Rethinking Marx, the market and Hayek

Above: David McKnight

In this article David McKnight takes another look at Eric Aarons's analysis of the work and belief systems of Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayek;  McKnight was a long-time member of the Communist Party of Australia; but more recently has promoted an agenda which - in is own words - attempts to venture 'Beyond Right and Left'.   This article will also be published at a dedicated website on 'Hayek versus Marx'; and an earlier review - written by the blog publisher Tristan Ewins - can also be found here:

See:  http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html

By David McKnight*

 Most people who reach 90 years of age would be enjoying their retirement, perhaps reminiscing, probably relaxing. Instead, veteran political activist Eric Aarons has spent the last five years researching the conservative philosopher and economist Friedrich Hayek and re-reading Karl Marx. While Marx is familiar to many people, Hayek is less well known. Yet Hayek’s ideas have provided the intellectual foundation for the neo-liberal Right which has been so globally influential for the last 30 years. In Australia Hayek’s influence is now better known thanks to Kevin Rudd’s various essays attacking neo-liberalism. Occasionally, Hayek is discussed and defended in the columns of The Australian.

Eric Aarons’ reason for researching these two towering figures has been to produce a substantial book Hayek vs Marx which not only explores their work but also suggests  vital theoretical tools to deal with today’s challenges. The central challenge facing the world, he argues, is climate change but this is merely the earliest manifestation of a profound crisis of sustainability for a planet with seven billion people  and growing.

His book, produced by a major British publisher, appears at an auspicious time. The free market and the dogma of deregulation have been discredited, and in the mass media  there has been talk of ‘the crisis of capitalism’ and references to Marx. As a consequence  of the global financial crisis many hope that the radical decline of the left will now go into reverse. Eric Aarons doesn’t comment on such hopes but it is clear that he thinks that a profound theoretical re-thinking is necessary rather than any movement ‘back to Marx’.

In some ways the book’s title is misleading. The framework of ‘Hayek versus Marx’ suggests that the author (and readers) will fall on one side or the other. In Eric Aarons’ view, both thinkers have deep flaws in their theories as well as valuable insights. The great strength of Hayek was to explain why market mechanisms have virtues which are indispensable in a complex economy and society. He saw markets as a device for the rapid sending of information via prices through a network. On this level, compared to alternatives such as a central planning, they are useful and flexible devices for signaling to producers what their buyers wanted and in what quantity. On this insight Hayek erected a vast intellectual system in which all other social, moral and cultural values had to be subordinated or discarded in favour the market and its central value: freedom.

Marx’s great strength was something about which Marx himself said little but which imbued all his writing. Marx’s ethical values lead him to see the extraordinary injustices that flowed from inequalities of wealth and the 19^th century system of industry. Yet these values are buried within his work and instead Marx tried to erect a scientific theory of social development and to discover the laws of history.

The flaws in Marx’s world view were not simply wrong predictions but go deeply to his methodology.  Marx argued in Capital that history changed according to ‘natural laws’ and tendencies which worked ‘with iron necessity towards inevitable results’. On this basis he predicted the immiserisation of the working class. The labour theory of value and his concept of the falling rate of profit have also been shown to simply be wrong, according to Eric Aarons.

Hayek’s methodology is also flawed. Hayek posited the existence of sets of rules which, if followed by societies, enabled them to flourish. As Eric Aarons points out Hayek never simply and clearly identified these rules but they tend to be those commercially based rules which allow markets to function with little restraint. Interference to shape the spontaneous evolution of markets thus becomes the philosophical equivalent of sacrilegious acts ‘against nature’.

Hayek’s proof of this idea was to assert that it was analogous to Darwinian evolution through natural selection. One of the consequences of this approach is that if society has ‘evolved’ then it becomes meaningless to talk about whether that social order is just or unjust; it simply is. Hence one of Hayek’s pet hates -- the notion of ‘social justice’.  But as Aarons says this is pure assertion and not backed by any factual evidence.

As his introduction suggests, this book represents the latest stage of a personal quest that began in the early 1970s when Eric Aarons realized that the theoretical apparatus inherited from Marx and Lenin was inadequate and flawed. His conclusions about these flaws are remarkable considering that he was a leading figure for decades in the Communist Party of Australia. Today his commitment is to rethinking a social philosophy in which traditional Left concerns find a place within a framework dominated by the political need to forestall an impending ecological crisis.  

Like a number of other contemporary thinkers Eric Aarons also sees the need to discuss questions such as: what does it mean to be human, and is there a human nature.  These take us back to the long time span before capitalism, indeed back to the evolution of humans from more ape-like creatures. And then to varieties of human society from the hunter gatherer society to agricultural and to modern industrial society.  Like the philosopher Peter Singer, Eric Aarons rejects the widespread Marxist view that no human nature exists and that humans behavior, needs and outlook are entirely formed  by their social and cultural circumstances. Such assumptions, apart from being factually wrong, he argues, fed the mistaken belief that a perfect economic system could lead to a perfect society.

The central assumption of the book is that relevant and useful theories arise from the problems posed by the objective circumstances. That expresses it rather formally. But what it means is that just as Marx responded to the objective circumstances of cataclysmic changes wrought by industrial capitalism, so we must now develop new theories in the face of the slow but relentless crisis developing around climate and sustainability. This is not to ignore the enormous concentration of wealth and the social power it brings but to acknowledge that the struggle for social equality will take place within a framework dictated by the ecological crisis.

The scope of the book is sometimes frustratingly limited. As Eric Aarons says, neither Marx nor Hayek had a developed notion of politics and both minimised its importance. Democracy was barely mentioned by either of them.  This is something which will strike even adherents as surprising even staggering. Yet to understand the implications of this absence in their theories requires deeper discussion of what occurred when Marxists and neo-liberals actually gained government. Also useful would have been references to the debate on the strengths and flaws of Marx’s ideas that emerged when the Left revived in the 1970s and 80s. A whole generation of Left intellectuals revived Marxism but then abandoned it in favour of other radical analyses of oppression, racism and sexism. Addressing this experience may have gained significant readers for the book.

The book takes up a number of themes which Eric Aarons has explored in recent years. One of the centrality of values and morality as the foundation of a progressive world view. The significance of this is that it implies that a comprehensive ‘theory of everything’ is not the foundation. Trying to ground a radical analysis in yet another creative revision of Marxism is a road to nowhere. That may sound obvious but all over the world such attempts are being made and most are not even creative re-thinkings of Marxism but rather the re-affirmation of eternal truths said to be found in orthodox Marxism.

Eric Aaron’s own view that so far, no ‘internally coherent and viable alterative to capitalist society’ has yet been found. He believes that the single most important step ‘is for every society to reverse the priority capitalism gives to individual material betterment and gain and give that priority instead to social needs’. 

--------------------

David McKnight works at the Arts Faculty at the University of New South Wales. He is the author of Beyond Right and Left: New Politics and the Culture War. He can be reached on d.mcknight@unsw.edu.au

Hayek vs. Marx and today’s challenges

Routledge, London and New York, 2009.

above:  Eric Aarons's 'Hayek versus Marx'

Critical Review of "Hayek versus Marx - and today's challenges' by Eric Aarons

above: An image of Eric Aarons, who is also a dedicated sculpture artist

Tristan Ewins, the publisher of this blog, has just self-published a critical review of Eric Aarons' book 'Hayek versus Marx - and today's challenges'.  The essay is very long - but the topic matter is very substantial and varied - so warrants it I think. I'm hoping to attract readers and debate with this article - so looking forward to hearing from you.  The introduction - and a link to the full article (at a separate page) are below...

see:  http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html


24/07/11

"Hayek versus Marx" is the culmination of over a decade of study - and a lifetime of practical experience. Eric Aarons - the former National Secretary of the Communist Party of Australia - and the author of several important books - has taken upon himself an imposing task. This task is that of interrogating the work of Hayek and Marx rigorously and open-mindedly: taking from each, exposing each to searching criticism, and ultimately urging a new social, economic and political paradigm.

Considering in depth the life's work of both these giants of social theory, Aarons urges what is ultimately a synthesis of socialism and economic liberalism. While recognising the necessity of markets and competition; the author is also insistent of the indispensability of co-operation, the struggle against alienation, and the fight for economic empowerment and social justice.

Firstly, we will summarise Aarons' account of Hayek. From there we will consider his account of Marx. Thereafter we will consider both the ideas of Marx and Hayek in further depth, and in light of Aarons' own ideas and criticisms.

In the process, we will consider such themes as economic democracy, alienation, markets and planning, and the 'clash' of free markets and nature.

To conclude we will consider the consequences of Aarons's analysis and conclusions for a Left that has been grappling with its very identity, and its core values since the collapse of "really-existing socialism".

Again: For the rest of this article see:

http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html

Carbon Tax Package finally Unveiled

above:  Julia Gillard announcing the government's Carbon Tax package

Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax package has suffered a very critical reception despite extensive compensation for trade-exposed industry and low-middle income households.  So how will the tax work to reduce emissions?  And what are we to make of charges of 'redistribution' made by Abbott and others?  In any case - is 'redistribution' such a bad thing?

nb also: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Tristan Ewins

12/7/2011

In the face of an almost all-pervasive fear campaign, what is the truth concerning Gillard Labor’s carbon tax?  How will it really be implemented? Who will it affect – and how?  Can it succeed in its object of restructuring the economy?  Does it involve elements of economic redistribution; and if it does, is that necessarily a bad thing?

According to ‘The Age’ (11/7) The Gillard government’s carbon tax will provide “tax cuts for those on incomes under $80,000” leaving “6 million households better off or fully compensated.”

Peter Martin has noted how “for more modest earners, the benefits are large: $626 a year for a single earner on $20,000; $1226 for a dual-income couple with two children on $75,000.”

(see: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/cuts-for-everyone-but-some-worse-off-20110710-1h8zv.html#ixzz1RmjetGLR )

 Some of this compensation will be provided for by a restructuring of the tax system.

 For instance; the tax-free threshold will be “more than trebled to $18,200”.  And individual pensioners will receive compensation of up to $338 a year; with up to $510 for couples.

 Furthermore: $9.2 billion will be provided in the form of business compensation over a three year period – aimed largely at trade-exposed industries

 But “more than three million households” – those on the highest incomes - will lose out to some degree.  Some will only be partly compensated.  Around “one in ten” – the wealthiest of all - will receive nothing.  (‘The Age’, 11/7,  p 1)   

The most intensely affected areas of the economy will be energy generation and distribution. 

 Again, Peter Martin has noted how:

 “From mid-next year, the price of electricity will rise a further 10 per cent as a result of the carbon tax and the price of gas a further 9 per cent.”

But:

“The price of food is expected scarcely to move, advancing less than one-half of 1 per cent.”

(Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/cuts-for-everyone-but-some-worse-off-20110710-1h8zv.html#ixzz1Rmkguly2 ) 

The response from the Conservative side of politics was predictable.  Tony Abbott argued:

“[This is] socialism masquerading as environmentalism… This is redistribution pretending to be compensation.  It’s a tax increase pretending to be an environmental policy.”  (‘The Age’, 11/7/11, p 1)

And in the Herald-Sun in Melbourne reporter Steve Lewis seemed to be echoing Abbott by referring to tax cuts for struggling lower-income workers as a “classic ‘soak the rich’ Labor program.” (11/7, p 7)

In assessing the government’s policy it is best to respond to the claims of critics directly.

But to begin we should first return to basics: and that is recognising the virtual consensus in the global scientific community that global warming is real, and that carbon emissions by human beings contributes to this.   

So to what extent will the carbon tax and associated programs add up to a reduction in emissions?

The carbon tax will give a strong market signal for both investors and consumers to reduce emissions however practicably possible.   Indeed, Prime Minister Gillard has stated that this will result in:

“a reduction in carbon pollution of 160 million tonnes by 2020. [That’s] the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.'” (See: http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=636042&vId= )

Businesses will seek energy-saving measures, while households will do likewise – and also consider investment in renewable energy.  Indeed, there could well be a boom in the micro-renewable energy sector.  Overwhelmingly this will occur without financial pain for middle and low income households - as with compensation the main aim is to provide the market with a ‘price signal’ and not to raise revenue.

Meanwhile a “$2 billion-a-year Clean Energy Finance Corporation” will drive investment for research and development of clean energy technologies.  In this field Australia stands to become a genuine ‘world leader’.  ( see: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html )

Finally, Adam Morton from ‘The Age’ has noted how

“some carbon tax revenue will also be spent buying out and shutting down about 2000 megawatts of coal power, most likely either the Hazelwood or Yallourn power plant in the Latrobe Valley, plus the smaller Playford station in South Australia.”  (See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html#ixzz1Rmn33ELS )

Morton has also observed how::  “the money to shut the plants will be from tax revenue paid by ''big polluters'', not budget cuts that reduce services.”  (See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-makes-tentative-steps-towards-a-greener-cleaner-future-20110710-1h8zu.html#ixzz1Rmn33ELS )

This is absolutely crucial because Tony Abbott has committed to expensive forms of “direct action” on climate change running into billions and billions - which would be paid for through savings elsewhere in the Budget.   Refusing to submit his proposals to Treasury for costing, Abbott must nonetheless be aware that his proposed initiatives could not be funded simply through “efficiencies”. They would inevitably involve austerity measures. Perhaps these would apply in health and education; or perhaps through further privatisation of roads and imposition of flat ‘user-pays’ tolls - for which working class Australians would pay.

So before we even begin to address accusations of “socialist redistribution” we need to observe that price signals and direct intervention will make significant inroads into Australia’s carbon emissions, and as such is well-justified on environmental grounds alone.

That said, however, Abbott and right-populist elements of the media are raising alarm at the prospect of even mild redistribution via the chosen structures for compensation via direct payments and restructure of the tax system.

 In Melbourne on July 11th the Herald-Sun alone ran the headline ‘Kick in the Teeth for Hard Workers’ referring to a family on a combined annual income of around $130,000.  Another article in the same Herald-Sun supplement concerned ‘Sparkie’ (ie: electrician), Luke Peterson, who earns $150,000 - with his partner remaining at home to raise their children.  In this instance the headline ran: “ ‘Punished’ for wife staying at home with kids’.”

 Like several previous articles in the ‘Herald-Sun’ accusing Gillard Labor of ‘Class War’, these articles attempted at the same time to portray higher income groups as ‘average working Australians’ being ‘punished’ for effort.  Indeed the term ‘Sparkie’ could be interpreted as a colloquialism inferring working class status.

 But both the households considered in the Herald-Sun articles concerned would occupy a position in at least the top 20% of household incomes.  A single-income household with one income-earner bringing in a $150,000/year income would not be considered by most as ‘working class’ – colloquialisms aside.  Indeed, in this day and age few households servicing a mortgage and raising a family can afford for one partner to remain at home.

This raises the question that if action must be taken on climate change, how should we balance the burden?  The principle concerned could also be extended to other necessities: for instance, provision of health care, education, aged care, social housing, welfare and infrastructure.

Many Australians work hard for comparatively little return compared to the Herald-Sun’s chosen examples.  There are some dual-income households – with members employed in cleaning, retail, childcare, hospitality, textiles, and manufacturing – who bring in barely $50,000 before tax.  To speak of ‘punishment for effort’ for higher income households, and yet to prefer putting a disproportionate burden upon these families - would be revealing of the priorities and values of those concerned. 

In the labour market scarce skills usually bring in greater return, but many of these lower income individuals and households work under unpleasant and alienating circumstances – and with sometimes inconvenient or onerous hours.  In Australia, also, there is a recent history of falling minimum wages being compounded by housing market stress, past regressive restructure of tax, and increased energy costs as a consequence of privatisation.  It is not at all radical – or necessarily ‘socialist’ – to support a degree of redistribution to compensate those Australian workers and pensioners affected by these trends.

 And while there has to be reward to give incentive for workers to acquire skills, other ‘middle income’, ‘average’ individuals and households also deserve a ‘fair go’.  A worker on a wage of, say, $50,000/year should not be paying the same kind of tax as a worker on $150,000/year. Under circumstances where both workers were applying themselves with comparable levels of effort and effective sacrifice, skill differentials alone do not justify massive discrepancies in income. 

Finally there are the truly vulnerable: those who are unable to work as a consequence of illness or disability. Or those who have worked all their lives and deserve a peaceful and fulfilling retirement.  And to this we could add the unemployed: those who overwhelmingly are searching for work – and are subject to harsh active labour market provisions – but who need our assistance to ‘keep their heads above water’ and avoid social disengagement and isolation during the interim.  (such isolation can provide a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ of long-term unemployment)

 A progressive taxation system is therefore well justified in moderating discrepancies of income which are unjust, and ensuring universal access to social necessities . And the tax system more broadly is justified in providing best-value ‘collective consumption’ of essential social services from which most Australians benefit. Again: whether we speak of health, education, aged care, social security, social housing or other infrastructure – often these are provided more fairly and more efficiently via the ‘social wage’ than would be the case if ‘left to the market’.  

 Such principles have historically been acceptable to a variety of ideological perspectives – whether we speak, here, of liberalism, or of social democracy, or indeed of socialism.  It is only at the extremes propagated by the likes of Hayek and Rand – that the principles of progressive taxation, the welfare state and the social wage – have been rejected sweepingly. But such is the ideology which ‘has a grip’ on some parts of the Liberal Party of Australia today.  It is an ideology which threatens the ‘Americanisation’ of Australian society, with greater extremes of poverty, and a lack of basic social solidarity.  And it is an ideology that needs to be criticised explicitly by Labor.

All this said, there are dangers for Labor. In regions such as the LaTrobe Valley in Victoria there are well-grounded fears that the shift to renewable energy will ultimately cost jobs in coal-fired energy, and as a consequent will destroy many ‘flow on’ jobs which use that industry as their economic base.  Hazelwood power station is very likely to find its operations scaled back.

According to ‘The Age’ Greg Combet has announced that the LaTrobe Valley alone will receive “a $200 million package over seven years for ''strongly affected'' regions, with help in training and diversifying.”   But in the same article Electrical Trades Union state secretary Dean Mighell is quoted as arguing more needs to be done to create local jobs. This begs the question of whether government ought ‘get its hands dirty’ with more direct industry policies – reforging the ‘economic base’ in the LaTrobe valley and other affected regions – which would ‘flow on’ in maintaining thousands of other ‘peripheral’ jobs. 

(See: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/brown-coal-cloud-of-doubt-hangs-over-latrobe-valley-20110710-1h8zg.html#ixzz1RnEZ7q9D)

And in another concern, the Financial Review has reported an impending $4 billion ‘budget toll’ over the next four years in order to pay for industry and household compensation.  Labor is flagging its intent to make ‘savings’ in order to reach its projected surplus for 2013, but had already been struggling to find savings for 2011-12 without impacting on crucial programs and initiatives.

(See:http://www.financialreview.com.au/p/national/gillard_carbon_blueprint_gfV7V7WexwrES8lrl47yaI )

Between now and the next Federal Budget, therefore, progressive forces across the factional divide in Labor need to build momentum behind an alternative response for the government to this shortfall.  Importantly, Labor has the choice of revising its party platform in December to open the way for a moderately increased tax take as a proportion of GDP.

 Such a decision could be followed with modest tax reform to the extent necessary to avoid austerity, or to the extent necessary to fund a bold package of initiatives addressing what is seen in this country as a ‘cost of living crisis.’  This would also attract the charge of ‘redistribution’, but there is the potential that by improving the circumstances of average Australian families this is a debate Labor could well win.  Indeed, that could properly be the object of an article in of itself.  

 A ‘National Disability Insurance Scheme’ is another potential choice for Labor in seizing the initiative and delivering on a reform agenda – but would also need to be backed by tax reform and increased revenue.  That would be another reform Abbott would find very difficult to undo.

 One option in this context could be a 1 per cent increase in Company Tax – which would still leave Australia way short of Company Tax rates in the United States.  Another option could be a modest reduction in dividend imputation to 75%.

 In conclusion, Labor has a long way to go in convincing voters of the merits of this carbon tax package.   What is interesting is that Gillard’s carbon tax package is very similar in its dimensions to the earlier proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.  But what is notably different is the word ‘tax’.

 The fear campaign spread in the right-populist monopoly media has found its mark. And many Australians are angry that Gillard is exceeding her mandate in this way – despite the fact she has had no choice in the context of minority government.  

 This will only change once the package is implemented and most people see for themselves they are no worse off.   Most Australians will only pay with the costs of structural adjustment being passed on over the very long term. We talk here of large-scale future investment in renewable energy.  But the same could be said with Abbott’s ‘direct action’ – where the costs of industry adjustment could be paid for with direct subsidies from tax-payers: paid for via sweeping austerity.

 And yet we all should be willing to make small sacrifices in fighting climate change – for the sake of our planet, and for the sake of our children. If all comparable nations also refused to take action the effect would be to cripple the global movement to address this crisis.

But by putting implementation off until mid-next year Labor is giving time for fear and anger to fester. All those political, environmental, industrial and social movements which support the policy therefore need to begin a mobilisation immediately if the situation is to be saved.  An information campaign involving all these movements needs to begin, even including advertisements and letter-boxing – as surely as if the election were this year.

