Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:12:35 +1000 (EST)
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Australian racism


1. Reply  to Mick and swidespipe at Adam (If he can call me a vulgar Marxist
I can call him an...)


I tend to agree with most of what Mick says in this report.  The
disagreements with Adam really have to do with notions of determination and
totality. He coming from a  semi-anarchistic tradition is rather weak on the
notion of determination of the superstructure by the base. Adam I think
seems to be working from a notion of power, where the ruling class will do
anything and almost can do anything to maintain their class rule even if
that means destroying the very basis of that rule.

This is  a big subject and it needs the kind of careful analysis that I
cannot give it now.  I do accept though that the ruling class can go for a
ground zero option, after all they did select Hitler.  But I repeat that in
this instance they were faced with the abolition of private property.  

Overall on the question of determination I tend to a rather Raymond
Williams' version where the base sets limits and creates tendencies rather
than writes the superstructure.  I am of course not a Kautskyite, but Adam
knows that.

But I do repeat that the room to manoeuvre of the ruling class here is
limited by the economic links with Asia. True as Tony points out this
applies more to certain fractions of the hegemonic bloc e.g. those in
tourism, and in certain export industries such as tertiary education.

2.  What Howard represents - the non-synchronous. (The phrase comkes from
Bloch and he used it to refer to groups who belonged to pre-capitalist
social formations)

Fundamentally my point is that Howard represents the non-synchronous within
Australia.  But that this grouping is fundamentally racist to the core and
it makes a very tricky instrument for  the ruling class to use.  Many of the
calls from business leaders for Howard to end the debate were sincere.  They
also reflected his relative autonomy vis a vis the ruling class.  But with
me the emphasis is always on the *relative*  and never on the *autonomy.

Now I want Mick if possible to comment specifically on the working class
support that Hanson gets.  After all Ipswich is not middle class by any
means, yet they voted her in with a huge swing.  Specifically I would like
to know if Mick thinks that the "non-synchronous" in Australia could include
the middle class and the working class or large sections of it?

In Germany the non-synchronous were principally landless peasants - often
the victims of the Social-Democratic Govt in Prussia.  Are we seeing the
working class victims of Labor join the far right.  Does Mick have any
opinion of Peter Botsman's statements following the election that it was no
longer possible to nominate the class basis of any of  the major parties?


3. The situation in Australia now. (Manoeuvering for a trade bloc?)


Mick makes much of the racist path that the Howard govt has taken.  he is
correct here IMO. I also agree that they are walking a tight rope.  

Rob's point about the media and Murdoch's Asian connections are also well
taken.  The first attack on Howard was made by Sheridan of the Australian.
He savaged Howard's first performance on his visit to Japan.

Now what about reaction from abroad?  the ruling classes in Asia could not
give a flying fuck about racism in Australia.  But it does give them a
weapon to use against Australia.  That is what is behind Malaysian
complaints about insults to their students in Australia.  

At stake here is the manoeuvering to form trade blocs one with America
(APEC) and the other, as yet not talked about openly, without America.
Should the second bloc emerge as a serious possibility, there  would be a
tremendous struggle around racism.    My prediction would be that the
Australian ruling class would  opt for Asia and Hanson would be shut up
permanently.


But in the mean time, I think that Howard will as Mick says attack
immigration numbers.  He will also try and e the kind of noises that keep
the racists happy.  Thus it was significant that  he picked up the phrase
"Aboriginal industry".


4. How to fight Hanson and Howard.  The need for a moral critique

Over all we are in for a pretty disgusting time.  And in this context I feel
that our attack on racism should have  as strong moral as well  as a
cognitive component.  thus it is not  enough to prove that Hanson lies or is
ignorant.  she is after all using language  performatively and not
referentially. In other words she is an ideologue and is scarcely vulnerable
to facts.  What she is weak on is the moral high ground.  I  keep repeating
that she is evil and it does have an impact.

Marxists of course are notoriously reluctant ever since the founder to use
moral arguments.  Big mistake.


regards

Gary

>



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---