Of State Borders, Wars and Refugees

by Lev Lafayette  (picture above)

The fact that communities have always had policies concerning the movement of people into the lands held by that community should surprise nobody with even a modicum of understanding of anthropology and history. True, there are some rugged individuals who dream of a past or of a future, where one can simply wander with absolute freedom wherever they should like and perhaps many of these are well intention with a desire to interact with nature in solitude. But terra nullius was, and is, a fiction; the principle of freedom of movement is one that must be negotiated and balanced with present occupiers and their claims of jurisdiction. It must be acknowledged that capital will always be more likely to have greater freedom of movement than labour, for capital itself is not a moral actor. With technological and systematic development, such borders have developed from vague marchlands often defined by natural boundaries (forest, river, mountains) to very specific and precise designations, controlling both the movement of people and also the movement of animals, plants, and goods, not to mention the opportunity for rulers to acquire lucre through visa charges, excises and duties.

With the institution of landed property the negotiations between immigrant and established community ceased to be a negotiation between equals with the balanced tipped firmly in favour in the owners of estate. The opportunity now existed for one person or class of persons to acquire the best land to exclusion of the others. If the calculated risk was considered worthwhile, this acquisition was made force of arms in the pursuit of monopoly profit. Wars, both across state borders and within them, have challenged the effectiveness of administrative systems to smoothly operate in some cases, and in others the local jurisdictions have simply had to acknowledge the chaos as a quirky result; a most famous case being Baarle-Hertog (the Belgium exclaves in the Netherlands) and Baarle-Nassau (the Netherland's exclaves in Belgium), where the complexity arises from a number of medieval treaties, land-swaps and sales between the Lords of Breda and the Dukes of Brabant and ratified by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1843.



Whilst such borders seem amusingly anachronistic in a civilised and modern Europe, they underlie a much more serious concern; that fluctuating borders, between and within states, are often the result of violent conflicts which displace huge sections of the affected population, before, during and after the actual conflict leading to the presence of refugees seeking sanctuary. The contemporary definition of a refugee is derived from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which defined a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country. The 1967 Protocol expanded the original definition which was specific to "events occurring before 1 January 1951... in Europe". The Convention and Protocol combined do not have such geographical or temporal limits. Until a person is legally recognised as a refugee in a country where they seek sanctuary they are designated as asylum seekers.

Behind these legal definitions is the very real people themselves. At the beginning of 2006, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated the total number worldwide of such people at almost 8.5 million at the beginning of 2006. This figure excludes some 4.6 million Palestinian refugees classified under the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who are the only group to be granted refugee status to the descendants of refugees. Nor do these figures include Internally-Displaced People, those who have been forced to flee their homes for the same reasons as refugees (usually civil war) but remain within their country's borders. At the end of 2006 the number of these persons was estimated at 24.5 million, with some 40% of these being in Africa. Conditions in refugee and IDP camps is typically very poor and are rife with abuse and violence. For the large number of children in such places there is little opportunity for formal schooling. Asylum seekers, apart from often suffering physical wounds, often develop post-traumatic stress disorder (approximately 9% across several studies) and major depression (5%).

A common characteristic of both refugees and internally displaced persons is that the people involved are seeking sanctuary. An ancient times among both the Greeks and Egyptians it was held that a person who fled to a temple could not be harmed without inviting divine intervention. This religious right to asylum was included in medieval European legal codes, originally with King Ethelbert of Kent, c600AD. In modern times, significant numbers of people seeking asylum after the first world war to the establishment of the League of Nations' High Commission for Refugees in 1921, dealing with some 1.5 million people who were fleeing the Russian Revolution and the subsequent Civil War and soon after some 1 million Armenians fleeing the genocide in Turkey. International response however, was not always beneficial. The United States introduced the Emergency Quota Act (1921) and the Immigration Act (1924), aimed at reducing the migration of southern and eastern Europeans. As a result most of the European refugees - principally Jews and Slavs - fleeing Stalinism, the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States.

Often overlooked is the massive refugee crisis in the last months of WWII and immediately afterwards. During the war itself the Allied forced had created repatriation of over seven million displaced persons in Europe and China. However as Soviet forces advanced towards Germany, some five million German citizens fled northern and western Poland and Prussia. Further, Poland engaged in an ethnic expulsion program an issue further complicated as most of eastern Germany was under Polish administration. Large numbers of Germans were also expelled or left eastern Europe; an estimated twelve million in total and between five hundred thousand and a million perishing in the process.

Other refugee crisis in the second half the twentieth century and in contemporary times begins with the partition of India, leading to the largest movement of persons in history, with some eighteen million Hindus and Sikhs moving from West Pakistan to India with a smaller number of Muslims moving in the other direction. The Algerian War of Independence resulted in some two million Algerians either fleeing into the Algerian hinterland or relocating to France, Morocco or Tunisia, along with some nine hundred thousand European-descended Algerians. Decolonisation also led to approximately one million people of Portuguese descent leaving Angola and Mozambique and the Angolan Civil War caused four million IDPs and five hundred thousand refugees. During the Bangladesh War of Independence in 1971, more than ten million Bengalis fled to neighboring India. Following war and the establishment of communist governments in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in 1975, about three million people became asylum seekers, resulting in the term 'boat people' entering the vernacular. The civil war in Sri Lanka, from the early 1980s onwards, generated over one hundred thousand refugees and almost three hundred thousand IDPs. In the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, over two million people fled into neighboring countries. A civil war in Tajikistan has led to 1.2 million refugees and displaced persons. Africa's instability is so great that countries are often simultaneously countries of origin for refugees and countries of asylum for other refugees; the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the place of origin for over four hundred thousand refugees, but it is also the place of refuge for almost two hundred thousand. In contemporary Darfur, some 2.5 million people - a third of the population - have been forced to flee the homes after attacks by government-backed paramilitaries. The current war in Iraq led to displacement of some 4.7 million persons; 2 million seeking refugee status and the others as IDPs.

The reality is that whilst there are wars, with their heavy foundation in the existence of standing armies and the prospect of monopoly control of natural resources, there will be asylum seekers. Indeed, if scientific expectations have a degree of accuracy, in all probability the twenty-first century will witness huge displacements of people as 'climate change asylum seekers'; those whose homes and livelihood become no longer viable due to rising sea levels, deforestation and desertification, extreme weather, extinctions etc. With these affects monopolistic competition for resources will become greater, leading to more wars and increased numbers of asylum seekers in coming decades. In these circumstances it is probable that there will be a rise among reactionary nationalists who will oppose such asylum seekers, who will support their expulsion and detention and generally seek to overturn the Refugee Convention.

In contrast a policy that is dedicated to maximising human freedom promotes policies that allow anyone to settle in any area subsequent to basic health and security checks, limited by the carrying capacity of the region in question. Indeed, there is a utilitarian argument that refugees should be given priority over general immigration as their needs are greater as will be the change in their circumstances. As for specific settlement locations, these should be determined by smaller jurisdictions, not larger. As the Howard administration in Australia sought to reduce the refugee intake into Australia - and engaged in a particularly racist and heartless program of incarceration, temporary protection visas and even sending naval vessels to prevent the landing of those arriving by boat - many areas of regional Australia expressed great desire for further migrant populations to settle in increasingly deserted townships.

The detention of asylum seekers is another issue that is not going to go away, and it will be increasingly a favoured tool of popularist governments who seek to incarcerate asylum seekers pending determination of their status as a refugee, especially those who arrive by boat. In Australia, such "unauthorised" arrivals have been treated with outcry by a conservative media even though in 2008 the total number people who sought asylym in such a manner was a paltry 3.4%. Australia was the only country that mandated the detention of all such arrivals, and public claims were often made that this would deter people smugglers, although it was never substantiated how punishing the victims would challenge the perpetrators. Because application for refugee status is a universal right, one that transcends local jurisdictions, and the temporal vagaries of politics, the management of such applications should be determined internationally, not by the states in question. In other words, rather than processing of refugee claims and management of detention centres being carried out by states, they should be carried out by the UNHCR.

As a further emphasis on the universal applicability of the claims, concerted international effort needs to be directed towards those countries that are not signatories to the 1967 Protocol. Specifically this refers to a swath of countries across the middle-east and southern asia, including Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia among others. Of course, in some of those cases people may indeed be fleeing from the governments of such countries. Nevertheless, the existence of these non-signatories causes problems for neighbouring states, as these asylum seekers are supposed to seek refuge at the first country of opportunity. With the existence of 'non-countries' in between the source and destination, the real or imagined concern of selective choice weakens claims of asylum among the existing inhabitants.

Whilst these three policies - universality of the Protocol, UNHCR processing of asylum seekers, localised settlement of refugees - will certainly serve to provide greater justice for refugee claimants and local communities, reminder is drawn to the original points of this article; that whilst there is the possibility of monopoly ownership over natural wealth, there will be the the impetus for wars both internal and external to states. Whilst this problem remains unresolved, along with the lack of responsibility of damage to the environment, a genuine tragedy of the commons, there problem of asylum seekers, refugees and internally displaced persons, shall remain.

by Lev Lafayette, founder of Labor for Refugees (Australia)

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Privatisation debunked - by John Quiggin

above: the author, Australian economist John Quiggin

 (first published Thursday 5 November 2009 – reproduced with the permission of the author)



Bad arguments can be used to defend good ideas. But when the arguments used to defend a policy proposal are invariably spurious, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the policy itself cannot be defended on its merits.

The policy of privatisation, popular with governments around the world since the 1980s, is a perfect example. Time after time, governments have sold privatisation to the public as a way of freeing capital that can be invested in social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. And time after time, economists have pointed out that such claims are fallacious.

Just this week I (like every other Queensland householder) received a taxpayer funded pamphlet advocating the sale of public assets, stating that ‘Keeping these businesses would cost the Government $12 billion over the next five years. That’s $12 billion spent on new coal trains and new wharves that can«t be spent on roads, schools or hospitals.”

The pamphlet is entitled “The Myths vs the Facts”, but appears to have its labelling wrong. There can be few myths that have been refuted more often than the idea that privatisation creates a ‘war chest’ from which new social infrastructure can be financed.

Coal industry assets generate income. Selling income generating investments and using the proceeds to fund investments that return no additional revenue leaves the government with no flow of income to service the associated debt. The necessary income must be raised by increasing taxes or cutting expenditure.

Economists have been making this point for decades. In 2002, NSW and Victorian Treasury Secretaries, John Pearce and Ian Little observed that Public-Private Partnerships ‘do not provide governments with an additional bucket of money for use on infrastructure projects‘. The validity of the point is unchanged if PPPs are replaced by asset sales.

Selling public assets will improve the net fiscal position of the public sector only if the price realised for the assets exceeds the value of the income stream that is foregone through publication. Is this the case with the Queensland asset sales. “The Myths vs the Facts” says it is, claiming that ‘The total return from all five businesses in 2008-09 was approximately $320 million … When the sale process is completed, it is anticipated the Government will save $1.8 billion every year in interest payments’.

That looks convincing, but it is an apples-and-oranges comparison that would never be allowed in a corporate prospectus. The $320 million figure appears to consist solely of dividend payouts, excluding retained earnings, tax-equivalent payments and the interest paid by the government business enterprises to service their debts.

The $1.8 billion, though unexplained, appears to represent the interest that would be saved, at a rate of about 6 per cent, if the state realised $15 billion from the asset sale and avoided $12 billion in new investment.

This calculation entirely is invalid. New investments in coal infrastructure can be justified only if the regulators are willing to approve additional revenue sufficient to cover the cost of capital. This revenue will cover the interest needed to service the additional debt, so forgoing the investment will not save the government money.

It is true that selling assets is likely to improve Queensland’s credit rating, which was reduced from AAA to AA+ earlier in the year, and thereby knock around 30 basis points of the interest rate on state debt. That will save the state about $65 million a year. It’s not a trivial sum, but it would not justify a sale except at a price high enough to compensate for foregone earnings.

AAA ratings are not necessarily indicators of good economic management. Leaving aside the failures, and anti-government biases of the ratings agencies, their job is to advise bondholders. Asset sales will always reduce debt equity ratios and reduce the risk faced by bondholders, whether or not they are economically sound.

With the spectacular failure of the efficient financial markets hypothesis over the last two years, it is no longer possible to put any faith in general claims about the superiority of the private sector. In a mixed economy, it is necessary to assess the merits of private and public ownership on a case-by-case basis.
Perhaps there are better arguments for these privatisations than those that have been presented so far. If so, the Bligh government should put them forward, instead of relying on long-refuted myths.


nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

ALSO – If you’re interested in becoming involved in the anti-privatisation campaign visit the URLs below for information:

http://www.etu.org.au/

and

http://www.qldnotforsale.org.au/

Queensland privatisation needs a rethink - fight the betrayal of the Bligh Labor government

by an Anonymous author - passed on by the Queensland Electrical Trades Union (ETU)

Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser have a Plan for Queensland.  Unfortunately, it is the wrong plan.  And it has not been subject to the critical examination that it deserves.

The Renewing Queensland: Future Investment Plan was announced by the State Government on the 2^nd of June in what can be described as a ‘take it or leave it’ announcement.  The plan seeks to sell off Qld Motorways, the Port of Brisbane, Forestry Plantations Qld, QR’s coal business and the Abbot Point coal terminal. 

As recent public meetings and rallies throughout Queensland have shown, many members of the community (indeed polls indicate a clear majority) have serious concerns about the impact of privatization.

A throw back to the 1980s and 1990s, the community knows privatisation always ends up in poorer quality services, higher prices and job cuts.  The only real winners are the select few from the finance and consultancy community.

When Premier Anna Bligh announced her plan, she highlighted the so-called ‘success’ of QANTAS being privatised.  Funny how she didn’t mention the post-privatisation performances of Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and interstate public transport and electricity systems.

It is easy to get trapped, when debating privatisation, and focus on ideological grounds.  The public sector is good, the private sector is better etc.

It’s time to move on from that.  The Government’s plan needs to be viewed through rigorous economic and public policy grounds.  And on this it comes up a lemon.

Consider this: the Government’s main argument is that we are in a ‘global recession’ which has wiped $14 billion off budget forward revenues and made Queensland lose its Triple A credit rating.  $12 billion is needed in future capital investment in the entities they have earmarked for sale.  By selling them, we save this $12 billion, and realize $15 billion in sales revenue.

Let’s put these claims under the microscope.

Blaming the global financial crisis (GFC) for our current predicament is a myth.  Australia is NOT in a recession (ask Kevin Rudd).  The prime cause of Queensland’s  financial problems is poor budgetary management going back to the start of the Beattie Government and even before.  Queensland rigidly stuck to the ‘low tax state’ dogma and did not plan for spending on much needed services and infrastructure for a growing population.

The past decade saw ‘rivers of gold’ flow into State coffers from the resources boom, the property boom and the GST boom.  And yet we have nothing to show for it.  The Government has done the financial equivalent of ‘pissing it up against the wall’.

As respected economics commentator with News Ltd, George Megalogenis, summed up recently:

“Don’t blame Wall Street for this.   This mistake is home grown….. (Qld) didn’t bank the windfalls, so they could spend in bad times such as those we are going through now.  They used the proceeds instead to cut taxes elsewhere.  In effect, they took a temporary revenue surge and returned it as a permanent tax cut.   By not imagining the day when the property market might go bust, Fraser has condemned his taxpayers to more pain than necessary in a downturn.”

If you look at the 12 Beattie-Bligh budgets, 5 have been in deficit.  And 2 of the 7 surpluses have been extremely ‘skinny’ to say the least (i.e. below $40m).  Long before the GFC came along, the signs were there the Queensland budget was skating on thin ice.

And what about the so called ‘facts’ the Government is giving us, based on Treasury advice?  That they will realize $15 billion from asset sales, helping cater for a $14 billion hole in State Government revenue over the next 4 years, and saving the Government from $12 billion in future capital expenditure.  Where’s the supporting evidence and information for such claims?  What modeling was used to come to these conclusions? What methodology and assumptions underpinned such modeling? Will such information be made public and transparent?

I challenge Treasurer Andrew Fraser to make all supporting information and calculations - justifying privatization - available for independent verification, ideally with Auditor-General Glen Poole who has done an excellent job recently highlighting flaws in the Bligh Government’s health and transport policies.

Queensland Treasury has got every one of their surplus/deficit forecasts for the past 12 budgets completely wrong.  For 2008-09 they predicted a surplus of $809 million.  We got a deficit of $574 million.  Their track record doesn’t inspire much confidence in me at all.

And in terms of saving $12 billion in future capital expenditure needed for the entities concerned, let me get this straight:  The Government is saying that the private sector, in the middle of the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression, will readily cough up this money?  You’ve got to be kidding!

And let’s not forget the information Andrew Fraser let slip recently.  That of the $15 billion in expected revenue from asset sales, $13.5 billion will go towards debt repayments.  That means it is really only $1.5 billion Queensland taxpayers look at getting for selling off some key assets.

I acknowledge Queensland is experiencing financial difficulties but let’s address the structural state budget problem which is the real cause here.  It’s not the fault of our public assets which, in total, return some $500 million to State coffers each year and which carry out important services the private sector would not otherwise do.

To borrow a phrase Bligh, Fraser and co might understand, their economic plan is wacky, kooky and full of holes.  It needs urgent reconsideration.

New South Wales, widely viewed as a ‘basket case’ economy, still has its triple A credit rating – and it hasn’t privatized!

When Joh Bjelke Petersen was Premier, a popular bumper sticker at the time was “See Queensland First before Joh sells it”.

Anna Bligh faces being featured in a similar bumper sticker in future.

nb:  If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. 

see:    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

The Berlin wall had to fall, but today's world is no fairer - by Mikhail Gorbachev

Twenty years have passed since the fall of the Berlin wall, one of the shameful symbols of the cold war and the dangerous division of the world into opposing blocks and spheres of influence. Today we can revisit the events of those times and take stock of them in a less emotional and more rational way.


The first optimistic observation to be made is that the announced "end of history" has not come about, though many claimed it had. But neither has the world that many politicians of my generation trusted and sincerely believed in: one in which, with the end of the cold war, humankind could finally forget the absurdity of the arms race, dangerous regional conflicts, and sterile ideological disputes, and enter a golden century of collective security, the rational use of material resources, the end of poverty and inequality, and restored harmony with nature.

Another important consequence of the end of the cold war is the realisation of one of the central postulates of New Thinking: the interdependence of extremely important elements that go to the very heart of the existence and development of humankind. This involves not only processes and events occurring on different continents but also the organic linkage between changes in the economic, technological, social, demographic and cultural conditions that determine the daily existence of billions of people on our planet. In effect, humankind has started to transform itself into a single civilisation.

At the same time, the disappearance of the iron curtain and barriers and borders, unexpected by many, made possible connections between countries that until recently had different political systems, as well as different civilisations, cultures and traditions.

Naturally, we politicians from the last century can be proud of the fact that we avoided the danger of a thermonuclear war. However, for many millions of people around the globe, the world has not become a safer place. Quite to the contrary, innumerable local conflicts and ethnic and religious wars have appeared like a curse on the new map of world politics, creating large numbers of victims.
Clear proof of the irrational behaviour and irresponsibility of the new generation of politicians is the fact that defence spending by numerous countries, large and small alike, is now greater than during the cold war, and strong-arm tactics are once again the standard way of dealing with conflicts and are a common feature of international relations.

Alas, over the last few decades, the world has not become a fairer place: disparities between the rich and the poor either remained or increased, not only between the north and the developing south but also within developed countries themselves. The social problems in Russia, as in other post-communist countries, are proof that simply abandoning the flawed model of a centralised economy and bureaucratic planning is not enough, and guarantees neither a country's global competitiveness nor respect for the principles of social justice or a dignified standard of living for the population.

New challenges can be added to those of the past. One of these is terrorism. In a context in which world war is no longer an instrument of deterrence between the most powerful nations, terrorism has become the "poor man's atomic bomb", not only figuratively but perhaps literally as well. The uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the competition between the erstwhile adversaries of the cold war to reach new technological levels in arms production, and the presence of the new pretenders to an influential role in a multipolar world all increase the sensation of chaos in global politics.

The crisis of ideologies that is threatening to turn into a crisis of ideals, values and morals marks yet another loss of social reference points, and strengthens the atmosphere of political pessimism and nihilism. The real achievement we can celebrate is the fact that the 20th century marked the end of totalitarian ideologies, in particular those that were based on utopian beliefs.

Yet new ideologies are quickly replacing the old ones, both in the east and the west. Many now forget that the fall of the Berlin wall was not the cause of global changes but to a great extent the consequence of deep, popular reform movements that started in the east, and the Soviet Union in particular. After decades of the Bolshevik experiment and the realisation that this had led Soviet society down a historical blind alley, a strong impulse for democratic reform evolved in the form of Soviet perestroika, which was also available to the countries of eastern Europe.

But it was soon very clear that western capitalism, too, deprived of its old adversary and imagining itself the undisputed victor and incarnation of global progress, is at risk of leading western society and the rest of the world down another historical blind alley.

Today's global economic crisis was needed to reveal the organic defects of the present model of western development that was imposed on the rest of the world as the only one possible; it also revealed that not only bureaucratic socialism but also ultra-liberal capitalism are in need of profound democratic reform – their own kind of perestroika.


Today, as we sit among the ruins of the old order, we can think of ourselves as active participants in the process of creating a new world. Many truths and postulates once considered indisputable, in both the east and the west, have ceased to be so, including the blind faith in the all-powerful market and, above all, its democratic nature. There was an ingrained belief that the western model of democracy could be spread mechanically to other societies with different historical experience and cultural traditions. In the present situation, even a concept like social progress, which seems to be shared by everyone, needs to be defined, and examined, more precisely.

see:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/30/1989-capitalism-in-crisis-perestroika/print

From the Past to the Future - Unearthing Labor’s Socialist Tradition.

nb:this article concerns the socialist tradition of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) dating back to the 1920s and 1930s; the issues should be of interest to a broad audience...

by Geoff Drechsler

Sometimes it seems as if Labor’s socialist past is the victim of the strangest of conspiracies – a curious intellectual alliance of the boosters for moderate politics within the Labor movement, who engage in mild historical revisionism to excise Labor’s radical past, as it sits uncomfortably with the incrementalism and compromise they prefer, and the last remaining revolutionaries, who are loathed to admit that the party they have spent their political lives deriding as a ‘sell out’ actually has a radical past.

This short article will outline one historical example of Labor’s socialist past. While there are numerous examples of this, ranging from the utopian socialism of many of the original founders of the Labor Party[1], the adoption of the ‘socialist objective’ during the ‘20s, to the implicit transformational nature of Chifley’s famous “light on the hill” speech to the inherent internationalism of Labor’s longstanding opposition to foreign wars, this article will consider the ‘socialisation units’ in the NSW branch in the ‘30s.

The example of the ‘socialisation units’ in NSW is important for a number of reasons. Most significantly, the ‘socialisation units’ were an anti-capitalist mass movement. They enjoyed widespread support within the party and in working class areas, and they had an outward looking propagandist strategy, educating and agitating for their program in the general community through a newspaper, public lectures, study circles and reading groups. (It was common for socialisation unit members to doorknock their suburb) Secondly, in the terms of the party and the NSW Labor government at the time, they were in the mainstream of party debate and activities. Later, their ‘socialism in our time’ position competed with party leader Lang’s more limited socialisation of credit position in party forums.

The socialisation units were active between 1929 and 1935, and began from an earlier move to establish a “Labor Propaganda Army” (LPA), supported by branch agitational units, at the 1928 NSW party conference.

Initially, in 1930, the backers of the LPA succeeded in having a ‘socialisation committee’ established by the NSW annual conference to propagate the principal platform of the party – the socialist objective.

The purpose of the new socialisation units was 'to carry the message of a saner, better and more efficient social system through socialisation to those hundreds of thousands of misguided victims of capitalism.' The people who proposed these new units had a five part strategy:
'1. By addressing public meetings either open air or indoor. 2. By distributing leaflets on Socialisation which the Committee hopes to publish. 3. By organising units or groups for the above purposes. 4. By donations to the printing or propaganda fund which the Committee hopes to establish. 5. By any other means…'

Local socialisation units were established in party branches and trade unions (success being found more often in the former rather than the later). They produced a newspaper from April 1931, Socialisation Call, which was a weekly insert in the Labor Daily initially. The newspaper had a readership in the 10s of ‘000s and the widespread public lectures could attract several hundred on a good night. They even had a segment on radio station 2KY. By the 1931 annual conference, there were 97 socialisation units operating[2], by the time they peaked there were 178 units amongst 250 Labor Party branches around NSW[3]. In some cases the socialisation units were bigger than the original branches that sponsored them. There were instances of people specifically joining the party to, so they could join the socialisation units, and thousands of workers participated in this new movement. The range of activities was broad enough that it included a socialisation orchestra and a socialisation drama group. Socialisation units also spontaneously manifested themselves outside of NSW but not in any organised way.

The membership of the Units was not simply a passive voting base for Labor, or fundraising machines. Volunteers, according to the Units, 'must be able to realise that their job is to be one of the worthiest in the party, one full of honour and responsibility, and that only active, convinced enthusiasts need apply'.

Nationally, during the same period, Scullin was elected with the largest Labor vote in Australian history in 1929, at the onset of the Great Depression, but was subsequently defeated at the following federal election, which ids still a first for an Australian Labor government. This was due to the unpopularity of his government’s economically orthodox deflationary strategy that sought to deal with the Great Depression by cutting government expenditure (and public sector wages and pensions). Lang’s advocacy of the alternative “Lang Plan”, which advocated repudiation of interest payments to overseas creditors until the Great Depression eased,[4] during the same period, ultimately lead to his expulsion from the party, and the establishment of two Labor parties in NSW. This did not diminish his popularity amongst Labor supporters, as he still addressed rallies of 100,000 in central Sydney. Later, after Lang was sacked in May 1932 by the governor general, Lang would address rallies of up to a quarter of a million.

The high point of the socialisation units was the 1931 Easter Conference, where they succeeded in getting the conference to adopt a motion calling on the state Labor government to fight the subsequent state election on a program of implementing socialism within three years (this even made The New York Times). The conference passed this resolution, but it was amended the following day when the conference reconvened after some intense lobbying. By this time, the socialisation units were characterised by two distinct schools of thoughts – the democratic socialism of the leadership group and the revolutionary socialism of some rank and file members. [5]

The socialisation units’ decline began in 1932 when Lang and his Inner Group considered they constituted a genuine threat to their pre-eminence within the NSW party, as the socialisation units turned their focus to the trade union movement and appeared on the cusp of holding sway over conference. Lang and his supporters began mobilising against the units, and they were ordered disbanded at the 1933 party conference (though the same conference also passed a motion supporting the socialisation of credit as an immediate policy aim of the ALP).

So what are the lessons from this for Labor activists in the 21st century ?

Many of those who currently advocate ‘mainstream’ positions exclusively within the labour movement are motivated by a misplaced belief that a Labor Party with a left wing agenda is unelectable and that a left wing agenda will never attract mass support. History does not bear this out. As Andrew West has pointed out (“Centrists Don’t Make Landslides”, New Matilda, 23 May, 2008), when Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 on very much a minimalist program, he achieved a two-party preferred vote of 52.70%, with Labor’s primary vote at 43.38%. By comparison, Gough Whitlam in 1972, who sought to strike a contrast between himself and his conservative opponents in every way in policy terms, and was viewed as much more likely to shake up the status quo, also achieved the same two-party preferred vote of 52.70%, with a primary vote of 49.6%. The strangest long term legacy of the Whitlam reform agenda is the ‘Whitlamite voting cohort’ of 35 – 49 year old men, who are still so enamoured of Whitlam’s progressive social polices that it appears that they have influenced their voting preferences permanently, as these voters upset the normally observed voting pattern of the old favouring the Right, and the young favouring the Left in Australia, by continuing to vote progressively as they age.[6]All of this suggests there is room within the Australian political discourse to pursue more radical positions.

More recently, social commentators Hugh Mackay and David Chalke[7] have argued that their research leads to the conclusion that the voting public are wary (weary ?) of neo-liberal solutions. The most common manifestation of neo-liberal economic solutions, in Australia, is privatisation, which remains perennially unpopular with voters. The debacle around the planned privatisation of NSW’s state electricity assets, with rank and file party members and the community being unconvinced by then Premier Iemma’s privatisation plan, also suggests there is more political space on the left side of the Australian political debate that Labor could utilise. Queensland Premier Bligh’s current privatisation plan seems only to be fairing a little better.[8]

The example of the ‘socialisation units’ is one historical example of the potential for a mass movement that outwardly advocates positions that seek to tackle capitalism’s failings. Most importantly, it shows that these kinds of ideas are a central part of Labor’s history and have motivated previous generations of Labor activists. In order to achieve a fairer and more inclusive society, this should encourage us to be freethinking enough to see beyond policy solutions that are based exclusively in the mainstream. Mainstream ideas primarily seek to perpetuate the status quo, as Scullin discovered too late in the 1930s too.


NB – If you want to read more about this period of Labor history, you should seek out the following article “‘Bucking the machine’: Clarrie Martin and the NSW Socialisation Units 1929 – 35” by Nick Martin, and the definitive book is Lang and Socialism – A Study in the Great Depression, Robert Cooksey, Australian National University Press, 1971.

We are also building our own movement for a democratic economy - and those who are sympathetic are welcome to join another Facebook group of ours: "Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy"...

see: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=152326549326

And readers are welcome to join our Left Focus group at Facebook - to discuss our material, and keep track of new posts...

see: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=58243419565

[1] One example of which was at Mallacoota, in the state’s far east in the late 19th century, by writer, socialist and poet, EJ Brady.


[2] Formed by branches or groups of branches. 70% were in the Sydney metropolitan area, 10% in the Newcastle area and 5% in country districts


[3] 20% of party branches outside of Sydney had a socialisation unit or participated in one.


[4] It also called for the abolition of the Gold Standard, to be replaced with a "Goods Standard" where the amount of money in circulation was linked to the amount of goods produced, and the immediate injection of 18 million pounds of new money into the economy in the form of Commonwealth Bank cedit.


[5] An example of the revolutionary tendency is manifest in the Payne Report (prepared by Tom Payne) in the wake of the 1931 conference declared - 'social revolution, which means… complete destruction of the capitalist state apparatus… a dictatorship of the working class' following a 'revolutionary conflict between the classes'. Despite its controversial radical remedies, it was still discussed and debated at branch and unit meetings across New South Wales.

[6] “Voters across the genders see Super-Kevin as leader” p4 Weekend Australian, September 5 – 6, 2009
[7] Hugh Mackay and David Chalke (“The nail in the coffin”, Herald Sun, August 9, 2007)
[8] Premier Bligh’s local ALP branch, South Brisbane, moved to expel her from the party in June.
“South Brisbane ALP branch votes to expel Anna Bligh from party”, The Courier Mail, June 05, 2009
“Unions launch campaign protesting state asset sell-off” ”, The Courier Mail, July 28, 2009

A Laborious Effort - by Wes Bishop

In 1939, amidst a flurry of controversy one of the greatest American novels hit the book stands to a population divided over the message that the book sought to explore. The book was The Grapes of Wrath, written by the American literary master John Steinbeck.

Within the book Steinbeck discussed many issues, one of which was the labor movement in the United States. For this exploration, and his other thoughts, Steinbeck created a backlash within the conservative community that resented the fact that an author would dare to explore the darker side of American life. So infuriated where many that a plot developed to arrest Steinbeck and falsely charge him with raping an underage girl. Fortunately for Steinbeck the plot was foiled but the resentment none the less continued to boil.

Such an occurrence is unfortunately common in the States where patriotism is hijacked by the nationalistic to become a state where only certain values are championed and where problems that are inconvenient are white washed and ignored. Such is the case with the labor movement in the United States.

As Steinbeck shows in his novel the right for the worker to organize and work for better conditions in the work place is a fundamental and natural state for workers to gravitate towards. In the book Steinbeck illustrates this by having his protagonist family, the Joads, go to work on a farm picking fruit. Upon arriving they discover that the wages, although not stupendous, are acceptable. It is only later that they find out that they are “strikebreakers”, workers that have been shipped in to force the old workers who are demanding better wages to give up their strike for better wages and working conditions.

In the actions that follow Tom Joad (one of the main characters) tells Preacher Jim Casey (another main character) that the strikebreakers will not join the strike because the wages they are currently receiving are “pretty good.” Jim Casey tries to reason with Tom that the only reason they are getting good wages is because the strike is forcing the hands of the bigger companies. Tom says that this may be so but to most workers it will not matter, all they will care is that they are receiving good wages for the time. Before the conversation can go much further company thugs show up and kill Preacher Jim Casey. This effectively ends the strike and the very next day the wages of the strikebreakers are reduced.

This scenario is not a farfetched science fiction plot. Instead it is a very plausible situation and it is because of its stark realism that many were angered by its being vocalized, because as it is mentioned above there is a strong tendency in the United States to overlook the blatantly unjust, the painfully unfair, and the pathetically inequitable. This tendency is so because it is accepted by many to be unpatriotic to make America look the fool, and to point out the inequities in the society, for if this is ever done the idea that this is the nation of the free and unrepressed is questioned. Again as it is mentioned above, patriotism is all too often interchangeable with nationalism.

Nearly half a century later the lesson of Steinbeck is still pertinent because despite all that has been achieved for the common worker much still remains to be accomplished.

FDR’s New Deal and the natural political evolution that grew out of that movement has done much to help working people but much of that natural evolution was later retarded by the rise of the conservative forces in the country.

Beginning long before the 1980’s but definitely coming to age in the time period known as the Republican Revolution, views towards unions and organized labor began to sour. Instead of policies that were pro-union and for a strong middle class, philosophies that favored concentrations of wealth and greater inequity began to come back into popular favor.

The reasons for these are many, one of which were the points that conservatives began to espouse to the American people. These messages included the idea that the government was a nuisance that needed to be removed and limited, that the best way to lead a country was not to look towards democratic institutions but instead private companies, and finally that those who had very little deserved their state and that concern for them was dangerous communism. Although the politicians of this era are very much to blame for what they did to harm the labor movement it should be noted that they were not alone in their progress. It should always be remembered that politicians are only as strong as the people who support them. The situation that the United States finds itself in at any time period is the direct result of citizens either demanding certain policies or being apathetic towards the government, therefore to summarize Shakespeare the fault dear reader lie not in our political leaders but in ourselves.

There will of course be many who read this essay that say that this is ridiculous and that the conservative philosophy towards economics is somehow superior. Fortunately the conservative movement is not renowned for innovation and therefore the points that will be raised by the conservative reader can easily be foreseen. To begin the underlying statements of conservatism will be examined.

Conservatives essentially make two claims when it comes to governing and the role of government in economics. On the one hand they claim that the government should simply stay out of as much as possible and instead give the keys to leading the country to the “people.” This is the first claim, and intellectuals on the left, eager to finally break from arguing with evangelicals, embrace it as a legitimate academic thought, ignoring the following point conservatives make about the economy. That second claim is that all in all unions and organized labor is bad for the economy.

Now the term “people” is a confusing expression because on the surface it looks as if the conservatives are saying that every single citizen is collectively responsible and therefore valued in the decision making process. Yet, on a closer examination people can see that “people” are really a select few, who have either been diligent or simply lucky enough to come to a position where they can gain enough financial might to earn a place on the American Mount Olympus where they can then hand down their decisions to others.

In the United States we fuel our egos and pretend this is somehow original to the world and therefore call it Reaganomics, a system that proudly espouses that the super rich will hold the keys to the economy and a trickledown effect will benefit everyone. Of course to any adequate historian or political scientist a brief musing over Reaganomics shows that it is nothing new but instead a reinvention of the socio-economic wheel. All one need do to see Reaganomics at work in history is to peruse European history. Feudalism, as any grade student will dutifully report, is a system where a few landed gentry (individuals who got to that position because of diligence or luck) have control over a mass majority of the population. The only way this system really works is if a political philosophy prevails where it is deemed ethical that a few have more than the many. This is not only true for material goods, but also influence in policy, practical control over what is circulated in the media, and monopoly over the direction of public discourse. In short Reaganomics is American feudalism.

Now the reason it is odd that conservatives make the two claims is that on the one hand they say that citizens and the public should determine the course of the country, this is illustrated in private companies as well as gatherings of citizens to bring about change on their own. However, conservatives also state that unions are a bad thing for the financial system so what occurs is

only the private companies are legitimate in the conservatives’ eyes for shaping the economy.

