Apropos of the AWU’s Resources Super Profits Tax ad [reproduced here on LP], Peter Van Onselen has written a piece in today’s Australian warning Paul Howes of the dire consequences should he engage in that cardinal sin, appearing to advocate “class warfare”:
Normally seen by many in the Labor Party as too close to sections of the business community, Howes has received significant criticism from sections of that same business community for the advertising campaign and what they now see as the likelihood that he will be a leading figure arguing the case for the government’s tax between now and the next election.
Gosh. Imagine that. A union leader defending a Labor government.
I’m not sure what sort of dark insinuations are contained in this passage – the AWU might encounter trouble dealing with bosses? Howes’ path to parliament might be one strewn with pitfalls? Of course, it’s perfectly ok for the self same “sections of [the] business community” to run their own prominent advertising in the paper Van Onselen works for, presumably because they are not acting out of class interest but in the national interest, which, as he probably believes, is identical to the industry’s interest. That’s certainly what the mining industry would have us believe.
The whole article is premised on a very tenuous distinction between “reform” (good) and “class warfare” (bad). Bill Kelty might be surprised to learn that he’d never uttered dire threats of the consequences of de-unionisation in the mining industry, or that the Accord tradeoff of tax cuts and a social wage for wage restraint had no class dimension. Or, for that matter, that his push to reshape the union movement on industry rather than craft and occupational lines was designed, among other things, to make it a more effective vehicle for a class politics.
But, leaving aside the details of Van Onselen’s grasp of labour and political history, and indeed Kelty’s merits or otherwise as a leader of the labour movement, what I’m interested in is how the trope of “class warfare” can be invoked to delegitimise an argument. Note that it’s not an argument in itself – and it’s an absurdity if it is, as both his reasoning and the basic fact that any distributive action by the state necessarily shifts wealth from one class to another as well as impacting on individuals in the aggregate demonstrate. Maybe Van Onselen believes that progressive taxation is “class warfare”. I don’t know.
The invocation of “class warfare”, and it is that, not an argument, seeks to circumscribe the limits of what is sayable in political debate.
When did it become such a shibboleth, and would any of those who invoke it as if it’s a heresy care to explain why?
Update: Guy Beres.
I think this is just shit stirring combined with the need to fill a column. Howes is on van Onselen’s ‘Contrarians’ show each week on Sky News and anytime I’ve seen the show van Onselen agrees a lot more with Howes than he does the hardcore right-winger like a Tom Switzer or whoever.
I think this is just shit stirring combined with the need to fill a column. Howes is on van Onselen’s ‘Contrarians’ show each week on Sky News and anytime I’ve seen the show van Onselen agrees a lot more with Howes than he does the hardcore right-winger like a Tom Switzer or whoever.
I think there are two things being deployed by Van Onselen (perhaps not with conscious strategic intent):
1. The idea that “class warfare” is something which is only engaged in by the working class and its organisations – nonsense when we think of Thatcher’s long-planned assault on the UK coal miners in the 1980s, the demonstrable conspiracy to deunionise the Australian waterfront in the late 1990s, and WorkChoices.
2. Further, thet idea that those elements of the labour movement and Labor Party engaged in “class warfare” are dreadfully old-fashioned and out of step with modernising “beyond left and right” “national consensus” “reformers” of the ilk of Hawke/Keating here and Blair in the UK.
I think there are two things being deployed by Van Onselen (perhaps not with conscious strategic intent):
1. The idea that “class warfare” is something which is only engaged in by the working class and its organisations – nonsense when we think of Thatcher’s long-planned assault on the UK coal miners in the 1980s, the demonstrable conspiracy to deunionise the Australian waterfront in the late 1990s, and WorkChoices.
2. Further, thet idea that those elements of the labour movement and Labor Party engaged in “class warfare” are dreadfully old-fashioned and out of step with modernising “beyond left and right” “national consensus” “reformers” of the ilk of Hawke/Keating here and Blair in the UK.
@2 – Yes, that’s probably right, Paul.
@1 – no doubt, but it’s a trope that recurs and recurs, and it always seems to be deployed to mark out the boundaries of what is and is not unsayable and unthinkable.
@2 – Yes, that’s probably right, Paul.
@1 – no doubt, but it’s a trope that recurs and recurs, and it always seems to be deployed to mark out the boundaries of what is and is not unsayable and unthinkable.
How has Howes come to be the most prominent voice in the union movement?
How has Howes come to be the most prominent voice in the union movement?
Isn’t it another way of discrediting an argument by assigning it to a category of arguments that are unacceptable by definition, without having to engage with the argument on its merits? It’s similar to the way many blog commenters frequently and inaccurately dismiss arguments as ‘ad hominem’ and therefore unworthy of a serious response.
The ‘class warfare’ sneer seems closely allied to the ‘politics of envy’ tag; both imply that the arguments have no substance on the grounds that the proponents are just jealous. It’s a total non sequitur of course, even if true, but it seems to persuade some people.
Isn’t it another way of discrediting an argument by assigning it to a category of arguments that are unacceptable by definition, without having to engage with the argument on its merits? It’s similar to the way many blog commenters frequently and inaccurately dismiss arguments as ‘ad hominem’ and therefore unworthy of a serious response.
The ‘class warfare’ sneer seems closely allied to the ‘politics of envy’ tag; both imply that the arguments have no substance on the grounds that the proponents are just jealous. It’s a total non sequitur of course, even if true, but it seems to persuade some people.
@4 – I wonder why it does work to persuade, though, Ken? That’s what I’m interested in teasing out.
@4 – I wonder why it does work to persuade, though, Ken? That’s what I’m interested in teasing out.
It’s just a fight over money, the same as if two companies are fighting over money, which happens all the time. Class has nothing to do with it.
It’s just a fight over money, the same as if two companies are fighting over money, which happens all the time. Class has nothing to do with it.
When the Right accuse the Left of pursuing “class warfare”, its like when the Left accuse the Right of being “neo-liberals”. Since the term can mean anything you want it to mean, but means something bad, its a handy all-purpose insult for any occasion.
When the Right accuse the Left of pursuing “class warfare”, its like when the Left accuse the Right of being “neo-liberals”. Since the term can mean anything you want it to mean, but means something bad, its a handy all-purpose insult for any occasion.
Because everyone knows that class warfare is Marxist, Marxism is evil, and communism lost the battle with capitalism.
Because everyone knows that class warfare is Marxist, Marxism is evil, and communism lost the battle with capitalism.
Academic rigour has never been a strong point with Associate Professor Van Onselen. Not quite up to the mastery of Professor Ian Plimer yet, but give him time.
What is it with conservative academics?
Academic rigour has never been a strong point with Associate Professor Van Onselen. Not quite up to the mastery of Professor Ian Plimer yet, but give him time.
What is it with conservative academics?
Mr. V O may not realise it, but by invoking the [spectre/delight/horror/right etc] of class warfare he may very well be inadvertently raising peoples’ consciousness about their working class origins and giving them a definable reason as to why bosdses can be bastards/the Liberal party always sells out to big business/the Labor Party nearly always sells out to big business etc. Far be it from to criticise Mre. VO for energising the working class against his masters. Quite franklyt, its something I would delight in.
Mr. V O may not realise it, but by invoking the [spectre/delight/horror/right etc] of class warfare he may very well be inadvertently raising peoples’ consciousness about their working class origins and giving them a definable reason as to why bosdses can be bastards/the Liberal party always sells out to big business/the Labor Party nearly always sells out to big business etc. Far be it from to criticise Mre. VO for energising the working class against his masters. Quite franklyt, its something I would delight in.
When did class warfare become so laden?
When did class warfare become so laden?
It became a winning conservative line when it was used in the schools blacklist argument, and apparently was accepted by at least the media elite, if not the public.
I say winning conservative line, because bizarrely it appears to be irreversible- so that it isn’t class warfare to argue for rich kids to have far more privileged educations than poor kids, etc.
