Critics from within and the Left - Part 2
by Max Bound

There is need to examine, or to bring to the surface again the reality that there are vast inequities which appear as endemic to any form of capitalism. Marx provided insights and developed methodologies which facilitate such an examination. These insights and methodologies can be both utilised and critically examined in a process of seeking to change present day society. What we need to be about is an examination of the world as it actually is, i.e. a world substantially dominated by capitalism and capitalist ideologies. At the same time we need to examine the view which has been expressed, by leading Marxist thinkers in Australia, to the effect that there are problems in Marx's economic model, in so far as that model was a prescriptive one in economic terms.

Were the problems in the old Soviet Union and in todays China merely problems of historical circumstance, cultural inheritance, and the problems arising from long term bureaucratic structures? Or are there problems inherent to trying to build an economy which does not include a market, or even some form of private enterprise? Undoubtedly the existence of a still powerful capitalist world created problems including threats of invasion, and in the young Soviet Union, actual invasion by capitalist nations. War in any circumstances is a brutal, murderous business, and has socio-economic as well as cultural and other human consequences. Modern war is also a serious ecological hazard. The human costs of the triumph of capitalism in the late 20th century, outlined in part one of this article, are too dreadful for socialists to ignore the possibilities of faults in economic models for the socialist alternative.

A modern alternative social-economic model needs to contain the elements of socialist idealism. These include genuine equal opportunity for all, the right of all to a decent standard and quality of life, the right of all to control their own lives and not to be subject to economic, social-cultural or race based domination of others. A feminist perspective needs to be added to these long time socialist ideals, as does a recognition that oppression of people takes various other forms. There is also need to recognise the central place of ecological sustainability in any economic model and social approach.

The debate is about the future of all people. One of the ways in which it might be possible to involve more people in finding solutions to the problem of a future, is a contest of ideas as to the content and form of that future. Those who defend privilege , including the long standing privileges of some of the critics from within, are not noted for sharing their access to the means of circulating ideas with those who do not share their addiction to capitalism.

This reality should not prevent the democratic left from openly examining the ideas and proposals of the critics from within and seeking to work with them to win much needed immediate reforms. Energies spent in this way are likely to succeed in gaining the interest of people currently immobilised by doubts and powerlessness and help to open up the debate. The democratic left also requires its own internal debate about our positions in regard to the various issues now confronting society and how we can best make our collective contributions to the struggle for a better world.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels express their long term ideal- to quote-: "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (1848)

One and a half centuries on, J.K. Galbraith quotes another summary of Marx's idea of communism "From each according to his (sic) abilities, to each according to his (sic) needs, " And comments: "This hope, one that spread far beyond Marx, has been shown by both history and human experience to be irrelevant. For better or for worse human beings do not rise to such heights....the good society must accept men and women as they are However, this this does not lessen the need for a clear view of the forces controlling the distribution of income and of the factors forming attitudes thereon. And of how, in a wholly practical way, policy and income distribution should be framed.

There is first, the inescapable fact that the modern market economy (in the now- approved terminology) accords wealth and distributes income in a highly unequal, socially adverse and also functionally damaging fashion." (Galbraith 1996 p59-60)

Thus whilst judging Marx's ideal as unattainable Galbraith none-the-less recognises that capitalism has massive problems. As long ago as 1977, in a discussion of Keynesian theories in "The Age of Uncertainty," Galbraith finds Keynes' remedies outdated. To quote:-

"But Keynes, once a heretic, is now the prophet of the established faith. One must believe that for his remedies to work.

Inflation can be cured by having enough unemployment. However, with this cure no Keynesian can agree; the essence of the Keynesian system is that it cures unemployment. One can stop the increase in corporate prices and trade union wages by direct action. (I've long thought such action inescapable.) This does not leave the market system intact as Keynes, the conservative, had intended. It is a portent of radical change that not many wish to face.

There are other problems. Keynesian support to the economy has come to involve heavy spending for arms. This, we've seen, is blessed as sound while spending for welfare and the poor is always thought dangerous. With time, too, it has become evident that Keynesian progress can be an uneven thing: too many automobiles, too few houses; too many cigarettes, too little health care. The great cities in trouble. As these problems have obtruded, the confident years have come to an end. The age of Keynes was for a time but not for all time." (Galbraith 1977 p p 225-226),[1]

The issue arising from the the above views, for the democratic left today, is not so much whether Galbraith is right or wrong in judging Marx's ultimate aims. Only future generations will be able to answer that question. Rather it is the several obvious points of agreement with assessment of the need for "radical progressive changes" to present day capitalism. Certainly it would be difficult indeed to share his expressed optimism about the U.S. Democratic Party. But the economic policies Galbraith argues for are particularly relevant to the immediate situation. The quotes from 'The Good Society" in the first part of this article demonstrate that he is willing to discuss critical aspects of issues concerning the economic sources of social and political power, and social and economic inequity.

The social and economic problems we already have are compelling in terms of the need for change. Yet the ecological problems capitalist rapacity is causing threaten not only our physical environment but at the same time the very possibility of a decent quality of life for the young and future generations. As Galbraith pointed out in "The Good Society" "... environmental concerns, both those which are contemporary and those affecting future generations, especially the latter, are inherently in conflict with the motivating force of the market economy.." (Galbraith 1996 p84) In the 1970's Australia's own outstanding economist and public figure, the late Nugget Coombs, drew attention to this problem. And, in the concluding paragraph of his 1990 book "the Return of Scarcity" H.C. Coombs wrote-

"But we are not inescapably dependent on this flood of commodities which our economic system is designed to produce. There are conceivable lifestyles more modest in their material demands, less destructive of the physical environment- lifestyles which are simpler, whose excitements are found primarily in the human relationships they provide scope for. The search for those lifestyles is the essential task of the rising generation. Upon their success in that search will depend the future of human kind."

Nugget Coombs was well aware that the majority of people in Australia live in cities. He is obviously drawing attention to the radical changes necessary in those cities and in our country side alike. Important work has been done, by a few socially responsible planners,- in suggesting ways to restructure aspects of city life. There are the beginnings of some recognition that we cannot continue to destroy arable land and pollute our waterways. The debate about the lifestyles Coombs is suggesting needs to include recognition of the importance of what he wrote about the "flood of commodities".

The implications for the structure of our economic and social lives involved in change to a society and economic system not dependent on production of often useless and harmful commodities tend to be mind boggling. Yet there are actually many positive things to be gained in terms of quality of life, and for most people also in terms of living standards, if we are able to end the current obsession with flashy but often harmful commodities.

The greed which drives the system which can only survive, in economic terms, by producing useless commodities and weapons of war is now slowly being recognised, by some past addicts, as the horror it has always been for a large part of humanity. A more secure cooperative and peaceful world would not only be a much better place to live in; it would be much easier and vastly cheaper to sustain in both ecological and economic terms.

These are the challenges the young and the not so young actually need to face. Clearly change of such dimensions can only take place to the extent that issues are seriously researched and thought through; and to the extent people are involved in the debate about our future and action to change economic and social directions. The Millennium Political Discussion Project* will hopefully become one of the important forums for that process.