Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Borders in the global world

May 27, 2022

National borders

First thing that has to be grasped. Fixed borders between countries seem to be a relatively recent development. In ‘olden days’ people would cross from one country, or duchy or whatever, to another as part of daily life, even when the law confined residence to a village. People on the border shifted around and generally ignored it. The borders where whatever could be held by the troops at the time – or when under challenge by other troops. The Roman and Chinese Empires did not have fixed borders as far as I can tell. Borders were fluid although often based on rough geographical features. Borders may be argued over, if they exist at all. In Hunter and Gatherer societies ‘borders’ are matters of respect, and occasionally of what you can defend – other people may wander into your territory all the time. Central sacred sites may be more important than the borders around. Lack of firm borders may not be a problem with the proper requests, or if you don’t meet each other. Borders may be marked by myths or pronounced geographical features. The land owns you, not vice versa.

In the modern world Borders can be so arbitrary they can even be lines on maps drawn on a latitude line, which is purely conceptual and does not correspond to any geographical, or mythical, features at all. These borders are not real other than in the sense that social conventions are real.

Even Islands like Australia do not have clear borders. We have had long term people movement and small trade between Australia, Indonesia, Papua Niugini and the Pacific Islands and this has not stopped, and will probably will not stop without local disruption. In the USA, large sectors of the economy seem to depend on fluid borders, and large parts of Mexico depend on income being sent home from the USA. Cutting that flow off completely may have unintended consequences for both countries.

Taking borders as real and fixed leads to problems, especially in the modern world which, whether we want it to be or not, is global. However, this does not mean that a country has no right to enforce its borders, just that this may be more complex and have more side effects than the people imposing those borders think.

Borders and Climate

Climate change is not local. It does not respect human borders. Our country’s pollution affects people as far away as India or Iceland. We are helping to cause temperatures to rise in Pakistan to 50 degrees C. (122 degrees F). Chinese decisions likewise affect us.

We need to not only work within our borders but across borders. If we make emissions worse, we make it worse for all, including ourselves. We are not safe from the emissions of the coal, gas and oil that we export when they are burnt in other countries – even if these emissions are not counted as being our emissions. Everything we do affects others and ourselves as we live on an interlinked Planet not just in a bordered country. What we do influences how others behave. If we set a bad example, then other people will excuse themselves as well, and that will affect us.

If governments do not understand this, then they have no hope of understanding climate change, or dealing with it.

Borders and Economy

We now live in a global economy. We probably have done so for a long time. However, it is now clear, that economic events in one country affect economic events in other countries. If Russia blocks exports of Ukrainian wheat, that affects the world. If banks in China collapse because of bad local loans, that affects the world. When financial companies in the US tried to defraud home loan owners in large enough quantities – that did affect the world. Money lost in one part of the world effects operations in other parts of the world. If companies go to where the labor is cheapest, and the pollution costs smallest, that affects everyone, and likely puts downward pressure on wages and environmental regulation in other places. If companies can find no tax zones that affects everyone, and lessens money for social spending. Economic crashes may not be confined within borders, especially when companies are not so confined. Inflation and depression are often cross-border events. Neither Biden nor Trump could keep inflation outside the borders of the USA.

Large corporations are commonly cross border institutions. They export something from one country and sell it in another. They make some parts in one country and use them in another. They may generally not be self-supporting in one country – they require many countries, and they ignore borders, except for the advantage that local regulation can give them. Exports and imports between countries can exist within the one company.

Companies have the wealth of small (and sometimes quite large) States, and push States around rather than vice versa. Corporations have the advantage of mobility, which States do not have. They can move from one place to another leaving destruction behind. Consequently, no country has complete control over its economy, and its economy depends on other economies. Economies do not respect borders. If you are going to understand and deal with economies you have to understand this.

Borders and the Military

Military threats also don’t respect borders. Never have. Civil wars are always destructive. It is now easy to smuggle incredibly destructive weapons into countries. The US is probably in as much, or more, danger from internal threats than from external threats. An Atom bomb set off by an internal terrorist is as physically dangerous as a bomb launched by a foreign power, and it is probably more psychologically dangerous. Putin’s Russia is facing a problem, not just because Ukraine is resisting far better than they expected, but also because the economy and resistance to the war is international, and does not respect the borders of the two warring countries. It is also forcing Russia to become dependent on China, and it seems unlikely the Chinese will be long term allies, or do not have some objective here that may not be in Russia’s interest. Ukraine used to be inside Russia’s borders, but it is not anymore. Powerful Russians seem to have thought Ukrainians thought of themselves as Russians, and as living within the Russian border, or within Russian influence, but it seems to have been wrong.

No country is immune to war because of its borders.

Borders and Fences

Borders are long and fragile. It is impossible to entirely fence off the USA from the rest of the world and stop people from crossing the fence, or to stop weather, ecology and climate from knocking the fence down. As plenty of other people have shown this is what has happened with Trump’s famous border wall/fence. It was easy to climb. It collapsed; blown over or swept away by rivers and floods. It stole private land. It was a waste of money and resources, and did not serve to protect the USA from climate problems, economic collapse, migration, or modern military challenges. At best it seems a distraction from the real problems…

Social Categories and Borders

It is generally assumed that social categories have firm borders, and people act as if this is correct, but it is often not correct. A few examples:

‘Racial’ categories, blend into each other. People breed with each other, sometimes by violence, but nevertheless they breed across cultural and racial groups People often seem to have ancestors from all over the world. People breed across borders and then inland from the borders, so the whole group is affected. It is unlikely that any country has ever been pure in ‘race’. Attempts to reinforce racial boundaries attack the reality of the mixtures.

Cultures borrow from each other, and separate from each other. They innovate and change – people are good at having new ideas. Attempts to reinforce cultural boundaries attack reality and creativity.

Class and caste borders are permeable – not only because we breed with each other, but because people do go up and down, people marry in – even in caste societies – wealth gets shared (although people can try and stop this). Attempts to reinforce class and caste borders attack reality and the distributions of talent and ability.

Male and female categories flow into each other, no matter how hard people try to police the boundaries, and punish ‘masculine’ women and ‘feminine’ men. Again, people have different abilities and it seems best if these competencies are recognised and allowed to flourish, so we can adapt to changes in reality.

More obviously, there is a tendency to treat people who identify with political parties, or positions, as if they are all the same, or at best, similar. Even a moments discussion should show people this is not true. Not all ‘right wingers’ think gays or lesbians should be exterminated or excluded. Not many ‘left wingers’ , think that people should be forced to be gay. Not all Conservatives are fans of free markets, or corporate power. Not all left wingers think capitalism and private property should be destroyed. The idea that people who support one thing, will support another is rarely correct. There is far more movement and room for alliance, than many influential people would be prepared to admit. The borders between parties are not as distant as is made out by people in power, and as was shown by the recent Australian election in which right wing candidates who firmly stated that they would promote action on climate change overthrew the established right wing who pretended that they were opposed to climate change. They attracted votes from all sides of politics (possible in the Australian voting system). The category borders appear to stop discussion, stop us from seeing what other people really think and stop the resolution of problems.

Borders

While they can be useful to mark differences, borders of all kinds are largely conceptual and conventional. They do not always solve real problems and may even make the problems worse. We need to avoid being distracted by them, or waste energy trying trying to enforce them, and reach across borders, to solve the world’s problems and to involve people in the process.

Australian Election

May 19, 2022

Sorry local politics again, but final election summary of the real issues for the governing Coalition:

1) Climate. The coalition will do nothing except make the problems worse.

2) Energy Transition. More taxpayers’ money for more fossil fuels.

3) Disaster preparation. Terrible Coalition record. No sign they will change as climate change is not real, and its always someone else’s responsibility.

4) Corruption so ingrained the PM has never noticed any. Coalition apparently worried that people will start noticing corruption. So lets avoid any form of investigation.

5) Aged care. Possibly, the most incompetent minister in history. Absolutely (and literally) shit conditions in many places, ignored royal commission….

6) Persecution of people on disability, or unemployment. Should this continue?

7) Allow people who claim to be religious to persecute others and run the government because they are so righteous?

8 ) Completely ignore Covid, increasing Covid deaths and long Covid, because people like me will be told we died of existing conditions which were not previously likely to kill us.

9) Increasing the cost of housing. Well that’s what the Coalition appears to want.

10) Do nothing about banking, ignore the royal commission….

11) Ignore aboriginal people, in the hope they will go away. What deaths in custody?

12) Surreptitiously keep on winding back Medicare until it becomes non-functional.

13) Keep running down hospitals.

14) More tax cuts for the very wealthy and tax increases due for the middle class, because we all know that works to increase the wealth in the right places.

15) Massive funding increases for wealthy private schools as an education reform.

16) Increasing inequality – what a surprise. Obviously the will of God in action.

17) Ignoring women worried about sexual harassment at work – it is still absolutely right for the PM not to have spoken to them and to have said they should be grateful they were not shot at. But making up a problem about trans women in sport, without any sporting organisations complaining about ‘the problem’?

18) Helping the Chinese gain more influence in the Area, through subsidising the sale of Darwin’s port to China, and ignoring or insulting the Pacific Islands.

19) Throwing away money for subs, buying expensive fighter planes that won’t arrive for decades. Buying tanks we cannot use.

20) Lots of ex-coalition members saying don’t vote for this lot, because they are so bad….

21) If you vote against them you will upset the media, particularly the Murdoch Empire.

Labor and the Carbon Tax

April 26, 2022

Yesterday right wing radio host Ray Hadley asked Anthony Albanese, the leader of the Australian Opposition repeat after him: “There will be no carbon tax, ever.”

Personally I would have preferred, he had not been sick and that he had said to Hadley:

“Sorry but I’m not going to allow Australian Policy to be dictated by a Radio host, no matter how popular or well intentioned. If we get into government, we will do what is best for Australia, not what you think is some gotcha moment. Besides, as Peta Credlin has admitted, we never had a Carbon Tax; we put a price on Carbon, and we redistributed the money back to the electorate so they would not be affected by price increases. All the price rises that Mr. Abbott predicted to come from the carbon price turned out to be complete rubbish, and emissions came down. It turned out to be an inexpensive remedy for a problem which was scrapped for no reason.

However, as you know we do not plan to install another Carbon Price of that sort – we will just use the same mechanism of pricing that the government has installed, but we will try to stop it being a tax-payer subsidy to companies who may never reduce their actual emissions.

If we cannot make the government’s policy mechanism of carbon pricing work, then we may have to reconsider. After all we have just been told by two Coalition members that the Government’s targets are not even targets – this may imply they know that the government’s pricing method may not be able to work.

The question Ray, is whether you want Australia to continue with the highest temperature increases in the world, massive bushfires, massive droughts, and floods. We live in one of the most fragile ecologies on the planet, and all the government can do is make the conditions worse, and fail to help people after they have suffered the consequences. I pledge that we will not only try and diminish climate change, move away from fossil fuels, but be ready to help communities that suffer from the climate change we have known about for over 30 years.”

Something like that would have been better… although it would have had the media screaming.

The 2022 Australian Election???

April 18, 2022

What should this election be about?

1) Climate change and energy transition.

The Federal Coalition are demonstrably completely useless on this front. They are locked into more fossil fuels, extending the life of fossil fuels and increased ecological destruction to save “the economy” or really the fossil fuel and mining corporations. It is because of people like them we will be locked into massive floods, fires and droughts in one of the most fragile ecologies on earth. At best they don’t want to know there is a problem or don’t want to accept any responsibility.

Labor is not good enough, but it is better. So ’round 1′ to Labor.

2) Disaster response

“I don’t hold a hose” and help only for people who vote for them. These ‘facts’ make the point clear. The Coalition leave people alone to suffer, and send their prayers. They let go of any responsibility, and are completely useless in practical terms, and its clear the disaster situation is unlikely to get better by itself.

Labor could not be worse than the Coalition. So they win on the probabilities.

3) Corruption.

The Coalition seems to love corruption and rorts. There are so many examples around that its hard to list them. From Christian Porters’ anonymous donors, to Angus Taylor’s land deals, to sports and car parks, to carbon credits and land clearing, to travel expenses, the Coalition is wrapped in rorts.

The Coalition has delayed for over three years in bringing forth a federal ICAC, and has had its legislation for over a year but not brought it to Parliament for debate. The legislation seems designed to allow the government to continue to rort, and they blame Labor for them not bringing it forward. They are the government not Labor. “We don’t need no responsibility” is their slogan.

Labor at least has a plan for something. Round 3 to Labor.

4) Health and Medicare.

The Coalition have traditionally hated Medicare, apparently because it helps keep poor people alive. They have already started cutting away benefits on standard medical tests, and have appointed a new minister who appears to be hostile to medical or social services expenditure and has previously promoted big cuts for Medicare.

The Coalition cannot be trusted on this, Labor has a points score in this round on the probabilities. But we will be told this is another fake mediscare (even if the original mediscare was based on Coalition documents). Your health is your responsibility, and they have no responsibility to help you – you are not a fossil fuel company.

5) Growing suppression of free speech by a right wing media.

The Coalition’s response to this problem is to give more taxpayer funding to Murdoch for nothing, and to nobble the ABC.

