with private debt.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(approx. 30% of GDP compared with 200% of GDP)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The housing bubble hasn’t helped ; and what’s needed are big investments in public and social housing (to increase supply), and in infrastructure and services (to ensure quality of life).</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also Conservatives attempt to play the working poor of against the vulnerable welfare-dependent.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(divide and conquer) That’s better fixed by raising the minimum wage, and improving the social wage for the working poor.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Herald-Sun Op-Ed Describes Labor Left Opposition to Privatisation as “Extremist”.</span></span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Published)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">James Campbell (Herald-Sun, 24/11) depicts Labor Left opposition to privatization as ‘extremist’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But what grounds are there for this opinion?</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Most Australians did (and still do) oppose privatization of important government assets.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And the longest-serving Australian Liberal Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, presided over a relatively larger public sector (and more steeply progressive income taxes) than Labor governments of the 80s and 90s.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The ‘extreme’ tag is a flippant way of dismissing an argument without having to engage or justify your position.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">‘Natural public monopolies’ (eg: in water, communications, energy) would reduce costs for the broader economy. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And Medibank Private’s recent privatization saw private health insurance costs rise as the newly-privatizated corporation arguably began abusing its market power.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Commonwealth Bank can also make profits close to $10 billion now.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That means our net government debt position is much worse now because of its privatization.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Since its privatization there have also been problems with fees, and the quality of services for regions and financially disadvantaged customers.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Herald-Sun letter calls for ‘Technocracy’ in place of Democracy</span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Unpublished)</span></b><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Simon Hammond (Herald-Sun, 26/11) claims democracy is to blame for weak and indecisive government .</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Instead he suggests a kind of ‘government of experts’. (a technocracy) But the problem is not democracy ; it is particular practices such as poll and focus-group driven politics ; and ‘gotcha’ politics’ which neglect the substance of policy choices.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another problem is the major parties all aiming for ‘the centre ground’ ; not standing up for their beliefs. (‘Convergence politics’)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That means weaker pluralism. That is, less choice.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In fact we need a stronger democracy.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A free multi-party system is meant to ensure scrutiny of public policy and social issues ; but often media neglect the substance ; and politicians respond by playing to shallow agendas.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We need to transform our society ; which could be achieved partly through educational curricula for active and politically literate citizenship ; which is ideologically inclusive and</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">encourages students to think about – and stand up for - their rights and interests. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Responding to Andrew Bolt on the causes of the Trump Victory</span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Unpublished)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Andrew Bolt calls the Trump election victory “a revolt against the Left’s arrogance” (Herald-Sun, 10/11). But reality is more complex than this.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A neo-liberal consensus</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- a particular INTERPRETATION of ‘globalisation’ - has prevailed around much of the world, facilitated by BOTH the parties of the Right and of the ostensible Centre-Left. Working class people who had lost their identity, as well as their economic and social security with the destruction of their jobs – gravitated towards a promise to restore America’s industrial base.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump’s old school protectionism might not be the answer, but Nordic-style, targeted industry policy might serve better.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Policies which promote high value-added manufacturing alongside Research and Development, and promotion of information and communications technology industrial development.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The US Left needs to actively court the working class – including white males – with policies that offer the respect and security which could be key to building a broad electoral bloc, and rolling back Trump’s support base.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why Scott Morrisson and the Liberals are Wrong on Company Tax Cuts</span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(to both the Herald-Sun and The Age ; Unpublished)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Today (28/11)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">it was distressing to see Treasurer Scott Morrison in Question Time defending massive cuts to Company Tax.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He referred to Trump’s objective of a 15% corporate rate, and suggested Australia needs to be ‘competitive’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But the United States had enjoyed a maximum corporate rate of 35% for many years under both Republican and Democrat Administrations.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Elsewhere, the reality is that high quality social services, education, infrastructure are ‘pull factors’ for investment as well.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And this needs to be paid for somehow.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Conservative approach is ‘corporate welfare’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That is: the corporate rate is cut - but workers, pensioners, families ‘pay the price’ one way another.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Through unfair ‘replacement taxes’ like the GST , or through a neglect of services and infrastructure which is arguably bad for investment anyway. We need international agreement to stop ‘the race to the bottom’ in corporate taxation.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Without this the economy will suffer anyway – as ‘corporate welfare’ takes income away from the very workers</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">whose consumption supports the domestic economy.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Feminist Revolution must take account of class ; must be based on Mutual Respect and Empathy</span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Unpublished)</span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trish Thompson (‘The Age’, letters;</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">30/11) reminds us of “the privileges of being a white heterosexual male”.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But she makes no mention of social class .</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That determines our quality of life ; where our kids go to school ; often the quality of our diet and health care; whether we can pay the bills and put a roof over our heads ; what else we can enjoy outside of work.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Other factors include whether or not our work is fulfilling ; and what economic (and hence political) power we have.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why is class usually forgotten today ; or otherwise relegated to a subordinate position?</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Age, body image and disability are also relatively neglected. We are in the midst of what might be called a feminist revolution.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What’s at stake is whether or not that revolution is broadened in pursuit of genuine mutual solidarity and liberation.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Or whether there is a kind of ‘turning of the tables’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many men are reacting against discourse they see as inferring ‘masculinity’ and male sexuality are ‘</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">essentially</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> bad’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Without mutual respect and empathy there will be a reaction and the feminist revolution might fail.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Working Class Men don’t have ‘a lot to gain’ from Deindustrialisation and the Consequence is Unemployment and Poverty</span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Unpublished)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Jacqueline Maley </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(‘The Age’, 3/12/16)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">writes as if men have more to gain than lose through deindustrialisation. The reality, though, is that older skilled manufacturing workers will not find replacement work making use of their skill sets.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And service industry jobs are unlikely to make up for the 50,000 jobs lost in the car industry and supporting industries .</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The notion that when men take up service industry jobs that these will rise in stature is questionable.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The balance of trade is another associated concern.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is a function of capitalism more so than patriarchy that ‘unprofitable’ service jobs are devalued. For example, a better deal for both aged care workers AND residents might ‘eat into corporate profits’ – directly (eg: through higher corporate tax) or indirectly (with a reduction in private consumption power with higher income or consumption </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">taxes). That said we do need to ‘valorise’ caring (often ‘feminised’) professions.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We need a re-regulation of the most-highly-exploited end of the labour market.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To reform the tax mix and extend the social wage.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Resistance to the extension and improvement of social services is most likely to come from capitalists and their advocates in the so-called ‘political class’ rather than from working class men.</span></span></div>
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We Must be unambiguous on the Right to Protest ; and stand against even more regressive User-Pays in Tertiary Education</span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Part-Published)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">David Penberthy</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Herald-Sun 4/12/16) condemns the protestors who disrupted parliament the other day as ‘ratbags’. He goes on to support user-pays in Higher Education, arguing ‘Why should blue collar workers pay for someone’s Law degree?”</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In response ; democracies must defend liberal and democratic rights, including speech, association and assembly.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But arguably a mature democracy – which feels secure in itself - accepts there will be occasions where differences of principle become so steep that accommodation must be made for civil disobedience as well.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Such flexibility helps define us as a genuinely *liberal* democracy. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Furthermore: Penberthy’s defence of user pays in Higher Education ignores the fact that were a greater portion of education costs shouldered through income and corporate taxes – then roughly people and interests would pay in proportion to the financial benefit gained.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And if we wanted to reform the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">to make it fairer, then we might raise repayment thresholds.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are many former students on less than the average wage who are forced to repay loans that bear no relation to their actual incomes.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Repayment thresholds have fallen relative to the average wage: and that is unfair.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why Political Literacy, and encouraging Active Citizenship must Have Their Place in Educational Curricula ‘in a strong democracy’</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Unpublished)</span></span></b><span style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is a developing view (Herald-Sun Editorial, ‘Teach don’t Preach’ , 7/12/16) that ‘politics should be kept out of the classroom’; and that means not only that teachers ‘should not be advocating causes’ – but also that there should be a ‘back to basics’ movement emphasising science and maths.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The problem with this is that education needs to be for life – and while maths and science have their place, </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">education for politically literate and active citizenship can strengthen our democracy and empower our citizenry to work for their beliefs, rights and interests. To achieve bipartisanship – there needs to be a reformed National Curriculum – which exposes students to the ideas of BOTH the Democratic Left and the Democratic Right, while also imparting an understanding of other ideologies.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As the saying goes ‘man does not live by bread alone’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">An active and informed democracy should have bipartisan support across the Democratic Right and the Democratic Left.</span> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><br />(Unpublished)</span></b><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Greg Byrne (Herald-Sun, 10/12/16) refers to</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">education about “gender, ethnicity and class” as “nonsense” that has nothing to do with finding jobs.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But the Humanities and Social Sciences involve research and writing skills ; the construction of detailed arguments , and evaluating complex information. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also humanity ‘does not live by bread alone’. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(ie: </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">the labour market and work) </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A stronger democracy (based on understanding and participation) rests on citizens’ political literacy (understanding political ideologies, values, movements, processes) and on their powers of expression. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Humanities and Social Sciences drive us to ask fundamental questions about the human condition ; about ethics ; and thinking critically about democracy, economy and society.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a strong democracy we must be empowered to make informed choices as citizens – regardless of whether we perceive ourselves as being of </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“the Right” or “The Left”. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That means imagining alternatives to current social and economic arrangements in pursuit of ‘The Good Society’. Here, </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">assessing the balance of wealth, power </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">and opportunity in society is a legitimate question.</span></span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-53860478347006131432016-11-26T19:45:00.000+11:002016-11-26T21:28:33.508+11:00Remembering Fidel<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHlcu9HpVzLdTc659saUval1pLsTAOPEVR4AiQqEeupTT27nM1yvK2rv09qW7QkB4Km8yDpVauQMDOgZHd9bI7NQJmHz3dnseI5qVFbGAw4fienfqJn2k1wCirmyuMPaz-33dF10/s1600/thS1BXR4ST.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHlcu9HpVzLdTc659saUval1pLsTAOPEVR4AiQqEeupTT27nM1yvK2rv09qW7QkB4Km8yDpVauQMDOgZHd9bI7NQJmHz3dnseI5qVFbGAw4fienfqJn2k1wCirmyuMPaz-33dF10/s320/thS1BXR4ST.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b><br />Mourning the Death of Fidel Castro and Remembering<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">Readers are encouraged to discuss Castro's legacy, and what happens in Cuba now</span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b><br />Tristan Ewins</b><br /><br />News today of the passing away of former Cuban Marxist revolutionary
and President Fidel Castro.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br />
Fidel rose to power through the vehicle of a popular insurgency which overthrew
the corrupt US-backed Batista government.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Turning to the USSR for support, Castro survived arguably hundreds of
assassination attempts, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs
invasion, and more.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">He built a one-party state –
albeit one based on overwhelming popular mobilisation and participation.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Arguably his government was authoritarian:
though this must be largely understood in the context of terror attacks, and
the aforementioned assassination attempts.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Much like Western intervention in
Revolutionary Russia drove Lenin to embrace a spiralling Red Terror (which
ultimately descended into Stalinism), Castro embraced authoritarian measures to
ward away his adversaries.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Though
certainly he was never a monster like Stalin.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br />
For decades Cubans flourished in the context of a system which prioritised
Health Care for all,</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">reducing infant
mortality, eliminating illiteracy, and reaching out to Cuba’s neighbours</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">through the vehicle of volunteer doctors and
teachers. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Indeed, on many indicators (eg:
infant mortality) Fidel’s Cuba out-performed his neighbours, including the
United States itself. <br />
<br />
Castro was one of the earliest and most consistent opponents of Apartheid in
South Africa. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">He actively supported revolutionary movements
in Central and South America, including in Nicaragua and El Salvador.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The brutality with which those movements were
repressed – with US support – stands in stark contrast with many Western nations
condemnation of Fidel’s government as ‘totalitarian’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Repression of left-wing movements, including the
murder of Liberation Theologian Archbishop Oscar Romero ; saw the deaths of
hundreds of thousands.<br />
<br />
But when Communism collapsed in the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-1991 Cuba
was left exposed to the long-term US Economic Embargo.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Living standards fell on many indicators.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But still Cubans overwhelmingly supported
their government. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Fidel lived to see
the Cuban economy recover ; and to see his brother, Raul engage in ‘fence-mending’
with the government of Barack Obama.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Under Raul there were market reforms – which were essential to Cuba’s
survival, including its engagement with the rest of the world ;</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But Cuba’s identity and orientation remained
inarguably socialist. For instance Cuba remained implacably in solidarity with the Leftist/Bolivarian governments of Venezuela.<br />
<br />
All this aside, </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">the threat of Terror and
assassination do not fully explain or fully excuse repression in Cuba.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">There have been extrajudicial executions ;
Imprisonment of political prisoners, systemic harassment of critics.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Cuba’s government may have overwhelming
popular support: but as Rosa Luxemburg effectively argued in contrast to Lenin
and Trotsky: human rights and democracy must always also be rights for those
who dare to think and speak differently.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">It is easy to romanticise Fidel’s reign given his enormous personal
charisma.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">But on the Left we must keep
in mind the shortcomings, also.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And
strive to do better.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless for many of us on the Left this is a sad day.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Fidel achieved so much in his leadership of
socialist Cuba.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">And socialist Cuba’s
survival in the post-Cold War world is remarkable.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Fidel deserves to be remembered for the sum
of his achievements and of his legacy.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Some of that is questionable ; but much of it is laudable.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">When
we remember him let it be in applying those same standards to our own
governments ; and the governments of our historic allies.</span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-35351845370812816582016-11-11T18:09:00.001+11:002016-11-11T18:20:57.231+11:00What the Trump Victory means about 'Political Correctness', 'Anti-Political Correctness' and the American Working Class<br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj21x2yd6XZtyLFVxQIq307SD_cAiSzwVjQubgyxKj5fehTU1whu4SDfSOfWFWHbvHx4QMu6_rZ13dJ3EDv70_BnogK_MKIelJAaBgbzfyM-NSzn8cbNbUSbzoJuOMiefC8_XJxE-k/s1600/hillary5-1024x683.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj21x2yd6XZtyLFVxQIq307SD_cAiSzwVjQubgyxKj5fehTU1whu4SDfSOfWFWHbvHx4QMu6_rZ13dJ3EDv70_BnogK_MKIelJAaBgbzfyM-NSzn8cbNbUSbzoJuOMiefC8_XJxE-k/s320/hillary5-1024x683.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b><i><u><sub><sup><strike><br /></strike></sup></sub></u></i></b><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />above: An Exhausted Hillary Clinton after the Shock Donald Trump Presidential Victory</span></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b> <br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">'Political Correctness' is a common bogey deployed by the Right in order to wedge the Left ; But here 'Anti-Political-Correctness' is the much bigger problem when viewed in perspective ; As effectively argued by former Keating speech writer, Don Watson. At the same time the Left needs to 'return to class' ; and engage with opinions we don't like. The 'political pressure cooker' alternative may blow up in our faces...</span></span></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dr Tristan Ewins</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />In response to the surprise Trump victory in the US
Presidential election</span></div>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I’ve written a
couple of letters to Australian newspapers : though neither published yet.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Before engaging in a broader examination of ‘political
correctness’ and ‘anti-political correctness’ </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(which I thought I’d deal with in response to
some negative commentary) – here are the letters in their original form.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First to ‘The Age’:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hard as it may be to believe
there’s a silver lining to the US Election result. Instead of being taken for
granted one way or another, both Republicans and Democrats will now have to
take account of the needs of the US working class. Bipartisan support for the
neo-liberal interpretation of globalisation will need to be re-thought. In the
mid-West and elsewhere the industrial working class and its sons and daughters
have long suffered a deindustrialisation which robbed them of social and
economic security and identity. The Right also increasingly uses narratives of
‘Left elites’ and ‘political correctness’ to drive a wedge against the
progressive Left. An unambiguous return to class politics could sweep the rug
from under that strategy. The old Left made the mistake of taking working class
support for granted. Some in today’s US Democrats make the opposite mistake of
‘writing white male workers off’. What we need is a strategy to build a
multi-faceted electoral bloc based on a politics of solidarity, mutual respect,
and mutual liberation.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
And also to the ‘Herald Sun’ ( a counter to Andrew Bolt):</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
Andrew Bolt calls the Trump election victory “a revolt against the Left’s
arrogance” (10/11). But reality is more complex than this. A neo-liberal
consensus - a particular INTERPRETATION of ‘globalisation’ - has prevailed
around much of the world, facilitated by BOTH the parties of the Right and of
the ostensible Centre-Left. Working class people who had lost their identity,
as well as their economic and social security with the destruction of their
jobs – gravitated towards a promise to restore America’s industrial base.
Trump’s old school protectionism might not be the answer, but Nordic-style,
targeted industry policy might serve better. Policies which promote high value-added
manufacturing alongside Research and Development, and promotion of information
and communications technology industrial development. Instead of taking their
orientation for granted, the US Left needs to actively court the working class
– including white males – with policies that offer the respect and security
which could be key to building a broad electoral bloc, and rolling back Trump’s
support base.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
After I had posted one of these at Facebook I got the response from one reader:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“</span><span lang="EN" style="color: #1d2129; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I see, so white males are the most important in all of
this are they?</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">”</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I was surprised at this as I thought many on the Australian
Left could see the problems with US politics ; that is – the lack of a clear
class perspective; and hence the political alienation of a great many American
workers. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Great swathes of the American
working class have been co-opted by Conservative interests who play ‘divide and
conquer’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is similar to the situation in
Australia.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For instance where certain
media outlets play the working poor off against some of the most vulnerable
welfare recipients.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That strategy is detestable ; but has proven quite
effective. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The best response it to build solidarity – and promote the
rights and interests of both those on benefits AND the working poor.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">More robust labour market regulation and social
wage provision for the ‘working poor’ is a crucial strategy in response to those
Conservative ‘wedge strategies’ in Australia.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the US, however, the Democrats have allowed themselves to
be wedged by propaganda which emphasizes themes of </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">‘political correctness’ , ‘Left cultural
elites’ and so on. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(also similar to
Australia) What’s more, modern identity politics has paved the way for this
strategy’s success.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The class perspective
was abandoned.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There has been an
emphasis on the privileges of white men – but where class just never comes into
the picture. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At its most vulgar and
simplistic this is interpreted by some as suggesting there is something just ‘</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>essentially</i></span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <b>bad’ </b>with white male identity,
sexuality and status.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
Race and gender no doubt need to be seriously taken into account when
constructing a critique of privilege and power in modern capitalist
societies.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">They are a big part of the
overall picture.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We need greater
equality in the labour market, the public sphere, sport, the home, and so
on.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We need a women’s movement which
demands these – and more.<br />
<br />
But as former Keating speech writer Don Watson effectively argued on QandA
recently (I paraphrase) : ‘political correctness can be bad’ ; although ‘anti-political
correctness is much worse!’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 13px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The lack of tolerance for real engagement with more
conservative social perspectives : indeed the tendency to supress debate for
fear of being vilified or shamed – actually plays into the Right’s hands.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It can create a ‘pressure cooker’ environment
which can finally explode with the rise of a Trump-like character.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And if people are already disengaged because
no-one is speaking to their economic and social interests ; and because they
are prejudged as ‘red-necks’ – that just facilitates the Conservative agenda.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(not that Trump is ‘traditional Conservative’)<br />
<br />
But sure </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- the monopoly mass media does
the same thing – but in reverse.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Mostly
it fails to engage with progressive perspectives. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Systemically excludes them on any significant
scale. Often it facilitates that strategy of ‘divide and conquer’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It facilitates intolerance, fear, ‘downward
envy’ and so on.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Often it is intellectually
dishonest.<br />
<br />
Compared with so-called ‘political correctness’ the ‘anti-PC’ movement </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">is so frightening as it could facilitate a
full-on political and social Reaction : perhaps even fascism in some instances.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is a disposition to wind back past
gains: social security and welfare ; affirmative action and women’s right to
choose ; the welfare state and social wage. Civil and industrial liberties are
mocked, belittled and trivialised.<br />
<br />
Here I had chosen in one of my letters to mention white working class men
specifically because of their strategic importance ; but also because they
matter as human beings ; and should just not be ‘written off’. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Karl Marx argued for the human liberation of
ALL working people.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Facilitating the
fullest possible human development of all working people ; and the amelioration
(and finally abolition) of alienating forms of human labour under conditions of
material abundance.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That is: Marx
critiqued physically and/or mentally punishing labour with people treated
people like ‘cogs in the machine’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Where
labour was for subsistence ; and its fruits are taken by capitalists in the
form of a surplus. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So emphasising
peoples’ class interests could be ‘the foot in the door’ – to gain peoples’
trust for a broader strategy of mutual solidarity ; and of building an
unbeatable electoral bloc.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
I like to think of the strategy I propose as one of ‘mutual liberation’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The aim, here, is not to write off or
humiliate those demographics who are considered ‘problematic’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But rather to suggest that the liberation of
each is interconnected with the liberation of all. This should involve a real </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">conversation:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
about democracy, and about class, race, sexuality, liberal rights, education
and civic activism, and gender.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
In Australia right now it could be argued we’re wrapped up in veritable ‘cultural
revolution’ with regard to gender and sexuality. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Broadly this revolution is a good thing. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But arguably sometimes ‘the Left’ gets it
wrong.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Privilege can be conceived of in
a overly-simplistic way: not only neglecting social class , but also age,
disability, body image and so on.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What
is more: real privilege is complex.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If
we are to employ an approach of ‘intersectionality’ (ie: the various forms of
privilege and the ways in which they intersect) we need to use those more
complex variations on that framework : which look to specific experiences.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Not ONLY the large scale social relations of
inequality and oppression ; but ALSO the highly individualised
experiences.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When we accept this we can
see that we ought not judge any person until we fully understand their
individual circumstances.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Without
accepting this we are left in the position of unnecessarily alienating some
people: people who might otherwise be convinced if there was a strategy of
respectful engagement. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
But where the project of liberation is subverted into becoming a project of ‘turning
the tables’ this also can fuel a political and social reaction.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It can ‘blow up in our faces’ with exactly
the opposite consequences to what we aspired towards.<br />
<br />
So the Trump electoral result is a real wake-up call for the broad American
Left.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">‘Class’ has to return to the front
and centre of progressive American politics.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Promotion of working class interests is a good thing in itself ; but
also ‘a foot in the door’ for a broader engagement on the project of mutual
human liberation.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
Active and targeted industry policy is a desirable strategy to engage with the
needs and aspirations of the traditional industrial working class.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To achieve full employment ; and the creation
of secure, well paid jobs.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The movement
for a $15/hour minimum wage needs to be fully embraced – and even updated to
account for inflation and a rising cost of living. Industrial rights and
liberties are paramount.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The
neo-liberal interpretation of free trade and globalisation needs to be
re-thought in a way which does not undermine popular sovereignty.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While nonetheless encouraging nations to take
advantage of each others’ specialisations and comparative advantages.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And
making the most of everyone’s</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">‘skill
sets’ ; not leaving them on ‘the labour market scrapheap’. And the benefits of
the social wage and welfare state need to be sold to layers of the working class
which used to enjoy such benefits provided through the private sector.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally I should mention the fact that despite
being slaughtered in the electoral college vote, Hillary Clinton won a clear majority
of the popular vote.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In this scenario
the ‘industrial rust belt’ really was critical to the Trump ‘electoral college
landslide’. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That’s the sense in which we
have ‘a silver lining’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That those
displaced by a decades-long process of deindustrialisation must finally be
taken seriously.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That workers’ interests
more broadly will be embraced as being of real strategic value.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That the working class will no longer be practically
‘invisible’ in American politics. <br />
<br />
The question of Trump’s ‘mandate’, however - and the ‘mandate’ of the
Republicans more broadly – needs to be viewed in this context.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also it is cause to apply a critical eye to
the US electoral system.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">demands</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> constitutional reform.<br />
<br />
Finally: although Bernie Sanders will not likely re-emerge as a Presidential
candidate in four years time, nonetheless the movement he helped create is far
from exhausted. If anything it may gain momentum if Trump’s failure to deliver
disillusions parts of his base.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Economically Left: they are in a position to appeal to workers’
interests.<br />
<br />
Hillary Clinton has not ‘shattered the glass ceiling’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And indeed while her victory would have been
of great symbolic importance – it is actually POLICY and how it affects
specific groups which matters most.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Clinton will not likely return ‘for another shot’ in four years’ time.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But also it really is only a matter of time
