Epistles from the Apostles
These are my comrades in Australia. The group is plagued by geography, with people spread out to far to have a cohesive group.
So what are you trying to achieve? The abolition of all money and property rights?
What I was trying to acheive was the dissemination of a point or two about contemporary politics, namely, that 'crises' of the current sort can play to both left and right, and that those on the left should certainly not be putting all their eggs into the electoral or parliamentary basket.
As for property rights - I'm not proposing a system whereby hordes of unwashed leftists drop by the Chateux Bertrand and steal your toothbrush and Ayn Rand collection. However, I do believe the concept of property needs to be re-thought.
On money - I don't see how all forms of it could be abolished from any society. Money is a bearer of value, and even scrapping cash and coins would probably not result in getting rid of other forms of money, such as tokens, vouchers, promissory notes, etc. It's theoretically (and in some instances, practically) possible to greatly reduce the need for a reliance upon money.
I like the idea of being able to keep my toothbrush and my copy of The Fountainhead.
So you think that a violent coup of revolution is a perfectly legitimate way of imposing socialism?
So you think that a violent coup of revolution is a perfectly legitimate way of imposing socialism?
In some instances, yes. It's difficult to discuss these things in the abstract, as every situation is radically different. And we need to be very clear about what we consider to be violence. I wouldn't advocate nihilistic terror attacks against civilians, for instance. On the other hand, if protesting civilians were being attacked by authorities, I think it may well be legitimate to fight back.
All the same, I'm not suggested that Australia's left start lobbing molotov cocktails just this very minute. We should also remember that revolutions do not always require violence - consider the example of Hungary in 1919, for instance.
But hang on - weren't you the one telling me that the will of the people is all important?
Surely if you adhere to this principle, you would want changes to be initiated at the ballot box only?
Surely if you adhere to this principle, you would want changes to be initiated at the ballot box only?
This only makes sense if we assume that parliament really is 'the will of the people'. In a very narrow sense, it may be, but overall, I don't accept that assumption.
Also, people get together all the time to effect change from outside of the parliamentary/electoral system. This happens every time there is a protest, a petition, the formation of a lobby group, etc. In themselves, these measures are not undemocratic.
But can't you elect politicians who promise to do what you want? If the majority of people feel strongly enough about an issue, they can get politicians to do it.
If most people wanted more direct control of every issue, they could always demand constitutional reforms that would reflect that.
But you seem to have forgotten Oscar Wilde's refrain for socialism - that "it takes too many evenings".
Protests, petitions, and the formation of a lobby groups may not be undemocratic, but this is because they do not aim at removing the elected government by force. There's a big difference here you have failed to consider.
But can't you elect politicians who promise to do what you want?
They can promise whatever they like. Short answer - they won't do it. Republican Spain is a better model for society than Howardian Australia. Elections acheive almost nothing.
How is Republican Spain better? Don't they have parliamentary elections too?
I think you misunderstand this point, Leon. Under our system, pollies are, in some sense, 'accountable' - we can vote them out. Nonetheless, this does not in any way make them representative. For people on all sides of politics, voting in elections is merely a question of picking the lesser of two evils, if not simply falling into line with the electoral cycle and 2-party politics. For this reason, only a fool would set much store on change occurring at the ballot box.
To look at some other examples - both major parties in Australia (and many other wealthy countries) have reached a kind of economic consensus, and have embraced, more or less, neoliberal policies. This is in spite of the people's will, not because of it. Or to take another example - had Australia's involvement in the Iraq war been put to a referendum (even with all the lies about WMDs and mincing machines etc) do you seriously think voters would have endorsed it? I think this is extremely unlikely, yet Australia's politicians sent troops to Iraq all the same. I think these sorts of things are indicative of the abysmal gap between voter and supposed representative in our parliamentary system.
In terms of economic liberalism, the 2004 federal election can be seen as a ringing endorsement of them. Whilst some people may oppose individual policies, they definitely approve of the consequences. If people felt strongly enough about individual policies, they could vote governments out on that basis.
On the other hand, the electorate was convinced that Workchoies was "a bridge too far", and this contributed to last year's election result.
