What does 'Revolutionary' mean to Socialist Democrats today?

Above: Austro-Marxist leader and Theoretician, Otto Bauer



Does (and should) 'Revolutionary' mean anything anymore to the Democratic Socialist Left?




Should it mean anything anymore within the ALP Socialist Left?

Dr Tristan Ewins

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".



This was my response:



"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'.

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.

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?


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.


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.


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.


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?


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?



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?"


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?')



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.

Das Kapital by Karl Marx - 150th Anniversary Event -- NIB Melbourne September 7th, 7pm

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.

Critique of Labor and The Greens on ‘Policy Compromise’

 above: Labor and the Greens can work together; But need to be conscious of each others' electoral imperatives ; Carbon Tax was good policy ; but a 'political death warrant' for Labor

 

 

Dr Tristan Ewins


Recently the Australian Greens negotiated a compromise with the Liberal Federal Government in Australia on the question of pursuing tax evasion by “Australia’s wealthiest private companies”. ‘The Age’ reported that as part of the compromise “Up to 300 of Australia's wealthiest private companies will be forced to disclose their annual tax bill for the first time.” But that the legislation also will “shield up to 600 more companies that would have been brought under new transparency requirements.”

Labor has branded the deal “a sellout”. They had pressed for all companies with revenues of over $100 million to be affected by the reform – whereas the Greens negotiated a compromise with a threshold of of $200 million. Labor argued a compromise was not necessary – on the assumption the Government itself would have been forced to compromise before the end of the sitting of Parliament.

(Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-deal-with-scott-morrison-on-tax-shield-sparks-labor-fury-20151203-gle9ft.html#ixzz3taKrNOA9
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook )



Also considered recently in discussion has been the decision by the Greens several months ago to agree to another compromise - tightening means tests on Aged Pensions in order to save $2.4 billion over four years.

By contrast Labor was arguing for reform of Superannuation Concessions delivering windfall gains to some of the very most wealthy: though arguably Labor wasn’t considering a broad enough base (including the upper middle class) in order to bring in serious revenue without need for unfair austerity elsewhere.

To summarise: Shorten’s plan foreshadowed savings of $14 billion OVER TEN YEARS. But the Government is facing a deficit ballooning to over $40 billion a year ; and root and branch reform of tax is what is necessary – not only to get the deficit under control, but to pave the way for a reforming Federal Labor Government which actually improves the social wage, social insurance and social welfare by tens of billions in the context of a $1.6 trillion economy.

Again by contrast: The deal agreed to by the Greens with the Liberals had 170,000 of the most financially disadvantaged Pensioners standing to gain $30/week as of 2017; But approximately 330,000 (relatively better-off) Pensioners would see cuts through tougher means tests ; and more than double that into the future.

(See: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pension-assets-test-deal-with-greens-secures-coalitions-changes-20150616-ghplxg.html )  

The following are some excerpts regarding my thoughts: not only on this specific compromise, but on the ALP working with the Greens generally.


SL in relation to the Greens ; Is it right for the SL to Criticise ALP Policy?


At the ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’ Group we’ve had plenty of debate on the place for criticisms of the ALP. Should criticism be considered ‘treason’ of some kind? Should we work for co-operation with the Greens – or should we fight them tooth and nail on account of the threat to several of our most talented Left MPs ; and the likelihood of declining Socialist Left influence in Caucus and Cabinet?


Nonetheless: Labor often gets it wrong on policy. For instance, we often pursue symbolic policies for appearances sake which are far from the ‘root and branch’ reform needed to serve the interests of our constituents. Shorten’s Superannuation Concession reforms are very modest , and at this rate Labor will be pressed to pursue extensive austerity if we regain government. Perhaps regressive policies such as more attacks on vulnerable groups such as Sole Parents. Or an increase in the Age of Retirement. And yet Labor’s Platform leaves the way open potentially for an expansion of progressive tax and social expenditure. Labor still has options for a genuinely progressive mandate.

If as the most significant Left formation in the country (The broad ALP Socialist Left) we do not criticise our own party's policies when our leaders get it badly wrong - then who will step into that space? There are a number of possibilities. Either groups like the Greens will step into that space ; or because of our silence the Left more broadly will be demobilised. This would especially be a threat if the Greens’ tending towards compromise marked ‘a move to the Centre’ which again would leave a space in the Left of the Australian political milieu. A new challenger on the Left of Australian politics could take a long time to re-emerge therefore ; just as it has taken decades for the Greens to establish themselves properly. This would simply assist the broad Australian Right in consolidating their hegemony.


 Don't get me wrong:... I'm all for staying and fighting within the Party. But when the Party leadership gets it badly wrong its up to us whether we vacate that (public) Left space and/or demobilise the Left - or whether we choose our battles - and publicly dissent at times – in the context of important debates – such as a much more robust winding back of superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class. We must do this because there is the alternative of Left demobilisation. And before we know it even our own people don't know what we're supposed to be fighting for anymore... (take privatisation, tax reform, social wage and welfare expansion and reform, industrial rights and liberties etc)


Insofar as criticism is constructive we shouldn’t just tolerate criticism of Labor policy - indeed it must be encouraged.

Nonetheless, the trend towards Labor and Greens just trashing each other always seems to involve a degree of 'spin' and is not necessarily 100% honest. What we need is honest, reciprocal criticism.


 There's also the urgent question: What will WE (ie: Labor) do on Company Tax? Here we really need ALP and Greens to team up and vote down Company Tax cuts - because that is Corporate Welfare. That is business avoiding paying their share for the services and infrastructure they benefit from! So instead ordinary citizens, workers, taxpayers - are left to pick up the tab – directly or indirectly. (whether with an increased GST, or austerity elsewhere) Where does Shorten line up on this? (seriously) There are many billions at stake.


More on Greens Compromises


Regarding Greens’ compromises it must be observed: It’s the old dilemma over whether to compromise and get something 'right here right now' - or whether to hold back - in the hope of discrediting the Conservatives - and getting something much better with the next change of government. Labor has faced these dilemmas itself at times.


 For instance, the Carbon Tax was the best policy - but was politically impossible after Gillard’s commitment "There will be no Carbon Tax in a Government I lead". The Greens should have recognised this. There were other options. Like billions in annual direct public investment in renewables research and infrastructure. In a convoluted kind of way the Greens’ insistence on the Carbon Tax could even have been considered an instance of opportunism in its own right. The Greens got their policy – and it granted them prestige with their constituencies. But arguably it sealed the fate of the Labor Government. This is not to say the Greens shouldn’t press their leverage to get robust policy compromises from Labor. And arguably Julia Gillard should never have backed Labor into that corner in the first place. But direct investment in renewables research and public infrastructure would not have involved a blatant, high-profile broken promise. Of note: Labor must not back itself into a corner on ‘small government’ now either!



What Reforms must Labor and the Greens pursue now as the 2016 Federal Election approaches?

Instead of just positioning against each other with the hope of gaining an electoral advantage over largely ‘cosmetic’ policies, again Labor and the Greens should be projecting root and branch reform in any Labor Government where the Greens hold decisive sway over the cross-benches


 More specifically: Labor and the Greens need to move together to secure a minimum $35/week increase in all full pensions INDEXED upon Labor taking government.
This must include Newstart and Student Allowance. Although I've been arguing for this for years already and $35/week isn't as much as it used to be. Full indexation is crucial, and perhaps now the figure should be somewhat higher. (eg: $40/week


Also in an exchange at the ALP Socialist Left Forum Facebook Group I accepted the need for subsidies to help the elderly invest in air conditioning and heating. Increasing the Aged Pension should be part of that. Existing pensions and payments make insufficient consideration of contingencies which vulnerable Australians may be faced with. From a visit to the dentist to having to replace a washing machine – such everyday challenges can leave our most vulnerable destitute.

Some would call the Greens' compromises through 2015 opportunism. Labor would attract that claim from the Greens themselves if it was Labor who had made the compromises. The Greens are trying to shake off their reputation as a ‘protest party’ – which never has to compromise. Labor argues the Greens are about appearances re: policy protest – but are not about outcomes.



But there is the argument that some of the compromi...ses the Greens have pursued have helped the most vulnerable. Though in a way which has hardly been fair to some people who would not fairly qualify as 'rich'.

There are two sides to this. What matters is that if we get a Labor Government - and if the Greens hold the cross-benches - there will be no more need for 'compromise with the Liberals'. And in that case we should see the whole policy schema recalibrated in a way which is truly fair - and doesn't involve 'compromises' whereby one constituency (not really 'privileged' by any reasonable measure) is played off against another (truly, genuinely disadvantaged). Better to target the top 15 per cent income and wealth demographics for redistributive measures aimed at improving the lot of those on low and middle incomes ; workers and vulnerable welfare recipients.


Target 'the top 15 per cent' as it is a narrow enough constituency for redistribution to be fair ; narrow enough to be electorally viable ; and broad enough to bring in serious revenue for serious reforms...
 

The problem right now is that most in the Parliamentary Labor Party will oppose taxing the sole residence of the elderly - fair enough - but they may not support other progressive measures (as listed) necessary to repairing the welfare state, social insurance and social wage.

Ideally we should pursue a more progressive tax mix which does not necessitate the elderly being forced to sell their home towards the end of their lives when familiarity can be so important. We should hit superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class. We should restructure the income tax mix radically. We should consolidate Company Tax and begin to gradually wind back D...ividend Imputation - which most advanced economies manage to do without. (worth over $20 billion now) Perhaps we should tax the banks. And perhaps we should tax the largest inheritances ; and introduce a Tobin Tax on financial transactions. Finally we should definitely raise the Medicare Levy - and progressively restructure it into more progressive tiers.

With this we can bring in tens of billions. We can introduce National Aged Care Social Insurance ; we can implement Medicare Dental, Physio and Optical and cut waiting lists. We can fully implement NDIS. We can implement Gonski and transform HECS into a genuinely progressive tax. We can invest billions into social and public housing, as well as infrastructure of all kinds – increasing housing supply , making housing affordable , providing transport and services to new suburbs. We can revivify Legal Aid, and we can provide Federal Funding for Local Government - to make Local Government less dependent on relatively regressive levies/council rates. And we can reform welfare, support payments and pensions and lift the most vulnerable out of poverty. Finally, we can invest in the ABC and SBS. That's what we should do ; and it doesn't necessitate driving the elderly from their homes - even if their homes are valuable. And especially if their residence is their major asset - and they are not wealthy aside from this by any reasonable measure.


In conclusion – Labor needs to settle on policies of depth and substance. Because while ‘cosmetic’ policies may win over some voters – that is not our ‘reason for being’. Labor should not be driven by the quest for government purely for its own sake: outside the context of winning deep, meaningful reforms. Before Thatcherism and the decades-long retreat of the Left there was reference to the notion of “The Forward March of Labour’. We need to reconceive of our reform trajectory. Of what comprises our ‘forward march’ on policies which reform social wage, social insurance, welfare, personal and collective liberties, the extension of democracy – and more.

And we need to establish our reform trajectory quickly and soon if we are to have the time and the opportunity to sell such a package to voters ahead of the Federal Election in 2016.

