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

42558Re: Bastard Boys and dialectics

Expand Messages
  • Nick Fredman
    May 16, 2007
      bobgould987 <bobgould987@...> at Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:14 AM

      > Peter Costello even redbaited Kevin Rudd
      > the other day in an extremely eccentric way, asserting that Rudd's use
      > of the word dialectic had a Marxist flavour... The ultraleft criticism of the
      > dispute generally implies that there
      > should have been a general strike... The DSP critics of Bastard Boys seem to
      > object to the unions having
      > taken legal action in the courts.

      Rudd's pronouncements often have the air of the academic tosser (and hey it
      takes one to know one) and although he's a much better communicator than the
      hapless Beazley he could probably do with plainer language. Gould on the
      other hand could do with a lot more academic-type discipline in rules of
      evidence if he's to bother making assertions about his political opponents.

      Having a different view of the conduct and outcome of the waterfront dispute
      is one thing, but once more and yet again it's a tedious waste of the list's
      time (except I suppose for those members who get off on having their
      anti-DSP prejudices stroked) to see completely false or grossly exaggerated
      assertions made based on caricature, rather than actual words and views. It
      could be ignored but just in case anyone takes Gould's assertions seriously
      I've listed a few links.

      The DSP has never had an objection in general or specifically in regards to
      the waterfront dispute to the use of the courts. No recent comments on this
      list indicated this. DSP wharfie Ian Jamieson in his GLW review, which Gould
      would have seen and should have referred to if he was honest, in fact argued
      that out that the show counter-posed legal tactics and mass action tactics
      more than ever happens in reality:

      From http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/708/36793
      Bastards then, bastards now
      > In some senses, Bastard Boys¹ portrayal of these different strategies and
      > tactics by the Combet¹s and the Tully¹s, with MUA national secretary John
      > Coombs attempting to straddle both camps, is a little too black and white. The
      > use of courts and commissions, and convincing a disciplined union membership
      > when and how to take industrial action have always been in the arsenal of the
      > MUA and its predecessor, the Waterside Workers Federation.

      This argument about the *correct tactical use of courts* was also quite
      clear in the extensive GLW coverage of the time, which Gould could easily
      have looked up either on the web or in the pamphlet compilation that has
      been referred to, which I'm sure he has, with cover stories such as:

      http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/315/21412
      29 April 1998
      MUA's court victories a setback for Howard

      The DSP never made a abstract and juvenile call for a general strike, but
      did criticise the premature winding down of mass action. The DSP's actual
      rather than Gould-invented assessment can be read at:

      http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/322/21009
      MUA-Patrick deal: a great struggle faces betrayal

      http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/323/20946
      Communist Party backs waterfront deal

      http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/327/20717
      MUA fight: the CPA failed a crucial test

      Gould can have a different assessment and argue for it if he likes. But he
      won't be dealing in dialectics, he'll be dishing up more convoluted
      metaphysics about how "complicated" everything is and thus happily the ALP
      and official union leadership always get everything just about right. BTW
      in a quick look at the past coverage I was reminded of this:

      From http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/324/20875
      Another waterfront conspiracy
      8 July 1998

      By James Vassilopoulos

      Sack the entire Maritime Union of Australia work force; deregister the MUA;
      cancel MUA awards and agreements; use the Crimes Act and secondary boycott
      laws to smash the union: these were the options the Coalition government
      considered to slash waterside workers' pay and conditions? Wrong! This was
      the plan considered by the Keating Labor government.

      As part of the MUA conspiracy case against the Coalition and Patrick,
      relevant commonwealth documents were handed over to the MUA's solicitors.

      If industrial relations minister Peter Reith's claims are true, the
      documents describe a Labor cabinet meeting in September 1994. The June 29
      Australian reported that at that meeting, cabinet received legal advice on
      how to wipe out the MUA as part of the ALP's bid to cut jobs on the
      waterfront...
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic