r:/1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Z ~ o ~ ~ t-l CI".l ~ ~ >- t-l Z ~ UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND PRESS ST. LUCIA J~ J+oq cg , Pt'0'/I~ Iq0~ :) ('(G( e;{ Ideological Groups ill the Australian Labor Party and rfheir Attitudes by TOM TRUMAN Price: £1 ($2) University of Queensland Papers Department of History and Political Science Volume I Number 2 UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND PRESS St. Lucia 5 November 1965 WHOLLY SET UP AND PRINTED IN AUSTRALIA BY WATSON FERGUSON AND COMPANY, BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND 1965 REGISTERED IN AUSTRALIA FOR TRANSMISSION BY pOST AS A BOOK CONTENTS Page THE SURVEY 45 The Questionnaire 47 The Sample 47 The Method of Correlating the Results 47 The Ideological Groups 50 ATTITUDES REFLECTED IN THE SURVEY TOPICS 52 Classes and Class War 52 Capitalism 53 Foreign Policy 55 The Soviet Union 58 America 59 Imperialism 62 Nationalism and Internationalism 65 War and Pacifism 68 Conscription 70 Immigration and Race 72 , Democracy 75 Trade Unionism 80 Industrial Disputes and Compulsory Arbitration 82 Full Employment Means 83 Inflation and Controls 84 Social Services 86 Tariffs 87 Banking and Finance 88 The Press 90 Conclusions 9l SOME EVIDENCE OF IDEOLOGICAL GROUPING EXISTING AT PRESENT TIME IN QUEENSLAND AND OTHER STATES 92 The Extreme Left 92 The Moderate Left 115 The Anti-Communist Moderate Left 123 The Moderate Right 125 The Extreme Right 137 THE REFUSAL OF IDEOLOGY TO DIE .. 153 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY AND THEIR ATTITUDES THE SURVEY This survey of attitudes of Labor Party activists was made just before the split in the Labor Party occurred in Queensland. l Its original purpose was to see whether the views I had attributed to party activists in my Master of Arts thesis 2 on the Australian Labor movement on the basis of statements of party spokesmen, party publications, and conversations over many years were as widely held as I imagined. Later, I wondered whether the survey might show the ideological aspect of the split by showing a definite pattern of "left" and "right" attitudes. After a preliminary examination of the results of the survey and noting that only forty-five of my sixty-nine respondents had sent in replies I put the material away, to disinter it some six years later. As I was very busy in 1957 collecting information about the split and preparing my book Catholic Action and Politics3 I ------ 1 Premier Gait was expelled by the Central Executive on 24 Apri11957, and the Labor Party divided into those that followed him and those who remained loyal to the Central Executive. 2 "The Pressure Groups, Parties and Politics of the Australian Labor Movement" (Master of Arts thesis, University of Queensland, 1954). 3 Melbourne: Georgian House, 1959. 45 46 TOM TRUMAN had no time to give it my close attention then. In any case, publication at the time would have interfered with the collection of information about the split because it Was very likely that the factions would use the results as ammunition in the party battles. Newspaper reporters had got wind of my project and were trying to discover the results. All things considered it seemed best to lay the material aside for a while. Now that I have made a close examination of the results I think they are interest In&q.s indicating that there exist four distinct ideological groupings in the answers of niY respondents, and though the numbers involved are small there is reason to believe that these ideological groupings may exist in the Australian Labor Party at large. If this is tme then it would deny the opinion of some political scientists that there are no ideological patterns of attitudes in the Australian Labor Party but members of the A.L.P. are "aU over the place" in their views. It also tends to refine the simple distinc tion into "left" and "right" that is the commonplace of political commentaries and may also do something to clear up the confusion that exists over such questions as: "Is the Australian Labor Party a socialist party?" "How far is the A.L.P. sympathetic to communism?" "Is the A.L.P. still deeply committed to the White Australia policy?" and so on. I have shown the results to colleagues in the Government Department of the University of Queensland and discussed their implications with them. With their encouragement I have decided to publish them. They have agreed with me that though the numbers in my survey are small, the significant thing is the clear emergence of four distinct ideological groupings, that is to say, there is a fairly well-defined pattern ofviews which can be divided into four parts that I have labelled Extreme Left, Mod erate Left, Moderate Right, and Extreme Right. The improbability that the occurrence of this pattern is peculiar to the answers ofthe respondents to my 1957 survey leads to the assumption that the pattern probably exists today (some of my respondents, I am fairly sure from their published statements, still have much the same attitudes if about rather different events, and even if some of them might conceivably have changed their ideological positions those positions are represented in the party by others today), and the pattern probably, and more importantly, exists in the party at large. At the end of this paper I adduce some evidence for believing that this conclusion may be right. Only a tme random sampling of Labor Party activists throughout Australia could establish my assmnptions as being proven. But such a sample could only be obtail1ed by the official endorsement of the Federal Executive of the A.L.P., an endorsement that would not be given except to an official survey, and this is a survey that is most unlikely to be made; even if it were made the results of it would probably not be available to anyone outside the top group of the party's hierarchy. Even my small survey presented many difficulties which took a great deal of time and thought, as well as the co-operation of quite a few friends and well-disposed people, to surmount. Having regard to the absence of any other survey, the unsatisfactory features of this one should, my colleagues think, not prevent its publication. In order to allow the reader to judge the worth of the survey and the significance, if any, ofits results there follow some details about the questionnaire, the sample, and the correlating of the answers to produce the four ideological groups. . I drew up a questionnaire with the intention of eliciting the more permanent and more typical attitudes. In listing the topics I was guided by a study of conference and executive reports and party platform in all states, by an examination of the party press in several states over a period of about ten years off and on, by the reading of articles and books on the history of the party and its more or less contemporary position, and by a personal knowledge of Labor men'S views gained in more than twenty years' association with members of the party in South Australia, Victoria, and Queensland. Even then I cannot be sure of course that my judgment is not at fault and there may well be important items that have been left out ofthe questionnaire. Another point ofcriticism may well be the form ofthe questions and the variety of the responses provided. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 47 The questionnaire The questionnaire, as the reader may see from reading the form in which the results are published, is divided into a number of topics such as "Capitalism", "Foreign Policy", "Immigration and Race", "Democracy", and so on. Under each topic is listed a number of responses, for example, under "Classes and Class War" there are the following possible answers: 1. There are no classes in Australia. 2. The working class is exploited by the capitalists. 3. The workers and capitalists are engaged in a continual class war. 4. The workers have won the class struggle. 5. There are classes in Australia but there is no great class feeling or class war. 6. The workers cannot win the class war until socialism is introduced. The respondents were asked to put a tick alongside the answer/answers they considered most appropriate. A space was provided under each topic for an answer not catered for in the supplied responses. The sample I polled twelve federal Labor members of parliament with whom 1 had some acquaintance. They seemed to include a range of ideological opinion. The split in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party had taken place in 1955, some eighteen months before, and I included one member of the Democratic Labor Party who had been a leading personality in the old Catholic Social Movement-Industrial Group faction. Five of the twelve did not complete the survey. Two of these, whom I judged to be sympathetic to the Industrial Groupers, were indignant at my presumption in asking them to answer my questionnaire, and their failure to respond could be attributed to the difficulties of their position as a minority likely to be persecuted or even ex pelled. I mention this incident to illustrate the difficulties inherent in the survey. The seven federal Labor parliamentarians who replied were all from states other than Queensland. All the rest of the forty-five respondents were from Queensland. r polled twelve members of the Queensland state parliament, again trying to get a range of ideological opinion. Only five replied. . I polled two electorate branches of the A.L.P. One was the Jubilee branch which generally had the reputation of being an anti-Grouper branch. The other was the South Brisbane branch which was widely said to be a stronghold of the Groupers. I had access to the Jubilee branch because 1 was a member at the time and 1 had access to the South Brisbane branch through a friend who was a leading member and favourably known to the President who was Mr. V. C. Gair, the then Premier and later Leader of the Queensland Labor Party. 1 mention these facts as relevant to the difficulties of making such a survey. The Jubilee branch was a small branch of about forty members but only eight regularly attended. I confined my survey to the regular attenders, mainly because it made the task easier, but partly because they could more properly be considered "activists". The South Brisbane branch was a large one for Queensland, consisting of about one hundred members. There were twenty-five regular attenders. Seven of the eight polled in the Jubilee branch responded. Fifteen of the twenty-five polled in the South Brisbane branch replied. I polled twelve trade union secretaries who were members of the Labor Party and happened to have their offices in the Brisbane Trades Hall. As far as I knew they covered a range of ideological opinion. One did not reply and one (number 4) was eliminated because of contradictory replies. I made persistent efforts to get a full response but in the event I got only forty-five replies to the sixty-nine questionnaires handed out. The method of correlating the results Firstly, I allocated each respondent a number, i.e. one to forty-five, and made 48 TOM TRUMAN myself familiar with each one's views over the whole range of topics. Then I took each topic in turn and under each response wrote in the identifying number of the respon dent choosing it as his answer, for example: Communism a) Communists should be fought. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8, 12, 13, 16, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,31, 32,33, 34,35,36, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44. b) Communists should be sought as allies against capitalism. 5,9,10,11,17,18,27,30. c) We should do nothing about them one way or the other. 14, 15, 45 and so on. I then compared the results under each topic to try to discern some pattern. Eventually, I found that a pattern emerged if the attitudes to "socialism" and "com munism" were combined and applied to the distribution of respondents' numbers under each topic. Described shortly like this the process might not be clear to the reader and at the risk of boring him with excessive detail I shall elaborate. The answers under communism came out this way: Communism a) Communists should be fought. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,12,13,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28, 29,31,32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. b) Communists should be sought as allies against capitalism. 5,9,10,11,17,18,27,30. c) We should do nothing about them one way or the other. 14, 15, 45. If Communists are to be fought the best way is: d) By waging a socialist propaganda campaign in the unions. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,14,15,16,17, 18,19,21,22,24,25,26,27, 28,31, 39,40,42. e) By outlawing the Communist Party. 20, 29, 36, 41. 1) By exposing their plans to take over Australia. 1,3,4,8,12,16,20,21,23,24,28,31,33,37,38,40,41,43,44. g) By altering the rules of unions to keep them out of official positions. 1, 20, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43. h) By organizing A.L.P. Industrial Groups in the unions. 8, 12, 13,23,24, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45. It should be noted that "(d) by waging a socialist propaganda campaign in the unions" was a method of combating Communists advocated by many in the anti Grouper faction in the A.L.P. split and became something of a slogan of most anti Groupers. The rationale was that unionists would prefer democratic socialism to revolutionary or totalitarian socialism if they had the choice. It is difficult to assess how seriously it was taken as an anti-Communist measure. It is certainly equivocal enough to allow six of the seven respondents listed under (b) ("Communists should be sought as allies against capitalism") to subscribe to it. e) "By outlawing the Communist Party" was a method tried in 1951 by the Liberal-Country Party government. The A.L.P. under Dr. Evatt's leadership cam paigned for a "no" vote when the L.c.P. government sought in a referendum the constitutional power from the people to outlaw the Communist Party. g) "By altering the rules of unions to keep them ollt of official positions" was a method advocated within the Labor movement by the Australian Workers' Union leaders who Were generally regarded as Right-wing. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 49 h) "By organizing A.L.P. Industrial Groups in the unions" was the method of combating Communists typical of the Grouper faction in the A.L.P. split. The distribution of respondents under the topic "Socialism" according to the answers they favoured was: Socialism i) All true Labor men are socialists. 3,4,5,6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18,19,20,21,23,25,27,30,31,33,39,40. j) The socialists are a minority in the Labor Party. 1,4,8,5,7,9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19,23,29,32,33,35,37,38,40. k) The socialists are a majority in the Labor Party. 2,3,4, 12,20,21,25,27,30,31,33,39. I) Socialism destroys religion. 38, 41. m) Nationalization only of monopolies and industries that exploit the people. 1,2,3,4,5,6,20,21,26,28,31,32,34,36,37,40,41,42,44. n) Nationalization of basic industries such as banking, coal, iron and steel, electricity, and transport. 4,5,7, 12,14,21,33,35,37,42,43. 0) Nationalization of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. 4,9,10,11,12,15,17,18,19,20,22,25,27,29,30. Other opinions: p) Socialism means applied Christianity, i.e. being Christ-like in our relations with others, living with one another instead of on one another. 10, 11. Labor governments should nationalize: q) Immediately they get into office. 2,4,5,7,9,11,14,17,21,20,25,31,40,42,43. r) Only those industries for which they get a mandate from the voters. 1,4, 8, 12,24,25,26, 33, 36, 42, 45. s) Only as a last resort to get justice for the people. 1,4,8,23,25,35,37,38,39,41,45. t) Immediately they get into office but cautiously selecting those industries for which it is possible to get popular support for nationalization. 