FANG of the Apocalypse (part 1)

By Dr John Töns  We can celebrate the defeat of the Four Horsemen…

Nigel Farage’s Grand Tour of Sabotage: The PayPal…

He is all about being the romantic saboteur. He is destructive, hates…

Danger UXB

By Grumpy Geezer  The ticking bomb that is the L/NPNow that we're safe…

A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 9)

By Dr George Venturini  It appeared that Britons were being caught in a…

Dutton's naked power grab

"Our nation faces a slow decline if it takes no action on…

The Fragility of Democracy: Hong Kong, China and…

It has been a history of turns and the occasional betrayal, but…

The falsity of fake news

By Henry Johnston  Difficult to pin down when this narrative actually began, but…

Fields of Deceit

“For the farmer sows his fieldsOf barley, oats or wheat.While the lawyer…

«
»
Facebook

Tristan Ewins – Tristan is a freelance writer, PhD graduate, qualified teacher, blogger, social commentator and ALP Socialist Left activist of over 20 years. He has written for The Canberra Times and several online publications – most prolifically at On Line Opinion. He blogs at Left Focus, ALP Socialist Left Forum and the Movement for a Democratic Mixed Economy.

Website: http://alpsocialistleft.blogspot.com.au/

Jordan Peterson gets it wrong again on inequality

Jordan Peterson has made another intervention ; arguing against ‘equity politics’ as opposed to what passes for ‘equality of opportunity’ in Western societies. For his own purposes he defines ‘equality’ as ‘equality under the law’ and ‘meritocracy’ as far as it has progressed in Western society. (We could also add free, universal and equal suffrage ; amongst whose most early ardent advocates were socialists).

By contrast ‘equity’ is argued as inferring ‘equality of outcome’. (For some the goal is even role reversal).

Because the main focus on the Left these days appears to be gender, Peterson focuses on gender also. Along the way he makes some interesting points (and also some shallow, Conservative assertions).

Amongst the “interesting” points:

  • Only a tiny proportion of men actually occupy positions in the ‘ruling class’.
  • Corporate Affirmative Action in Sweden has had almost no impact on the prospects and lives of working class women.
  • ‘Equity’ can be interpreted as ‘sameness’: but men and women may not freely choose to be ‘the same’ if given the choice.
  • Some women accept a ‘trade off’ of free time for lower incomes ; and that is an acceptable choice.
  • Further ; providing OPPORTUNITY doesn’t mean women will take those opportunities ; and old patterns in the labour market may be replicated here and there even after significant efforts to ‘open the way’ (eg: Peterson mentions Mathematicians, Engineers, Physicists).
  • ‘Sameness’ is not the same as ‘equality’ or ‘justice’.

But in response: it is legitimate to break down barriers to women’s (and men’s) participation in non-traditional realms ; without creating new stereotypes, disincentives and barriers for either sex.

Peterson argues that “the Equity Doctrine” “has gone too far”. He seems to assume that ‘Western meritocracy’ is the best system ; with (in fact extreme) inequality as functional to the creation of prosperity.

But many Socialists themselves have assumed ‘perfect equality’ is unachievable and undesirable, even under socialism. Social Democratic Marxists Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein variously made that point that for the foreseeable future there would remain differences of remuneration based on skill, effort, and the undesirable and unpleasant nature of some labour.

Whatever you think of ‘communism in practice’ the ultimate (theoretical) ‘communist goal’ assumes free and non-alienated labour ; where there is abundance ; and labour has become ‘life’s prime want’ ; and diverse and fulfilling in nature. This principle can inform policy today ; but without true abundance it cannot be fully realised.

There are other questions as well. Such as ‘co-ercive laws of competition’ as they apply not only to enterprises, but also to nation-states. (Competition can drive less desirable labour and social conditions). And resultant economic forces mitigate against the retreat of alienating human labour.

Further, the welfare state itself demands an economic base ; and as the Swedes showed, this was best supported by policies ensuring full employment.

In practical terms, though, those socialist principles can be furthered through educational, social and cultural opportunity ; voluntary job rotation ; a reduced working week and opportunities for fulfilling voluntary labour. And the viability of which can be supported by a strong social wage, and regime of social insurance.

Peterson argues “the Left can go too far” ; and he mentions the Soviets ; Maoists ; the Khmer Rouge, Cuba and today’s Venezuela. What this has to do with the feminism he discusses (which seems to be his central focus) is lost on this writer. Also missing in this grandiose dismissal is any consideration of ‘capitalist atrocities’. Wars such as World War One with tens of millions killed; the massacres of over half a million in Indonesia in the 1960s ; and over 300,000 in Guatemala in the 1980s.

To that we could add atrocities and oppression elsewhere in Central and South America. And the War in Vietnam ; which spilled over into the US bombing of Cambodia and Laos ; destabilising Cambodia with the consequent rise of the Khmer Rouge.

And indeed while the current Venezuelan Government is not ideal, its developing inclination to repression is informed by foreign intervention and destabilisation, including sanctions and direct support for an usurper against the elected government. Venezuela’s actual policies (support co-operatives ; support for public education, housing and health ; socialise oil profits) are not at all ‘extreme’ in the ‘wide sweep’ of history. Venezuela’s future must be decided by the Venezuelans (UN involvement in elections may be acceptable) ; and not by US intervention.

But the real problem with Peterson, here, is that any robust democratic socialist program is associated with ‘the Left going too far’ ; and hence rejected out of hand. Peterson assumes an essential link between socialism and totalitarianism which does not stand up in the face of various other examples ; such as the Austro-Marxist experience between 1917 and 1934.

The connection Peterson tries to draw between the ‘equity politics’ he discusses – and Stalinism – is also threadbare.

To conclude ; some ‘equity’ policies – such as quotas applied to representative government – may be workable and desirable ; but too cumbersome to introduce to every sector of society. And it begs the question why we are not considering the place of social class in all of this. Which is the main factor in discrepancies of economic and political power.

Also, the most efficient correctives for inequality may well go beyond quotas. For instance ; Subsidies for ‘feminised’ sectors such as Aged Care and Child Care which typically involve exploitation. Or comprehensive universal and socialised health care. A regulated labour market and industrial liberties. A fully funded and first class public education system, including free Tertiary education. And the opening up of ‘education for active and critical citizenship’ to everyone ; including a balanced consideration of the entire political spectrum, and the promotion of political activism for a healthy democracy.

Again as Sweden demonstrated during its ‘golden age’ : a strong and comprehensive welfare state, social wage, social insurance regime – can provide for real social security and happiness. And that social security also makes it easier for industries to modernise ; with transitions ‘softened’ by re-education and training ; and by active industry policies which seek to maintain full employment ; and create new jobs for displaced workers (where possible making the most of existing skills sets).

Peterson tries to construct some simplistic opposition between “equal opportunity/meritocracy” and “equity/equality of outcome”.

In fact there is a ‘democratic socialist middle ground’ here.

Meritocracy and equal opportunity are often myth-like. Schools are not equally-resourced. Class often dictates educational opportunity. Gross inequality results in a ‘capitalist aristocracy’ dominated by billionaires – who have political access and influence ordinary citizens can barely dream of. The heights of power in the US particularly are influenced by nepotism and private fund-raising (by capitalists).

Meanwhile, in the US especially a ‘middle class’ is constructed as a political support base ; but even these could be rendered destitute through unanticipated health expenses where there is not sufficient health insurance.

The postulated ‘middle class’ (much of which is working class in fact) is ‘disciplined’ through fear of descent into the working poor (Walmart pays $11/hour and that is a big improvement on the past ; the federal minimum wage in the U.S. [is] $7.25 ) ; and the working poor are ‘disciplined’ through fear of descent into utter destitution.

Further ; to provide a more ‘global’ perspective: In early 2019, Oxfam claimed that the World’s 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%.

With appropriate social wage, welfare and social insurance policies ; as well as labour market liberties and regulation ; and a genuinely and strongly progressive tax system it is possible to have much greater equality without resort to ‘extremes’. The establishment of a robust mixed economy, and support for co-operative enterprise ought not be rendered ‘marginal’ either ; and the Mondragon experience in Spain is instructive.  It is also arguable that such combined policies can be more effective than cumbersome quotas applied to every aspect and corner of society. Though in certain instances gender quotas have proved very effective ; for instance in promoting women’s representation in Australia’s Parliamentary Labor Party.

In short ; Peterson tries to construct an opposition between ‘equality of opportunity/meritocracy’ and ‘equity/equality of outcome’. He ignores any potential ‘democratic socialist middle ground’; and he virtually ignores the aspect of social class which is fundamental to economic inequality ; and crosses lines of gender, race, ethnicity and so on. His resort to examples of Stalinism and Maoism is shallow and simplistic. It is true that parts of today’s Left deter internal dissent through the threat of ostracism ; and sometimes it is taken too far.  But with regard the ‘democratic Left’, Peterson’s references to Stalinism and Maoism would appeal only to the easily convinced and ideologically prejudiced.

Here’s to genuine equality of  opportunity ; and to such a degree of economic equality that would put paid to the ‘the capitalist aristocracy’ ; lift working people up from exploitation and poverty ; and empower ordinary citizens in democracy.

Bibliography

fbclid=IwAR1cZHuBxXZvYFSTO17Vy7h3LxSJ_j-H3YI33K3xuzGqnH3XeI8-kYAixhU

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/walmart-ceo-federal-minimum-wage-is-lagging-congress-should-act.html

https://medium.com/@jordanbpeterson/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far-e36c216b3564?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report

This article was originally published on ALP Social Left Forum.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Emotion and ideology: Liberal strategies and Labor responses

The Conservatives won the recent election in Australia largely because ‘they pushed all the most effective emotional buttons’ ; and had the ‘Power Resources’ to do so most thoroughly. Labor had comprehensive, rational policies in the economic interests of a clear majority of Australians. And yet still Labor lost.

In order to trace some of the causes beyond this result we need to consider the place of emotion and moral judgement in political activity and choice.

What follows is a brief consideration of the science: after which there is a much more significant consideration of the political ramifications.

In his work ‘Hayek versus Marx’, Socialist intellectual, Eric Aarons ; who had a background including a Science Degree in University noted that:

“The cortex or thin covering layer of the frontal lobes of the brain is the focal point for our reasoning capacity.” (Aarons p 107).

He further considers the observation of the scientist, Damasio, that:

“secondary” emotions…have to go through the cortical reasoning centre to activate the body…”

Thus he concludes there is a: “connection between emotion, reason and action…”

For Aarons, this is corroborated by Damasio’s work in the case study of “Elliot’:

Here an “orange-size tumour” was “removed from the right frontal lobe of his brain…” When tested [he] did well in moral judgement – and in providing solutions to social problems… But thereafter he remarked “And after all this, I still wouldn’t know what to do!”

Damasio realised:

“the connections between the emotional and the reasoning centres of Elliot’s brain had been severed by the operation to remove the tumour from his right frontal lobe…”

Thus, in light of this analysis, we are provided with a rationale as to why:

moral sentiments spurred action more strongly than reason”… (Aarons, pp 107-108).

Reason and moral sentiments (partly emotional in origin), thus, ought to be taken together: the entirety of the human psyche directed towards the tasks of justice, solidarity, kindness, progress and survival.

Again ; Labor’s loss can be explained in part by the Conservatives’ superior Power Resources.  A sympathetic Conservative Press, a cowed ABC, the active support of a billionaire willing to pour tens of millions into a campaign to channel preferences to the Liberal-National Coalition.

Reforming Civics Educations has some potential to get people thinking rationally and making consistent values-based decisions (which is why some Conservatives oppose curricula reform for  active and critical citizenship ; even where there is no Ideological prejudice). But it will always be a mix of reason and emotion ; and emotion will be perhaps the most significant motivating factor.

Obviously Labor still has a very significant working class base ; but there are also ‘working class Tories’ – who while a minority, do a lot of damage. A 3.5% swing to Clive Palmer ; and a comparable vote for One Nation – were enough to swing the election on preferences. And unless we can somehow restore a sense of class consciousness, things will get worse.

The problem is that Conservative propaganda is carefully crafted around a series of ‘mythologies’. And it works. The stigmatization of class conflict ‘from below’ (while rationalising and naturalising class warfare ‘waged from above’). ‘Aspirational’ Ideology ; the stigmatisation of distributive justice as ‘the politics of envy’. We have to tear these ideas apart in the public sphere or we will always be operating in a context of Liberal Ideology. That must involve a mixture of rational deconstruction ; and appeal to emotions of Hope, Love, Social Solidarity and Righteous Anger.

Genuinely progressive policies can inspire Hope exactly because they appeal to instincts of social solidarity and compassion ; while addressing fears of homelessness or joblessness ; or being ‘cast adrift’ amidst medical costs (eg: dental) which can spiral out of control. A rehabilitation of some ‘class struggle’ discourse could also emphasise that the class war is being actively waged against the working class and the vulnerable. But that a struggle for justice is not some ‘politics of envy’, and does not deserve stigma.

But perhaps part of the problem is the dominance of emotion in politics – especially fear. As opposed to rational consideration of policies within a values framework. German intellectual Jurgen Habermas strove for a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ of enlightened and rational exchange to deliver socialism. But to a degree we have to come to terms with the place of emotion. Because it cannot be entirely changed. And emotional themes can add power and momentum to our own policies. That’s not entirely bad. The problem is that it also leaves us open to cynical manipulation.

Conservatives in Australia have always rejected trade unions and class struggle waged by workers ; whether for ‘a fairer share of the pie’ in its modest form ; or socialism in its radical form. Religion has also played a part. Divisions between Catholics and Protestants, and ‘loyalty to Empire’ fuelled Philip Game’s dismissal of the New South Wales Lang Labor Government in the 1930s. At the time several quasi-fascist militias had also been formed ‘for fear of Communism’ (and Catholics) Lang had refused to repay ‘war debts’ to Britain incurred in the mobilisation of the First AIF (Australian Imperial Force) – which suffered over 60,000 casualties (deaths) during World War One. But Catholic hostility to Communism also led to the split of the Labor Party in the 1950s, and the formation of the Democratic Labour Party – which supported and reinforced Conservative Governments for decades.

Historically, the emotional/moral climate shifted significantly during the Hawke years. Hawke’s themes of ‘reconciliation’ helped capture the imagination of a generation ; not least of all because it brought the corporate sector on board. The corporates saw they could gain under a Hawke government via corporatist arrangements (though temporary because of the labour movement’s decline ; and the resulting disinterest of business once it had got what it wanted). Partly this involved economic restructuring and reforms that were helpful for the Australian economy’s continued success. But it also involved a ‘management’ of the labour movement’s decline as opposed to a stronger fight to prevent it.

The right to withdraw labour in many circumstances was abandoned while promoting rhetoric of ‘reconciliation’. Industrial action was reduced in the public imagination to “disruption” ; where ‘conflict’ was considered ‘bad’. This confirmed popular aversion to “union power”. Unless it was ‘responsible’ (ie: cowed and passive). For years the message was hammered home: industrial action was ‘disruptive’ ; and Labor’s relations with the unions could prevent industrial action. Blue collar unions were stigmatised (in the media and by the Liberals) in a play to old class prejudices between ‘white collar’ and ‘blue collar’ workers ; with persistent delusions by some that they were ‘middle class’. There is still much of this with popular perceptions of the CFMEU.

In part you could say it was a matter of ‘Power Resources’ ; with a compromise based on the balance of class forces. But Swedish unions never compromised as much as Australian unions under the Accords and after. And the Accord never delivered anything remotely ‘Nordic’ in scale.

Since then the monopoly mass media has carefully ‘pushed our emotional buttons’ to shape the political climate of the country. ‘Union power’ equalled ‘thuggery’ and ‘disruption and inconvenience to the public’. Apparently, so do mass protests. Amidst structural unemployment, the jobless were vilified as ‘freeloaders’ and pressed into forced labour. An ‘aspirational’ Ideology was developed to divide the working class ; and con middle income workers into supporting economically Liberal policies which were not in their interests. “Aspirational” Ideology was contrasted with policies of ‘Envy” and ‘Class War’ ; which were morally dismissed as undermining social cohesion ; and ‘getting in the way’ of those willing to “have a go”. (the Liberals’ most recent rhetoric in undermining what remains of the nation’s egalitarian traditions).

The campaign to ‘stop the boats’ played overwhelmingly on fear ; and ‘the Tampa election’ (2001) was won on the basis of moral condemnation and fears founded on false claims of refugees ‘throwing children overboard’.

Importantly ; the rise of the New Left in the 1960s – and its later development into today’s social movements – was depicted in such a way as to split the working class. Conservatives developed a discourse on so-called ‘Left Elites’ ; ‘the Latte set’ and ‘Chardonnay Socialists’ – who were ‘out of touch’ with ‘mainstream Australia’. Social conservatism was cultivated in much of the monopoly mass media, and was appealed to in order to divide ‘the Left intelligentsia’ from ‘the mainstream’ (ie: the majority of the working class). The most ‘extreme’ examples of ‘Political Correctness’ were reported at regular intervals in order to maximise popular resentment. And ‘the PC class’ was depicted as being ‘arrogantly judgmental’ against the popular majority (who just happened to be the working class).

The impression that Labor might repress ‘religious liberties’ may also be a ‘bridge’ too far. There is a conflict of rights here which can only be negotiated – it cannot be resolved. Long term, the reaction cannot and will not ‘turn back the clock’ on sexual liberties. But if Labor is not careful – and allows a polarisation to occur – a resurgent Christian Conservatism could be instrumental in delivering victory to the Conservatives.

Right-Libertarian small government philosophy (manifest at times in the Institute of Public Affairs and Centre for Independent Studies) has promoted the idea that capitalists and workers all have an inalienable right to whatever wages, profits or dividends they receive in the ‘marketplace’. Labor had been complicit in the small government and privatisation Ideologies for decades. Finally, under Shorten Labor embraced significant (though still modest) progressive tax reform. But now that a scare campaign has contributed to its defeat, it might be reluctant to venture there again.

The idea that “tax is theft” undermines notions of social solidarity, collective consumption and social insurance. Even though these deliver significant results for all workers. Implicit is a moral judgement: “tax is theft, and no-one has a right to take YOUR money”. A ‘death tax’ (eg: an inheritance tax or death duties) is thought to be particularly offensive ; hence the (dishonest) Liberal scare campaign. It is no coincidence that inheritance taxes could mainly impact upon the bourgeoisie. And the fact that employers expropriate surplus value from workers apparently has no place in this discourse.

These efforts have not been entirely successful. Again, Labor retains a significant base. The New Social Movements which emerged from the New Left together involve a significant base of mobilisation and influence. Though they are not a replacement for the strategic location and significance of the working class.

Arguably, humanity possesses instincts of social solidarity which have been essential to its survival. And most people care for family who might end up enduring horrors in under-resourced nursing homes ; or may linger for over a year waiting for home-care packages.

Exploitation of workers – especially of those on the lowest wages – can also be argued as theft. Citizens have every rational reason to fear that Conservatives aim to gradually undermine the nation’s ‘social safety net’ ; and atomise workers and lower wages while reducing their bargaining power. And to lose your job usually means relegation to destitution under Newstart ; and forced to exhaust your savings. For both young and mature workers job prospects can often be bleak. Conservative hostility to Socialised Medicine (eg: Medicare) is also much more than a ‘Labor scare campaign’. A ‘flat tax’ may seem fair superficially ; but would take from low to middle income workers and redistribute to the rich. Finally, there has been a backlash against the open ended detainment of asylum seekers in concentration camps ; and indifference and narrow self-interest in face of the threat of Climate Change to the Planet.

