|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 130 | 05 April 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lights Out on The Hill
Interview: Change Agent Industrial: Balancing the Books Unions: Breaking Out Politics: Pissing on the Light on the Hill History: Of Death and Taxes International: Now That's a Strike! Satire: Mugabe Voted Miss Zimbabwe: Denies Election Rigged Poetry: Flick Go The Branches Review: Red, Red Clydeside
The Soapbox Sport Week in Review Postcard
 Puplick's SermonChikka's LegacySocialists in the UKOrganising GloballyGrape DisappointmentUnion Resignations : Crisis or Opportunity?
|
|
|
Politics Pissing on the Light on the Hill
**************** Rather than acknowledge that being a principle free zone cost Labor the last election, and that having democratic participatory processes that leads to policies that make a difference is the key to relevance, the spin doctors who first floated throwing unions out of their own party now are now advocating putting out the Light on the Hill, the ALP's Socialist Objective. There are three possible reasons why you might argue that the Labor Party should dump the Socialist Objective: 1. You have not read it; 2. You do not understand its historic significance; 3.You are a Liberal. In a world of increasing inequality where Labor's challenge is to reconnect with working people,the socialist objective is more relevant than ever because it provides a philosophical anchor for a reinvigorated Labor policy agenda. Every Labor membership card contains the objective. It reads very simply. It supports the "democratic socialisation of industry, production and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features." The socialist objective is a recognition that it is the role of government in a democratic society to intervene to ensure that all citizens get a fair go and that we live in a decent society. Its focus is on outcomes for people, about eliminating exploitation and anti-social features. Market intervention is limited to the "extent necessary". The pledge is a practical, flexible, commonsense statement of how a good government should operate for the best interest of all citizens. It contains 22 statements of principle including explicitly recognising the right to own private property. It speaks to all the issues of modern society as it has been regularly fine tuned over the years. In contrast, opponents of the pledge appear ideologically obsessed with painting a picture of a tired, outdated Marxist manifesto rather than dealing with what it actually says. Those against the pledge have to ask themselves: are they against eliminating exploitation? Against eliminating anti-social features in society? Or are they just against challenging unfettered free-market ideology? If they are not prepared to challenge the market for the good of the many, then they are against the very reason Labor exists. Labor's historic reason for existence is to create democratic institutions that protect ordinary citizens from exploitation by corporate power. The socialist objective statement of its reason for existence talks of "the aspirations of the Australian people for a decent, secure, dignified and constructive way of life" and the necessary historical struggle of unions for this aspiration that gave birth to party It is a simple assertion that a fair society is more important than a market ideology. It could not be more modern or historically relevant. Why throw this away? Nothing sets Labor apart from other parties more than its grand history. It's birth so dramatically altered the public debate about the role of government that the early Liberal leader Alfred Deakin declared "we are all socialists now". Labor carried the Australian ethos of a "fair go" into areas as diverse as work, health care and pensions. From the conscription referendum to the dismissal, from the depression to our leadership during World War II, the influence of Labor values has been the decisive force in our nation's political life. To throw this all away on the glib advice of a few spin doctors would be as disastrous as throwing South Sydney out of the National Rugby League. Take away the team colours and the supporters won't recognise the team. Labor, after its lowest primary vote since before World War I, needs to reconnect with its potential supporters, not further confuse them. Simon Crean's Labor must draw on its fundamental principles to create an agenda that connects to real issues faced by ordinary Australians in the same way Whitlam did before 1972. The fact that Chifley and Whitlam could respond differently in different times places them in the Labor tradition of practical application of principle. They did not need to throw out the principle. A policy of offering nothing different cost Labor the election. Those who want to get rid of Labor's principles and kick out the unions who started the party are part of the problem, not the solution. Labor in New Zealand went back to first principles and advocated setting a peoples bank. The aspirational voters in the marginal seats loved the idea of lower fees and better service and Helen Clark is know the Prime Minister. Citizens who feel insecure for economic reasons actually want the government to do something. In age where the collapses of the Enron and HIH' are destroying people's lives, the objective's historical commitment to stand up for the Australian Citizens against the big end of town is an electoral asset not to be thrown away. Labor's opportunity is to do what is has always done: argue for economic and social policies that benefit the many, not the few. Within this framework of Labor principle there is opportunity for debate as to the best way forward. For those who don't like Labor principle, they can always join the Liberal Party. Paul Smith is a Labor Councillor on Sutherland Shire Council, the secretary of the NSW Fabian Society and an ASU activist in the IT Workers Alliance.
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
