Some of you will know (others will not) that last night I was privy to a workshop on GMOs. You did a great job Jess and should be commend for it – it certainly wasn’t easy.

The debate was framed in terms of the ‘Science of GMOs’ – not the social/political etc side of things which raised some interesting issues and I always love a heated debate. Too many people are too scared of a difference of opinion which just leads to apathy and pisses me off. If you’ve got an opinion then stand by it or change it but that will never happen unless you discuss it.

As opposed to saying “hell no, GMO” (I just made that up!) I was left thinking about the role of science in society, the revolution and the environment movement.

As a premise, progress is good. But can be blinding as we have seen with the blind faith that has lead to massive ecological disasters (think Damming rivers, DDT, the Atomic Bomb and much much more.) There is a great line in Amanda Lohrey’s Quarterly Essay (QE8 – Ground Swell) that is something along the lines of Science becoming the new religion and therefore blindly following it where ever it takes us – if we can do it, then why wouldn’t we. Such comments would lead you to believe that ‘Science’ is the natural enemy of the Environment/Environment Movement. Maybe this is simplistic but certainly it is very true of some parts of the environment movement (I won’t name names – we’re all friends here).

What some parts of the environment movement fail to recognise is that science is the only thing that will “emancipate” the environment. While all elements of the environment movement will acknowledge the importance of science, for a lot of them it is just rhetoric. My point being that a lot of the environment movement needs to get over its self, move on and acknowledge good science that discredits their arguments – GMO is perhaps one of these areas but I think the jury is still out on that one.

The flip side of this is that Science needs to pull it’s head out of it’s arse as well and stop taking the line of “science is amoral – I’m just doing my job you know.” Scientists – with rare exception – see their work in a vacuum. I think this is a product of the scientific method, which is not flawed in its self, but which encourages a modernist silo approach to most things. Science is probably the most “silo” academic discipline. There is a lack of interaction between science and other modes of inquiry.

Science exists in social and political environment that will have an enormous effect on so many things – more things that anyone can possible predict. And I’m not talking about the effects of GMOs on ecosystems here either. I’m talking about the fact that we live in a world where the majority world will be exploited, where things are determined by their commercial viability and governments are corrupt.

So the tendency has been to see the environment as separate from science. Not in the sense that science hasn’t studied nature, it is the foundation of much of our knowledge of it, but that when you dam a river science has a tendency to overlook the ecological damage that this may cause and concentrates on how much electricity it can produce (and relatively cleanly too).

So the environment movement must lead the revolution because scientific developments have been the catalysis for massive social change throughout history – often marking the turning of an era. So the environment movement needs to affect the consciousness of the population so that these mistakes aren’t repeated and so that science is used for ecological gain which in turn creates social gain. The environment movement needs to be the starting point, not the consideration tacked on at the end.

I feel I could write a lot more but I’m making too much of a habit of that. Got hug a tree – they smell nice.

Hello Goonanism enthusiasts world wide. I’d like to make a special shout out to all those in Mozambique who are regularly tuning in to find the next instalment of the worlds most revolutionary Blog Spot.

My plan has worked and I have managed to find an issue that has intersected many people’s areas of interest and motivated Theo to post a comment – thanks mate, I had you in mind when I posted that last message.

Terry you’re still a superstar in my mind (and I often wonder who else’s).

So down to business. Where do I sit on the issue? Somewhere between all of you of course. The thing about this issue is that I think there is some function in it being an ambiguous topic because the borders are blurred and to sharpen them up would stop the leeway which makes this medium so powerful. So yes, I think it is a powerful medium.

Terry. When I talk about issues of democracy with regard to the internet I do it in a very specific way – and a way that I perhaps didn’t make too clear. I am referring to the ‘open source’ movement (one dear to may heart) as a model of democracy, not the democratising of information or what ever else. Disinfopedia is a fantastic example (that I may have mentioned before.) It started with just 250 articles being published on the web page which were then edited and added to, making them more extensive. Other members of the public then added their own articles which were added to, edited and so on providing an extremely extensive and accurate database of information. If someone is providing something malicious or incorrect then the thousands of other users will correct the information. Hence democracy and participation at it’s finest – everyone is a journalist.

