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'

Critical Review of "Hayek versus Marx - and today's challenges' by Eric Aarons

above: An image of Eric Aarons, who is also a dedicated sculpture artist

Tristan Ewins, the publisher of this blog, has just self-published a critical review of Eric Aarons' book 'Hayek versus Marx - and today's challenges'.  The essay is very long - but the topic matter is very substantial and varied - so warrants it I think. I'm hoping to attract readers and debate with this article - so looking forward to hearing from you.  The introduction - and a link to the full article (at a separate page) are below...

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


24/07/11

"Hayek versus Marx" is the culmination of over a decade of study - and a lifetime of practical experience. Eric Aarons - the former National Secretary of the Communist Party of Australia - and the author of several important books - has taken upon himself an imposing task. This task is that of interrogating the work of Hayek and Marx rigorously and open-mindedly: taking from each, exposing each to searching criticism, and ultimately urging a new social, economic and political paradigm.

Considering in depth the life's work of both these giants of social theory, Aarons urges what is ultimately a synthesis of socialism and economic liberalism. While recognising the necessity of markets and competition; the author is also insistent of the indispensability of co-operation, the struggle against alienation, and the fight for economic empowerment and social justice.

Firstly, we will summarise Aarons' account of Hayek. From there we will consider his account of Marx. Thereafter we will consider both the ideas of Marx and Hayek in further depth, and in light of Aarons' own ideas and criticisms.

In the process, we will consider such themes as economic democracy, alienation, markets and planning, and the 'clash' of free markets and nature.

To conclude we will consider the consequences of Aarons's analysis and conclusions for a Left that has been grappling with its very identity, and its core values since the collapse of "really-existing socialism".

Again: For the rest of this article see:

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

Carbon Tax Package finally Unveiled

above:  Julia Gillard announcing the government's Carbon Tax package

Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax package has suffered a very critical reception despite extensive compensation for trade-exposed industry and low-middle income households.  So how will the tax work to reduce emissions?  And what are we to make of charges of 'redistribution' made by Abbott and others?  In any case - is 'redistribution' such a bad thing?

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

12/7/2011

In the face of an almost all-pervasive fear campaign, what is the truth concerning Gillard Labor’s carbon tax?  How will it really be implemented? Who will it affect – and how?  Can it succeed in its object of restructuring the economy?  Does it involve elements of economic redistribution; and if it does, is that necessarily a bad thing?

According to ‘The Age’ (11/7) The Gillard government’s carbon tax will provide “tax cuts for those on incomes under $80,000” leaving “6 million households better off or fully compensated.”

Peter Martin has noted how “for more modest earners, the benefits are large: $626 a year for a single earner on $20,000; $1226 for a dual-income couple with two children on $75,000.”

(see: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/cuts-for-everyone-but-some-worse-off-20110710-1h8zv.html#ixzz1RmjetGLR )

 Some of this compensation will be provided for by a restructuring of the tax system.

 For instance; the tax-free threshold will be “more than trebled to $18,200”.  And individual pensioners will receive compensation of up to $338 a year; with up to $510 for couples.

 Furthermore: $9.2 billion will be provided in the form of business compensation over a three year period – aimed largely at trade-exposed industries

 But “more than three million households” – those on the highest incomes - will lose out to some degree.  Some will only be partly compensated.  Around “one in ten” – the wealthiest of all - will receive nothing.  (‘The Age’, 11/7,  p 1)   

The most intensely affected areas of the economy will be energy generation and distribution. 

 Again, Peter Martin has noted how:

 “From mid-next year, the price of electricity will rise a further 10 per cent as a result of the carbon tax and the price of gas a further 9 per cent.”

But:

“The price of food is expected scarcely to move, advancing less than one-half of 1 per cent.”

(Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/cuts-for-everyone-but-some-worse-off-20110710-1h8zv.html#ixzz1Rmkguly2 ) 

The response from the Conservative side of politics was predictable.  Tony Abbott argued:

“[This is] socialism masquerading as environmentalism… This is redistribution pretending to be compensation.  It’s a tax increase pretending to be an environmental policy.”  (‘The Age’, 11/7/11, p 1)

And in the Herald-Sun in Melbourne reporter Steve Lewis seemed to be echoing Abbott by referring to tax cuts for struggling lower-income workers as a “classic ‘soak the rich’ Labor program.” (11/7, p 7)

In assessing the government’s policy it is best to respond to the claims of critics directly.

