If State Greens back Libs in Victoria is class the issue?

If State Greens back Libs in Victoria is class the issue?

In a later comment on his attack on the Greens for being middle class, SAlt's Ben Hillier's final straw proof that the Greens crossed the class line was their support for Liberal governments .

I think Hillier's exposition  in this post is very useful.

He maps out a sort of standard far left argument against the Greens. Despite their platform -- according to this POV the Greens are not 'of the left' certainly not of the left to the left of the ALP.

In the sense that the Democrats were also never supposedly 'of the left'...

The ALP -- because it has that old warhorse, "a trade union base" in its corner -- is supposedly, unlike the Greens, working class aligned (or is it contained?). 

But is the ALP class aligned that way? Aligned that way at all in the sense that the Liberals supposedly aren't -- being avowedly with the bosses? And if the ALP doesn't support Liberal governments what has it been doing for over the past 100 years in parliament after parliament, state and federal , in peaceful coexistence, taking turns running the state apparatii so that the shift from one administration to another is seamless?

Maybe the class question is ruled by the fact that subjectively workers think that the ALP is their party? But the collapse in ALP's primary vote and the growing hostility to the party within the trade unions themselves doesn't suggest that notion rules the collective POV. In fact if you want to ascribe to the perspective that the ALP is a working class party you are keeping company only with some comrade Marxists and maybe a swag of 'true believers' -- and among those would be a loyal layer of trade union bureaucrats who see the ALP primarily as a career resource.Right wing ideologues similarly see the ALP as  working class and thus  held hostage to the trade unions.

The complication is that if you take the class argument up to the Greens -- or at least some Greens (how many we don't know) -- greens people are going to ask," what do you mean, it's Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. You are trying to tell us that regardless of anything the ALP does we need to support the ALP over the Liberals because one's supposedly got working class connections?"

The complication is that you then fall into the trap of having to argue that a Greens agenda will be better served by supporting Labor rather than the Liberals.

But do we know that to be true? If we think we do , on what basis can anyone say it? 

I think supporting the Liberals would be nonetheless political suicide for the Greens,  primarily , if we want to be concrete and not ideological at all, because 70-80% of their second preferences are usually sheeted to Labor.

That suggests to me that the more the Greens play up their support for the Liberals the less they will be trusted by their progressive electoral base and the more they will be blamed for the rigors of any Liberal/Coalition administration that may ensue and in which they will be complicit (...juist as they will be complicit in any ALP government they support).

The associated complication is that the more the Greens engage in the politics of hung parliaments -- and we are indeed in for a swag of hung parliaments around the country -- the more they leave themselves open for criticism, hostility and distrust for their manoevreing.

Of course, the Greens major problem is not so much whether they are with the Libs or Labor for the sake of cabinet guernsays or whatever -- but that their politics is contained totally by electoralism and -- to be frank -- if you passively accept the parameters of the capitalist state you are sentenced to its class alignment anyway. It wouldn't matter if you were prole rich or your reps were blue collar in origin.

Nonetheless, if the Greens are going to run an election campaign flagged by their determination to enter a coalition type agreement with the Liberals then we all face a major tactical problem -- not so much because we may or may not support the Greens , but because the Greens will take a progressive platform and trade it for a cheap pragmatism -- even before the polling day.

And let's be blunt about this: even if they backed the ALP instead of the Libs they would be indulging in the same realpolitick with the same or similar consequences for the progressive program.

So the main problem with the Greens(at least some Greens) it seems to me, is not so much their class demographic but their overriding pro-capitalist perspective wedded to parliamentarianism regardless of any other consideration.

The mistake that some Marxists are making in regard to the Greens is to try and rule their POV by schemata as though history doesn't move and the imperialist state and (what we called ) social democracy are static entities. These same Marxists may also be victim to the mistaken view that there has been a historical working class presence in parliament which in itself -- independent of the vagaries of struggle outside parliament -- has been significant enough to impact on the day to day business of the capitalist state.

I think it ironic that if the we seek to be ruled by which of either of the two major parties should be supported then we have two rural and regional independents who are more class aligned, albeit by default, than the Greens seem now willing to be in Victoria.

Continue to rest of post... »

SATIRE I am to blame.

SATIRE I am to blame.

In the wake of a week's happenings what can I say? Is it happenstance or the tolling of history that we true blue Aussies are today without a true blue government?

And what's more, am I to blame? As the pregnant wife still in labor says to the husband, "you did this to me!"

And I did! It was I.

I simply could not help myself. It was an impulsive vote. Eeny looked not much better than Meeny so I went with Miny rather than Moe

And now look at the mess! We are stuck with the Three Stooges. 

 If I could make it up to all of you I would. I'm so very sorry that my judgement was clouded. I don't know what got into me. I must have been thinking that I wanted something else. Something better. That maybe change was in the offing.

How selfish is that?

