The system is the problem
By Christian Marx
Over the past three decades, the political and sociological narrative has become narrower than ever. Sensible social policies are now trumpeted as “dangerously communist”. The most basic social systems are labelled “hand outs for bludgers”. The Murdoch press is a hateful echo chamber for the intellectually stunted and the shallow thinkers. It is no accident that the Murdoch media has reached a dangerous zenith. He was aided and abetted by both sides of politics. In fact, it was the Hawke/Keating government that paved the way for Murdoch`s evil grip on Australia`s democracy. They weakened the media monopoly laws.
Murdoch is just one factor in the erosion of our democracy. His rise is ultimately a symptom of a much deeper problem. The system itself! How can we have a system that is run by the very wealthy capitalists? How can we the people expect a fair and balanced society and egalitarian policy? The answer is that we cannot. When both parties are totally corrupted by corporate influence, their allegiance to serve the ordinary citizen becomes void. Especially in a country with massive media monopolies, which have a very far-right agenda to propagate.
Even if a party wanted to go against corporate influence, the fact that our media is almost totally corporate owned will go against them. We have seen time and time again, whenever a government or individual goes against the wishes of corporate vested interests, they are smeared and their character is assassinated. Julia Gillard was a classic example of this. She was smeared, defamed, and even her family were used as fair game in an ugly attempt to destroy her. All because she dared to suggest putting a price on carbon.
While many deride the two party duopoly, the situation will not change until the whole system is radically altered. The fundamental problem is that the entire system has been designed and implemented by the wealthy elites. A cleverly deceptive system, designed to give the voters the illusion of choice. The reality is that the choice is severely limited between one centre-right party and one extreme-right organisation. Ultimately it matters not which party gets elected, the wealthy will always benefit at the expense of the working class.
We all know that the LNP have attacked the very idea of a robust welfare system from their inception. The LNP were founded in 1942, with a manifesto to protect the profits of the very wealthy. Labor did start off as a very noble party, which were originally honest in their intentions to protect the interests of the poor and the middle class. This has, however, changed substantially over the past 30 years. We have seen them support some terrible policies in recent years. The support of the concentration camps on Manus, the moving of single mothers onto the lesser Newstart amount, their reluctance to fight the Trans Pacific Partnership, and their tacit support of the demonisation of whistle blowers such as Julian Assange.
While the Greens are a welcome breath of fresh air and for now remain a progressive force … what will happen once they have a very real chance of power in government? I can`t help thinking that they will, just like Labor before them, be forced to do deals with very powerful corporate interests. These interests will be diametrically opposed to the well-being of the ordinary worker.
If Australia is to be a true democratic state, it needs strict media ownership rules and a system in place, whereby all money and corporate influence is removed from parliament and policy making. Only then will we see a truly honest, robust, egalitarian system designed for the benefit of the many. Not just for the privileged few!
Also by Christian Marx:
24 comments
Login here Register here-
Michael
-
DisablednDesperate
-
Backyard Bob
-
kerri
-
bobrafto
-
Matters Not
-
Jack Russell
-
paul walter
-
Alison White
-
Andreas Bimba
-
Wam
-
Keith
-
Bronte ALLAN
-
Wam
-
Michael
-
diannaart
-
Michael
-
jane
-
gee
-
bobrafto
-
Jennifer Meyer-Smith
-
jimhaz
-
jimhaz
-
OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES
Return to home pageThere is a way – precincts.
Precincts? Tell me more.
Ah, I feel 16 again…..
All because she dared to suggest putting a price on carbon.
I would think it was more to do with her daring to tax the miners for plundering the minerals that belong to the Commonwealth. And being a woman and a redhead and unmarried and progressive.
kerri
you forgot backstabber. lol
and very good at the job.
That fair and balanced concept. Wonder who promoted that? And continues to so do?
Any takers? Free subscriptions are on offer. (Please note: Employees of Fox are not eligible.)
Every word in general use, when used by the neo-con/IPA/vested interest types, have a different meaning and intent. The trick is to work out what THEY mean when they use them.
Chris Marx, not a wasted word. Thanks.
A minor correction. The moving of parents from PP to Newstart was a Howard govt piece of legislation (welfare to work). The LNP did their usual trick of grandfathering the changes. This led to the very unjust situation where people in identical situations were treated differently. The ALP made the wrong call in taking the route of lowest cost.
A fine article Chris. We’re in deep, deep poop.
Spot on kerri, it is obvious that women are not ready to challenge the boys unless the boy at the top acquiesces. This christian marx(real or imaginary) ‘labor was once noble’ and the ‘greens refreshing’ is as close to drivel as I’ve read on these pages.
Does the Christian or the Marx think labor is not mindful of the disadvantaged Australian and lump them in with the coalition?
Which thinks dinatali and his pragmatic boys would not join Turnball as they did with the rabbott?
Which uses ‘Noble’ and thinks Gillard could have been a victim of the carbon price without the greens voting with the rabbott in 2009 to kill the wong/turnball agreement in pique for being left out and in 2010.
Sadly women are not ready to accept that only those exceptional can lead and then only once but when they do the boys will follow.
Will it take green white and purple???
Jack
In relation to your comment beginning …”Every word in general use….”
I have found if you take the complete opposite meaning to what has been implied; then, you are in the ball park. It applied exceptionally well to Abbott who continues as a informal leader in the LNP. Abbott’s views are still influencing the neo liberal LNP, as displayed by the last budget. Contentious matters from the 2014 Budget are in the background waiting to be ratified should the LNP be elected; eg penalty rates, cost of University courses, Medicare … etc.
We have not witnessed any decline in energy costs since the carbon tax was stopped.
Trust the LNP at your own peril.
It seems to me, & probably to many others also, that the American-owned media in Australia is working to the same play sheet as in America. Any talk in the USA about “free” medical care, higher minimum wages, more gun control & any “social” changes etc are ALL branded as Communist–just look at how all the red-neck Trumpet supporters, the NRA etc view the platforms & policies that Bernie Sanders would introduce if elected as President! It is outrageous to say the least! I know America is supposed to be “the land of the free” (sic) & does not historically “like” any government backed organisation, ideals, Welfare proposals, social changes etc, but to say that Bernie is a Communist is stupid! And yet all these Trumpet disciples think that ANY of Bernie’s policies etc are tantamount to Communism taking over! In Australia we now have the American-owned Mudrake press spouting these same “messages”! According to Mudrake, any of these sorts of proposals here in Australia means that we also will become Communist! And we all know that “true” Communism does not “allow” for any individual wealth. So, of course, ALL the obscenely wealthy Liberals etc here would be “not happy Jan” if ANY form of Socialism party etc was to be elected–then they would all “most likely” have to lose some of their wealth! And “they” cannot have that happen! So, NO to any party except the one that looks after all the obscenely wealthy mining barons, industrialists, pastoralists, media barons, construction owners etc. In Australia we are saddled with a (practically) two-horse race for wining the next election, & sadly, too many of the “ideals” that the Labor party used to stand for have gone–& now they are very similar–in a lot of ways, to the dreaded, lying, inept, right wing, flat earth conservatives! I am not expecting too much to change IF the Labor mob are elected, & IF (God help us!) this bloody conservative mob are re-elected then I think Australia is doomed to even more of their anti-Union & workers rights, reinstating this draconian ABCC mob, less Welfare, no Medicare, no Doctor’s rebates, less money for the ABC, NO Climate change proposals, less CSIRO staff etc, crap! As I said, God help us, & I am not religious! Apologies to all the religious people out there! Great comments Christian!
Bronte, only the new pragmatic loonies bleat the disingenuous ‘same’ or ‘similar’ because shorten and the current turnball are chalk and cheese in every point in your post.
DisablednDesperate May 15, 2016 at 8:07 pm
A Community Precinct Forum can be defined as:
resident-centric,
issue based,
voluntarily administered and Council supported entity,
functions in an impartial and generic manner
with the aim of assisting Council and
providing transparent and accountable information
for residents to make informed decisions
in a forum setting
at scheduled monthly meetings
communicating by means of minutes, newsletters, website and emails
with residents, Manly Council and others
all supported by dedicated and passionate fellow residents
…. in summary, civics in practice.
Scaleable as to territory, Manly’s Precincts were based on x number (eg approx 2000) of households – issues are raised, discussed, formulated, and depending on the issue are either accepted for further discussion, information gathering and resolution next meeting (notice) or in the form of a minuted motion as a reflection of those (optionally) attending to council and councillors – council then responds to the following meeting and not obliged to concur.
Matters and issues which concern beyond a precinct would be escalated to an area precinct made up of representatives from precincts.
Have issues with the word “precincts” – blame American TV cop shows. I guess ‘cooperatives’ sounds too….. communist?
Of the four definitions from wordsmyth (US):
definition 1: an area, as of a town or city, forming one electoral district or patrolled by one police unit.
All precincts of the city have now reported their election results.
It’s not an emergency, so just call the number of the police in your precinct.
similar words:
district, neighborhood, ward
definition 2: the headquarters of a police unit that patrols such an area.
