Vote for Labor
Sean Healey (Write on, GLW March 24) ignores two reasons for calling for a vote for Labour.
(1) It is much easier to expose the pro-capitalist nature of the Labour party if they are in Government. When Labour are in opposition, they are far more likely to bee seen as an alternative.
(2) It helps the fight against policies such as employment contracts, if the Labour party (which claims to oppose these policies) defeats the Liberal party (which explicitly advocates them).
Of course a socialist alternative has to be built; but this building will be hindered rather than helped, if socialists stand candidates and fail to direct preferences to Labour. Forming alliances with Greens and Democrats, at the expense of supporting Labour against the Liberals, is a similar cop out.
Roger Clarke
Carina Heights, Qld
Third parties
The pre-election issue of GLW had on its front cover "Beyond the two-party sham: time for a real choice" and devoted several pages to interviewing candidates of the "new" or smaller parties, apparently in anticipation of growing influence for what they represent.
Yet these candidates as a group lost votes to the ALP.
After the election Peter Boyle ("Labour's 'true believers' face disappointment" March 24) comments "The problem was less public illusions in Labor's platform and more the fact there was little choice". This contradicts GLW's own pre-election view, and it doesn't stand up to the facts. There was no less choice of alternative and independent candidates than in previous federal elections over the last 10 years.
I would be interested to see a more in depth account from GLW of why there was an increase in the Labor vote at the expense of independents and newer party candidates? I suggest 2 relevant factors.
Paul keating was able to polarise the debate with the Liberal Party, to present the ALP as the defender of the working class and the downtrodden, as the ALP of "traditional labor values". His success in wooing the "true believers" back to the ALP was based on this appeal to a working class constituency.
The distinguishing feature of the Labor Party is its working class base and trade union affiliates. Despite Labor's program being a program for Australian capitalism, it is sufficiently different from the Liberals' program that more voters preferred it, and that so many Labor voters were so relieved that Hewson lost the election. For working class Australians needing childcare, bulk billing, for Aborigines seeking land rights and recognition of their prior occupation of Australia, the small glimmers of hope offered by Labor cannot be arrogantly consigned away as being no different from the Liberals. Labor is certainly not socialist, but as socialism was not on, then socialists should at least approach the election on the basis of working class interests and allegiances, short and long term.
A second factor in the decline of independent/Democratic votes is that people do want to choose a government, not simply lodge a protest vote.
Both these factors indicate that socialists cannot bypass the Labor Party, but rather should take the arguments for socialism into the ALP as well as the unions. Yet GLW argues that building a third force is the way to go. How does GLW/DSP [Democratic Socialist Party] assess this in the light of the election results?
Peter Boyle's article also espouses opposition to economic rationalism, without reference to what the alternative is. The confusion of such "anti-politics" is illustrated in Peter Boyle's comments on the unemployment consequences of cutting tariffs. It is difficult to interpret the article as meaning other than support for tariffs, which is the "anti-rationalist" view, but not what I understand to be the GLW/DSP view. What about a working class answer to that problem — a shorter working week with no loss in pay and international solidarity, especially with Asian workers? Might this get in the way of GLW's new party project and its links with other nationalist and procapitalist "anti-rationalists"?
Janet Burstall
Leichhardt NSW
Poor millionaires
Journalists describe Sydney developer, Mr Harry Triguboff as a "millionaire". Mr Triguboff is a semi-billionaire, and "the sixth richest individual" in Australia. One million dollars does not get you into the club these days. An Australian casino developer offered one million Australian dollars, in the Philippines, for a mere appointment, to talk about having talks about a casino development.
It was just a sweetener to open the door, to get a chat about possibly
paying someone to get into the casino business. The story was printed in the Herald a couple of years ago. The riches of the rich, and the fabulous sums of money, real, and money on paper, that they handle, and shunt around the world from Johannesburg to Sydney, to Rio de Janeiro, to Moscow, are gigantic. "Million" is not in it.
"Millionaire"? the magic number,
"Millionaire"?, hey what a hoax,
"Millionaire"?, well, that's just peanuts,
"Millionaires"'ll soon be broke.
Denis Kevans
Wentworth Falls NSW
A sister's inheritance
Paddie Cowburn (Write on, GLW, March 31) has suggested that Janet Holmes a' Court and Robin Greenburg discussed in my article "Women in the Money" GLW March 17) are sort of exceptions that prove the rule of male domination of society.
Specifically, Holmes a' Court is not considered to be a real capitalist because she inherited her wealth from a male. Despite s millionaires, however, inherited wealth remains the major way wealth and the ruling class are preserved under capitalism. Women have always formed part of the ruling class, living off of the unpaid labour of others.
The point of my article was in part to point out that women are taking a more active role as functioning capitalists. My article welcomed this, but Cowburn seems to want to defend it. She correctly seizes on the fact that these are quite different positions.
Cowburn is also critical of people like me that are said to run down women who "by their own effort, make a 'middle class' in their own right". The debate about femocrats is fascinating and there are many ways of framing it. Unfortunately it seems to me that it is not one that has so far promoted much unity amongst women, let alone the left.
Put rather crudely the femocrat debate comes down to this, do women have the right to be bosses? The answer of course is definitely yes. While we live in a society dominated by bosses, every one should be entitled to become a boss. At the very least, we should ensure that the best possible bosses are in the saddle.
But this answer itself raises another more crucial question. Should women (and others) support and promote the right of a small group women to "make progress in this society from their traditional subordinate position" to use Cowburn's words. Again, I suspect Cowburn and I have different ideas about the rights of bosses (irrespective of gender) and how we make sure they do their job properly.
Finally, Cowburn is critical of my ("ridiculous") suggestion about class and gender. I hoped that by moving the boundaries of the debate from emerging 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of middle class women to one of its poles (women capitalists), the beginnings of a more general level of agreement would be possible on the left. Despite Cowburn's criticisms, I am convinced that such a project remains a worthwhile one.
Michael Rafferty
Newtown NSW
Human rights
Thank you for your coverage of Rick Halperin, Chairperson of Amnesty International USA, speaking of human rights violations committed by the United States Government in executing its own citizens and expelling Haitian refugees.
The United Nations World Conference on Human Rights is to be held in Vienna in June 1993. Amnesty International is campaigning for the governments who will be at the conference to:
I. Support the creation of a new high level post for human rights at the United Nations — a UN Special Commissioner for Human Rights;
II. Provide adequate funds for the UN to fulfil its human rights mandate — less than 1% of the UN Budget is spent on upholding human rights; III. Sign and honour international treaties on the protection of human rights;
IV. Re-affirm the indivisibility and interdependence of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights.
Your readers can help make the Conference a success by doing the following:
1. Write to your MPs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra asking the Australian government to support Amnesty International's proposals.
2. If you are a member of a trade union, women's, church, environmental, overseas aid or other organisation, ask if they know about the Conference and its implications for the work of the organisation and ask them to write to their government in support of Amnesty International's proposals.
3. Ask the organisation to contact Amnesty International in the capital city of your state to ask how they can help protect your rights in Vienna.
4. Contact your State Branch of Amnesty International for further information on how you can help the campaign.
Stephanie Wilkinson
Australians Against Executions
Seven Hills NSW