Tristan,
I see no harm in Marxism being studied in universities as long as the lesson of history are learnt.
1. The ideology has lead to more premature death than any other known to man.
Nazism and Fascism were offshoots of socialism.
Hitler started by getting control of the National Socialist Workers Party.
Mussolini started by getting control of the Italian Socialist Party.
Add Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao- the dead are counted in hundreds of millions.

2. Centralising economic and political power in one person's or group's hands soon consumes judicial power, making absolute power inevitable. As all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,the repression of tyranny is inevitable.

"To be honest, I think my main source of improvement in recent years, if I am to have an opinion about my work, is from criticism on OLO and even reading more from a variety of think tanks. "

"Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 27 February 2014 10:18:34 AM"

This statement demonstrates a level of bravery and courage, that some of the other authors of articles lack to a large degree.

Some have spat the dummy and no longer contribute to OLO. because of the critical thinking criticism of their precociously held beliefs.

Chrsi Lewis, you’re “…critical of Australia's humanities due to a bias to the left, an aspect[?] which still exists today”.
I congratulate you on being able to extrapolate your anecdotal experience into a critical analysis of the humanities generally. My survey of the Humanities during my tertiary career has been much more limited, and my findings suitably uneven. Even so, while the opinions I’m exposed to could be described as politically correct, I’ve come across little I’d call left-wing.
I would argue that the left-wing “bias” you allude to is actually nothing more than a propensity to think critically, as opposed to thinking conservatively (not thinking). Yet such critical thinking generally stops short of being left wing and like all other institutional sectors academics are concerned most with securing their positions, and preferably promotions. The exceptions are those who have transcended beaurocratic gravity and anoint themselves the genuine article.
Your perceived left-wing bias is merely acknowledgement of the patent evils and elisions presided over by conservative “thinkers”—an institutional feint rather than any genuine radical commitment.
Reading on, I can’t help thinking the truth is that you yourself are possessed of a right-wing bias; you seem to think it quite a coup to be published in the reactionary rag Quadrant (which I subscribe to for cynical amusement). I haven’t read your other publications you mention but your subject matter amounts to a litany of conservative cliché’s, with nothing approaching ideological critique or idealistic defence.
The reality, born out by recent elections and various conservative policies (supported more or less by all sides), is that Australia is a majority right-wing constituency, gradually shedding a shabby skin of political correctness.
You were right by the way to disagree with your lecturer (if you’ve represented him/her fairly; the working classes are traditionally the grassroots of xenophobia.
If I may say so, it seems to me you will never attain the kind of perspectivism you lay claim to while you see the world as it is as the inevitable backdrop of society and its government policy.
Universities teach people to think--to feel superior.

Thanks Chris; good article.

I'm a cynic with considerable applied experience in human nature.

The best societies do not wander off into idealistic visions which require superhuman capacity to work.

The failures or inadequacies of the human condition must be recognised by society with sufficient checks and balances to allow freedom but not anarchy.

Alternatively with too much constraint a society rots from within and like the Berlin wall collapses.

A successful society resides in the psychology of individuals. My experience in psychology showed me that positive reinforcement was more successful than negative but without consequences the behaviour itself becomes a negative consequence. That applies to governments as well as individuals. People forget that governments are people.

For that reason a minimalist government is always the best circumstance. Power corrupts and absolute power etc.

Thanks Don and Wolly.

The piece i wrote for OLO was inspired by Tristan and Bolt. I just wanted to suggest that arguments from across political spectrum, as can hopefully be expressed by the diversity of the humanities, can be so more effective through research that is much more thorough and less driven by one's own bias.

There is enough evidence that may illustrate negative and positive aspects of recent policy trends, but how each argument is presented will depend on a thorough examination of evidence. A coherent piece that incorporates much info from many players and perspectives will likely come across as more scholarly than something more representative of bias.

For example, one academic suggested Howard undermined democracy; i suggested that the evidence pointed to a high degree of pragmatism. It was not my problem that many academics were out of touch in terms of community opinion. I did this despite being a Labor voter from 1996 to 2007.

And given my own serious shortcomings in terms of knowledge, that is my point about wishing a better study experience at universities. For example, when I supported govt intervention for manufacturing in my undergraduate days and Honours year, I am sure I would have been much wiser today if perspectives against protection were more stressed and better explained.

I am not saying that industry protection is wrong or that there are easy policy choices; I am merely saying that uni should have left me more informed. in other words, the uni curriculum should match the depth of diversity evident in debates in the wider community.

I often I feel like a bit of a dummy in terms of how little I know about subjects. That is why I learn from the views and knowledge expressed on OLO and elsewhere. I realise how little I do know and will never pretend to be anything more than someone both struggling and constantly learning. As I suggest, better scholarship of policy issues only comes from extensive reading of the chosen issue. Even then, I may still get things badly wrong.

Chris
I find myself more scathing then aristocrat of humanities departments., Only I believe right wing think tanks have deliberately emasculated the humanities. The increasing elevation of Post modernism/structuralism tames the revolutionary potential of the humanities. Making it incapable of challenging the capitalist hegemony and only capable of special pleading for those in some way excluded within the existing paradigm.

The small gains obtained by this special pleading are inevitably granted by the capitalist hegemony and thereby further entrenching its legiimacy. This is the other side of the successes coming from identity politics and political correctness, for example.

. What makes Marx revolutionary and unique was not his specific theories but the framing of an economic narrative which enables alternative economic theorems to be imagined.

Make no mistake, it is just these questions which are most missing in our universities and it is these questions which threaten the capitalist reign.