Parliament as judge and jury
Posted by John, May 21st, 2012 - under Craig Thomson, Democracy, Judges, Justice, Parliament, Socialism.
Tony Abbott wouldn’t give a toss about Craig Thomson’s alleged sins if Julia Gillard’s government didn’t depend on his vote and that of 2 of the Independents and the Green in the House of Representatives. Neither would Julia Gillard.
One break in the chain and Labor might be gone as government. Thompson is that weak link.
The allegations if true are a disgrace for a union official. Using union cards to pay for prostitutes is something no unionist can condone.
One of the great achievements of Labor Party neoliberalism for the bosses – the destruction of rank and file influence or control over unions – has led to this situation. Union bureaucrats think they can get away with blue murder without decent rank and file involvement in the union. Some might be tempted to try.
I suspect that abuse by officials of their union positions for personal gain and political advancement has increased as membership control has decreased.
But there is also a sense in which this is Thomson being hung for stealing the goose from the commons while he who steals the commons from the goose (like Bill Kelty) is praised and feted (à la the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions conference).
The greater crime in all of this, that which makes possible Thomson’s alleged crimes and breaches, is the class collaboration of the likes of Kelty, Hawke and Keating, continued admirably by Rudd and Gillard, which set down the framework for a loss of militancy, the massive shift in wealth from labour to capital and the neoliberalisation of politics more generally in Australia with Labor now a CAPITALIST workers party.
I thought Thomson’s defence of the seemingly indefensible was half way decent, what lawyers might call a tough brief well handled. It will continue to buy time and may see Gillard and the others in the rogues’ gallery of the working class survive until 2013.
Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne and others expressed their faux outrage about and condemnation of Thomson’s speech.
One problem for them in their apparently new-found parliamentary morality is that fingering Thomson might lead to a wider enquiry into parliamentarians and their behaviour before and after they are elected.
Already we have seen Tony Abbott’s 1978 trial for assault highlighted. Sophie Mirabella is also a Labor Party target. Bill Heffernan’s homophobia – he for example wrongly accused High Court judge Michael Kirby of abusing his travel entitlements to hire male prostitutes – has landed him in trouble with his alleged recent attack on a Liberal Party member.
The dirt file, normally kept secret because politicians know it could cause their side just as big a problem, has been taken out of the cabinet. The only thing holding Labor back is presumably that the Opposition also has a pretty big dirt file.
But as the possibility of unseating the Gillard Government by losing Thomson’s vote moves closer the ALP might be tempted to abandon all the usual niceties that have kept them in check and throw mud, mud, mud. This will do two things.
All politicians will drown in the sewer that is the Parliament. And it will show the Liberals are as big a pack of rorters, cheats, liars and criminals as the ALP.
That at least, so Labor must hope, will nullify Abbott’s successful linking of the ALP to sleaze, something he hopes can destroy this Labor government now but knows will be part of the destruction of the ALP government in 2013.
Something similar happened in relation to travel entitlements in the UK. In the end it snowballed and an investigation into abuses revealed they were widespread, on both sides.
My classic was the Tory who used parliamentary funds to improve his moat. As one would. But even acting in accordance with the rules showed dodgy activity, such as parliamentarians using their entitlements to pay off their private mortgages.
This only reinforced in British voters’ minds that the low regard they had for politicians was totally deserved.
Trashing the brand may be all that Labor in Australia has left.
There has been a bit of talk from Labor and others about how the parliament should not be judge and jury. In the past it has been a kangaroo court, jailing a couple of people for contempt, but they were only Communist Party members or journalists. Hardly worth remembering.
In 1920 the Federal Parliament chucked out Hugh Mahon for sedition after he made comments in support of Irish independence after a hunger strike died.
Move along, it’s only history. Nothing to see here.
Can we rise above the gutter? Here is an alternative vision for a representative body, taken from the insights Marx gained from the Paris Commune.
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.
Imagine voters having the right of immediate recall. Thomson wouldn’t last a day. Neither would Gillard or Abbott in times of economic and social crisis. Not only that, they were paid the average wage.
Imagine that. Gillard and Abbott on $70,000 a year. Then they’d know how the rest of us live and maybe, just maybe, implement policies favouring the vast majority. Nah, pigs might fly - Not in a capitalist institution like Parliament.
That is the point. Workers have to set up their own state, not take over the capitalist one. ‘[T]he working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.’
OK, so what about judges? Here democracy too was to rule.
The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subservience to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.
Of course these are working class democratic institutions set up by the great majority of society today, workers, to run society.
Until the revolution, in which power passes from the bourgeoisie to the working class, we will have to put up with the likes of Thomson, Slipper, Abbott, Gillard and the rest of the motley crew or their descendants.
The current Australian Parliament is a good argument for socialism and workers running society democratically through their own institutions.
____________________________________________________________________
For those interested in the goose and commons reference it arose and become popular at the time of the Enclosure Acts in the 1600s which turned the commons into the property of the big landlords. Here is one version of the poem.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
(Unknown Author)
Advertisement
Comments
Comment from Lorikeet
Time May 22, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Yes, I largely agree with the author, except for the idea we might do better with a communist government. Let us not try to push the vote further towards the Greens, lest they gift all of our hard earned assets to the third world.
Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne annoy me just as much as anyone from Labor. They should just leave the Craig Thomson case to be heard and judged by the appropriate arbiter of such matters.
Looking at their faces alone, I have more trust of Craig Thomson than of Marco Bellano, and am willing to wait for the relevant umpire’s decision.
We are certainly no longer living in a democracy. The parliament is filled with 2 skulduggerous warring factions, both planning to pass power to the Greens by default.
Here in Queensland, Premier Campbell Newman is already talking about inflicting his own version of Work Choices on the masses.
According to the ACTU, 40% of workers are casuals and/or are underemployed. The capitalist bosses (both private and public) are busily screwing over both small businesses and workers, with employers calling for superannuation to be deducted from workers’ wages.
In nations of the EEU, voters are becoming very attracted to socialists and neo-nazis, due to high levels of unemployment and the major parties conducting a Slave Labor Trade using migrants, at the behest of Big Business.
I strongly suggest that everyone pays as much attention as possible to world events, e.g. by watching ABC24.
Comment from Denis L White
Time May 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Kay. John clearly has a comprehensive knowledge of his subject. The labelling “communist or socialist” is irellevant what dissappoints me in your responce’s is that you seem blind to the humanitarian concerns expressed in his writings. I could provide you with a list of 30 plus books relative to global issues which I have read during the last year, all of which support johns stance and not one of them is a communist tome. For all Australia’s internal political shennanigans our shots are actually being called by the worlds corporate giants and their subservient governments. If you would like to test the basis of your knowledge try delving into the contents of Naomi Klein’s excellent book “The Shock Doctrine” and also “Killing Hope” by the American historian William Blum. Cheers
Comment from Jolly
Time May 22, 2012 at 11:58 pm
@Kay
I am with you all the way, Kay, except when you refer to our politicians. The latter are a different specie, altogether. I have very little respect for most of them, especially those that feud amongst themselves, stab each other, rob taxpayers, and hold both their own party and the community in the utmost contempt. I am referring to Gillard and the current Labor party and some of its MPs. The fact that “every time Gillard or Swan appears on TV, people switch channels” indicate a profound lack of respect for our current leaders in Govt.
As for the real “working class” and the “bourgeoisie” that John often refers to… are just illusionary (even nostalgic) concepts in Australia. But when politicians us such term, usually it is to “divide and rule” as did our former colonial masters some 200 years ago. I am with you all the way, Kay, except when you refer to our politicians. The latter are a different specie, altogether. I have very little respect for most of them, especially those that feud amongst themselves, stab each other, rob taxpayers, and hold both their own party and the community in the utmost contempt. I am referring to Gillard and the current Labor party and some of its MPs. The fact that “every time Gillard or Swan appears on TV, people switch channels” indicate a profound lack of respect for our current leaders in Govt.
As for the real “working class” and the “bourgeoisie” that John often refers to… are just illusionary (even nostalgic) concepts in Australia. But when politicians us such term, usually it is to “divide and rule” as did our former colonial masters some 200 years ago. Gillard seems to have a penchant for reviving old practices of ‘Mother Country’.
Comment from Budgie
Time May 23, 2012 at 3:34 am
So, despite Minister Swan’s bleating about “kangaroo courts”, Thomson has been judged to the extent that his move to the cross benches has been accepted, he has been kicked out of the Labour Caucus and he won’t be running for the seat of Dobel in the next election, yet his vote in Parliament is still being accepted by Labour.
It seems a tad hypocritical.
Comment from Kay
Time May 23, 2012 at 9:26 am
Denis
I have no doubt as to John’s “comprehensive knowledge” of his subject. Far more so than my own. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. As for references to “communist or socialist” – I didn’t even mention communists, and my reference to “avowed socialists”, was merely referring to John’s own description of himself on this site.