Responding to Kim Carr on the ALP's ‘Socialisation Objective’

 

Above: ALP Socialist Left Senator Kim Carr is right to take NSW Labor leader, Luke Foley to task for rejecting the ALP's 'socialisation objective'; But he is wrong in his apparent rejection on an 'extensive' public sector.

The socialisation objective is about more than nationalisation ; but extensive and strategic social ownership needs to factor into our plans and principles.

Tristan Ewins

In ‘The Age’ on August 9th 2015, Socialist Left Labor Senator Kim Carr provided a statement in defence of the ALP’s standing Socialist Objective.   That includes the ‘socialisation objective’ specifically which (originally in 1921) committed Labor to the following:

‘‘The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other antisocial features in these fields.’’

He also relates how in 1981

“23 explanatory subparagraphs were added to it. These set out goals such as full employment, the abolition of poverty, a more equal distribution of wealth and the elimination of exploitation in the home.”

Carr places himself at odds with NSW Labor Leader Luke Foley – for whom the socialisation objective was ‘confusing’.   Foley was beginning from the assumption that socialisation means nationalisation – and that those defending it were simply engaging in obfuscation.  For Foley Labor ought ‘say what it means and mean what it says’.   If we are about ending exploitation, then in the Marxist sense this infers the abolition of wage labour.  This is important – as is the question of socialisation interpreted as nationalisation.  And we will come back to this later- to consider why the positions of both Foley and Carr are problematic.

For Kim Carr it is the more-recent explanatory paragraphs which communicate the true essence of the Party’s Socialist Objective.  Further elaboration or reformulation are thus considered not necessary.

Some commentators have argued to the effect that these ‘explanatory paragraphs’ rendered the Objective meaningless anyway.  But before proceeding it is useful to consider specifics.  Hence the following selection from that section of the ALP Platform in question:

"c) Redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their lives.

"d) Maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector, including small business and farming, controlled and owned by Australians, operating within clear social guidelines and objectives.

"l) Equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law.

"j) The abolition of poverty, and the achievement of greater equality in the distribution of income, wealth and opportunity.

"n) Recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian legal system.

"p) Elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic or household status.

"t) Recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development.

"u) Maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice."

Hence the Objective is really quite extensive and substantial, and it does not restrict itself solely to socialisation interpreted as nationalisation. Indeed it could be considered both politically liberal and democratic socialist as well in the sense of advocating universal social rights of citizenship.  The promise of moving towards equality of political and economic power suggests a radically redistributive project, but at the same time there is the important (and realistic) concession in support for a non-monopolistic, competitive private sector. 

This Objective – reformulated in 1981 to be inclusive of both the Party’s Left and Right could be interpreted after the way of Nordic social democracy, with the probable implication of supporting a comprehensive welfare state and social wage; a progressive taxation system; as well as appropriate industrial rights. But there is room for improvement.  Some of these could be spelled out more clearly and overtly. And the significance of socialisation interpreted either as occurring through the public sector – or through a more diverse ‘democratic sector’ including State Aid for co-operative and mutualist enterprise – is not elaborated upon sufficiently.

Kim Carr gives the impression that he believes Foley’s proposed Objective is “tepid” and weak – and could just as easily find a place in the Platform of the Liberal Party.  After all, who today disagrees with the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ – at least openly or ‘in theory’?  Carr gestures towards the true inequality of opportunities that persist under capitalism ; for instance the meaninglessness of any ‘freedom’ of individuals to negotiate terms in the labour market – where the only real strength of workers under these circumstances – their collective solidarity – is progressively undermined and even criminalised.  He argues that this:

“is like saying that a millionaire and a homeless person have the same freedom of choice to sleep under bridges”

And for socialists ‘equal opportunity’ must mean more than ‘meritocracy in the labour market’. As the Objective insists, it must include: “Equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law.”   Socialism implies progress towards the principle of ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need’.

Sure, the Liberals make a mockery of ‘equal opportunity’ in practice – supporting privilege in Education, and proposing deregulation where quality of education would depend upon user pays mechanisms which excluded the poor and much of the working class.  Chris Bowen has also gone a bit further, arguing for equality of outcomes in Health.  Bowen’s proposal of a ‘toothless’ National Conference; his apparent opposition to a robust mixed economy; his support for a simpler (ie: in reality less progressive) tax system –  are all disappointing. But support for real equality of opportunity in education, and crucially equality of outcomes in health - comprise a beach-head for something more progressive – and so this common ground should be capitalised upon.

Hence we desperately need to commit to a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme,  Medicare Dental, and ‘closing the gap’ on life expectancy of the mentally ill – ahead of the next Federal election.

Notably: because the Conservatives are progressively abandoning meaningful commitments to political liberty and civil rights, as well as genuine and comprehensive meritocracy through a more accessible and equitable regime of Education – that should not be taken as a signal to simply opportunistically occupy the vacated political space. Aspects of Greens policy have been depicted as ‘extreme’; whereas in reality they are closer to the legacy of Whitlam, say, than we are ourselves often in the ALP today.  We cannot accept these terms of debate ; and we cannot simply move to the Right and allow to Greens alone to occupy that political terrain. The Politics of ‘Convergence on the Centre’ are really self-defeating where it occurs on the terms of our Conservative rivals, and on the terms of an Ideological monopoly mass media.

If we are truly a democratic socialist party we must not only exist for winning elections as an end in itself.  We must be about contesting the very substance of ‘the mainstream’, progressively reshaping the discourse to shift the relative centre to the Left in keeping with our values.  Antonio Gramsci would refer to the formation of a  ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’ – an alliance of forces through which society’s ‘common sense’ is reconstructed as the substance of democratic socialism. Again after Gramsci this could be interpreted as a ‘war of position’ – taken in our own specific circumstances as a process of laying political siege to, and contesting the institutions of civil society and the state. Culminating in the democratisation of the State itself – so that the way is unambiguously open for ‘a democratic path’ to socialism.