The next argument that conservatives are prone to make concerning unions is the idea that unions hurt worker productivity, that they are detrimental to a company’s profits, and that in fact they do more harm than good. This is a very bizarre claim because again anyone who has seriously studied history knows this to be false. Granted is the point that unions bring about their own issues and complications. Such is the case with anything in life, but to go from that admittance to the idea that somehow unions have led to a worse environment is ridiculous. Before organized labor it was common to have children work in coal mines and expose workers to equipment that could lead to serious disfigurement or even death. It is difficult to imagine that there is any human alive who would honestly hold that it is far worse for company’s profits to be cut then it is to have a child killed in a coal mine.

The only reason these conditions disappeared in the United States was because unions and workers forced the government and private sector to change. As Populist newspaper columnist Molly Ivins put it, “Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts.”

This should be very apparent because although unions have been hurt in the past few decades it is nothing compared to what the rest of the world has had to experience. In an attempt to short change the American people companies have not only outsourced jobs but also pre-New Deal working conditions to the people of the developing world. And the cruelest irony of all is that for the most part people will become angry at the poor soul in India, China, or some other nation for taking “their” job instead of becoming mad at the companies that refuse to recognize their work force as human beings.

In closing, I would like to address all of those who still slumber in ignorance over this issue and continue to yell “communist”, “socialist”, or whatever large companies are labeling those who believe workers have fundamental rights. This is not communism, or socialism. It is in essence simply right; humans have the right to be treated like humans.

To quote the great social philosopher himself, “The strongest bond of human sympathy outside the family relation should be one uniting working people of all nations and tongues and kindreds.” No it was not Karl Marx, but instead the radical Abraham Lincoln. If you will excuse me now dear reader I have some reading to catch up on and judging by the refusal of many to accept the simple, I will probably be engrossed with Steinbeck for quite some time to further understand our present state.

-Wes Bishop
Dayton Ohio
October 11, 2009

nb: if readers are interested in following this blog - pls join our Facebook support group:

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152326549326#/group.php?gid=58243419565

Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy

What is the Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy?

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152326549326&ref=nf#

What is the Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy?We’re a network of progressives in dialogue with each other – working to contest the dominant economic paradigm – and to promote an alternative which is democratic; involving mixed forms of ownership. We believe there is a substantial role for the public sector.

We accommodate many positions ranging from the restoration of a “traditional social democratic” model of the ‘mixed economy’ (inspired by the ‘Keynesian Golden Age’) – to more radical positions envisaging extensive public and democratic ownership and control.

We also believe strongly in promoting democratic forms of non-state ownership – co-operativist, mutualist, collective capital formation, participatory economic (PARECON) models...

We believe there is a place for co-operation and competition: planning and markets. And we support discussion of other economic issues of interest to progressives. (eg: principles of post-materialism)

We aim to provide a forum for both radical and more mainstream positions – with a shared objective of challenging the ‘common sense’ of neo-liberalism.

We endeavour to establish the ‘democratic mixed economy’ as ‘common sense’ – and to refashion and contest the relative political and economic ‘centre’.

And though our positions are many and varied – we endeavour to support each other – that all our voices are heard in an inclusive and rational exchange of views.

Again: we support both radical and relatively moderate interpretation of the ‘democratic mixed economy’.

We do not, however, include perspectives which are authoritarian: which deny our liberal human rights.

We seek to include socialists, social democrats, liberals, Greens and libertarian leftists – co-operating and in dialogue with each other.Finally: We are seriously in the business of promoting social change.

To begin we need to build our Facebook Group as an extensive network. But once we are in dialogue with each other – hopefully we will provide a real forum for members to organise and co-operate in pursuit of real social change.

If you are sympathetic with these principles and objectives PLEASE JOIN.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152326549326&ref=nf

Tristan Vaughan Ewins (Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy Moderator)

Isocracy: For Liberty and Common Wealth

above: an image of Lev Lafayette - the author

An Opportunity for the Left

Isocracy is a political philosophy whose time has come. As the last dregs of totalitarian and authoritarian statist socialism have become anachronisms, mainstream politics has become almost entirely colonised by corporate interests as democracy increases loses its honoured attachment to the polis and the formation of genuine public opinion [1]. 'Capitalist democracy' has become the orthodox political position, an acceptable system for conservatives and social-democrats alike; private ownership of the economy, public determination of socially acceptable behaviour. The only recognised alternative to this neo-liberalism is reminiscent of the classic description [2] of the 'dangerous class', the social scum, who have been thrown into existence by the new order. In this case, religious-inspired anti-modernists who through terrorism, the systematic use of violence against non-combatants for a political goal, seek to impose a new totalitarianism which incorporates modern weaponry to enforce the absolute rule of theocratic rulers and and pre-modern prejudices against the ruled.

Where the supposed major conflict is between capitalism and Islamism [3], there exists a enormous opportunity exists for the new left whereby its historical objectives - secularism, republicanism, personal liberty, common wealth, and national self-determination - can reinvigorate the notion of historical progress within the collective human spirit with recognition of the need to re-establish moral reasoning in each and every generation as technology advances. The experience of totalitarianism in the twentieth century shattered forever the Enlightenment illusion of an inevitable connection between technical progress and socio-cultural development, even to the extent that some (e.g., various forms of primitivism) have rejected technological development altogether. Whilst in some cases well-intentioned this is ultimately an idyllic and reactionary approach which abdicates from dealing with the existing social system and technologies, and thus will inevitably fail. More realistically, the most serious challenge is that posed by the claim that history is effectively at an evolutionary end; liberal democracy will become the only - and last - form of government for all States [4].

The weakness with the argument is that it is explicitly tied to the notion of governance through the State and cannot conceive, like many contemporary anarchists, of governance without a State. But the State, as the holder of monopoly on legitimated violence and as an instrument of class rule [5], is a limited institution and one which will inevitably come into conflict with the technological potential, the productive forces, and the social networks that these technologies allow. At that stage of development any State, no matter how progressive it may have once been, will become a deadweight on further social development as its core characteristics require both governance and oppression. Only through overcoming those components of a monopoly on violence and class rule can a society truly become free and the 'withering away of the state' can be achieved [6]. The historic mission of isocracy, "equal rule", with the universal principles of personal liberty through self-ownership and social democracy in the commonwealth is to create such a society in the context of contemporary technology.

Advantages and Limits of Liberal Democracy

This is not to reject the contribution of liberal-democracy as the most developed State system of governance. There can be no doubt that through its founding principles and through the pressure of mass movements, it has provided great improvements in the life, including the highest levels of economic wealth, high standards of education, health, gender equity, the political rights of republicanism, secularism and multi-party democracy. Liberal democracies have, more than any other system of state-government, produced usually professional police and defense forces and it has been well-noted that liberal-democracies tend not to go to war with each other (liberal or democratic peace theory) [7]; as the holders of the most advanced technologies they do, however, engage in invasive wars of other non-compliant sovereign states with increasing civilian to military casualties.

Nevertheless there are systematic limits to liberal-democracy [8] which are difficult to resolve within its own procedures. Firstly, modern industrial requirements towards growth tend to stress the finite ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat. In other areas too, there is a tendency towards environmental negative externalities as various forms of pollution. Indeed, the overall failure of the enhancement of positive externalities (e.g., public infrastructure) and the minimisation of negative externalities has been correctly identified as "private wealth and public poverty" [9]. The supposed solution to these problems has inevitably been onerous taxes on capital and effective corvée labour of workers, further suppressing productive wealth through deadweight losses.

As a related issue, liberal democracy tends to inequality in wealth as it tends towards the monopolisation of natural resources; the treatment of capital and economic land as the same has highly significant consequences, more than any other economic decision [10]. Even a market with high entry costs does not have the same degree of economic suppression and exploitation as necessary goods in fixed supply. On a similar trajectory the institution of formal democracy likewise tends towards a distorted form through the influencing power of mass media and the ratio of elected to electors. This is also results, except where constitutionally protected (e.g., various Bills of Rights), that universal rights are subject to the vagaries of popular prejudice; the tyranny of the majority [11], a particularly important issue for those of minority religions, sexualities etc.