However in addition to this I don’t think we should underestimate the democratisation of information as a whole. I think that as a direct result of the internet and the ability to transfer large amounts of information that would perhaps otherwise not be viewed or heard is creating a more informed society – especially for subversives like my self. Because of the internet I am exposed to massive amount of information leaving me in a fairly well informed position. It is also a refreshing anecdote to corporate mainstream media (no offence Age workers) which is increasingly in bed with right-wing agendas.

Software design and ownership is another fascinating area but one that I hope will be/is overcome by open source software where the licensing agreement ensures that the source code and any changes you make to it are public knowledge and the big boys are worried about it because it’s a growing movement that is increasingly user-friendly and superior on many levels (especially it’s stability.) This software also means that the capacity of the computer you are using only needs to be a fraction of that which is used by Microsoft et al – hopefully reducing the cost of computers. Not a perfect solution but a significant step in the right direction.

I also think that the internet debate has lead to a lot of “oh but half the world doesn’t even have a phone, let alone the internet” – which is true – but we’ve never had such a level of communication before. The majority world now has a voice and it is one of the peoples for a variety of reasons which I won’t go into but you can now get extremely up-to-date information on the detailed workings of any country around the world.

Your comments of the internet not being an extension of analogue mediums is also spot on but this is also the power of the internet. One needs to be careful about which issues etc are dealt with in cyberspace. A forum such as this is probably a really good example of how to use this forum – personal relationships are an example of a bad way to deal with them (nuff said). My point being that the interaction that is enabled by the internet allows vigorous debate in a reasonably quick but considered manner but there are problems (I think) with the impersonal-ness which facilitates some nastier situations. I don’t think I’ve explained my self very well but it’s the best I can muster at this stage – it was a big weekend.

Theo, you’re a patriot to the internet – don’t let it (or William Gibson) cloud your vision. Your comment that “This filter you have defined is a contrived ideal that these professionals use as a form of defense against the idea of free movement of information” is great but don’t let these sorts of “damn the man” ideas detract from the issue. Yes the free flow of information is emancipatory (is that a word?) and I think contributes to a great deal to the more “informed” nature of society today. Because something is professionally published does not mean that it is necessarily more reliable than something on the internet but I refer to my point that we need to be careful with the context of the internet. People read and interact with it differently (even the most technologically embraced people). There are articles now on how to write on the internet and that is to write short snappy article so that you can keep peoples attention. Because of this ideas are rarely explored to the extent that they could be explored in a book. Only a complete tight arsed wanker would read an entire book online (even if it was written my William Gibson).

Finally, Roland (my dear boy). Your final point regarding the commercially driven motivation to develop technology is an interesting one. One that I dispute a little, but not entirely. The internet was first developed as a file management system for some university in the States – not for commercial interests. Yes it is true that there is now no way of getting online without engaging in a Telco but the open source movement (bless it) is doing a damn fine job of attacking the corporate bully. And remember all this Telco stuff is just helping the revolution (much as Marx described the factory floor) as it enables a greater level of organisation. And as the old catch phrase goes – you’ve got to organise to resist. I know this isn’t the strongest argument but as I stated at the beginning I don’t overly feel the need to explore this issue in too much depth.

Theo, my above statement I think repudiates your second set of claims. Hotmail is a lot more than an email address so don’t kid your self about it. It exists as a massive marketing tool designed purely to advertise things. Perhaps the internet’s greatest advertising vehicle is free email addresses as is Messenger and others. So stop sucking Billy Gate’s ding dong.

Now to the next issue…

Roland (who else), to be honest I’m not overly sure what your point is. To reduce your comment down a bit the only question or contentious part seems to revolve around big agribusiness and their middle men gaining massive profits for the current system and therefore having no motivation to change it. Of course these people don’t have a motivation to change it. That’s why you have government regulations that prevent this exploitation and presumably some for of enforcement so that the labour and environmental abuses are stopped and everyone becomes well fed, not just the fat cats? Have I missed something? No shit I’m placing a higher values of human rights and the environment that our current capitalist system will allow. Jesus Christ man, who do you think I am? Adam Smith?

Or is it that by increasing the cost of coffee and therefore hopefully the wages of the underclass of majority world countries that you effectively just increase the profits of big agribusiness and their middle men? If so, see above.