2,3,4, 12,14,16, 18, 19,21,22,24,27,30,33,41,42. It will be noted that in the above tabulation the attitudes to communism have been allotted the letters (a) to (h) and the attitudes to socialism have been allotted the letters (i) to (t). There is a good correlation between groups (b) and (c), the most favourable to Communists, and with group (0) who believe in the "nationalization of all the means of production", or group (n) "nationalization of the basic industries", that is to say groups (b) and (c) believe in extensive nationalization of industries and could, there fore, be properly called "socialists". Socialism here seems the prior attitude, disposing this group to regard the Communists as fellow-socialists. But it should be noted that in the group of ten who believe in nationalization of basic industries, nine believe that the Communists should be fought, and of the group of fifteen respondents who believe in the nationalization ofall the means ofproduction, distribution and exchange, eight want to fight the Communists. Taking the attitude to nationalization of industries as the basic division into "left" and "right", the attitude to Communists then provides a further division in the "left". Those who have a favourable attitude to the Communists then become the Extreme Left and those who want to fight the Communists become the Moderate Left. In the Moderate Left two of those who believe in the nationalization of all the means ofproduction, distribution, and exchange want the Communist Party outlawed. Of the ten who believe in nationalizing the basic industries, five want drastic action 50 TOM TRUMAN against the Communist Party. Generally, since the origin of the Communist Party in Australia, relations between it and the Australian Labor Party have mostly been hostile. The Communist Party has usually made fiercer attacks on the mildly socialist AL.P. than on the capitalist Liberal and Country Parties. But since 1951 it has been seeking an alliance with the AL.P. Though it has not been successful as far as the A.L.P. as a whole is concerned, an alliance was formed in the trade unions with the Extreme Left group, with the temporary connivance of many influential members of the Moderate Left and Moderate Right in Victoria and Queensland for tactical reasons arisIng out of the split and the desire to weaken the Grouper faction. But it should be noted that no less than twenty-eight of the forty-five respondents in our sample wanted d.tastic action (e), (f), (g), and (h) to be taken against the Communists, at a time when hostility to the Groupers was intense and, therefore, by reaction to them, feeling against the Communists was at its lowest. I take the Right to be all those who adopt a cautious approach to nationalization of industries, such as: m) "Nationalization only of monopolies and industries that exploit the people", generally speaking the attitude most characteristic of Labor politicians and, perhaps, of the AL.P. generally; or r) "Nationalize only those industries for which they can get a mandate from the people" ; s) "Nationalize only as a last resort to get justice for the people"; t) "Nationalize immediately in office but cautiously selecting only those industries for which it is possible to get popular support". Attitudes to communism here again provide a secondary division. There is a fairly good correlation between the least socialistic attitude (s) "nationalize only as a last resort to get justice for the people" and attitude (h) "fight Communists by organising AL.P. Industrial Groups in the unions", an attitude that might be said in 1957 to show attachment to the Grouper cause. At least, it was likely to be so judged by the members ofthe anti-Grouper faction. The most likely explanation for the conjunction of these attitudes in anyone respondent would be that the respondent shared the beliefs of the Catholic Social Movement, led by Mr. Santamaria, which interpreted Catholic social principles, 1 think rightly, to mean that nationalization was only justified as a last resort when no other method would serve to get justice for the general public, and which was the dominant force in the AL.P. Industrial Groups. It was certainly true that the Industrial Groups method of fighting the Communists in the trade unions had been demonstrated to be a very effective way and one greatly feared by the Communists. This group then, which shared attitudes (s) and (h), I designated the Extreme Right. The Moderate Right were simply the remainder of the Right. Assuming that my surmise about the sympathy of the Extreme Right for Mr. Santamaria's organization of militant Catholics is correct (and their sharing of many attitudes with the member of the Democratic Labor Party suggests that it is), this grouping was a relatively recent one dating only from about the early 1940's. The Moderate Right appear to be the old Right judging from many of their attitudes expressed over the range of topics. The ideological groups The way the respondents divided according to the socialism-communism test, then, was the principle of their classification into the ideological groups: Extreme Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Extreme Right. It should be remembered thatthe justification of this procedure and, indeed, the justification for publishing this paper is the correlation of the respondents' attitudes on the socialism-communism issues with their views on the whole range of topics in the survey. the following table summarizes the grouping met]1od and shows the distribution of respondents under it. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 51 The Extreme Left (9 respondents) i.e. those who believe in extensive nationalization and have a favourable attitude to Communists. 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 27, 30. The Moderate Left (13 respondents) i.e. those who believe in extensive nationalization of industries and have an unfavourable attitude to Communists. 7, 12, 14, 16, 19,20,21,22,25,29,33,42,43. The Extreme Right (6 respondents) i.e. those of the sample who show the most reluctance to nationalize industries and also believe in using A.L.P. Industrial Groups to fight Communists in the unions. 8, 23, 38, 39, 41, 45. The Moderate Right (16 respondents) i.e. those who show a cautious attitude to nationalization but are less reluctant than the Extreme Right. They are also anti-Communist in attitude. However, only two of them believed in using the A.L.P. Industrial Groups. 1,2,3,6,13,24,26,28,31,32,34,35,36,37,40,44. It should be noted that respondent number 4 has been omitted from the ideologi cal grouping. The reason appears in his answers under the heading "Socialism". He gave answers indicating support for contradictory positions on nationalization of industries which made it impossible to place him in any ideological group according to the scheme used. His omission accounts for the number of respondents being reduced to forty-four. It would be unrealistic, of course, to cxpect well-defined lines of separation be tween each ideological group. Thus, it should be notcd that ofthe thirteen respondents in the Moderate Left who want to fight Communists, seven are prepared to go only so far as "waging a socialist propaganda campaign in the unions". Even in the Moderate Right four of the sixteen respondents are apparently satisfied with this method of fighting Communists. Part of the explanation lies, I think, in the strong feeling of the socialists against the Groupers who, they thought, wanted to eliminate the socializa tion objective and therefore by comparison the Communists did not seem much of a menace. But part of the explanation also lies in the remoteness and isolation of Australia from Europe where events have made most socialists more strongly anti Communist because of the way Communist regimes have dealt with non-Communist socialists. The European experience has failed to atTect many Australian socialists very much. Similar blurring of lines occurs on nationalization of industries. Two of the thirteen respondents in the Moderate Left found no inconsistency in supporting both (n) "Nationalization ofbasic industries" and (m) "Nationalization only of monopolies and industries that exploit the people". The vagueness of the latter phrase, of course, lends itself quite naturally to expansion into the former. It might be asked what are the reasons for supposing that these ideological groups derived from correlating the answers of a set of Queensland respondents apply to the Australian Labor Party activists in other states. The reasons are, firstly, that a group of federal Labor parliamentarians-none of them from Queensland-is included in the sample and their answers show the same patterns of correlation. Secondly, the attitudes of Australian Labor Party members seem to be remarkably similar from state to state because the party is based on a class-conscious and organized working class and this class consciousness is strong enough to overcome regional ditTerences and to cause a large measure of uniformity of outlook at least along the lines of the four ideological divisions. It could be said that ideological divisions express degrees of class consciousness, or degrees of alienation from the existing society and its social system, though if my assumptions about them are correct, the Extreme Right group have another cause of alienation in their militant Catholicism 52 TOM TRUMAN which would seem to be due in part to a sense ofbeing unfairly treated or discriminated against as Catholics. The attitudes ofthe Extreme Right group would tend to be similar throughout Australia, partly because the Catholic Social Movement official beliefs and policies were a unifying factor. The marks of the relative unity of ideological groups within the range mentioned are to be seen in the way delegates from different states group together at meetings of the Federal Conference and Federal Executive of the A.L.P. and in the way members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party vote across state lines in ideological groups in Caucus decisions. Again it has often been remarked that the Commonwealth Senate has failed to divide along state lines because otthe strength ofthe party cohesion and party discipline. Party cohesion and discipline, at least in the Australian Labor Party, are founded on the unifying factor of the class basis of the party system. In the following pages, tables are set out showing the attitude of each ideological group to the range of topics in the survey, and the extent to which the members of each ideological class voted as a group. From these tables the reader may judge to what extent it is established that the groupings derived from the attitudes of the respondents to socialism and communism remain cohesive ideological groups over the range of topics. The strict order ofthe questions appearing in the questionnaire used in the survey has been changed in collating the results in the interests of a more logical order relating to the generality and particularity of the questions. ATTITUDES REFLECTED IN THE SURVEY TOPICS Classes and class war 1. There are no classes in Australia. No one in our sample holds this view. 4. The workers have won the class struggle. No one in our sample holds this view. 2. The working class is exploited by the capitalists. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 27 44 This is an attitude typical of the Left but shared by a number on the Right. It is believed to be widely held in the A.L.P. 3. The workers and capitalists are engaged in a continual class war. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 12 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 26 44 As with (2) this is an attitude typical of the Left but shared by a number on the Right. It is believed to be widely held in the A.L.P. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 53 5. The workers cannot win the class war until socialism is introduced. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 11 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 25 44 As with (2) and (3) this is an attitude typical of the Left (Extreme and Moderate) (indeed, the combination (2), (3), and (5) is typical of the Left), but it is shared by some on the Right. 6. There are classes in Australia but there is no great class feeling or class war. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 15 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 25 44 An attitude typical of the Right (both Extreme and Moderate) but shared by some in the Moderate Left. It has no support from the Extreme Left but is believed to be widely held in the A.L.P. Capitalism 1. Capitalists create depressions to suit themselves. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 7 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 26 44 This attitude has strongest support of the Moderate Left but it has also majority support of the Extreme Left and Extreme Right with less than majority support of the Moderate Right. The support from the Extreme Right is probably due to the antagonism of Catholic social teaching to capitalism. 2. Depressions are due to the inefficiency of capitalism. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 11 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 33 44 This attitude which is more rationally defensible than (1) is typical of the Extreme Left, Moderate Left, and Moderate Right with support from half of the Extreme Right. Sixteen of the respondents holding attitude (2) also held attitude (1).. 54 TOM TRUMAN 3. Capitalism can be made to work efficiently and justly by Labor governments. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 7 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 20 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Right who, in spite of their antagonism to capitalism as it is, believe Labor reforms can make it work justly. A curious result is that a majority of the Moderate Left but less than a majority of the Moderate Right support this view. This result should be compared with the response to question (7) below. 4. Capitalism is inherently immoral and unjust to the worker and must be swept away. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 22 44 This attitude is typical only of the Extreme Left, though slightly less than half the Moderate Left and a third of the Moderate Right and Extreme Right also hold it. 5. Wars, international tension, and imperialism are all products of capitalism. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 I J Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 27 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left but is also supported by a third of the Moderate Right and Extreme Right. Compare this result with res ponses to question (8) under "America". The attitudes of Extreme Left, Moderate Right, and Extreme Right correlate but not the Moderate Left. 6. Capitalism gives rise to an implacable class war between workers and capitalists. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 26 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left but has the support of half the Extreme Right. This latter result is probably due to Catholic social teaching which agrees with this attitude. Included among the respondents who support this view were nine of the ten trade union officials included in the sample. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 55 7. Capitalism can be reformed to suit the workers. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 21 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Right with more than majority support of the Moderate Right and less than majority support of the Moderate Left. Seventeen of these twenty-one respondents also believe that "Labor governments can make capitalism work efficiently and justly" (3). Adding the two results together would give twenty-four respondents believing capitalism can be reformed to suit the workers. 8. Capitalism is the best economic system. Not one of the respondents supported this view. Capitalism-general comments It is clear from these responses that the Australian Labor Party is an alliance of groups united in antagonism to capitalism. The antagonism is greatest on the Left, especially the Extreme Left, and least on the Moderate Right. The Extreme Right could be affected by the hostility of Catholic social teaching for the capitalism system, especially enterprises of large scale. But the Right, generally, thinks that capitalism can be reformed to suit the workers, while the Extreme Left and half the Moderate Left feel that it must be swept away and replaced with socialism to get justice for the workers. Foreign policy 1. Australia should be neutral in the Cold War. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 (9) Extreme Left 9 6 (1) Moderate Left 13 3 (1) Moderate Right 16 1 (l) Extreme Right 6 19 (12) 44 This view has the complete support of the Extreme Left but five of the six Moderate Left also say that "it is correct policy for Australia to belong to anti-Communist alliances in the Pacific", as.does one of the Moderate Right. Of these five, four say they support "close alliance with America". The Moderate Right respondent who supports "anti-Communist alliances" also supports "alliance with America", as does another Moderate Right respondent. The corrected figures appear in brackets. 