But to begin we should first return to basics: and that is recognising the virtual consensus in the global scientific community that global warming is real, and that carbon emissions by human beings contributes to this.   

So to what extent will the carbon tax and associated programs add up to a reduction in emissions?

The carbon tax will give a strong market signal for both investors and consumers to reduce emissions however practicably possible.   Indeed, Prime Minister Gillard has stated that this will result in:

“a reduction in carbon pollution of 160 million tonnes by 2020. [That’s] the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.'” (See: http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=636042&vId= )

Businesses will seek energy-saving measures, while households will do likewise – and also consider investment in renewable energy.  Indeed, there could well be a boom in the micro-renewable energy sector.  Overwhelmingly this will occur without financial pain for middle and low income households - as with compensation the main aim is to provide the market with a ‘price signal’ and not to raise revenue.

Meanwhile a “$2 billion-a-year Clean Energy Finance Corporation” will drive investment for research and development of clean energy technologies.  In this field Australia stands to become a genuine ‘world leader’.  ( see: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html )

Finally, Adam Morton from ‘The Age’ has noted how

“some carbon tax revenue will also be spent buying out and shutting down about 2000 megawatts of coal power, most likely either the Hazelwood or Yallourn power plant in the Latrobe Valley, plus the smaller Playford station in South Australia.”  (See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html#ixzz1Rmn33ELS )

Morton has also observed how::  “the money to shut the plants will be from tax revenue paid by ''big polluters'', not budget cuts that reduce services.”  (See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html#ixzz1Rmn33ELS )

This is absolutely crucial because Tony Abbott has committed to expensive forms of “direct action” on climate change running into billions and billions - which would be paid for through savings elsewhere in the Budget.   Refusing to submit his proposals to Treasury for costing, Abbott must nonetheless be aware that his proposed initiatives could not be funded simply through “efficiencies”. They would inevitably involve austerity measures. Perhaps these would apply in health and education; or perhaps through further privatisation of roads and imposition of flat ‘user-pays’ tolls - for which working class Australians would pay.

So before we even begin to address accusations of “socialist redistribution” we need to observe that price signals and direct intervention will make significant inroads into Australia’s carbon emissions, and as such is well-justified on environmental grounds alone.

That said, however, Abbott and right-populist elements of the media are raising alarm at the prospect of even mild redistribution via the chosen structures for compensation via direct payments and restructure of the tax system.

 In Melbourne on July 11th the Herald-Sun alone ran the headline ‘Kick in the Teeth for Hard Workers’ referring to a family on a combined annual income of around $130,000.  Another article in the same Herald-Sun supplement concerned ‘Sparkie’ (ie: electrician), Luke Peterson, who earns $150,000 - with his partner remaining at home to raise their children.  In this instance the headline ran: “ ‘Punished’ for wife staying at home with kids’.”

 Like several previous articles in the ‘Herald-Sun’ accusing Gillard Labor of ‘Class War’, these articles attempted at the same time to portray higher income groups as ‘average working Australians’ being ‘punished’ for effort.  Indeed the term ‘Sparkie’ could be interpreted as a colloquialism inferring working class status.

 But both the households considered in the Herald-Sun articles concerned would occupy a position in at least the top 20% of household incomes.  A single-income household with one income-earner bringing in a $150,000/year income would not be considered by most as ‘working class’ – colloquialisms aside.  Indeed, in this day and age few households servicing a mortgage and raising a family can afford for one partner to remain at home.

This raises the question that if action must be taken on climate change, how should we balance the burden?  The principle concerned could also be extended to other necessities: for instance, provision of health care, education, aged care, social housing, welfare and infrastructure.

Many Australians work hard for comparatively little return compared to the Herald-Sun’s chosen examples.  There are some dual-income households – with members employed in cleaning, retail, childcare, hospitality, textiles, and manufacturing – who bring in barely $50,000 before tax.  To speak of ‘punishment for effort’ for higher income households, and yet to prefer putting a disproportionate burden upon these families - would be revealing of the priorities and values of those concerned. 

In the labour market scarce skills usually bring in greater return, but many of these lower income individuals and households work under unpleasant and alienating circumstances – and with sometimes inconvenient or onerous hours.  In Australia, also, there is a recent history of falling minimum wages being compounded by housing market stress, past regressive restructure of tax, and increased energy costs as a consequence of privatisation.  It is not at all radical – or necessarily ‘socialist’ – to support a degree of redistribution to compensate those Australian workers and pensioners affected by these trends.