Kim Carr concludes his commentary by elaborating on what socialisation means to him.  To establish this we will reproduce some of his closing comments on socialisation:

“It is not about the straw man of extensive public ownership and a centrally planned economy. But it is about public entrepreneurialism, and public investment in the forms of human endeavour that are necessary to build and sustain a democratic, just and technologically advanced society.

Socialisation is about defending a just minimum wage and fair working conditions. It is about the creation and defence of Medicare, the enhancement of a great public education system, and the construction of national infrastructure such as the Snowy Mountains Scheme and the National Broadband Network.”

While Carr’s support for public education, nation-building infrastructure and ‘public entrepreneurialism’ are encouraging, he himself appears to be conceding substantially to the neo-liberal Ideology.  That is: In the sense of implying support for ‘small government’ through rejection of an “extensive” public sector.   While Foley wants to get rid of the socialisation objective because he rejects any radical connotations, Carr seems to be implying that we sidestep or reject content associated with public ownership – content which could potentially and progressively challenge the current distribution of power and wealth under capitalism. (and hence not acceptable to capitalists)  Though perhaps Carr is open to tax reform, as well as social wage, social insurance and welfare extension – all of which are central components of a democratic socialist agenda of ‘socialisation’.  Here we could do with specifics – and policy ambition.

Few today support a Soviet model of centralised state planning.  But we should not close our eyes to the possibilities of strategically extending the public sector, and engaging in strategic instances of planning.  Neo-liberal Ideology rules out public and democratic sector expansion as well as socialisation interpreted as regulation where ‘the absolutism and prerogatives of capital’ are progressively curtailed.  (see the work of the Swedish social democratic thinker, Nils Karleby) But the old socialist Ideology aspired towards progressive nationalisation – potentially over decades.  In the 1970s socialists like Stuart Holland hoped that the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy would ultimately revert into public hands.  Today, though, we could well embrace the project of a ‘democratic mixed economy’.  

The ‘way forward’ to something along the lines of ‘socialising the commanding heights’ appears to be blocked on account of the dominant Ideology, and also because of the power of Capital to obstruct reform through destabilisation, capital strike, disinformation etc.  Indeed, this can be a corrupting influence upon democracies.  Here, while the sheer political and economic clout of the biggest transnationals is a genuine threat to democracy, working people and citizens nonetheless stand to benefit from job-creating-investment, and as consumers from various innovations in areas ranging from automotive industries to information technology.  While the scale of the transnationals is in some ways threatening – and we need to frankly recognise this - the economies of scale and competition involved can have benefits in these fields. Though there are also other problems (eg: built-in-obsolescence) which might be remediable through some form of regulation.  And global solidarity of labour is necessary to prevent the transnationals from simply exploiting the poorest and least organised workers.

And yet much of the old socialism remains instructive. Capitalism can be inefficient, unstable and wasteful. It can create conditions of exploitation and human alienation.  The expropriation of a portion of the proceeds from labour by capitalists remains morally problematic even though few on today’s Labor Left will openly discuss this. For genuinely small investors (eg: other workers) dividends may comprise a fair return in the context of making a sacrifice through deferring consumption. But in the bigger picture a portion of the value created by workers is expropriated by capitalists. Workers generally do not enjoy the full proceeds of their labours. These arguments are commonly ignored simply because the consequences are potentially radical for a Left ‘on the back foot’ in a steady (decades-long) process of liquidating its own traditions in order to ‘Converge at the Centre’. Here it was really Hawke and Keating who ‘led the way’ providing the ‘inspiration’ for Blair.   We need to retain a frank critique of capitalism even if the movement towards something better has currently stalled.

But the extension of the ‘democratic sector’ - including the important ‘subset’ of the public sector -remains important despite being at odds with the prevailing Ideology.  By ‘the democratic sector’ we refer not only to the traditional public sector, but also to a multiplicity of co-operative and mutualist forms, as well as democratic collective capital formation and other like-projects, as well as self-employment and co-determination.  These democratic economic forms and strategies can mitigate or indeed end instances of alienation and exploitation.  They can result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and the power that corresponds to this; and also give working people creative control over their labours.  

Efficiencies and reduction of cost-structures through natural public monopolies can also be capitalised upon – flowing on to the private sector and making better wages and conditions, and more progressive corporate taxation sustainable.  For instance: did we really ever need two sets of mobile telephony infrastructure?  And what price are we still paying for that duplication?  Indeed, ‘competition’ in areas such as energy, transport and communications infrastructure, water – are still deeply ‘anti-intuitive’, wasteful and unnecessary.  Hence it is possible to add to the current capitalism’s survivability while laying foundation stones for something better ‘long term’. 

An extended public sector specifically can lead to many other desirable outcomes.  Socialisation of profits via public enterprises in areas like mining, general insurance, private health insurance and banking could (in the Australian context) deliver tens of billions into welfare, infrastructure and social wage programs.  And a ‘not-for-profit’ footing could enable better pay and conditions for child care and other professionals who currently face extreme exploitation. Without getting into a long debate over the labour theory of value – public sector workers could be compensated fairly – but profits would be redistributed through the social wage, investment in infrastructure and services, and in welfare.  There would be no expropriation of surplus value, here, in the traditional capitalist sense. Though the redistribution of profits could appear to some to be diluting the return to labour. (that would not be a problem for some forms of co-operative enterprise for instance)  Government Business Enterprises and public infrastructure could also be administered in such a way as to cross-subsidise in favour of the disadvantaged ; but also to enhance competition where oligopolistic collusion would otherwise be a threat.

