(Mostly Unpublished) Letters to the ‘Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’

The following is an array of letters I’ve written in 2019 to ‘The Herald-Sun’ and “The Age’ ; The vast majority were unpublished.   I will keep trying.

Dr Tristan Ewins ; 22/4/19


What’s at Stake in the Election

In the Herald-Sun (14/1/19) Prime Minister, Scott Morrison claims to stand for “A fair go for all Aussies”.  But how does it relate to Liberal policy in-practice? We should build a society where everyone has a roof over their head, access to transport, and a nutritious diet for themselves and their children.  Where no-one is excluded from the technology (especially social media) which is necessary today for job-seeking, but also social inclusion.  A regulated labour market must deliver wage justice to all workers, including in exploited feminised industries.  Cost-of-Living is crucial. No-one should be overwhelmed by the cost of insurance, or various unavoidable bills. Welfare needs to increase in real terms ; with greater incentives and assistance for the disabled to at least retain contact with the labour market where possible.  Education should be provided not only to assist in obtaining a career: but also for personal development and growth ; and the promotion of active and informed citizenship.  Reform of Aged Care is crucial for the dignity of older Australians – but that  requires extra billions annually rather than the ‘token gestures’ we usually receive. The Cost-of-Living Crisis has been exacerbated by ’user pays’ and the privatisation of ‘Natural Public Monopolies’ (eg: in energy, water, communications) which used to deliver superior cost structures both to private consumers and business.  But the Liberals have a record on obsessively pursuing ‘small government’; which means they can never deliver to the Australian people on these issues.  They will cut essential services (eg: Health) in order to hold ‘the size of government’ down ; to pay for unsustainable tax cuts for the well-off; and to suit their Ideology no matter what the real-world consequences.  They will attacks unions: and that could mean further downward pressure on wages and conditions for millions of workers.

Coalition deceitful when it comes to Labor and Taxes

The Herald-Sun (Rob Harris 24/1)  claims that Labor threatens Australians with ‘$200 billion in new taxes’. But this statement is highly misleading. To get in perspective we need to ask: “over how many years?”, and “what per cent of GDP?”  In fact Labor’s  overall tax increase amount to in the vicinity less than 1 per cent of GDP a year.  And those reforms are designed for progressivity – a fair go for those on low and middle incomes.  By comparison, lower and middle income families can expect better health care, better education resourcing for their kids , more affordable housing for young families.  There will also be tax cuts for lower and middle income earners.  Regulatory reform of Aged Care ( as implemented by the Federal Government) is welcome, but the associated problems (abuse or neglect of our loved ones) will not be solved without a very significant commitment of new resources. As with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) : into the billions.  We need a consensus in this country between the parties that the health, aged care and educational needs of Australians are non-negotiable – and will not be traded in return for achieving the Ideological goal of ‘smaller government no matter what’. Labor needs to ‘come to the party’ on Aged Care reform as well.

‘Collective Consumption’ Superior to ‘User Pays’

The Federal Government is pushing the line that ‘small government and lower taxes’ are preferable because it’s better for people to have personal control of their spending. But in fact lower taxes can leave voters much worse off. Where would we be without the tax-funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme – which uses the purchasing power of government to provide cheaper medicines? Where would we be without Medicare? In America the cost of health care is roughly double of Australia ; though arguably we have better outcomes.  Despite a large element of ‘User Pays’, Aged Care is inadequate and cannot be ‘fixed’ without funding for infrastructure, and for the pay and training of Aged Care workers and nurses.  Also, arguably thanks to lower taxes and ‘small government’ governments no longer provide infrastructure such as roads ‘for free’.  The private sector borrows at an inferior rate, and the alternative of ‘toll roads’ can hit those on lower incomes and outer suburbs hardest.  Finally, most Australians would prefer to trust in the state education system ; but knowing the sector is under-resourced many go well beyond their means to provide private schooling for their kids.  It makes sense to ‘get the balance right’ on tax rather than ‘race to the bottom’.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS

What’s Happening in Venezuela

 (Responding on Venezuela in ‘Your Say’)  It is not ‘socialism’ which is destroying Venezuela. Causes of the crisis include external destabilisation and intervention, rampant corruption, hyper-inflation and plummeting oil prices. Although under Hugo Chavez (before Maduro) GDP per head sky-rocketed ; unemployment was slashed ; infant mortality was almost halved and general health also improved markedly. It begs the question what the government might have achieved without the corruption and destabilisation. ‘Socialism’ was not the problem.  And certainly “democratic socialist” governments as epitomised by the Nordic examples do not fit the mould presented by Rita Panahi. Nonetheless, some report repression as being on the rise in Venezuela ; and some people are talking up the prospects of US intervention and/or war.   Though Guaido seems to be free to mobilise and agitate without suppression from the Venezuelan Government. The history of US interventions in Central and South America speaks for itself: with hundreds of thousands killed in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile and Nicaragua.  Venezuela is in ‘an alliance of convenience’ with countries including Iran and Russia: and that also makes it a target for intervention.  But ‘interests’ aside ; the West needs to support the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people. We need a process of power-sharing and compromise leading to a general election some time over the next couple of years.  We do not need war.

Yes, the Nordics were Socialist

Chris Collins (11/1) argues that the Nordic countries have never been “socialist” because  they have not conformed to the original Marxist definition of the centralisation of the means of production in state hands.  In reality, though, there were always a variety of definitions, and even Marxists themselves have revised their understandings.  Socialist aspirations include ending exploitation and the class system ; and reducing inequalities to a fair level. In Marx’s words, to advance the principle  “from each according to ability, to each according to need’.  That includes a strong welfare state and social wage ; involving not only natural public monopolies and strategic state ownership ; but also producers’ and consumers’ co-operatives, democratic funds, and a mix of competition, markets and planning. Socialism also means building an economy focused on ‘use values’. (not just maximising abstract exchange value ; eg: preserving the natural environment)  But we’re in a global economy: which means we have to live with the transnational corporations.  Arguably, we live in a ‘One Dimensional Society’ where substantially different social alternatives are excluded from discussion.  What’s needed is robust pluralism: where socialism is part of the debate ; and hence a genuine option in the broader context of democracy.

Fixing Aged Care is incompatible with Tax Cuts and ‘Small Government’

The Herald-Sun (13/2/19) outlines serious cases of neglect in nursing homes run by Bupa. But as recognised in the same article, there is a more general shortfall in the provision of services as well.  The Aged Care Crisis cannot be resolved without very significant new provision of resources.  ‘Giving with one hand only to take with the other’ is not good enough.  Only billions in new funding will provide for the needs of the Aged: including a sufficient improvement in ratios of nurses to residents, and of aged care workers to residents. Those workers (overwhelmingly women) also deserve improvements in pay in conditions given the demanding nature of their work.   And Home care packages need to be made available where-ever and when-ever the need arises.  These packages need to promote social engagement and combat loneliness as well as enabling aged Australians to remain in their homes. Finally, the quality of facilities needs to improve markedly. Residents need privacy ; but also more to do than being sat down in common rooms in front of television sets all day.  This is not compatible with agendas for 'smaller government'.

Shorten ‘Nudging in the Right Direction’

(Responding to the Herald-Sun Your Say)  Ron Hobba decries what he sees as Bill Shorten’s ‘divisive’ policies on social justice and redistribution.  On the other hand there is a glaring need for more investment in aged care, disability services, health, education, transport and communications infrastructure, and so on.  Pensioners are also struggling, and Newstart is so low as to actually inhibit any search for work.  Governments need to work out the fairest way of paying for services, infrastructure and social security.  Otherwise we will have user pays and privatisation which is more expensive for consumers in the end.  Especially those on low incomes, many of whom work just as hard as those on higher incomes. Also, some tax measures (eg: superannuation  tax concessions) subsidise the already-well-off to the tune of billions and billions.  In this context everyone needs to pay their fair share.  And it’s not fair to give tax generous breaks to the already-wealthy while other Australians’ wages stagnate. If anything, Shorten’s measures are way too modest: but they are ‘nudging in the right direction’.

Is it only Business who ‘create jobs’?

J.Muir (YS, March 28^th) argues it is businesses, not governments who create jobs.  Strictly speaking this is not true.  Government can create jobs in Education, Health, support for Aged Care, public housing, security services, parks and gardens, and all kinds of infrastructure. (communications, transport etc) In the days of ‘the mixed economy’ government businesses actually enhanced competition while also delivering a public dividend.  Think the Commonwealth Bank, the GIO (Government Insurance Office) and so on. Before governments had been stripped of their assets via privatisations - all kinds of social goods and services used to be provided more efficiently as well. Government has a superior rate on its borrowings ; and did not need to pay for excessive CEO salaries, dividends to private shareholders, and so on.  This consensus on ‘the mixed economy’ prevailed even in Menzies’ time.  But today both Liberal and Labor ‘have form’ on privatisation. Though typically the Conservatives go much further. ( eg: privatising ‘poles and wires’ in NSW)  The problem with funding new infrastructure through privatisations is that sooner or later the assets run out.  And what can be done then except further User-Pays ; or more desirably – pay for it through progressive tax?  (as should have been done in the first place)

Bill’s Budget Reply

“Bill Shorten made a strong Budget Reply ; critiquing the largesse the Coalition is providing for high income Australians through tax cuts. And providing little for the working poor and the most vulnerable. Shorten promises a ‘living wage’ ; and perhaps most significantly to provide billions to assist Australians struggling with cancer: to get them the help they need without falling into poverty. On the other hand, Chris Bowen has promised taxes will not rise. Instead the focus is on closing loopholes and eliminating unfair rebates. But for several elections now neither side of politics has paid sufficient attention to Aged Care and Mental Health. While many seniors wait in the vicinity of a two years for ‘stay at home packages’, those in residential care face chronic neglect. There must be a registered nurse available at all times, and there’s a need for quotas when it comes to aged care staff. Even if Shorten raised progressive tax by one per cent of GDP ($17 billion) that would provide very substantial room to move. Tax pays for ‘collective consumption’ and ‘social insurance’ that’s in everyone’s interests. For instance, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Or (hypothetically) Medicare Dental. Nonetheless truly cracking down on corporate tax avoidance could reap billions too. Bill Shorten: please have the courage to harness the resources to ensure the most neglected are neglected no longer.”

What Cuts will Mean under another Liberal Government

John Rolfe (16/4/19) reports “a person making $99,000 this financial year could pay an extra $1440 in tax under Labor in 2022-23 when their earnings would be about $110,000.” (or more)  But the Median wage in Australia is just over $55,000/year.  The people the Liberals are depicting as ‘average workers’ are actually well above the median wage.  And the Liberals have ‘flattened’ the top tax rate: so those on lower incomes are paying the same top tax rate as those on the highest incomes. The Coalition argues Labor are raising taxes, whereas at this point they are just closing costly loopholes which benefit the wealthy.  While those on lower incomes may gain a tiny increase from tax cuts, they would more than pay for that with Health and Education Cuts.  A Liberal Government means extra levies for neglected state schools. Less infrastructure like roads, and more tolls and congestion. Botched NBN.  Botched or neglected NDIS and Aged Care. Higher university fees. ‘Out on your own’ if you need to be tested for cancer.  Massive Liberal tax cuts also mean it would be impossible to achieve the projected surplus without massive cuts to services and infrastructure.

Tax Cuts WILL mean Austerity ; The Duplicitous nature of Scott Morrison’s arguments

(Late April 2019)   "With a dubious outlook on world growth how can Scott Morrison possibly claim hundreds of billions in tax cuts and a surplus at the same time – without accompanying cuts to health, education, aged care, infrastructure? (or to scrap the surplus) The Liberals claim ‘small government’ is the key to a strong economy ; however some of the strongest economies in Europe tend to suggest otherwise – with much stronger welfare states and social wages than we enjoy in Australia. Tax cuts mean money in the pocket – but mainly for the top end of town. The rest of us get the scraps ; with degraded infrastructure and services ; and probably attacks on our wages and conditions. A mere 1.5% (of GDP) increase in tax – aimed mainly at the top 10% - could free $25 billion a year in resources for National Aged Care Insurance, Medicare Dental, resources for mental health, state-financed infrastructure without the user pays, public communications, energy and transport infrastructure, and a fair social insurance and welfare system for all of us. The tax mix also needs to be restructured and indexed for fairness: so ‘bracket creep’ does not gradually ‘level’ the system – with the poor paying more."

Participatory Democracies are Strong Democracies

Recent commentaries in the Herald-Sun have dismissed the wave of ‘student strikes’ (eg:  for Climate Action) over the past few months.  Perhaps we should look at this from a different point of view.  A participatory democracy is a strong democracy.  And a strong democracy can – and indeed should – accommodate civil disobedience as an option for citizens to express their views and interests.  Andrew Bolt and others may oppose the cause.  But more generally, a participatory democracy is a healthy one.  I for one hope those involved remain active citizens into and through adult-hood.

Democracy depends on Civic Mobilisation

In response to John Pesutto. (‘The Age’, 14/4) What critics don’t seem to realise is that the strength of a democracy can hinge on the mobilisation and activity of its civil society. If we do not accept protest and civil disobedience we are weakening the fabric of our democracy.  Indeed, an active civil society is a safeguard for democracy's long-term preservation. Perhaps free speech should not be ‘absolute’, but every time we weaken its universality we set a precedent which ‘could come back to bite’ progressive forces later down the track.  Further, Left advocates usually do not have the same opportunity to express their views.  And by ‘Left’ I include left social democrats and democratic socialists.  And even the more radical have a right for their ideas to be tested.  When on the odd occasion a  left-wing commentator appears on the ABC there are calls of ‘bias’.  But Left views are almost absent in Newscorp newspapers ; and ‘The Age’ has moved to the relative Centre. What we need is a truly strong pluralism in our democracy.  A ‘battlefield of ideas’ where journalists do not try and manipulate ; but rather a genuine, inclusive and honest contest of analysis and values.

Social Democracy and Capitalism : A Critique

originally written for a Fabian Society Forum ; Melbourne ; 19/4/2017

A finalised version of this will be submitted to ALP policy development bodies for consideration ; PLS provide feedback if you think it may help me improve the final version...

Restoring 'a traditional social democratic mixed economy' is part of the solution to current economic maladies ; but at the same time it is only the beginning of the journey...

by Dr Tristan Ewins , April 2017

Capitalism and its benefits

1)     Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, exploitation of labour by Capital, and markets as vehicles for distribution and exchange.  

2)     Capitalism has benefits and failures ; which can be maximised or ameliorated via economic policy, and by the struggles of ordinary people for justice

3)     Capitalism as we know it has the benefit of promoting innovation through the dynamics of competition ; The competitive market system drives capitalists to innovate and respond to the intricacies of consumer demand.  It also leads to the development of the means of production.

4)     Capitalism also has the benefit of driving efficiency and productivity gains via those same dynamics of competition

Capitalism’s Flaws

5)     But Capitalism’s failures include the following

Canadian economist Jim Stanford estimates that ‘the capitalist class’ of top owners and management dominates control of the economy despite only comprising about 2 per cent of the population.  This has implications for the viability and meaningfulness of democracy.

Capitalism has also always involved a ‘business cycle’ ; characterised by fluctuations in consumer demand and investor confidence. This could be sparked by the collapse of investment bubbles and the spread of ‘bad debts’; and in response to the use of interest rates to contain inflation , or because of ‘supply shocks’. (eg: the Oil Shocks of the 1970s)   And these crises spread in the context of world capitalism because of increasing global economic interdependence.  At its worst this has occurred in the context of Depression , and more recently with the Global Financial Crisis.  These were only eventually overcome in the context of stimulus , government guarantees and other interventions , and in the past (eg: WWII and post-war reconstruction) also because of the ‘boost’ provided by rearmament and war.   The Great Depression put paid to the economic Liberal argument that ‘perfectly free markets’ ensured the full mobilisation of all ‘factors of production’. Arguably the right kinds of stimulus, intervention and regulation can reduce the severity and duration of the associated downturns.   This includes what Keynesians call ‘demand management’.  Downturns are a good time to invest in infrastructure, for instance ; though there are arguments to invest in productivity and quality-of-life enhancing infrastructure outside of that context as well.  Indeed stimulus can create ‘a multiplier effect’, creating jobs indirectly as well as directly.  But government (or ‘the people’) should not shoulder all the costs and risks, here ; with little in return.  Some of the concerns socialised to restore stability during the GFC should arguably have remained socialised.

6)      Left to its own logic capitalism leads to economic monopolisation or oligopolism – which in turn can lead to the abuse of market power.  It also leads to systemic inequality.  Though this can be ameliorated through labour activism , labour market regulation , progressive tax , and the social wage and welfare systems.  And also by competition policy ; or enforcement of competition via Government Business Enterprises with charters on promoting competition. Again, though, the ‘capitalist class’ as such comprises only 2 per cent of the population ; and yet has the power directly or indirectly to veto any public policy through destabilisation and/or a ‘capital strike’.  Unless ‘the people’ are sufficiently conscious and organised to oppose those strategies.

7)     Nation States also pursue their economic interests attempting to extend their economic sphere of influence through control of – and access to -markets in other countries (including key strategic resources) ; or in the past through more direct expansionism.  This can involve military force or economic and cultural pressure ; and was described by the British liberal social theorist John.A.Hobson as “Imperialism” ; a term which was then seized upon by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to explain the First World War.

8)     Marxists once believed in ‘absolute pauperisation’  and ‘absolute bifurcation’  under capitalism; with the destruction of the middle classes through the dominance of monopoly capital and the inability of small business to compete.  In reality the ‘middle classes’ have re-emerged in diverse forms.  Via the professional classes ; via emerging small businesses in new industries where monopolies have not yet consolidated ; and more recently as contractors who compete against each other to provide goods and services for monopoly capital , or in other contexts via small jobs for private consumers and households. Meanwhile, the working class generally includes all wage labourers – skilled and unskilled, manual and mental.  The wealthy , and Ideological economic Liberals and capitalists, try to play the middle classes off  against the working classes and the disadvantaged.  As well as playing the working classes off against the most vulnerable with ‘anti-welfare’ narratives ; and using narratives around ‘political correctness’ as a wedge against the progressive liberal, social democratic and socialist Left.  Also capitalists try and play manual labourers against intellectual labourers ; appealing to intellectual labourers that they are ‘middle class’. (and hence do not share the same interests)  In democracies the challenge is to build a stable progressive electoral bloc to fight this.  Swedish sociological theorist Walter Korpi referred to a ‘democratic class struggle’. Arguably Labor could do better to consolidate its support bases around the working classes and the vulnerable by playing more directly to their interests and challenging dominant Ideological themes; while maintaining the support of middle class liberals.

9)      Current emphasis on ‘no real wage rises without productivity improvements’ leaves some labour-intensive professions (eg: cleaners) with little or no prospect of a real wage rise, ever.  That is: without increases in the intensity of labour – a disturbing notion given we are already talking about some people who are engaged in hard and demanding physical work. Hence the creation of effective poverty traps. Workers in other areas like Primary and Secondary Teaching would also be hard pressed to achieve ‘productivity gains’.  It also leads to absurd scenarios ; for example in higher education ; with academics measured by  their ‘academic output’ ; often excluding deep thought and study of particular areas ; and getting in the way of good teaching.

The Imperative of Capitalist Expansion ; and the Associated Waste

10) Capitalism involves a dynamic of expansion ; Its survival depends on it.  Waste at various points in the production process means capitalism must continually expand into new markets – or more thoroughly exploit old markets - to remain viable.  That waste includes cost structure duplication because of competition, and also the cost of continual revolutionisation of the means of production to maintain competitiveness.  There are also areas of unnecessary costs in areas such as marketing, dividends, executive salaries, and so on.  Getting rid of this waste and duplication could arguably be qualitatively good for the economy, and for consumers : freeing resources to be deployed elsewhere.  Decisions need to be made as to where natural public monopolies are viable (eg: transport and communications infrastructure) ; as well as where existing corporate competition (eg: Samsung versus Apple) actually does drive innovation which improves peoples’ lives.

11) There is also extensive waste in other areas.  For example the fast food industry involves enormous waste ; and domestic food consumption alone also involves $8 billion of waste every year.   But approximately 2 million Australians depend on food aid every year.  Also there is the spectre of planned obsolescence (for instance white goods and electricals): that is, things are not made to last because that ‘would be bad for business’.  This might warrant some kind of regulation re: minimum warrantee length for said electricals, whitegoods and so on.

12) But also there are limits to how far capitalism can succeed by extending its reach into new markets or more thoroughly exploiting old ones ; Over the past century capitalism has driven greater labour market participation: for instance that of women.  It has integrated most of the world economy also.  Now capitalists are demanding changes which grate against social democratic principles, interests and values.  This led to what social theorist Jurgen Habermas called a ‘Legitimation Crisis’.  That is, capitalism could not or would not deliver any longer on the post-WWII social democratic historic compromise.  This was dealt with in the form of attacks of social democratic Ideology ; that is – convincing people to renounce their own social and industrial rights on the basis that neo-liberalism, greater inequality, privatisation, and austerity were ‘natural’, ‘inevitable’ and according to Margaret Thatcher that ‘There is no Alternative’. (‘TINA’)  This also involved twisted Ideological narratives of individualism and meritocracy which ‘naturalised’ and justified inequality and exploitation.

13) In response to the systemic imperative to expand into new markets – or more thoroughly exploit old ones - capitalists are demanding increases in labour intensity, longer working lives, and longer working days.  Capitalists are also pushing down on wages, conditions, welfare, the social wage and so on – to ‘create room’ for profits.

 

14) But this creates as many problems as it solves. Cutting welfare, the social wage, and so on may provide a short, local boost to profits of particular enterprises.  But it also reduces consumer demand and consumer confidence , and probably increases the costs of crime.  As well there is an intensification of inequality, and a hit to quality of life.  We are producing more on this planet than ever; and yet we are told we most work longer and harder ; and not simply enjoy the benefits of greatly improved productivity in some areas.  Also capitalist measures of production (eg: GDP) often take no account of social capital, and the benefits of voluntary work, and ‘intangibles’ (to capitalism) such as free time, happiness and the environment.

15) Left to its own logic capitalism creates great inequality. Certain social democratic policies can ameliorate this without a full transition to a qualitatively different economic system or mode of production.  (which is not currently an option)  Though we should not feel inhibited in imagining alternatives ; and discussing where current problems could ultimately lead.

Socialisation  and the Welfare State could still  ‘Save Capitalism from Itself’

16) Firstly, a bigger public sector can actually be ‘good for capitalism’ to a significant degree.   Reversion to natural public monopolies in several areas could reduce cost structures, creating efficiencies which flow on to the broader economy.  This includes in communications, transport infrastructure, energy, water, and potentially with a single public-sector job search and welfare agency.  Cost structures would be reduced because of a cut in waste, duplication and unnecessary or inappropriate competition (eg: in energy) ; as well as because of a superior cost of borrowing for Government.  Again there are some areas (eg: energy) where ‘competition’ is ‘anti-intuitive’ for consumers ; and confusion leads to abuse of market power by energy retailers.  For policy makers there is also the danger of nepotism through the privatisation process ; including Public Private Partnerships which facilitate the ‘fleecing’ of consumers.

17) Secondly ; while capitalism needs to expand into new markets to survive, at the same time it undermines itself insofar as in its current form it is failing to create full time work for all those who want it. It is also failing to create full employment for all who want it; and indeed depends on ‘a reserve army of labour’ to discipline workers into accepting its demands on wages and conditions.  Proactive industry policies should endeavour to create full employment , and full-time employment for all who want it.  This involves the more thorough exploitation of old markets and well as taking advantage of new ones.  And with real creativity government can act as ‘employer of last resort’ through programs which provide for genuine social goods ; not merely pointless schemes ‘painting rocks’ and the like.

18) Further, strategic government business enterprises in areas like banking, general insurance, medical insurance – could counter attempts by private oligopolies to exploit their market power and fleece consumers.  That would mean more disposable income for average consumers upon whose demand the economy depends.

19) Finally, as the Nordics have shown , growing the social wage and welfare state is also good for people ; good for the economy. Greater equality can mean greater happiness ; and also greater consumer demand – as those on lower incomes spend a greater portion of their income.

Through these strategies capitalism can be made ‘more survivable, more fair, and more stable’.  These do not provide a final answer for capitalist instability and injustice.  But ‘with no way out’ for now to a qualitatively better system of production the amelioration provided by such responses is crucial for those who will have to live and work under capitalism.

Better Outcomes for Consumers, Workers, Taxpayers…

20) The Social Wage and Welfare State can also contribute to happiness and well-being by providing a living income for the disadvantaged and vulnerable , and support for carers.  The social wage, welfare state, and other areas of state provision (eg: infrastructure) can also provide a vehicle for ‘collective consumption’ by taxpayers via the tax system – providing much better value for money than were the associated goods and services purchased by atomised, private consumers.  As already alluded to ; the same applies in relation to ‘collective consumption’ with regard natural public monopolies re: certain infrastructure and services ; and in areas of health, education and so on.  Even if people pay more tax over the short term, they end up better off – with more disposable income after non-negotiable needs are provided for. 

The social wage and welfare state demand higher taxes as a proportion of the economy ; but for the reasons stated actually tend to leave most people materially-better-off.  And with more choice ; that is, more purchasing power – not less - after essentials are provided for.

Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats must look to the best tax mix also. The overall tax mix must be progressively structured.  Arguably for fairness corporations and the wealthy must pay more ; as far as it can be sustained. If there are consumption taxes, for example (perhaps to prevent tax evasion), the bad distributive effects of this must be fully offset through progressive taxes and social wage measures elsewhere.  A bigger role for progressive income taxes, taxes on dividends, taxes on wealth and capital – is desirable.  Social security, welfare and the social wage (perhaps including a guaranteed minimum income) must raise the ‘floor’ of inequality as high as can be fairly sustained. (that is, higher minimum wages, including the effect of the social wage)  Currently there is exploitation of the low paid and unreasonable inequality in the labour market and in wealth ownership ; but there are arguments that reasonable reward for effort, unpleasant labour, past study and skill - should be factored in. (as most people accept)  There should be much less inequality ; but some inequality is justified even under democratic socialism.

Tax can also comprise a ‘lever’ for gradual socialisation over the long term in strategic areas of the economy.

Finally the broad Left and Centre-Left cannot morally abide by a system which uses the threat of descent into an ‘underclass’, or classes of ‘utterly destitute’ and ‘working poor’ – as a way of ‘disciplining’ other workers. Neither can we tolerate ‘middle income’ demographics having their material living standards (interpreted here as material consumption) rest upon exploitation of the working poor. What is needed is broader solidarity to the point where there is no class of working poor or utterly destitute. 

21)  As well the social wage and welfare state can provide the following:  High quality, comprehensive universal health care for all ; Providing  high quality Education for all – including education for personal growth, political literacy,  and hence preparation for active and informed citizenship; as well as education to meet the demands of the economy and the labour market.  Other important areas include public and social housing, legal aid , child care, financial services, access to information and communications services and technology , assistance for equity groups , Public sector media such as ABC and SBS with charters to maximise participation, support extensive pluralism, support local culture ; Broader support for diverse local culture, recreation, sport, and so on.  Creating ‘the good society’ involves more than ‘hands off’ and ‘leave it to the market’. New needs are also always arising as the economy and technology develop.

22) Further ; there is a growing push for a ‘guaranteed minimum income’ for all ; which makes sense given the looming problem of distributing the productivity gains of future automation ; But also providing a ‘basic floor’ below which no citizen will be allowed to fall.

Automation is inevitable and governments must intervene to ensure the full economic benefits are passed on to workers and consumers.

23) The emerging economy should provide flexibility where possible on workers’ terms.  Again ; Those wanting part-time work should be so provided.  And those wanting full-time work should be so provided.  All people should have the prospect of a fulfilling life ; with a mix of varied manual and intellectual labour.  There should be scope to devote time to personal growth ; including creative labour , study and recreation.  Industry and labour market policies must aim to update skills, and also strive to nurture new industries which draw on existing skill sets where jobs have been lost. 

24) As Professor Andrew Scott explains in his work ‘Northern Lights’, the Danes have a policy they call ‘flexicurity’. Rather than focusing narrowly on 'flexibility for employers to dismiss workers', the Danes also emphasised 'the provision of generous unemployment benefits for those who lose their jobs' and 'the provision of substantial and effective Active Labour Market Programmes (ALMPs), [with] quality training to help unemployed people gain new skills for new jobs …'  (Andrew Scott, p. 135, (pp. 152, 154-55).  By contrast Australia suffers 'the lowest level of unemployment benefits  in the OECD for a single person recently unemployed.'  Furthermore, ‘Work for the Dole’ programmes are punitive and provide little in the way of relevant skills for job placement. (Andrew Scott ; pp. 136-38).  Denmark’s active labour market programmes are expensive says Scott, but are worth the investment in radically higher workforce participation.   Achieving an economy which operates at ‘full bore’ – as the Swedes achieved for a significant time - also means more revenue for social programs.  Industry policies ensuring more high wage employment also enhanced those outcomes.

25) The Housing Affordability Crisis is driving an economic wedge between Housing Market Investors, Home Owners, and those struggling to (or unable to) purchase their own homes.   Simply releasing new land (the traditional Liberal ‘solution’) is not a viable answer unless services and infrastructure investment matches it.  Large public and social housing investments in growth and transport corridors could increase supply, however, and if introduced in phases may be able to ‘deflate’ the boom without a ‘crash’.   Labor’s negative gearing policies would also mean less competition between first  home buyers and housing portfolio investors.  Again , Combined with increased investment in public housing, and implemented properly, it should be possible to ‘deflate’ the bubble without a crash.   Public housing construction should  involve expansion of ( largely ‘non-clustered’) public housing stock to at least 10% of total  stock over several terms of Labor Government. ‘Non clustered’ stock aims to avoid traditional stigma against public housing, as well as the creation of poverty ghettos. Though there is the opposing argument that (implemented properly ; with the right infrastructure and services) clustered housing can create thriving communities.

26) There are those who argue capitalism cannot deal with looming environmental crises.  As a system based upon growth and the production of ever-more consumer goods, with a ‘growing environmental footprint’ , there are reasons to take these claims seriously.  That said: renewable technologies are advancing.  And information, culture and service industries – if emphasised – could involve much less of an ‘environmental footprint’.   A guided shift of emphasis to those industries could be key to environmental sustainability.  At the same time, though, we want to remain an economy which ‘makes things’.  Manufacturing will remain necessary ; and working conditions in manufacturing tend to assist the organisation of labour.  But we do not know yet just how far automation will go.  Automation could be good for people in their capacity as consumers, but bad for organised labour.

The Big Picture and ‘The Good Society’

27) Finally, Labor needs a vision of ‘the good society’  which includes redistribution and rights of labour – including labour market regulation (with an increased minimum wage) ; But at the same time goes further.  Marxism involved an implied moral critique of exploitation. But also of what was called ‘alienation’ ; That is, the impact of physically onerous, repetitive and/or mentally punishing labour.  And the lack of creative control workers enjoyed over their labours, and the products of their labours.  This ‘alienation’ could be addressed partly through increased free time for workers in such demanding areas.  And increased opportunities to explore such diverse areas as philosophy,  science, art, and leisure.  Though Marx also envisaged a time when fulfilling labour would ‘become life’s prime want’.   ‘Automation’ could actually create opportunities here IF implemented properly.

Also Labor should have an appreciation both of the importance of constitutional liberal democracy ; but also of its limits.  Democracy needs to be extended into production and work.  This could involve support for diverse models of co-operative enterprise and mutualism – on both large and small scales. Not only would this model by-pass exploitation: it could also provide workers with creative control over their labours ; including the kind of intimate control and identification that may go with co-operative small businesses.  (eg: co-operative cafes)   Furthermore, mutualist and co-operative associations could contribute to full employment in a situation  driven by contextual human need , and not only ‘share value maximisation’ – which is the modus operandi for capitalism-as-we-know-it.

Large scale co-operative and mutualist associations could also occupy crucial points in the economy in areas like health, motor insurance, and general insurance, and  credit/banking.  Government could play a central role of ‘facilitation’, here) Strategic ‘multi-stakeholder’ co-operatives could also be created through co-operation between Government, Regions, and workers.   That model might have been applied in the case of SPC-Ardmona ; and may even have been applied (much more ambitiously) to save Australia’s car industry.  Ambitious ‘mutli-stakeholder co-operatives’ should be considered by Governments, Workers and Regions for the future.

Other options for economic democracy include: growing the public sector , promoting ‘democratic collective capital formation’ (for example, like the Swedish ‘Meidner wage earner funds plan’) – though perhaps inclusive of all citizens and not only workers.  As well as ‘co-determination’ (worker reps on company boards).  Sovereign Wealth Funds or Pension Funds also socialise wealth and investment, and could be crucial to fund expenditure and investments (eg: infrastructure) into the future. 

Superannuation is entrenched now, and provided for peoples’ retirement without the political problems of raising taxes. It was seen as having democratic potential ; but it also had problems of reinforcing inequality in retirement (also affecting women) ; requiring low income workers to make contributions they could not afford ; and reinforcing the capitalist focus on share value maximisation regardless of other need.  Arguably pensions need to be more generous and broad-based ; but the superannuation system may lead to the marginalisation of the Aged Pension into the future.

In conclusion ; We should talk of capitalism and not only ‘neo-liberalism’. Because to name capitalism is to make it relative.  And one day the way may open for something better to become possible.  At the end of the day all wealth does derive from labour and Nature: and now just as in ‘the Heyday of radical Social Democracy’ this implies a moral critique of capitalism and class.

Dr Tristan Ewins has been a  Labor activist for over 20 years. He has written for many publications including 'The Canberra Times' ; but most prolifically for 'On Line Opinion' ;  see:  http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=208

References

Scott, Andrew,  'Northern Lights: The Positive Policy Example of Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway',   Monash University Publishing, Melbourne, 2014

Stanford, Jim  "Economics for Everyone - A Short Guide to the Economics of Capitalism" , Pluto Press, London, 2008

Socialism as Regulation: Is it Enough? A Response to Adam Ford

Above: An image of Nils Karleby:  Adam Ford's account of 'Socialism as Regulation' has some things in common with the thinking of this important Swedish Social Democrat

Dr Tristan Ewins

 

Veteran Australian Labor Party activist and blogger Adam Ford has put forward a critique of socialist metanarratives insofar as they retain a commitment to what I would personally define as a ‘democratic mixed economy’.  Specifically, by this I infer a mixed economy including a very robust public sector, but also a broader ‘democratic sector’ including various co-operative models, as well as co-determination, democratic collective capital mobilisation and so on.   Partly in response to my own consideration of the substance of modern socialism, instead Adam Ford proposes a reformed socialist project; one which breaks away from prior emphases on Marx, and prior emphases on public ownership.  Ford reserves the right to define socialism however he chooses, and not necessarily follow in the footsteps of Marx, or anyone else really.  Though in a Bernsteinian fashion (ie: after Eduard Bernstein)  he argues that socialism is a premise from which we depart rather than an ‘end destination’.  

Specifically at  his blog 'The Bloodied Wombat' he argues:

“The light on the hill is as a beacon, not a point of arrival. It guides us forward, rather than telling us where to stop.”  

So in its emerging incarnation Adam sees the concrete form of modern socialism as comprising the quite vigorous and indeed aggressive regulation of capitalism.   Though he is not very specific in detailing what form this regulation would take.  Nonetheless, perhaps he has something in common with the Swedish theorist Nils Karleby  - who saw regulation like a peeling away of an onion – where the prerogatives of capital were progressively removed ‘until nothing is left’.  For example: I would speculate that this could take the form of legislated provisions for co-determination, or industrial rights including minimum wages and conditions. (though to be honest this is against the grain of so-called ‘reform of the labour market’ under successive governments, Labor and Liberal)   Karleby was critical of narrow interpretations of socialism which focused only on nationalisation.

For Adam Ford ‘socialist outcomes’ do not adhere to “pre-determined” and “known” “socialist structures”.  And rather than comprising an enduring beacon for socialists, the figure of Karl Marx is seen as imposing a “straight-jacket” on socialist thought.

Finally, Adam Ford condemns not only ‘command economies’ as ‘stupid’; but he applies the same judgement to mixed economies where the public sector extends beyond “natural public monopolies”, and certain essential services and infrastructure which the market would not provide via its own devices.

What follows is a response to Adam Ford’s arguments.

The hinting of a Bernsteinian angle is appreciated.  Bernstein had a lot of relevant things to say about socialism and ethics, socialism and liberalism, and the notion there no absolutely-final ‘end point’ for socialism. 

Though Bernstein had also insisted of Marx’s theory:

“The fall of the profit rate is a fact, the advent of over-production and crises is a fact, periodic diminution of capital is a fact, the concentration and centralisation of industrial capital is a fact, the increase of the rate of surplus value is a fact.”   (Bernstein, Pp 41-42)   

Ford is right to suggest that in Marxism we do not have the meaning of ‘life, the universe and everything’.  Ethics, for instance, was a blind spot for Marx and many who followed in his tradition and in his name.  As was the tendency of Marxists – not least of all Lenin – to pose socialism and liberalism practically as polar opposites.  (Whereas for Bernstein socialism comprised ‘liberalism’s spiritual successor’)
 
Certainly it is fashionable in this day and age to decry the ‘old’ socialism. The neo-liberal Ideology remains largely hegemonic throughout much of the world.  Public ownership is seen as an anachronism.  ‘The market’ is revered; ‘command economies’ are reviled.  And indeed – even for those proposing a democratic mixed economy, the spectre of the ‘command economy’ hangs over all debate as if there really is no ‘middle path’ or otherwise diverging paths from those of neo-liberalism and so-called ‘state socialism’.  Though to be fair to Adam Ford he personally diverges significantly from neo-liberalism in proposing a thorough regime of regulation.  And his allowance for natural public monopoly puts him at odds with the likes of Mises or Hayek.

As already observed: Nils Karleby shared similar notions to Ford in the sense of emphasising regulation as the substance of socialisation; the means of negating ‘capitalist prerogatives’. Though Karleby himself had also argued:

“How can one imagine a social transformation other than by the growth of collective property at the expense of private property, and through legislative changes together with social and cultural policy measures, and through changes in property rights brought about by the influence of free organisations?” 

 

And further Karleby anticipates a

 

“grinding away of capitalist society in the true sense, a steady progressive growth of new social forms.”  (Karleby in Tilton, p 82)

Hence despite his emphasis on regulation-as-socialism Karleby does not deny the mixed economy.  Though perhaps his position is also suggestive of strategies such as democratic collective capital formation for example.

Again: Ford rejects “predetermined” “socialist structures”. Most particularly this appears to relate to state ownership ; but perhaps it also applies to collective forms of property posed in opposition to exploitative labour-capital relations.  Though Ford also suggests “democratic markets”.  What could this mean?

In truth I have considered “democratic markets” myself.  But here I conceive of a wide variety of producer and consumer co-operative forms, as well as collective capital formation and so on.  I think of workers and consumers organising collectively and co-operatively in the very midst of markets. And I envisage of the state playing an enabling role here: via state aid, including cheap credit, tax breaks and so on.

Still - any role for the state is really the rare exception for Ford.  But is a truly robust mixed economy really “stupid”?

True: Ford and I agree on the need for “natural public monopolies”.  Ford is not specific, but for me here I think of energy, water, communications and transport infrastructure. I also think of near-monopolies in education.  But why not extend strategic socialisation beyond these strictly conceived boundaries?  Government business enterprises can enhance competition in areas as diverse as banking and health insurance; also providing progressive cross-subsidisation where that makes sense. Dividends can potentially be socialised into the tens of billions empowering the extension of welfare and the social wage.  In areas such as mining partial socialisation via some ‘super profits tax’ made sense ; but opposition to a direct public stake here could be seen as Ideological. In any case - even a public sector mining company would operate in a global and competitive market. As could other competitive state enterprises.

Furthermore: ‘the market’ could no-doubt ‘find a way’ to intrude upon just about every facet of our existence. But should we allow for it to do so?  Are ‘markets’ and the profit motive appropriate in Aged Care for example?  The public sector needs to intervene where the market fails.  And market failure takes many forms. This includes the lack of democratic forms; the exploitation of vulnerable people; as well as ‘Planned obsolescence’ and the creation of oligopolies and monopolies which fleece consumers. Also there is the potential for neglect of consumer minorities whose ‘market power’ is not sufficient to ensure the provision of the highest quality goods and services at competitive prices.  Perhaps Ford allows for this final case in his model, however.  Though the question remains: how would that work?

Then there’s also a case for strategic government intervention in support of ‘multi-stakeholder-co-operative enterprise’. Government has a potentially progressive role to play in helping to finance co-operative enterprise large and small.  Especially in the case of large co-operative enterprise large injections of capital may be necessary to attain the economies of scale necessary to remain competitive on global markets. This is where government can help.  And not only State and Federal government – but regions as well.

Underlying rejections of a larger role for government is the notion that private ownership is “natural”.  It is considered the ‘default” form of property compared with which the public sector is but a rare exception. 

I reject this notion. But I do suppose a large role for competitive private sector markets into the foreseeable future.  A ‘democratic mixed economy’ is realisable in the foreseeable future in a relatively modest form. To illustrate: I personally envisage an increase in public revenues and associated outlays by 5 per cent of GDP – achieved perhaps over a decade, and flowing in to social wage and welfare provisions.  As well as public borrowings for ‘nation-building’ infrastructure. 

But ‘autarky’ is not the answer.  As I have argued elsewhere: transnational enterprises from Samsung to Apple respond to ‘the intricacies of consumer demand’. And they innovate under pressure in the context of competitive markets where massive economies of scale are necessary.

Nor should we aspire to ‘nationalise the corner store’.  This has always gone without saying.  Though small-scale co-operatives could also potentially respond to those ‘intricacies’ at the local level as well; while addressing the alienation many workers experience where they have little creative control over their workplaces and their labours.

Australian consumers don’t want to be isolated from the innovations that go on in competitive global markets. And Australian workers also stand to benefit from jobs-creating foreign investment.  I accept this. No-one (or at least almost no-one) wants ‘socialism in one country, Stalinist-style’.  We can gradually build up to a robust democratic mixed economy. But the ‘traditional socialist society’ as epitomised by the old Soviet and Eastern bloc is ‘lost to us’. 

In some ways this is actually a good thing.  The old command economies produced a ‘dictatorship over needs’ (Fehr, Heller, Markus) where ‘needs’ were defined ‘from above’ and consumers did not enjoy the freedom to determine their own needs-structures via markets.  Markets can be appropriate to the extent to which they enhance responsiveness to consumer demand, and reasonably enhance personal determination of needs structures.

But we should not adopt an Ideological perspective which closes off the strategic extension of the public sector.  Nor should we fetishize markets – especially where they fail.  And we should not just jettison the Marxist tradition in its entirety – when there is such a rich and diverse range of viewpoints and insights even still.  Even though in today’s more plural Left there is greater tolerance towards the pursuit of ‘ethical’ or even ‘liberal’ socialism.  (a good thing) 

We probably can define socialism ‘however we choose’.  But we should also ask ourselves what is reasonable when we return to ‘first principles’.  Socialism began with notions of economic equality; notions of ‘equal association’. There was also the communist notion of ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need’.  And that notion still retains its force today.  Though quite rightly the modern Left has also considered that economic equality alone is not enough to achieve ‘The Good Society’.  A ‘good society’ and a ‘strong democracy’ needs to include a participatory and authentic public sphere.  It must encompass mutual respect and free enquiry.  It must support peoples’ need for economic security; but also peoples’ search for meaning in many-varied ways.  Whereas the Left once focused its attentions on nationalisation too-narrowly, however, the opposite tendency to reject public ownership as a strategy is itself ‘Ideological’. Democratic socialists are learning from past errors.  But it is not a ‘clean break’.  Our efforts today should still be informed to a significant extent by past insights, and past tradition.

 

Bibliography 

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

Tilton, Timothy; “The Political Theory of Swedish Social Democracy – Through the Welfare State to Socialism”; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990