Bilan
23rd October 2010, 13:00
I just recently got the first ever issue of the Socialist alternative (http://www.sa.org.au/)s theoretical publication, Marxist Left Review.
The publication begins with their first opponent: the Australian Greens.
It is titled "A Marxist critique of the Australian Greens".
The depth of this Marxist analysis, however, goes no further than the title.
Claims about the class composition of the Greens (and it's supporters):
The central claim that SAlt makes against the Greens is that their political outlook is inherently 'middle class'.
It defines middle class in three, ultimately meaningless ways.
The first is that Greens voters tend to be "tertiary educated white collar workers" (page 9).
The second definition, as part of the first (somehow) is that workers are defined by who they're employed by:
"state bureaucracy, lawyers, doctors, middle/high-grade professionals, professors and senior academic staff, middle managers and small business owners" (page 10).
They then go on later to recognise the ambiguity of their (the above mentioned) relationship to production (page 10).
However, with some of these, their actual relationship to the means of production isn't strictly ambiguous.
Particularly when one is only referring to the colour of a collar and whether one has a tertiary education or not.
To negate the rise of white collar workers in the West is foolish. As most people are aware, since the 1960s manufacturing has been outsourced from "developed economies" and Western economies into "developing" economies, due more than anything to the cheaper prices of labour.
It is worth recognising that this has caused a rift to form between the working classes sense of identity and it's actual identity.
To many, a worker wears a boiler suit and works in a factory. They do not wear nice shoes and a suit.
This dichotomy is, however, fictitious . What separates white collar workers and blue collar workers is where they work, not what class they're from.
This can be demonstrated, perhaps most clearly, by their income.
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services $63,175
Construction $65,816
Public Administration and Safety $68,177
Education and Training $68,921
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services $71,557
Financial and Insurance Services $76,487
Information Media and Telecommunications $77,033
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services $77,761
Mining $103,111
source.
This is sourced from the ABS (there is a link at the bottom of this post).
As anyone can see, miners are some of the highest paid workers in the country, and yet they are working class in anyones eyes (Even the Socialist Alternatives).
The rise in income isn't determined by what is traditionally working class and what isn't.
On this level, the Socialist alternative has simply failed to engage with reality.
If we assess the Socialist Alternatives claims on this level of income, and it's relationship to the Greens, we see more.
The Socialist Alternative claims that "around half" of their (the Greens) votes come from people who earn an annual salary of/above $70,000 (page 15).
However, the average annual salary of Australian's sits closely, at $64'595, and in Western Australia and the ACT, the average annual salary is higher, 70'210 and 75'348 respectively.
It should be added that miners, on average, earn 35'000 more than the national average, and 30'000 more.
In addition to that, does income actually reflect real wages?
70'000 annually is about 1346 a week, which is a relatively comfortable wage...depending on where you're living, if you're living by yourself (dependents, etc). Does it factor in how often a person works?
That wage, 1346 a week, averages out to be just over $30.00 an hour (if working a 40 hour week) [However, it is likely that it would be a bit higher than this, presuming it is 1346 after tax)
The average work week (2005)
Average weekly hours for all workers declined in all occupation groups between 1997 and 2005. The largest decline was for Managers and administrators, from 48.2 hours per week to 44.6 hours between 1997 and 2005. This was followed closely by Associate professionals, from 42.8 hours to 39.5 hours over the same period. People working in these two occupations worked the longest average weekly hours in 2005, and these were also the only occupations with declines of more than 3.0 hours per week over the period.
Intermediate production and transport workers had the smallest decline in average weekly hours (0.1 hours) to 38.1 hours in 2005, while average weekly hours for Intermediate clerical, sales and service workers declined (0.2 hours) to 30.3 hours. Labourers and related workers and Tradepersons and related workers also had a relatively small decline in average hours. All other occupations had a decline of between 1.1 and 3.6 hours per week between 1997 and 2005.
On miners:
Most industries that experienced an increase in average weekly hours between 1995 and 2005 also had higher average hours than the average across all industries in 2005 (34.7 hours per week). For example, average weekly hours in Mining increased 2.3 hours over the period to 45.5 hours per week, while in Communication services there was a 1.3 hour increase to 37.5 hours per week. Personal and other services was the only industry which had lower than total average hours in 2005 (33.5 hours per week) and which also experienced an increase (0.2 hours) in average hours from 1995.
ABS (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/0f152d0eab2c88bdca2571b000153da2!OpenDocument)
There is another interesting claim within this article:
"It suggests (the self-indentification of Labor voters as "working class") are less important for the Greens than they are for Labor" (page 17).
What is this claim supposed to mean? The fact that 'around half' (page 17) of Labor voters self-identify as working class is an utterly meaningless fact.
The fact that only one third of Greens voters do is an equally meaningless fact.
