Jordan Peterson Gets it Wrong Again on Inequality

above:  Jordan Peterson ; simplistic arguments on socialism

Dr Tristan Ewins

Jordan Peterson has made another intervention ; arguing against ‘equity politics’ as opposed to what passes for ‘equality of opportunity’ in Western societies. For his own purposes he defines ‘equality’ as ‘equality under the law’ and ‘meritocracy’ as far as it has progressed in Western society.  (we could also add free, universal and equal suffrage ; amongst whose most early ardent advocates were socialists)

By contrast ‘equity’ is argued as inferring ‘equality of outcome'.  (for some the goal is even role reversal)  

Because the main focus on the Left these days appears to be gender, Peterson focuses on gender also.  Along the way he makes some interesting points. (and also some shallow, Conservative assertions)   

Amongst the “interesting” points:

• Only a tiny proportion of men actually occupy positions in the ‘ruling class'

• Corporate Affirmative Action in Sweden has had almost no impact on the prospects and lives of working class women. 

• ·     ‘Equity’ can be interpreted as ‘sameness’: but men and women may not freely choose to be ‘the same’ if given the choice.

• ·        Some women accept a ‘trade off’ of free time for lower incomes ; and that is an acceptable choice.

• ·        Further ; providing OPPORTUNITY doesn’t mean women will  take those opportunities ; and old patterns in the labour market may be replicated here and there even after significant efforts to ‘open the way’.  (eg: Peterson mentions Mathematicians, Engineers, Physicists)

• ‘Sameness’ is not the same as ‘equality’ or ‘justice’. 

But in response: it is legitimate to break down barriers to women’s (and men’s) participation in non-traditional realms ; without creating new stereotypes, disincentives and barriers for either sex.

Peterson argues that “the Equity Doctrine” “has gone too far”. He seems to assume that ‘Western meritocracy’ is the best system ; with (in fact extreme) inequality as functional to the creation of prosperity.

But many Socialists themselves have assumed ‘perfect equality’ is unachievable and undesirable, even under socialism.  Social Democratic Marxists Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein variously made that point that for the foreseeable future there would remain differences of remuneration based on skill, effort, and the undesirable and unpleasant nature of some labour.

Whatever you think of ‘communism in practice’  the ultimate (theoretical) ‘communist goal’ assumes free and non-alienated labour ; where there is abundance ; and labour has become ‘life’s prime want’ ; and diverse and fulfilling in nature.  This principle can inform policy today ; but without true abundance it cannot be fully realised. 

There are other questions as well.  Such as ‘co-ercive laws of competition’ as they apply not only to enterprises, but also to nation-states.  (competition can drive less desirable labour and social conditions) And resultant economic forces mitigate against the retreat of alienating human labour.  

Further, the welfare state itself demands an economic base ; and as the Swedes showed , this was best supported by policies ensuring full employment.
   

In practical terms, though,  those socialist principles can be furthered through educational, social and cultural opportunity ; voluntary job rotation ; a reduced working week and opportunities for fulfilling voluntary labour.  And the viability of which can be supported by a strong social wage, and regime of social insurance.

Peterson argues “the Left can go too far” ; and he mentions the Soviets ; Maoists ; the Khmer Rouge, Cuba and today’s Venezuela.  What this has to do with the feminism he discusses (which seems to be his central focus) is lost on this writer.  Also missing in this grandiose dismissal is any consideration of ‘capitalist atrocities’. Wars such as World War One with tens of millions killed; the massacres of over half a million in Indonesia in the 1960s ; and over 300,000 in Guatemala in the 1980s.

To that we could add atrocities and oppression elsewhere in Central and South America.  And the War in Vietnam ; which spilled over into the US bombing of Cambodia and Laos ; destabilising Cambodia with the consequent rise of the Khmer Rouge. 

And indeed while the current Venezuelan Government is not ideal, its developing inclination to repression is informed by foreign intervention and destabilisation, including sanctions and direct support for an usurper against the elected government.  Venezuela’s actual policies (support co-operatives ; support for public education, housing and health ; socialise oil profits) are not at all ‘extreme’ in the ‘wide sweep’ of history.  Venezuela’s future must be decided by the Venezuelans (UN involvement in elections may be acceptable)  ; and not by US intervention.

But the real problem with Peterson, here, is that any robust democratic socialist program is associated with ‘the Left going too far’ ; and hence rejected out of hand.  Peterson assumes an essential link between socialism and totalitarianism which does not stand up in the face of various other examples ; such as the Austro-Marxist experience between 1917 and 1934.

The connection Peterson tries to draw between the ‘equity politics’ he discusses – and Stalinism – is also threadbare.

To conclude ; some ‘equity’ policies – such as quotas applied to representative government – may be workable and desirable ; but too cumbersome to introduce to every sector of society.  And it begs the question why we are not considering the place of social class in all of this.  Which is the main factor in discrepancies of economic and political power.

Also, the most efficient correctives for inequality may well go beyond quotas.  For instance ; Subsidies for ‘feminised’ sectors such as Aged Care and Child Care which typically involve exploitation.  Or comprehensive universal and socialised health care.  A regulated labour market and industrial liberties.  A fully funded and first class public education system, including free Tertiary education. And the opening up of ‘education for active and critical citizenship’ to everyone ; including a balanced consideration of the entire political spectrum, and the promotion of political activism for a healthy democracy.