They have no interest in fixing this problem as the situation benefits them, as is shown by most media headlines during this campaign.

Labor has some interest in balancing things out, but there is little they can do. Labor has a marginal victory in this area as they won’t try to make things worse.

6) Growing inequality

The predictable result of neoliberal policies and governing on behalf of the already rich, who then fund them to make the situation worse. This is tied in with almost everything that is going wrong. The Government is not responsible for what the market delivers, unless it does not profit the fossil fuel, mining or development companies, then it gets antsy.

Its hard to imagine Labor will do much about this, but at least they have shown some responsibility towards the less wealthy. Labor wins on the probabilities.

7) Indebtedness.

Government debt has grown under the Coalition, as is usually the case. Given the money thrown away on defense purchases we won’t ever see, or won’t see for years, or which is wasted through climate policies which are subsidies for polluters, Labor can’t be worse, so Labor wins again.

7) China

Is China a real threat to Australia? New ascending Empires always are a threat, but ‘when’ is the real question. Not in the immediate future, I’d guess, as we don’t share a border. The reality is that no one knows what to do with a potential enemy who is also one of our biggest markets.

However, allying with the UK and the US (again) is not a solution. The UK will not come to our rescue. Neither is selling Darwin port to them, or offending nations in the Pacific Region and giving the Chinese a way into our neighbourhood.

The Coalition has shown complete lack of competence again. No idea of how much different Labor would be, but this area is definitely not a win for the Coalition.

Conclusion

By my understanding the media should be jumping on the coalition for what they are: an incompetent bunch of corrupt, irresponsible, time wasters. But will it happen? Of course not.

The PM and the refugees

January 20, 2022

This is a flow on from the Djokovic saga: You can make your own mind up.

First quote

Fordham: The Novak Djokovic case has raised another issue. He was kept in a Melbourne hotel that also holds asylum seekers that have been denied visas. There are refugees in that same hotel who have been detained for more than nine years, and taxpayers fork out millions of dollars to keep them in limbo. How is that acceptable?

Prime Minister: Well, the specific cases, Ben, I mean, it’s not clear that to my information that someone in that case is actually a refugee. They may have sought asylum and been found not to be a refugee and have chosen not to return. And that’s that’s a very, that happens in this country, people aren’t found to be refugees and they won’t return. And they don’t have a visa to enter Australia, then obviously they can’t enter Australia.

Interview with Ben Fordham, 2GB

And then this…..

JOURNALIST: …On Monday, you said that those held in the Park Hotel in Melbourne were not refugees. Most of them are. 25 of them are. Do you apologise for that mistake? Or if you, if you’re now aware that that is not the case, is it appropriate that some of those people have been held in detention for more than eight years?

PRIME MINISTER:…. I didn’t make the statement that every single person was who was in that place was not a refugee. I said that was, to my understanding, the case with some people who were there. There are a number of people who were at that facility who have not been found to be owed protection.

JOURNALIST: [Inaudible] I’m asking about the 25 people …

PRIME MINISTER: They are all in various stages, various stages of the pathway to where they will ultimately be located. Now, as I can tell you, as it was confirmed to me this morning that those who are there, with some obvious exceptions, who have who arrived more recently, are people who came to Australia, illegally entered Australia by boat…. The suggestion that I said they were all not found to be refugees is not true. That’s not what I said. It was a question in a radio interview. I answered to the best of my knowledge at that time. And in quite a number of cases, that was indeed the case. There are people who who are in detention, who are not owed protection under the, under the Refugee Convention and our rules. Others, but I can tell you the ones that are, they arrived in Australia illegally by boat.

Press Conference – Canberra, ACT

For quite a while, it has been the convention of the coalition to declare that you cannot be a refugee if you come to Australia by boat. No matter if you cannot afford air travel, no matter that you cannot wait for diplomatic clearance because your country is trying to kill you, not matter that if you return to your country you will die, spend the rest of your life as a political prisoner etc. etc… Coming by boat = bad.

Novak Djokovic and Australia

January 15, 2022

Some obvious remarks on the Djokovic scandal. I doubt there is anything new here.

Background: Government in Crisis

The right wing Australian federal government has recently been obviously stuffing up on issues related to Covid. Covid is exploding, hospitals are being overwhelmed, people are dying, etc. We won’t know how bad it will get for a while longer – by January 18 2022 about 256 people in NSW had died with or of Covid in 2022 – that seems to be over a third of those who died the whole of last year. The Government did not have enough vaccines, or Rapid Antigen tests, even though they demanded that people have them. Reports suggest the vaccination of kids before school returns is ‘stressful,’ to say the least, without the vaccines. Presumably the Federal government had all summer to prepare if they wanted schools to go ahead. The economy which was doing well, until the “Let it Rip” approach to Covid was implemented, is now tanking. Supply chain systems are breaking down for lack of healthy workers. Small businesses are taking it really hard.

While the federal government is not responsible for what State governments do, until it suits them, in December 2021, while omicron was emerging (omicron was first reported to WHO on 24 November), the Prime Minister Scot Morrison was gung-ho about the economy opening up and governments getting out of people’s lives. This lead was followed by Perrottet, the current Premier of NSW, who repealed constraints pretty quickly.

For all her faults I simply cannot imagine Berejiklian (the former Premier of NSW), going along with the Federal Government saying “Oh goody here is a new Covid variant we know nothing about other than it spreads really quickly, lets remove most of our public health measures before we learn more about it, and risk spreading it through all of Australia.” Perrottet just placated the Coalition and went ahead.

Even if they had delayed by a month or so to let it rip, to find out more about what was going to happen with Omicron without ripping, the decision would have been better informed.

These are not the only major problems the Federal government was facing at this moment, and it was declining in the polls with a federal election nearing.

A distraction is needed! One that will take up lots of air time…. What can be manufactured?

The Looming Australian Tennis Open attracts lots of eyes and minds

Originally the government (the Prime Minister himself) said it was up to the State government in Victoria to decide if Novak Djokovic could come in. Djokovic filled in forms and everything looked ok. According to Djokovic the Department of Home Affairs approved him directly (I cannot find evidence one way or the other). It turned out later he, or someone else, filled in the forms incorrectly and therefore lied to get a visa. He also was out and about in Europe, in public maskless, supposedly a day after after a positive Covid test – not an indicator of trustworthy behaviour. So there is plenty of reason to deny him a visa, or revoke the visa.

Legally it was never the Victorian government’s say so that counted – it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to issue and confirm the visa. So the PM was either wrong, deliberately misleading, hedging his bets, or at that time he did not think he needed a distraction beyond the tennis itself.

If the PM had a resolution about the visas and what was acceptable, he should have made it clear and visible before all this happened, rather than saying it was up to Victoria, when it never was. What stopped the Federal Government from saying beforehand publicly it was not possible for unvaccinated people to enter Australia to play tennis? Why let other unvaccinated tennis players through before Djokovic? Why wait until he was here? Perhaps, initially, they weren’t seeking a distraction. However, it looks completely capricious. Just as it does to release the decision Friday evening, when it would normally have been too late to arrange anything over the weekend, if it wasn’t for ‘extremely kind’ judges.

It is not as if it was unknown that the World Number One had refused to be vaccinated, so the Government could have prepared. But they had not, which could imply that they suddenly needed something which they thought might do them some good.

The distraction

The argument is that it is not implausible that they may have decided to distract people from their Chaos and change the news focus, by being Strong on Australian Borders which seems popular with voters, and their one sure public policy for near 20 years…. So to be strong, they seized upon the moment, and revoked Djokovic’s visa, and put him in immigration detention. A judge ruled the Feds had not followed procedural fairness, which was pretty blatantly correct – Djokovic was not allowed to speak to his lawyers before the visa was revoked, he was pressured by Border force to give up his rights, he did not have the reasons explained to him, etc.

The lying was then discovered, and the government had to decide whether alienating the sports mad Australian people was going to undo the protecting borders shtick.

Bizarre Reasons for a second removal of Visa

Then after a week or so, on Friday evening, the Minister for immigration, who basically has arbitrary power to decide who gets a visa, cancelled the visa again saying the visa was cancelled the second time because Djokovic’s presence: “creates a risk of strengthening the anti-vaccination sentiment of a minority of the Australian community”.

This is bizarre for a number of reasons:

1) The Federal government is not particularly anti-anti-vaxers. It has largely accepted demonstrations as an expression of free speech. It has members who spread what seems to be anti-vax information, who participate in demonstrations and who do not get reprimanded by the government, and they have done their best not to make vaccination compulsory. They were also trying to open the economy up, before ‘safe levels of vaccination’ were reached. Whether this is bad or good is up to you, but given this background, why worry about Djokovic so openly and so late?

2) The argument also has little legal force, when the lying on the visa forms would have done for the purpose of revoking a visa. Why not just deport him because of the failure to vaccinate, the false forms, or the deceits and stupidities he had practiced. These are all straight forward evidence of breaking the visa rules?

3) If you truly want to silence something, you do not go shouting it from the rooftops. Every anti-vaxer in the world has now been told to seize on Djokovic for their cause. This technique also leaves the government open to having to prove that he would be a political problem for them – which is not illegal in any case, and is he only a political problem for them because of the minister’s statement?

I quote Djokovic’s lawyers:

One could see a situation in which it was plain to anyone with common sense that cancelling the visa would cause overwhelming public discord and risks of transmission through very large public gatherings. 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/jan/16/australia-live-news-update-novak-djokovic-fights-to-overturn-visa-cancellation-in-federal-court-australian-open-tennis-covid-victoria-new-south-wales-scott-morrison-vaccine-coronavirus 12.00

If the Minister’s argument is accepted by the courts it reinforces the arbitrary powers of that immigration minister. People can now be deported on the basis of how the Government thinks other people may respond to them if the government takes them to court. Yep this is bizarre. Either this is complete incompetence or a real double handed game. It is difficult to tell.

The final verdict

The case went back to a full bench of the Federal Court over the weekend – which is not normal I believe, and I’ve read lawyers wondering about this as well. I’m ignorant, but when was the last time a federal court sat on a Sunday? If not for a while, what does that say about priorities in Australia? Everything has been sped up so a decision can be reached in time for the tournament.

We now know Djokovic lost unanimously. The minister assumed that Djokovic “entered Australia consistently” with Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation documents, although the minister noted there was a dispute about this in the earlier court proceedings.

“For present purposes, I will assume that Mr Djokovic’s position is correct rather than seeking to get to the bottom of this here,” Hawke wrote.

Basically he argued the decision would have been the same regardless of the travel declaration and vaccination issues which were were the real rule based grounds for deportation, which they are claiming to have asserted – or at least the PM is.

The court also appears to have asserted that the Minister does not really have to give reasons or conduct investigations into breaches of visas. So the banning was purely on the grounds that people might have protested against the government as a result of Djokovic being here. And the court agreed that the minister was within his rights.

Now while it might be debatable if this is a good thing or not, people are usually banned for political effects before they get here, or after they start agitating, and this supposed effect would have to have been known in advance, and the visa could have already been refused if they were not seeking a distraction

We now know, the minister can deport anyone and apparently does not have to give any evidence for that decision other than their ‘common sense’.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that once such discretionary powers are granted no laws govern them. Especially when courts rule the minister does not need coherent reasons, fairness or evidence. This probably should worry you.

There have been people waiting in the ‘confinement hotel’ Djokovic was briefly in, for 8 years or more, to have their refugee status decided, and its now clear to everyone the minister could arbitrarily release them if he chose. But they are not wealthy or famous, so they will continue to languish in jail for attempting to entry the country and claim refuge from persecution, rather than play in a tennis match or two.

Incidentally the PM seems to have misrepresented the position that most people held in the ‘hotel’ were refugees, by saying they were not. Amnesty International tweeted:

Amnesty International Australia @amnestyOz·

We’ve written to PM @ScottMorrisonMP asking to correct the public record on the false statement he made regarding refugees in the #ParkHotel on @BenFordham‘s program on @2GB873. Most of the people being held are refugees and are languishing in limbo due to his govt’s policies

twitter.

This all seems to be about campaigning, not about ‘justice’ or ‘following the rules’.

A complete mess, a good distraction, or a confirmation of arbitrary powers?

Some URLs

Morrison and the end of Covid

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/just-wear-one-no-national-mask-mandate-as-leaders-discuss-move-away-from-pcr-travel-testing-20211222-p59jmi.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/22/scott-morrison-insists-mask-mandates-not-needed-despite-health-advice-to-make-them-compulsory-indoors

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/remarks-sydney-institute-dinner

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-bribie-island-qld

Perrottet

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-02/nsw-fast-tracks-covid-19-freedoms-for-fully-vaccinated/100587056

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/all-the-restrictions-easing-in-nsw-on-december-15-20211214-p59hfk.html

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/nsw/2022/01/18/nsw-record-death-spike

*

Vaccine Supply problems

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/will-vaccine-supply-issues-delay-the-return-to-sch

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/gps-angry-as-lack-of-supplies-slows-push-to-vaccinate-children-against-covid19/news-story/fb80bd82827fe52946bbaa77378f97f5

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/15/its-a-circus-guardian-australia-readers-on-trying-to-get-covid-vaccinations-for-their-children

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/18/rapid-antigen-tests-australian-consumers-miss-out-as-government-and-big-business-snap-up-supplies

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-18/naracoorte-medical-clinic-child-vaccines-truck/100761340

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-18/regional-doctors-in-crisis-over-covid-shortages/100753458

*

Ministerial arguments in court

https://news.sky.com/story/novak-djokovic-updates-tennis-star-in-final-court-bid-to-stay-in-australia-to-defend-his-open-title-12512779 [keep scrolling and scrolling]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/17/novak-djokovic-deported-for-trying-to-breach-australias-border-rules-scott-morrison-says

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/17/djokovic-case-exposes-dysfunctional-and-dangerous-australian-visa-rules-experts-say

There does not appear to be any record of the Minister’s arguments currently on the minister’s web site, but but the official document is now on the court website.

https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/ministers-for-home-affairs/the-hon-alex-hawke-mp/home

**************

For those who are really interested – some of the court filings plus a link to the court youtube channels

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/djokovic

Problems of Economics

January 10, 2022

Firstly, there are lots of economic theories and practices guided by those theories- there is not just one economic theory, although people tend not to realise this. Some theories may be better than others. However, evaluating different theories is not the point of this post.

Nearly all economics faces some incredible difficulties.

  1. Economics tends to be caught up in social values. After all, economic theory encourages behaviours, forms of organisation, government policies and aims for particular results. It is difficult to conduct social theory without importing values into it, and much harder to be objective about such issues, than it can be when studying physics for example. I suspect that values cannot be separated from what a person perceives to be reality, and what they ignore of reality. Values can prompt unreality, but we cannot not have values.
  2. Values also get caught up in the dynamics of politics and power. The economic theories and practices which tend to be well known and used in a society will nearly always be those which support the wealth and power of the dominant groups in that society. Who else gets to promote theories and their proposers easily? Even if the theories were ok, they will be distorted by this practice, and become ideological tools to hide important processes, or to justify inequalities of power and opportunity. We could ask if some action is avoided because of economic damage, what kind of economic damage counts, whom does it primarily effect, and what might be a way of avoiding that damage?
  3. As a result of these political processes, most current well known western economics, tends to assume that capitalism is an inherent given, rather than one mode of social organisation among many, even in capitalist societies. For example, people generally do not treat their children as only being cheap labor, or as a cost.
  4. Societies and economic systems seem to be what people call “complex systems”. That means they are composed of ‘events’ which are influencing each other. A theory may have been a good theory, but after a while the practices associated with that theory change the system, so that the theory no longer works – sometimes people say that the system is ‘self-reflexive’. Complexity means that all knowledge is a simplification at best, and that the only accurate model of the system is the system itself, and that reality includes people working with the theories. [This does not mean models of complex systems are useless, they are the best we can do, but they are not completely accurate in their predictions, and this should always be remembered]. ‘Items and events’ within complex systems do not exist apart from those systems, or without being influenced by those systems.
  5. Complex systems don’t have firm boundaries. Economics, in its current forms tends to forget that John Stuart Mill’s removal of social factors, culture, politics and psychology was only an attempt to simplify the system to make a start at analysing it. He did not, and economists should not, think that economics is independent of these factors. If you remove these factors then you are going to be erroneous.

These factors seem to be relevant for all kinds of social and political understanding. They are one reason it is difficult to engineer a ‘good society’, whether we try to do this by regulation or unregulated capitalism.

This does not mean it is impossible to get a better society, but we probably should remember:

  1. Our values can distort what we perceive and what we do.
  2. Models can have values and politics and self-benefit hidden within them.
  3. Capitalism is not natural, inevitable or inherently good.
  4. Complexity seems to be a fact of life. Uncertainty, degrees of ignorance, unintended conseuqences, and unpredictability are normal. Useful values and policies probably have to reflect this ‘fact’. Everything we do is experimental, not given as true in advance.
  5. Different fields overlap. You cannot have a healthy non-ecological politics, or an economics which disregards power, the power of wealth, or the existence of varied modes of exchange.

Would life be better without neoliberalism?

December 28, 2021

Prediction of alternates is always difficult, but the short answer is “almost certainly”

Neoliberalism in practice

Neoliberalism is a word usually used to describe policies which support corporate dominance while pretending to support free markets and individual liberty.

Neoliberalism aims to protect corporations from political influence and regulation while increasing political control by corporations.

It implies that wealth has no power to control markets or to allow people to buy political power, so it effectively promotes the power of wealth elites at the expense of ordinary people.

Although it allows corporations to control government, it pretends that government is independent of those corporations and is to blame for everything that goes wrong. This enables them to further render government useless for people, and increase corporate power.

It posits all human relationships as primarily being individually oriented, competitive and economically oriented (thus accidentally harming families and communities). The primary aim of this claim is to allow them to deny that wealth elites will ever team up for their own advantage – which is otherwise observable fact. Strangely they do recognise that workers can team up for their own advantage, making unions, and they argue this is bad.

The only class war they recognise, is when people team up to take on the wealth elites in general (not just part of the wealth elites such as Soros or Gates). The wealth elites suppressing people is just normal business practice.

Neoliberalism tends to be opposed to government handouts to unemployed or unfortunate people, but usually remains silent when there are government hand outs to the wealthy. Hence wealth and power inequalities continually increase, and people get left out of their own governance.

There are people who argue that all this is in the tradition of classical liberalism, but I doubt that is the case entirely; few classical liberals would argue that capitalist economics is the only driving force in human psychology, and neoliberals tend to demand extensive authority to protect existing corporate privilege. This is why neoliberalism can easily tilt into fascism, or authoritarian hierarchy, polarisation, nationalism etc.

It can be suggested that nearly everything bad today has come about through neoliberalism.

Costs of neoliberalism and benefits of no neoliberalism

Wages have stagnated because neoliberals dislike costs to business, lowering the amount of income you receive is important to them. They call this market discipline, or worker competition and flexibility.

Without neoliberalism, unions would have retained their place and would not be pushed out. Workers would have a collective power to be able to increase their wages, improve conditions of labour, and lower working hours without loosing money – as was the case in the 50s or 60s.

Because neoliberalism involves government by the wealth elite, it has an interest in preventing people from participating in government. Without neoliberalism, it might be that their would be more community government, and real public participation in electoral processes – the democratising and civil rights moves of the sixties and seventies might well have continued. If so, then people would be less alienated from the process of government.

Neoliberal corporations control most of the media, hence they can use it to mislead people as to the cause of problems. They often say the problems can be blamed on a non-existent socialism which needs curbing by more neoliberalism and hence more power to the wealthy. They also try to build loyalty through compulsive abuse of ‘alternatives’ rather than encourage discussion, fact finding and building ties between people across groups. This means that many people live in a neoliberal fantasy world, rather than engage with reality. Hence the ease with which real problems are ignored, and people encouraged to vote against their interests. Without neoliberalism, we would have more, smaller, and competing media organisations. There would be more views represented, and better investigations of problems.

Under neoliberalism the problems of climate change and ecological destruction cannot be faced in time, because that might involve restrictions on profit or on corporate privilege to pollute with ease and freedom. Dealing with ecological crisis will possibly curtail some of their liberties, and if the people suffer as a result, neoliberals can live with that. Fifties and Sixties style capitalism might well have easily dealt with climate change and ecological destruction. Indeed some argue neoliberalism was promoted to stop public interest in solving these problems.

Without neoliberalism, people might be more prone to admit humans are co-operative as well as competitive and that everything exists because of everything else, and we depend upon each other and our ecology. With an ecological vision neoliberalism does not make sense.

Likewise neoliberals stop changes to the rules of markets which might protect smaller people, and promote changes to the rules which protect wealthy people and allow them to get more of the general wealth. Neoliberalism tends to imply that all non-economic transactions are zero-sum; that is you gain at the expense of other. If other people are helped this takes money and status from you. Zero sum economic transactions tend to be hidden. This is one reason why neoliberalism is often known as trickle down economics – it pretends that making sure the wealthy get wealthier benefits everyone all the time.

Without neoliberalism corporations would pay more of their share of tax, and there would be more money for public services and general needs.

Without neoliberalism there would be less privatisation of public business, and better and cheaper service with less corruption. There might still be publicly owned businesses which would allow real competition and hinder wealth cartels. All of these factors would have likely kept the continuing rise in living standards for people which was such a factor of post WWII capitalism.

Conclusion

A clear description of neoliberalism demonstrates one reason people do not want to be labeled as neoliberals – its very hard to openly, or awarely campaign for more corporate power and wealth and less power and wealth for everyone else.

Without neoliberalism, we would still have problems, but life would probably be better. It has been one of the great disasters of the last 50 years.

The historical trajectory of Left and Right in the last 40 years

October 30, 2021

I’m pretty old and I’ve seen a massive shift to the right over the last 40 years, so what might seem leftist to others seems rightist to me. So most people might call The Guardian ‘hard left’ but that is only the case because of the shift. Likewise the Right media have been engaged in screaming, shouting and name calling for over 40 years and people have become habituated to it and obviously don’t even notice it any more. The Guardian can occasionally engage in similar abuse and it seems to be a terrible shock to people who have been reveling in it the other way around.

Let me try to express the current spectrum relating it to the realities of 50 years ago

FAR RIGHT:

Support for established hierarchy, power and wealth, until the far right take over, in which case the hierarchy is The Party. They deliberately use, or encourage, violence to persecute relatively powerless people who disagree with them, or who they think inferior such as gays, people of the wrong religion, people of the wrong race. Women are baby making machines no more. The far right are nationalist, sexist, racist and militaristic; raising hatred and anger against particular social groups is fundamental to their strategy – discussion between groups has to be hindered or stopped. Seeking enemies is what they need to generate loyalty. The party aims to become a militia and violence is naturalised, but blamed on others. Any election which does not deliver the “right” result is clearly faked up by the evil left. Eventually elections must either give the “right” result or be abandoned. Science is abandoned. ‘Truth’ is whatever helps the party to gain support. The death of people to support the comfort of the hierarchy is something they can easily live with.

When I was young, the far right was anathema to both mainstream right and left. We remembered the Nazis and the violence of Fascism in Italy and Spain – indeed Spain was still fascist. Nowadays this dislike, and the reasons for it, has been forgotten and the Republicans are moving into the far right with significant success, and some people in Australia clearly want to follow them.

RIGHT:

The right supports the established hierarchy. In modern terms they support the corporate hierarchy, whatever they might say to the contrary. People exist to serve the market and their employers, and the workers should be persecuted and the wealthy nannied. Education exists to provide jobs. Universities should become profit centres, not centres for investigation. Any thought which differs from this should shut up.

Current examples:

  • Robodebt which penalises unemployed people who took temporary work (which you would have thought might be praised), and nanny big businesses who were paid Jobkeeper and did not need it but kept it.
  • If there is a country and farmers party then farmers are always sacrificed to mining, or other corporate, interests.
  • Freeloading pollution by business is good. Environmental protection that actually does anything, bad.
  • Any science (or thinking ) that might hamper corporate profits must be wrong, exaggerated, or biased by leftism.
  • Try to shield business from public anger; such as avoid Royal Commissions into banking for as long as possible, and then ignore most of the recommendations when it is found corruption is normal. Corruption is just the free market in action.
  • Talk about liberty, but always mean the liberty of the wealthy, everyone else has to suck it.
  • Be prepared to embrace a far right attack on a minority if it looks like it will be electorally pleasing and take votes away from the far-right and give those votes to the Right.

Currently moving into far right territory. This is the current position of the Coalition and Murdoch Empire, although Murdoch gives lots of space to the far right as well.

RIGHT LEANING:

Think of providing bandages and medicines for those who fail in the capitalist system, or to repair the damage done by capitalism, but otherwise leave the system alone. Try to be relatively humane, and occasionally mention social mobility as a good thing, and help it happen. Think you can control climate change AND sell coal and gas, because it might be inconvenient to do otherwise.

Current Position of the ALP. Old position of the Coalition. Sydney Morning Herald in the past, although steadily moving rightwards

CENTERIST:

Take positions from Right Leaning and Left Leaning

LEFT LEANING

Admit capitalism and The Market do not always work. Provide bandages for capitalist damage. Increase the power and security of workers, so they have decent jobs, conditions and income. Aim for a functioning social security system. Encourage education to be about learning for life, with free and open thinking untacked by the government, and aware that sometimes academics are a bit batty, but that is kind of interesting. Social mobility is recognised as vital to getting new ideas and approaches and avoiding stultification. Prosecute corporate corruption, and social damage generated by corporate behaviour. Worry about ecological destruction and climate change. Encourage green consumerism, and environmental protection that goes a little beyond “isn’t it sad that iconic animals are dying out”. Recognise you cannot solve the climate problem by selling fossil fuels no matter how profitable. Hope renewable energy will solve the problems with a little just transitions theory. Think science is the best guide we have to reality.

The Guardian, in general, with the exception of one or two writers who would never be published in the mainstream media. Most Greens.