So indeed there are many arguments in favour of an extended public sector as part of a broader project of a ‘democratic mixed economy’.   Contra-Luke Foley - Let’s defend the Socialist Objective.  But let’s not dilute it to the point where it becomes merely token or symbolic.  Indeed let’s try and improve the Objective to make clear our aspirations for a democratic mixed economy; an expanded welfare state; a reformed tax mix and an expanded social wage.  Yet as against Kim Carr’s aversion to an ‘extensive’ public sector, strategic expansion of the public sector remains important and valid, as does the spread of other democratic forms – such as co-operative enterprise – with assistance via State Aid.  Indeed, these together could comprise a ‘multi-pronged strategy’: a long-awaited Left counter-offensive against the dominant neo-liberalism.

Both neo-liberalism and the old ‘Communism’ have demonstrably failed.  We need to reject the prevailing intellectual fetish for ‘undistorted’ markets, privatisation and small government and return to the question of a democratic mixed economy with an open mind.

Nb: Several other essays on the theme of a ‘democratic mixed economy’ can be found here:

http://democraticmixedeconomy.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-is-democratic-mixed-economy.html

 

Responding to Chris Bowen on Labor's 'Socialist Objective'

above: Federal Labor Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen

The following article is a critique of a recent contribution on debate surrounding the  ALP’s ‘Socialist Objective’ by ALP Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen in a Fabian Pamphlet. Bowen’s ‘Crosland-ite’ agenda has more depth than is to be found in other corners of the Right-faction.  But Bowen fails to come to grips with the potential benefits of a democratic mixed economy.  Meanwhile in the Left itself we do not engage with the implications of the ‘Socialist Objective’ – socialist culture is fading amidst day-to-day practical opportunism.

 (the first of two essays; the essay following this will respond to Jenny McAllister)

by Tristan Ewins

In a recent Fabian Pamphlet (‘What is Labor’s Objective?)  Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen makes his case against the existing Socialist Objective.

He observes its current form:

 “The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.”

And he contends in response that:

 “the socialist objective [does not reflect] our ambition for a modern, fair, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, outward looking, multicultural country.”

Thereafter Bowen rejects those parts of the Objective which propose “the establishment and development of public enterprises” as well as “democratic control of Australia’s natural resources”.  Specifically he suggests the privatisation of Qantas was justified; and that the alternative was a waste of public funds.

Continuing, he rejects what some have come to call ‘State Socialism’; but nonetheless argues the case for an effectively Crosland-ite agenda involving equal opportunity in education and life chances; but equality of outcomes in health.  (Anthony Crosland was an important reformist democratic socialist thinker within British Labour who – beginning around the 1950s - proposed an emphasis on public services and social infrastructure as opposed to socialisation of industry)    Bowen reinterprets this agenda as a more robust social liberalism – which cares about the individual in all their dimensions - when considered in contrast to “classical liberalism”

BOWEN also argues for “a decent community environment” with government ensuring the provision of “hard” as well as “soft” infrastructure; which means not only “transport and roads”  but “a liveable community with attractive public art, open spaces and a good environment.”

He concludes the Objective is out of date because it says nothing about multiculturalism, indigenous rights, engagement in the Asia-Pacific, preservation of the natural environment and action on climate change, and also equality of opportunity in education and equality of outcome in health.

He states: “We should mean what we say in the socialist objective. Currently we don’t. It clearly does reflect the modern Labor challenge, and with some updating it could very easily do so."

RESPODNING TO BOWEN

Firstly, Bowen would be wrong to suggest that a Socialist Objective in the Labor Party would have to exclude indigenous rights, the environment, the nurturing of a multi-cultural Australia, or engagement in our region for the extension of beneficial trade and the preservation of peace.  It is true that the Objective was originally penned in the 1920s and probably needs to be updated.  But Australian socialists – and indeed Australian Communists as well  – were amongst the first to promote these causes; as well as the cause of free, universal and equal suffrage.  It is not a stark choice:  of ‘these important modern causes on one hand, OR of socialism on the other’.

In the context of alluding to Labor’s historic support for extensive privatisation, Bowen appears specifically to reject passages which commit Labor to:  “the establishment and development of public enterprises” as well as “democratic control of Australia’s natural resources”.  Following this he suggests his opposition to the “state socialism” – a common ‘political-bogeyman’.

To start the meaning of ‘state socialism’ as argued by Bowen is not properly laid out.  In the past the term has been used to describe a centralised command economy after the way of the former Soviet Union.  But disturbingly it has also been deployed with the apparent aim of stigmatising any kind of extensive mixed economy.  Any form of democratic socialism or social democracy which supposes a significant role for the state as an economic participant is commonly ruled out as ‘state socialism’. 

In response to these kind of arguments: while there are solid reasons for socialists to support a ‘democratic mixed economy’, you don't have to be a socialist to support these kind of policies. A mixed economy with a substantial role for natural public monopolies, government business enterprise, public authorities and public infrastructure -  was supported by Conservatives – even including Menzies - for decades.  But the point - ironically - is that while we may aspire to a more democratic economy, natural public monopolies are also good for capitalists. (and indeed for consumers as well) This is because natural public monopolies can reduce economic cost structures in such a way as flows on to the private sector.  Hence a ‘hybrid-democratic-mixed-economy’.

Continuing: strategic government business enterprises are good for competition - and hence also good for consumers.   Specifically, they can frustrate any collusive economic behaviour between corporations - and prevent the rise of private monopolies.

These kind of policies – which can include strategic extension of the public sector – should not be ruled out as a consequence of some confused shibboleth of ‘state socialism’.