before a woman ‘takes the top job’.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also
she was the first woman candidate to run in a US Presidential election.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And she won the popular vote. </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Regardless of her flaws: that will go down as
history.</span> </span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-1321012767223704622016-11-05T18:10:00.001+11:002016-11-06T10:06:26.051+11:00Trump Economic Policy not 'Business as Usual' for Neo-Liberalism - But Clinton offers real change for the Working Poor<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ8wXaleQex7HM4c3g8jHWdI-sPlBiRobqSL6fhmM_6KZPte2OChiJOFX2RsK9MQ5ip0t4Vn3cSITJYnMgO54XzNDON1lhbuPmXtrzxV43eoKWxWuPzO8TCveGp-JuN3ts0jfrmRo/s1600/Clinton-Trump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ8wXaleQex7HM4c3g8jHWdI-sPlBiRobqSL6fhmM_6KZPte2OChiJOFX2RsK9MQ5ip0t4Vn3cSITJYnMgO54XzNDON1lhbuPmXtrzxV43eoKWxWuPzO8TCveGp-JuN3ts0jfrmRo/s400/Clinton-Trump.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">above: The Economic Policy Contest between Clinton and Trump is more interesting than a first glance may suggest</span></b></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dr Tristan Ewins</span></b><br />
<div>
<b></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This week I begin my blog post with a correction. In an earlier article I described Donald Trump as ‘a neo-liberal’. Based on corporate welfare policies – such as cutting corporate tax by more than half , as well as cutting other taxes affecting corporations – this may have appeared accurate. But upon closer inspection this election is more interesting than it first appears.<br /><br />Yes, Trump wants to hold minimum wages down to the existing miserly rate of $7.25 an hour. Yet Democrats are campaigning for an increase to $15 an hour. For the American working poor this could prove to be a real watershed. Though Clinton has only absolutely committed to a rise to $12/hour she will be under significant moral and political pressure to go further. That could result in a defining moment for social justice in the workplace at ‘at the lower end’ in America. But the centre-piece of Trump’s economic policy is a reversion to protectionist policies. He has talked about a 25% tariff on Chinese goods and a 35% tariff on Mexican goods. Hence Trump's position is actually NOT 'business as usual for neo-liberalism'. But the immediate effect of this may well be to shore up some American jobs ; but there’s the prospect of economic retaliation as well. If that happens it could hurt everyone.<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump is assuming massive growth in jobs and investment – and that revenue from tariffs will pay for the massive tax cuts ; as well, perhaps, as reductions in some military expenditure – pressuring NATO allies, and East Asian allies such as Japan and South Korea to invest more into their own defence. Hence Australian commentators such as Paul Kelly suggest (I paraphrase here) a ‘US withdrawal from the world stage’ , and the end of the US as ‘world’s policeman’, ‘enforcing a liberal political model’, including in our region. (though In reality the US was often concerned with its diplomatic and economic hegemony more-so than ‘enforcing liberalism’) Conservative commentators such as Greg Sheridan fear US partial withdrawal from the region and what it might mean for Australia. (eg: pressures for a big increase in Australia's Defence budget)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hillary Clinton’s economic policies contrast quite starkly with Trump’s economic policies. She is proposing big investments in infrastructure, child care, and in boosting women’s economic participation. Also borrowed from Bernie Sanders – she is proposing policies to cut back student debt and hence make tertiary study more accessible. Further she supports profit sharing with workers, collective bargaining rights for organised labour, and investment in the broader education system – both academic and vocational training. She’s also supporting longer-term investment by taxing short term investment more severely than long term investment .</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Other authors are also pointing to the malaise amongst layers of the US working class – still scarred by the process of deindustrialisation which took effect from the 1970s to the 1980s and 1990s. Authors observe the loss of certainty and security. Often there have been much lower wages. Losses of health benefits. Loss of respect, working class identity, organisation and social networks. And where the US Democrats have increasingly pitched their message to ‘the middle’ , working class Americans are sometimes left to wonder ‘if they really matter anymore’. Many modern middle class liberals have a lot to say about the privileges of being white and male, but have had little to say about the working class ; or about class more generally. These ‘blind-spots’ have left many working class Americans disoriented ; and at least Trump was speaking to their experiences, fears and insecurities. Even if his ‘solutions’ are dubious. Sometimes working class Americans even feel patronised by a ‘middle class liberal establishment’ which hasn’t taken class seriously enough ; which sometimes have disrespected or misunderstood them, or subjected them to caricature. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On the other hand Clinton’s policies do offer more social mobility through greater access to tertiary education. And while she won’t restore the industrial working class jobs which many look back to as representing a kind of ‘heyday’ ; some working poor Americans could see close to a </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">doubling</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> of their hourly wages rate. Some jobs might go ; but others will be created by the increase in consumption power. Clinton has some good economic policies – obscured by the never-ending mud-slinging ; the constant emphasis on ‘dirt’ and ‘denigration of character’. (which has become the defining feature of the campaign for both sides)<br /><br /> That said Clinton needed to do more and say more to win over great swathes of working class America. <br /><br /> US industrial working class music icon, </span><a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/19/hes-conman-bruce-springsteen-slams-donald-trump"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Bruce Springsteen</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> has called Trump a ‘conman’ with ‘glib’ and ‘superficial’ ‘answers’ to a problem which has spanned over several decades. Massive tariffs on China and Mexico are a very blunt instrument. Again, they may provoke retaliation which ends up hurting everyone. What jobs are created will possibly pale in comparison to the collapse in corporate tax revenue , with a loss of public sector jobs. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But a more nuanced industry policy – such as the Nordics have experimented with over the decades - should not be considered ‘out of the question’. The age of retirement must not rise – either in America or in Australia – in order to buoy the economy. That’s the wrong approach – which depresses rather than improves real living standards. (ie: with a ‘work/life balance’) Neither should labour market deregulation aim to ‘clear the labour market’. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Strategic economic intervention makes more sense. Targeted education and training linked with job creation for existing/sympathetic skill sets. More extensive retraining where necessary for those deemed capable. Perhaps even government support for workers co-operatives – providing tax breaks and co-investment to help maintain jobs, and improve economies of scale without dependence on take-over capital. <br /><br /> The US government needs a PLAN for a far more balanced and equitable labour market and economy. Clinton’s increase in the minimum wage is a good start ; as are her plans for accessible education and greater economic and social mobility. But depressed regions cannot just be left ‘to carry the can’. Durable jobs need to be created and maintained over the long term. And communities need to be reinforced around the necessary social infrastructure. Where the loss of well-paying working class jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry saw the loss of private sector benefits in areas like health – the State needs to step in and fill the gap. The social wage is potentially the answer for both middle income and lower income Americans. And the working class needs to return to ‘the front and centre’ of Democrats policy and rhetoric.<br /><br /> The real danger now is that Trump is gathering enough momentum to deny the Democrats control of BOTH Houses ; ie: the House of Representatives AND the US Senate. SOME of the truly progressive policies emanating from Hillary Clinton have been derived from Bernie Sanders ; and enshrined in the Democratic Platform. With control of both houses and massive political and moral pressure to implement that platform – we could see some truly meaningful gains under a Clinton Presidency. But failure to speak to the fears and insecurities of the US working class – including recognition of the dignity of labour – have undermined the Democrats position ; and left these people exposed to Trump’s demagogic posturing on the home front. <br /><br /> Even on parts of the Left some are also fearful that Clinton may prove to be too ‘Hawkish’ on the foreign policy front. Trump is seen by some as ‘the lesser evil’. Julian Assange will likely never forgive the US Administration’s pursuit of him under Obama. L.B.Johnson implemented ground-breaking ‘Great Society’ social and welfare policies – but will be remembered by most as pursuing the war in Vietnam. We need a United States which doesn’t just ‘roll over’ in the face of aggression. But which at the same time goes to extraordinary lengths to preserve peace as well. And which appreciates the concerns of other Great Powers where they are legitimate. Yet a vacuum from any US withdrawal within our own region could create more instability, not less. (though no I am not making excuses for past US policies, such as support for the Suharto regime)<br /><br /> The US Presidential Election is almost upon us. Let’s hope for a Clinton victory. But also for a reformed Democratic Party which speaks to – and shows clear respect for – the United States’ working class.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<a href="https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-2016-economic-plan-3305767"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-2016-economic-plan-3305767</span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/28/news/economy/donald-trump-polls-taxes-wages/index.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/28/news/economy/donald-trump-polls-taxes-wages/index.html</span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/17/news/economy/trump_china_trade_war/index.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/17/news/economy/trump_china_trade_war/index.htm</span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/15/news/economy/trump-tariff-ford-mexico/index.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/15/news/economy/trump-tariff-ford-mexico/index.html</span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/08/19/the-half-life-of-deind_partner/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://www.salon.com/2016/08/19/the-half-life-of-deind_partner/</span></a><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-89538139113993375882016-10-23T09:37:00.000+11:002016-10-24T09:30:02.328+11:00Freedom and Mutual Respect - Letters for October 2016<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXmAZZbwyWWqiBbP6NNwMXAj4e8AWakI4zLgSQW2JGrysJJ3lGNPQnPWOkRk0Sw_Z9bPZ5nZJlrQ8AEDRS_9NtEKfA0DEypbfomECdVpQfeCP20PdthC2IXCLmHFfFIO3U1p2Z_ls/s1600/ProtestHeraldSunSaysGetADegreeGetAJob.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXmAZZbwyWWqiBbP6NNwMXAj4e8AWakI4zLgSQW2JGrysJJ3lGNPQnPWOkRk0Sw_Z9bPZ5nZJlrQ8AEDRS_9NtEKfA0DEypbfomECdVpQfeCP20PdthC2IXCLmHFfFIO3U1p2Z_ls/s320/ProtestHeraldSunSaysGetADegreeGetAJob.png" width="291" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><strong><br />above: The Herald-Sun commonly questions the right to protest , but doesn't question its own assumptions re: the availability of work , or the right to refuse exploitative employment</strong><em>The following are a series of progressive letters sent to 'The Age', 'The Herald Sun' and 'The Australian' during October 2016. The clear majority were not published. But I am hoping they spark debate here.</em> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong><br /><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Topics include: <br /><br />'</span></strong><strong><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation</span></strong><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong>'<br /><br />'A congestion tax for Melbourne?'