The following articles were published in "The Guardian", newspaper
of the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday,
May 23rd, 2002. Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills.
Sydney. 2010 Australia. Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795.
CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au>
Subscription rates on request.
******************************
Behind Mark Latham's "new ideas"
On May Day (of all days), Mark Latham, who presents himself as a
Labor Party guru and policy-maker, gave a talk to the Fabian Society on the
"Future of the ALP". A few days later he launched a document entitled
Ownership: A New Agenda for Political and Industrial Labor."
By Peter Symon(CPA General Secretary)
He opened his speech to the Fabian Society by railing against the fact that
for the last six years, since the defeat of the Keating Government in 1996,
the Labor Party has been "raking over old debates and practicing an old
style of politics".
He is encouraged by the election of Simon Crean as Labor Party leader. "His
theme of modernisation is music to my ears", Latham said.
Mark Latham claims that Crean is modernising the Federal frontbench,
modernising the Party's structure and rules, modernising the Party's
policies and platform.
Another of Mark Latham's favourite words is "new" -- "new Labor policies",
"new politics", "new public philosophies", "new economy", "new ideas", "new
constituencies", "new growth theories", etc.
Mark Latham's "new ideas" smack very much of Tony Blair's "New Labor" which
is already running into trouble in Britain on a number of fronts.
He quotes one of the Labor Party's early leaders, Andrew Fisher, "we are all
socialist now". In obvious repudiation of this Mark Latham goes on: "Today
we are all crossing over". What we are all crossing over to becomes apparent
as Mr Latham warms to his topic.
He has the regulation swipe at Karl Marx just to make sure that everyone
knows where he stands. "For all his errors and delusions, Karl Marx got one
thing right. The dialectic propels history towards a new synthesis, a new
politics beyond Left and Right."
One wonders whether any of his audience of Fabians saw anything wrong with
that claim? Karl Marx never ever drew any such conclusion. In the
"Communist Manifesto" Marx and Engels said:
"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other
proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of
the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
("Birth of the Communist Manifesto" p 103)
This hardly sounds like "a synthesis, a new politics beyond Left and Right".
But Mr Latham's reference is not about giving his audience an understanding
of Marx, it was to make it clear that he differentiated himself from Marx.
Just to make doubly certain that no one will accuse him of any lingering
socialist ideas he says, "A future Labor Government will not socialise the
means of production, distribution and exchange".
Despite enormous evidence to the contrary, he declares that "market forces
work better than planned economies, free trade works better than tariffs and
industry welfare, competition policy works better than monopolies, public
and private, while job security lies in a good education and lifelong
learning".
Mark Latham claims that "the most powerful trend in Australian politics is
the emergence of free agents -- the new class of consultants, contractors,
knowledge workers and entrepreneurs in the new economy".
These "free agents" have "crossed over the industrial relations divide.
Small and self-reliant, they see no need for trade union or employer
representation. Their idea of a good society is a deregulated economy,
quality education and safe and supportive neighbourhoods. [these] free
agents are doing it for themselves, with flexible hours and lifestyles."
"Free agents"
It is on these "free agents doing it for themselves" that Mr Latham
obviously wishes to orient the Labor Party.
He claims that there are now 800,000 home-based offices. The fact that
computer technology has created the possibility of doing work from home
cannot be disputed, but how "free" are such consultants and contractors? Is
it not a fact that many are consultants and contractors to big corporations?
Many are no more than employees working for a contracted wage but without
the legal entitlements of award workers. Many pay their own workers'
compensation and insurance. They are pay for their own holidays, long
service leave, sick leave and superannuation contributions.
If one follows the telephone lines which connect the computers of the
"knowledge workers" to the rest of the world it will be found that they are
also tightly tied into one or another business enterprise or corporation.
Otherwise, how could their "knowledge" become useful to the rest of society?
It is a fact that "intellectual property" has these days also become a
commodity for sale and purchase. However, knowledge by itself has little
value. It only becomes of worth when it is applied.
Following his pursuit of these "free agents", Mr Latham declares that "Old
constituencies based on blue-collar work and organised labour are fading
away." He goes on: "Old ways of thinking might produce a nice sense of
nostalgia, but they are insufficient to win national elections and form
national Labor governments".
Organised Labour "fading away"
The direction of Mr Latham's "thinking" is obvious. Those working people who
build our houses and motor cars, drive the trains, work on the wharves,
build roads, work in hospitals and schools, grow our food, make our
clothing, and are a part of "organised labour", are an "old constituency
fading away".
To make Mark Latham's desertion of this constituency clear he says that the
Labor Party "needs to find new issues, new constituencies and new ideas on
which to campaign".
Having his "free agents" in mind he says, "The language of economic
intervention and protectionism belongs in a museum."
Yet, just in these last few weeks the country often held up as being the
freest of the free, imposed hefty tariffs on steel imports and decided to
spend millions of dollars subsidising American farmers and ranchers.
Furthermore, whenever a private company gets into financial trouble it beats
a path to government offices in pursuit of handouts. There are even
government handouts for prospering companies, some of which are listed in
this weeks budget coverage (see page 5). So much for "intervention and
protectionism" being museum pieces.