Revolutionary Reformism: The Transition To A Stateless Government

The core propositions of Isocracy - self ownership, informed consent, a common wealth of resource values, decentralised government, civil participation, defensive militia - are fundamental claims which no contemporary state has introduced, even in the most progressive liberal democracies. In theory these items could be introduced, albeit with difficulty, in such systems and as such, . It is possible, barely, that they could engage in a transformation from state-governments to stateless-governments. This possibility is the basis of a rejection of "lifestyle anarchism" [12] or the sort of Marxist-inspired refusal to participate in actual governance itself. But even if such transitions were, by some miracle, to occur in a legislative sense, this would not provide the necessary universal permanence of the claims which are supposed to transcend whatever political representatives are in power.

In order for this to occur two components are required [13]; first there must be involvement from the population with a dedicated view of rebuilding society, establishing novus ordo saeclorum through a constitutio libertatis dedicated to both "positive" and "negative" freedom, which is only possible through localised civil participation. The second component, and as direct result of the first, is that this new society is built not from some proclaimed revolutionary vanguards or by an elite cadre, which will inevitably hijack the impetus, but by the "organic intellectuals" arising from the conflict between social relations and productive forces. Indeed, the genuine purpose of revolutionary organisations is not to implement revolutions but rather to give people the know-how to run their own organisations[14] as ultimately the purpose of all political organisations should be to create the conditions where they are no longer needed.

Endnotes

[1] Jürgen Habermas, "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere", Polity, 1989 [FP 1962]
[2] Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party", FP 1848
[3] Benjamin Barber, "Jihad vs. McWorld", Crown, 1995
[4] Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History and the Last Man", Free Press, 1992
[5] Max Weber, 'The Profession and Vocation of Politics', in "Political Writings", Cambridge University Press, 1994 [FP 1919]
[6] Vladimir Lenin, "The State and Revolution", FP 1917, gave numerous, and ironically prophetic, warnings on the requirement of governing institutions to "lose their political character" and for the monopoly of violence (the armed forces, police) to be replaced by civil militia if any revolutionary government wished to avoid becoming an oppressive state.
[7] Bruce Russett, "Grasping the Democratic Peace", Princeton University Press, 1993 and Michael W. Doyle, "Ways of War and Peace", W.W. Norton, 1997
[8] For a thorough assessement see Jürgen Habermas, "Legitimation Crisis", Beacon, 1975 [FP: 1973], See also Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann "Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie", Suhrkamp, 1971 for further discussions on the capacity of the system to resolve these matters.
[9] John Kenneth Galbraith, "The Affluent Society", Houghton Mifflin, 1958
[10] An issue noted by most economists but most fully argued by Henry George, Progress and Poverty, FP 1879.
[11] As first described by Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (two volumes), FP 1835 and 1840
[12] Murray Bookchin, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, AK Press, 1995
[13] Both these requirements are described in detail in Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, Penguin, 1990 [FP 1963]
[14] In this sense, the mutualist tradition is one of the most revolutionary of all. cf., Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, BookSurge Publishing, 2007 FP [2004]

Reflecting with Joseph Stiglitz - Addressing the Recession; and Measuring social and economic progress

Earlier this September I happened upon an interesting article in ‘The Age’: a critique by Professor Joseph Stiglitz on the question of what kind of measures we ought use to measure social well-being. The most common measures referred to here is Gross Domestic Product: GDP. As Stiglitz noted, world leaders feel pressured to pursue growth in GDP – but this also “causes conflicts”.

There are environmental factors, and then there are issues of quality – rather than just ‘quantity’ of output. An important example, here, is US health care – where the sector comprises a greater proportion of US GDP – but quality and outcomes are inferior. And GDP masks real inequality – where concentration of wealth is not reflected in a single indicator of national wealth.

Such insights also sit well with post-materialist critiques of GDP. GDP - as a measure - obscures inequality. Again: it reflects quantity rather than quality. Do we really need to upgrade our cars every second year: or would we be better off allocating our resources – including our time and labour - elsewhere? What about time for family, social circles, or civic activism? And if the consequence of reshaping our priorities is that we need to increase tax as a proportion of GDP to ‘keep up’ with the provision of infrastructure and social services – is this so bad? If the consequence is that free human development and social connectedness flourish – surely the ‘trade off’ can be worth our while.

In another article from ‘The Age’ back in August 2009, Stiglitz also puts the case for economic stimulus in these difficult economic times.

Some might suggest that the case for stimulus is at odds with the project of reshaping the economy for human need. Rather they aim beyond economic measures which are concerned with only quantity – rather than quality of human life.

The pace of such change, however, is slow. In the interim people need jobs. And tax receipts must be supported here and now to provide for infrastructure and services: social wage and welfare provision. Furthermore: the case needs to be won for a readjustment of economic priorities – and in the meantime we must address the problems we face in the immediate term.

All this considered, Stiglitz contends that President Obama’s economic stimulus measures have not gone far enough. He observes that the aim of Obama’s policies was to “create some 3 million jobs more than would otherwise be the case”. Despite the effect of stimulus the unemployment rate in the US at the time of writing is still 9.6 per cent, http://www.bls.gov/cps/

This translates to 14.9 million US citizens officially unemployed – with a contractionary flow-on effect for the world economy. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

There are many dimensions to the problem: but Stiglitz notes the emphasis in the US on tax cuts. Burdened with personal debt – and in fear of job loss: Stiglitz holds that only a fraction of the US tax cuts have flowed on to consumer expenditure. This has frustrated attempts to buoy the US domestic economy. In the face of this conundrum – further (better targeted) stimulus is required.

The crisis – if unaddressed – could lead to exponential economic deterioration: and so Stiglitz insists that if we don’t spend now “we risk spending much more later”.

These circumstances must be addressed by the Obama administration – but the lessons must be heeded in Australia and elsewhere as well.

Conservative Australian Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull especially needs to face facts – rather than ‘beating the drum’ on government debt and inflation.

Any minor difficulty with inflation later down the track is no reason to ‘take the axe’ to economic stimulus: including expenditure on economic and social infrastructure. Such programs provide for human well being: and may expand economic capacity into the future. Again in ‘The Age’, Tim Colebatch has quoted Max Corden: “One is not causing a flood by hosing down a fire”. Powerful words indeed.

And indeed – the qualitative improvement in living standards which might follow with some programs of expenditure – such as Australia’s ‘National Broadband Network’ – is greater than any purely quantitative economic indicator can express.

Further: some areas of public spending comprise a genuine and important human need - while requiring only a 'one off' major investment. Investment in social housing especially addresses a critical problem in Australia of homelessness. Cutting back on such programs under such circumstances - to reduce the budget deficit - does not make sense.

Without sustained stimulus, the world economy could again nosedive. Hence Stiglitz has also suggested the possibility of a “W-shape’ recession. Without sustained stimulus recovery could be temporary – followed by a lapse back into recession.

Now is not the time to withdraw economic stimulus. In Australia, the US and elsewhere – we need continued and decisive action to support the world economy. But we also need to address qualitative concerns which relate to the economy – not deceptive readings based purely on economic quantity.

The struggle for health care reform in the US is precisely one such issue – and we should all support the Obama administration in its endeavours to achieve change. If anything we need to revisit the kind of mobilisation achieved by the Obama team in its election campaign: to ensure that as comprehensive a public health care program as is possible is achieved in the United States.