And to top it off I went and ruined a perfectly good Feminist CV (that has taken decades of Sensitive New Age Guyness to attain) by turning my back on Ms Julia Gillard and instead, wandered off in some sort of Alpha Male quest in pursuit of a boutique political agenda.

More fool me, eh? I must have been thinking with my dick.

After all the Labor Party has given me -- given us -- I feel as though I'm the offspring of a fetid necrophiliac embrace with Sir John Kerr.

I'm in bed -- by default -- with the Tories.

If I cannot return a perfectly good ALP government when it is asked of me -- then what use am I to the struggling proletariat?

It is at times like these that you need to step back from the coal face and take stock. If democracy -- even a shallow, rhetorical, spin driven, democracy such as ours -- can lead you down a garden path like this, I, for one, do not want to smell the roses if sniffing comes with this high a price.

I have learnt my lesson, comrades. 

In future when it comes to a choosing between whom I want to privatize my assets and corporatise my liabilities; slaughter selected foreign hordes or jail  sneaky invaders ... I will be sticking with the ALP.

Continue to rest of post... »

Ideology and Populism after the Penrith By Election.

Ideology and Populism after the Penrith By Election.

The malaise at the heart of Australian electoral politics is this: not only the active rejection of the Labor Party as indicated by the Penrith by election, but the realisation that the option is a pack of dogs also. There's a treadmill sense about it without a policy difference between them worth a snippet of excitement.

Howard's industrial policies be dammed, go ask Ark Tribe about that one. Two more diggers killed in Afghanistan -- killing business as usual....

At the same time, the coalitionist perspective embedded in the Greens is asserting itself as they seek to embrace the middle ground.

Nonetheless, in the Penrith  by election, the Greens percentile was half the ALP vote -- up 7% to 12.6% compared to the ALP's 24.4%. But the main voting shift was to the Liberals.

But that's around where the Greens support level is in the polls nationally. The main point is that even with the Labor vote being halved, the Greens only picked up a 7% swing -- as the intentional preference was to vote #1 for the Liberals.

I think that suggests something that may be much broader: that while the alternative vote may go up at the elections before us (eg: federal, Qld, Vic, etc) where the ALP may lose, there will be no major abandonment of the major parties only staccato gains for the Greens (and perhaps left of them?).

Whether Labor holds onto or loses office federally or in whatever state, is collateral to that. While NSW Labor stinks absolutely, NSW is its fiefdom -- and the state by state shift to the Coalition have very little to do with them being 'better' -- in any way at all -- than the ALP. They're just  there -- the other end of the same dog; the one engineered into optional placement by the media. In these circumstances, a populist surge has a niche but it's hard to envisage a remake of One Nation's platform because much of that is now owned by Labor and the Coalition..

This political log jam can suggest a watershed moment --says he before the onset of hindsight. While we may be facing down a Coalition ascendancy, it is very hard to believe that any victory of anyone of the Coalition players -- whether it be Tony Abbot or a local franchisee -- can ever be embraced with same  fervour  as  Jeff Kennett was in 1992  or  John Howard in 1996.

Outside the mining industry -- partisan sectors of the populace aren't very vocal. I'm sure there are registered zealots on both sides, but it is a measure of the political  malaise that Labor's progressive base is currently very quiet, and,  probably, very  silently embarrassed.

In this context, I think the Dutch Socialist Party's approach to the 1994 elections has merit.

In 1993, in order to achieve the parliamentary breakthrough, the party leadership made its most daring decision ever. Instead of telling the electorate to vote SP for a better society – worthy ideals for a distant future – the party chose a more rational and better thought out position: that of radical and effective opposition. “Vote against, vote SP” became the provocative slogan. The message being: if you don't agree with current politics, vote for us. Then we can voice your dissent in Parliament. You don't need a majority for that, even one person would do. The new strategy is symbolized by a tomato. Full of healthy vitamins, but also a feared weapon against bad political theatre -- Brief History of the SP.

This is rank populism of course. But when you review our political options, even Hugo Chavez is a dedicated and skilled populist

In the 21st century, the large numbers of voters living in extreme poverty in Latin America has remained a bastion of support for new populist candidates. By early 2008 governments with varying forms of populism and with some form of left leaning social democratic or democratic socialist platform had come to dominate virtually all Latin American nations with the exceptions of Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico.This political shift includes both more developed nations such as Brazil with its ruling Workers' Party, Argentina's Front for Victoryand Chile with its Socialist Party, and smaller income countries like Bolívia with its Movement towards Socialism and Paraguay with the Patriotic Alliance for Change. Populist candidates have been defeated in middle-income countries such as Mexico, in part by comparing them to Venezuela's controversial Hugo Chavez, whose socialist policies have been used to scare the middle class. Nevertheless, populist candidates have been more successful in poorer Latin American countries such as Bolivia (under Morales), Ecuador (under Correa) and Nicaragua (under Ortega). By the use of broad grassroots movements populist groups have managed to gain power from better organized, funded and entrenched groups such as the Bolivian Nationalist Democratic Action and the Paraguayan Colorado Party. ^*

My point is that the option of any fortunate rise -- at least in the electoral arena -- won't be driven by  ideology and that there may be an opening -- a niche -- for a foray from the left.

Of course what Australia needs is a popular coalition on the left -- but we ain't gonna to get that. Sorry. Not allowed apparently. Too many differences among the tribes...

So its' a case of making do.

How you engineer such a 'popularity' I don't know. But I do think the 'Dutch Turn' has merit just as the 'populism' of Chavez --as well  his true grit and courage -- established a platform to  begin engineering socialist transformations.

The challenge is to format a perspective that advances the notion that 'dissent' -- regardless of how popular it may be -- has to be an ongoing  and extra parliamentary activity.

In that regard, I think the Dutch SP has failed miserably since 1994...

Continue to rest of post... »

VIDEO Origins of CHAT - German Philosophy -- Andy Blunden

VIDEO Origins of CHAT - German Philosophy -- Andy Blunden

Talk given at the Monash University Monash Education Research Community, by Andy Blunden . The talk is the first of a two-part seminar for the International Course on Cultural Historical Activity Theory. It covers the contributions to this current of thought derived from Descartes, J G Herder, Goethe and Hegel. Part Two, to follow, deals with Marx.

Origins of CHAT - German Philosophy from Andy Blunden on Vimeo.

Cultural-historical psychology (also called the school of Vygotsky, sociocultural psychology, socio-historical psychology, activity theory, cultural psychology, cultural historical activity theory, and social development theory) is a theory of psychology founded by Lev Vygotsky at the end of the 1920s and developed by his students and followers in Eastern Europe and worldwide.

Continue to rest of post... »

VIDEO SATIRE Make homosexuals get married (like the rest of us)

VIDEO SATIRE Make homosexuals get married (like the rest of us)

If you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, why not overturn prop 8 and make them get married, like the rest of us?

Continue to rest of post... »

CRIME FICTION Henning Mankell, Wallander author on the Gaza Flotilla he was part of

CRIME FICTION Henning Mankell, Wallander author on the Gaza Flotilla he was part of

Henning Mankell, the renowned Swedish crime writer and author of the Wallander series, was on board the Sophia, which formed part of the Gaza Flotilla, when Israeli commandos raided the ship.

Speaking at a press conference in Berlin after spending 24 hours in an Israeli cell, Mankell accused the Israelis of “going out to commit murder” and says he witnessed the shooting an elderly passenger with a stun gun.

Mankell described how he was woken at 4am and told that the ship Mavi Marmara was under attack.

Passengers on the Sophia could see helicopter spotlights and hear weapons firing. They couldn’t find out exactly what was happening because communication had been stopped by the Israeli military.

Then, at 4.35am, the Israelis attacked the Sophia. Passengers and crew had decided not to resist, and stood on the bridge. Masked commandos landed, carrying submachine guns and forced them all below deck.

“We had elderly people among us, who perhaps weren’t so quick on their feet,” says Mankell. “One of them was shot in the arm with an stun gun and he fell to the floor in pain. Another man was hit with a rubber bullet and also fell to the floor.”

The soldiers then searched the ship. After a while they came back and said they had found weapons. “We said, ‘What weapons? There aren’t any weapons on board this ship.’

“Then they showed us a wet razor—my razor. Then they showed us a little knife from the kitchen, which the Egyptian cook used to open provisions.”

“When we got to land, something happened that I will never forget. One after the other, we were led into a prison—we had to run a gauntlet between two lines of soldiers.

“The soldiers never identified themselves but they filmed us the whole time, though Geneva Convention forbids treating civilians like this.

“And I can testify that they stole everything I had. They stole my camera, my phone, my money, my credit card, my clothes—everything.

“A policeman said to me, ‘Either we’ll deport you or you’ll go to prison.’

“I asked, ‘What am I accused of?’ He said, ‘You have entered Israel illegally.’

“I replied, ‘What are you talking about? I was kidnapped and forced to come here’.”

Mankell angrily rejects accusations that people who protest against Israel are anti-Jewish.

“I’m not an antisemite. I am against the current policy of Israel towards the Palestinians. I’m against it, because it’s a kind of apartheid. I was against apartheid in South Africa and I’m against apartheid today.”

“I prefer not to be one of the useful idiots who sit around and cynically assert that solidarity isn’t worth anything. I’d rather not belong among them.”

Mankell vowed to continue the fight to free Palestine.

“This time we came with six ships, and we’ve seen the Israeli reaction,” he said. “But what if we came back in a year with a hundred ships? What would Israel do? Bomb us?

“Wouldn’t it be a better idea for Israel to lift the blockade?”

Continue to rest of post... »