The fact that the two major parties have some agreement on economic policy does not reduce voter choice. People are always free to vote Green or socialist, if they choose to. But they don't, and that indicates that most Australians generally approve the policies of the major parties.
And Iraq wasn't an issue that most Australians felt very strongly about.
And Iraq wasn't an issue that most Australians felt very strongly about.
And yet they went to war...
If "The Handbag" really has a reputation for being left, it's not anything the paper's doing. It's explicitly a fashion accessory; not a newspaper. It's the voice of the middle class and never pretends otherwise. It cares more about restaurants than politics. Anyway, Dionne's article was interesting as far as it goes, but it's not at all unusual; you get a lot of that stuff in the business section's opinion backpage and Fairfax's Financial Review. It's making it over to the A section shows the extent of the concern over filling up the Land Rover and the declining equity in the investment property.
As for the Greens; I found it interesting that they campaigned hard on workchoices - a working class issue - and yet poll highest in middle class, esp. yuppie parts of the city.
Digging this blog.
Thanks Raj. A couple of unions appear to have started playing footsie with the Greens, so maybe the latter will have a chance of finding at least some working class support.
"And yet they went to war..."
Again, this was a government decision.
The Greens will always be a party for latte sippers and uni students.
People with kids, jobs and mortgages really aren't interested in polciies which will sacrifice their living standards to the environment.
Again, this was a government decision.
Disingenuous, Bertie. Are you just trolling in bad faith? I just gave you an example (the Iraq War) of our 'representative democracy' blatantly failing in being either representative or democratic, and you have no response.
The Greens will always be a party for latte sippers and uni students.
Again, this is Bolt-esque sloganeering and trolling, not an argument. Plenty of people with kids and mortgages vote for the Greens. The middle classes are not the aristocracy. As for 'living standards' - aside from the fact that these were only ever high for a privileged minority, even in Australia, they seem to be at risk of dropping without any influence from the Greens.
The Greens will always be a party for latte sippers and uni students.
15 years ago, I would have never even considered the Greens but since dropping from grace via my addiction, my whole outlook on life has changed and now the Greens to me, are the only decent political party.
I was always pro business and open markets but when you are at the bottom of the societal heap with none of the capitalist perks I once had, everything changes. I was a money market dealer when I was younger and loved the capitalist system ... money, nice car, knowledge, lots of sex, lots of restaurants etc. I just considered you made your own way in life and it was just my hard work. Now I know that much of it is just luck and the ability to exploit opportunities. Being on the arse end of society gave me these perspectives. Now that I am back into the swing of things, these views have stayed with me.
I don't think the Greens object to capitalism, just the corruption in government and big business. I think THR's point about the dominance of two major parties can be extended beyond economics and into many facets of politics. The US is a prime example along with Australia today.
My 20¢
BTW, howdy Leon, how you doing?
Agreed Terry - I don't think the Greens are anti-capitalist at all. However, I doubt our resident rightists will stop thinking in caricatures, irrespective of the evidence or personal anecdotes one provides them.
Hi Terry,
I oppose corruption in government and big business too. I'm sure everyone does. But only 5% of the population votes for the Greens.
The Greens may certainly be more generous to the poor than the two major parties. Bit if the dole comes close to pay for the full time minimum wage, many people will lose the incentive to work. I guess my support for Job Network also kicks in here: I believe that unemployed people are better served by a system which actively encourages them to find work rather than one which considers welfare dependency to be a right and a legitimate lifestyle choice.
And THR, living standards in Australia will continue to rise. If they fall, it will be due to a Greens-model carbon trading scheme.
I often think about the low rates of unemployment in Australia and why so much effort is put into getting that last tiny percentage into some sort of 9-5 existence. Howard was obsessed with this group and in his efforts to catch them, made it harder for everyone. Many job seekers who didn't fit in with Howard's criteria were treated harshly. The problem is, it might just be idle chatter for us but those it effects are devastated when they lose their only income.
Being focussed on the unemployed who will work makes more sense than treating them as "collateral damage" because of a nasty, rigid system aimed at catching a few bludgers. It just seems that the ideology of capitalism again overtakes common sense.
And THR, living standards in Australia will continue to rise. If they fall, it will be due to a Greens-model carbon trading scheme.
Living standards are closely tied to (but not wholly identifiable with) the country's economy. As you should be aware, the vicissitudes of the economy are not reducible to a single policy by a government, such as a carbon-trading scheme. Your fear-mongering is therefore more than a little redundant.
As for endless growth and rising standards of living:
Australia has slid down the charts of wealthy countries
http://www.theage.com.au/nationa...80722-
3jct.html
Inflation has risen to 4.5%
http://money.ninemsn.com.au/arti....aspx?
id=602209
None of this has anything to do with the Greens or carbon trading schemes, and has little to do with the Government, if truth be told.
Terry,
the fact that unemployment is so low makes finding work for the long-term unemployed even more important, for two reasons:
1) with workplaces needing more workers, they have more of a chance of being placed in work.
2) because labour shortages contribute to the economy's capacity constraints, not pushing them into work will slow down economic growth.
I don't accept the notion that conditions on receiving the dole are cruel and unwarranted. Quite the opposite: without such strings being attached, a lot of unemployed people would not be motivated enough to find work and improve their lot.
THR, another misleading reference. The very same article you linked to contained the following:
"The gaps between Australia and those ahead of us, however, are small and the estimates so approximate as to make such differences meaningless. A 10% rise in Australia's income would have lifted us into the top 20."
The fact we have slid a few places is hardly cause for concern.
The fact we have slid a few places is hardly cause for concern.
By itself, this may be true. However, this is in the context of interest rate rises, inflation, and a looming worldwide recession. The cost of living in Australia isn't cheap these days. And you were trying to peg Government environment policies as the sole factor in Australia's economy.
No, I was not.
Inflation isn't that high, particularly when compares to rising wages. As I pointed out on my blog recently, Australians tend to be a bunch of whiners when it comes to prices: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com...of-
whiners.html
That there will be a worldwide recession is far from certain. That Australia will have a recession is even less so.
But a greens-style trading emissions scheme would be almost certain to lead to serious recession.
Inflation isn't that high, particularly when compares to rising wages.
Dismissing Australians as 'whiners' when they complain about rising fuel and food prices shows you to be more than a little out of touch. The cost of living in Australia is comparatively expensive, and wage increases have been minimal for many. Real estate is Australia is among the most expensive in the world, taken as a proportion of income.
That there will be a worldwide recession is far from certain. That Australia will have a recession is even less so.
A recession is not certain, but whatever happens to the economy is likely to be the byproduct of more than one or two Govt policies.
But a greens-style trading emissions scheme would be almost certain to lead to serious recession.
You haven't even tried to present argument or evidence for this.
"Dismissing Australians as 'whiners' when they complain about rising fuel and food prices shows you to be more than a little out of touch."
The facts speak for themselves.
"But a greens-style trading emissions scheme would be almost certain to lead to serious recession." - "You haven't even tried to present argument or evidence for this. "
I don't need to. It's pretty self-explanatory when you consider how much our economy relies on non-renewable energy sources, and how expensive renewables are in comparison.
he facts speak for themselves.
Perhaps they do. Those facts strongly suggest that Australia's boom has been wildly disproportionate in terms of who it has benefited.
In real terms, the minimum wage from 1996-2005 increased by 10 per cent in real terms.
That's a substantial result. The fact that others may have benefited more is irrelevant.
That's a substantial result. The fact that others may have benefited more is irrelevant.
Irrelevant, eh? And what about inflation, housing, fuel, etc - have these risen by 10% in keeping with the minimum wage?
Like most lefties, your economic illiteracy speaks volumes. Go read about 'real growth' over at Wikipedia.
Bertie, you clown, go look at the latest figures for inflation and projected GDP before accusing me of economic illiteracy.
So you have switched from talking about the recent past, to now projections about the future. Even you should know that's not comparing apples with apples.
I'm afraid you are the clown - that's quite a trick you tried to perform.
Looked up 'real growth' on wikipedia yet?
Commenting by HaloScan
