There must be social justice, and we are still far from having achieved it. But social justice will not be established by State-socialism, which means by the total-State. The total-State implies not only the maximum of unfreedom but of injustice, too. Acquisition by the State is the wrong way to remedy the social injustices which lie in the capitalist system as such. The true way does not consist in making the State, which is the most abstract and impersonal institution, the decisive force in economics; but, on the contrary, in restoring once again to those groups and institutions anterior to the State, which have been eliminated in recent developments, the meaning they ought to have according to the divine order of creation.
PROFESSOR EMIL BRUNNER, Dr. Theol., University of Zurich.
-- "Communism, Capitalism and Christianity", p. 16.
What is the Australian Labor Party's objective?
It is the socialisation objective:
"Socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange."
(A.L.P. "Rules and Constitution", 1948.)
LABOR IS AIMING AT STATE-SOCIALISM.
Has Labor any other objective?
No. The Australian Labor Party's constitution contains only one objective -- the socialisation objective.
What does Labor's Socialisation objective mean?
It means that Labor intends to abolish capitalism and to replace it by socialism.
The Scullin Socialisation Committee, reporting to the 1921 Trade Union Conference, which accepted the socialisation objective, contained this: --
"... only by abolition of the capitalist system can working-class emancipation be achieved."
Conference endorsed this report.
The abolition of capitalism would be brought about by the State taking over and operating all private property used in industry, production, distribution and exchange.
The abolition of capitalism means the disappearance of all privately owned: --
Farms, factories, dairies, bakeries, butcheries, machinery, tools, shops, markets, taxis, ships, picture shows, theatres, also radio stations, printeries, banks and insurance offices.
That is State-Socialism.
Labor's platform places bank nationalisation as an essential first step in its socialisation programme.
How would individuals be affected if Labor completed its socialisation programme?
Completion of Labor's revolutionary policy would:
- Destroy personal freedom and the right of self-expression.
- Rob individuals of the right to choose their own jobs.
- Deny to parents the right to choose careers for their children and to educate them accordingly.
- Abolish the rights of citizens to own and operate their own farms, factories, shops and other businesses, whether large or small.
STATE SOCIALISM INEVITABLY LEADS TO TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP.
But does Labor's objective really include all private property?
Yes, all private property used in industry, production, distribution and exchange.
Labor's socialisation objective really means: -- "Socialisation of all industry, all production, all distribution, all exchange."
Mr. E.J. Holloway, Minister of Labor in the Chifley Government, at the 1921 All-Australian Trade Union Conference which accepted the socialisation objective, said he hoped the conference would stand for "the socialisation of all the agencies of wealth production."
Mr. Phelan, another delegate at the same Conference, said: "The objective was the complete taking over of the means of production, distribution and exchange."
Is total socialisation therefore Labor's real objective?
Obviously yes, because the stated objective is all-inclusive. It does not say "some industry, some production, some distribution, some exchange."
Labor's socialisation objective excludes no industry, no production, no distribution, no exchange.
LABOR'S ONE AND ONLY OBJECTIVE HAS ONE, AND ONLY ONE, MEANING -- UNLIMITED SOCIALISATION.
LABOR'S OBJECTIVE IS TOTALITARIAN.
Is Labor's totalitarian objective supported by its printed platform?
Yes, in many ways.
The totalitarian character of Labor's objective is definitely implied in "Principles of Action", "Methods", and "Progressive Reforms", which are printed in the Official Report of the Triennial Conference of the Australian Labor Party held at Canberra in September, 1948.
Among "Principles of Action" appear: --
"(b) The national planning of the economic, social and cultural development of the Commonwealth.
"(c) The complete control of banking and credit by the nation."
Among "Progressive Reforms" appears: --
"(a) The development of a planned economy throughout Australia."
Total socialisation of the whole economy would inevitably be the result of national planning of the whole economy.
Isn't a totally planned economy an inevitable feature of Communism?
