• industrial relations reforms

Meaningful? Hardly.

 I've already told you, or at least mentioned briefly, what I think the way forward is. Do you just forget everything that has been said in reply to you on other threads? I guess that makes it easier to indulge in snide little attacks.

Now, which nationalised, or previously nationalised industries do you think are worth defending? QANTAS and the nationalised domestic airlines it took over? Telstra?

They were some of the most reactive companies around - one helped to keep airline fares high and inaccessible to most, and the other has done everything it can to stifle competition in the telecommunications industry - including holding back email, VOIP and so on. Maybe we should organise a rally to demand that airfares between Brisbane and Melbourne go back to about $500 per head? Or $3 a minute STD calls? Is that what you want to defend?

Even in the context of advancing a reform program that will lead to revolutionary demands, demanding that these companies to be re-nationalised is ridiculous. Whether these companies are owned by public or private capital in a capitalist system has nothing whatever to do with the class struggle. I'm really not sure why you keep bringing it up. There are plenty of social democratic websites who would be quite happy to agree with you about nationalisation.

Once again, you are ignoring the previous discussion on this and other threads about how workers' rights and workers' power are gained. If you have any plans, programs or suggestions about what to do, why don't you say so and lay them out?

Or are you just as lost as you accuse us of being?

Comrade Youngmarxist:

You write

 "Whether these companies are owned by public or private capital in a capitalist system has nothing whatever to do with the class struggle. I'm really not sure why you keep bringing it up. "

Well this is why:

Someone once suggested the following as a necessary part of the class struggle:

• Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
• Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State

Do you recognise these words? With a name like yours, you should!

Cyberman, perhaps you shoud pay attention to a crucial phrase I used and you quoted:

"in a capitalist system"

What you are talking about is what would happen in a non-capitalist, revolutionary system.

You've already just said:

Its just not on the political agenda at the moment to have have  revolutionary workers control of the nationalised industries.

And now you use a description of a system of revolutionary workers' control to sneer at my argument.

And if you are saying that Marx was arguing that nationalisation was an essential part of the class struggle under capitalism, then I am saying that under today's conditions, I don't think that's right.

Do you take everything Marx said as Holy Writ, as quotes to throw around meaninglessly in arguments, or do you try and work out a way forward based on your own experience and analysis? Things have happened since Marx died, you know.

I can't see any real sympathy amongst ordinary working people for most of the privatised companies. An air ticket to travel 2 000 km in Australia today now can cost as little as $120 or so, compared to $500 or more only a decade ago.

Do you really think you could mobilise a working class movement that would demand to go back to those bad old days?

One way we can help to create a revolutionary situation is to create an environment where people's expectations are constantly rising. If those rising expectations lead people to demand nationalisation, then we will be in a very different situation than today, where people's expectations are leading to the destruction of the deadening grip of many state monopolies.

People won't start demanding nationalised airlines until they know in their guts that the capitalist system can't deliver what a nationalised system does. At the moment, they don't know that, because their experience shows them it's simply not true.

What the popular reaction to Workchoices shows is that there are some lines that people don't want their bosses to cross. Unfortunately, people will settle for Labor's poor alternative, partly because the Left has nothing better to offer.

Do you have something to contribute? Or just more throwaway quotes? Are you here to push things forward, or to tell us that we aren't as pure as you?

Comrade Young Marxist,

Sorry, mate, but you really need to do some reading. The Manifesto suggested a course of action, under capitalism, for the working class  to overthrow the ruling class and to eventually bring about a classless society and as such was a political program, which you may consider  reformist, but nevertheless goes to the heart of what Marxism is all about.

Many of my more right wing friends would agree with your arguments for privatisation but then they don't call themselves Marxist. Maybe you need to consider a new name: "youngfriedmanite" Maybe? see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

And yes, we need to learn from the way nationalised industries have been run in various parts of the world and improve on them. There are many examples of nationalised industries, worldwide, which clearly have a better track record than their privatised equivalents. Such as: electricity generation and supply, gas supply, the operation of railways, buses and trams, ( not to mention the actual roads themselves), water supply, education, and health care. Incidentally I've just been listening to Michael Moore on the radio who has just released a film 'Sicko' ( I think) which catalogues the failures of the the American health system.

