Labor’s Socialist Objective is essential to its identity and future

"n) Recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian legal system.

"p) Elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic or household status.

"t) Recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development.

"u) Maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice."

In summary, the CONTENT of Labor’s Socialist Objective makes an extremely worthy statement of core objectives and values indeed. As opposed to Stalinism, the ALP’s Socialist Objective makes clear its ties with progressive social liberalism. In contrast to state socialism, the Socialist Objective implies a socialised mixed economy, characterised in part by a thriving and democratic private sector, where the role of markets and market signals is duly recognized. By this reckoning, co-operative ownership and self-employment are seen as non-exploitative forms of private-sector economic activity.

The ALP’s Socialist Objective commits the Party to "democratic socialisation to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation". This statement means different things to different people. For some, ‘socialisation’ implies nationalisation. For others it implies co-operative or community ownership. For others still, it implies social/economic regulation, or other forms of mass collective economic ownership, such as Swedish-style wage-earner funds. For those of an orthodox Marxist inclination, eliminating ‘exploitation’ implies exploding the labour/capital divide through all-encompassing social ownership of the means of production (the Marxist definition of exploitation refers specifically to the expropriation of surplus value). This reference to ‘exploitation’ is, perhaps, the aspect of the Objective that self-professed ‘moderates’ feel most uncomfortable with.

Such an Objective holds that the economy should serve social ends, rather than society serving abstract economic ends. Furthermore, it aims for the democratisation of the economic sphere to the point where citizenship and shared humanity alone (as opposed to ownership of wealth) form sufficient basis for the satisfaction of needs and the enjoyment of opportunities. The Marxist definition of exploitation, while still relevant and important for some of us, is not a necessary component of all the many and varied interpretations of the Objective. Even for moderates it need not form the basis of any objection to the Objective.

This does not necessarily imply, however, that there is not room for improvement. First, the influence of the liberal tradition upon the ALP ought to be stated explicitly. Even those of us who retain a degree of skepticism about naïve liberal constitutionalism can nevertheless feel comfortable defending the core concept of ‘liberty’. The break with past authoritarian socialist traditions needs to be made clear, as does the breadth of socialist traditions from which the ALP draws. Furthermore, the Objective could well include a statement on the ALP’s concept of citizenship and internationalism: of the rights and duties of citizens, the ideal of an active, critical, empowered and educated citizenry. And while the principle of global solidarity is expressed in the ‘Objective’, the means of its enactment need to be more coherently enunciated, detailing the forms through which the ALP may act, including the global co-ordination of policy as a response to, and alternative to, the neo-liberal hegemony. Finally, the ‘Objective’ could do with such fine philosophical and ethical commitments as respect for the principles of autonomy, dignity, and the innate value of human life, with the consequence that our fellow human beings are considered ends in themselves, and not merely means to ends. Given the internal political culture of the ALP, however, it must be admitted that the irony of the final point could well be unbearable.

In conclusion, it must be stated that the token retention of the ‘Socialist Objective’ within the ALP Constitution is ultimately meaningless unless we are able to build a broad movement within the Party with the aim of its realisation. Certainly, the recent Hawke/Keating Labor governments could hardly be accused of having taken the Objective seriously. Having implemented austerity, rampant labour market deregulation, unpopular and destructive privatisations, and the erosion of the welfare state, the ALP cannot even be said to have satisfactorily implemented the principles of small ‘l’ liberalism. The question is one of whether we bring reality into line with rhetoric, or rhetoric into line with the current reality of brutal, Darwinist and ideologically vacuous realpolitik.

Presuming we choose the former option, we need to mobilise a movement for democratic socialism within the ALP. A movement that is articulate, cross-factional, active, determined and visible would be undeniable. Such a movement could even, potentially, span beyond the ALP, with the aim of articulating a democratic socialist vision, to be established as a ‘common sense’ ideological contender throughout the civil and public spheres, rather than a caricatured outcast.

The Socialist Objective ought not simply be a tokenistic bone thrown to the Left in return for its acquiescence in the face of the real implementation of opportunistic, regressive and neo-liberal policy. It needs to be at the heart of a living, breathing, dynamic culture, which the whole Party shares, and which finds constant and meaningful expression. For this aim to be realized, however, we need to move beyond the irrational factional tribalism, which stifles debate and exchange, and which has locked so many progressive Labor activists from outside the Left into policy position which, frankly, they feel profoundly uncomfortable with. Reaching ‘across the factional divide’, we need to re-establish democratic socialism as the ‘common sense’ of the ALP.