By contrast there is the hope that a Labor Government could fund a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme. It could re-regulate the lower end of the labour market ; subsidise the wages of child care workers and aged care workers ; consolidate and increase Newstart while abolishing labour conscription ; consolidate the ‘social safety net’ – expanding Medicare into Dental ; expanding public housing ; funds to eliminate homelessness. Labor could ‘fine tune’ the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme). Further ; Labor could implement onshore processing of asylum seekers. It could lead the way on climate change with direct investment in renewables. And it could restructure the tax system: including the addition of new brackets, and the indexation of lower brackets to prevent the vicious cycle of bracket-creep and regressive tax cuts (leading gradually to flat taxation).

Again, though, Labor faces an imbalance of Power Resources. It must fight to end the influence of ‘Big Money’ in Politics. And together we must resist moves to ban organisations like GetUp! from actively campaigning during elections. We must mobilise our own resources to challenge the monopoly mass media. And upon achieving government we must implement policies for true media diversity. In the face of massive opposition, we need to develop the strategy and tactics to fight the Conservatives against the odds and win.

There is also the possibility that the Liberal victory is a ‘poison chalice’ in that escalating tensions and trade war will help lead to economic downturn.

There are those who will argue that some of these policies ‘have been tried but failed’. But if Labor renounces a distributive justice agenda it abandons its very reason for being. Labor must respond with regroupment, rather than retreating into an insipid Blairite Centrism. Labor must be the Party of progress ; though for that we also need some idea of what we want to progress towards. I have suggested a short term agenda here ; but long term we must ask more fundamental questions about capitalism. By making emotional and moral appeals ; with a mixture of messages at a variety of levels – from the complex to the simplified and the concise. And also promoting clear moral judgement and policy evaluation.

Labor needs to re-evaluate its strategy and tactics without abandoning substance. That is the path to a possible future Labor victory.

Bibliography

Aarons, Eric; Hayek versus Marx And Today’s Challenges; Routledge. New York, 2009

 

This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Labor must draw lessons from Electoral Defeat – But not Compromise its Values

By Dr Tristan Ewins

Labor has lost what had been seen as an unlosable election. How could everything go so wrong? How could the polls have got it all so wrong?

Firstly, here, is the United Australia Party vote and Clive Palmer’s money. Regardless of whether he achieves a Senate seat, Palmer is channelling roughly 3.5% of the vote in the form of Liberal preferences. What can Labor do about ‘big money’ in politics? Nothing straight away; but over the long term the rules must be changed so billionaires cannot ‘buy their way into parliament’. Or otherwise ‘harvest preferences’ for the Conservatives. Labor needs to run hard on this over the long term.

Secondly, there was the re-invention of Scott Morrison – as ‘Sco-Mo’. ‘Sco-Mo’ was supposed to be ‘an everyman’s politician’. With his baseball cap; at various sporting events; a dad and a Christian.

This may have been clearly shallow for many of us, but obviously, it gelled with a great number of people. The Liberals chose to focus on ‘the character of Sco-Mo’ and to distract from the dysfunction within ‘the Liberal Team’. The strategy was reinforced in Newscorp media over months. Labor failed to smash this invented idea of ‘Sco-Mo the every-man’s politician’ when it should have tackled it head-on.

Thirdly: the Liberals turned to all the usual prejudices against Labor. The propaganda asserted ‘Labor can’t handle money’; and warned of  ‘the Bill Australia can’t afford’. The fear campaign was not sufficiently interrogated in the media; and ultimately it worked. Labor failed to establish that deficits have continued under the Liberals – and much more than necessary because of measures enhancing the incomes of the – already-rich; and that a deficit was, in fact, necessary under Rudd in order to stimulate the economy and avoid recession.

In fact, there was a narrow base to much of Labor’s tax reform. Measures on franking credits affected less than 5% of the population. But Labor did not establish this in the public consciousness either.

Further, there is the melding of neo-liberal Ideology and the legacy of 80s ‘reconciliation politics’.

The Hawke-Keating governments delivered Medicare, superannuation and various tax reforms. But they also consolidated in the public consciousness that class conflict was ‘bad’. And it was up to unions to ‘take a hit’ with wage restraint for the sake of the economy, but without the delivery of anything ‘Nordic’ in return. The problem was that once the unions traded away a general right to withdraw labour, and conceded to enterprise bargaining – as its position further weakened it had little else to bargain with.  And ‘reconciliation’ was seen as organised labour’s responsibility to be flexible in response to ‘employer needs’.

The ALP started talking about reducing the number of days lost to strikes as a virtue in of itself; when in fact it was also a signal of a weakening movement. Where the legitimacy of industrial action itself had been reduced to an impression of ‘disruption, thuggery, and unnecessary inconvenience to the public’. Here all redistribution is also reduced to ‘the politics of envy’.

The Liberals speak of “a fair go for those who have a go”. But was Morrison arguing that cleaners, nurses, child care workers, aged care workers, teachers – do not ‘have a go’? This is the same kind of warped take on ‘meritocracy’ which ‘naturalises’ privilege and inequality. But Gina Rinehart did not ‘work her way to prosperity’. And yet inheritance taxation is still stigmatised as a ‘death tax’; and this also featured in Liberal disinformation and scare campaigns.

Morrison tried to ‘shame’ Shorten for ‘not looking a man on a $200,000 income in the eye’ that he was increasing his tax by 2 per cent. (!)  Shorten should have responded strongly that the flattening of the tax system had to stop, and everyone else was paying the price. But he did not confront Morrison directly on this. This was a wasted opportunity that let Morrison off the hook in constructing his ‘meritocratic mythology’.

For decades the ALP was also complicit in the politics of ‘small government’. Breaking that consensus was always going to be difficult after all this time. As things are reform here has to be slow, deliberate and cautious. But without such a plan Labor cannot achieve any significant reform agenda.

Also, there was the question of Morrison’s alleged Christianity and the case of Israel Folau. Themes of ‘freedom of religion’ could have been a real sleeper issue which influenced a significant number of votes. Labor needs to balance freedom of religion with anti-discrimination measures. Much scripture in many faiths contains elements which grate against the grain of modern liberal society. But effectively repressing the expression of the contents of scripture might simply consolidate a significant portion of ‘the Christian vote’ in the Conservative camp. There’s a clash of liberties and rights which simply cannot be resolved: it can only be negotiated. But even accepting religious freedoms, there will be no ‘turning back the clock’ on minority rights when it comes to issues like equal marriage.  At the same time, we cannot make it easy for the Conservatives to ‘divide and conquer’.

This is a devastating loss for Labor. It amounts to a victory of fear over hope and vision. But Labor cannot give in. It needs to draw tactical and strategic lessons without abandoning its values. Labor cannot give in on the project of restructuring the tax mix to pay for social wage and social insurance measures. Next time Labor needs to look at tax reform in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP: but squarely aimed at the top 10% demographic. And Labor needs to establish that the remainder will not be adversely affected. With the exception that superannuation tax concessions still need to be tackled; and may cost the Budget tens of billions into the future if this is not done. And perhaps with the additional exception of a dedicated progressive levy to fund a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme. The Aged Care Royal Commission should provide momentum.

Labor also needs to establish that a ‘flattening of the tax system’ means that most of us pay proportionately more: not just through the tax system itself; but also as a consequence of the user pays which ensues.

The coming term will be marked most likely by economic crisis – intensified by the trade war between the US and China.  And by the moral imperative of responding to the Royal Commission on Aged Care. If the Liberals take Australia into recession Labor needs to punish them on this relentlessly.  And ‘burst the bubble’ of ‘Liberal economic management’. In addition to pressing hard for a full implementation of Royal Commission recommendations on Aged Care, Labor needs to continue focusing on restoration of funding for the NDIS and Gonski education recommendations. Next time we need to provide certainty that we will legislate for a higher minimum wage; and also address the income of low-wage workers more broadly. (That includes through the social wage.)

Most importantly Labor needs to debunk the Liberals’ warped construction of ‘meritocratic Ideology’. Labor needs to establish that all kinds of people work hard, and we should not be naturalising privilege. This is a core Ideological battleground which Labor must contest if it wants to embrace policies involving distributive justice.  And to make sure the public is fully aware of the arguments next time the entire movement needs to begin campaigning on these principles and issues immediately.  We have three to four years and we cannot afford to waste a single day.

Finally, there is the question of the labour movement and broader social movements’ response to inevitable Conservative austerity. Progressive social forces need to prepare for a defensive fight against austerity, and continue the fight for wage justice at the industrial level.

The danger is that Labor will retreat into a conservative ‘small target’ strategy.  Instead, Labor needs to draw tactical and strategic lessons while remaining true to its values.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it, even more, knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

In a reflection in Saturday’s Age (11/5) Merle Mitchell explained that institutionalization in aged care left her without a home. Institutionalized care can mean a loss of social networks and community. In her opinion, there was the feeling that death would be a better resolution for everyone. Fortunately, though, she did not lose contact with…

Read more

What’s at stake in the election?

In the Herald-Sun (14/1/19) Prime Minister, Scott Morrison claims to stand for “A fair go for all Aussies”. But how does it relate to Liberal policy in practice? We should build a society where everyone has a roof over their head, access to transport, and a nutritious diet for themselves and their children. Where no-one is excluded from the technology (especially social media) which is necessary today for job-seeking, but also social inclusion. A regulated labour market must deliver wage justice to all workers, including in exploited feminised industries. Cost-of-Living is crucial. No-one should be overwhelmed by the cost of insurance, or various unavoidable bills. Welfare needs to increase in real terms ; with greater incentives and assistance for the disabled to at least retain contact with the labour market where possible. Education should be provided not only to assist in obtaining a career: but also for personal development and growth ; and the promotion of active and informed citizenship. Reform of Aged Care is crucial for the dignity of older Australians – but that requires extra billions annually rather than the ‘token gestures’ we usually receive. The Cost-of-Living Crisis has been exacerbated by ’user pays’ and the privatisation of ‘Natural Public Monopolies’ (eg: in energy, water, communications) which used to deliver superior cost structures both to private consumers and business. But the Liberals have a record on obsessively pursuing ‘small government’; which means they can never deliver to the Australian people on these issues. They will cut essential services (eg: Health) in order to hold ‘the size of government’ down ; to pay for unsustainable tax cuts for the well-off; and to suit their Ideology no matter what the real-world consequences. They will attack unions: and that could mean further downward pressure on wages and conditions for millions of workers.

Coalition deceitful when it comes to Labor and Taxes

The Herald-Sun (Rob Harris 24/1) claims that Labor threatens Australians with ‘$200 billion in new taxes.’ But this statement is highly misleading. To get in perspective we need to ask: “over how many years?”, and “what per cent of GDP?” In fact, Labor’s overall tax increase amount to in the vicinity less than 1 per cent of GDP a year. And those reforms are designed for progressivity – a fair go for those on low and middle incomes. By comparison, lower and middle-income families can expect better health care, better education resourcing for their kids, more affordable housing for young families. There will also be tax cuts for lower and middle-income earners. Regulatory reform of Aged Care (as implemented by the Federal Government) is welcome, but the associated problems (abuse or neglect of our loved ones) will not be solved without a very significant commitment of new resources. As with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) : into the billions. We need a consensus in this country between the parties that the health, aged care and educational needs of Australians are non-negotiable – and will not be traded in return for achieving the Ideological goal of ‘smaller government no matter what’. Labor needs to ‘come to the party’ on Aged Care reform as well.

‘Collective Consumption’ Superior to ‘User Pays’

The Federal Government is pushing the line that ‘small government and lower taxes’ are preferable because it’s better for people to have personal control of their spending. But in fact, lower taxes can leave voters much worse off. Where would we be without the tax-funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme – which uses the purchasing power of government to provide cheaper medicines? Where would we be without Medicare? In America the cost of health care is roughly double of Australia ; though arguably we have better outcomes. Despite a large element of ‘User Pays’, Aged Care is inadequate and cannot be ‘fixed’ without funding for infrastructure, and for the pay and training of Aged Care workers and nurses. Also, arguably thanks to lower taxes and ‘small government’ governments no longer provide infrastructure such as roads ‘for free’. The private sector borrows at an inferior rate, and the alternative of ‘toll roads’can hit those on lower incomes and outer suburbs hardest. Finally, most Australians would prefer to trust in the state education system ; but knowing the sector is under-resourced many go well beyond their means to provide private schooling for their kids. It makes sense to ‘get the balance right’ on tax rather than ‘race to the bottom’.

What’s Happening in Venezuela

(Responding on Venezuela in ‘Your Say’) It is not ‘socialism’ which is destroying Venezuela. Causes of the crisis include external destabilisation and intervention, rampant corruption, hyper-inflation and plummeting oil prices. Although under Hugo Chavez (before Maduro) GDP per head sky-rocketed ; unemployment was slashed ; infant mortality was almost halved and general health also improved markedly. It begs the question what the government might have achieved without the corruption and destabilisation. ‘Socialism’ was not the problem. And certainly “democratic socialist” governments as epitomised by the Nordic examples do not fit the mould presented by Rita Panahi. Nonetheless, some report repression as being on the rise in Venezuela ; and some people are talking up the prospects of US intervention and/or war. Though Guaido seems to be free to mobilise and agitate without suppression from the Venezuelan Government. The history of US interventions in Central and South America speaks for itself: with hundreds of thousands killed in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile and Nicaragua. Venezuela is in ‘an alliance of convenience’ with countries including Iran and Russia: and that also makes it a target for intervention.  But ‘interests’ aside ; the West needs to support the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people. We need a process of power-sharing and compromise leading to a general election some time over the next couple of years. We do not need war.

Yes, the Nordics were Socialist

Chris Collins (11/1) argues that the Nordic countries have never been “socialist” because they have not conformed to the original Marxist definition of the centralisation of the means of production in state hands. In reality, though, there were always a variety of definitions, and even Marxists themselves have revised their understandings. Socialist aspirations include ending exploitation and the class system ; and reducing inequalities to a fair level. In Marx’s words, to advance the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need’. That includes a strong welfare state and social wage ; involving not only natural public monopolies and strategic state ownership ; but also producers’ and consumers’ co-operatives, democratic funds, and a mix of competition, markets and planning. Socialism also means building an economy focused on ‘use values’ (not just maximising abstract exchange value ; eg: preserving the natural environment). But we’re in a global economy: which means we have to live with the transnational corporations. Arguably, we live in a ‘One Dimensional Society’ where substantially different social alternatives are excluded from discussion. What’s needed is robust pluralism: where socialism is part of the debate ; and hence a genuine option in the broader context of democracy.

Fixing Aged Care is incompatible with Tax Cuts and ‘Small Government’

The Herald-Sun (13/2/19) outlines serious cases of neglect in nursing homes run by Bupa. But as recognised in the same article, there is a more general shortfall in the provision of services as well. The Aged Care Crisis cannot be resolved without very significant new provision of resources. ‘Giving with one hand only to take with the other’ is not good enough. Only billions in new funding will provide for the needs of the Aged: including a sufficient improvement in ratios of nurses to residents, and of aged care workers to residents. Those workers (overwhelmingly women) also deserve improvements in pay in conditions given the demanding nature of their work. And Home care packages need to be made available where-ever and when-ever the need arises. These packages need to promote social engagement and combat loneliness as well as enabling aged Australians to remain in their homes. Finally, the quality of facilities needs to improve markedly. Residents need privacy ; but also more to do than being sat down in common rooms in front of television sets all day. This is not compatible with agendas for ‘smaller government’.

Shorten ‘Nudging in the Right Direction’

(Responding to the Herald-Sun Your Say). Ron Hobba decries what he sees as Bill Shorten’s ‘divisive’ policies on social justice and redistribution. On the other hand, there is a glaring need for more investment in aged care, disability services, health, education, transport and communications infrastructure, and so on. Pensioners are also struggling, and Newstart is so low as to actually inhibit any search for work. Governments need to work out the fairest way of paying for services, infrastructure and social security. Otherwise we will have user pays and privatisation which is more expensive for consumers in the end. Especially those on low incomes, many of whom work just as hard as those on higher incomes. Also, some tax measures (eg: superannuation tax concessions) subsidise the already-well-off to the tune of billions and billions. In this context everyone needs to pay their fair share. And it’s not fair to give tax generous breaks to the already-wealthy while other Australians’ wages stagnate. If anything, Shorten’s measures are way too modest: but they are ‘nudging in the right direction.’

Is it only Business who ‘create jobs’?

J.Muir (YS, March 28th) argues it is businesses, not governments who create jobs. Strictly speaking this is not true. Government can create jobs in Education, Health, support for Aged Care, public housing, security services, parks and gardens, and all kinds of infrastructure (communications, transport etc). In the days of ‘the mixed economy’ government businesses actually enhanced competition while also delivering a public dividend. Think the Commonwealth Bank, the GIO (Government Insurance Office) and so on. Before governments had been stripped of their assets via privatisations – all kinds of social goods and services used to be provided more efficiently as well. Government has a superior rate on its borrowings ; and did not need to pay for excessive CEO salaries, dividends to private shareholders, and so on. This consensus on ‘the mixed economy’ prevailed even in Menzies’ time. But today both Liberal and Labor ‘have form’ on privatisation. Though typically the Conservatives go much further (eg: privatising ‘poles and wires’ in NSW). The problem with funding new infrastructure through privatisations is that sooner or later the assets run out. And what can be done then except further User-Pays ; or more desirably – pay for it through progressive tax (as should have been done in the first place)?

Bill’s Budget Reply

“Bill Shorten made a strong Budget Reply ; critiquing the largesse the Coalition is providing for high income Australians through tax cuts. And providing little for the working poor and the most vulnerable. Shorten promises a ‘living wage’ ; and perhaps most significantly to provide billions to assist Australians struggling with cancer: to get them the help they need without falling into poverty. On the other hand, Chris Bowen has promised taxes will not rise. Instead the focus is on closing loopholes and eliminating unfair rebates. But for several elections now neither side of politics has paid sufficient attention to Aged Care and Mental Health. While many seniors wait in the vicinity of a two years for ‘stay at home packages’, those in residential care face chronic neglect. There must be a registered nurse available at all times, and there’s a need for quotas when it comes to aged care staff. Even if Shorten raised progressive tax by one per cent of GDP ($17 billion) that would provide very substantial room to move. Tax pays for ‘collective consumption’ and ‘social insurance’ that’s in everyone’s interests. For instance, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Or (hypothetically) Medicare Dental. Nonetheless truly cracking down on corporate tax avoidance could reap billions too. Bill Shorten: please have the courage to harness the resources to ensure the most neglected are neglected no longer.”

What Cuts will Mean under another Liberal Government

John Rolfe (16/4/19) reports “a person making $99,000 this financial year could pay an extra $1440 in tax under Labor in 2022-23 when their earnings would be about $110,000” (or more). But the median wage in Australia is just over $55,000/year. The people the Liberals are depicting as ‘average workers’ are actually well above the median wage. And the Liberals have ‘flattened’ the top tax rate: so those on lower incomes are paying the same top tax rate as those on the highest incomes. The Coalition argues Labor are raising taxes, whereas at this point they are just closing costly loopholes which benefit the wealthy. While those on lower incomes may gain a tiny increase from tax cuts, they would more than pay for that with Health and Education Cuts. A Liberal Government means extra levies for neglected state schools. Less infrastructure like roads, and more tolls and congestion. Botched NBN. Botched or neglected NDIS and Aged Care. Higher university fees. ‘Out on your own’ if you need to be tested for cancer. Massive Liberal tax cuts also mean it would be impossible to achieve the projected surplus without massive cuts to services and infrastructure.

Tax Cuts WILL mean Austerity ; The Duplicitous nature of Scott Morrison’s arguments

(Late April 2019)  “With a dubious outlook on world growth how can Scott Morrison possibly claim hundreds of billions in tax cuts and a surplus at the same time – without accompanying cuts to health, education, aged care, infrastructure (or to scrap the surplus)? The Liberals claim ‘small government’ is the key to a strong economy ; however some of the strongest economies in Europe tend to suggest otherwise – with much stronger welfare states and social wages than we enjoy in Australia. Tax cuts mean money in the pocket – but mainly for the top end of town. The rest of us get the scraps ; with degraded infrastructure and services ; and probably attacks on our wages and conditions. A mere 1.5% (of GDP) increase in tax – aimed mainly at the top 10% – could free $25 billion a year in resources for National Aged Care Insurance, Medicare Dental, resources for mental health, state-financed infrastructure without the user pays, public communications, energy and transport infrastructure, and a fair social insurance and welfare system for all of us. The tax mix also needs to be restructured and indexed for fairness: so ‘bracket creep’ does not gradually ‘level’ the system – with the poor paying more.”

Participatory Democracies are Strong Democracies

Recent commentaries in the Herald-Sun have dismissed the wave of ‘student strikes’ (eg: for Climate Action) over the past few months. Perhaps we should look at this from a different point of view. A participatory democracy is a strong democracy. And a strong democracy can – and indeed should – accommodate civil disobedience as an option for citizens to express their views and interests. Andrew Bolt and others may oppose the cause. But more generally, a participatory democracy is a healthy one. I for one hope those involved remain active citizens into and through adult-hood.

Democracy depends on Civic Mobilisation

In response to John Pesutto (‘The Age’, 14/4). What critics don’t seem to realise is that the strength of a democracy can hinge on the mobilisation and activity of its civil society. If we do not accept protest and civil disobedience, we are weakening the fabric of our democracy. Indeed, an active civil society is a safeguard for democracy’s long-term preservation. Perhaps free speech should not be ‘absolute’, but every time we weaken its universality, we set a precedent which ‘could come back to bite’ progressive forces later down the track. Further, Left advocates usually do not have the same opportunity to express their views. And by ‘Left’ I include left social democrats and democratic socialists. And even the more radical have a right for their ideas to be tested. When on the odd occasion a left-wing commentator appears on the ABC there are calls of ‘bias’. But Left views are almost absent in Newscorp newspapers ; and ‘The Age’ has moved to the relative Centre. What we need is a truly strong pluralism in our democracy. A ‘battlefield of ideas’ where journalists do not try and manipulate ; but rather a genuine, inclusive and honest contest of analysis and values.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Conservatives’ Budget puts the wealthy first. Services and Infrastructure to suffer in the End Analysis

Most of the Australian media is trumpeting the Morrison Governments’ tax cuts for “low and middle income” Australians. But does this stack up under analysis? Ross Gittins at The Age dared to buck the trend and pointed out that this is overwhelmingly a Budget for higher income Australians. He observes that the real cost of the tax cuts over ten years will skyrocket to “a staggering $302 billion”. That will inevitably lead to austerity: with a potential hit to Health, Education, Aged Care, infrastructure and so on. It will mean neglect and user pays ; and that will also hit genuine low to middle income Australians hardest. Those on $925 or less a week will receive nothing, while those on $3485 or more a week will receive $75/week. These people (the wealthy) are less likely to spend, also, as compared with lower income Australians. That could also be bad for the economy. (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 7).

The biggest culprit, here, is the tax cut for the $45,000 to $200,000 bracket from 32.5% to 30%. (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 2). The fact of the matter here is that the tax scales have been unfairly flattened. There should be a stronger rate for those on higher incomes.

To further illustrate the point, the Herald-Sun observed that those individuals on $200,000/year will receive tax cuts amounting to over $11,000/year, while individuals on $30,000 will receive $255/year. Meanwhile, hypothetically a dual income family with both partners on $200,000/year will receive over $23,000/year ; compared with $510/year for a dual income family with both partners on $30,000/year. (Herald-Sun, 3/4/19, p 2).

On the other hand, there’s $724 million for the elderly “over five years”. (Herald-Sun 3/4/19, p 13).

It sounds like a lot. But it won’t go anywhere near addressing waiting lists for ‘at home’ services ; or improvements in residential services: such as subsidising the sector to pay for aged care worker ratios and a registered nurse on-site 24/7. There’s mandatory reporting for neglect leading to starvation (which is common). But that cannot be policed without extra aged care workers. And aged care workers need better pay and conditions as an incentive to remain in the sector. There’s also a need to emphasise ‘quality of life’ for those at home or in care – with programs to keep people socially and mentally engaged. Something more than being sat in common rooms all day in front of a television.

There’s a projected surplus of $7.1 billion over the next financial year. (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 2). At least $1 billion of this could have been redirected into Aged Care – where it is desperately needed.

Ian Yates of the Council of the Ageing argued that: “Up to 125,000 older Australians are waiting up to two years for home care, [leaving] many dying while they wait.”

The blunt fact of the matter is that the Coalition is trying to buy votes with tax cuts: but the consequence will inevitably mean a hit to the social wage and welfare state ; and probably more privatised infrastructure.

While Labor does not oppose all tax cuts per se, Chris Bowen rebuked the Government, arguing the emphasis should have been on those on “less than $40,000.”

That said, there are some sensible measures: such as $3 billion of investments in “suburban rail station car parks” in an attempt to bust urban traffic congestion. As well as an emphasis on transport infrastructure in outer suburban Victoria. (‘The Age’, 3/4/19).

There’s also money supporting apprenticeships and supporting scholarships to rural universities, and close on half a billion for pre-school education. Hundreds of millions on mental health and Medicare sound significant: but they’re staggered over several years ; disguising a reality of neglect: which will become clearer as the shrinking revenue base leads to austerity.

The bottom line is that there are a host of priorities demanding our attention: but we end up with neglect in order to conform to small government Ideology ; and to prioritise the higher income Liberal core base.

There’s a need to ‘fix Medicare’ and further expand into dental. An extra billion a year could easily go into providing more mental health capacity and cutting hospital waiting lists. As already observed: there’s a drastic need for more resources in Aged Care. Again: nothing short of several billions would ‘make a scratch’ on these problems.

A $75/week increase to Newstart is very much overdue: such that people are left homeless, or without the resources to effectively search for work in the first place.

Pensioners could do with a minimum $25/week boost (fully indexed) – which means a great deal for someone living in poverty. Disability Pensioners could also do with more flexibility in supplementing their income with casual work. Students could also do with more financial support. Taking on part time work can provide experience ; but it can also make it impossible to keep up with studies. That’s bad for students ; but also for the government which is contributing to the investment in the event that people end up ‘dropping out’.

It’s also true that State Governments are running out of assets to privatise. For a long time this was treated like some ‘magic pudding’ to fund newer infrastructure. ‘Asset Recycling’. But that cannot go on forever. And there are associated costs. For instance the privatisation of the Port of Melbourne will see greater cost structures ‘flowing through’ all through the economy. This (lack of funds for infrastructure) can only be rectified with higher taxes overall (preferably progressive) ; or through regressive user pays which hurts citizens more in the end than higher taxes. Still: state governments’ tax options are limited ; and those privatisations should never have happened in the first place.

Many of Labor’s projected tax reforms are very welcome. Negative gearing cuts which exclude new properties will lead to more home construction and more jobs. It could also end with better housing affordability. Meanwhile ; cracking down on concessions for excess dividend imputation credits will overwhelmingly hit the wealthy. It is not ‘a new tax’ ; but rather Labor is closing a costly loophole ; one which could soon cost as much as  “$11.4 billion over the forward estimates from 2018-19, and removing it could improve the budget bottom line by $59 billion over the medium term.” Bowen argues that: “More than 92 per cent of taxpayers do not receive a cash refund for excess imputation credits, and won’t be affected at all by this change.”

He concludes that:

Under Labor’s plan:

o No one will pay a single cent more tax
o No one will lose a single cent from their super contributions
o No one will lose a single cent from their pension
o No one will lose a single cent from their share dividends.

Labor’s recalibration of the tax system will benefit a lot of Australian families, citizens and workers. Its press for ‘a living wage’ could also make a huge difference for the working poor: though we have to hope that Shorten will heed the ACTU’s call  for a “10.7% increase – or $72.80 per week.” Which is what is really necessary.

But at the end of the day refusing to consider raising other taxes limits Labor’s room to move.

To fix Aged Care, Health, Infrastructure, Welfare, Education: a very significant amount of money is needed. Australia’s GDP is now in the vicinity of  $1.7 Trillion/year. Even a modest 1 per cent increase – aimed largely at those on upper incomes – would mean $17 billion/year to invest in services, infrastructure and social security. This should be the bare minimum for a Labor Government aspiring to improve the social wage and welfare state ; and provide infrastructure. (from fixing NBN, to paying for roads and public transport to bust congestion)

Over the long term (several terms of government) Labor should be aiming to raise the tax rate by 5 per cent of GDP ; or $85 billion a year in the context of a $1.7 billion economy. (that will have to be adjusted for growth, inflation etc also). The wealthy should pay their fair share. And corporate tax evasion needs vigorous, tough action. But ‘ordinary taxpayers’ benefit from ‘collective consumption’ and ‘social insurance’ as well. Labor just needs to be brave and articulate, ‘cutting through to the electorate’. Labor’s come a long way ; but there’s also a long way to go.

As for the Coalition Government: Labor needs to hammer home the line that this is not a Budget for low to middle income earners. It disproportionately assists the wealthy ; and those on lower incomes will pay through the austerity and inevitable user pays that follows in its wake.

Originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Responding to Red-Baiting on Marxism

A common argument on the Left is that ‘Socialism’ is not ‘Communism’ ; and this is intended to ‘deflect’ associations with Stalinist big ‘C’ Communism as it was known in the former USSR and Eastern Bloc.

Indeed, socialism is not ‘Communism with a big ‘C” – in the Stalinist sense: with unending Terror and Cult of Personality.  In the authentic Marxist sense socialism  refers to a stage of economic development under which ownership of the means of production was progressively centralised under the state ; and with ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ whereby the democratic working class majority had exercised state power.  This is the ‘first stage’ of communism. (also known as ‘socialism’)  And thereafter – with abundance and the end of social antagonisms – ‘the state withers away’. This is ‘the higher stage of communism’.  There are  many (non-Marxist) definitions of socialism as well.

Many people – including self-identifying Marxists –  also argue for a ‘democratic mixed economy’ including a mix of markets and planning ; and of public, co-operative and other collective ownership.  And this is also seen as a kind of socialism.  (even if not strictly conforming to the original Marxist definition) These people can still sympathise with the goal of ‘the higher stage of communism’ ; but many (the author included) have come to seriously doubt the likelihood of its being realised.

But many of those who actually have a grasp of Marxism (most people don’t) know there’s nothing wrong with his notion of communism in theory. As opposed to stifling oppression, Marx’s notion of ‘communism’ envisaged a world of plenty; of cultural and social opportunity ; governed by the principle of ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ ;  and where humanity transcended past conflicts: where again, as opposed to becoming ‘all encompassing’ – the state (in Marx’s words) ‘withered away’.

But remember also that communism in the Marxist sense was deemed by Marxists themselves as impossible without the prerequisite of economic Abundance – with the development of the means of production first by workers under capitalism, and then furthered under socialism.

The Bolsheviks attempted a Revolution in Russia before the economic development had reached the level many other Marxists had seen as a prerequisite. In name they were pursuing communism – but the system they implemented certainly was not communist in Marx’s sense.

Many Marxists understood the risks. Effectively, the Russian Revolution could get stuck in a particularly repressive variation from ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’. Many interpret that as meaning ‘dictatorship’ in the literal sense.  But in the authentic Marxist sense it was to be understood as a manner of applying democracy ; ie: the democratic rule of the working class majority. (But where the revolution’s class enemies were contained or suppressed where necessary; though some Marxists such as Karl Kautsky also ended up insisting on a regime of universal liberal rights).

But the Bolsheviks attempted a Revolution in an industrially-backward nation ; dependant on an alliance of workers and peasants. That is why a lot of Marxists thought the Bolsheviks went too far – attempting to overcome their disadvantages through sheer voluntarist will and strategy. What we ended up with was centralisation and Terror. And decades of forced industrialisation: a ‘forced march’ to achieve the economic preconditions of socialism. In the process, Terror, Cult-of-Personality and over-centralisation saw the corruption of the Revolution and the onset of what came to be known as ‘Stalinism’. This was not ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ in  Marx’s true sense ; though certainly it was a kind of dictatorship. Most critics of Marxism do not understand the difference.

On the other hand ; some critics of Bolshevism such as Rosa Luxemburg did not condemn the Bolsheviks for trying. For Luxemburg specifically her criticism centred on the issue of workers’ liberties and workers’ democracy.  But by contrast, Left-Menshevist, Julius Martov also insisted on ‘mass democracy’ as opposed to ultra-centralism ; and questioned the Bolshevist path to power. For Martov Russia’s semi-feudal conditions were not a sufficient base on which to build socialism. And this was bound to result in complications later down the track. Economic development had to come first ; though in the interim he supported an alliance of socialist parties.

Importantly: ‘Abundance’ itself has also proven in some senses relative ; and ‘coercive laws of competition’ (a concept found in Capital Vol I) can be applied to states arguably as well as to businesses. Practically this means that both businesses and states need to promote competitiveness in order to survive. This also makes (the higher stage of) communism in Marx’s sense a difficult prospect. And it makes socialism in the strict Marxist sense a difficult prospect for the same reasons (coercive laws of competition). Hence we need internationalism in theory and practice – and to reject arguments on globalisation to the effect that ‘everything is hopeless’.

There’s also the concern that class struggle is not the sole source of conflict ; hence the state may never ‘wither away’. Maoism in China saw the peasants as having the leading role. Only in the past couple of decades or so the Chinese have attempted to emulate capitalist development in order to modernise. And in terms of the scale of their economic development they have succeeded remarkably. But there’s the risk that their capitalists will one day become an effective ruling class. And then the last remnants of Chinese Communism would be over.  There’s no reason to suppose that would necessarily involve ‘democratisation’ either.

On the other hand Swedish Socialism was not clearly Marxist. Theorists like Walter Korpi wrote of a ‘democratic class struggle’. Marxism held significant influence. But key socialist theorists like Ernst Wigforss did not identify as Marxist and had original ideas distinct from those provided by the broad Marxist framework. Though fear of Bolshevism had helped to press the Swedish monarchy into supporting the Suffrage (as with many other countries).

The rise of a ‘Communism’ clearly distinct from social democracy had originally began in 1914 with the formation of Communist parties in response to the World War (and the failure of most social democrats to effectively oppose it). This was a watershed moment. The ‘Twenty-One Conditions’ (1920) of the Third International (developed after the 1917 Russian Revolution) imposed a single organisational and ideological framework for all Communist Parties ; that is, of Vanguard Parties in the Leninist sense (parties of ‘the advanced working class’). And in the process this ruled out flexibility and adaptation to local circumstance.

The author’s personal sympathies are with the ‘Left Social Democrats’ – such as the Austro-Marxists. Who were definitely Marxists – and definitely not Bolsheviks or Stalinists. The key point here is that the Schism was not entirely ‘against Marxism’ ; it was also to various degrees ‘within Marxism’. In this sense there is not necessarily any logical contradiction between communism in the strict Marxist sense – and Revolutionary Social Democracy. Importantly therefore, the Bolsheviks could never claim a monopoly on Marxist thought. Marxists retained crucial influence on the Left of Social Democratic parties. In some cases (eg: Austria during the inter-war period) Marxism remained the dominant outlook.

Again: the word ‘Communism’ is deployed widely to scare people ; and many socialists (even Marxist-influenced) will not enter into any debate concerning it for fear of the impact of red-baiting, and association with the ‘once-really-existing Stalinist’ regimes of the 20th Century.

Tactically, social democratic leaders may be advised not to proclaim to the world that they are Communists. And in all honestly, there is doubt that ‘real communism’ as Marx truly intended – is even possible. Or at least certainly not for a very long time into the future.

But if we can’t debate these issues internally even, eventually we will be led to abandon socialism entirely. Kind of like how ‘liberalism became a dirty word’ for a very long time within the United States. That way we find ourselves perpetually on the back foot in response to red-baiting.

But now there’s actually a resurgence of socialism in the US. DSA – Democratic Socialists of America – has been expanding rapidly. Demands are growing for improvement of wages, action on climate change, and for socialised medicine. These are taken for granted in many parts of the world ; but progress on these fronts is remarkable in the American instance. The question is how far this trend can be furthered (and tactical compromises will be necessary) without forsaking substance over the long term.

In the Australian context, there was once a much stronger culture of internal debate around the issue of Democratic Socialism in previous decades – and it didn’t cost the Australian Labor Party elections (say in the 70s and 80s). Though since the 50s split the ALP had been undermined by right-wing Catholic organisations such as the Democratic Labor Party and the National Civic Council. Those tendencies have now largely redeployed within the Liberal Party (Australia’s party of Conservatism). In the process they have abandoned ‘traditional Catholic centrism’. They have abandoned all pretence to economic social justice in order to cement their place on the Liberal-Conservative Right in the current political milieu. That means internalising neo-liberal thinking on the economy, say as opposed to the premises of Rerum Novarum. (The Roman Catholic Church’s original 19th Century response to capitalism and industrialisation).

Parliamentary parties are always tempted by opportunism. Though it’s true that ALP Leader Herbert Vere ‘Doc’ Evatt did the right thing defending liberties when Liberal Prime Minister, Robert Menzies tried banning the Communist Party in the 1950s. With Evatt championing liberal rights, Menzies lost the associated referendum. Liberal rights in Australia were preserved. Evatt’s principles may have cost parliamentary votes ; but who of any principle  would say that he did the wrong thing? Though he did not win a Parliamentary election as Leader, he will always be remembered for his stand.

Right-wing public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson are alarmed by arguments that ‘Real communism has never really been tried.’ Although the achievements for a while of kibbutzim in Israel give some idea what might be possible. If you used Kibbutzim as an example I don’t think many people would be shocked.

And it’s possible to establish that you’re influenced by Marxism without saying you’re a Stalinist, a Bolshevik, a Maoist, or even a Trotskyist. A mainstream Australian economist like John Quiggin is clear that he’s influenced by Marxism – though he’s not a revolutionary.

Personally, I sometimes call myself a Left Social Democrat. And that’s completely sincere as I’ve already explained earlier. The terms ‘revolutionary social democrat’ and ‘democratic socialist’ also sincerely apply.

On the Left we cannot (and should not) airbrush history because that’s more politically opportune. But neither can our leadership always ‘put on their most radical faces’ when contesting elections. Still: here among the grassroots I think we have more freedom. We should use it. It may well bear fruit into the future ; so we are intellectually prepared in the event of future crises. And that is only a matter of time.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Responding to Jordan Peterson on Socialism

I’ve just been watching You Tube videos featuring Canadian right-wing public intellectual Jordan Peterson making a litany of claims against Marxism: basically to the effect that Marxism is ‘essentially and inevitably totalitarian’. I intend to criticise this viewpoint at length.

But bear with me a moment while I summarise some of his arguments.

Peterson claims Marxism is politically irredeemable in any sense. Numerous examples of Stalinism are provided to illustrate the arguments ; and to suggest an ‘essential causal link’ between Marxism and the Stalinist dystopias of the 20th Century.

Peterson makes the usual claims that Marxism leads to mediocrity and failure because it fails to reward excellence and initiative. That it fails to accommodate the functionality of inequality in that sense of providing incentive and reward for effort and innovation. And furthermore, Peterson argues that Marxism is a basically destructive ideology founded on envy ; and is ‘fundamentally authoritarian’ and antagonistic towards liberty. In response to Marxist critics of Stalinism, Peterson dismissively claims that their position can be written off as suggesting ‘the utopia would have been ushered in if only they had been the dictators’. Peterson links Marxism with atrocities having claimed millions of lives over the course of the 20th Century.

From his perspective he finds it hard to grasp how some people are still claiming ‘that was not real communism’ ; and that ‘real communism deserves to be tried’.

In response, you could just as easily argue that the First World War was waged between capitalist nations ; inspired by Imperialist rivalries ; and resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Do we conclude therefore that is the only kind of capitalism possible? That is: a capitalism characterised by imperialism, aggressive nationalism and world war?

Many Marxists have made just that conclusion. Though by contrast Karl Kautsky suggested the possibility of an ‘ultra-imperialism’ whereby the Great Powers carved the world up between themselves in a relatively peaceful fashion.

Yes, there is a common, historical and functional link between capitalist imperialism and war. The drive for economic growth and political power provides a motivation to try and secure external markets in the context of Great Power rivalry. And to exploit the resources of ‘colonised’ and ‘Third World’ countries. But ideologies around competitive individualism, market economies and so on are not essentially linked with war. Do we not distinguish between pacifist liberals and imperialist hawks under capitalism?  Nor should socialist ideologies be ‘essentially linked’ with oppression as if only one kind of outcome is possible.

On the other hand, those ideologies (of market based competition) are often appealed to in a misleading way. Socialists can also accommodate a place for competition and markets. For some socialists the real challenge is in working out ‘the best mix’. And that could involve a balance of competition, planning and economic democracy. (For instance imaginably in a context of producer’s and consumer’s co-operatives ; with peoples’ democratic organisation as producers and consumers providing checks and balances against each other).

Some markets deliver the goods in terms of innovation and responsiveness to consumer need. In other instances co-operation and civic responsibility deserve to be considered as options and as motivations. ‘Natural public monopolies’ can pass on superior cost structures to the broader economy ; assisting not only consumers – but even capitalist enterprises. There is no ‘one way’ in which to organise economies. The ‘essence’ of capitalism is neither markets nor competition (which existed before capitalism) : but rather capital as a form of property ; a social relationship and a process of accumulation ; a process through which the surplus value created by workers is appropriated ; with startling divisions resulting in both wealth and power. Divisions which are becoming more and more marked ; and with economic insecurity a means of disciplining the working class into submission.

Marx’s critique of capitalism focused on the intense human alienation which arose in the age of industrialisation. Extremes not only of inequality: but the brutality involved in long working hours, subsistence wages, inhuman and sometimes dangerous working conditions. And further: the distributive injustice arising from the expropriation of surplus value: that workers were not fully compensated for the value which they created through their labours. The division of labour under capitalism was dehumanising in that there was little opportunity for rewarding creative labour. Labour was commonly ‘broken into small, repetitive parts’ in a way which ruled out creative control or fulfilment. For many workers this is still the reality. As opposed to oppression, Marxism actually aimed to extend “personal freedom”, not of isolated individuals but through mutual “association” providing “the means of cultivating [our] gifts in all directions” (Marx and Engels Selected Works, Vol. I, pp 27-28, 68).

We cannot go into some comprehensive rendition of ‘key Marxist concepts’ here ; but in short Marxism is a plural tradition spanning the best part of two centuries. Its prestige has declined with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. Triumphalist proclamations of its collapse and irrelevance have had a telling effect through sheer repetition and attrition ; amidst hostility in the monopoly mass media. In fact the world is always changing ; and ‘classical Marxism’ on its own is not enough to grasp every aspect of such a constantly changing world. That said ; Marx still grasps the fundamentals of capitalist accumulation and exploitation ; the problems of monopolisation and class bifurcation ; and the dilemmas where exchange value is emphasised sometimes to the exclusion of use value. (For example ; great swathes of unoccupied properties amidst widespread homelessness). He also recognised as early as the ‘Manifesto’ of 1848 that constant change (and hence insecurity) were ‘the essence of capitalism’ ; though Social Democracy has strived to ameliorate this through the welfare state, social wage and so on.

Marx provides a foundation upon which further theoretical innovation can progress – often in different directions. Every word ‘should not be taken as holy writ’. Sometimes even fundamental and iconic ideas deserve to be revised.  But aside from the horrors of totalitarian misappropriation there are other traditions : traditions of the Democratic Left. For instance ; of the Revolutionary Social Democracy which preceded the ‘Social Democratic/Communist Split’ of 1914.  And which survived on the Left of Social Democracy. The great plurality of modern Marxism – and of newer traditions – such as ‘Post-Marxism’ (eg: Mouffe and Laclau), and the Critical Theory developed by the likes of Jurgen Habermas – also demonstrate a productive engagement with liberalism.

Peterson concedes that much Marxist analysis withstands criticism and maintains its appeal ; but argues that it can only have one outcome when applied in practice. That is: totalitarian oppression and suppression of individual dignity and liberty. These kind of claims are fundamentally ahistorical. They look not to the specific historic conditions which saw Marxism twisted into an ‘official Ideology’ of authoritarian, and even totalitarian states. Rather they generalise that given such degeneration became widespread over the 20th Century that it is the only possible outcome.

But let’s remember also that the original (Marxist) social democrats were among the first to promote the fight for full, equal and universal suffrage at a time when the idea was unthinkable for most Conservatives and even most Liberals. And that Bolshevist pressure contributed to the conditions whereby liberal and parliamentary democracy was widely adopted in Europe following World War One. Let’s also remember Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of Leninism ; and the critiques of Bolshevism from figures such as the German-based Marxist – and most prominent theorist of ‘Marxist Centrism and Orthodoxy’ ; Karl Kautsky , as well as the Left-Social Democratic Menshevik leader, Julius Martov. In short: right from the beginning there was resistance to Bolshevist strategies from the revolutionary social democratic and libertarian communist Left. Right from the beginning there was resistance from within Marxism – on the basis that suppression of democracy and liberties ; and the progressive narrowing of decision making to an ever narrowing stratum of Party leaders – counter-acted the corrective forces of participatory democracy. And that the narrowing foundation for real power could very well corrupt the Revolution over the longer term. (As it did).

Further ; accelerating and entrenched Terror abrogated the Marxist principles of fighting human alienation and defending human dignity. Yes, Marx understood Terror could be inevitable in certain revolutionary contexts ; but those strategies also held certain dangers ; and pervasive Stalinist Terror became permanent and indiscriminate.

Bolshevist centralisation and Terror held the same danger of facilitating effective counter-revolution: as occurred also with the Terror in Revolutionary France ; and the transition from ‘the Republic’ to ‘The Empire’ of Napoleon. Stalinism is understood by some as exactly that: counter-revolution. Some ‘orthodox’ Marxists (including Martov and Kautsky) also viewed radical Bolshevist voluntarism regarding the establishment of socialism without the foundation of prior capitalist economic development – as involving dangerous potential risks and ramifications. Most importantly: that while the Bolshevists engaged in a ‘bold gambit’ of pursuing revolution and withdrawing Russia from the War ; that the ultimate degeneration of the revolution (under enormous pressure from isolation and foreign intervention and destabilisation) could see socialism discredited in the eyes of many for generations.

On the other hand: while these flaws in Bolshevist strategy can be appreciated, assumptions of ‘inevitable, irresistible and gradual progress towards democratic socialism’ were also flawed. For example, while the Austrian Revolution of 1918 did not replicate Bolshevist strategies, the failure of the Austrian Social Democrats to fully and permanently consolidate their control of the state apparatus of force when the opportunity provided actually left the way open for the undermining of democracy in Austria from within – and the eventual rise of a domestic ‘Austro-Fascism’ over the longer term.

The fact is that a more liberal capitalism is possible ; but so is a more liberal socialism. Also let’s remember the ambitions of (pre-Leninist) Marxism – for whom the aim was economic development with the aim of promoting cultural growth, development and freedom. The drift of socialism into more authoritarianism and repression that occurred under Lenin – and radically accelerated and deepened under Stalin – also need to be understood in context.

Again: Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power amidst World War. The Entente responded to the loss of their former Russian ally by promoting destabilisation and supporting the White Armies. Desperation accelerated: became a matter of life and death – as heating materials, food supply and so on – were threatened in the context of civil war. And so Bolsheviks such as Trotsky were led to embrace war, militarisation of labour, political repression – to prevent the collapse of the communist government – and broader social and economic disaster. Everything became justifiable because it was done in the name of the (nominally) proletarian state. But that very state became more and more divorced from any real accountability to the Soviet People in practice. Again: Democratic and libertarian communists such as Luxemburg, Kautsky, Martov (who were also significantly different from one another in important respects) did see that justifying everything and anything for the sake of the ‘end cause’ was a dangerous path which could lead to the discrediting of socialism for generations.

But still: why is it that the Right can judge Marxism as a whole (and in an undifferentiated way) so harshly – but has so little so say about Western Intervention in the Civil War, and the World War that led to Russian social collapse, the deaths of tens of millions;  the desperate struggles for survival under Lenin ; and ultimately that setting the preconditions for the degeneration under Stalin? Why is it there is so little historic memory of anti-Communist Cold War atrocities? (Chile, Guatemala, half a million murdered in Indonesia ; the social and psychological trauma of McCarthyist paranoia and repression)  Why the double standards and selective historic memory? If you want some idea of what socialism and Marxism COULD have been – better to look to the examples of Red Vienna under the Austrian Social Democrats during the interwar period. Look to the mass movements in Austria which promoted working class cultural growth, democratic freedoms, and the provision of social goods and services – especially in Vienna itself. As well as effective conditions of ‘dual power’ with the maintenance of the republican ‘Schutzbund’ ; a working class militia with the aim of providing an ‘insurance policy’ for the preservation of  Austrian democracy.

There was a ‘middle way’ between Marxism-Leninism, and the ultimate degeneration under Stalin that followed on the one hand – and ‘the social democratic Chauvinists’ on the Right who rationalised support for a World War (WWI) in which tens of millions were slaughtered, disfigured and traumatised. Let’s again restate how democracy was trailblazed in Revolutionary France – and the stated principles of the French Revolution inspire still. But also let’s remember they faced comparable dilemmas re: revolutionary Terror in the face of destabilisation, war and invasion, starvation and so on. And the Terror eventually devoured its own; and led to a kind of counter-revolution – much as in Russia.  But we do not therefore abandon democracy on account of the fate of the French Revolution, do we? The French Revolution led to Bonapartism and Empire – But democrats never concluded that that was the only possibility arising from democratic and liberal revolution. Which is what Conservatives like Peterson effectively argue about socialism, and especially Marxism. Soviet and Eastern Bloc Socialism degenerated under very specific historic circumstances. But that was not the only socialism possible ; nor was it the only Marxism possible.

So a different kind of socialism and indeed a different kind of Marxism is possible.

Capitalism is not ‘essentially’ about freedom either – especially for the most exploited. And in reality wealth polarisation suppresses opportunity rather than promoting it ; and effectively narrows the cultural, social and economic support base upon which real power rests. The capitalist Ideology often bears little resemblance to the reality. Just like Stalinism bore little resemblance to the original communist ideology. But a ‘good and decent Marxism’ today will also engage with liberalism. Hence the pluralism of Agonists and post-Marxists like Chantal Mouffe on one hand ; or liberal social democrats like Habermas on the other. They are radically different from one another in many respects. One (Habermasian critical theory) believes that through Reason and the application of Enlightenment principles Modernity can resolve its shortcomings with the growth of rational consensus through dialogue. The other (Agonism) sees difference of values as perhaps perpetually inevitable ; but asks how this can be accommodated via a genuine and deep liberal pluralism. But both defer in a sense at least to liberalism.

As for the final word on ‘Communism’ ; most of us have forgotten what communism really meant. It did not originally equate with permanent Terror, Cult of Personality and so on – nor should it do so today. It’s not about an ‘essential human nature’ provided for under capitalism and suppressed under communism. The ‘fate of Communism’ revolved around ethically treacherous tactical and strategic decision-making amidst some of the worst possible historic circumstances ; which saw the Marxist (formerly Social Democratic) movements diverted in many instances for decades – into the historical dead end of Stalinism. But the (Marxist) Left Social Democrats stand out still by the examples they gave and stood for as well.

Stalinism emerges from the desperation and degeneration which occurs under conditions of permanent Terror – which in of themselves arose under extraordinary historic conditions of social and economic disintegration. It also arose in the context of war, civil war, foreign intervention, the threat of starvation – and the furious response of the Entente Powers who could not forgive Lenin for withdrawing from World War One. Without World War One – and without Western intervention – there may have been no Stalinism. Without those treacherous dilemmas and desperate historic circumstances – maybe there really could even have been a (relatively) ‘peaceful march forward for socialism and democracy’. But history rarely progresses just as we would like.

Of course the ‘Marxist Centrist’, Kautsky is not without fault either ; arguing for abstention on the issue of war credits in 1914 rather than outright opposition. But by 1915 most Marxist social democrats (including Kautksy) were agitating relentlessly for a separate peace. Lenin drew a certain prestige from never compromising or conceding in the face of a War which claimed tens of millions of lives. What he was not open or honest about was the fact he could not deliver the peace which working people wanted ; because under the specific circumstances Civil War was inevitable. Lenin wanted a world revolution which ended war, repression, exploitation and capitalism permanently. What we eventually got under Stalin was a regime whose cynicism and brutality discredited Marxism in the eyes of millions for generations. Martov and Kautsky clearly understood this.

And for working people the Horror of War is similar whether in the name of Imperial Russia or the (nominally) Proletarian State. (Trotsky argued the Proletarian State made all the difference ; But after decades through which workers suffered War, Forced Industrialisation, Labour  militarisation and so on – the ‘end goals’ must have seemed like a mirage). In any case though, we should concede that Horrors and brutality have occurred under both capitalist and (nominally) communist regimes. It’s historic contingency more so than ‘human nature’ which saw the degeneration of those nominally communist regimes.

A different kind of revolutionary social democracy is possible – which draws what is best from the history of Marxism – and grapples to understand the worst of it ; that those outcomes can be avoided into the future. That also means grappling honestly with liberalism – both its insights and its limitations. Again: it involves taking the best from the Marxist traditions ; but being open to revision and innovation where necessary.

An ‘essential’ link with personal dictatorship?

As opposed to Peterson’s arguments: if you actually read Kautksy, Martov, Luxemburg – You will see that they are NOT arguing ‘things would have been different if THEY were the dictators’. If you look at Karl Kautsky for instance you will see that for him ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ was interpreted as the ‘dictatorship of a class’ as opposed to the dictatorship of an *individual*. And if you look further to Kautsky, Martov, Luxemburg (or Otto Bauer for instance if you look to the Austro-Marxists) – you will also see that for them this could be interpreted as a form of democratic majoritarianism. That is: the implementation of a democratic mandate provided by the working class democratic majority. But if you look to Kautsky also you will see things are more complex than this even as well. That is: the liberties of minorities are important ; and ideally that includes the liberties of your ideological rivals. Which is basically what Kautsky argued in response to Lenin. Though the worst circumstances inevitably complicate matters. (Best to avoid those circumstances in the first place if possible).

Marxism should have a future ; but it needs to ‘settle accounts with liberalism’. And it needs to eschew simplistic romanticism about revolution. Desperation leads to treacherous ethical dilemmas – and ultimately can lead to degeneration into regimes such as Stalinism. But let’s not be historically selective about our memories here ; let’s concede that atrocities occurred under both sides during the Cold War. Western intervention could even be accused as accelerating that degeneration by escalating the sheer desperation involved. The Ideology of the ‘victors’ is stronger of course ; and you’d expect that given the narrow economic base upon which much cultural power rests. But those who do not heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. THAT can be applied to BOTH the Right and the Left.

‘Absolute’ Equality?

Socialists like Eduard Bernstein never argued there would (or should) be ‘perfect and simple economic equality’. As far as they were concerned there should always be recognition that there should be differences to account for varieties in skill, effort and so on. Even under socialism. But the reality under capitalism today is radical and accelerating economic polarisation. We’re not talking about ‘functional inequality’ ; we’re talking about a narrowing economic and hence cultural basis for power. Which has a corrosive effect on democracy. We’re talking about (in the US) an outrageous gap between the destitute and the working poor on one hand ; and the wealthy on the other. Indeed there is a yawning gap between the capitalist class and the middle income layers of the working class as well. Meanwhile efforts are made to construct certain (largely, objectively working class people) as ‘the middle class’ – and undermine solidarity between these and the working poor and destitute.

So no – there should not be perfect and absolute economic equality. But nor should there be accelerating polarisation and exploitation. And nor should the working class be ‘disciplined’ by the threat of destitution. There should be equality in educational opportunity ; and there is a moral imperative for equality in health care ; and provision of basics like housing as ‘non negotiable needs’ for everybody. Cultural opportunity should also arguably be extended to society in general. Enterprise and initiative can (and should) exist ; but how much better to have enterprise and initiative exercised with the involvement of co-operatives of working people than to have the economy – and hence culture and politics – dominated by a narrowing stratum of ultra-rich? How much better can goods and services become when working people have a clear and genuine stake in their production and provision?

Competition can be much of a motivation – but also in certain contexts a drag – on the broader economy. Competition can mean economic responsiveness. It can also mean enormous waste. The answer is a genuinely mixed economy ; preferably a *democratic* mixed economy. With natural public monopolies and collective consumption via tax. But also where effective the competition that fires market responsiveness: which can even exist in an economy marked by a strong co-operative movement. Getting rid of economic waste (eg: the inefficient cost structures that have been involved in privatisation) can also be the basis of providing for base economic needs more efficiently ; and from that is the possibility of going beyond the vicious circle of consumerism. That is: there is the economic basis to provide cultural opportunity for everybody. And broader cultural opportunity is more important that the dynamic of ‘more, ever more’ under capitalism ; where the sheer scale of economic consumerism lends stability to a system which needs perpetual growth and control of ‘external’ markets in order to offset its enormous waste. In the end that is both socially and environmentally unsustainable. Hence the need for a ‘democratic mixed economy’ providing a better mix of natural public monopoly, collective consumption and democratic markets.

Jordan Peterson is developing something of a reputation as an anti-Communist public intellectual. But many of his arguments involve simplifications and distortions. Peterson has every right to denounce historical Stalinism. Indeed he has the right (under free speech) to put his broader arguments on socialism forward as well ; even where these are so terribly misconceived. But it is for socialists to meet Peterson and others like him on ‘the democratic battle-field of ideas’. We cannot let Peterson and others like him ‘utterly write socialism off’  based on selective examples, distortions and simplifications. The truth of Marxism is that it is a highly plural tradition. Much of which has been firmly grounded in the principles of liberty and democracy. ‘Another Socialism’ is possible. And there are clear historical examples which illustrate this. This is what we need to argue in response to Jordan Peterson.

This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

The Prospects for Socialism Today

Writing in the Herald Sun, Chris Collins (11/1/19) argues that the Nordic countries have never been “socialist” because they have not conformed to the original Marxist definition of the centralisation of the means of production in state hands. In reality, though, there were always a variety of definitions, and even Marxists themselves have revised their understandings.

Socialist aspirations include ending exploitation and the class system ; and reducing inequalities to a fair level. In Marx’s words, to advance the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need’. That should include a strong welfare state and social wage ; involving not only natural public monopolies and strategic state ownership ; but also producers’ and consumers’ co-operatives, democratic funds, and a mix of competition, markets and planning.

Socialism also means building an economy focused on ‘use values’. (ie: not just maximising abstract exchange value ; eg: preserving the natural environment). But we’re in a global economy: which means we have to live with the transnational corporations. They are at best ‘a mixed blessing’: at times spurring innovations and job creation ; but also unacceptable inequalities in wealth and power ; as well as collusion, monopolism, planned obsolescence and so on. But also arguably the consequence of bourgeois dominance is that we live in a ‘One Dimensional Society’ where substantially different social alternatives are excluded from mainstream discussion. What’s needed is robust pluralism : where socialism is part of the debate ; and hence a genuine option in the broader context of democracy.

In response to writers who attempt to put Swedish Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in opposition to one another: for key Swedish thinkers and politicians such as Wigforss, Palme, Rehn, Meidner etc the Nordic Model was definitely a kind of socialism. The ‘high water mark’ was with the Meidner Wage Earner Funds proposals of the 70s and 80s. That marked the end of a ‘corporatist consensus’ (institutionalised consultation and co-operation) which developed over several decades starting from the 1930s. The model has been in slow retreat since. But its past successes over many decades still give a sense of what is possible.

Importantly, the wage earner funds were to be structured in such a way as to compensate workers for prior wage restraint. But the extent of that wage restraint had been such that the funds would eventually deliver economic control to workers over many years. One of the biggest problems with the funds is that they focused on workers alone rather than the broader category of ‘citizens’. (Hence excluding pensioners for instance). In 1983 Australian Leftists like Laurie Carmichael wanted ‘Nordic Style’ policies in return for wage restraint under the Government of Bob Hawke and ‘The Accord’. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort was actually delivered.

That said : what kind of state is in a position to deliver on socialism?

Leninists are inclined to oppose the ‘liberal bourgeois state’ to the kind of state which existed under the Bolsheviks. A ‘workers’ state’. Trotskyists would argue it had become a ‘degenerated workers’ state’ under the domination of Stalin.

On the other hand, by certain interpretations a genuine workers’ state is a democratic state ; where we can interpret ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ as a ‘manner of applying democracy’ ; the ‘democratic dictatorship’ of the working class majority. (Widely misinterpreted, the term always referred to the democratic rule of the working class as opposed to the rule of a single man such as Stalin). The ultimate aim is to create a ‘pure democracy’ where the state represents all people ; and the class system is permanently transcended. Finally, the State itself is presumed by Marxists to ‘wither away’ with the end of all class divisions and antagonisms. One flaw of this thinking, however, is the presumption that over the long run ‘only class antagonisms matter’ to such a degree that some kind of state power is necessary either as arbiter ; or to enforce interests.

Arguably Sweden enjoyed a decades-long ‘equilibrium in the class struggle’ or otherwise what Korpi called a ‘democratic class struggle’. Where the class struggle was in some ways ‘institutionalised’ between social democrats, unions, employers. Concessions were made based on ‘the balance of class forces’ ; but open escalation of conflict was avoided as being in no-one’s interest. Then in the 1970s and 80s the Social Democrats and the LO (‘Landsorganisationen’ ; or Swedish Trade Union Confederation) attempted to assert their democratic leverage to achieve previously unheard of economic redistribution and democratisation.  Again: even with over 80% unionisation coverage they still failed. And Social Democracy has been on the defensive there largely ever since. If anything, this gives an idea just how difficult the struggle can be.

What we need is a democratic state which is not a medium for direct OR indirect bourgeois rule. Nicos Poulanztas wrote about a ‘logic of the class struggle’ which ‘imprinted itself upon the state field’. I’m not a structuralist (as Poulantzas was) ; but in a way that makes sense. The state tends to defend bourgeois interests ; but not totally. It is not a ‘simple instrument’. It is much more complex than that. Rather, it has its own internal contradictions and internal struggles. What we need is a state which is fully committed to the implications of democracy: as opposed to the direct or indirect rule of the bourgeoisie.

The problem is that capitalism is supported by a clear majority of states ; as well as by the transnationals which are an expression of and foundation for global bourgeois dominance. Even assuming a state which breaks POLITICAL bourgeois dominance at a local level ; there are still the remainder of bourgeois states internationally; and global bourgeois economic power ; and economic co-dependence.

Think about revolutionary France. The Revolution was diverted into Bonapartism. (The rule of the French Emperor, Napoleon I). And eventually with the Congress of Vienna there was total Restoration of the “Ancien Regime” in France, and the consolidation of monarchies and their traditional bloodlines elsewhere in Europe. Liberal Democracy did not really take hold through much of the world until the Bolsheviks put much of the European bourgeoisie under such pressure as to implement the crucial concession of universal suffrage. This had long been a key Social Democratic and Marxist demand. We’re talking about a period spanning over 100 years. (Throughout which we had other revolutions and struggles ; eg: 1830, 1848, 1871). Thereafter the bourgeoisie and its representatives have spent another 100-odd years thinking of ways to divide the working class against itself to prevent it from realising the potential of the suffrage. The splintering of the working class culturally and economically has made it increasingly hard to realise the solidarity we need to bring about the change we want. Narratives on ‘political correctness’ and ‘left elites’ have just this effect ; and sometimes by neglecting class interests we play into the bourgeoisie’s hands.

Critics of socialism often declare that they don’t want ‘statism’ or state domination. And this they associate with socialism.  Well, no – we don’t want Stalinist-style ‘statism’. (Though I hate the term ‘statism’ as it is commonly used to stigmatise any place for the state ; even a democratic state). But ‘wresting capital by degrees’ from the bourgeoisie still sounds like a good idea – if done properly – and if only it were possible.  The problems of exploitation and economic polarisation still demand our attention as practical and moral questions. And after all, radical redistribution of wealth is what the Swedes were attempting with the Meidner wage earner funds in the 1970s and 1980s.

Arguably the Mixed Economy represents progress towards that goal. Though the ‘mixed economy’, social wage and welfare state can be supported by far more ‘moderate’ forces who want nothing more over the long term than to ameliorate inequality and ‘save capitalism from itself’.

“Wresting capital by degrees” from the bourgeoisie can imaginably involve a mix of public, co-operative and other democratic ownership – as opposed to ‘Stalinist Statism’. But the process cannot be finished because bourgeois interests reinforce each other globally.  Currently, there is no (acceptable) ‘way out’ of capitalism. But if we mobilise we can at least force compromises which are in workers’ and citizens’ interests. And we can convince the bourgeoisie that compromise is sometimes in its own interests. (Again ; ‘saving capitalism from itself’). For example: natural public monopolies can reduce cost structures not just for citizens/consumers/workers – but also for business. And a state-owned savings and loans bank (with a charter promoting competition and ethical banking) could inject competition into the sector of benefit both to business, and to most ordinary people.

Importantly – forcing compromise through struggle is in some ways more involved than just ‘gaming the system’. Over the long term who knows what’s possible? Again: think about Revolutionary France – and the hegemony of liberal democracies which only finally arose more than 100 years later. We can only hope it will not take a catastrophe such as the First World War was to provide enough impetus to drive qualitative change ; to challenge the class system and the ‘defacto rule’ of Capital.

If anything the Global Financial Crisis gave a sense of capitalism’s enduring instability ; and that (should another crisis occur) radical interventions may be necessary ‘to save the system from itself’. But public dissatisfaction with “bailouts at the peoples’ expense” may drive strategic socialisations sooner than we think.

Socialism is not ‘inevitable’ as the old Marxist Centrists used to insist. We cannot anticipate all the policy innovations which may help ‘save the system from itself’. But over the long term a more generalised breakdown cannot be ruled out either. Socialists need to stand prepared for all manner of contingencies. Global organisation and dialogue are necessary to best prepare for those contingencies. That means not responding to discourse on ‘globalisation’ as an excuse for defeatism. It means working out the possibilities of domestic social democracy/democratic socialism ; but also building the organisation and dialogue necessary to give rise to internationalist responses. The current Socialist International is not an effective vehicle for this. Can it be reformed? Or do we need new forms of international organisation and dialogue?

This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.

Reflections on Australia Day 2019

The other day I happened upon a Facebook meme which argued that even if all white Australians are not personally responsible for the original dispossession of the Indigenous Australian peoples, they have benefited from it. And they have a responsibility to set things right.

There’s a lot of truth here ; Though it’s not just white people who benefit ; it’s the whole of non-indigenous society. All non-Indigenous Australians have a responsibility to put things right. Economic and cultural empowerment. A genuine Treaty process.

At the end of the day we want Australia “to belong to all of us”. But Sovereignty was never ceded. A reconciled nation is something that needs to be negotiated. And a Treaty cannot be merely ‘tokenistic’. It has to address Indigenous grievances past and present. It has to set things right – permanently.

Some critics on the Right argue that Left proponents of Indigenous Rights (including on a Treaty) want to ‘divide’ the country. But that’s the whole point of democracy. Recognition of ideological and social divisions ; and provision of a democratic process to give them expression – and (to an extent) to resolve those. Though the urge to suppress all social conflict can lead to a kind of fascism.  ‘National unity’ can be a watchword for the suppression of dissent. In order for democracy to avoid being overly-authoritarian we need support for civil rights as well ; and tolerance of civil disobedience ; and support for industrial liberties.

For Australia Day, though, we need to consider our history and our values closely. Uncritical militarism is dangerous ; can lead to unthinking support for any and every war we’re dragged in to. There is far too little reflection on the catastrophe of Australia’s participation in World War One. And Billy Hughes’ attempts to enforce conscription when the nation was already being bled dry on the battlefields of Europe.

Colonisation was a trauma for Indigenous peoples and that needs to be remembered. But the ‘old’ Australian culture should not be ‘airbrushed’ either. There’s the spirit of Eureka. There are cultural figures like Henry Lawson who championed the sufferings of the working class and the downtrodden. There were cultural icons like Ginger Meggs. Australia also democratised ahead of Britain, and provided full, universal and equal suffrage (including women’s suffrage). Federation (the formation of the modern nation) was peaceful.

Pre-multiculturalism Australia had a culture. In part it involved deference to Britain and Empire. That led to the catastrophe of over 60,000 dead from the First World War. But it was more than that as well. We need to incorporate the old culture with the newer multiculturalism ; and preserve a central place for the appreciation of First Nations. A bit like a Hegelian dialectical spiral where the old is forever preserved in the new.

But remember also that tens of thousands of Australians died fighting fascism in World War II. Prisoners of War of the Japanese endured horrific hardships in Changi and on the Thai-Burma Railway. Be-headings, starvation, torture. The mateship they developed was not some ‘toxic masculinity’. It helped them survive in a bond of comradeship and shared hardship.

And let’s not forget the women who contributed to the fight against Japanese Imperialism and fascism either. Vivian Bullwinkel for instance ; who was the sole survivor of a Japanese massacre of nurses ; driven into the sea and machine-gunned. As well as testifying regarding Japanese War Crimes, she did crucial work supporting repatriated soldiers after the War.

The history of Australian Communism ; and of other socialists more broadly – can also be thought of as part of Australia’s legacy. (and indeed an international legacy as well) I think we can be proud of Evatt’s fight against the domestic McCarthyism. Of Whitlam’s reforms. Of the Communists’ fight against destitution, evictions and so on during the Depression. That our Communists overwhelmingly broke from Stalinism ; for instance, took a stand against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. That for a while we had a very strong mixed economy ; a highly progressive tax system ; and a very strongly regulated labour market. For a time there was even a strong element of  ‘bipartisan consensus’ there: before the 1970s supply shock (mainly the rise in the price of oil) saw neo-liberalism and attacks on workers embraced in an effort to restore profits.

Mostly people want to enjoy a kind of national identity. We have to contest the meaning and form of that identity. Again, the danger is unthinking militarism and creeping authoritarianism. But the Australian military needs a sense of its history, traditions, values. This is crucial for democracy. Given the history, that should overwhelmingly include anti-fascism.

The idea of an ‘egalitarian Australia’ is almost dead in terms of practical implementation. Over decades it has been ‘emptied out’ into privatisation, labour market deregulation, ‘user pays’ and ‘small government’. But it’s well-worth reconstructing a national identity where the fight is on to retrieve older egalitarian traditions and policies. It’s worth contesting national identity rather than ‘vacating the field’ and giving the Right ‘a free hand’.

On Facebook, also, more Conservative participants were arguing about ‘assimilation’ of indigenous peoples and migrants.

In response I argued:

I wouldn’t want to assimilate Indigenous peoples full stop. ‘Assimilation’ suggests minorities abandoning their old identity and culture to ‘fit in’ with broader society. I’d hope a Treaty would include a commitment to help preserve Indigenous culture and identity. But that we have a shared Australian identity as well. Think of Cathy Freeman when she won gold and did a lap of honour wielding both the Australian flag and the Indigenous flag. Shared cultural elements are the basis for common ground and engagement. I believe in an integration which is compatible with multi-culturalism. What’s necessary is effective dialogue, mutual recognition and mutual understanding.   We need to develop mutual respect; and the kind of genuine, active and deep solidarity necessary to fight for a qualitatively improved social and economic system. That is (for me) democratic socialism.

But we have to remember the ‘old’ Australian culture as well. Pre-multi-culturalism Australia was not a ‘blank slate’ as some people like to suggest.

Indigenous peoples could also have their own advisory parliament ; which would communicate their needs and demands to the Federal Parliament. Establishing such an elected advisory body could contribute to reconciliation ; and frameworks for the practical development of a Treaty.

Technically you can have nations within nations. That can potentially lead to divisions re: nationalistic antagonisms. (That’s not to say people should ‘forget’ their ethnic origins). But I think the Indigenous First Nations example is unique. They had their national identities. And the authorities of the day tried to take those identities away from them.

January 26th (marking the arrival of the First Fleet) is a divisive date on which to hold ‘Australia Day’. It is suggestive of the notion that ‘real’ Australian history only began with colonisation. Colonisation was a watershed moment – and that will never change ; but nonetheless the date should be switched if we are serious about reconciliation.

On the other hand, some kind of ‘national day’ will likely be preserved. And yet the meaning of that day will be – and perhaps must be – contested. There is cause for shame from some chapters of Australian history. There are also causes for pride. Australia Day must be a time for reflection on all of this. And to consider the form an egalitarian and just Australian nation might perhaps take into the future.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Remembering Rosa Luxemburg 100 Years Since Her Murder

Comrade Marcus Strom alerted me and many others on Facebook that yesterday (15/1/19) was the 100th Anniversary of the brutal murder of Communist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht ; and the dumping of their bodies in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin. Liebnecht was an outstanding orator and leader. Meanwhile, Rosa Luxemburg (a Jewish Communist ; born in Poland – but migrating to Germany where the class struggle appeared the most advanced) is the best remembered today. This is largely because she is survived by a plethora of theoretical and practical political-literary work – much of it still relevant for the Left.

The broad example of the slide into war ; and the murder of Rosa and Karl is still instructive today of the dangers of certain kinds of ‘social patriotism’. In 1914 the parliamentary caucus of the SPD (German Social Democrats) voted in favour of war credits – to fund the War. This was against the standing policy of the Second International.  Specifically it was the right-wing leadership of the Social Democratic Government following the 1918-19 Revolution who ordered the murders. For genuine socialists, the names “Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann” will forever live in infamy. And deservedly so.

It is disturbing to think that the SPD was perhaps the leading Social Democratic Party in Europe in 1914 – and yet it crumbled under pressure at the first real hurdle. Many socialists – including Karl Liebnecht and Rosa – tried to agitate against the coming blood-bath. Rosa was imprisoned for the duration of the war after distributing anti-war material. For years social democratic parties had talked about internationalism in the instance of a conflict. But in practice the German trade unions had been subverted ; had embraced a kind of ‘ethno-nationalism’.

And they effectively fell into line in return for a handful of reforms.

Therefore perhaps there was no social or economic basis for stopping the war. But the capitulation of the SPD parliamentary caucus set a demoralising example – which resulted in the split in the Social Democratic movement ; with the most uncompromising anti-war elements re-forming as Communist parties.

Right Social Democrats ; people like Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann ; were sold on ethno-nationalism in Germany since the start (of the war). They capitulated again when some social democrats argued the war should only be supported insofar as it was concerned with ‘national defence’ ; and never be allowed to turn into ‘a war of conquest’. But the German Army hierarchy demanded open ended support for the war instead.  Again, in 1914 the caucus rolled over entirely.

Karl Kautsky – the leader of the ‘Marxist Centre’ – and for a time the most authoritative Marxist intellectual in Europe and the world –  argued for a symbolic abstention on the issue of war credits. But this gained little traction. Lenin was to revisit Kautsky’s position following the October 1917 Russian Revolution, branding him a ‘Renegade’.  But more on Kautsky later.

The real worry is how the unions remained so conservative at the start of the war. And swallowed militarist nationalism hook, line and sinker. In any case the war was to destroy those same unions ; as worker’s organisation collapsed in the face of total war mobilisation. It shows that achieving intellectual leadership of a socialist movement is not enough unless socialist, anti-imperialist and internationalist values can be successfully imparted to a broader base. As well as a willingness to fight when the situation demands it.

Who knows what motivations drove the German Social Democrats to support war in 1914? Fear of imprisonment or execution? Fear of the organisational destruction of the party? (False) assumptions the war would be short? Penetration of the caucus by government agents? Again: many social democrats insisted that support for the war be withdrawn once it became ‘a war of conquest’. But the reality was that the Army had the guns. Again: the parliamentary caucus folded in the face of military pressure.

But what many Leninist and Stalinist critics do not recognise is that by 1915 the ‘Centrists’ (ie: as in the Marxist Centrists) had began agitating for peace at Zimmerwald. Those people argued for a separate peace. So did the Revisionist Socialist, Eduard Bernstein. By comparison, Lenin argued for civil war – to turn the war into Revolution across all Europe if possible.  For all Lenin’s criticisms of Karl Kautsky – by 1915 he (Kautsky) was himself openly fighting against the war.  The critiques of Bolshevism by such diverse figures as Luxemburg, Martov and Kautsky – are still worth reading today as we grapple with the meaning and legacy of the Russian Revolution and its eventual descent into Stalinism. (though many critics under-play the severity of the conditions faced by the Bolsheviks ; and the role of Western intervention in fuelling the centralisation and resort to Terror which opened the way for Stalinism ; That includes destabilisation and support for the White Armies – which meant the threat of starvation and heating fuel shortages for ordinary Russians )

Rosa Luxemburg is famed for her unique, libertarian Marxist contributions to socialist theory and practice. Her theory of the ‘spontaneity of the masses’ is more nuanced than shallow critics would allow for ; positing a dialectical relationship between Party leadership and proletarian initiative. She recognised early on the potential of the Mass Strike. Also, she feared the consequences of over-centralisation within the Bolshevik Party for any revolution ; and particularly the substitution of the Party – and later the Central Committee – for real, grassroots and participatory proletarian democracy. For her there could be no compromise or ‘middle way’ between Reform and Revolution.  She was a strong critic of Revisionism ; including the positions of Eduard Bernstein.

But there are traditions of Left Social Democracy which are not stained by that. For instance the Austro-Marxists. The Austro-Marxists built a participatory counter-culture (workers’ sports, radio stations, libraries, forums, orchestras) ; and progressively funded public housing and amenities like laundries and pools for workers. They even maintained their own militia to defend ‘the democratic path to socialism’. This contributed to the sense that ‘Red Vienna’ was ‘a showcase of Social Democracy’. Though they also made certain fatal mistakes (eg: letting go of their grip on the state apparatus of force in the 1920s) which made it easier in the end for fascists to seize power in 1934.

So as against Rosa Luxemburg I believe a ‘middle way’ of ‘revolutionary reforms’ is possible. But on the 100th Anniversary of her death it is better to honour her very significant legacy. The legacy of her bravery and self-sacrifice. Of her intellect ; her uncompromising values ; her commitment to the working class and her faith in what she believed to be the coming revolution.

On the other hand, the example of the 20th and early 21st centuries (including the rise of fascism ; and also of neo-liberalism) appear to have put paid to a sense that some ‘inevitable teleology towards socialism’ can be counted on. Historical outcomes are far more contingent and uncertain than the old Marxists were willing to admit. Even though the continuation of neo-liberal capitalism is likely to cause intense human suffering – with increases in the intensity of labour ; and further cyclical crises and class bifurcation. And environmental crises also.  Perhaps old Marxist claims to ‘inevitability’ provided morale and confidence. (As Kautsky put it – “the proletariat’s belief in its own strength”).

But while there is hope, notions of inevitability can no longer be maintained. Barbarism is as likely as socialism ; and that itself is a good reason to fight.

Rosa’s fears were realised in the end as Bolshevism gave way to Stalinism. For Communists it is instructive to read her critiques of Bolshevism to get a sense of the dangers associated with Stalinism. And also even with Trotskyism and Leninism. Trotsky wrote of a ‘Soviet Thermidor’ in his critique of Stalinism, ‘The Revolution Betrayed’. But in reality Trotksy supported the same policies of centralisation which led to a situation akin to the demise of the French Revolution – with the rise of the Napoleonic Empire in the place of the Republic.  (Stalin is seen as a ‘Bonpartist’ figure) ; Only Stalin’s repression of his own people – and his Terror against them – was far more extensive than under other ‘Bonapartist’ regimes.

Compared not only with Stalin – but also with Lenin and Trotsky – Luxemburg stands for a kind of libertarian communism. To this day the leadership she provided with her activism and her writings – set a redemptive example for a Left which is often accused of ‘authoritarianism’ or ‘totalitarianism’. Luxemburg  was a democrat and libertarian-revolutionary-communist ; and an uncompromising opponent of the wholesale slaughter of War ; and the Imperialist designs of the ‘Great Powers’.

My personal inclination is more towards the example of the reformed relative (Marxist) centre following World War One.  Especially the Austro-Marxists. (Though I am critical of them on certain counts as well).  But Rosa’s steadfast bravery ; her self-sacrifice in pursuit of peace, and for the liberation of the working class ; should always be honoured on the Left.

Today’s Left needs to engage with past Social Democracy (and Communism) if it is to understand its past ; draw the necessary lessons ; and better plan for its future. This should also include a consideration of the sources of the split in Social Democracy in 1914 ; and the historical ramifications of that. Rosa Luxemburg ; and others like Karl Korsch ; showed that a different kind of (libertarian) communism is possible.

A different kind of social democracy is also possible: committed over the long term to the pursuit of ‘revolutionary reforms’ which would deepen democracy, transform the economy, and over time challenge the class system.

May Rosa Luxemburg (and Karl Liebknecht) always be honoured and remembered on the Left.

This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Cultural Marxism’ – Why the Right is Wrong: A Response to Kevin Donnelly

Above:  Conservative Social Commentator, Kevin Donnelly is a high-profile ‘public intellectual’ – best known for his opinions on Education.  Donnelly also regularly challenges multi-culturalism and radical views on ‘gender fluidity’.  Like many Conservatives, he criticises so-called ‘Cultural Marxism’, (arguably capitalising on fear and ignorance). He argues that ‘Cultural Marxism’ is a threat to Western Civilisation and the legacy of the Enlightenment.  But Donnelly’s opinions deserve to be challenged – For the sake of ‘genuine pluralism’; and for the sake of clarity when it comes to understanding the modern Left.

This is the first of what I hope to be two essays in response to Kevin Donnelly

By Dr Tristan Ewins

Australian Catholic University based public intellectual,  Dr Kevin Donnelly has established himself as one of Australia’s most prominent big ‘C’ Conservative voices: and undoubtedly as an important influence on the ethos of the governing Liberal Party.  This essay is a progressive response to Donnelly’s book, ‘How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia – Enemies Within and Without’.   (probably to be followed by a second essay into the future)

As part of the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ in Australia, Conservatives have decried what they call the ‘Black Armband’ view of the nation’s history, (Historian, Geoffrey Blainey’s term): a view of Australia’s complicity in imperialism and colonialism; and a past Conservatism which disadvantaged minorities.  Instead, Donnelly and those like him emphasise a narrative of Australia’s broad liberal and Christian traditions, (and even of how liberalism developed in tandem with the broader Enlightenment tradition).  Donnelly argues that these have involved pluralism, freedom and intellectual rigour.  

What is ‘Cultural Marxism’ anyway?  Double Standards in our ‘Historic Memory’

While most on the ‘broad Australian Left’ could probably still fit comfortably into the ‘liberal left’ category, Donnelly and other big ‘C’ Conservative thinkers see something more ‘sinister’ at work. The term ‘Cultural Marxism’ is increasingly thrown around with abandon. (Donnelly seems to prefer that to the use of the alternative term, ‘Critical Theory’)  He cites ‘the Left’s’ ‘Long March through the Institutions’ as leading to ‘Politically Correct’ thinking in schools and universities; and more broadly in popular culture.  Importantly; this so-called ‘Politically-Correct’ (PC) outlook often has a tendency to emphasise gender, sexuality, culture and race, (a shift from ‘old left’ emphasis on social class and a critique of capitalism).

Despite most of the ‘broad Australian Left’ arguably identifying as ‘liberal left’, ‘Marxism’ in particular is cited as the ‘bogeyman’.  The reasons for this are obvious: to capitalise on fear, ignorance and confusion. 

Many Conservatives identify ‘Marxism’ as an ‘unbearable evil’;  even though most of them cannot pin-point what the term actually means.  Donnelly refers to Pol Pot and Stalin amongst others as examples of ‘Marxism’.

A more thorough investigation might have identified the place of US bombing in Laos –  in facilitating social collapse, and the consequent rise of Pol Pot,  (this is before mentioning the place of Pinochet’s coup and the mass murder in Chile 1972; the Assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, 1980; and of the massacre of over half a million Leftists and labour movement activists by Suharto in 1960s Indonesia; or other ‘Cold War atrocities’).

Also, the place of Western intervention in giving rise to an outlook of utter desperation amongst the Bolsheviks in the period spanning 1917 through the 1920s – could accompany a more thorough investigation.  As would the place of the First World War – which set the scene for Russian social collapse, and itself resulted in approximately 20 million deaths.    

Bolshevism specifically degenerated into Stalinism. Other Marxist thinkers such as Karl Kautsky and Julius Martov identified the effective likelihood of this, and the damage consequently done to the broader socialist cause – relatively early on during the Bolshevik Revolution.

Marx himself had identified the threat of ‘Bonapartism’. – whereby a political leader consolidated themselves above social classes and other interests. (That could apply to both Napoleon Bonaparte AND to Louis Napoleon Bonaparte III; and finally to Stalin himself).  Arguably Stalinism – and the Cult of Personality around Stalin – saw this taken to a level previously unthinkable.  Even before Stalin’s rise, ‘Jacobin’ strategies of revolutionary Terror were also an important factor – but that was not the whole story.

To consider the prevailing ‘selectivity’ in our ‘historic memory’: Trotsky’s march against Anarchist dissident Sailors at Kronstadt in 1921 might be compared in nature to Winston Churchill’s sinking of the anchored French Fleet during World War II (July 1940) – following the French surrender to Germany.  While the Bolsheviks responded to what they saw as an existential threat to the Revolution, Churchill considered a scenario (Nazi capture of the French fleet) which could have turned the tide of the War in Hitler’s favour. In Churchill’s case over 1000 French sailors (until then Allied to Britain) were killed. In the case of Kronstadt total causalities were over 10,000, (considering both sides).

(As an aside; If the Bolsheviks had heeded the voice of Rosa Luxemburg (in 1918) a maintenance of liberties may have provided an ‘outlet’ through which the whole situation may have been avoided in the first place in Russia.  But in reality, now we will never know.)

Both acts could be questioned morally.  It could also be argued that desperate circumstances lead to ethically challenging dilemmas, to put it mildly. What is often missing with ‘Conservative critiques’ as usual – is intellectual and moral consistency.  Critics of Trotsky, for instance (and I am not a Trotskyist), are often silent when it comes to other ‘fateful decisions’ such as that of Churchill.  Dissident Marxist critiques of Bolshevism and Stalinism (eg: Kautsky, Martov, Luxemburg) are also largely absent from popular memory. It should not be like this.

Donnelly points to the ‘Frankfurt School’ as the source of the so-called ‘Cultural Marxist’ movement.  The ‘Frankfurt School’ began as an intellectual movement in interwar Germany, before migrating to the US in for fear of Nazism. (Some ‘Critical Theorists’ were to re-establish themselves in Europe following the defeat of Hitler).  Forming the ‘First Generation’ of Critical Theory; thinkers such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, while retaining a critical disposition against fascism, could not delude themselves about the direction of the USSR under Stalin.

Also, the prospects for the organised working class and traditional socialism had appeared increasingly questionable as fascism rose in Europe.

‘The Frankfurt School’ increasingly became synonymous with ‘Critical Theory’.  Broadly speaking; ‘Critical Theory’ developed a critique of Western culture and an emphasis on minority perspectives and rights.  Some self-identifying ‘Critical Theorists’ tended to suppose that the ‘traditional’ socialist movement’s ‘historical moment’ had passed.

In other words – that the working class had largely been co-opted; in part because of the role of popular culture, to which you could also add other factors, including religion and nationalism. In more recent decades, the decline of ‘Fordism’, factory labour and so on in many countries – has seen an accompanying decline of organised labour as well.

Nonetheless, Marcuse – with his work, ‘One Dimensional Man’ (originally published in 1964) – focused on the socialist project as one of ‘radical negation’ – of ‘a Great Refusal’ (of capitalism) involving ‘minority’ perspectives, including racial minorities, women, students and so on.  This was a break with the traditional (Marxist) view of socialism arising primarily from ‘a Dialectic of Class Struggle’.

Marcuse especially was influential in the late 1960s with the wave of ‘student uprisings’ which swept Europe, (and the rise of the ‘New Left’). Marcuse was notable in rejecting modern society’s emphasis on an outlook of ‘social closure’ for which there is no room for deep criticism or negation; an outlook for which ‘the system delivers the goods’ and should not be questioned. “Democracy”  was becoming increasingly tokenistic and shallow on account of its manipulation; a tendency which continues still.

But importantly, some examples of ‘Critical Theory’ are radically at odds with Donnelly’s caricatures.

‘Second Generation’ Critical Theorist’, Jurgen Habermas argued about ‘Legitimation Crisis’; a decline and perhaps even collapse of public confidence in the State and other institutions.  For example, the perceived legitimacy of the State (and indeed capitalism itself) – could suffer in the wake of attacks on welfare, and other hard-won gains of working people, such as labour market regulation and workers’ rights and liberties.  (all the more so where Social Democratic and ‘Left’ parties actually refuse any ‘consensus’ around austerity, and other policies harmful to the working class and the disadvantaged)

Habermas also argued about the conflict between ‘System’ and ‘Life-World’  – a consideration of capitalism’s economic-system-imperatives; its priorities; and the way these conflict with peoples’ ‘quality of life –, especially for the working class.  ‘System’ effectively ‘colonises’ ‘life-world’; becomes detached from the real-world needs of human beings. Economic insecurity and increasing intensity in the processes of exploitation are part of this.  (eg: falling  wage share of the economy; less free time; increasing class ‘stratification’ or ‘bifurcation’)

Drawing in part from Habermas: Arguably, democracy is increasingly reduced to ‘administration’ in the interests of capitalism.  Real pluralism is ‘hollowed out’.   And the inability of governments to resolve the economic and social crises which follow intensify the consequent crises of legitimacy.  As an aside: the ‘Identity Politics’ which Donnelly opposes so strongly – actually helps maintain an illusion of greater pluralism.  This outcome is ironic in light of Marcuse’s original vision of a ‘Great Refusal’. All the oppressed of the world need solidarity more than ever.  But to paraphrase Marcuse; objectively, without this ‘Identity Politics’ society and politics would have been better-exposed as being otherwise ‘One Dimensional’.

Also importantly: democratic socialism more broadly is part of what we might call ‘The Western Tradition’.  (which Donnelly argues he is defending)  Capitalism increasingly puts the gains of democratic socialism – including labour rights, broader liberties, the mixed economy, progressive tax, the social wage and the welfare state – under threat.   

But rather than ‘rejecting’ the Enlightenment project, Habermas instead refers to it as ‘unfinished’.  So without rejecting ‘Modernity’ and ‘Enlightenment’, Habermas defends the potential for what he calls ‘Communicative Action’ and the achievement of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’.  (that is, perfectly free and rational exchange and engagement without distortions or coercion; And hence: social actors striving for agreement on the substance of human liberation through Reason and Ethics-inspired dialogue).

There is more than so-called ‘Cultural Marxism’ on today’s Left; Past Conservative and ‘Centrist’ traditions also opposed hard economic Liberalism

There is a different emerging tradition on the Left, also, that is worth mentioning. ‘Agonistic’ ‘Post-Marxists’ such as Chantal Mouffe assume enduring pluralism and a permanent place for dissent. That enduring pluralism is at the heart of their perspective. In other words: they assume consensus will not ensue.  Indeed, for many either it is thought to be overly-optimistic to seek that consensus – or maybe even it is undesirable.

There is also the question of class struggle; which can be exclusive of communicative action and any ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ in contexts driven by interest. When capitalists have been increasingly (and successfully) dictating terms in response to various economic crises from the 1970s onward – they are not necessarily interested in dialogue which involves compromise.  (unless forced)

Crucially, though – in practice, both Habermas and the Agonist democrats assume a need for pluralism, liberty and engagement.  The examples they provide ‘fly in the face’ of Donnelly’s characterisation of ‘the modern Left’ and ‘Politically-Correct-enforced-conformity’. 

Continuing our consideration of Critical Theory:  To assert the centrality of Habermas to Critical Theory is also to assert that the broad Critical Theory tradition cannot be boiled down to post-modern and deconstructionist rejection of Modernity, Enlightenment, Reason; or what might be called ‘the Western Tradition’. ‘Post-Modernism’ itself also has meant radically different things to different people.

While some people claim it as a rejection of ‘Modernity’ and its assumptions, Australian social theorist Peter Beilharz (in ‘Postmodern Socialism: Romanticism, City, State’)  suggested it might be constructed as ‘the critical moment in Modernity’.

Here ‘Modernity’ refers to societies and economies of increasing scale and complexity; developing further with industrialisation, and with themes of Enlightenment, Reason, and so on. We’re talking about a frame which in a way is inclusive of certain tendencies in socialist, liberal and capitalist traditions – even though these are historically in conflict with one another as well.

Again we are in highly-contested terrain.

It might be noted, though, that there is also a now-mostly-forgotten tradition – a tradition historically associated with the Catholic working class – a tradition which styled itself as ‘Centrist’.  (Though notably, those such as Giddens and Blair have also tried to resuscitate a kind of ‘Centrism’)  Yet intellectuals such as Donnelly have apparently chosen to ‘side’ with big ‘L’ Economic Liberalism and big ‘C’ Cultural and Political Conservatism.   (if this is not so, Donnelly does a good job of hiding or avoiding it)  

The old-style ‘Centrism’ emphasised ‘corporatism’, welfare state, and some labour rights including labour market regulation. Today, Giddens and Blair identify as ‘Social Democrats’ or ‘The Radical Centre’.

But looking back to the original ‘Centrism’: amongst some, there was a clear authoritarianism. Some ‘Centrist’ leaders such as the ‘Christian Social’ President of Austria, Engelbert Dollfuss – beginning with his seizure of power and dissolution of a democratically-elected Socialist government in 1934 – historically chose to side with a kind of fascism;  (ironically, not long before the formalisation of the ‘Axis’ of Germany and Italy, Dolfuss sought the protection of Mussolini from Hitler – in return for the suppression of Social Democracy!).

‘Corporatism’ –including state mediation – or forcible suppression – of class conflict and differences– was itself part of the broad fascist tradition; though arguably different kinds of ‘corporatism’ (eg: re Swedish Social Democracy) were much more ‘democracy-friendly’; or even co-existed with a kind of ‘democratic class struggle’ (see: Walter Korpi), (the ‘Accords’ under the Federal Labor Government in 1980s and early 1990s Australia could also be considered corporatist ; not fascist in the sense of Dollfuss ; but compromising the interests of the working class on a number of fronts).  Importantly: though a right-wing authoritarian and fascist, Dollfuss was not a Nazi.  Indeed he opposed Hitler and was assassinated by Nazi agents.

Today – to overcome an ensuing negative electoral response to austerity and other associated attacks, fear of ‘Political Correctness’ is played-upon.  This means  ‘papering over’ the contradictions which could ‘get in the way’ of preserving right-wing footholds amidst the working class – parts of which feel ‘abandoned’ by ‘self-styled social democratic’ parties for whom issues of economic inequality and exploitation have been largely ‘relegated to the Too-Hard Basket’.

To elaborate: in this context, modern-day Conservatives attempt to make inroads into traditional social democratic working class support bases.  They exploit often-exaggerated discussions around ‘Political-Correctness’; with the assistance of the monopoly mass media. This is in a context where much of the working class is relatively conservative on culture compared with the so-called ‘cultural Left’.

In light of the tendency of Critical Theorists to emphasise what they saw as the almost-totalitarian nature of modern popular culture and capitalism in achieving ‘systemic closure’, it is ironic that today some Conservatives see its own perspective as a totalitarian, ‘politically correct’ threat to everything laudable in Western Civilisation.  In reality, today’s Left is highly plural.  While some still identify with the theoretical lineage of Marxism, many (perhaps most) post-modernists and deconstructionists do not identify as ‘Marxist’ at all. 

That said, it would be dishonest to simply ‘deny’ ‘The Cultural Turn’ and the transformation of what passes for progressive politics. The point is to establish that the retreat of a ‘more-traditional’ socialism has not been ‘total’ ; that ‘culture’ and ‘economics’ need not and should not be considered exclusive of each other ; and for much of the Left economics and social class still matters ; though the project of an alternative democratic socialist economic project  in ‘The West’ has arguably been mainly in retreat since the 1970s.  To some extent, it has been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Much More to Marxism than The Conservatives Understand

Donnelly’s emphasis on ‘Stalinist Dystopias’ and ‘Political Correctness’ also side-steps the matter of Marxism’s original ‘Cultural Project’.   For Marx – and many who followed him (including, for instance, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Julius Martov) economic abundance under Socialism was not to lead to surveillance, Terror, Cult of Personality,  labour militarisation and labour conscription (In short: Oppression) – but rather to cultural and social opportunity arising from material plenty, including free time.  For instance, this might mean freedom to partake in Art and Philosophy –  amongst other pursuits.

