Re: Forwarded from Tom O'Lincoln (Whitlam)

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is of course another interesting post from Tom. There is something of
a gap between my observations on Australian politics and Tom's and indeed
Phil's.  I have not seen a copy of tom's book but I certainly would like
to.  I have his book on the CPA and relied upon it heavily for my thesis.

Now was Whitlam brought down by the CIA.  Pilger has repeatedly said he
was.  This is impossible for us to decide.  We simply do not have all the
information. None of us.  My own opinion for what it is worth is that the
CIA were mucking around in Australian affairs.  they muck about in
everyone's.  Why not ours?  Truly the onus of proof is on those who day
that the CIA were not involved.

Now how big a contribution did the CIA make?  I am inclined to agree with
Tom here.  Their contribution would have been marginal.  Why do I make this
guess?  Well I read the crisis of 1975 as one emerging not from
international but from domestic politics.

The Labor Party still had a left wing with clearly left social democratic
policies based roughly on Keynesianism the historic compromise forged
during WW2 and immediately afterwards between the capitalist class and the
working class.

Whitlam had a modernizing agenda based on a need to do something about
Britain's entry to the then Common Market and the subsequent ending of
Imperial preferences for Australian products.  Much was made here of
Whitlam's recognition of China- something absolutely necessary for
Australian capital but which the Conservatives could not do for ideological
reasons.

Whitlam was also something of a left nationalist and basically his military
policy was based around the notion of Fortress Australia as opposed the
forward Defence policy of the conservatives.  The latter policy involved
Australians in fighting abroad as in Vietnam while Fortress Australia
reflected the sentiment of keeping the enemy out.  IMHO Fortress Australia
corresponds most closely to the feelings of the working class and btw it
can be sen in the attitude of keeping the refugees away from Australia.

However the overriding factor determining the shape of Australian politics
in 1975 was the end of the long economic boom and the drive towards a
period of primitive accumulation by the capitalists class - a drive which
continues unabated today.


Labor had to be taught to be "good economic managers".  They absorbed this
lesson and during their extended time in Govt 1983-1996, they were the most
eager of "reformers".  That is they attacked the post war consensus through
key de-regulations and privatisations etc.

As a result Labor now no longer has even a pretence of a left wing.  The
union movement is mired in quiescence and only among the young can one
detect any sign of a fight back.

regards

Gary







At 09:54  24/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
> Lenin would have clipped all extraneous text before replying to a message,
> so should you.
> ~~~~~~~~~
> After reading two posts on the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in
> Australia, I thought I should write something.
>
> Blaming the CIA, or the British State, for the Whitlam Government's fall
> are  both popular among the nationalist left in Australia, but neither
> holds  water. This was a moderately reforming Labor Government which had
> initially  been popular with the employers as well as workers. It fell into
> confusion  after recession arrived in 1974, in the wake of the first Oil
> Shock. After  that it was increasingly unpopular with both.
>
> 1974 had also seen a huge strike wave, which rattled the bosses. They
> thought Whitlam had lost control of the labour movement. At the same time
> he  had lost control of the economy, and his government was unstable -- for
>  example he went through a couple of Treasurers, one of whom was caught out
>  trying to arrange dodgy loans.
>
> Opposition leader Malcolm Fraser toured the ruling class, notably the media
>  barons, systematically lining up support for drastic measures. (This is a
> classic case study ion class mobilisation among the bourgeoisie.) The
> conservative opposition parties next used their control of the Senate to
> block supply of funds to the government, causing a constitutional crisis.
> The Governor General then dismissed Whitlam. Despite his technical status
> as  the Queen's representative, the British State had little if anything to
> do  with it. The CIA *may* have played a minor role but no more. It was
> overwhelmingly about domestic politics and economics -- about class. The
> nationalist rubbish about the CIA and the Brits was just a diversion for
> the  left at the time. I wrote a chapter on this in my book Years of Rage,
> about  class struggles in Australia 1974-83, and could provide it to anyone
>  interested, though it's in Ventura Publisher format so a bit awkward to
> read  on the screen.
>
> Organised labour fought back, and this makes a gripping story, which you
> can  read about by going to the link below, looking under "Labor Party" in
> the  contents, and clicking on "Whitlam sacked". This is a very
> authoritative  essay by Phil Griffiths.
>
> http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/
>
> regards
> Tom
>
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.