 And while there has to be reward to give incentive for workers to acquire skills, other ‘middle income’, ‘average’ individuals and households also deserve a ‘fair go’.  A worker on a wage of, say, $50,000/year should not be paying the same kind of tax as a worker on $150,000/year. Under circumstances where both workers were applying themselves with comparable levels of effort and effective sacrifice, skill differentials alone do not justify massive discrepancies in income. 

Finally there are the truly vulnerable: those who are unable to work as a consequence of illness or disability. Or those who have worked all their lives and deserve a peaceful and fulfilling retirement.  And to this we could add the unemployed: those who overwhelmingly are searching for work – and are subject to harsh active labour market provisions – but who need our assistance to ‘keep their heads above water’ and avoid social disengagement and isolation during the interim.  (such isolation can provide a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ of long-term unemployment)

 A progressive taxation system is therefore well justified in moderating discrepancies of income which are unjust, and ensuring universal access to social necessities . And the tax system more broadly is justified in providing best-value ‘collective consumption’ of essential social services from which most Australians benefit. Again: whether we speak of health, education, aged care, social security, social housing or other infrastructure – often these are provided more fairly and more efficiently via the ‘social wage’ than would be the case if ‘left to the market’.  

 Such principles have historically been acceptable to a variety of ideological perspectives – whether we speak, here, of liberalism, or of social democracy, or indeed of socialism.  It is only at the extremes propagated by the likes of Hayek and Rand – that the principles of progressive taxation, the welfare state and the social wage – have been rejected sweepingly. But such is the ideology which ‘has a grip’ on some parts of the Liberal Party of Australia today.  It is an ideology which threatens the ‘Americanisation’ of Australian society, with greater extremes of poverty, and a lack of basic social solidarity.  And it is an ideology that needs to be criticised explicitly by Labor.

All this said, there are dangers for Labor. In regions such as the LaTrobe Valley in Victoria there are well-grounded fears that the shift to renewable energy will ultimately cost jobs in coal-fired energy, and as a consequent will destroy many ‘flow on’ jobs which use that industry as their economic base.  Hazelwood power station is very likely to find its operations scaled back.

According to ‘The Age’ Greg Combet has announced that the LaTrobe Valley alone will receive “a $200 million package over seven years for ''strongly affected'' regions, with help in training and diversifying.”   But in the same article Electrical Trades Union state secretary Dean Mighell is quoted as arguing more needs to be done to create local jobs. This begs the question of whether government ought ‘get its hands dirty’ with more direct industry policies – reforging the ‘economic base’ in the LaTrobe valley and other affected regions – which would ‘flow on’ in maintaining thousands of other ‘peripheral’ jobs. 

(See: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/brown-coal-cloud-of-doubt-hangs-over-latrobe-valley-20110710-1h8zg.html#ixzz1RnEZ7q9D)

And in another concern, the Financial Review has reported an impending $4 billion ‘budget toll’ over the next four years in order to pay for industry and household compensation.  Labor is flagging its intent to make ‘savings’ in order to reach its projected surplus for 2013, but had already been struggling to find savings for 2011-12 without impacting on crucial programs and initiatives.

(See:http://www.financialreview.com.au/p/national/gillard_carbon_blueprint_gfV7V7WexwrES8lrl47yaI )

Between now and the next Federal Budget, therefore, progressive forces across the factional divide in Labor need to build momentum behind an alternative response for the government to this shortfall.  Importantly, Labor has the choice of revising its party platform in December to open the way for a moderately increased tax take as a proportion of GDP.

 Such a decision could be followed with modest tax reform to the extent necessary to avoid austerity, or to the extent necessary to fund a bold package of initiatives addressing what is seen in this country as a ‘cost of living crisis.’  This would also attract the charge of ‘redistribution’, but there is the potential that by improving the circumstances of average Australian families this is a debate Labor could well win.  Indeed, that could properly be the object of an article in of itself.  

 A ‘National Disability Insurance Scheme’ is another potential choice for Labor in seizing the initiative and delivering on a reform agenda – but would also need to be backed by tax reform and increased revenue.  That would be another reform Abbott would find very difficult to undo.

 One option in this context could be a 1 per cent increase in Company Tax – which would still leave Australia way short of Company Tax rates in the United States.  Another option could be a modest reduction in dividend imputation to 75%.

 In conclusion, Labor has a long way to go in convincing voters of the merits of this carbon tax package.   What is interesting is that Gillard’s carbon tax package is very similar in its dimensions to the earlier proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.  But what is notably different is the word ‘tax’.

 The fear campaign spread in the right-populist monopoly media has found its mark. And many Australians are angry that Gillard is exceeding her mandate in this way – despite the fact she has had no choice in the context of minority government.  

 This will only change once the package is implemented and most people see for themselves they are no worse off.   Most Australians will only pay with the costs of structural adjustment being passed on over the very long term. We talk here of large-scale future investment in renewable energy.  But the same could be said with Abbott’s ‘direct action’ – where the costs of industry adjustment could be paid for with direct subsidies from tax-payers: paid for via sweeping austerity.

 And yet we all should be willing to make small sacrifices in fighting climate change – for the sake of our planet, and for the sake of our children. If all comparable nations also refused to take action the effect would be to cripple the global movement to address this crisis.

But by putting implementation off until mid-next year Labor is giving time for fear and anger to fester. All those political, environmental, industrial and social movements which support the policy therefore need to begin a mobilisation immediately if the situation is to be saved.  An information campaign involving all these movements needs to begin, even including advertisements and letter-boxing – as surely as if the election were this year.

Double Standards when its comes to talk of ‘Class War’

above: Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Increasingly - in the Murdoch press especially - there has been talk of 'class war' in response to even modest proposals for progressive economic redistribution.  But redistribution against the interests of the disadvantaged and ordinary struggling workers has been going on for decades; intensifying under Liberal governments.  In this article Tristan Ewins works to illustrate that point, showing such examples as the increasingly regressive tax mix, and falling minimum wages.  Ewins argues for Gillard Labor to be brave in pursuing distributive justice for the disadvantaged, and orindary struggling Australian workers.

Tristan Ewins

June 26th 2011

In a column appearing in both the Herald-Sun and The Daily Telegraph recently Miranda Devine has had another go at Julia Gillard and the carbon tax.

Condemning Gillard and the proposed tax, she characterises it as:

“Wealth redistribution, pure and simple. A year on, there’s no secret what Gillard stands for. It’s just no one can believe it.”   http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php 

And this isn’t the first time Miranda Devine has used such language either.

For instance in the Herald-Sun on May 12^th 2011 she beats up the spectre of “class war taxes” in response to Labor’s Budget. ( see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/federal-budget-2011/story-fn8melax-1226054252544   )

 In response:

Briefly, the main aim of the carbon tax is to create market signals to drive changes in investor and consumer behaviour: to do our part (as all nations must) in reducing emissions .

But that established: it is possible that modest distributive goals could be pursued as a by-product of overcompensation. And why not?

This brief article will consider inequality, redistribution and the double-standards at play with language of ‘class war’ which has been so common recently.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how attempts to tax the wealthy and relatively wealthy – to give a fair go for ordinary workers and the poor; or improve the wages and conditions of the most disadvantaged workers – is labelled “class war” in the right-populist monopoly media. And yet all these years that Australia has been drifting towards greater polarisation of wealth and income, and greater disadvantage for the poor: this has not aroused the same kind of ‘outrage’.

The wage share of the economy has been falling for decades; with an accompanying intensification of the rate of exploitation. 

Larvatus Prodeo reported this year that the wages share of national income was at its lowest level since 1964; slightly over 52%.  And to be fair the wage-share of the Australian economy had been contracting for decades under both Labor and Liberal governments; as the leadership of both parties accepted the notion that wages need be depressed to restore profitability.

See: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/06/labour-market-myth-busting/]  ;  And: http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/the-state-of-the-labour-market/

Yet if structural forces in the capitalist economic system were driving these changes; why then were workers not at least duly and properly compensated with collective capital share? 

 Even under Hawke in the 1980s, celebrated increases in the ‘social wage’ came in the form of tax cuts; and so necessarily led to a smaller pool of funds for welfare and services. A veritable ‘double-edged sword’.

But there is more. 

Under both Labor and Liberal governments – but especially under the Conservatives - the ‘tax mix’ has been restructured as to be less progressive. Income tax had been gradually ‘flattened’. Dividend imputation has reduced the proportionate tax burden of the wealthy; and the GST in taxing consumption has affected the poor disproportionately. Accompanying compensation for lower-income demographics, here, was largely neutralised by regressive restructuring of the tax and welfare mix elsewhere.

Meanwhile, concessions and incentives in superannuation for the relatively wealthy and the outright wealthy have come at the cost of potential social programs in health, education, aged care, infrastructure and welfare.  

Privatisation of retirement pensions may well lead in the future to the marginalisation of the public aged pension, with impoverishment for many women, and those disadvantaged whose labour market participation has been sporadic, or who have been trapped in ‘low-end’ jobs. 

It begs the question of whether the government should rather be pursuing a more progressive and democratic model of collective capital formation.

Furthermore for decades there has been increasing labour market deregulation, and an end to the old style of progressive cross subsidies for essential utilities as a consequence of privatisation – or of corporatisation in-anticipation of future privatisation.

Privatisation has also resulted in falling government revenues for vital social programs, and increased costs for everything from power and water, to the use of private toll roads.

‘User pays’ ends up having the same effect as regressive-flat taxation.  And demand for increased profit margins with privatisation have seen structural increases in the cost of basic necessities; while the added cost of borrowing for the private sector in order to modernise infrastructure has also been passed on to consumers.  And in these new markets – eg: for power – ‘small consumers’ are disadvantaged due to their limited purchasing power.

With regard to minimum wages, recently the ACTU has noted:

“While the average Australian income has jumped 21 per cent in real terms since 2000 and company profits have increased by 50% in the past five years alone, the real value of the minimum wage has increased just 7.1 per cent.” 

And also importantly during the Howard years:

“Average award wages dropped by around $30 a week and some award workers had their real wages cut by almost $100 a week.”

The ACTU has observed that falling minimum wages have affected over 1.4 million workers in recent years.  (See: http://www.actu.org.au/Issues/MinimumWagesCase.aspx )

And in addition to all this -  there are many workers – including on low incomes – who have faced reduced wages and/or conditions under the government’s ‘Award modernisation’ process – despite promises to the contrary.

Importantly: There are many who have no sympathy for the unemployed as a result of constant campaigns of vilification on the pretext that ‘dole-bludging’ is rife. And yet Australia has stringent active labour market policies, pursued under both Labor and Liberal governments, with provisions that could reasonably be described as ‘punitive’.

Under recent changes long-term unemployed will be compelled to work two days a week ‘for the dole’, and yet no corresponding increase in payments for these people has been announced.  http://thecourierpigeon.com.au/government-gets-tough-on-the-unemployed/851664/

The OECD has seen fit to criticise Newstart as woefully inadequate compared to unemployment pensions elsewhere.  Writing in late 2010 for ‘Inside Story’, Peter Whiteford reported how under Newstart “unemployed adults receive about $470 per fortnight”, and how  

“Since 1996 the level of Newstart for a single person has fallen from around 54 per cent to 45 per cent of the after-tax minimum wage.”  (despite the fact minimum wages themselves have fallen)

(see:  http://inside.org.au/why-unemployment-benefits-need-to-be-increased/ )

Finally, during the Howard years a number of programs sprung up that were lambasted as ‘middle class welfare’. Included, here, were Family Tax Benefits ‘A’ and ‘B’ – introduced to assist in the costs of child-rearing- and provided even to those on high incomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

There has been confusion, here, on the Left, with some arguing in favour of ‘universalism’.  But while many of us (this author included) support in-principle Swedish-style social-democratic universalism, the facts ‘on the ground’ in Australia are those of a relatively tight social wage and tax regime.  With a limited scope to expand progressive taxation, and hence expand welfare and social programs - a higher degree of targeting and means testing is necessary in the Australian context.    

Interestingly, though, Bernard Keane notes at ‘Crikey’ how Labor has failed to markedly reform the Family Tax Benefits regime.  He concludes how:

“In [Labor’s recent]…budget…[Family Tax Benefit payments are] forecast to cost $18 billion in 2011-12.”

And thus

“…FTBs are now Labor’s as much as they are Howard’s, which makes the “war on the middle class” rhetoric from News Limited and its journalists even more risible.” http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/12/why-labor-now-owns-middle-class-welfare/

All these years ‘redistribution’ has been going on.

Redistribution from low and middle income earners to the wealthy, and to the upper middle class. 

Redistribution from workers to the ‘corporate bottom line’ as a consequence of eroding real wage share, labour market deregulation, privatisation (including ‘Public Private Partnerships) and user pays. 

And more redistribution from workers to big corporations with effective ‘corporate welfare’, as corporations no longer contribute adequately or proportionately towards the costs of education and infrastructure from which they benefit.

 There has been impoverishment of pensioners – and especially the unemployed. (again I reiterate: despite stringent and indeed punitive active labour market policies)

 And there has been vilification of trade unions and stigmatisation/criminalisation of industrial action even where only used as a last resort.  This has resulted in a greatly reduced capacity for workers to fight back in the face of these changes.

So amidst all these changes over the past thirty years or so: how often have we heard terms like ‘class war’ thrown around in the mass media as a response?  

The answer: Not often. Not often at all. 

And yet if there is the prospect of  even a mild degree of redistribution in the context of overcompensation for the proposed carbon tax, the ‘class war bogey’ is brought out just as it always is when it comes to the interests of the privileged, and the relatively privileged. 

If those on lower and middle incomes are to receive a ‘fairer slice of the pie’ in terms of the tax mix, provision of social services, and welfare for those in need, it is only reasonable that those in the top 20% of incomes demographic pay their fair share one way or another.  If those on low to middle incomes are to enjoy a ‘fair go’ it can be no other way.

That said, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has recently announced that families on incomes above $150,000/year will miss out on carbon tax compensation. That’s roughly 10% of Australian families. (‘The Age’ 25/6/11)  

 Unfortunately – as far as redistribution via overcompensation goes, the kind of strategy it seems Gillard is suggesting would provide a far shallower pool of funds to work with than would be the case were the top 20% incomes demographic excluded. 

Perhaps given this context pensioners will miss out on overcompensation even under Labor; and those on low to middle incomes won’t receive the more robust degree of overcompensation they deserve.  This could prove a missed opportunity for Labor – in maximising the reconsolidation of its ‘class base’.  Although doubtless Gillard sees it as a strategic choice to keep more voters ‘on side’.

Nonetheless, perhaps it’s not too late for compromise. Perhaps if pressured by the Greens and Labor’s Left Prime Minister Gillard could strike an agreement to withhold compensation for the top 15% of households, to be redistributed to those genuinely ‘doing it tough’.  A higher carbon tax rate in this context could be another option - an alternative to lower compensation 'cut-off thresholds' - to increase the total pool of funds available for redistribution from the top 15% to those in genuine need.

Regardless of the very cautious and modest nature of Gillard’s proposal, doubtless it still will not please critics such as Miranda Devine, and other Murdoch writers.  Devine seems to have an aversion for the very concept of progressive redistribution – no matter how mild.  But as far as this author can tell she has barely considered the situation of those who have been left disadvantaged by decades of “neo-liberal reform”; and the very real process of redistribution which has occurred to the detriment of workers and the poor.   Indeed: After all these years of redistribution from low and middle income groups TO the wealthy and the upper middle class, the modest forms of progressive redistribution suggested here should simply be seen as a tentative move towards some kind of 'correction'.

Yes Labor is struggling in the polls. Elements of Labor’s core class support base have been drifting away gradually for a long time under the perception that Labor no longer represents their interests.   But the prospect of progressive redistribution to the advantage of the vast majority of Australians who are on low to middle incomes is what the conservatives are scared of.  They’re afraid of a Labor Party which takes action to re-consolidate its class base.

By contrast when the Conservatives speak of cutting taxes to reward ‘hard work’, they’re usually talking of ‘relief’ for those on higher incomes. The underlying assumption is that ‘the market is just’: that those on higher incomes deserve increased benefits for their effort.  The implication is that they work harder than others. 

 But in an Abbott ‘tax reform’ package, you can be certain that it is those on low incomes – including some very hard working people – who would miss out in outright terms compared with upper-middle class and wealthy taxpayers. 

We speak here of people on minimum wage and thereabouts: cleaners, child care workers, retail and hospitality workers, textiles workers, and many manufacturing workers.  These are the same people who would suffer from a winding back of the social wage, or the effective introduction of ‘flat taxes’ with user-pays mechanisms in the context of Public Private Partnerships.  And Abbott’s proposed tax cuts must draw from the Budget bottom-line somewhere.

Too many people have been disadvantaged and suffered injustice in recent decades. And it is a process which always accelerates under Conservative governments.

Increasingly, though, there are those who once felt they could depend on Labor to defend their rights and interests – who no longer believe this to be true.  This is even undermining Labor’s membership base; its mobilisation as a social movement.   

Now, though,  is Labor’s opportunity to re-establish its credentials as a party with values; a friend of the disadvantaged, and true to its class base.