To take the example of Austrian Social Democracy (or ‘Austro-Marxism’) in the 1917-1934 period: this meant promotion of working-class culture including sport, radio stations and libraries; and involving amenities for working class people.  This included impressive public housing estates, including hot running water, communal pools and communal laundry facilities. (rare for the time).

And even before this timeframe; going back to the original theorists of Marxist orthodoxy during the height of the Second International and earlier (ie: pre-WWI):  this might even have meant assisting people in seeking after the highest truths for their own sake.   In addition to ‘freedom from oppression’ that also includes ‘enabling freedom’: empowerment for the purpose of self-realisation.  Understood thus the tensions between collectivism and individualism can also be mediated, and socialism can provide opportunities for individual self-realisation which do not arise under capitalism.

To conclude: Donnelly portrays a Left that has nothing ‘positive’ to say about ‘Western Civilisation’. He totally misses the whole point made by thinkers like Marcuse – that societies which refuse to accommodate debate whereby a significantly-different kind of future can be envisaged and communicated – are not genuinely free!  This must also involve the inclusion of dissenting social movements in public debate. But also, the idea of a ‘teleology’ (or ‘necessary direction’) of history – as presumed by orthodox Marxists – is questioned amongst today’s Left.  Following the lead of ‘Post-Marxists’ and ‘Agonists’, the future is considered by some a matter of ‘collective will formation’, strategy and choice. (indeed, a matter of ‘counter-hegemony’, or the mobilisation of the broad social forces necessary to facilitate change)  Hence as part of a pluralist agenda, we ought to strive for a tolerant Left; though still: radical democrats ought not to be naïve or complacent in the face of existential threats to democracy. (eg: the resurgence of fascism in Europe).

Also, arguably capitalism has always been ‘repressive’, ‘regressive’ and in some senses even ‘progressive’ – at the same time and in different ways.  As Marx argued in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848):  Capitalism unleashed an unprecedented wave of economic growth and innovation; (establishing the preconditions for socialism).  At the same time, capitalism has involved waste, exploitation, excesses, and warped priorities. These conditions gave rise to various movements; for Socialism – but also the Centrism which we have mentioned, and more recently environmental movements.

So in that context: For today’s socialists, the socialist project should still be about ‘radical negation’ in the sense of class struggle (and broader struggle) against the exploitation, warped priorities, injustices and excesses of capitalism.

But socialism can be about affirmation also.  We can acknowledge the progressive economic contributions of capitalism: and of ‘modernity’ considered more broadly.   And along with the original Marxist Social Democrats – who trail-blazed in their pursuit of Free, Equal and Universal Suffrage as early as the 19th Century (when almost all others neglected that cause as ‘too radical’) – we need not reject the place for some kind of parliamentary democracy and far-reaching liberties.  Most definitely we should also be striving to extend the reach of democracy; including economic democracy – whether through the restoration of a robust mixed economy; or through workers and consumers’ co-operatives; or through other avenues such as ‘wage-earner funds’ and comparable projects.   

While the perspective of ‘class’ should not be considered ‘sufficient and exhaustive in its own right’; We should not shy away from ‘class struggle’ in the broad sense. We should embrace the fight for social justice; for economic security and distributive justice; and a fulfilling life for everyone.  Again, that does not have to mean rejecting the very humanity of individual capitalists; (we must avoid the ‘brutalisation’ of politics where we can). It does mean questioning the morality and outcomes of capitalist social and economic relations. 

Finally: we should work to decouple the view of liberties and capitalism- whereby they are seen somehow as ‘essentially and inextricably linked’; (to the exclusion of socialism).  In fact, ‘liberty’ and ‘capitalism’ are often in tension and conflict with one another and depending on the specific expression, the causes of liberty and socialism can be mutually sympathetic.

The cause of democratic socialism is not forever exhausted, but ‘hope’ requires of us that we take a stand.  Donnelly’s narrative on so-called ‘Political Correctness’, and his ‘beating up’ of the bogeyman of ‘Cultural Marxism’ – is part of the problem.  So too is the abandonment of the cause of economic justice by significant sections of the self-identifying Left.

As an Australian Labor Party member of approximately 25 years, it is painful but necessary to acknowledge that for decades Labor has been at the heart of a range of policies which have undermined certain rights of labour, as well as the mixed economy, and at times the welfare state.

Importantly – the Trans-Pacific Partnership has recently been endorsed by the Federal Labor Opposition: a move which could leave governments open to being sued by foreign corporations should they facilitate policies (eg: on the rights of labour) which affect company profits. Even in Victoria under Daniel Andrews of the Socialist Left we see ‘Public-Private Partnerships’ and ‘Asset Recycling’;  (‘code’ for privatisation).

It is those kinds of scenarios that leave the broad Left vulnerable to Conservative and Far-Right strategies of ‘divide and conquer’.

We should have learned that lesson by now.

Bibliography

Beilharz, P. (1994), ‘Postmodern Socialism—Romanticism, City and State, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Donnelly, K (2018), How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia – Enemies Within and Without, Wilkinson Publishing,  Melbourne.
Eley, G. (2002), Forging Democracy, The History of the Left in Europe, 1850–2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Galili, Z. (1989), The Menshevik Leaders in the Russian Revolution—Social Realities and Political Strategies, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Gruber, H. (1991), Red Vienna—Experiment in Working-Class Culture 1919–1934, Oxford University Press, New York.
Hudis, P. and Anderson, K., eds, (2004), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Kautsky, K. (1964), The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, University Of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Korpi, W. (1983), The Democratic Class Struggle, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Lenin, V.I. (1996), Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Pluto Press, London.
Marcuse, H. (1968), One Dimensional Man, Sphere, London.
Marx, K. and Engels, F (1989), Selected Works I, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Mouffe, C. (2005a), On the Political, Routledge, Abingdon.
Mouffe, C. (2005b), The Return of the Political, Verso, London.
Outhwaite, W (1994), Habermas – A Critical Introduction, Stanford, California.
Rabinbach, A. (1983), The Crisis of Austrian Socialism: From Red Vienna to Civil War, 1927–1934, University of Chicago Press, London.
Trotsky, L. (2007), Terrorism and Communism, Verso, New York.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Left and Marxism: With Lessons for Australia and the World

British social commentator, Mal Fletcher (On Line Opinion 7/11; and‘2020 Plus’) warns of the ‘dangers’ of a ‘Hard-Left’ Jeremy Corbyn and the spectre of Marxist and socialist resurgence. But what’s the reality behind this posturing? We’ll look at both the claims made against Corbyn and at the deployment of Marxism as a ‘political bogeyman’. From there we’ll look at social democratic and Marxist arguments around economy and society more thoroughly.

Firstly: yes, British Labour is turning Left after years of Blairite Centrism. Corbyn is bringing British Labour back to the ‘relative historical mainstream’ of ‘traditional social democracy’.

Still, Corbyn’s plans for limited resocialisation (eg: of railways and utilities) threaten a precedent whereby decades of privatisation are not necessarily “a one-way street”. Some on the Right – including so-called ‘Labour moderates’ appear quite frightened at that prospect. If anything, it is they who are ideologically-inflexible on the public sector; and cannot abide by its extension in any way, shape or form. But compare this with the 1970s when Labour thinkers such as Stuart Holland (in ‘The Socialist Challenge’) were demanding “Nationalisation of the Commanding Heights”. Considered historically, Corbyn is not ‘far Left’; but rather is suggestive of British Labour ‘returning home’ ideologically to ‘traditional social democracy’. (Although some in the Corbyn camp – and in the ‘Momentum’ movement which supports him – might be more ambitious over the longer term). In light of this, Australian Labor’s Bill Shorten’s ‘shift Left’ appears much more modest. Shorten will not consider resocialisations; but may pursue ‘a living wage’ (though has equivocated on prior commitments to raise minimum wages), and moderate progressive tax reform.

Other Corbyn signature policies include Free Education, preservation of the National Health Service,  efforts to reduce inequality, and an investment in public housing. This also means a more-progressive tax system; improvement of wages – including for the working poor; a proper industry policy; and public investment in infrastructure. It suggests a Labour Party which treats social democracy seriously; not a ‘far Left’ Labour Party; but a Labour Party which refuses ‘Policy Convergence’ on neo-liberalism and ‘right-wing economic consensus’. The ‘shift to the Left’ is not ‘extreme’, but nonetheless it is the most significant development on the British Left in decades.

Fletcher seems to agree that ‘planning’ is inevitable; but poses the question “who does the planning?”. If planning is not democratic, here, do we suppose it is done by the corporates ‘behind closed doors’; with many politicians just taking it for granted that ‘the crucial economic decisions’ are not to be made democratically?  That is: that the job of representative government is merely to ‘provide support’ to the corporates – who are the real economic decision-makers. Nonetheless, comprehensive economic planning by central government is not the answer either. Not least of all because it could result in unacceptable centralisation of economic (and hence cultural, social and political) power if implemented without safeguards. Arguably we need both ‘democratisation’ and ‘checks and balances’ in the economy; which also translate into political, social and cultural ‘checks and balances’.

That said: what are we to make of charges of ‘Marxism’; and is ‘Marxism’ really such a bad thing?

Capitalism is a real ‘mixed bag’ here: a mix of success and chronic failure.

Market economies involve corporations and businesses which can be driven by the market context to respond innovatively to the intricacies of consumer demand; and allocate resources as efficiently as they can in order to remain competitive.

On the other hand, there is the threat of monopoly or oligopolistic collusion; as well as planned obsolescence. Some areas (eg: energy markets) exist in a context where product differentiation is difficult; many consumers would just like to ‘take such things for granted’. At the end of the day many of them are simply fleeced by predatory corporations.

So, on the other hand while the traditional Marxist aim of ‘centralising the means of production in the hands of the State’ may seem archaic, great swathes of the Marxist critique of capitalism retain force.  What Marx referred to (in Capital Vol I) as ‘the coercive laws of competition’ means that capitalists are constantly driven to revolutionise the means of production.   Historically, this has led to relative material abundance – which Marx saw as ‘a good thing’.  On the other hand, these dynamics result in inefficiencies, including duplication of cost-structures and premature obsolescence. To offset this capitalism is forced to adopt a posture of ‘perpetual growth’. This can have environmental and social consequences as ‘the economy’ is decoupled from human need; and instead the emphasis is ‘growth (regardless of actual quality) no matter what the cost’. Also, today’s capitalist economy is truly global; and arguably capitalism is ‘running out of new markets to expand into’.  This could lead to serious crises into the future with insufficient markets to absorb capitalism’s ‘excess produce’.

Today, also, those ‘coercive laws of competition’ might result in ‘an unsustainable race to the bottom on tax’ or with regard wages – which means less consumer demand over the long-run. It can also result in privatisation of essential infrastructure and functions; which means the State abdicating responsibility for ‘what it does best’. Hence the possibility of nepotism and corruption in the context of ‘Public Private Partnerships’ for private sector mates; and/or full privatisations ‘at a relative discount.’

Privatisation of ‘Government Business Enterprises’ (eg: Medibank Private and the Commonwealth Bank in Australia) also means that those enterprises’ ‘social charters’ are lost.  In many cases that included a responsibility to behave competitively.  Reversion to privatisation can mean a return to private oligopoly; an inferior deal for consumers; and in the worst of cases damaging collusion.

At the end of the day workers, businesses, citizens, consumers – all end up paying for this. But many capitalists support the ‘neo-liberal status quo’ for Ideological purposes; or because they are fearful of “a foot in the door for socialism”.  (More on that later).

Marxism also critiqued the tendency in capitalism to centralise ownership of most capital in fewer and fewer hands. That observation remains in force; and the consequence is “the translation of economic power into political power”. Narrow-neoliberalism is enforced with the zealotry of “an official ideology”; as are corporate interests. Unions are curtailed and vilified; the wage share of the economy falls; Media Moguls manipulate the climate of public opinion cynically. ‘Political Correctness’ is constantly beaten up to divide the constituencies of broadly-Left Parties by attrition. A return to the principles of social democracy is dismissed as ‘populism’. In Australia specifically, we have the Conservatives banning labour movement imagery in workplaces (eg: the “Eureka” flag); threatening charities who speak out on public policy; trying to shut down mass movements (eg: ‘GetUp!’) and prevent them from participating in elections (and yet at the same time they still talk of ‘liberalism’ and ‘free speech’).

Capitalist societies dealt with problems of distribution via markets and through the dynamics of ‘supply and demand’. This was ‘more efficient’ than the ‘waiting queues’ we once heard of in the USSR; and market forces also meant innovation and responsiveness. But ‘the market’ also ruthlessly excluded the poor on the basis of ‘capacity to pay’. In the West arguably, we had greater cultural freedom and innovation.  (though perhaps ‘post-the-Cold-War’ the West does not ‘need’ liberalism and democracy as much as it used to for purposes of legitimation; hence liberties – and perhaps democracy itself – are under threat). But the ‘economic abundance’ we enjoyed existed in the context of a global economy where the [economic] ‘Core’ exploited the ‘Periphery’. For example, American economic exploitation and subordination of Central and South America; and the emergence of countries like Bangladesh as ‘the sweatshops of the World’. The ‘World Economic Order’ will also ‘be up for grabs’ with the rise of China and India; and continuing relative prosperity cannot be taken for granted.

But if a ‘traditional socialist economy’ (along the lines of the former USSR) is not the answer, what is?

Firstly in response to those specific issues just raised:  again considering the Australian context; a socialist energy policy might provide micro-renewable energy for the poor, and for public housing estates (see: the former South Australian Labor Government’s policy as of February 2018), to reduce demand on the National Grid, and ensure that everyone can enjoy cooling in times of ‘peak-demand’ (eg: Heatwaves). The ‘leave it to the market’ response, however, would see vulnerable people (eg: the elderly) ‘opting out’ in the process of ‘supply and demand’ – despite the fact they are the ones who need the product most (and human lives are at stake!). Meanwhile importation of textiles from enterprises who ruthlessly exploit their workers – including unsafe working conditions – might be banned.

More generally: Probably the best Leftists can expect in the foreseeable future is to forge “historic compromises” which deliver security, freedoms, opportunity and happiness for the masses they represent.  We should talk about Marxist ideas on socialism and communism honestly and not closed-mindedly. But if ever the world does approximate Marx’s ‘authentic communist ideal’ it might never occur strictly via the path Marx predicted. The industrial working-class might never return to the economic pre-eminence that Marx predicted, and to a significant extent as he observed in its early development.  This also means the industrial working class might no longer be considered the ‘universal subject’ bearing ‘universal liberation’. The reality will be much more ‘messy’; and the task is one of building alliances; and indeed what Gramsci may have called a ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’This is exactly why efforts to divide the Left’s constituencies against each other are such a threat.

A more ‘rational’ economy means – to begin with – setting the public sector free to do what it does best.  Efficiencies arising from Natural Public Monopolies; and more competitive markets in the context of Government Business Enterprises with ‘social’ and ‘competitive’ charters; can mean a ‘better deal’ for everyone (workers, citizens, business). And ‘collective consumption’ (via tax) of essential social goods and services (eg: Health, Infrastructure, Education, Welfare Services) also results in a ‘better deal’. Extension of the public sector in this way does inevitably involve ‘planning’. And while central planning might not be advisable for an entire economy, there is a strategic place for it.

Most of the OECD is also far from emulating ‘the Nordic Historic Compromise’. In Australia, specifically, though, we are well behind the OECD average with regard our Tax to GDP Ratio as well. Extrapolating from the percentage gap between Australia and the Nordics, Australia would need to raise tax by around $300 billion/year to match Nordic tax to GDP ratios.  (The current figure may be slightly lower: The OECD recently placed the Nordics at around 45% of GDP ; though Wikipedia suggests in the vicinity of 50% – with 54% for Finland ; Perhaps Wikipedia is somewhat out-of-date ; sadly the Nordic Model continues a slow retreat) And redistribution via tax remains an important lever to ‘grow the social wage and welfare state’. (Which are vehicles not only for redistribution and fairness, but also for ‘efficient collective consumption’).

But that kind of change ‘does not happen over-night’. A medium-term objective for Australia, then, might be to match the OECD average; and progressively raise an additional $80 billion/year (in today’s terms); or otherwise put: raise progressive tax by 5 per cent of GDP. In the rest of the ‘Anglosphere’ (USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) progressive parties could do to think on a similar scale over the medium term.

Beyond this Leftists could also think in terms of a ‘democratic mixed economy’. That is: an economy based on a strategic mix of competitive markets and planning; but also, promotion of economic democracy at a range of levels. Let the public sector do what it does best; and don’t necessarily be narrowly Ideological or traditional in determining this (for instance, strategic and limited public investment in print media may be a ‘cultural imperative’: where ‘legacy media’ retain great cultural power; are centralised in the hands of a few; and where the quality of journalism is declining in that context). But where market forces act more to the benefit of society than not – then democratise those market forces. This can mean State Aid in support of mutuals and co-operatives on both a large and a small scale. (both producers’ and consumers’ co-ops). That could also involve ‘public sector co-investments’ with co-ops to help them maintain the scale necessary to remain competitive. In specific contexts regions could also contribute: where local jobs are at stake. It can also mean policies for democratic collective capital formation, and also for (union-friendly) co-determination. (‘Democratic collective capital formation’ refers to a range of policies from Superannuation in Australia (less radical and democratic) to the attempted ‘Meidner Wage Earner Funds’ in Sweden (more radical and democratic) which aimed to compensate workers for wage restraint with collective capital share; resulting in radical economic redistribution. ‘Co-determination’ means structural corporate consultation with workers; including worker representatives on company boards.)

Critics could argue that such policies are ‘a foot in the door for [democratic] socialism’. And indeed, they might well be. But the ‘Keynesian Post-War Historic Compromise’ – which benefited workers and citizens – was in the interests of business as well. Resurgent social democracy and democratic socialism today might also (in some ways) be beneficial to business as well as to workers, consumers, citizens. We should be able to reach a ‘rational consensus’ around a robust mixed economy where the debate is focused on ‘where to draw the line’. This would mean Liberals, Conservatives, and the so-called ‘Social Democratic (Blairite) Centre’ ceding Ideological ground.  It would result in a rebalancing of class forces; and for this alone it would be strenuously resisted by many. The Nordics show both the potential for delivering ‘a good society’ on the basis of similar policies; and also, the possibility of pitched struggles over ‘where to draw the line’ on economic democracy. Swedish corporates ‘had their way’ in defeating the ‘Meidner Wage Earner Funds’ in the 1980s. Again, there has been a ‘slow retreat’ since; but the overall historic example is still inspiring.

Today ‘Labour’, ‘Capital’ and other social forces could agree that a ‘robust mixed economy’ is pretty-much in the interests of all; but that what Swedish social theorist Walter Korpi called ‘the democratic class struggle’ will continue on many fronts; and in this process there are ‘no guarantees’. In this process we could envisage what Gramsci would call a long  ‘War of Position’ or what Kautsky earlier referred to as a ‘War of Attrition’. They are different conceptions; but are similar in way ; and both are valid in their own sense. ‘War of Position’ assumes a long ‘counter-hegemonic’ struggle – not only a struggle for the state; but for society’s ‘common sense’ (the Ideological assumptions that are reinforced such as to be ‘taken for granted’ in a given society); and the way that Ideology is entrenched in the various institutions and social bodies of civil society. ‘War of Attrition’ meanwhile suggests a ‘wearing down of capitalism’ over the long term; through social movements, cultural, industrial and electoral interventions – but not a ‘War of Annihilation’ (another Kautskyan term) which assumes more of a ‘frontal assault’ to overthrow the capitalist state. Importantly, Kautsky supposed there were (rare) circumstances where ‘War of Annihilation’ made sense; but if pursued under the wrong circumstances this could simply exhaust the proletariat; see it demobilised or even suppressed or crushed. ‘Wars of movement’ (the Gramscian term for a ‘pitched assault’ against capitalism) are not to be ruled out in every circumstance; but where democratic processes could provide ‘a pathway to democratic socialism’, a strategy of ‘revolutionary reforms’ or ‘slow [democratic] revolution’ is preferable. Though the Left needs to be prepared for the contingency that the bourgeoisie could well ‘dispense’ with democracy itself (as far as it is capable) if its interests are seriously threatened.

Finally let’s remember the underlying human principles of Marxism; which were made a cruel mockery of under Stalinist regimes. Marx saw the material abundance produced under capitalism as creating the economic basis for human freedom. This could mean a shorter working week, as well as greater opportunity for cultural, social and economic ‘personal growth’ and participation. In Australia a reformed National Curriculum might also promote active, informed and critical citizenship, amidst a backdrop of tolerance and deep-seeded pluralism (though this is more in the spirit of Chantal Mouffe’s ‘Agonistic’ ‘Post-Marxism’ than the original perspective of Marx) Marx’s overall approach was not a mere ‘bread and water socialism’; even though socialists believe there are areas (eg: health and education, water and energy) which demand comprehensive socialised provision. Indeed, there are aspects of the Marxist vision which could be compatible with certain strands of liberalism concerned with personal growth, liberty and empowerment.

Marxism should not be seen as an ‘Ideological bogeyman’; especially where terms like ‘cultural Marxism’ are thrown around with abandon – but where few people understand what Marxism really means anymore. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is experiencing such resistance to any return to ‘traditional social democracy’ (including substantial disinformation) provides some idea, also, of the resistance and ‘muddying of the waters’ we might encounter if we propose anything more-radical. But future convulsions in response to capitalism’s shortcomings (or what Marx would have called its ‘contradictions’) are inevitable. Somewhat ironically: in the ‘big picture’ socialists could well hold the key to ‘saving capitalism from itself’ even while setting the foundations for surpassing it with a far more democratic and free society much further into the future.

This article was originally published on the ALP Socialist Left Forum.

What could ‘Revolution’ mean to Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists Today?

‘It’s Time’ to rethink’ what we mean by ‘social revolution’ on the modern Left. What if any meaning does ‘revolution’ have for today? A comrade in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Socialist Left recently rebuked me for discussing “revolutionary” politics; and said that “thankfully” the vast majority in the ALP SL are NOT revolutionaries and…

Read more

Radical ‘Letters to the Editor’ ; July-November 2017

What follows are another series of Left-inclined ‘Letters to the Editor’ sent to ‘The Age’, ‘The Australian’ and ‘The Herald-Sun’ between July and November 2017.  Subjects include everything from ‘Cultural Marxism’ to ‘Bracket Creep’ and the Australian Welfare System. 

PLS feel welcome to discuss.

Only a few of the Letters were Published ; but I’m hoping consideration of the content here will justify the effort put in to writing the material.  🙂

by Dr Tristan Ewins


Capitalism and the Threat of Destitution

David Penberthy writes as if homelessness and destitution have nothing to do with capitalism. (Activists no help to the homeless, 13/8/17)  Unfortunately this is not the reality. Under capitalism most people do not own significant stakes in businesses themselves.  They have no choice but to sell their labour power to capitalists in order to survive.  In this system average workers can be ‘disciplined’ (kept in line) by the threat of sinking into a class of working poor.  And the working poor in turn are ‘disciplined’ by the threat of destitution ; sinking into an underclass of destitute and homeless.  This is actually functional for capitalists seeking to depress wages and conditions.  The situation is further worsened by ‘punitive welfare’. Benefits are low ; often below that sufficient for subsistence. (scraping by)  Savings must be exhausted to acquire Newstart. Workers’ bargaining power evaporates under these circumstances.  Also emergency housing, welfare and so on cost money. But even Labor governments are continually under pressure to deal harshly with the unemployed ; to cut spending in order to make room for corporate tax cuts and so on.  And attempts to ameliorate the condition of those affected is branded “class warfare”.

What are Shorten’s Tax Plans in Reality?

The Herald-Sun is waging a campaign against what it argues will be an increased tax regime under Bill Shorten. But so far Shorten’s proposals are in fact too modest. Reform of Trusts will bring in maybe one sixteenth of one per cent of GDP. (approximately $1 billion a year out of $1.6 trillion)  Negative gearing reforms will bring in a similar amount.  Contra the Herald-Sun, these reforms will tend to bypass low to middle income earners. Apart from this the Herald-Sun is emphasising Shorten’s resolve not to deliver Turnbull’s $65 billion corporate tax cut over 10 years.  The problem is that when you cut taxes this way it has to be made up for somewhere.  So corporations get a windfall – but Medicare might be ransacked for cash. To get a sense of proportion – it would take perhaps $400 billion in new taxes to bring in enough money to pay for a Swedish-style welfare state!  But if Shorten devoted an additional 2% of the economy ($32 billion) in a first term to reform of Health, Aged Care, Education and Social Security – surely that  would be a reasonable measure from which most people would benefit.

Bolt’s Double Standards on Liberties

Andrew Bolt (August 24th) argues against what he says is a ‘totalitarian’ Left.  But if Bolt is to adopt the cause of liberal rights let him do so without hypocrisy.  Let’s see if Bolt is willing to support rights of speech, association and assembly – without punitive laws, and without the dispersion, vilification and criminalisation of protest movements such as that once associated with the “We are the 99 per cent” cause, occupations against homelessness and so on.  Once the consensus on liberal rights breaks down everyone is potentially at risk.  Both Left and Right need to avoid double standards on liberal rights ; and that includes “celebrities” such as Andrew Bolt. Meanwhile attempts to shut down councils wanting to change the date of Australia Day celebrations – suggests a Federal Government which is not serious about reconciliation with Indigenous Australia.

Refuting Bolt on Welfare

The Herald-Sun (27/8) editorialises that “Welfare is Not a Right” and advocates a crackdown against the unemployed especially.  But at the same time provides scant room for the expression of the contrary view: that Australia already has one of the most punitive and austere unemployment regimes in the developed world.  Instead, the Herald-Sun ought argue for the kind of labour market and industry policy regimes that exist in Denmark.  This requires many billions to work ; but the returns in terms of the creation of more high-wage jobs – pitched to workers’ skill sets – makes it a price worth paying.  Meanwhile Newstart could do to be increased by a minimum $1000/year, indexed.  Job-seekers who cannot even afford transport, decent clothes or internet already have little chance of finding work.  Newstart provisions (introduced under the Turnbull Liberals) forcing job-seekers to exhaust much if not all of their savings before receiving support also need reconsideration. Where’s the incentive to save when losing your job could cost you everything?

Labor’s Modest Tax Agenda

Chris Bowen is laughing off claims by Scott Morrison that Bill Shorten is promoting a ‘socialist’ agenda.  In reality, Bill Shorten is talking about very moderate tax reforms that so-far will struggle to raise $4 billion a year. Or roughly one quarter of one per cent of GDP.  But there’s a problem with such suggestions being “laughable” as well.  And that Labor has come to depend on such claims being laughable. Certainly Labor are not outwardly democratic socialists. That applies probably to most Labor MPs ‘internally’ as well. But the Libs win by default if Labor is too scared to talk about democratic socialism, redistribution, economic democracy, social wage and welfare reform, industrial rights, public ownership and so on. For instance, Labor should be aiming to match the OECD average on tax (roughly 34% of GDP)  and associated social expenditure over several terms. In order to fund reform of education, health, aged care, infrastructure, welfare and so forth.  If Labor ‘wins’ on the Liberals’ terms then the Liberals win anyway – through Labor’s internalisation of their economic and social assumptions and values. Even if Labor achieves government, under those circumstances Labor (and the people Labor represent) lose.

The Truth about the ‘Luddites’ has Lessons for us Today

Rosemary Tyler (Letters, 10/9) mentions the ‘Luddites’ and their response to the Industrial Revolution, comparing them to those who resist Clean Energy today.  But there are important differences.  The Luddites were not just ‘mindless wreckers of Progress’. They were largely skilled crafts-people who were resisting ‘proletarianisation’ and the de-skilling of their industries.  They were forced from their homes ; compelled to be wage slaves in dangerous factories ; reduced to bare material subsistence; compelled to suffer 12 hour days and worse.  They lost creative control over their labours and their labour’s products. The capitalism of the Industrial Revolution created a foundation for economic and scientific progress ; but it often came at a terrible cost.  Today, also, modern capitalism rests upon the brutal exploitation of ‘peripheral’ economies such as in Bangladesh ; but also often the exploitation of working poor within the ‘first world’ itself.  Privatisation is arguably the main driver of the current energy-affordability crisis ; But if re-socialisation is not considered an option (it should be!), other measures must be taken to ‘immunise’ low income workers and pensioners during the transition to renewables and beyond.

Turnbull ‘Asleep at the Wheel’ on Energy

David Ingliss (Letters, 25/9) writes that the “electricity crisis” is the result of “rabid Green ideology”. Let’s get some things straight, though.  The current Conservative Government has had years to prepare for the closure of coal-fired plants such as Hazelwood. It’s Turnbull who has been “asleep at the wheel”. Also global warming is not an “Ideology” ; it’s a scientifically-verified environmental crisis and not necessarily to do with political values. Hence our response SHOULD be bipartisan. Further, if energy had not already been privatised the decision on what to do with the old energy infrastructure (and when) would have been the choice of governments.  Instead it’s out of our hands. If we had kept the old SECV which Ingliss refers to in public ownership arguably energy would be cheaper, and battlers would receive cross-subsidies.  Instead privatised or corporatized energy production and distribution – combined with shrinking economies of scale (as those who can afford to switch to micro-renewables) – means  ‘battlers’ are left with a spiralling cost of living.

Privatisation and Tax Cuts a ‘Two Edged Sword’ at Best

The Herald-Sun (27/9) proclaims the headline “Budget Repair: Nation $4.4 billion better off”.   And Scott Morrison has been boasting the Coalition Governments ‘success’ in bringing government spending down to 25% of GDP.  But do lower levels of government expenditure on services, infrastructure, and social security really improve our ‘national well-being’?   By contrast government spending in Sweden is at approximately 52% of GDP.  (A $400 billion difference if translated proportionately to the Australian context)  The difference is that in this country we have User Pays in everything from Aged Care to Higher Education – which hits those on lower incomes especially hard.  While the Conservatives provide ‘corporate welfare’ with tax cuts valued at about $60 billion over a decade, we treat the unemployed like criminals and allow barely enough (or not enough) for them to subsist and effective search for work.  We neglect state education by comparison ; and we are forced to opt for private provision of infrastructure – which ends up costing consumers AND business more in the end.

Coal Seam Gas a Risk

The Herald-Sun (27/9)  editorialises “Drop ideology and drill” : directing its attention squarely at Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews.   But Coal Seam Gas drilling has extreme risks – such as water contamination and contamination of land.  These risks have nothing to do with “ideology” ; and neither does the need to reduce carbon emissions in the face of a virtual scientific consensus on global warming. Also energy plants like Hazelwood have shut down – increasing the risks of an energy shortage – something governments were left with no control over as a consequence of past privatisations.  Hazelwood had to close sooner or later : but under public ownership could have continued until the State was ready for the transition.  Finally, Australia has ample reserves of gas without resort to coal seam gas (fracking) but the Conservative Government has not properly regulated the industry ; meaning this gas could be exported while at home we experience black-outs. Knowing all this it is Malcolm Turnbull who has been “asleep at the wheel on energy policy” for years ; and now is interested in blame shifting.

The Truth about ‘Cultural Marxism’

In response  to Dr Andrew P.Retsas (3/10/17) : while it’s true that Marx has nothing to do with many modern discourses on sexuality, some interpretations (eg: from Engels on ‘The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State) emphasise the potential of communal social solidarity and organisation compared with dependence on the monogamous nuclear family.  But the reality is that the vast majority of Marx’s work is to do with the struggles of workers to overcome exploitation and oppressive working conditions ; and enjoy opportunities for personal growth through engagement with philosophy, science, art, music and so on.  Critiques of ‘cultural Marxism’ ignore this, and try and use Marx as a ‘bogey’. Marx wants workers’ freed from the oppressive conditions of existence and labour – which in certain ways still prevail today.  Some seeing themselves in the Marxist tradition (eg: some from the ‘Frankfurt School’) lost faith in the working class, so instead looked to racial and sexual minorities, students and women. (for instance Herbert Marcuse in ‘One Dimensional Man’ (1964) But the Heart of the original Marxism is still the self-liberation of working people ; and “From each according to ability, to each according to need” as a doctrine of liberation, human solidarity and justice.

Education must Support Democracy

Anthony Gilchrist complains that “the socialist left has…infiltrated the education system” (Herald-Sun, 12/10) . A few points in response.  Firstly, education should support democracy.  That ought mean political literacy and support for active citizenship. That does not mean ‘indoctrinating’ with one doctrine or another ; but preparing students to make their own free decisions in a democracy in keeping with their interests and their adopted value systems.  Socialism has a place here, as do liberalism and conservatism.  A strong democracy means pluralism (ie: real choices) and not just ‘convergence politics’.  What Gilchrist calls “victim” politics might simply be citizens speaking up for their rights and interests in a democracy.  If we never questioned injustices, indigenous Australians and women would never have gained the vote.  And workers would never have achieved the 8 hour day.

Stop Vilifying Vulnerable People on Welfare

The Herald-Sun (23/10 ‘Trillion Dollar Handout’) is developing a pattern of effectively vilifying vulnerable people in the context of attacks on Australia’s already threadbare welfare system.  In reality the lion’s share of the welfare system is taken by the Aged Pension. (which funnily enough the Herald-Sun rarely talks about) Meanwhile for the vast majority unemployment benefits, disability payments and so on are ‘social insurance’ which ALL of us pay for via our taxes. Instead of vilifying the vulnerable we need an industry policy which actually facilitates the creation of decent jobs.  (as opposed to driving the car industry out of the country as the Coalition Government has done) And given activity tests already exist for Newstart there is no excuse not to raise the payment significantly: in part to support people as they search for work ; during which they need access to decent clothes, transport, internet access and so on.  Further, if the Herald-Sun wants to break the ‘dependency cycle’ and ‘poverty cycle’ it should agree to greater support for sole parents and low-income families ; and provide greater scope for Disability Pensioners to escape poverty traps by engaging in flexible work without losing a very significant part of their payments via means tests.   When those with a serious mental illness are dying on average 25 years younger than other Australians they are not ‘having us on’ or ‘rorting the system’.  See:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/schizophrenia-lowers-life-expectancy-by-25-years/4680580

All the Usual Complaints from the Right on Socialism

Tom Elliot (27/10)  makes all the usual complaints about socialism that you hear from the Right. But what is socialism really meant to be? I wrote my PhD on this topic so I have a clue.  The totally-reasonable principle underpinning Marx’s philosophy was ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’.  What is more Marx believed in achieving abundance and recasting the division of labour so every individual had the opportunity to engage in science, art, philosophy, popular culture and so on.  Everyone has the right to personal growth and fulfilment. This – and Marx’s passion for extending democracy across he political and into the economy – is what distinguishes him so clearly from those who abused his name ; using it to justify totalitarian regimes.  Countries – such as Sweden and Denmark – who have advanced socialist principles to some extent – have also enjoyed prosperity, equality, full employment and happiness.  We need a genuine pluralism in this country where democratic socialism is part of the debate.

More on ‘Cultural Marxism’

Chris Zappone (The Age, 13/11)  is right to be critical of the widespread condemnation of ‘cultural Marxism’ by people who don’t really even know what Marxism is.  In fact many Marxists were extremely concerned about ‘the cultural turn’ from the 1970s onwards ; with the embrace of ‘identity politics’ and the abandonment of themes of class struggle, economic justice and of the promotion of a democratic socialist economy. On the other hand the intellectual movement began by Adorno, Horkheimer and others was real, and is still real.  But it is very diverse ; and attempts to brand it as some ‘homogenous’ entity comprise something of a moral panic.  Adorno and Horkheimer especially were despairing of the prospects for socialism in an era of totalitarianism ; but they also critiqued popular culture in the West as a medium of social control.  Later critical theorists like Jurgen Habermas were more hopeful ; and Habermas promoted a theory of ‘communicative action’ which supposed a progressive consensus may be possible through dialogue. Contrary to right-wing assumptions about ‘critical theory’ Habermas was decidedly within the Enlightenment tradition.

Kevin Donnelly is Wrong on the English Curriculum

Kevin Donnelly (HS, 16/11) again takes the English curriculum to task, accusing it once more of left-wing bias.  But the modern English curriculum is about more than spelling and grammar. It is about communication life skills which empower students, including the critical analysis of texts.  This need not involve a bias towards the Left or Right.  It is about comprehending and criticising the assumptions beneath texts of both a Left or Right-wing inclination ; and also those which don’t fit within that framework.   The modern English curriculum is also about encouraging students to develop and express opinions. Again, this need not involve a prejudice towards the Left or the Right.  But it does empower students to make informed commitments on social issues , and to express their associated beliefs effectively. There are some Conservatives (but not all I’d argue) who feel threatened by this.

Tax Cuts, Corporate Welfare and Bracket Creep

The Herald-Sun (20/11) editorialises in favour of tax cuts to compensate for bracket creep. A few points in response.   Bracket creep tends to flatten the income tax system over time ; to make it less progressive.   But tax cuts emphasising the upper end can also exacerbate this.  The most equitable way of dealing with bracket creep is to INDEX the lower thresholds to ensure those on lower and middle incomes don’t end up paying proportionately more.  But progressively-sourced increases in tax should not be ruled out.  After all, tax is necessary to pay for Medicare, schooling, roads and so on ; and a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme could be funded via progressive tax ; providing for the health, happiness and dignity of older Australians.  Certainly sweeping Company Tax cuts amount to ‘corporate welfare’ ; where corporations fail to contribute fairly to the infrastructure and services they benefit from ; and hence everyday taxpayers are made to ‘pick up the tab’.

The ‘Nuances’ of Intersectionality

“Janet Albrechtson (‘The Australian’, 25/11) takes intersectionality theory to task, accusing it of being a cover for a new “racial essentialism”, and probably also suggesting a new sexual essentialism. But as with many schools of theory there are different tendencies. Some are ‘vulgarised’ and some are ‘nuanced’. Some people see categories such as gender and race as “compounding on one another in a simplistic fashion”, where knowledge of which of these categories a person falls in to provides all the information necessary to determine a person’s privilege. And those categories are often prioritised over one another with a kind of ‘arbitrary hierarchy’. Others acknowledge that race, gender (and other factors) can be important contributors to disadvantage and privilege ; but they also acknowledge that many of our experiences and social positioning are individual and unique. Hence we should not rush to pre-judge one another. Also, well into the past, Marxist influence in the social sciences saw a prioritisation of class – sometimes to the exclusion of other oppressions. Yet worryingly, and following the example of the US liberal left, today class is widely de-prioritised compared with gender and race. This helps the likes of Trump co-opt great swathes of the US white working class. (‘Divide and Conquer’) A general movement against subordination must promote solidarity, engagement, mutual recognition and mutual respect. Though it must not ‘paper-over’ oppression in the name of liberal-bourgeois Ideology either.”

Scroll Up