by Dr Tristan Ewins ; ALP member of over 30 years
The ALP has long been characterised by internal ideological
divisions between self-identifying social democrats and self-identifying
socialists. This division has always
problematic because there are competing definitions of social democracy and
socialism. Sweden has been described
both as socialist and social democratic. Democratic socialists always contested
the notion that the former Eastern Bloc represented ‘real socialism’. Other socialists continued to find inspiration
in one or another form of Leninism. Some
self-identifying social democrats simply see their politics as ‘progressive but
moderate’. In a relative sense we think here
of a ‘traditional social democracy’. Other social democrats identify as
‘revolutionary social democrats’: basically a continuation in the tradition of
early Marxism. (before Leninism, and typified to a degree by the example of
Austrian social democrats in the 1917-1934 period) This paradigm of socialism (the Austrian
example specifically) is notable for adherence to revolutionary aims ; even if
pitched as ‘revolutionary reforms’ or ‘slow revolution’. It is not opposed to socialism (or democracy)
as such – but rather is a reclamation of an old politics where ‘socialism’ and
‘social democracy’ were not opposed to each other. The question I intend to explore here is
‘what is a reasonable minimum program for the ALP, which brings together the
Party’s diverse ideological elements?’.
What elements of a Party program should all members of the ALP share
adherence to? This is no easy question
to answer: as there must be a degree of ‘give and take’, but without
compromising on certain basic issues.
There’s also the question of what the modern ALP Left should stand for:
and whether or not it is also ‘losing its way’.
The ALP used to adhere – in theory – to its own ‘Socialist Objective’. This was always complicated by the so-called
‘Blackburn Amendment’ which committed itself to socialisation to the extent of
eliminating “exploitation and other anti-social features”. It was long considered by some as a ‘dead
letter’ ; at odds with the practice of actual Labor policy ; and containing a
contradiction: at least as far as Marxism is concerned. For Marxism exploitation is structurally
inbuilt in capitalism (expropriation of surplus value) : and socialisation must
be absolute to eliminate it entirely.
Arguably the Objective was also at odds with political practice on the
ALP Left ; despite the Left fighting tooth and nail for many years to preserve
it. When arguing for the preservation of
the Objective Left leaders such as Kim Carr watered down their arguments to the
point where there was a very significant
loss of meaning and content – in an attempt to broaden its appeal. Guy Rundle has described Carr’s project as
one of ‘national
social democracy’ characterised by greater self-reliance in manufacturing. But does this meet appropriate minimum
requirements as a ‘stream of socialism’?
Meanwhile, Rundle portrays the rest of the party of embracing “distributionism”
which aims to broaden economic ownership, including a place for co-operatives,
but does not aim to negate capitalism’s core dynamics. This means more than competition and markets ;
it means accumulation of capital and hence political power in the hands of a
dominant capitalist class – achieved through economic relations of
exploitation. Meanwhile avowed ‘Third
Way’ politics water down social democracy itself – even in the traditions of
‘mixed economy and welfare state’ – to the point of meaninglessness.
For socialists in the Labor Party the reality is we cannot
have it all our way. And there are
questions as to what ALP Left politics are really about these days anyway. Cynics might argue that in practice the ALP
Left simply stands for “a slightly bigger welfare state and social wage” ; and
“a slightly more progressive tax system”. Though incremental improvement of welfare, progressive
tax and the social wage is desirable if the progress is sustained. The Left
itself needs its own statement of beliefs: which involve a more fundamental
critique of capitalism. This might
include critiques of monopolism, exploitation, alienation created by physically
demanding work, and work involving lack of creative fulfilment and control ; as
well as economic cycles and crises, and the distribution of political and
economic power. But these could also
include building blocks for the broader Party.
To begin it is worth considering the common ground between
different schools of socialism and social democracy in terms of a minimum
program. This would be inclusive of a
steadily expanding social wage and welfare state – preferably to Nordic
proportions. (in the sense that was realised at the height of Nordic social
democracy) Though Nordic Social
Democracy has long been in retreat ; and this means we need to take their
example with a grain of salt. This
means more robust pensions ; comprehensive socialised health (including
Medicare Dental) ; and appropriate
subsidies for services and amenities
fundamental to modern human existence. This includes power, water,
socialised or co-operative housing, communications (including internet access),
transport, availability of nutritious food, and so on. Ongoing Education is also crucial to modern
life ; and all people ought be able to pursue personal fulfilment through
education as well as skilling up to meet labour market requirements.