Again as Sweden demonstrated during its ‘golden age’ : a strong and comprehensive welfare state, social wage, social insurance regime – can provide for real social security and happiness.  And that social security also makes it easier for industries to modernise ; with transitions ‘softened’ by re-education and training ; and by active industry policies which seek to maintain full employment ; and create new jobs for displaced workers. (where possible making the most of existing skills sets.)

Peterson tries to construct some simplistic opposition between “equal opportunity/meritocracy” and “equity/equality of outcome”. 

In fact there is a ‘democratic socialist middle ground’ here. 

Meritocracy and equal opportunity are often myth-like.  Schools are not equally-resourced.  Class often dictates educational opportunity.  Gross inequality results in a ‘capitalist aristocracy’ dominated by billionaires – who have political access and influence ordinary citizens can barely dream of.   The heights of power in the US particularly are influenced by nepotism and private fund-raising. (by capitalists)

Meanwhile, in the US especially a ‘middle class’ is constructed as a political support base ; but even these could be rendered destitute through unanticipated health expenses where there is not sufficient health insurance.  

The postulated ‘middle class’ (much of which is working class in fact) is ‘disciplined’ through fear of descent into the working poor  (Walmart pays $11/hour and that is a big improvement on the past ; the federal minimum wage in the U.S. [is] $7.25 ) ; and the working poor are ‘disciplined’ through fear of descent into utter destitution.

Further ; to provide a more ‘global’ perspective: In early 2019, Oxfam claimed that the World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%. 

With appropriate social wage, welfare and social insurance policies ; as well as labour market liberties and regulation ; and a genuinely and strongly progressive tax system ; it is possible to have much greater equality without resort to ‘extremes’.  The establishment of a robust mixed economy, and support for co-operative enterprise ought not be rendered ‘marginal’ either ; and the Mondragon experience in Spain is instructive.  It is also arguable that such combined policies can be more effective than cumbersome quotas applied to every aspect and corner of society. Though in certain instances gender quotas have proved very effective ; for instance in promoting women’s representation in Australia’s Parliamentary Labor Party.

In short ; Peterson tries to construct an opposition between ‘equality of opportunity/meritocracy’ and ‘equity/equality of outcome’.   He ignores any potential ‘democratic socialist middle ground’; and he virtually ignores the aspect of social class which is fundamental to economic inequality ; and crosses lines of gender, race, ethnicity and so on.  His resort to examples of Stalinism and Maoism is shallow and simplistic. It is true that parts of today’s Left deter internal dissent through the threat of ostracism ; and sometimes it is taken too far.  But with regard the ‘democratic Left’, Peterson’s references to Stalinism and Maoism would appeal only to the easily convinced and Ideologically prejudiced.

Here’s to genuine equality of  opportunity ; and to such a degree of economic equality that would put paid to the ‘the capitalist aristocracy’ ;  lift working people up from exploitation and poverty ; and empower ordinary citizens in democracy.

Bibliography

fbclid=IwAR1cZHuBxXZvYFSTO17Vy7h3LxSJ_j-H3YI33K3xuzGqnH3XeI8-kYAixhU

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/walmart-ceo-federal-minimum-wage-is-lagging-congress-should-act.html

https://medium.com/@jordanbpeterson/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far-e36c216b3564?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report

Is it OK for a man to disagree with specific claims of some Feminists?

nb:  re: the above ; To be accurate the are many interpretations of feminism just as there are many interpretations of socialism ;  But I would like to think a feminism which sees equality and mutual respect as its aim will prevail ;  I don't intend to write about gender all the time ; But I've been thinking on these issues for a while and would appreciate some respectful discussion

Dr Tristan Ewins

If feminism was defined today as the pursuit of equality in the home, in public life, in sport, in popular culture, and in the labour market then personally I would undoubtedly support feminism.  (and in so far as this is true, I DO support feminism) In addition to that I would agree that going back millennia most societies have involved an exploitative mode of production (currently it is manifest with capitalism) ; but that nested within this (or maybe intersecting with that) there was also a regime of patriarchy. Where women were seen as ‘the second sex’ ; treated at times as property ; restricted in their aspirations ; socialised to be ‘submissive’,  and more recently ‘disciplined’ under capitalism by the separation of the labour market from unpaid domestic labour ; and with the exploitation of that domestic labour.  (ie: as part of the sexual division of labour) I would also agree that men benefited from that gender regime at various levels.

Arguably we’re in the midst of a feminist revolution across the ‘Western’ world. This is reflected in popular culture with a plethora of strong women characters in everything from Star Wars to DC Comics inspired TV series.  The ‘Male Gaze’ is also increasingly challenged with the representation of women’s perspectives. Affirmative action is challenging male ascendancy in public life – with systems of quotas and growing acceptance of women in high office.  Also there is growing popular impatience with the failure of Conservative parties to ‘come into the 21^st century’ with regard the promotion of talented women.  In Australia women are making inroads into sports traditionally seen as male dominated. Australian Rules, Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and so on.  Corporate Australia is not ‘catching up’ ; but in any case we should be more interested with how ordinary women and men lead their lives than with the ambitions of ‘the one per cent’ – regardless of whether we are talking of women or men.

With regard this ‘forward march’ I am overwhelmingly sympathetic.  But as with most revolutions there are sometimes elements which take things too far.  The goal of liberation sometimes gets mixed up with desire for revenge, or to turn the old arrangements on their head.  Or just to gain an advantage. 

What do I mean specifically?   I’ll provide a number of examples , and hope readers will bear with me. 

Firstly ; sometimes analytical concepts are applied inappropriately to silence political rivals.  The term ‘man-splaining’ has been widely popularised, and refers to the tendency amongst some men to ‘condescend’ to women on account of their gender.  This is a genuine problem. But the term can also be misdirected so that in any debate a man disagreeing with a woman might be labelled in this way ; and not merely silenced, but judged harshly at a moral level as well.  And what if on a specific occasion a man is well-informed in that context? The consequence is sometimes men becoming relatively passive in the face of the threat of moral judgement and the stigma that goes with it.  This is not a ‘general problem with feminism’.  It is just to say there is the temptation for some to misuse such concepts for short-term or tactical advantage.   Although there are probably some (by no means all) feminists who would like to reconstruct masculinity in a way which is subordinate ; for those concerned with equality there is  still the imperative of rolling back the institutions of ‘structural’ economic and cultural gender disadvantage.  This is still overwhelmingly a question of women’s liberation from patriarchy. But also there is a concern that long-term we not replace the tyranny of patriarchy with a different kind of tyranny.  Where men know they cannot get away with habitually speaking over women, it is good to have that consideration ; But that must translate as mutual consideration.

Also there is sometimes a blurring of the lines as to what comprises abuse or harassment. Increasingly the act of a man looking at a woman where that attention is unwanted is endowed with the gravity of sexual harassment.  In response, most people – men or women – could probably agree that they have received unwanted sexual attention.  Indeed ‘no means no’ ; and persistently staring at a person can cause discomfort.  But ‘where to draw the line?’ ; and ‘what are the power relations’ underscoring this problem?  Men and women are generally attracted to one another, or same-sex-attracted. This is a natural given.  And often they express this (visual) attraction by looking at each other.  Here it is good to have such emotional intelligence to pick up on visual cues (like body language) ; and to try and not cause discomfort.  But this issue intersects with questions of body image, appearance and self-confidence.  Of course many of us enjoy the attention of those we also find attractive ; but tend to discourage attention from those we do not find attractive.  So all this has consequences for those facing social disadvantage  because of dominant perceptions of ‘beauty’ and ‘attractiveness’ ; where some people may feel relaxed expressing sexual attraction ; but others may retreat into themselves ; and avoid demonstrating attraction for others.  It is compounded by unreal body image expectations ; and it is contestable that increasingly expectations for men are the most unrealistic.  (mesomorphic, muscular, athletic, ‘six pack’ and so on)   The question is: How do we provide the right social cues without emotionally crushing a person who is attracted to us ; but who we are not attracted to in return?    Here we must again be careful not to have double standards.  ‘Power’ can be subtle ; and it is not just a ‘uni-directional’ question of male dominance and privilege.  Finally, to have such a broad definition of sexual harassment probably distracts from the gravity of more serious harassment. Hence when measuring the prevalence of that kind of behaviour we need a transparent methodology.

Continuing ; while Affirmative Action is justified in order to challenge ‘ground in exclusion of women’ in public life, what should be contested is the specific model of affirmative action ,  and how far it seeks to go. If affirmative action seeks a ‘minimum 50 per cent’ women’s representation that could turn into a fixed structural advantage. To be fair, therefore, a ‘40/40/20’ model is probably more realistically accommodating.  Also perhaps it makes more sense to reserve specific seats for women so as to reach the 40/40/20 target.  This is better than to have Affirmative Action leading to a situation where a person gaining a majority does not get the job ; and therefore where voters in democratic organisations do not get the policies which they voted for.  Here democracy should be the ascendant regime. But there is even the danger of affirmative action sometimes being manipulated so as to ‘bypass’ the principle of modern democracy – where one person equals one vote.  Reserved seats for women would over-come this problem while also promoting equality in public life.

It is also interesting to observe that gender tends to be privileged, here, over, say, disability, body type, social class, cultural identity and so on.  As the feminist revolution consolidates there is the question of whether it will satisfy itself with women’s liberation.  Or will it only be satisfied with turning patriarchy on its head?  To expand: Class relations can (at least theoretically) be abolished under a regime of mutual liberation.  Theoretically capitalists can cease to be AS CAPITALISTS ; that is following some theoretical expropriation ; with the abolition of the social relation of capital to labour.  The social relation can be undone without destroying the people concerned as human beings.  But ‘men are men’ (biologically AND according to social-construction) , and any settlement needs to take account of that.  We can get rid of patriarchal social relations but the question of men’s social position and the construction of 'masculinity' will remain.  Equality, mutual consideration, mutual respect – needs to be the aim.

Also, will the feminist revolution be the prelude to a much broader liberation struggle? Or will its proponents be satisfied once they have achieved their own distinct ends?   The allies of women’s liberation should be agitating at this point to broaden the struggle on a multitude of fronts.  The privilege, dominance and power of the capitalist class is ‘the hardest nut to crack’ ; but must be prioritised ; not left in ‘the too-hard basket’.

In some areas there is even arising the scenario of systemic male disadvantage. For instance when it comes to participation levels of men in higher education, and the performance of boys in secondary education. Were it the other way around there would be no patience for this.  But instead there is the spectre of a new ‘gender essentialism’.   There is always the old argument of ‘nature versus nurture’.  And where as I have tended to see nurture as the dominant influence, there is the problem of explaining falling male academic performance.  I struggle with this philosophically. Also, I disagree fundamentally with Education Commentator Kevin Donnelly when it comes to his Ideology, and with his prescriptions for ‘educational reform’ ; but the figures regarding boy’s educational performance speak for themselves.  This needs to be taken seriously as a social problem ; as a site of structural inequality.

Finally: what about ‘men’s rights’?  Mostly on the Left we would summarily dismiss ‘men’s rights’. After all – MRAs are all misogynists, right?  But just consider what’s going on here for a second.  The proposition that men have rights as men is also being rendered marginal by this characterisation of an extreme and hateful social movement.  But 30 years ago people were saying the same kind of thing about feminism.  There may be ‘really-existing’ men’s rights activists who are truly appalling human beings. Who want to ‘turn the clock back’ – and worse.  But what we should not be doing is invalidating the notion that ‘men have rights as men’ just as ‘women have rights as women’ ; but even more so – human beings have rights as human beings.   We have to be open to the notion that a ‘men’s rights’ movement is possible which is an ally – and not the enemy – of a feminism which seeks liberation, and equality in public life, sport, the labour market, the home, popular culture and so on.  A men’s rights movement is possible – which seeks mutual liberation and mutual respect.  But individuals in such a movement may have occasional disagreements or reservations with specific expressions of feminism.  (Such as I have raised here) That does not deserve to be lumped in the same basket with the proponents of gender hate and revenge – as exemplified by the MRAs we always hear about.  And people of a broadly sympathetic kind of thinking (towards feminism), but potentially with specific differences, do not deserve to be vilified.

I hope readers will take the concerns I raise here seriously.  As a person sympathetic towards Feminism ; but who has some differences with some of its specific expressions.  It is well for women to continue making gains: in popular culture, public life, work, sport and in the home.  But let’s be guided by principles of mutual consideration and respect as this transition continues.

Freedom and Mutual Respect: Progressive Letters for October 2016

above:  The Herald-Sun commonly questions the right to protest , but doesn't question its own assumptions re: the availability of work , or the right to refuse exploitative employment


The following are a series of progressive letters sent to 'The Age', 'The Herald Sun' and 'The Australian' during October 2016.  The clear majority were not published.  But I am hoping they spark debate here.  

Topics include:

'Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation'

'A congestion tax for Melbourne?' 

'In a similar vein:  Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure'

'Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom'

'Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege'

'Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration' 

'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'

'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed'

 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation

Jeremy Francis (3/10) observes the benefits of globalisation ; criticising the double standards of Conservatives . He compares free trade with the defence of “strong borders” ; limiting the free movement of people – punishing and indeed criminalising refugees. But globalisation is too complex and multi-faceted for progressives to simply be ‘for’ or ‘against’ it.  Cultural exchange and engagement is arguably a good thing ; enriching cultures and acting as a check on abuse of power by particular nation states.  But the ‘inverse side’ of globalisation is the ‘free movement of capital’ .  Agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are deployed to break down all barriers which would prevent the exploitation of every potential market by the transnational corporations.  This kind of ‘free movement of capital’ disciplines labour, compelling states to provide corporate welfare.  It also acts as a barrier to ‘natural public monopolies’ in diverse areas including water, energy, communications and so on.  Yet such natural public monopolies could drive efficiencies and fairness in the Australian (and other) economies.   The TPP might  also arguably prevent ‘market-distorting’ economic democracy policies such as state support for co-operative enterprise. (nb: that is a criticism of the TPP not an endorsement) Again: Globalisation is just too complex to simply be ‘for’ or ‘against’ it.

A Congestion Tax for Melbourne?

Daniel Andrews and the Liberals as well have quickly ruled out any congestion tax. (in the state of Victoria in Australia)  But there are things we should keep in mind. Taxes have been falling and becoming less progressive for some time.  The Conservatives especially wear that as ‘a badge of honour’.  Before the most recent ALP National Conference Labor also considered holding taxes down as non –negotiable.  But if we don’t provide infrastructure and services through progressive taxes (which tax target the wealthy more) – then we must pay in other ways.  A ‘congestion tax’ is not especially progressive ; but would at least promote the use of public transport , taking pressure from our roads.  Also experience has shown infrastructure privatisation (eg: of roads) can actually stymie possible competition – as governments guarantee profits – shutting down alternatives while consumers pay.  Privatised ‘cost structures’ also include dividends and corporate salaries.  As a matter of fact consumers get a much better deal paying for infrastructure in their capacity as taxpayers than they ever will as atomised consumers in a ‘market’ which involves nepotism and monopolism.  And progressively structured tax can ensure ‘a fair go’ for all.

 In a similar vein:  Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure

Tom Elliot (HS 7/10) takes aim at immigration to explain the failure of infrastructure and services to keep up with population. There is an element of truth that there are logistical limits to how swiftly migration can proceed without running into such problems.  But there’s another side to this.  Cumulative migration creates ‘economies of scale’ in areas like the public service and Defence.  That is: it becomes possible to finance these for a proportionately smaller amount of resources.  The most significant problem we have with infrastructure is that the tax take has been cut unsustainably by Liberal and Labor governments alike for over 30 years.  (though Labor might be beginning to realise things must change) This situation means ‘corporate and middle/upper class welfare’ which average workers and vulnerable pensioners are now expected to pay for. Limited resources and Ideological opposition to debt financing (even when interest rates are so low!) also means roads, communications infrastructure etc are privatised. Consumers end up forking out more for their services and infrastructure because they must pay for marketing, executive salaries, profits and dividends – that go with privatisation. Taxes need to rise – but they must rise fairly.  Increasing the GST is not the answer.


Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom

With regard to Rita Panahi’s recent Op-Ed in the Herald-Sun ‘Students who Refuse to Learn Tolerance’  (10/10/16) there are a number of observations to be made.  Personally I am sympathetic to some of the ideas of the radical Leftist democrat, Chantal Mouffe- who has argued that: 

“within the ‘we’ that constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate.”

Mouffe justifies this on the basis that pluralism (a genuine variety of viewpoints) is necessary for democracy to function effectively.  And that we ought respect each other as human beings. 

How refreshing this is in light of the brutality that passes for modern politics. (which are often ‘the politics of personal destruction’)

Democracy demands informed choice. The problem, though, is that much of the monopoly mass media in this country does not promote ‘a level playing field of ideas’ , or ‘tolerance’ of perspectives that diverge from dominant right-wing narratives.  Concentration of ownership doesn’t help.  If we are to argue for a stronger (and inclusive) pluralism in our universities – we must apply the same principles to the broader ‘public sphere’.

(nb: though the narrative of 'left elites in universities' is dubious anyway - when you consider the hegemony of neo-liberal perspectives in Economics faculties for example ; and attacks on the Humanities and Social Sciences)

References – see: http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/

 

 

above: 'body shaming', and body image expectations increasingly affect both women and men....

 

 

Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege 

‘The Australian’ (14/10) reports school curricula content which emphasises ‘male privilege’ with a tone of apparent concern.  But promoting a debate on different forms of privilege in our society ought not be a worry if only the curricula is rigorous and inclusive of critical perspectives.  For instance, the most advanced forms of what is referred to as ‘intersectionality’ theory emphasise the influence of class, gender, sexuality, body image, age, ‘race’,  disability, ethnicity, religion – where individuals experience disadvantage or privilege to different degrees on the basis of individual and particular circumstances.  So a ‘white male’ who comes from a background of socio-economic disadvantage – who does not comprise the ‘ideal’ male body type promoted in popular culture ; who does not enjoy the opportunity for higher education – may be less privileged than a woman who is educated, economically comfortable, and attractive according to popular standards.  But definitely, there is a long history of male dominance of the public sphere and  sport ; devaluation of ‘feminised’ professions ; exploitation of women in the home ; and so on.  (which needs to be challenged) We need ‘critical/active’ curricula which encourage ‘political literacy’ ; informed and active citizenship ; on the basis of a robust, far-reaching and inclusive pluralism.

 Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration

The Herald-Sun reports that women are “victims of sexual attention” (16/10/16). A couple of points are important, here, though.  Firstly, ‘objectification’ increasingly affects men, also.  And men are also increasingly victims of unrealistic physical expectations around body image.  Secondly, we need to be careful we don’t portray male sexuality as ‘essentially bad’.  It is natural for people to feel and express attraction for each other. The question is ‘where to draw the line’ so as to be considerate and respectful as well.  And that cuts across gender lines.   It includes how women and men approach each other when they are sexually interested.  It also includes how we reject a person’s advances if we are not interested.  (ie: kindly and respectfully if possible)   There are also power relations based on physical expectations and body image which cut across gender lines. The question ought be: “how would I like to be treated were I in the other person’s shoes?”

 Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'

The Herald-Sun (16/10/16)  reports that welfare-dependency figures are “shocking”.  But Disability pensioners, Carers and the Unemployed should not be ‘shamed’.  Carers save the public hundreds of millions of dollars by providing care and support for pittance that otherwise would cost the state a fortune. If we do not value their work just because it is not part of the ‘market sector’ then that itself says something  disturbing about our priorities.  Meanwhile those with a mental illness – who are commonly looked upon as ‘not-really-disabled’ can expect a reduced life-expectancy of 16 years – or 25 years for those with Schizophrenia. Who would ‘choose’ to be in that position?  Finally, research shows there are roughly five job-seekers for every position.  Were the government serious it would develop an industry policy to create real long term jobs – matched to peoples skills. (as some Nordic countries have tried)  Instead it tolerates an unemployment rate of around 6 per cent (much more if you include those who have given up the search) , and also ‘massive under-employment’ for people looking for full-time, secure work.  Because ‘Ideologically’ it cannot bring itself to support ‘economic intervention’.

References:  http://theconversation.com/when-job-seekers-outnumber-jobs-5-to-1-punitive-policy-is-harmful-28839

https://www.laborherald.com.au/health/more-action-fewer-words-needed-on-mental-health/

http://evatt.org.au/papers/northern-lights.html

 

Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed

The Herald-Sun (19/10/16)  proclaims on its front page:“70% of arrested meth users supported by your taxes” and also: “Dole Blown on Ice.”  While the apparent connection between Ice addiction and crime is alarming, the headline was irresponsible for several reasons.   Firstly, for those who don’t read the article thoroughly there may be the utterly false assumption that most Newstart recipients are ice addicts. In fact there is no proof of anything like this.  .Secondly: ice addicts need help overcoming their addiction. Yes there must be compulsory rehabilitation programs. But a purely punitive approach could lead to a downward spiral of desperation and crime.  It seems more than an accident that the headline coincides  with the Liberal Government’s attempt to wind back benefits such as Newstart, the Disability Support Pension, the Carers’ Allowance, and so on.  To ‘make room’ in the Budget to accommodate corporate tax cuts.  And hence to demonise and vilify these people.

Defending the Left on so-called Political Correctness

Shutting down debate can create a cultural pressure cooker, something which critics of Australian universities dismiss with their glib references to ‘left wing political correctness’, writes Dr Tristan Ewins.

 
It has become commonplace for conservative commentators to make the accusation that our universities are enthralled to ‘left wing political correctness’ and ‘Marxism’.  But the narrative of political correctness itself can be deployed to shut down debate; such as in right-wing circles where there was once the common dismissal of the Left as promoting a mentality of ‘save the gay whales’. In other words, there existed an insensitive mentality which dismissed the rights and experiences of those of non-heterosexual orientation as nothing but political correctness.

On the Right particularly, there has also developed a narrative around so-called Left elites who enforce political correctness, and who are out of touch with mainstream Australia. Some Left narratives are far from the thinking of mainstream Australia on some issues, although one must not forget that at times in this country’s history, racism, sexism, and contempt towards other minorities was considered mainstream. The shift in this country’s view of minorities and women has occurred only as a consequence of the leadership provided by the Left and Centre-Left.

Specifically, the off-hand dismissal of narratives around the ‘invasion’ of this country can also be seen as reinforcing insensitivity towards indigenous people, and consolidating the kinds of perspectives that reinforced the narrative of terra nullius: the narrative that the continent we live on was unoccupied (or more specifically ‘there was no sovereign state’ before colonisation), legitimising settlement.

On the other hand, the injustices experienced by Indigenous Australia need to be resolved through a process of recognition, reconciliation and compensation. There has to be a point at which the nation moves on together. But this is not really possible, though, without a Treaty process.

“There is demand for critical thinkers.”

Red-baiting and promoting misunderstanding and confusion around Marxism is another common tactic deployed by conservative forces. It is true that an array of repressive regimes identified as Marxist throughout the 20^th century. But it is also true that prior to the rise of Leninism and Stalinism, Marxists were the strongest advocates of free, universal and equal suffrage. (Throughout the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, much of Europe used a weighted suffrage system which granted voting power overwhelmingly on the basis of wealth, entrenching the control of the nobility and bourgeoisie despite an exploding working class vote for the social democratic parties.) Some of the strongest critics of Stalinism and Leninism were other (democratic) Marxists.

Many democratic Marxist narratives retain force, and do not rest on any totalitarian world-view. At the core of Marxism is the desire for a society based on the distributive principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”, as well as the aim of empowering every individual to reach their full potential through immersion in the breadth and depth of human culture: from music, literature and art, to sport, philosophy, economics etc. This is a side of Marxism rarely acknowledged by its critics.

Finally, criticisms around employability miss the mark. The humanities and social sciences have long been condemned by those who opposed a critical society: a society which subjects itself to criticism, and does not take Ideological assumptions for granted. For some people, however, there is a technocratic outlook for which nothing matters except the technical demands of the labour market, and the imperative of maximising GDP. That said, there is demand for critical thinkers who can conduct research and criticism, and can express themselves fluently. Sometimes narratives around employability are more about shutting down criticism and pluralism in our democracy.

“It’s time we rejected right-wing narratives.”

To conclude, it is only fair to concede that sometimes parts of the Left do not tolerate internal dissent around their orthodoxies. And the relationship between parts of the Left and the principle of free-speech has become inconsistent and unclear. Pluralism generally means you engage with your political and intellectual rivals rather than just shutting them down. Shutting down debate can create a cultural pressure cooker, which over the long term builds up resentment. Though for instance when faced with a real and present danger of fascism that may warrant a rethink.

Also modern identity politics often revolves around a series of identities – around gender, sexuality, race etc – which are sometimes promoted in a kind of arbitrary hierarchy rather than through an integrated analysis. At the same time, also, parts (not all) of today’s Left have largely abandoned their traditional narratives around economic justice, economic democracy and equality, effectively distancing themselves from the working class and the working poor.

The problem is not so much with the critique of socially-constructed identity so much as it is with the method of an arbitrary hierarchy, and the abandonment of older Left narratives on the struggle for equality, and on the failings of capitalism. Here, though, the commonly-deployed term cultural Marxism is absurd for anyone who has an understanding. It was economics which was at the core of the old Marxist orthodoxy.

It’s time we rejected right-wing narratives around so-called political correctness. Ironically these very narratives shut down debate. They promote exactly the same kind of distortion and intolerance that so-called Left elites are accused of engaging in by the conservative Right.

Observations in the wake of the Rudd Restoration

Above: Gillard Leaves an Important Legacy and Lessons for Labor... 

Tristan Ewins

i) A Retrospective on the  Gillard Leadership

Much is to be treasured from the Gillard Leadership: and Rudd’s motives more complex than recognised by some Feminist critics

Recently I read an article claiming that the core issue behind Julia Gillard’s loss of the Labor leadership was a ‘boy’s club mentality’; that is put simply: patriarchy re-asserting itself…  (See:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148541/The-boys-club-always-wins-in-politics-Julia-Gillard-is-the-latest-victim.html )

I think, though, that things are more complex than the author of that article acknowledges. I agree that Rudd took advantage of the ‘blue tie factor’ in response to the Gillard speech. Responding to male resentment following Gillard’s recent speech on the threat to women’s participation in public life, it was a clever ploy – underscoring impressions Gillard was being divisive, and appealing to a mass male demographic which felt threatened by Gillard’s stand.  I agree this was a form of destabilization – and even if effective, it was the [ethically] wrong ‘symbolic tactic’. And I agree there have been men – powerful right-wing men – who have subjected Gillard to constant mockery in order to weaken her authority and credibility – and sometimes in the most debased and sexist form.   And that sexism still comprises a problem in parts of the broader electorate as well.

But this was also personal vindication for Rudd in a way that goes way beyond gender… If Rudd had been ‘done in’ by another man his bitterness was have been just as palpable. Arguably, there was also bitterness in the 'Rudd camp' because it appears Rudd as PM was removed at the behest of Australia’s powerful mining industry – after he had attempted to introduce a Mining Super Profits Tax to spread the benefits of our mining boom… As I’ve said before – both ‘camps’ in Labor tried to set a precedent.  Each side attempted a ‘political scorched earth’ strategy against the other – and that only escalated the division and crisis. That an accommodation and reconciliation was not achieved earlier led us to this point – with the caucus elevating Rudd as their ‘only hope’ due to his consistent ascendancy in the polls.

Importantly – the monopoly mass media in this country (largely controlled by Rinehart, Murdoch etc) exploited the internal conflict to destabilise the ALP.  But now that Rudd has returned he is enjoying a ‘honeymoon’ courtesy of previous ‘oxygen’ he was provided by that very media establishment… But will the media continue to ‘give Labor a fair go’ now?  Some are talking of Rudd reforming the compromise mining tax we ended up with – But what chance of this with Rinehart dominating the traditionally (and still relatively) liberal Fairfax media assets?

IN the final analysis, though, Gillard deserves credit for pursuing education reform, implementing disability insurance, promoting a better deal for low paid workers (mainly women) in the community services sector and elsewhere, and improving diplomatic relations with China. Though there were bad policies too: Sole Parent Pensions reduced; Disability Pension eligibility narrowed etc… Recognition of all this is part of the answer for future healing in the ALP – for the same reason that the former Labor leaderships’ past attempts to ‘airbrush’ the Rudd governmentt’s prior achievements only escalated and deepened the internal conflict… And in any case Gillard DESERVES recognition for her policy achievements under the most difficult circumstances of minority government…

Here’s hoping Labor now has a chance of fending off the prospect of an Abbott Liberal Government – which could be the most right-wing government we have had in decades should it come to pass…

ii)  Conclusions: Last Chance for Rudd Policy Fixes as the Election Draws Near

above: Policy leadership necessary for Rudd now as the Election grows near

Superannuation Concessions Reform to pay for ETS reversions: and Tax Breaks to pay for wage cuts flowing from Superannuation Increases

To go early? Or go later and maybe reconvene parliament?

I believe it would just be good for Rudd to "get some reforms under his belt" before the election if possible; including restructuring the tax and spending mix in such a way as to pre-empt Abbott... (For example: if we remove superannuation concessions from the wealthy and the upper middle class to pay for winding back the carbon tax to an ETS...)  If we don't do this and Abbott wins - he can use fiscal pressures as a rationale to wind back social expenditure and welfare. So if possible we should get the reforms in place while taking away the Abbott excuse/rationale for austerity. Getting 'reforms under his belt' could also give Rudd more credibility - a concrete indicator of the direction he intends to take Labor should he win the election.

Not to mention we should have an interest in distributive justice for low and middle income Australia regardless of pragmatics. In 2012 Dr Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute argued that removing superannuation concessions from the top 5% would save over $10 billion.   (See: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3568235.htm )

Meanwhile, today that figure would be significantly higher: and targeting the top 10% demographic would presumably bring in much more.  

So not only could this money pay for an early reversion to an ETS. (which is a very regrettable political imperative)  The removal of subsidies/concessions for the wealthy and upper middle class could pay for an expansion of the Clean Energy Fund. And it could also pay for improved welfare - and make room for tax cuts for low income groups to overcome the effect of the increase to 12% superannuation contributions for these already-struggling families.   

To clarify on superannuation: veteran Fairfax journalist Ken Davidson made the point in 2010 that those on low incomes cannot afford to lose disposable income.  And he has pointed out that the extra employer contributions will largely be ‘swallowed up’ as bosses hold back on wage increases.  (see: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/super-rise-no-blessing-for-workers-20100516-v6az.html )

Davidson is right that today the superannuation industry comprises a private pension system – where risk is privatised – and within a highly inegalitarian framework.  While the Aged Pension was once a great leveler – in the future retirement income will be greatly stratified and effectively discriminate against women, and low income, part-time and casual workers.  The Aged Pension itself faces potential future marginalisation as a second-class, residual system. 

And as Davidson notes there is growing pressure for governments to privatise their remaining assets by selling them to the superannuation funds.   This is presented as saving governments from the need to invest in future infrastructure. But what would the ultimate consequence be?

There remain potential problems, here, even where those funds are union-controlled.  There is the potential that they may increasingly comprise ‘corporate interests’ – which pursue their own particular interest rather than the general interest. 

As the important socialist thinker Eduard Bernstein pointed out as far back as the 1890s - as the “mistress of a whole branch of production” even unions theoretically have the potential to  become “a monopolist productive association…antagonistic to socialism and democracy…”  Here,  “Associations against the community are as little socialism as the oligarchic government of the state.” (Bernstein; pp 114-119, pp 138-141)    Of course there is a difference between Bernstein’s example here, and that of Australian unions – but the theme of general versus particular interest is the same. (the answer, of course, is natural public monopolies where appropriate)

Referring to the Superannuation Industry,  Ken Davidson wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald in 2012:

“Specifically, the superannuation industry has its eye on existing water, road, rail and port assets, which are largely monopolies with assured income streams. To reveal what is at stake, assume that, as state monopolies, these assets earn 5 per cent on capital for the government and would be expected to earn 10 per cent on capital for private investors… This means that the assets worth $100 billion on the government's books, would only be worth $50 billion to the private operators if the prices for the services remained the same. The government might get $100 billion for the assets if it allowed the new owners to double prices for the services.”  (Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/its-about-time-super-funds-stepped-up-20120729-235y4.html#ixzz2YFLdAnnr )

It is too late to substantially alter Labor’s 12% superannuation promise, and too difficult to sell Davidson’s complex message to the electorate on the eve of the election.   Especially when Labor has been selling this policy unequivocally for so long, and many of our supporters are convinced it is ‘free money’.

But the government has options in creating a more egalitarian system. 

Again this should involve cutting superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class – which could bring in well over $10 billion. (I have no modeling beyond Richard Denniss’s figures ** – but extrapolating from that a minimum of $15 billion seems credible for 2014)  And using some of those proceeds, in addition to paying for an early reversion to an Emissions Trading Scheme, and an increased Clean Energy fund - it must also mean further restructuring of the tax mix.  Further, it should also involve easing of means tests for some partial self-funded retirees.  And what is more, this could involve another real increase in the Aged Pension, and improvements in social wage benefits for pensioners of all kinds. This should include improved cost-of-living subsidies (energy, water), and free or discounted access to the NBN and public transport.  Finally, here, the funds released by superannuation concession reform could be ploughed into infrastructure and completely bypass pressures for privatisation.

Concluding, though, the most industrially strong unions could attempt to hold onto their share (ie: the labour share) of the economic pie – even in the context of increasing superannuation contributions from employers - but also in the hope that this could occur in the context of a squeeze on profits, rather than a squeeze on consumers.  Whether or not this happens also depends on how profitable and how competitive the economic sectors in question are. Competitve sectors with lower profit margins would have little room to move.

The election is far from over; and neither are Labor’s policy options exhausted even at this late point in the electoral cycle.   Let us hope Rudd Labor governs and reforms in the interest of justice and equity for most of what remains of 2013 – and that the consequence is another reforming Labor government.

References:

Allison Pearson from ‘The Telegraph”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148541/The-boys-club-always-wins-in-politics-Julia-Gillard-is-the-latest-victim.html

Bernstein, Eduard  “Evolutionary Socialism”, Shocken Books, NewYork, 1961

Ken Davidson at ‘The Age’ and the SMH::

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/super-rise-no-blessing-for-workers-20100516-v6az.html )

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/its-about-time-super-funds-stepped-up-20120729-235y4.html#ixzz2YFLdAnnr )

** Denniss argues removing superannuation concessions from the top 5% income demographic alone could bring in $10 billion in 2012; For my purposes I am assuming the top 10% should be targeted in the reforms I am suggesting.