Can Labor accommodate an inclusive and open internal debate on Tax and the Social Wage?

above: The Ageing Population will have severe Budgetary Implications and Labor need to be planning now ; including for the provision of first class Aged Care for all ; now is not the time to capitulate on 'small government'.  Labor must 'go on the front foot' as the Aged Care and Mental Health Royal Commissions pass down their findings

Dr Tristan Ewins

I’ve been copping some criticism for my decision to publicly disagree with the Parliamentary Labor Party’s decision to waive through the Conservative Government’s tax cuts package – which includes some benefits for middle income earners, but nothing for the working poor, and a massive windfall for the rich.  ‘Phase 3’ – which focuses mainly on tax breaks for the rich – will cost $95 billion over only its first five years.

Many reasons have been given for the decision, including Labor’s desire not to be seen to be ‘getting in the way’ of a tax cut for middle income and higher income workers.  The rationale is that we pick our fights at a time and context of our own choosing.   And don’t give the Coalition a bludgeon to beat us with in the meantime.  And some are arguing we could move to rescind the Phase 3 cuts closer to the next election.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. Generally, it’s easier to legislate tax cuts than to repeal them.  Various ‘pragmatists’ in the Party will point to the need to court ‘aspirationals’ (an Ideological construction meant to promote capitulation on distributive justice) and some will ‘get cold feet’ on any rescission as the election approaches.   Even some figures on the Left are arguing in favour of the tax cuts, not just as a tactical imperative, but on the basis they do not see the social wage as  a priority.  Though I’m sure there are many more who understand the place of the social wage in Labor’s mission and identity.  Some are opposing ‘Laborism’ to ‘Social Democracy’ ; but when pressed I doubt these would implement reforms on pattern bargaining, labour market regulation, secondary boycott, and so on. 

Also ; Labor’s strategy is demoralising and disorienting for many members and supporters.  Labor 'didn't have the numbers' but 'taking a stand' would have been good for morale ; and would have left less ambiguity where we stand. Though that will be ameliorated should Labor commit to rescinding Phase 3 at a  later date “if it proves to be fiscally irresponsible” and “a barrier to provision of front line services”.  Which we know will be the case. 

So can the Party tolerate debate on this issue ; and if so should it be ‘behind closed doors’, or should some of it be public? 

Firstly, if most of the Left (and possibly significant parts of the Right) want to see Phase 3 withdrawn at the next election we need a discussion within the Party as to why this is so urgent. There must be grassroots pressure so even ‘pragmatic’ MPs understand it’s what the Party expects and demands.  And activists and other members must be educated as to the consequences of the policy if it is not withdrawn.  Debate within policy committees and so on is not good enough as it does not engage the majority of members.   Public debate also gives cause for supporters to ‘take heart’ that there are significant forces in the Party fighting to rescind the appalling Phase 3 tax cuts later on. We need to be arguing that we will review the policy next election not only because it is fiscally irresponsible ; but also the distributional impacts, and impact on services.  

And if Party figures think they cannot risk disunity ‘at the top’ ; surely at the least they can see the good of ongoing and permanent debate ‘at the grassroots’. And when the Coalition uses the old ‘class warfare’ label we need to respond that it is they who are waging class warfare ; imposing a greater proportional tax burden on  lower and middle income Australians, cutting services,  removing penalty rates, seeking to smash unions, degrade conditions and so on.

There’s also a problem that if the Coalition gets away with this tactic once, they will try it again.  That is: combining policy which is of some interest to workers in the short term with policies which will be very harmful to most over the long term with damage to the social wage, social insurance and collective consumption, welfare state, and funds for public infrastructure.  And trying to pass them 'as a package deal'.

The  Aged Care and Mental Health Royal Commissions are developing their findings even as this is written.  Action on mental health and aged care will require resources that simply won’t be there if the Coalition gets its way.  We’re talking action on a similar scale to the NDIS. (National Disability Insurance Scheme)   The ageing population makes action there especially urgent.

Labor’s strategy must be to demand action on these fronts, in the full knowledge that this puts fiscal pressure on the Conservatives to pull back on tax cuts.  This is not necessarily because of some cynical partisanship or desire to ‘wreck’, but because the Aged and the mentally ill desperately require our support. More hospital beds, better pensions, psychological counselling and community support.  Enshrined ratios (nurses and aged care workers) in Aged Care and the funds to make that possible.  Better training – including dementia training – and better wages and conditions for Aged Care staff.   Resources for ‘quality of life’ ; private rooms, quality food, access to internet, facilitated discussions and games , a life that is worth living – and more than sitting people down in front of televisions all day.  Also more money for ‘ageing in place’ programs ; ensuring everyone who needs such a package can receive support quickly ; without onerous waiting lists that currently can go on over a year.  And on the way begin winding back regressive user-pays.

In the meantime Labor must resist any austerity ‘brought forward’ to accommodate the Coalition’s tax cuts.

The bottom line is that Labor needs a debate which keeps distributive justice, progressive tax, social wage provision – front and centre of the Party’s agenda.  Over the medium term we need to be moving towards the OECD average tax to GDP ratio.   

Labor also has to head off the so called ‘ensuring integrity’ anti-unions laws ; and should be engaging the crossbenches on this now.  We also need to prioritise the Senate for the next election.  If the anti-union legislation passes the industrial wing needs to be prepared for a fight to render the legislation ‘the dead letter of the law’.

Many Labor activists are now ‘falling into line’ because of the idea that ‘disunity is death’.  And hence a desire from some to enforce conformity. The fight to oppose Phase Three outright from the outset has been lost.  Many are bitter, but we need to plan ahead for the future. The next debate is whether we press for extended services on aged care and mental health we know are incompatible with the Coalition’s vision of ‘ever smaller government’.  And following that: whether we are willing to rescind Phase Three after the next election ; and maybe even modestly raise taxes by around 1% to 1.5% of GDP on top of that to fund an expansion of the social wage which ‘takes us forwards’, not just a ‘rear-guard action’.

Negative Gearing reform and Franking Credits may be off the agenda for now, but the reality is we failed to sell our policies.  Perhaps we should have imposed means tests in places so our policies did not disadvantage any genuine ‘battlers’.  Alternative policies could include a very big commitment on public housing.  As well as a restructuring of income tax, and imposition of indexation at the lower brackets.  Also a progressive increase of the Medicare Levy to fund dental and mental health; and a National Aged Care Insurance Levy to fund  Aged Care reform.  We need a vision which 'takes vulnerable and working Australians forwards'.  Already-progressive forces need to ‘plan ahead’ for the next National Conference.

The election was close and we should not succumb to despair. With reform re: ‘big money in politics’ , and full preparedness for any future Conservative ‘scare campaigns’ we should be able to go into the next election ‘on the front foot’.

Backing Liberals’ ‘Flat Tax’ Agenda a Bad Move for Labor

above: Morrison's Tax Cuts will lead to over $20 billion in austerity every year 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Figures in the ALP - even including Senior figures in the Left -  are rationalising the decision to back the hugely regressive Morrison income tax cuts in the final instance.  The rationale (given by senior Left figure, Kosmos Samaras)  is that workers do not begrudge the wealthy a tax cut, even though they do begrudge an increase in Newstart.  He concedes it reluctantly, calling it “confronting". For many adapting to the mindset of these people (including ‘working class Tories’) is more urgent than actually trying to win the argument. Or winning those people over on balance on other issues - despite their prejudices.

So now Labor has gone so far as to pass the controversial ‘Phase Three’: which  moves us towards a ‘flat tax’ with those in $45,000 to $200,000 all on the same rate. This is worse than Blairism ;  This is capitulating to Thatcherism. 

Phase Three alone will come at a cost of $95 billion in five years’.

And even before this 'Phase 2' alone will cost almost $4 billion a year.

Now the Median wage (ie: middle income) is only approximately $53,000 a year.  Though If you ONLY take FULL TIME wages that equates to $65,577 a year.

But this is NOWHERE NEAR $120,000, say – which is well within the top 10 per cent.