</strong> <br /><br />'</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>In a similar vein: Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure'<br /><br />'Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom'</strong></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><strong></strong></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>'Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege'<br /><br />'Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration' <br /><br />'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'<br /><br /><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">'</span></strong></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><strong><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed'</span></strong></o:p></span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong>Dr Tristan Ewins</strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><strong>Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Jeremy Francis (3/10) observes the benefits of globalisation ; criticising the double standards of Conservatives . He compares free trade with the defence of “strong borders” ; limiting the free movement of people – punishing and indeed criminalising refugees. But globalisation is too complex and multi-faceted for progressives to simply be ‘for’ or ‘against’ it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cultural exchange and engagement is arguably a good thing ; enriching cultures and acting as a check on abuse of power by particular nation states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the ‘inverse side’ of globalisation is the ‘free movement of capital’ .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are deployed to break down all barriers which would prevent the exploitation of every potential market by the transnational corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This kind of ‘free movement of capital’ disciplines labour, compelling states to provide corporate welfare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also acts as a barrier to ‘natural public monopolies’ in diverse areas including water, energy, communications and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet such natural public monopolies could drive efficiencies and fairness in the Australian (and other) economies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The TPP might<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>also arguably prevent ‘market-distorting’ economic democracy policies such as state support for co-operative enterprise. (nb: that is a criticism of the TPP not an endorsement) Again: Globalisation is just too complex to simply be ‘for’ or ‘against’ it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<strong><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A Congestion Tax for Melbourne?</span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Daniel Andrews and the Liberals as well have quickly ruled out any congestion tax. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">(in the state of Victoria in Australia) </span>But there are things we should keep in mind. Taxes have been falling and becoming less progressive for some time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Conservatives especially wear that as ‘a badge of honour’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before the most recent ALP National Conference Labor also considered holding taxes down as non –negotiable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if we don’t provide infrastructure and services through progressive taxes (which tax target the wealthy more) – then we must pay in other ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A ‘congestion tax’ is not especially progressive ; but would at least promote the use of public transport , taking pressure from our roads.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also experience has shown infrastructure privatisation (eg: of roads) can actually stymie possible competition – as governments guarantee profits – shutting down alternatives while consumers pay. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Privatised ‘cost structures’ also include dividends and corporate salaries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a matter of fact consumers get a much better deal paying for infrastructure in their capacity as taxpayers than they ever will as atomised consumers in a ‘market’ which involves nepotism and monopolism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And progressively structured tax can ensure ‘a fair go’ for all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong> In a similar vein: Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure</strong></span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Tom Elliot (HS 7/10) takes aim at immigration to explain the failure of infrastructure and services to keep up with population. There is an element of truth that there are logistical limits to how swiftly migration can proceed without running into such problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But there’s another side to this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cumulative migration creates ‘economies of scale’ in areas like the public service and Defence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is: it becomes possible to finance these for a proportionately smaller amount of resources.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The most significant problem we have with infrastructure is that the tax take has been cut unsustainably by Liberal and Labor governments alike for over 30 years. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(though Labor might be beginning to realise things must change) This situation means ‘corporate and middle/upper class welfare’ which average workers and vulnerable pensioners are now expected to pay for. Limited resources and Ideological opposition to debt financing (even when interest rates are so low!) also means roads, communications infrastructure etc are privatised. Consumers end up forking out more for their services and infrastructure because they must pay for marketing, executive salaries, profits and dividends – that go with privatisation. Taxes need to rise – but they must rise fairly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Increasing the GST is not the answer.<br /><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /><!--[endif]--><o:p><strong>Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom</strong></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With regard to Rita Panahi’s recent Op-Ed in the Herald-Sun ‘Students who Refuse to Learn Tolerance’ <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(10/10/16) there are a number of observations to be made.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Personally I am sympathetic to some of the ideas of the radical Leftist democrat, Chantal Mouffe- who has argued that:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">“within the ‘we’ that constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate.”</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Mouffe justifies this on the basis that pluralism (a genuine variety of viewpoints) is necessary for democracy to function effectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that we ought respect each other as human beings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How refreshing this is in light of the brutality that passes for modern politics. (which are often ‘the politics of personal destruction’)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Democracy demands informed choice.</span> </span>The problem, though, is that much of the monopoly mass media in this country does not promote ‘a level playing field of ideas’ , or ‘tolerance’ of perspectives that diverge from dominant right-wing narratives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Concentration of ownership doesn’t help.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we are to argue for a stronger (and inclusive) pluralism in our universities – we must apply the same principles to the broader ‘public sphere’. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";">(nb: though the narrative of 'left elites in universities' is dubious anyway - when you consider the hegemony of neo-liberal perspectives in Economics faculties for example ; and attacks on the Humanities and Social Sciences)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">References – see: </span><a href="http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5zhJsqVi4cXWikpfg9aLPErvxTsYDf0PSNCnlDPt5y_V9UMJkolZL_7qrSA6yfbTi5zRR3fTKlsKUeIXpqXFq3o-Z-NtbR8CVrRsPTXJvJKFhD4dGdiKKHV32GfbHzKcjUQU_sYKHTfg/s1600/body-shaming-women-400x250-1425858406.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5zhJsqVi4cXWikpfg9aLPErvxTsYDf0PSNCnlDPt5y_V9UMJkolZL_7qrSA6yfbTi5zRR3fTKlsKUeIXpqXFq3o-Z-NtbR8CVrRsPTXJvJKFhD4dGdiKKHV32GfbHzKcjUQU_sYKHTfg/s320/body-shaming-women-400x250-1425858406.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRWu4Pv2Mmak5meCSmTYuUF67SPKb1CEUDDb5VhbLBrQ-Du55_bVTw3kxuP4GXYgAEqwtvw6JXGa-Q_rwzuPpb_k0x93PV5JT2F_B9cM3_SCJtDHVKCMtkrFgkbXp_w3UwZZ7PPgFXATY/s1600/2FFA689F00000578-3392495-The_LDN_Muscle_team_which_launched_in_2013_From_left_Max_Bridger-m-40_1452427907597.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRWu4Pv2Mmak5meCSmTYuUF67SPKb1CEUDDb5VhbLBrQ-Du55_bVTw3kxuP4GXYgAEqwtvw6JXGa-Q_rwzuPpb_k0x93PV5JT2F_B9cM3_SCJtDHVKCMtkrFgkbXp_w3UwZZ7PPgFXATY/s320/2FFA689F00000578-3392495-The_LDN_Muscle_team_which_launched_in_2013_From_left_Max_Bridger-m-40_1452427907597.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial";"><em><strong></strong></em></span></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial";"><em><strong>above: 'body shaming', and body image expectations increasingly affect both women and men....</strong></em></span></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial";"></span></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial";"></span></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial";"><strong>Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege</strong> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">‘The Australian’ (14/10) reports school curricula content which emphasises ‘male privilege’ with a tone of apparent concern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But promoting a debate on different forms of privilege in our society ought not be a worry if only the curricula is rigorous and inclusive of critical perspectives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, the most advanced forms of what is referred to as ‘intersectionality’ theory emphasise the influence of class, gender, sexuality, body image, age, ‘race’, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>disability, ethnicity, religion – where individuals experience disadvantage or privilege to different degrees on the basis of individual and particular circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So a ‘white male’ who comes from a background of socio-economic disadvantage – who does not comprise the ‘ideal’ male body type promoted in popular culture ; who does not enjoy the opportunity for higher education – may be less privileged than a woman who is educated, economically comfortable, and attractive according to popular standards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But definitely, there is a long history of male dominance of the public sphere and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>sport ; devaluation of ‘feminised’ professions ; exploitation of women in the home ; and so on. (which needs to be challenged) We need ‘critical/active’ curricula which encourage ‘political literacy’ ; informed and active citizenship ; on the basis of a robust, far-reaching and inclusive pluralism.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong> Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration</strong></span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Herald-Sun reports that women are “victims of sexual attention” (16/10/16). A couple of points are important, here, though.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Firstly, ‘objectification’ increasingly affects men, also.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And men are also increasingly victims of unrealistic physical expectations around body image.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Secondly, we need to be careful we don’t portray male sexuality as ‘<em>essentially </em>bad’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is natural for people to feel and express attraction for each other. The question is ‘where to draw the line’ so as to be considerate and respectful as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that cuts across gender lines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It includes how women and men approach each other when they are sexually interested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also includes how we reject a person’s advances if we are not interested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(ie: kindly and respectfully if possible)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are also power relations based on physical expectations and body image which cut across gender lines. The question ought be: “how would I like to be treated were I in the other person’s shoes?