This is especially because self-identifying as working class and then voting for the Labor party is a poor sign of class consciousness, as the Labor party has been notorious for stabbing workers in the back, and utilising the unions to keep workers in line (See articles on "Fair Pay" legislation under Rudd, or just about anything about the Keating era in Australia - including a book by the Socialist Alternative!).
IF a worker were class conscious, why would they vote for a party that uses their classes name and history as a way of oppressing it? That is not tantamount to class consciousness.
The final claim I will deal with hear is one of the key aspects to the critique: the fact that the Green's party is not an 'activist party' (page 20).
This, they say, might not seem important to "armchair leftists" but is rather telling.
The Greens have, according to SAlt, almost no presence whatsoever in the "union movement and on the campuses" (page 20).
One of the key examples used is related to some young Greens members trying to drum up support for the party during the election, and not over any issues in particular: not in relation to the NT intervention, not in relation to gay marriage rights, not in relation to Palestinian solidarity and not in relation to labor bureaucrats in the unions (page 20).
The first response I make to this is: and?
The second is: of what significance is that to anything at all, ever?
The socialist alternative claims that it out numbers Greens members on campuses "at least 4 to 1" (this claim is not sourced).
What is important here is what the Socialist Alternative claims the Greens ought to be focusing on.
But what about the issues that are actually affecting students? Why does the Socialist alternative negate the ridiculous costs of universities? The underfunding by the government? The fact that most students are forced to work as casuals, where they have absolutely no rights whatsoever in the work place (the rate of casualisation is closed to 30% of the work force in Australia, see the ABS)? Why don't they mention anything about the ABCC when most universities right now are going under some form of reconstruction, where there are construction workers on site who are affected by the draconian measures of the ABCC? Why not bring up the fact that new austerity plans have been leaked in Adelaide, and there have been demonstrations against these plans? Why not relate students to other students? Why not bring up the exorbitant fees international students are forced to pay, and the precarious work they're forced into (whilst being denied the right to work for more than 20 hours a week while at university, and also being denied the right to student travel [this is a big issue in Sydney where transport prices are through the roof])?
There are a plethora of issues that could be brought up to raise student awareness and build solidarity between workers and students.
But these issues aren't important by the sounds of it.
On top of that, I'm not trying to suggest the issues SAlt mentioned aren't important, but that you can't just show up onto a campus and ram down a message that students wont relate to - even if there are four of you there.
To conclude, it is quite apparent that when this theoretical journal was published, it wasn't reviewed very thoroughly. There seems to be a relatively overt abandonment of Marxist conceptions of class, a fetishism of the activist circus and a peculiar approach to "rebuilding the left" in Australia.
The publication begins with their first opponent: the Australian Greens.
It is titled "A Marxist critique of the Australian Greens".
The depth of this Marxist analysis, however, goes no further than the title.
Claims about the class composition of the Greens (and it's supporters):
The central claim that SAlt makes against the Greens is that their political outlook is inherently 'middle class'.
It defines middle class in three, ultimately meaningless ways.
The first is that Greens voters tend to be "tertiary educated white collar workers" (page 9).
The second definition, as part of the first (somehow) is that workers are defined by who they're employed by:
"state bureaucracy, lawyers, doctors, middle/high-grade professionals, professors and senior academic staff, middle managers and small business owners" (page 10).
They then go on later to recognise the ambiguity of their (the above mentioned) relationship to production (page 10).
However, with some of these, their actual relationship to the means of production isn't strictly ambiguous.
Particularly when one is only referring to the colour of a collar and whether one has a tertiary education or not.
To negate the rise of white collar workers in the West is foolish. As most people are aware, since the 1960s manufacturing has been outsourced from "developed economies" and Western economies into "developing" economies, due more than anything to the cheaper prices of labour.
It is worth recognising that this has caused a rift to form between the working classes sense of identity and it's actual identity.
To many, a worker wears a boiler suit and works in a factory. They do not wear nice shoes and a suit.
This dichotomy is, however, fictitious . What separates white collar workers and blue collar workers is where they work, not what class they're from.
This can be demonstrated, perhaps most clearly, by their income.
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services $63,175
Construction $65,816
Public Administration and Safety $68,177
Education and Training $68,921
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services $71,557
Financial and Insurance Services $76,487
Information Media and Telecommunications $77,033
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services $77,761
Mining $103,111
source.
This is sourced from the ABS (there is a link at the bottom of this post).
As anyone can see, miners are some of the highest paid workers in the country, and yet they are working class in anyones eyes (Even the Socialist Alternatives).
The rise in income isn't determined by what is traditionally working class and what isn't.
On this level, the Socialist alternative has simply failed to engage with reality.
If we assess the Socialist Alternatives claims on this level of income, and it's relationship to the Greens, we see more.
The Socialist Alternative claims that "around half" of their (the Greens) votes come from people who earn an annual salary of/above $70,000 (page 15).
However, the average annual salary of Australian's sits closely, at $64'595, and in Western Australia and the ACT, the average annual salary is higher, 70'210 and 75'348 respectively.
It should be added that miners, on average, earn 35'000 more than the national average, and 30'000 more.
In addition to that, does income actually reflect real wages?
70'000 annually is about 1346 a week, which is a relatively comfortable wage...depending on where you're living, if you're living by yourself (dependents, etc). Does it factor in how often a person works?
That wage, 1346 a week, averages out to be just over $30.00 an hour (if working a 40 hour week) [However, it is likely that it would be a bit higher than this, presuming it is 1346 after tax)
The average work week (2005)
Average weekly hours for all workers declined in all occupation groups between 1997 and 2005. The largest decline was for Managers and administrators, from 48.2 hours per week to 44.6 hours between 1997 and 2005. This was followed closely by Associate professionals, from 42.8 hours to 39.5 hours over the same period. People working in these two occupations worked the longest average weekly hours in 2005, and these were also the only occupations with declines of more than 3.0 hours per week over the period.
Intermediate production and transport workers had the smallest decline in average weekly hours (0.1 hours) to 38.1 hours in 2005, while average weekly hours for Intermediate clerical, sales and service workers declined (0.2 hours) to 30.3 hours. Labourers and related workers and Tradepersons and related workers also had a relatively small decline in average hours. All other occupations had a decline of between 1.1 and 3.6 hours per week between 1997 and 2005.
On miners:
Most industries that experienced an increase in average weekly hours between 1995 and 2005 also had higher average hours than the average across all industries in 2005 (34.7 hours per week). For example, average weekly hours in Mining increased 2.3 hours over the period to 45.5 hours per week, while in Communication services there was a 1.3 hour increase to 37.5 hours per week. Personal and other services was the only industry which had lower than total average hours in 2005 (33.5 hours per week) and which also experienced an increase (0.2 hours) in average hours from 1995.
ABS (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/0f152d0eab2c88bdca2571b000153da2!OpenDocument)
There is another interesting claim within this article:
"It suggests (the self-indentification of Labor voters as "working class") are less important for the Greens than they are for Labor" (page 17).
What is this claim supposed to mean? The fact that 'around half' (page 17) of Labor voters self-identify as working class is an utterly meaningless fact.
The fact that only one third of Greens voters do is an equally meaningless fact.
This is especially because self-identifying as working class and then voting for the Labor party is a poor sign of class consciousness, as the Labor party has been notorious for stabbing workers in the back, and utilising the unions to keep workers in line (See articles on "Fair Pay" legislation under Rudd, or just about anything about the Keating era in Australia - including a book by the Socialist Alternative!).
IF a worker were class conscious, why would they vote for a party that uses their classes name and history as a way of oppressing it? That is not tantamount to class consciousness.
The final claim I will deal with hear is one of the key aspects to the critique: the fact that the Green's party is not an 'activist party' (page 20).
This, they say, might not seem important to "armchair leftists" but is rather telling.
The Greens have, according to SAlt, almost no presence whatsoever in the "union movement and on the campuses" (page 20).
One of the key examples used is related to some young Greens members trying to drum up support for the party during the election, and not over any issues in particular: not in relation to the NT intervention, not in relation to gay marriage rights, not in relation to Palestinian solidarity and not in relation to labor bureaucrats in the unions (page 20).
The first response I make to this is: and?
The second is: of what significance is that to anything at all, ever?
The socialist alternative claims that it out numbers Greens members on campuses "at least 4 to 1" (this claim is not sourced).
What is important here is what the Socialist Alternative claims the Greens ought to be focusing on.
But what about the issues that are actually affecting students? Why does the Socialist alternative negate the ridiculous costs of universities? The underfunding by the government? The fact that most students are forced to work as casuals, where they have absolutely no rights whatsoever in the work place (the rate of casualisation is closed to 30% of the work force in Australia, see the ABS)? Why don't they mention anything about the ABCC when most universities right now are going under some form of reconstruction, where there are construction workers on site who are affected by the draconian measures of the ABCC? Why not bring up the fact that new austerity plans have been leaked in Adelaide, and there have been demonstrations against these plans? Why not relate students to other students? Why not bring up the exorbitant fees international students are forced to pay, and the precarious work they're forced into (whilst being denied the right to work for more than 20 hours a week while at university, and also being denied the right to student travel [this is a big issue in Sydney where transport prices are through the roof])?
There are a plethora of issues that could be brought up to raise student awareness and build solidarity between workers and students.
But these issues aren't important by the sounds of it.
On top of that, I'm not trying to suggest the issues SAlt mentioned aren't important, but that you can't just show up onto a campus and ram down a message that students wont relate to - even if there are four of you there.
To conclude, it is quite apparent that when this theoretical journal was published, it wasn't reviewed very thoroughly. There seems to be a relatively overt abandonment of Marxist conceptions of class, a fetishism of the activist circus and a peculiar approach to "rebuilding the left" in Australia.