If people on undoubtedly high incomes do not pay their fair share of tax how will the social wage survive - let alone expand?  If the ALP does not stand for the social wage what does it stand for?  Without the social wage Labor utterly turns its back on the Whitlam legacy.  And at least Hawke gave us Medicare.

If we effectively back a flat tax we may as well not exist.

Labor lost the recent election for many reasons. Clive Palmer's money. A deceitful tax scare campaign on ‘retiree taxes’ and ‘death taxes’ that were nowhere on Labor’s radar. A failure to communicate complex policies. Media bias. A 'flat' performance by Shorten in the final days.

What this shows it that we need to be careful how we frame our next Campaign. Simpler but still progressive tax reform. Rescind phase three and increase progressive tax by somewhere between 1% to 1.5% of GDP. Include a progressively structured Medicare Levy increase. Make the connection between the tax reform and the social insurance/social wage reforms we want to make. Aged Care Insurance, Medicare Dental, Child Care. Keep on emphasising we're only talking 1% to 1.5% of GDP. Sell the ideas of social wage, collective consumption, social insurance.

Also: Attack the Liberals relentlessly. Push them hard on the need for cuts under their plan and where the cuts will come from. Use relatively simple negative and positive ideas and slogans - that will 'cut through'.

As for bracket creep ; after adjusting for fairness we need to index the lower brackets. And when the Libs say 'politics of envy' - don't just take it - fight back. $95 billion of cuts over five years is massive. It's not 'envy' ; it's about justice and it's about survival. Emphasise that lower and middle income earners are $53,000/year and under taking the median as a guide.  (or again: approx $65,000 if you’re only considering full time workers)

When we cut taxes for people on $100,000, $200,000 and higher - we are cutting health, education, aged care, and the social safety net. Make sure everyone understands this. And also people on lower thresholds are paying proportionately more of the tax burden. Which is the point. (ie: towards a 'Flat Tax')

These days even The Age is beating the Liberal drum relentlessly. But if we become a Party that no longer sets agendas ; but rather REACTS and capitulates to media spin campaigns - we may as well give in. You're basically saying 'Blair was Right'. And that the cause of a genuine Centre-Left is hopeless.  But even Blair *increased* tax modestly for his programs.  A flat tax is closer to Thatcher than Blair.

If deregistering unions becomes 'popular' do we give in to that too?

We can make tactical and strategic changes without full on capitulation.

I  made the argument thereafter that if workers support the Morrison tax changes it is because they don't understand what it will cost them in the long run. And the ALP wasn’t making that case very strongly either.

For Samaras this was being ‘patronising’ to workers ; and he retorted “yes, those poor uneducated workers.”  The implication is that he thinks workers backing the cuts know exactly what they’re supporting.

This was my response: 

So you're saying people understand Medicare, welfare, public health, schools, public infrastructure, universities, the ABC - are going to be slashed ; and they think a tax cut of maybe $10,000 a year or more for someone on $150,000/year is the better option?

People are immersed in popular culture. A Current Affair inciting hatred against the unemployed and unions. The Herald-Sun selling the narrative of the 'everyman ScoMo'. Yes, there are working class Tories out there. But even still: we have to actively contest the argument.  The Liberals will govern against most workers’ interests, and we need to communicate that.  And somehow begin the work of rebuilding an outlook of solidarity.

I’m no Leninist, but it’s interesting to consider what he had to say here. Before the meaning of 'social democracy' shifted Lenin pointed out the need to impart 'social democratic consciousness' ; but that this did not arise 'organically' from the class struggle, but had to come from the revolutionary party.

Today we have very little left in the way of a class struggle compared with the past. The Accord had something to do with it. So did deindustrialisation. So we don't have class consciousness among many, let alone 'social democratic consciousness'.

That said, an old style vanguard party is not the answer. We need a mass party.  But a mass party which – like a vanguard party – is capable of leading, mobilising and educating.  And is  complemented by sympathetic social movements which it builds strong ties with.

