Fostering illusions
Nick Southall (Write On, GLW #286) claims that democratic rights do not exist in (Australian) "capitalist society". But that fact that he can state his political views, and the GLW editors can decide to print them, without seeking the government's permission or fearing arrest, demonstrates that the democratic right to freedom of political expression ("free speech") does at present exist in Australia.
Southall evidently confuses democratic rights (formally recognised freedoms) with the material possibility of exercising those freedoms.
Under capitalist democracy, everyone has a formal right (freedom) to publish a newspaper. But since it takes a lot of money to publish a newspaper, only individuals with a lot of money (like Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch) are able to exercise this right.
This, however, does not mean that the existence of the formal right to "freedom of the press" does not matter. Of course, there is only one way we can exercise this formal right — by pooling our limited resources. But the fact that it is not illegal for us to do this is a much better situation than if it were illegal.
Southall also argues that socialists should not defend the democratic right to free speech in a capitalist society because this will "foster false illusions" about the true nature of capitalist society, i.e., that it is not a (camouflaged) dictatorship of the capitalists. By the same (il)logic, socialists shouldn't fight for decent wages in a capitalist society — wouldn't that foster illusions about the true nature of capitalist society, i.e., the illusion that it is not based on the exploitation of wage labour?
Southall doesn't understand that when working people are mobilised in struggles for reforms, that creates a better situation for socialists to break their illusions in the nature of capitalist democracy, particularly the illusion that they don't have to struggle against the capitalists and their governments to defend their class interests.
The formal democratic rights that we have today are the historical product of often bitter battles waged by working people against the capitalist rulers of this country. Defending these working-class conquests is an essential part of the struggle to replace the capitalist status quo with a radically more democratic society.
Summer Hill NSW
Exporting wildlife
After attending part of the public hearing into the commercial utilisation of native wildlife held in Darwin on August 6, 1997 one is entitled to wonder if the sole purpose of this inquiry was to rubber-stamp the legalisation of the export of native wildlife, particularly the red-tailed black cockatoo.
The rather lopsided approach by the media to this matter is also disquieting. We have heard ad nauseam that we can clear-fell as many trees as we like but we cannot export one native animal. Misleading submissions such as this were not queried by the panel of Senators.
There are numerous regulations governing land clearing in Australia, admittedly not always effective, and the export of marine species is well established, with some species packed in cold brine so as to arrive alive. Still, what price truth when money is involved?
Also under consideration is the trophy shooting of crocodiles. Being human implies being humane, but there is nothing humane about taking the life of a crocodile simply for personal prestige or money, or for that matter about seriously wounding one and then losing it.
Alawa NT
Politicians' roles
What do readers expect from parliamentarians and what, in fact, do they receive? Have the political parties been infiltrated by powerful people with ulterior motives and hidden agendas or were they constructed that way to begin with?
Elected representatives were, perhaps, supposed to make decisions and support legislative and regulatory enactments that best served the interests of those who voted them into office as distinct from those in their non-parliamentary (unaccountable) political party machine hierarchy? Or was it that they were to vote according to their conscience and to uphold some clearly defined morality and ethics?
Republics, which in reality are ruled by either an individual or a small clique of mostly self-serving despots, abound on this planet.
Those countries which still have a form of "democracy" with a "sovereign" head of state, whose role is mostly ceremonial, are under threat from regimes with "cultures" that are not handicapped by concern for "justice" or the long-term survival of the ecology. Mammon worship seems to appeal with the sort of religious fervour that may have been identified, in earlier centuries, as the ecclesiastical basis for the rule of law and possibly the origins of clear concepts of justice.
Each and every reader should think about the question and, if appropriate, promptly communicate some views on the subject to the local members of parliament.
North Lismore NSW
@letter head = Socialists and free speech
Nick Southall (Write On, GLW #286) brings up an important question. Who decides who can have free speech? Socialists need to be the best defenders of democracy and civil liberties.
History shows that any crackdown on democracy and free speech inevitably bears down on the working class.
People that demand a right to free speech and democracy for themselves but deny it to others will not get much public sympathy when their own rights are threatened.
To put forward these demands is not fawning for some type of reformist respectability. We are not calling on capitalists, police etc. to fight the right wing, but on workers to fight for free speech and democracy.
On the issue of non-violence, it should be made clear that the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance do not think being attacked is an "empowering" experience.
In the report on the August 9 Robertson rally in 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly #285 I said that in spite of the violence, the rally had been empowering because a range of people were prepared to peacefully protest at Hanson's racist policies, which indicated clearly that a much larger anti-racist campaign could be built.
But it also clearly pointed to the need to be better prepared to defend our right to free speech. This will require greater participation from anti-racists, in particular by workers' organisations, something that was lacking in Robertson.
Wollongong NSW
[Abridged.]
@letter head = Thredbo disaster
Now that the dust has settled on the Thredbo landslide that killed 18 people, it's worth looking objectively at the facts and circumstances that allowed such a disaster to occur.
Although an inquest into the deaths is yet to be completed, the role of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) in the matter must not go unnoticed. All building activity in the Thredbo area is dictated wholly and solely by the NPWS. They are also the sole authority responsible for building and public safety. So while it may be quaint for the NSW Government to dismiss the disaster as an act of God, it may be prudent to see what set of conditions allowed such sloppy building practices and such a disaster to occur.
Last December, some seven months before the current crisis, the ACCC was presented with a 900-page submission detailing corruption in the Thredbo ski village. The submission was prepared by several ski-lodge lessees.
Allegations included NPWS officials taking bribes to allow illegal building activity and encroachments by various ski lodge operators. It appears this illegal activity has been going on for over 20 years. Since the Thredbo disaster, former NPWS official John Gallard has been on TV stating that he'd been aware of a potential disaster in the area in the form of land slips for at least 25 years.
NPWS has admitted that a report seven years ago identified major hazards in the form of possible landslides on the Alpine Way. NPWS have chosen to suppress the report from public scrutiny by refusing to release it. It is also notable that a number of major building leases on the NSW ski fields were issued with undue haste in the dying days of the last NSW Labor Government in circumstances that are questionable and also have yet to be properly investigated.
It is hoped that the current inquest will go beyond establishing the causes of the deaths at Thredbo (the landslide) and look at what allowed the landslide to take place. The inquest should look at NPWS management and practices and not allow senior NPWS officials, past or present, to escape their responsibility.
Unless this happens, similar disasters, with more needless loss of life, are not just likely but a certainty.
Spokesperson, Whistleblowers Australia (Vic)
Doncaster Vic
[Abridged.]
MAI and native title
It's good to see discussion of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (GLW #285). Aziz Choudry's article made reference that this "freedom charter for multinationals" would impact on native title agreements around the world. Although Governments in Canada and New Zealand have taken more secure steps towards resolving native title and land rights/indigenous sovereignty questions than Australian governments, each country's indigenous peoples will come under further attack if the MAI comes into being.
Native title is significant because it tends to operate outside capitalist relations with factors of production. Although the holders of native title may act in a capitalist manner, their relations with the land and other resources have a non-capitalist base. These provisions are a real threat to capital expansion because they exist outside capital's control.
The MAI will prevent any provisions that allow for special or different conditions to apply in regard to native title. Even if allowance for these is written in now, the roll-back provisions will require these protections to be removed. It will undermine the progressive steps in Canada and New Zealand and will reinforce the assaults that lie behind the Wik judgement and other Australian attacks on the rights of indigenous peoples to their sovereignty. It is a continuation and intensification of colonialism and the bedding in of colonial and capital dominance.
It must not be allowed to proceed.
Wellington NZ
Bogart
Phil Shannon's review of Bogart in GLW #286 caught liberalism with its pants down. I've always been fascinated by the HUAC's impact on the Hollywood film industry. When tested — as many were by McCarthyism — folk like Humphrey Bogart simply recanted only to later rationalise their past allegiances as a transgression.
What is forgotten is that most of those who refused to buckle under fared no better. While many of them suffered financially because of the black list, very few of those remained loyal to the politics that got them into trouble in the first place. For many, surviving the black list was nothing compared to dealing with the Stalinist reality that caught up with the communist movement by the late fifties.
I find it irritating that the McCarthyite purges are still presented as a crisis of conscience when, in fact, the core problem was one of politics.
Despite Communist Party activity among Hollywood writers, actors and directors during the thirties and forties, the best the industry could muster during this time were films that either promoted the war effort against fascism or those which drew on a particular social setting for ambience. The CP was merely interested in seeding films with occasional progressive notions as it broadened its network of fellow travellers in its popular front against fascism.
Despite the hearings, despite the black lists and all that entailed, the films of the late fifties and early sixties seem, to me, more radical in content than any of those produced during the time when CP influence in Hollywood was supposedly at its zenith. This seeming contradiction is worth noting.
So whether Bogey suffered a crisis of conscience or not, in the long run, doesn't really matter. Neither he, nor most of his mates, understood what they were up against anyway.
Brisbane