Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19578Re: Fighting Howard's attacks

Expand Messages
  • bobgould987
    Jul 4, 2005
      By Bob Gould

      In examining the articles in Seeing Red, the posts of Marce Cameron
      and the coverage in Green Left Weekly, I formed the opinion that the
      DSP leadership regards the transfer of industrial powers from the
      states to the federal government as a matter of little importance,
      thereby giving objective assistance to the key strategic part of
      Howard's agenda.

      In my comments I raised the possibility that I may have got it wrong
      and if so the DSP might be expected to respond with a rounded
      exposition of its views on the Howard transfer plans.

      All I get in response is the kind of double talk with which I'm quite
      familiar in arguments with the Stalinists over many years.

      The last statement before Fredman's statement that he, personally,
      didn't support the transfer of powers, was Marce Camerons saying that
      the transfer was a matter of little importance because neoliberal
      state Labor governments could use the state systems for their own
      purposes, or words to that effect.

      Now the DSP line seems to have to changed a bit, but the only hint at
      that is a one-line personal assertion from Nick Fredman that he
      doesn't support the transfer. He didn't say the DSP opposed the
      transfer, just that he did.

      In Norm's angry response to Ed Lewis, he doesn't say that the DSP
      opposes the transfer, he just points to Nick Fredman's personal statement.

      If I've got it wrong, it would be comparatively easy for the DSP
      leadership, and/or people in the leadership, to make a rounded general
      statement about the DSP's attitude to the transfer of industrial powers.

      The DSP will have to do this eventually, because the transfer of
      powers from the states to the federal government is emerging as the
      critical chink in the armour of Howard and the ruling class, and it
      looks like emerging as the critical issue that may lead to some Tory
      political figures voting against the transfer in the Senate, which may
      stymie Howard's whole agenda.

      If I've got it wrong, and the DSP leadership opposes the transfer of
      powers, or if it has changed its previous line, and now opposes the
      transfer, it should explain its views.

      I've been writing about this question for two or three months, and
      I've set out my views at length, particularly in the paper I delivered
      at the Labour History conference, which is available on Ozleft.
      http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Brucepaper.html If the DSP
      leadership is stuck for adequate historical information on the
      transfer, they're more than welcome to take up some of my arguments. I
      don't have copyright on them.

      After a considerable period of downplaying the importance of the
      transfer of powers, in such a way as to give objective support to
      Howard's agenda, it's not adequate to accuse me of being delusion and
      lying about the DSP's position without spelling out the DSP's position
      on the disputed question. Failure of the DSP spell out its position
      clearly can only lead to further misunderstanding, if any
      misunderstanding has occurred, which is still not clear.

      Accusing me of being delusional about the DSP and not replying to my
      detailed assembly of what appears to be evidence about the DSP's
      position, isn't an adequate response on this important question. If
      Norm and the DSP leadership believe I'm wrong, they could easily prove
      that with a carefully developed argument against the transfer of powers.

      Failing that, Norm Dixon appears to be engaged in diversionary abuse
      and smoke and mirrors.
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic