Superannuation and Dividend Imputation the Key for Delivering in the May Budget

Above:  Gonski is crucial in moving closer towards educational equal opportunity

 

If Labor wants to win in September it needs bold new initiatives – without ‘robbing Peter to Pay Paul’.  Reforming superannuation concessions and dividend imputation may provide Labor with the ‘warchest’ it needs to ‘break through;’ to disengaged voters.   Labor also needs to deliver in the immediate term as well – as voters may be sceptical of commitments only for the ‘distant future’.

 Tristan Ewins,  March 2013

As the May Federal Budget approaches and Liberal state governments increasingly move to sabotage the Federal Government’s Gonski proposals purely for political purposes – it seems increasingly likely that if Gonski is to succeed the Federal Government must ‘pick up the entire tab’.  The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will also involve a heavy cost, and Labor simply cannot deliver without progressive reform on the revenue side.   More unpopular austerity – as in the case of Sole Parents – which saw disgust and cynicism amongst parts of the electorate – is not a viable option. And in any case it simply should not be part of the Labor ethos –‘to take from Peter to pay Paul’ – seeking to spin these matters to create only an illusion of overall progress.

Mark Kenny, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald explains how resort to superannuation investment has become a prime means of tax avoidance for high income groups.. Hence:

“High-income earners simply have greater scope to save and thus evade the 46.5 per cent marginal tax rate on income by sending it into super. The result is that what is saved on the aged pension budget through self-funded retirement winds up being less than what the superannuation policy costs in tax revenue foregone.”

(Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/for-richer-or-poorer-class-warfare-opens-on-a-new-front-20130208-2e3jp.html#ixzz2MMN0j7MX)

Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has been one of the most determined critics of the existing system of superannuation concessions. In August last year he put the argument that while those concessions cost the public $30 billion in late 2012, they will cost $45 billion as early as 2015.  This is well in excess of the entire Aged Pension budget – which was only $25 billion in 2012.  And in 2012 $10 billion of these superannuation concessions were going only to the top 5 per cent income demographic.    Denniss has argued:  “We estimate, for high income earners, up to 60 per cent of their lump sum is actually the contribution of the taxpayer.”    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3568235.htm

The ACTU, meanwhile, has urged the Government to target the top 10 per cent income demographic.  And were superannuation concessions revoked for that top 10 per cent group, at an estimate it could bring in over $15 billion -  enough for the government to fund Gonski and the NDIS without having to depend upon the Conservative states.  (nb: though NDIS will cost more over the years as the full program is phased in)   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/wealthy-in-wayne-swans-sights-on-superannuation/story-fn59nsif-1226572182403

Yet even as Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party condemn Labor for considering revoking concessions for some of the most privileged, they are committed to withdrawing superannuation tax breaks for low paid workers. Bill Shorten has pointed out that the restoration of a 15 per cent tax rate on these Australian workers will affect 3.7 million people, including 2.1 million women.  It could cost these workers $500 a year: which is not inconsiderable for those on low incomes.  This is blatant hypocrisy from Abbott.

See:http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2013/002.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType

So what should Labor do?  Gonski and NDIS are potentially landmark reforms which appeal strongly to Labor’s base. Withdrawing superannuation concessions from the top 10% income demographic would make these policies affordable regardless of the Liberal states’ spoiler tactics.  And withdrawing Labor’s unjust policies on Sole Parent payments could moderate the backlash from this callous and self-destructive decision.

But arguably Labor needs a more robust electoral war chest in order to ‘break through’ to a cynical electorate which has already ‘turned off’ in parts of the country. 

Another area of potential reform is Dividend Imputation  - which the Henry Tax Review considered axing a few years ago.  Dividend Imputation seeks to eliminate so-called “double taxation” of investments by providing credits on dividends.  This is fine for small investors – but should the wealthy be receiving a massive tax break as a consequence?   Especially when the Company Tax rate has been cut again and again for decades. 

Writing for ‘The Age’ Nicholas Gruen pointed out late in 2012 that the Dividend Imputation system costs the government in excess of $20 billion a year!  That being the case he went so far as to suggest getting rid of the entire system; demonstrating that the benefits of the system in spurring additional investment are minimal anyway. A spare $20 billion annually – on top of rescission of superannuation concessions for the wealthy – invested in health, education, aged care, welfare, infrastructure, and foreign aid – could work wonders!  It could also help Labor balance the budget over the course of the economic cycle without further callous austerity.  (indeed, quite the opposite!)  http://www.smh.com.au/business/dividend-imputation--20bn-for-the-taking-20120917-262h2.html

Even were the dividend imputation rate only incrementally reduced, an initial reversion to a 75 per cent imputation credit could bring in over another $5 billion; and a 50 per cent rate – argued for in the early 1990s by economist, John Quiggin, could bring in over an additional $10 billion.  

Finally,  the Greens have argued for lifting the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) rate to 40 per cent, eliminating loopholes and removing “generous accelerate depreciation provisions.”   This, they argued, could raise $26 billion our four years.   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-disappointed-with-mrrt-result/story-fn3dxiwe-1226573649144

‘Doing the math’ this would translate into an additional $6.5 billion a year on average.  

Nonetheless it is quite possible that Labor has ‘done a deal’ with the miners. If so it is a fundamental matter of democracy that this ought be made known to the public. The alternative is the kind of ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ referred to by political scientist, Robert Michels – whereby political and economic elites determine agreements ‘behind the scenes’ – cutting ordinary citizens out of the equation.  (the anathema of democracy) Yet at the same time trust is an extremely valuable thing in politics – and even if Labor has made the wrong call on any deal, it would be understandable were they to remain true to that commitment. 

The Greens are thinking of ‘holding Labor over a barrel’ over the MRRT. And ideally the tax does need to revert to its original form as intended by the Henry Tax Review.  But if this is politically impossible the Greens must co-operate with a Labor Government that makes big progressive social initiatives possible through thorough-going reform of superannuation concessions and dividend imputation.

To put all this in perspective the Australian economy today is valued at approximately $1.4 Trillion. The Gonski package – crucial for the very viability of our state school system into the future – and to the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students - will cost about $6.5 billion a year to implement.  And the NDIS – crucial to some of our most vulnerable Australians and their families - is assumed to being going to cost at least $15 billion a year when ‘fully operational’ in 2018.  (but only phased in gradually)

See: http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2012/11/campaign-rejects-ndis-cost-%E2%80%98scaremongering%E2%80%99#

But what else can Labor do to ‘break through’ ahead of September; with the May Budget perhaps being its last opportunity to bed down such major initiatives?

For a long time this author has argued for reform of Aged Care.  It is an issue that effects many of us. Even the younger among us will have family who may need care in the future.

The unnecessary acuteness of suffering experienced by many aged Australians is a matter of national shame.