You may think Ihave drifted off the point of industrial relations. However, its all related. There are many advances that previous generations of workers have fought for which we'd be mad to let go without a fight. Fortunately, in Australia, the working class generally do seem to have more stomach for a fight than some comrades in LS.

 

 

 

In his attempt to snidely write off my position without actually engaging or daring to offer a way forward himself, Cyberman dishonestly misrepresents me:

 Many of my more right wing friends would agree with your arguments for privatisation but then they don't call themselves Marxist. Maybe you need to consider a new name: "youngfriedmanite" Maybe?

If Cyberman was bothering to argue honestly he would see that I based my argument around the fact that there is no way the working class today will demand that today's privatised industries be re-nationalised:

Do you really think you could mobilise a working class movement that would demand to go back to those bad old days?

...

People won't start demanding nationalised airlines until they know in their guts that the capitalist system can't deliver what a nationalised system does. At the moment, they don't know that, because their experience shows them it's simply not true.

There is no way you could label my position 'Freidmanite' unless you were deliberately trying to lie about it, or simply refusing to engage or understand.

The Manifesto was written in 1848. It's now 2007. We need to analyse today's conditions, and decide our own way forward. Marx still remains relevant in the way he described how capitalism works and how it oppresses workers, but clinging to 150 year old tactical plans, instead of deciding your own plans in the light of current conditions, shows that your thinking has become dead and fossilised. When people don't have original ideas, they are reduced to finding some holy texts from an ancient authority and throwing them around, without any understanding of how they relate to today's world - which is exactly what you are doing with Marx.

Again, workers will demand better lives for themselves, and it's our job as revolutionaries to encourage that. Workers at the moment don't care much if industry is nationalised or not - why should they? You've completely failed to give a single example of an industry privatised in the last 20 years that you could build a campaign around re-nationalisation that working people would support.

This has nothing at all to do with industrial relations. It's not related. It's a discussion about whether capitalist enterprises that enforce wage-slavery should be owned by the state or by private capital.

It's really funny that only a few comments ago you suggested that we think the class struggle is irrelevant to communism, and now you are talking about things that have nothing whatever to do with the class struggle.

Why don't you try re-reading what I have said and addressing it? When you do that, you might be worth trying to engage with.

Comrade Young marxist,
You say that Marx is still relevant. "The Manifesto was written in 1848. It's now 2007. We need to analyse today's conditions, and decide our own way forward". OK this is fair enough, a lot of Labor MPs think along these lines, and I think the correct description for for your position is "Marxian" rather than Marxist.     

You also said that you had "at least mentioned briefly, what I think the way forward is." I'm quite happy to engage you in argument, but I think you should be able to do a bit better than "mention briefly". You don't care for Milton Friedman but who does influence you? You seem to have rejected Marx's approach for building the working class movement. What other model do you prefer? I'm not trying to dodge your arguments-I'd just like to know. Personally, I can't see any real alternative to engaging in the day to day struggle of the working class.

You must have led a sheltered life if you think that privatisation of essential services such as water and electricity has "nothing to do with the class struggle". Call me cynical if you like, but I'd say that privatisation of water and electricity was more about generating profits for capitalists than providing better services. It hasn't much happened yet in Australia , but it will if the Liberals keep winning elections.

Take a look at these links:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html
http://www.waronwant.org/Privatisation,+Power+and+Poverty+7411.twl

There's plenty more if you do your own Google search. Most of it is unfavourable and should help you understand the class issues of profit, prices and reduced services. I did hear a story in South America of an American company who had bought the local electricity network and simply cut off supplies in unprofitable areas and sold off the cables  for their scrap metal value. Incidentally many of these privatisations are forced on unwilling governments by the IMF as a condition of being allowed to trade, even on infavourable terms, with the USA. In case you needed some explanation, this is why the left is not totally sold on the idea of globalisation. That's part of the class struggle as well. It's all linked.

 
Back to the industrial relations laws. Did you hear about the case of Charlie Corbett facing a $45,000 fine for daring to stand up to his bosses? Its absolutely appalling that this could happen. And supporting Charlie is "nothing to do with the class struggle" as well? What about the Cowra workers who were sacked and offered their jobs back on very unfavourable terms? Are they anything to do with the class struggle?

PS I'm not trying to dodge your arguments about the difficulties of arguing for a renationalisation of some industries such as Telstra. You are correct , it wouldn't be easy. There has been a general shift to the right in the last 30 years. Many people are scared of having their shares confiscated. Even Julia Gillard frightens the life out of some people! Maybe a new thread?

 

Cyberman says:

 We need to analyse today's conditions, and decide our own way forward". OK this is fair enough, a lot of Labor MPs think along these lines, and I think the correct description for for your position is "Marxian" rather than Marxist.

Which appears once again to be an attempt to be more 'revolutionary than thou'.

Labor MP's who talk about the 'outdated class struggle' - I assume that's who you mean - have nothing to do with what I am talking about.

They reject any sort of revolutionary analysis, and expect us to rely on the ALP to provide us with slightly better conditions than a Liberal government might.

I am not taking that line at all. I am saying that a revolutionary analysis, and a strategy for class struggle, must not mindlessly adopt every program and tactic that Marx may have suggested at one stage. For you to suggest the attitude 'Well Marx said it so that must be the way forward today' - which I think you do - is a great way to cripple any meaningful way forward.

You have laid out two positions - either we accept everything Marx said as Holy Writ for today, or we are in league with the ALP. It's plain rubbish.

We need to analyse, on our own, our current conditions and work out the best way forward. If that contradicts something Marx said, well, too bad. Our job is not to dissect and obey Marx, our job is to find ways to push the class struggle forward.

No doubt you will find a way to label that attitude just not revolutionary enough.

Call me cynical if you like, but I'd say that privatisation of water and electricity was more about generating profits for capitalists than providing better services.

"Our next contestant is Sybil Fawlty from Torquay, special subject the bleeding obvious."

Since when has 'providing better services' been part of a revolutionary agenda?

It's always been part of a reformist, social-democratic agenda - even some types of liberal are quite happy to see public money spent on 'nation-building' projects. In this sort of agenda, publically-owned enterprises are all about generating profits for capitalists - some sorts of capitalist decide that their class interests are served by having some centrally-funded utilities, since no one capitalist enterprise can make money out of providing, say roads or public transport. Why do you think some major factories have their own railway stations?

Much as I think we need to be useful allies in work and community struggles, there will also come a time when we have to say to people "You're not going to get what you want unless you break the law, march in and take it over yourselves".

That's a sort of nationalisation I'd like to see. Not the sort where we all agree to vote in a social-democratic government that makes us all the more dependent on the system.

There'll never be a revolution if people patiently expect a government to do things for them - we'll need a working class that is prepared to run its own government.

I am not being purist about tactics. Revolutionaries will, at times, have to demand non-revolutionary reforms, simply to be on the side of working people. But we can't let ourselves adopt long-term dreams that lead to people patiently waiting for the slightly nicer capitalists to renovate our cages.

Since you brought them up, I'm sure you know a fair bit about the people in South America who lost their electricity. No doubt you have a recommendation about what we should do to support them?

Should we ask them to politely petition their government to give them their cables back and renationalise the electricity, or should we - perhaps - encourage them to fight for what they need, teaching them that successful rebellion is possible? What is the most radical stance these people are likely to take, and what are the chances of a successful challenge?

You seem to be saying that

You must have led a sheltered life if you think that privatisation of essential services such as water and electricity has "nothing to do with the class struggle".

Ah, more insults. You know nothing about my life at all - and it hasn't been particularly sheltered.

I try and get by from pay to pay like most people - and I only manage that by living in a $100 a week dogbox.

I can't run my cheap aircon unit in summer because the (nationalised) electricity is too expensive - I can only afford to run a fan, and I can't afford to move into a place with better insulation than my thin fibro walls.

And if/when I can't afford a train ticket I have to take my chances of dodging the (Government-employed) ticket inspectors on the (nationalised) public transport. If I get caught, I have to pay a $150 fine - which, at the most income I have EVER earned, is about 30% of my weekly pay. (I am not earning that much now).

So get stuffed with your 'sheltered life' rubbish, thanks so much.

Oh look:

Back to the industrial relations laws. Did you hear about the case of Charlie Corbett facing a $45,000 fine for daring to stand up to his bosses? Its absolutely appalling that this could happen. And supporting Charlie is "nothing to do with the class struggle" as well?

Riiiight, now you are quoting words I used about the nationalisation issue to attempt to describe my position on a completely different issue. The technical term for this is "lying".

Why you would make such a dishonest attack just as you bring up the issue of Charlie Corbett?

I'd not heard of his case before, but now I read this Lateline transcript it seems to be exactly the sort of case we should be making a noise about. So why the nasty, dishonest quote of my words while you mention it? Bad will at best. If you insist on using the word 'Comrade', you should try acting it out.

I don't know about the 'Cowra Workers', perhaps some analysis from you instead of a throwaway line to try and make your opponent look bad?

Again.

Comrade Young marxist.

So let me get this straight. You are a non-Marxist revolutionary? OK that's interesting. If you reject Marx , whose revolutionary analysis are you following?  It might help you to clarify your own ideas if you actually wrote it down yourself instead of giving me some obscure link.

You use the interesting phrase "either we accept everything Marx said as Holy Writ for today, or we are in league with the ALP" . I think you must be confusing my posts with something that you read elsewhere because this isn't what I said. For a start, sometimes we do have to join forces with the ALP. "Holy Writs" - let's leave them to the Catholics. Of course we don't expect Marx to give us all the answers. As you say he lived over a hundred years ago and some things have changed. For instance I don't think that he can give us many answers on the environmental problems we are facing. However, when I read Marx, as I'm sure you do as well, I never fail to be amazed at how relevant his writings are, even after all this time. You can still call yourself a Marxist if you have a few doubts over some of the detail. For instance, you might think that some of the stuff he wrote in Das Kapital concerning the organic, variable and constant compositions of Capital might do with a bit of an update , but if you are rejecting the central tenets of the the Communist Manifesto then you do really hav eto think of a new name for yourself.

You guys have a good website here. Its a pity that LS can find time to talk about "draining the swamps" etc but you don't have a thread on the Cowra workers  or Charlie Corbett. http://workers.labor.net.au/302/editorial_editorial.html  
In fact you've never heard of them. For now, forget about doing any Marxist analysis on them. Just look them up on Google - doing the right thing should just come naturally. In fact, the best way to understand Marx is to get involved in the day to day issues such as these first and read the books at the library , or on the net these days, second. It will all make much more sense that way. 

PS   

And if you think electricity, water and train tickets are expensive in Australia , you might like to do some research on what these cost in countries where they have been privatised such as the UK. There aren't too many comrades in the UK who don't understand the link between privatisation of essential services and the class struggle.

 

 

No, this is just a waste of time. Cyberman still can't work out the difference between a living analysis and dead, mindless chanting of old slogans. And when he's challenged on that, his response is to call someone non-Marxist.

Perhaps Cyberman should set up his own website if he thinks we aren't doing a good enough job. Of course, that would require a lot more effort than just sniping at this one.

Barry (and youngmarxist)  I think you are being a little harsh toward cyberman here.  See what I wrote to Tomb in "the anti-humanity movement" thread. 

We have to expect that people will be confused, dismayed and upset by what we are saying.  We are challenging deeply held (and very cherished) views and we can't  expect people to quickly change their way of thinking. aftre reading what we say. People generally require time (and personal experience) before they will relinquish ideas that have been long important to them (and are often an integral part of their personal identity).


So long as those who come on the site  and disagree with us actually make genuine attempts to argue with us rather than engaging in tactics such as ignoring what we say. changing topics, making particularly obnoxious ad hominen attacks and slurs, then I think we have to keep on engaging with them.  I think there is a big difference between cyberman and dalek (also bpors) on this score.  The latter seem to be deliberately disruptive and deserve to have a lot of their posts junked. I don't think that at this stage cyberman should be seen as in that league. 

When we rebuild the site so that we can incorporate blogging software and are able to change our style of work accordingly, we will find it easier to handle this sort of thing.  Given the current dominance of conservative pesudo-leftism we have to expect that we will be continue to be faced with a whole stream of people who find our views very confronting and disorientong. That's just the way of things at the moment. Swimming against the tide is hard work....

keza, I don't think I've been too harsh at all.

After I engaged politely and respectfully with Cyberman here in the "Marxism and what will Communism be like" thread, Cyberman tried to restart this thread with snide attacks on whether LS is Marxist enough.

Cyberman chose to quote some 'gems', (and the opinions cited were, IMO, wrong) while completely ignoring the fact that an entirely contradictory point of view, labelling the 'gems' 'fundamentally liberal' had been advanced in the thread.

Cyberman to ignore the entire debate that had happened and 'cherry-picked' the quotes he needed. That is not the mentality of debate, it's the mentality of attack journalism or opposition research.

If Cyberman wanted to win my respect as someone who wants to engage and debate he could, for instance, have acknowledged the fact that the 'fundamentally liberal' criticism had already been made, and advanced the argument from there, instead of ignoring the parts of the thread that made points he probably agrees with.

I started off with the attitude that Cyberman was indeed different to dalek/davros but Cyberman's style of argument makes me think I am wasting my time.

Comrade Youngmarxist,

Well I'm sorry if I have said anything to offend you. I like to think that I argue in hard but fair manner. I was pressing you hard on how much your opinions in line with Marxism, they aren't totally by your own admission,  but you really need to answer that question for yourself.  That's not really the issue, the real problem that you guys have in LS was summed up by Arthur in his posting on the " how long can Capitalism survive? " thread when he replied to some questions I raised as follows:

"I guess you are seriously trying to figure out where we are coming from. Unfortunately we haven't presented a coherent account and would not necessarily agree on one."

If you don't mind me saying so, that is a bit of a  weakness. I'm not saying that there needs to be universal agreement on every dot and comma in your group's political manifesto but you really need to have something that has some semblance of cohesion.

It seems very odd to me that I can ask a simple question like " Does LS support the principle of socialised medicine ?" , in the "Capitalist Welfare State" thread; and, no one can answer me.

 

Hi Cyberman,
I don't agree that it's much of a weakness for us as a tiny site to have not concentrated on getting together comprehensive statements about a huge range of policy areas. 

I disagree that the way forward for the left is in defining whether we support the principle of socialised medicine or not.   I saw what happened when the new left party NLP tried to adopt this approach and it was disastrous...


 NB - rest of this post has been moved to new thread as suggested by Anita.

Click here to see the new thread.

Comrades,

Here's a interesting little quote for anyone thinking of applying for a job at the new improved, American managed, almost fully privatised Telstra: 
 
"Just shoot them and get them out of the way": This is Telstra's new mantra on how to deal with employees. The ABC's Four Corners program explored how the Howard Government AWAs has helped Telstra cut workers' pay, and institutionalised bullying is driving workers to despair. Read the full transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1954636.htm

If you are a natural brown noser type it sounds like you might fit in. If not you'll probably end up being categorised as a 'dragon' or worse.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to John Rolland): Savages, submarines and dragons. What are they?

JOHN ROLLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TELSTRA CUSTOMER SALES & SERVICE : Dragons in particular are the things that hold us back from achieving what we want to achieve as leaders.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT (to John Rolland): The way the team leader described it, they referred to people in her own team, or they might refer to people in her own team. That's a profoundly negative way of talking about members of your own team isn't it, to call them a savage?

JOHN ROLLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TELSTRA CUSTOMER SALES & SERVICE : I agree.

and the full quote about the shooting:

GREG WINN, TELSTRA CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER (voice only, 30 May 2007): We're not running a democracy. We don't manage by consensus. We're criticised for it but the fact of the matter is we run an absolute dictatorship and that's what's going to drive this transformation and deliver results.

It's a cultural issue. If you can't get the people to go there, and you try once and you try twice, which is sometimes hard for me but I do believe in a second chance, then you just shoot 'em and get them out of the way you know and put people in that you can teach the new business process to and drive on.

If you think that things are bad now, what is it going to be like if the economy starts to level off and Telstra don't have to worry about 'their' workers voting with their feet?