It has been said that despite the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the Cold War was a stalemate. Yes, it was a resounding defeat for socialist economics, specifically the economics of the command economy. But, at the same time, "cultural" Marxism has triumphed. That is, whatever was deemed "progressive" in cultural matters has since become orthodox opinion in the highest quarters of western society. This mixed result is well reflected in political alignments. Democratic socialist parties are now "social democratic" parties who have accommodated to capitalism, even courted it. They favour a "social market" economy where even state enterprises are routinely privatized in the supposed interests of efficiency and solvency. To mask this concession, they have adopted an avant garde posture on various social issues like same sex marriage, abortions, free injection sites, lenient penalties for pot possession and the like. Meanwhile, the right has largely dumped social conservative positions to appeal to the new cosmopolitan class of yuppies and hip businessmen. In short, the left has moved right and the right has moved left. What has emerged then, is a de-facto one-party state with two factions of growthism---both socially "progressive" and economically "conservative, differing only in emphasis. The bipartisan love affair with mass immigration and multiculturalism can therefore be seen as a marriage of a left wing social agenda with a right wing economic agenda. It is a formula tailor-made for capitalism with a trendy green and progressive face.
No one better reflects and propagates this noxious blend of laissez-faire economics and politically correct platitudes than the Economist magazine. If you want to know what position best serves global capitalism, look to the spin that the Economist gives to current events. Case in point, follow their assessment of the latest federal election in Australia, and of the three major parties who contested it.
"The Greens are emerging as a centrist party that appeals to young, wealthy, city professionals on a range of issues broader than the purely environmental ones that once marked them out as mere tree-huggers....On August 25th Mr Bandt cited the Greens’ federal priorities: ending a ban on gay marriage, more compassionate treatment of asylum-seekers and setting a price on carbon." http://www.economist.com/node/16889706
On Julia Gillard: "Voters don’t much like assassins, but a half-baked idea for a people’s assembly on climate change and a tack to the right on immigration made Ms Gillard look shallow as well as disloyal." On Tony Abbott: "Relentlessly negative and populist, particularly on immigration, he is weak on economics and short of ideas." http://www.economist.com/node/16889029?story_id=16889029&fsrc=nlw|hig|08-26-2010|editors_highlights
"Australia needs sooner or later to address several vital areas of policy. One is climate change, where the majority’s wish for a bill is being blocked by the minority (including Mr Abbott). Another is immigration, where a debate about the economy’s need for skills and its capacity for a “big Australia” is obscured by scaremongering about refugees on boats. http://www.economist.com/node/16889029?story_id=16889029&fsrc=nlw|hig|08-26-2010|editors_highlights
Notice that for the Economist, the attitude that a politician or a political party adopts toward immigration constitutes the litmus test of political competence. Greens are praised for their non-environmental orientation and 'compassion' toward refugees. Notice too that positive connotations are attached to being "young", "wealthy", urban and "professional", and the decidedly negative connotation of being a "tree-hugger". The Greens are made-to-order for the new capitalism. Rootless cosmopolitan yuppies who are too sophisticated to fail prey to 'xenophobic' appeals for closing borders, while nevertheless committed to fighting climate change---a suitably global issue in scope requiring cross-border solutions with nations we can't afford to alienate with restrictive immigration policies. No doubt as an old, poor, rural amateur who loves trees and has no taste for centrist politics, I am not the Economist's favourite demographic. But then, they are not my favourite magazine.
The 'shallow' Ms. Gillard, on the other hand, tacked to the "right" in her promise to reign in immigration. That's correct. A stated desire to stabilize the population is framed as a right-wing ambition while those who would please developers and cheap labour employers by increasing migrant intakes are presumably "left-wing" or progressive. The Economist has a gift for turning right-wing into a pejorative to beat down the left. It is fascinating how the language of left and right has been twisted to mean exactly the reverse of what was formerly understood.
Tony Abbott, meanwhile, is similarly castigated for his immigration stance---a promise to cut intake levels is characterized as "negative and populist". The Economist concludes with a lament that a debate that focuses on an alleged skills shortage is needed to displace 'scaremongering' concerns about boat people. A debate, no doubt, which should be the exclusive province of "those who know better", the "New Class" that sociologist Katherine Betts spoke of, that effete amalgam of self-righteous, wine-drinking academic, political and corporate globetrotters who believe themselves vested of a broader, superior vision to that of the great unwashed and their parochial concerns. Populism gives a voice to the unlettered and that unaware---better rule by the corrupt and incompetent few to the ignorant many. Yes, Edmund Burke is alive and well in Trendydom. Like I always said, we don't need immigration reform as much as political reform. Check that, we need a political revolution.
Life, to the Economist, is apparently all about being enlightened, progressive and welcoming to any who wish to relocate here. It is never about carrying capacity, for after all, free market capitalism can always grow the limits---can't it?
Tim Murray
August 26, 2010
Comments
CSI (not verified)
Wed, 2010-09-01 22:55
Permalink
How will we handle transition to stability?
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 2010-09-02 00:19
Permalink
Our leaders are basically dimwits
Peter Bright
Thu, 2010-09-02 15:45
Permalink
Just our leaders?
John Marlowe
Thu, 2010-09-02 17:05
Permalink
A formula tried and tested: Party apparatchiks head-hunt dimwits
Add comment