Social Media is a 'leveler' ; but the Conservatives dominate the old media. Over the long term the decline of traditional media will strengthen our hand. If we don't completely roll over into a Party of Liberalism in the interim.

Samaras suggested I was being 'patronising' ; but remember a lot of workers voted for Hitler too. Would it be 'patronising' to say they were wrong? A lot of working people are convinced by the tabloid propaganda. Again, if deregistering the CFMMEU becomes 'popular' do we back that? Or do we fight back ; actively strategizing with everything we've got?  

Yes people got it wrong. No, they didn't fully understand the implications of voting Tory. They don't know what over $20 billion in cuts a year will look like. Van Badham of The Guardian supposes that before too long that will escalate to a figure of $40 billion. (there's a likely recession, and the mindless drive for a surplus 'no matter what") It's partly our fault for not making enough of an issue of it. Our job is to expose that social cost. And when it comes to the next election oppose Phase 3. Which alone will cost over $200 billion across a decade after inflation.  (more if you accept Van Badham's assumptions)

So for those who think it's a good idea to back the tax cuts how about you explain where you think they should make the Budget cuts.

Jacquie Lambie has also totally sold out ; backing the shift towards a flat tax in return for  just over $150 million in relief for public housing debts.

Samaras again backed Lambie on the basis that public housing was a crucial issue in Tasmania , and the money would assist the homeless.  Their circumstances are desperate ; and no-one is saying nothing should be done.

But with the money forgone from the tax cuts (for just one year) we could provide Lambie with that money much more than 100 times over.   Whatever relief the vulnerable get from this, other vulnerable people will pay down the track more than 100 times over in the space of just one year by the time Phase 3 kicks in.  And after that the vulnerable get nothing.

Many people who think about and understand the consequences of this will end up voting Greens or other Left groups out of desperation unless Labor gets it together and commits unambiguously to rescind Phase 3 upon re-taking government.  (The legislation re: Phase Three is not due to take effect until 2024) It’s true in the end that Labor did not have the numbers to stop the legislation ; but ‘taking a stand’ was crucial for morale and for Labor’s credibility.  As well as contributing to a debate which may influence public opinion into the future.  

For those who agree to let the tax cuts to go through instead of addressing aged care, dental, childcare: how about saying EXACTLY where you want Morrison to make the cuts?  More than $20 billion a year is a LOT of money. It's not enough to say 'cut red tape'. Frontline services will be damaged critically.  

And before anyone attacks me: We are coming within a cat's whisker of a Flat Tax.  And that is the politics of Thatcherism.  'Politics' is about 'political capital' ; and progressives who are about social and distributive justice - not just identity politics - will see this as a betrayal. It could colour peoples' idea of Labor for years if not decades.

That’s what we should have thought of before we voted for this package ; even if some people have the intention of trying to revisit the issue come the next election.  No doubt ‘pragmatists’ will try and head any such move off in any case when the time comes.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-much-do-you-need-to-earn-to-be-rich-in-australia/news-story/cd7e6647199773c56ad5a9270c7aab87

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/coalition-labor-to-talk-tax-cuts-as-scott-morrison-returns-from-holiday

https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/tax.htm

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-much-do-you-need-to-earn-to-be-rich-in-australia/news-story/cd7e6647199773c56ad5a9270c7aab87

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/you-need-how-much-to-be-uber-rich-our-top-earners-are-taking-home-more-20150511-ggyzom.html

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/labor-to-vote-against-coalition-s-full-tax-package-20190624-p520ox.html?fbclid=IwAR2Kkf9LvM8IaCCZouoLd0w_MKMUccweNoxzFekSELP8e0ym2wJexI69RxQ

https://www.ato.gov.au/general/new-legislation/in-detail/direct-taxes/income-tax-for-individuals/personal-income-tax-plan/

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/jacqui-lambie-names-the-157m-price-of-her-support-for-income-tax-package-20190703-p523tl.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/labors-support-for-tax-cuts-is-an-unfathomable-betrayal-of-principle

Albanese: Take a Stand on Tax for our Supporters' Sakes

above:  Anthony Albanese must take a stand for Labor Constituents, opposing effectively flatter and lower tax which would end up with austerity and inequality down the track...