While the reality is that the modern labour market is
characterised by exploitation (workers do not keep the full proceeds of their
labour power) , we do operate in a global economy where it is necessary to sell
labour power in order to participate. Right now there is ‘no way out’ of capitalism
; but that does not mean we cannot have a critique which informs strategies
which address the anti-social, irrational and unfair features of the system. The
Left should have a critique – including of the core workings of capitalist
political economy ; and it needs a code of principles which provides this ; but
a minimum program for a wide range of socialists and social democrats also needs
to account for an alliance of forces including elements who are not committed
to negating capitalism ; even far into the future. Something needs to change in discourse more
broadly – with an effective counter-hegemony - to achieve anything like a
consensus on a Socialist Objective within the ALP. This means we need a mobilised Left fighting
to challenge ‘common sense’ ideas both within and outside of the Party. Arguably the Communist Party of Australia used
to play this role very effectively ; as did other Western Communist Parties -
even though they did not usually enjoy significant electoral success. (The Communist Party of Italy – the PCI - is
a very important exception ; having won very strong electoral success for many
decades)
That said, a minimum program could include a commitment for the foreseeable
future to a democratic mixed economy ; or a hybrid system. Strategic socialisation should be pursued for
reasons of economic efficiency, equity, and sovereignty. In areas characterised by a lack of
competition, or by collusion – government business enterprises can be a game
changer. Think banking, general
insurance, health insurance, postal services. In other areas it is appropriate
to have natural public monopolies. Infrastructure
in energy, water, communications, transport -are other areas where the logic of
natural public monopoly ought apply.
Public monopolies in these fields translate into reduced cost structures
; with the benefits flowing on to the economy more broadly, including
consumers. Governments – including Labor
Governments – have systemically undermined the place of natural public monopoly
in the economy. But we need a debate on
this within the Party ; about a commitment to strategic public ownership ; and
if possible to natural public monopoly in specific fields such as water,
energy, transport and communications infrastructure ; as well as a restoration
of a public sector job network after the example of the old CES.
Still ; it is hard
enough already getting many self-identifying ‘moderate’ social democrats to even agree to
restoring a public sector role in these fields (in competition with private
enterprise) ; let alone restoration of natural public monopolies. Nonetheless the Left should lead a debate on
natural public monopoly and strategic (including competitive) government
business enterprise. Specifically, a
minimum program should refer to a democratic mixed economy ; and this should
frame an internal debate which the Left tries to lead. Government could also invest in primary
industries ; and in Australia especially there is great scope to benefit from a
public role in minerals exploration and mining.
Billions in revenue could be directed towards social programs.
Co-operatives could also play a central role in a democratic
mixed economy ; and as far as they reach they attack economic exploitation at
its very roots. It’s important to observe, however, that even
in Spain where the successful Mondragon Co-operative operates – that co-operative
ownership is not very significant in the context of the broader economy. But particularly, in Australia government
could underwrite co-operative enterprise to enable it to remain competitive on
global and local markets ; including by investment in Research and Development
and economies of scale. Government could
also provide cheap loans to facilitate the establishment of co-operatives ;
including smaller scale co-operatives – eg: co-op cafes – which not only attack
exploitation ; but which also allow intimate creative control by workers. Strong policies could secure a significant (as
opposed to marginal or minimal) place for co-operatives in the Australian
economy. But importantly, co-operative enterprise is
not a substitute for the public sector: both play a core role in a democratic
mixed economy. Commitment to promoting a
greater and greater role for co-operatives in the economy needs to be
integrated in a minimum program.
Other areas where an agenda of popular and workers control
could be advanced include co-determination and collective capital
mobilisation. In Australia
superannuation funds have become powerful players in investment. Though they operate in the capitalist context
; and tend to adhere therefore to capitalist imperatives. (eg: share value maximisation) Hence they
advance a distributivist agenda ; but not much which is more radical. Also public pension funds would have been
more equitable ; and the superannuation system threatens the eventual
marginalisation and undermining of the public Aged Pension over time.
Meanwhile, co-determination can manifest either as
consultation, or in the sense of all parties having to agree on major
decisions. In Australia the starting point would be workers’ representatives on
company boards. Hence workers could have ‘an insiders’ view’ on the decisions
affecting their productive lives. This
specific strategy would not be radically transformative in the sense of
workers’ control ; but it would be a step forward. Again we need to set the broad framework in a
minimum program ; and then for the Left to lead a debate within that framework.
There is a broad scope to reform welfare. Labor should also
be committed to strengthening the Aged Pension, Disability Pension, Job
Seeker’s Allowance, Sole Parents’
Pension , Austudy, and other welfare. The Disability Pension (and National Disability
Insurance Scheme supports) should be for life- in the sense of not being withdrawn
depending on age. Also, there should be
more scope to earn additional income through casual or part-time work (or other
means) without losing the Disability Support Pension. And entering into a
relationship should not see a substantial portion of welfare payments
withdrawn. The NDIS should be
strengthened more broadly also ; not
undermined. University fees should be
replaced by progressive tax levies which effectively relate proportionately to
the actual financial advantage gained. A
Garaunteed Minimum Income relating to the cost of all fundamental needs could
consolidate basic universal economic rights.
In a minimum program reference could be made to all pensions
; and the imperative of providing them on the basis of need. (again perhaps expanded, and then indexed quarterly
to inflation or cost of living – whichever is greater). The debate on a Garaunteed Minimum Income can
be won ; but it may take time to integrate it into a Minimum Program.
Finally there are issues of human rights, labour market and
industrial relations rights, and housing – which also need to be addressed in a
Minimum Program. Labor needs to be
unequivocal in a Minimum Program in its commitment to freedom of association,
assembly and speech ; as well as the right to basic needs such as housing,
heating, cooling, nutrition, education, health services, access to transport
services, and access to communications and information technology. This needs to be amended as new relative
rights and needs arise with technological and economic progress. The right to engage in Pattern Bargaining and
to withdraw labour in good faith (whether for industrial or political goals) needs
to be promoted ; and at the lower end of the labour market especially more
robust minimum standards and regulation need to be provided for. This should have a substantial effect if
implemented in the case of heavily exploited ‘feminised’ industries.
Again, shelter is a human right ; and government policy
(including provision of public housing) should seek to achieve its universal
fulfilment. Government could also help facilitate co-operative housing, and
affordable housing – through subsidies and regulations. The Federal Government and the States have
long lagged behind here ; and support from the Federal Government especially is
needed – as they do not endure the same fiscal constraints as do the other
tiers. Recently there has been a trend
to promote ‘affordable’ housing (as an alternative to public housing) through
deals with private developers ; but while this strategy can provide better
outcomes for some renters, it does not achieve either efficient financing or
equity compared with public housing. Labor needs a minimum program which
significantly expands an ongoing policy of building enough high quality public
housing to meet the demand ; while looking to the Austrian example to destigmatise
public housing and establish it as an option for all Australians ; including
but not limited to the most disadvantaged.
A minimum program needs to aspire to this ; and it should not be
controversial for genuine social democrats and socialists.
In conclusion Labor also needs an independent foreign policy
outlook and a humane policy with regards to rights of asylum seekers. We should
lead the way on defusing conflicts between China and the United States and heading
off any potential war. And there is no place for Mandatory Detention in any
Party of the broad Left.
In short – and to summarise in conclusion - a Minimum Program
should promote a progressively expanding social wage and welfare state ; as
well as a democratic mixed economy – with stronger public and democratic
sectors which aim to improve underlying cost structures to the benefit of the
broader economy and consumers - through strategic public ownership. Here, the social wage includes socialised
health and education ; and ensuring universal access to shelter (including
public housing) , information and communications technology, transport services
; and a minimum income where access to energy and water is also universal. And with a steadily more progressively-structured
tax system – with an open commitment to just economic redistribution. And we will define the welfare state’s role as
comprising social provision of income ; especially the vulnerable ; with
cross-over between welfare state and social wage where it comes to social
services.
Also the minimum program should include reference to the
progressive expansion of economic democracy on several fronts ; and the provision
of fundamental industrial and broader human rights. This means a regulated labour market and the
right to withdraw labour in good faith for industrial or political purposes. As well as the minimisation of the anti-social
complications of capitalism ; including its crisis-prone nature ; its tendency
to concentrate wealth and promote monopolism ; as well as problems of inbuilt obsolescence
– and of collusion and other anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices. Also ‘the market’ does not necessarily ‘organically’
provide for human need – though there is a role for it in providing for the flexible
satisfaction of individualised needs structures. The need
for choice – and hence competition – means there are limits to socialisation – at
least under current conditions. ‘The market’ has a place ; but so too does
social provision which goes beyond ‘market logic’.
This article has sought to explore the issues which should
inform a minimum program for the ALP. It
should be possible to win broad agreement on most of this article’s broad tenets. In other areas the article has outlined areas
where minimum policies could be applied ; but where the Left should lead the
debate in terms of achieving stronger policies.
Also importantly ; there are limits to purely electoral
politics – and there is a need for an organised counter-hegemony. The counter-hegemony should seek a more
radical reframing of debate and issues than the minimum program ; and it is
necessary to build an alternative to the old Western Communist Parties who used
to contest ‘political and economic common sense’. But that is beyond the broad scope of this
article.
The point is that it is possible to achieve broad agreement
on a minimum program which mobilises the broad Labor Party and frames its
policies. The minimum program, here,
attempts to frame the ALP as involving currents ranging from traditional social
democratic (mixed economy, labour rights and welfare state) on the relative right,
to democratic socialism and revolutionary social democracy on the Left. And these various currents are considered as
being capable of solidarity behind basic programmatic and policy principles and
agendas. The most diluted ‘Third Way’
positions – which stand for little in terms of the traditions of social democracy
or socialism – need to be seen as liquidationist – and hence are not accepted
within the framework of the minimum program.
It is hoped that this article will promote debate and
influence the development of the ALP’s Platform running up to the next National
Conference. And also the development of
a program behind which both elements of the ALP Left and the ALP Right might be
able to coalesce ; as well as non-aligned elements. This goes so far is to problematise the very idea
of an ‘ALP Right’ which is right-wing on the broader political spectrum. Even
the most relative right-wing elements in the ALP should be relatively Left on
the broader spectrum. We all need to see
ourselves as part of a ‘broad Left’, and in this sense having common cause. Once we agree on this perhaps we can truly ‘move
forward together’.