What follows are another series of letters I have written to the ‘Herald-Sun’
and ‘The Age’during the December 2016 to January 2017 period. None were published. But I hope it sparks some thought and some
debate amongst readers here at ALP Socialist Left Forum.
Topics include 'Cultural Marxism' , Labor Policy, Pensions, Green Energy and who pays?, Islam and Education, Female Genital Mutilation, What to do about Poverty?, and 'Bolt and Panahi need to Work Out Which Side they are On on Civil Liberties'.....
Topics include 'Cultural Marxism' , Labor Policy, Pensions, Green Energy and who pays?, Islam and Education, Female Genital Mutilation, What to do about Poverty?, and 'Bolt and Panahi need to Work Out Which Side they are On on Civil Liberties'.....
Dr Tristan Ewins
Hysteria on ‘Cultural Marxism’
"P.Jones (Letters, 29/12/16) again raises the spectre
of ‘cultural Marxism’ ; evoking the remnants of Cold War era fear of those
movements bearing the name of Karl Marx.
But ‘Critical Theory’ and the ‘Frankfurt School’ (the proper names of
the traditions referred to as ‘cultural Marxism’) are radical intellectual
traditions which have very little to do with the Totalitarianism and Stalinism
which once prevailed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Critical theorists promoted personal freedom,
dignity and fulfilment ; and they rejected attempts by Stalin and his
successors to crush the independence of radical thought. Some critical theorists have also promoted
the peaceful transition to a democratic socialist order through mutual
engagement based on the powers of human reason.
They also subjected past Marxism to criticism on the basis that radicals
needed to be open-minded about confronting past errors. Considered in context, ‘cultural Marxism’
does not deserve ‘the bogey status’ imposed on it by Conservative intellectuals
and others who either do not really understand its content ; or otherwise want
to distort perceptions in order to create fear and prevent change."
Labor needs a
Stronger Agenda ; and not only Defensiveness on Company Tax
Responding
to ‘The Age Letters 7/1/17’: While Labor’s opposition to Company Tax cuts is
welcome, Australia needs a more robust reform agenda: improving our social wage
and welfare state, and providing for vital infrastructure. Hence a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme to
roll back regressive user pays; and
improve quality of life for our most vulnerable. Superannuation tax concessions
for the wealthy and the upper middle class could be cut, bringing in tens of
billions. In addition to Capital Gains
Tax and Negative Gearing reforms, Australia could also look to phased
withdrawal of Dividend Imputation. Reversion to a 75% credit alone could save
over $5 billion/year. Because of their
progressive potential, reform of income and other progressive taxes (eg: Medicare-style
Levies) should not be ‘taboo’. Presumed ‘pull
factors’ regarding Corporate Taxation can neglect the impact of education and
infrastructure in attracting investment.
Infrastructure privatisation increases cost-structures. And there are economic and moral dilemmas
associated with ‘corporate welfare’. Citizens and taxpayers effectively subsidize
corporations benefitting from services and infrastructure ; because of a more
regressive tax mix (flatter, and/or focusing on consumption) and also
indirectly through austerity. Poverty and inequality also affect consumption
power, damaging the broader economy.
The Problems with Tightening Pension Eligibility
Frank Stubbs (Herald-Sun Letters, 7/1/17) argues “the
pension is not a right” ; that it should only go to the most needy. But there are problems with this
argument. In the 1980s Labor introduced
superannuation while means-testing pensions.
This enabled a focus on ‘targeted welfare’ ; where we could have both a
regime of low taxation – and necessary supports for the genuinely
vulnerable. Superannuation made all this
possible. But before this the Aged
Pension was considered a right.
Primarily because people had paid their taxes their entire working lives
– and had earned that security. But
“rights” must also be a matter of human decency ; such that we must not allow
the vulnerable to struggle in poverty – even if they cannot work. The problem with superannuation is that it
might increasingly see the marginalisation of the Aged Pension, and those
dependent upon it. The consumption power
of low income Australians is also affected, harming the economy. In the future conservatives
may demand further tightening of pension eligibility; and that would marginalise
pensioners, giving rise to further self-interested cries from business, the
middle classes, the wealthy - for
pension cuts. There’s a potential future social cost to
cutting pension eligibility.
AN Important Question on Green Energy:
Who Pays?
In response to Matt Johnston (13/1): It is necessary to take
action on renewable energy to respond to global warming. But an additional concern is “who pays?” Currently, renewable energy is more
expensive. And while many households are
taking up ‘micro-renewable energy’, a great many others are ‘locked out’ because
they simply cannot afford the investment. But as middle class families opt for
micro-renewable energy, this damages the ‘economies of scale’ of the legacy
centralised energy industry. The cost of
‘poles and wires’ and other infrastructure is divided amongst a smaller
consumer base. So consumers on low
incomes are forced to pay more. This is
worsened by privatisation: which means providers will pursue profits and avoid
cross subsidies for the financially disadvantaged. “Micro-renewables’ are
probably the way of the future: but in the meantime governments need to take
stronger action to ensure financially disadvantaged customers don’t bear the
cost. Subsidies of various kinds need to
negate the entire effect on affordability for low income customers during this
transitional period. (Until technology
improves and prices fall) The timeframe
depends on the priorities of government and the progress of research and
development.
Responding to Kevin Donnelly on Islam and Education
Kevin Donnelly (Herald Sun, 2/1/17) criticises Islam as ‘inherently violent’ while defending ‘the Western tradition’ against its apparent detractors on ‘the Left’. Some things need to be stated in response to this. Firstly, it is partly a matter of convenience. The ‘West’ supported the Mujahedeen (Islamic fundamentalists) against the Soviets during the Cold War, despite what this meant for women in Afghanistan. Further, Islam is diverse – and potentially open to reform – perhaps like Christianity and Judaism have been. (partly because of the historic intersection of Christianity with liberalism) In some places ‘a (liberal) Islamic reformation’ may actually be a good thing. (further reform of the Roman Catholic Church would also be good) But in the meantime we should not promote notions of ‘cultural superiority’ to justify interventions which are really geo-political in nature. Also when we defend ‘the Western tradition’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ we should be clear what that means. It means supporting free and critical enquiry. The consequence of this also must be that education is not only for ‘fundamentals’ of numeracy and literacy. There is a crucial place for the Humanities and Social Sciences – in combination with a progressive civics agenda – which promotes political literacy and active citizenship. Authoritarian responses to protest and civil disobedience are counter to the freedoms we celebrate which originated with the Enlightenment – and the liberal and democratic revolutions that followed.
Responding to FGM: How Prevalent
is it in Australia?
Rita Panahi (16/1) makes some points about the most
reactionary practices Islam, mentioning
child brides, ‘honour killings’, and female genital mutilation. Despite
allusions to a so-called ‘regressive Left’ any Leftist worth their salt could
not help but oppose those practices. Of
course we must support women and girls who oppose and fight against these
practices. But there are other complications. Firstly it is unclear how
widespread FGM is in Australia. In 2010 the ABC reported that 700 cases were
presented to the Melbourne Royal Women’s Hospital. But in 2011 the total Australian Islamic
population (all creeds considered) was nearing half a million. So its important to keep perspective: to
support the rights of women and girls ; but also to be aware of possible
ulterior motives. Strong cultural differences can be exploited to justify
geo-political and strategic objectives.
We need to keep cultural difference and strategic/geo-political issues
separate so as to avoid confusion and remain clear about the real motivations
and interests behind our foreign policy.
References:
What Must we actually Do in Response to Poverty?
In the Herald-Sun letters section recently there has been
some good discussion of poverty. But the problem is on such a scale that it
will never be overcome through charity ; and we need action - not only talk.
Only government can provide the resources for a definitive solution. That calls
for a stronger, fairer welfare system for disadvantaged groups, the elderly and
the unemployed ; a fairer, progressive tax mix ; and labour market
re-regulation at the lower end. It also
calls for a stronger social wage ;
including more funding for public health and education ; as well as for
public housing and emergency accommodation, and energy and water
subsidies. It might also include
better-subsidised public transport and internet access. (these are now
essentials - for instance it is virtually impossible to search effectively for
work now without them) It could include
an active industry policy which offers ‘flexible’ work favourable to employees’
needs ; preventing those such as retrenched auto workers being relegated
permanently to unemployment. And it
could involve greater flexibility for pensioners to take on casual or part-time
work without foregoing their pensions ; hence avoiding poverty traps.
Bolt and Panahi Need to work out where they Stand on Civil Rights
Andrew Bolt claims “Leftists hate our freedoms” while Rita
Panahi gives thanks for liberal freedoms she enjoys in Australia compared with
theocratic Iran. But at the same time
Rita Panahi has dismissed civil libertarians as ‘do-gooders’. And for all his talk, Andrew Bolt has never
had anything to say against anti-protest laws introduced by past Liberal
governments in New South Wales and Victoria. That includes ‘move on’ laws that
criminalised freedom of assembly ; and laws in NSW which could see protestors
jailed for several years for civil disobedience. As well as Federal laws criminalising
‘whistle-blowers’ who reveal details on the treatment of refugees. Journalists like Panahi and Bolt need to
decide what side they are on when it comes to liberal and democratic
rights. It is true that parts of the
Left qualify freedom of speech where they believe that speech could be socially
harmful. Other Leftists are nonetheless
concerned at possible precedents which could help result in a far more general
retreat of liberties. And the ‘pressure
cooker’ effect of suppressed (and sometimes manufactured) grievances which can
explode with the rise of populist, far-right-wing movements. Reality is more complex than you would think
reading Panahi and Bolt.
