|
February 16, 2006
There is a discussion about solidarity going on between Jodi over at I Cite and Adam at Before the law and various commentators. Most affirm the existence of solidarity. Jodi says, in talking about solidarity in relation to a picket line, that:
"..a solidary group is bound to a cause but not specifically bound to another; in fact, the fidelity to the cause may enable a certain unbinding of relations between persons, substituting each's relation to the Truth. Joining the picket line is an act not of solidarity with an Other but out of fidelity to the Truth of a cause."
In this post I want to talk about the absence of solidarity in the ALP: a political organization that has been built around solidarity, a cause and truth to a cause for over a century; an organization that has played a significant part in the making of Australian history.
John Button, wriitng in New Matilda, strongly argues that:
For the last eight or nine years the ALP has not been a party of ideas. More often it has been reactive and sometimes outflanked by sections of the Coalition (on tax, on asylum seekers and detention centres and on anti-terrorism legislation).And it means that the question has been asked too frequently of the party and at times the leader, 'What does the ALP stand for?'
Mark Lathan in his Latham Diaries gives one answer. He says:
The view provided by the Diaries is frightening. It reveals a poisonous and opportunistic Labor culture in which the politics of personal destruction is commonplace.... 'Brutal' and 'dysfunctional' are apt descriptions of the way in which the Labor caucus operates. Political methods of this kind, however, should be antipathetic to a social democratic organization, a so-called party of compassion. But they have become a way of life inside the ALP. (pp.5-6)
Latham argues that the culture is poisonous because it is a politics of smear and personal destruction that shatters the code of honour and respect (solidarity?) on which a working class organization should be based. There is no need fo solidarity in the modern ALP, as it has become a tightly controlled machine party whose key organizational unity has been the faction with its culture of concentrated power.
Latham goes on to say:
< em>This is the irony of a so-called labour-based party. Inside the ALP, the trade unions do not operate as a voice for worker's interests and representation. They function as part of a factional system, providing numbers resources and patronage for the dominant grouping in each State. This sishow half a dozen union secretaries can sit around the table with State party officers and map out the preselection of parliamentary candidates for a decade or so. It's a clasic oligarchy, using the tools of patronage and reward for loyalty, and punishment of non-complaince, to control the Party. (pp.6-7)
Goodbye solidarity. You can see why we need to turn to the picket line to understand what solidarity means.
|