Double Standards when its comes to talk of ‘Class War’

above: Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Increasingly - in the Murdoch press especially - there has been talk of 'class war' in response to even modest proposals for progressive economic redistribution.  But redistribution against the interests of the disadvantaged and ordinary struggling workers has been going on for decades; intensifying under Liberal governments.  In this article Tristan Ewins works to illustrate that point, showing such examples as the increasingly regressive tax mix, and falling minimum wages.  Ewins argues for Gillard Labor to be brave in pursuing distributive justice for the disadvantaged, and orindary struggling Australian workers.

Tristan Ewins

June 26th 2011

In a column appearing in both the Herald-Sun and The Daily Telegraph recently Miranda Devine has had another go at Julia Gillard and the carbon tax.

Condemning Gillard and the proposed tax, she characterises it as:

“Wealth redistribution, pure and simple. A year on, there’s no secret what Gillard stands for. It’s just no one can believe it.”   http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php 

And this isn’t the first time Miranda Devine has used such language either.

For instance in the Herald-Sun on May 12^th 2011 she beats up the spectre of “class war taxes” in response to Labor’s Budget. ( see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/federal-budget-2011/story-fn8melax-1226054252544   )

 In response:

Briefly, the main aim of the carbon tax is to create market signals to drive changes in investor and consumer behaviour: to do our part (as all nations must) in reducing emissions .

But that established: it is possible that modest distributive goals could be pursued as a by-product of overcompensation. And why not?

This brief article will consider inequality, redistribution and the double-standards at play with language of ‘class war’ which has been so common recently.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how attempts to tax the wealthy and relatively wealthy – to give a fair go for ordinary workers and the poor; or improve the wages and conditions of the most disadvantaged workers – is labelled “class war” in the right-populist monopoly media. And yet all these years that Australia has been drifting towards greater polarisation of wealth and income, and greater disadvantage for the poor: this has not aroused the same kind of ‘outrage’.

The wage share of the economy has been falling for decades; with an accompanying intensification of the rate of exploitation. 

Larvatus Prodeo reported this year that the wages share of national income was at its lowest level since 1964; slightly over 52%.  And to be fair the wage-share of the Australian economy had been contracting for decades under both Labor and Liberal governments; as the leadership of both parties accepted the notion that wages need be depressed to restore profitability.

See: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/06/labour-market-myth-busting/]  ;  And: http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/the-state-of-the-labour-market/

Yet if structural forces in the capitalist economic system were driving these changes; why then were workers not at least duly and properly compensated with collective capital share? 

 Even under Hawke in the 1980s, celebrated increases in the ‘social wage’ came in the form of tax cuts; and so necessarily led to a smaller pool of funds for welfare and services. A veritable ‘double-edged sword’.

But there is more. 

Under both Labor and Liberal governments – but especially under the Conservatives - the ‘tax mix’ has been restructured as to be less progressive. Income tax had been gradually ‘flattened’. Dividend imputation has reduced the proportionate tax burden of the wealthy; and the GST in taxing consumption has affected the poor disproportionately. Accompanying compensation for lower-income demographics, here, was largely neutralised by regressive restructuring of the tax and welfare mix elsewhere.

Meanwhile, concessions and incentives in superannuation for the relatively wealthy and the outright wealthy have come at the cost of potential social programs in health, education, aged care, infrastructure and welfare.  

Privatisation of retirement pensions may well lead in the future to the marginalisation of the public aged pension, with impoverishment for many women, and those disadvantaged whose labour market participation has been sporadic, or who have been trapped in ‘low-end’ jobs. 

It begs the question of whether the government should rather be pursuing a more progressive and democratic model of collective capital formation.

Furthermore for decades there has been increasing labour market deregulation, and an end to the old style of progressive cross subsidies for essential utilities as a consequence of privatisation – or of corporatisation in-anticipation of future privatisation.

Privatisation has also resulted in falling government revenues for vital social programs, and increased costs for everything from power and water, to the use of private toll roads.

‘User pays’ ends up having the same effect as regressive-flat taxation.  And demand for increased profit margins with privatisation have seen structural increases in the cost of basic necessities; while the added cost of borrowing for the private sector in order to modernise infrastructure has also been passed on to consumers.  And in these new markets – eg: for power – ‘small consumers’ are disadvantaged due to their limited purchasing power.

With regard to minimum wages, recently the ACTU has noted:

“While the average Australian income has jumped 21 per cent in real terms since 2000 and company profits have increased by 50% in the past five years alone, the real value of the minimum wage has increased just 7.1 per cent.” 

And also importantly during the Howard years:

“Average award wages dropped by around $30 a week and some award workers had their real wages cut by almost $100 a week.”

The ACTU has observed that falling minimum wages have affected over 1.4 million workers in recent years.  (See: http://www.actu.org.au/Issues/MinimumWagesCase.aspx )

And in addition to all this -  there are many workers – including on low incomes – who have faced reduced wages and/or conditions under the government’s ‘Award modernisation’ process – despite promises to the contrary.

Importantly: There are many who have no sympathy for the unemployed as a result of constant campaigns of vilification on the pretext that ‘dole-bludging’ is rife. And yet Australia has stringent active labour market policies, pursued under both Labor and Liberal governments, with provisions that could reasonably be described as ‘punitive’.

Under recent changes long-term unemployed will be compelled to work two days a week ‘for the dole’, and yet no corresponding increase in payments for these people has been announced.  http://thecourierpigeon.com.au/government-gets-tough-on-the-unemployed/851664/

The OECD has seen fit to criticise Newstart as woefully inadequate compared to unemployment pensions elsewhere.  Writing in late 2010 for ‘Inside Story’, Peter Whiteford reported how under Newstart “unemployed adults receive about $470 per fortnight”, and how  

“Since 1996 the level of Newstart for a single person has fallen from around 54 per cent to 45 per cent of the after-tax minimum wage.”  (despite the fact minimum wages themselves have fallen)

(see:  http://inside.org.au/why-unemployment-benefits-need-to-be-increased/ )

Finally, during the Howard years a number of programs sprung up that were lambasted as ‘middle class welfare’. Included, here, were Family Tax Benefits ‘A’ and ‘B’ – introduced to assist in the costs of child-rearing- and provided even to those on high incomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

There has been confusion, here, on the Left, with some arguing in favour of ‘universalism’.  But while many of us (this author included) support in-principle Swedish-style social-democratic universalism, the facts ‘on the ground’ in Australia are those of a relatively tight social wage and tax regime.  With a limited scope to expand progressive taxation, and hence expand welfare and social programs - a higher degree of targeting and means testing is necessary in the Australian context.    

Interestingly, though, Bernard Keane notes at ‘Crikey’ how Labor has failed to markedly reform the Family Tax Benefits regime.  He concludes how:

“In [Labor’s recent]…budget…[Family Tax Benefit payments are] forecast to cost $18 billion in 2011-12.”

And thus

“…FTBs are now Labor’s as much as they are Howard’s, which makes the “war on the middle class” rhetoric from News Limited and its journalists even more risible.” http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/12/why-labor-now-owns-middle-class-welfare/

All these years ‘redistribution’ has been going on.

Redistribution from low and middle income earners to the wealthy, and to the upper middle class. 

Redistribution from workers to the ‘corporate bottom line’ as a consequence of eroding real wage share, labour market deregulation, privatisation (including ‘Public Private Partnerships) and user pays. 

And more redistribution from workers to big corporations with effective ‘corporate welfare’, as corporations no longer contribute adequately or proportionately towards the costs of education and infrastructure from which they benefit.

 There has been impoverishment of pensioners – and especially the unemployed. (again I reiterate: despite stringent and indeed punitive active labour market policies)

 And there has been vilification of trade unions and stigmatisation/criminalisation of industrial action even where only used as a last resort.  This has resulted in a greatly reduced capacity for workers to fight back in the face of these changes.

So amidst all these changes over the past thirty years or so: how often have we heard terms like ‘class war’ thrown around in the mass media as a response?  

The answer: Not often. Not often at all. 

And yet if there is the prospect of  even a mild degree of redistribution in the context of overcompensation for the proposed carbon tax, the ‘class war bogey’ is brought out just as it always is when it comes to the interests of the privileged, and the relatively privileged. 

If those on lower and middle incomes are to receive a ‘fairer slice of the pie’ in terms of the tax mix, provision of social services, and welfare for those in need, it is only reasonable that those in the top 20% of incomes demographic pay their fair share one way or another.  If those on low to middle incomes are to enjoy a ‘fair go’ it can be no other way.

That said, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has recently announced that families on incomes above $150,000/year will miss out on carbon tax compensation. That’s roughly 10% of Australian families. (‘The Age’ 25/6/11)  

 Unfortunately – as far as redistribution via overcompensation goes, the kind of strategy it seems Gillard is suggesting would provide a far shallower pool of funds to work with than would be the case were the top 20% incomes demographic excluded. 

Perhaps given this context pensioners will miss out on overcompensation even under Labor; and those on low to middle incomes won’t receive the more robust degree of overcompensation they deserve.  This could prove a missed opportunity for Labor – in maximising the reconsolidation of its ‘class base’.  Although doubtless Gillard sees it as a strategic choice to keep more voters ‘on side’.

Nonetheless, perhaps it’s not too late for compromise. Perhaps if pressured by the Greens and Labor’s Left Prime Minister Gillard could strike an agreement to withhold compensation for the top 15% of households, to be redistributed to those genuinely ‘doing it tough’.  A higher carbon tax rate in this context could be another option - an alternative to lower compensation 'cut-off thresholds' - to increase the total pool of funds available for redistribution from the top 15% to those in genuine need.

Regardless of the very cautious and modest nature of Gillard’s proposal, doubtless it still will not please critics such as Miranda Devine, and other Murdoch writers.  Devine seems to have an aversion for the very concept of progressive redistribution – no matter how mild.  But as far as this author can tell she has barely considered the situation of those who have been left disadvantaged by decades of “neo-liberal reform”; and the very real process of redistribution which has occurred to the detriment of workers and the poor.   Indeed: After all these years of redistribution from low and middle income groups TO the wealthy and the upper middle class, the modest forms of progressive redistribution suggested here should simply be seen as a tentative move towards some kind of 'correction'.

Yes Labor is struggling in the polls. Elements of Labor’s core class support base have been drifting away gradually for a long time under the perception that Labor no longer represents their interests.   But the prospect of progressive redistribution to the advantage of the vast majority of Australians who are on low to middle incomes is what the conservatives are scared of.  They’re afraid of a Labor Party which takes action to re-consolidate its class base.

By contrast when the Conservatives speak of cutting taxes to reward ‘hard work’, they’re usually talking of ‘relief’ for those on higher incomes. The underlying assumption is that ‘the market is just’: that those on higher incomes deserve increased benefits for their effort.  The implication is that they work harder than others. 

