Unions threaten Rudd over workplace reforms

[bwphantom]

Take no notice of frank David.
His Paramisium brain is in current overload.

Nomad very interesting that you bring up the Blackburn Declaration. Much debate ensued over the degree of Socialism that a Government should have on the community. So from my understanding the Blackburn Declaration was written to declare that the labor Party did not seek to abolish private property, and would pursue collective ownership only in limited cases. Is this right Nomad?

However, I will add that since the late 1970s there has been a marked, though not total, shift away from the ideas of state intervention.

Within the Liberal Party, this was seen most clearly in the struggles in mid-1980s between the so-called 'wets' who preferred to retain and extend such programmes, and the 'dries' who became known as the 'economic rationalists'. The coming to Liberal leadership of John Hewson (1990) signalled a major change in the Liberal approach to such matters.

This shift in government standpoint was seen also in the ALP. The Hawke and Keating administrations of the 1980s and 1990s were challenged by many within their party as deserting socialist principles because they favoured a system of indirect taxation, the sale of some public utilities, deregulation of the financial system, and reduced levels of protection for workers.

From the mid 1990s, attempts to redefine Labor Party values in terms of democratic socialism have produced theories of a 'third way'. Third Way socialism looks to government to provide funds directly to consumers who then choose between public and private service providers. It is distinct from welfare socialism in requiring a rather more entrepreneurial, yet hands-off, role for government, rather than it becoming an active player.

The pragmatic character of Australian socialism is apparent in Labor's changing policies to suit a changing environment. Perhaps the most notable change has been a move from ideas of class solidarity to national solidarity, and from demands for a greater equality in the distribution of wealth to demands for a greater equality of opportunity.

Cheers.

[nomadjack]

Yes Phantom, the Blackburn declaration was passed at the same time as the 'socialisation plank' in the ALP platform and did basically as you suggest - ie it said while the ALP is committed to socialisation, this commitment is limited to a very select few areas where social ownership of the means of production is demonstrably more efficient and effective than private ownership. It is evidence of both division within the party over its commitment to socialism and the party's pragmatism.

This is why I tend to agree with figures like Keating who suggest the party, particularly when in government, has rarely been interested in socialism. The real ideological influence in the ALP has been Labourism - getting the best deal possible for workers under the existing capitalist system, rather than any attempt to challenge the legitimacy of capitalism or fundamentals like private property.


The Third Way is not socialist despite what writers like Anthony Giddens like to portray. It is a form of conservatism dressed up in supposedly soft and cuddly communitarian language. In my opinion it is largely substance-free fluff dreamed up by new right political marketeers.

When you note the pragmatic nature of Australian socialism I think you are missing the point. The pragmatism is with the ALP not socialism. And this pragmatism is nothing new. Nor is the demand for equality of opportunity new. The party has never been about equality of outcome.

[bwphantom]

Thanks for the reply Nomad. I do see your point and I appreciate your logical delivery of another view of socialist principle. And I agree that the modern ALP has moved towards Labourism. But I would believe the party is moving more towards Social Liberalism.

It may not be the pure Socialism that affronts the party, but even in its lesser forms it is still an underlying socialist dogma.

What will be interesting is to watch how Rudd handles the Unions that believe that their campaign is what placed him in power in the first place, and require recompense.

[Alec. J. Hidell]

The Unions put Whitlam in power
The Unions put Hawke in power and kept him there for four consecutive elections, they then supported Keating

Nothing to see here, move along

[stui magpie]

[sherrife]

[stui magpie]

Omar, " a bit childlish" Yep, I'll pay that. 100% guilty.

As far as "socialism" goes, not many people have delved deeply into political theory. I'm one who hasn't. the majority would think that Socialism = Communism = Stalinism which is to my knowledge incorrect but I couldn't enunciate the difference. (that's not a cue BTW )

From the point of view that the union movement seeks to do more than simply look after the rights of workers, but actively seeks a participative rather than consultative role in management decisions (ie, running business); harnesses "people power" to it's own agenda as well as theirs and seeks to have a larger role in shaping Australian society (and I'm not making that up it was in an ACTU manifesto I read 4 years ago), I'm honestly not quite sure what to call them but socialist will do unless you can give me a more accurate term.

Would it serve better if I described them as a left wing organisation, representing a minority of Australians but claiming to speak for the majority, who have political ambition far beyond simply using their cloak of respectability and money raised from duping the public to install the Labor party into power as their figurehead. Their most damaging work is done behind the scenes. Revolution by stealth.