Chris White on Qantas, employer lockouts, and the Fair Work Act

Above:  Alan Joyce is not very popular these days amongst the Australian trade union movement...

In this article Chris White gives his opinion on the recent Qantas lockout in Australia, and the changes he thinks are necessary to the Fair Work Act to prevent lockouts, and protect the right of workers to take industrial action.

Chris White is the former Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia and remains active in the Australian labour movement. 

His blog is here:   http://chriswhiteonline.org/

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, Board Chairman Leigh Clifford from Rio Tinto, Richard Goodmanson Board member and former Rio Tinto Director, and Dr John Schubert a director of foreign multinational BHP-Billiton and former President of the Business Council of Australia (the BCA is the peak body for multinational corporations) not surprisingly militantly employed rightwing anti-union practices with the corporate union busting legal firm of Freehills.

They were most incensed by pilots wearing red ties –unionism! Baggage handlers were stopping for short periods and on TV marching with placards through the airport.  Engineers had responsible limited bans. None were in force on the day of the lock out during so-called ‘good faith bargaining’.

Qantas' aggressive lock out power was to defeat legitimate workers’ industrial action.

The very powerful corporation secretly planned after the AGM to ground the airline without notice to anyone, disadvantaging the flying public and politically challenging the Gillard government.

The lock out was in response to legitimate job security claims

See:

 http://afr.com/p/business/companies/what_the_unions_want_1XPzVNsdfoO8ijqgol4e1O.

Now from the ASU

http://www.asu.asn.au/media/airlines_general/20111104_aviation.html

And see this re: the engineering alliance

see: http://www.amwu.org.au/read-article/news-detail/810/Unions-combine-to-secure-Qantas-engineering-jobs-/

Many unionists now say that employers ought not to have the right to lock out.

An amendment to the Fair Work Act FWA that removes the lock out must be introduced.

The more powerful corporations instead are to be required to negotiate a collective bargaining settlement with their workers.

Qantas management tactics shows why the lock out ought not to be available in any reasonable collective bargaining system.
The unions had to go through technical process requirements, applications to FWA for protected action, ballots with members voting in favour and technical notice processes and constant negotiations. If unions make any technical defect, Freehills seeks that the industrial action is  “unprotected” and huge fines threatened.

However, Qantas management simply plans that after the AGM we will immediately ground and lock out.

Now the Fair Work Act FWA (the same as WorkChoices) allows this management tactic. The FWA has no requirement for the employer to give notice to lock out, nor balloting of shareholders at the AGM and certainly not the processes forced on unions for strikes. This is a serious process deficiency and yet another rule for the 1%.

For our collective bargaining system to work for employees against the more powerful corporations, lock outs ought not to be allowed at all.

Some nations prohibit lock outs on the basis that they tilt bargaining power too far towards employers.  

The International Labour Organization ILO principles and most labour relations systems are based on the widely accepted reality that employers have the greater power over their workforce.

In any decent labour law, the lawful right to strike is necessary to afford some ability of workers and their unions to counter that employer power. The lock out as shown with Qantas denies any such balance: the effectiveness needed for workers to bargain in their interests. Gillard claims balance – but this is just spin.

In any case, most employers legally reserve lock outs as a genuine option of ‘last resort’, rather than the Qantas ambush of ‘first resort’.

Some labour relations systems require notice and some balloting of their shareholders. The principle is some notion of ‘proportionality’ to govern the usage of lockouts.

But not in Australia. Our right-wing corporates with their law firms are gearing up to emulate the Qantas tactic against any industrial action.

Unions’ experience is that disputes are not resolved by the lock out but by sitting around the table negotiating an outcome, a real agreement. At the end of the dispute and the industrial action management and their workforce have to continue to work with each other.

Unionists remember. There are long-term consequences.

Workers are in a difficult position facing the lock out. Here is a film of a US workers’ struggle against Rio Tinto’s lock out:

See: - www.lockedout2010.org

For a reference on Australia lock out read ‘Lockout Law in Australia: Into the Mainstream?’ Dr Chris Briggs University of Sydney acirrt working paper 95.

Suspension only

My next point is to support suspension only of the lawful strike - what the Qantas unions wanted.

The Qantas tactic forced the Minister’s application for an order to terminate protected industrial action rather than suspend it.  

Suspension first means no industrial action - here I believe the unions suggested 120 days. At the end of that negotiating period if no agreement is reached, then protected industrial action can resume.

Fair Work Australia due to the lock out instead terminated all action. The parties are now in a FWA conciliation process for 21 days.  If no resolution is reached, FWA imposes an arbitrated outcome on Qantas and unions and the workforce. We shall see what happens. 

See: Shae McCrystal University of Sydney http://theconversation.edu.au/why-fair-work-australia-terminated-the-qantas-industrial-action-4092

The FWA provision is rarely used even when the economy is significantly damaged. On the day I did not believe union action was causing significant damage to the economy, now held to be the case by FWA. But due to the lock out FWA said such action was enough threat to the economy and terminated both actions.

I believe it would have been fairer if the lock out had been terminated and the unions’ protected action suspended.

There are alternatives

The Fair Work Act has alternative devices as well as the lock out for Qantas to halt the limited lawful union industrial action. As I write I watch the Senate hearings and Senator Doug Cameron asking Joyce about alternatives and why he did not ask Fair Work to intervene rather than to lock out.

See also:   http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/04/joyce-faces-fire-in-senate-grilling-on-qantas-grounding/

For the employees’ right to strike to be effective, their protected action has to be allowed – to mitigate against the power of the corporations - and ensure a settlement between the parties. 

The ability of employers or the Minister to halt protected action ought not be available because it undermines the effectiveness of strike action as a bargaining tool.

Any reasonable collective bargaining regime has to have employees and their unions be able to organise and strike – which we would prefer to be without government interference.

See: http://chriswhiteonline.org/2009/09/right-to-strike-restrictions-4/

Political dictatorship

I comment about Abbott urging what he would have done, now trumpeted widely by the political right, namely to use section 431 - unprecedented direct Ministerial power to stop a strike.

PM Gillard in the Fair Work Act (FWA) retained WorkChoices’ many repressive measures to stop lawful strikes and this included s431.  I repeatedly argued that all restrictions on the withdrawing of labour have to be repealed for an effective freedom for workers to take industrial action without being ordered back to work.

The FWA sections terminating a lawful strike require at least an independent hearing with evidence and merit submissions before the umpire or a court makes the order – hence the reality of the weekend Fair Work hearing. 


But in section 431 of the FWA, the Minister simply has to form an opinion about damage to the economy and then proclaims the termination of protected action - no independence, no evidence, no merit argument, no process is required – simply the Minister not liking a strike and employers asking him to stop it.  

This political power to affect the lives of workers and their right to collective bargaining and to strike is an outrage.

I criticized Howard for introducing s431 into Work Choices after lobbying by the rightwing mining corporations such as Rio Tinto. Gillard should not have been retained it in the FWA. It has not been used and rightly would be subject to legal challenge. Section 431 breaches existing international standards.

Only a political dictator would use it. Abbott is proud to say this is how he will act. Section 431 and indeed all of the Work Choices anti-strike provisions have to be repealed.

On 71% Joyce salary increase, the Gillard government’s reforms to CEO salary rises is proved to be inadequate and again this Parliament has to act.

Overall what Qantas does is how corporations work in this capitalist crisis outsourcing jobs and why workers and their unions reasonably resist.

See useful further comments by Ben Eltham here http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/01/naked-conflict-between-profits-and-wages

Again - for Chris's blog see:  http://chriswhiteonline.org/

After the Melbourne ‘crackdown’; Rebuilding the ‘We are the 99 per cent’ movement

above:  Victoria Police's idea of 'Minimum Force'

In this article Tristan Ewins refutes criticisms of the "We are the 99 per cent" movement and considers tactical questions facing that movement.  He also considers the implications of violent tactics on the part of police for the liberal rights of all Australians.

nb also: If you find this article interesting 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

Tristan Ewins

At the time the author began writing this article (21/10/11) police in full riot gear had smashed a peaceful protest in Melbourne that was organised in solidarity with the  'We are the 99 per cent’ and 'Occupy Wall St' movements in the United States and around the world.  Peaceful protestors have been left bruised and bleeding, many suffering the effects of capsicum spray, choke-holds and pressure-point tactics.  The protestors were engaging in peaceful ‘sit-in’ tactics of the kind popularised by the anti-segregation movement in the United States in the 1960s.  And yet the Melbourne Herald-Sun (22/10/11) labelled them a “defiant mob”,  and a “threat to [the] Queen’s visit”, while also claiming the brutal  crackdown comprised “[the] police [taking] back OUR city”. But citizens would be better advised to consider what this precedent means for all of us – for our right of free assembly.  At the time of writing apparently at least 50 protestors have also been arrested by police; but perhaps the figure is much higher.  

                                                    

In Australia we are supposed to be a liberal democracy. Again: this should mean we enjoy certain rights - freedom of speech, of association and of assembly. If citizens do not have the right to freedom of assembly in a dedicated public square - then is this a violation of those same liberal rights? What would we have said 25 years ago if a similar kind of occupation was forcibly and violently dispersed in East Berlin?   If people will not stand up for their rights - or are contemptuous of those who do - then they have to be prepared to lose those rights - not because this would be right, but because that is the logic of their attitude. 

Right-wing critics attempt to portray the “We are the 99 per cent” movement as being hypocritical. Apparently partaking of any of the benefits of modernity makes one unqualified to criticise the excesses of capitalism – which have almost brought the United States and Europe to ruin.  If I own an I-Pod apparently I am unqualified to complain if after losing my job and my home I am thrown onto the street.  Apparently I am a ‘hypocrite’ if a own a mobile phone, but being unable to afford private schooling for my children instead watch them flounder in a state system starved of funds, resources, staff and infrastructure.  In reality poverty is relative. In today’s information age internet access is crucial for the most basic social inclusion; and even for job-seekers to have the opportunity to find employment in the first place. The fallacies of the political Right, here, need to be refuted clearly and logically.

It's important to recognise the core message of the protests also.  In Australia and worldwide extreme inequality is rife.

In the US the top 1% own about 43% of all wealth and the bottom 80% have only about 7% total wealth between them.  See: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html 

In Australia, meanwhile, the top 20% have on average *40 times* the wealth of the bottom 20%.   See:    http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/226.html

Elaborating further: according to the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) in Australia “the ‘top’ 20 percent own 61 percent of the wealth while the ‘bottom’ 20 percent own just one percent of the wealth.”  (See:  http://enpassant.com.au/?p=11270  )

 This translates into lopsided power relations - culturally, economically, politically. It is anathema to democracy. Meanwhile there is a massive shortfall in disability services, aged care and public education. There are cost of living pressures for ordinary people with energy, water, and housing stress stemming from privatisation and the Howard era housing bubble. Taxes are gradually ‘flattened’ over the decades, becoming less and less fair, and providing the context for increasing ‘corporate welfare’. The needy go without to pay for the privileges and excesses of the few.

The consequence of such extreme disparities in wealth is also to be found in increasing rates of poverty.

Peak welfare-body ‘ACOSS’ (the Australian Council of Social Service) claims that “ 2.2 million people, or 11.1% of Australians were living in poverty in 2006” “compared with 9.9% in 2004, and 7.6% in 1994.”  The trend has been towards higher and higher levels of poverty, so updated figures would likely reveal an even more disturbing reality. http://www.thebigissue.org.au/Facts_Figures_Poverty_Homelessness_Australia.pdf 

Inadequate pensions have also been identified as one of the main causes of poverty in  Australia.   Dr Cassandra Goldie of ACOSS has stated that Australia spends 3.2% of GDP on income support compared with the OECD average of 6.5%. And yet for “73% of households with the lowest incomes, these government pensions and allowances are their main source of income.”   http://www.thebigissue.org.au/Facts_Figures_Poverty_Homelessness_Australia.pdf

But all our varied movements around the world - against inequality, for social justice and for peace - each needs a minimum program: a clear set of demands to rally around.  Indeed, we could also do with an international minimum program – for the global movement – as well as national positions.  A process needs to be initiated to determine what form this will take.

 Here in Australia the first step must be progressive reform of tax so the wealthy pay their fair share; so the vulnerable get the services they desperately need; and so ordinary working people get a fair go.  This author intends to go into greater detail in the future as to what may comprise a viable ‘minimum program’ for the Australian movement.

 We will not achieve all the demands we make in the near future; but we must set out to build the kind of mass movement that will influence a generation, and begin to ‘turn the tide’ against neo-liberalism.  This necessitates careful planning to ‘appeal to the mainstream’ and build a broad base of popular support.  

Conservative ‘Herald-Sun’ columnist Miranda Devine fears an “opportunistic” Left will “co-opt” the movement and enforce ‘its own agenda’.  (20/10/11) Yet while the movement needs to be broad, the organised Left (broadly defined) brings crucial insights to the movement, and is the only force capable of organising and sustaining this kind of mobilisation over the long-term. 

We can’t allow ourselves to be divided either – or our base narrowed - on the basis of caricatures of the Left.  

We know that capitalism involves tendencies towards class bifurcation and monopolisation.  We know that the rate of exploitation has intensified in recent decades; that the wage share of the economy has been shrinking; that there is greater inequality in the labour market; and that there is a social services shortfall to pay for effective corporate welfare.  We know that we are experiencing a ‘two speed economy’: with mining prosperity driving up the dollar and making other industries (eg: manufacturing, tourism) uncompetitive.  And yet tens of billions of mining profits – from our resources that can only be extracted ONCE  – are heading overseas.   (see:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-29/mixed-reaction-to-greens-mining-profits-report/2776784 )   

Meanwhile the rise of new competitors (China, India) increases the future risk of war as Great Powers strive to dominate a finite world market.  

In short: we know there is a problem with capitalism.

At the same time, though, the Left needs discipline in leading the movement: to maintain and appeal to that ‘broad base’ and avoid unnecessary confrontations that could see the movement isolated.  ‘Ultra-leftism’ – an indulgence in confrontation that serves no strategic purpose – needs to be rejected.  If the Queen’s visit comprises a flashpoint from which we have nothing to gain, perhaps the movement would be better advised to re-establish a presence after she has left Australia.  Thereafter: rather than a large ongoing occupation, perhaps a vigil and information table could be maintained in the city with rolling rallies and a ‘carnival-esque’ atmosphere in which participants from all walks of life feel welcome.  Here a balance must be maintained between keeping momentum on the one hand, and avoiding exhaustion of new and casual participants such that they ‘drop away’ from the movement.  The aim must be massive mobilisation and retention at a variety of levels over the long term.

We also need to be prepared for defensive struggles in the event that a world-wide economic downturn leads to further attacks upon our social wage, our welfare state, and our liberal rights. (including industrial rights)   This would necessitate co-operation with the broad labour movement.  In the face of austerity there could be need for industrial actions that serve a very real and clear strategic purpose.

We must have resolve that the recent excess on the part of police in Melbourne is not the end of our campaign, but only the beginning.  And we must resolve to broaden the appeal and the base of our movement to maximise our impact.

Tristan Ewins is a freelance writer, blogger, qualified teacher and long-time member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party.

above: Protest image from the Vietnam War

nb:  Readers may also be interested that John Passant has also written a compelling article on some of these issues over at ‘En Passant’.  See:  http://enpassant.com.au/?p=11270

How to improve social wages with tax reform: Labor’s mission

above: Labor activists need to mobilise for this year's National Conference to ensure the ALP Platform is altered to allow a modest increase in overall taxation to provide real improvement to social services for the Aged, for the Disabled, and Cost-of-Living Assistance for ordinary families.

Readers are also welcome to join our Facebook Group at this URL: http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/58243419565/

Tristan Ewins

15/10/11

Former NSW Labor Premier Kristina Keneally has argued recently that Labor needs to ‘get back to basics’. This doesn’t have to mean dropping a price on carbon or forgetting the rights of minorities. But to actually deliver on cost-of-living pressures before the 2013 federal election, as well as desperately-needed programs for the vulnerable, would require a significant ongoing public investment. The next two years offer the Labor Party the opportunity of delivering real reform, thus reviving Labor’s electoral and organisational fortunes.

The recent tax summit had all manner of people arguing that the wealthy ought pay more tax. Through tax reform, restructuring and the closing of loopholes (including unfair superannuation concessions for the rich) Labor should aim to expand annual social expenditure by at least 1.5 per cent of GDP over the next two years - a little short of $20 billion in today’s terms (in the context of an economy valued at approximately $1.2 t rillion). But this would require a change in the ALP Platform at the Party’s next National Conference, due in December 2011.

Already Labor Senator Penny Wong has warned that with rising pension, health care and aged care demands the Australian government could be “tens of billions of dollars short by 2050”. Meanwhile the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), if implemented in the near future, in today’s terms would come at an annual $6.5 billion price tag. And yet legitimate demands for cost-of-living relief, for fairer pensions, higher quality aged care and improved disability support and services loom immediately ‘in the here and now’.

Speaking recently to Paul Versteege from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA) I was told that “nursing homes are like warehouses for old people.” Now I was already under this impression but I felt it to be a very powerful and accurate metaphor. Usually there is little to do for residents in nursing homes. Even in ‘common rooms’ residents are simply sat down to stare at walls hour after hour, day after day. There is no variety in life, no change of scenery. Usually these facilties are stark, there are no gardens in which to find peace and comfort.

Many of our aged citizens spend years in these facilities, years of acute suffering admist death and awaiting death. Often there is a lack of qualified staff, especially nurses. This means residents can acquire bed sores if not turned at the necessary intervals, and sometimes residents can be left in soiled beds. Food is often of poor quality, and low staff-resident ratios mean that aged care workers do not always check to ensure residents have actually eaten their meals. Malnutrition and weight-loss can compound each other in a ‘downward spiral’. In the past lack of dental care has led to infections and even death. In the future access to information technology will be crucial.

The indignity and suffering of the aged deserves much more attention than it is receiving. An ageing population will demand an increse in funding. But we also need to improve services now, not just ‘tread water’. Crucially, many of us that live to old age will one day need aged care. And so will our families and loved ones.

It is essential that we move away from user pays models in aged care. Despite claims to the contrary the Gillard Labor governemnt is still effectively demanding that aged Australians sell their homes in return for sub-standard care. The mechanism operates like a massive regressive tax. We need to ensure that all aged Australians receive the same very high quality of care on the basis of need and regardless of wealth. And such high-quality universal aged care must be funded progressively, not through what the Combined Pensioners and Superannuant’s Association calls a “pre-death death tax”.

Meanwhile there is some hope on the disability support and services front with Julia Gillard’s annoucement earlier this year of the government’s intent to implement the NDIS. Crikey reports that the scheme will offer “financial cover for services including for respite care, vehicle modification, accommodation support, therapies and prosthetics,” It is “expected to cost the government an extra $6.5 billion a year.”

And yet while the Productivity Commission suggested a 2014 implementation it is not certain that the government will meet this time-frame, with some suggesting a delay of seven to eight years. This simply is not good enough. Properly a NDIS should also involve construction of dedicated care facilities for the disabled who require intensive care so they are not left in aged care facilities in which they are isolated and do not ‘feel at home’.

But importantly the needs of the aged are just as desperate as those of the disabled and their carers. If there is $6.5 billion in additional funds that will be devoted to a NDIS then surely a similar amount must be devoted to improving the quality of Aged Care, supporting carers and removing user-pays mechanisms for poor and working class families. The government could begin with an annual $5 billion injection with more ‘in the works’ for the future.

Then, of course, there is the question: Where is the money coming from?

There could be progressive levies for the proposed NDIS and for aged care – or maybe some kind of single shared levy. And perhaps some of the funding gap could also be met with progressive reform and restructure of income tax. Venture capitalist Mark Carnegie thinks the wealthy (including himself) need to pay their ‘fair share’. Specifically he has suggested at the recent tax forum that 15 per cent extra in tax ought be levied from the wealthy top 15 per cent. Yet Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten has dampened expectations claiming such measures would be unlikely to be implemented.

Shorten has been an eager proponent of the NDIS, but he needs to start thinking of progressive ways to actually fund and implement the program. And hopefully he will apply the same standards of decency and compassion by popularising a similar program for aged care as well. John Passant has suggested other measures: an inheritance tax, minimum company tax, end capital gains tax concessions, tax trusts as companies, implement land tax for properties valued over $1 million, apply stronger economic rent taxes on mining, banking, and supermarket oligopolies.

Some of these proposals could form part of a more long-term agenda of reform, with Labor aiming to expand the social wage proportionately by 1.5 per cent of GDP per term of government, levelling out after several terms.

Nonetheless, funds levied over the next two years could then be deployed to provide stop-gap services and support in anticipation of a broader NDIS by 2014, with a similar scheme for aged care. Such ‘stop-gap’ measures could be crucial in that the government would be seen to be ‘delivering the goods’. This is always more valuable than promises only ‘for the distant future’.

By locking such investments in and implementing the necessary funding mechanisms pressure would also be applied upon Opposition leader Tony Abbott to maintain bipartisan support. Abbott would appear callous were he to sabotage or obstruct such programs, and in contravention of self-professed Catholic/Christian convictions of compassion towards the vulnerable.

After reform of Aged Care and Disability Support and Services, much of the remaining funds (from an $18 billion pool) could then be dedicated to a major cost of living package aimed at mainstream working Australia as well as the most vulnerable. Tax reform measures as alluded to earlier could be deployed to provide robust subsidies for energy and water in the case of low-middle income households, and for new public housing (increasing supply, and hence enhancing affordability). Broader tax restructure could also benefit these households, and comprise part of the package.

Over the long term, meanwhile, Labor could move to gradually resocialise energy and water, perhaps on a national basis, while moving away from user-pays mechanisms for roads and other essential infrastructure. Lower public sector borrowing costs could be passed on to consumers, while small consumers (individuals, families) would no longer be discriminated against because of lack of market power. Finally, productivity agreements with unions - including retraining and active industry policies - could deliver the best value for the public over the long term while providing justice and security for workers. Such initiatives would thus negate the core arguments for privatisation. Tighter regulation of energy/water over the trasnsitional period necessary for resocialisation could also be an essential part of a cost-of-living package.

Some of this money could also go towards funding the realisation of the Australian Service Union’s (ASU) community sector wage claim, which would make a massive difference mainly for women but also for men, working in that field. This could also lead to an influx of skilled labour and a big increase of morale in aged care.

Finally, the dire need to improve poverty-level Newstart benefits (even in the midst of harsh active labour market policies) demands action. And stricter conditions for the Disability Support Pension need to be reconsidered in light of the reduced job prospects and capacity of those genuinely disabled nonetheless judged able to work in someform.

Some funds could flow to the public coffers by cutting Dividend Imputation from 100 per cent to 75 per cent. Dividend Imputation involves ‘credits’ applied so that dividends are not taxed ‘a second time’ after Company Tax. But the measure – not applied widely outside of Australia – overwhelmingly favours the wealthy and in any case Company Tax rates have been steadily eroded in recent decades.

Partial withdrawal of Dividend Imputation could be crucial in reaching the $18 billion target. John Quiggin has argued for half dividend imputation in the past (which would yield over $10 billion). But getting ‘a foot in the door’ for tax reform (with 75 per cent imputation) could be a precursor for further reform in the future.

Targeting Dividend Imputation like this is a good strategy because, as opposed to raising Company Tax, the costs are less likely to be passed on to workers and consumers through reduced wages and increased prices. As a strategy it would target the ‘rentier’ capitalist class and thus would be a fair and egalitarian measure.

Assuming the implementation of such a reform agenda, even were Labor to lose in 2013, there would be a valuable and lasting legacy of which Gillard, Swan, Shorten, Wong and the federal Cabinet could be proud. Indeed, such programs would comprise a veritable ‘rallying cry’ for Labor’s eroding membership and core support base.

But by actually deliving such a big $18 billion/year package and making a real difference for mainstream working Australia as well as the most vulnerable Labor can still hold hope of victory in 2013.

Ammending Labor’s National Platform this coming December 2011 to enable an expansion of social expenditure by 1.5 per cent of GDP would provide hope for Labor and for Labor’s constituency.

Tristan Ewins is a freelance writer, qualified teacher and social commentator based in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a long-time member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

Media Diversification and the Question of ‘Neo-Racism’

above:  The meaning of the Hijab is largely a matter of personal perspective

In this latest article, Tristan Ewins examines further the arguments around media diversity and the Media Inquiry in Australia. But what is more, he engages with recent arguments made at ‘The Drum’ to the effect that there is a ‘new form of racism’: ‘neo-racism’.   Ewins disagrees with the Greens’ position on media reform – but we would definitely welcome sincere and respectful debate on all these issues here at the blog!!

nb also: If you find this article interesting 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

Tristan Ewins

21/9/2011

Aurelien Mondon makes some interesting points  in his recent article over at ABC’s ‘The Drum’ from 19^th September 2011.  

In this article we will be considering the issues of ‘free speech’ and ‘neo-racism’ – both developed in Mondon’s piece..

To begin with a couple of select quotes, Mondon writes:

“What is interesting in today's so-called battle for freedom of speech is that it does not come from minorities who are oppressed. It comes from white (mostly male) 'radical' conservatives. The question is: why has the conservative right so suddenly decided to defend freedom of speech?” 

And then with a heavy tone of irony:

“Of course, these writers and politicians would tell us, as Howard did, that it is because the left has imposed a political censorship and stifled debate. Indeed, everybody knows that the 70 per cent of the Australian media owned by Rupert Murdoch [Ed: in fact 70% of print media] has been unashamedly left-wing over the past decades, leaving little space to debate without an outright socialist bias.”

For the whole of Mondon’s article see here:  

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2906420.html?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Mondon is ‘spot on the money’ when he identifies the hypocrisy of so many on the Right – of effectively opposing media diversification, and so in effect opposing practical and meaningful pluralism – on the basis of ‘freedom of speech’. 

Both Fairfax and NewsCorp are provoking unwarranted fear when it comes to the issue of censorship.  Overwhelmingly – from Labor – there is talk of diversification and stemming undue concentration of ownership. 

There is also talk of protecting personal privacy.

But while some from the Greens had considered more thorough-going regulation of content, even including licensing for newspapers, Labor’s response has been far more cautious, and Labor is not likely to bow to Greens pressure on this issue.  See:  http://greens.org.au/content/greens-move-inquiry-media-ownership-and-regulation-australia

 Indeed – it is difficult to understand how some of the proposals put forward by the Greens ‘gained traction’ within that party in the first place.  (Yes the Murdoch press has been conducting a blatant campaign against the Greens; but surely opposition to censorship is a ‘fundamental’…)  Given the party’s location on the relative Left, the threat censorship has historically posed to the Left itself, and the possibility therefore of setting a dangerous precedent, one would have expected a more cautious approach on the part of the Greens as well.

But as we have considered at ‘Left Focus’ before, freedom of speech is a complex issue.  In the context of a public sphere dominated by private wealth; where ‘cultural gate-keepers’ determine the bounds, terms and tenor of debate – ‘positive’ freedom of speech is limited.  By this we mean the capacity of diverse and otherwise marginal voices to be included authentically in the mainstream.

Indeed, in Australia the public sphere is increasingly manipulated, insincere and exclusive .  The dominance of the monopolists and their billions in the Australian mass media makes this increasingly so.  And where public-owned media has in the past helped provide a counter-balance (eg: in the case of the ABC) conservatives have responded by enforcing their own notion of ‘balance’ - which in fact has undone the tendency towards meaningful and effective pluralism.

‘Freedom of speech’ as a ‘positive and enabling liberty’ ought to mean inclusive and participatory pluralism in the public sphere.  Only the worst of extremes should be marginalised – for instance, Holocaust denial and race hatred.  For some liberals, the Habermasian principle of the ‘Perfect Speech situation’ may serve as a guide.  (although conflicting values and interests cannot necessarily be resolved by rational exchange) 

Where wealth inhibits this, it is the duty of governments to intervene: not to censor – but to provide the means and support for the development of that inclusive, diverse and participatory public sphere.  (including but not limited to online)

Tokenism or half-measures here are not sufficient.  We need an inclusive and participatory mainstream: and robust public support for diversification towards this end.  Ample public funds need be provided such that inclusive, democratic and participatory media challenge the existing mainstream meaningfully, comprehensively and deeply.

 And again without censorship, principles of honourable journalism ought to be promoted.  Publications which maintain the pretence of presenting opinions, events and policy authentically and inclusively ought attract robust and high-profile public criticism where they fail to live up to their own self-proclaimed standards. 

 These issues need to be considered in depth in the coming media review; and Labor would be well-advised to implement a robust policy - not just half-measures.

Returning to the Aurelien Mondon article, however: Toward the end of his commentary Mondon develops a concept which he calls ‘neo-racism’.  This in of itself is a separate issue: but one no less worthy of criticism. 

Specifically, Mondon argues:

“As opposed to crude biological racism, widely discarded after the Second World War and whose use remains political suicide, neo-racism is a lot harder to outright condemn, yet it is no less damaging to society, democracy and ... freedom of speech. Neo-racism does not rely on biological superiority or inferiority, or even any form of hierarchy. Instead, it states the incompatibility of cultures and the necessity to keep such cultures apart. Cultures are equal in their inability to cohabitate; therefore the neo-racist can even appear tolerant. Of course, the use of neo-racism, like the use of common racism, is always to the benefit of the powerful.”  http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2906420.html?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Even in France today individual liberty is increasingly pressured by an assertive secularism.  Properly, the rights of both secularists and faith communities ought to be protected in the context of liberal and democratic pluralism. Attempts to ‘ban the hijab’, for instance, themselves set a dangerous precedent – and abrogate the liberal rights of minorities.  Some secularists may think of the hijab as a by-product of women’s oppression. But in a society where women are empowered to choose - not just legally but culturally - surely the right is that of the woman to decide for herself.

The same principle ought to apply to both socially conservative and liberal faith communities – which on the principle of voluntary and free association determine their own internal rules and doctrines.

But are all cultures compatible in all contexts and on any scale?; And should the contention they are not attract the tremendous stigma involved with the charge of ‘racism’? 

Liberal democratic pluralism infers acceptance of difference: and of the right of individuals to move freely between voluntary associations.  But has political liberalism the potential to become so open as to leave exposed its own roots? 

 Even in socialist Yugoslavia – where the principles of internationalism were openly and sincerely proclaimed for decades– ultimately there proceeded a degeneration into nationalist chauvinism, brutality, and the settling of historical vendettas.  Even with the passage of decades conciliation had not been achieved.  A more robust truth and reconciliation process over those decades may have been able to prevent this: but now we will never know.  The point is that we ought not deny and be closed-minded about the risks.

Like socialist internationalism, liberal democratic pluralism is not incapable of being eroded or even uprooted.  As socialists learned during the 1980s, history should not be seen inevitably as a ‘Forward March’.  Political ideologies are also cultures; and that includes the nationalist-chauvinist political cultures of the far-right, including the religious far-right.  Political Ideologies – including nationalist, ‘ethno-nationalist’  and religious varieties – as cultures – are not universally compatible: and to point to this is not to engage in racism.  In fact – to ignore these forces could be to court disaster.

And on a brief partial-tangent: integrationism should not be considered to be the same as assimilation either. Every society needs a social contract including minimum assumptions regarding human rights and the rights and duties of citizenship. (including personal liberty and at least a minimum of social solidarity) And this cannot work if not invigorated by communication and exchange made possible by common language and social engagement.

 But yes: Mondon is correct to infer that these debates will be exploited by the powerful. During the 1980s the West supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan for geo-strategic purposes: ostensibly against tyranny.  But today the West is again involved with a war in Afghanistan for geo-strategic purposes – legitimised by some as being for the sake of the rights of women.

And by the same token unfair and warped cultural prejudice can be deployed cynically to justify policies of colonialism and imperialism.  Perhaps this is the reality Mondon is alluding to; but nonetheless it does not follow that all cultures are compatible in all contexts.

 Let us maintain the principles of liberal democratic pluralism, including a meaningfully participatory, inclusive and authentic public sphere.  But let us also be aware of the dangers. Liberal pluralism (and tolerant/harmonious multiculturalism) is not necessarily eternal and unassailable. The future depends upon the political and cultural choices we make now.

Tristan Ewins

This author has also considered issues of culture and nationalism in-depth before

So also see: 

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2009/02/multiculturalism-and-false-lure-of.html

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2010/01/australia-day-2010-celebration-and.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4944

Media Bias Systemic and Rife

above: Rupert Murdoch- Absolute Power?

In this new article Tristan Ewins holds that Australia's monopoly media is widely encouraging fear and resentment of refugees to create a 'wedge' against Labor.  Change is needed to genuinely promote the principles of inclusive and democratic pluralism in the Australian public sphere.  A media-democratisation fund - equally empowering all Australian citizens - could be part of this picture... 

 

 

nb also: If you find this article interesting 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

Tristan Ewins, September 4, 2011

Reading Melbourne’s ‘Herald-Sun’ today this author was reminded of just how far the Murdoch media (and other media interests) have been willing to descend in order to destabilise the Federal Labor government in Australia.

The underlying implication is that those who wield real cultural power in this country by virtue of outrageous wealth will not tolerate Labor governments that attempt to introduce real Labor policies: that actually behave like real Labor governments. 

Labor is expected, ultimately, to ‘get the message’, ‘fall into line’ and then somehow we can continue with the charade of supposedly liberal democratic pluralism.  

Most commonly the behaviour of Australia’s right-populist  monopoly media has involved the cultivation of anger, fear, resentment and intolerance via various shades of spin, and sometimes outright lies. 

One core aim of this policy has been to fatally undermine Labor’s core working class electoral base.

 The means to achieve this include monopolisation of the print media market in Australia (approx 70% of the market is controlled by NewsCorp/Murdoch); a monopoly of the dominant tabloid market in many Australian states; and the dominance of broadcast media by concentrated interests willing to abuse their control to promote their agendas.

As this author has already noted on occasion: mildly redistributive elements of the proposed carbon tax have been consistently and repeatedly reviled as ‘class war’ in the Herald-Sun.  Individuals on well over $100,000 a year have been portrayed as ‘working class battlers’; and the government’s policies ‘an assault on aspiration’.

 Apparently, however, the flattening of tax scales, deregulation of the labour market, assaults on trade unions, and the dual phenomena of privatisation and user-pays – which see wealth redistributed from ‘battlers’ to the wealthy - ‘do not count as class war’ for the Herald-Sun, Daily Telegraph – and other vehicles of Murdoch propaganda.

Furthermore, the fiction of the ‘burden’ of any carbon tax is repeated like a mantra in the right-populist monopoly media; with rarely any recognition that the vast majority of revenue is pegged to be returned in one form or another to trade-exposed industry, to taxpayers, to consumers. The writers who beat up fear in this regard know very well the fiction they propagate: but apparently they are without conscience.

And today, on September 4^th 2011, there were another two prime examples of propaganda ‘Murdoch-style’ on pages 1, 8 and 9. 

 One headline proclaimed “Flying into Rage grounds refugees”. 

 Much of the monopoly media in Australia – in tandem with the Conservative parties – and especially Tony Abbott himself - has striven to dehumanise and vilify refugees. 

Again the intent has been to create a ‘wedge’ against Labor. 

 The monetary costs of detention, and on one occasion the cost of flying refugees to the funerals of their family members (after the Christmas Island shipwreck tragedy) have been portrayed as a ‘burden upon the taxpayer’. (not for a moment is recognition of their basic humanity allowed, with the sympathy this might engender)  And in today’s Melbourne Herald-Sun refugees who have been incarcerated in intolerable conditions – often for several years – were once more portrayed as ‘violent’.

 And yet there has been precious little mention of the violence of incarceration which has driven so many detainees to the point of self-harm – and on many occasions now even to suicide.  Rarely ever is the question put seriously: In a country of well over 20 million what ‘cultural threat’ are a few thousand refugees supposed to pose?

 Whatever flaws there have been in Labor’s asylum-seeker policies (and there have been many): so much of the monopoly media have chosen to portray the High Court’s recent decision on offshore processing as ‘yet another’ confirmation of the government’s ‘incompetence’; its ‘loss of authority’; its ‘instability’ – and as further cause for an early election. 

These themes have been systematically emphasised - again and again - by the likes of Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine as a part of a deliberate tactic of destabilisation.  No doubt this has comprised part of a broader strategy by this country’s dominant media ‘billionaire puppet-masters’: Murdoch, Reinhart, Packer and others.  Such that Australia’s media is increasingly characterised by the kind of blatant abuse many thought only occurred in Italy at the hands of Silvio Berlusconi.

Underscoring this assumption: there has been precious little focus upon the accompanying consequence of the High Court’s recent decision that the legality of the Conservatives’ migration policies – and their long history of offshore incarceration and processing – is ALSO seriously in doubt. 

And outrageously: much of the right-populist monopoly media has tried to ‘play the refugee issue from both sides’ – painting ‘desert wasteland’ Nauru incarceration as the more ‘humane’ policy – with Shadow Immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison posing as the ‘staunch defender of human rights.’

Another Herald-Sun Article today (4/9/11, pp 8-9) epitomised the ‘quality’ of tabloid journalism in this country.  The article was presented under two titles: ‘Rudd’s Ambush’ and ‘One Moon, Two Fallen stars’.

 To begin, the authors emphasised the “dysfunctional state of the federal Labor Party”, reiterating the ‘official’ line intended to wear down confidence in Labor, and erode Labor’s core base -via ‘cultural attrition’ over the long term; and promote instability. 

This attempt at ‘spin’ was further emphasised with another suggestion that Kevin Rudd may be intending ‘another tilt’ at the Labor leadership; and with the contention that separate meetings between Rudd and Gillard with UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon were ‘unusual’. In reality such separate meetings might be considered ‘routine’; but nonetheless the ‘angle’ was played for all it was worth.

 That said: again the Herald-Sun attempted to ‘cover its bases’.  With some of the media having been willing to suggest the viability of a Rudd leadership-challenge to ‘revive’ Labor’s fortunes – but only so far as to create instability in the current context - again now the authors attempted also to prepare the ground to meet any such ‘new threat’. While  such rumours are intended to destabilise, Rudd himself ‘would ultimately have to be dealt with’ were they ever to ‘come to fruition’.  

Hence the quote printed from ALP parliamentarian Michael Danby that Rudd is “seemingly devoid of any lightness or humour”; and from other ‘sources’ that “there is…loathing at the prospect of Mr Rudd’s return” and “fear he could seek revenge.” 

 Finally: a brief and isolated quote from Gillard was represented in an attempt to maintain the fiction of balance and inclusiveness: 

“Every day between now and then I will be fighting for Labor values, for the things I believe in, for jobs, for education, for opportunity.”

But as usual this is but a ploy on the part of the Herald-Sun: which includes pretty much every day articles full-to-the-brim with prejudice, misrepresentation and spin: but with a token sentence or two at the conclusion of their articles – to maintain credibility as ‘serious journalism’.  The token nature of such quotes is reinforced by the failure of Herald-Sun journalists to develop them fully: such that they could be interpreted and read as substantial and convincing perspectives.

 So what should Labor conclude from all this?

 To begin Labor needs itself to recognise the increasing tendency that liberal pluralism in this country is becoming nothing but a convenient legitimising fiction.  As is the accompanying fiction that billionaire media proprietors ‘do not intervene’ in the editorial policies of their ‘assets’.

 Just as when - for whatever reason - Channel Ten seemed to be ‘going against the trend’ - adopting a moderately and relatively leftist profile – multi-billionaires Murdoch, Reinhart and Packer intervened. Almost overnight the political profile of the network began to change.  Right-populist writer Andrew Bolt was given his own program; and employed regularly in other contexts as a political and social commentator.   While direct intervention has not been proven surely it seems a credible supposition.

The direct cultural power of big capital was also underscored by the earlier scuttling of the original ‘Rudd era’ ‘Resource Super-Profits Tax’ (RSPT); assaulted by a massive media propaganda campaign by the mining giants to destroy the policy and ‘send a clear message to Labor.’   Somehow the threat of an investment strike has been internalised alongside the fiction of liberal and democratic pluralism – despite the fact that the one is in contradiction with the other.

 The original Resource Super-Profits Tax could have rectified this nation’s “two speed economy”; diverting some windfall mining profits (from the natural resources belonging to all Australians) to bolster superannuation, and support manufacturing, tourism and education.  This at a time when a high Australian dollar is ‘supercharging’ mining industry profits; but undermining other exports. (that is, industries that between them employ many times more people than the mining industry)

At the time other areas of industry would not break the ‘united front of capital’ against any impositions; but surely the crisis is now so pronounced that this must again be questioned.

In the face of such abuses for Labor the challenge is to turn the fiction of liberal and democratic pluralism in Australia’s public sphere into a reality. 

 Attempts to promote media-diversification would no-doubt be (ironically) depicted as ‘assaults on free speech’.  But the tendency towards monopolisation in Australian media – and the abuse of that power - is itself an assault upon the inclusiveness of our public sphere.  And such inclusiveness is itself a precondition for genuine democracy.

Labor has nothing to lose at this point by going ahead with a full media enquiry.

 But in the process the government must be careful not to reproduce the same kind of abuses as those they would be seeking to challenge.  Rules regarding “fit and proper” people to own media could set a dangerous precedent.  Today the power of wealth contracts and shackles the public sphere: backed by state recognition and enforcement of the ‘rights’ that accompany wealth.  But EXCESSIVE or inappropriate state regulation of media could also set a dangerous precedent which could ‘come back to haunt’ the Left; providing a pretext for ideological censorship. 

The aim of a media diversification policy ought to be the creation of an inclusive and pluralist public sphere.  This is not compatible with the domination of the industry by a handful of billionaire puppet-masters. Nor is it compatible with the monopolisation of sectors of the industry – for instance the tabloid market in Melbourne where the Herald-Sun has no real competition.  (and in the broader market has a readership of about 1.5 million as compared with ‘The Age’ with a “Monday to Friday readership average of 668,000” – source: Wikipedia)

 Cross-ownership laws need to be tightened and effective monopolies broken up. 

 Certainly that would be a start.

 We need at least two major players in every significant market: effectively representing a wide and inclusive spectrum of viewpoints.  This includes more specialised markets: for instance whether we speak of tabloids or broadsheets.

 But we need a more pro-active policy as well.

To that end: a ‘media-democratisation fund’ could be a visionary solution to the question of representative and inclusive media in this country. 

A fund – perhaps $5 billion to begin at a very rough estimate– could be established and then distributed equally in the form of non-tradeable shares – to all eligible Australian voters regardless of personal wealth. (ie: as a right of citizenship) Shareholders would then be encouraged – and a framework established – for them to organise their investments collectively, equally and democratically in new media intended to create genuine diversity and inclusion of perspectives and viewpoints. 

All profits would be returned to the scheme to be reinvested: the motive being diversification and inclusiveness – not private financial gain.  This would not be an effective expansion of the state sector, however: as all citizens would have individual rights to determine their investments as equal and private shareholders.

 But to achieve the end of real and effective diversification – a real shift of cultural power – and in favour of diversity and inclusion - the scheme would need to apply in the billions - or at least hundreds of millions.  A ‘token’ scheme would not achieve that.  (Pls note again, though: I am providing only very rough estimates here as the author does not have access to such modelling as to accurately determine what would be necessary)

Maintaining and bolstering existing public media such as ABC and SBS undertakings: and ensuring a genuinely pluralist, participatory and inclusive outlook in these – would also serve these crucial ends.

If we’re serious about liberal pluralism: about democracy and inclusion – the time has come for change.

Rethinking Marx, the market and Hayek

Above: David McKnight

In this article David McKnight takes another look at Eric Aarons's analysis of the work and belief systems of Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayek;  McKnight was a long-time member of the Communist Party of Australia; but more recently has promoted an agenda which - in is own words - attempts to venture 'Beyond Right and Left'.   This article will also be published at a dedicated website on 'Hayek versus Marx'; and an earlier review - written by the blog publisher Tristan Ewins - can also be found here:

See:  http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html

By David McKnight*

 Most people who reach 90 years of age would be enjoying their retirement, perhaps reminiscing, probably relaxing. Instead, veteran political activist Eric Aarons has spent the last five years researching the conservative philosopher and economist Friedrich Hayek and re-reading Karl Marx. While Marx is familiar to many people, Hayek is less well known. Yet Hayek’s ideas have provided the intellectual foundation for the neo-liberal Right which has been so globally influential for the last 30 years. In Australia Hayek’s influence is now better known thanks to Kevin Rudd’s various essays attacking neo-liberalism. Occasionally, Hayek is discussed and defended in the columns of The Australian.

Eric Aarons’ reason for researching these two towering figures has been to produce a substantial book Hayek vs Marx which not only explores their work but also suggests  vital theoretical tools to deal with today’s challenges. The central challenge facing the world, he argues, is climate change but this is merely the earliest manifestation of a profound crisis of sustainability for a planet with seven billion people  and growing.

His book, produced by a major British publisher, appears at an auspicious time. The free market and the dogma of deregulation have been discredited, and in the mass media  there has been talk of ‘the crisis of capitalism’ and references to Marx. As a consequence  of the global financial crisis many hope that the radical decline of the left will now go into reverse. Eric Aarons doesn’t comment on such hopes but it is clear that he thinks that a profound theoretical re-thinking is necessary rather than any movement ‘back to Marx’.

In some ways the book’s title is misleading. The framework of ‘Hayek versus Marx’ suggests that the author (and readers) will fall on one side or the other. In Eric Aarons’ view, both thinkers have deep flaws in their theories as well as valuable insights. The great strength of Hayek was to explain why market mechanisms have virtues which are indispensable in a complex economy and society. He saw markets as a device for the rapid sending of information via prices through a network. On this level, compared to alternatives such as a central planning, they are useful and flexible devices for signaling to producers what their buyers wanted and in what quantity. On this insight Hayek erected a vast intellectual system in which all other social, moral and cultural values had to be subordinated or discarded in favour the market and its central value: freedom.

Marx’s great strength was something about which Marx himself said little but which imbued all his writing. Marx’s ethical values lead him to see the extraordinary injustices that flowed from inequalities of wealth and the 19^th century system of industry. Yet these values are buried within his work and instead Marx tried to erect a scientific theory of social development and to discover the laws of history.

The flaws in Marx’s world view were not simply wrong predictions but go deeply to his methodology.  Marx argued in Capital that history changed according to ‘natural laws’ and tendencies which worked ‘with iron necessity towards inevitable results’. On this basis he predicted the immiserisation of the working class. The labour theory of value and his concept of the falling rate of profit have also been shown to simply be wrong, according to Eric Aarons.

Hayek’s methodology is also flawed. Hayek posited the existence of sets of rules which, if followed by societies, enabled them to flourish. As Eric Aarons points out Hayek never simply and clearly identified these rules but they tend to be those commercially based rules which allow markets to function with little restraint. Interference to shape the spontaneous evolution of markets thus becomes the philosophical equivalent of sacrilegious acts ‘against nature’.

Hayek’s proof of this idea was to assert that it was analogous to Darwinian evolution through natural selection. One of the consequences of this approach is that if society has ‘evolved’ then it becomes meaningless to talk about whether that social order is just or unjust; it simply is. Hence one of Hayek’s pet hates -- the notion of ‘social justice’.  But as Aarons says this is pure assertion and not backed by any factual evidence.

As his introduction suggests, this book represents the latest stage of a personal quest that began in the early 1970s when Eric Aarons realized that the theoretical apparatus inherited from Marx and Lenin was inadequate and flawed. His conclusions about these flaws are remarkable considering that he was a leading figure for decades in the Communist Party of Australia. Today his commitment is to rethinking a social philosophy in which traditional Left concerns find a place within a framework dominated by the political need to forestall an impending ecological crisis.  

Like a number of other contemporary thinkers Eric Aarons also sees the need to discuss questions such as: what does it mean to be human, and is there a human nature.  These take us back to the long time span before capitalism, indeed back to the evolution of humans from more ape-like creatures. And then to varieties of human society from the hunter gatherer society to agricultural and to modern industrial society.  Like the philosopher Peter Singer, Eric Aarons rejects the widespread Marxist view that no human nature exists and that humans behavior, needs and outlook are entirely formed  by their social and cultural circumstances. Such assumptions, apart from being factually wrong, he argues, fed the mistaken belief that a perfect economic system could lead to a perfect society.

The central assumption of the book is that relevant and useful theories arise from the problems posed by the objective circumstances. That expresses it rather formally. But what it means is that just as Marx responded to the objective circumstances of cataclysmic changes wrought by industrial capitalism, so we must now develop new theories in the face of the slow but relentless crisis developing around climate and sustainability. This is not to ignore the enormous concentration of wealth and the social power it brings but to acknowledge that the struggle for social equality will take place within a framework dictated by the ecological crisis.

The scope of the book is sometimes frustratingly limited. As Eric Aarons says, neither Marx nor Hayek had a developed notion of politics and both minimised its importance. Democracy was barely mentioned by either of them.  This is something which will strike even adherents as surprising even staggering. Yet to understand the implications of this absence in their theories requires deeper discussion of what occurred when Marxists and neo-liberals actually gained government. Also useful would have been references to the debate on the strengths and flaws of Marx’s ideas that emerged when the Left revived in the 1970s and 80s. A whole generation of Left intellectuals revived Marxism but then abandoned it in favour of other radical analyses of oppression, racism and sexism. Addressing this experience may have gained significant readers for the book.

The book takes up a number of themes which Eric Aarons has explored in recent years. One of the centrality of values and morality as the foundation of a progressive world view. The significance of this is that it implies that a comprehensive ‘theory of everything’ is not the foundation. Trying to ground a radical analysis in yet another creative revision of Marxism is a road to nowhere. That may sound obvious but all over the world such attempts are being made and most are not even creative re-thinkings of Marxism but rather the re-affirmation of eternal truths said to be found in orthodox Marxism.

Eric Aaron’s own view that so far, no ‘internally coherent and viable alterative to capitalist society’ has yet been found. He believes that the single most important step ‘is for every society to reverse the priority capitalism gives to individual material betterment and gain and give that priority instead to social needs’. 

--------------------

David McKnight works at the Arts Faculty at the University of New South Wales. He is the author of Beyond Right and Left: New Politics and the Culture War. He can be reached on d.mcknight@unsw.edu.au

Hayek vs. Marx and today’s challenges

Routledge, London and New York, 2009.

above:  Eric Aarons's 'Hayek versus Marx'