So anyway, in Tasmania both the Liberals and the Greens share opposition (not in a coalition though). Consequently they are the “enemy” of the Labor party as far as state politics go. The other day the Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Brian Green (oh the irony) put out a press release saying:

“Senator Bob Brown and those at the so-called Global Rescue Station say the campaign in the Styx Valley is about the welfare of the planet, but the reality is that the campaign is all about the political survival of the Greens… Can’t the Greens understand that every time well-managed forests are locked up in Tasmania it puts pressure on Australia to source its timber off-shore? Where does that timber come from? It comes from third world countries with third world forestry practices.”

To me it sounds a lot like an organisation that is threatened by the Greens. Is this a crack in the wall? Are the right (and yes that means you ALP) really concerned that their time is up? Possibly and while this is a some what petty example I think that we are starting to see a right that is now concerned that it is facing a significant opposition. The New York Times recently commented that there are now two world powers, the USA and Civil Society. That’s a big call from a reasonably conservative paper.

“The Internet has contributed somewhat to breaking down this dichotomy between “broadcaster” and “audience,” but we think it is possible to take this further. Within the PR and journalism professions, you hear quite a bit of concern about the Internet on grounds that it eliminates the “filter”of professionalism and thereby enables garbage to circulate freely. In reality, the traditional filters don’t do a very good job of eliminating garbage. By breaking down the distinction between audience and journalist, we think it should be possible to demonstrate that “the masses” can do as good a job of “filtering” as the so-called pros.”

PR Watch Vol10, No 4, 2003

What do people think? Is this democracy in action? What are the limitations of the Internet? Is it possible that this level of peer review (ie the whole world reviewing it) could make for much more accurate reporting?

I hope that this comment will inspire quite a few comments as it crosses over may areas of interest.

Hello world.

Jeremy – thank you for your comments. The world loves a person who contributes to the Goonanism blog.

Incidentally your chances of winning the $10,000 is drastically increased by encouraging people to contribute (providing of course they do). I also think that the prize will be awarded using a sort of means testing mechanism where people like Roland who study law (traitor) and just want to be an arts student, therefore contributing regularly will have a disadvantage meaning that they will have to work harder and all you genetic scientists out there who want to contribute but are intimidated by people like Roland have a distinct advantage.

Jeremy I question your notion of the ‘unforgiving error’. An excellent point no doubt but somewhat narrow in it’s assumptions (the gloves are off ladies and gentlemen). Capitalism is unforgiving only in an economic sense – at least I think in the way that you are speaking of. It is quite forgiving in a social and ecological sense – at least based on your assumptions. There is the argument that capitalism relies on both social and ecological sustainability to allow the constant flow of both resources and markets but this is greatly contradicted by it’s need for an exploitable under/lower class and a pool of employed people so it can constantly fuel it’s expansion.

You’ve also taken a very simplistic approach to my cacophony (perhaps Roland can be blamed for this). Cacophonous democracy is not pluralism as such – however the two are closely related. The point of departure (albeit a fairly late departure) lies in the disagreements between the voices of the cacophony and harnessing the creative tensions to develop a much better way of dealing with said problem. Of course these solutions are then locally specific and developed by the various interest groups (including economic ones) that make up this community/society (the scale will depend on the issue) hopefully coming to some level of a consensus decision. No, that’s not easy but no one ever said it would be. So not only will this mean that errors will be less but their impact will be felt strongly and reasonably quickly. Economic errors often take a long time to manifest. Enron is a great example because their ‘creative management’ occurred a couple of years prior to their collapse. Mistakes will happen but they will happen in a capitalist society as well and often the non-economic impact of these mistakes are often not taken any notice of (for example the family that have been in the same house for 20 years are evicted because the Enron accountant can no longer pay the mortgage because they have lost their job).

I’m sure there is a Stable Nash Equilibrium (which I’ve not heard of before but just looked up – thank you Internet) in the cacophony somewhere and it’s a matter of the creative tensions being harnessed that will allow that equilibrium to be found.

Jeremy, who said anything thing about communism, or socialism for that matter? The new protest movement’s viability is inherently linked to commitment to democracy and will only succeed if it is true to this commitment. Democracy is, in many ways, about the decentralisation of power – whether or not it manifests in this way is another question but presumably if it doesn’t then it is no longer democratic. If anything a cacophonous democracy lends itself more towards Anarchism than other left wing ideologies however it certainly isn’t an anarchist narrative. Incidentally I think that you could deploy similar arguments against capitalism in terms of it’s inherent contradictions, be they administrative or otherwise as I have outlined above. Your points on small scale innovation are spot on and therein could lie the answer to the deconstruction of exploitative large scale global economies – but don’t quote me on it.

Finally the avoidance of bureaucratic mess is common to nearly all ideological standpoints. We’ve all had to ring Telsta for one thing or another and you can forget about it if you ring centre link.

Next point – check out this article: Global Civil Society Meets amidst Crisis of Empire

This is another one by Bello. In it he argues that the failure of both the invasion of Iraq and the failure of the WTO negotiations in Cancun due largely to the formation of the Group of 20 (G20) are direct symptoms of an overstretched empire which will, as all empires do, inherently collapse under it’s own weight. This process is accelerated by the lack of morality used in this expansion. The argument being that the Roman empire was the longest and most successful of all empires because it empowered the conquered people. The propertied were citizens of Rome and administered their own land. It was because of this moral empowerment that it lasted so long. It is therefore theoretically possible for the life of the US empire to be extended with the change of administration and an injection of morality however this is doubtful.

I guess my question is – ignoring for a moment the unethical notion of an empire itself – is it possible to greatly extend the life of an empire by running the empire more morally. My feeling is no and that the success of the Roman empire was actually due to it’s decentralisation and the local solutions it enabled.

So common party people, don’t be shy step up and stick it to me.

Macca – what Roland said – I told you so (so up yours you skinny legged, four eyed chicken fucker).

Now Roland, up yours you bald four eyed chicken fucker (please note unpleasant insult).

Again, as I think we said last night this is all simply a matter of definitional clarification. As I said earlier the greatest problem with corporatisation is that the extreme economic rationalism of dogmatic capitalism is (aside from being inherently flawed) is a lack of transparency and accountability in the pursuit of unrestrained profit (unrestrained profit not being the problem as such). So, the short term and somewhat simplistic response to your ‘race to the bottom’ argument is to make corporations responsible for their actions in other countries. In other words charge the Australian mining company (Rio Tinto?) with causing gravis bodily harm to the environment in Indonesia under Australian law. The same goes for Labour laws etc.

But as I write this my horizons broaden. Let’s take a step back, there are great problems with the above argument (while I still think it’s a worth while one) and I can’t be bothered expanding on them – trust me it works and stay away from my chickens.

Now a step back… Let’s be honest here, it’s western (largely American) lifestyle/economy/imperialism that drives the massive level of highly unethical business practises overseas. The powers of the corporations is made possible by a few things, the WTO, IMF WEF, WB, NAFTA etc. Moreover it is enhanced by the massive military might of the US (and NATO to a lesser extent) which is directly related. We all saw what happened when Cuba, USSR, Iraq (post ’90) and so on pissed America off because they didn’t give them access to their markets. Once access was granted (enter Sohato’s Indonesia) the people of these countries were fucked over even more so by these restructuring packages kindly arranged by the World Bank to allow western corporations to rape, pillage, kill a few commies (probably chicken fuckers too) and massively accelerate the class divisions in these countries. But hey, look how cheap coffee is and I know I’m a mess without my morning cuppa Joe (is there an irony in my inability to write what I’m writing now without a cup of coffee?).

So all this leads to arrangements like NAFTA where US corporations can sue the Mexican government for anti-competitive practices because they enforce native land rights. Boo!!! Hiss!!!

So corporations move off sure because it is cheaper to exploit these labour and resource markets due to trade agreements which actually leave the majority world country (southern/eastern country) far worse off and in positions where their GDP is less than the interest they own on loans incurred on the restructuring loan the World Bank so kindly gave them providing they fucked their people up the arse (Roland I’m uncomfortable with the language you are forcing me to use). Cancel World Debt. As Macca (my budding young liberal come socialist) rightly pointed out to me once, this debt under any other circumstances would have been written off by any half smart money – guys, you’re not getting it back so why keep enforcing it? Because it ensures a constant source of very cheap labour.

But this is a little more systemic and not the pragmatic Ham we’ve all been talking to (my question is which one is Jeckle and which is Hyde?) So on a pragmatic level, assuming the logic of it being western corporations that are doing the raping and pillaging (or should I say the companies that the multinationals outsource to) then to enforce labour and environmental laws on OECD countries’ actions in other countries makes a fair bit of sense. The obvious rebuttal is that the corporations would then technically base themselves overseas is probably not as realistic as it may seem – otherwise it would probably already have happened. The reality is that despite this electronic age the lure of an big international city (be it London, New York, Berlin or Sydney) has that many advantages that it simply won’t happen, the CEO will still want his/her Manhattan penthouse. There could also be sovereignty issues however the Australian government has just legislated so that it can trial Hicks in Australia despite his crimes being committed overseas.

Finally the truth is that sacrifices will have to be made by the consumer and we as a more developed countries have to accept certain industries moving overseas to other less developed (but perfectly civilised) countries where the products can be produced better or cheaper – what ever the competitive advantage may be. Yes the two are compatible because a good Indonesian wage is still much less than a good Australian wage and this is probably the quickest most effective way to raise the living standard of your average Indonesian (as well as a whole host of other things including reducing fertility rates, increasing education and health making the world a happy place). Yes this means that eventually the average Indonesian wage will probably catch up to the average Australian wage but to do that would probably mean the end of capitalism (boo hiss) so let’s not worry about that just yet.

Yes, a coffee might be $3 instead of $2 – deal with it.

Now, point 2.

The answer to your issue of where public companies stand in regard to private ones is circumstantial. However as a broad comment they would, I suppose, be subject to the same regulations and competitive disadvantages (so to speak, ie government regulation etc).

Yes, I can see problems with quality in the public sector but hopefully a good dose of independence from government and being run by under the same regulations as private companies will go a long way to overcome this. Anyway, these issues are certainly not my focus and not really my concern. That is to say that because it is so circumstantial and industry specific I’d have to write a sector by sector thesis in response and the 1000 or so words I’ve already written is plenty I hope.

Finally Rol, you summed up what I meant by inefficiency perfectly. By economically inefficient I meant that it is not, in the strictest sense, economically sound to do anything other than pay the least amount for the longest hours etc leaving tired, bitter, inefficient workers who obviously have a much lower output than the fat lazy workers who spend half the year on a beach in some tropical paradise.

I have another great point to make but it will have to wait – mainly because I want to reference an article and I don’t have it on hand.

Word to your mother.

H

Hello world once again.

In an attempt to encourage debate I’d like let everyone know that Macca has inspired me to start handing out awards for excellent contributions to debate. The competition starts now so everyone’s contributions to date are ineligible (I refuse to legislate retrospectively – it would be unfair). So Roland, Terry (who ever you are but I really like you because I don’t know you and you took the time to contribute and provide encouragement. I’ve been meaning to email you but haven’t yet – thanks anyway), Macca and everyone else there are 50 $10,000 prizes to give away so at the moment if you contribute you’ll get $10,000 – no shit!!!

So Macca, to rebut your claims and perhaps provide a little more explanation however I think you really do this your self. Yes, my solutions are flawed but the particular one I threw out there I have an unusually strong attachment to so I feel that I should defend it. Firstly, yes it would be hard to do – but not impossible. I think the point that has been overlooked is that, despite providing the particular examples I provided I did not intend to have their fate judged as a measure of the merits of my ‘pragmatic’ solution. I agree that the problem in the past has been motives other than profit and that this has been the downfall of state owned enterprises. However the solution I proposed was to have the level of separation that would enable these state owned companies to operate with a profit motive. My comments on running the company ethically is simply a reflection on how I think all companies should run – which as you have rightly pointed out is probably a key measure in ‘civilising capitalism’ particularly with regard to accountability and transparency.

Yes, the government would have difficulty justifying the actions of a profit driven corporation when it has to lay off staff for what ever reason but hopefully the additional funds that are generated from the corporation would provide a sufficient safety net to help these people on their way. And the government would simply have to take a tough stance – not everything is popular and governments have to make hard, unpopular decisions (now there’s a justification for a war on Iraq if I ever heard it). Incidentally I think that a small degree of inefficiency (at least economically) has been proven to increase productivity (not I can’t provide a reference buy I swear I read it somewhere).

Yes, there are also risks associated with this endeavour. It will be a problem if the company goes bankrupt. Hopefully the investment will be a smart, well informed and safe.

Your other point about monopolistic industries is valid but, in areas of essential services it is proven time and time again that privately owned companies jack up the prices and provide a much poorer service. If we are talking about access to water, electricity, health and so on this is a violation of human rights.

