|
October 22, 2005
In an article referred to in the previous post on the current debate about the renewal of the ALP, David McKnight refers to his book, Beyond Right and Left. He says that this text is:
".. an exploration of what has happened to the Left and how we arrived at the state we are in at the beginning of the 21 st century. The book therefore explores what has happened to the intellectual foundation for the set of ideas which we still broadly conceive as making up what might be called a progressive outlook."
Good. We need such an account. David's account is one that argues against the view that our outdated notion that politics can still be described as a Left-Right conflict. We are in a political space beyond left and right. Though I'm not sure that we can talk about 'the Left' these days.
How does he argue his case? David's argument about neo-liberalism is one that I find to be very plausible. He says that the economic reforms under a neo-liberal mode of governance (my language) during the 1980s were designed:
"...to set the market mechanism in place not just in the economy but in the wider society. When you put the market in charge of an industry, or a university or a community then you begin to transform the values of that industry, university of community, and more importantly you transform the social bonds between people. In the society more generally what you do is to promote the rise of commercial values in place of older social and moral values. The slow but decisive permeation of commercial values into areas far removed from the economy may turn out to be the most insidious and radical consequences of all. Indirectly, and in reaction, this is fuelling a growing desire by many people for a values-based politics, not grounded in commercial values."
Spot on. He is acutely aware that rise of the political ideas associated with economic liberalism are one of the most significant political changes of the last 25 years and these ideas have deep roots because they are deeply appealing notions to many people today -- because are built on a material abundance and consumer choice. The yet to be published but much heralded IR reforms by the Howard Government carry this market process further. I would argue that conservatism is such a value-based politics. Conservatism stands for older social and moral values that are not grounded in market values.
David says that:
".. two very interesting things flow from this radicalization of society through the market mechanism. First, the most effective critique is based not on the growth of economic inequality (in fact the market, by and large, spurs the growth of productivity). The most effective and radial critique is based on the radical and destructive social effects caused by markets. That is, you attack the fundamental logic of the radical Right: the promotion of greater productivity in the economy, based on the destruction of society.
Secondly, given that the free market Right is now a radical force, the most effective ground for their opponents is now is as a conservative force -- but conservative in a new and special sense which includes many progressive values."
I concur that a critique based on the destructive social effects caused by markets is an effective one. But how is a progressive critique going to be different from a conservative one? Consider the appeal to the family and family values. David mentions Anglician Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen, critical response to the federal government's new IR laws He states that:
Jensen said he was concerned about the 'need for preserving shared time for children, families, relationships for all Australians. That's what life is about, not merely the economy. Without shared time we may as well be robots.' Jensen's way of framing the issue is very instructive. He poses the conflict as one of values -- between the instrumental cold logic of the economy and productivity --and between the human values represented by the personal and social relationships. To put it at its highest, this conflict is between the market and the sacred and between the values inherent in each.
David is aware that most powerful arguments against the neo-liberal, free market ideas represented in the IR. changes are coming from the churches and not from the labour movement and the cultural Left. So where does that leave a lefty critique of the free market? Repeating the conservative arguments?
David does not adress this. Is there not a difference between the conservative and lefty critique of the negative effects of the free market? Is this not an important point to address for those concerned with the renewal of the ALP and the left? Or those who desire to reframe progressive politics as a movement based on values? It is an important point because most of the ALP (ie., the right-wing, union-based bruvvers) are no different from the social conservatives around values.
|
