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

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 Labor 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 kinds 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 where they work well, 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 warrant a return, the economic resources and returns for the truly 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.

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.

Bowen concludes by stating:

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.