Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The moral degeneration of the Labor Left

By Marko Beljac - posted Friday, 15 January 2010


The Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party has, following the November 2009 State Conference, formally announced that there exists no branch stacking in the Party. The howls of laughter upon the release of this news could have been heard across the galaxy.

Just days later the Labor Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, "turned the first sod" on the $11.1 million "Australian Centre for Democracy" that doubtless will not have an exhibit on the subversion of democracy within the ALP, which boasts a rich and proud history.

What is really interesting is that the non-stacking announcement was made by Comrade Andrew Giles, a long time apparatchik of the "Socialist Left" faction of the ALP.

Advertisement

According to The Age Comrade Giles stated that, "'I'm really pleased to report ... that no specific allegations of branch stacking were brought before the committee,' Andrew Giles, one of the members on the committee investigating the allegations, told the conference".

This announcement means that the practice of branch stacking will continue and that this will be supported by the Labor Left. To deny the existence of a practice that one knows exists is to sanction its further continuance.

As the Russian dissident Roy Medvedev wrote of Stalin; let history judge.

This must be so because it was not that long ago when it was the Socialist Left that protested the loudest against branch stacking. So The Age was able to report in 2005 that, "The Left argues its campaign against branch stacking is designed to rid the ALP of a range of corrupt practices that are bringing the party into disrepute".

The announcement by Comrade Giles was instantly dismissed by veteran Labor activist Eric Dearicott, who earlier this year observed serious examples of abuse, of the type employed by branch stackers, as membership dues were being collected at the Labor Party's head office.

One should not be surprised that the Left of the Labor Party has put its weight behind what can only be regarded as a defence of branch stacking. A defence that, moreover, entails acceptance of all the associated consequences.

Advertisement

Not so long ago it was the Miscellaneous Workers Union, a key Left union, that led a very vocal campaign against branch stacking. This campaign attracted a lot of media attention. Just before a crucial meeting of the Party's Administrative Committee the Left miraculously dropped its campaign precisely as the push for reform was gathering momentum. The reason was that the apparatchiks of the Left had cut a political deal, giving them greater leverage within the Party, with an alleged stacker they were then seeking to bring charges against.

The Left now has a power sharing arrangement with elements of the right wing Labor Unity faction. This power sharing alliance constitutes the ruling coalition in the Victorian Branch, which explains the Giles announcement. When this power sharing alliance unravels, as it will, watch as the Socialist Left quickly changes its tune on branch stacking, if they find themselves out of power as a result we should hasten to add.

When they do so; let history judge.

The Labor Left likes to pretend that it is the conscience of the Party, yet in reality it has become a self serving faction that will always put the needs of power ahead of democracy and principle. This will continue to obtain so long as the Left is dominated by factional warlords whose authority relies upon dispensing patronage.

The difference between the ALP Right and Left is not that the Right is sinful but that the Right makes no claim to chastity.

Kenneth Davidson stated that, accurately, the ALP "is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. It is doubtful whether the rank-and-file have had serious input into policy or played a decisive role in a preselection process for a safe ALP seat for a couple of decades."

The Socialist Left is also a self perpetuating oligarchy. The Labor Left used to be both a social movement and a political organisation, but now threatens to become exclusively a manifestation of machine politics in the ALP. So long as the Labor Left's structure is built around activists pledging bayat to an elite core of factional emirs then the oligarchs will make any deal and will violate any principle in the pursuit of power.

Nonetheless there is no law of nature that mandates that the ALP or the ALP Left should be dominated by a small clique. The power that the party elites have acquired can be taken away from them by a grass roots protest movement directed towards revitalising democracy. Mark Latham is wrong when he asserts that Labor is beyond reform.

The members of the ALP should ask themselves, paraphrasing Jim Cairns' battle cry against Gough Whitlam; "whose party is this, ours or theirs?"

A democracy movement employing alternative forms of political action is now necessary because the Comrade Giles announcement demonstrates that established internal procedures cannot be used to engender democratic reforms given that all the institutional mechanisms available are controlled by the oligarchs.

Such a movement is also necessary because Labor's oligarchy corrodes Australia's democracy. The philosopher king reportedly does not even bother with sitting through Cabinet meetings, preferring to rule through tiny Cabinet sub-committees. Surely the culture of cynicism and power that is widely exhibited within the ALP played a role in this further shift towards centralised executive power.

One of the leading figures of the Socialist Left in the Rudd Cabinet is the socialist minister for deregulation, Lindsay Tanner. In his maiden speech to parliament he stated that, "I am a socialist". Furthermore he went on to say, "I regard it as very much a daunting task to reinvigorate the socialist ideal in this country and across the world".