 But in an Abbott ‘tax reform’ package, you can be certain that it is those on low incomes – including some very hard working people – who would miss out in outright terms compared with upper-middle class and wealthy taxpayers. 

We speak here of people on minimum wage and thereabouts: cleaners, child care workers, retail and hospitality workers, textiles workers, and many manufacturing workers.  These are the same people who would suffer from a winding back of the social wage, or the effective introduction of ‘flat taxes’ with user-pays mechanisms in the context of Public Private Partnerships.  And Abbott’s proposed tax cuts must draw from the Budget bottom-line somewhere.

Too many people have been disadvantaged and suffered injustice in recent decades. And it is a process which always accelerates under Conservative governments.

Increasingly, though, there are those who once felt they could depend on Labor to defend their rights and interests – who no longer believe this to be true.  This is even undermining Labor’s membership base; its mobilisation as a social movement.   

Now, though,  is Labor’s opportunity to re-establish its credentials as a party with values; a friend of the disadvantaged, and true to its class base.

Labor needs a policy ‘circuit breaker’ - NOW

In the following article Tristan Ewins argues that overcompensation is key to 'selling' the carbon tax' - and that welfare recipients should not be 'left behind'; But also that Labor needs a 'policy circuit breaker' NOW if it is to have any hope of re-election in 2013. A National Disability Insurance Scheme, and pay parity for community sector workers - could provide 'a way forward'.

nb also: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Speaking to Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ on June 18^th Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard seemed calm in the face of appalling poll results.    In an article titled: “Why I Rolled Kevin Rudd”, the Prime Minister seemed to hold out hope for a Labor victory in 2013.   (nb: we will assume PM Gillard did not anticipate the choice of title used by the Herald-Sun, with the usual loaded language and negative connotations)

Specifically, Phillip Hudson reported how Gillard:

“warned that poll numbers might not lift until after the tax begins in July next year and anxious voters "live it" and see the effect of the whole package and compensation on their daily life.”  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/why-i-rolled-kevin-rudd-prime-minister-julia-gillard/story-fn7x8me2-1226077339474

What is most crucial at this point is for Labor to implement some kind of policy “circuit breaker”, to stop voters from ‘switching off’ before it is too late.  

On 18th June 2011  “popular support for the Federal Government [had] fallen to its lowest level in 39 years, with a…Nielsen poll putting approval for Labor at only 27 per cent.”   http://www.efarming.com.au/News/general/18/06/2011/80081/abbott-blames-policies-for-labor-slide.html

This was a devastating result for Labor.

Gillard cannot afford for everything to hinge upon reception to a carbon tax a whole year into the future. (ie: mid-2012)    Even if compensation (and overcompensation) does emerge as intended, voters may already have firmed in their judgements before then… 

 But a National Disability Insurance Scheme could provide the vital ‘policy circuit breaker’ needed so desperately by Labor.  We will return to this issue later.

The carbon tax is perhaps the most problematic issue for Labor, as fear has been whipped up so effectively by Abbott and by sections of the media.

There are also tensions between the Greens and Labor.

The Channel 7 website has published an article reporting a developing impasse between Labor and the Greens on the form any future carbon tax will take.   

Specifically, Jeremy Thompson reported that:

“It is understood the Greens are unhappy with the Government's preferred deal on industry compensation, including substantial assistance to coal miners.”  http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/9660562/carbon-tax-rift-emerges-between-labor-greens/

Here assistance to coal miners seems pointless.  Already low and middle income consumers – as well as trade-exposed industries - should be compensated for any increased flow on costs from coal-fired energy.  If coal-fired energy plants are directly compensated, however, then where are the ‘market signals’ driving a shift to renewables?  

The other question, here, is what rate the carbon tax will be set at.  Ross Garnaut has argued that a carbon tax at $26/tonne would raise $11.5 billion in its first year. http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-tax-to-raise-115b-in-year-one-garnaut-20110531-1fdvi.html?skin=text-only

This author has argued in the past that there will likely be a rate of $20/tonne: a position that seems to be popular with Labor.  But in the past the Greens have argued for a rate as high as $40/tonne.    

 Also notable (again as I’ve reflected elsewhere) is Garnaut’s argument that pensioners ought not be ‘overcompensated’ because of previous improvements to pensions.  Garnaut had also argued that compensation to be phased out only for incomes “well north” of $80,000/year. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/early-carbon-compensation-plan-under-garnaut-review/story-fn59niix-1226066805423

It’s important to note here that even before carbon tax implementation electricity prices have risen in Australia by about 30% in recent years, and already this has hit pensioners hard.  (see: http://theconversation.edu.au/increasing-electricity-prices-watts-the-culprit-1408 ) 

Melbourne University Researcher, Roger Darville blames this situation on the troika of renewable quotas, the need for new infrastructure, and increased demand.  But privatisation is the real ‘elephant in the room’ with increased finance costs and profit margins for the private sector, and reduced market power for small consumers.  (see: http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2011/06/right-populist-monopoly-media-attempts.html )  And in any case increased demand should not simply translate into higher charges pocketed by private companies in the form of profit.

Pensioners are already absorbing these and other costs (eg: water), and so should not be ‘left out of the equation’.

From this it’s possible to draw a number of conclusions.

Firstly, a higher carbon tax rate could provide more scope for overcompensation for pensioners, as well as low and middle income working families. 