Mr Latham applauds the policies implemented by Hawke and Keating - floating
the exchange rate, financial deregulation, tariff liberalisation,
competition policy and a national superannuation scheme. These we are told
"set the foundation for Australia's record period of economic growth and
productivity".
The fact that there has been economic growth and a substantial increase in
productivity cannot be disputed, but why has this resulted in the present
period of "uncertainty" and why is it necessary for the Labor Party to be
searching around for a range of "new policies" and a "new economics"?
Why is it necessary to talk about "risk" and "risk management" instead of
job and income security?
Why is it necessary for Mark Latham to declare that "compared to the 1950s
and 60s, working families are 50 per cent more likely to experience an
unexpected decline in their living standards"?
Isn't this an admission that the economic policies that have been pursued by
both Liberal and Labor Governments in this period have been a failure as far
as working families are concerned.
Mark Latham says: "In the new economy, ownership provides a buffer against
the contingencies of change. It acts as an insurance policy against income
shocks.
"The best way of reducing economic inequality is to make savings and assets
available to all Australians. The answer lies in lifecycle policies: savings
and asset accounts that allow people to provide for an uncertain future."
How the unemployed and those on low wages can make savings and obtain
assets is not spelt out.
In another recent document, Mr Latham refers to share ownership schemes for
low and middle-income earners, developing share ownership plans to increase
worker participation and creating "nest egg accounts". Tony Blair, pursuing
similar objectives, has launched a "baby bonus" scheme with contributions
from
government and parents.
Perhaps those who held shares in HIH, Ansett, OneTel, or ENRON or who had
money in Argentinean banks will have cause to question the talk about assets
in the form of shareholdings and even money in the bank. The "mums and dads"
who bought shares in Telstra might also have something to say, and the many
workers who have been swindled out of their entitlements may also question
Mark Latham's approach.
Pursuing the idea of a "synthesis beyond Left and Right", Mark Latham's
response to the criticism of globalisation and the worldwide movement
against the policies of globalisation is to look "for a bridge from the
local to the global, for a connection between communities and corporations".
He calls for "new partnerships and alliances".
Self-provision
He believes that "answers are available, provided we embrace the politics of
crossover. The era of either/or debates has ended."
There is another side to Mr Latham's agenda which is not being stated. There
is a long range plan afoot to do away with state provision of age pensions,
unemployment benefits, disability pensions and other welfare support which
have, up to now, been provided from tax revenues.
The attack on disability pensions is a step in this direction.
This process was begun by the Hawke and Keating Governments in the 80s. The
introduction of compulsory superannuation had, among its
objectives, relieving the State of the obligation to pay aged pensions. The
introduction of "user pays" is also a step in this direction.
The basic idea is that the individual not the state, takes responsibility
for their own welfare -- self provision as it is called.
Mark Latham's "risk management" is not only about the elimination of support
provided by the State after retirement from work, but also about the periods
during which a worker is unemployed, or moves onto a lower wage or is
retraining. No obligation is to be carried by the State to ensure that
income is maintained.
Another of the pet thoughts that emerges out of Mr Latham's view of the
world is that "Instead of focussing on the accumulation of objects,
economists need to focus on the accumulation of ideas". He claims that
"education and research are the 'twin-carburetors' of economic expansion".
Far be it from anyone to belittle the importance of ideas, research,
education or cultural activities but as remarked before, ideas have to be
related to the material world and can only become meaningful if they satisfy
the material needs of people, entertain or satisy cultural pursuits. One
cannot eat an idea no matter how good it is. Just try sleeping under the
roof of an idea!
Poverty
Hundreds of millions of people in the world are living in poverty, without
housing, hospitals, schools or adequate clothing. They drink polluted water,
have no jobs and no hope. Their immediate problem is their total lack of
material objects that have to be provided and could be provided by today's
capacity to produce them.
Under the heading of "corporate responsibility" Mark Latham declares that
the "economic efficiency and productivity of capitalism is beyond dispute.
Our critique now needs to focus on the social responsibilities of corporate
Australia", he says.
He appeals to the corporate executives to "comply with decent industrial,
environmental and social standards." One can just hear these executives
giving their "hear, hears" to that while giving priority to shareholder
returns, cutting costs by sacking as many workers as possible, working out
how to deny workers their accumulated entitlements, paying themselves huge
salaries and share options, and rushing to use the punitive clauses of
industrial legislation every time there is an industrial dispute.
Mark Latham believes that his policies and ideas will put Simon Crean in the
Lodge at the next election.
The reality is that just such policies and ideas resulted in the lowest vote
ever for Federal Labor at the last election. Why should anyone be inspired
by policies and ideas that are basically a carbon copy of the thoughts of
John Howard, Peter Costello and the corporate bigwigs who have generously
financed both the Liberal and the Labor Parities.
These policy ideas are the product of the think-tanks of the big
corporations, the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank. Mark Latham is merely
applying them to Australia and, perhaps, would like everyone to believe that
they are his own original thoughts. They are not as some future
articlesbeing prepared for publication in "The Guardian" will conclusively
show.
Workers, and there are millions of them earning wages in real enterprises
and offices, want policies which are clearly in their interests.
They expect commitment to their needs, not policies which are really aimed
to serve the interests of the corporations.
********************************************************
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