Further – while the creation of a ‘democratic mixed economy’ can be desirable for socialists/social democrats and social liberals alike – a ‘modern socialist objective’ need not restrict itself  alone to the extension of the public sector.  (though that should certainly be part of the agenda)  Consumer associations can also empower consumers; and mutualist and co-operative enterprise of various kinds can overcome exploitation and sometimes also alienation - while nonetheless preserving market relations and avoiding the problems associated with a ‘traditional command economy’.   

These issues are indeed more complex than assumed both by orthodox Marxists and also by capitalist ideologues.  Regarding exploitation: while there are problems with the Marxist ‘labour theory of labour’ which assumed all labour to be equal; nonetheless the structural relationship of exploitation – of the expropriation of a surplus – remains problematic.  And while deferral of consumption by small investors may deserve a return, the economic resources and returns for the wealthy cannot be justified in such a way.  Finally: alienation remains a reality on account of the repetitive and stressful nature of much work.   But democratic structures and processes can ameliorate the lack of control working people have over their labours; and promote a sense of ownership over those labours and the products of those labours.  Government can also intervene to provide wage-justice for the working poor – on the basis of respect for all labour.  Also government has a role to deliver the welfare dependent from poverty; and to provide opportunities for personal growth – through reduced working hours and a fair age of retirement; but also ensuring access to cultural participation and education.  Education must also be about personal growth, and not exclusively about the demands of the labour market.

In conclusion, Bowen’s ‘Crosland-inspired social liberalism’ has more to recommend it than the typical neo-liberalism we endure in the public sphere every day.  At least he sees a role for government in ensuring ‘hard and soft infrastructure’.  Ideas of ‘soft infrastructure’ could also be extended to provision of public (physical and virtual) space for civic activism – as opposed ‘the privatisation of public space’ we have become used to – where public life is reduced to consumerism.  Meanwhile his stated goal of ‘equal outcomes in health’ suggests a very robust public investment; including specific programs to ‘close the gap’ for indigenous Australians, the poor, the mentally ill and so on.  

However Bowen's rejection of public exploitation of Australian natural resources, and the strategic creation of public enterprises, simply adheres to the Ideology of the day - without concern for the tens of billions in forsaken revenue from natural resources on the one hand, and the ability to progressively cross-subsidise, enhance competition, provide efficiencies through natural public monopolies, and socialise profits - on the other.

BOWEN CONCLUDES by stating:

“We should mean what we say in the socialist objective. Currently we don’t. It clearly doesn’t reflect the modern Labor challenge, and with some updating it could very easily do so.”

In conclusion, there are some points worth observing here. 

Firstly it is legitimate to argue for Labor to mean what we say and say what we mean.  A problem with the Socialist Objective as we have known it has been the confusion as to what comprises exploitation.  For Marxists exploitation means more than just poor wages and conditions.  It refers to the expropriation of surplus value from wage labourers by capitalists. It suggests a structural injustice where capitalists expropriate part of the value that in fact they do not create themselves. They expropriate a portion of the value created by workers.  Hence a devastating moral critique.

The problem here is the idea that socialisation of “industry, production, distribution and exchange” to the extent necessary to end exploitation actually infers blanket socialisation if one is proceeding form a Marxist definition.  Because all wage labour involves the expropriation of surplus value.  By contrast some non-Marxist definitions might simply infer the elimination of poverty and the promotion of social inclusion in a ‘Third Way’ kind of sense.  Obviously the difference, here, is great – and we need to be clear what we really mean.  Hence the famous ‘Blackburn Amendment’ (made to the 1921 Objective; and proposing socialisation where necessary to end exploitation)  is confusing in the sense it leaves open the question of how we interpret that exploitation.   

(nb: my own opinion is that economic exploitation by large capitalists - including surplus extraction - cannot be morally justified 'on principle' - but that we have a problem transitioning to a fundamentally different society - because we must adapt to the real balance of forces in the international economy, and the need to remain engaged with transnationals who bring with them innovations and investment; but we should take democratisation as far as we practically can; The balance of forces may shift in the future; And in the meantime both definitions of exploitation have their uses so long as we are clear what we mean)

But within the Left itself we are already losing touch with our socialist roots.  We might well fight to preserve the Socialist Objective doggedly and persistently: but many of us would have no idea as to its meaning and origins.  Marxism itself has become ‘decidedly unfashionable’.

Marx once wrote something to the effect that socialists cannot change the world ‘behind peoples’ backs’.  Hence it is a mistake to suppose holding on to the Socialist Objective will have the kind of consequences democratic socialists want – unless it finds reflection on our day to day discourse; in the consciousness of our activists; and in our actual policies.

A smart move would be to include material which makes gestures towards the plural nature of today’s Labor Party – which is simply an observation of fact.  But while at the same time establishing democratic socialism and radical social democracy as core traditions in the ALP – which inform our values, our policies, and the Platform itself.

If we are to retain the Objective – perhaps in an updated and modernised form – then in the Left itself we must commit to having democratic socialist values and ideas inform our policies and our activism.  This means a counter-culture involving forums, publications, democratic socialist schools and conferences – which preserve and cultivate Left culture – and prevent the dissolution of our traditions into an opportunistic, uncritical and ‘mainstream’ liberalism which forsakes the critique of capitalism; or which abandons the projects of economic democracy; of social wage and welfare extension; of popular struggle ‘from below’ including class struggle; and the strategic extension of the public sector.

IN short: On the ALP Left itself we need to get our own house in order as well as fighting for reform of the National ALP Platform. If we fail ‘to get our own house in order’ any number of temporary symbolic victories will in the end come to nothing.

