[Marxism] Conspiracy theories downunder

["Tom O'Lincoln" <suarsos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred, quoted by Jim:
>> not something settled by a matter of principle about conspiracies --
since they can
never affect anything that might be important...<<

I'm broadly in sympathy with those who have little time for conspiracy
theories. Usually they offering consoling but misleading explanations
for the triumph of our enemies. It's generally better to accept that we
lost a battle, and analyse why, rather than to kid ourselve victory was
stolen by conspirators.

But I don't think it's true they can never affect anything important.
The same goes for the role of the individual in history. Where class
forces, or forces within the bourgeoisie, are evenly balanced,
individuals and/or conspiracies can tilt the balance. Analysing such
situations is valid activity for Marxists.

These issues were posed quite sharply in Australia in 1975, when the
Governor-General (the Queen's representative) Sir John Kerr dismissed
the Whitlam Labor government and put conservative leader Malcolm Fraser
in power. The background was a sharp recession and government financial
tangles. The Senate had blocked money supply to the Government, causing
a constitutional crisis. Conspiracies theories about all this abounded
on the left.

Here's a discussion of them (excerpts from my book Years of Rage). I
dismissed most of the conspiracy talk, but not all of it.

***

Whitlam's destruction undoubtedly resulted from a general mobilisation
of ruling class and conservative forces. However the left liked to put a
finer point on it. For example the Communist paper Tribune, which
appeared daily during the election campaign, insisted:

"The Kerr putsch was not just a Liberal Party plot. It was a *class
conspiracy* conceived and executed by the ruling class, who saw their
interests threatened by even the limited encouragement given to the
working class and social liberation movements by the Labor government."

This was understandable as a piece of political agitation, but as
analysis it was untenable. A mobilisation of social forces is not the
same as a conspiracy, nor was there monolithic unity in the anti-Labor
camp. In fact during the weeks before the dismissal, ruling class
sentiment was fairly volatile. Shortly before Connor's resignation, the
Sydney Morning Herald questioned Fraser's credibility: the Opposition
leader had begun hinting that "extraordinary or reprehensible"
circumstances were not required to legitimise blocking supply, and the
Herald suggested this new tack was itself "reprehensible".

After Connor's demise the Herald did change its tune and declare that
"Fraser must act," yet even then he did not have an easy run. As Whitlam
sought to tough out the supply crisis, the Liberal leader had a grim
battle of his own keeping control of skittish backbenchers, while the
breakaway Liberal Movement condemned his actions. Sections of the media
also remained nervous, with the Age arguing for a backdown by the
Liberals and the Brisbane Courier-Mail pleading repeatedly for
compromise. W.J. Sharp, managing director of Jennings Industries, saw
the political uncertainty as bad for business confidence:

"I am in favour of passing Supply - I believe the story that the
business community was urging the Opposition to stop Supply was a
complete myth and ought to be scotched. If a survey of business people
had been done one month ago, I am convinced that the vote would have
been overwhelmingly against the Liberal Party doing what it did. My own
recollection, from conversations in the last few weeks with dozens of
businessmen, is that only one executive was in favour."

Another unnamed business leader expressed the fear that if Fraser seized
power, union unrest could turn him into "another Ted Heath." (Heath was
the British Prime Minister driven from power by the 1974 miners'
strike.) This reaction was understandable given the growing social
polarisation.

***
So while the ruling class was united in and prepared to act upon its
political opposition to the Whitlam government, making Whitlam's
eventual destruction virtually certain, capitalist opinion was always
divided over Fraser's *tactics*, with important sectors fearing the
consequences of social unrest if Whitlam were removed by a "coup". Thus
the bourgeoisie was far from monolithic, nor was it ever to be entirely
united in the following seven years. The Liberal leader, who clearly
fancied himself as a tough guy, was never to have quite enough backing
to ride roughshod over society.

Another conspiracy theory of the time raised the spectre of foreign
interference. Perhaps American companies did have an economic incentive
to undermine Labor; for example a Westinghouse representative was quoted
in Nucleonics Week as telling a US court: "Maybe if the Labor Government
is thrown out in five weeks<193>we can get the uranium we thought we
had." Tribune cited the quote under the heading, "Uranium Grab -- Why
Giants Support Libs", and noted that the government had banned uranium
exports for a time (on nationalist, not environmental grounds). As an
explanation for why some multinationals backed Fraser, such arguments
were plausible, though hardly necessary since foreign firms were
influenced in any case by the general trend in ruling class thinking.
But what of suggestions that for either economic or security reasons,
the Central Intelligence Agency had a hand in the November coup? Here,
speculation was fuelled by some seemingly improbable coincidences.

It emerged that American Richard Stallings, who had established the US
communications base at Pine Gap, was a CIA agent with direct links to
National Party leader Doug Anthony. Whitlam made much of these
revelations, casting about as he was for any stick to beat the
Opposition. The CIA was worried that the government or media might be
about to blow their agents' cover, or reveal sensitive information about
Pine Gap, fears which were intensified by the fact that Whitlam had
recently removed the chiefs of two Australian security organisations,
ASIS and ASIO. The CIA turned to Sir Arthur Tange, head of the Defence
Department, who went to great lengths to kill the public debate.

It was easy for nationalist Labor supporters, for whom the CIA was a
traditional focus of hostility, to conclude that American agents had a
hand in Whitlam's fall. Subsequent analysis also found links between the
CIA and US ambassador Marshall Green. Kerr himself had once been
involved in intelligence work.

The theories are intriguing, but unconvincing. It is unlikely the CIA
would destabilise a traditional ally so precipitately. Marshall Green's
spy links are hardly remarkable for a career diplomat. There is no
actual evidence that Kerr made contact with the CIA, or even considered
security issues, in the period before the dismissal. Even if the CIA was
somehow involved, that doesn't make its role important, let alone
decisive. The Whitlam government was destroyed by its internal
contradictions, a major recession, and intense social conflicts. In such
a mosaic, spies could represent no more than a fragment.

***
Sir John Kerr dismissed Whitlam on 11 November 1975, installed Fraser as
caretaker PM and called elections for 13 December, provoking immediate
euphoria in much of the business world. The prices of leading shares
soared on every exchange and brokers cheered. Among working class
pensioners sunning themselves in Sydney's Martin Plaza the mood was far
more sombre; one of them, Eric O'Brien, said Whitlam had "done a good
turn for pensioners" and that the "workers have lost one of their best
men". Why Kerr took his dramatic decision is a question which no amount
of discussion seems likely to resolve fully, though Paul Kelly's
reconstruction seems as plausible as any: that Kerr always entertained
the possibility of dismissing Whitlam, but could not warn him for fear
of being sacked himself; that Whitlam consequently defied the Senate in
ignorance of the full implications; and that as the Supply crisis
reached a critical point, Kerr decided the dismissal had become
inevitable. On this account the decision was an individual one, and Kerr
was nobody's puppet.

If so, it does not invalidate the Marxist thesis linking political
events to social forces. Kerr's options were shaped and limited by the
social conflict raging around him, and by his desire to preserve
political stability. His ability to make the dismissal stick depended on
the outcome of further social conflict. Given these provisos, we can
safely grant Kerr the individual a role in the making of history. Wider
social forces determine which individuals can do this, and when, a point
Kelvin Rowley explained very well in discussing the "conspiracies" of
1975:

"I agree that the capitalist class is able to pursue *and realize* its
class interests in ways which the working class cannot. That is, after
all, what we mean when we refer to it as the dominant or ruling class in
capitalist society. However, this is a function of position in the class
structure. Between us [you] and I would be lucky to conspire to knock a
beer glass off at a busy pub and get away with it, let alone topple a
government. This is because our class position is a very long way from
being 'the central cog in the class machine.' "


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism