Write on: Letters to the editor

The national high school rallies against One Nation were an inspiration
to see and show the real potential to mobilise support against Hanson and
the mainstream parties' racism. Not only that, but it shows a real potential
for winning people to the only thing that can defeat racism — a viable
socialist alternative to the capitalist system that breeds racism.

To this end, socialist activists in the movement need to consciously
promote such an alternative that, among other things, promotes real internationalism
and non-racism.

I was somewhat dismayed therefore, at a meeting of Students Against
Racism following the June 19 Melbourne walkout, when Militant effectively
promoted Australian nationalism.

According to Militant, the best thing about the rally was when “we all
sang 'Advance Australia Fair' and showed we were all Australians together”.

Apart from the fact that this singing was done outside the offices of
ATSIC and what that means for Aboriginal people, for Militant to be pandering
to nationalist consciousness in this way simply to be popular is, in the
long run, only to the detriment of the movement.

Nationalism is only a short step from racism. Hanson too says she is
concerned for “all Australians”; she's just a bit more selective about
who she considers to be “Australian”.

Ray Fulcher

Melbourne

Jabiluka campaign

The August 8 Newcastle action against the Jabiluka mine, part of the
Hiroshima Day protests, was organised by the Jabiluka Action Group.

This group was initiated by Resistance members earlier this year and
has so far carried out two very successful actions to oppose the mine.
It involves members of Resistance, the Wilderness Society, Christians for
Peace, Newcastle University Students Association and many other groups.
The inclusion of people from different political and community organisations
has immeasurably strengthened the campaign.

Before the march, however, Resistance's name was removed from the list
of sponsors on the publicity leaflet. The other sponsors remained. When
we enquired about this, we were told that the sitting member, Allan Morris
MLA (ALP), had insisted on the removal of the name before photocopying
the leaflet.

When we contacted him, Morris denied this, but said he would not support
any march that Resistance sponsored or organised. He said he would take
this position on any “political” group and that Resistance should only
be on the leaflet if all political groups in Newcastle were asked to sponsor
the event.

We have no problem with other political groups supporting the event,
but Resistance was a sponsor because we actively built the rally and support
for the campaign, as did all the sponsors. If the ALP or other groups had
been involved in the committee, they too would have offered to sponsor
the day.

Morris's political sectarianism is a half-hearted attempt to exclude
socialists from the movement and weaken the unity and power of the Jabiluka
campaign.

Alison Dellit, Graham Williams and Adam Leeman

Newcastle Resistance

[Abridged.]

Glamour

It's great to see the “beauty myth” being discussed again in the article
“Glamour” by Lisa Macdonald (GLW #325). It's also important to note
the role of racism in defining beauty standards.

Although there are now black supermodels (e.g. Naomi Campbell), US women's
magazines have often withdrawn black women from their covers because they
might reduce sales. Yet part of the black power movement in the US (and
internationally) was asserting that “black is beautiful”, and that black
women needn't get their hair straightened, or skin whitened, etc.

The beauty myth boils down to creating insecurities in women of all
backgrounds, encouraging them to use more products, feeding the beauty
and cosmetic surgery industries. Some East Asian women have plastic surgery
to make their eyes look western, and one of the most intensively marketed
beauty products in Asia is lotion to lighten the skin.

Capitalism is also happy to market beauty products for men (there has
been a marked increase in young men using steroids to obtain the perfect
“pecs”), but the beauty myth is most sharply felt by women.

We must state unequivocally that women should be judged for what they
do, not what they look like.

Women also need to make choices, to get involved in rebuilding the dynamism
and activism of the women's movement.

Unions also need to take up the issue. For example, the award for one
job I had included a clause to the effect that employees should be comfortable
with their uniform (i.e. women should not be forced to wear revealing clothing
on the job). In Indonesia, one women's NGO has encouraged female shop assistants
to ask management to pay for any lipstick they are required to wear on
the job.

Women from all ethnic backgrounds should also be able to work in non-traditional
areas.

Outworkers, the majority of whom are non-English speaking background
women, are also exploited by the glamour industry. Employed by the fashion
houses, they pay their own overheads (lighting, heating, etc) and are paid
piece rates rather than an hourly wage. The individual agreements under
the Workplace Relations Act are likely to worsen their situation.

Kamini Junankar

Canberra

Hanson

Brendan Doyle's warning (Write on, GLW #327) against demonising
Pauline Hanson protesteth too much, methinks.

Hanson's platform needs to be debunked point by point, and Green
Left supplies its readers with the ammunition to engage racist notions
and confidently debunk them. All over the country, Green Left's
ongoing polemic against Hansonism is recycled in everyday discussions and
debates.

