Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The postmodern left: part one

By Niall Lucy and Steve Mickler - posted Wednesday, 28 March 2007


(This is not to overlook the need for ongoing democratic struggles in response to the conservative-backed corporate abuse of modernity in the form of global warming, for example, or the continuing exploitation of Third World and Indigenous people by global capital.)

So to the extent that, today, ordinary working people in the West have a measure of democratic social power they didn’t have a century ago, and to the extent they have a quality of life along with industrial and democratic rights they didn’t have back in 1845 when Engels published The Condition of the Working Class in England, their position is owed to a tradition of politically-conscious labour struggles animated by the spirit of democracy. And it is owed to those who fought and sometimes died in those struggles, on behalf of democracy to come.

Now, how very twee all this sounds today. What a comforting little delusion to suppose that all the complexities of the real world are reducible to a theory of underlying conflict between antagonistic social forces.

Advertisement

But if such a “theory”, such an eventful idea, is not the undeconstructible ground of the left today and in any future to come, what could be used to distinguish the left from its political alternatives? Without any allegiance whatsoever to an idea of class, in the complete absence of any form of relation to the event of such an idea - what could “the left” possibly be or mean?

We’re not so naïve as to think that the category, or the concept, of class is stable and universal. While acknowledging, though, that class is not a grand narrative or a transcendental signified, this is not to say that therefore there is no such thing as class. Like a dragon, which may not be real but is still a very powerful idea, the idea of class cannot be emptied of all political force and meaning simply because real-world class formations today are taken to have transcended their 19th-century origins. An idea of class (along with the idea that “class” is an evolving concept) is part of the political inheritance of today’s left, and such an idea can be abandoned only at the risk of losing that inheritance and hence a crucial part of what the left means.

The seeming intent of present-day Labor, for example, to sever its historical ties to blue-collar workers and their unions, raises the question of whose interests the ALP now seeks to govern on behalf of. No doubt, in the bipartisan political rhetoric of the moment, it would claim to seek government on behalf of “all Australians”. But what’s left about that?

The idea that all Australians could have anything in common - a common language, common values, common interests, a shared cultural heritage or such like - is entwined with a conservative myth of society as a naturally classless and egalitarian state. Why would Labor want to buy into it?

Traditionally, Labor rhetoric was on the side of workers’ interests over those of, say, bankers and corporate executives, on the understanding that working people once had little or no social, economic or political power at all. What power they may have today was won through struggles (in which the ALP played its part) between competing social interests that are fundamentally incommensurable. It was not won by pondering the “mutual obligations” of various social “stakeholders”.

Today, the hollow solidarity of the postmodern left clings to the free-floating signifier of the ALP, a party for all Australians, for crooks and celebrities alike, from Brian Burke to Maxine McKew. In turn, this Labor joins in solidarity with the conservatives in maintaining a consensual silence around the events of labour history. For this Labor, then, for the postmodern left - as for conservatism - the greatest enemy is Marx.

Advertisement

Read part two here.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

20 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Niall Lucy is a professor in the humanities at Curtin University. He hosts weekly music/culture show The Comfort Zone on 720 ABC Perth, Wednesdays @ 1.30pm. His latest book is Pomo Oz: Fear and Loathing Downunder (Fremantle Press). He co-edited Vagabond Holes: David McComb and The Triffids.

Steve Mickler is Head of Media and Information at Curtin University. His latest book, with Niall Lucy, is The War on Democracy: Conservative Opinion in the Australian Press (UWA Press, 2006).

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Niall Lucy
All articles by Steve Mickler
Related Links
A travesty of logic - On Line Opinion
Right wing columnists - anti-democratic? - On Line Opinion
The postmodern left: part two - On Line Opinion

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 20 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy