GRINDING THEIR FACES Most of us will admit that the faces of the poor are being ground, and that there are a lot of grindstones about. The metaphor isn't a very good one, admittedly, because the ways in which capitalists keep control are sly and subtle ones. These ways erode our will, etch away our self-respect and blunt our reason as surely as grindstones reduce grain to flour or put a sharp edge on steel. It is time to remind people how many of these ways there are and how they wreak their damage. In the present atmosphere of economic rationalism - and that is a misnomer, for there is nothing 'rational' about it - poverty has increased, and those below the poverty line are more insecure than they have been since the Depression.With fewer job opportunities, short-tenure employment and reduced expenditure on social services, it has become apparent that the Howard government has imitated New Labour in Britain, which has extended and strengthened the ravages of Thatcherism. In Britain, New Labour's lurch to the right has lost it much popular support. It is more than likely that even if Labor were in power here it would follow the path of New Labour. So where can we turn in our search for social justice? To small parties of the Left? Perhaps we should do so - but these parties are small indeed. In Britain, the Labour Party's desertion of the poor has made them feel insecure, powerless and heartily sick of the power-greedy wolves in sheep's clothing that Labour has turned out to be. Another familiar grindstone - or perhaps a millstone around the necks of the poor - is the continuing myth that the Soviet Union was a socialist country, and its crumbling was a demonstration that socialism is no good. Admittedly the USSR was not only socialist by name, but certain socialist practices like public ownership of industry and a universal health and education system were in existence, but there is nothing socialist about totalitarianism, corruption, inefficiency and environmental pollution, also existent in the Soviet Union in those days. Nevertheless, the capitalist- owned media continue to equate the word 'socialism' with the worst aspects of the Soviet system. This is illogical. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, but our media don't keep calling the Nazis socialists. That would be as logical as constantly calling the Soviets socialists. Socialists are also portrayed as people who spitefully resent wealthy and industrious entrepreneurs and want to take all their money away from them. they are also supposed to be enamoured of lumbering governmental red tape and inefficiency. They are shown as wanting to control everyone except the unions, who are supposedly allowed to hold the rest of society to ransom while making colossal and unrealistic wage demands. The truth of these allegations can be put to the test simply enough. Right-wing power-brokers monopolise the media, and they can say what they like. No-one can take them to task, therefore their views are automatically suspect. This unregulated voice has become louder and bolder - even crazier - in the last twenty years. In consequence, the public's reaction to the idea of socialism has been warped. A great deal of ignorance and prejudice has to be broken down before people can once again consider the idea of socialism in a clear-minded way. There is another familiar grindstone with which people have been battered - the barrage of adverse opinion against unions. The bugbear of union power has in Britain been puffed up to monster size, and things are not too different here. It is a huge spectre which is seen to disrupt public services with strikes. The situation in Britain in the seventies was pretty extreme, with industrial unrest being given the full anti-worker and anti-union treatment. There was another side to the coin. If the unions had been allowed a voice at managerial level, or consulted instead of confronted, problems might have been averted. In the press the bosses' meanness and uncooperative attitude was minimised, workers' attempts to gain wage rises, demonised. Soaring profits of industry were never mentioned. If individual wage claims had been treated seriously, if the need of wages to cope with the rising cost of living had been considered, if the history of wage claims had been known, and if the profits of each organisation in conflict with the unions had been set forth in the press with honesty, there would have been no conflict. The public would have seen both sides, and the bosses might have seen reason and acted fairly. Instead, they preferred meanness and lies. People who have to look after a home and family, and go out to work to earn a crust, cannot embark on detailed research into labour history or industrial relations. They have to depend on newspaper accounts, which give a partisan view of things. The press is notorious for lumping together complex events stretching over many years, and declaring that there is 'too much union power'. This sort of constant indoctrination resulted in the triumph of Thatcher and the tragic results of her antisocial philosophy. Savage attacks on the unions and the marginalisation of public welfare followed. As a matter of fact, industrial action is usually a last resort. The public is uninformed about the many earlier unsuccessful efforts, often spread over several years, to achieve a fair and just outcome. In any case, unions have taken issue on matters far removed from wage claims. The Builders' Labourers' Federation took action over the preservation of historical