I did mention Marx – as did John. BTW I was raised within the Communist Party (my parents were members) so I certainly don’t find the labels “socialist” or “communist” at all frightening. Just words to denote particular political ideologies.
So we come back to my question – which has not as yet been answered – as to who exactly are the “working class” and the “bourgeoisie” in today’s Australian context. I asked a question of those with a far more extensive knowledge of Marx than I have. And my question was merely prompted by John’s second last paragraph about the “revolution”.
And, although John may raise “humanitarian concerns”elsewhere in his writings, they don’t appear to be the focus of this particular article.
So, once again, can anyone enlighten me as to who the “working class” and “bourgeoisie” are today in Australia. To date, only Jolly has made reference to my question. I would have thought that such widely read people as you and John would have no difficulty in explaining this to me.
Comment from Chris Warren
Time May 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Kay
It is very simple – if you increase your wealth by expropriating from others – you are bourgeoise.
If you do this by using Capital -you are a capitalist.
Everything you mentioined:
We all try to arrange our finances so as to fund our own retirement (or we should, anyway). We all invest, buy rental properties (negatively geared) etc to try to provide for ourselves.
are irrelevant. Negative gearing is a questionable provision, but provided the recipient of negative gearing only gets a gross income close to an average wage – I am not going to corrupt these issues on this pretext.
Comment from John
Time May 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Workers sell their labour for a wage and have little control over their work. Bosses buy our labour through their ownership of factories, mines, offices etc. Clive Palmer is a member of the bourgeoisie; the people who dig stuff out of the ground for him or who drive trucks for him aren’t.
Comment from Kay
Time May 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Chris
You work – you earn a wage/salary. You save your money. You invest in property (providing accommodation for others at market price) and/or you invest in shares. You save the dividends. You save any capital gains from selling investments (after you pay your tax on these capital gains). You put all those savings into superannuation and live off your superannuation when you eventually can afford to retire.
That’s my story. Am I a capitalist or bourgeoisie or working class? It just seems to me that Marx’s definitions are out of date and don’t really relate to today’s working environment in Australia. Perhaps I’ve crossed through all those definitions?
But I truly can’t recall that I ever exploited anyone else. Most people I know have traveled down similar work paths to retirement, or are in the process of doing so. Most of us are in the same boat.
Comment from John
Time May 23, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Worker.
Comment from Lorikeet
Time May 23, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Both today’s and tomorrow’s options for workers and opportunities in the housing market are being increasingly controlled by Big Business, and life will end up being nothing like the commonplace situation described by Kay.
A return to compulsory unionism and solidarity in the face of strong opposition from government and employers will help to save younger Australians from penury.
Comment from Chris Warren
Time May 23, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Depending on the details you may be a petty-bourgeoise trying to placate your conscience by trying to cast fog over clear concepts.
As I said, rents that provide a living (ie cover socially necessary costs) are irrelevant and would probably exist under market socialism.
Class is based on the source of revenue. The level of income is not the determining factor.
Anyone merely living off their superannuation are obviously not capitalists. Wealth is not necessarily Capital. Capital is wealth being used in a particular way.
Unfortunately all workers in OECD economies generally exploit Third World economies. Just look at all the commodities in your life, much of which is produced by offshore oppressed labour.
Comment from John
Time May 23, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Chris says: ‘Unfortunately all workers in OECD economies generally exploit Third World economies. Just look at all the commodities in your life, much of which is produced by offshore oppressed labour.’ Not true.
Comment from Kay
Time May 24, 2012 at 7:47 am
John
Thanks for the clarification – I belong to the ‘working class’. Fine. But my instinct is not to start a revolution (I guess I’m too old, anyway), but to use the existing system to my best ability to survive.
I guess I never really understood ‘conservatism’ or ‘socialism’ until I visited the UK in the 1980s. I had studied politics at uni, but the concepts were essentially alien to me. But touring around the south of England I suddenly understood ‘conservatism’ – if I owned one of those grand estates, I wouldn’t want anything to change, either! Likewise, driving through towns like Bradford, Yorkshire, and Glasgow made me realise that if I lived in such appalling and hopeless conditions, I too would be prepared to risk my life in a revolution – after all, being alive in those conditions had little to commend it. I did come to understand more about these ideologies on that trip than I did from any book.
