‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Cultural Marxism’ – Why the Right is Wrong ; a Response to Kevin Donnelly

above:  Conservative Social Commentator, Kevin Donnelly is a high-profile 'public intellectual' - best known for his opinions on Education.  Donnelly also regularly challenges multi-culturalism, and radical views on 'gender fluidity'.  Like many Conservatives he criticises so-called 'Cultural Marxism' . (arguably capitalising on fear and ignorance) He argues that 'Cultural Marxism' is a threat to Western Civilisation and the legacy of the Enlightenment.   But Donnelly's opinions deserve to be challenged - For the sake of 'genuine pluralism' ; and for the sake of clarity when it comes to understanding the modern Left.

This is the first of what I hope to be two essays in response to Kevin Donnelly

Dr Tristan Ewins

Australian Catholic University based public intellectual,  Dr Kevin Donnelly has established himself as one of Australia’s most prominent big ‘C’ Conservative voices: and undoubtedly as an important influence on the ethos of the governing Liberal Party.  This essay is a progressive response to Donnelly’s book, ‘How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia – Enemies Within and Without’.   (probably to be followed by a second essay into the future)

As part of the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ in Australia, Conservatives have decried what they call the ‘Black Armband’ view of the nation’s history (Historian, Geoffrey Blainey’s term) : a view of Australia’s complicity in imperialism and colonialism ; and a past Conservatism which disadvantaged minorities.  Instead Donnelly and those like him emphasise a narrative of Australia’s broad liberal and Christian traditions. (and even of how liberalism developed in tandem with the broader Enlightenment tradition).  Donnelly argues that these have involved pluralism, freedom and intellectual rigour.  

What is ‘Cultural Marxism’ anyway?  Double Standards in our ‘Historic Memory’

While most on the ‘broad Australian Left’ could probably still fit comfortably into the ‘liberal left’ category , Donnelly and other big ‘C’ Conservative thinkers see something more ‘sinister’ at work. The term ‘Cultural Marxism’ is increasingly thrown around with abandon. (Donnelly seems to prefer that to the use of the alternative term, ‘Critical Theory’)  He cites ‘the Left’s’ ‘Long March through the Institutions’ as leading to ‘Politically Correct’ thinking in schools and universities ; and more broadly in popular culture.   Importantly ; this so-called ‘Politically-Correct’ (PC) outlook often has a tendency to emphasise gender, sexuality, culture and race. (a shift from  ‘old left’ emphasis on social class and a critique of capitalism)

Despite most of the ‘broad Australian Left’ arguably identifying as ‘liberal left’, ‘Marxism’ in particular is cited as the ‘bogeyman’.  The reasons for this are obvious: to capitalise on fear, ignorance and confusion. 

Many Conservatives identify ‘Marxism’ as an ‘unbearable evil’;  even though most of them cannot pin-point what the term actually means.  Donnelly refers to Pol Pot and Stalin amongst others as examples of ‘Marxism’. A more thorough investigation might have identified the place of US bombing in Laos -  in facilitating social collapse, and the consequent rise of Pol Pot.  (this is before mentioning the place of Pinochet’s coup and the mass murder in Chile 1972; the Assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, 1980; and of the massacre of over half a million Leftists and labour movement activists by Suharto in 1960s Indonesia ; and other ‘Cold War atrocities’) Also, the place of Western intervention in giving rise to an outlook of utter desperation amongst the Bolsheviks in the period spanning 1917 through the 1920s – could accompany a more thorough investigation.  As would the place of the First World War – which set the scene for Russian social collapse ; and itself resulted in approximately 20 million deaths.    

Bolshevism specifically degenerated into Stalinism.  Other Marxist thinkers such as Karl Kautsky and Julius Martov identified the effective likelihood of this , and the damage consequently done to the broader socialist cause – relatively early on during the Bolshevik Revolution.  Marx himself had identified the threat of ‘Bonapartism’. – whereby  a political leader consolidated themselves above social classes and other interests.   (that could apply both to Napoleon Bonaparte I AND to Louis Napoleon Bonaparte III ; and finally to Stalin himself)  Arguably Stalinism – and the Cult of Personality around Stalin – saw this taken to a level previously unthinkable.   Even before Stalin’s rise, ‘Jacobin’ strategies of revolutionary Terror were also an important factor – but that was not the whole story. 

To consider the prevailing ‘selectivity’ in our ‘historic memory’: Trotsky’s march against Anarchist dissident Sailors at Kronstadt in 1921 might be compared in nature to Winston Churchill’s sinking of the anchored French Fleet during World War II (July 1940) – following the French surrender to Germany.   While the Bolsheviks responded to what they saw as an existential threat to the Revolution, Churchill considered a scenario (Nazi capture of the French fleet) which could have turned the tide of the War in Hitler’s favour.  In Churchill’s case over 1000 French sailors (until then Allied to Britain) were killed.   In the case of Kronstadt total causalities were over 10,000. (considering both sides) 

(As an aside ; If the Bolsheviks had heeded the voice of Rosa Luxemburg (in 1918) a maintenance of liberties may have provided an ‘outlet’ through which the whole situation may have been avoided in the first place in Russia.  But in reality now we will never know.)

Both acts could be questioned morally.   It could also be argued that desperate circumstances lead to ethically challenging dilemmas. (to put it mildly)  What is often missing with ‘Conservative critiques’ as usual – is intellectual and moral consistency.  Critics of Trotsky, for instance (and I am not a Trotskyist), are often silent when it comes to other ‘fateful decisions’ such as that of Churchill.  Dissident Marxist critiques of Bolshevism and Stalinism  (rg: Kautsky, Martov, Luxemburg) are also largely absent from popular memory . It should not be like this.

Donnelly points to the ‘Frankfurt School’ as the source of the so-called ‘Cultural Marxist’ movement.  The ‘Frankfurt School’ began as an intellectual movement in interwar Germany, before migrating to the US in for fear of Nazism. (some ‘Critical Theorists’ were to re-establish themselves in Europe following the defeat of Hitler)  Forming the ‘First Generation’ of Critical Theory ; thinkers such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, while retaining a critical disposition against fascism, could not delude themselves about the direction of the USSR under Stalin.  

Also, the prospects for the organised working class and traditional socialism had appeared increasingly questionable as fascism rose in Europe.   

‘The Frankfurt School’ increasingly became synonymous with ‘Critical Theory’.  Broadly speaking ; ‘Critical Theory’ developed a critique of Western culture, and an emphasis on minority perspectives and rights.  Some self-identifying ‘Critical Theorists’ tended to suppose that the ‘traditional’ socialist movement’s ‘historical moment’ had passed.   In other words – that the working class had largely been co-opted ; in part because of the role of popular culture.  (to which you could also add other factors, including religion and nationalism; In more recent decades, the decline of ‘Fordism’, factory labour and so on in many countries – has seen an accompanying decline of organised labour as well) 

Nonetheless, Marcuse – with his work, ‘One Dimensional Man’  (originally published in 1964) – focused on the socialist project as one of ‘radical negation’ – of ‘a Great Refusal’ (of capitalism) involving ‘minority’ perspectives, including racial minorities, women, students and so on.   This was a break with the traditional (Marxist) view of socialism arising primarily from ‘a Dialectic of Class Struggle’ .  

Marcuse especially was influential in the late 1960s with the wave of ‘student uprisings’ which swept Europe. (and the rise of the ‘New Left’)  Marcuse was notable in rejecting modern society’s emphasis on an outlook of ‘social closure’ for which there is no room for deep criticism or negation ; an outlook for which ‘the system delivers the goods’ and should not be questioned. “Democracy”  was becoming increasingly tokenistic and shallow on account of its manipulation ; a tendency which continues still.

But importantly, some examples of ‘Critical Theory’ are radically at odds with Donnelly’s caricatures.

‘Second Generation’ Critical Theorist’, Jurgen Habermas  argued about ‘Legitimation Crisis’ ; a decline and perhaps even collapse of public confidence in the State and other institutions.  For example: the perceived legitimacy of the State (and indeed capitalism itself) – could suffer in the wake of attacks on welfare, and other hard-won gains of working people, such as labour market regulation and workers’ rights and liberties.  (all the more so where Social Democratic and ‘Left’ parties actually refuse any ‘consensus’ around austerity, and other policies harmful to the working class and the disadvantaged)

Habermas also argued about the conflict between ‘System’ and ‘Life-World’  - a consideration of capitalism’s economic-system-imperatives ; its priorities ; and the way these conflict with peoples’ ‘quality of life – especially for the working  class.  ‘System’ effectively ‘colonises’ ‘life-world’ ; becomes  detached from the real-world needs of human beings. Economic insecurity and increasing intensity in the processes of exploitation are part of this.  (eg: falling  wage share of the economy ; less free time ; increasing class ‘stratification’ or ‘bifurcation’)

Drawing in part from Habermas: Arguably, democracy is increasingly reduced to ‘administration’ in the interests of capitalism.  Real pluralism is ‘hollowed out’.   And the inability of governments to resolve the economic and social crises which follow intensify the consequent crises of legitimacy.  As an aside: the ‘Identity Politics’ which Donnelly opposes so strongly – actually helps maintain an illusion of greater pluralism.  This outcome is ironic in light of Marcuse’s original vision of a ‘Great Refusal’. All the oppressed of the world need solidarity more than ever.  But to paraphrase Marcuse ; objectively, without this ‘Identity Politics’ society and politics would have been better-exposed as being otherwise ‘One Dimensional’.

Also importantly: democratic socialism more broadly is part of what we might call ‘The Western Tradition’.  (which Donnelly argues he is defending)  Capitalism increasingly puts the gains of democratic socialism – including labour rights, broader liberties, the mixed economy, progressive tax, the social wage and the welfare state – under threat.   

But rather than ‘rejecting’ the Enlightenment project, Habermas instead refers to it as ‘unfinished’.  So without rejecting ‘Modernity’ and ‘Enlightenment’, Habermas defends the potential for what he calls ‘Communicative Action’ and the achievement of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’.  (that is, perfectly free and rational exchange and engagement without distortions or coercion; And hence: social actors striving for agreement on the substance of human liberation through Reason and Ethics-inspired dialogue)

There is more than so-called 'Cultural Marxism' on today's Left ;  We've considered Habermasian Critical Theory for a start  - but 'Post Marxism' and 'Agonism' are also notable ; Past Conservative and 'Centrist' traditions also opposed hard economic Liberalism

There is a different emerging tradition on the Left, also, that is worth mentioning. ‘Agonistic’ ‘Post-Marxists’ such as Chantal Mouffe assume enduring pluralism, and a permanent place for dissent. That enduring pluralism is at the heart of their perspective. In other words: they assume consensus will not ensue .  Indeed, for  many either it is thought to be overly-optimistic to seek that consensus - or maybe even it is undesirable.   There is also the question of class struggle ; which can be exclusive of communicative action and any ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ in contexts driven by interest. When capitalists have been increasingly (and successfully) dictating terms in response to various economic crises from the 1970s onward – they are not necessarily interested in dialogue which involves compromise.  (unless forced)

Crucially, though – in practice both Habermas and the Agonist democrats assume a need for pluralism, liberty and engagement.  The examples they provide ‘fly in the face’ of Donnelly’s characterisation of ‘the modern Left’ and ‘Politically-Correct-enforced-conformity’. 

Continuing our consideration of Critical Theory:  To assert the centrality of Habermas to Critical Theory is also to assert that the broad Critical Theory tradition cannot be boiled down to post-modern and deconstructionist rejection of Modernity, Enlightenment, Reason ; or what might be called ‘the Western Tradition’.  ‘Post-Modernism’ itself also has meant radically different things to different people. While some people claim it as a rejection of ‘Modernity’ and its assumptions, Australian social theorist Peter Beilharz (in ‘Postmodern Socialism: Romanticism, City, State’)  suggested it might be constructed as ‘the critical moment in Modernity’. Here ‘Modernity’ refers to societies and economies of increasing scale and complexity ; developing further with industrialisation, and with themes of Enlightenment, Reason, and so on. We’re talking about a frame which in a way is inclusive of certain tendencies in socialist, liberal and capitalist traditions – even though these are historically in conflict with one another as well.

Again we are in highly-contested terrain.

It might be noted, though, that there is also a now-mostly-forgotten tradition – a tradition historically associated with the Catholic working class – a tradition which styled itself as ‘Centrist’.  (Though notably, those such as Giddens and Blair have also tried to resuscitate a kind of ‘Centrism’)  Yet intellectuals such as Donnelly have apparently chosen to ‘side’ with big ‘L’ Economic Liberalism and big ‘C’ Cultural and Political Conservatism.   (if this is not so, Donnelly does a good job of hiding or avoiding it)  

The old-style ‘Centrism’ emphasised ‘corporatism’, welfare state, and some labour rights including labour market regulation.  Today, Giddens and Blair identify as ‘Social Democrats’ or ‘The Radical Centre’.   But looking back to the original ‘Centrism’: amongst some there was a clear authoritarianism. Some ‘Centrist’ leaders such as the ‘Christian Social’ President of Austria, Engelbert Dolfuss – beginning with his seizure of power and dissolution of a democratically-elected Socialist government in 1934 – historically chose to side with a kind of fascism.  (ironically, not long before the formalisation of the ‘Axis’ of Germany and Italy , Dolfuss sought the protection of Mussolini from Hitler – in return for the suppression of Social Democracy!)

‘Corporatism’ –including state mediation – or forcible suppression - of class conflict and differences– was itself part of the broad fascist tradition ; though arguably different kinds of ‘corporatism’ (eg: re: Swedish Social Democracy) were much more ‘democracy-friendly’.  (or even co-existed with a kind of ‘democratic class struggle’ (see: Walter Korpi) )  (the ‘Accords’ under the Federal Labor Government in 1980s and early 1990s Australia could also be considered corporatist ; not fascist in the sense of Dolfuss ; but compromising the interests of the working class on a number of fronts)   Importantly: though a right-wing authoritarian and fascist, Dolfuss was not a Nazi.  Indeed he opposed Hitler.  (and was assassinated by Nazi agents)

Today - to overcome an ensuing negative electoral response to austerity and other associated attacks, fear of ‘Political Correctness’ is played-upon.  This means  ‘papering over’ the contradictions which could ‘get in the way’ of preserving right-wing footholds amidst the working class – parts of which feel ‘abandoned’ by ‘self-styled social democratic’ parties for whom issues of economic inequality and exploitation have been largely  ‘relegated to the Too-Hard Basket’.  To elaborate: in this context modern-day Conservatives attempt to make inroads into traditional social democratic working class support bases.  They exploit often-exaggerated discussions around ‘Political-Correctness’ ; with the assistance of the monopoly mass media. This is in a context where much of the working class is relatively conservative on culture compared with the so-called ‘cultural Left’.

In light of the tendency of Critical Theorists to emphasise what they saw as the almost-totalitarian nature of modern popular culture and capitalism in achieving ‘systemic closure’, it is ironic that today some Conservatives see its own perspective as a totalitarian, ‘politically correct’ threat to everything laudable in Western Civilisation.  In reality, today’s Left is highly plural.  While some still identify with the theoretical lineage of Marxism, many (perhaps most) post-modernists and deconstructionists do not identify as ‘Marxist’ at all. 

That said, it would be dishonest to simply ‘deny’ ‘The Cultural Turn’ and the transformation of what passes for progressive politics. The point is to establish that the retreat of a ‘more-traditional’ socialism has not been ‘total’ ; that ‘culture’ and ‘economics’ need not and should not be considered exclusive of each other ; and for much of the Left economics and social class still matters ; though the project of an alternative democratic socialist economic project  in ‘The West’ has arguably been mainly in retreat since the 1970s.  To some extent it has been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Much More to Marxism than The Conservatives Understand

Donnelly’s emphasis on ‘Stalinist Dystopias’ and ‘Political Correctness’ also side-steps the matter of Marxism’s original ‘Cultural Project’.   For Marx – and many who followed him (including, for instance, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Julius Martov) economic abundance under Socialism was not to lead to surveillance, Terror, Cult of Personality,  labour militarisation and labour conscription (In short: Oppression) – but rather to cultural and social opportunity arising from material plenty, including free time.  For instance, this might mean freedom to partake in Art and Philosophy -  amongst other pursuits.

To take the example of Austrian Social Democracy (or ‘Austro-Marxism’) in the 1917-1934 period: this meant promotion of working class culture including sport, radio stations and libraries ; and involving amenities for working class people.  This included impressive public housing estates, including hot running water, communal pools and communal laundry facilities.   (rare for the time)

And even before this timeframe ; going back to the original theorists of Marxist orthodoxy during the height of the Second International and earlier (ie: pre-WWI):  this might even have meant assisting people in seeking after the highest truths for their own sake.   In addition to ‘freedom from oppression’ that also includes ‘enabling freedom’: empowerment for the purpose of self-realisation.  Understood thus the tensions between collectivism and individualism can also be mediated ; and socialism can provide opportunities for individual self-realisation which do not arise under capitalism.

To conclude: Donnelly portrays  a Left that  has nothing ‘positive’ to say about ‘Western Civilisation’. He totally misses the whole point made by thinkers like Marcuse – that societies which refuse to accommodate debate whereby a significantly-different kind of future can be envisaged and communicated – are not genuinely free!  This must also involve the inclusion of dissenting social movements in public debate.

But also, the idea of a ‘teleology’ (or ‘necessary direction’) of history – as presumed by orthodox Marxists - is questioned amongst today’s Left.  Following the lead of ‘Post-Marxists’ and ‘Agonists’, the future is considered by some a matter of ‘collective will formation’, strategy and choice. (indeed, a matter of ‘counter-hegemony’, or the mobilisation of the broad social forces necessary to facilitate change)  Hence as part of a pluralist agenda we ought strive for a tolerant Left ; though still: radical democrats ought not be naïve or complacent in the face of existential threats to democracy. (eg: the resurgence of fascism in Europe)

Also: arguably capitalism has always been ‘repressive’, ‘regressive’ and in some senses even ‘progressive’ - at the same time and in different ways.  As Marx argued in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848):  Capitalism unleashed an unprecedented wave of economic growth and innovation .  (establishing the preconditions for socialism)  At the same time capitalism has involved waste, exploitation, excesses, and warped priorities. These conditions gave rise to various movements; for Socialism – but also the Centrism which we have mentioned, and more recently environmental movements.

So in that context: for today’s socialists, the socialist project should still be about ‘radical negation’ in the sense of class struggle (and broader struggle) against the exploitation, warped priorities, injustices and excesses of capitalism. 

But socialism can be about affirmation also.  We can acknowledge the progressive economic contributions of capitalism: and of ‘modernity’ considered more broadly.   And along with the original Marxist Social Democrats – who trail-blazed in their pursuit of Free, Equal and Universal Suffrage as early as the 19^th Century (when almost all others neglected that cause as ‘too radical’) – we need not reject the place for some kind of parliamentary democracy and far-reaching liberties.  Most definitely we should also be striving to extend the reach of democracy ; including economic democracy – whether through the restoration of a robust mixed economy ; or through workers and consumers’ co-operatives ; or through other avenues such as ‘wage earner funds’ and comparable projects.   

While the perspective of ‘class’ should not be considered ‘sufficient and exhaustive in its own right’ ; We should not shy away from ‘class struggle’ in the broad sense.  We should embrace the fight for social justice ; for economic security and distributive justice ; and a fulfilling life for everyone.  Again, that does not have to mean rejecting the very humanity of individual capitalists. (we must avoid the ‘brutalisation’ of politics where we can) It does mean questioning the morality and outcomes of capitalist social and economic relations. 

Finally: we should work to decouple the view of liberties and capitalism- whereby they are seen somehow as ‘essentially and inextricably linked’. (to the exclusion of socialism)  In fact ‘liberty’ and ‘capitalism’ are often in tension and conflict with one another.  And depending on the specific expression, the causes of liberty and socialism can be mutually sympathetic.

The cause of democratic socialism is not forever exhausted ;  but ‘hope’ requires of  us that we take a stand.  Donnelly’s narrative on so-called ‘Political Correctness’, and his ‘beating up’ of the bogeyman of ‘Cultural Marxism’ - is part of the problem.  So too is the abandonment of the cause of economic justice by significant sections of the self-identifying Left.  As an Australian Labor Party member of approximately 25 years it is painful but necessary to acknowledge that for decades Labor has been at the heart of a range of policies which have undermined certain rights of labour, as well as the mixed economy, and at times the welfare state.  Importantly - the Trans-Pacific Partnership has recently been endorsed by the Federal Labor Opposition: a move which could leave governments open to being sued by foreign corporations should they facilitate policies (eg: on the rights of labour) which affect company profits. Even in Victoria under Daniel Andrews of the Socialist Left we see ‘Public Private Partnerships’ and ‘Asset Recycling’.  (‘code’ for privatisation)  It is those kind of scenarios that leave the broad Left vulnerable to Conservative and Far-Right strategies of ‘divide and conquer’.

We should have learned that lesson by now.

Bibliography

Beilharz, P. (1994), ‘Postmodern Socialism—Romanticism, City and State, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Donnelly, K (2018) , How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia – Enemies Within and Without, Wilkinson Publishing,  Melbourne

Eley, G. (2002), Forging Democracy, The History of the Left in Europe, 1850–2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Galili, Z. (1989), The Menshevik Leaders in the Russian Revolution—Social Realities and Political Strategies, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Gruber, H. (1991), Red Vienna—Experiment in Working Class Culture 1919–1934, Oxford University Press, New York

Hudis, P. and Anderson, K., eds, (2004), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader, Monthly Review Press, New York.

Kautsky, K. (1964), The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, University Of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

Korpi, W. (1983), The Democratic Class Struggle, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Lenin, V.I. (1996), Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Pluto Press, London.

Marcuse, H. (1968), One Dimensional Man, Sphere, London.

Marx, K. and Engels, F (1989), Selected Works I, Progress Publishers, Moscow.

Mouffe, C. (2005a), On the Political, Routledge, Abingdon.

Mouffe, C. (2005b), The Return of the Political, Verso, London.

Outhwaite, W (1994) Habermas – A Critical Introduction, Stanford, California

Rabinbach, A. (1983), The Crisis of Austrian Socialism: From Red Vienna to Civil War, 1927–1934, University of Chicago Press, London.

Trotsky, L. (2007), Terrorism and Communism, Verso, New York.

Andrew Bolt on ‘Charlie Hedbo’ and Free Speech: A Response

 

 

The arguments about free speech are often complex.  But freedoms and liberties must be defended

 

Tristan Ewins, Jan 11th, 2014

Andrew Bolt has fired another salvo against the Australian Left (Heald-Sun, Jan 10^th 2015); this time accusing the Left – and what he ironically calls ‘the ruling classes’ of this country – of ‘giving in’ in the face of Terror.  He argues that the French satirical publication ‘Charlie Hedbo’ was “almost alone” and that this emboldened the killers.   He argues that ‘the Left’ is hypocritical in the sense of constantly satirising, attacking and mocking Christianity – while claiming Islamophobia in response to critiques of Islam.  For Bolt censorship and self-censorship mean ‘the Terrorists have won’.   Bolt also condemns the racial vilification laws which he claims led to the ‘banning’ of two of his articles.  Bolt complains of ‘mainstream’ journalists ‘celebrating’ this decision; though surely this is a bit ingenuous given his claim to be ‘Australia’s most read columnist’.      He also attacks Australia’s migration program in so far as it welcomes “mass immigration from the Third World”.  Finally he claims Islam’s claim to be ‘a religion of peace’ is false in light of Koranic scripture urging the deaths of those who mock the Prophet Muhammed.   

Where do we start in responding to Bolt?  

On the matter of Left hypocrisy I personally sometimes cut a lone figure in requesting respect and sensitivity towards the Christian faith in the face of sometimes-hateful attacks.   The Christian emphasis on ‘turning the other cheek’ perhaps suggests a certain acceptance even in the face of criticism.  Rational (not hateful) criticism, indeed, is welcome – and has informed a shift in Christian thinking over recent decades to made an accommodation with liberalism.  Though in earlier centuries some church leaders were complicit in repression and Terror.  

There are liberal Muslims just as there are liberal Christians.  Though in the West liberal Christianity is more prevalent. There are relatively rare Christians who still advocate an unreformed interpretation of Scripture. But most today have turned from ‘Biblical literalism’ in areas such as Creationism for instance.  (instead Genesis is held by some  to be a parable containing a mystery which few understand; Though this should not mean we close our minds to the prospect of mysteries as yet not understood – for instance free will and consciousness itself)

The shift towards liberalism; of ‘turning the other cheek’; and the rejection of literalism has moderated what social conflicts may have arisen between liberalism, secularism and Christianity.  These tendencies in Christianity reveal  the falsehoods in many hostile caricatures of the faith.  We have had ‘Piss Christ’ and ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’, and yet many Christians accept that even while this may be hurtful, it is part of the liberal pluralist order we live in.

But where does Islam stand?   Just like there is liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism, also there are liberal movements within Islam.  There have been attempts to moderate the message of Islam.  Greater gender equality is promoted as well as pluralistic and individual interpretations of the Koran.  There is respect for democracy and human rights; slavery is rejected.   Yet arguably if one looks around the world today, both Shia and Sunni regimes – from the Saudis to the Iranians – these regimes have been reticent in adopting a liberal/reform orientation.   There are barbaric instances of corporal and capital punishment; women are often second class citizens; sexuality is stigmatised. Yet in a throwback to an earlier time self-proclaimed Christians in Uganda have sought to criminalise homosexuality as well – with potential life sentences for those practicing their sexuality.   

In response to Bolt it is fair enough for a democracy to hesitate before welcoming any who do not share basic precepts when it comes to liberal and human rights.  To welcome refugees is an exception – as there is the global responsibility to provide refuge for the persecuted.  And often the wars which refugees flee are proxy conflicts – the consequence of ‘Great Power’ interventions. 

It ought be noted that in the past similar arguments have been deployed to prevent communists and other left radicals from being accepted into our society. But while in the past many were deluded about the reality in ‘really-existing’ communist regimes, their orientation was nonetheless progressive when it came to defending liberal rights at home; as well as the rights of women, indigenous peoples, those of queer sexuality, the industrial liberties of workers and so on.  But anti-modernist radicals – whether they are Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, Shia from Iran, or Christians from Uganda – pose a potential threat to liberalism if ever their challenge to Modernity reached the critical point.  That is for example in Australia: if ever they comprised so formidable a bloc as to hold decisive political and cultural leverage

Against this – Despite some peoples’ over-blown fears, those of Islamic faith comprise only two per cent of the Australian population.  And well-intentioned engagement between liberals and Muslims could result in many more Muslims shifting into the liberal camp. Much as occurred with Christianity.  An uncontrolled influx could change this; but that is not the situation.

Yet that engagement is threatened by the ‘culture war warriors’ who would preach a message of civil conflict on religion rather than engagement.  Bolt is sceptical of Muslims claiming that theirs is ‘a religion of peace’.  But we would do well to remember it was not all that long ago that religion was cited as a rationale and a justification for centuries of colonialism and Imperialism of various European Great Powers.  Today strategic interventions and proxy wars are also justified on the basis of liberal and democratic Ideology.  But beneath the surface a more complex picture emerges.  Great Power bases in Syria and Qatar; fears over an Iranian bomb; attempts to isolate Iran through destabilising its Syrian ally (with over 200,000 dead!); the Syrian intervention backfiring with the rise of Islamic State – and yet even Islamic State could be could be seen by some as a counterbalance to Iran in the region. It is often very cynical. (the previous balance of power was wrecked through George Bush’s Second Gulf War, which ironically for the time was supported by Israel).

Finally we come to Bolt’s cries of censorship.

Censorship is a difficult question, and interestingly today it is self-proclaimed right-libertarians who advocate unmitigated and unmoderated free speech in the face of suggestions from others on the Left that speech be regulated – whether through state interference in the monopoly mass media, or through enforcing stronger racial discrimination laws.  

There is a lot to be reviled in the American settlement when it comes to their threadbare social security and welfare safety net; the neglect and rescission of workers’ liberties; oppressively low minimum wages; tolerance of homelessness on a mass scale…  But despite the hypocrisies of McCarthyism in times past for instance, ‘free speech’ is enshrined in the American Constitution and as part of American identity.  This notion of ‘absolute’ and ‘inalienable’ rights gives the far right conditions under which they can organise.  But it also provides a vital protection for the Left which could be utterly crucial, perhaps, in the future.  Without the argument of ‘free speech’ Doc Evatt would most certainly have failed in his defence of the liberal rights of Australian Communists.

In Australia we face similar dilemmas.  Andrew Bolt’s comments about indigenous Australians were hurtful, offensive and I believe they were cynical. Indigenous identity is about more that the colour of ones’ skin.  And preferential assistance through Abstudy, for instance, is intended to ‘close the gap’ when it comes to educational opportunity. Arguably ‘Closing the Gap’ needs to be a core aspect in a future Treaty.

Though Justice Bromburg, who decided on the Bolt case, insisted that he was not banning Bolt from sincerely debating the issue of indigenous identity.  And Bolt-critic Chelsea Bond argued that Bolt was not actually a racist.  Yet Bond argues that Bolt’s approach: “reveals his own anxiety toward the dilution of the 'coloniser's' identity, power and privilege.”   Bolt was exploiting these anxieties for cultural and political gain; and to this author therefore his endeavours were cynical in nature. 