It is, but it is also an inevitable feature of socialism. That is one reason why Labor's socialisation objective is called "the Red objective".
Labor's Red objective was "lifted" from the programme of the Russian Communists in 1921 when the A.L.P. accepted it as Labor's one and only objective.
In 1921 Mr. E.J. Holloway was President of the A.L.P. Executive. He presided over the All-Australian Trade Union Congress at Melbourne in June, 1921, and said: --
"Socialisation of industry was the culmination of the teachings of Marx." (Page 5, Official Report of Conference.)
If you think that it is merely propaganda exaggeration -- Liberal blather -- to say that Labor's socialisation objective is "Red" you should ponder over this extract from the Russian Constitution: --
"Article 4. -- The economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the Socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production, firmly established as a result of the liquidation of the capitalist system of economy, the abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production, and the elimination of the exploitation of man by man."
LABOR'S AIM IS AS TOTALITARIAN AS IS THAT OF THE COMMUNISTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME OBJECTIVE.
Was the A.L.P. Conference which accepted the socialisation objective fully aware of its Red origin?
It was very much indeed. The Conference accepted the Red objective with its eyes wide open.
The official report of this Conference shows that some delegates fought against the proposal because of its Russian origin. Mr. E.J. Theodore, who became Federal Treasurer, protested against Labor "being prostituted by communism".
Attempts were made at this Conference to limit the application of the Red objective, particularly by Mr. Theodore and Mr. Blackburn, but they were unsuccessful.
Some Labor supporters have claimed, but quite incorrectly, that the Red objective was watered down by Mr. Blackburn's interpretation clauses.
What were the Blackburn interpretation clauses?
They were the three clauses contained in this Resolution: --
"(a) That the Australian Labor Party proposes collective ownership for the purpose of preventing exploitation and to whatever extent may be necessary for that purpose.
"(b) That wherever private ownership is a means of exploitation, it is opposed by the Party, but
"(c) That the Party does not seek to abolish private ownership even of any of the instruments of production where such instrument is utilised by its owner in a socially useful manner and without exploitation."
Was the Blackburn resolution actually carried by the 1921 Labor Conference?
The answer is both No and Yes.
It was carried by 15 votes to 13 but the official report of the conference on page 36 contains these significant words:
"The Chairman ruled the motion did not affect the policy already carried."
The "policy already carried" comprised: --
- The socialisation objective.
- The methods to be used to reach this objective.
The Blackburn resolution was inoperative from the day of its birth -- it was still-born.
Why didn't the Blackburn resolution affect the Red objective?
Because, according to Rule 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, the resolution was not carried by a sufficiently large majority to affect the Party's platform.
Rule 6 runs: --
"Any motion or amendment affecting the Pledge, Platform, or Constitution shall be declared lost if less than a majority of the delegates credentialled to the Conference vote for it."
By this rule the Blackburn resolution was lost because only 15 voted for it out of 34 "credentialled" delegates.
Commenting on Mr. Blackburn's resolution, Mr. Theodore said sarcastically: "It goes on to the platform; it does not interfere with it."
Have the Blackburn interpretation clauses ever been a part of the Federal A.L.P. platform?
No, never.
Mr. Riordan, Vice-President of the 1921 A.L.P. Conference, speaking about the Blackburn resolution, said: --
"According to the Standing Orders the motion was not carried because it interfered with something already done, and a majority of the delegates had not voted for it." (Page 36, Official Report).
After 28 years this lost motion is still a lost motion.
The Blackburn clauses were printed in the Official Record of the 1921 Conference but they have never appeared as part of Federal Labor's platform.
The Blackburn interpretation clauses have had no practical effect whatsoever on Labor's policy, nor have they ever been properly endorsed as the official interpretation of the Red objective.
If the Blackburn clauses had been operative would they have really watered down the Red objective?
Certainly not -- they would merely have whitewashed it.
