The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Liberal compromise and the struggle for social justice > Comments

Liberal compromise and the struggle for social justice : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 21/5/2008

Exploring the dynamic between liberal democratic consensus and the struggle for justice.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Tristan,

I have no argument with your logic, but, with respect, the use of highly academic, abstract language (value formation, ideological literacy, civic mobilisation, public sphere participation) renders your articles open to misunderstanding and ambiguity.

I would very much like to see a follow-up article that translates the academia into tin tacks. For instance, what should really happen in Tasmania to overcome the endless battles over forest logging and public protest?

Or maybe your article is saying that those issues are already being dealt with adequately? In this liberal democracy the 'market players' are Gunns and the emerging alternative economy (food and wine growers and tourism operators), mediated by a heavily compromised government and opposed by a sceptical, angry public.

And what are you saying about the privatisation of NWS power infrastructure?

Are you saying this is how it should be? After all, the instruments of a liberal democracy are theoretically all in place in Australia. What would you change?
Posted by gecko, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:17:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Gecko;

What I'm saying is that liberal democracy is a fine balancing act - between the rule of the majority, and the liberal and social rights of minorities.

And sometimes it is such that the disadvantaged and oppressed must enjoy the right to struggle for justice - even in a democracy; and even to take it as far as civil disobedience.

And often - we have the right and the duty to fight for justice - eg: against an unjust and brutal war - even if it does not affect us directly...

The liberal demcratic consensus - which allows for this - is what keeps countries like Australia from plummeting into chaos - or otherwise into a grossly oppressive regime.

Without such a consensus, politics can descent into a brutal life or death struggle - and it is in everyone's interests to avoid this...

Given your example of power privatistion in NSW: this is an example where civil disobedience call be called for... To begin with, unionists and ALP members might try and hold Iemma accountable - via ALP National Exec, threatening MPs preselections...

But if all else fails - I believe strike action - or other forms of industrial action - could be justified. (a form of civil disobedience) And I think this is what I suggest in the paper.

meanings of words:

ideological literacy - understanding of ideas systems - eg: socialism, liberalism, conservatisam

public sphere - forums for public discussion - collectively - including all forms of media, public meetings etc.

value formation - simply the process by which people come to and develop their personal beliefs and values...

Thanks for the comment :-)

Take care - most sincerely,

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 10:43:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Teachers, for instance, have not only been involved in struggles for wage justice: they have been at the heart of struggles for a more progressive curriculum."

This week, Victorian teachers have been fighting against the Australian Education Union (AEU) and the state Labor government of Premier John Brumby. Who like their political counterparts are undermining public education, in every domain, to facilitate big profits in the ongoing private enterprise of public education. Included are a range of pay cuts (presented as a victory)and the exacerbation of job security (the ongoing casualisation of the workforce) and a sellout agreement that compounds the deepening crisis in the schools’ primary and secondary classrooms. If ratified, this AEU-Labor government agreement will open the way for even more draconian attacks on public education.
The problem is precisely, in a nutshell, "liberal compromise" and reformist ways. For that agenda has collapsed in every country. That is why the liberals, governments nor trade unions have or for that matter defended or proposed any social justice globally in the last 25 years.
The Financial Times last week published an admonishing column by David Rothkopf, author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making. “The credit crisis is exacerbating the emerging backlash against corporate excess,” he wrote. “Elites make billions on markets whether they go up or down and their institutions win government support while the little guy loses his home. Multinational chief executives 30 years ago made 35 times the wages of an average employee; today it is more than 350 times. The crisis has focused attention on the obscene inequities of this era—the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion.”

It is time the working class moved off the sidelines and entered the fray of the world arena fighting for social justice and social equality.
Posted by johncee1945, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 12:04:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not sure why the privatisation of power in NSW calls for civil disobedience. I care about the lights going on when I want them to, not who owns the assets. Why is ownership of assets an issue for people to pursue civil disobediance?

Living in the Hunter Valley of NSW where there is significant electricity infrastructure, is is easy to see how too much money has been taken from the power utilities as dividends by state governments, and not enough put into replacing aging infrastructure, or maintaining sufficient buffers of capacity.

I think that it is obvious that we have not been paying enough for electricity, which governments tolerate (as they can raise additional funds through taxation, which never seems to be included in the defense of public ownership), but which private operators will not.

Due to limits on financial resources, governments should not spend valuable and precious taxpayer funds when private industry will do it. Keep those funds for support services which private industry does not want.

As an aside, it is arguable that the balance of a liberal democracy could easily tip into mob rule. A constant example of this is the mentality that encourages additional taxation (directed spending) of higher income earners, simply because a large group of people believe that those higher income earners can "afford it". That may be so, but it is hardly fair or based on any principle of equality.
Posted by miner, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 3:26:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
johncee1945,

I think you will find that some teachers are fighting against the AEU-government proposed wage deal, but in the end it will get the 70 per cent-plus vote that the 2001 and 2004 EBAs got, even though the second of these actually worsened workload. Every teacher will earn more money over the 2008-2011 period under the proposed deal than the government originally offered, and about two thirds of teachers will earn substantially more. The AEU has done well, given the number of non-union teachers, the number of teacher unionists who do not support union action, the weakness shown by teachers in endorsing the past two deals, the failure of teachers to use the 2001 EBA to get decent conditions in their schools and the presence in the profession of teachers who happily signed the Kennett Government’s individual contract system (the PRP) in the 1990s. My last school, Hampton Park SC, had a maximum class teaching load of 21 48-minute periods (16 hours 48 minutes) when I was its timetabler – the best conditions in the state, an example of what could have been achieved by strong union sub-branches. As a direct result of the 2004 EBA, period length went up, teaching loads went up and the management advisory committee was abolished – all thanks to teachers endorsing a flawed deal. If teachers wanted to do better than the 2008 offer, which is the best on pay (though not workload) in 25 years, they would have to be more united.

For a much more comprehensive discussion of the proposed deal, you can see
Scale of the Century at
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/706780
and
Another look at the Vic pay deal
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/709114.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 6:33:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I welcome the broad-ranging debate. :-)

But are there any more comments or opinions more closely related to the subject matter? (ie: liberal social contract, struggle for social justice, legitimate examples of civil disobedience etc?)

Take care, everyone - and thanks for all your input.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:37:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy