Tristan,

I have no argument with your logic, but, with respect, the use of highly academic, abstract language (value formation, ideological literacy, civic mobilisation, public sphere participation) renders your articles open to misunderstanding and ambiguity.

I would very much like to see a follow-up article that translates the academia into tin tacks. For instance, what should really happen in Tasmania to overcome the endless battles over forest logging and public protest?

Or maybe your article is saying that those issues are already being dealt with adequately? In this liberal democracy the 'market players' are Gunns and the emerging alternative economy (food and wine growers and tourism operators), mediated by a heavily compromised government and opposed by a sceptical, angry public.

And what are you saying about the privatisation of NWS power infrastructure?

Are you saying this is how it should be? After all, the instruments of a liberal democracy are theoretically all in place in Australia. What would you change?

Dear Gecko;

What I'm saying is that liberal democracy is a fine balancing act - between the rule of the majority, and the liberal and social rights of minorities.

And sometimes it is such that the disadvantaged and oppressed must enjoy the right to struggle for justice - even in a democracy; and even to take it as far as civil disobedience.

And often - we have the right and the duty to fight for justice - eg: against an unjust and brutal war - even if it does not affect us directly...

The liberal demcratic consensus - which allows for this - is what keeps countries like Australia from plummeting into chaos - or otherwise into a grossly oppressive regime.

Without such a consensus, politics can descent into a brutal life or death struggle - and it is in everyone's interests to avoid this...

Given your example of power privatistion in NSW: this is an example where civil disobedience call be called for... To begin with, unionists and ALP members might try and hold Iemma accountable - via ALP National Exec, threatening MPs preselections...

But if all else fails - I believe strike action - or other forms of industrial action - could be justified. (a form of civil disobedience) And I think this is what I suggest in the paper.

meanings of words:

ideological literacy - understanding of ideas systems - eg: socialism, liberalism, conservatisam

public sphere - forums for public discussion - collectively - including all forms of media, public meetings etc.

value formation - simply the process by which people come to and develop their personal beliefs and values...

Thanks for the comment :-)

Take care - most sincerely,

Tristan

"Teachers, for instance, have not only been involved in struggles for wage justice: they have been at the heart of struggles for a more progressive curriculum."

This week, Victorian teachers have been fighting against the Australian Education Union (AEU) and the state Labor government of Premier John Brumby. Who like their political counterparts are undermining public education, in every domain, to facilitate big profits in the ongoing private enterprise of public education. Included are a range of pay cuts (presented as a victory)and the exacerbation of job security (the ongoing casualisation of the workforce) and a sellout agreement that compounds the deepening crisis in the schools’ primary and secondary classrooms. If ratified, this AEU-Labor government agreement will open the way for even more draconian attacks on public education.
The problem is precisely, in a nutshell, "liberal compromise" and reformist ways. For that agenda has collapsed in every country. That is why the liberals, governments nor trade unions have or for that matter defended or proposed any social justice globally in the last 25 years.
The Financial Times last week published an admonishing column by David Rothkopf, author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making. “The credit crisis is exacerbating the emerging backlash against corporate excess,” he wrote. “Elites make billions on markets whether they go up or down and their institutions win government support while the little guy loses his home. Multinational chief executives 30 years ago made 35 times the wages of an average employee; today it is more than 350 times. The crisis has focused attention on the obscene inequities of this era—the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion.”

It is time the working class moved off the sidelines and entered the fray of the world arena fighting for social justice and social equality.

I am not sure why the privatisation of power in NSW calls for civil disobedience. I care about the lights going on when I want them to, not who owns the assets. Why is ownership of assets an issue for people to pursue civil disobediance?

Living in the Hunter Valley of NSW where there is significant electricity infrastructure, is is easy to see how too much money has been taken from the power utilities as dividends by state governments, and not enough put into replacing aging infrastructure, or maintaining sufficient buffers of capacity.

I think that it is obvious that we have not been paying enough for electricity, which governments tolerate (as they can raise additional funds through taxation, which never seems to be included in the defense of public ownership), but which private operators will not.

Due to limits on financial resources, governments should not spend valuable and precious taxpayer funds when private industry will do it. Keep those funds for support services which private industry does not want.

As an aside, it is arguable that the balance of a liberal democracy could easily tip into mob rule. A constant example of this is the mentality that encourages additional taxation (directed spending) of higher income earners, simply because a large group of people believe that those higher income earners can "afford it". That may be so, but it is hardly fair or based on any principle of equality.

johncee1945,

I think you will find that some teachers are fighting against the AEU-government proposed wage deal, but in the end it will get the 70 per cent-plus vote that the 2001 and 2004 EBAs got, even though the second of these actually worsened workload. Every teacher will earn more money over the 2008-2011 period under the proposed deal than the government originally offered, and about two thirds of teachers will earn substantially more. The AEU has done well, given the number of non-union teachers, the number of teacher unionists who do not support union action, the weakness shown by teachers in endorsing the past two deals, the failure of teachers to use the 2001 EBA to get decent conditions in their schools and the presence in the profession of teachers who happily signed the Kennett Government’s individual contract system (the PRP) in the 1990s. My last school, Hampton Park SC, had a maximum class teaching load of 21 48-minute periods (16 hours 48 minutes) when I was its timetabler – the best conditions in the state, an example of what could have been achieved by strong union sub-branches. As a direct result of the 2004 EBA, period length went up, teaching loads went up and the management advisory committee was abolished – all thanks to teachers endorsing a flawed deal. If teachers wanted to do better than the 2008 offer, which is the best on pay (though not workload) in 25 years, they would have to be more united.

For a much more comprehensive discussion of the proposed deal, you can see
Scale of the Century at
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/706780
and
Another look at the Vic pay deal
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/709114.

I welcome the broad-ranging debate. :-)

But are there any more comments or opinions more closely related to the subject matter? (ie: liberal social contract, struggle for social justice, legitimate examples of civil disobedience etc?)

Take care, everyone - and thanks for all your input.

re: NSW and civil disobedience...

Why fight?

Possible decline in wages and conditions...

'selling the family silver' - possibly leading, in the end, to an increase in the cost of energy - despite effort, people still find it hard to come to terms with a competitive energy market...

Besides which - more intense competition would be wasteful - and these cost structures would drive up prices...

Furthermore - Iemma is trying to push this through against the ALP party platform...

And finally - the sale of these assets would drive down govt revenue - and this would impact upon provision of public services etc.

I think these are reasonable reasons to resist...

Tristan,

I think the only reason that the government gets "income" from the electricity utilities is that it does not leave enough money in the business to replace and maintain generation buffers. It is not a sustainable business as it is currently run. I feel the government realises this and is trying to extract itself from the upcoming responsibility of power shortages. The system has been run down over the years and it is pass the parcel time wrt who allowed this to occur.

I agree with you that power prices will be higher under a privatised system due to users paying the full cost (operational expense of generation, infrastructure and capital charges), and the need for the enterprise to make a profit after paying for capital. Governments provide cheaper power to the consumer (usually operational costs and limited infrastructure) only because they can generate additional funds through taxes, which are hidden from the electricity user (other people pay either through taxes directly, or reduced services as money is diverted into power generation away from other government services such as education or health).

Tristan

I think the Weltanschauung of a more peaceful road to a better society is fundamentally flawed when that vision embraces the exploitative society in which we presently live.

Your approach accepts the legitimacy of the exploitation of workers and the theft by the bourgeoisie of the surplus value they create. It accepts the continuation of the crisis ridden accumulative process, one you yourself described (in the context of discussing the tendency of the rate of profit to decline under capitalism) as hot wired into the system.

The other problem I have with this approach is that it disarms (intellectually and perhaps physically) workers in the struggle against capital.

The idea of a more peaceful road to the same goal (whether that is some sort of peaceful road to socialism or social democracy) is, as Rosa Luxemburg in her disputes with Bernstein and Lenin n his dismissal of Kautsky, argued, not the peaceful road to the same goal but to a different goal.

I don't think you can tame the beast unless there is a fundamental re-ordering of society, one in which which workers democratically run society to satisfy human need, not to make a profit. The profit system is the enemy of humanity.

As to terror, as Marx said, the history of capitalism (and I include the state capitalism of the Stalinist regimes in this) is written in blood.

Also the red terror was a response to the White terror. The bourgeoisie are dependent on terror.

The rise of Stalin was a consequence of the de classing of the working class in Russia by the War and Civil War waged by the nice social democrats and the fascists, and the failure of the revolution to succeed in Europe.

The good society in the US is built, for example, not only only the impoverishment of many workers but also on the imperialist elite ruling the majority of the world for that class's benefit. Hardly a peaceful society if it is dependent on enslaving other nations.

Off to pick up my daughter. Hopefully my ideas are worth discussing too.

Passy: The capitalist system as we know it rests upon exploitation. And this exploitation is such that it is its most obvious and objectionable - when it is so pervasive amongst a certain demographic - that they might reasonably be called 'capitalist class': or, as Marx would say, the Bourgeoisie.

Nb though politics is more complex than class (although class is very important - see another article I've posted (reaffirming the politics of class) - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5950

Religious, cultural, moral and other conflicts add to a sometimes volatile mix. This makes it harder to pinpont a ruling class in a purely economic sense. So also - Imperialism is real - but global relations are much more complex than Imperialism considered on its own...

Also - as I also argued in my other article on 'The Good Society' - wage earner funds/pension funds etc - technically exploit labour...

But most of those investing in such funds cannot be reasonably seen as a 'ruling class'... Expropriation of surplus value - between workers themselves - shows that such relations are a 'gordian knot'- which cannot be undone. (except by a state monopolist command economy)

Certainly there should be strong currents of economic planning, varied models of economic and participatory democracy... But ordinary people should be able to invest their savings as they wish...

anyway - there are other issues you raise, Passy, that I want to address... Can't think clearlu right now - but I'll try to get back to you later on.

PS: one more thing - you are a good writer - why don't you submit an article to OLO? Or failing that - maybe try 'Leftwrites' - which I contribute to sometimes?...

most sincerely,

Tristan

Thanks Tristan.

I think we will continue to disagree and agree.

Yes, I write well. OLO has published a number of my articles. Passy is a nickname to prevent rabid reactionaries ringing me up to abuse me or my kids, especially late at night (which has happened in the past when the Canberra Times ran some of my articles). It isn't too hard to figure out who I am from my OLO articles and my Passy views. BOAZ_David hit upon it fairly early.

I am about to partake of Rudd's efficiency dividend. I want to write oped pieces, but none of the broadsheets have been interested, given the left wing nature of my views.

So OLO looks like it for me. That and volunteer tenancy advice work.

Maudlin photo shot here.

Passy and Tristan

I enjoy both your articles and threads on OLO.

Ironic that a web-forum run by such as Graham Young remains, with a few notable exceptions, a haven for the expression of free-thought and social concern. So until something better comes along, I will continue to read these pages and proffer the occasional opinion.

Cheers

Fractelle and Passy;

What you say about OLO is right... I think those who run OLO have a liberal pluralist outlook - which looks to a participatory and pluralist public sphere...

This is a good thing - and for all our sakes I hope these kind of forums continue to win readers away from mainstream media which have policies of arbitrary exclusion...

I wish, personally, that I could reach a broader audience - but Fairfax won't even publish my letters... I hope this will change one day - but I'm not about to compromise myself just to get a by-line.

That's without considering the tabloid media - and their usually even greater tendency to exclude material contrary to their conservative 'line'... ( In Sweden, I think the biggest daily tabloid is run by unions - perhaps the sort of development we need see here too?)

Again - As a liberal; a pluralist; one who believes in participatory democracy - it is crucial to build these kind of forums...

Take care, everyone - and all the best...