(Mostly Unpublished) Letters to the ‘Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’

The following is an array of letters I’ve written in 2019 to ‘The Herald-Sun’ and “The Age’ ; The vast majority were unpublished.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

Conservatives’ Budget puts the wealthy first. Services and Infrastructure to suffer in the End Analysis

above: Frydenberg and Morrison: desperately trying to win support with tax cuts ; 

hoping voters won't 'look to the small print'

Dr Tristan Ewins

Most of the Australian media is trumpeting the Morrison Governments' tax cuts for “low and middle income” Australians.   But does this stack up under analysis?  Ross Gittins at The Age dared to buck the trend and pointed out that this is overwhelmingly a Budget for higher income Australians.  He observes that the real cost of the tax cuts over ten years will skyrocket to “a staggering $302 billion”.   That will inevitably lead to austerity: with a potential hit to Health, Education, Aged Care, infrastructure and so on.  It will mean neglect and user pays ; and that will also hit genuine low to middle income Australians hardest. Those on $925 or less a week will receive nothing, while those on $3485 or more a week will receive $75/week.   These people (the wealthy) are less likely to spend, also, as compared with lower income Australians. That could also be bad for the economy.  (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 7) 

The biggest culprit, here, is the tax cut for the $45,000 to $200,000 bracket from 32.5% to 30%.  (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 2)  The fact of the matter here is that the tax scales have been unfairly flattened. There should be a stronger rate for those on higher incomes.

To further illustrate the point, the Herald-Sun observed that those individuals on $200,000/year will receive tax cuts amounting to over $11,000/year, while individuals on $30,000 will receive $255/year.  Meanwhile, hypothetically a dual income family with both partners on $200,000/year will receive over $23,000/year ; compared with $510/year for a dual income family with both partners on $30,000/year. (Herald-Sun, 3/4/19, p 2)

On the other hand, there’s $724 million for the elderly “over five years”.  (Herald-Sun 3/4/19, p 13)

It sounds like a lot. But it won’t go anywhere near addressing waiting lists for ‘at home’ services ; or improvements in residential services: such as subsidizing the sector to pay for aged care worker ratios and a registered nurse on-site 24/7.  There’s mandatory reporting for neglect leading to starvation. (which is common)  But that cannot be policed without extra aged care workers.  And aged care workers need better pay and conditions as an incentive to remain in the sector.  There’s also a need to emphasize ‘quality of life’ for those at home or in care – with programs to keep people socially and mentally engaged.  Something more than being sat in common rooms all day in front of a television. 

There’s a projected surplus of $7.1 billion over the next financial year.  (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 2)   At least $1 billion of this could have been redirected into Aged Care – where it is desperately needed.

Ian Yates of the Council of the Ageing argued that:  "Up to 125,000 older Australians are waiting up to two years for home care, [leaving] many dying while they wait”.

The blunt fact of the matter is that the Coalition is trying to buy votes with tax cuts: but the consequence will inevitably mean a hit to the social wage and welfare state ; and probably more privatised infrastructure.

While Labor does not oppose all tax cuts per se, Chris Bowen rebuked the Government, arguing the emphasis should have been on those on “less than $40,000.”

That said, there are some sensible measures: such as $3 billion of investments in “suburban rail station car parks” in an attempt to bust urban traffic congestion.   As well as an emphasis on transport infrastructure in outer suburban Victoria. (‘The Age’, 3/4/19)

There’s also money supporting apprenticeships and supporting scholarships to rural universities, and close on half a billion for pre-school education.  Hundreds of millions on mental health and Medicare sound significant: but they’re staggered over several years ; disguising a reality of neglect: which will become clearer as the shrinking revenue base leads to austerity.

The bottom line is that there are a host of priorities demanding our attention: but we end up with neglect in order to conform to small government Ideology ; and to prioritise the higher income Liberal core base.   

There’s a need to ‘fix Medicare’ and further expand into dental.  An extra billion a year could easily go into providing more mental health capacity and cutting hospital waiting lists.  As already observed: there’s a drastic need for more resources in Aged Care.  Again: nothing short of several billions would ‘make a scratch’ on these problems.  

A $75/week increase to Newstart is very much overdue:  such that people are left homeless, or without the resources to effectively search for work in the first place. 

Pensioners could do with a minimum $25/week boost (fully indexed) – which means a great deal for someone living in poverty. Disability Pensioners could also do with more flexibility in supplementing their income with casual work.  Students could also do with more financial support. Taking on part time work can provide experience ; but it can also make it impossible to keep up with studies. That’s bad for students ; but also for the government which is contributing to the investment in the event that people end up ‘dropping out’.

It’s also true that State Governments are running out of assets to privatise. For a long time this was treated like some ‘magic pudding’ to fund newer infrastructure. ‘Asset Recycling’.  But that cannot go on forever.  And there are associated costs.  For instance the privatisation of the Port of Melbourne will see greater cost structures ‘flowing through’ all through the economy.   This (lack of funds for infrastructure) can only be rectified with higher taxes overall (preferably progressive) ; or through regressive user pays which hurts citizens more in the end than higher taxes.  Still: state governments’ tax options are limited ; and those privatisations should never have happened in the first place.

Many of Labor’s projected tax reforms are very welcome.  Negative gearing cuts which exclude new properties will lead to more home construction and more jobs.  It could also end with better housing affordability. Meanwhile ; cracking down on concessions for excess dividend imputation credits will overwhelmingly hit the wealthy. It is not ‘a new tax’ ; but rather Labor is closing a costly loophole ; one which could soon cost as much as  “$11.4 billion over the forward estimates from 2018-19, and removing it could improve the budget bottom line by $59 billion over the medium term.”    Bowen argues that: “More than 92 per cent of taxpayers do not receive a cash refund for excess imputation credits, and won’t be affected at all by this change.”

He concludes that:

Under Labor’s plan:

o No one will pay a single cent more tax
o No one will lose a single cent from their super contributions
o No one will lose a single cent from their pension
o No one will lose a single cent from their share dividends.

Labor’s recalibration of the tax system will benefit a lot of Australian families, citizens and workers.  Its press for ‘a living wage’ could also make a huge difference for the working poor: though we have to hope that Shorten will heed the ACTU’s call  for a “10.7% increase – or $72.80 per week.”  Which is what is really necessary.  

But at the end of the day refusing to consider raising other taxes limits Labor’s room to move.

To fix Aged Care, Health, Infrastructure, Welfare, Education: a very significant amount of money is needed.   Australia’s GDP is now in the vicinity of  $1.7 Trillion/year. Even a modest 1 per cent increase – aimed largely at those on upper incomes – would mean $17 billion/year to invest in services, infrastructure and social security.  This should be the bare minimum for a Labor Government aspiring to improve the social wage and welfare state ; and provide infrastructure. (from fixing NBN, to paying for roads and public transport to bust congestion) 

Over the long term (several terms of government) Labor should be aiming to raise the tax rate by 5 per cent of GDP ; or $85 billion a year in the context of a $1.7 billion economy. (that will have to be adjusted for growth, inflation etc also)   The wealthy should pay their fair share. And corporate tax evasion needs vigorous, tough action. But ‘ordinary taxpayers’ benefit from ‘collective consumption’ and ‘social insurance’ as well. Labor just needs to be brave and articulate, ‘cutting through to the electorate’.  Labor’s come a long way ; but there’s also a long way to go.

As for the Coalition Government: Labor needs to hammer home the line that this is not a Budget for low to middle income earners.  It disproportionately assists the wealthy ; and those on lower incomes will pay through the austerity and inevitable user pays that follows in its wake.

Responding to Red-Baiting on Marxism

Dr Tristan Ewins

A common argument on the Left is that ‘Socialism’ is not ‘Communism’ ; and this is intended to ‘deflect’ associations with Stalinist big ‘C’ Communism as it was known in the former USSR and Eastern Bloc.

Indeed, socialism is not 'Communism with a big 'C'' - in the Stalinist sense: with unending Terror and Cult of Personality.  In the authentic Marxist sense socialism  refers to a stage of economic development under which ownership of the means of production was progressively centralised under the state ; and with 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' whereby the democratic working class majority had exercised state power.  This is the 'first stage' of communism. (also known as 'socialism')  And thereafter - with abundance and the end of social antagonisms - 'the state withers away'. This is 'the higher stage of communism'.

There are  many (non-Marxist) definitions of socialism as well.  And many people – including self-identifying Marxists –  also argue for a ‘democratic mixed economy’ including a mix of markets and planning ; and of public, co-operative and other collective ownership.  And this is also seen as a kind of socialism.  (even if not strictly conforming to the original Marxist definition) These people can still sympathize with the goal of 'the higher stage of communism' ; but many (the author included) have come to seriously doubt the likelihood of its being realised.

But many of those who actually have a grasp of Marxism (most people don't) know there's nothing wrong with his notion of communism in theory. As opposed to stifling oppression , Marx’s notion of ‘communism’ envisaged a world of plenty; of cultural and social opportunity ; governed by the principle of ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ ;  and where humanity transcended past conflicts: where - again, as opposed to becoming 'all encompassing' - the state (in Marx’s words) ‘withered away’.

But remember also that communism in the Marxist sense was deemed by Marxists themselves as impossible without the prerequisite of economic Abundance – with the development of the means of production first by workers under capitalism, and then furthered under socialism.

The Bolsheviks attempted a Revolution in Russia before the economic development had reached the level many other Marxists had seen as a prerequisite. In name they were pursuing communism - but the system they implemented certainly was not communist in Marx's sense.

Many Marxists understood the risks.  Effectively, the Russian Revolution could get stuck in a particularly repressive variation from 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.  Many interpret that as meaning ‘dictatorship’ in the literal sense.  But in the authentic Marxist sense it was to be understood as a manner of applying democracy ; ie: the democratic rule of the working class majority.  (but where the revolution’s class enemies were contained or suppressed where necessary; though some Marxists such as Karl Kautsky also ended up insisting on a regime of universal liberal rights)

But the Bolsheviks attempted a Revolution in an industrially-backward nation ; dependant on an alliance of workers and peasants. That is why a lot of Marxists thought the Bolsheviks went too far – attempting to overcome their disadvantages through sheer voluntarist will and strategy.  What we ended up with was centralisation and Terror. And decades of forced industrialisation: a ‘forced march’ to achieve the economic preconditions of socialism.  In the process, Terror, Cult-of-Personality and over-centralisation saw the corruption of the Revolution and the onset of what came to be known as ‘Stalinism’. This was not ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ in  Marx’s true sense ; though certainly it was a kind of dictatorship.  Most critics of Marxism do not understand the difference.

On the other hand ; some critics of Bolshevism such as Rosa Luxemburg did not condemn the Bolsheviks for trying.  For Luxemburg specifically her criticism centred on the issue of workers’ liberties and workers’ democracy.  But by contrast, Left-Menshevist, Julius Martov also insisted on ‘mass democracy’ as opposed to ultra-centralism ; and questioned the Bolshevist path to power. For Martov Russia’s semi-feudal conditions were not a sufficient base on which to build socialism. And this was bound to result in complications later down the track. Economic development had to come first ; though in the interim he supported an alliance of socialist parties. 

Importantly: 'Abundance' itself has also proven in some senses relative ; and 'coercive laws of competition' (a concept found in Capital Vol I) can be applied to states arguably as well as to businesses.  Practically this means that both businesses and states need to promote competitiveness in order to survive. This also makes (the higher stage of) communism in Marx's sense a difficult prospect. And it makes socialism in the strict Marxist sense a difficult prospect for the same reasons. (coercive laws of competition) Hence we need internationalism in theory and practice - and to reject arguments on globalisation to the effect that 'everything is hopeless'.

There's also the concern that class struggle is not the sole source of conflict ; hence the state may never 'wither away'.

Maoism in China saw the peasants as having the leading role. Only in the past couple of decades or so the Chinese have attempted to emulate capitalist development in order to modernise.  And in terms of the scale of their economic development they have succeeded remarkably.  But there's the risk that their capitalists will one day become an effective ruling class. And then the last remnants of Chinese Communism would be over.  There’s no reason to suppose that would necessarily involve ‘democratisation’ either.

On the other hand Swedish Socialism was not clearly Marxist. Theorists like Walter Korpi wrote of a 'democratic class struggle'. Marxism held significant influence. But key socialist theorists like Ernst Wigforss did not identify as Marxist and had original ideas  distinct from those provided by the broad Marxist framework. Though fear of Bolshevism had helped to press the Swedish monarchy into supporting the Suffrage. (as with many other countries)

The rise of a ‘Communism’ clearly distinct from social democracy had originally began in 1914 with the formation of Communist parties in response to the World War. (and the failure of most social democrats to effectively oppose it)  This was a watershed moment.  The ‘Twenty-One Conditions’ (1920) of the Third International (developed after the 1917 Russian Revolution) imposed a single organisational and ideological framework for all Communist Parties ; that is, of Vanguard Parties in the Leninist sense. (parties of ‘the advanced working class’) And in the process this ruled out flexibility and adaptation to local circumstance.

The author’s personal sympathies are with the 'Left Social Democrats' - such as the Austro-Marxists. Who were definitely Marxists - and definitely not Bolsheviks or Stalinists. The key point here is that the Schism was not entirely 'against Marxism' ; it was also to various degrees 'within Marxism'.   In this sense there is not necessarily any logical contradiction between communism in the strict Marxist sense – and Revolutionary Social Democracy. Importantly therefore, the Bolsheviks could never claim a monopoly on Marxist thought.  Marxists retained crucial influence on the Left of Social Democratic parties.  In some cases (eg: Austria during the inter-war period) Marxism remained the dominant outlook.

Again: the word ‘Communism’ is deployed widely to scare people ; and many socialists (even Marxist-influenced) will not enter into any debate concerning it for fear of the impact of red-baiting, and association with the ‘once-really-existing Stalinist’ regimes of the 20th Century.

Tactically, social democratic leaders may be advised not to proclaim to the world that they are Communists.  And in all honestly, there is doubt that 'real communism' as Marx truly intended - is even possible. Or at least certainly not for a very long time into the future.

But if we can't debate these issues internally even , eventually we will be led to abandon socialism entirely. Kind of like how 'liberalism became a dirty word' for a very long time within the United States. That way we find ourselves perpetually on the back foot in response to red-baiting.

But now there's actually a resurgence of socialism in the US.  DSA – Democratic Socialists of America – has been expanding rapidly.  Demands are growing for improvement of wages, action on climate change, and for socialised medicine. These are taken for granted in many parts of the world ; but progress on these fronts is remarkable in the American instance. The question is how far this trend can be furthered (and tactical compromises will be necessary) without forsaking substance over the long term.

In the Australian context, there was once a much stronger culture of internal debate around the issue of Democratic Socialism in previous decades - and it didn't cost the Australian Labor Party elections. (say in the 70s and 80s)  Though since the 50s split the ALP had been undermined by right-wing Catholic organisations such as the Democratic Labor Party and the National Civic Council.  Those tendencies have now largely redeployed within the Liberal Party (Australia’s party of Conservatism). In the process they have abandoned ‘traditional Catholic centrism’.  They have abandoned all pretence to economic social justice in order to cement their place on the Liberal-Conservative Right in the current political milieu. That means internalising neo-liberal thinking on the economy, say as opposed to the premises of Rerum Novarum. (the Roman Catholic Church’s original 19th Century response to capitalism and industrialisation)

Parliamentary parties are always tempted by opportunism.  Though it's true that ALP Leader Herbert Vere ‘Doc’ Evatt did the right thing defending liberties when Liberal Prime Minister, Robert Menzies tried banning the Communist Party in the 1950s.   With Evatt championing liberal rights, Menzies lost the associated referendum.  Liberal rights in Australia were preserved. Evatt’s principles may have cost parliamentary votes ; but who of any principle  would say that he did the wrong thing?  Though he did not win a Parliamentary election as Leader, he will always be remembered for his stand.

Right-wing public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson are alarmed by arguments that ‘Real communism has never really been tried.’  Although the achievements for a while of kibbutzim in Israel give some idea what might be possible. If you used Kibbutzim as an example I don't think many people would be shocked

And it's possible to establish that you're influenced by Marxism without saying you're a Stalinist, a Bolshevik, a Maoist, or even a Trotskyist. A mainstream Australian economist like John Quiggin is clear that he's influenced by Marxism - though he's not a revolutionary.

Personally, I sometimes call myself a Left Social Democrat. And that's completely sincere as I've already explained earlier.  The terms ‘revolutionary social democrat’ and ‘democratic socialist’ also sincerely apply.    

On the Left we cannot (and should not) airbrush history because that's more politically opportune. But neither can our leadership always 'put on their most radical faces' when contesting elections. Still: here among the grassroots I think we have more freedom. We should use it. It may well bear fruit into the future ; so we are intellectually prepared in the event of future crises. And that is only a matter of time.

Responding to Jordan Peterson on Socialism

above:  Karl Marx (above) and right-wing public intellectual, Jordan Peterson (below)

Dr Tristan Ewins

I’ve just been watching You Tube videos featuring Canadian right-wing public intellectual Jordan Peterson making a litany of claims against Marxism: basically to the effect that Marxism is ‘essentially and inevitably totalitarian’. I intend to criticise this viewpoint at length.  But bear with me a moment while I summarise some of his arguments.

Peterson claims Marxism is politically irredeemable in any sense.  Numerous examples of Stalinism are provided to illustrate the arguments ; and to suggest an ‘essential causal link’ between Marxism and the Stalinist dystopias of the 20^th Century.   Peterson makes the usual claims that Marxism leads to mediocrity and failure because it fails to reward excellence and initiative.  That it fails to accommodate the functionality of inequality in that sense of providing incentive and reward for effort and innovation.  And furthermore, Peterson argues that Marxism is a basically destructive ideology founded on envy ; and is ‘fundamentally authoritarian’ and antagonistic towards liberty.  In response to Marxist critics of Stalinism, Peterson dismissively claims that their position can be written off as suggesting ‘the utopia would have been ushered in if only they had been the dictators’.   Peterson links Marxism with atrocities having claimed millions of lives over the course of the 20^th Century. From his perspective he finds it hard to grasp how some people are still claiming ‘that was not real communism’ ; and that ‘real communism deserves to be tried’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXgZAdaMtS8

In response,you could just as easily argue that the First World War was waged between capitalist nations ; inspired by Imperialist rivalries ; and resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Do we conclude therefore that is the only kind of capitalism possible? That is: a capitalism characterized by imperialism, aggressive nationalism and world war?  

Many Marxists have made just that conclusion.  Though by contrast Karl Kautsky suggested the possibility of an ‘ultra-imperialism’ whereby the Great Powers carved the world up between themselves in a relatively peaceful fashion.  

Yes, there is a common, historical and functional link between capitalist imperialism and war.   The drive for economic growth and political power provides a motivation to try and secure external markets in the context of Great Power rivalry. And to exploit the resources of ‘colonised’ and ‘Third World’ countries.  But ideologies around competitive individualism, market economies and so on are not essentially linked with war. Do we not distinguish between pacifist liberals and imperialist hawks under capitalism?  Nor should socialist ideologies be ‘essentially linked’ with oppression as if only one kind of outcome is possible.  

On the other hand , those ideologies (of market based competition) are often appealed to in a misleading way. Socialists can also accommodate a place for competition and markets. For some socialists the real challenge is in working out ‘the best mix’.  And that could involve a balance of competition, planning and economic democracy.  (for instance imaginably in a context of producer’s and consumer’s co-operatives ; with peoples’ democratic organisation as producers and consumers providing checks and balances against each other)

Some markets deliver the goods in terms of innovation and responsiveness to consumer need. In other instances co-operation and civic responsibility deserve to be considered as options and as motivations.  ‘Natural public monopolies’ can pass on superior cost structures to the broader economy ; assisting not only consumers – but even capitalist enterprises. There is no ‘one way’ in which to organise economies.  The ‘essence’ of capitalism is neither markets nor competition (which existed before capitalism)  : but rather capital as a form of property ; a social relationship and a process of accumulation ; a process through which the surplus value created by workers is appropriated ; with startling divisions resulting in both wealth and power. Divisions which are becoming more and more marked ; and with economic insecurity a means of disciplining the working class into submission.

Marx’s critique of capitalism focused on the intense human alienation which arose in the age of industrialisation. Extremes not only of inequality: but the brutality involved in long working hours, subsistence wages, inhuman and sometimes dangerous working conditions.  And further: the distributive injustice arising from the expropriation of surplus value: that workers were not fully compensated for the value which they created through their labours.  The division of labour under capitalism was dehumanising in that there was little opportunity for rewarding creative labour. Labour was commonly ‘broken into small, repetitive parts’ in a way which ruled out creative control or fulfilment.  For many workers this is still the reality.  As opposed to oppression, Marxism actually aimed to extend “personal freedom”, not of isolated individuals but through mutual “association” providing “the means of cultivating [our] gifts in all directions” (Marx and Engels Selected Works, Vol. I, pp 27-28, 68).

We cannot go into some comprehensive rendition of ‘key Marxist concepts’ here ; but in short Marxism is a plural tradition spanning the best part of two centuries.  Its prestige has declined with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.  Triumphalist proclamations of its collapse and irrelevance have had a telling effect through sheer repetition and attrition ; amidst hostility in the monopoly mass media.   In fact the world is always changing ; and ‘classical Marxism’ on its own is not enough to grasp every aspect of such a constantly changing world.  That said ; Marx still grasps the fundamentals of capitalist accumulation and exploitation ; the problems of monopolisation and class bifurcation ; and the dilemmas where exchange value is emphasised sometimes to the exclusion of use value.  (for example ; great swathes of unoccupied properties amidst widespread homelessness)  He also recognised as early as the ‘Manifesto’ of 1848 that constant change (and hence insecurity) were also ‘the essence of capitalism’ ; though Social Democracy has strived to ameliorate this through the welfare state, social wage and so on. 

Marx provides a foundation upon which further theoretical innovation can progress – often in different directions.  Every word ‘should not be taken as holy writ’.  Sometimes even fundamental and iconic ideas deserve to be revised.  But aside from the horrors of totalitarian misappropriation there are other traditions : traditions of the Democratic Left.  For instance ; of the Revolutionary Social Democracy which preceded the ‘Social Democratic/Communist Split’ of 1914.  And which survived on the Left of Social Democracy.  The great plurality of modern Marxism – and of newer traditions – such as ‘Post-Marxism’  (eg: Mouffe and Laclau), and the Critical Theory developed by the likes of Jurgen Habermas – also demonstrate a productive engagement with liberalism.

Peterson concedes that much Marxist analysis withstands criticism and maintains its appeal ; but argues that it can only have one outcome when applied in practice.  That is: totalitarian oppression and suppression of individual dignity and liberty.  These kind of claims are fundamentally ahistorical.  They look not to the specific historic conditions which saw Marxism twisted into an ‘official Ideology’ of authoritarian, and even totalitarian states.  Rather they generalise that given such degeneration became widespread over the 20^th Century that it is the only possible outcome.

But let's remember also that the original (Marxist) social democrats were among the first to promote the fight for full, equal and universal suffrage at a time when the idea was unthinkable for most Conservatives and even most Liberals.  And that Bolshevist pressure contributed to the conditions whereby liberal and parliamentary democracy was widely adopted in Europe following World War One. Let's also remember Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Leninism ; and the critiques of Bolshevism from figures such as the German-based Marxist – and most prominent theorist of ‘Marxist Centrism and Orthodoxy’ ; Karl Kautsky , as well as the Left-Social Democratic Menshevik leader, Julius Martov.  In short: right from the beginning there was resistance to Bolshevist strategies from the revolutionary social democratic and libertarian communist Left. Right from the beginning there was resistance from within Marxism - on the basis that suppression of democracy and liberties ; and the progressive narrowing of decision making to an ever narrowing stratum of Party leaders – counter-acted the corrective forces of participatory democracy. And that the narrowing foundation for real power could very well corrupt the Revolution over the longer term. (as it did)  

Further ; accelerating and entrenched Terror abrogated the Marxist principles of fighting human alienation and defending human dignity.  Yes, Marx understood Terror could be inevitable in certain revolutionary contexts ; but those strategies also held certain dangers ; and pervasive Stalinist Terror became permanent and indiscriminate.

Bolshevist centralisation and Terror held the same danger of facilitating effective counter-revolution: as occurred also with the Terror in Revolutionary France ; and the transition from ‘the Republic’ to ‘The Empire’ of Napoleon.  Stalinism is understood by some as exactly that: counter-revolution. Some ‘orthodox’ Marxists (including Martov and Kautsky) also viewed radical Bolshevist voluntarism regarding the establishment of socialism without the foundation of prior capitalist economic development – as involving dangerous potential risks and ramifications. Most importantly: that while the Bolshevists engaged in a ‘bold gambit’ of pursuing revolution and withdrawing Russia from the War ; that the ultimate degeneration of the revolution (under enormous pressure from isolation and foreign intervention and destabilisation) could see socialism discredited in the eyes of many for generations.  

On the other hand: while these flaws in Bolshevist strategy can be appreciated, assumptions of ‘inevitable, irresistible and gradual progress towards democratic socialism’ were also flawed. For example, while the Austrian Revolution of 1918 did not replicate Bolshevist strategies , the failure of the Austrian Social Democrats to fully and permanently consolidate their control of the state apparatus of force when the opportunity provided actually left the way open for the undermining of democracy in Austria from within – and the eventual rise of a domestic ‘Austro-Fascism’ over the longer term.

The fact is that a more liberal capitalism is possible ; but so is a more liberal socialism. Also let's remember the ambitions of (pre-Leninist) Marxism - for whom the aim was economic development with the aim of promoting cultural growth, development and freedom. The drift of socialism into more authoritarianism and repression that occurred under Lenin - and radically accelerated and deepened under Stalin - also need to be understood in context.

Again: Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power amidst World War. The Entente responded to the loss of their former Russian ally by promoting destabilization and supporting the White Armies. Desperation accelerated: became a matter of life and death - as heating materials, food supply and so on - were threatened in the context of civil war. And so Bolsheviks such as Trotsky were led to embrace war, militarisation of labour, political repression - to prevent the collapse of the communist government – and broader social and economic disaster. Everything became justifiable because it was done in the name of the (nominally) proletarian state. But that very state became more and more divorced from any real accountability to the Soviet People in practice. Again: Democratic and libertarian communists such as Luxemburg, Kautsky, Martov (who were also significantly different from one another in important respects) did see that justifying everything and anything for the sake of the 'end cause' was a dangerous path which could lead to the discrediting of socialism for generations.

But still: why is it that the Right can judge Marxism as a whole (and in an undifferentiated way) so harshly - but has so little so say about Western Intervention in the Civil War, and the World War that led to Russian social collapse, the deaths of tens of millions;  the desperate struggles for survival under Lenin ; and ultimately that setting the preconditions for the degeneration under Stalin? Why is it there is so little historic memory of anti-Communist Cold War atrocities? (Chile, Guatemala, half a million murdered in Indonesia ; the social and psychological trauma of McCarthyist paranoia and repression)  Why the double standards and selective historic memory? If you want some idea of what socialism and Marxism COULD have been - better to look to the examples of Red Vienna under the Austrian Social Democrats during the interwar period. Look to the mass movements in Austria which promoted working class cultural growth, democratic freedoms, and the provision of social goods and services - especially in Vienna itself. As well as effective conditions of ‘dual power’ with the maintenance of the republican ‘Schutzbund’ ; a working class militia with the aim of providing an ‘insurance policy’ for the preservation of  Austrian democracy.

There was a 'middle way' between Marxism-Leninism, and the ultimate degeneration under Stalin that followed on the one hand - and 'the social democratic Chauvinists' on the Right who rationalised support for a World War (WWI) in which tens of millions were slaughtered, disfigured and traumatised. Let's again restate how democracy was trailblazed in Revolutionary France - and the stated principles of the French Revolution inspire still. But also let's remember they faced comparable dilemmas re: revolutionary Terror in the face of destabilisation, war and invasion, starvation and so on. And the Terror eventually devoured its own; and led to a kind of counter-revolution - much as in Russia.  But we do not therefore abandon democracy on account of the fate of the French Revolution, do we? The French Revolution led to Bonapartism and Empire - But democrats never concluded that that was the only possibility arising from democratic and liberal revolution. Which is what Conservatives like Peterson effectively argue about socialism, and especially Marxism. Soviet and Eastern Bloc Socialism degenerated under very specific historic circumstances. But that was not the only socialism possible ; nor was it the only Marxism possible.

So a different kind of socialism and indeed a different kind of Marxism is possible. 

Capitalism is not 'essentially' about freedom either - especially for the most exploited. And in reality wealth polarisation suppresses opportunity rather than promoting it ; and effectively narrows the cultural, social and economic support base upon which real power rests. The capitalist Ideology often bears little resemblance to the reality. Just like Stalinism bore little resemblance to the original communist ideology. But a 'good and decent Marxism' today will also engage with liberalism. Hence the pluralism of Agonists and post-Marxists like Chantal Mouffe on one hand ; or liberal social democrats like Habermas on the other. They are radically different from one another in many respects. One (Habermasian critical theory) believes that through Reason and the application of Enlightenment principles Modernity can resolve its shortcomings with the growth of rational consensus through dialogue. The other (Agonism) sees difference of values as perhaps perpetually inevitable ; but asks how this can be accommodated via a genuine and deep liberal pluralism. But both defer in a sense at least to liberalism.

As for the final word on 'Communism' ; most of us have forgotten what communism really meant. It did not originally equate with permanent Terror, Cult of Personality and so on - nor should it do so today. It's not about an 'essential human nature' provided for under capitalism and suppressed under communism.  The ‘fate of Communism’ revolved around ethically treacherous tactical and strategic decision-making amidst some of the worst possible historic circumstances ; which saw the Marxist (formerly Social Democratic) movements diverted in many instances for decades - into the historical dead end of Stalinism. But the (Marxist) Left Social Democrats stand out still by the examples they gave and stood for as well. 

Stalinism emerges from the desperation and degeneration which occurs under conditions of permanent Terror - which in of themselves arose under extraordinary historic conditions of social and economic disintegration. It also arose in the context of war, civil war, foreign intervention, the threat of starvation - and the furious response of the Entente Powers who could not forgive Lenin for withdrawing from World War One. Without World War One – and without Western intervention - there may have been no Stalinism. Without those treacherous dilemmas and desperate historic circumstances - maybe there really could even have been a (relatively) 'peaceful march forward for socialism and democracy'. But history rarely progresses just as we would like.

Of course the ‘Marxist Centrist’, Kautsky is not without fault either ; arguing for abstention on the issue of war credits in 1914 rather than outright opposition. But by 1915 most Marxist social democrats (including Kautksy) were agitating relentlessly for a separate peace. Lenin drew a certain prestige from never compromising or conceding in the face of a War which claimed tens of millions of lives. What he was not open or honest about was the fact he could not deliver the peace which working people wanted ; because under the specific circumstances Civil War was inevitable. Lenin wanted a world revolution which ended war, repression, exploitation and capitalism permanently. What we eventually got under Stalin was a regime whose cynicism and brutality discredited Marxism in the eyes of millions for generations. Martov and Kautsky clearly understood this.

And for working people the Horror of War is similar whether in the name of Imperial Russia or the (nominally) Proletarian State. (Trotsky argued the Proletarian State made all the difference ; But after decades through which workers suffered War, Forced Industrialisation, Labour  militarisation and so on – the ‘end goals’ must have seemed like a mirage)  In any case, though, we should concede that Horrors and brutality have occurred under both capitalist and (nominally) communist regimes. It’s historic contingency more so than 'human nature' which saw the degeneration of those nominally communist regimes.

A different kind of revolutionary social democracy is possible - which draws what is best from the history of Marxism - and grapples to understand the worst of it ; that those outcomes can be avoided into the future. That also means grappling honestly with liberalism - both its insights and its limitations.  Again: it involves taking the best from the Marxist traditions ; but being open to revision and innovation where necessary.

An ‘essential’ link with personal dictatorship?

As opposed to Peterson’s arguments: if you actually read Kautksy, Martov, Luxemburg - You will see that they are NOT arguing 'things would have been different if THEY were the dictators'. If you look at Karl Kautsky for instance you will see that for him 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' was interpreted as the 'dictatorship of a class' as opposed to the dictatorship of an *individual*. And if you look further to Kautsky, Martov, Luxemburg (or Otto Bauer for instance if you look to the Austro-Marxists) - you will also see that for them this could be interpreted as a form of democratic majoritarianism. That is: the implementation of a democratic mandate provided by the working class democratic majority. But if you look to Kautsky also you will see things are more complex than this even as well. That is: the liberties of minorities are important ; and ideally that includes the liberties of your ideological rivals. Which is basically what Kautsky argued in response to Lenin. Though the worst circumstances inevitably complicate matters. (Best to avoid those circumstances in the first place if possible)

Marxism should have a future ; but it needs to 'settle accounts with liberalism'. And it needs to eschew simplistic romanticism about revolution. Desperation leads to treacherous ethical dilemmas - and ultimately can lead to degeneration into regimes such as Stalinism. But let's not be historically selective about our memories here ; let's concede that atrocities occurred under both sides during the Cold War. Western intervention could even be accused as accelerating that degeneration by escalating the sheer desperation involved. The Ideology of the 'victors' is stronger of course ; and you'd expect that given the narrow economic base upon which much cultural power rests. But those who do not heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. THAT can be applied to BOTH the Right and the Left.

‘Absolute’ Equality?

Socialists like Eduard Bernstein never argued there would (or should) be 'perfect and simple economic equality'. As far as they were concerned there should always be recognition that there should be differences to account for varieties in skill, effort and so on. Even under socialism. (communism itself - as originally theorised by Marx - could see the full realisation of all individual material need ; but that would be very significantly into the future ; and there's the problem that 'abundance' can be conceived relatively) But the reality under capitalism today is radical and accelerating economic polarisation. We're not talking about 'functional inequality' ; we're talking about a narrowing economic and hence cultural basis for power. Which has a corrosive effect on democracy. We're talking about (in the US) an outrageous gap between the destitute and the working poor on one hand ; and the wealthy on the other. Indeed there is a yawning gap between the capitalist class and the middle income layers of the working class as well.  Meanwhile efforts are made to construct certain (largely, objectively working class people) as 'the middle class' - and undermine solidarity between these and the working poor and destitute.

So no - there should not be perfect and absolute economic equality. But nor should there be accelerating polarisation and exploitation. And nor should the working class be 'disciplined' by the threat of destitution. There should be equality in educational opportunity ; and there is a moral imperative for equality in health care ; and provision of basics like housing as 'non negotiable needs' for everybody. Cultural opportunity should also arguably be extended to society in general.  Enterprise and initiative can (and should) exist ; but how much better to have enterprise and initiative exercised with the involvement of co-operatives of working people than to have the economy - and hence culture and politics - dominated by a narrowing stratum of ultra-rich? How much better can goods and services become when working people have a clear and genuine stake in their production and provision?

Competition can be much of a motivation – but also in certain contexts a drag - on the broader economy. Competition can mean economic responsiveness. It can also mean enormous waste. The answer is a genuinely mixed economy ; preferably a *democratic* mixed economy. With natural public monopolies and collective consumption via tax.  But also where effective the competition that fires market responsiveness: which can even exist in an economy marked by a strong co-operative movement. Getting rid of economic waste (eg: the inefficient cost structures that have been involved in privatisation) can also be the basis of providing for base economic needs more efficiently ; and from that there is the possibility of going beyond the vicious circle of consumerism. That is: there is the economic basis to provide cultural opportunity for everybody. And broader cultural opportunity is more important that the dynamic of 'more, ever more' under capitalism ; where the sheer scale of economic consumerism lends stability to a system which needs perpetual growth and control of ‘external’ markets in order to offset its enormous waste. In the end that is both socially and environmentally unsustainable. Hence the need for a 'democratic mixed economy' providing a better mix of natural public monopoly, collective consumption and democratic markets.

Jordan Peterson is developing something of a reputation as an anti-Communist public intellectual.  But many of his arguments involve simplifications and distortions. Peterson has every right to denounce historical Stalinism.  Indeed he has the right (under free speech) to put his broader arguments on socialism forward as well ; even where these are so terribly misconceived.  But it is for socialists to meet Peterson and others like him on ‘the democratic battle-field of ideas’. We cannot let Peterson and others like him ‘utterly write socialism off’  based on selective examples, distortions and simplifications.  The truth of Marxism is that it is a highly plural tradition.  Much of which has been firmly grounded in the principles of liberty and democracy.  ‘Another Socialism’ is possible. And there are clear historical examples which illustrate this. This is what we need to argue in response to Jordan Peterson.