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

Firstly it is legitimate to argue for Labor to mean what it says and say what it means. A problem with the Socialist Objective as it has been known has been 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. Specifically, 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 the Left itself is already losing touch with its socialist roots. Well might the Left fight to preserve the Socialist Objective doggedly and persistently: but many 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 in Labor's day to day discourse; in the consciousness of its activists; and in its 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 its values, its policies, and the Platform itself.

If Labor is to retain the Objective – perhaps in an updated and modernised form – then the Left must commit to having democratic socialist values and ideas inform its policies and its 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 its 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: the ALP Left needs to get its own house in order as well as fighting for reform of the National ALP Platform. If the Left fails 'to get its own house in order' any number of temporary symbolic victories will in the end come to nothing.