LEFT:

The Capitalist system might be the best we have, but it is inherently destructive and raddled with contradictions. The Left is actively critical of the way the system works. Left to itself capitalism will destroy society completely. Everyone should have equal power and representation. Workers should have input into the businesses they work for, rather than be treated as obedient machines. Workers know what they are doing, often better than management does. Government only exists to protect all the people, and to open the hierarchies. It may be necessary to nationalise industries in the public good, especially if they form “natural monopolies” (such as energy or water) or if they are needed for life, as competition can run down natural resources: It may be necessary to set up State run businesses as public services to compete with commercial businesses to guarantee competition and end normal crony capitalism. In the past this included things like the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom, ABC, etc. This will not be popular with business, because they don’t like real competition and non-corruption as it lowers profits. The left believes that we should severely prosecute corporate corruption and non-competitive behaviour, as we are relying on its absence for the system to work. They may also try to avoid situations in which incompetent or corrupt corporate heads get payouts on dismissal which could keep many workers in jobs for years. The aim is to mitigate and reform capitalism to such an extent it becomes a democratic system responsible to the will of the people, and not intrinsically destructive. Aim to change the delivery of harms into the delivery of goods. This was the post-war ALP until somewhere in the Hawke and Keating reign, and parts of the doctrine used to be received favourably by the mainstream right – partly because of the real fear of worker based revolution.

Nowadays, some Greens, some old people, and very small parties run out of bedrooms 🙂

FAR LEFT

Capitalism is inherently corrupt and destructive. It must be overthrown, and its supporters given the choice of re-education and taking real work, or being put against the wall and shot. Given capitalism is inherently violent against workers and steals the products of their labour and ingenuity, violence is justified in its overthrow. Because the new state will be threatened by overseas capital (which is always the case) then the State will temporarily be a dictatorship of the proletariat, until it is established, and strong enough to resist these external threats. The aim is complete liberty for all, not just for capitalist elites, but this always fails because of the chaos produced by revolution coupled with attacks from outside.

Most people used to think the Extreme left was well intentioned, but unable to perceive the effects of their actions. There is hardly any of this movement remaining.

*********

My personal politics is more or less old fashioned left conservatism; we should not abandon the checks and balances which grew to moderate capitalism and protect ordinary people, together with an appreciation of the dangers of inherited hierarchy and well intentioned radical disruption.

Summary of the opening of Capitalism in Crisis

October 28, 2021

Charles Hampden-Turner, Linda O’Riordan and Fons Trompenaars have recently released a two volume work Capitalism in Crisis. This deserves some attention as they are all established business writers, who want to recognise problems with capitalism, and fix them. This is not radical left stuff, it is also fairly simple.

Here I will simply summarise the opening salvo, because its not available online as far as I can see, and I think it deserves some publicity. If this felt to contravene copyright by either authors or publishers please contact me via the comments. I clearly do not make money from this action.

Shareholder dominance = Shareholder extraction

Firstly they point out that wealth is created by all the people in the production/distribution/sales process working together. They call these people ‘stakeholders’. I personally strongly dislike this term but, despite being business writers, they Do NOT limit the term to people within or invested in the business, as is usual, and include people such as:

employees, suppliers, customers the community, the government, the environment and the shareholders.

They emphasise that while shareholders are important, they should be the last to benefit.

they can only collect what the other stakeholders have created between them.

Without the work of others there is nothing for shareholders. However, the system has now been [politically] structured so that shareholders get priority, and they tend to increase their percentage of their wealth generated at the expense of other stakeholders, therefore reducing the percentages that go elsewhere. [This priority is often explicit in business talk: “we must look after our shareholders” “Our sole responsibility is to our shareholders” and so on. ]

The authors allege that this set-up decreases productivity and innovation, probably as there are fewer rewards within the business itself, and less constructive connection with communities outside.

As we have seen repeatedly, companies engage in share buy backs, pushing the share prices up, and allowing managers who have been rewarded with shares to sell back to the companies on a rising market. It helps actions which temporarily drive up the share price, but weaken the company in the long run – such as sacking experienced staff. Going by the share price, and for maximum leanness or profit now, does little for company robustness or resilience.

Another problem is that those companies who spend money on improving themselves and their staff, in researching problems, and improving products, don’t give as good shareholder returns, and the share price often becomes cheap (not a good investment) and raiders can buy them up, and strip the spending away, funneling it back to the shareholders which now includes themselves. [Or they can engage in asset stripping, as was big in the Reagan years, in which components of the firms are sold off for more than the company is valued on the share market. The killing is made, and the often productive company destroyed.]

Money

Is the purpose of industry to make money? Or is the purpose of money to make industry?

“Industry” by which the authors seem to mean collaborative building or making, is what generates wealth. It needs money, but once its purpose becomes to make money then it can be hampered, as people focus on the money rather than on problems or the building – [the easiest route to personal benefit becomes selected, rather than company benefit]. Innovation is hampered because little monetary reward is given to innovations which are not directed or anticipated by superiors. Money can support innovation but not create it out of nothing.

Money by itself is sterile. No two coins ever created a third coin or ever will.

Money gives a single focus on getting more of it, or more ‘goods’. Past financial results govern predications of what will happen, and the push towards future performance, rather than paying attention to what is happening in the world – and this includes exploitation and destruction of our environment. Yet:

the unit of survival includes our environment and we will sink together.

Finally people try to control finance, which is impossible [it is a complex system], and company efforts to rigorously control its finance or the finance of the world further disorganises the company and the world financial system. [Although it is not discussed here, this can generate the problem of “debt capitalism” [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (please note that many analysts reduce the total debt to GDP ratio by not including private debt which is important and nowadays seems to compare with government debt). Debt gives corporations ‘energy’ and financial stability, but eventually the debt grows to such an extent that it overwhelms the productive economy: growth comes from increasing debt rather than from production of useful items; property prices inflate and so on. Eventually, the system, or the currencies of the world, will probably have to collapse, and billions of middle class people will probably lose their savings and their homes.]

[This does not mean that companies should not look after their finances, but that over-control, or over-borrowing, can be disastrous. Finding the mean may not be easy]

The Wealth Cycle vs The Wealth-destruction cycle

In a wealth creating cycle, the focus is not just on profit to shareholders. Investors support the other stakeholders and then take a fair share of the wealth created between them all.

[Illth should also be minimalised, but this is hard in a primarily profit seeking environment, as harms are considered an externality or a bonus.]

In other words, wealth is encouraged by looking after the producers or increasing job satisfaction, rather than by treating producers as disposable servants or slaves. Good relationships are often important to human functioning, creativity and production.

In a wealth destruction cycle, relationships and good conditions are severed or destroyed by monetary concerns. The priority given to shareholders, means that they extract money from the other “stakeholders.” Wages are held down. Workers are threatened by redundancies. Workers are substituted for by machines, or by export of production overseas, and sacked. [A high unemployment rate, and low hyper-strictly monitored unemployment benefits, helps keep workers nervous and exhausted. Trainings become threatenings, consultation processes become enforcements.] R&D is cut as it often fails and is an expense. Supplier payments get delayed, and reliable, high-quality suppliers can be threatened if they do not cut prices. The tax payments which support the societies the companies use for earnings and production are minimised or avoided, often by complicated networks of ownership, overseas debt, transfer pricing and so on. Local environments, and living conditions, are destroyed, as few shareholders live in those environments, and its nearly always cheaper in the short-term to destroy.

The money is transferred away from workers upwards to shareholders, by the way the system is organised.

Shareholder focused management has conquered labour of all types, lowering wages (or increase in wages) for most people, and this means there is less money in circulation for basic products, which probably puts prices up to keep shareholders happy, which causes more poverty or precarity.

No wonder employees become disengaged, growth slows and world market-shares shrink. Wages in the US have flat-lined for a generation or more. There is growing resentment among people.

And the system that sets this problem up, then sets about blaming people [who have little power or responsibility, but who seem different]: migrants, refugees, [racial minorities, university professors, radical communists, feminists, scientists and so on, anything other than the managerial and shareholding elites.] This sets up a further hampering of the system, as real problems are not faced up to, especially if they cause corporate, or group based, unease.

Our means of controlling the anxiety generated by the system in which we live typically makes things worse – we become more alarmed by the scapegoats and suffer more from the real problems we ignore. This in turn leads to more escapism and less focus on real problems. For many the escapism comes through drugs, alcohol or consumption, which further hamper people’s ability to deal with reality and adds to their problems.

Mind-set, Re-set

The usual solution is to change world view, and indeed that is important. [We can see the effects of the change in which a billionaire becomes the hero of displaced Americans and then tries to steal an election. Whether this change in world view will generate any long term change or not, it has certainly altered things.]

So the ideology of the Industrial Age is giving way to an ideology for the Age of Nature, which is a possibility, [but it is being hard fought against, and on many fronts. Not only by corporations by by Religions, who insist that we are not part of the World, we are part of Spirit or Soul, or our residence is in heaven above. ] However, the Age of Nature implies that ‘we’:

must learn to sustain what sustains us.

rather than believing in The Market or a kind of deity that rewards prudence and punishes sloth.

[An ideology of the Age of Nature, involves what I have called thinking ecologically. That is thinking in terms of systems and interactions, and the ways systems change with changes elsewhere, they way that changes circle on themselves. To go back to the beginning point, shifting the economy so that it benefits shareholders and shareholder companies, changes the whole focus of the way the economy works. People near the bottom, are of little consequence, as they get little money, and are not deemed worthy of money. There is no sense, as there was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s that the economy was about improving life for all, or that if lower profits helped worker integration, power and enjoyment then that was worthwhile. see footnote below]

The economy is more like a tree or living system. Nature is circular, systemic, paradoxical and fractal…. the whole is inevitably more than its parts.

We cannot command other creatures without consequences. Process works in multiple loops: self-interest spurs our willingness to serve others and serving others is in our own self-interests.

The question is whether we can make that change to viewing things from an ecological perspective, rather than a “dominance of shareholder wealth perspective”? It will be difficult as so much benefit is geared to wealth. This is the ultimate problem of climate change,

The reason I quite like this approach is that it’s focus on how shareholders and some managers have levered the system to benefit themselves and destroy our ability to perceive the world reasonably accurately, reminds us that the solution to destructive capitalism can be political. Neoliberal ideology helped support the takeover of the old system of capitalism, which worked reasonably well, and helped support ordinary people. So a new political development may be able to restore a modified version of this older ‘state of the world.’ Otherwise we are faced with the unstable prospect of either crashing, or overthrowing capitalism and that leads to its own dangers…

*

Footnote

From the Parliamentary library. Australian Conservative hero and deceased Prime Minister, Robert Menzies on social justice. In other words it is not necessary to live as we do:

“The country has great and imperative obligations to the weak, the sick, the unfortunate.  It must give to them all the sustenance and support it can.  We look forward to social and unemployment insurances, to improved health services, to a wiser control of our economy to avert if possible all booms and slumps which tend to convert labour into a commodity, to a better distribution of wealth, to a keener sense of social justice and social responsibility.  We not only look forward to these things; we shall demand and obtain them.  To every good citizen the State owes not only a chance in life but a self-respecting life.”

Menzies saw social justice as an issue of rights rather than charity.

“The purpose of all measures of social security…. is not only to provide citizens with some reasonable protection against misfortune but also to reconcile that provision with their proud independence and dignity as democratic citizens.  The time has gone when social justice should even appear to take the form of social charity.”

Charity is a benevolence to be given or withheld to supplicants at will.  Social justice is a defined right of respected citizens to social security in times of need.

Menzies, who had seen the excesses of laissez faire and the effects of boom and depression, rejected the view of government as merely “ holding the ring, while private enterprise fought and won on the basis of the fight going to the strongest and the devil take the hindmost ”.

Liberalism was not to be the servant of private enterprise.  Again and again, using remarkably similar words, Menzies rejected this notion.

“We stand for the dynamic community force of private enterprise; we are its protectors and encouragers but we are not its servants.  We prefer the live hand of the private entrepreneur to the dead hand of socialism; but if the individual is to have social and industrial justice and to be guarded against what might become the tyranny of the strong, private enterprise must accept its duties or even its burdens.”

Another source

the community has a definite responsibility to provide adequate security for individuals against the results of economic disaster. None of us accept any philosophy which says that those who fall by the wayside are to be left to fend for themselves.

The first answer to this foul doctrine of the ‘class war’ is to do all we can in a positive way to show both employers and employees that they work in a common enterprise, in which neither can succeed without the other, in which each should share in prosperity, in which the employer’s greatest asset is a body of contented employees who feel that they are understood and fairly treated, and the employee’s greatest asset is a successful business which can guarantee to him steady employment and expanding opportunities. We say to the employers of Australia that they have a great responsibility on this matter. One of the tragedies of modern large-scale industry is that the relations between employers and employees tend first to become remote, and then estranged and then embittered. The wage-earner in an industry is a human being whose welfare should be the care of the industry in which he co-operates. Legal duties and legal wages are not all. We have fallen behind advanced industrialised nations in our realisation that the personal factor in industry requires constant attention and a warm and sympathetic understanding. The best employers know this; but there are still too many who have failed to appreciate that an automatic resistance to all claims, and a belief that the only obligation to employees is to be found in minimum wages and conditions, are just as much an encouragement to the ‘class war’ as the subversive activities of mischievous agitators.