For those needing low-intensity care there must be high quality, affordable options available.  The  2012-13 Aged Care Reforms proclaimed the end of  'Living Longer. Living Better.'  This must include those with low care needs as well as those needing high level care.

Residents in high intensity care need privacy – they need their own rooms if they so desire.  They need heating and air-conditioning, dental care, facilitated interaction, quality food, and ‘changes of scenery’ - perhaps including access to gardens.  In the future some of those who remain alert and in need of mental stimulation could do with access to information technology.   There are also problems with staff to patient ratios, including a need for more registered nurses.

More generally there is a need for more robust career paths for aged care workers; with better training being complemented with better wages and conditions.  This will also improve the quality of care experienced by aged residents.

For those older Australians wanting to stay at home – and well enough to do so –  there is a also need for regular interaction to ward away the loneliness from which so many suffer. And Families and Carers also need additional support in order to make home care viable.  Staying at home is only an option for many with significant support, and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association has long argued support services here are under-funded.

A minimum additional annual $5 billion devoted to Aged Care would be a start (though certainly not the ‘final word’) in working towards these ends; while also beginning a phase-out of user pays mechanisms that hit average and working class families. Working class and middle income Australians should not be forced to sell their family homes (using the equity in the home - even incrementally,) with an effective regressive ‘flat tax’ in order to secure care for their loved ones.  All the more so while there are massive tax breaks for quite wealthy Australians that go into the tens of billions

The NDIS will care for some of our most vulnerable – but not all of them.  Care for the Aged is just as crucial.

In order to ‘break through’ to cynical Australians who have ‘switched off’ from Labor, the government needs big initiatives that capture the public’s imagination. The government needs to mobilise the welfare sector, labour movement and other social movements behind it with a raft of measures unprecedented in our time.  Yet another dilemma is how to find ways of actually delivering to the public between now and September in such a way as to avoid cynicism about ‘distant’ promises. 

By withdrawing superannuation concessions for the wealthy and reducing dividend imputation Federal Labor can amass a very substantial war chest.

One thing is clear.  Without substantial reforms bringing in the revenue for the coming May Federal Budget Labor will be left with very limited options.  ‘Business as usual’ will not win Labor the election.

The Policy of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association can be found via the URL below;  They generally lead the way in campaigning for the rights of aged Australians, including those in need of care:

http://www.cpsa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=82

Reflections on the democratic Marxism of Karl Kautsky

above:  A lithograph of the 'Red Pope' Karl Kautsky

What follows is an essay which attempts to identify the defensible and valuable legacy that the democratic Marxist Karl Kautsky provided for the Left during the pre-1914 period.  It is largely based upon a reading of his seminal ‘The Road to Power’. (1909)

The author further attempts to discern what ramifications Kautsky’s works during this period might have also for the current day – around 100 years later.

The following essay also compromises a brief, edited segment (in-progress) of the author (Tristan Ewins’)  (as yet uncompleted) PhD thesis on Third Roads and Third Ways on the Left 1848-1948.  

Debate is very welcome!!!

Tristan Ewins

work-in-progress; Feb 2013

.

There are many themes addressed in Karl Kautsky’s work that provide the basis for a defensible legacy; and others that are perhaps less defensible.  This brief essay is mainly derived fro a reading of Kautksy’s  1909 work ‘The Road to Power’, with some consideration of ‘The Erfurt Program’ (The Class Struggle), as well as ‘On the Morrow of the Social Revolution’, and “The Social Revolution’. (1903)  However we do not draw here upon Kautksy’s seminal debate with Lenin which occurred following the 1917 October Bolshevik Revolution.  (including Kautsky’s ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’; and Lenin’s “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky’)

In Kautksy’s favour it is to be noted that Materialism and determinism are still widely considered respectable philosophical positions: and Kautsky is quite radical and unyielding in his adherence to such a perspective.  And yet intuitively that position remains problematic – as how could consciousness and will arise out of a purely material (ie: mechanical) process?  Herbert Marcuse had dared to posit a ‘great refusal’ of the most marginal and oppressed as creating a new historic agent for revolution.  The idea that such minorities could lead a revolution is suggestive of a radical voluntarism. And yet liberal capitalism has – to a significant degree - again ‘adapted’, co-opted and neutralised these elements.

It is probably fair to argue that (from a Marxist perspective) ‘something went wrong’  in the evolution of capitalism -  such that the system evolved in a way which neutralised the very critical elements it had given rise to: the enlightened and revolutionary working class who – according to Marx and Kautsky - were supposed to be the system’s ‘gravediggers’.  The question, here, is whether Kautskyan determinism and materialism are helps or hindrances under such circumstances.  Critical theorist Theodore Adorno would have it that a capitalist ‘culture industry’ lulls and deceives us into passivity; and decades since he made such observations psychological manipulation via mass culture appears more pervasive and powerful than ever.  In addition to that, the decline of mass factory labour – the phenomenon of ‘post-industrialism’ – also contributes to the demobilisation of the working class, and the decline of a distinct class consciousness.

A Kautskyan (pure materialist) outlook might hold the position to hopeless.  Again: this might begin to look like “a bad totality with no way out”. (Adorno/Beilharz)  And yet again: perhaps the new information technology provides the material basis for ‘levelling the playing field’ somewhat in the contest of ideas.  And a moderate voluntarism – which accepts our grounding based on experience, but holds some prospect for the human imagination and for collective free human will, might suppose these provide a ‘potential way out’.  Kautsky would reject suppositions of free will and unbound human imagination. But perhaps he would appreciate the new technology as a ‘material grounding’ for hope; and for ‘asymmetrical political struggle’. 

And it is also notable that relative abundance creates ‘new’ (ie: relative) needs.  While Kautsky foresaw limits to social education in his own time, today there are the material means to provide education not only for the labour market, but for active and critical citizenship, and for well-rounded human beings.  The question of whether workers and citizens can be mobilised around the defence of ‘newer’ established rights (pensions, leave, education, health); or even inspired to fight for new social conquests (eg: a standard 32 hour week) is an open one.  Perhaps there is no guarantee of success as much as there is no guarantee of failure.  Kautsky found it difficult wrestling with the prospect of uncertainty in response to Revisionism.  But today radicals face the imperative of fostering hope even without the old teleological certainties of the old Marxism.

The question of ‘economism’ versus ‘political socialism’ is also interesting to approach in light of Kautsky’s work. Kautsky is often accused of ‘economism’ for his insistence – following Engels – that the ‘economic base’ determines the cultural and political ‘superstructure’ ‘in the last instance’ – but with ‘relative autonomy’ during the interim.  Indeed, Marxism itself is often more broadly accused of ‘economism’ by comparison with ‘political socialism’.  Perhaps it is this important qualification (re: relative autonomy) which makes the Kautskyan position more nuanced than is commonly supposed.  Interestingly, Kautsky maintains the distinction between trade union and social democratic consciousness precisely because the struggle over wages and conditions alone is not enough to resolve capitalist contradictions.  Insofar as the State provides an obstacle, the precondition for transforming the economy is the political transformation of the State – and hence the economic and the political struggle are necessarily intertwined.   But undoubtedly Kautsky does underplay the importance of political, religious and cultural motives driving great struggles, and largely reduces those struggles to the context of the class struggle and evolving mode of production.

In a world today where the very idea of class struggle faces stigmatisation Kautsky is adamant that not only that the working class must struggle; but that the antagonisms between it and the bourgeoisie cannot be resolved except for revolution.  Antagonism is a recurring theme for Kautsky in the context of a presumption of class struggle: placing him in stark relief as against modern social democratic ideologies that seek social peace based upon social amelioration.  Again: here revolution for Kautsky did not mean ‘violence’, ‘chaos’, ‘insurrection’ – But simply qualitative change; the achievement of a new constitution one way of another (preferably through non-violent class struggle) with the consequence of a democratic state, and a democratic economy.  Kautsky allows for the possibility of gradualism in the social revolution as also supposed by the reformists, but stands firm on the qualitative nature of the change he is pursuing for the State and the economy.  And given his assumption of the State’s class nature, he sees political revolution (ie: the proletariat achieving a dominant position within the State) as the necessary prerequisite for such qualitative change.  Though we might suppose that the very process of the working class ‘achieving a dominant position in the State’ could also comprise a struggle lasting decades.  (or in a fashion contrary to Kautsky’s optimism, indeed we may now question whether we will ever reach that goal)

Modern ‘Third Ways’ dispute the need for ‘revolution’; indeed the bulk of third way theorists and practitioners today would consider the very idea ‘absurd.’  Indeed they largely abandon any radical redistributive agenda – arguing for social and economic ‘inclusion’ as the means of conciliation.  In practice this means amelioration for the most marginal and oppressed.  And indeed the corresponding policies matter a great deal to the excluded, the impoverished, and the marginalised themselves.

But the logic of capitalism is generally towards greater intensity of exploitation, and conciliation must also mean lasting peace (ie: an end to Imperialist war) if it is to be substantial.  Rather Kautsky looks towards a socialist future where there is universal conciliation and social peace – not on the basis of a compromise settlement – but on the grounds of the elimination of the antagonisms caused by exploitation, capitalist contradictions and Imperialism. 

But Kautsky’s confidence  for the future seems to have been misplaced in retrospect.  And Bernstein’s endeavour for partial conciliation based on universal citizenship, and social as well as liberal rights - could form a bulwark against violent ideologies.  (eg: fascism)  Yet citizenship does not end the class struggle.  Rather it establishes a framework and a foothold for that struggle – which can prevent an escalation into ever greater violence and repression – and hence the corruption of the very emancipatory ambitions which drive socialist movements. 

But this does not exclude great struggles between great social forces.  It has been argued that the corporatist structures that ultimately developed in Sweden are notable as they effectively transposed the class struggle to a different (institutional) level.  This has been theorised at length by Swedish sociologist, Walter Korpi in his ‘Power Resources’ approach. 

Here, though, Kautsky’s vision of such great struggles seems well adaptable to a Gramscian vision of ‘wars of position’ – waged over the course of decades through the various strongholds of civil society.  Although the promise of social peace has great appeal for many; and can provide the vehicle for reform agendas – albeit agendas which do not involve the definitive resolution of capitalist contradictions.  Provisional ‘settlements’, here, are important in the context of such organised class struggle spanning decades.  But in a world where the ‘teleological guarantees’ of the old Marxism appear discredited a ‘historic compromise’ which provides dignity and security, and environmental sustainability – would certainly be a step forwards.

But this brings us to the theme of imiseration and class bifurcation.  Here Bernstein appears to have been largely vindicated.  Exploitation – in the sense of surplus extraction - has become more and more intense – but technological and productive advances have created relative abundance even amidst gross and unnecessary waste.  The issue of environmental sustainability throws this state of affairs into question, but nonetheless there is now the scenario of relative prosperity even amidst more and more intense exploitation.  (although shifts in the world economic order may change this so far as the West is concerned) Yet class bifurcation does remain a  tendency; a tendency which operates alongside different tendencies towards social differentiation, and the re-emergence of ‘middle’ or ‘intermediatory’ classes in different forms as capitalism revolutionises and modernises itself constantly.

In retrospect the very idea of a Marxist theoretical orthodoxy suggests a position which is closed to adaptation in response to evolving circumstances.  Though Kautsky himself would probably point to the materialist conception of history: and argue that in that theoretical approach there already existed the framework and means necessary for adaptation.  Kautsky’s supposition of ever greater economic crises appeared to have been vindicated with the Great Depression; and yet he also failed to predict the rise of fascism – emerging from the same crises he had presumed would usher in socialism.  This raises the question:  was there a problem with the materialist conception of history, or was it merely the way it was applied by socialist theorists?   Various theorists (Steger, Berman etc) have argued that Kautsky’s materialist determinism was a recipe for passivity with its assumptions of ‘inevitable’ change.  As we have already considered, therefore, perhaps a position between radical determinism/materialism and radical voluntarism is most appropriate – recognising limits to the individual will; but holding out hope for human agency, and the motivating assumption that “yes, we can make a difference”  Or in other words, following Berman - ‘structure and agency condition each other’.

And yet if ‘orthodoxy’ means fidelity to enduring principles and concepts, Kautsky has left a defensible legacy in his own defence of the insights of Karl Marx.   Tendencies towards monopoly, intensified exploitation, alienation, crises of overproduction and the correspondingly desperate attempts to expand the world market, class struggle, falling rates of profit,– all remain with us today as by-products of modern capitalism.  And the ‘secret’ of surplus value – identified by Marx and popularised by Kautsky – still implies in its functioning a devastating moral critique of capitalism; while also comprising the means of capitalist systemic reproduction. 

If ‘revisionism’ takes not the form of necessary adjustment to changing circumstances, but rather abandoning crucial insights for the sake of ‘intellectual fashion’, then perhaps there is something to be said for ‘orthodoxy’.  Kautsky’s championing of enduring Marxist concepts and categories therefore remains a defensible legacy even today.  Though nonetheless it would be fair to suggest that the Marxists of Kautsky’s time could not possibly predict the future trajectories of modern capitalism’s development.  Some basic, vital systemic dynamics – as identified by Marx and promoted by Kautsky – remain. (as we have just observed above) But in other ways capitalism keeps evolving, adapting, mutating – surviving where Marxists assumed socialist transition was necessary, ‘inevitable’; for Kautsky “the only thing possible”..

Writing in opposition to “the violence of Austrian anarchists” (we observe, here, the philosophy of ‘the propaganda of the deed’, the policy of assassinations etc)  Kautsky once wrote;

“Social Democracy is a Party of human love, and it must always remain conscious of its character even in the midst of the most frenzied political fights”. (Kautksy in Steenson, p 80)

In his biography of Kautsky, Steenson depicts a man “very sensitive to human suffering”; the kind of man who fought for the rights of unwed mothers and their children and condemned the hypocrisy of those who separated them, institutionalising the children. Kautsky’s concern for human suffering was not merely abstract.  Steenson relates that this disposition of Kautsky’s was later to “cause him to baulk in the face of  the apparent necessity for revolutionary violence.”  (Steenson, p 80)

Kautsky’s position on violence was especially important given  the era of ‘War and Revolution’ which was to follow the publication of his seminal ‘The Road to Power’.

But that would involve a deeper assessment - beyond the frame of this short excerpt from my developing PhD thesis. It is enough for now to note a complexity in Kautsky that is often unrecognised in works condemning his “passivity” – stemming from his philosophical materialism. ‘Fatalism’ was sometimes a consequence of Kautsky’s interpretation of historical materialism.  But in practice no man did more than Kautsky to popularise Marxism in the pre-1917 period.  Rather than ‘writing Kautsky off’, perhaps it is better to let  him speak for himself.   And while we have not quoted him at length in this excerpt, it is to be hoped I have provided an accurate impression of his work, and that work’s relevance – especially those works of the pre-1917 period.   (though his later works were of equal historical imporantance…)

Bibliography

Kautsky, Karl  “The Class Struggle” (Erfurt Program),  The Norton Library, Toronto, 1971

Kautsky, Karl “On the Morrow of the Social Revolution”, The Twentieth Century Press, Clerkenwell, 1903

Kautksy, Karl, “The Road to Power – Political Reflections on Growing into the Revolution,  Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1992

Kautsky, Karl  “The Social Revolution”, The Twentieth Century Press, Clerkenwell, 1903

Sheri Berman on ‘Democratic Revisionism’ and interwar Social Democracy

 

 

 

above: Sheri Berman's 'The Primacy of Politics'

The following is an engagement with Sheri Berman's book on European Social Democracy and what she calls 'democratic revisionism'. The question of relative independance of the political sphere from the economic base is considered in depth; including the 'mututal conditioning of structure and agency upon each other'. There are implications for Australia as well: notably the potential for progressive parties to mobilise against the 'veto' of capitalists on public policy. But at the same time - even while acknowledging the potential of democratic socialism, the reviewer (Tristan Ewins) argues that the power of this 'veto' should not be understated.

Tristan Ewins

Jan 3rd 2013

 

 

In her work “The Primacy of Politics”, political scientist Sheri Berman compares what she refers to as “orthodox Marxism” with “democratic revisionism”, starting with Eduard Bernstein, but ultimately finding expression with Western social democracy. Swedish social democracy is seen to have been the most successful instance; enjoying a hegemonic period spanning decades and a legacy that remains vital today.

Berman’s book deals with a number of opposing and mediating themes. Marxian historical materialist determinism (with its alleged implication of political and economic ‘passivity’) is contrasted with what Berman sees as an economically activist and politically voluntarist disposition on the part of ‘democratic revisionism’. Radical and revolutionary negation emerging from the logic and spirit of class struggle – and based on the interwar“Marxist orthodoxy” - is opposed to reformist agendas based on class collaboration and conciliation. Working class internationalism is contrasted against the promotion of ‘national community’ and ‘national solidarity’.Swedish social democracy in particular is praised for making that ground – of national community and solidarity – their own – effectively denying it as a rallying point for the Swedish far right.

Here, ‘orthodox Marxism’ is held by Berman to be consistent with the perspectives of those such as Kautksy, Rudolf Hilferding, Otto Bauer and other Social Democratic politicians during the interwar period. (for instance, Leon Blum) Emerging with Kautsky’s popularisation of Marxism in the late 19^th century, this perspective remained influential for many European social democratic parties through the immediate post-WWII period.

Again: according to Berman, the ‘orthodox Marxist’ viewpoint was marked by belief in class struggle; a fatalistic and passively-inclined materialist and economistic determinism; and hence the downplaying of the potential for political action to shape economic outcomes. Hence Berman notes how Leon Blum in particular distinguished between “the ‘exercise’ and the ‘conquest’ of power”; (Berman; Pp 100- 101) Apparently this is meant to be another example of orthodox Marxian ‘passivity’. And we have observed in earlier chapters how there is at times some substance to this charge – eg: in the Kautskyan notion of social democrats being history’s ‘midwives’ rather than history’s makers. (ie: revolutionary; but not revolution-making)

And yet perhaps Blum’s distinction is useful after all. Berman pretty much rules out widespread economic socialisation – depicting it as ideological and of little practical value. But perhaps the reality, here, is self-containment on the basis of a presumed effective ‘capitalist veto’ on the economic policies of social democratic governments.

Hence there is more to the ‘conquest of power’ that an electoral majority. There remains the challenge of overcoming resistance to democracy embedded in the state apparatus of force; of the cultural “fortresses and casemates” spoke of by Gramsci; and the power of global capital – with the threat of capital strike, economic destabilisation etc. In modern capitalist liberal democracy there has even developed a kind of “double-think” – an Ideology of democracy existing alongside open recognition of the effective ‘veto of capital’. (although the Nordics certainly show that even in this context there is room to move in labour organisation is strong enough)

By comparison with the ‘orthodoxy’, however, Berman posits a specific and unique social democratic ideology – what she calls “democratic revisionism” – based on economic and political activism: rooted in “the primacy of the political”. For Berman modern social democracy is synonymous with this “democratic revisionism”, and not with the Marxist orthodoxy which was ultimately outflanked on both sides – by revisionism on the Right and radically voluntaristic Bolshevism on the Left.

For Berman the Marxist orthodoxy failed at the crucial moment; that is, the interwar period, including the Depression and the rise of fascism. Berman depicts ostensibly Marxist Socialist parties – in the tradition of the pre-WWI International -resigned to the inevitable ‘working through’ of capitalist contradictions to the point of revolution; as opposed to a struggle to significantly ameliorate human suffering within the framework of capitalism itself.

Berman provides a host of examples to illustrate her point, but here we will mainly concern ourselves further with the experience of Swedish social democracy in the inter-war and immediate post-war period.

Berman depicts Socialist parties – in the interwar and immediate post-war period – as imposing upon themselves an “ideological purity”for which practical action for the sake of their constituencies were forsaken. In defence of those ‘orthodox’elements, however, it is worth noting that it was in their efforts to avoid opportunism, and hence the disillusionment of their working class base, that social democratic parties in the ‘orthodox’ tradition tended to avoid cross-class collaboration and compromise. Especially, for this reason they avoided taking part in coalition governments with bourgeois parties. This practical consideration was at least as powerful as any yearning for“ideological purity” – and critiques of Marxist social democracy need to allow for such motives.

Yet it is true that in his time Kautsky himself adopted a quasi-“mechanistic” Marxism which, while recognising “willing” human beings (but not ‘free will’), nonetheless discerned a nexus between universal suffrage and the rise to dominance of the industrial working class. Indeed, this was a nexus which – it was assumed – rendered socialism inevitable – assuming the prerequisite of a democratic political revolution. Yet Kautsky’s very emphasis on the necessity of political revolution dispels Berman’s (any many others’) effective accusation of bland and undiluted economism, even though the‘orthodox’ did suppose the primacy of the economy ‘in the last instance’.

And yet in the crucial interwar period Berman has a point that economistic fatalism could only play into the hands of the fascist enemy. Where liberals and socialists ought have compromised with practical economic action in the face of Depression, ‘political stalemate’ saw desperate and bitter Germans turn instead to so-called ‘National Socialism’. As Berman argues, in Germany and Italy it was fascism that took up the mantle of economic activism, as well as‘class-transcending’ and collectivist visions and rhetoric of national community. But by contrast when Swedish Social Democrats took the ground of “national community”, cross class solidarity and economic activism, it was they and not the fascists who emerged triumphant.

As we will see, Berman appreciates the role of Ernst Wigforss – the Swedish politician, self-taught economist and political scientist, in ‘anticipating Keynesianism before Keynes.’ Berman further looks to Wladimir S Woytinsky and the German unions during interwar/Depression period – who also independently (ie: before Keynes) came up with a plan to stimulate the German economy; creating “socially useful” work with “competitive wages”. Berman contrasts Woytinsky’s plan for“deficit financing” and economic stimulus with the “full-fledged ‘socialist’strategy adopted by the SPD Left – in the form of a plan devised by the Austro-Marxist Rudolf Hilferding. (Berman, p 112)

As Berman observes; Hilferding’s plan rested on moves towards economic planning and socialisation; including “nationalisation of banks, insurance…, key industries, [with] state control of monopolies, the expropriation of large estates; a shortened work-week; work sharing; and a limited work-creation program financed through increased taxes and a forced loan.” (Berman; p 112)

But for Berman apparently Hilderding’s approach comprised an example of the ‘orthodox viewpoint’ of class struggle and economic socialisation – a vision which failed to address peoples fears or “stir their imagination”. (Berman, pp 114-115)

Yet Berman’s characterisation could just as well be turned in the other direction: that the non-socialist parties would not compromise and actually deal with the Depression in a rational and necessarily socialist manner. The visions of Wigforss and Woytinsky, here, resonate with our relatively vivid historic political memory of the social-democratic Keynesian ‘golden age’. But the democratic socialism of Hilferding was never given a chance. We will never know, now, what its outcome in Germany would have been.

Despite this, however, Berman tellingly observes an“orthodox” Marxian social democratic mainstream ‘caught off guard’ in Germany by the rise of fascism in response to the Depression. Crisis they had anticipated: but fascism they had not anticipated. As expected, class struggle intensified with the Depression. But the lure of Nazism proved more powerful than the appeal of both the SPD and of the Communists; and in 1933 the Nazi vote had risen to almost 44 per cent. ( Pp 109-111) and see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

Either Hilferding’s approach or Woytinsky’s approach may have significantly ameliorated the life experiences of impoverished and fearful Germans. But Berman effectively argues that it was Hitler’s playing upon humiliation, bitterness and desperation in the context of an appeal to national community, ‘belonging’ and solidarity that proved decisive.

The lesson suggested by Berman is as with the title of her book: “the primacy of politics”; of the power of the political imagination; of political mobilisation, strategy and action – as compared with what she calls‘fatalistic doctrines’. (ie: specifically, the Marxist “orthodoxy”) Hence the difference between Germany’s turn to fascism and Sweden’s turn to social democracy was to a significant degree a matter of subjective Swedish social democratic strategy and tactics.

Berman is a voluntarist: but a democratic one – unwilling to embrace what Steger has referred to as “the extremes ends and means calculations” embraced by the Bolsheviks.

And yet Berman’s voluntarism is not unqualified. As she concedes towards the end of ‘The Primacy of Politics”:

“Those who study Ideology tend to focus on either agency or structure.”

Yet in reality

“structure and agency work together to shape the development of ideologies….” (Berman: pp 201-203)

As individuals we have free will: including the potential to come together collectively; to organise politically to reshape national economies– and ultimately the global economy. Indeed, this was the hope of Marxist Social Democracy, and of Berman’s‘distinct’ and ‘political’ Social Democracy. (ie: of post-war Western European and Nordic Social Democracy) But this is no mean feat. Capitalism as a supra-individual, supra-national phenomena develops its own logic – much of which was identified by the Marxists who Berman rejects. Structure and agency condition each other.

Again we return to the arch-revisionist Bernstein who Berman herself sees as the originator of “democratic revisionism.” Hence we reproduce this crucial quote from Bernstein again:

“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)

These phenomena – observed by Bernstein – remain in the logic of capitalism and the processes of its ongoing systemic reproduction. Social Democratic counter-cyclical demand management helps ‘iron out’ the business cycle; and where they remain robust welfare states protect the vulnerable from the ravages of capitalism in the context of relative abundance even amidst great waste. And yet capitalism remains wasteful, unstable, undemocratic and unjust.

Berman observes of modern social democracy: that it started with Bernstein and other like-minds - who claimed to revise Marxism – but ultimately “Social Democracy represented the final and full severing of socialism from Marxism.” (my emphasis) (Berman, P 200)

This ‘severing’ is presented as some great victory; some triumph; a “liberation”(!) But perhaps the rejection of Marxism has become just too fashionable.

There is an objective need for a distinctive social democratic ideology. Distinct, that is, from revolutionary Marxism; occupying the relative ‘Centre-Left’ – of well-intentioned social reformers; armed with what Berman called a “democratic revisionist” critique of capitalism; of those willing and able to reform capitalism and ameliorate the suffering of the oppressed in the here and now. And contra Berman’s apparent dismissal of the strategy of socialisation, historic social democratic mixed economies provide an object lesson in how a ‘hybrid economy’ can meaningfully aspire to – and to some degree achieve – ‘the best of both worlds’.

Also a more radical and modern variant on this theme this could potentially provide the benefits of a mix of co-operation and planning; of competition and ‘free markets’; including the role of natural monopolies and the place of a democratic mixed economy in righting market failure (including the current European Depression and European/American debt crisis), alleviating alienation and injecting democracy into otherwise plutocratic economic regimes. Crucially, there is a need to break out of a neo-liberal capitalist paradigm for which systemic imperatives of growth and profit-maximisation have been decoupled from questions of the ‘Life-world’ (Habermas) Hence, for instance, the capitalist drive to raise retirement ages even in the midst of relative abundance.

And yet mainstream Social Democracy has widely become so technocratic and opportunistic that it can no longer inspire or mobilise. There is talk of a ‘Centre-Left’: but what does that mean today? There are appeals to class reconciliation – yet while this canprovide a powerful rationale for a universalistic welfare state (eg: Sweden) so often this is but a veil behind which follows the disenfranchisement of workers and the oppressed.

In the past (For instance in Australia with the ‘Accord’process) there has been a kind of corporatism – which originally had potential, but ultimately included the organised working class only during its period of decline; containing and co-opting it during the crucial period of neo-liberal transformation . There is deregulation of labour markets in the sense of protections: but intensification of regulation in the sense of denying industrial liberties and rights. The welfare state and progressive and corporate taxation are wound back and the vulnerable stigmatised and vilified. All these can be construed as a kind of‘corporate welfare’ - assisting in the process of intensifying the rate and intensity of exploitation to restore profits. And again these developments are consistent structural imperatives in capitalism – enforced globally with the complicity of the great existing and emerging world powers.

In response to these developments it must be observed, therefore, that there remain criticisms of capitalism arising from the Marxist tradition - suggested by Bernstein himself many decades ago – which remain as accurate as ever – but which are widely considered ‘unspeakable’ because of the power of dominant Ideologies and their sweeping dismissal of that Marxist tradition in all its great diversity.

Berman is right that structure and agency interpenetrate however. A social democracy which borrows from Marxism in both its moral and structural critique of capitalism; but which maintains a voluntarist sense of the potential for political strategy and political will – is also necessary today. Indeed – the political and economic demands of the modern day require a plurality of social democracies; and in this vision there remains a place for the insights of the broad Marxist tradition as well as distinct positions on today’s strategic and relative‘Centre-Left’. Certainly ‘Marxism’ does not hold all the answers – let alone the “revolutionary Centrism” of about a century ago. But the Marxist tradition in all its great plurality deserves a rigorous and critical reassessment – discerning those insights which hold weight today despite the verdict of the dominant Ideologies.

Rehabilitating the outlook of class struggle is one crucial imperative. And all the more so because overwhelmingly the corporate world embraces the neo-liberal Ideology; and is not interested in robust social democratic corporatism. And so the poor and the working class can only depend on that which they strive for through their own efforts – through industrial and civic organisation and activism. The prospect of civic peace and reconciliation is alluring and powerful: but given the logic of capitalism; and the interests and Ideology of the capitalist class – it is often chimerical.

Because structure and agency interpenetrate and co-determine each other, the old Marxist Orthodoxy has its limits; and the potential of so-called ‘political socialism’ or ‘democratic revisionism’ needs to be taken into account. And yet despite the potential of these trends considered by Berman, she does not sufficiently consider the implications of the effective ‘veto’exercised by monopoly capital. She supposes a rigorous voluntarism, and ‘manyfold possibilities’ for reformist social democracy. But she does not tackle the question of how the ‘capitalist veto’ on policy is to be overcome. But that is the question we MUST address if we are to establish a genuine democracy in the place of default ‘dictatorship of capital.’

Bibliography

Berman, Sheri, ‘The Primacy of Politics – Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century’,

Labor needs to “Take the High Ground” on the Economy

above: Australian Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan made the right call on the surplus

The Federal Labor Government's reversal on the Federal Budget Surplus was considered a failure by some, but grassroots Labor activist, Tristan Ewins argues that Wayne Swan has made the right call on this one: Although unfair attacks on sole parents, the disabled and others need to be re-thought in the new context.  Labor needs a bold social wage reform package, fundeded broadly by progressively extracting a fairer contribution from the top 15 per cent.

nb: our Facebook group can be found here:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/102658893193637/

 

Tristan Ewins

December 27th 2012

The headlines of the Melbourne Herald-Sun on December 21^st proclaimed “Julia Clean Bowled – Third Broken Promise as $1 billion surplus axed.”  Other headlines further into the paper announced: “Swan comes clean on deficit” and  “Budget blows credibility of Gillard, Swan.” 

To be fair, within the pages of the Herald-Sun there was some deeper and more balanced analysis – admitting the objective necessity of abandoning the surplus at this particular conjuncture.  But clearly the editors of the publication were aiming to influence via first impressions: via the power of headlines; and the likelihood that many readers would not actually read through all the material.

So what of the reality, then? 

With a world economy in crisis, even affecting Chinese growth – Australia has been hit; and so too have Australian tax revenues – including the GST and Company tax.   Notably business is actually supporting Labor with regard postponing the surplus – well aware of the “multiplier effect” stimulus has upon the economy, and thus upon consumer and investor confidence.  Tony Abbott is decrying Labor as “spending like a drunken sailor” – but this is nothing more than a play upon people’s misassumptions and prejudices.  In reality Labor has held tax revenues down as a proportion of GDP, and has ‘robbed Peter to pay Paul’ – hitting Single mothers and many disability pensioners to provide some ‘fiscal room’ for Gonski and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. (NDIS)   

For his part, also, Abbott has to explain how he will deliver his Paid Parental Leave for the upper middle class, while withdrawing  the minerals resource rent tax, as well as the carbon tax, and restoring upper middle-class welfare in the form of a broad-based Private Health Insurance Rebate.  And Liberal support for the NDIS is compromised by hysterical and deceptive panic-mongering about its price-tag; projecting into the future – without explaining the context of inflation – to provide a distorted impression of its ultimate cost. Lastly: Abbott’s agenda of cutting expenditure at this particular conjuncture would be deflationary and contractionary – a criticism of him which Labor and the corporates seem to have in common.

 At the same time Liberal State governments are imposing austerity in their irrational drive for a ‘surplus at any cost’.  Again, this is about retaining the political advantage on “perceived economic competence”.   Having consistently distorted the question of economic management as approximating the management of a household budget, at all levels the Conservatives cannot confess the truth without undermining their political position.   Thus in Victoria Ballieu has gutted TAFE expenditure to achieve a surplus: when in fact stimulus is required; as is investment on infrastructure, education and training to overcome capacity constraints.  User pays mechanisms – for instance increased public transport charges and increased costs for license renewal – are also being imposed to bridge ‘the fiscal gap’ from falling GST revenue.   While the Liberals like to avoid the word ‘tax’ – the effect of these measures approximate regressive, flat taxation.

But what should be done? 

Budgets need to be balanced – but not always: only over the course of the economic cycle. And this need not imply ‘small government’ during periods of growth either: so long as the ‘inflation genie’ is contained some way or another – preferably progressively via taxation on the wealthy and upon conspicuous consumption.  (also inflation shouldn't be raised as an excuse for distributive injustice and exploitation) During times of relative stagnation (ie: right now!)  – and in some parts of the world outright Depression – the time is still right to bring forward big infrastructure programs for quality of life and to overcome capacity constraints.  Again: this has a ‘multiplier effect’ on growth and confidence. 

At a state level the Liberal State Governments also need to face reality.  Without investment in education, health and infrastructure the economy will wither – and human beings will suffer.  The Conservative State Governments have argued meekly for an increased GST to overcome the ‘fiscal gap’ – but surely they perceive the bind Labor is in: restrained by the same ‘small government and surplus at any cost’ mentality which the Conservatives themselves have nurtured.  If the State Governments are to acquire the funds they need it is imperative that they come out consistently, openly, clearly and loudly in favour of increased taxes, and against the lie that surpluses are always appropriate.  No matter how politically unpalatable it may seem, a bipartisan consensus is necessary right now, here - in the national interest. 

And in other words the Conservative State Governments need to publicly refute the position taken so far on this theme by the Abbott Federal Opposition.  Only by doing can they provide Federal Labor the “political breathing room” to do what is necessary to restore State Government finances.  To avoid embarrassment, Abbott himself could finally be responsible: taking the lead in conceding that we still live in precarious economic times; and hence action on the tax/stimulus/services/infrastructure front is necessary.

Finally: both Labor and the States need agree to progressive taxation reform – which is fair both to most working class families and to the disadvantaged.  Increasing a flat, regressive GST is not acceptable.   Yet if these conditions are met – then ‘the ball will be in Federal Labor’s court’ – to reform tax, maintain and expand infrastructure and services, and provide economic stimulus in uncertain times.

But even this compromise should not be enough for a reforming Labor Government.  Gonski and the NDIS need to be “locked in” (with a price tag of about $14 billion) – and without ‘robbing Peter to Pay Paul’ again with regards critical social programs – or else reducing ourselves to empty, token and distant promises. To ‘deliver the goods’ for 2013 there is a need to raise tax as a proportion of GDP.  

As against the popular assumption any tax reform would comprise ‘electoral poison’ there is the contrary argument that improved infrastructure and services – paid for via the progressive targeting of the top 15% wealth and income demographic – could appeal to a broad class base of support.   Such an emphasis would be electorally viable on the basis of the economic interests of most Australians; but broad-based enough to bring in meaningful revenue.

Specific measures could include removing superannuation concessions for the top 5 per cent income demographic – bringing in over $10 billion.  Meanwhile reverting to 75% dividend imputation (tax concessions of investments) could bring in over $5 billion while affecting mainly the wealthy: and with other (small) investors compensated via tax and social wage reform elsewhere.  Should an incremental approach work, here, Dividend Imputation could later be reduced to 50% - bringing in over $10 billion. (in today’s terms) Company Tax cuts could – and should – be put on hold indefinitely (business needs to contribute to the training and infrastructure it benefits from); and income tax reform could also target the top 15% income demographic.   A minimum Company Tax rate could be imposed; land tax imposed on properties valued over $1 million; and further  taxes imposed upon economic rent in oligopolistic sectors such as mining and banking.  Finally the Medicare Levy could be reformed to broaden its scope, apply a more progressive and graduated structure, and provide a desperately-needed boost to Aged Care – caring for the most vulnerable, and removing regressive user-pays charges that hit working class families hard. 

The aim would be to free about $25 billion of new money for socially necessary programs – including desperately-necessary funding for the States - while at the same time providing economic stimulus.  To put this in perspective, this would comprise about 1.5 per cent of a $1.6 Trillion economy)  Further funds could be freed via even better targeting of programs such as the Private Health Insurance Rebate.

The programs that would emerge from such measures there must strike a balance between providing for the most vulnerable (the aged, the disabled, single parents, the poor); and in providing broad-based improvements of  infrastructure, welfare and services that favour the “mainstream” – ie: the great majority of citizens, workers, families.

But time is running out for Labor. Vague and unrealized promises for the future will not be sufficient for the revival of Labor’s fortunes in 2013.   Labor needs to ‘deliver the goods’ with infrastructure, services and social welfare programs well before the approaching 2013 election.  And in doing so it could also do worse than to nail down the Conservatives’ economic irresponsibility in opposing stimulus and crucial social investment with their deceptive ploys on the theme of economic responsibility. 

 

A Labor government which remains authentically on-message; succinctly explaining such themes as stimulus, economic multiplier effects, capacity constraints, and the economic role of infrastructure, education and training – could outflank the Conservatives with their claims to economic responsibility and competence.  They could break the myth of Conservative economic credentials and competence.

 

Julia Gillard herself proclaimed at one point that Labor is a cause: and not a ‘brand’. Yet if the Labor cause is authentic, constantly “robbing Peter to pay Paul’, with “one step forward, two steps back” should not be acceptable. And neither should incessant mutual attacks upon character be considered a substitute for policy substance.

 Labor needs to reconsider its recent attacks on single parents and disability pensioners. It needs new initiatives provided without unfair austerity elsewhere. We need to overcome infrastructure backlogs progressively; without inefficient, Ideological and perhaps even corrupt Public Private Partnerships.  A public fast-rail line along the east coast could revolutionize transport logistics for business, and provide opportunities for citizens. And we need to implement the NDIS and Gonski; but also provide for other crucial yet less-politically convenient causes such as reform of Newstart.  We need big new initiatives in Aged Care and mental health – because the most vulnerable of all cannot afford to wait.

Crucial to these initiatives could be the concept of ‘collective consumption’.  That is: If we do not pay for health, aged care, infrastructure and education progressively (and relatively cheaply) as taxpayers – we will instead pay more for these regressively as private consumers.

Swan and Gillard have done the right thing – and the responsible thing - in abandoning the surplus for the time being. While it may have seemed politically prudential at one point, to follow through now would undermine the economy, and also Labor’s credentials.  Now Labor needs to turn the economic debate around – so it is possible to conduct that debate on its own terms.  Yet even if Labor does all this, victory in 2013 is not assured.  Best, then, to lock a big reform agenda in: reforms in tax, social services, infrastructure and welfare that will put the Conservatives on the defensive; reforms they will not dare to wind back.

$25 billion in new social expenditure – and more accommodated through socially progressive savings elsewhere – could provide the vital ‘Labor war-chest’ – to provide much ahead of the 2013 election – and to promise even more in its wake.  Yet even this is relatively modest in the big picture of a $1.6 Trillion economy. That sense of perspective is so often missing in Conservative critiques of Labor programs which (just like Conservative initiatives) necessarily go into the hundreds of millions or even billions.  Even on the Labor Left - which is largely acquiescent on the issue of 'small government' these days - learning to think on this scale is necessary in coming to grips with a genuine reform agenda.

