Freedom and Mutual Respect - Letters for October 2016

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 employmentThe 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.  
Topics include:

'Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation'

'A congestion tax for Melbourne?' 

'In a similar vein:  Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure'

'Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom'

'Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege'

'Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration' 

'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'

'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed'

 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation

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.  Cultural exchange and engagement is arguably a good thing ; enriching cultures and acting as a check on abuse of power by particular nation states.  But the ‘inverse side’ of globalisation is the ‘free movement of capital’ .  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.  This kind of ‘free movement of capital’ disciplines labour, compelling states to provide corporate welfare.  It also acts as a barrier to ‘natural public monopolies’ in diverse areas including water, energy, communications and so on.  Yet such natural public monopolies could drive efficiencies and fairness in the Australian (and other) economies.   The TPP might  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.

A Congestion Tax for Melbourne?

Daniel Andrews and the Liberals as well have quickly ruled out any congestion tax. (in the state of Victoria in Australia) But there are things we should keep in mind. Taxes have been falling and becoming less progressive for some time.  The Conservatives especially wear that as ‘a badge of honour’.  Before the most recent ALP National Conference Labor also considered holding taxes down as non –negotiable.  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.  A ‘congestion tax’ is not especially progressive ; but would at least promote the use of public transport , taking pressure from our roads.  Also experience has shown infrastructure privatisation (eg: of roads) can actually stymie possible competition – as governments guarantee profits – shutting down alternatives while consumers pay.  Privatised ‘cost structures’ also include dividends and corporate salaries.  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.  And progressively structured tax can ensure ‘a fair go’ for all.

 In a similar vein:  Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure

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.  But there’s another side to this.  Cumulative migration creates ‘economies of scale’ in areas like the public service and Defence.  That is: it becomes possible to finance these for a proportionately smaller amount of resources.  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.  (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.  Increasing the GST is not the answer.


Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom

With regard to Rita Panahi’s recent Op-Ed in the Herald-Sun ‘Students who Refuse to Learn Tolerance’  (10/10/16) there are a number of observations to be made.  Personally I am sympathetic to some of the ideas of the radical Leftist democrat, Chantal Mouffe- who has argued that: 

“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.”

Mouffe justifies this on the basis that pluralism (a genuine variety of viewpoints) is necessary for democracy to function effectively.  And that we ought respect each other as human beings. 

How refreshing this is in light of the brutality that passes for modern politics. (which are often ‘the politics of personal destruction’)

Democracy demands informed choice. 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.  Concentration of ownership doesn’t help.  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’.

(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)

References – see: http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/

 

 

above: 'body shaming', and body image expectations increasingly affect both women and men....

 

 

Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege 

‘The Australian’ (14/10) reports school curricula content which emphasises ‘male privilege’ with a tone of apparent concern.  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.  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’,  disability, ethnicity, religion – where individuals experience disadvantage or privilege to different degrees on the basis of individual and particular circumstances.  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.  But definitely, there is a long history of male dominance of the public sphere and  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.

 Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration

The Herald-Sun reports that women are “victims of sexual attention” (16/10/16). A couple of points are important, here, though.  Firstly, ‘objectification’ increasingly affects men, also.  And men are also increasingly victims of unrealistic physical expectations around body image.  Secondly, we need to be careful we don’t portray male sexuality as ‘essentially bad’.  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.  And that cuts across gender lines.   It includes how women and men approach each other when they are sexually interested.  It also includes how we reject a person’s advances if we are not interested.  (ie: kindly and respectfully if possible)   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?”

 Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'

The Herald-Sun (16/10/16)  reports that welfare-dependency figures are “shocking”.  But Disability pensioners, Carers and the Unemployed should not be ‘shamed’.  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  disturbing about our priorities.  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?  Finally, research shows there are roughly five job-seekers for every position.  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)  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.  Because ‘Ideologically’ it cannot bring itself to support ‘economic intervention’.

References:  http://theconversation.com/when-job-seekers-outnumber-jobs-5-to-1-punitive-policy-is-harmful-28839

https://www.laborherald.com.au/health/more-action-fewer-words-needed-on-mental-health/

http://evatt.org.au/papers/northern-lights.html

 

Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed

The Herald-Sun (19/10/16)  proclaims on its front page:“70% of arrested meth users supported by your taxes” and also: “Dole Blown on Ice.”  While the apparent connection between Ice addiction and crime is alarming, the headline was irresponsible for several reasons.   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.  .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.  It seems more than an accident that the headline coincides  with the Liberal Government’s attempt to wind back benefits such as Newstart, the Disability Support Pension, the Carers’ Allowance, and so on.  To ‘make room’ in the Budget to accommodate corporate tax cuts.  And hence to demonise and vilify these people.