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong> Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'</strong></span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Herald-Sun (16/10/16)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>reports that welfare-dependency figures are “shocking”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Disability pensioners, Carers and the Unemployed should not be ‘shamed’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Carers save the public hundreds of millions of dollars by providing care and support for pittance that otherwise would cost the state a fortune. If we do not value their work just because it is not part of the ‘market sector’ then that itself says something<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>disturbing about our priorities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Meanwhile those with a mental illness – who are commonly looked upon as ‘not-really-disabled’ can expect a reduced life-expectancy of 16 years – or 25 years for those with Schizophrenia. Who would ‘choose’ to be in that position?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, research shows there are roughly five job-seekers for every position. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were the government serious it would develop an industry policy to create real long term jobs – matched to peoples skills. (as some Nordic countries have tried)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead it tolerates an unemployment rate of around 6 per cent (much more if you include those who have given up the search) , and also ‘massive under-employment’ for people looking for full-time, secure work. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because ‘Ideologically’ it cannot bring itself to support ‘economic intervention’.<br /><br />References:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://theconversation.com/when-job-seekers-outnumber-jobs-5-to-1-punitive-policy-is-harmful-28839"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://theconversation.com/when-job-seekers-outnumber-jobs-5-to-1-punitive-policy-is-harmful-28839</span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><a href="https://www.laborherald.com.au/health/more-action-fewer-words-needed-on-mental-health/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">https://www.laborherald.com.au/health/more-action-fewer-words-needed-on-mental-health/</span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<a href="http://evatt.org.au/papers/northern-lights.html"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://evatt.org.au/papers/northern-lights.html</span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong> </strong></span></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><strong>Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed</strong></span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 7.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #444444; font-family: "roboto" , "serif"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Herald-Sun (19/10/16)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>proclaims on its front page:“70% of arrested meth users supported by your taxes” and also: “Dole Blown on Ice.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the apparent connection between Ice addiction and crime is alarming, the headline was irresponsible for several reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Firstly, for those who don’t read the article thoroughly there may be the utterly false assumption that most Newstart recipients are ice addicts. In fact there is no proof of anything like this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>.Secondly: ice addicts need help overcoming their addiction. Yes there must be compulsory rehabilitation programs. But a purely punitive approach could lead to a downward spiral of desperation and crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems more than an accident that the headline coincides<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>with the Liberal Government’s attempt to wind back benefits such as Newstart, the Disability Support Pension, the Carers’ Allowance, and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To ‘make room’ in the Budget to accommodate corporate tax cuts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And hence to demonise and vilify these people.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<br />Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-69479620512401319412016-10-16T09:17:00.001+11:002016-10-16T09:17:21.714+11:00An Australian Response to Tony Blair: ‘Convergence Politics is not the Answer’
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrVdM8XKhKHuwY-3g9oR0zqc926zBsXXQRWBXePv_gEdu-vFgVnsG5-5sgTlBrPGXOHcdPR9zfk9c_Bc9cJbx2e9VLgyyWy6vVcylzXD2NLMKanhJU5AFx80q8ehWNEa93qZZQO7I/s1600/tony-blair-600841.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrVdM8XKhKHuwY-3g9oR0zqc926zBsXXQRWBXePv_gEdu-vFgVnsG5-5sgTlBrPGXOHcdPR9zfk9c_Bc9cJbx2e9VLgyyWy6vVcylzXD2NLMKanhJU5AFx80q8ehWNEa93qZZQO7I/s320/tony-blair-600841.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /><strong><em>above: Tony Blair urges Bill Shorten to 'return to the centre'</em></strong><br /><br />By <strong>Tristan Ewins</strong><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The ‘Weekend Australian’
(8/10/16) quotes former Labour British PM, Tony Blair as urging Bill Shorten to
tack “back to the centre”. Typically, Blair holds that the occupation of ‘the
centre ground’ is crucial to building a significant-enough constituency to
carry an electoral majority. And that regardless of this ‘it is the right thing
to do’. Furthermore, Blair contends that Australian Labor must not only “talk
to its core constituency”. (ie: we might reasonably assume he means ‘the
traditional working class’).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Blair also warns of the
danger of unions becoming a small ‘c’ conservative force: mainly fixated on the
public sector, and unable of grappling with the nature of today’s private sector
– where unions have long been in decline.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Finally, Blair makes the
usual assertion that parties of the ‘centre-left’ must be about ‘growing the
[economic] pie’ – with the implication that ‘dividing the cake more fairly’
runs contrary to this.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">British Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn is dismissed as ‘ultra-left’, with Blair raising his head as the
champion of the globalist, cosmopolitan ‘third way’ ‘social democracy’
popularised by Giddens and others. Importantly: ‘globalisation’ is not some
single, homogenous phenomena. There are desirable aspects of ‘globalisation’ as
well. Though specifically, here, we are concerned with its neo-liberal guise;
including how that applies to world investment and trade.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">To briefly engage with some
of Blair’s contentions before moving on:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
There is truth in the observation that organised labour must ‘return to the
private sector’. Indeed a strong foothold in the public sector could provide a
base from which solidarity could be extended to less-secure private sector
workers in the midst of industrial upheavals. Furthermore, Labor’s legacy of
labour market deregulation must be reconsidered ‘at the lower end’ – with the
aim of ending the exploitation of various workers in areas as diverse as child
care, aged care, cleaning, retail, hospitality and so on.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Labor’s ‘natural
constituency’ – the broader working class – is still very much in the majority
(if one focuses on the social relation of wage labour, as opposed to peoples’
‘self-identity’). Labor’s difficulty is not the dissolution of the working
class: but the development within it of various conflicts and contradictions.
Including conflicts of ‘consciousness’ and ‘identity’.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For example: there are
residual delusions on the part of some white collar workers that they comprise
‘the middle class’ ; which are reinforced by social democratic reluctance to
actually speak of ‘the working class’ – and elucidate what that really means
today. Also: there is the supposition that ‘Labor’s base’ can be taken for
granted – and that it’s ‘the swinging middle’ that really counts.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Class loyalties do not
necessarily shift straight away – but over generations. Surely the United
States shows the consequences where the US Democrats have long spoke only of
‘the middle class’, and could not bring themselves to prioritise discussion of
‘the working class’. They did not deliver workers from the ravages of
deindustrialisation and ‘the neo-liberal version of globalisation’. And
demagogues such as Trump have filled the vacuum. Trump does not represent
workers’ interests; and this could be made apparent if only the Democrats would
rise to the occasion. Similarly, Labor must overcome and heal the internal
divisions within the Australian working class to promote a social democracy
which appeals to the interests of the majority of voters.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Also admittedly: Unions are
not ‘essentially progressive’ even if their class location positions them to
effectively promote the interests of the majority of the labouring masses (as
against a minority bourgeoisie). German unions, for instance, were central to
mobilising the war-effort in Germany in 1914 ; and beforehand had turned
against more radical elements who had traditionally led the Social Democrats,
and who would come to oppose that conflict. That war decimated German social
democracy, and also the German working class.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Revisionist socialist
scholar and parliamentarian Eduard Bernstein also warned that specific unions
had the potential to become ‘corporate interests’ who furthered their own
dominance of particular markets and industries without prioritising the
position of the broader working class and labour movement, and others amongst
the disenfranchised and oppressed.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In Australia, meanwhile,
(with a much different phenomenon) some right-wing unions have promoted agendas
of privatisation and economic neo-liberalism; and some (such as the right-wing
‘Shop, Distributive and Allied’ union – or ‘SDA’) have at times abandoned their
own members’ interests in order to secure industry coverage (and hence
political power within the Labor Party) due to collusion with employers.
Sometimes unions are seen as vehicles for political power and political
careers, as opposed to being primarily vehicles for workers’ interests, and
social democracy.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That said: these instances
should not be taken as ‘typical’ of the Australian labour movement. Despite
legitimate misgivings about The Accord years and their aftermath, for example,
Australian unions waged a vigorous campaign against the Howard Government’s
regressive ‘Workchoices’ industrial legislation. They are still capable of
representing and mobilising their members, and of waging successful campaigns.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">With regard the old
shibboleth that neo-liberal economic policies are required to ‘grow the pie’:
something ‘traditional social democracy (supposedly) is not positioned to do’ ,
we might make another series of observations. The Nordics have demonstrated
that it is possible to build a robust public sector and welfare state; with
saturation levels of unionisation ; and a culture of solidarity. In the ‘golden
age’ of the Swedish ‘Rehn-Meidner’ economic model, this combined effective full
employment with low inflation, and the extension of welfare and social
services. If not for a series of tactical errors, economic democracy might also
have been entrenched through the ‘Meidner wage earner funds’ initiative during
the 1970s and 1980s.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In fact, today it is ‘the
systemic imperatives of capitalism’ and capitalist Ideology that stand in the
way of fulfilling the personal and social needs of humanity. Amidst greater
abundance than has been known ever before in human history, we are informed
repeatedly that we must ‘tighten our belts’. Welfare and social services are
progressively cut. Education is for ‘industry needs’ and not ‘the development
of human potential’. And of course ‘the user must pay’ (though this is taken to
mean students; and not the corporations who benefit from the various skills and
aptitudes which are developed). Improved life expectancy is seen as a ‘curse’
rather than a ‘blessing’. So the retirement age is pushed upwards
incrementally. The elderly are made to feel they are ‘a burden’ , and working
class people are expected to exhaust their assets and savings to pay for ‘aged
care’ which denies them dignity, comfort or happiness.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Alongside an increased age
of retirement, the intensity of labour increases. Capitalism demands growth
into new markets to preserve its own stability; but with ‘globalisation’ (just
for now interpreted as the expansion of international trade; though it has
other interpretations) reaching its limits, markets for consumption depend on
increasing the sheer volume of labour (and hence purchasing power). Though
casualisation shows it does not always work out that way (‘capital mobility’ is
another aspect of globalisation; as is the rise of a ‘global culture’ that
emerges via improvements in communications technology; Marx himself had
observed the emergence of a ‘world literature’ as early as the 19th Century).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Where technology does not
improve productivity, instead productivity is tied to that intensity of labour.
