Sunday, July 19, 2015

Final Arguments for the Socialist Objective

A final passionate argument for the ALP's 'Socialist Objective' ahead  of Conference

Tristan Ewins

As ALP National Conference approaches for the end of this month, Right-wing and ‘Centrist’ forces are busy proclaiming the obituary for socialism. The argument is forwarded (after Lenin ironically) that ‘in the ALP we were never socialists’; ‘that socialism is an outdated and disproven philosophy’ and that socialism ‘has an unbearable connotation’ thanks  to a number of totalitarian regimes from the 20th Century.  This will probably be my last personal effort to influence debate via this blog ahead of Conference.

To begin – despite ‘obituaries’ democratic socialism still has plenty of resonance in the Nordics and much of Western and Central Europe – successful economies and societies where there are strong left/democratic socialist movements. The socialist Left is also very strong in parts of Central and South America. So the movement as such is not ‘dead’ yet.

The reason socialism does not have the same ‘resonance’ in this country for now, however, is partly our own fault. (ie: the Labor Left) We are the main democratic socialist presence in this country. But because we don’t think it’s the work of a faction to engage in counter-culture – we abrogate our responsibility to pursue a cultural struggle to keep our traditions alive. So we leave it to the Trotskyist groups – and some tendencies in the Greens. And the Trotskyists at least promote it in a very narrow sense – sometimes as if nothing had changed since 1917.

This is a debate we have to have within the ALP Left. And arguably it needs to be supported by publications such as this; but also through forums and conferences, and perhaps even informal schools. In short learn the lessons re: the early success of radical social democratic parties.

That said there are many reasons why socialist consciousness has declined. Indeed, in a recent debate with a NSW Left member the argument was put that socialism is ‘outdated’ because “the vicissitudes of industrialisation no longer tell”.

Well, yes and no.

The industrial working class has shrunk and the broader working class has changed its composition. However many modern clerical jobs are just as mundane, repetitive and alienating as the old industrial working class jobs. Some such vocations even draw people together in factory-like environments. (though some workforces are also ‘atomised’ where workers labour from home without contact with other workers)  

Class consciousness is also in decline partly because of a ‘mistaken identity’ when it comes to the working class. Many white collar workers still tend to see themselves as ‘middle class’. This contributes to the demobilisation of the labour movement and chips away at class-based solidarity. Also the anti-union Ideology is reinforced regularly in the monopoly mass media. And the view that unions are to be treated primarily as political power bases – even if this means acting against the interests of the membership – can only weaken organised labour in this country over the long-run. By comparison Swedish trade unions still enjoy union density rates of over 70 per cent. (compared with 18 per cent in Australia) Sweden shows drastic decline is not unavoidable.

The broader labour movement has been stigmatised in popular culture and as a consequence of our own emphasis on the ‘virtues’ of industrial peace from the 1980s. (Industrial peace is fine where there is industrial justice; But if struggle is stigmatised that is more likely to mean defeat)

Finally socialism was stigmatised as a consequence of the Cold War – a cultural war waged over several decades – culminating in Thatcher and Reagan and the embrace of privatisation, ‘small government’, assaults on organised labour, support for dictatorial and murderous regimes, ‘class war’ against the poor and on welfare.

SO all that considered: why might socialism resonate today if only we found the courage to argue for it?

To start people still remember the chaos of the Global Financial Crisis. They remember that governments had to ‘bail out’ the big banks and finance houses. And then for the public sector to withdraw as if nothing had happened… Except for many countries (eg: Britain) the cost was in the tens of billions. (and much more in the United States)  And there is no guarantee the same thing won’t happen again.

So capitalism remains unstable. It is also wasteful and unfair. There are duplications in cost structures, and markets go places they never really should have. (including energy and water, where ideas of ‘competition’ and product differentiation are ludicrous)  Forms of market failure persist everywhere. There are Public Private Partnerships which are basically licenses for private corporations to fleece the general public. The rights of labour are under attack – not only wages and conditions – but industrial rights and liberties. The vested interests in the energy sector obstruct attempts to introduce reform for the sake of the environment. Inequality is getting worse and worse – with more and more wealth concentrated in the hands of the top 1% and the top 10% ; with relatively negligible wealth for everyone else – and an entrenched underclass which owns practically nothing.

Also, the fact capitalism is reaching its limits in terms of the expansion of the world market means desperate measures such as increasing the retirement age and increasing working hours. Yet there’s also a parallel tendency towards underwork. Amidst this, in fact ‘socialist’ policies such as promoting natural public monopolies are one option to promote efficiencies that flow on to the private sector and increase capitalism’s survivability – while at the same time beginning a shift (perhaps) to something better.

Welfare rights are also under attack; The vulnerable are stigmatised on the effective understanding that money saved as a consequence can go towards corporate welfare (primarily tax cuts, so corporations do not contribute fairly to the infrastructure and services they benefit from – which means the rest of us pick up the tab). And also to reduce the bargaining power of workers - because vulnerable job-seekers ‘are not allowed to say no’. And we have punitive labour conscription policies that look like the sort of thing that would come out of Nazi Germany.

Amidst this democratic socialism starts to look pretty good. Again: look to the parties of the Left and Centre Left in the Nordics for instance. Look to Norway’s socialisation of its oil profits. Look at Denmark’s labour market policies. Look at past successes in Sweden – full employment – much of it high wage – AND low inflation. And look at Sweden’s ‘near run thing’ on wage earner funds – Perhaps with a bit more tactical compromise earlier on it would have been a significant leap forward to Swedish Social Democracy.  (See: Andrew Scott’s ‘Northern Lights’A review can be found here:  )

But we should be clearer what we really mean when we speak of socialism. This is necessary to establish how and why democratic socialism is a better alternative to ‘laissez faire’.

For me it is simply this.

a) It is the movement which sought to extend all manner of rights on the basis of the goal of ‘equal association’ as the fair and just response to ‘the social question’. At its highest  level of development this means ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ – partly achieved via the social wage and welfare.

b) It is the movement which campaigned for free, universal and equal suffrage – and largely won. This was against the stands taken by Conservatives – but often even by self-avowed Liberals. (eg: in Germany; Though Swedish liberals were notable in that they did support the suffrage)

c) It is the movement that fought for social rights of citizenship – welfare, industrial rights, a mixed economy and social wage – and consolidated many gains for several decades in the post-war world.

d) It is the movement which seeks to reconsolidate those gains – but also extend them to include “economic citizenship” – That is a diverse ‘democratic mixed economy’ – not just based on ‘central planning’ – but on a mix of markets and planning; as well as natural public monopolies, government business enterprises, cooperative enterprise of many types, collective capital formation, co-determination and so on. And with no delusions as to the reality of global capitalism we’re living in – and the constraints that puts upon us for the time being. Until we are much stronger internationally.

e) It is a movement which has a critique of laissez faire/neo-liberal capitalism based on the associated waste, unfairness and instability.

f)  Finally, it is the movement which seeks to empower all human beings to reach their full potential. Through cultural participation and education. Through active citizenship in a robust democracy. By breaking down inflexibilities in capitalism – and modernity more generally -  when it comes to alienation and the division of labour.  Because that is the stuff which impoverishes peoples’ lives – condemning them to nothing but ‘a hard slog’ just to survive.

We cannot allow ourselves to be frightened into avoiding a genuine debate because the IPA or CIS might take us out of context. If ideologically “we are constantly on the run” because of fear of misrepresentation by right-wing forces and by the monopoly mass media – then ultimately we will abandon social democracy and liberalism as well. Because there are anti-democratic forces in this country who will not let up until our regime of social, civil, political and industrial rights have been driven back as far as possible. Until the ABC, for instance, is turned into the mouthpiece for a virtual one-party state. Because today’s big ‘C’ Conservatives are not really convinced democrats, liberals or pluralists. They have precisely the ‘whatever it takes’ approach which we have to deny if we are to hold on to our ‘ideological and ethical souls’….

The point is that you don’t abandon a core foundation for your values, identity and analysis because of the fear you will be misrepresented in the media and by right-wing organisations. Sure you might make tactical compromises – but you don’t abandon your very foundations.


Apparently there are some in the NSW Left who are also arguing for us to drop reference to democratic socialism in the Platform.  But there are plenty of others – including down here in Victoria – who feel differently.  Importantly, though: Personally I have made conciliatory suggestions – that is, that we should recognise the plural nature of the modern party. But that democratic socialism must be recognised as a core and enduring tradition. (alongside others such as the traditional ‘Keynesian-inspired social democracy with a mixed economy’, and also our indigenous labourism)  What is wrong with that? ON top of that we could embrace the goal of achieving a ‘democratic mixed economy’ which could be the basis of a compromise in both the Objective AND the Economic Platform. ( For example See: ; ALSO see: )

To conclude, democratic socialism itself has always been a plural tradition – but generally associated with political, social and economic equality, and the extension of democracy. Liberalism remains a vital ideology – especially as promoted by radicals such as Rawls. So does democracy itself. So why would democratic socialism be different? Or is it just a tactical question of divorcing ourselves from associations with Stalinism or even Leninism? Or for the sake of appearing to be a ‘moderate’ ‘Centrist’ Party?

Sure you could say Social Democracy is also about political, social and economic citizenship… Democratic socialism and social democracy mean different things to different people. But when I speak of social democracy and democratic socialism I think of the tradition beginning with the world’s great Social Democratic parties – for whom democratic socialism and social democracy were ‘the same movement’. I also think of the theoretical and practical-political innovations of the Swedes especially. If we’re to be an inclusive Party we need to recognise those traditions as part of our heritage and as part of our modern practice.

For the LEFT especially there shouldn’t be any questioning of our supporting this. If you believe in a moderate/Centrist social liberalism – then people who feel that way might be better off in Centre Unity. (except parts of the Right have drifted SO FAR into neo-liberalism that the Left itself might be drawn right-ward to fill the vacated ideological space) That’s the path to ideological liquidation and the end of our movement.


Mind you – while the debate over the Objective has serious long term ramifications the most crucial policy debates for the immediate future will be around tax reform (increasing and reforming the mix of progressive tax), unfair superannuation concessions, social wage and welfare extension, infrastructure including roads, schools, hospitals, public space, public housing etc… Specifically we need to implement NDIS, NBN and Gonski; as well as Medicare Dental, National Aged Care Insurance, improve welfare payments by $35/week or thereabouts, and implement policies to ‘close the gap’ on life expectancy for indigenous Australians and those with a mental illness.

( I have developed a comprehensive ‘model Platform’ which I still hope will influence debate on the Platform ahead of Conference.   The document has well over 600 supporters and can be found here:   )

Without providing enough flexibility – as against an on-paper commitment to ‘small government’ – we won’t have the scope to deliver genuine economic and social reform if we retake-government. We will ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ as usual with little overall progress. ( For example, Medicare Dental may be accompanied by another attack on welfare-  eg: Sole Parents again) That is a truly crucial question for all of us – self-identifying social democrats and democratic socialists alike….

Friday, July 3, 2015

Responding to Chris Bowen on Labor's 'Socialist Objective'

above: Federal Labor Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen

The following article is a critique of a recent contribution on debate surrounding the  ALP’s ‘Socialist Objective’ by ALP Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen in a Fabian Pamphlet. Bowen’s ‘Crosland-ite’ agenda has more depth than is to be found in other corners of the Right-faction.  But Bowen fails to come to grips with the potential benefits of a democratic mixed economy.  Meanwhile in the Left itself we do not engage with the implications of the ‘Socialist Objective’ – socialist culture is fading amidst day-to-day practical opportunism.

 (the first of two essays; the essay following this will respond to Jenny McAllister)

by Tristan Ewins

In a recent Fabian Pamphlet (‘What is Labor’s Objective?)  Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen makes his case against the existing Socialist Objective.

He observes its current form:

 “The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.”

And he contends in response that:

 “the socialist objective [does not reflect] our ambition for a modern, fair, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, outward looking, multicultural country.”

Thereafter Bowen rejects those parts of the Objective which propose “the establishment and development of public enterprises” as well as “democratic control of Australia’s natural resources”.  Specifically he suggests the privatisation of Qantas was justified; and that the alternative was a waste of public funds.

Continuing, he rejects what some have come to call ‘State Socialism’; but nonetheless argues the case for an effectively Crosland-ite agenda involving equal opportunity in education and life chances; but equality of outcomes in health.  (Anthony Crosland was an important reformist democratic socialist thinker within British Labour who – beginning around the 1950s - proposed an emphasis on public services and social infrastructure as opposed to socialisation of industry)    Bowen reinterprets this agenda as a more robust social liberalism – which cares about the individual in all their dimensions - when considered in contrast to “classical liberalism”

BOWEN also argues for “a decent community environment” with government ensuring the provision of “hard” as well as “soft” infrastructure; which means not only “transport and roads”  but “a liveable community with attractive public art, open spaces and a good environment.”

He concludes the Objective is out of date because it says nothing about multiculturalism, indigenous rights, engagement in the Asia-Pacific, preservation of the natural environment and action on climate change, and also equality of opportunity in education and equality of outcome in health.

He states: “We should mean what we say in the socialist objective. Currently we don’t. It clearly does reflect the modern Labor challenge, and with some updating it could very easily do so."


Firstly, Bowen would be wrong to suggest that a Socialist Objective in the Labor Party would have to exclude indigenous rights, the environment, the nurturing of a multi-cultural Australia, or engagement in our region for the extension of beneficial trade and the preservation of peace.  It is true that the Objective was originally penned in the 1920s and probably needs to be updated.  But Australian socialists – and indeed Australian Communists as well  – were amongst the first to promote these causes; as well as the cause of free, universal and equal suffrage.  It is not a stark choice:  of ‘these important modern causes on one hand, OR of socialism on the other’.

In the context of alluding to Labor’s historic support for extensive privatisation, Bowen appears specifically to reject passages which commit Labor to:  “the establishment and development of public enterprises” as well as “democratic control of Australia’s natural resources”.  Following this he suggests his opposition to the “state socialism” – a common ‘political-bogeyman’.

To start the meaning of ‘state socialism’ as argued by Bowen is not properly laid out.  In the past the term has been used to describe a centralised command economy after the way of the former Soviet Union.  But disturbingly it has also been deployed with the apparent aim of stigmatising any kind of extensive mixed economy.  Any form of democratic socialism or social democracy which supposes a significant role for the state as an economic participant is commonly ruled out as ‘state socialism’. 

In response to these kind of arguments: while there are solid reasons for socialists to support a ‘democratic mixed economy’, you don't have to be a socialist to support these kind of policies. A mixed economy with a substantial role for natural public monopolies, government business enterprise, public authorities and public infrastructure -  was supported by Conservatives – even including Menzies - for decades.  But the point - ironically - is that while we may aspire to a more democratic economy, natural public monopolies are also good for capitalists. (and indeed for consumers as well) This is because natural public monopolies can reduce economic cost structures in such a way as flows on to the private sector.  Hence a ‘hybrid-democratic-mixed-economy’.

Continuing: strategic government business enterprises are good for competition - and hence also good for consumers.   Specifically, they can frustrate any collusive economic behaviour between corporations - and prevent the rise of private monopolies.

These kind of policies – which can include strategic extension of the public sector – should not be ruled out as a consequence of some confused shibboleth of ‘state socialism’.

Further – while the creation of a ‘democratic mixed economy’ can be desirable for socialists/social democrats and social liberals alike – a ‘modern socialist objective’ need not restrict itself  alone to the extension of the public sector.  (though that should certainly be part of the agenda)  Consumer associations can also empower consumers; and mutualist and co-operative enterprise of various kinds can overcome exploitation and sometimes also alienation - while nonetheless preserving market relations and avoiding the problems associated with a ‘traditional command economy’.   

These issues are indeed more complex than assumed both by orthodox Marxists and also by capitalist ideologues.  Regarding exploitation: while there are problems with the Marxist ‘labour theory of labour’ which assumed all labour to be equal; nonetheless the structural relationship of exploitation – of the expropriation of a surplus – remains problematic.  And while deferral of consumption by small investors may deserve a return, the economic resources and returns for the wealthy cannot be justified in such a way.  Finally: alienation remains a reality on account of the repetitive and stressful nature of much work.   But democratic structures and processes can ameliorate the lack of control working people have over their labours; and promote a sense of ownership over those labours and the products of those labours.  Government can also intervene to provide wage-justice for the working poor – on the basis of respect for all labour.  Also government has a role to deliver the welfare dependent from poverty; and to provide opportunities for personal growth – through reduced working hours and a fair age of retirement; but also ensuring access to cultural participation and education.  Education must also be about personal growth, and not exclusively about the demands of the labour market.

In conclusion, Bowen’s ‘Crosland-inspired social liberalism’ has more to recommend it than the typical neo-liberalism we endure in the public sphere every day.  At least he sees a role for government in ensuring ‘hard and soft infrastructure’.  Ideas of ‘soft infrastructure’ could also be extended to provision of public (physical and virtual) space for civic activism – as opposed ‘the privatisation of public space’ we have become used to – where public life is reduced to consumerism.  Meanwhile his stated goal of ‘equal outcomes in health’ suggests a very robust public investment; including specific programs to ‘close the gap’ for indigenous Australians, the poor, the mentally ill and so on.  

However Bowen's rejection of public exploitation of Australian natural resources, and the strategic creation of public enterprises, simply adheres to the Ideology of the day - without concern for the tens of billions in forsaken revenue from natural resources on the one hand, and the ability to progressively cross-subsidise, enhance competition, provide efficiencies through natural public monopolies, and socialise profits - on the other.


“We should mean what we say in the socialist objective. Currently we don’t. It clearly doesn’t reflect the modern Labor challenge, and with some updating it could very easily do so.”

In conclusion, there are some points worth observing here. 

Firstly it is legitimate to argue for Labor to mean what we say and say what we mean.  A problem with the Socialist Objective as we have known it has been the confusion as to what comprises exploitation.  For Marxists exploitation means more than just poor wages and conditions.  It refers to the expropriation of surplus value from wage labourers by capitalists. It suggests a structural injustice where capitalists expropriate part of the value that in fact they do not create themselves. They expropriate a portion of the value created by workers.  Hence a devastating moral critique.

The problem here is the idea that socialisation of “industry, production, distribution and exchange” to the extent necessary to end exploitation actually infers blanket socialisation if one is proceeding form a Marxist definition.  Because all wage labour involves the expropriation of surplus value.  By contrast some non-Marxist definitions might simply infer the elimination of poverty and the promotion of social inclusion in a ‘Third Way’ kind of sense.  Obviously the difference, here, is great – and we need to be clear what we really mean.  Hence the famous ‘Blackburn Amendment’ (made to the 1921 Objective; and proposing socialisation where necessary to end exploitation)  is confusing in the sense it leaves open the question of how we interpret that exploitation.   

(nb: my own opinion is that economic exploitation by large capitalists - including surplus extraction - cannot be morally justified 'on principle' - but that we have a problem transitioning to a fundamentally different society - because we must adapt to the real balance of forces in the international economy, and the need to remain engaged with transnationals who bring with them innovations and investment; but we should take democratisation as far as we practically can; The balance of forces may shift in the future; And in the meantime both definitions of exploitation have their uses so long as we are clear what we mean)

But within the Left itself we are already losing touch with our socialist roots.  We might well fight to preserve the Socialist Objective doggedly and persistently: but many of us would have no idea as to its meaning and origins.  Marxism itself has become ‘decidedly unfashionable’.

Marx once wrote something to the effect that socialists cannot change the world ‘behind peoples’ backs’.  Hence it is a mistake to suppose holding on to the Socialist Objective will have the kind of consequences democratic socialists want – unless it finds reflection on our day to day discourse; in the consciousness of our activists; and in our actual policies.

A smart move would be to include material which makes gestures towards the plural nature of today’s Labor Party – which is simply an observation of fact.  But while at the same time establishing democratic socialism and radical social democracy as core traditions in the ALP – which inform our values, our policies, and the Platform itself.

If we are to retain the Objective – perhaps in an updated and modernised form – then in the Left itself we must commit to having democratic socialist values and ideas inform our policies and our activism.  This means a counter-culture involving forums, publications, democratic socialist schools and conferences – which preserve and cultivate Left culture – and prevent the dissolution of our traditions into an opportunistic, uncritical and ‘mainstream’ liberalism which forsakes the critique of capitalism; or which abandons the projects of economic democracy; of social wage and welfare extension; of popular struggle ‘from below’ including class struggle; and the strategic extension of the public sector.

IN short: On the ALP Left itself we need to get our own house in order as well as fighting for reform of the National ALP Platform. If we fail ‘to get our own house in order’ any number of temporary symbolic victories will in the end come to nothing.

Nb:  Debate on this essay is very welcome here!

An analysis of where Labor should head on its Economic Platform specifically can also be found via the URL below – and debate is welcome there as well.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Eric Aarons on The Middle Class Today

Above: Eric Aarons some years ago now, pursuing his passion for sculpture

In the following notes and reflections former Communist Party of Australia Secretary Eric Aarons considers the historical and current social and economic importance of the Middle Class to the causes of liberal rights and social change. After Bernstein, he considers that the Middle Class has not disappeared - despite prior Marxist predictions that it would.  Hence the place of the middle class remains important for Australian Leftists today.

by Eric Aarons

I write this essay, not to expound or urge any particular political line or policy, but to stress the importance for those doing so not to neglect today’s middle class. 

In my view, Karl Marx’s most abiding contribution to understanding human history and forms of social organisation was the primacy he gave to the development of the ‘productive forces’ available to any  population  of human beings. He was not the first to do so; Adam Smith, and the group of ‘Scottish Historians’ around him, held to that view also (see Classics edition of The Wealth of Nations: Books 1-111, 1986).

In his introduction to that edition, scholar Andrew S. Skinner quotes William Robertson, a member of the Historians group, that ‘In every inquiry covering the operations of men when united together in society, the first object of attention should be their mode of existence. Accordingly as that varies, their laws and policy must be different,’ (p. 28)

The ‘Industrial revolution’ of the 18th century was characterised as ‘a rapid and ceaseless development of the productive forces’. Most of these were new inventions, featuring machines driven by the power of steam, then electricity, then nuclear power, and in sizes from miniscule to massive. Lawrence James writes: ‘The middle classes refused to abandon the rest of society to the physical and moral consequences of industrialisation. Middle class men and women put pressure on the state and local  government and offered their time and money to create what they regarded as a humane, contented and civilised society.’ (p.249 Lawrence James: The Middle Class  A History, 2006). They still do.

It may be needless to point out that this proliferation of new productive forces, their operation,  maintenance and improvement, required more skilled and educated people, and in turn more educators to achieve that purpose. So education rapidly extended, spreading far beyond its previous limits of educating and forming ‘gentlemen’ who were distinguished by not having to work for a living with their hands, or even their brains, but to be recognised socially as such, and to keep up with the escalating written cultural advances.

Their daughters also had to be educated ‘to  make a good marriage’ – that is, one to a man with money, or expecting an inheritance.  There were also growing demands of generally not fully occupied middle class wives for suitable enjoyable reading, while an increasing number of women wrote such books and are still famous for doing so.

On a wider scale, the industrial revolution required a growing proportion of the population to be educated so that they could extend and deepen that approach to the industrialisation revolution.  I suggest that these requirements marked the origins of the modern middle class, and the building  of its present cultural, political and economic larger role, with women becoming increasingly prominent, despite remaining discriminations.  

Karl Marx wrote a lot about the growing proletariat, created by the ascending capitalism, that he thought would end the rule of capital. And, using his withering polemics, Marx defended his predictions, warning that radical members of the middle class might be ‘unreliable revolutionaries’, because of what he saw as their impending ruin by capital and decent into the ranks of the proletariat. Marx thought that ‘class origins’ were generally a useful guide to future political behaviour, and this still existed in my young days. But 90 years later, in today’s ‘topsy-turvy’ world,                it doesn’t count for very much.

 The Middle Class today

The modern middle class in the economically developed countries, though not officially organised,  has become the largest stable social group in their countries, since the working class, unwillingly, relinquished that position. It comprises about 40 percent of the population, and holds 35 per cent of the wealth of the countries they inhabit, according to figures presented by Thomas Piketty in his book: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. This analyst also points to their growing patrimonial (inheritance) role, particularly in regard to housing, which is becoming increasingly expensive, and important for their offspring.

The middle class is neither disappearing now, nor destined to do so, as Marx and not a few later economic theorists have suggested, though they struggle along with others to cope with the continuing Global Financial Crisis. It is time that left/progressives acquainted themselves with the social characteristics of the middle class, and the role they could play (indeed are presently playing) in ongoing struggles, such as climate change, conservation, and exerting a degree of moderation in human dealings with our planet and other living species.

An attempt to sketch this class’s  modern ‘profile’.

I present, partly from my own memories, elements of such a profile. Both sets of grandparents were middle class; one Jewish (from England). He was there employed as a cigar-maker, but he established himself in business as a shoe-repairer in Melbourne, then a seller of manufactured boots and shoes. Successful, he bought a house in the developing suburb of Glen Huntly, then one beside it for his eldest daughter, Miriam.

He had a club foot and walked with the aid of a stick. He had quite a good voice, and knew a wide selection of Cockney songs, a large number of which denigrated women. This was widespread in those days, but remains very active, and still widely violent along with economic discrimination.

 Clearly, the middle class likes new things and processes, notably with women, along with men taking to bicycles in large numbers when they became available. They also took to the early radios driven by a metal ‘cat’s whisker’ on a sliver of metal ore, then large decorative consoles with valves.

My maternal grandparents had a large modern house in the northern (upper) part of the suburb of Caulfield, and they had built in the large grounds a sheltered garden in which the grew plants, mostly  for sale.                                               

My paternal grandmother drove (rather roughly) the big Buick they owned, as did her daughter Rae. TV when it came was a must – indeed any new device that responded to the desire to extend and exercise their inherent human capacities, which were stifled or looked upon with disapproval by conservatives who want to keep to accustomed ways.

The middle class does not respond to theoretical speculation about general social advance,but  persistently pursue it pragmatically, devising practical measures to actually achieve some aspect of it. ‘Schools of Art’, for instance, if I remember rightly, were widely established, mainly by middle class women in Melbourne, around the turn of the twentieth century.


Using his deciles mathematical system on income, Piketty says that if the average pay in a country is 2000 euros per month then this distribution implies that the top 10 percent can earn on average, 4000 per month, the bottom 50 percent 1400 euros a month, and the middle 40 percent 2,250 a month. “This intermediate group may be regarded as a vast ‘middle class’ whose standard of living is determined by the average wage of the society in question.”

But it helps to keep in mind that ten ‘deciles’ consist of 10 parts that he then often divides into 3 parts, which correspond roughly to the classes. The first decile, comprised of the top dogs, is basically made up of those who hold the most wealth and have the most say on the key issues, and is often called the establishment. The next usage goes 2 to 4 (the middle), and the lower five make up 10. Piketty adds: ‘. . . if the average pay in a country is 2,000 euros per month then this distribution implies that the top 10 percent earn 4,000 euros a month on average, the  bottom 50 percent 1,400 and the middle 40 percent 2,250 . This intermediate group may be regarded as a vast ‘middle class’ whose standard of living is determined by the average wage of the society in question’. (p. 250)             

‘The middle class allegiance is to free trade (and of course cheap food and the rights of property). For the previous seventy years the middle class had enjoyed unparalleled power over the lives of others, mostly those beneath it. Whether as employers, shapers of public opinion, voters, elected officials or public servants, its members had been able to compel a significant part of society to accept its assumptions and ambitions. Pragmatists tended to outnumber idealists.’ (p. 248, James Lawrence book)

The prevailing religious and moral codes of the Victorian middle class made social indifference impossible. They refused to abandon the rest of society to the accompanying physical and moral consequences of industrialisation, to create what they saw as a humane, contented and civilised society, of which they would constitute a major if not leading part.

They endorsed the view that the possession of the faculty of reason was humanity’s major weapon in winning a material life from nature, and urged that it should  also be the centre of political life, thereby under-estimating the role of other factors, such as emotions, values, self-promotion, enrichment and plain deception.

Anyone who wants to win their support for a cause or a particular approach to an issue, needs to ‘make a good case’, including a fair one, which the Abbott/Hockey government has failed miserably to do; Their bluster does not suffice.

An earlier example of the role that the middle class can play was the defeat of Menzies, who declared in the post-war election of 1949 his intention to declare the Communist Party illegal and dissolve it. Winning that vote, he introduced a law to do so, but it was declared invalid by the High Court.  He then resorted to a referendum (of the whole of ‘white’ Australia that he was confident of winning).  It was defeated on September 21, 1951, and there can be little doubt that a large section of the middle class, both high officials and ‘ordinary’ members, voted in this direction.

Similarly, the middle class joining the struggle against the Vietnam war was crucial to the struggle against it, so the lesson is an abiding one.                                                         

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

A Response to the 'Consultation Draft Platform' of the ALP - Chapter 2 'A Strong Economy for all Australians'


by Tristan Ewins, ALP Socialist Left member of over 20 years 

Friends and Comrades;

Not long ago a ‘Consultation Draft’ of the National Platform of the Australian Labor Party was released for purposes of feedback between now and National Conference in July this year.  Over the coming weeks I will release commentary on this consultation draft. 

Today, though, I will discuss Chapter 2 specifically – which relates to economics policy.  Importantly, in the consultation draft there was little or no mention of economic democracy, exploitation or the public sector.  To begin, therefore, I will propose an addendum whereby in this section the Labor Party needs to come out clearly in favour of what I call a ‘democratic mixed economy’.   

Considering we maintained the Socialist Objective for the best part of a century - we should at least be able to sustain a Platform that as a minimum supports a mixed economy ; but a mixed economy which aims to extend the principle of democracy in the way I suggest here - as much as can practicably achieved.

Other areas of concern include: fiscal reform to pay for and extend social insurance, the social wage, welfare, social services and public infrastructure; as well as the progressive structure of the overall tax system.  The form of superannuation for the working poor also needs to be considered, as well as an notion of ‘equal opportunity’ which goes behind the narrow confines of the labour market.   The TPP also needs further discussion; and our capacity to grow the public sector, including natural public monopolies, and also to assist  the democratic sector (eg: co-ops) – also needs to be maintained.  The failure of ‘the market’ to provide just outcomes needs recognition also.   And the social wage and social insurance must assist and protect the working class as well as the most disadvantaged of all.   Finally ‘a simpler tax system’ should not necessarily be out aim if the end product is less progressive for distributive purposes.

IMPORTANT ADDENDUM re: ALP Economic Platform

In an earlier version of this post on the ALP economic platform there was a passage which read as follows:

  • "Finally, in keeping with our principles we will not deliver natural public monopolies or near-monopolies into the private sector because this may result in an abuse of market power."

This SHOULD have read as follows instead:  

  • "Finally, in keeping with our principles we will not deliver monopolies or near-monopolies into the private sector because this may result in an abuse of market power."

Clearly this changes the meaning completely.

Sincere apologies for any confusion.

Tristan Ewins

HENCE – beginning with a discussion of ‘he democratic mixed economy’ -  the following needs to be inserted at some point in Chapter Two:

“Labor believes in the principles and practice of a ‘democratic mixed economy’. Hence we seek to extend democratic principles and forms to the economy as far as is practicable.  Though there are limits to what can be achieved for the foreseeable future: the consequence of the prevailing ‘balance of forces’ both in the global economy, and the domestic Australian economy.  

Promotion of  ‘democratic principles’ in the economy includes support for sectors of the economy which can be held accountable to the populace in their capacities as citizens; as workers/producers;  in mutual association; and as consumers.  And this applies on both a large scale and a small scale. 

In this context we strive after the best balance between various kinds of enterprise which can realistically be achieved for the modern day. Such a ‘balance’ involves checks and balances between producers, government and consumers; and includes strategic socialisation of various kinds.  

In addition to existing private enterprise, and the need to remain engaged with the transnational corporations whose innovations and investment are essential to Australian jobs and material living standards, our vision for a ‘democratic mixed economy’ includes an expanded role for the following:

·        producers’ co-operatives of various types – on both a large scale and on a small scale;  This is also to include multi-stakeholder co-operatives which involve producers, regions and government

·        consumers’ co-operatives through which the associated consumers are empowered

·        Mutualist enterprise; for example Mutualist insurance

·        natural public monopolies, including in areas of essential services and infrastructure, where duplication of cost structures can be avoided to the benefit of the economy at large, and where the superior credit ratings of government result in more efficient finance

·        other public infrastructure (eg: where a natural public monopoly cannot apply because of existing privatisation; eg: through Public Private Partnerships)

·        strategic Government Business Enterprises which actually enhance competition in areas of oligopoly, concentrated market power and potential collusion; and also enhancing accountability to consumers

·        Government Business Enterprises which can also compete internationally - subject to global market forces

·        Public investment in Australia’s Natural Resources which are properly the property of the Australian people collectively.

·        Co-determination agreements between workers, unions and business – supported through a legislative framework

·        Democratic collective capital formation, including through the superannuation system, but also through public pension funds which will support the operation of a strong and fair system of Pensions in this country far into the future

·        Self-employment

To these ends we believe there is a role for government in extending democratic principles and forms to the Australian economy.  That includes:

·        through tax breaks, advice and cheap credit for co-operative and mutualist enterprise;

·        through co-investment to help co-operative enterprise upgrade its economies of scale so as to remain competitive in larger markets while retaining the co-operative form

·        through the creation/construction/maintenance of government business enterprises,  social services and welfare, and public-owned infrastructure

·        through an active industry policy

Finally, in keeping with our principles we will not deliver natural public monopolies or near-monopolies into the private sector because this may result in an abuse of market power.

Strategic socialisation of different kinds can also ameliorate exploitation; and sometimes even enhance competition. Progress in extending a democratic mixed economy can also assist in ameliorating the self-destructive aspects of capitalism, while extending the principle of democracy into the economy in such a way as advances social democracy not just into the distant future - but beginning here and now."

What follows now are some excerpts from Chapter Two of the Consultation Draft of the National Platform – with my responses under headings labelled as ‘Comment’.

P 11    “Labor rejects the false choice between economic growth and equality. Excessive inequality detracts from economic growth and damages the social fabric. Labor believes in economic growth that is inclusive of all. We believe there is a role for Government in ensuring that people from all backgrounds and circumstances can both contribute to economic growth and benefit from it. The benefits of economic growth must be redistributed through the economy to those on low wages, not in work or reliant on welfare.”   

COMMENT:  To this we should add:  “We also believe that through the social wage and social insurance  we can redistribute wealth in a socially just manner from the wealthy to the working class.”

4) “Labor believes in economic policy that promotes social mobility and opportunity. Your family’s wealth should not determine your ability to grow to your full potential. Promoting equality of opportunity is at the core of Labor’s economic approach.”

COMMENT:   Here we should refer to diverse forms of equal opportunity – not just work;  but also education, civic activism and cultural participation and consumption as well.

6) “Australia’s long-term prosperity depends on competing successfully in global markets. This means Australia needs to produce high quality goods and services that the world wants to buy, and remove barriers to overseas markets. Labor will work to ensure major policy settings like skills development and training, infrastructure planning, tax and regulation frameworks do not hold businesses and workers back from achieving their full potential in global markets, while at the same time ensuring that all Australians enjoy a fair share of the benefits of growth. Strong and sustainable public finances underpin the progressive future we want for the next generation. Meeting the health care, pensions and education needs of future generations will require prudent budget management and prioritising support for those most in need.”

COMMENT:  We need to provide for those most in need; But also we need to provide for more general forms of collective consumption and social insurance which EVERYONE can benefit from.  For example through funding state schools; through funding the NDIS; through funding a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme which provides the highest quality infrastructure and services, but which eliminates user pays mechanisms for disadvantaged and working class families.  Also consider the universalism of Medicare – which now needs to be extended further throughout the health system.

7) “The market will often create the most equitable and efficient distributions of power, wealth and services, but markets sometimes fail. Government has a responsibility to intervene, to address market failures and the extremes of capitalism. Labor supports an active role for governments in addressing market failure, and improving equity and social justice through the full range of government policy instruments including expenditure, taxation, regulation, and the provision of goods and services.”

COMMENT:  Often markets do NOT create “the most equitable…distributions of power”; This point in the Draft Platform needs to be removed or edited so as to change the meaning.  Private sector monopolism – and sometimes oligopolism  - produces inefficiencies as well - and deserves a specific mention.

Responsible Fiscal Policy

9)   “Labor is committed to sound public finances by adhering to a fiscal strategy that achieves budget surpluses on average, over the economic cycle…”

COMMENT: this should be changed to read: ‘balance the budget on average over the economic cycle’;  And should also include mention of productivity-enhancing public investments that adds to economic growth.  (A good example is the NBN) The EFFECTS of these INVESTMENTS need to be taken into account re: the aim of “a balanced budget over the course of the economic cycle”.

  16.) Labor, as the party of universal, compulsory superannuation, will continue to put in place reforms to protect and to grow superannuation, to ensure the superannuation system meets an objective of providing a comfortable retirement for all Australians. This will include, when prudent, ending the Coalition’s freeze of the Superannuation Guarantee at 9.5 per cent, and fast-tracking the Superannuation Guarantee increase to 12 per cent, which will provide millions of Australians with higher retirement incomes. The current system of superannuation tax concessions has seen more than 35 per cent of the value of tax concessions accrue to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Labor will put in place reforms to address this imbalance, ensuring Australia has a sustainable and fair retirement income system. 

COMMENT: EXCELLENT to see recognition of the problem with inequitable superannuation concessions; a big victory for progressive forces if this finds reflection in strong policies.  But there are flaws in superannuation as well.  The working poor already struggle; and forcing them to contribute more of their own money into superannuation will worsen their poverty throughout their working life.  If we are to increase superannuation contributions, perhaps the working poor could be excused from contributing. (but not their employers)  Also there is the problem of inequity – affecting women, the disabled and the working poor especially.  Resentment against the Aged Pension could lead to austerity against some of the most vulnerable into the future.

18-30  ‘A Strong and Vibrant Small Business Sector’

COMMENT:  Mention should be made of co-operative small business somewhere in this section.

35- 54  Trading with the World

41. Labor supports trade and investment liberalisation through the Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Labor will ensure APEC is a driver of regional economic integration and will take an active approach to its role in the region’s economic architecture. Labor believes APEC has a key role in promoting economic reform behind the border throughout the Asia–Pacific region and will promote these efforts. Labor will endeavour to strengthen APEC’s role in mobilising support for the WTO’s Doha Round. Labor will also support Australia’s engagement in the emerging regional trade and investment architecture under the auspices of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the proposed Free Trade Area of the AsiaPacific. 

COMMENT: I’m not not sure about the TPP.  There hasn’t been enough consultation.  Also we need to make sure that any agreements we enter into do not prevent appropriate regulation; or prevent policies which are meant to support or encourage a ‘democratic mixed economy;  For example establishing natural public monopolies, or implementing tax breaks, advice and cheap credit for co-operative enterprise.

42. Labor will work to:

 Provide leadership to the Cairns Group and seek reductions in agricultural subsidies and protection;

 Secure reciprocal new market access for all of Australia’s economic sectors;

 Tackle non-tariff “behind the border” trade barriers such as excise tax arrangements, standards, customs procedures, subsidies and other restrictive measures which impede Australian exports;

COMMENT: This cuts both ways; sometimes standards must be applied; sometimes the ability of a nation to feed itself is important to its security;  Subsidies should also be allowed in strategic cases – and with assistance for co-operative enterprise. We should not commit ourselves to a framework which would 'tie our hands' on economic democracy and the strategic extension of the public sector into the future.  I am uncertain of the content of TPP and I’m sure many others in the Party are as well…

Specifically the Consultation Platform argues the following in relation to TPP:

54. A well-balanced Trans-Pacific Partnership offers the prospect of more and better jobs through improved access to member countries’ markets for Australian exporting businesses and their employees. Labor’s position is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership must be consistent with the following principles:

 Does not undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and public health initiatives;

 Provides for national treatment — that foreign and domestic companies are treated equally under the law, while not conferring greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses;

 Does not require Australia to remove protection of cultural industries;

 Retains the Foreign Investment Review Board and its powers to review foreign investment in the public interest;

  Retains quarantine provisions to reduce the risk of imported pests and diseases;

 Retains the flexibility to encourage industry development including through research and development, regional development and appropriate environmental, employment and procurement policies;

 Contains enforceable labour clauses that require signatories to enforce core labour standards in International Labour Organisation conventions; and

 Contains enforceable environmental clauses that require signatories to meet all relevant international environmental standards, including those in applicable United Nations international environmental agreements.

COMMENT:  In response the following points should be added:

·         Does not inhibit the right of government to support and extend the public sector, including maintenance of natural public monopolies

·         Does not inhibit the right of government to extend a ‘democratic mixed economy’, including through support for co-operative and mutualist enterprise of various sorts

A Fair and Efficient Tax System

67. Labor is committed to a fair and sustainable tax system that provides incentives for all Australians to work and undertake productive enterprise while guaranteeing adequate revenue to fund the proper role of government, including providing quality public services and ensuring an equitable distribution of income and wealth. Public confidence in Australia’s tax system depends on a simple and transparent tax system where everyone pays their fair share of tax. Labor has implemented important tax reforms to improve competitiveness, boost savings through superannuation, make superannuation fairer, simplify personal tax, reduce barriers to participation and provide better assistance to families. We will also continue this record of tax reform, making the system more efficient, less costly and more equitable.

COMMENT: ADD THIS:  “Specifically we support a simpler tax system only where the final outcome does not negatively affect our efforts to ensure a fairer and more equitable distribution of wealth and income.”

68. Future tax reforms will:

[large excerpt cut out]

 Minimise the impact of high effective marginal tax rates, particularly on those moving from welfare to work or the second income earners in low- to middle income families;

COMMENT:  The excerpt above is problematic as it suggests cutting tax for those who do not need to have their tax cut; That is, it suggests a general cut in taxes (the word ‘particularly’  needs to be deleted so it is clear the reference is only to the specific disadvantaged groups. The consequence of cutting tax more generally is that pressure is put on public finances, and hence also the social wage, public infrastructure, social services and welfare. It must be edited to read:

“ Minimise the impact of high effective marginal tax rates on those moving from welfare to work or the second income earners in low- to middle income families”

I hope the readers of this commentary will have found it interesting, and will be inspired to respond to the ‘Consultation Draft’ as well.  I especially hope readers will register their support for this document and the documents which are to follow.

Specifically members can provide feedback on the Consultation Draft Here:

If you want to support this Commentary please include a link to the appropriate URL in your submission.  Ie: link to this URL in your submission.  (it is the URL where this post was originally published)


tag cloud

aarons (9) according (12) aged (23) ago (13) america (18) argues (14) au (27) australia (20) australian (32) bank (25) based (14) billion (17) blog (17) book (11) budget (25) bush (11) business (13) capital (17) cent (13) change (16) com (25) comments (15) commonwealth (16) competition (18) congress (10) conservative (10) consider (10) country (10) course (15) cpsa (9) create (12) crisis (12) critical (10) cuba (12) deficit (11) democratic (10) different (10) economic (26) economy (24) en (9) ewins (20) federal (14) financial (11) focus (12) full (10) government (41) greens (12) groups (15) hayek (9) housing (10) html (16) http (42) income (13) increase (13) infrastructure (14) interest (10) investment (9) labels (11) labor (64) labour (13) land (32) liberal (15) market (10) matwe (10) money (9) needs (16) news (13) obama (22) office (15) opportunity (12) org (15) parents (13) party (22) pension (23) people (16) per (18) platform (9) political (18) posted (18) poverty (13) power (14) president (19) production (12) progressive (15) provide (10) public (19) raised (9) rate (14) red (14) reform (16) revolution (17) rudd (12) scare (11) services (12) single (14) social (38) socialist (10) sole (13) state (26) strong (10) struggle (11) suggested (10) support (19) tax (33) taxation (12) trade (12) tristan (23) unemployed (13) unemployment (12) values (14) venezuela (9) vulnerable (15) war (13) wealth (12) week (11) welcome (15) working (9) world (15) www (26) years (27)
created at