An Australian Response to Tony Blair: ‘Convergence Politics is not the Answer’

above:  Tony Blair urges Bill Shorten to 'return to the centre'

By Tristan Ewins

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’).

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.

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.

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.

To briefly engage with some of Blair’s contentions before moving on:



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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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’.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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:

“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.”

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’).

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.

Effectively siding with Blair, ‘The Australian’ has predictably embraced ‘neo-liberal globalism’.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

In many parts of the world ‘the tide is beginning to turn’. PERHAPS once again the future belongs to radical social democracy.

Imagining ‘The Good Society’

Imagining ‘The Good Society’     (first in a two part series)

What makes a “Good Society”? Should such a thing be measured in purely material terms? What of free time; of family and friends; of room to develop ourselves as human beings? How best to pursue such aims as human liberty, social justice, democracy, as well as compassion and provision for the needs of the poor and vulnerable?

How to negotiate conflict between the liberal right of individuals to invest their wealth as they choose, and the imperative to alleviate or eliminate the exploitation of labour?

And how best to balance conflicting modes of social organisation: to allow for spontaneity, as well as instances of planning, and the proper functioning of markets where appropriate?

This paper examines the question of a “mixed democratic economy”; of getting the right mix of planning, public and democratic ownership, and market forces.

Using urban planning as a starting point, it is possible to develop arguments surrounding neo-liberalism, the mixed economy and centralised command economics.

A good city mixes diversity, spontaneity and the play of market forces, as well as strategic planning to provide for a truly “livable” urban environment. Too much planning renders a city “sterile”, uniform and predictable. And with not enough planning (including social justice measures) cities become unworkable and unlivable.

It is too common for sprawling urban metropolises to span out of control before transport networks and regional urban “hubs” become interconnected in a workable and orderly fashion. Suburbs become disconnected from the inner-city and from each other: sprawl outpaces the development of infrastructure, services and markets. And affluent suburbs rest upon “underworlds” of poverty, deprivation and exploitation.

At times there is a need for stability and predictability. And it is only with intervention and planning that cities might become truly “livable” for all. Such intervention might, for instance, include:

• transport networks and hubs;
• public health, public housing, aged care, child care and education facilities;
• devoted civic space including public malls, squares, sports grounds and gardens: for civic activism, social life and recreation; and
• workable planning for commercial, business, residential and social zoning - including - where appropriate - urban consolidation, and the interposition of commercial and business zoning with dedicated space for free public and community use.

The need to mix public and community space with commercial space is crucial. Modern consumer culture eclipses and suffocates public life: limiting it to consumption, and not providing for an active civil society and public sphere.

Upon this urban environment, though, a market economy can thrive in a state of constant evolution and responsiveness to the “flux” of consumer demand. A dynamic of innovation, diversity and change can be provided by markets - and contribute to the “livability” of cities, and the diverse needs of communities.

This same logic, on the whole, holds true also for nation-states - as well as for cities.

There is a critical role for markets and the dynamics they provide: but stability and social justice can only be secured with the simultaneous and planned provision of social and economic infrastructure, labour market regulation, and welfare.

Competitive markets spur innovation, and can provide the logic and impetus for improving efficiency and productivity.

On the other hand - competitive labour markets - without the counter-balance of strong unions, labour market regulation and industry-wide bargaining - can lead to a “race to the bottom” in wages and conditions.

Under capitalism, also, consumption and growth become ends in themselves.

Whereas it can be preferable to enjoy and make use of free time, many businesses prefer longer hours. A social order more concerned with “quality of life” and “human need” could well accommodate shorter working hours, promoting greater flexibility and allowing for personal development, as well as social and family life.

And such an order might also provide support and recognition for the “domestic economy” and the contributions of volunteers - whose efforts go unrecognised by the “market”.

Furthermore: capitalism is prone to “market failure”. Sometimes markets are wasteful. And sometimes markets are unjust.

“Corrections” to overproduction see the pain of these falling on investors and labour. Perhaps, in part, this is the price we pay for the benefits of competition: especially responsive and innovative markets.

That said, in some cases competitive markets can lead to radically increased cost structures for which consumers must ultimately pay (for instance: areas properly held by “natural public monopoly”). One such example is the communications infrastructure in Australia. So-called “reforms” have seen the privatisation of one-time public telecommunications monopoly, Telstra, and the provision of two layers of mobile phone communications infrastructure.

