It's hard to say how you can talk seriously about 'the working class' after 10 years of Howard. It assumes there is still some mysterious 'class consciousness' out there that binds certain income groups together, when the experience of the past decade is that most people, if anything, see themselves as 'middle class'.

In reality, the class analysis of traditional Marx-inspired socialists is redundant. It makes suppositions about shared ideologies that simply do not exist. The old left-right distinctions also don't work anymore.

I think the old left needs a new vocabulary that doesn't involve
class warfare rhetoric. It would do better if it saw the conflict as a cultural one - a conflict pitting the corporatisation of every aspect of our lives against communal, non-material imperatives.

That, for me, was what Rudd expressed so eloquently in his article in The Monthly - the realisation that the conservatives have gradually enclosed the commons of our lives and defined everything in their terms, including religion.

But if you go flying the red flag and speaking about the evils of global capitalism, you will be cutting your throat before the race even begins.

You make some interesting points.

I consider myself a bleeding heart lefty. I believe we should focus more on community than the individual and we should aim for equality and environmental sustainability.

Having said that, I've spent a fair amount of time around the socialists at uni and they drive me crazy, half of them don't have an opinion of their own. They merely regurgitate what others have said. They criticize both major parties and offer no realistic alternative.

What you said about cutting ones throat before the race begins i can definitely relate to. I as soon as i start talking to people who aren't inline with my viewpoint, they label my in their mind and have no ability to take an objective view of what I'm saying.

With regard to the class warfare - I think we have so much material wealth these days that we all live like kings in comparison to previous generations. Despite this people are seem to be trying to move up in class and live beyond their means via personal debt, which is frightening. It seems people would rather strive for material wealth than value the other things in life.

Do you have a link to that article by Rudd?

-Petroz

Petroz, here is a link to the Rudd article in The Monthly. It's highly recommended:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/excerpts/issue17_excerpt_001.html

Tristan,

Rudd and Gillard have done a much better job on the Union Movement than Howard ever could.

But they have left the door open for those Unions who are smart enough to change their ways, to increase their membership.

When engaging in an EBA.
1. That members always ask to be represented by their Union.
2. That the Union always request a copy of the company's Business Plan.
3. Ensure that the outcome means a Win for the Employer, the Employee and the Nation.
4. Those who are non members and wish the Union to represent them must pay a fee equal to the Annual Membership.
5. That gains made only apply to those represented by the Union.

If we remain stubborn than the Union movement will face extinction within the Labor Movement. Remember there are elements who would rejoice if that were to happen.

Don't let Peter Lalor efforts stand for nothing.

Tristan, thanks for the article.

The Marxist critique of capitalist economics remains powerful and as we know, shares a great number of key assumptions with Adam Smith and others whose legacies are less politically problematic.

One wonders though, whether class consciousness is really possible in the absence of material deprivation, which is something simply not currently being experienced in any meaningful sense by something like 80% of the Australian population. This is not to be accepting of those being left behind, but to recognise the essential point made by Hamilton, McKnight and others of late, that the working class project has - in a material sense at least and for the historical moment - been achieved.

Yet in another sense of course, 'our' working class is expanding on a vast scale and is being treated worse than ever: it is just that they live in China, Vietnam and so on. 'Our' working class is overseas.

Again, terms like "the language of class water" muddy the waters: progressives need still to make workers aware of their collective condition and interests.

Workers still have little input into the public sphere, and the media is overwhelmingly controlled by monopoly interests.

Under Howard, from 1999-2007, the wage share of the economy has fallen from 70.3% to 66%. Why does this receive virtually no attention, and if workers do not have a collective interest here, what else?

Something like 90% of shares are still help by 20% of the population, while the lowest 50% own only about 1%. Capital is still overwhelmingly in the hands of a distinctively capitalist class.

Most of us have material living standards that go behind previous deprivation. But there are still issues that could bind most working Australians together. Neglect of public schooling, and the public-private schooling divide. Some are on waiting lists 3 years for 'elective' surgery while living in constant pain. Howard's IR laws have attacked organised labour and undermined wages and conditions.

Nevertheless, it's true that class consciousness is in decline: along with traditional working class culture and identity. If there is to be a new class consciousness, it will focus around not only wages and conditions and lack of democratic control of industry and media, but also collective access to social services. It will also be a 'civic consciousness' - which connects with the plight of the poor and the marginal, and seeks to extend services, income (through welfare and IR regulation) and recognition; and which can conceptualise issues such as the need for media diversification and accessible education.

Class identity and consciousness still exists, but the class struggle imagined by Marx has passed its high point, and may not be able to be revived in the immediate future in the wealthy countries. But as one reader recognised, a working class with clear interests is rising in the developing world. The benefit of my politics is that I'm a voluntaristst and not a materialist: and that it's still possible to fight back.

While I understand that this opinion piece is aimed as a bit of a wish list and whine, I can't help but note a couple of things:

1) The opinions expressed here are of a time and place that doesn't exist anymore. For example, changing the tax system as suggested here will have a single effect" those who will be hit with higher and higher tax burdens will leave to other countries, especially if they view their higher tax burden as subsidising others, and the revenue will go to another economy. This is the reality of a globalised world. It's what I would do, and what I will do should this policy become a reality.

The downstream effect of the tax policy expressed in the article simply won't happen, so the policy is flawed. The further downstream effect is diminishing any ability to attract and retain "the cream of the crop", so unless the unstated desire behind this policy is even greater levels of mediocrity, this policy is a very bad idea.

2) Policies based on "need" make the words of Ayn Rand ring in my ears. Whether you agree with her views and philosophies is irrelevent - "need", if it compromises property rights (as typically happens under socialist regimes) will lead to a single outcome in the modern world: removal (to other countries etc) of the property, be it intellectual, physical or otherwise. The only way to combat that is to restrict the removal, and that opens a can of worms which is too unpleasant to consider.

3) Anyone who realistically views any country as classless is kidding themselves. This requires that people are essentially equal in capability, intellect and all other arenas. Obviously, this is untrue and as a result, people will never be equal. Egalitarianism, while nice in concept, is unrealistic in any sort of free world.

The reality is that the world has changed. These socialist views, while perhaps more applicable in bygone eras, won't work today unless the whole world goes for it. And there are plenty of us who won't wear it.

why is it that self-styled 'lefties' have never caught on that all the lower class needs is an effective and accessible power of citizen initiated referendum?

actually they did catch on. until 1968, the labor party had something along those lines in their policy. then they removed cir, presumably because party careerists realized that an electorate with cir didn't need to feed party hacks.

the labor party learned from the catholic clergy: no salvation save through submission.

BN, you say higher taxes would lead to skilled labour leaving the country...In Britain taxes were raised under Blair to pay for anti-poverty programs. In Sweden, Denmark, Finland...substantial welfare states exist-provided by very progressive taxation systems. No 'outflow' of skilled labour there or in Britain. Canada also has much higher taxes than Australia: again - no 'outflow' of skilled labour. Reform of tax and welfare has occurred in these countries without having to be global and simultaneous.

I think there are many reasons people choose to live in Australia - and low taxes is not the only reason.For most it is not a reason at all. There's the quality of infrastructure and services, the liberal settlement that provides freedoms and stability, the sense that this is 'home' - and that one does not pack up and leave just to escape tax.

Also, the tax reform I suggest - 1%-2% of GDP in an economy of almost $1 trillion - is very modest. I propose gradual reform, and any program of tax reform can be fine-tuned depending on peoples' response.

re: 'need' and 'property rights'. I don't believe in the Marxist vision of socialism whereby all productive forces are centralised by the state. I think there is a role for a competitive&democratic private sector. But I want to promote co-operative enterprise and works councils in the private sector, and popular ownership through wage earner funds. In this vision all contradictions are not removed - the working class effectively exploits itself. But socialism today is about responding to an evolving capitalist system, and peoples changed needs.

I think access to education, aged care, welfare, health, communications, power&water, transport infrastructure - are all 'needs'-and providing for them need not entail elimination of property rights. (again, see Sweden&Denmark)

The need for liberty is also important, but liberty is compromised when the state supports the centralisation of economic&cultural power in the hands of a minority. But concerning liberty: a true liberal would support the right to withdraw labour and collectively bargain based on individual choice.

I've wondered about this for years, about how any self respecting leftie would support the ALP, except as the lesser of two evils.
In the '80's Hawke/Keating adopted the Howard/Libs agenda for the economy and attempted to include the working class 'in' as owners of capital via Super and share ownership through encouraging ownership of privatised government activities. Union leaders were emasculated by appointment to boards, and some were given their own funds to manage.
Rudd today is about as 'left' as Howard was 11 years ago. No room here for an unreconstructed Socialist, and hardly a voice raised in protest.
I would have thought the (thankfully failed) private equity scam re Qantas would have had old style lefties on the streets protesting. Such blatant capitalism deserved the loudest condemnation from Labor, but I heard none.
It was, as far as I am aware, Nifty Nev who first discovered the hollow logs that were the working capital of govt. utilities and stole those monies to buy re-election. The repercussions of his stupidity are still being felt today. All govts. champion user pays and pays again; and modern management, govt style, provides services that factor in bottlenecks and peakhours, not just on the roads but in health and education too. Labor are just as guilty as the Libs., if not more so.
So I sympathise with Tristan and his socialist mates, betrayed by the ALP, by the Dems. and left with the mad Greens to represent their interests. A vote for the Libs. is just that, a vote for the Libs. A vote for Labor is a vote for the other Libs.

Well, I definetly think that if you want some sort of Marxist/Socialist renewal of the Labor Party then you should look to have your agenda pursued outside of the Labor Party - Just like the PDS did in Germany. Then you won't have to use your time criticising the ALP and its policies constantly and can instead use it to try and get your new party to realise your agenda - Which in my view would be a more productive use of your time. The fact is the ALP is not a Marxist/socialist party, and that is completely fine for moderates like me (who have lived in Marxist countries and know that they don't work, unlike many Marxists/socialists in Australia who read a few books by Marx and think it would all work out perfectly) and who believe that the policy debate has moved beyond free market vs planned economies and other such false contests. In my view, I see the future of the Labor Party as a moderate, centrist party - Based on modern social democracy such as that promoted by Demos, Policy Network (both in the UK), Progressive Policy Institute (in the US) and other such think tanks.

Tristian,

Sweden was probably not a good example to give (see this http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=7880173)particularly as:

"history shows Sweden's economy to have flourished when it has been more liberal and low-tax—and to have gone off the rails when higher taxes and more regulation have been imposed"

Sweden has problems with job numbers and encouraging people back to work if they lose their jobs. And the state of play for small and start up business is atrocious, and so you do indeed get the disncentives that I mentioned before.

Equally, the rent caps in Montreal and other parts of Canada have very negative impacts on rental accomodation redevelopment and improvements.

I can go on, but the point is that the socialist model has worked against the public good in these countries, and others. Again, nice in concept, but terrible when implemented.

You say "liberty is compromised when the state supports the centralisation of economic & cultural power in the hands of a minority", but the reverse is also true - power too broadly held is a disencentive as the returns for initiative and working hard are diminished. I'll grant that a balance is needed, but we should be geared towards initiative, rather than not. As the old saying goes:

If you're not moving forward, you're going backwards.

Across the West people vote conservatively, that is, they choose governments who they believe are most likely to continue the big government / modest taxing regimes that we live in. Even the French have chosen this version of paternalisic conservatism!

The recent shift from Howard is because the punters feel threatened by the excesses of WorkChoices and the prospect of having no water to drink or climate to enjoy. Howard may or may not persuade the toiling masses that he can still be trusted by ducking and diving on these issues and making people feel like he cares.

Tristan, the bottom line is the punters won't buy what you are selling because you will not get a majority to agree the problems are as acute as you seem to suggest.

I suggested in another post that economic democracy was the way forward for the left. I think the underlying principle should be to promote broader and more engaged democracy. I agree with another post that citizen referenda may be one form of that, Tristan mentions some others worth pursuing.

For example, if unions are dying (and I am not saying that they are) then it is important that we embrace works councils in some form to rebuild worker democracy. Shareholders and pension fund members also deserve more democratic representation and an opportunity to influence the way capital is formed and invested.

My point is that reconsidering economic democracy is the only option open to the left in the West and the one option that supports future class convulsions (I am not so Fukuyama'd to think we have seen the last of them!)

I think the more Marxist stuff reminds me of many happy hours spent debating such lofty matters at Uni. I am not being sarcastic just nostalgic for the days in my sheltered workshop for the intellectually gifted!

DEMOS, Forget the Citizen Initiated Referendums to solve the problem. There's something even better: change the culture. If enough ordinary Australians changed the way they behaved and what they tolerated, they would effect a change from the bottom up. Those 'in power' would then have no choice but to follow.

Are all the posters in this thread male?

Changing track, what struck me about this article were the comments ‘what is missing here is any sense of class consciousness’

and

‘…regardless, those workers on average and higher incomes often forsake solidarity with the marginalised, including pensioners, single parents, the elderly, the disabled, and many Indigenous Australians’

Interjecting this thread from a dastardly feminist POV, I wonder where the support from average to high income single mothers are?

There’s many women out there who should be contributing to the plight of single mothers …. Ita Buttrose, Nicole Kidman, Antonia Kidman, Sally Carey, not to mention the not-so-well known, who could speak up for single mothers, and tell it as it is … that men leave their families, and often at a time when their wives are pregnant. Frequently after many years of marriage.

Pregnancy, small children, and single parenthood are a sure combination for welfare dependency, unless there is reasonable marital wealth and a house for the family to reside in. If women are denied access to a home and income, with dependent children in their care … and if those women have no recent employment experience, then they are subject to tremendous hardship, even if they are eligible for welfare.

So I ask, where are these privileged women who could speak up for other single mothers less privileged?

With their support other women would not be experiencing this outrageous discrimination in society that they are experiencing at present times, particularly from the Liberal government.

Tristan,

You belong to the Left of the ALP. I expect that you think it is progressive. I do not belong to the Left of the ALP. I do not think it is progressive at all. Yet, I oppose the privatisation mantra and the private profit partnerships that have creamed the public revenue recently. I believe in a much higher public investment in education. I am totally opposed to the Howard Government’s IR laws. Had I been a delegate at the ALP’s conference, unlike those from the Left, I would have voted against requiring secret ballots for industrial action by workers but nor by employers. But I am pro-American and, in the light of the tens of millions slaughtered by communism and my own experience of the violent hypocrisy of the Left at university, strongly anti-communist. I regard the S11 demonstrators and the like as ineffective, childish and undemocratic.

We all know what would happen to a new party of the Left, particularly in any system that has single-member electorates. When negotiations were going on in the 1960s to re-unite the two Labor parties, there was an opinion poll done asking voters to choose between an ALP-DLP led by Gough Whitlam and a Left party led by Jim Cairns. The former unsurprisingly won.

Rather than grand schemes, you would be better to approach issues one by one and seek support from those on the Right.

The biggest change the forces behind Kennett Government made was to the language. The IPA and their allies changed the meaning of words so that people more or less had to think differently. I am still amazed at how successful they were. Think of the most misused word in the language – reform. If you want to undo the madness that his government enacted and the madness of the Howard Government, you too have to change the language – back to what words used to mean.

The Labor Party was formed as a Socialist Party.

The Left, they have failed to progress and still remain committed to Marxism. As a result the Bloody Right has turn us into another wing of the Liberal Party.

Recent actions by the Unions, has legitimatize the actions taken by the Right to turn the Left into Whimpering Dogs.

As a result of the Unions attitude, lets bleed the bosses for everything, we have been given “Work Choices”, In other words the Workers right, a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay are all but gone.

It is time the Unions realised that they must work with the bosses in order to produce a win for the company, a win for the nation and more importantly a win for the workers. A win for the workers means working with the company to produce greater profits, security in the job, better pay and working conditions. For example. Instead of pushing for a 9% increease over 3yrs, in the case of EBA, how about 4 ½% pay increase with 4 ½% Bonus been paid each year. In other words, 4 ½% of net profits are paid to the workers as a Bonus. The better the company profits the bigger the Bonus for each worker.

As for the Left, it is time to form a single faction. Because there are so many factions, we spend more time fighting amongst ourselves. In other words we are handing control of the Party to the Right to do as it pleases.

The Left would do well to remember we are a Party with Social Conscience not another Conserative Party who is happy to bend down to the Big End of Town and to go all way wirh America without doing what is best for Australia.

I have one dream, to see a Prime Minister from the Left and a Union Movement with a thriving membership, working to make a better life for all Australians.

The man who is our social conscience should be our leader

Two comments:

"The lesser of two evils" - this is very much at the heart of our political problem. In effect, there's room for only 2 players in Australian politics. That means that there's no room for nuances and both parties define themselves only in regard to the other. Tristan talks of starting a new party, to the left of Labour, but that party already exists, and has existed for years: it's the Green party (which is way more political than most people care to know). Yet when, or how, will the Greens ever have an effective role in government?!?

Regarding 'class struggle', I agree that the concept has become pretty antiquated. A concept that will never disappear however is that of solidarity. Solidarity with fellow humans, and fellow countrymen. How can we tolerate that some of our neighbours be hungry or sick and not receive food or treatment, when so many of us are so wealthy? How can we tolerate that some of our neighbours have to rely on charity for bare subsistence? Charity! As if these were the middle ages! What a disgrace. I don't want to be charitable. I want my government to provide for the poor and I want to be taxed accordingly.

I long for a labor party that would place solidarity and justice as its core values. Rudd's isn't it.

Tristan,

Your sentiments are well meaning, but this is all just idealistic intellectualism. Someone earlier made the comment that what the Left needs to do is engage with the Right to get outcomes one issue at a time. This is realistic and the way things actually work. The more people waffle on, whether it be lefty idealism or anything else, all that actually happens is that they drift further away from getting an outcome. And there is no substitute for getting an outcome.

I'll give you an example. You've talked before about the Kennett Government and some of its privatisation failures. However, you never talked about what preceded Kennett - Joan Kirner. What did she do for the economy? What did she do at all except to compile Emily's List? Big deal. The reason Victoria needed Kennett was as a correction for the economic drift of the previous Labor Government. Sure Kennett made some mistakes, but anyone else would in his position. The real problem is the imbalance, the way the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, and the need for a correction at all.

So, to solve this problem, the Left, with its conscience and values switched on, needs to engage with the Right to achieve balanced outcomes issue by issue. This means people getting off their ideological butts and actively being prepared to make the necessary compromises. Then we'll all be better off right from the start. The first step is the hardest. Once that's been done, it will get progressively get easier to maintain.

To begin with, it's a bit unfair to attack Joan. She really was handed a 'poison chalice', and had little scope or time to implement much reform.

On 'dealing with the Right'. Yes, they make up around half the Conference, and obviously they have support in many branches. So it goes without saying you'd have to deal with them. But I think the Right is divided into social democrat and pure opportunist camps - and the 'pure opportunist' camp seems to hold sway.

I'd like to see a portion of the Right split away and join with the Centre-Left to form a Centre or united Centre-Left faction. Perhaps then we'd have someone we could deal with to get some real reform: tax reform, support student unionism, expand expenditure by 1%-2% of GDP in health, education, welfare, infrastructure, restore cross media ownership laws... And even if the Right didn't split (it's unlikely I guess), the Left should still be demanding a greater say in policy for 'consensus' in the Party, and thus stability. Rudd should not be allowed to take a unilateralist path on issues like IR.

Rob; you call my call for reform "idealistic intellectualism" - but if the ALP can't even expand progressive tax and expenditure by 1%-2% of GDP, who CAN we do? Is it "idealistic intellectualism" to say SOMEONE should get serious about the hospital waiting lists crisis - which can be remedied by redirecting less than 1% of GDP? $3 billion of reprioritised expenditure in an economy of $1 trillion (that's what we're proposing) - really, it's nowhere...

I agree with the principle of solidarity... But while many people would spurn the term 'class struggle' because of its Marxist origins, the reality is that ordinary working people still struggle to maintain wages, rights and conditions, and the most conscious struggle for more hospital beds, teacher etc. The union militancy of the 70s is gone, but in a sense class struggle is still with us. And that's not a bad thing.

more to come...

Chris C - re: communism, I see myself working in a tradition that goes back through the long history of the socialist movement, and I identify with Swedish social democracy, Eurocommunism... But even the ex-communists are no longer proposing communism... Some today are social democrats, other are post-materialists, some want a new philosophy that blends liberalism, socialism, conservatism. (consider David McKnight's 'Beyond Right and Left') The Left today is broad and comprises liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, post-materialists... A new party would have to be broad and inclusive also, even if not so accomodating to neo-liberalism as the ALP is today.

But I'm not committed to support a new party yet. I think there's still room for the ALP Left to maximise its influence in the party. There's the prospect of reaffiliating Left unions to increase our influence at Conference and in National Exec; there's the prospect of using our leverage to secure a more progressive consensus that incorporates tax reform and meaningful social wage expansion; and there's the prospect of waging a strategic cultural struggle regardless, campaigning for progressive politics and participating in progressive campaigns regardless of who 'has the numbers' in the party. There's still the choice of whether we allow the Right to 'contain' and 'neutralise' us, or whether we choose to maintain an independent voice and profile.

But should all this fail, we need to keep out options open. I believe a new party, in tandem with the Greens, could secure meaningful representation if it secured the support of unions, prominent intellectuals, the welfare sector etc. If Rudd Labor took a hard turn to the Right, and refused to comrpomise for the sake of cohesion, then we'd have to keep our options open.

Tristan

It is time for the Left to remember Marxism is dead. That the Labor Party is a Socialist Party, which has been hijacked by the Conservatives.

For the Union Movement, which is in its darkest hours, it is time to change their approach to Industrial Relations. To ensure that when negotating any wage agreement that they produce a win, win result for all parties. When workers conditions are underminded we must learn to use the media. That means presenting evidence, which is accurate, and to name the offenders using the Television Media.

Remember we can no longer been seen as a group made up of a thousand parts. We must unite as one and be prepared to take the lead on all issues.

Above all, when selecting candidates for positions in government, we must look towards those who have a sound knowledge of a particular portfolio. People who can fill the role of a Leader and/or Cabinet Minister. Lets not be like the Right who only look inwards for party hacks to reward or outward for Celebrity Candidates. Who in some cases no bloody nothing about nothing.

We are not William Morris Hughes, like some rats who have jump ship for the sake of power. Remember that my brothers and sisters in arms.

Tristan, your text book politics 101 definition of Leftism has long been redundant. Unfortunately no one remembered to tell the political science boffins or they were too busy with trying to extract their own heads from being stuck tight up you know where = to take notice.

If you don't understand this its because its a Lefty thang.

re: the status of Marxism - I don't think Marxism is 'dead' in the sense that, taken electically, I think there's still many good ideas and perspectives in the broad Marxist tradition: the idea of there being a role for class struggle in driving historical change; one of the first accounts of globalisation; the critique of 'commodity fetishism'; and the idea that people should provide what they are able, and take what they need...

But the Marxist metanarrative, of class struggle lead inevitably to communism - that is no longer sustainable. Class struggle is one of many forces driving history, and it is not always decisive. And the Marxist dream of communism neglects that human nature is not so perfectible for a stateless society to be sustainable.

The closest we've got to a real modern communism was the experience of the Kibbutz in Israel; and for a while it was successful. But on a grander scale, states do not 'wither away', and markets continue to drive innovation and competition. There's no reason, though, why GBEs cannot play a role in the market, to provide goods and services on the basis of need, and provide a counter to collusive market practices. On the other hand, Marx's critique of capitalism's tendency to monopoly is as relevant as ever.

And if I have my 'head up my arse' because I don't want people being forced to wait 2-3 years for 'elective' surgery like hip replacements, and I want kids to have real equal opportunity through a quality public education system, and an accessible higher education system, then I'd hate to know where the *&^% Howard and Costello have their heads.

Southerner - you sound like you're speaking from an ALP Left perspective. I sympathise, and I agree that the Right's culture of careerism needs to be overcome. But at the same time I think that individual activists in the ALP, and in the Left, need a voice; and that if they don't have a voice, then inevitably all the decisions will be made by a handful of factional operators. In this scenario, there is no room for the Left as a movement; where free mind coalesce to engage in open discourse, and to make collective decisions.

I suppose I am afraid that the Left will make the same mistakes it made under Hawke and Keating. We refused to stand up when it came to privatisation, even when it was against the party platform. (eg: the Commonwealth Bank) We succumbed far too easily when it cames to 'reforms' such as dividend imputation; which have cost billions, while we depended on regressive bracket creep to 'fill the gaps'. We succumbed in the Accord proceess - even led it - but in the end we were betrayed, and were not willing to stand up and demand a compromise that gave workers something tangible for their sacrifices.

What I'm saying is that we need to stand up now to demand a better settlement from Rudd as a condition of unity. And I'm saying that a Party to Labor's Left, in the mold of the Left Party in Germany, could lead policy debate, act as a mobilisation point for counter-hegemony, and hold policy leverage over an otherwise conservative Labor government.

Now I'm not going to leave the ALP for a hopeless cause, but at least those forces already outside ALP processes - should be exploring these options. An awful lot of people are disllusioned by the ALP, and thousands upon thousands have simply 'dropped out' over the years. These people deserve to be organised, and to find their collective voice.

more to come...

cont from last post...

Some of us will do the hard yards in the ALP and accomodate the compromises necessary to win the centre. But if so, those people who do this need the determination and strategic vision to SHIFT the relative centre to the Left - on our terms - not just adapt to a centre that is determined by the conservatives. And in the meantime, we also need more radical voices - the relativise the field of debate - and open the way for others on the Left to bring progressive policies into the mainstream.

And for those not already in the process, a point of mobilisation to the ALP's Left, that nevertheless was determined to lead the mainstream, and shift the relative centre, would be a welcome development. Only if people with influence and credibility were willing to back that cause.

Tristan

Tristan, you ought to be a comedy writer. If you lived in Victoria in the 1980s, you'd have remembered that John Cain - a Labor Premier - preceded Joan Kirner, so if anyone handed her a 'poisoned chalice', it was him, surely. The fact is that Cain and later Kirner got into power because the Libs under Dick Hamer ran out of ideas (and puff). Cain was ultimately seen as a pretty dour plodder while the Kirner Government was seen as economically illiterate. It didn't take the public long to punt her government - it lasted one term. I seem to recall that the TriContinental Bank went bust in the late 1980s, around the time she was there. This kind of says it all really. If anything, Kirner took the poisoned chalice and then poisoned it some more.

By all means have an opinion, but if you expect your arguments to have credibility, they have to make sense as well as have a sound foundation.

Off topic but Liz's claim regarding men being the initiators of seperation requires correction.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html#initiating

"Nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of women compared with one-fifth (21 per cent) of men indicated that it was mostly themselves who had made the decision to separate. Conversely, more than half (53 per cent) of men compared with 20 per cent of women said that the decision had been mostly made by their former partner. According to 26 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women, the decision was jointly made."

That's not a comment about the validity of reasons for initaiting seperation but the claim that it's mostly about men leaving women is blatently false.

On topic, perhaps Tristan could comment on the inequality of time experienced between many workers and those who make different lifestyle choices.
There are those who are genuinely marginalised who face great difficulty in maintaining a comfortable lifestyle for themselves and their families. There are others who choose a time rich lifestyle over earned income, why should those who choose to work continue to be penalised to redress the lack of cash experienced by the latter group.

R0bert

“Despite this, however, the vast majority of Australian citizens have nothing to sustain them but their labour and, in the sense intended by Marx, are members of the working class.”

As one of the “working Class”, by Marx’s definition, let me advise the notions of “enforced social justice” and a “tax-based equitable distribution of resources” is a crock.

It would take merely 7 years of self-determination for those recipients of funds under a “re-distribution” to lose it back to those with the craft to relieve them of it.

Reality is you cannot make people conform to the rules of fiscal wisdom.

You cannot defend the drunkard from accessing alcohol and you cannot prevent the gullible from their own stupidity.

All this rubbish is just a smoke screen of “faux-compassion”, designed to facilitate the introduction of centralist control of everything by the left.

It is designed to deny the individual freedoms of negotiation, which Australians enjoy in the workplace and in their private dealings with one another.

It is designed to institutionalise the Nanny state and prevent people from aspiring to their true potential.

It is the recipe of mediocrity, the hall mark of socialist thinking.

Tristan relies on quoting Marx, a German Jewish dilatant who thought revolution would happen in England and viewed Russia as a society populated by retarded serfs and now Tristan’s “socialist vision” is viewed by looking backward 150 years.

RobP the TriContinental Bank failure had all the characteristics of socialist mediocrity, pretending to make money from those who could borrow from no one else (high risk) and ending up handing the Victorian Tax Payers a $3 billion debt when the high interest bearing borrowers fell over.

Funding this debt, they sold off the State Bank to the CBA and their incompetence also brought about a reduction in Victoria’s credit rating, forcing tax payers to pay higher interest rates than before.

That is to say nothing of Jolley’s endorsement of Pyramid Building Society a day before it also fell over leaving Victorian motorists to be raped with a fuel levy to cover the deficit.

Probably, mentioning “Marx, a German Jewish dilatant” perfectly highlights reality and worth of dominating Australia a usual racist speechifying about “a knowledge of the English language” as an “important component of social inclusion”: Marx, a native German speaker as far as historical sources provided, was from a family converted to Christianity prior to his birth. Non-Anglos in Australia have perfect English skills-in generations-and are under-caste inferior anyway de facto.

Therefore, as already in this Forum noticed, a newcomers’ “real piss stain on a shoulder” is their non-Anglo-Englishness rather than one’s vogue speculation of an English skills – also it is extremely important for communicating in this Forum surely.

At the end of the pipe access to possible financial gains determines belonging to a particular CLASS regardless of biological background. That is why attempts to use mafia-style substitute of “mateship” helps a little: "mates" themselves differ for their possibility to recover their for instance gambling lose on merits of an access to a money flow, which one is predetermines class division between haves and not-haves practically.

Ah Michael K I am sure that if your mindless drivel was in the least intelligible, I would find it offensive.

As it is, your severe lack of ability to communicate in simple English denies me that sense of outrage which I might otherwise feel.

Oh how blessed am I that you are so enfeebled.

Have you ever wondered why the national language of Australia is English, rather than whatever twitterings it was around which you formed your native tongue?

It is because 200+ years ago this fair land was colonised by England, the institutions, culture and history of which formed the mould for those deployed here.

That you seem to have problems dealing with that historic fact is your issue and nothing to bother other good folk about.

I will trust that when you have developed sufficiently to espouse your views lucidly, you will have also acquired the manners and respect for people who know better than you, allowing you to at least dispense with the inane.

RobP,

I think that a person who chooses a 'time rich' lifestyle will be penalised in terms of income. And also, being too 'time rich' isn't so great as it may first seem. Having no purpose in life can lead to a crisis of meaninglessness and despair. I prefer a mid-way approach, and wish I could find satisfying part-time work - for which I would be willing to make the sacrifice of misssing out on a full-time income.

re: Kirner and Cain - they presided over a period of financial stability that occurred nation-wide. Private banks also went into crisis, but these were bailed out by the Commonwealth. The CBA, on the other hand, was privatised because of Keating's ideological agenda. I agree, though, that Labor should not have bought into the argument re: Pyramid, and must accept culpability for reassuring investors.

This should not be enough to forever destroy Labor's financial management credentials, however. Had a Conservative government been in power, the State Bank would also have been managed 'at arms length', and the results would have been out of control, beyond the ability of the government to manage: except through restored financial regulation, prudential supervision etc.

The Conservatives have created an obesession re: debt that is preventing public investment in vital infrastructure, and which is leading to wasteful PPPs that line the pockets of private investors at the expense of the public. Ultimately, this obsession with debt with mitigate against productive investment in infrastructure when the next downturn comes, and the consequence will be a deeper and more destructive recession. In the meantime, we need investment in infrastructure now; not just as a counter-cyclical measure, because it contributes to the productivity of the entire economy.

Tristan

Tristan,

I agree that infrastructure spending is necessary. For example, beefing up our broadband network could only be a good thing for productivity. (This is part of the capacity constraint argument that has been doing the rounds lately.) The question is, who is best able to do it? Or, what combination of government and private sector involvement will do the trick? There will be an optimum way to proceed. But finding it will entail some trial and error.

Dear Rob,

re: broadband infrastructure; just briefly, I think it would be best for the project to be handled entirely by the public sector. Under Rudd's model, you have significant private sector involvement from a consortium of private investors. This in turn creates a part-private monopoly that can be abused.

And once the infrastructure is built, there is little incentive to build parallel infrastructure; and in any case, this would add to the cost structures of the whole sector.

I am worried, though, that Howard will do a deal with Telstra before the election that side-steps the ACCC. One way or another I fear we are going to get a private or part-private monopoly, and it will be consumers who pay the price.

When we understand the way that FTTH is now been delivered, we realise that if the Government tilts towards any party than we will pay a very heavy price if the product is bundled.

The truth which is been hidden from us, Landline Telephony is not required to deliver the service.

Below is a brief description of the trend in America.
How does FTTH work?
The Internet "backbone" is made up of fiber optic cables (very thin glass filaments) that have enormous bandwidth and use light pulses to carry information. Most customers, however, connect to the backbone through copper-based technologies like twisted pair and DSL or Hybrid Fiber Coax cable, which have limited bandwidth and limited capacity to carry integrated voice, video, and data services. This creates a speed and service bottleneck in the "last mile," the distance between the fiber optic backbone and customers.

Some providers are beginning to deliver integrated services over fiber optic cables that go from the Internet backbone directly to customers' homes or businesses. These cables may be buried, strung overhead or run through existing structures like sewer lines.

Providers primarily offer FTTH through two types of architectures, point-to-point and passive optical network (PON). Point-to-point requires providers to install an optical transceiver in the provider's central office for each customer. PON uses a single transceiver with a splitter to serve up to 32 businesses and residential customers who share the bandwidth. The splitter is located up to 30,000 feet from the central office, and a single strand of fiber can carry the signal another 3000 feet to the customer. Once the fiber reaches the customer's home or business, an optical electrical converter (OEC) on the side of the building converts the optical signal to an electrical signal that can interface with existing copper wiring. The current standard for PON is the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)-based ITU-T G.983. Some providers are also using Gigabit Ethernet over fiber to provide customers with broadband access.

Tristan Ewins,

You are utterly right speaking of having strategic microstructure telecommunications definitely are public-managed as in the USA it mostly happens.

However, a human factor is the most, and in a semi-colony of England where car dealers/real estate agents Col.Rouge as figured from his postings perfect example is, pretend on superiority over professionals because of a biologically-motivated birthright only, at this time your suggestion is a wished dream as English skills themselves have a little with a real professionalism denied for colonies to keep them attached to overseas masters:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/i-want-to-die-in-the-independent-republic-of-australia/2007/06/12/1181414295905.html?page=1

That is an option - and for LP too.