Re: The CPA and Aboriginal Activismwas RE: Scholarship and politics (was Re: Proyect v Woods)

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nestor there are clear parallels but the fact is I am not myself clear
enough about Lang to really give a definitive judgement, I have no clear
idea of how far his social policies went, a premier of the state within
Australia is somewhat limited to begin with and there was no real chance of
much succeeding in hindsight. The only reason I dally around the point you
raise, is not so much in disagreement, but I would have to know more to say
anything definite, other than that I agree he would very much fit the role
and so would Whitlam (ousted from Federal Government in 1975)

I mentioned this because I was in the Labor party at the time (having
joined when I was 16). When the coup happened, the Labor machine went into
action to quieten the workers, I saw this in operation in my local branch.
The anger was very real and judging by the workers there a massive general
strike would have been easily had if not the ALP and Unions decided it was
best to play everything by the ballot (the ballot was of course rigged my
massively changing the electoral boundaries amongst other things Rupert
Murdock's relentless hysterical anti-Labor campaign which latter became a
stepping stone for him into US media ownership - but that is another question).


Having also by accident seen the Australian army being readied for action,
perhaps this was all for the best, at least we did not experience a Chilean
disaster (The Governor General - the man who dismissed the government -
first words to the Caretaker Prime Minister was "There won't be any
reprisals will there?" pretty much sums up how serious things became).

Whitlam made plenty of reforms (pulling us out of Vietnam was the first),
but there was no organisational connection to the working class other than
through unions and the Labor Branches. Communist then and now point out to
all the shortcomings (there were many including agreeing to the invasion of
the East Timor in 1975) and duly pointing out his limits vis a vis as a
national rather than communist "revolutionary"/reformer.

All this I take on board and do not dismiss, however I am also reminded of
discussing the 1975 coup with some workers once and I threw in the line
about Whitlam being just a "liberal" reformer, I was rebuked. As one said
to me, if that was "liberal" so am I, it was the closest thing to socialism
we have every had. make of it what you will but this little statement has
clung onto me for 20 years, there is something in it but I am still unsure
what that something is.


Greg Schofield
Perth Australia


  At 10:56  22/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
>In these cases, I use "national revolutionary" as a single
>block. Contesting British rule in Australia was an obvious move
>towards greater national freedom, and in a sense it seems to have also
>been a step towards the construction of a new Australian
>consciousness. All this, in turn, looks linked to the build up of a
>self-centered economy. Yrigoyen, as Lang (if I caught your line
>properly), was not a revolutionary, as opposed to reformist. But the
>reform-revolution debate is not what we are broaching here.
>
>If you want a more accurate definition, well they were "national
>reformist" leaders. But it is the "national" what made people love
>them. Yrigoyen was overthrown by a military coup in 1930, but when he
>died, even under conditions of harsh repression, the mass that
>attended his funerals was so immense that the coffin was carried,
>along a good deal of the road towards the cemetery, by the
>multitude. It is impressive to see the films depicting the coffin
>literally _navigating_ on the shoulders of mourning people, as a ship
>on the sea.