Comments on: The PM and Il Santo Padre; and world capitalism

By: Blogreader

Blogreader — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:17:26 +0000

“…the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, … These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market,…”

Amen, Ben.

At a time when increased automation of the production process demands increased income redistribution (if we are to avoid further wealth concentration and sustain a consumer economy), states engage in a “competitive advantage” race to the bottom.
With an increased range of industries to support, consumers need more income, not less.

By: Nickws

Nickws — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:22:31 +0000

Yes, silly Rerum Novarum. It’s obviously proto-fascism.

Anyone you can’t see that is some kind of apologist who opposes the principles of True Freedom. Fap fap fap.

(And wtf is with all those footnotes for some guy called Matt? I bet he was a real statist motherfucker—only a vicious strongman goes around calling himself by one name.)

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:21:36 +0000

Huggybunny is not being unfair @ 8, but spot on. Since the late 19th century Catholic social/economic policy comes much closer to early Fascism (with its corporatist bent) than to laissez-faire social or economic liberalism. It has always sought stable, hierarchic class relations for a start, which libertarians and lefties alike hold to be both impossible and undesirable.

So by all means have an alliance of convenience with the old misogynists, but don’t mistake them for your friends.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:24:58 +0000

Catholicism… whatever. I tend to like my archaic rituals a little more spicey. Bring back the Bacchae I say.
.
On the topic of the Pope’s concerns, the BWIs during the reign of neoliberalism tended to mandate certain policies for countries requiring aid. Basically no public spending, no regulation, no tariffs etc.
.
If you were charitable you’d say these were the result of a certain misconceptions about economic history, exposed by Ha-Joon Chang, and that, to my astonishment are still subscribed to by people who should know better. This boils down to the idea that laissez-faire leads to the development of viable domestic industrialization. It doesn’t.
.
If one was less charitable one would simply say the BWIs are instruments of Imperium. (Nooooo.)
.
Anyway Neoliberlism’s fading. American hegemony has taken a beating and China seems set to be the World’s creditor. This will mean that they will get a seat at the table. Whether this changgs things for workers in developing countries remains to be seen. I doubt it. I think the PRC is looking to use Africa the way the West used Asia.
.
I do suppose that the road to emancipation will be the same one trod by everyone – organized labour, civil conflict, repression and then victory. I imagine that the more forward thinking unionists are considering globalising labour as capital has been globalized?
.
In any event I do find it amusing that the Pope speaks out against 3rd world poverty whilst mandating an absolute morality guaranteed to perpetuate it. Amusing, not surprising. As a Catholic myself I’m all too familiar with just how full of shit Holy Mother Church really is. But then it’s a religion innit.

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:51:11 +0000

Thanks Nickws

I’m not sure if Paul B thinks this way, but there’s a tendency in some quarters to feel that anyone (DLP, NCC, ALP right, etc) who was anti-communist, must have been anti-worker, or worse. Fascist perhaps?

That seems simplistic and wrong-headed to me. Plenty of folk who wanted workers’ advancement saw communism as a dead-end, and abhorred CPA methods. They may have observed CPA tactics up close in their own union (in other words they had no need of the “capitalist press” to persuade them something was rotten in the state of Moscow).

I’m going by what I’ve read about 1930s-1960s Australia, including laudatory biographies of CPA leading lights, reminiscences by CPA and ALP leading lights, etc. Many quite revealing and self-critical.

I just can’t buy this “CPA-good, all-their-opponents-evil” mindset. More accuracy and nuance, I’d like to see that! And incidentally, I don’t think Santamaria or Evatt or Menzies or Mannix were blameless.

But I must check my facts with Mr Molotov……….

By: Nickws

Nickws — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:32:09 +0000

Santamaria’s ‘rural socialism’ was no such thing. He was much closer to the Fascist doctrines of Mussolini and Franco. They ain’t socialism.

Er, Paul, you don’t think the ideals of Santa’s National Catholic Rural Movement could just as easily be compared to William Morris’ News From Nowhere as to the falangists?

Also, haven’t you heard of Godwin’s Law? Okay, the post-split ALP orthodoxy was breaching Godwins forty years before the www was invented, what with all the talk of the DLP being fascists—but LP comments threads aren’t really governed by ALP orthodoxy, now are they?

Cobber, I’ve read a lot of what you write here, and I’m convinced your dominant theme is your beef with the fact that socialism was always a weak & largely ignored philosophy within the workers party/unions here in Oz. The Groupers and the Movement were never particularly anti-socialist—they didn’t create the antipathy towards that ideology, it was always there.

Though I suppose the DLP became the perfect whipping boy for a `Popular Front’ type Left organisation which included some actual socialists (though very militantly anti-fabian socialists, at that.)

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:12:42 +0000

And I ask politely: is Gollan likely to provide an accurate rendering of Santamaria’s social and political views? He may, I’m just not sure.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:25:25 +0000

Santamaria’s ‘rural socialism’ was no such thing. He was much closer to the Fascist doctrines of Mussolini and Franco. They ain’t socialism.
(At least, that’s the impression I got from Gollan’s Revolutionaries and reformists.
Wonder how B16 would react if Liberation theology raised its head again in South America? As I understand it, the Vatican stamped out this Marxist version of Christianity.

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:22:02 +0000

Speaking now as a non-Catholic, it has been pointed out to me that the “social teachings” of the Catholic church have often encompassed quite critical views on raw capitalism. I find B16′s excerpt unsurprising.

OT but Santa is such a temptation!! BA Santamaria had (apparently, early on) a yearning for some kind of idyllic, communal, rural ‘socialism’ (not industrial, not proletarian-based). I’m told there were even small groups living in Gippsland, trying to live out these ideas. Vague ideals, perhaps.

This is pre-Movement I think. Santamaria, after the NCC days, seemed to take all sorts of positions that might surprise anyone who subscribed to a simple NCC/anticommunist/anti-ALP/pro-Liberal reading of his political persona.

The Catholic church is – how you say? – “a very broad Church” !!

By: Tom R

Tom R — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:51:41 +0000

Taken as a social fact, hundreds of millions of people on this planet regard this bloke’s statements as the voice of God.

I don’t agree with much bin Laden says, but if he speaks for millions of Muslims, I’d be a dill to shut it out.