The man was brought into the precinct on charges of disorderly conduct.
definition 3: (often pl.) an area with specific boundaries, or the boundaries of such an area.
The students can leave the building, but they cannot go outside the precincts of the school.
definition 4: (often pl.) the area within which a structure or place is situated; environs.
Many live within the precincts of the temple.
Wikipedia:
Historic
Wards of the City of London were historically sub-divided into precincts, with each precinct electing a Common Councilman (they were therefore effectively electoral districts). While the wards still remain, the precincts have been abolished.
Community (of, by, for residents) Precinct (territory, boundary) Forum (1 voice = 1 value between the 4 minutes it takes to complete a ballot paper and surrender our individual power 3 times every 3-4 years) = liberating, systemic solution to the problem!
Sorry bobrafto, you’re as wrong as anyone could possibly be. It seems you don’t know that a leader of any political party cannot be deposed unless the majority of the caucus agrees. Gillard drew the short straw and tapped him on the shoulder.
Rudd refused to call a spill, so 73 members of caucus gathered their collective knife and all stabbed simultaneously.
So once again, nice try at tring to fit Gillard up, but it doesn’t hold water.
corporations understand their vulnerabilities, the public. given social media, divestment and name and shaming of dodgy business and puppets, we can bring most companies down.
Jane
In a broad sense you may be correct but if my memory serves me correct, Rudd’s knifing was meticulously planned with dodgy polling, a puff piece on Gillard on Australian Story a couple of weeks before the event and Julia was right in the thick of it shoring up the numbers.
And also it’s the perception of the general community.
I was pissed off with Rudd’s knifing and overcame my disappointment with having the first woman as PM just like I was glad with Ms Bligh when she became the first woman Premier, however Ms Bligh is another story and on a personal level I do not have any kind words for her in not applying the rule of law that saw me losing a couple of mil.
But what really pissed me off was that Rudd’s body was on the floor bleeding and the knifers then went around putting the boot in and publicly calling him a psychopath and other choice words.
Apart from that, Julia did an admirable job in her role as PM.
Well done Christian Marx. A man after my own heart!
I echo Bronte’s words of warning unless we see Labor put aside their fight for the Right with the degenerate LNP and form The Alliance with the Greens and an assortment of Progressive Micro Parties and Independents.
diannaart, I like the idea of cooperatives. ‘The Progressive Cooperative’ sounds good for the Alliance of the Greens, Labor, Micros and Indies.
(Wam, are you a robot?)
[It seems to me, & probably to many others also, that the American-owned media in Australia is working to the same play sheet as in America]
It sure is. Though I sometimes question whether it is a playbook or a set of directions from “the masters”.
I mean even the LNP company tax reduction is a gift of 10 billion over 10 years to the USA due to their higher company tax rate. Maybe that is the real reason they keep their company tax high while promoting (using rubbish economic memes) others countries to lower theirs.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/tax-treaty-to-deliver-billions-to-us-treasury/7416534
The LNP wants more OS investment from this tax reduction policy. WTF!! The end result of more investment is a higher percentage of income generation going overseas, so we end up gifting even more tax differentiation to the US and others.
The US has also made trillions over time simply because the US dollar is the worlds trading currency. Any other country running such huge public debts would have been crucified by now.
Another real stinker is the property market here in Australia. We owe OS banks well over a trillion due to housing inflation. How did that come about? How did any government allow such a huge collective investment in a totally non-productive asset group. Could this be any worse planning than a communist government would do here in this resource wealthy country?
To me globalisation is more negative than it is positive, the reason being is that there has also been a globalisation of dirty politics. This dirty anti-citizen/pro-business based politics leads to inadequate regulation and control and social engineering to suit the desires of the worlds wealthy.
If you didn’t watch Q and A last night, make sure you watch Kate Tempest. Absolutely Brilliant.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4440860.htm
Starting at 1:04:00
the high court has determined that donations to political parties by corporations and unions are allowable under the clause in the Constitution ‘chosen by the people’. Also under that clause the high court has determined that free speech and movement relating to political matters are allowed. a government cannot make laws prohibiting donations to political parties as it would be inconsistent with this clause. In the absence of this clause the constitutional guarantee of freedom in relation to speech and movement on political and governmental matters would also be removed. remove this clause would lessen the rights of citizens. the only way to correct this is to insert a bill of inalienable rights into the Constitition so that if the ‘chosen by the people’ clause is removed the other rights that clause enables remain. alternatively, we need a new constitution.
PS.It was the unions that sought to keep the right of organisations to donate to political parties not business corporations when appealling a decision of the LNP nsw gov to lomit those donations. make what you will of that.