Finally, I guess my point in the example I have given is that there needs to be a rethinking of finances by the government. Our government saves something like 1% of its income where other countries (particularly SE Asian ones) save up to 40% and 50%. We need to start making smart investment that can increase the total pool of funds available. Perhaps more relevant to my thesis is that we need to radically rethink how that money is spent with a much greater focus on the genuine empowerment of communities and the people within those communities as opposed to the rhetoric we get around these issues from our current governments. Once you empower a community they rely a lot less on government funds and provide their own self sufficient and locally specific solutions.

Thank you Macca.

In other news I just read a great article. It’s the acceptance speech of the Right Livelyhood Awards, also know as the alternative Nobel Peace Prize which focuses of work done in the global south by Walden Bello. You can check the speech at: http://www.focusweb.org/popups/articleswindow.php?id=393. There are a couple of quotes I’d like to point to (and as this is my blog I will).

“It is the logic of global capitalism that is the source of the disruption of society and of the environment.” I like this one just because it’s really radical and a point that too many people just don’t say any more. It’s been said for the last 150 years, why shy from it now?

“Contrary to the claims of the ideologues of the establishment, the principles that would serve as the pillars of a new global order are present. The primordial principle is that instead of the economy, the market, driving society, the market must be–to use the image of the great Hungarian Social Democrat Karl Polanyi—”reembedded” in society and governed by the overarching values of community, solidarity, justice, and equity. At the international level, the global economy must be deglobalized or rid of the distorting, disfiguring logic of corporate profitability and truly internationalized, meaning that participation in the international economy must serve to strengthen and develop rather than disintegrate and destroy local and national economies.” I link this one for a few reasons, most of which are fairly self explanatory but the last one is perhaps not so. It gets back to an earlier, passing comment that I made – the New Global Protest Movement is not ‘anti-globalisation’. It is in fact in favour of a much truer form of globalisation that facilitates a massive flow of people and information which will, I’m certain, create a massive level of empowerment and consciousness. It also assumes that there will be a massive redistribution of resources so that the global community is truly able to be global.

A stat that I’ve always really like is that the UN predicts that by the year 2050 the worlds population will peak at 10 Billion people. This is an exponential growth from our current 6 billion (can’t remember which one). However at the moment we are producing enough food to feed 20 billion people and still the EC dumps grain in the ocean to increase demand and therefore the cost of supply.

And the final quote for this evening:

“The New York Times, on the occasion of the Feb. 15 march, said that there are only two superpowers left in the world today, the United States and global civil society. Let me add that I have no doubt that the forces of justice and peace will prevail over the contemporary incarnation of empire, blood, terror, and greed that is the USA.”

How can I argue with that?

Much love (‘cos their just aint enough) and good night world.

Roland, I do love that brain sitting in that bald little head of yours. You keep me on my toes and provide me with critique – this is the point of my blog and I say with the complete absence of sarcasm that I am really enjoying (remember though, it’s my blog, so I’m right!)

My apologies for the deletion of your previous comments, like I say I’m still figuring out this damn blogger thing. What happened was that I deleted the duplicate entry before you added a comment and it too like two days to delete in which time you’d added your comments and they disappeared with them. Balls to blogger.

Your points are, as I would expect, spot on. However a word of explanation.

Firstly, yes, economic rationalism is bad; it’s dogmatic, myopic and excessively short term (at least in the way it is exercised in today’s Aust/UK/US world). That’s not to say that an economic justification is untoward or that economic considerations don’t need to be factored it – they just shouldn’t be the rationalisation of things like education and health. There are other things (human need) at stake here and the lives of those on the peripheral in Australia are at stake not to mention a base level of living that I feel should be an enshrined human right (and is in international law).

Economic justifications are always slippery and as someone who had neither the time nor the inclination to examine the financial workings of any government I’m not in a position to say whether or not Victoria can afford a 30% pay rise for teachers. However they deserve it. Our children deserve smaller class sizes which are a very long term investment in Australia’s future – smarter, happier kinds means a better more prosperous Australia. The Victorian government is also bragging about its biggest budget surplus in years. Can’t this be sacrificed (at least somewhat) for the sake of teachers getting the wage they deserve?

In our current political climate the left must be able to afford their policies and, despite popular belief, the Australian Greens are doing this in an increasingly detailed and effective manner. However it means a major restructuring of the priorities for much expenditure and not pampering to the needs of corporations as much. People before profit, but profit after that is ok (in my pragmatic – not ideological – world).

On a more ideological level your point about punishing the ‘weak’ is an interesting one. A capitalist economy is dependent on a level of unemployment because it is expansionist and needs a constant pool of workers to select from in order to accommodate this expansion. It is, therefore in the interests of a capitalist economy to call people lazy because they can’t get a job – “it’s all your fault you bum, oh yeah, and it’s you’re fault you grew up in an abusive household too”. I think the “fuckhead” element comes from sheer greed and those in power blowing corporations for their own benefit.

The issue of economic incentives you raised is also a really interesting one (back to pragmatic Hammy here). If its people before profits then surely corporations loose out, leave the state/country and we can then no longer tax them providing revenue to fund the teachers pay rise. A balance must be met and it’s a hard line to pick. However one that can be largely overcome by transparency and accountability (fucking not fisting). It does, as you say, often make economic sense.

As a big government, the third-way is half arsed, sort of guy I see the solution (with my pragmatic hat on) in massive government investments. Set up companies that are completely separate from government but owned by the Australian people/government. Run these companies ethically and in an environmentally sustainable way putting all the revenue they earn back into government and have these companies competing on the market. This not only has a regulating effect (ie the CBA when it was state owned) but also provides massive amounts of revenue to pay teachers better and providing environment of economic incentives for corporations. Far greater regulation, especially of environmental measures is also needed in conjunction with these incentives. Also, money is not the only answer, just what this debate has been framed in – Communities in Control of their own destinies is missing from this but more about that later.

I also think that, more often than not, it is more economically viable to be green. In fact it’s often cheaper because of the emphasis on the conservation of resources and reuse of waste material. Obviously this is not always the case however it is surprising how much people don’t do to save both their hip pocket and the environment.

Finally your point about the left/right continuum being defined by its centre. Perhaps it is however I don’t think that what is ‘centre’ and therefore what is left/right has changed. I feel that what is often now called centre is more often Right. If what is centre shifts, and shifts right, then where does that leave far-left ideologies? As someone who is on the reasonably far-left of the spectrum I do at times feel completely alienated from debates in the mainstream media because of the complete absence of alternative positions. Debate is always on peripheral issues. It’s not is free-trade bad? It’s is this particular aspect of free trade bad? Free trade is bad because (in out current context) is expands the power of corporations and local businesses suffer along with health care and education, not to mention cultural considerations. The left is still left it is just absent from current debate because the Yanks ‘won’ the Cold War (more on this later too).

Why can’t you make points that don’t require an essay in response? I think I’ve covered all your points Roland – keep it coming world (that includes you Naomi, Kalle).

My first politically based memory is being taken to a rally by my parents and having a big sign taped to my back. I don’t know what the sign said and I don’t know what the protest was about but it was something to do with either health professionals or teachers and I’m certain that which ever one it was wanted a pay rise – it was the Cain/Kirner years in Victoria, I was in primary school.

Both my parents were trained as social workers and were/are reasonably politically conscious. I quizzed them once many years back and they both identified as Socialists, albeit moderate ones.

So I’m sitting at home the other day reading about the latest teachers strike and commented to my father that I thought Bracks was really conservative and that the teachers and nurses striking or threatening to strike deserved the pay rise and conditions they were asking for. It seems like a pretty open and shut case to me. I’m pro-union and think that our teachers and nurses are highly under valued.

To my surprise my father started getting really worked up about it. Started saying things like “How are we going to afford it” and “It would be economically irresponsible, I lived through the Cain/Kirner years where they bowed to the pressure of the unions every time and our state is still feeling the effects of this mismanagement and only lead to the election of Kennet, which I don’t want again!”

Now I’m not saying that he was necessarily wrong, but I do disagree with him considering the size of the budget surplus, all the additional revenue that is coming in from a variety of sources. My point is that even for reasonably progressive people like my father, economically rational thinking is now the norm. There is virtually no debate about this in the main stream press and virtually no opposition to these ideas (except perhaps for the Greens – god bless ‘em).

How is this relevant to my thesis? Well I think that this has meant that the meagre few still on the true left (most like my father now appear to be a sort of centre right) are getting smarter and better informed. You’ve got to go backwards to go forwards. It’s is a crack in the hull of the good ship capitalism and our numbers are growing out of dissatisfaction with the lack of alternatives being presented to us. I also feel that this dominance in most OECD countries of an economically rational idea means that the powers that be are getting complacent and sloppy. Iraq (again) is a good example, they are just assuming that people will buy it – and they will but it will also spur the biggest protests since the Vietnam War or possibly ever. PR campaigns are also a good example of this sort of thing (see PR Watch for countless examples).

