Tristran,
To answer your question "what's wrong with democratic socialism" the answer is "nothing, unless you happen to be "wealthy" or think you are. I met a married couple a few years back they were in their late 50's or early 60's they had jobs, no kids, the bloke was a storeman, and the woman was a clerk. They were living in a house left to the woman by her dead first husband, they had a small, fairly modern house, and they classified themselves as "middle class" people have visions of grandeur they were/are nothing except DINKS workers.

This typifies the common problem with the working class, they get a few bob in the bank, and all of a sudden they are of the illusion they are something that they are not. Which is why so many of them vote tory. They don't have enough sense to stop and think, "where did this pay, and these conditions come from?" and must be of the assumption they were "heaven sent" they certainly don't recognise that generations of fellow workers fought and sacrificed to gain this for them.

I have not yey met an employer who has willingly given a pay rise, unless of course it is to an executive or a C.E.O. and would be interested to hear from anyone who knows of such an occurance, I'll bet there are not many! The working class are there own worst enemy, they don't seem to realise, especially in today's climate, that what you have today, can be taken away tomorrow, and there is not a damned thing you can do about it. They actually vote against themselves, talk about masocism.

Shonga, you're spot on.

How can we possibly indulge those old hegemonic/ Marxist platitudes like 'democratic socialism' (DS) when most Australian aspirational voters (take Shonga's excellent example) really see a Labor government as trying to hold back their 'success'. (no matter how minimalist it is)

They may or may not have a memory of membership in a working class structure, (one that DS infers should happen being it’s so bloody ideologically pure in thought), but it doesn't work in the real world.

They'll march on May Day but secretly vote for Howard in federal elections.(sssh!)

The Socialist Left back in the 70/80's laughed at this ever happening, such was their belief in those hoary old ideals of comradeship and the ‘bruverhood’.

Shock horror, they were wrong.

And all that these old dinasaurs (and apprentices) can do now is forensically-analyze 'Howard’s subtextual political meanings" in the hope of re-discovering their own long lost belief and faith. It’s pathetic.

And even for those ex Laborites who know this analysis better than most - why would they want to vote for a Federal Labor party that "Stands for nothing and falls for anything".

Unless Greg Combe steps up and throws a Jersey on we’ll be watching the Bomber kick a hat trick next year. And you don’t need convoluted and overly complex political theory to explain and understand this

"Fasionable"!Tristan, you have made an old man happy!

I was short handing a bit. The State should set a framework and that would rightly include social wages, transfers, appropriate tax rates etc.

My concern is with the distribution of power and the protection of public assets. For example, and I know this is a bit grey legally , but if Medibank Private is a state asset then the State can dispose of it, on the other hand if it was set up as a mutual society it would be the members that owned it. Simiarly the State could fund housing through housing associations. The point is to disperse power and create alternatives to the State and capital. Unions have survived because they institutions outside the direct control of the State, and will continue to do so. I don't suggest that all State controlled activities should be treated like this but all could be sujected to a test.

As far as things like banks and the like go, what is the point ? There are community banks, and the internet. Even State banks close branches.

Equally I could ask why should we do any of the things you suggest, or that I should agree that they were good ? I would argue that excessive reliance by Unions on the State in the 1980s reduced Union power and coincided with an explosion in casual low paid work at the expense of permanent work. The Accord delivered a social wage at the cost of reduced union power for which we are now suffering. Given that many enterprises have been lost, like Qantas, Telstra, Commonwealth Bank etc, seems to support my case that an objective for the left should be to distribute power more widely into society.

What is class struggle ? Can you point to the Australian huddled masses ? If you can then tell them to get a job!

You should know that socialism never took in the ALP and never will.

Tristan, I have not read it but it is sitting in my library.

My take on so called 'new' politics, is that it is the politics of devolving power - of giving decision making back to people and away from centralised government.

I think Jones' view of the rank and file is in fact the most wrong direction - why not use primaries - and make involvement far wider and far more democratic, far more representative. Jones to my eyes is a 'traditionalist' not a genuine 21st Century man. I would suggest a good deal of the thinking on the Left is still stuck in notions of bigger government rather than devolved power.

See these articles:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=159

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4370

Perhaps read my review of Vital Signs as well: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5041

I don't think anyone in Coming to the Party has understood this change - at least from the very brief skim I gave it.

Tristan,

there is nothing wrong with any of these things, indeed most of them would be desirable - but the average working person considers themself to be a small time capitalist on the make and behaves as though ideas such as the notion of collective good and public purpose were irrelivent in a world where individual self interest and material greed are king.

Most people I know have chronic "affluenza" and are much more concerned with being able to purchase the latest model plasma screen than they are with rising ineqaulity, decaying social services and public infrastructure and an increasingly cold and selfish society that lacks any sense of a common purpose. Their chief desire is always to move up the ladder so that they can earn ever more money, so that they can purchase ever more expensive housing and consumer goods - working longer and harder to accumulate more and more of what they often don't need and seldom use.

Shonga is right - the working people are their own worst enemy with no thought for, or interest in the long term. Example: in my town there is a large industrial plant, employing around fifteen hundred people. When the resource boom took first took off, the company offered everyone a generous pay rise to sign individual contracts - and the entire workforce immediatly de-unionised, with dollar signs in their eyes. Not a single union member remains. I have asked a number of them if they thought the boom might end someday. They supposed it would. I asked them how they thought their contracts would fare when the company is no loger able to simply name it's price to the chinese. They hadn't given it much thought.

Maybe a good stint under an IR sytem that treats peoples labour and wages as nothing more than market commodities will drive home the importance of the things mentioned in Tristan's article.

Fozz,

Your post is an example of why the Labor party is in disarray. A growing disconnection with the aspirations of ordinary people, coupled with a smug, undergraduate belief that only they see the way ahead.

The Labor party seems to waver between two positions.

1. Being survey driven to the point where they have absolutely no core beliefs, but simply change policy depending on the latest poll results; and
2. Deciding that they know what is best for society irrespective of the wishes of the population as a whole.

It is a curious mix of arrogance and cowering fear of the media and public opinion.

Getting back to your post, it is interesting that the whole undertone of your argument is that society is in the grip of some terrible afflication which they do not understand, yet (of course) you are able to rise above it and lead them to the promised land.

Perhaps society has moved beyond the problematic dualisms that seem to underpin all leftist philosophy. People no longer believe in simplistic notions of rich v poor, educated v non-educated, etc. The mdoern economy has allowed nearly everyone, irrespective of background, gender, ethnicity or belief to rise above their station in life and aspire to more. That is why they resist the equalising and rationalising effect of leftist policy. If someone has worked hard for their small piece of the world, who are you to decide that they should share it with someone else?

The Liberal party, for all their faults, have been able to capitalise on this new mood and run with it. The Labor party, in contrast, has misinterpreted the movement and therefore wavers between attempting to resurrect old hoary policies that are now discredited, or moving forward by attempting to take on every new fad that happens to come along.

Of course, I won't even get into the systemic structural problems faced by the Labor party with regard to their factional system, their continuing ties to the union movement, their obsession with choosing 'famous' candidates, and the complete lack of intellectual talent.