As this author has argued elsewhere, Newstart recipients  are ‘doing it tough’ – to put it mildly.  Indeed, Newstart is currently only $474.90/fortnight, and has not kept up with a rising basic cost of living. (See: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart_rates.htm )

In light of existing punitive active labour market policies there are no decent or valid arguments not to reform Newstart.  And real increases to Austudy are also crucial to provide conditions where students can apply themselves fully to study, rather than risk failure or underperformance as a consequence of the pressures of part-time work. 

And here a ‘loans scheme’ is neither equitable nor fair.

 If reform is not implemented here in the context of carbon tax overcompensation, then it needs to be achieved separately; But progressive Labor figures on a cross-factional basis, and the Greens -  need to demand reform one way or another during the current term of Labor government.  Ultimately carbon tax overcompensation may prove the easiest path to reform regardless.

But to achieve robust overcompensation for low and middle income groups difficult decisions need to be made about ‘cut off’ thresholds. 

Based on previous modelling for a CPRS (carbon pollution reduction scheme – ie: via emissions trading), it has been argued that a carbon tax at $30/tonne would cost families $863.20/year. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/pms-carbon-tax-to-cost-households-1660-a-week-treasury-figures-show/story-fn6bqpju-1226032314762

 It’s difficult to extrapolate a figure for single income earners from this, but it would be reasonable to assume the costs could be easily absorbed by individuals on $80,000/year.  (as well, the rate is unlikely to be $30/tonne) Therefore, in order to maximise the scope for overcompensation for low-middle income groups – including pensioners and the vast majority of workers  (that is – the vast majority of voters as well) compensation could begin to be ‘phased out’ at around $70,000/year (or maybe somewhat higher), dissipating entirely at $80,000/year.  (ie: for those who could reasonably be described as occupying that range from 'upper middle class' to 'wealthy')

Robust overcompensation for low-middle income groups will be crucial if Labor is to retain government in 2013; but must be paid for somehow.  Therefore after reconsidering, the author believes that to provide the scope for such extensive overcompensation, a rate of at least $26/tonne – as preferred by Ross Garnaut – and with the ‘cut-off points’ suggested here - is preferable.  And of course the rate and cut-off thresholds would have to be properly indexed.

Finally, compensation might best be provided in the form of regular cash supplements (also indexed) – as otherwise tax cuts could be ‘taken for granted’ and forgotten.   With regular cash payments there would be a constant reminder of compensation provisions.

A ‘circuit-breaker’ for Labor

Labor has been taking ‘hit after hit’ in the polls and in popular media for a long time now.  There are many publications which will put a ‘negative spin’ on pretty much anything and everything Labor says and does.  The danger is that voters will ‘switch off’, virtually determining the government’s fate more than two years ahead of the next election.  The carbon tax may turn out well ultimately, but a year from now it may be ‘too late’ for the government. 

 The government needs a ‘circuit breaker’ and needs it now.   Labor needs to break the cycle of fearful speculation now - with an agenda of constructive and visionary reform with which to inspire and engage the electorate.  The National Broadband Network (NBN) helped Labor ‘across the line’ last time; but the government needs new initiatives, as well as substantial progress on the NBN.

 A National Disability Insurance Scheme has long been touted as an option by rising Labor parliamentarian Bill Shorten.  

According to the ‘Every Australian Counts’ website, a NDIS would:

• maximise employment opportunities for the disabled, with comprehensive support services and any necessary equipment

• provide similar support to assist in providing education opportunities

• “provide funding for home modifications and specialised equipment and support to ensure people are able to live as independently as possible in their own homes”

• provide support for family and carers

• provide “early intervention and support” for children with disabilities

(see:  http://everyaustraliancounts.com.au/changing_lives/for_families/ )

In addition to this a NDIS needs to provide substantial new funds (ie: several billions every year) via a Medicare Levy-like mechanism rather than just a restructuring of the funding mix.  New funds are necessary to increase Disability Support Pensions and Carers’ Pensions; extend support services and provision of necessary home infrastructure; and to bring more crucial medications under the umbrella of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

 Specifically as a consequence of a NDIS, in current terms carers and disability pensioners should also receive a rise in their pensions of at least $25/week; indexed on top of existing pension formulae.

A NDIS could also source additional funds for improvement of mental health services: an issue which is resonating strongly with the electorate.

While a NDIS could disrupt the cycle of fearful speculation about a carbon tax, it would also comprise a landmark reform – a genuine record of achievement for Gillard Labor.

Finally, the government could move onto the front foot regarding the ‘equal pay’ campaign being driven by the Australian Services Union – to provide effective pay parity for workers (mainly women) in the community services sector. 

Because it is mainly women who are employed in the sector, this issue has been raised as one of effective gender discrimination. But not-for-profit organisations providing aged care and other services (as well as in the public sector) will need support from the government in adapting to any improved regime of pay and conditions.  Hence for these – and other vital reforms – the government needs to aim during this term for a sustainable expansion of social expenditure in the vicinity of 1.5% of GDP; backed by progressive tax reform.

Generous superannuation concessions for the wealthy could also be wound back.

But until the carbon tax is implemented – with accompanying compensation and overcompensation – some degree of fearful speculation will continue. Labor needs to finalise its carbon tax package soon – to put fears to rest. 

But speeding up implementation could also be crucial; and Labor could do well to aim for the end of this year, rather than allowing damaging speculation to continue until mid-2012.  Again: by then it could be ‘too late’.

Debate welcome as always!