Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:05:34 +1000 (EST) From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Staying focussed >And to Gary - your smugness is well earned. Two little questions: > >(1) is Howard's reticence a sign that domestic election considerations >outweigh the economic rationalism of a life-time - or just evidence that >Howard's racialist filth circa 1987 was sincere, and that, like the >coalition he leads, he is half reactionary conservative, half radical >ecorat (a balancing act that can't be comfortable to negotiate for man or >government)? Rob this is actually a very deep question. Howard is two people. He is your classic little petty bourgeois motivated above all by the need to stamp on the working-class and to grovel to the powerful. But sometimes he actually forgets his positon in life. It is as if he genuinely believes that Australia is a dmocracy and that as the elected leader he should lead. But he has had a lot of this knocked out of him lately. I like Poulantzas' distinction here between the hegemonic bloc - capital - and those who reign - i.e. Howard and his petty bourgeois mates. I thought it was very significant that Howard of all the people in his government has actually made the least out of his political position. He owns the fewest shares apparently. So to repeat he is a genuine petty bourgeois who is anxious to rule in the national interest. This is code of course for the interests of the capitalist class. His 87 speech calling for "one Australia" i.e. a white Australia was from the heart. Similarly his recent call to integrate the battlers i.e. the working-class into the Coalition is also sincerely meant in that he seeks to replace the traditional leaders of the working class with his own party. He is also pushing a whig view of Australian history i.e. history as progress. It is these ideological gestures ( e.g. his attack on political correctness) that make him such an interesting politician. Well mildly interesting. But as always when his non-sunchronous inclinations are opposed to ecorat or the interests of the powerful he will choose the latter. > >(2) Can Hanson's pre-eminence survive an economic rationalist adviser? >Beyond the racialism in her speech, and even informing it, there was much >anti-ecorat, public interventionist, nationalist, protectionist stuff. >Surely, that too is a significant constituent of her popularity? I agree here Bob. Her racism was popular but so also was her economic nationalist program. Her popularity will collapse if she starts pushing economic rationalism. It seems to me that shw may well turn out to be the flash in the pan. Australia has yet to produce its Le Pen, ti would seem. take care Gary --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005