John Passant

Site menu:

February 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728  

Tags

Archives

RSS Oz House

Authors

Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


RSS Blog RSS

Site search

Miniposts

Lex Wotton
(0)

Me quoted in Fairfax papers on tax haven use
Me quoted by Georgia Wilkins in The Age (and other Fairfax publications) today. John Passant, from the school of political science and international relations, at the Australian National University, said the trend noted by Computershare was further evidence multinationals did not take global regulators seriously. ”US companies are doing this on the hard-nosed basis that any [regulatory] changes that will be made won’t have an impact on their ability to avoid tax,” he said. ”They think it is going to take a long time for the G20 to take action, or that they are just all talk.” (1)

Sprouting sh*t for almost nothing
You can prove my 2 ex-comrades wrong by donating to my blog En Passant at BSB: 062914 Account: 1067 5257, the Commonwealth Bank in Tuggeranong, ACT. More... (12)

My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. http://sharonfirebrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/18-2-14-john-passant-aust-national-university-g20-meeting-age-of-enttilement-engineers-attack-of-austerity-hardship-on-civilians.mp3 (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. http://sharonfirebrace.com/2014/02/11/john-passant-aust-national-university-canberra-2/ (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. http://sharonfirebrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/4-2-14-john-passant-aust-national-university-canberra-end-of-the-age-of-entitlement-for-the-needy-but-pandering-to-the-lusts-of-the-greedy.mp3 (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole
(0)

Real debate?
(0)

System change, not climate change
(0)

Advertisement

Links:

The Greens and Labor: Is this war baby or is it just confusion?

Do you think the Greens have wedged the ALP with their proposal for a $127 per fortnight increase in the single parent payment, loosening the restrictions on hours worked and paying for the $340 million by closing just one of the loopholes in the Minerals Resource Rent Tax, with money left over?

I do. I suspect this will be a long guerrilla campaign by the Greens every week or so pushing some socially progressive policy. There is already a proposal from the Greens to increase the dole by $50 a week.

If this single parents’ payment is one of the first in a line of demands to make life for the poor better, then it is good news, not just for the poor (who may or may not receive any benefit given the Greens only receive about 10% of the vote) but for the radical and revolutionary left too.

It is good news for socialists because it raises the possibility of reforms in the age of austerity. Of course the Greens will be fair-weather friends since their strategy is Parliament, not mobilising people in their workplaces and on the streets to fight for real progressive change.

This is evident from their decision to oppose, with the Opposition, any changes to research and development tax concessions that would have withdrawn the benefit from companies with a turnover of greater than $20 billion and saved $1 billion in revenue leakage. This would have adversely impacted on about 20 of the biggest businesses in Australia. Twenty!

If as the Greens claim the ALP has been captured by the miners (and there is an element of truth in that, albeit fear of the miners I suspect is a better description), then have the Greens been captured by the super big business R&D beneficiaries?

These are the same progressive Greens who haven’t ruled out preferencing some Liberals in some seats. This highlights the lack of a class analysis the Greens have and is only likely to stop the more advanced sections of the working class shifting from Labor to the Greens.

This single parent announcement of change from on high is perhaps nothing more than a crude vote winning tactic with little else behind it, least of all a strategy about how the party of ten percent can win these reforms.

It might win a few left-wing votes from Labor, but it won’t win the reforms themselves without a mobilisation of social forces to force capital to give real benefits to its workforce and those on below poverty line benefits.

The Greens may fear such mobilisations because they could unleash processes and forces well to the left of them and because their logic is bums on seats in Parliament, not fundamental societal change.

The Greens’ push for reforms imagines that in a time of global economic crisis, a crisis of low profit rates arising out of the way production is organised under capitalism, capital will willingly divert some of the surplus value we workers create back to us or the poor. That is fairy land stuff.

Let’s take a non-economic issue like refugees. The Greens are the one party that has taken a consistent pro-refugee position. Yet for all their arguments and logic, the major parties continue their descent into the 7th level of hell over asylum seekers.

Again, defending refugees verbally might win or solidify votes. It won’t on its own defend refugees.

To really defend refugees would require a mobilisation of many many people.

Now that the Greens have supposedly thrown off the shackles of their unhappy shacking up with Labor, an alternative to radical or not so radical words presents itself for the Greens. They could become the party of action, the party of real protest. They could mobilise their members and supporters out onto the streets in defence of refugees. God forbid they could begin a campaign of civil disobedience bringing the isolated and hence isolating tactics of activists in the far away forests to the cities.

Or the Greens with their million voters and thousands of members and tens of thousands of close supporters could mobilise hundreds of thousands onto the streets for real action to address climate change instead of fixating on the failed carbon tax and other mickey mouse market solutions to the environmental problems the market creates.

Their Parliamentary politics stop them doing any of this. That is where the opening for socialists might be found. How can we win progressive reforms?

We can explain why voting Green isn’t enough, and that if the Greens took to the streets and the workplaces the chances of winning real reforms would increase, and the party of ten percent might even win extra votes.

We can force through reforms, progressive change, if we unite and fight, mobilise and resist.

But pragmatically that can only occur at the moment, given the small number of socialists organised politically in Australia and our lack of influence in the working class movement, if the Greens give a lead. No amount of pray will make that happen. And so the Sisyphean task of building the revolutionary left continues.

The class will move into action at some stage, cleaning out the muck of ages. We need a significant revolutionary socialist group to become an important part of that upsurge, to guide it and be guided by it. That means building such an organisation now. That can’t be done just when workers do fight back. A revolutionary socialist party, a socialist alternative has to be built now.

Like all posts on this site, comments (see the link under the heading) close after 7 days.

And for those of you wondering about the heading, check out this link to Jimi Hendrix playing Love or confusion.

Advertisement

Comments

Comment from Kay
Time February 25, 2013 at 8:11 am

I see the ‘divorce’ between the Greens and Labor more pragmatically. In the lead up to what is promising to be a resounding defeat for Labor, I think the Greens have decided there is no point in going down with Labor. Hence, a ‘divorce’ now will give the Greens some chance to win back some left wing voters who may have been put off by the Greens’ apparent move to the right, occasioned by its need to maintain the alliance.

In addition, a ‘divorce’ from the Greens may help Labor win back blue-collar worker voters who have been put off by Labor’s alliance with the Greens.

So – a win/win! Both parties are trying to win back their traditional voters. And I suspect the ‘divorce’, and the contemptuous comments by both leaders towards each other, was well rehearsed.

As for “the lack of a class analysis the Greens have” – well, I would have thought only the Socialists continue to talk seriously about ‘class’ as a basis of all policy development these days.

BTW what alternatives do far left wing voters have other than the Greens? Are there any truly socialist federal candidates anywhere in Australia?

Comment from peter d jones
Time February 25, 2013 at 8:37 am

The old class analysis no longer makes sense when the working class vote for Tony Abbott, let alone John Howard in his heyday. Times have changed and the Greens are emerging as a third force around the world outside the old framework. Sadly the ALP has lost its way, as Walid Aly points out in a good article last week, so it makes sense for the Greens to pitch for the votes of a generation more interested in values than party politics.

Comment from John
Time February 26, 2013 at 11:31 am

Some workers will vote for Abbott, Peter, not all, and the strikes in Europe against austerity and the rise of SYRIZA in Greece may give you pass for thought about the death of class analysis.

Comment from Kay
Time February 26, 2013 at 12:08 pm

Cyprus voted in a right wing government, and Italy looks like having another unstable government. So, it is all over the place! And the discussion is always about money, not ‘class’.

Comment from Chris Warren
Time February 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm

I suppose peter jones is correct at one level. The Greens are pitching for votes based on values. But this is why we need to look for an alternative way forward. If you could change the world through values, it would have happened a long time ago.

It is so easy to share values – but not your wealth nor your job nor your standard of living. , but this is what we need.

Comment from Kay
Time February 27, 2013 at 7:31 am

Chris

When I was young and had nothing, I thought it was great idea that all the wealth I saw around me should be shared out – after all, I could only gain from such a transaction!

Now that I have 30 years of hard work behind me, during which time I concentrated (after raising and educating 4 children) on accumulating enough money to comfortably retire on, the idea of now sharing that small amount with those who have not demonstrated a similar determination to provide for themselves, is quite repugnant.

One’s attitude to socialism is usually age and asset related. I have seen around me, over my lifetime, many who chose to enjoy what money they had for holidays and other discretionary spending activities, with no thought for their future, and no self-discipline. So, no, I don’t want to share my assets with these spendthrifts.