In Australia today improvement of wages and conditions are largely ruled out
without such productivity improvements. Hence for a great many wages and
conditions stagnate or are rolled back. Organised labour is vilified. The
working poor are even played off against the vulnerable welfare-dependent with
‘the politics of downward envy’. In response the Left must promote a politics
of respect and solidarity.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A move back towards a
social democratic mixed economy could stabilise national economies and the
world economy over the short to medium term as a consequence of superior cost
structures. But this is eschewed for reasons of Ideology, power, and private
greed. Instead trade agreements are deployed to break down any ‘barriers’
preventing the fullest possible exploitation of potential markets by
multinational corporations. ‘Natural public monopolies’ could stand to be
criminalised (ie: sovereign governments could be sued); as well perhaps as
‘market distorting’ initiatives which may promote economic democracy (for
example, any scheme providing assistance to co-operative enterprise of various
sorts). Amidst all this ; and even after the cataclysm of the 2008 Global
Financial Crisis – Tony Blair and ‘The Australian’ are still trying to sell us
‘neo-liberalism with a human face’.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">From the outset it is also
worth observing that historical traditions other than ‘modern third way social
democracy’ have also claimed the ‘centrist ground’ (for instance Catholic
‘social Centrism’ in Germany, and the Swedish ‘Centre Party’). Defining ‘the
centre’ is fraught with possible confusion. As opposed to a linear ‘left-right
spectrum’ a ‘political compass’ accommodates both economic egalitarianism AND
personal and collective liberties. But Blair is employing a more ‘traditional’
left-right spectrum.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hence Blair’s ‘centrism’ is
confusing: sometimes comprising a mish-mash of liberal and authoritarian
positions. Hawkish foreign policy; rejection of class struggle; embrace of
economic and cultural globalisation; according to some interpretations
implementation of ‘punitive welfare’ and labour conscription; and effective
rejection of a traditional mixed economy in favour of privatisation and what we
have come to know as ‘neo-liberalism’.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Also importantly: ‘the
Centre’ is always RELATIVE. A political party which makes a habit of ‘passively
occupying’ ‘the middle ground’ rather than striving to RE-DEFINE and shift it
resigns itself to a passive or even reactive response to social issues and
conflicts.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Under Hawke and Keating –
who Blair praises profusely – Australia moved decisively to the Right on many
fronts– embracing small government, privatisation, deregulation, dilution of
progressive taxation, rejection of class struggle; widespread
deindustrialisation ; and so on. Whereas Blair followed Hawke and Keating,
Australian Labor in turn followed Blair. The consequence was a
‘rightward-spiral’ which was the undoing of social democracy and labourism as
we had known them.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In a further article in
‘The Australian’ by Troy Bramston (8/10), poet, W.B.Yeats’s ‘The Second Coming’
is taken very much out-of-context. The title proclaims “Things Fall Apart – The
Centre Can’t Hold’. Bramston is very much with Blair, fearing the decline of
the ‘centre-left’ as a consequence of a more unambiguous left-turn by Corbyn.
Corbyn (and perhaps by implication, Shorten) are portrayed as wanting ‘a return
to the past’ rather than ‘progressing forward’. Ironically this implies the
in-some- ways similar notion of a ‘progressive teleology’ as proposed by Hegel
and Marx; and more recently by Fukuyama. ‘Neo-liberalism’ is upheld as ‘the
progressive and objective direction of history’: in a way which denies historic
choice; and the meaningful contestation of history by social actors.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The problem with Blair is
that his position is very much one of ‘convergence politics’. ‘Convergence on
the centre’ actually dissolves genuine ‘centre-left’ politics as we once knew
them. Whereas democratic socialists once claimed ‘the centre left ground’ –
roughly halfway between liberal centrism and the unambiguously revolutionary
Left traditions; today ‘convergence on the centre’ is the undoing of meaningful
democracy. It is the undoing of meaningful choice.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As French social theorist
Chantal Mouffe has insisted ‘convergence politics’ ‘empties out’ democracy by
denying real choice and democratically-mediated conflict as a consequence of ‘a
rush to the Centre’. It is worth briefly considering her position – and that of
critical theorist, Jurgen Habermas – to critique the ‘Blair-ite Third Way’ from
different perspectives.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Whereas Habermas supposed a
‘deliberative democracy’, with the pursuit of a ‘perfect speech situation’ – or
‘communicative rationality’, Mouffe does not believe rational exchange and
engagement can resolve all differences and conflicts. Still strongly-influenced
by Marx, though, Habermas continues to suppose a ‘historical telos’; which will
be realised through ‘communicative action’ (ie: rational engagement, argument
and deliberation by social actors). Importantly, as opposed to Blair, Giddens,
etc, Habermas was optimistic enough to suppose that this process would
ultimately lead to socialism (realised via communicative rationality and not
only through ‘traditional’ class struggle; hence some divergence from Marx’s
original position).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Both Habermas and Mouffe
are radical Leftist democrats, however; and BOTH Habermas’s ‘communicative
action’ and Mouffe’s ‘Agonism’ reject ‘centrist convergence’. What is notable
with Mouffe’s position is essentially that history is not assumed as ‘having a
fixed direction’ (or ‘telos’). And as opposed to traditional Marxism, neither
are particular social actors (such as the working class) assumed to have any
‘essential and fixed historic mission’. For Mouffe history is contested by
social actors who articulate ‘counter-hegemonic strategies’. History is not
pre-determined but rests on our CHOICES. Though Mouffe does accept that despite
this capitalism has systemic imperatives and ‘logics’ that no isolated
individual can challenge.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Here ‘meaningful choice’ –
central to democracy – must mean a robust pluralism. But as opposed to older
notions of class struggle, Mouffe’s ‘post-Marxism’ insists that:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“within the ‘we’ that
constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to
be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">And most preferably these
assumptions must cut both ways! (though it will not always be the case)
Importantly, Marx argued for the dissolution of the bourgeoisie as a class;
that is the dissolution of particular social relations – as opposed to the
wholesale murder of human beings as occurred under Stalinism. But Mouffe
insists an ongoing and legitimate place for pluralism, and hence appears to
reject Marx’s notion of communism as ‘an end destination’ (or to put it in
Marx’s own words, ‘the end of pre-history’).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So Mouffe assumes mediated
conflict as being central to meaningful democracy. And the silencing of
dissident voices by ‘third way, cosmopolitan, neo-liberal globalism’ could
perhaps even lead to a technocracy – governance by ‘experts’ – and rejection of
the proper place of democratic conflict.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Effectively siding with
Blair, ‘The Australian’ has predictably embraced ‘neo-liberal globalism’.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Shorten has ‘been taken to
task’ for a very modest step back towards traditional social democracy and
labourism. Under Shorten there has been talk of enforcing corporate taxation
and effectively tackling ‘corporate welfare’. There is talk of holding the
banks accountable. ‘Small government’ is no longer explicitly endorsed (though
neither is ‘big government’). “Trickle-down” is rejected. In the ranks of
Labor there is some talk of tackling obscene superannuation concessions which
feather the nests of the unambiguously wealthy (to the tune of tens of billions
annually) at the same time as vulnerable pensioners are vilified by the
Conservatives for the sake of ‘budget repair’. But Shorten still insists on
‘budget repair that is fair’.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">None of this is
particularly radical! But as the Anglosphere and parts of Europe continue to
turn Left in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis the voices of
Conservatism and neo-liberalism have become more shrill. Modest reversions to
‘traditional social democracy’ are ‘fought tooth and nail’ as they ‘set a bad
example’ which may provide a ‘turning point’ away from neo-liberalism, and the
prioritisation of corporate interests in economics and trade policy. Bernie
Sanders has seen the rise of a distinctly Left politics ‘into the US
mainstream’. Accused of ‘ultra-Leftism’, in fact British Labour Opposition
Leader, Jeremy Corbyn is also reverting to more-traditional Labour perspectives
on the mixed economy, rights of labour; affordable education; and support for
progressive tax; with a commitment to the NHS (National Health Service); as
well as a rejection of ‘Hawkish’ foreign policy. This ought not be seen as
‘going backwards’ – because (contra-Marx) there is no objective definition of
what ‘progressing forward’ actually means anyway.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">With his warnings of
‘impending doom’ for British Labour – as well as the need for a ‘policy
correction’ by Shorten in Australia, Blair does not seem to perceive the shift
Leftwards in parts of Europe, and even the ‘Anglosphere’ itself. Ironically it
is Blair who is ‘looking backwards’: to the 1990s – when ‘the historical moment
was his’. Similarly ‘The Australian’ looks back to the ‘reform era’ where Hawke
and Keating to a significant degree liquidated much of what had before-hand
passed as labourism, social democracy and democratic socialism in this country.
