It would be good to see 'social inclusion' supersede the divisive policy of multiculturalism. It would be the best thing that ever happened if multiculturalism had "had its day", as some delegates believed. It was unasked for and undemocratic in the first place, and it remains so.

The author has given a good description of the confusion surrounding the idea of social inclusion.

But he has not given a definition of what social inclusion is. The closest he comes is a grab-bag of desirable things: being able to ‘secure a job’, ‘access services’, ‘connect with others’ and so on.

But “once you have missed the first button hole, you’ll never manage to button up’.
Goethe

If we start with the wrong theory, we will end with the wrong conclusion. Marxian errors do not self-rectify for no other reason than that they are given a name-change.

For example, using the state’s coercive powers to take people’s private property, and then giving that property to someone else, does not bring the receiver into the mainstream market economy, because by definition, the mainstream market economy works by private property rights, not by state confiscations for socialist purposes.

The so-called third way is not “a modern and fresh approach”, it is exactly the same old socialist approach of anti-social envy, economic ignorance, hostility to private property, and legalised theft that keeps on failing, and then getting a name change that makes no difference to the outcomes in practice.

Doing this does not “raise national prosperity”, it actively destroys the capital accumulation that is the basis of the general rise in the standard of living.

It does not “create a fair and decent society”, it actively attacks people for being productive and responsible and employing people, creating a society in which the ruling political class use force and threats to take from the productive class, so as to bribe a growing dependent class for votes, so as to continue the unearned privileges of both.

At the same time, it is the single biggest factor causing the poverty and disadvantage it is intended to remedy.

Australia already has a comprehensive “employee share ownership” scheme. It’s called starting your own business. But by far the biggest restrainer is government.

The author’s economic ignorance does not comprehend that the interventions he advocates, make the outcomes worse *from the interventionists’ own point of view*.

I suspect that often, social inclusion is manipulated to justify its logical opposite, social exclusion - in Aboriginal education for example, often 'inclusive curriculum' means little more than Indigenous Studies or specific VET subjects in the curriculum for Indigenous kids - which can end up being little more than a new form of exclusion from the rest of the curriculum and the school population.

Meanwhile, 24,000 Indigenous people have graduated from universities around the country, 10,000 are currently studying, and close to seventy thousand have, at some time of other, been enrolled at universities - about a quarter of the adult population. Now THAT'S inclusion, or at least a big step towards it.

I've worried for some years that the equal rights agenda of the sixties and early seventies, surely an inclusive agenda, was quietly abandoned by Indigenous 'leaders' in the early to mid-seventies, in favour of a politically safer and easier cultural agenda - 'our own' this and that, strident calls to recognise difference (as if Indigenous people hadn't always been thought of as different!): hey presto ! five thousand Indigenous organisations, employing tens of thousands, all beavering away (or at least, being paid to beaver away) on what was (and still is) basically an exclusionist agenda.

And now that agenda is going down the drain, not before time: the Intervention has shown the bankruptcy of the exclusionist approach, and it's likely to be extended to many other parts of Australia. But to where the university graduates are ? Not likely - they are overwhelmingly working and living in an inclusive society, NOT under the control of Indigenous organisations but operating in a more-or-less open society, and not interested in making their livings off their own people either.

Joe Lane

It’s a modern and fresh approach that views everyone as a potential wealth creator and invests in their human capital.

What load of wishy washy sell out to the capitalist system.

Inclusion does not mean getting a piece of the capitalist pie in fact it is almost the opposite.
People need to be able to live without being forced to subvert their values to a system that measures success in dollars.
The term multi-culturalism means allowing others to have space to be them selves without competing for resources.
This form of inclusion as proposed is an attempt prop up a failing system not an approach which recognizes the right to individual and if necessary seperate value systems to live in the same community.

Well said Beefyboy:

Excellent definition, but the self interest crowd just don't or won't get it. They believe a bland homogeneous community that is servile to the god "consumerism" is the only way - an impossibility. We are all different, even within our respective cultures; acceptance and inclusion is the only way forward.

Focussing on differences; be it sexual orientation, appearance, gender or even accent is a waste of time and achieves nothing - something that Leigh manages to do with alacrity (achieving nothing). If there was an award for being the first and most bigoted post on any thread he'd win.

Suggestions for an award are welcome:

I suggest the Glistening Raspberry.

PS

On this occasion 'attacking the man' is completely relevant given that it is the 'Leighs' and 'Wing-a-lings' of this world who allow prejudice and hatred to flourish as they demonstrate their inability to understand concepts like "social inclusion" or "multiculturalism".

Interesting article that takes a different look at social inclusion through the concept of employee share ownerhsip.

It is not until you have felt excluded from society for various reasons (disability, unemployment, illness)that you can really understand the feeling of desolation for many people who are on the outer looking in to other people going about their 'normal' lives.

I concur with beefyboys comments.

Personally I don't want to live with a third world country mentality where it is seen as okay for many to live in squalor and poverty so that others can live obscenely wealthy lifestyles.

For too long we have lived with the idea that those who possess capital (usually in the form of debt) are inherently possessed with greater rights than those who provide labour. Some companies overseas are already reaping the benefits of employee share ownership where all players hold a vested interest in the success of the business.

I don't agree with Wing Ah Ling's view that the third way is yet another socialist approach - it seeks to balance the vested interests of capitalism with social responsibility.

Wing talks about property rights as sacrosanct in relation to all other rights. As if ownership outweighs any other issue such as the means by which property is acquired. Is there to be no moral considerations at all in regard to exploitation, environmental degradation or corruption in the pursuit of property?

The idea of social inclusion also means creating a level playing field and equal access to opportunity.