Replying to Brian was Re: Referendum Down Under
g.maclennan at SPAMqut.edu.au
Sun Nov 14 19:30:28 MST 1999
Well I am written out on this apart from an article I promised Philip. We
have both stated our positions and as Lou would put it may be we should
move on. Have you been to Brisbane? I used to think this the nerve center
of the revolution! I now realize that I was somewhat optimistic. Still we
are a lot better than Adelaide! Ah the joys of parochialism! Almost an
adequate substitute for the ecstasies of sectarianism.
At 11:24 15/11/99 +1030, you wrote:
>(Sorry for the delay, I just got back from a trip to Wollongong)
>>thanks you for the comments Brian. Where are you? Australia?
> Adelaide, Australia for the next two weeks.
>>What are you
> On the Referendum, my vote would have been "No" (I am a US citizen, so
> did not vote) in regards to changing the system (i.e. keep the monarchy).
> The difference between the options was minimal; the point is that 1) the
> monarchy will not remain for long; and 2) the future choices will be much
> better (because those with an interst of ousting colonial influence (i.e.
> nationalist bourgeois) will make more realisitic options available next
> time to ensure it passes.) Thus, voting to keep the monarchy is a vote to
> vote again; but for a better option.
>> I disagree with
>>you though on the matter of the absurdity of the question. It would still
>>have represented progress if the republic had got up.
> No. The Republic was a positive step towards bolstering the bourgeois
> bureaucratic appartus; i.e. towards the strengthing of their rule in the
> hands of the nationalist bourgeoisie, and ensuring it is seperated from
> the proletariat.
>>It would have been a
>>step towards modernization and although it is capitalist modernization that
>>still represents a step forward.
> It can be; but not in Australia, and certainly not now. The Republic
> does nothing but strenthen bourgeois rule and seperate the proletariat
> further from politics, which is exactly the opposite of what we are
> striving to do.
>>they were convinced that the Prime
>>Minister John Howard would become president if they voted 'yes'.
> Well Gary, they are not far off the mark. Of course Howard wouldn't sit
> in as president, but rest assured that someone like him would! Had
> workers voted for the Republic, they would be expressing their so-called
> 'political-power' in order so that such power at that is removed from them!
>"In those days, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history made slow
>organisational and educational work the task of the day."
>Vladimir Lenin, Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution
More information about the Marxism