It’s like ‘political correctness’, ‘godwin’s law’, and other lables designed to shut down actual objective consideration of an issue. At least, in practice, in the way the Orz uses it.
It became a winning conservative line when it was used in the schools blacklist argument, and apparently was accepted by at least the media elite, if not the public.
I say winning conservative line, because bizarrely it appears to be irreversible- so that it isn’t class warfare to argue for rich kids to have far more privileged educations than poor kids, etc.
It’s like ‘political correctness’, ‘godwin’s law’, and other lables designed to shut down actual objective consideration of an issue. At least, in practice, in the way the Orz uses it.
Reading the article anyone’d think Howes was arguing for this.
Well it does say “democratic socialisation” on his Party card.
Reading the article anyone’d think Howes was arguing for this.
Well it does say “democratic socialisation” on his Party card.
What Martin B said @ 8; it’s akin to adopting a pluralist perspective on the employment relationship and being sneeringly dismissed with lines like “next you’ll be talking about capital and labour”. It’s all supposed to have been discredited with the fall of the Berlin wall.
What Martin B said @ 8; it’s akin to adopting a pluralist perspective on the employment relationship and being sneeringly dismissed with lines like “next you’ll be talking about capital and labour”. It’s all supposed to have been discredited with the fall of the Berlin wall.
Just think a valuable piece like this might soon only be available to “elites” behind a great big, new, paywall.
Soon we will only be able to hear, even more indirectly, the likes of our better Hugh Morgan piously preach the virtues of not being ‘so personal’ while his cappo mate Clive Palmer dumps tip truck loads of shite on the treasurer for being a commie, socialist, bastard.
Just think a valuable piece like this might soon only be available to “elites” behind a great big, new, paywall.
Soon we will only be able to hear, even more indirectly, the likes of our better Hugh Morgan piously preach the virtues of not being ‘so personal’ while his cappo mate Clive Palmer dumps tip truck loads of shite on the treasurer for being a commie, socialist, bastard.
Oh! Dear! Are the debaters fighting again,over sausages and who makes them like mad cows in mathematical certainty!?
Oh! Dear! Are the debaters fighting again,over sausages and who makes them like mad cows in mathematical certainty!?
“Well it does say “democratic socialisation” on his Party card.”
It also says “to the extent necessary …”
“Well it does say “democratic socialisation” on his Party card.”
It also says “to the extent necessary …”
I can see why the COALition and its [media] supporters would be saying …”DON’T mention the [class] war!!”
http://www.theage.com.au/business/rich-got-richer-in-howard-years-20090820-es2v.html
“Rich got richer in Howard years TIM COLEBATCH
August 21, 2009
AUSTRALIA became markedly more unequal over the Howard years, with the top 20 per cent of income earners receiving almost half the increase in income, the Bureau of Statistics reports.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp27.pdf
“…..11.7% of all Australians [or more than one in nine Australians] were living in poverty in 2006″ [page 3]
I can see why the COALition and its [media] supporters would be saying …”DON’T mention the [class] war!!”
http://www.theage.com.au/business/rich-got-richer-in-howard-years-20090820-es2v.html
“Rich got richer in Howard years TIM COLEBATCH
August 21, 2009
AUSTRALIA became markedly more unequal over the Howard years, with the top 20 per cent of income earners receiving almost half the increase in income, the Bureau of Statistics reports.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp27.pdf
“…..11.7% of all Australians [or more than one in nine Australians] were living in poverty in 2006″ [page 3]
Mark asked:
I’m not sure that it does. Certainly, it plays to the galleries and hardens up positions on both sides. Who but an extremist favours “class warfare”? It seems so destructive and pointless, and importantly as a number have pointed out –it is unspecified so those hearing the phrase can invest almost anything they like into it — from mindless leveling down to Stalinist democide.
It’s a bit odd in this context though because RSPT isn’t about workers per se getting more from the bosses, but the population as a whole, and “our kids” are not a class in any sociological sense. It’s more like national populism, but of course, that phrase concedes ground that the opponents of RSPT don’t want to concede.
Mark asked:
I’m not sure that it does. Certainly, it plays to the galleries and hardens up positions on both sides. Who but an extremist favours “class warfare”? It seems so destructive and pointless, and importantly as a number have pointed out –it is unspecified so those hearing the phrase can invest almost anything they like into it — from mindless leveling down to Stalinist democide.
It’s a bit odd in this context though because RSPT isn’t about workers per se getting more from the bosses, but the population as a whole, and “our kids” are not a class in any sociological sense. It’s more like national populism, but of course, that phrase concedes ground that the opponents of RSPT don’t want to concede.
Liam @ 14 handy reminder there that all this bravado from the mining lobby that some of the countries they talk of moving to after leaving Oz with its risky investment climate are politically volatile and hardly risk free.
Liam @ 14 handy reminder there that all this bravado from the mining lobby that some of the countries they talk of moving to after leaving Oz with its risky investment climate are politically volatile and hardly risk free.
I agree with Fran. I’m not sure it does actually resonate with the public in the same way that the media owners and their chosen puppets expect, not unlike some other handy labels (Social Networking = Facebook/Twitter for example). I think it signifies the political position of the source and the cloak of pseudo academic jargon is used to represent the writer and publisher as authority sources.
I agree with Fran. I’m not sure it does actually resonate with the public in the same way that the media owners and their chosen puppets expect, not unlike some other handy labels (Social Networking = Facebook/Twitter for example). I think it signifies the political position of the source and the cloak of pseudo academic jargon is used to represent the writer and publisher as authority sources.
“Peter Van Onselen has written a piece in today’s Australian warning Paul Howes of the dire consequences should he engage in that cardinal sin, appearing to advocate “class warfare”…”
Sounds to me like Van Onselen has been watching too much ‘Hannity” on Fox News. Perhaps it’s required viewing?
N’
“Peter Van Onselen has written a piece in today’s Australian warning Paul Howes of the dire consequences should he engage in that cardinal sin, appearing to advocate “class warfare”…”
Sounds to me like Van Onselen has been watching too much ‘Hannity” on Fox News. Perhaps it’s required viewing?
N’
Patricia WA @21, I’m just waiting for some deferred mining projects to be claimed as entirely due to the Resources Rent Tax.
“We are leaving them, and never coming back, thanks to the ratbag Oz gummint, etc, etc…”
Or perhaps they will just pack up their ore deposits and mining equipment, and take them off to these mythical other better countries, so that they can mine them there?
Patricia WA @21, I’m just waiting for some deferred mining projects to be claimed as entirely due to the Resources Rent Tax.
“We are leaving them, and never coming back, thanks to the ratbag Oz gummint, etc, etc…”
Or perhaps they will just pack up their ore deposits and mining equipment, and take them off to these mythical other better countries, so that they can mine them there?
On RN this evening some mining industry talking head was saying how the Petroleum Resource tax had sent deep water oil harvest projects off-shore, including to the Gulf of Mexico. Nobody mentioned dodging a bullet.
Hmmm
On RN this evening some mining industry talking head was saying how the Petroleum Resource tax had sent deep water oil harvest projects off-shore, including to the Gulf of Mexico. Nobody mentioned dodging a bullet.
Hmmm
Fran @25, I’m just waiting to see the final all-in cost for that BP well.
Might make the resources tax look like a walk in the park?
Fran @25, I’m just waiting to see the final all-in cost for that BP well.
Might make the resources tax look like a walk in the park?
Agreed – the “class war” references are complete tosh.
Agreed – the “class war” references are complete tosh.
Yes, an interesting problem to consider:whether class politics is redundant as claimed by the Right, or whether it is another non-sequitor like political correctness, ad hominem and Godwin’s Law, as armagny mentions. Usually it is thrown up to avoid debate.
And does it have any effect? I think maybe it has in the past, but perhaps it is dwindling, due to Howard and Thatcher managing to reverse progressive gains. People are waking up to the fact that despite all the media hype the majority of working people are worse off.