buildings. Their excellent leadership was matched by the sense of public responsibility among the rank and file. The Teachers' Federation has raised awareness of many important matters such as health and safety, class sizes, teacher victimisation and educational issues. Their relatively few stoppages have always considered the effect of schools while informing the public of the reasons for the action. Parents have mostly understood, and supported teachers in their struggle for better conditions for staff and pupils alike, as well as for fairer and more generous funding for public schools. Benefits won by the Federation have flowed onto private school teachers even though they took no part in the action. Furthermore, over-generous funding of private schools in the first place has caused many problems, and continues to do so. In Britain, a resurgence of what has become known as Old Labourism - a movement necessarily stronger and more polarised than in the mid-1940's - should bring back government ownership of essential public services and utilities, as well as government competition in various business areas. Union representation on the directorial board of every private concern should follow. Government support of cooperative enterprises should be accompanied by fairer legislation in these areas. There should be higher taxation of the wealthy to ensure greater social security. Lottery money, which substantially comes from the pockets of the poor, should not be a substitute for essential social funding from taxation. Australia should do likewise and stop following Britain in its addiction to economic irrationalism. ' The common use of the terms 'free enterprise', 'market forces' and 'economic rationalism', and the media's emphasis on the political correctness of these terms, should lead us to ask just what is free or rational about the pursuit of profit as the only goal. Legitimised gambling as goes on in the Stock Exchange should be brought to an end, being replaced by a much smaller government agency which could more efficiently and ethically handle changes in the ownership of stocks and shares. Another familiar grindstone is that public servants are inefficient and lazy. On the contrary, public servants - whether teachers, nurses or social workers - work long hours for modest pay. Funding of these essential services is being constantly reduced and the public sector work burden is increased. For this the workers are insulted and belittled. Remember the old horse in Animal Farm? He toiled away and got no credit. These days children are seldom given the message that cooperation and striving for the common good are desirable. Instead they learn of the profitability of greed, selfishness and violence. Confident in its power over ear and eye, the media puts forward the ethos of 'I'm all right, Jack!' Certainly, media moguls are doing all right. Their big wheel of profits and lies rolls on unimpeded. It has become politically incorrect to stand up for socialism. Political correctness, it seems, is a sleazebag who can be bought body and soul by the highest bidder. It is on the side of laissez-faire, the market and fast bucks. Government intervention into these sacred realms is depicted as not only a nuisance, but as unethical. Capitalism, which has brought our nation to a pitch of prosperity impossible under socialism, must be unfettered, for Interference in the freedom of market forces is intrinsically evil - a blow against a creature born to be free, a strong, wild thing, the very spirit of freedom itself. All this of course is not only claptrap but a terrible, damaging lie. Look at the consequence of this wonderful system in Britain alone. Fourteen million people below the poverty line, a fast- growing inequality and as many grave social injustices as a sieve has holes. It would not be so bad if only fifty percent of the media were in public hands and reflect public concerns, for then it would report on the damage that neo- Thatcherism has done to job availability, the quality of life of working people and their morale. It would put forward ways to achieve a fairer society and show up the irresponsibility of multinationals in undertaking practices dangerous to us all. It would urge the Government to control these conglomerates, as well as advocating workers' rights and supporting ways of worker participation and control. Even the purveyors of antisocial greed and selfishness should have their say, but public control of even part of the media should guarantee that people are exposed to views that reflect their needs and aspirations. They would have some background of truth and reasonableness against which right-wing propaganda could be seen in its true colours. We also have to be on guard against the quieter but dangerous pronouncements of otherwise intelligent people who have been brainwashed by right-wing lies. Those with power do not need to use crude methods of gaining control. They have found it more effective to use cunning, subtle methods. Now that they unfortunately have control, they wield their power pretty crudely, as we have seen. Not exactly grinding the faces of the poor, but swelling the ranks of those below the poverty line, and demoralising and disempowering people as they have been doing for years. How are democracy and socialism to come about? Will Labor leaders see the error of their ways and return to grassroots? Or will left-wing parties receive more support, as they deserve? Will the new millennium mean the awakening of people power? It is surely time.