The item was a compelling defense of free speech and conscience. Except for items specifically mentioned in the party platform on which the member was elected a member of parliament should be free to follow dictates of conscience, the wishes of his or her electoral district and what she or he perceives to be the good of Australia and the world.

Free speech may be offensive. The right to say what offends nobody reduces free speech to, "Have a nice day."

Well, have a nice day, is offensive speech to some, determined to be offended!
As is, for some, hows the weather up there; or, you have a very good looking Missus!
There has to be a pragmatic line drawn somewhere, and it should be based around traditional Australian social mores, not the views of the new chums, who simply don't know us, or our culture or customs.
Not all that long ago, I could have been called a f@#*+G bastard.
Not because I was one, but because the smiling speaker admired my grit?
If truly free speech no longer includes a very legitimize right to offend the precious, what's left?

I say old boy!
Pull your flamin head in you offensive git, I'm not old, nor am a I a boy, you offense swilling swine!
Or, jolly nice cup of tea what?
Keep your flamin tea you British imperialist!
It's just too easy too offend those who just don't have a legitimate bitch, and are just offended by the space we occupy!
Or our white/black skin/in the wrong flamin lane, and the list is almost flamin endless.
I mean, and for heaven's sake, simply holding politicians to account, in robust parliamentary par for the course language, could be seen as offensive!
It's time we stopped catering to patent control freaks, and just amended 18c, ever so slightly, so we retain the right, inherent in truly free speech, to unintentionally offend or deride!
Please forgive if I offended with these comments Effendi!
Rhrosty.

Max doesn't seem to realise there is a good reason most, [well the intelligent ones], vote for parties, rather than individuals or independents.

That way we have a better idea of what we are getting. We have seen enough recently to prove voting for an independent is more likely to give you a policy you don't want than anything else.

It usually controls the crazies that somehow get into parties, like Tanya Plibersek and Harry Quick, from forcing foolish decisions because the system can give the balance of power to them.

I know you would prefer a government that ignores the will of the people, & as with many academics, you are sure you know best. Thank god you don't get hold of the reins.

..Without party "Loyalty" and "Discipline" who would vote for a "Rabble": Not many, as evinced by diminished support for the Labor rabble!

...And, this author could not resist offering as example of bucking party discipline; a free vote for "Homosexual coupling"...How sad!

A few points:

Was Menzies supporting 'free speech' and 'free association' when he attempted to have the Communist Party banned?

And while people are talking about J.S.Mill it should be noted that Mill (the younger) had strong sympathies with the socialist Robert Owen.

Also while we're talking about free speech and other liberties - what do people think of the Victorian Liberals' attempts to uproot freedom of assembly? It begs the question: 'what next'?

And when one reads the pages of the Herald-Sun it seems there are constant attempts to rationalise 'the heavy hand of government' - whipping up hysteria against even moderate civil disobedience.

Political liberals and compassionate conservatives 'get real' about the direction of the Liberal Party!

Finally: There are arguments for uncompromising, US-style free-speech provisions - and even on the Left there is the question "what is anti-free speech provisions are used against us' one day?

Ethically I agree free speech is not an 'absolute right' if it leads to the rationalisation or denial of the Holocaust', or 'hate speech' which is harmful to individuals and groups - including the most marginal or vulnerable.

But there is an argument for 'uncompromising', 'US-style' free speech in that if it is taken as an 'absolute' it is harder for authoritarians of any persuasion to uproot.

But if the Libs are going to take this stance PLS at least be consistent when it comes to free assembly, association etc!

Tristan I realise you are only a bit of a kid, & did not live it, but that is no excuse for you to use as example things you have not studied adequately.

I will assume it is that you don't understand the situation in Menzies time, rather than approve of the communist party of the day's actions as fifth columnists. I do assume you are a patriotic Ozzie, which could never be said of the 40s & 50s communists in Oz.

Patriotism to justify oppression. And yet the Libs are resorting to the free speech argument to provide latitude for bigotry. Whatever illusions the CPA of that time had in the USSR, they were amongst the first to support the rights of indigenous peoples; of women; of the poor and the unemployed. They were Australian citizens and they had their rights. And 'freedom of association' means just that...

Max, I think you are confusing the conscience of the Classical Liberal mind with the conscience of men and women who happen to be parliamentary members of the Liberal Party of Australia in the 21st century.
Those same men and women are in Parliament today because of the policies the Liberals presented to the public at the last election, together with the small effect local MPs would have had meeting and greeting their local constituents. The policies of the ruling government party today is NOT the sum of the parts of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, but rather what party members and constituents and backers have told the party what it wants.

When the Liberals select candidates, the criteria is varied: clean skin, telegenic, respectable, personable, suitably representative of community re gender, age, religion and ethnic origin, street-smart, etc. Even though being a communist or some other fanatic will automatically bar you, actual political philosophy generally comes way down on the list. This is not an opinion. Liberals such as Alexander Downer and John Howard have actually admitted that the party is non-ideological but pragmatic. Not to put too fine a point on it but candidates are not chosen for their philosophical acumen.

If the government truly wanted to be ‘liberal’ about gay marriage by trying to get as broad an opinion as possible, then it should just trust their polling, or better still, arrange a plebiscite to get an exact indication of what Australians thought about the issue, rather than polling eighty odd men and women, chosen because they were without criminal record, telegenic, personable, representative, etc

Max does not have to stress so much about debate on same sex 'marriage ' being shut down. The national broadcasters promote perverted lifestyles daily. It is unusual for them to have a programme that reflects the bulk of the population. Soon they will need to have a token straight on their panels.

'Communism' in the true Marxist sense - that is, not in the Stalinist sense, is no more 'extreme' than Randian and Austrian School economics. to clarify Rand, Hayek and Mises are about as extreme as economic libertarianism goes... Though interesting both Marx and Hayek had the goal of minimising the state as a 'final goal'. Though Marx thought this could be taken 'all the way', and Hayek supported a 'nightwatchmen's' state - enforcing property and contract laws.

All ideas of 'extremes' are relative mind you. The Greens today are lambasted as being extreme for supporting views - many of which would have found a place in the Liberal Party's left-wing until the 'purges' of the 1980s; and Don Chipp's split from the Liberal Party.

what every one has missed in this debate is the background to the legislation, the UN convention was to outlaw a politicial philosophy of racial superiority, no iffs or butts, the rationale behind this was the acceptance of a basic human right that every person regarded of their race should be treated equally, a political philosophy promoting racial superiority of one race over another ipso facto undermines a basic human right. the further rationale is that political philosophies promoting the ideology of racial superiority in history have been directly responsible for genocide and brutal suppression and individual liberty, and the root cause of territorial wars between sovereign nations. The current legislation that we have, 18c is very weak legislation, it does not criminalise the activity, 18c only allows actions by way of civil proceedings not criminal proceedings, most states' summary offences legislation place greater restrictions on freedom of speech, so where is the groundswell to repeal every state's summary offences legislation?

Dear Tristan,

I am a Green and support many of their policies.

However, Communism in the true Marxist sense was defined in the Communist Manifesto.

Stalin generally followed the ten points Marx specified in that manifesto.

e. g. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

There goes free expression, a free press and even owning a bicycle.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693&page=0 will direct you to my article on the subject which comments on the points. The corpses produced by Stalin and Lenin were no accident. They were a logical consequence of Marxism.

Hi David;

Marx also wrote that the state would 'wither away' in the sense that the state was only supposed to exist as an engine for class rule. Today we can say that the state is about a lot more than this; and not all conflicts that need to be mediated are class conflicts. But Marx made it clear: he wanted the state "to wither away". So to pin Stalinism or even Bolshevism on him is not fair.

Much earlier than Lenin, mind you, Eduard Bernstein wrote that socialism was "the spiritual heir" to liberalism.

'Centrist' Marxists - writing and organising before practically anyone had heard of Lenin - were amongst the first to argue for free, universal and equal suffrage; as well as liberal rights of free speech, association, assembly etc.

And when the Russian Revolution did come - the most effective critics of Bolshevist centralism and terror were other Marxists - Kautsky, the Russian Mensheviks, Rosa Luxemburg.

Though it does seem a tad hypocritical that the same people who condemn the human cost of the Russian Civil War often have nothing to say about the human cost of the World War which gave the Russian Revolution of 1917 birth...

David; Here's a quote form Karl Kautsky on the Russian Revolution:

"Hitherto Social Democracy did represent to the masses of the people the object lesson of being the most tireless champion of the freedom of all who are oppressed, not merely the wage earner, but also of women, persecuted religions and races, the Jews, Negroes and Chinese. By this object lesson it has won adherents quite outside the circle of wage-earners.” But: “Now as soon as Social Democracy attains to power, this object lesson is to be replaced by one of an opposite character."

And one from Rosa Luxemburg as well:

democratic institutions” "[possess] a powerful corrective – namely the living movement of the masses, their unending pressure. And the more democratic the institutions, the livelier and stronger the pulse-beat of the political life of the masses, the more direct and complete is their influence – despite rigid party banners, outgrown tickets etc… (p 302)

Dear Tristan,

The First International broke up in 1871 in a dispute between the followers of Marx and the followers of Bakunin. Bakunin was perceptive enough to see that Marxism was a recipe for tyranny. Bakunin was an anarchist who had no use for the state or its apparatus. Marx tried to corral Bakunin's followers by his statement that the state would wither away. I favour many socialist ideas and would like to see a democratic socialism. However, I think the influence of Marx is horrendous. Apologists for Marx try to stigmatise Stalinism as a separate ideology. Stalinism is merely the application of Marxism by Stalin.

I consider the word, reactionary, to mean a tendency to retreat from what I regard as the positive aspects of society and restore what I regard as the negative aspects of the past. By that definition Marxism-Leninism is reactionary since it restricts freedom by censorship, secret police, concentration camps and other means. A counterrevolution seeks to undo the revolution and restore the past. The revolutionary government under Kerensky was overthrown by the Leninists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality

"Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality also known as Official Nationality was the dominant ideological doctrine of Russian emperor Nicholas I. It was "the Russian version of a general European ideology of restoration and reaction" that followed the Napoleonic Wars.

"The Triad" of Official Nationality was originally proposed by Minister of Education Sergey Uvarov in his April 2, 1833 circular letter to subordinate educators. It was soon embraced by Nicholas and his establishment and gained wide public recognition, vocally supported by intellectuals like Mikhail Pogodin, Fyodor Tyutchev and Nikolai Gogol."

Marxism-Leninism replaced Orthodoxy. Dictatorship replaced Autocracy. The Party replaced Nationality. With Lenin came the reactionary counterrevolution. Leninism is czarism reincarnated.

Dear Tristan.

You quoted Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein. I would remind you Bernstein took issue with Marx's predictions as things were not happening the way he predicted. Luxemburg had Bernstein expelled from the party. Marx was an idol, and one could not question an idol. Marx was a bigot as shown by his essay "On the Jewish Question." It could have been written by a Nazi. Marx was a compelling writer with a keen eye for the appropriate aphorism. Just as fundamentalists cherry pick what they want from the Bible many Marxists cherry pick what they want from Marx.

I am 88 years old. One of my uncles was a Bolshevik in Russia before the revolution and Lenin's counterrevolution. My uncle left Russia in 1921. Four years of Lenin cured him of any feeling for Lenin or Marx. My father lived in an anarchist commune in northern Manchuria. Unfortunately people in the western world still maintain illusions about Marx. Some people in the eastern world know better.

Hi again David;

The idea of 'the state withering away' was not an invention of Marx's to con the anarchists. In fact it originated with the French 'utopian socialist' Saint-Simon - who was also an radical advocate of meritocracy - around about the time of the French Revolution - way before Marx was writing.

Also you are talking about Marxism-Leninism - But 'Marxism-Leninism' is not the same as Marxism per se.

To start: I don't think Leninism was the same as Stalinism - because for Lenin the repressive measures were supposed to be a temporary emergency measure. Under Stalin they became permanent - and fused with the Cult of Personality, and rule by a bureaucratic caste under conditions of never-ending Terror.

But on the other hand Leninism created the conditions which enabled Stalinism to rise. That is: extreme centralism; the rise of a bureaucratic layer; the rise of pervasive Terror which bred fear and conformity... Similar in some ways to conditions which existed under the Jacobins leading the Bonapartist dictatorship. But much worse.

But again Lenin's greatest critics were Marxists themselves: Kautsky, the Mensheviks, Rosa Luxemburg... I urge you to read about these... 'Marxism-Leninism' as proclaimed by the Stalinists did become dominant. But it did not embody Marx's thought - where he argues for communists "to win the battle of democracy"... 'Winning the battle of democracy' was not/is not Stalinism. (arguably it's not Leninism either....)

Dear Tristan,

Lenin's repression was not a wartime or temporary measure. He introduced censorship in 1921 after the Bolsheviks had won the Civil War, and censorship was unnecessary. His censorship was to prevent any opposition. Kandinsky, Emma Goldman, my uncle and many others fled Russia as this time. Emma Goldman wrote "My Disillusion with the Soviet Union." Lenin's Cheka was an instrument of terror which imprisoned and executed people solely because of their social class. Generally we are born into a social class. To penalise people for their birth is similar to racism. Lenin ordered the first gulags built three months after he took power. Lenin ordered free elections in 1918 to give legitimace to his government. They were the first free elctions the Russian people had. However, when the Social Revolutionaries got many more seats then the Marxists Lenin disbanded the Duma by force.

Although I argue with religious believers it is really pointless. It is also pointless to argue with those who see Marxism as a force for liberation.

Lenin was neither bigoted nor paranoid as Stalin was. Lenin probably would not have instituted the Stalinist purges if he had remained in power - not because he was less ruthless but because he was less paranoid.

It is quite true that many Marxists were critical of Lenin. Many also joined the Fourth International of Trotsky which opposed Stalin. However, I think they were blind to the flaws in Marxism itself which as I pointed out in my article specified a totalitarian state in the Manifesto.

Edward, thank you for your thoughtful response, much of which I agree with. I have one minor objection and one which is fundamental. First, I am aware of the difference between classical liberal philosophy and the lazy pragmatism of modern political parties, which I see as a betrayal of community values; but it is not hard to understand, as you point out.

I reject your suggestion that the government, to be ‘liberal’, should find out and act on what most Australians think about an issue. This is the antithesis of a liberal philosophy because it permits government, in the name of the people, to do what it likes, including banning opposition parties and arresting dissidents.

There is a crucial difference between taking principles seriously (by acting on one’s own judgment of their requirement) and acting on a popular opinion of what these principles require. There is no space here to defend the distinction but if you are interested you will find a number of overlapping articles in OLO and in the Tasmanian Times.

Max Atkinson

Once upon a time I had a cutout of a cartoon strip from a paper (I forget which one) in it the boss arriving at work says to a worker "Isn't it a nice day", the response was, "I don't know, I'll have to put it a vote of the rank and file!" Well I think it's a nice day, says the boss! Right, "everybody out" screams the worker, we will not be told by management that it is a nice day!

Lenin was a rouge and a liar, who conned the Labor movement, (who he had "removed") into supporting his climb to ultimate power, only to be replaced by a bigger bastard, a mass murdering Stalin!
Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism are all very different, just different as communism and Buddhism, which many American Leaders, thought were one and the same thing!
Cooperative capitalism, is a very foreign idea to most capitalists, where, thanks to completely foreign to basic human nature, individualism, the rich just get richer, the divide between the rich and poor simply widens, and the less well of have even less.
Did you know,i.e., that the top 85 richest persons in the world, share as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world's population, or the poorest.
If thoroughly disgraced trickle down rationalism had a single leg to stand on, the above example, would be going the other way, and the minimum wage would not have stood still, in real terms, for around the last thirty years, in the land of the dollar bill!
Nor would their health budget be nearly double ours, yet leave nearly 40% without any cover.
And we here in Oz, face the very real prospect of becoming a banana republic/third world nation, when we run out of minerals, and climate change has seriously impacted on global food security!
We do have a chance to quite massively turn all of this around, via cooperative capitalism, investing in our own people and their better ideas, eliminating the profit demanding middleman, and other equally parasitical, get rich quick schemes!
Or just stop doing what we've always done, and so on.
Practical bipartisan pragmatism, could see us develop and grow our economy, via the worlds lowest real tax take, and the cheapest energy! It's not rocket science, or just not that hard!
As Susie Q might have said, Can the can, and I know that you know what I mean!
Rhrosty.

While we're calling Lenin a "bastard" let's remember all the world leaders of the capitalist world that brought us World War One - the war that created the 1917 Russian Revolution; a war which involved over *16 million deaths* and many more injured horribly - some as a consequence of chemical warfare. Lenin made 'extreme ends and means calculations' it is true; and his pursuit of Terror, labour militarisation etc discredited the cause of socialism for many. Kautksy, Luxemburg, the Mensheviks - anticipated as much. But why the double standards?

Dear Tristan,

There is no excuse for the First World War. In one sense it was the imperialist powers who had vast empires fighting the powers which would have liked to have empires. Germany had some colonies and would have liked more. Those who sent men against machine guns to be massacred were scum. However, Lenin was also scum. The US was lied into the war. One of the causes given was the sinking of the Lusitania. However, the Lusitania was carrying armament in the hold which made it a legitimate target.

One of the excuses for Lenin was that czarism was corrupt and oppressive. However, Lenin overthrew those who got rid of the czar and adopted many of the features of czarism as I pointed out in a previous post.

A double standard? Unless I missed something no previous post has defended capitalism or those who set up WW1. It is a straw man type argument to bring up something that no one has said and argue against it.

There are great social inequities. One thing that has lessened those inequities is the union movement. Lenin reduced the union movement in the USSR to be merely a transmission belt for party line propaganda. No strikes or other union activity that would challenge the party management was allowed. The USSR was a worker's state that silenced the workers.

David I'm not accusing anyone here personally of having double standards; But I am saying there are a lot of other people out there who do.

Dear Tristan,

There are a lot of people with double standards in different areas. However, you are participating in this discussion where no one has exhibited any double standard so how is it relevant?

Dear David; You may not be showing a double standard - but from experience there are many right-wing/conservative readers of On Line Opinion who do exhibit double standards - or at least a willing ignorance of the 'extreme ends and means' calculations made by anti-communists - and even by self-professed democrats. This is relevant so we do not repeat the same historical mistakes of the past. If we choose to single Lenin out - but consistently fail to say anything about Suharto, Pinochet etc (and Western powers' collusion with them) - then we are failing in our moral duty. By 'forgetting' - and allowing others to 'forget'- we potentially allow the past to repeat itself.

Personally I identify more with Austro-Marxism, Marxist 'centrism', and Left-Internationalist Menshevism - than I do with Lenin in any case. And with Bernstein I too see democratic socialism as 'the spiritual successor' to political liberalism - maintaining all its core qualities.

Interestingly Kautsky disagreed with Marx himself on the issue of the Paris Commune's strategies. Here I agree with Kautsky - who did not 'make his peace' either with Blanquism or Jacobinism.

I haven't read 'the Jewish question' by Marx I admit; though I imagine Marx was informed by his atheism, humanism and materialism; and was also influenced early by assimilationist pressures.

Marx believed in the self-organisation of the working class into a party; and its exercise of a democratic dictatorship. (in line with today's majoritarianism - although I am not personally a 'pure majoritarian') Marx did not ever profess belief in a 'vanguard party'; or for a vanguard to substitute itself for the workers themselves. We have to distinguish Lenin from Stalin; But we also have to distinguish Marx from Lenin.

Dear Tristan,

I have much the same feeling toward the state as Bakhunin. I think he was spot on to be wary of any state set up according to the ten points Marx enumerated in the Manifesto. I object to the present military adventures carried on by the European powers together with the US. I object to the fact that the US, UK, Russia, Germany and many other developed nations fuel conflict by being arms suppliers. Their sales to less technically advanced nations create a secondary arms market as the older equipment is replaced. The secondary market supplies terrorism. Militarism, racism and destruction of the environment follow. One item that limits overseeing of the destruction is military secrecy. As long as the left is pervaded by the totalitarian philosophy of the bigoted authoritarian Marx it cannot be an effective alternative to rapacious capitalism.