The Blackburn clauses, if they had been operative, would have had no other effect on the Red objective than to obscure its real meaning.
If the Blackburn resolution had been fully passed: --
- It would have bluffed many people into supporting Labor who see no danger in partial socialisation.
- It would have salved the conscience of many of those people whose religious beliefs will not allow them to support socialism.
Why would the Blackburn clauses merely have whitewashed the Red objective?
Because they would not limit the operation of the socialisation objective although at first glance they appear to do so. The truth is that the test of exploitation which is set out in the Blackburn resolution would not exclude from the Red objective any private property used as "instruments of production".
No private property used in industry, production, distribution and exchange would be immune from socialisation if Labor applied the test of exploitation.
Why would the Blackburn clauses exclude no private property used as "instruments of production"?
Because, according to Labor's viewpoint: --
- All private property used as "instruments of production" is used for private profit-making.
- All private profit-making is exploitation.
So all private property used as "instruments of production" is used for exploitation and must therefore be socialised.
At the 1921 A.L.P. Conference, when the Blackburn resolution was under discussion, Mr. MacNamara, a Victorian delegate, said: --
"It was very difficult nowadays to say what line of private ownership was not some form of exploitation. ... Even if the farmer was only working for himself and producing, he was exploiting unintentionally through the land values."
At the same Conference Mr. E.J. Theodore said: --
"If a man used his own farm, even though he did not utilise labor, he produced for profit."
Mr. Yates added: --
"The words 'socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange' meant the elimination of all forms of profit-making."
So if the Blackburn resolution had been operative the Red objective would not have been less total?
That is so -- the whitewashing would have made it appear a pale pink.
The Blackburn resolution doesn't actually make Labor's totalitarian objective into one of partial socialisation.
The Blackburn resolution doesn't protect any profit-making private property from being taken over by the State.
Wouldn't the Blackburn Clauses protect the small man from operation of the socialisation objective?
The Blackburn clauses would not protect from the Red objective the small manufacturer, the small shopkeeper, the small farmer.
All industrialists and all producers would be liable to have their enterprises taken over by the State even if the Blackburn resolution had been effective.
Labor says any person who uses his own property in making profit is an exploiter and therefore meet for the socialist axe.
Has the Red objective ever been altered?
No. Labor has again and again reaffirmed the Red objective and still subscribes to it.
The Australasian Council of Trades Unions (A.C.T.U.) in 1928 at its inaugural meeting unanimously accepted the Red objective as its only objective.
Ever since its forerunner, the All Australian Trades Union Conference (A.A.T.U.) embraced the Red objective in June, 1921, and took steps to see that it was accepted by the 1921 A.L.P. Conference, the A.C.T.U. has been continuously dictating to the A.L.P.
Since 1921 all State branches of the A.L.P. have scrapped their old real Australian objectives and made the Red objective their only objective.
Triennial conferences of the A.L.P. again and again have reaffirmed the Red objective and have resisted a few attempts to have it modified.
When did Labor last reaffirm its Red objective at a Conference empowered to alter the Constitution?
In September, 1948, at the Triennial Federal Conference of the A.L.P. at Canberra. Only at a Federal Conference of the A.L.P. can Labor's constitution be altered.
At the 1948 Conference an attempt was made to camouflage the Red objective but it failed, and the Red objective was reaffirmed unanimously as Labor's one and only objective.
What attempt was made at the 1948 A.L.P. Conference to camouflage the Red objective?
Delegates from South Australia dug up the Blackburn corpse and moved to have it accepted by the Conference as a real live part of the Red objective. They hurriedly returned it to its grave because of the hostility shown to them by the Conference.
What happened to the Blackburn interpretation at this Conference is significantly described by Dr. Rumble, the eminent Catholic radio commentator, in these words: --
"As regards the Triennial Conference in Canberra, 1948, according to the official report the chairman ruled that the 'interpretation could be' reaffirmed; but it was Mr. Clarey who said it 'still stood'. And Mr. Clarey's statement was made the excuse for withdrawing the motion urging reaffirmation.
"But, strangely enough, Mr. Clarey, who opposed the reaffirmation of the Blackburn interpretation on the excuse that it still stood, had previously moved the reaffirmation of the objective, viz., 'The Socialisation of Industry, Distribution and Exchange', though all knew quite well that that still stood -- a motion carried unanimously! Are doubts raised by such difference of treatment unreasonable?"
-- (Catholic Weekly, September 1, 1949.)
The fact which Labor cannot explain away and which shows that it is still wedded to total socialisation is that the 1948 Federal Conference of the A.L.P. reaffirmed the Red objective, but made no attempt to make the Blackburn interpretation a vital part of Labor's objective and platform.
Has any attempt been made since September, 1948 to make Labor's Red objective appear as though it were only pink?
Yes, many Labor leaders have said that the socialisation objective merely gives the Party the power to pick and choose the free enterprise concerns it will socialise. They have asserted that the Red objective is not all-inclusive.
Some Labor leaders have claimed that the Blackburn interpretation is Labor's official interpretation. Mr. Calwell, Minister for Immigration, in a letter to the Catholic Press, has made this claim. He has said that the Blackburn resolution "was as much a part of the official Policy of the Party as the original socialisation plank itself." (September, 1949). That statement is simply not true. (See Question 13).
Mr. Chifley has said: --
"It is not the objective of the Labor Party to go around socialising everything." (October 5, 1949).
But Labor is committed to abolish all private profit-making and Mr. Chifley is pledged to socialise "everything guilty of that shocking 'crime'." (See Questions 16, 17 and 18).
But has any Labor leader authority to interpret the Red objective?
No, not even the Prime Minister.
All Labor leaders are bound to accept the decisions of the Triennial Conference of the A.L.P.
Hasn't the Federal Executive of the A.L.P. recently said that the Blackburn clauses are the official interpretation of the socialisation objective?
It has.
The Federal Executive has tried frantically, but unsuccessfully, to make it appear that the Blackburn resolution is part of the Party's platform and that it actually waters down the socialisation objective.
Ever since the 1948 Conference said the Blackburn resolution "still stood", which means "still remains as a lost motion", many Labor supporters who cannot reconcile total socialisation with their religious views have goaded on the Federal Executive to declare that Labor believes in only a little bit of socialism. The Executive has "obliged".
Has the Federal Executive of the A.L.P. any authority to interpret or modify the socialisation objective?
It has no such authority. No power to interpret, limit, add to or subtract from the Party's objective is conferred on the Federal Executive by the "Federal Executive Rules" printed on pages 60 and 61 of the Official Report of the 1948 Triennial Conference of the A.L.P.
No mention is made in the Federal Executive Rules of the socialisation objective but much is said about the Party's platform. Labor always distinguishes clearly between its objective and its platform and policy.
The executive appears to have powers to decide "all questions involving an interpretation of the Platform of the Party" but no power to decide questions involving interpretation of the objective.
What precisely has the Federal Executive of the A.L.P. said about the Blackburn resolution?
Referring to the Blackburn resolution, the Federal Executive has resolved "that the 1921 declaration still stands" (Labor Call, October 14, 1949).
"Still stands", in this resolution, can have only one meaning. It can mean only that the Blackburn resolution "stands" where it stood in 1921 -- a lost motion. (See Question 12).
In 1921 the Blackburn resolution "stood" outside the Labor Party's platform and in no way affected the Party's objective; in October, 1949, it "still stands" outside the Party's platform and in no way affects the Party's objective.
Until a Federal Conference says otherwise the Blackburn resolution will always "stand" outside the Party's platform and will not have the slightest effect on the socialisation objective.
So the Federal Executive of the A.L.P. cannot alter any decision of the Federal Conference of the A.L.P. dealing with Labor's objective?
That is so. But what is more, the Executive cannot alter any decision of the Federal Conference about any matter whatsoever.
This is proved conclusively by Rule 5 (i) of the "Federal Executive Rules", which runs:
The Federal Executive shall --
"Have plenary powers to deal with and decide any matter which, in the opinion of at least seven members of the Executive, affects the general welfare of the Labor Movement, provided that no 'decision of Federal Conference shall be abrogated' under this rule. The Executive decision upon such matter shall be binding upon all members of the A.L.P., provided that any Branch or person affected shall have the right to appeal to next Federal Conference against such decision."
What the 1948 Triennial Conference of the A.L.P. said about the Blackburn resolution therefore hasn't been overridden by the Federal Executive, is that so?
Yes. Remember that the rule says "no decision of the Federal Conference shall be abrogated" by the Executive.
Apart from any rule, it is just too absurd to suggest that there can be any real meaning in the Federal Executive declaring the Blackburn resolution operative when the Federal Conference has just left it in the inoperative condition in which it was placed by the 1921 Conference.
No socialist leopard in the short space of 12 months has ever changed its 28 years' old Communist spots.
Even if the socialist leopard by a miracle did change its spots it would still be a leopard seeking stealthily to gobble up the makers of private profit, great and small.
But even if the Federal Executive's decision on the Blackburn resolution did override the Federal Conference's decision would that make the Red objective less total?
No, not in the slightest degree.
Even if the Executive had the power over the heads of the Conference to make the Blackburn resolution fully operative, the threat of total socialisation contained in the Red objective would remain -- though clumsily disguised.
Suppose that Labor's Federal Executive has really modified the Red objective? Does that finally dispose of the matter?
No, not by any means.
According to Rule 5(i) the Executive's decision has to run the gauntlet of the next Triennial Conference in 1951.
At best the Executive's alleged "modification" can be held to be a binding promise only until about September, 1951. But if a Labor Government were elected in December, 1949, it would hold office normally until about February or March of 1953.
Would the next A.L.P. Triennial Conference be likely to reject the Executive's alleged "Modification" of the Red objective?
Yes. Most likely.
Remember that only a year ago the Conference rejected an attempt to modify Labor's objective.
Why has the Federal Executive of the A.L.P. tried to make the Red objective look so respectable?
The answer is just too obvious -- an election is pending.
SOCIALIST-LABOR AND COMMUNIST-SOCIALISTS ARE BOTH AIMING AT THE TAKING OVER BY THE STATE OF ALL THE PRIVATE PROPERTY USED IN INDUSTRY, PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE.
A SOCIALIST AUTHORITY SAYS: --
"The co-ordination of economic activity must be greater and interference with private property as unlimited as it was in Russia if adequate planning is to be carried out."
-- Dr, Lloyd Ross, former Secretary of the Australian Railway
Workers' Union and now Public Relations Officer, Department of
Post-War Reconstruction, in "National Economic Planning", p. 141.
A COMMUNIST AUTHORITY SAYS: --
"Socialism and Communism are not separate systems but two stages in the one inevitable historical process.
"Socialism is the first or lower phase of Communism entered upon when the people have overcome the power of the capitalists and substituted common ownership for private capitalist ownership of the means of production."
-- The Australian "Tribune", 4th September, 1948.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
The test of exploitation contained in the Blackburn resolution doesn't make the Red objective less total.
Why? The argument in summary form is this: --
The Blackburn resolution says: --
Only the private property associated with exploitation is to be socialised.
Labor teaching says: --
Exploitation arises when privately-owned means of production are used for profit-making.
But it is common knowledge that: --
All privately-owned means of production are used for profit-making.
It follows that: --
Labor cannot deny that it is bound by the Blackburn resolution to socialise all the privately-owned means of production.
WITH OR WITHOUT THE BLACKBURN RESOLUTION LABOR'S AIM IS TOTAL SOCIALISATION.
No comments:
Post a Comment