The bottom line is that an end be put to Labor’s decades-long retreat: that by appealing to and providing for both the disadvantaged and vulnerable – and to the ‘mainstream’ of working Australia – we can consolidate an electoral bloc, and begin anew ‘the steady march forward of Labor’.

Reforming Australian Curricula: Why is Kevin Donnelly afraid of a Robust Democracy?

above:  Kevin Donnelly's vision of education curricula in Australia excludes education for active and critical citizenship

The following article puts the case for curriculum reform promoting active citizenship and critical thinking amongst young Australian students.  Specifically, the author argues there should be cross-partisan consensus were all parties truly committed to democracy in practice...

Nb: The ALP Socialist Left Forum Facebook group can be found here!: http://www.facebook.com/groups/102658893193637/

Tristan Ewins; November 20^th, 2012

Conservative Education commentator, Kevin Donnelly has again been in the headlines – attacking progressive aspects of secondary curricula in Australia.  On November 3^rd in Melbourne’s “Herald-Sun” Donnelly was quoted as criticising the lack of emphasis on Britain in the origins of Australia’s system of government. But Donnelly also went further – condemning civics and citizenship provisions in curricula as encouraging students to become “cultural warriors for the Left”.  Indeed Donnelly indicated he was “concerned” by the “active citizenship” emphasis. 

(Herald-Sun, 3/11/2012, p 22)

I have a number of arguments in response to Donnelly’s stance.

To begin – to be opposed to “active citizenship” ‘in principle’ is suggestive of a disdain for democracy..  Active and critical citizenship are the foundation for any robust democracy as any genuine liberal and/or democrat should be able to grasp. Democracy only functions when an informed, mobilised and engaged citizenship is capable of (and inclined and willing to) hold the powerful – including politicians – to account.   When active citizenship decays, so too does democracy – and in this sense the cynicism and disengagement of Australian citizens is a genuine threat.  

But in order to engage constructively citizens require certain ‘intellectual tools’ – to help in formulating cohesive values systems, a sense of their interests, and of different perspectives on the proper rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  Arguably what is required is “education for ideological literacy” and the imparting of ‘skills of deconstruction’ which assist tomorrow’s active citizens in discerning the ways in which ideologies and institutions themselves (both on the Left and the Right) have been socially and historically constructed.  For some the word ‘deconstruction’ is synonymous with ‘nihilism’; but this need not be the case if we do not choose for it to be so.  There remains scope for a certain kind of deconstruction side-by-side the positing of certain ‘universals’: the value of life, liberty, community and a sense of universal humanity; of kindness and altruism; and the value of culture and science as forces driving improved quality of life and self-realisation for all of us.   

Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are experiencing severe organisational decline in Australia – and have been for some time.  You would think there would be a cross-party commitment to the principles of active citizenship as a remedy for the drift towards the scenario of a “detached political caste” governing over a disillusioned and disengaged populace.  Education for active and informed citizenship need not simply be a ‘Trojan horse’ for either the Left or the Right – but rather should be considered a revitalising factor for democracy generally; and an empowering factor for all young people.  An emphasis on active and ideologically literate citizenship is about encouraging young people to think critically and empowering them to see through the ‘spin’ employed by all political parties in today’s society, with its emphasis on the short term media cycle.  The result of a more robust ‘active and critical’ civics and citizenship education curriculum would be a stronger democracy; with young citizens capable of ‘reading against the grain’ whether the texts in question are of a conservative, liberal or socialist perspective. 

As a consequence we would have not only more committed liberals or socialists – but also more committed conservatives.  While we might see some young people gravitating towards socialist, labour and human rights organisations, we could just as easily see other young people grappling with economic liberalism; engaging with the ideas of values of, say, Hayek or Burkean Conservatism; or of ‘Christian social welfare centrism’.  Underscoring an active/critical agenda would be an inclusive pluralism as the basis for cross-party consensus.

And this could be achieved in the context of education regarding the principles of the ‘liberal democratic settlement’;  a settlement of agreed liberal, social and democratic rights which provide a ‘framework for relative conciliation’ for societies such as ours.  (although in the spirit of critical enquiry even this would be open to relativisation from critiques both from the Left and Right; including those seeking ‘a new constitution’; which is the substance of any political revolution)   The point would be to consider the role of democracy in ‘setting oppositions free’, but also resolving them peacefully; though accepting civil disobedience as a legitimate strategy where differences are irreconcilable – but not accepting a descent into escalating violence. 

Why is Kevin Donnelly so determinedly opposed to such a scenario?

Both the authoritarian Left and the authoritarian Right would likely “have problems” with an education system which seeks to empower and mobilise individuals to think deeply and critically, and encourage them to express themselves, organise, and participate.  But leftists, liberals, democratic conservatives – should all at least hold to a ‘shared political ground’ when it comes to empowering young Australians with tools of ideological literacy and criticism – not as a ‘Trojan Horse’ for either the Left or Right – but on the assumption that ‘democracy is a good in of itself’.

Perhaps Donnelly has a point: that education about Australia’s historic cultural and political ties to Britain are important – even though ‘unfashionable’ for those planning and formulating this nation’s curricula.  But if there is an important place for recognising the place of Britain in the Australian nation’s cultural heritage, surely there must also be a place for ideological and cultural literacy. 

In part this means communicating the experience of people otherwise excluded in Australia’s historical cultural narratives: including the experiences of women, migrants and indigenous Australians.  But it should  also involve critical engagement with other sources of Australian identity and tradition: whether ‘the ANZAC spirit’, or ‘the spirit of Eureka’.  Importantly: curricula need to be pluralist, inclusive and balanced with regards such content.

English can play a central role in encouraging critical thinking and critical writing – regardless of any ideological prejudice.  The study of History, meanwhile, could be framed in such a way as to critically interrogate values systems – whether that means exploring critiques of capitalism looking at the Great Depression; or exploring the sources of totalitarianism in both its Stalinist and Fascist forms.  To be balanced there could also, for instance, be a consideration of ‘both sides’ of the debate with the retreat of the welfare state and mixed economy from the 1970s. And Politics can provide for a more direct engagement with the political philosophies which underscore our pluralist society: whether socialist, liberal or conservative.   

Finally Pluralism itself needs to be the underlying principle of all such attempts, also: to maintain a cross-partisan consensus on the need for education for active and critical citizenship. 

As a socialist I can nonetheless appreciate the wisdom in Edmund Burke’s words: "All that’s necessary for evil in the world to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.   An active/critical civics and citizenship education model is about encouraging students to think carefully about what is right, and then to stand up for that in the context of participatory democracy.

I implore Kevin Donnelly: think again about your opposition to education for active and critical citizenship.  Commit yourself to a new consensus – based on a genuinely pluralist curricula – which can only strengthen the democracy that we all claim we believe in.