“Give me the above quote any day over any static, ahistorical ‘analysis’ by Readers Digest (!) that suggests that

common workers are apathetic to hard political ideology

In fact, as far as I recall its one of the main points of Marxism that workers take up the struggle because to a large degree material circumstances force them to, rather than them having any allegiance to one particular ideology or another.”

Chav, I am certainly interested in something Lenin said last century:

“To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation. Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible.â€?

Okay people, now let’s step across to the other extreme of the political spectrum on the Right and see what they’ve had to say last century:

According to an analysis titled ‘ Fascism for Idiots’ published on the CANIS IRATUS blog:

“Fascism is both utopian and fatalistic. It’s utopian because it promises to resolve all differences and disputes, producing harmony and perfect human solidarity. It’s fatalistic because it believes itself to be the unavoidable future; the logical outcome of a natural or historical process – a process which it variously refers to as Nature, Evolution, History, Spirit, or Will.”

Okay, let’s return to the centre and summarise.

On the Left, you’ve had the Marxists who spoke of “a revolutionary situation, independent of the will”. On the Right, you had Hitler’s “triumph of the will”.

I don’t have the space or time here to do large analysis on the differences and similarities between the two ideas, except to summarise both ideas as “the collective world out there” and “individual will”. Then point out that both ideologies have a history of sidestepping not only the concepts of open democratic societies and individual liberty, but also sidestepping the concepts of scope (by attempting to treat everything as one big game with one big outcome: solidarity between all humans that matter to the cause) and complexity (by imposing oversimplification of reality on individuals).

Much better than two “proven unsuccessful” ideologies of the twentieth century is to reconnect the “situation out there” and “individual will” by “creating a world of our own”.

I do believe a single paragraph from Michael E. Gerber’s small business development guide ‘The E-Myth’ singlehandedly exposes these old ideologies of Marxism and Far-Right-exploited Nationalism as incapable of resulting in constructive change. While Gerber’s interpretation of “creating a world of our own” is limited to establishing our own small business, I think you can apply the same thinking to a broader context. Gerber writes on Page 264:

“We can only change our lives and create a world of our own if we first understand how such a world is constructed, how it works and the rules of the game. And that means we have to study the world and how we are in it. And in order to do that we need a world small enough in scope and complexity to study.”

I think the problem with so much political ideology is that the settled or established opinions, belief, or principles held by “big ideas people” actually frustrate the effort of partitioning complex problems into smaller problems that are small enough for the individual to challenge without their every movement being micro-managed from a central location.

Yes, of course that’s “potentially” a sweeping generalisation of “big ideas people” and so is my point about “common workers being apathetic to hard political ideology”.

Nonetheless, I do assert the raw data collected by Galaxy Poll supports my interpretation of so-called ahistorical analysis by Readers Digest. I also find my attempt to link the Marxist and Fascist uses of the word “will” to be quite a revelation for me (I only researched this tonight and discovered a potential connection between the two).

Instead of pointing to some dogma or another as an absolute first principle for living, I’m simply “weighing evidence”, then “asserting or contesting a position”, while carefully selecting the scope and complexity of my study (something that can probably never be perfected in any case).

Given I wasn’t born just before The Industrial Revolution and Chav wasn’t born just before the Russian Revolution, it’s worth observing the advice of Nick Ewbank, president, History Teachers’ Association of Australia who wrote on Crikey:

“One of the strengths of history as a discipline is that it is contestable – you have to weigh evidence to find out “what really happenedâ€?, not merely read a textbook interpretation of it.

Yes, facts (and dates) are important. Yes, there should be some ‘established certainties’. But there are spaces between those certainties – and those spaces are often the most interesting, the most thought provoking – to explore with students.

History isn’t a dry and remote subject. It should be examined for what it can suggest about the world which we inhabit now, as well as the world that was inhabited in the past – and it may even have something to say about the future!”

…From Justin

We might disagree about religion but we are as one on the issue of AWAs.

They’ve got to go. Terrific cross-post Trevor …

BTW, when are we going to get to crow about discuss the latest galaxy poll?

BearCave has already got the ball rolling …

If the “union bosses� talking point is supposed to shake loose supposedly “soft� support for Labor, it has failed spectacularly. Most of those who said they were “less inclined� to vote Labor were already Coalition voters, and the unionists’ behaviour has in fact strengthened support for Labor.

Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible.”

-Lenin.

Give me the above quote any day over any static, ahistorical ‘analysis’ by Readers Digest (!) that suggests that

common workers are apathetic to hard political ideology

.
In fact, as far as I recall its one of the main points of Marxism that workers take up the struggle because to a large degree material circumstances force them to, rather than them having any allegiance to one particular ideology or another.

According to the Herald Sun:

“Voters were largely unconcerned by the bullying actions of union officials such as West Australian heavyweight Joe McDonald”

20 per cent of voters were now less inclined to vote Labor, but another 67 per cent said they would not be influenced by McDonald’s actions.

That’s over two-thirds of voters who refuse to allow concern about Industrial Relations to be reduced to a single-issue, namely, concern about “union bosses”.

For this and other reasons, Labor continue to dominate the opinion polling, despite all the Canberra-centric predication that Howard is now leading on issues and has Kevin Rudd on the back foot.

For example, consider what Matt Price from The Australian recently wrote on 23 June:

“Kevinism will commit greater funding for universities, scrap loathed Work Choices reforms and take global warming more seriously than the Prime Minister.”

These broad positives may buffer Rudd against concerns about Labor’s union links and the Government’s formidable economic credentials. But, broadly, I think the opposite view prevails among colleagues, pundits and many political insiders. Most people believe on balance the Coalition will probably survive.”

Most people?

Or…most people in Canberra?

Hang on Mr. Price – let’s consider the issue of union bullying versus the issues of I.R. in a broader context, along with education and the environment.

The raw data is suggesting that voters are far more apathetic about the “union bosses” and therefore more active about issues that involve the broader population.

While I’m not assuming Kevin Rudd has an easy task in winning the next federal election, I do assert that John Howard, Joe Hockey and the Mainstream Media are fooling themselves if they think the intervention of union bosses is all that could ever cause a rift between business interest and the worker’s interest.

A Reader’s Digest book has a chapter about The Industrial Revolution that states:

“Relationships (between employer and employee) came to be defined in terms of class, a relatively new concept in the description of societies. Employers owned the means of production: Workers produced. Marx and Engels discussed the situation in ideological terms, forecasting the eventual victory of the employees. The workers themselves, however, were less concerned with ideology than they were with mutual interests. More concerned with improving the workers’ lot – and with collective bargaining – than they were with ideas or with the acquisition of power.”

Another way to understand the concerns of the common worker is to apply game theory definitions: the common worker isn’t interested in a zero-sum game like Communism which requires the downfall of Capitalism just so that the worker can win.

Is WorkChoices more concerned with cooperation between players or is it simply allowing one side of a political spectrum to win points against the other side?

According to reader response comments posted on An Onymous Lefty, the editor of The Australian recently uses the term “dialectical Marxist maze” against his ideological opponents on the Left.

Such hard ideological tooing and froing between Left and Right is exposed as futile when Galaxy data only “reaffirms” a common worker attitude that Reader’s Digest insists has existed since the Industrial Revolution: common workers are apathetic to hard political ideology and instead open to bargaining for mutual benefit.

If a rift now exists between employer and employee, it isn’t because of Unions. Rather, it is because Prime Minister John Howard chose to make Industrial Relations a big issue during this term of Government, without putting “mutual interest” at the heart of the matter.

…From Justin

Minister Abbott and Andrews somehow missed those encyclicals.

The above Catholic position was reiterated by Bishop Kevin Manning:

The position is plainly put in Populorum Progressio:

“when two parties are in very unequal positions, their mutual consent alone does not guarantee a fair contract: the rule of free consent remains subservient to the demands of the natural law”.

In other words, just because something is agreed does not guarantee that it is fair!

The ACCER took the same line in 2005. Some other churches have been critical as well – not surprising when the majority of welfare support services available in this country are ultimately auspiced by one church or another.