Light criticism
The great tragedy of the book Politics and the Accord is that it has come too late and is conceived as a reply to Costa and Duffy's iconoclastic work Labour, Prosperity and the Nineties. I was surprised to find Mike Rafferty providing such a light critical commentary of the latter book.
Costa and Duffy are proposing a total break from all past traditions of the labour movement, a complete break from any connection with socialism or labourism and totally tying the fate of unions to the profitability of individual enterprises. In other words, they propose to sub-contract the role of personnel managers to "new business unionists".
To place these two books "in the same bag" as Mr Rafferty does is totally irresponsible and sectarian. There is no doubt that Politics and the Accord leaves much to be desired, but it at least forms the starting point to escape from the wasteland that has been brought upon the union movement by the negligence, left and right sectarianism, and delusions of power and dominance of officials in unions like the Metalworkers, the BWIU and the BLF.
The Accord has been a convenient excuse for the far left to beat its collective breast without making the slightest move, in all the years of its operation, to form a common industrial strategy that would defend the interests of working people.
We have found in the Accord a convenient explanation for all the current ills of the union movement. This conception is a mistake. Through the 1970s and the 1980s it has been the disintegration of communism within the Australian union movement that has created the conditions for successfully shifting the focus from wages to profits. The combination of sectarianism and greedy power plays in the 1970s laid the foundations for right wing domination of the union movement. With every ACTU congress in the 1970s and 1980s left union officials have had the opportunity to create a common industrial strategy but they have not done so — not even among those forces who were against the Accord!
I suggest that Mike Rafferty should spend some of the BWIU's research money on opening a discussion with the metalworkers on forming a strategy to combat the rising influence of "new business unionism". Those of us who are rank and file unionists might then feel a little happier about the way our money is spent.
Jeff Richards
Prospect SA
Cops and socialists
The Victorian Police recently announced their plan to establish a special investigation unit to smash the left. Reports in the Sunday Herald-Sun indicate that it is the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) and Resistance that the cops intend to hit first.
The article by Alex Bainbridge in the April 29 issue of GLW titled "Students arrested over March 26 protest" further highlights the extent to which our "democratic" government and cops will go to undermine and attack the left in Victoria and Australia.
The attacks by police on the homes of ISO members were clearly coordinated attempts made by the existing regime to stamp out the increasingly powerful influence of the left in student politics.
As the Victorian Police prepare to apply their sledgehammer the left, due to its fractured nature, is poorly defended against such a massive attack. The need for a strong defence against such actions calls for a powerful united front.
The attacks on the ISO and planned attacks on the broader socialist movement are just another example of how far our "democratic rights" have diminished. The capitalist system in which we live cannot provide such rights. Only socialism can provide true democracy.
J. Lewis
Doncaster Vic
Irrational rationalism
The industrial dispute at Burnie, Tasmania, over the import of cheap paper for the APPM mills is a good example of the irrationality of our "economic rationalism".
According to the ABC Lateline program of April 23, the workforce of the mill has already been reduced from 3000 to 1100 employees because of two main factors, improved technology with a consequent increase in productivity and a reduction in tariff protection, allowing both competition from cheap imports and a loss of export markets.
As both major political parties intend to pursue the same policy of maximising exports and improving productivity, the Australian working class can look forward to a long period of increasing unemployment.
C.M. Friel
Alawa NT
Greener
Thankyou for printing my recent letter which was somewhat critical of GLW re low percentage of "green" articles. Recent issues seem quite full on with environmental news and commentary, so I write again to say hooray, good on ya's, and go green.
Tom McLoughlin
North Cremorne NSW
Balanced
I can only heartily endorse your article "What '91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳' is ... and isn't" (GLW 29/4/92). It annoys me to see, time after time:
- people accusing GLW of being negative about AIDEX;
- misquoting or quoting out of context to make their non existent case;
- refusing to acknowledge the objective basis of the letters and articles they decry, and;
- upholding a subjective viewpoint by use of theory that has nothing to do with the objective facts.
As for those who accuse GLW of not being green enough, they remind me of the rear guard action of the economics faculty of y in the 1970s. This was fought against instituting a course in political economy. The faculty's arguments were that economics was a pure science and that politics had nothing to do with it.
Now, we have people who think that green is a pure viewpoint. For them, economics, politics and militarism have nothing to do with it. The trans nationals would laugh about these people all the way to the Swiss bank with the treasury of the latest third world country they have driven to bankruptcy by enforcing mono culture and other forms of rape against traditional sustainable ecology, and selling its government arms to help contain the resulting popular revolt.
Perhaps they are of the same persuasion as some "greeny-lefty" people I have recently heard of. These people claim that it is wrong to be rational in our campaigns — or at all. Their argument is that rationalism gave us the atomic bomb. They don't notice that they are using rationalism when they offer us a supposedly logical reason for their ideas.
Your balanced editorial policy is deservedly gaining a large increase in new readers. It will keep and expand that readership. Continue as you are going and you will build the real mass support that we need for the detailed policies we must have and the actions we must take to get them implemented.
Ron Guignard
Stepney SA
[Edited for length]
Executions
Apart from the execution of Robert Harris in California last week, no mention has been made in the Australian media about the many other executions which occur in the USA. This year 16 men have been executed already, with two more scheduled in Texas this week — and four more in Texas in May. Texas executes more prisoners than any other state.
Karen Pedersen
Chippendale NSW
'Pedantic'
Ian Bolas' letter (GLW 15/4/92) is unfortunately representative of what could be described as the "pedantic proletarian" syndrome: those on the left, who, in an attempt to seek an "ideologically sound" position, end up being so far ahead of public opinion as to be out of touch with practical politics.
Irrespective of the desire of these elements for a "revolutionary Australia," this country doesn't have a revolutionary tradition for them to expand upon.
What is far more relevant in the present circumstances is the need, via a magazine like GLW, to galvanize those elements in Australian society who want to emulate the experience in Wills. In the present context, that means organising people into various movements for social change and delivering votes to progressive candidates in conventional elections.
The only likelihood I see of a revolution in Australia would be a la a modern version of the Spanish civil war scenario. I understand that GLW has three times the circulation of its predecessor DA. So this indicates to me, that by being less 70> and incorporating "Green" elements, GLW is able to reach more of the audience which needs to be won over.
At this stage in its development GLW is better served pursuing its present style of content, albeit more "green" than at present, rather than indulge in excessively deep and often impenetrable diatribe.
Guido Rosso
Brisbane
Militant?
In response to Phil Shannon (Write On May 6), it's not a matter of "blaming" the ISO for some events at AIDEX and the March 26 student demo in Melbourne. Rather it's a political challenge to their advocacy of certain tactics and strategy.
I disagree with Phil that the ISO has "got it more right than anyone else." Their methods are simply "bearing witness", albeit in a more hot blooded manner. Phil trots out the ISO's well worn rhetoric of "militant mass action" in defense of their actions. I attended the ISO's national conference over Easter, specifically the forum on the student campaigns. Reading over the notes I took at the time, it begins to become clear what they mean by "militant" and just how much of a "mass" movement they want.
—"We will argue for breaking police lines" — why? — "because by breaking through police lines students break out of the political boundaries the police try to keep them in."
—"Going out and rioting is historically how students have won their demands." References here to Paris '86 and May/June '68.
It's obvious enough from the ISO's own words what they mean by "militant", but what about "mass"? One quote tells it all — "We don't want to reach the mass of students. You've got to know who your audience is. Our audience is those students who want to get out on the streets and do something." Radical? Yes. But effective? I wonder.
Ray Fulcher
Melbourne