The other interesting thing about the dominance of economic rationalism is the decreasing difference between the major parties of Australia, UK and US. The response from more left leaning people (or perhaps centre people) is to keep Labor/Democrat parties in power so that Tory/Liberal/Republican parties don’t cease power and have a mad man like Bush running the world. However Blair’s compliance with Bush should be ringing alarm bells. There is no real difference between the major parties. Then people turn around and call Nader a spoiler! No, the spoilers are the Domocrats/Labor party/parties that have sold their best values down the drain. They don’t deserve to be elected because they provide no real opposition and have sold their best values to corporations. The emergence of Green parties in Australia/Germany/US are a retaliation against the real spoilers (and perhaps one of the reasons why it is only the environment movement that is capable of leading the revolution whether or not it should – which it should). In addition, it is in the interests of democracy that these parties exist so that an increasingly large portion of the population, fed up with traditional leftist parties, can have someone to vote for and have their views represented.

I think I got a little carried away their but I’ve been wanting to let that one out for a while.

Much love.

World (or perhaps Diane – think Twin Peaks!).

Yes, I am emphatic and confident in my arguments. However, my blogging is still in its developmental stages and minor hic-ups will happen where you managing to post the same thing twice and only a minute apart, thank you Roland.

To briefly address your point Roland, I am interested in the contradictions between benefiting greatly as a society from these economies of scale but forming a protest movement around the structures that have created them. I don’t know which is the bigger evil, a capitalist economy or living without the benefits of an Economy of Scale. I don’t have the answer which is why I have brought it up however I think that the answer lies somewhere in the middle and hopefully with a deconstruction of the local/global divide. I also think that some really interesting stuff is coming out of the New Global Protest movement in terms of a democratic approach to the demand that an economy of scale will serve. The Cacophony! The many voices that come together to represent “the people” through various interest groups (this idea will certainly be explored somewhere down the line but there is not the time nor spare here). These solutions are also usually better targeted as they are grass roots initiatives which are generally more suited to the needs of the local population (although not always). Interestingly enough it is this contribution to democracy that I feel will determine the demand for these services that the right is attacking as anti-democratic. It’s amazing how of late what are essentially industry front groups are calling NGOs undemocratic because they are unelected and unrepresentative (see NGO Watch.) Obviously I feel that this argument is a load of bulls twang. These NGOs are formed in retaliation to the various industries and corporations who are certainly only representative of their investors, not the general public, and are wielding entirely too much power as is evidence by the invasion of Iraq (is there anything we can’t use Iraq as an example of?)

Yes spelling is important.

Thank you all for your words on encouragement and pointing out my bad spelling. No, I can’t spell but that’s what you have editors for. It’s the ideas that matter.

There have also been accusations of loose definitions – I’m afraid this is a very fair criticism and one I will be careful to avoid in the future. I guess I have a few things in mind when I say ‘Economies of Scale’ which I will expand on here (love your work Roland).

By Economies of Scale I essentially mean a particularly large economy. This is characterised (in my mind and for the purpose of this argument) by enabling a higher level of specialisation – subgroups, synergy etc. The example I always point to is my Grandmother is blind and loves reading – obviously we have a problem here. However she has access to complete and unabridged copies of the latest books on spoken word cassettes. It is only with an economy of scale that this level of specialisation is possible because there is a big enough market for highly specialised services to be financially viable. I guess what I’m saying, to use Roland’s terms of reference, is that the higher number of units produced has enabled highly specialised services to be provided to small portions of the population. Make Sense?

The push for higher levels of localisation by the new global protest movement (and others, some quite conservative) means that these services would be difficult to provide, at least on the level that they are provided at. I don’t think my grandmother has ever asked for a book that wasn’t available.

The relevance of this in terms of protesting is that organisations can specialise to a level that has never been seen before. We now have disabled Aboriginal lesbians marching in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras because of economies of scale. I think this also ties into identity politics and the reason for what I call the ‘Crisis of Civil Society’ which was the point that, under the influence of a post modern world, ‘civil society’ lost its way. Class was removed from the political equation and identity became an ends in itself – hence the revolution was put on hold why we all discovered our selves.

I had another great point to make but I’ll save it for another posting.

Please keep the comments coming.