But because One Nation is so grossly racist, it is easier to challenge
its racism than that covertly practised by the major parties. Surely Brendan
Doyle can see that. Contrary to what he suggests, at no time has Green
Left dismissed One Nation voters as “rednecks”. Brendan is arguing
against a trend within the anti-racist movement which relies on abuse,
name calling and caricature to make its point.

This is a significant problem because the political level encouraged
by such a crude response is so low. Racism does not go away simply because
you get hot under the collar. On the contrary, racism can only be overcome
by (a) mobilising and arguing against it and (b) dealing with the economic
conditions that foster it.

However, I do agree with Brendan Doyle that the ready targeting of Pauline
Hanson lets the major parties off the hook, thereby enabling the ALP, for
instance, to pose as the party of principled opposition to racism. Unfortunately,
many members of the left — such as the International Socialist Organisation
— willingly go along with this charade, despite the ALP's history on such
issues as immigration and native title.

During the Queensland state elections, many leading Murris electioneered
for the ALP rather than state their case directly to the electorate, as
had been done before with such vehicles as the Indigenous Peoples' Party.

Given so few choices, people will choose what they perceive to be the
lesser evil — despite the racism of its policies. If there is an alternative
to that situation, what does Brendan Doyle think it is?

Dave Riley

Brisbane

[Abridged.]

Oil company rip-off

Oil companies in Australia must be laughing all the way to the bank.
First, the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, announced the removal of
the maximum price for petrol and then a massive reduction in the fuel excise
as a result of the goods and services tax.

These two actions combined will allow the wholesale price to be almost
doubled while at the same time the price to the consumer can be slightly
reduced. Sounds like a win-win situation all round except for the fact
that this massive slice of government revenue which will be transferred
to the oil companies and primary producers will have to be made up by taxing
the poor through the GST.

As the young man from Limerick said: There was a young man named Howard/
Whose ambition had finally flowered/ He so loved the poor/ That he made
many more/ And with poverty they were greatly endow-ed.

Col Friel

Alawa NT

Single mothers

“Single women with children are rorting the welfare system”: this is
Pauline Hanson's latest brainwave. She is of the opinion that there are
single women out there deliberately falling pregnant or deserting their
husbands without cause simply to reap the huge government benefits available.

Let's get the picture right — the benefits are barely livable.

And let's put it into context by asking why it is that these women have
to rely on government benefits. Why is it that the overwhelming number
of people on single parent benefits are women? Why is it that child-care
is unquestionably and overwhelmingly considered women's task?

Over 75% of the women Ms Hanson is “coming down on” have been married.
They may have been deserted by partners or forced to leave abusive situations.
The stark reality is that women do get left with the sole responsibility
for children.

So why don't they put them in child-care so as to pursue a working career?
Could it be that already high child-care fees are on the rise, services
are closing and the quality of care is dropping?

Women are living in a patriarchal, misogynist society where they are
relegated full responsibility for child-care. However, this society does
not recognise child-care as valid work. If single mothers are expected
to continue looking after their children, yet they cannot afford child-care
[services] in order to work, what options are there other than to accept
government benefits?

Michelle Wickham

Sydney NSW

[Abridged.]

China

In her article “Sweeping privatisation — Where is it taking China?”
(GLW #315) Eva Cheng's notions of “social needs” and “workers' democracy”
harbour petty-bourgeois interpretations.

Ms Cheng would have a privileged section of workers keep their jobs
through state support. She calls it a “state firm's social obligations
to its workers”. In China struggling to build socialism, this is tantamount
to nurturing a working class which has lost sight of its historic role.

What are China's “social needs”? Surely a primary need is to create
jobs for the millions of unemployed? Ms Cheng would condemn the Chinese
for an economic measure which, arguably, might make one worker redundant,
but at the same time provide jobs for 10 others.

An effect of the growth of the productive forces would be the creation
of a strengthened working class. Given able political leadership such a
working class will provide the force that can effectively counter the “home-grown”
capitalists.

Ms Cheng claims that fostering the development of the productive forces
through private business in the primary stage of socialism can be valid
on condition that the state puts into practice “genuine workers' democracy”.
She claims that the key problem “under the Stalinist regime headed by Mao”
was that “workers' democracy was never truly practised”.

Does Ms Cheng mean by “workers' democracy” that the workers will decide
only on their own welfare and prevent the privatisation of their own enterprise?
It doesn't matter to Ms Cheng that this might hamper the growth of the
productive forces, on the basis of which the needs of the whole of society
can be addressed; in other words, if the working class lacks a revolutionary
perspective.

Ms Cheng uses anti-Stalinist rhetoric, and dogmatically sees the role
of the state as “safeguarding and enhancing the planned economy”, and the
state sector suffering because “it is no longer part of a centrally planned
economy”. But perhaps she is aware of a method of planning which is an
improvement on the Soviet model.

Bob Saltis

Adelaide

[Abridged.]

 

From GLW issue 328