2. It is correct policy for Australia to belong to anti-Communist alliances in the Pacific. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 12 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 24 44 56 TOM TRUMAN This view has the support of two-thirds of the Extreme Right and Moderate Left and three-fourths of the Moderate Right. 3. Since we rely on American power to protect us we should be in close alliance with the U.S.A. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 15 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 28 44 This is a significant result, I think, as it shows almost complete support for this view from Moderate Right and Extreme Right (one each of these groups believing in neutrality in the Cold War) and two-thirds support from the Moderate Left. 4. Australia should always follow British policy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 5 (1) Moderate Left 13 2 (1) Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 7 (2) 44 Four of the Moderate Left supporting this view also support "a close alliance with America" as does one of the Moderate Right respondents. The corrected figures appear in brackets. 5. Australia should put first friendly relations with: China and Russia Not one respondent supported this view. India, Indonesia, and other neutral Asian powers Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 4 44 Britain Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 19 44 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 57 America Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 I Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 8 44 I think this is a significant result. It shows first of all that no one, not even any of the Extreme Left, want to put friendly relations with China and Russia first. There is very little support for putting friendship with the Asian neutrals first (all these four respondents also believed that Australia should be neutral in the Cold War). It shows that the image of Britain is more attractive than that of America in relation to foreign policy. Other opinions Of the other opinions expressed the best supported were: a) Australia should try to establish friendly relations with all nations equally. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 I Moderate Left 13 I Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 5 44 b) Australia should establish friendly relations with Britain and America. Others were omitted. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 6 44 Foreign policy-general comments Strongest support for a policy of Australian neutrality in the Cold War comes from the Extreme Left in which group every respondent held this view. Five of the six Moderate Left and one of the Moderate Right had an initial impulse to support neutrality in the Cold War but also wanted to support anti-Communist alliances. This left support for neutrality in the Cold War almost entirely a matter of Extreme Left support. Perhaps the other respondents who were divided and unclear as to which policy they supported could be potential allies for the Extreme Left on this issue. I think it is significant that the Extreme Left supported neutrality in the Cold War and that none of them were prepared to put friendly relations with China and Russia first. But three of them put friendship with China and Russia second in their preferences, one of them after the Asian neutrals and two of them after Britain. However in questions on "Nationalism and lnternationalism" two of the Extreme Left group thought Australia should seek closer ties with the Soviet Union and China. It would appear that the Extreme Left diverge from the Communists on foreign 58 TOM TRUMAN PQllcy issues but obviously the Communists could carry them on neutrality in the Cold War and support for the "World peace movement sponsored by the people of Russia and China". (See 6 (d) under "Nationalism and Internationalism".) The American alliance has the support ofthe great majority ofthe Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Extreme Right but the image of Britain is still more attractive than that of Americain foreign policy for all ideological groups. Despite this, only two respondents would be prepared always tQ follow British policy. The Soviet Union 1. The Soviet Union is a truly democratic socialist country. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 I Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 5 44 This view has little support. Even on the Extreme Left only one-third hold it. The support of one member of the Extreme Right group seems to show that the method I used to delineate the ideological groups was faulty at least in his case. 2. The Soviet Union is ruled by a clique ofruthless totalitarian power-hungry dictators. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 14 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 25 44 This view has almost complete support from the Extreme Right and Moderate Right and just under half support from the Moderate Left. (Compare this group response with result in (5).) It has no support from the Extreme Left. 3. The Soviet Union is a peace-loving non-aggressive country. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 7 44 This view has support from a majority of the Extreme Left but practically none from other ideological groups. The aberrant member of the Extreme Right suggests a failure of the casting system used in his case. 4. The Soviet rulers use international communism to further their aims of world conquest. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 14 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 28 44 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 59 This view has almost complete support from the Extreme Right and Moderate Right, two-thirds support from the Moderate Left, and no support from the Extreme Left. 5. The Soviet rulers are no better and no worse than the rulers of any other powerful nation. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left l3 o Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 II 44 This view has the support of a majority of the Extreme Left and a considerable minority of the Moderate Left. (Compare this group's response in (2) above.) It has no support on the Moderate Right. The lone member of the Extreme Right group seems to have been miscast and shows a failure of the method grouping used in this case. General comment It is clear that the image of the Soviet Union held by the Moderate Right and Extreme Right is highly unfavourable. The Moderate Left are divided between hostility and a neutral sceptical attitude. Four of the Extreme Left adopted this neutral attitude and the other flve showed a favourable attitude. It would be possible to interpret this response as a lack of frankness but the frank answers given in relation to questions on "Communism", "Imperialism", "Nationalism", and "Internation alism" incline me to think that this is a fairly true picture of the views of the Extreme Left, and therefore that it would be false to regard the position of about half of them, at least, as identical with that of the Communist Party. America 1. America is a democratic country where the workers enjoy a high standard of living. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 12 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 21 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Right and the Moderate Right. It has little support on the Left. 2. America is a capitalist country where the workers are exploited. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 21 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left. It has some support from the Extreme Right but none from the Moderate Right. The support from the Extreme Right may possibly be due to the antagonism towards Big Business of Catholic social teaching. 60 TOM TRUMAN 3. The American ruling class is fascist or semi-fascist. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 7 44 It is notable that less than half of the Extreme Left group support this view which shows that some members of this group do not simply follow the Communist line on international affairs despite their friendly attitude to Communists on local issues. There is little support in any other ideological group for this view. 4. The American workers are politically backward. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 23 44 This is an attitude typical of the Extreme Left, but with the support of half the Extreme Right and with less than half the support ofthe Moderate Left and Moderate Right. The general feeling of these respondents would seem to be that the "backward ness" lies in the American workers' belief in capitalism and not socialism and the failure of the American Labor movement to develop a Labor Party. Perhaps the attitude of the Extreme Right is due to the antagonism of Catholic social teaching towards Big Business and capitalist values. 5. American monopoly capitalism plans to subject all nations to world-wide im perialism. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 12 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left, has a little support from the Moderate Left and practically none from the Right. 6. American investment in Australian industry should be welcomed. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 22 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Right and the Moderate Right but has majority support from the Moderate Left. Many commented that a majority of shares should be held by Australians in any industry in which American capital was invested. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 61 7. American investment here will reduce Australia to a Yankee colony. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 11 44 ,This view has practically no support outside the Extreme Left though, as noted above, many thought that safeguards should be enacted to prevent Americans from getting control of Australian industry. 8. America is our friend and ally against Communist imperialism. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 21 44 This is an attitude that has more than majority support on the Moderate Left, Moder ate Right, and Extreme Right. 9. American unions have a more intelligent attitude towards productivity than Australian unions. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 7 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 ]5 44 Only the Extreme Right gives majority support to this view and support diminishes as one moves left. Interest in productivity seems to be related to "responsibility" and "identification" with the present Australian socio-economic system. 10. Americans are hysterical and trigger-happy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 17 44 This view of Americans has strong support from the Extreme Left, some from the Moderate Left, and weak support from the Right. 11. Americans are like Australians in being friendly, easy to get on with, and democratic. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 ]2 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 28 44 62 TOM TRUMAN This view of Americans finds complete support from the Extreme Right, three-fourths support from the Moderate Right, majority support from the Moderat.e ~eft,. and one-third support from the Extreme Left. Some respondents on the Left distIngUIshed between individual Americans and their national government. 12. Americans are always reluctant to be involved in the affairs of other nations. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 2] 44 This view finds majority support from Extreme Right and Moderate Right and just less than majority support from the Moderate Left. General comments It is plain that there is a fairly clear correlation between ideology and attitudes to America. The more socialist the group the more anti-American is the general picture, suggesting that this sentiment is related to anti-capitalism. However it is clear that the Extreme Left, who are not only strongly socialist but also pro-Communist, are those who hold the strongest anti-American attitudes. But this group does not seem to have clearly sided against America in the Cold War. Rather they tend towards neutrality in the Cold War with a bias against America and towards the Communist powers. It would seem that, though the Moderate Left, which is strongly socialist but anti Communist, is antagonistic to the American economic system, a majority of them support the American alliance and think well of individual Americans; the more horrific view of America propagated by the Communists has little support from the Moderate Left and is not entirely accepted by the Extreme Left. Imperialism ]. The British should leave Cyprus. Number of Persons Their Group Number in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right ]6 2 Extreme Right 6 29 44 It must be remembered that this question was asked in 1956-57 when the outcome of the Cyprus question was uncertain. The results show that it was a typical attitude of the Left but the Moderate Right were divided pretty evenly. It was not typical of Extreme Right. 2. The French should leave Algeria. Number of Persons Their Group Number in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 ]] Moderate Left 13 8 Moderate Right ]6 2 Extreme Right 6 29 44 Again, this question was put before the outcome of the Algerian war was clear and French policy seemed on balance to favour retaining Algeria in the French Union. The results show a similar pattern to (I) above. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 63 3. The Australians should leave New Guinea. Only one person, and he a member of the Extreme Right, thought Australia should leave New Guinea. A number of respondents wrote what 1 think is the common view, that "Australia should stay in Papua-New Guinea until the people are advanced enough to determine their own future". 4. The Russians should leave Hungary and Poland and other countries they occupy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 12 Moderate Left 13 16 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 36 44 A pretty well unanimous view of Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Extreme Right. It even has some support on the Extreme Left. There seems to be a tendency on the Left to make a distinction between internal Communists who are regarded as opponents of the main enemy, capitalism, and Communist imperialism. 5. The French and British were right in their police action concerning the Suez Canal. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 9 44 This attitude was typical of the Extreme Right and had very little support from the Moderates and none at all from the Extreme Left. 6. Imperialism is never justifled. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 23 44 An attitude typical of the Left especially of the Extreme Left (most of the latter, however, do not want the Russians to leave the countries they occupy), with some support amongst the Moderate Right. 7. The British should leave Malaya. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 24 44 An attitude typical of the Left, especially the Extreme Left, but shared by a significant number on the Right. Note, however, that two Rightists made a special point that the British should only leave when requested by the Malayan government. 64 TOM TRUMAN 8. The British should not leave Singapore until there is no danger of Communist subversion. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 21 44 Typical attitude of the Right, especially the Extreme Right, but with support from half the Moderate Left. 9. The British should hold on to the rest of their Empire. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 11 44 A surprisingly large minority comprising a third of the Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Extreme Right holds this view but one Extreme Right, two Moderate Right, and one Moderate Left probably spoke for this group when stating that "backward people should be controlled and trained by the imperial power until able to control their own affairs". 10. Backward people must be controlled by the more advanced nations. Number of Persons Their Group Number in Group o Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 16 44 An attitude typical of Extreme Right with strong support from Moderates. As in (9) above five of this group state that the controlling power must train the subject people for self-rule and hand over power when the subject people are capable of self-govern ment. Other views One Extreme Left, one Moderate Left, and one Moderate Right wrote that their ideal was self-determination and freedom for all nations but leading to world govern ment through the United Nations. Two Moderate Left and one Moderate Right wrote that all advanced nations must assist under-developed nations but this must be supervised by the United Nations. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 65 Nationalism and internationalism 1. The Australian national anthem to be played at public gatherings instead of "God Save the Queen". Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 33 44 Typical attitude of Extreme Left and Extreme Right with majority of Moderate Left and Moderate Right supporting it. Strong nationalism is a sentiment generally held to be typical of the A.L.P. 2. Only Australians should be appointed as governors. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 11 Moderate Left 13 14 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 38 44 An attitude typical of all ideological groups in the sample. It is hard to get greater unanimity on any other issue except hostility to the press than on strong Australian nationalism in the party. Those who do not support this particular variation of the attitude are actually more nationalistic to the point of republicanism, see (3) below. 3. Australia should leave the British Commonwealth and be entirely independent. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 7 44 In its early days the A.L.P. had quite a few republicans in leading positions who held a view like this but I, along with many others, had believed this sentiment to have quite died away with the party's rise to be the major party (and all that meant in being careful not to offend the voters' susceptibilities and in becoming respectable and responsible), with the transition from Empire to Commonwealth-the Empire "going into voluntary liquidation"-and with the British Labour Party's momentous years of power 1945-50. It is not a little surprising to find republicanism as strong as this. Perhaps the British attempt to enter the Common Market subsequent to the period of survey (1956-57) may have strengthened this sentiment further? This group included one federal politician, two state politicians, one trade union official, and four branch members. 4. Australia should avoid all entanglements and alliances with other nations. Only one respondent held this attitude and he was a member of the Moderate Left. 66 TOM TRUMAN 5. Australians are much too nationalistic and should seek closer ties with a) Britain Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 7 44 The two Extreme Leftists wanted closer ties with all nations, including the Soviet Union and China. One Moderate Leftist wanted closer ties with U.S.A., Britain, and other democratic countries, with the peoples of Asia, and the United Nations. The other Moderate Leftist wanted closer ties with the United Nations. The Moderate Rightist wanted closer ties with U.S.A., Britain, and other democratic countries and the United Nations. The two Extreme Rightists wanted closer ties with U.S.A., Britain, and other democratic countries and one of them also wanted closer ties with the United Nations and the peoples of Asia. None of them wanted closer ties with Britain alone. b) U.S.A., Britain, and other democratic countries Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 14 44 See note above. c) The Soviet Union, China, and other people's democracies Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 4 44 See note above. d) The United Nations Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 16 44 See note above. The result shows a strong attitude oftrust in the United Nations by a significant minority of each ideological group. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 67 e) The peoples of Asia Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 1] 44 This is, perhaps, the most significant result showing a trend in each ideological group for the A.L.P. to come to terms with Australia's position in regard to its environment and its relatively weak power in the world. Not surprisingly, four of the seven federal politicians hold this attitude. 6. Australia should be an independent nation, but be a member of: a) The United Nations Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 6 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right ]6 5 Extreme Right 6 29 44 The result shows strong support for the United Nations in all ideological groups stronger support than for any other international body. Note that the Moderate Right shows the weakest support, giving stronger support to the ANZUS Pact and the British Commonwealth. The Moderate Right has less of that idealism which all the other ideological groups in the A.L.P. have in generous measure. However on the Extreme Right this is buttressed by strong support for the ANZUS Pact. The Left in reacting against the American alliance place more faith in the United Nations than is, perhaps, warranted by the performance of that body. b) The British Commonwealth N umber of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 24 44 This attitude is typical of Extreme Right and Moderate Right; it has majority support on the Moderate Left and weak support from the Extreme Left. It is somewhat surprising to me to find support for membership of the British Commonwealth as weak as this result indicates, see also (3) above. Significantly six of the seven federal politicians support membership in the Commonwealth. c) ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) Pact Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 13 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 24 44 68 TOM TRUMAN An attitude typical of the Moderate and Extreme Right but with strong support from the Moderate Left. Antagonism towards the United States and its foreign policies is clearly strongest on the Extreme Left, and is shared by many in the Moderate Left. d) World peace movement sponsored by people of Russia and China Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 9 44 Clearly, this attitude is typical only of the Extreme Left, and has little support on the Moderate Left and none at all on the Right. The world peace movement or its local manifestation, the Australian and New Zealand Peace Congress and Peace Council, has the approval of the Victorian, Queensland, and Western Australian State Execu tives of the A.L.P. and membership is permitted to A.L.P. members by the Federal Executive of the party. e) Afro-Asian Conference Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 13 44 Similar to 5(e) above. Possibly weaker support from the Extreme Right is due to the fact that this is a neutralist, distinctly Leftist grouping of states whereas 5(e) "peoples of Asia" could mean Nationalist China, South Vietnam, South Korea, etc. Note that five of the ten union officials held this view. War and pacifism I. Australia should never go to war. Only one person and he a member of the Extreme Right took this attitude. 2. Australia should go to war only to protect herself against invasion. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 7 44 Note that of these seven persons five also held that "Australia should never enter any war except for self-defence or when called on to do so by the United Nations" (res ponse 3). This old isolationist attitude has been slightly modified into the new isola tionist attitude which is linked with faith in the United Nations as the voice of world opinion and international justice. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 69 3. Australia should never enter any war except for self-defence or when called on to do so by the United Nations. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 7 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 25 44 Note that four of the Moderate Right, three of the Moderate Left, and one Extreme Right who held this attitude also believed we should help our allies U.S.A., Britain, and New Zealand, which would make the true isolationists seven Extreme Left, six Moderate Left, three Moderate Right, and one Extreme Right, and reduce the total isolationists to nineteen when the two from response (2) are added. This isolationism would appear to be typical ofthe Extreme Left, who presumably do not want Australia to go to war on the side of the anti-Communist governments with which it is allied (but only four of them held that "Australia should never go to war against a socialist country, e.g. the Soviet Union"), and it is a distinctly Leftist attitude as half of the Moderate Left group also hold it but with no expressed preference for the Soviet. 4. Australia should always go to war to help Britain. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left . 9 3 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 6 44 One of the six persons holding this attitude also holds that Australia should go to war to help New Zealand as well as Britain. Another would help other Commonwealth countries. Three would also help the U.S.A. This always-help-Britain attitude has always been strong in the Australian community generally and in 1916 the Labor Party split between the loyalty-to-Britain group and the anti-conscriptionists. The figures are interesting as revealing the comparative weakness of this sentiment in the A.L.P. It is assumed to be strong in the Liberal and Country Parties. 5. Australia should be prepared if necessary to go to war to help her allies, i.e. principally U.S.A., Britain, and New Zealand. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 13 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 24 44 The lack ofsupport from the Extreme Left is the most noticeable fact about the results, but probably more significant is that a majority ofall other groups believes in support ing Australia's allies. As was to be expected strongest support comes from the Right. Indeed the correlation is sufficiently good to say that this attitude is typical of the Right, both Moderate and Extreme. 70 TOM TRUMAN 6. Australia should never go to war against a socialist country, e.g. the Soviet Union. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 5 44 As expected this view is strongest on the Extreme Left and has no support from the Right. But even on the Left it is not strongly held. Conscription 1. Conscription of men for war is never justified. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 9 44 Of this group three thought conscription justified for the defence of Australia or Australia and its territories. Excluding these the result is: Conscription never justified. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 6 44 2. Conscription is justified only for the defence of Australia against invasion. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 19 44 Of this group eleven wcrc also in favour of conscription for the defence of Australia and its territories. Excluding these the result is: Conscription only to defend Australia against invasion: Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 8 44 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 71 Taken in conjunction with the extreme anti-conscriptionists in response (1) this results in support for the traditional anti-conscription position as it was in the con scription split of 1916 and before World War II when Prime Minister John Curtin persuaded the party to permit conscription for certain islands north of Australia. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 14 44 It is notable that this is an attitude supported by the majority of the Extreme Left with strong support in the Moderate Left. 3. Conscription is justified only if necessary for the protection of Australia and its territories. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 7 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 19 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Right and has little less than majority support on the Moderate Left and Moderate Right. This position is close to the position achieved by Prime Minister Curtin during World War II. 4. Conscription is the only fair and efficient way to conduct a war if we are involved. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 15 44 The view of this particular group which is represented by a third or more of every ideological group might be summed up in the words of one of them: "Voluntary service is the ideal, but it leaves the field open to 'bludgers', usually of the wealthier class, to find themselves 'cushy' and 'patriotic' jobs while the 'mugs' go to the front." The extreme anti-conscription position was put by one respondent as: "Let those who feel they have nothing to lose please themselves. Let the others [who have wealth] do the fighting." "Identification", "stake in the country", and "responsibility" factors are mentioned also in the defence plank of the A.L.P. federal platform. It says: "The Commonwealth Government should pursue a policy of progressively improving the standard of living in Australia, so that all free citizens, irrespective of origin, will be united in their determination to defend and maintain it." Excluding those who wanted conscription only for the defence of Australia or 72 TOM TRUMAN Australia and its territories there remains a group who would want conscription in any war in which Australia is involved: Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 8 44 It is clear that anti-conscription is a very strong attitude in all ideological groups in our sample. Immigration and race 1. Asians and other coloured races should be excluded. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 15 44 An attitude of the Moderates and typical of the Moderate Right. Included were two of the seven federal politicians, no state politicians, two trade union officials of the sample of ten, and eleven of the twenty-two branch members. This last figure is significant. I think this reflects the time-lag between changes in the thinking of the more influential groups, parliamentarians and union officials, and the more passive role ofthe branches, for this traditional attitude typical ofthe A.L.P. for half a century was undergoing modification in the post-war years. 2. We should allow a small quota of Asians to come in annually. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 19 44 The significant thing is the convergence of Extreme Left and Extreme Right on this attitude compared with Moderate support for response (1) above. The move to change the party's immigration platform from (1) to (2) has certainly been backed by Extreme Left elements in the Victorian and Western Australian Executives and Catholic Labor journals such as News-Weekly and the Catholic Worker. 3. There is no good reason why Australian girls should not marry intelligent educated Asians and negroes. Number of Persons Their Group Number in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 12 44 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 73 Mixed ideological flavour, but significant that such a liberal attitude on racial issue received as much support from a party whose official policy is "White Australia". Eight of this group of twelve were also in favour of a small quota of Asians being admitted. 4. Intermarriage with coloured people debases the white race. Number of Persons Their Group Number in Group o Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 9 44 The significant thing is the lack of support from Extreme Left and Extreme Right. It is an attitude of some moderates but is not typical. 5. Malayan brides of Australian soldiers should be allowed into Australia. Number of Persons Their Group Number in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 28 44 It is pleasing to see that this humanitarian attitude is supported by a majority of all ideological groups which contrasts pleasantly with the rigid administration of the immigration policy by the Labor government in the period 1945-49 whereby a number of Asians married to Australians were denied the right to reside in Australia. This attitude is typical of the Moderate Left. Perhaps support from the Extreme Left is not stronger because of disapproval of the policy of sending Australian troops to Malaya (compare eight of nine Extreme Left said the British should leave Malaya). Weaker support from the Moderate Right is consistent with results in responses (1), (2), and (6). 6. New Guinea natives as residents in Australian territory should be allowed free entry into Australia. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 24 44 This attitude is typical of the Left, Extreme and Moderate, and has fair support on the Extreme Right but very little on the Moderate Right. This Moderate Right attitude is consistent with the result in responses (1) and (2) which suggests that the Moderate Right, the least idealistic ideological group, is the strongest supporter of the White Australia plank of tht: A.L.P. platform. This conclusion is compatible with the attitudes of rightists in the Federal Conference of the A.L.P. and the Australian Workers' Union leaders. The Extreme Left also shows a consistent pattern in responses (1), (2), and (6). The Moderate Left, however, shows less enthusiasm for allowing Asians in than it does for New Guineans. 74 TOM TRUMAN All in all this result in response (6) is quite remarkable in a Labor Party whose official White'Australia policy is usually said to be based on fear of competition from cheap colOured labour. No less than s.even of the ten trade union officials in the sample suppOrted attitude (6). These results 111 responses (1), (2), (5), and (6) suggest that the basis of the White Australia policy is fear of some racial groups such as Asians, but nOt New Guineans. I tried to bring racial intolerance into the open in response (4) with some success in the Moderate Right responses but not enough to be conclusive. 7. The number of migrants coming into Australia should be reduced. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 I Extreme Right 6 15 44 8. We should increase the number of migrants corning in annually. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 14 44 9. The present intake of migrants is about right. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 8 44 The intake of migrants in 1956-57 was running at about 120,000 which is a very big intake for a population of 10,000,000. If responses (7), (8), and (9) are taken together they show that the Extreme Right is the strongest supporter of the present immigration programme and this is shared by a majority of the Moderate Right, and half the Moderate Left, while the Extreme Left is not at all enthusiastic. This result may be explained by the fact that post-war immigrants from Europe-the New Australians tend in many cases to be strongly anti-Communist and anti-Leftist generally. Another interpretation is that the Right is far more sensitive to the power of Communist China, the victories of the Communist Viet Cong and Pathet Lao in South-East Asia and the danger of a Communist take-over in Indonesia. They are therefore more anxious to increase population. It is notable that of the ten trade union officials in the sample seven wanted the immigration intake reduced and three wanted it increased. Of the former three were of the Extreme Left and one did not want to fight the Communists. The other three wanted to fight Communists only with a socialist propaganda campaign in the unions. Of the three who wanted the immigration intake increased one wanted to ban the Communist Party and one wanted to organize A.L.P. Industrial Groups to fight them in the unions. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 75 10. We need the population but there are a great many knifing incidents and sex offences amongst New Australians. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 17 44 Eight of this group of respondents also believed that "intermarriage with coloured people debases the white race (see response (4)). I think the attitude of the four Extreme Leftists who were not included in response (4) can be explained by their general aversion to New Australians on ideological grounds. Many New Australians in the unions tend to support the anti-Communist Industrial Groups. In fact the inci dence of crime including crimes of violence and sex offences is less amongst New Australians than the general population. 4 Democracy 1. We have political democracy but not economic democracy. Full democracy is possible only under socialism. Number of .Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 8 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 25 44 This view has complete support from the Extreme Left, majority support from the Moderate Left, only half the support of the Moderate Right, and 110 support from the Extreme Right. It correlates with degree of belief in socialism. 2. Australia is a democracy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 13 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 28 44 This view has practically no support from the Extreme Left, majority support from the Moderate Left, three-fourths support from the Moderate Right, and full support from the Extreme Right. It correlates with degree of belief in socialism. The more socialist the respondents the less Australia looks democratic to them. 4 3rd Report of the Committee Established to Investigate Conduct of Migrants, 30 April 1957. Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council (Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer). 76 TOM TRUMAN 3, China isa democracy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 I Extreme Right 6 6 44 This view has practically no support outside the Extreme Left. (It does not seem possible to account for the support from one respondent on the Extreme Right on any ideological interpretation.) Even on the Extreme Left less than half hold it, which would suggest that though they may be friendly to local Communists they do not hold all their views on international affairs. 4. The Soviet Union is a democracy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 6 44 The same result as in (3) above. 5. The United States of America is a democracy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 12 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 25 44 This view has no support from the Extreme Left, majority support from the Moderate Left, three-fourths support from the Moderate Right, and full support from the Extreme Right. It correlates with degree of belief in socialism-the more socialist the respondents the less the U.S.A. looks democratic to them. 6. Great Britain is a democracy. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 23 44 Much the same result as in (5) above and the same comments apply. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 77 7. Democracy is possible only under capitalism. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 o Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 44 The result is eloquent of the antagonism towards capitalism of all ideological groups. Many political scientists think that the proposition however may be true, but most would believe, I think, that democracy could function well in a mixed economy. 8. Democracy requires an opposition party strong and vigorous. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 14 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 25 44 This view has nearly complete support from the Moderate Right, majority from the Moderate Left, support from half the Extreme Right, and practically no support from the Extreme Left. 9. Democracy is possible with one political party providing it has majority support. Number of .Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 7 44 This view has support only from a minority of the Left. It would tend to suggest that the majority of the Extreme Left differ on this matter from the Communists. 10. Democracy requires that all groups have the right to compete for political power. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 4 . Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 15 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 35 44 This view has almost complete support from the Right, better than two-thirds support from the Moderate Left, and just less than half support from the Extreme Left. This is further evidence of divergence of the Extreme Left from the Communists. 78 TOM TRUMAN 11. Democracy is the rule of representatives of the majority. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 6 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 30 44 This view has the support of a majority of all ideological groups. 12. Permanent Labor rule would be possible if all workers of hand and brain knew their true interest. This would be truly democratic. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 . 9 Moderate Left 13 8 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 29 44 This view has almost complete support from the Extreme Left, three-fourths support from the Moderate Left, and two-thirds support from the Extreme Right, but just half of the Moderate Right support it. 13. It is undemocratic to limit the right to strike. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 23 44 This view has almost complete support from the Extreme Left, two-thirds support from the Moderate Left, three-eighths support from the Moderate Right, and prac tically no support from the Extreme Right. Eight of the ten trade union officials held this view and five of the seven federal politicians. Attitudes on "Classes" and "Class war" correlate. 14. It is undemocratic to limit the rights of Communists providing they do not resort to violence. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 8 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 23 44 This view has complete support from the Extreme Left, half of the Moderate Right support it and, surprisingly from an ideological angle, only one-third ofthe Moderate Left. The one-third support ofthe Extreme Right correlates in reverse with antagonism to communism. The great majority of Moderate Left appear antagonistic to the Communists. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 79 15. It is undemocratic to limit the activities of the press. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 . 2 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 13 44 This view has little support outside the Moderate Right which shows a surprisingly tolerant attitude when compared with unanimity of this group on the view that "the press slants the political news to hurt Labor". (See question (2) under "Press".) 16. It is undemocratic to limit the activities of fascists providing they do not resort to violence. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 13 44 This view has about one-third of the support of each ideological group except on the Extreme Right where it is less. The most significant thing about this result is, I think, the further evidence that some of the Extreme Left differ from the views of the Com munists on some matters. 17. Democracy must protect itself against its enemies and ban all totalitarian organ izations. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 2 .Extreme Right 6 11 44 This view has j list less than half the support ofthe Moderate Left, a third ofthe support of the Extreme Right, and negligible support from the Moderate Right and Extreme Left. General comments The over-all impression is that of the four ideological groups, the Moderate Right has the greatest attachment to the principles of libertarian democracy and displays the most tolerance towards opponents. This result should be compared with responses obtained from questions under the heading of "Immigration and Race". The Moderate Right displayed there the most intolerance towards other racial groups. There seems to be a curious inconsistency in these two results. The Extreme Left would appear to be the ideological group least in favour of the principles of libertarian democracy. The lack ofsupport from the majority ofthe Extreme Left for the views that China and the Soviet Union are democracies and that "democracy is possible with one political party providing it has majority support" could be due to a failure to be 80 TOM TRUMAN frank in regard to these questions, but this theory is not consistent with the frank answers obtained in relation to "Communists", "Imperialism", and "Nationalism and Internationalism". I conclude, therefore, that this is evidence of a divergence of views of the majority of the Extreme Left from the Communists on these matters. Trade unionism 1. People should be compelled by law to join unions. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 20 44 The official policy of the A.L.P. as laid down by the 1957 Federal Conference is "preference for unionists" in place of "compulsory unionism" which used to be in the federal platform. However, it can be seen that at least half the Moderate Left, the Moderate Right, and Extreme Right are in favour of compulsory unionism. The explanation of the lack of favour shown by the Extreme Left probably lies in two related facts. The first is that the compulsory unionism legislation passed by the Labor government in New South Wales was sponsored by a Grouper Executive. It helped unions in middle class callings such as the Clerks' Union, the Shop Assistants', and so on which are usually under Right-wing control and are not militant. In Queens land compulsory unionism has helped, besides the middle class unions, the Right wing Australian Workers' Union, which is basically a union of pastoral workers with a broad constitution to enable it to expand into a general labourers' union swallowing up unorganized rural and city workers. The reasoning of those in favour of compulsory unionism is that as the union members bear the expense of fighting for better wages and conditions it is unfair for "ticket-dodgers" to avail themselves ofthe benefits ofunionism while not being willing to contribute to the cost. 2. People should please themselves about joining a union. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 o Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 ] Extreme Right 6 3 44 This view, it is clear, has negligible support. 3. U~ions should use their own methods and not rely on the law to get people to join Ul1lons. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 20 44 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 81 This view has the support of the Extreme Left, but has less support from the other ideological groups than has compulsory unionism. 4. Liberal and Country Party governments want to cripple the unions. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 31 44 This view has strongest support from the Extreme Left but has better than majority support from all ideological groups. The truth concerning the attitude of Liberal Country Party governments would seem to be that their chief objections are to the commitment ofmost unions to the Australian Labor Party and the Communist leader ship of some. The Country Party is much more antagonistic to trade unions than the Liberal Party which is prepared to accept them as part and parcel of democratic society, only the Liberals would wish to subject them to more state regulation, in the interests of the freedom of their members, and to industrial law and order under the compulsory arbitration system. Hence the view that they want "tame cat" unions. 5. Liberal and Country Party governments accept unions as necessary to protect the workers. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 9 44 This is very much a minority view. 6. Labor governments should never break a strike, except a strike started by Com munists for political purposes. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 8 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 17 44 This view has the support of the majority of Moderate Left and Moderate Right opinion. It is notable that it has no support from the Extreme Left whose alliance with the Communists seems to be strongest.in industrial disputes and industrial affairs generally-what they regard as the class war against Australian capitalism. Their sympathy with Communists seems to be distinctly less in regard to international affairs. The result in relation to the Extreme Right should be taken in conjunction with the result below. 82 TOM TRUMAN governments should break any strike that is against the public interest. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 16 44 This proposition includes the one immediately above. It is then clear that the support for taking action against a strike initiated by Communists for political purposes would be so much greater than appears above. Eliminating duplication the result would be: Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 13 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 29 44 This result is consistent with the action of the federal Labor government in breaking the 1949 coal strike by putting troops into open-cut mines and on the wharves with the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, because it was felt that the Communist leadership of the Coal Miners', Waterside Workers', and Seamen's unions was motivated by political considerations. (About 1951 the Communist Party seems to have changed its policy of antagonism to the Australian Labor Party to one of seeking an alliance with the AL.P. Left wing.) The result is also consistent with the widespread support for the AL.P. Industrial Groups until they seemed about to take over the whole Labor movement. Industrial disputes and compulsory arbitration 1. Unions should scrap arbitration and rely on direct action. Not one respondent supported this view. 2. Arbitration should be replaced by collective bargaining as in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 o Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 5 44 My expectation was that this view or (l) above would receive strong support from the Left, especially the Extreme Left, because of the fierce criticism of the compulsory arbitration system in Leftist journals and because the period 1956-57 was one of prosperity and full employment. There were no trade union otlicials in this group of respondents. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 83 3. Unions should always rely on arbitration courts and accept their awards. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 7 44 As was expected this attitude has most adherents on the Right and is strongest'on the Extreme Right. 4. Unions should try compulsory arbitration courts first but reserve the right to strike if they don't get justice. Number of .Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 11 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 32 44 An attitude typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left but strongly held by the Moderate Right. The Extreme Right are divided evenly between this attitude and accepting the awards of arbitration courts, taking the good with the bad philosophi cally. Nine of the ten trade union officials in the sample held attitude (4). Historically this has always been the attitude of most union officials and members of the A.L.P. especially on the Left of the A.L.P. The general view has been that the compulsory arbi ration court system is a device intended to raise wages and to improve the standard of living of workers and if it does not do this then the unions are fully justified in resorting to strike action. Other opinions A leading federal politician and a union official who is also a leader of the A. L.P. suggest that federal parliament should have complete control of industrial affairs and legislate to get justice for all workers. They feel the injustice of a system where workers in weak and poor unions (including some highly skilled workers), which are ineffective either in the arbitration courts or in strikes, are being paid a good deal less than workers in more successful unions. They feel wage justice demands a more equitable principle. Wage rates should not depend on the skill of an industrial advocate or the power of a union. The wording of my questions failed to delineate militancy and separate it from more moderate attitudes towards industrial disputes. I had hoped to get a correlation between militancy and political Leftism. Full employment means 1. Every worker to be guaranteed the employmertt of his choice. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 5 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 23 44 84 TOM TRUMAN 2. More jobs than workers. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 10 44 (1) and (2) jointly, eliminating duplication. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 6 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 12 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 28 44 A view typical of the Extreme Left, Moderate Left, and Moderate Right and most popular of the attitudes on the meaning of full employment. 3. A job for every willing worker but no jobs for slackers. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 19 44 A view held by nine of the twelve politicians, three of the ten union officials, and seven of the twenty-two branch members. No particular ideological significance. Inflation and controls 1. The Commonwealth government should control prices. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 6 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 27 44 The figures give a misleading picture of the support for Commonwealth control of prices. The responses to questions (2) and (3) are more informative. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 85 2. Profits, dividends, and prices should be pegged. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 10 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 32 44 This attitude is typical of Extreme Left, Moderate Left, and Moderate Right and has strong support from the Extreme Right. Therefore it is possible to say that this is the attitude most typical of our group of A.L.P. activists. From statements of Labor spokesmen it would appear that the result shown here is strong throughout the A.L.P. 3. Wages, prices, and profits should be pegged. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 18 44 This attitude is typical of the Moderate Left and of Moderates taken together. Con trasted with response (2) it shows a general feeling, strongest in the Extreme Left but shared by the Moderate Right and Extreme Right, that wages should be allowed to advance some distance, at the expense of profits. 4. Income tax should be higher. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 6 44 This group of respondents made it clear that they meant that tax should be higher on incomes over £2,000 p.a. especially when derived from sources other than personal exertion, which would be well above the incomes ofall working class and lower middle class people whom the party regards itself as representing. 5. Indirect taxes should be raised. Not one of the respondents supported this view. Several said lower them and increase direct taxes. 6. Production should be increased by incentives. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 12 44 86 TOM TRUMAN This attitude is typical of the Extreme Right. Mr. Santamaria, leader of the Catholic Social Movement (later National Civic Council), and News-Weekly, the N.C.C. journal, have constantly advocated relating wages to a productivity index and other incentive schemes. 7. Production should be increased by sacking loafers. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 3 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 ] Moderate Right 16 ] Extreme Right 6 7 44 As expected this was not a popular view, but note the curious support from the Ex treme Left. One of this group explained that the loafer penalized his "mates" more than the "boss". Social services ]. Should all be non-contributory. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 19 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left. [t has just less than half support of the Moderate Left and has some support from the Moderate Right. This result should be compared with the results of response (5). 1 should think degree of "identification" with the present social system and "responsibility" are factors in explaining the result. 2. No means test. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 25 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left with less than majority support of the Moderate Right. It is an old ideal of the A.L.P. and Dr. Evatt in his 1954 policy speech actually promised to implement it, but it was regarded as less than practical by many in the party. Again I think degree of "identification" with the present social system and feeling of "responsibility" in connection with it helped determine the result. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRAUAN LABOR PARTY 87 3. Should be raised. Numbel' of Persons Their Group Total in Group 8 Extreme Left 9 11 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 27 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left. Iftaken in conjunction with the results of responses (4) and (5) the results suggest the Rightists think that to raise social services requires some form of contributory scheme such as the National Insurance Fund, an idea of the last Labor government, which several mentioned. 4. Should be reduced. Not one of the respondents held this view. 5. Should require a contribution from all who participate. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 6 Moderate Left 13 9 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 20 44 An attitude typical of Moderate Right and Extreme Right with just less than majority support from the Moderate Left. The remarks on responses (1), (2), and (3) apply here. 6. Should be extended to cover medical, dental, and funeral expenses. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 7 Extreme Left 9 12 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 5 Extreme Right 6 35 44 This attitude is typical of all ideological groups in the sample and from spokesmen's statements and general observation would appear to be general throughout the A.L.P. As has been noted in response (5) the majority of the Right think this cannot be achieved without some contributory scheme like the National Insurance Fund. Tariffs 1. Should be lowered to increase competition. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 5 Moderate Left 13 4 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 11 44 TOM TRUMAN 2: 'Tariffs should be lowered on British goods but kept high on foreign articles. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 7 44 (1) and (2) jointly in favour of some lower tariffs. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 8 Moderate Left 13 5 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 18 44 The matter seems to make little difference between the ideological groups. Tradition ally the A.L.P. has been the party most in favour of high tariffs in order to prevent unemployment. 3. Australian industries should be given enough protection to give them the advantage over foreigners. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 9 Moderate Left 13 13 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 35 44 Results show the traditional A.L.P. attitude on tariffs is very strong in all ideological groups, but a number of respondents spontaneously qualified their support of high tariffs by saying: "Australian manufacturers should get the minimum of help to build up industry without inefficiency, complacency, or monopoly". Number of .Persons Their Group Total in Group 1 Extreme Left 9 2 Moderate Left 13 2 Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 5 44 Banking and finance 1. The private banks should be nationalized. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 12 Moderate Left 13 11 Moderate Right 16 4 Extreme Right 6 36 44 IDEOI.."OGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 89 A view typical of every ideological group but with strongest support from Extreme Left and Moderate Left. Six out of the seven federal politicians supported this propo sition. Despite the 1949 election defeat, the principal factor in which, judging by the Liberal-Country Parties' campaign propaganda, was the Labor government's attempt to nationalize the private banks, support for this policy seems undiminished in all ideologicalgroups of the A.L.P. However, the implementation of the policy is regarded as possible only by securing an amendment of the Constitution because the High Court's interpretation of Section 92 seems to prevent any nationalization measures being implemented. Perhaps the private banks made themselves even more obnoxious by their considerable help to the Liberal-Country Parties in the 1949 election and by their pressure to have the Commonwealth Bank split up into several separate entities. The result is especially interesting in that it shows that most of those who believe only in nationalizing "monopolies and industries that exploit the people" support the nationalization of the private banks. It also shows that more than half those who regard nationalization of industries "as a last resort to get justice for the people" also support the nationalization of the private banks. 2. The Commonwealth government should finance all major national projects by the issue of treasury bills. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 6 Extreme Left 9 7 Moderate Left 13 6 Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 22 44 This attitude is typical of the Extreme Left and Moderate Left but half the Extreme Right support it and a strong minority of the Moderate Right also hold it. I think this attitude reflects a profound suspicion that private banking is a form of legalized robbery of the community and a belief that the banks deal in the credit of the com munity which should be in the possession of the elected government and not used for private profit. 3. The Commonwealth Bank should be strengthened to provide keener competition for the private banks. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 4 Moderate Left 13 10 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 22 44 Most of those who support this view regard it as supplementary to the nationalization of the private banks. They seem to think it is one way round the High Court's hostility to nationalization. If those who support nationalization are excluded the result is: Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 J Moderate Left 13 3 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 6 44 TOM TRUMAN '17liisfestilt sI10ws the respondents who did not believe in the nationalization of private oanksbut wanted to increase the power of the Commonwealth Bank relative to the priv Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group 2 Extreme Left 9 3 Moderate Left 13 l Moderate Right 16 3 Extreme Right 6 9 44 The sense in which this was taken was that it meant this particular Liberal-Country Party government, and one respondent commented that the government did not want to offend the banks because of their financial contribution to its campaign fund. If those who want to nationalize the private banks are excluded the result is: Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 2 Extreme Right 6 4 44 These few are those who could be construed as believing that it was not necessary to nationalize the banks as the Commonwealth had already sufficient power to control the economy, as one respondent actually wrote. The press 1. The press in its news reports is on the whole fair to all parties. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 1 Moderate Left 13 o Moderate Right 16 o Extreme Right 6 44 2. The press slants the political news to hurt Labor. Nj.lmber of Persons Their Group Total in Group 9 Extreme Left 9 12 Moderate Left 13 16 Moderate Right 16 6 Extreme Right 6 43 44 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 91 Other opinions There are one or two papers that are fair to Labor. Number of Persons Their Group Total in Group o Extreme Left 9 o Moderate Left 13 1 Moderate Right 16 1 Extreme Right 6 2 44 There is no more unanimous view in all ideological groups in the sample. Yet this view that "the press slants the political news to hurt Labor" is mainly false. It is significant that the respondent who thought "the press in its news reports is on the whole fair to all parties" is in a very good position to know the facts from his employ ment, and at the same time he is an enthusiastic socialist and opposed to fighting the Communists, so there is no question of bias. Some research on this question was done by the present writer in 1951. I took six months of a federal Labor government and six months of a federal Liberal-Country Party government and compared the news paper reporting of the federal parliament with Hansard both in substance and in space. With only an occasional lapse the newspapers were remarkably fair to both party groups. In the 1951 election campaign the Federal Parliamentary Labor Leader, Mr. Chifley, complained of slanted headlines and unfavourable treatment of his election meetings but an examination showed that this was a mistaken view and on balance the Liberal-Country Party meetings because of rowdy interjections by opponents received the more unfavourable headline treatment, which arose, as in the case of treatment of Labor meetings, from factual reporting of actual incidents. 5 Probably members of the A.L.P. do not distinguish between "news" and "views". While the news reports are substantially fair, editorial opinion as expressed in leading articles and cartoons is in most papers very favourable to the Liberal-Country Parties and antagonistic to the A.L.P., but the better quality papers in Sydney and Melbourne (the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age) are without commitment and criticize and praise both sides in politics according to performance. Similarly the Australian, which is Canberra-based but sells in most state capitals, and the Canberra Times, now taken over and reorganized by John Fairfax and Sons who own the Sydney Morning Herald, are both "quality" papers by Australian standards and exercise independent political judgment. Conclusions The results, I think, justify the assumption that attitudes to nationalization of industries and communism are the basic attitudes and are reflected in opinions on nearly every issue offoreign affairs and domestic affairs, except perhaps tariffs and the press. The results also suggest that the extent and intensity of socialist sentiment in the Australian Labor Party have been generally under-estimated by Australian political scientists. The results also go some way to explaining how the Catholic Social Movement was able to build up an anti-Communist alliance through the Industrial Groups. The results show that the Extreme Right, the Moderate Right, and at least half of the Moderate Left are capable of coming together in hostility to communism. The Groupers created hostility by their anti-socialist attitude as well as by attempting to take power in the A.L.P. out of the hands ofthe trade union officials. 5 See T. C. Truman, "The Press and the 1951 Federal Elections", Australian Quarterly, Vol. XXIII, No.4 (December 1951). 92 TOM TRUMAN ZJ]jh~/~y~ll}ts;::lIsa go some way to explaining how the Extreme Left could win alliei SOME EVIDENCE Of IDEOLOGICAL GROUPING EXISTING AT PRESENT TIME IN QUEENSLAND AND OTHER STATES In the following pages some evidence is given which shows that the ideological grouping which emerged from the survey of attitudes undertaken from October 1956 to March 1957 exists at the present time, or more correctly existed more recently than 1957. Also, additional evidence of the existence of these ideological groups in states other than Queensland is given. This evidence is not exhaustive enough to put the matter beyond doubt but 1 think it is sufficient to indicate that the ideological groups probably are to be found in the A.L.P. at the present time and probably in states other than Queensland. The Extreme Left In the first place some evidence of the existence of the Extreme Left group later than 1957 is given. Most of the evidence is culled from the files of the Brisbane Railway Advocate. This paper is the official organ of the Australian Railways Union (Queensland branch). Its editor is Francis George Nolan, the Queensland Secretary of the A.R.U. Mr. Nolan is a very able trade union leader, liked and respected by the members of the A.R.U. and by other union leaders at the Trades Hall, Brisbane, and even by those who do not shan: his views. He has been for a number ofyears a leading figure in the Trades and Labor Council, and the Queensland Trade Union Congress. In industrial policy he is a militant and has worked closely in the Trades and Labor Council with Communist leaders. Claude Jones in the Communist Review of August 1963 (No. 260) reporting on the Queensland state elections wrote: The Trades and Labor Council for years has been under a united leadership and has led many big and bitter struggles of the working class in this State and has won some outstanding successes.... Therefore, it is not accidental that Q.L.P. agents of the monopolies and the employers' organisations should concentrate their attention on the militant leadership of the Trades and Labor Council and try to foment a division between the Communist Party and the Labor Party trade union officials who work together around the interests of the working class. Edgar Williams, Queensland branch Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, in his union journal, the Worker, of 27 February 1961, denounced Com munist influence in the Trades and Labor Council and stated: Of the present Queensland Trades and Labor Council Executive of thirteen, six are Communists. These are:-- G. W. Dawson (RW.LU.), T. Millar (Miners), A. McDonald (Secretary), E. J. Hanson (Painters), A. Nicol (B.W.I.U.). The other seven are: J. Egerton (Boilermakers), B. Milliner (Printers), A Arnell (W.W.F.), G. Whiteside (F.E.D.F.A.), F. Nolan (A.R.U.), F. Waters (Postal) and A. H. Dawson (E.T.U.). The seven men last named are all members of the AL.P. In 1961 the following were members of the Inner Executive of the Queensland Central Executive of the IDEOLOG1CAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 93 A.L.P.: J. Egerton, G. Whiteside, A. H. Dawson. In 1963 Mr. Milliner became President of the Q.C.E. of the A.L.P. and Mr. Nolan became a member of the Inner Executive. Mr. Williams of the AW.U. is also a member of the Q.C.E. of the A.L.P. His statement continued: In practice, the Trades Union Congress has become one day of industrial items and two days of Communist propaganda-No troops for Malaya; Recognise Communist China; No Secret Union Ballots; Amalgamate the I.C.P.T.U. [International Congress of Free Trade Unions] with the Communist W.F.T.U. [World Federation of Trade Unions]; Reciprocal Visits to Russia and China; Ban the Bomb; Support Communist Peace Fronts; Disband the Security Service; etc., etc. For the last four annual elections of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council, all 15 Communists on the Executive and the sub-committees have been unopposed. In fact, there has been no election---cxactly 45 nominations being received for the 45 positions. The 30 non-Communists included in the 45 refer to this as "sharing the leadership"; "ensuring that all schools of thought are represented"; "He's a Communist, but a good industrialist"; "Unity against the Groupers"; "Unity against the class enemy and the boss"; etc. Mr. Nolan places himself on the Left of the AL.P. and is against enforcing the Federal Executive's ban on unity tickets, i.e. the practice of AL.P. unionists and Communists running on the same ticket in union elections in order to create a "united front" and to "share the leadership". Writing in the Railway Advocate for January 1964 and analyzing the reasons for the A.L.P. defeat in the federal elections of 30 November J963, he saw the main cause as failure to come out boldly and to seek to implement Labor's "historic principles", meaning nationalization of industries. He denounced the counsels of some Right-wingers in these words: If only Labor would get rid of its "Left-wingers" and effectively ban unity tickets, moan some of the calamity howlers, egged on by the "groupers". But this would be fatal. To get rid of the radical elements in the A L.P. would rid it of its life's blood. Unfortunately there are a small minority of people in the Labor movement, surprised and alanned by Labor's defeat at the polls, who would completely change Labor's aims and progranl and build up a theoretical justification for so doing.... These timid opportunist elements have become victims of the writings and propaganda of the ruling class.... They are looking backwards and have become apologists for a corrupt and evil system.... On the same page as his editorial, lvlr. Nolan printed an article from the British Labour Monthly which is edited by Palme Dutt, the veteran British Communist. The article complains that the leadership of the British Labour Party has repudiated the demand of the Trade Union Congress for "nationalisation of a number of key in dustries" and is trying to defeat the Tory government without a true alternative to capitalism. It says: " ... a serious policy would need to grasp the nettle and tackle the problem of taking over the biggest monopolies and commanding centres of the econ omy, including the land monopoly...." 94 TOM TRUMAN Mr. Ndlan gave evidence of his belief in the socialist proposition that the owner ship of the means of production is the decisive power in society and that complete democracy requires state ownership of the means of production, in an editorial in the Railway Advocate for February 1961. He wrote: We hear much criticism of the one party system in the Soviet Union or in other European countries which have abolished capitalism and are now building Social ism. Most of the critics are ill-informed and know little, or nothing, ofthe regimes in these countries, and, more often than not, are too blinded with prejudice to find out the real position. But in democratic countries, as we know them at present, it has always to be borne in mind that the Government elected by popular vote is never the real ruling power. Another force, infinitely more powerful, stands behind it-an invisible Government, stronger than any representative Government because it dominates a much larger domain, gets closer to the daily necessities ofthe community and has a more profound effect upon the lives and happiness of the masses. Even when Labor is in office its legislative and administrative measures are subject to the power of capitalism.... It must therefore be plainly apparent to all that complete democracy or anything approximating it cannot exist as long as capitalism continues.... The Labor Movement, however resolute, can't socialise or even nationalise the means of social production, because the enlightenment of the electors has not yet reached that stage. Labor Governments therefore have to go on striving to alleviate the sufferings and miseries resulting from the capitalist system, while the capitalist class, wieldV1g enormous powers, secretly as well as openly oppose them at every turn. It should be noted that thoroughgoing socialist as Mr. Nolan is, he is, never theless, committed to parliamentary democracy. Thus he differs quite considerably from the Communists who have no such commitment. However, there can be little doubt that Mr. Nolan regards the Communists as fellow socialists and allies in the struggle against capitalism. He attended an International Conference of Transport Workers held in Hungary in May 1961. He was the accredited representative of the Federal Council of the Australian Railways Union and was elected to the presidium of the conference. Later in the year he contributed a number of articles entitled "My Overseas Visit" to the Railway Advocate. In the issue of 15 November 1961 he made reference to the policies of the European countries of the Common Market and gave his opinion that the trend was to subordinate transport needs ofthe people to monopoly groups and for the carrying out of the aggressive military plans of NATO. In the issue of 15 October 1961 he wrote: Favourable fares [are] granted to the South American monopolies on the South American countries from strategic and military point of view. [The errors of composition are in the Railway Advocate.] The Pentagon has, in effect, created American bases nearly everywhere in these countries. Thus foreign occupation for purposes of aggression constitutes in itself a violation of national sovereignty and is at the same time a permanent menace to peace. The issue of 15 September 1961 printed the General Resolution of the Third International Trade Conference of Transport, Port and Fishery Workers, of which Mr. Nolan was a member ofthe presidium. It commended the work of Trade Unions International and went on to say: The creative work and peaceful victories ofthe peoples of the Socialist countries, the growth and the successes of the national liberation movement and the upsurge IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS lN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 95 in workers' struggles in which transport workers have been playing a significant part, have all converged into a great current which is undermining the world imperialist system. The far-reaching changes which have taken place on the international scene are in favour of Socialism and the world working class who [sic] is the major force of our time and a guarantee of victory in the struggle for peace, democracy, national independence and social progress. The Socialist countries, the inter national working class and the entire peace camp today represent a sufficiently strong force to foil imperialist war provocations and to avert a third world war. The world socialist system is advancing impetuously in the sphere of pro duction, technique and science as demonstrated in such a magnificent manner by the flight of the first astronaut, Yuri Gagarin, a son of the October Revolution. By inaugurating to the whole of mankind the era of conquering the Universe, the Soviet Union has once again shown what Socialism could do in the interest of peace and human progress.... The conference resolution contrasted this happy picture ofprogress in the socialist countries with the imperialist states, under the domination of United States monopolies and seized by increasingly sharp economic and political contradictions, trying to hinder the development of the struggles for national liberation and continuing the arms race and sabotaging the disarmament discussions. The recent aggressions and interventions of the American imperialists in Laos and in Cuba, show once more their aggressive nature and their bitter opposition to all true independence of the peoples. The victories won by the peoples and especially in heroic Cuba, also show that it is possible to defeat them. The conference resolution expressed the view that the main task of the transport workers was to struggle to achieve a number of aims that were essentially Russian foreign policy objectives. They included: signing a peace treaty between the two Ger man states "so that West Berlin becomes a free and demilitarized zone"; "to support the tireless efforts of the trade unions of the German Democratic Republic in order to unite the workers throughout Germany against remilitarization and the atomic armament of the West German revenge seekers"; "the evacuation of military im perialist bases all over the world"; "strengthening of solidarity with the Algerian people which is struggling for independence"; "revoking the American-Japanese military treaty"; and others of a similar nature. The resolution contrasted the effects of rationalization, mechanization, and automation in capitalist countries with their effects in socialist countries. In the former the results were unemployment, work speed-ups, and more frequent occupational diseases. In the latter the results were reduced hours, a general rise in living standards, and a reduction or suppression of taxes. Therefore the trade unions in capitalist countries were urged to struggle against modernization and technical innovation. The manner of presentation of the conference resolution gave every indication that Mr. Nolan approved its contents. He wrote of his invitation to a place on the presidium of the conference that it was a recognition of some of the actions of the Waterside Workers' Federation on an international scale (present writer's italics) as well as the Seamen. This could mean nothing else than refusal by those unions to work ships taking supplies to Vietnam for use against the Communist forces. Of his Communist-ruled host country Mr. Nolan wrote:6 Hungary once known as the country of the three million beggars now has no unemployment. The old capitalist class has vanished and while the old upper and 6 Railway Advocate, 15 August 1961. 