A letter to Anthony Albanese:

Albo! : Don't pass phases 2 and 3 of the Tory Tax Plan

Abbott blocked good policy ; Now Labor has a right to block sweeping tax cuts that will indirectly hurt millions of its constituents. And many will be very disillusioned or angry if you let phases 2 and 3 pass.

The Government's plans include the following for phases two and three:  (from Treasury)

"For 2022–23 and 2023–24, the top threshold of
the 19% tax bracket will increase from $37,000 to $41,000
the 32.5% bracket will increase from $90,000 to $120,000.

For 2024–25 income year onwards, the top threshold of the 32.5% tax bracket will increase from $120,000 to $200,000."

This represents an effective 'flattening' of the tax scales ; with higher income individuals on effectively lower rates of tax.

It will also cost the Budget $160 billion over 10 years. This when we're likely heading for a recession. It will fuel austerity.  Especially if the government prioritises the surplus even in time of economic downturn.

Finally: remember that the median wage in Australia is only approx $53,000/year. The Conservatives talk about people on $120,000/year as if they're 'battlers'. If we don't stand up and fight only the Conservatives will eventually win with their long term agenda of a flat income tax.

They also want to legislate ahead for the next term of government which is totally unreasonable.

The Conservatives claim a mandate. Yet they won through a fear campaign based on lies ; Clive Palmer's Money ; and preferences from Palmer and One Nation.  And in Opposition under Abbott they never respected Labor’s mandate.

Labor needs to restructure income tax for fairness ; and index the lower brackets to avoid a vicious cycle of bracket creep and regressive tax cuts which flatten the scales.  This must be a priority for Labor upon re-election.

We don't need to capitulate on progressive policy. Labor needs a strategy to nullify the fear and disinformation campaigns.  Capitulation is not a strategy.

Raise progressive taxes by somewhere in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP upon retaking government. Exclude lower and middle income earners from higher taxes. Be thorough in this. Point out the moderate scale of the reform ; and explain where the money is going. (eg: Aged Care Social Insurance, Medicare Dental)  If Labor must tax a broader base then consider the Medicare Levy as well. It’s the closest thing in this country to “a popular tax” because of the clear connection with medical services, and the universal coverage most Australians value.

The Coalition is fond of arguing about "great big new  taxes" - even where there are no new taxes; Labor HAS to fight them on this.  Again: Insist on a figure in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP in the first term of a new Labor Government.  Point to our low tax rates in Australia compared with the OECD average.    (approx. 27% of GDP compared with approx. 34% of GDP)  Australian tax overall is approximately seven percentage points lower in Australia compared with the OECD average.  That’s a difference of approximately $119 billion Australian dollars a year.

If we give in we get an Americanisation of the discourse which gradually flattens tax scales, and makes meaningful social democratic reform on social wage, social insurance, public infrastructure and welfare impossible.

Take a stand, Albo.  That’s what ordinary Labor members and voters want and expect from you.

Dr Tristan Ewins  (Labor member of over 25 years)

Jordan Peterson Gets it Wrong Again on Inequality

above:  Jordan Peterson ; simplistic arguments on socialism

Dr Tristan Ewins

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

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

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

Amongst the “interesting” points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

fbclid=IwAR1cZHuBxXZvYFSTO17Vy7h3LxSJ_j-H3YI33K3xuzGqnH3XeI8-kYAixhU

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

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

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

Emotion and Ideology: Liberal Strategies and Labor Responses

Dr Tristan Ewins

The Conservatives won the recent election in Australia largely because ‘they pushed all the most effective emotional buttons’ ; and had the ‘Power Resources’ to do so most thoroughly. Labor had comprehensive, rational policies in the economic interests of a clear majority of Australians.  And yet still Labor lost. 

In order to trace some of the causes beyond this result we need to consider the place of emotion and moral judgement in political activity and choice.

What follows is a brief consideration of the science: after which there is a much more significant consideration of the political ramifications. 

In his work ‘Hayek versus Marx’ , Socialist intellectual, Eric Aarons ; who had a background including a Science Degree in University: noted that

“The cortex or thin covering layer of the frontal lobes of the brain is the focal point for our reasoning capacity.”   (Aarons p 107)    

He further considers the observation of the scientist, Damasio, that:

“secondary” emotions…have to go through the cortical reasoning centre to activate the body..”

Thus he concludes there is a:  “connection between emotion, reason and action…”

For Aarons, this is corroborated by Damasio’s work in the case study of “Elliot’:

Here an “orange-size tumor” was “removed from the right frontal lobe of his brain…” When tested [he] did well in moral judgment – and in providing solutions to social problems… But thereafter he remarked “And after all this, I still wouldn’t know what to do!”  

Damasio realised: “the connections between the emotional and the reasoning centres of Elliot’s brain had been severed by the operation to remove the tumour from his right frontal lobe…”

Thus, in light of this analysis, we are provided with a rationale as to why:

“moral sentiments spurred action more strongly than reason”… (Aarons, pp 107-108)

Reason and moral sentiments (partly emotional in origin), thus, ought be taken together: the entirety of the human psyche directed towards the tasks of justice, solidarity, kindness, progress and survival. 

Again ; Labor’s loss can be explained in part by the Conservatives’ superior Power Resources.  A sympathetic Conservative Press, a cowed ABC, the active support of a billionaire willing to pour tens of millions into a campaign to channel preferences to the Liberal-National Coalition.

Reforming Civics Educations has some potential to get people thinking rationally and making consistent values-based decisions. (which is why some Conservatives oppose curricula reform for  active and critical citizenship ; even where there is no Ideological prejudice)  But it will always be a mix of reason and emotion ; and emotion will be perhaps the most significant motivating factor.


Obviously Labor still has a very significant working class base ; but there are also 'working class Tories' - who while a minority,  do a lot of damage.  A 3.5% swing to Clive Palmer ; and a comparable vote for One Nation – were enough to swing the election on preferences. And unless we can somehow restore a sense of class consciousness, things will get worse.

The problem is that Conservative propaganda is carefully crafted around a series of ‘mythologies’ .  And it works. The stigmatization of class conflict ‘from below’ (while rationalising and naturalising class warfare ‘waged from above’). 'Aspirational' Ideology ; the stigmatisation of distributive justice as 'the politics of envy'. We have to tear these ideas apart in the public sphere or we will always be operating in a context of Liberal Ideology. That must involve a mixture of rational deconstruction ; and appeal to emotions of Hope, Love, Social Solidarity and Righteous Anger.   


Genuinely progressive policies can inspire Hope exactly because they appeal to instincts of social solidarity and compassion ; while addressing fears of homelessness or joblessness ; or being ‘cast adrift’ amidst medical costs (eg: dental) which can spiral out of control.  A rehabilitation of some ‘class struggle’ discourse could also emphasise that the class war is being actively waged against the working class and the vulnerable. But that a struggle for justice is not some ‘politics of envy’ , and does not deserve stigma.

But perhaps part of the problem is the dominance of emotion in politics - especially fear. As opposed to rational consideration of policies within a values framework.  German intellectual Jurgen Habermas strove for  a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ of enlightened and rational exchange to deliver socialism.  But to a degree we have to come to terms with the place of emotion. Because it cannot be entirely changed. And emotional themes can add power and momentum to our own policies.  That’s not entirely bad.  The problem is that it also leaves us open to cynical manipulation.  

Conservatives in Australia have always rejected trade unions and class struggle waged by workers ; whether for ‘a fairer share of the pie’ in its modest form ; or socialism in its radical form.  Religion has also played a part. Divisions between Catholics and Protestants, and ‘loyalty to Empire’ fueled Philip Game’s dismissal of the New South Wales Lang Labor Government in the 1930s.  At the time several quasi-fascist militias had also been formed ‘for fear of Communism’ (and Catholics)  Lang had refused to repay ‘war debts’ to Britain incurred in the mobilisation of the First AIF (Australian Imperial Force) – which suffered over 60,000 casualties (deaths) during World War One. But Catholic hostility to Communism also led to the split of the Labor Party in the 1950s, and the formation of the Democratic Labour Party – which supported and reinforced Conservative Governments for decades.

Historically, the emotional/moral climate shifted significantly during the Hawke years.  Hawke’s themes of ‘reconciliation’ helped capture the imagination of a generation ; not least of all because it brought the corporate sector on board.  The corporates saw they could gain under a Hawke government via corporatist arrangements.  (though temporary because of the labour movement’s decline ; and the resulting disinterest of business once it had got what it wanted)  Partly this involved economic restructuring and reforms that were helpful for the Australian economy’s continued success.  But it also involved a ‘management’ of the labour movement’s decline as opposed to a stronger fight to prevent it.

The right to withdraw labour in many circumstances was abandoned while promoting rhetoric of ‘reconciliation’. Industrial action was reduced in the public imagination to “disruption” ; where ‘conflict’ was considered ‘bad’.  This confirmed popular aversion to “union power”.  Unless it was ‘responsible’. (ie: cowed and passive) For years the message was hammered home: industrial action was ‘disruptive’ ; and Labor’s relations with the unions could prevent industrial action.  Blue collar unions were stigmatised (in the media and by the Liberals) in a play to old class prejudices between ‘white collar’ and ‘blue collar’ workers ; with persistent delusions by some that they were ‘middle class’.  There is still much of this with popular perceptions of the CFMEU.

In part you could say it was a matter of ‘Power Resources’ ; with a compromise based on the balance of class forces. But Swedish unions never compromised as much as Australian unions under the Accords and after.  And the Accord never delivered anything remotely ‘Nordic’ in scale.

Since then the monopoly mass media has carefully ‘pushed our emotional buttons’ to shape the political climate of the country.  ‘Union power’ equaled ‘thuggery’ and ‘disruption and inconvenience to the public’. Apparently, so do mass protests. Amidst structural unemployment, the jobless were  vilified as ‘freeloaders’ and pressed into forced labour.  An ‘aspirational’ Ideology was developed to divide the working class ; and con middle income workers into supporting economically Liberal policies which were not in their interests.  “Aspirational” Ideology was contrasted with policies of ‘Envy” and 'Class War' ; which were morally dismissed as undermining social cohesion ; and ‘getting in the way’ of those willing to “have a go”. (the Liberals' most recent rhetoric in undermining what remains of the nation’s egalitarian traditions)  

The campaign to ‘stop the boats’ played overwhelmingly on Fear ; and ‘the Tampa election’ (2001) was won on the basis of moral condemnation and fears founded on false claims of refugees ‘throwing children overboard’. 

Importantly ; the rise of the New Left in the 1960s - and its later development into today’s social movements - was depicted in such a way as to split the working class.  Conservatives developed a discourse on so-called ‘Left Elites’ ; ‘the Latte set’ and ‘Chardonnay Socialists’ - who were ‘out of touch’ with ‘mainstream Australia’. Social conservatism was cultivated in much of the monopoly mass media , and was appealed to in order to divide ‘the Left intelligentsia’ from ‘the mainstream’. (ie: the majority of the working class)  The most ‘extreme’ examples of ‘Political Correctness’ were reported at regular intervals in order to maximise popular resentment. And ‘the PC class’ was depicted as being ‘arrogantly judgmental’ against the popular majority. (who just happened to be the working class)

The impression that Labor might repress ‘religious liberties’ may also be a ‘bridge’ too far. There is a conflict of rights here which can only be negotiated – it cannot be resolved. Long term, the Reaction cannot and will not ‘turn back the clock’ on sexual liberties.  But if Labor is not careful – and allows a polarisation to occur - a resurgent Christian Conservatism could be instrumental in delivering victory to the Conservatives.

Right-Libertarian small government philosophy (manifest at times in the Institute of Public Affairs and Centre for Independent Studies) has promoted the idea that capitalists and workers all have an inalienable right to whatever wages, profits or dividends they receive in the ‘marketplace’. Labor had been complicit in the small government and privatisation Ideologies for decades.  Finally under Shorten Labor embraced significant (though still modest) progressive tax reform. But now that a scare campaign has contributed to its defeat, it might be reluctant to venture there again. 

The idea that “tax is theft” undermines notions of social solidarity, collective consumption and social insurance.  Even though these deliver significant results for all workers. Implicit is a moral judgement: “tax is theft, and no-one has a right to take YOUR money”.  A ‘death tax’ (eg: an inheritance tax or death duties) is thought to be particularly offensive ; hence the (dishonest) Liberal scare campaign. It is no coincidence that inheritance taxes could mainly impact upon the bourgeoisie. And the fact that employers expropriate surplus value from workers apparently has no place in this discourse.

These efforts have not been entirely successful.  Again, Labor retains a significant base.  The New Social Movements which emerged from the New Left together involve a significant base of mobilisation and influence.  Though they are not a replacement for the strategic location and significance of the working class.

Arguably, humanity possesses instincts of social solidarity which have been essential to its survival. And most people care for family who might end up enduring horrors in under-resourced nursing homes ; or may linger for over a year waiting for home-care packages. 

Exploitation of workers – especially of those on the lowest wages – can also be argued as theft.  Citizens have every rational reason to fear that Conservatives aim to gradually undermine the nation’s ‘social safety net’ ; and atomise workers and lower wages while reducing their bargaining power. And to lose your job usually means relegation to destitution under NewStart ; and forced to exhaust your savings. For both young and mature workers job prospects can often be bleak.  Conservative hostility to Socialised Medicine (eg: Medicare) is also much more than a ‘Labor scare campaign’. A ‘flat tax’ may seem fair superficially ; but would take from low to middle income workers and redistribute to the rich.  Finally there has been a backlash against the open ended detainment of asylum seekers in concentration camps ; and indifference and narrow self-interest in face of the threat of Climate Change to the Planet.

By contrast there is the Hope that a Labor Government could fund a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme.  It could re-regulate the lower end of the labour market ; subsidise the wages of child care workers and aged care workers ; consolidate and increase Newstart while abolishing labour conscription ; consolidate the ‘social safety net’ – expanding Medicare into Dental ; expanding public housing ; funds to eliminate homelessness.  Labor could ‘fine tune’ the NDIS. (National Disability Insurance Scheme)  Further ; Labor could implement onshore processing of asylum seekers.  It could lead the way on climate change with direct investment in renewables.  And it could restructure the tax system: including the addition of new brackets, and the indexation of lower brackets to prevent the vicious cycle of bracket-creep and regressive tax cuts.  (leading gradually to flat taxation)

Again, though:  Labor faces an imbalance of Power Resources.  It must fight to end the influence of ‘Big Money’ in Politics.  And together we must resist moves to ban organisations like GetUp from actively campaigning during elections. We must mobilise our own resources to challenge the monopoly mass media.  And upon achieving government we must implement policies for true media diversity.  In the face of massive opposition we need to develop the strategy and tactics to fight the Conservatives against the odds and win. 

There is also the possibility that the Liberal victory is a ‘poison chalice’ in that escalating tensions and trade war will help lead to economic downturn. 

There are those who will argue that some of these policies ‘have been tried but failed’.  But if Labor renounces a distributive justice agenda it abandons its very reason for being.  Labor must respond with regroupment, rather than retreating into an insipid Blairite Centrism.  Labor must be the Party of progress ; though for that we also need some idea of what we want to progress towards.  I have suggested a short term agenda here ; but long term we must ask more fundamental questions about capitalism.  By making emotional and moral appeals ; with a mixture of messages at a variety of levels – from the complex to the simplified and the concise.  And also promoting clear moral judgement and policy evaluation. 

Labor needs to re-evaluate its strategy and tactics without abandoning substance.   That is the path to a possible future Labor victory.


Bibliography:

Aarons, Eric; Hayek versus Marx And Today’s Challenges; Routledge. New York, 2009