Yet in reality he went on to become one of Australia's leading spruikers for neoliberalism. It is of course neoliberalism that forms the ideological underpinning of deregulation policy, including the "microeconomic reform" that he now fulsomely lauds and implements. He has hardly attempted to "reinvigorate the socialist ideal in this country". Cheerleading for neoliberalism has proved to be both much easier and more lucrative.

Comrade Tanner likes to dress up his positions in intellectual garb. He has gone from endogenous growth theory, network theory, cognitive biases, technological determinism, now cultural determinism and who knows what else. Really this all just serves to obscure his disavowal of left wing principles. It also has the added bonus of making his followers within the ALP look upon him with awe as he does so, in a sort of secular version of Shoko Asahara.

For instance, he has attacked the old social contract between labour and capital, what Paul Kelly has called the "Australian Settlement", as constituting "producerism". In doing so he covers his active facilitation of capital's offensive against labour, which is what neoliberalism amounts to, in his usual smart arse way. However, all the smart arsery cannot hide the fact that it is deregulation that precisely constitutes "producerism". This is because deregulation is designed to free corporations from social constraints, which is why the big business lobbies support it and demand of Comrade Tanner that he enact it.

In an earlier short essay Julia Gillard, a former leading light of the Victorian Socialist Forum, made much of her working class background in its opening passages. She then, in the tail end of her article, heaped praise upon "open markets", which of course is a reference to neoliberalism and deregulation. This is meant to soothe the rich, lest the first paragraphs leave them with the wrong impression. So "our favourite princess" openly announces to all and sundry that she is a class traitor, something she will need to affirm again and again for the rich are greedy and thereby fickle. How else to explain the mania regarding Labor's "reform credentials" that was unleashed following the Government's decision on the parallel importing of books? An intolerance for the slightest deviation from Labor is a natural consequence of greed.

In a retrospective on the first two years of the Rudd Government the Australian Financial Review reported that, "the Government has been well and truly captured by the national security establishment". Indeed it has. The Rudd Government's expansion of Australia's offensive military power, in reality done within the context of the "alliance" with the United States and thereby following on from the "Howard Doctrine", is being implemented by Comrade John Faulkner, a long standing senior member of the Left faction of the New South Wales ALP.

Comrade Faulkner has been busy. He is also helping to expand the war in Afghanistan. According to Paul Kelly Comrade Faulkner "is known" for his "belief that Australia must meet its alliance obligations". Furthermore, "more significantly", Kelly reveals in relation to Afghanistan, "Faulkner privately backed McChrystal's position". That is, Comrade Faulkner fully supports the escalation of the war. Notice that Faulkner's Afghan policy follows on from his belief about our "alliance obligations", as it was with Menzies during the Vietnam War. It is clear that Comrade Faulkner shares Howard's global conception of "our alliance obligations", although the same doctrine was evident when the Hawke Government supported George Bush during the First Gulf War. Let us give "the silver budgie" his due.

The industrial aspects of the Rudd defence plan are being overseen by Comrade Greg Combet, who performs this crucial role when he is not tending to his million dollar beach pads. The centre piece of the Rudd defence policy consists of 12 big new submarines, to be geared towards offensive strike missions, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Corporate welfare plays an important role in both programs. The actual building of these submarines is just as important as the capabilities they are meant to provide. This relationship also applies with respect to Australia's involvement in the international consortium to develop the F-35.

For instance according to a report, commissioned by the South Australia Government and written by General Peter Cosgrove, the Rudd defence policy will lead to spin-offs for high tech industry and should be seen in the context of "nation building". It would lead to "jobs growth" and improved "social well-being across the nation". Jobs growth is a technical phrase meaning publicly subsidised profits for corporations.

No record exists of Comrade Tanner expressing his displeasure at such examples of military producerism.

It might be argued that this defence industry policy should be seen in the context of defence self reliance. On this view building big weapons platforms in Australia enhances Australia's strategic independence. This is false. If defence self reliance were the goal then the objective of Comrades Combet and Faulkner would be the achievement of logistical independence for our military forces. Australia relies upon the United States for strategic re-supply in the event of war. Moreover, successive governments in Australia have deliberately cultivated this type of strategic dependence upon the United States.

We can put all this together and ask; what has become of the Labor Left?

Elementary.

It has become a pack of stacking, deregulating, warmongers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

39 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Beljac teaches at Swinburne University of Technology, is a board member of the New International Bookshop, and is involved with the Industrial Workers of the World, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Workers (community) and Friends of the Earth.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marko Beljac

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marko Beljac
Article Tools
Comment 39 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy