Rhrosty,
There was no parental precedent for my radicalism; my parents were/are part of the conservative furniture--so are my syblings--albeit they're of the working classes. This is the great coup of neo/liberal ideology, that it blinds people to their own demeaned condition. Ideology is the condition of having been born and socialised into an exploitative order, whose terms appear natural and normal.
The issue was for Marx and remains, "justice". For Marx, in his day, justice was a joke. But what is justice for those who can't see it? For those so inured to their condition?
It must be found in injustice--and this makes denial of gay marriage an instance of it. But justice is still only seen through a glass darkly, so conditioned are we by, for instance, neo/liberal individualism. Never mind that it's patently nonsense--what on Earth does the individual consist in?!
Egoistic individualism works both ways; it justifies injustice and it quells dissent via its victim-blaming discourses. Liberalism affords the "freedom" to comply or be found wanting--if not to exploit then to be deluded.
There is at least that consolation for the exploited; they're not half so deluded as the exploiters!

<In "democratic" mass-consumption society individuality is the dominant form of ideology, the chief way in which subjects are interpellated. It is as "individuals" that we are exhorted to assume responsibility for our own lives, encouraged to fulfill our deepest longings by purchasing and owning commodities, and steered away from collective action toward "personal solutions"--invited to seek deferrals from our own precious, individual selves> (Nancy Fraser).

Mollydukes, I agree with you about Bill and his motives but the point he makes in that instance is valid. There is a double standard in the pro same sex marriage anti pluralistic marriage stance. In some ways the pluralists have a stronger case than the same sex marriage advocates.

I also agree that "it is time to stop the war and tone down the political partisanship", a point I tried to make in my post by pointing out that both extremes operate in a similar manner and for those not in the extreme there is a mix of how well we do at balance.

R0bert

Jon J,

Most Catholics were never “purged” from the ALP at all. The majority outside of Victoria remained members of the ALP.

The following progressive causes were espoused (even pioneered) by the DLP:
The end of the White Australia Policy (the first parliamentary party to call for this)
Land rights for Aborigines
The abolition of capital punishment
The introduction of proportional representation to state parliaments
Votes for 18 year olds
Equal pay for women
Environmental causes
Opposition to freeways
Compulsory savings (now the superannuation guarantee levy).

No doubt you can come up with a few “non-progressive” policies too, but the facts are clear: the DLP was a moderate mostly left-wing social democratic party, whose right-wing aspect was simply a very sensible opposition to communism and support for the US alliance, features strong in the current ALP.

I have never seen so many words used to try to rationalise an irrational ideology.

Max must be very ambidextrous, to be able to do so much patting of his own back.

Thank-you R0bert and everyone else here talking about what we did in Australia in the past that was good. This is a link to an article that says that in Australia;

"For four decades, from 1940 to 1980, there wasn't a single person wealthy enough to make the all-time rich list."

I guess we were missing something back in those decades. Apparently we need super rich people to make our society grow and be better. But it doesn't seem like that to me.

I liked Australian society back then, we lived in suburbs that were diverse; where 'poor' people often lived along side the 'richer' people. We didn't have gated communities where the rich lock themselves away from social problems and take no responsibility for the selfishness that infects our society; their idea is example just look after number one and the benefits will trickle down.

That is the American way which we adopted.

"starting around 1980, Australian inequality began to rise. The income share of the richest 1 per cent (those today with incomes over $200,000) has doubled, while the share of the top 0.1 per cent (incomes above $700,000) has tripled. The ratio of CEO pay to the pay of an average worker has quadrupled."

Is that really what we want more of?

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-return-of-the-australian-magnate-20120501-1xwpv.html#ixzz1w0sEFjai

One thing about communism and the level of fear that the spread of this ideology created in some people; I think my dad was right when he said that communism could never be implemented in Australia; there was no way Australian people would stand for that sort of nonsense.

So I think that a lot of the policies of fear that drove the cold war type thinking in Australia were unnecessary and were part of the move toward adopting US ideas about people and good societies.

With the post Whitlam shift to the right by the ALP as demonstrated by the policies of the Hawke and Keating governments, and the move from liberalism to the reactionary right and neo-conservatism by the Liberals under Howard, a move with its roots in the Fraser years. Couple the conservative dominance of the Gillard government on issues of social justice along with both the main stream media and the institutions of 'The Church' being total slanted in the way of conservatism, a social social justice vacuum was created. This vacuum is now being filled by the progressive party that articulates social justice issues with a semblance of political clout, The Greens. While ever Australia is bereft of a true alternative The Greens can only grow stronger and stronger. The Greens today are somewhat reminiscent of the early Labor Party, and like the Protectionists and Free Traders, Labor is very much in danger of being cast into the political wilderness and like the old two before them becoming another footnote of Australian political history. The Liberal Party, with the continued backing of big business, will live on as the neo-conservatives opposed to all social change, whilst serving the interests of their political masters under the guise of liberalism.