But I simply don’t see those sorts of situations here. The unemployment rate is fairly low, although it could well be argued that underemployment is rife. Nevertheless, even in the poorer suburbs most families have some luxuries and education and/or motivation can give you the opportunity to lift yourself out of that situation. I do believe this country offers good opportunities to those that are prepared to work towards a goal.
So, here in Australia, I don’t see the seeds of a revolution.
Comment from Kay
Time May 24, 2012 at 8:09 am
Lorikeet
I am interested in why you believe the housing market is being controlled by ‘Big Business’.
I concede that big development companies are opening up housing estates all around Australia. And they make a profit – that’s what the aim of all business is. But the cost of that land and houses is very much controlled by the market. And by far the largest proportion of houses on the market are older, existing homes. And most people just go from one home and mortgage to another – either in a different town/area, or to upsize/downsize etc. And these are just ordinary Australians – not ‘Big Business’.
True – the cost of buying a house is very high at the moment compared with other countries, but the expectation is that the market will force these prices down. In fact, the prices have already decreased somewhat. Certainly, in the suburbs around here, the prices of ‘entry level’ houses are quite reasonable – $200K to $300K. My first house was a 2-bed weatherboard with little to commend it, and we had a mortgage that was high compared to our income.
So EXACTLY how is housing “controlled by Big Business”?
Comment from Kay
Time May 24, 2012 at 8:50 am
Chris
I was simply telling you my life history. And asking a question – which John answered. I was definitely not “trying to cast fog over clear concepts”. The fact is, these concepts are not at all clear to me in today’s more complex economic and social situations! I was honestly asking for clarification. And I don’t have any reason to need to placate my conscience.
As for business owners – I don’t have any ill feelings towards them. My two sons started out as workers. Then, later, they decided to mortgage everything they owned and start small businesses – different sectors of business. Having seen the enormous risks they have taken and the ongoing stress of paying for set-up costs, wages, rents, etc I have nothing but concern and admiration for them. And neither of them is yet earning (paying themselves) more than they earned as workers. And as workers, they could go home and more or less forget about work worries until the next day. And their homes weren’t mortgaged to the hilt such that to fail at business meant to automatically lose both their means of income plus their own home!
Without business owners providing job opportunities, no one would even be able to earn a living. So I can’t see them as the enemy.
Comment from Chris Warren
Time May 24, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Kay
Anyone who says:
Surely you’re joking! Are their still people out there who patiently wait for the “revolution” and talk about the “working class” and the “bourgeoisie”? Marx wrote some great, idealist stuff, but surely, by now, it is very outdated.
are not:
simply telling you my life history. And asking a question
Why are you launching off into another tangent of “business owners”. You should be aware that there are two types of business owners – those who make their own living (farmers, contractors, small shops, franchise operators and etc) and those who use business to augment capital – (banks, Rinehardt, Westfield, corporates generally and etc).
Again – it is the source of revenues that is relevant.
You also need to admit that no-one has described business as the enemy and that your implication was unintended.
Comment from Kay
Time May 25, 2012 at 6:54 am
Chris
Clearly my post at 8:50am 24/5 was referring to my post at 4:26pm 23/5, and your post at 8:59pm 23/5. I also took into account John’s comment that “bosses buy our labour through their ownership of factories, mines, offices etc.”. This comment by John did not seem to me to preclude small business owners – hence my comment about small business.
I can understand that banks and other financial institutions deal entirely with ‘capital’. And they (plus the slack government legislators) are responsible for the scary situation with world markets at the moment.
But that brings me to the point you made about Rinehardt, Westfield and ‘corporates generally”. At what point to you distinguish between small business and the bigger businesses? Is it a dollar figure for turnover, or profit, or the number of people they employ? You seem to imply the former are OK, but the latter are bad and deserve to be ousted in a ‘revolution’. But all these businesses, both big and small, including banks and financial institutions, do provide employment opportunities. And none of us ‘workers’ can live our lives without being able to earn our money to then use as we see fit.
No, Chris, I am simply trying to understand how the old definitions of socialism translate into today’s much more complex and interwoven economic and social situations in Australia.
Comment from Chris Warren
Time May 25, 2012 at 9:55 am
Kay
John has simply used a sociological concept “bosses” which under a form of exploitative economy (fuedal, merchantile, capitalist) is based on an underlying political-economic basis. However not all small businesses have such “bosses” and I gave you examples. The link from “Bosses” to small business in general is inappropriate. I have explained the distinction – above.
I do not blame slack government legislators because society throws up the form of legislation that represents ruling ideology. The legislators are doing exactly what capitalist society allows them to do. They can do nothing in the face of the current GFC because the only solution is to restrict the conditions necessary for capitalist profit and capitalist growth.
There is no need to distinguish between big business and small business. The distinction is already explained above – to repeat: the size is not relevant.
I do not imply that the former are OK and the latter are bad. In fact if you read what I said you will see your error.
I do not know why you think employment is relevant, but cooperative enterprises tend to have more workers for the same turnover than capitalist enterprises. I do not think anyone has suggested that anyone can live without earning, so there is no issue here.
I suspect you are not really trying to understand how definitions of socialism relate to modern conditions. Today’s Australia is not more complex and interwoven than either the 20th Century, nor the 19th Century, nor indeed the complexity in Roman, Viking, and Babylonian cultures and modes of production.
Comment from Kay
Time May 26, 2012 at 7:31 am
Chris
I concede that I am not a socialist. I concede that I don’t understand how one can remain a staunch socialist and look forward to the ‘revolution’ in today’s Australia. But it is absolutely untrue that I am “not really trying to understand how definitions of socialism relate to modern conditions”.
You clearly don’t see Australia today as more complex and interwoven than times gone by. However, even if I only look back as far as my childhood (the 50s), I recall our much more impoverished financial situation, struggling to pay the bills, no source of income other than a weekly wage, only those who absolutely required a vehicle to travel to earn a living owned a car/truck, no one I knew could even imagine an overseas holiday, and all older people were on the aged pension. In contrast, those who owned businesses or grazing properties were extremely well off, lived in mansions, drove Mercedes, sent their kids to private schools and ‘finishing schools’ overseas, and could look forward to a very comfortable retirement which included lots of overseas travel.
Today, most people I know have nice homes, new cars, the latest technology in computers and entertainment, have been overseas at least once (usually several times), own investment properties and/or shares, have superannuation and/or are self-funded retirees. And these are the same sorts of workers I grew up around. This includes my own mother, aunt, uncle etc.
So, even in that short period, ordinary workers appear to have become much more prosperous. There are countless ‘mum and dad’ investors who own shares in mining companies, Westfield, the banks, financial institutions, Telstra, Westfarmers, Woolworths, Myer etc etc. As an investor, you want to see these companies prosper and make a good profit because that translates into good dividends and capital gains. Definitely not the ideal scenario for a ‘revolution’.
In contrast, those who own the businesses are often struggling to hold onto it. The rich graziers have had their huge land-holdings broken up because of debt and falling profits. They are not all that different from those who work for them with regard to investments and retirement options.
Yes, there are still some ‘super rich’ in society. They are possibly richer than yesterday’s rich people were. But there aren’t all that many of them.
I concede that if the global markets continue to slide, and costs continue to rise, this prosperity will be threatened. Maybe that’s when the situation will be more conducive to the ‘revolution’?
Comment from John
Time May 26, 2012 at 9:12 am
We still sell our labor to the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and they still expropriate the surplus value we create. And the facts are clear – inequality has been on the increase globally and in Australia since about 1980. We are going backwards. (See for example the recent OECD work, Divided we stand).
The conditions for revolution are much more complex than inequality rising and prosperity falling.
Comment from Chris Warren
Time May 26, 2012 at 10:35 am
Kay
You preach an old hymn, an Ode to Capitalism;
nice homes,
new cars,
latest technology
computers
entertainment,
overseas
investment properties
shares,
superannuation
self-funded retirementetc.
much more prosperous,
shares in mining companies,
Westfield,
the banks,
financial institutions,
Telstra,
Westfarmers,
Woolworths,
Myer etc etc.companies prosper and make a good profit
good dividends
capital gains.Definitely not the ideal scenario for a ‘revolution’.
In Victorian and Edwardian England that is sort of tune is precisely what they sang, as they glorified in their grand Exhibitions, and commercial empires of the era. In the 1950′s in America they sang almost the same song, except now reduced to a cartoon in Yankee culture see: “King Joe” video at:
http://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949
And of course with hard work and applied skill all humanity can expect to earn great wealth and amazing standards of living.
But under fuedalism, slavery, and capitalism – this wealth for some comes at the cost of deliberate entrenched poverty for many others. Although this may take a few decades capitalism always ends up in a GFC, and each successive one is worse than the latest. Today’s GFC is now more pernicious than the Great Depression, see Chart at:
After the Second world War, trade forestalled crisis in the 1960’s – 1980’s. Subsequently ‘globalisation’ from the 1980’s into early 2000’s (until 2007) held-off capitalist crisis. In 2009 it came crashing down. Although capitalist Japan was destroyed earlier. Today the real crisis has yet to roll-over us as more and more paper money is being thrown into action in fanciful attempts to prop up the system.
You cannot solve today’s global problems by singing songs about “nice homes, new cars, latest technology, computers, entertainment”, etc, when the system that supposedly provides these is fundamentally based on increasing per capita debt, now around 100 trillion dollars.
Some competant economists in the 1990’s correctly predicted precisely what we are enduring today – see Freeman’s easily read paper at:
http://www.nber.org/~freeman/Papers%20on%20RBF%20website/un-stan.pdf
So the need for revolution is precisely so workers and their families can continue to have high and increasing standards of living, full employment and financial security, without threatening the environment.
Marx confronted similar circumstances and noted (for Victorian Britain):
With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgois society develop as luxuriantly as is at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk of a real revolution.
He was dismayed at the then lack of struggle emanating from the London trade unions and the Chartists (under Ernest Jones) who may have been dazzled by the amazing standard of living they were experiencing – gas street lighting, democratic reform Bills, railway transport, London underground, newspapers, clothes, acres of brick housing estates, wide variety of food stuffs, entertainments, etc etc. We have been down this road before:
At best, pointing to some period of wealth in the history of capitalism is irrelevant. At worst it is propaganda.
Comment from Kay
Time May 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Chris
OK – you’ve had fun trying to ridicule me! And simply because I described my experience while growing up and living in Australia.
I would love to have you explain to me EXACTLY how a ‘revolution’ will result in a situation whereby “workers and their families can continue to have high and increasing standards of living, full employment and financial security, without threatening the environment.”
Where is the money going to be coming from after the ‘revolution’ to allow us all to live this wonderful life style?
It looks like my observation on society and the likelihood of a ‘revolution’ was also raised by Marx. And things have just continued to improve for workers since then. But my question is: why would you look forward to a time when the economic and social situation is so bad that a ‘revolution’ becomes likely? I certainly don’t!
Comment from John
Time May 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm
There will be no money once production to satisfy human need is established. And because we no longer have to work all those extra hours for the employer’s profit we can cut the working week in half and begin to become truly human.
I don’t look forward to a time when the economy goes belly up. But that is what is happening now in Europe, the US continues to stagnate, China is slowing down… The point is not to welcome these things (and they don’t necessarily lead to revolution; fascism is another alternative as the growth of the far right in Europe shows) but to understand why they are happening.
Comment from Chris Warren
Time May 27, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Kay
You are barking at your own imagination.
No-one looks forward to bad times. But these are unavoidable independent of mankind’s will.
True “wonderful life style” follows from equality, financial security, and absence of exploitative cultural norms and alienation embedded in the different forms of bourgois society. False “wonderful lifestyle” exists only in the OECD economies and based on some 300 years of global imperialism.
Marx noted that how revolution happens depends on the nature of social institutions involved. It would be expected that an overwhelming mass movement will arise calling for a new form of financial and economic relationships.
Money is not the issue. Any producer can issue Bills of Exchange during transitional stages.
Comment from Kay
Time May 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
Surely you’re joking! Are their still people out there who patiently wait for the “revolution” and talk about the “working class” and the “bourgeoisie”? Marx wrote some great, idealist stuff, but surely, by now, it is very outdated.
How do you distinguish between the “working class” and the “bourgeoisie” today? We all work (or did so before retirement). We all try to arrange our finances so as to fund our own retirement (or we should, anyway). We all invest, buy rental properties (negatively geared) etc to try to provide for ourselves. So are we “working class” or “bourgeoisie”? I’m confused!
You can’t exactly call those receiving unemployment benefits the “working class”, yet it could be argued that they are the ones deprived of the opportunity to provide for themselves and their future. And these days, the employer (the “bourgeoisie”?) is required to fund the worker’s retirement, anyway. And if you think I focus too much on retirement, well so be it. But we will all get to that age faster than we think (I’m retired already).
Apart from the very small numbers of avowed socialists out there, everyone focuses on buying or renting a home, educating their children, paying their bills, and hopefully saving for their future. Are these ordinary people (and I am one of them) the “working class” or the “bourgeoisie”? Please explain! In today’s Australian context.
And, BTW, I can’t see that politicians are any different from the rest of us. They just chose politics as their “work”. They are doing the same thing as the rest of us Australians – just trying to earn their living and provide for their family and their future.