Maybe it’s just me but I’m coming round after having a few years in the past of thinking class politics was dead. One symptom is that I’ve reread a lot of Frank Hardy stories in recent months. At one stage I thought his politics was irrelevant to today, but now I think he makes a lot of sense. And of course he’s a first class yarn spinner.
Yes, an interesting problem to consider:whether class politics is redundant as claimed by the Right, or whether it is another non-sequitor like political correctness, ad hominem and Godwin’s Law, as armagny mentions. Usually it is thrown up to avoid debate.
And does it have any effect? I think maybe it has in the past, but perhaps it is dwindling, due to Howard and Thatcher managing to reverse progressive gains. People are waking up to the fact that despite all the media hype the majority of working people are worse off.
Maybe it’s just me but I’m coming round after having a few years in the past of thinking class politics was dead. One symptom is that I’ve reread a lot of Frank Hardy stories in recent months. At one stage I thought his politics was irrelevant to today, but now I think he makes a lot of sense. And of course he’s a first class yarn spinner.
Don, I haven’t read any Frank Hardy. What works were you referring to and in what order to read, please?
Don, I haven’t read any Frank Hardy. What works were you referring to and in what order to read, please?
VO is just using a familiar rhetorical device that is often employed by those seeking to defend the status quo distribution of income/rents/opportunities. Use of the term “the politics of envy” serves the same function. The person using it is hoping to delegitimise the opponent without having to engage properly with their argument. Whether it works or not (in the sense of persudading those that have not otherwise made up their mind) depends largely on whether the implied redistribution is seen to be fair or not. IMHO the government’s main problem with the RSPT is that too many senior ministers don’t understand it well enough to be effective advocates. The coalition will focus on the line that the new tax will undermine prosperity. That growth and investment in mining is and has been good for everyone. Labor has to get across the message that the tax will do little to reduce mining investment and is both an efficient and fair way of broadening the benefits of the mining boom. I’m not sure they are doing as well as they could be. But then, I’m not surprised, because their advocacy in favour of the CPRS was terrible.
VO is just using a familiar rhetorical device that is often employed by those seeking to defend the status quo distribution of income/rents/opportunities. Use of the term “the politics of envy” serves the same function. The person using it is hoping to delegitimise the opponent without having to engage properly with their argument. Whether it works or not (in the sense of persudading those that have not otherwise made up their mind) depends largely on whether the implied redistribution is seen to be fair or not. IMHO the government’s main problem with the RSPT is that too many senior ministers don’t understand it well enough to be effective advocates. The coalition will focus on the line that the new tax will undermine prosperity. That growth and investment in mining is and has been good for everyone. Labor has to get across the message that the tax will do little to reduce mining investment and is both an efficient and fair way of broadening the benefits of the mining boom. I’m not sure they are doing as well as they could be. But then, I’m not surprised, because their advocacy in favour of the CPRS was terrible.
Elise
I heard last night that the slick was now 16 K long, 5K wide and hundreds of metres deep, now that the dispersants had got to work. There was the promise of massive anoxia … fabulous.
I’ve heard figures of $14billion quoted but I don’t think anyone really knows.
Really, there should be no deep sea drilling and ideally there would be no transport of crude oil over water. Risk and public reward just don’t stack up. In a world closer to the ideal than this one, large quantities of human harvested oil would never get near water at all.
Elise
I heard last night that the slick was now 16 K long, 5K wide and hundreds of metres deep, now that the dispersants had got to work. There was the promise of massive anoxia … fabulous.
I’ve heard figures of $14billion quoted but I don’t think anyone really knows.
Really, there should be no deep sea drilling and ideally there would be no transport of crude oil over water. Risk and public reward just don’t stack up. In a world closer to the ideal than this one, large quantities of human harvested oil would never get near water at all.
{OT warning}
Mr van Onselen’s recent references to “parallel universes” were also scientifically suspect, and when he threw in the author of “Flatland” [a 19th Cent. attempt to explain how a 4th dimension in space would relate to our 3 dimensions, by using a 3 dimension: 2 dimension analogy], his credibility nose-dived into a very flat land.