There are important arguments here – for instance the need for a cultural settlement which reconciles the plurality of Australian identities – including that of pre-multi-cultural and Anglo identity and culture – as a means of ‘heading-off’ grievances, far-right organisation and irrational conflicts into the future.  (Although there never was a ‘mono-cultural’ Australia; and a past-world of Anglo/Irish tension is forgotten now by many)  Rejection of an ‘older’ Australian identity could drive many into the arms of the Reaction.

But should Bolt’s cynical comments have literally been BANNED? Certainly Bolt himself appears intolerant of any place for radical progressive speech in this country. His depiction of the ABC as a mouthpiece of the Left plays up to a now familiar Right-discourse around supposed Left-cultural-elites’ versus ‘the ordinary people’ – ‘the masses’.  This perspective was developed by Constitutional Monarchist and Conservative David Flint.  It is intended to remove any and almost all space available for the ‘genuine Left’ to be heard.   The ABC appears to feel it needs to prove ‘it is not radical’.  And at the same time the ABC increasingly leans towards ‘Centrist’ and ‘Centre-Right’ commentary.

This discourse on ‘Elites’ is deployed in order to play to cultural anxieties; while at the same time downplaying the class interests of the great majority of working people, as well as the marginal and the working poor.  American author Joe Bageant has compellingly written in his “Deer Hunting with Jesus” book how in the United States how ‘the white working poor’ are increasingly propagandised by right-wing Ideology; and how this process is inflamed by ‘class based putdowns’.  (indeed: we could also raise such language such as ‘white trash’ – which at once vilify on the basis of class AND race)  American liberalism’s de-prioritisation of social class as an unifying issue inflames the problem further; and the Labor Party in Australia might be seen as falling into a similar trap. 

The answer is not to ban conservative speech. Though perhaps there are exceptions such as Holocaust Denial – which could lead to ‘a culture of forgetting’ – and in the long term even a rehabilitation of fascism. (or even fascism’s worst historical manifestation, Nazism)  But every time we make an exception to free speech and weaken its absolute nature we potentially provide our enemies the very weapons that could be turned against us into the future.   Also – while perhaps an impossible ideal, Jurgen Habermas’s ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ is such an ideal as to be worth questing after in many respects.  Along with pluralism and acceptance of mediated conflict engagement is also a potentially core-foundation for liberal democracy. 

The problem is that on the Left we simply do not have the resources to be heard and considered alongside the cacophony of right-wing viewpoints.  So we are far from a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’.  Censorship is not the answer;  but the articulation of a broad new historic bloc is.  What is needed is a united front against domination and injustice.  That is to mobilise the necessary resources to bring about what Austrian Social Democrats once called ‘growth from within’ – but on a broader basis -  amidst disciplined solidarity.  There is scope for ‘asymmetrical cultural struggle’ with the rise of the internet.  But also a need to promote REAL pluralism via public and community media; involving an inclusive exchange across the entire spectrum – save for the far right.  The same inclusive pluralism must guide reform of school curricula also.

But none of this demands the silencing of Andrew Bolt.  Rights might not be absolute – especially in the midst of extreme circumstances.  But we all have a duty to avoid the escalation of civil conflict to the point where brute repression and Terror become reality. We can challenge Andrew Bolt without banning his speech.  And we can show solidarity with Charlie Hedbo by confronting the associated issues openly and open-mindedly – but avoid an escalation of rhetoric which would only polarise our society along religious and ethnic grounds.  And we must learn the lessons of past interventions – for instance in Iraq – which created the conditions for the war in Syria, and also the rise of the Islamic State movement.

Finally – without supressing speech – a discourse on ‘responsible’ speech should aim to avoid language of extreme escalation and polarisation on the grounds of religion or race. 

We must be uncompromising in defending rights of speech, assembly, association, conscience, as well as other liberties. (eg: industrial liberties)  The mass rallies in France and Australia demonstrate that Charlie Hedbo is now far from alone: Hundreds of thousands have mobilised to support free speech; and to reject intimidation through Terror.

But ideally freedom should be balanced with honest self-criticism. This may seem to go ‘against the spirit’ of Charlie Hedbo.   But it might be a precondition for the engagement which could promote long-term harmony between religion and liberal rights in this country.