The cost for “competition” in communications infrastructure is a radical increase in the cost structures of the industry.

Recent plans by the Rudd Labor Government also threaten the creation of a “part-private” monopoly in Australia’s proposed fibre-optic network. At first glance, the scenario may seem to be one of “Catch 22”: consumers might be fleeced by private monopoly, or they may be “slugged” as a consequence of radically expanded cost structures in the provision of infrastructure.

The answer, though: one which neo-liberal ideologues refuse to face; is that there remain areas of activity best suited - for all concerned - to “natural public monopoly”.

In a market economy, provision of services does not necessarily relate directly to the complex tapestry of human need. An example of this, for instance, is medical services - where providers, including medical practitioners and pharmaceutical companies, can have the motivation to over-prescribe services.

Further examples include the withdrawal or under-provision of banking and telecommunications infrastructure and services in rural and regional Australia following sweeping privatisation. Added to this is discrimination against the poor by private banks - with excessive fees.

When the maximisation of share value informs investment, goods and services are provided on this basis - and the needs of citizens and minorities are lost in the drive for profit.

Also, without local content laws for television “market forces” would leave Australia as a cultural wasteland. Indeed, there are strong arguments for further state intervention to support Australia drama, music, theatre, films, art and other forms of cultural expression: to ensure that Australian cultural identity is not eclipsed.

And sometimes abuse of markets can give rise to corruption, exploitation of consumers, and nepotism.

“Public Private Partnerships”, where social infrastructure such as roads, public buildings, schools, are provided by and held by the private sector long-term, can result in the fleecing of citizens in their capacity as consumers and taxpayers.

So while there are sometimes significant benefits to competitive markets, there are strong arguments for co-operative enterprise as well.

Co-operation, including strategic and public monopoly can provide economies of scale and pooled research and development. Competitive and collaborative efforts could imaginably give rise to landmark developments in such crucial areas as pharmaceutical and medical research.

And without the profit motive (i.e. instead spurred only by public interest) there is no rationale for “built in obsolescence”, “staggered development” and “phased” release of technology in order to maximise sales.

Finally: strategic but strong state intervention could give rise to revolutionary economic developments that otherwise could be stymied as a consequence of vested interest.

Surely state intervention could herald in a state of “critical mass” in the development and provision of renewable energy. “Clean coal” is mainly hypothetical and unproven, but powerful vested interests in the energy industry demand preference regardless of science or cost.

As the world confronts the spectre of “peak oil”, for example, who is going to provide and maintain the new infrastructure and new car models as drivers look increasingly to electric and hybrid vehicles?

Deep, structural changes will require “transitional” arrangements and public subsidies to maintain transport infrastructure such as petrol stations as a competitive market simply ceases to be profitable.

The “market” does not always supply a “spontaneous” and “organic” solution to every economic challenge. Such scenarios can warrant more direct public intervention.

A “mixed democratic economy” might provide the right mix between planning and market forces, placing human need ahead of the imperative of share value maximisation.

The “democratic” component, here, ought not to be under played either. Citizens and workers should have due influence over their own productive lives, and over the economic imperatives of the nation.

Strategies for economic democracy and justice could include:

• subsidies, low interest loans, support and tax breaks for co-operative enterprise, mutual societies and similar bodies;
   
• renewed emphasis on the public sector - managed by democratic government: including public infrastructure such as transport services, water, public housing, communications and energy; health, education, community child care services, and aged care; dedicated pure and applied scientific research; competitive GBEs (Government Business Enterprises) - which work to counter collusion and oligopoly - in fields such as banking and insurance;
   
• further GBEs could imaginably be established in critical industries such as mining - under the assumption that such pubic enterprise can perform as well if not better than private enterprise - especially when operating within a competitive global and domestic market (and thus subject to the corrective rigors of market forces). Note: Regardless of this - a public monopoly is preferable to a private monopoly: such enterprise is accountable to the public and is a bulwark against exploitation - profits are returned to “the people” and can, in turn, subsidise public services, welfare and infrastructure.
   
• Provision of democratic channels for collective capital formation and management: “citizens investment” or “community development” funds - provided for through a levy upon the profits of businesses, with revenue flowing to the broader welfare system and social wage … Without the imperative of share value maximisation, such funds would be managed on the basis of real social utility and need.

Importantly, the opportunity of citizens to invest their savings is a genuine liberal right. Regardless, though: even pension funds might technically be in a position of expropriating surplus value from workers.

Exploitation as understood by Marx, thus, is in some ways a “Gordian knot” which cannot be severed - or eliminated entirely.

On the other hand, progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, economic democracy and collective capital mobilisation, maintenance of a strong and strategic public sector - including a progressive welfare state and social wage - could well displace the traditional bourgeoisie in its position as “ruling class”: perceived and real.

In its place it is to be hoped that ordinary citizens (including pensioners, the unemployed, students - i.e.: not just workers) will organise so as to “win the battle of democracy” and secure sweeping economic, political and social change. The right economic and democratic mix is essential for us all: and is an essential part both of imagining - and achieving - “The Good Society”.

by Tristan Ewins

Multiculturalism and the False Lure of Cultural Relativism

Cultural pluralism is fine, writes Tristan Ewins, but it does not expunge the need for moral judgment.

In Australia, multiculturalism has risen to the point where it is now perceived as a symbol of our maturation as a diverse, cosmopolitan liberal society. Having broken decisively with that Eurocentric orientation which derived identity from the old ties of Empire, and with old reactionary notions of ‘racial purity’, Australia has emerged as one of the most culturally pluralist communities on the planet.

Countless Diaspora communities now call Australia home: African, Jewish, Kurdish, Greek, Serbian, Croatian, Turkish – Australia is a veritable patchwork of ethnic identities. As many commentators have suggested, the benefits of this process have been innumerable, emerging as a complex process of cross cultural fertilization that, at times, has worked to develop cross cultural understanding, sensitivity and rich cultural diversity.

And yet the multicultural phenomenon, which has been interpreted by many as comprising a policy of ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘anything goes’, could never have emerged were it not for the liberal political foundations upon which it was built.

In the form of liberalism, the world’s ‘liberal democracies’ are (theoretically) enmeshed in a universalistic rights discourse which provides the foundations upon which their implicit social contracts are based.

These liberal foundations, largely individualist in their orientation, seek to secure for the individual such rights as freedom of expression, assembly and speech. They seek the Kantian ideal of individual autonomy and dignity, and move to consolidate these rights in law.

It is within this framework that a multiplicity of collective struggles for recognition and emancipation have also been able to take place, whether we refer here to the women’s liberation movement, the queer movement, or the strivings of Australia’s many-varied ethnic communities.

As individuals, after all, we are all also bound or influenced by collective forms of organisation, interest and identity. There are, of course, difficulties with the liberal approach, not least of which is its traditional emphasis on the sanctity of property (the result of liberalism’s birth in the era of bourgeois revolutions), its neglect of social rights, and its assumption that all conflicts and struggles can effectively be mediated away by the State.

Then there is the glaring inconsistency of ostensible ‘liberal democracies’ pursuing Imperialist policies, and sponsoring terroristic and repressive regimes overseas. Left critics of classical liberalism might, therefore, prefer to posit ‘liberal socialism’ as a potential alternative, enshrining civil liberties, while also allowing rights of social well-being and justice, founding itself upon global human solidarity, and not seeking to negate (via state mediation), the dynamic of class struggle.

Nevertheless, when compared to the world’s authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, the benefits of liberal society, in which struggles for emancipation and recognition have been able to take place, are self-evident, even despite the frequent violation by the State of the liberal foundations upon which its legitimacy is based.

The problem with ‘cultural relativist’ and ‘moral relativist’ interpretations of multiculturalism, then, is that in its avowed philosophy of ‘anything goes’, the policy and practice of liberal multiculturalism stands in danger of being cut off at its roots by its own extreme interpretation.

Deprived of consensual universal foundations: of mutual communication, understanding, and social and individual rights, the liberal, or else liberal socialist, project stands to collapse.

Daring to start, once more, from universalistic foundations, it is possible to suggest that the cornerstone of any truly liberated society ought rather be the elimination of relations of domination, oppression, and senseless bigotry, thus best allowing for the blooming of individual autonomy, security and dignity. Certain collective ‘identities’, however, by their very nature, attempt to validate relations of oppression, hatred and dominance.

Chauvinist nationalism has consistently been found to be complicit with centuries of colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism and even genocide. Chauvinist nationalism amongst Australia’s diaspora communities ought not, therefore, be considered a valid expression of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’, but ought be identified for its real nature: the role it plays in festering senseless hatred, and in blinding us to our shared humanity.

It is worth asking, therefore, whether the Australian nation is best built without recourse to traditional nationalism. The weight of History seems to suggest an affirmative response, despite the enduring and tempting impulse for collective identity.

At best perhaps a ‘self-critical’ nationalism - one which embodies the ideal of pluralism, compassion and justice without hypocrisy – and exploding past chauvinist myths -might be reconcilable with our better nature.

Similarly, we should be wary of those who, for the sake of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’ remain uncritical of race-inspired movements for identity, even as others struggle valiantly to deconstruct and criticise the concept of race. If race exists – regardless, one is not essentially superior to the other.To take the critique further, we may also consider those collective identities that incorporate within themselves relations of oppression, degradation or unusual cruelty.

In the current environment of hysteria which has reached new heights in the post September 11 world one needs to keep in mind that the practice of female circumcision amongst Muslims is not prevalent in Australia, and is overwhelmingly the domain of the fundamentalist fringe. Nevertheless, this pertinent example of cruel and unusual cultural practices demonstrates clearly the potential for perceived individual and group rights, to clash in an irreconcilable fashion.

Today’s Left, in place of a universalistic orientation, has instead established an arbitrary hierarchy of identity based struggles for recognition, informed by a fashionable favouring of ‘difference’ as an end in itself.

For the feminist movement, for instance, assumptions underlying the liberation struggle are critical:

Because the struggle for women’s liberation is usually thus viewed as being of a higher order than the pluralist ideal, many would no doubt choose to make an exception to the usual blind celebration of ‘difference’ in some instances.

Regardless of pluralist assumption, most women are utterly horrified at the barbarity of female genital mutilation.

And yet – having set this precedent – we are confronted with the question of whether, even in an avowedly pluralist order, we can afford to accept, for the sake of collective cultural autonomy, ANY, let alone ALL, relations or acts of oppression, exploitation, degradation or unusual cruelty.

The question of traditional tribal punishments such as spearing raise similar issues and contradictions, although the indigenous case for cultural autonomy is, no doubt, the strongest case of all, given the imposition of European civilization through conquest. (hence the urgent need for a negotiated Treaty to provide closure to this festering injustice)

The dilemma here, though, is that incarceration in White man’s prisons is also felt by many to be an indignity, and a cruel form of punishment in of itself.

And yet, in a rarely considered observation, members of various cultural groups find themselves enmeshed in the workings of power that predominate throughout said collectives: workings that can well inhibit individual autonomy, dignity and freedom, on pain of social exclusion, or worse.

The rights of cultural groups to collective autonomy and self-determination thus need also to be considered alongside the rights of individuals. Progressives, for instance, do not generally support the death penalty in the United States as a practice that should be spared the scrutiny of our moral judgment on account of its comprising an instance of the American peoples’ ‘cultural self determination’.

The context of conquest and colonialism in the instance of the suppression of indigenous culture demands greater sensitivity – especially to the question of self-determination. And yet – even here – the need for sensitive moral judgment is not expunged. The problem of coming to judgments about ‘other’ cultures is complicated also by a variety of other factors.

To begin with, there are inevitable difficulties in determining clearly delineated boundaries where cultures ‘begin’ and ‘end’. As various philosophers and other commentators have been prone to ask: “Who are we?” and “Who are ‘they?’”.

The truth – that we live in a complex world of interpenetrating cultural influences and identities – where more than ever we are all ‘interconnected’ - makes any moral and cultural relativist objection to cross-cultural judgment appear all the more untenable.

‘Cultures’ are not, after all, monolithic wholes, but are complex, socially constructed ‘texts’ which are ‘read’ and interpreted by individuals in various ways. Thus responsibility of the individual for moral judgment and existential choice cannot so easily be exorcised by appeal to cultural and moral relativism.

The dilemmas and challenges thus facing the multicultural project are great. There can be no doubt as to the benefits of a diverse and pluralist social order. Nevertheless, any cohesive society must be founded on the basis of communication, understanding, and a shared and consistent regime of individual and social rights.

Multicultural pluralism, therefore, cannot survive without placing limits upon itself, encouraging critical and sensitive moral judgment, and preserving its roots in liberal or liberal socialist universalism. Group autonomy and self-determination, thus, are important principles in of themselves, but for radicals they ought always be contextualized within the broader projects of human emancipation, and the struggle for human dignity.

Tristan Ewins

Tristan Ewins is an experienced freelance writer, BA Social Sciences (1st class Hons) graduate, qualified teacher, and Australian Labor Party activist,  He is also a “self-confessed ‘liberal socialist’”

He can be reached at: tristane@bigpond.net.au