{OT warning}
Mr van Onselen’s recent references to “parallel universes” were also scientifically suspect, and when he threw in the author of “Flatland” [a 19th Cent. attempt to explain how a 4th dimension in space would relate to our 3 dimensions, by using a 3 dimension: 2 dimension analogy], his credibility nose-dived into a very flat land.
Vanessa, try “The Outcasts of Foolgarah”. Hilarious, and pertinent to this thread I think, although it’s a long time since I’ve read it.
Vanessa, try “The Outcasts of Foolgarah”. Hilarious, and pertinent to this thread I think, although it’s a long time since I’ve read it.
Vanessa, can’t go past Power Without Glory.
Vanessa, can’t go past Power Without Glory.
I’ll bet he wasn’t against “class warfare” when Howard was introducing “No/Serf Choices” back about five years ago. It’s only “class warfare” when the cornered rabbit consequently and out of dire necessity, has the cheek to turn and fight the approaching pack.
After “liberating” “Outcasts of Foolgarah” back in the early seventies from a servo, I found that I had indeed rescued a hilarious read.
But “Power without Glory” is, as Mark says, truly a ripper.
I’ll bet he wasn’t against “class warfare” when Howard was introducing “No/Serf Choices” back about five years ago. It’s only “class warfare” when the cornered rabbit consequently and out of dire necessity, has the cheek to turn and fight the approaching pack.
After “liberating” “Outcasts of Foolgarah” back in the early seventies from a servo, I found that I had indeed rescued a hilarious read.
But “Power without Glory” is, as Mark says, truly a ripper.
I went looking for a quote by the then PM Malcolm Fraser saying, “we have to give Hawke at the ACTU something in these negotiations,” in order to illustrate the fact the old fashioned conservatives at least had the ability to quietly act for the greater good even as they publicly invoked class warfare scares back in the day, but all I could find was Leftlabour history movement types raging against Hawke. Oh well. I am such an unrealistic middle class Whitlamite when it comes to looking for something constructive from those polemicists who claim to represent the (20th century) workers.
My point still stands. Van Onselen’s anti-anti-capitalism is a sick joke in 2010, precisely because it represents a greater threat to the common good than it ever would have before Hawke and Keating. The Overton window has moved too far to the Right.
Gotta credit Howes and the modern AWU with being just the right people to invoke economic justice on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. This is what comes of being results oriented.
A question: was Kelty looking at the US example of Hoffa’s Teamsters and John Lewis’ CIO when he backed union mergers? After all, they were big, national union structures working within a federal labour movement that maintained the right to get Bolshie.
If this is the case then I think he made a slight misjudgment.
And seriously, Frank Hardy? Frank Hardy the political novelist isn’t Vance Palmer’s bottom. The Golconda Trilogy is real literature. Power Without Glory is a Stalinist editorial cartoon.
I went looking for a quote by the then PM Malcolm Fraser saying, “we have to give Hawke at the ACTU something in these negotiations,” in order to illustrate the fact the old fashioned conservatives at least had the ability to quietly act for the greater good even as they publicly invoked class warfare scares back in the day, but all I could find was Leftlabour history movement types raging against Hawke. Oh well. I am such an unrealistic middle class Whitlamite when it comes to looking for something constructive from those polemicists who claim to represent the (20th century) workers.
My point still stands. Van Onselen’s anti-anti-capitalism is a sick joke in 2010, precisely because it represents a greater threat to the common good than it ever would have before Hawke and Keating. The Overton window has moved too far to the Right.
Gotta credit Howes and the modern AWU with being just the right people to invoke economic justice on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. This is what comes of being results oriented.
A question: was Kelty looking at the US example of Hoffa’s Teamsters and John Lewis’ CIO when he backed union mergers? After all, they were big, national union structures working within a federal labour movement that maintained the right to get Bolshie.
If this is the case then I think he made a slight misjudgment.
And seriously, Frank Hardy? Frank Hardy the political novelist isn’t Vance Palmer’s bottom. The Golconda Trilogy is real literature. Power Without Glory is a Stalinist editorial cartoon.
@36 – I didn’t think anyone bar me had recently read Palmer’s Golconda trilogy, Nickws!
@36 – I didn’t think anyone bar me had recently read Palmer’s Golconda trilogy, Nickws!
Update: Guy Beres.
Update: Guy Beres.
An excerpt from Guy’s post:
An excerpt from Guy’s post:
Fran @ 31, the oil slick is a lot bigger than 16x5km. If you go here to the BBC and scroll down a bit you’ll see a graphic of the extent a few days ago. They say 5,200 sq km.
I’ve heard that that oil and the water has formed a ropy mix down to 20m, but similar stuff has been found much deeper. Not altogether clear that it’s from the same leak.
In Congressional testimony it was said that not a single recent well casing was technically compliant. The regulators and the oil people have been in bed together, literally it seems (sex and cocaine parties).
But all that will be ‘fixed’ and the drilling at depth will continue.
Fran @ 31, the oil slick is a lot bigger than 16x5km. If you go here to the BBC and scroll down a bit you’ll see a graphic of the extent a few days ago. They say 5,200 sq km.
I’ve heard that that oil and the water has formed a ropy mix down to 20m, but similar stuff has been found much deeper. Not altogether clear that it’s from the same leak.
In Congressional testimony it was said that not a single recent well casing was technically compliant. The regulators and the oil people have been in bed together, literally it seems (sex and cocaine parties).
But all that will be ‘fixed’ and the drilling at depth will continue.
Mark, that’s the tragedy. Palmer’s three novels are a greater accomplishment than PWG, a quickie exploitation book (and I’m not disputing that Hardy is an important figure).
And it not as if Legend of the Nineties is an unknown work today, it must be listed as ‘further reading’ on every Australian history syllabus from Year 11 up in this country.
My personal theory is that a thinly veiled novel about Theodore named `The Big Fellow’ just didn’t comport with either old or New Left sensibilites from the sixties onwards, the era when Jack Lang’s personal rehabilitation was so important to the intelligentsia’s understanding of Australian political narrative.
Mark, that’s the tragedy. Palmer’s three novels are a greater accomplishment than PWG, a quickie exploitation book (and I’m not disputing that Hardy is an important figure).
And it not as if Legend of the Nineties is an unknown work today, it must be listed as ‘further reading’ on every Australian history syllabus from Year 11 up in this country.
My personal theory is that a thinly veiled novel about Theodore named `The Big Fellow’ just didn’t comport with either old or New Left sensibilites from the sixties onwards, the era when Jack Lang’s personal rehabilitation was so important to the intelligentsia’s understanding of Australian political narrative.
On Frank Hardy, I endorse previous commendations of The Outcasts of Foolgarah and Power Without Glory, but must also recommend But The Dead Are Many.
On Frank Hardy, I endorse previous commendations of The Outcasts of Foolgarah and Power Without Glory, but must also recommend But The Dead Are Many.
Further to 40 above, the Courier Mail and the Brisbane Times carried this story but the Jakarta Globe has a fuller story.
That’s huge. It seems to be caused by the great depth of this spill:
The containment/mop-up effort which involves some 275 vessels has been working on the surface oil.
Further to 40 above, the Courier Mail and the Brisbane Times carried this story but the Jakarta Globe has a fuller story.
That’s huge. It seems to be caused by the great depth of this spill:
The containment/mop-up effort which involves some 275 vessels has been working on the surface oil.
Having not read Palmer, I’m interested in someone solving the following equation:
if Hardy = Steinbeck,
then Palmer = ?
Having not read Palmer, I’m interested in someone solving the following equation:
if Hardy = Steinbeck,
then Palmer = ?
I should add that any discussion of my presmise will not be entered into.
I should add that any discussion of my presmise will not be entered into.
George Eliot.
George Eliot.
Holy shit!
Holy shit!
That’s a big wrap, Nickws, and I’m off to the library on the strength of it.
(Whatever the deficiencies of FDB’s algebra)
That’s a big wrap, Nickws, and I’m off to the library on the strength of it.
(Whatever the deficiencies of FDB’s algebra)
@41 – You may be right, Nickws.
As far as I’m aware, none of the Golconda books are in print. I went to considerable trouble to hunt down quite old second hand copies, but it was well worth it.
@41 – You may be right, Nickws.
As far as I’m aware, none of the Golconda books are in print. I went to considerable trouble to hunt down quite old second hand copies, but it was well worth it.
I also recommend Hardy’s ‘The Four-Legged Lottery’.
I also recommend Hardy’s ‘The Four-Legged Lottery’.
If you rub a spot long enough and hard enough you’ll raise a blister.
Repetition of the “class war” meme is a species of blister raising. The tender spot selected is, as FB suggested, fading memories of the horrors of Soviet-style communism.
Such rhetoric may influence a few votes in some marginal electorates. As such, it does have some marginal significance.
Compared with the longstanding Australian political tradition of kicking the Red Can, the latest rhetorical outbreak is pretty piddling, however.
If you rub a spot long enough and hard enough you’ll raise a blister.
Repetition of the “class war” meme is a species of blister raising. The tender spot selected is, as FB suggested, fading memories of the horrors of Soviet-style communism.
Such rhetoric may influence a few votes in some marginal electorates. As such, it does have some marginal significance.
Compared with the longstanding Australian political tradition of kicking the Red Can, the latest rhetorical outbreak is pretty piddling, however.
From the perspective of the Right Mark is, I think, missing the point. Class warfare is bad, the Right feels, not simply because it moves money around but because it is based on a misconception – that there are, in fact, classes, rather than individuals/ It’s an extension of the classic Thatcherism – “The is no such thing as society, they are only men and women.” If there’s no such thing as society, a fortiori there are no such things as classes. There may be rich people and poor people, but these do not act (and cannot be acted upon) in any way that cannot be accounted for by individual motivation (or devotion to a common national interest). Within every poor person a rich person is yelling to be let out.
From the perspective of the Right Mark is, I think, missing the point. Class warfare is bad, the Right feels, not simply because it moves money around but because it is based on a misconception – that there are, in fact, classes, rather than individuals/ It’s an extension of the classic Thatcherism – “The is no such thing as society, they are only men and women.” If there’s no such thing as society, a fortiori there are no such things as classes. There may be rich people and poor people, but these do not act (and cannot be acted upon) in any way that cannot be accounted for by individual motivation (or devotion to a common national interest). Within every poor person a rich person is yelling to be let out.
Vanessa, other posters have listed some good recommendations. Currently, I’m reading “Retreat Australia Fair” which seems to be mix of some memoirs and some reworked earlier yarns. If you can get hold of “The Yarns of Billy Borker” and “Billy Borker Yarns Again” they’d be well worth the trouble.
Mixed among the hilarious stories there some very interesting historical facts. Frank Hardy would have shared Mark’s view on the importance of Queensland to working class history and radical ideas.
Haven’t really got into Vance Palmer but seems well worth a read on Nickws’s recommendation.
Vanessa, other posters have listed some good recommendations. Currently, I’m reading “Retreat Australia Fair” which seems to be mix of some memoirs and some reworked earlier yarns. If you can get hold of “The Yarns of Billy Borker” and “Billy Borker Yarns Again” they’d be well worth the trouble.
Mixed among the hilarious stories there some very interesting historical facts. Frank Hardy would have shared Mark’s view on the importance of Queensland to working class history and radical ideas.
Haven’t really got into Vance Palmer but seems well worth a read on Nickws’s recommendation.
Thanks so much Don and others for your enthusiastic and varied Frank Hardy recommendations. It’s odd I’ve never read him but time to rectify that now methinks.
Thanks so much Don and others for your enthusiastic and varied Frank Hardy recommendations. It’s odd I’ve never read him but time to rectify that now methinks.