 

Nb:  Debate on this essay is very welcome here!

An analysis of where Labor should head on its Economic Platform specifically can also be found via the URL below – and debate is welcome there as well.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17468&page=0

For an Equal and Democratic Australia - A Program for the ALP

 

Leave a comment with your name underneath this post AND most importantly Join our Facebook Group to register your support before National Conference in 2015!  PLS Read On!

join here at Facebook to Register your Support: https://www.facebook.com/ALPequalanddemocratic?focus_composer=true

 

Dear Friends and Comrades;

For too long the ALP has failed to find sufficient inspiration on the ‘big picture’ social welfare, democratic and nation-building reforms it needs to implement in government as a genuine movement of democratic socialism and social democracy. 

Please find below a ‘minimum program’ I have developed in tandem with other ALP members in  the hope of influencing debate leading up to the 2015 ALP National Conference in July 2015.  

Included are proposals on tax and welfare reform, social insurance, environmental reform, a ‘democratic mixed economy’ and much, much more.  Not every proposal could be included because of reasons of space.

This ‘Minimum Program’ will be published at the ALP Socialist Left Forum web-page as well; and there you can also comment and leave your name in support of it.

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 that effect either here, or at the 'For and Equal and Democratic Australia' Facebook Page. 

See: https://www.facebook.com/ALPequalanddemocratic?focus_composer=true

With enough support and wide enough distribution we may influence debate on the ALP National Platform – to be decided upon in 2015.

If you are a delegate we would especially be interested – pls let us know.

But we will keep on campaigning after that also: to continue to build momentum for a genuinely progressive Federal Labor Government for 2016 and onwards.

Again: if you support the goals of this ‘minimum program’ it is crucial that you respond by ‘liking’ it at our Facebook group – and that support will be noted.

see: https://www.facebook.com/ALPequalanddemocratic?focus_composer=true

There are some changes from the earlier version so you may like to read through first

As supporters of this Program we endorse the incorporation of the following into the ALP Platform for 2015:

a)      ALP Core Mission: We believe that part of the ALP’s core mission in government is to promote a progressive accumulation of reforms  - for the purpose of improving fairness, democracy and equity; promotion of a robust civil society characterised by informed and active citizenship and civil rights and liberties (speech, association, assembly; continued universal and equal suffrage; and basic industrial liberties);  And preservation of the natural environment upon which human survival itself depends

 

b)      Supporting Human Rights: We support the ‘core mission’ of pursuing  ‘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’ via a plurality of strategies –

 

c)      A Democratic Mixed Economy: We support variety of strategies for a ‘democratic mixed economy’ -  including 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), as well as mutualism, co-determination and other related strategies; and also crucially including ‘democratic collective capital formation ‘(that is democratically administered funds such as superannuation, public pension funds, wage earners or citizens’ funds etc)  (nb: ‘collective capital formation’ was a term used by Swedish social democrats) 

 

d)     Expansion of social expenditure: We are committed to seeing an incoming ALP Federal Government implement a progressive expansion of social investment and expenditure – incorporating the social wage, social welfare state, collective consumption and social insurance; and state-funded public infrastructure

 

e)      Expansion of Social Expenditure Detail:  Specifically we aspire for the ALP to increase sustained social expenditure in the realm of 2.5 per cent of GDP – or by approximately $40 billion in today’s terms (as of 2014)  – upon taking government, and more throughout the following terms. (plus even more still if the Australian economy is in danger of recession and stimulus is necessary) More specifically, we aspire to achieve a Federal tax to GDP ratio of 30% over several consecutive terms of Labor government, with a corresponding increase of social expenditure in diverse fields listed elsewhere in this statement.  (ie: see article ‘g’) We understand the ALP cannot provide real progress regarding social expenditure on a variety of fronts  without such measures.   On social welfare, we reject ‘giving with one hand’ for the needy only to ‘take away with the other’.

 

f)       Specific Revenue Measures: To fund these new commitments we support the following:

 

·         very significant strategic and equitable rescission of superannuation concessions

·         expansion of the Medicare Levy,

·         restoration of a robust Mining Super Profits Tax

·         the establishment of a progressively structured Aged Care Levy.  

·         progressively-structured tax reform elsewhere

Additional measures might include crack-downs on corporate tax avoidance, taxes on ‘super profits’ in areas like the banking sector, and a reduction in the rate of dividend imputation.. A Federal Land Tax should be considered but might infringe upon the revenue options for the States. We also ask the Party to consider a moderate increase in Company Tax and actions to ‘end the race to the bottom’ in corporate taxation which is leading to greater and greater ‘corporate welfare’ globally. Other taxation measures will be decided upon by any incoming Labor government – but the ‘bottom line’ is that 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. 

 

g)      Specific social expenditure/infrastructure measures we support for implementation in the first term of an incoming Federal Labor Government include: 

 

·         Disability Insurance,

 

·         a progressively-funded National Aged Care Insurance Scheme providing a broad range of high quality aged care services for all those aged 65 and over with the need – and without forcing disadvantaged and working class families to sell or take equity against the family home to achieve the highest quality care; 

 

·         Robust and progressively applied increases in state school funding; including improvements in funding formulae as proposed in Gonski;  

 

·         provision of comprehensive Medicare Dental – with a wide array of dental services provided at minimal cost and promptly for pensioners and low income groups;

 

·         Completion of the National Broadband Network – publicly owned and with Fibre to the Home technology; as well as other public-funded and owned infrastructure in areas such as transport, communications, water and energy;

 

·         full implementation of ‘GP Super Clinics’;

 

·         greater public support and funding for pure and applied scientific research via the CSIRO.

 

·         A review of existing job network services; considering the possibility of re-consolidation of a single provider in the public sector; 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, 

 

h)      Welfare Reform: We are committed to the ALP increasing welfare payments in real terms across the board upon re-taking government through more generous welfare formulae.  We reject the ‘blame the victim’ and ‘blame the vulnerable’ mentality apparently promoted by the Abbott government. 

 

i)        Retirement Age: We are committed to maintaining a retirement age of 65 instead of raising it to 67 or 70 as proposed by Abbott and previous Labor Governments.  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)

 

j)        More Welfare Reform: Again in the sphere of welfare in particular:  we support an incoming ALP Federal Government  providing substantial positive incentives and support for pensioners – including disability and aged pensioners – to ‘return to work’ via community programs (eg: in aged care, helping provide company and care for the vulnerable – unless professionally deemed psychologically unsuited to such work)  But we do not support ‘negative incentives’ or labour conscription of any kind for these people.  We understand that many such people – for instance the disabled – require flexibility which existing labour markets do not provide.   Again: we support ‘positive incentives’ and ‘flexible work’ without loss of pensions.

 

k)      Industrial/labour rights: We support a legislated real increase in the minimum wage as well as pattern bargaining rights for unions.  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

 

l)       Economic Democracy: We support the extension of democracy on the economic front, and for that purpose will support a stronger role for producers and consumers co-operatives in the Australian economy on both a large and a small scale.  Specifically 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) 

 

m)    Curricula for ‘active/critical citizenship’: 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.

 

n)      On Higher Education:

 

·         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. 

 

·         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.

 

·         Furthermore we support progressive reform of the HECS system: reversing any fee deregulation, and with real increases in the repayment threshold; 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)

 

·         Gender equality: Finally, here, we support 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.

 

o)      Treaty: 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.

 

p)      Environment: 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.

 

q)      Humanitarian Migration: We support a very significant expansion of Australia’s humanitarian migrant intake – increased very significantly in real and proportionate terms on top of what was proposed by the outgoing Rudd Labor government.  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.

 

r)       ABC and SBS:  We support continued 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.
     
s)    Public and Social Housing: We support very substantial investment in high quality public housing (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)   Re-iterating from item ‘g’ –that means expansion of ( largely ‘non-clustered’) public housing stock to at least 10% of total  stock over several terms of Labor Government

 

t)       Local Government:We support a gradual re-working of the funding of local government – to ensure local government is funded in an increasingly progressive way, and is less dependent on ‘rates’ and ‘levies’ which do not take sufficient (or any) account of ‘capacity to pay’.  In that context we also support additional Federal funding for poorer municipalities to improve their capacity to invest in local infrastructure and services.

 

u)       Internal Reform: 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. In the same spirit we demand that both major factions (Left and Right) – and the Party more broadly - equally share the work of achieving the Affirmative Action goal of 40% women preselected for winnable seats.

 

v)      Public Sphere: We also support the establishment of a ‘progressive public sphere’ in this country, including ALP related forums, and policy and ideas conferences and publications which are inclusive, authentic, progressive, and which accommodate difficult debates.

 

w)      Strategic industry policy: We support an active industry policy aimed at the maintenance of ‘strategic industries’ with ‘strategic capacities’ in Australia; including through automotive production, shipping-construction and also defence industries.  (but not for export to aggressor nations) 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.

 

x)     Multilateral Disarmament and Peace: 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 

 

y)      On Health Care:  In addition to the aforementioned implementation of comprehensive Medicare Dental and GP Super Clinics we also support the following:

 

·         Also increase investment in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to extend its coverage

·         Improve the rate of Bulk Billing

·         Tighten means tests for ‘Lifetime Health Cover’ in order to pay for the removal of penalties for low income individuals (including pensioners) who let their policies lapse;

·         Also extend Medicare 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)

·         Improvement of and substantial new investment in mental health services to ‘close the gap’ regarding the life expectancy of those with mental illness; as well as to improve productivity and quality of life

 

z)      A Comprehensive Bill of Modern Human Rights: Finally: We support a comprehensive ‘Bill of Rights’ in this country, supporting liberal and civic 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.

 

 

ADDENDUM:  Further resources on top of what has been considered here might be accessed via reform of superannuation concessions as well - perhaps in the vicinity of $20 billion or more out of a pool of over $45 billion..   (taken from wealthy superannuants enjoying unfair tax breaks)  But with over 400 people already supporting the original document it is too late to include this addendum as part of the official 'For an Equal and Democratic Australia' statement. Nonetheless the primary author urges policy makers and ALP National Conference delegates to take this ADDENDUM into consideration - as an aspiration ON TOP OF the existing call for progressive tax reform to enable a pool of $40 billion for social investment.

 

Furthermore the prime author of this document (Tristan Ewins) has also decided to support a significant increase in all welfare payments in addition to an increase in the minimum wage.  This along with other proposals here must be committed to at National Conference. Poverty is a serious problem for the welfare-dependent and the working poor.  Specifically I am now supporting an increase in welfare/minimum wage by a minimum $35/week - on top of existing indexation arrangements.  And also changing the indexation arrangements for all pensions (including Sole Parents, student allowance, NewStart) - to match the Aged Pension and Disability Support Pension indexation provisions)  This is modest enough not to break the Budget (assuming the tax reforms considered here), but significant enough to make a big difference in alleviating the extremes of poverty. (both for the welfare-dependent and the working poor)   Though further income tax and other reform might also be necessary to impart the appropriate rise in disposable income and living standards for the working poor...  Improving the social wage as considered here could also make a very big difference.   (Again, though - it needs to be noted that this specific proposal was developed after the original document; Hence not all people who elected to support the broader document at our Facebook page did so with this specific proposal in mind)