I welcome all readers to discuss these issues here at the blog. Hope to hear from you. :))

Tristan Ewins (Moderator, Left Focus)

Left Focus presents 'Bondi Dreaming'

The Seymour Centre presents a BITE and an Actors Anonymous production

Bondi Dreaming
By Sam Atwell
16 Sept - 10 Oct

“a raw and involving piece of theatre..fierce and focused” Sun Herald

Three young Australian men have made one big mistake. Now they sit in an Indonesian jail, about to pay the ultimate price. As they face death, they explore their pasts and what may have been their future.

Inspired by the Bali Nine and similar cases, Bondi Dreaming provides a touching and thought provoking insight into male bonding and mateship, and forces us all to consider the issues around the death penalty.

Special ticket offer
Adults at Concession Prices (Save $9!)
For shows 16 – 24 Sept*
Code word BD

Book Now!

http://secure.seymourboxoffice.com.au/tickets/production.aspx?PID=43166

or call (02) 9351 7940

Seymour Centre
Cnr Cleveland St and City Rd
Chippendale

*subject to availability

The case for animal liberation - by Justin George

This contribution by radical activist and writer Justin George challenges readers with a passionate defence of animal rights. Not all readers will agree, but George’s article will give readers pause for thought.

Animal Liberation and Participatory Theory

By Justin George

It's funny to note that while largely ignored or played down by the Left in general, Animal Liberation can be seen as a nexus for many progressive struggles. Meat and dairy industries, and others that rely on animals for profit, imprison and slaughter literally tens of billions animals each year[i]. The industry itself relies on low paid, often migrant labour, to work in stressful and often dangerous conditions[ii]. The creation of meat and animal based products in know to be environmentally devastating[iii], ruining water systems. Tanneries, which are often located in developing countries with reduced environmental and worker protections, rely on dangerous and toxic chemicals[iv]; land clearing for cattle grazing threatens indigenous communities and ruins land and threatens rainforests[v]. This is just from meat production.

Cheap and abundant meat and dairy products, with externalities of production shouldered by the public and environment, allow companies such as McDonald's, KFC and Burger King, along with chain supermarkets and food companies to keep costs low, with a mostly teenage, casualized workforce, ensuring profits remain high.

Like many facets of life in a globalized, neoliberal world, many if not most of the issues that concern the Left can be found within the meat and animal product industries. Importantly, on top of these concerns is the unnecessary enslavement and industrialized killing of sentient and feeling beings. Like previous explicitly oppressive systems the same arguments are used by many on the Left and Right as to why such oppressions are of little concern or must remain in place. Like human slavery, misogyny and other forms of oppressive thought, those suffering as considered non-human, undeserving of acknowledgment of their agency and inherent worth. They are seen as commodities for those in power. That animals truly are non-human does not mean that they do not suffer from such systems and paradigms that humans have fought throughout history-the creation and justification of hierarchies based on artificial or biological distinctions.

Adding insult to injury is that animals rarely have the means to truly voice or rebel against these systems. That billions of animals die to meet our eating desires and little else is all the more horrific due to the scale of the senselessness. Profit and power triumph are the real motivators behind such industries who seek to create, sustain and expand our voracious desire for animal flesh.

Animal Liberation should not be a side issue to our other concerns. Meat and animal industries are industrialized creators of unhappiness, a nexus of the overlapping oppressions and exploitations that theories such as Complimentary Holism seek to address. The Left must recognize that fighting for Animal Liberation is not just about the animals but confronting the wider systems at work that the animals die in their billions for. We must work beyond our own prejudices and habits to see that the long term picture for workers, for the environment, for social justice, so to step closer to ending all human made suffering.

Think for a moment about the impact of a greatly reduced or nonexistent mass animal based industry. Like previous moments when the connections between war, race, sexism, and class emerged, we need to see how addressing these issues along with animal liberation efforts is not only strategically necessary but morally necessary too.

By working for better conditions or the abolition of slaughterhouses then that's one less industry

profiting from relying on illegal and migrant workers who have limited ability to push for better working conditions and rights. By seeking mass change or abolition of slaughterhouses, dairy farms and tanneries then huge steps are taken in reducing our carbon footprint on the Earth[vi]. Efficiency is enhanced, land use more sustainable, rainforests less threatened. The impacts of these damaging industries would also cease to be felt by the poorest peoples of the world and the more isolated towns in the developed world[vii]. Water sources would be free from toxins[viii]. Oceans replenished from overfishing.

Government subsidies and externalities would not be placed upon the public, reducing the numbers of those in power who profit from neoliberal legislation.

The fast food industry would be severely affected, along with eating habits. The epidemics of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol that plague Western nations would be addressed from efforts at reducing meat consumption and changing eating practices[ix]. To have such an understanding comes from learning about the real impact that our diets have, of seeing the damage and pain that's created by meat and animal products. The development of such knowledge can often be revelatory enough to recognize the excesses and abuses present in throughout society.

Our vision and theory, such as participatory economics, has much to offer Animal Liberation efforts. Theories such as Complimentary Holism can make calls for animal liberation retain greater relevancy to those not immediate concerned with such issues. Participatory organizing and economics offers new means for animal liberation groups to organize.

To work towards such institutional arrangements within the industries they critique, as means to enhance worker conditions and industry standards. Rather than seeking the bottom line, a participatory work place has the ability to greatly alter the practices of modern slaughter houses merely by removing the logic that has led to killing (dis)assembly lines.

The arguments presented by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel regarding the reduction of environmental damage in a Participatory Economy due to goods reflecting their real social and environmental value is also true for animal based goods and meat. The costs outlined above along with the suffering inflicted upon the billions of animals would alter the valuation of meat and animal goods, reducing and perhaps stopping its use all together due to actual costs to society and nature. Complimentary Holism and feminist perspectives can provide critical voices to curb and question some of the larger animal liberation organizations tendency to rely on sex and celebrity to sell their message.

In the hands of animal liberation movements such ideas have the potential to become further disseminated to new audiences, put into practice and passionately advocated for. But to do so we need to acknowledge the relevancy and legitimacy in each other's analysis by placing them at the core of our existing efforts and creating closer ties.

At the moment the two movements seem to exist in relative separation. Many animal liberation/rights organizations while having great activist and advocacy networks and fundraising ability fail to relate their work to wider progressive efforts and analysis in meaningful ways. More conscious and concerted interactions by both the Left and Animal Liberation would be beneficial to both.

By ignoring the interconnections existing around issues of animal liberation, we do ourselves a disservice strategically while deliberately marginalizing the suffering of tens of billions of beings.

After all our experiences of struggle, we should have the vision and courage to engage with new struggles for liberation, for in the end we all share common aims. There are many issues here that we can start discussing, to develop participatory means and analysis further in addressing animal liberation.

We on the Left generally, have recognized other forms of oppressions even when misunderstood, unpopular or denied by those in power. Now its time to recognize the rest.[x]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] In the USA alone- http://www.goveg.com/theissues.asp[ii] http://www.goveg.com/workerRights.asp[iii] http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html[iv] http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862001000100018&script=sci_arttext[v] http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm[vi] http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp[vii] http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862001000100018&script=sci_arttext[viii] http://www.cowsarecool.com/environment.asp[ix] http://www.goveg.com/healthConcerns.asp[x] Propagandhi, "Nailing Descartes to the Wall (Liquid) Meat is Still Murder" from Less Talk, More Rock