That’s not to say ‘Third Way’ theorists cannot strategise such as to set the
agenda once more. But such success in the past is no guarantee of success today
or in the future.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So history does not stand
still. Over a quarter of a century after the fall of the Soviet Union
neo-liberal triumphalism is beginning to wear thin. The Stalinist nightmare is
fading from living memory; and the Democratic Left is finally re-emerging from behind
its long shadow. Bernie Sanders has brought the American democratic socialist
Left ‘into the mainstream’. McCarthy-ist hysteria is largely in the past. And
despite defeats, parties like Syriza and Podemos have heralded the return of
the Democratic Left after years utterly eclipsed by a ‘Third Way consensus’ in
European social democracy.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Again: Amidst all this
Shorten’s tentative shift to the Left is very modest. And hand-wringing by
Blair and ‘The Australian’ that Shorten Labor must ‘return to the Centre’
clearly demonstrates how narrow a political milieu certain interests, as well
as ‘the media establishment’ would have us choose from. ‘Convergence on the
Centre’ denies politics; denies pluralist, democratically mediated conflict;
and denies real democratic choice.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nonetheless; Mouffe’s
‘Agonism’ suggests the possibility of a new pluralist democracy – where the
democratic Left and the democratic Right accept each others’ ‘right to exist’ –
and indeed their ‘legitimacy’ in the sense that voters and citizens must always
be posed with real choices in order for democracy to flourish. And that certain
liberties are necessary to overcome alienation; and socialists perhaps should
even think of their adversaries here.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Perhaps therefore the Left
could accept a place for Conservatism in a pluralist democracy; and on the
basis of an inclusive public sphere; a more ‘level playing field of ideas’. But
in Australia the monopoly mass media is dominated by figures such as Murdoch
and Rinehart. The monopolists think they are in control and beyond effective
challenge. Hence they do not discern any compelling pressures to accept a more
inclusive public sphere; or say ‘active-critical’ civics and citizenship
education curricula which also promote ideological and political literacy, and
hence informed and participatory citizenship. Some would argue when the
opportunity comes the advantage must be pressed. And so long as the
Conservatives are not willing to accept the democratic and authentically
pluralist principles promoted by the likes of Chantal Mouffe – then perhaps
they have a point.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Also ‘social rights are
human rights’. No less essential than civil liberties. And ideally should be
constitutionally enshrined. Even though these matters should nonetheless be
deliberated upon freely. There is the challenge of balancing the aim of
‘pluralism’ and hence ‘openness to change’, while striving for a ‘baseline
consensus’ of liberal and social rights which is acceptable to the various
social actors. Habermas believed this (and ultimately socialism itself) could
be achieved via ‘communicative action’.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In many parts of the world
‘the tide is beginning to turn’. PERHAPS once again the future belongs to
radical social democracy.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-15408052307151795582016-09-27T18:36:00.002+10:002016-09-27T18:36:45.149+10:00US Presidential Debate illustrates the Policy Divide between Trump and Clinton<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAR1S2r2U8OpyO4_BXBomZHnqt7yw24-Qd1fZ9i4TlohyphenhyphenptHOZi3aJK3wo9UMYFLEZkJxaauA5gaHMeZn4pRTv-xXpNSQOSiZw2GTkCnFMjl9tOxlcpbEHi8qnT9apQ7fQ4wptRZE/s1600/1360.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAR1S2r2U8OpyO4_BXBomZHnqt7yw24-Qd1fZ9i4TlohyphenhyphenptHOZi3aJK3wo9UMYFLEZkJxaauA5gaHMeZn4pRTv-xXpNSQOSiZw2GTkCnFMjl9tOxlcpbEHi8qnT9apQ7fQ4wptRZE/s320/1360.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Dr Tristan Ewins</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This week’s US Presidential Debate was interesting in a
number of ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The economic debate in
particular was of concern to this observer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In summary, it was framed with the opposition of Trump’s traditional
neo-liberal emphasis on ‘trickle down’ Reaganomics, deregulation, and sweeping
corporate tax cuts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By contrast Hillary
Clinton’s rhetoric was suggestive of mild social democracy or social liberalism
– which has ‘learned certain lessons’ from the GFC. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Important talking points for Clinton included
winding back regressive prohibitive user pays in higher education , improving
the minimum wage , and promoting US interests via international trade deals. This
was mildly encouraging – and perhaps a sign that a small but symbolic portion
of the Sanders policy agenda had been ‘taken on-board’ in order to mobilise the
disillusioned ‘progressive masses’ that had been so inspired by Sanders’ break
from the ‘Democratic establishment’: which for many was actually seen to be
part of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Unfortunately what was left unsaid, here, was that the
interests of US-based transnational corporations have seen US policy makers
(influenced by the dominant corporate lobby) pursue trade agreements which
disadvantage even traditional US allies such as Australia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As with the Trans Pacific Partnership, the
right of social democratic governments to maintain natural public monopolies in
the interests of the people they represent practically stands to be
‘criminalised’ in the name of ‘free and open markets’. Here there is neither a
market nook nor cranny that is spared exposure to the transnational corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the relationship between the corporate
lobby and the US political class is almost a ‘symbiotic’ one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course the eagerness of Australian policy
makers to expose our economy to TPP must also be questioned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps this is seen as ‘the price we must
pay’ for coming under the US security umbrella.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Clinton also argued the case that ‘trickle down economics’
and radically small government had failed Americans as per the 2007-2008 Global
Financial Crisis – and that Trump’s desire to ‘go into economic policy reverse’
was an unacceptable risk for the country, and indeed the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As per usual, Clinton also emphasised the struggles
of the US<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>middle class when compared
with ‘robber baron capitalists’ (where it was implied Trump himself fell into
that category) Although Clinton did not use the expression specifically. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But the refusal of mainstream Democrats to speak to – and
speak of – the working class-in their ‘mainstream’ electoral discourse provides
Trump with an opening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here his
arguments against deindustrialisation may resonate with desperate workers who
are willing to try anything to secure their futures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though his ‘solution’ of stemming the flow of
manufacturing and other jobs by deeply slashing the taxes of corporations would
necessitate a decay of infrastructure, welfare and social services – where the
connections between these just don’t seem to be grasped by much of Trump’s
support base. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Trump takes advantage of desperation and the sense of
abandonment by many US workers with a shameless opportunism that may yet win
him the ‘top job’ in the White House.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
argues as if government should be run like his own personal business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though it is interesting to observe that the
very impetus for infrastructure projects to come in very significantly
over-budget (a phenomenon he pursued relentlessly) is linked with privatisation.
Parasitic corporations trying to maximise their returns ; where the sense of
‘the public good’ is lost all but entirely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Private prisons which abandon rehabilitation and support
unnecessarily-severe sentencing in favour of ‘growing their businesses’ are
perhaps the most appalling example.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Clinton also argued a strong case in favour of a big
investment in renewable energy: and whereas Trump is a ‘climate sceptic’,
Clinton’s strong position, here, was perhaps indicative of her imperative of
winning over Greens voters whose votes might be ‘wasted’ on the Greens
Presidential candidate, Jill Stein.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
progressives this comprises a testing dilemma: protest against the Democratic
National Committee’s appalling attempts to undermine the campaign of Bernie
Sanders ; or to ‘swallow the bitter pill’ ; and admit that if Clinton is in any
way ‘the lesser evil’ , then she is the ‘lesser evil’ by a very significant
margin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A big vote for Stein would make
a Trump victory certain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though it would
build a case for electoral reform – making a genuinely ‘multi-party democracy’
really-viable. <br />
<br />
But as Clinton argued: can we trust Trump with the US nuclear codes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can
we trust him as ‘commander in Chief’ of the world’s pre-eminent super-power?.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(though progressively under challenge from a
rising China ; and from an emboldened bloc or<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>‘strategic partnership’ centred on Russia and Iran)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
can we really trust him to enforce nuclear non—proliferation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In conclusion, though, Trump actually made some telling
points on foreign policy – despite the fact more broadly that he is ‘not to be
trusted’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example the disaster of
the Iraq War ; and of the regional destabilisation and escalated conflict that
ensued. In Australia the lesson for us is that we must never allow such a war
to ensue – with our participation and support – without even allowing a
parliamentary debate. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And maybe a
parliamentary vote. That is one area where the Greens actually make good policy
sense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In the debate Trump seemed ‘energised’. He spoke with
apparent enthusiasm – compared with which Clinton’s demeanour was ‘steady and
deliberate’ but also ‘buoyant’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However:
there was no ‘knockout blow’. The campaign is only just beginning – and has more
than two months yet to run. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
Clinton’s choice of Tim Kaine as Vice-Presidential running mate was also
suggestive that Clinton was intending to appeal to the ‘policy Centre’ more so
than the ‘unambiguous Left’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again:
with two months to go, though, there is still the potential prospect of more
progressive policy announcements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Sanders campaign mobilised millions: especially amongst the young. Clinton
would be well advised to go further in remobilising those people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And as for the Sanders campaign: socialism is increasingly ‘coming
in from the cold’ in US politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As
Sanders argued – his ‘defeat’ was not the end of the story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unlike with the earlier Obama campaign, the
intention is that the movement itself will persist ; and continue to build and
campaign openly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While 2016 is not the
year for Sanders, perhaps 2020 – or maybe 2024 – will see the resurgence of the
US social democratic and democratic socialist Left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sanders will perhaps be seen as ‘too venerable’
by then ; but surely for him it was very much about the movement ; the policy
agenda ; and a ‘political sea change’ in the US with the resurgence of a
distinct and mainstream Left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the
Democratic National Committee must surely realise that it needs to change its
ways – lest the broader Party divide openly against itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With the consequence of a clear run for the
Republicans – unless they too experience a similar debilitating split.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(not impossible given what we have seen this
year)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Here’s hoping for a Clinton victory: and that we may be
pleasantly surprised with more favourable policy announcements from a Clinton
campaign which realises the imperative of mobilising the movement mobilised itself
before-hand by Bernie Sanders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Vaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.com0