96 TOM TRUMAN middle class might not be as well off as formerly, the overall position of the people has improved immeasurably. However, the country is in a transitory period and with the means of production being used for the people, the position should right itself in a few years. Concerning Budapest and the national rebellion against the Russian domination and its agents Mr. Nolan wrote: 7 "The counter-revolution in 1956 was a heavy blow to the capital but this ill-conceived attempt to restore fascist control failed...." From the last quotation there should be little doubt that Mr. Nolan is in the "socialist camp", i.e. on the side of the Communists in the Cold War. However, it is necessary to put the matter as far as possible beyond doubt, firstly because Mr. Nolan is a leading member of the controlling body of the A.L.P. in Queensland, not to men tion the Federal Conference of the A.L.P., called on to decide Labor's foreign policy and defence policy, and this statement by me could be used by political opponents to tne detriment of the political influence of Mr. Nolan and of the electoral prospects of the A.L.P. In the Railway Advocate of 15 May 1961 Mr. Nolan's editorial was entitled "The Birth Pains of a New Socia! Order". He wrote: The general crisis of capitalism has entered a new stage and the class struggle, which the "new thinkers" in the Labor movement claim no longer exists, is grow ing sharper. At home there is unmistakable evidence of the united front of the employers to halt any further increase in wages and conditions.... The attempts to defeat the national movements developing towards Socialism in colonial countries, is responsible for the wars in Asia, Africa and elsewhere, today. Even if Socialism were defeated in every country in the world (which, of course, is impossible) it would not bring peace, but would only make war more certain. The rival capitalist groups, competing with each other for plunder and property would again plunge the world into war. The frequent use of the words, freedom, democracy, independence, the re laxations of tensions, and peace by these reactionary elements are mere disguises behind which the cunning and powerful hide their real depredations. The world of imperialism and colonialism is shaking. The map ofAfrica is changing colour. In Asia the puppets ofimperialism are falling like broken dolls. In Turkey, things seem upside down, but there is a feeling ofstruggle for freedom, something which the country had not had for many decades. In Cuba the government is pursuing a policy for complete independence with no concessions to blackmail or threats. Japan is making an assault on the Kishi government to cut the bonds which keep it economically subservient to the other side ofthe Pacific and to remove the ban put upon her by Wall Street interests to prevent her trading with her close neighbours. The government of the Congo, in spite of the brutal murder of Lumumba is struggling against the exceptionally bad heritage left by the Belgians and against imperialist aggression. The Greek people-whose heroic resistance to the Fascist invasion was crushed at the end of the last world war by military plots and interference by the Western powers are again raising their heads and demanding the removal of air bases, which were established by the authority of traitors who, for the present, speak for the Greek people. But the imperialists are not disarming. They don't lose hold of their prey without a comeback. They retaliate with false reports ofwhat is happening in these countries, with economic aggression in Cuba, military aggression in the Congo, and elsewhere they endeavour to set up new Chiang Kai-Sheks and Syngman Rhees. 7 Ibid. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 97 This is the condition of the world today. Really it is the struggle for a new way of life, the birth pains of a new social order which the inexorable laws of evolution make inevitable. On the same page Mr. Nolan printed the British Labour Monthly's attack on Gaitskell for his praise of the abilities ofPresident Kennedy. "This somewhat extreme eulogy", it said, "may be recognised as mainly the customary flunlccydom of social democracy before the high and mighty of the moment in the capitalist world." So far I have been quoting from 1961 issues of the Railway Advocate. More recent evidence ofMr. Nalan's views appeared in his editorial in the issue of November 1962. He condemned advocates of increased spending on defence, depreciated the fears of some writers ofIndonesian expansionism, and spoke out against the American alliance. He advocated a neutral foreign policy and close friendship with Indonesia and Australia's neighbours in Asia. In the February 1963 issue of the Railway Advocate the usual article culled from the British Labour Monthly carried the message that the "imperialists' " dangerous aggressive measures threatening the peace of the world could be scotched just as Premier Khrushchev handled the Cuba crisis over the installation of Soviet rockets. According to the article Khrushchev's "sagacious combination of strength, prompt ness in action, and moderation in counsel" swung the world away from war and enabled him "to hold out a helping hand to the adversary to be saved from the consequences of his own folly without loss of face". At the same time according to Mr. Nolan he wrung from the U.S.A. a pledge not to invade Cuba and to lift the blockade immediately. In a similar fashion, the article contended, the Suez crisis of 1956 was surmounted and aggression brought to a speedy termination. On that occasion it said: "On the side of Egypt was the whole new world of Socialism and national liberation, the majority of mankind" and "in this array the role of the Soviet Union, as the leaders ofEgypt and the Arab world have since openly proclaimed, was decisive". In the January 1963 issue appeared an article by a frequent contributor, H. I. Jensen, D.Sc., which spoke of "little Cuba, persecllted by her mighty neighbour the United States, at the insistence of Wall Street and the dispossessed brothel-keepers of Havana". Dr. Jensen went on to argue that the Chinese had to invade India because Nehru refused a negotiated settlement and sent troops to occupy the disputed territory. Dr. Jensen left no doubt that in his view the Chinese claim to the territory was justified. He admitted that "Nehru, himself, is a man of peace, but ever since the Chinese commenced to clean up that augean stable of tyranny and slavery in Tibet, there has been agitation in India conducted by Buddhist priests and lamas...." In the Decem ber 1963 issue of the Railway Advocate was printed Mr. Nolan's report to the 23rd State Conference of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Railways Union held at the Brisbane Trades Hall from 14 to 17 November 1963. Mr. Nolan began by identifying his views with those of the British Labour Monthly in these words: Before the Second World War it was estimated that about one-twelfth of the population of the world lived under a different economic system to our own; today it is about one-third, and ifthe new independent states ofnational liberation arc included it would be embracing three-quarters of mankind. To sum up the world situation I don't think I could do better than quote from a recent article in the British Labour Monthly: "The American war lords have covered land and sea in every continent and region of the world within their reach with their bombers and their bases, their troops and their military missions. They have spread destruction and devastation thousands of miles from their shores. And to their amazement they discover that everywhere the peoples turn against them. They discover that Communism is spreading everywhere 'without a single Rus,ian soldier'." 98 TOMTRVMAN As an example of the typical member of the Extreme Left Mr. Nolan shows in th¢pa.§s3pes quoted the .follow!ng a~tit~des: . .. 1. favouring extensIve natlOnahzatlon ot llldustnes 2. frielldliness towards Communists at home and abroad 3. anti-Americanism 4. anti-capitalism 5. belief that the class struggle will result in the establishment of socialism 6. belief that in Australia socialism can be achieved by the method of parlia mentary democracy 7. an impatience with what he regards as the excessive caution and opportunism of Labor's leadership and the Right wing generally 8. a neutralist foreign policy with close friendship with Indonesia and Australia's Asian neighbours 9. a militant industrial policy. Finally I would quote his attitude towards compulsory arbitration as giving with the above list a fairly consistent pattern of Extreme Left ideological attitudes. 10. opposition to compulsory arbitration. In the issue of the Railway Advocate for [5 November 1956 Mr. Nolan's editorial said: "Industrial arbitration as we know it is out of line with modern trends." He went on to condemn penalties for striking and advocated: "employers and employees should be brought face to face and thrown as far as possible on their own resources." The 15 May 1961 issue showed Mr. Nolan still of the same mind. He quoted an inter view with United States Secretary of Labor, Arthur 1. Goldberg. Q. How about compulsory arbitration? A That is not within the framework of freedom. 1 would be opposed to it. And it was quite obvious that Mr. Nolan approved Goldberg's sentiment. 1 think 1 have demonstrated that Mr. Nolan is a contemporary example of the Extreme Left group of Labor activists which I found in my survey of 1956-57. Within the limits of this paper I cannot do more than indicate that there is good reason to believe that this group exists in the present-day AL.P. (1 believe, indeed, that it has had a continuous existence at least since the adoption of the socialization objective by the AL.P. in 1921 and the founding of the Australian Communist Party in 1920-22.) I could produce evidence of other examples from Queensland and I think with further research I could establish its existence in every state. However this would require a separate paper ofabout the total length of this one. AlII can do within the limits of space and time available is to produce some evidence to substantiate my belief that these ideological groupings still exist. 1 think this purpose can best be served by drawing my next examples from a Victorian source. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick is both an academic historian and a publicist and propa gandist in the Labormovement ofmany years' standing. Hismostconsiderable scholarly works are in the field of economic history. They are British imperialism and Australia 1788-i833 and The British Empire in Australia.s These works were notable contribu tions and were deservedly praised by reviewers when they appeared. One of the most distinguished of contemporary economic historians, Professor N. G. Butlin, has paid Fitzpatrick a handsome compliment in attesting not only to the value of his work when it was produced, but also to its stimulus to present-day students. 9 Brian Fitz patrick is also the author of two general histories of Australia, The A ustralian People 8 British Imperialism and Australia 1788--1833: An Economic History of Australasia (London: Allen & Unwin, 1939). The British Empire in Australia: An Economic History 1834-1937 (2nd ed.: Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1949). D See N. G. Butlin, "The Shape of the Australian Ecopnmy 1861-1900", Economic Record, Vol. XXXIV, No. 67 (April 1958). IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 99 1788-1945 and The Australian Commonwealth,l° But it is as a propagandist that this paper is interested in Mr. Fitzpatrick. After some years in the A.L.P. Mr. Fitzpatrick was expelled in 1944 by the Victorian Central Executive for breaking a rule that A.L.P. members were not to appear on the same platform as Communists or to belong to organizations regarded by the Executive as Communist "fronts". He has not, I think, taken the trouble to apply for readmission although he stands well with the present Victorian Central Executive and would almost certainly succeed if he were to apply. He has published since mid-1958 Labor News Letter which has a wide circulation amongst Labor parliamentarians, trade union officials, and other Labor activists and supporters. The Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, Mr. Gough Whitlam, who is generally regarded as on the Right wing of the party, thinks Mr. Fitzpatrick important enough not only to subscribe to Labor News Letter but to spend an after noon listening to his views and to take the trouble to telephone him the night before leaving Australia to explain his reasons for going abroad in answer to some criticism of his trip by Mr. Fitzpatrick in Labor News Letter. 11 The July 1961 issue ofLaborNews Letter quoted from a letter by the Federal Secretary of the A.L.P., Mr. F. E. Chamber lain, to Mr. Fitzpatrick concerning the latter's suggestions on A.L.P. policy. It said: "I do wish to thank you for the valuable contribution you made to Federal Conference thinking on this important feature of policy. You are probably aware by this that Conference adopted your paper 'Aid to Under-developed Countries' in substance and it will therefore form the basis ofParty policy to be disseminated as widely as possible." Mr. Fitzpatrick frequently quotes tributes from SUbscribers, such as these from the issue of 26 March 1964: A.E. U. Political Committee Member: "L.N.L. is valuable to all Labor activists. Members in my Union committees look forward to its arrival." B.McI., V. (this foundation subscriber is a former president of the Victorian Teachers' Union, President of his local A.L.P. branch, and at sixty a member of Monash University Students Representative Council): "The reason why the A.L.P. loses elections is that it is basically dishonest. 1t purports to be a socialist party whereas in fact it is a capitalist party.... Its shilly-shallying on every point stems from an attitude of expediency. Members cannot usefully discuss Party policy, because they realise that Federal Conference decisions may be reversed at any moment by devious inter pretations...." (Here Mr. Fitzpatrick supplied examples, "the U.S. Polaris base and state aid to religious schools". He considered the Federal Executive's endorsement at Mr. Calwell's request of the establishment of the low frequency communications American base for communicating with submarines a violation of the Federal Con ference's policy of a nuclear-free southern hemisphere. Likewise the Federal Execu tive's reluctant endorsement of the New South Wales government's proposal to pay £21 p.a. to the parents of pupils of private secondary schools in their second and third years and which would benefit Catholic schools most was argued by Mr. Fitzpatrick to be a violation of Federal Conference policy.) "But the middle class will always rally to strength, and youth will always put up a fight if there is a cause worth fighting for-and somebody to supply an explanation and inspiration." In the March 1963 issue he quoted a telegram from "a senior member of the 'shadow cabinet' " which said: "Your plans [to oppose the establishment of the U.S. communications base] have my full support. The news letter is certainly waking people up." Mr. Fitzpatrick mentions that "most members of Caucus Executive and dozens of other Labor M.P.'s have long been subscribers". Another quotation from a letter by a "Labor Senator contributing to our Information Campaign Fund: 'Your excellent articles have been read and digested, and I will continue to do what I can in the Parliament and out, to bring people to awareness of the critical situation we face' ."12 This Information 10 The Australian People 1788-1945 (2nd ed.; Carlton, Melbourne University Press, 1951). The Australian Commonwealth: A Picture ofthe Community 1901-1955 (Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire, 1956). "See Labor News Letter, 28 June 1962, p. 2. 12 Ibid., 26 July j 962. 100 TOM TRUMAN C~tijpa.fgtl.FIJJidwas "to finance athorough Australia-wide distribution o~ our case fot NQ FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN S.E. ASIAN CIVIL WAR [I.e. South Vietp:afh and Laos]; NO NUCLEAR BASES HERE [the U.S. communications bas~]i'. The Labor News Letter of May 1961 quoted Mr. Harry A. Fletcher, M.L.A. for Fremantle, Western Australia, as saying: "Please find attached a cheque inclusive of exchange as a subscription to L.N.L. I have been reading and appreciating your newS letter, available through another source, and as a consequence feel guilty in not financially supporting a publication of such worth...." Many other letters of agreement and appreciation have been quoted in Labor News Letter. The June 1960 issue said the subscriber index showed: 25.7 per cent of all L.N.L. subscribers are A.L.P. members of parliament; federal and state A.L.P. or trade union officials; and A. L.P. branches. Another quarter, 25.4 per cent, is made up ofgroups that can be associated as moulders and interpreters of community opinion. They are publicists (authors, editors, journalists, publishers; radio, T.V., public relations and advertising people); lawyers (including judges in several jurisdictions); diplomatists (over the whole Cold War gamut, from U.S.A., U.K., and Commonwealth countries, and France, thwugh "neutralist" powers like India and Yugoslavia, to U.S.S.R.); and professors and staff in all our universities. The rest are mostly identified only when they write to us: the files show trade unionists (including members of the B.M.A. in several states); housewives, pensioners, farmers, businessmen, institutions including libraries, secondary schools, Anglo-Australian, U.S.-Australian and other industrial companies; and a leaven of Communist, Liberal and D.L.P. supporters. The Labor News Letter of September 1958 said: A.L.P. Federal President and W.A. State Secretary, Mr. F. E. Chamberlain, wrote to us on the eve of Federal Executive's week-long conference with Parlia mentary Party leaders, in Canberra last month planning Labor's federal election campaign. Mr. Chamberlain considered Labor News Letter "excellent", its infor mation "most valuable"; "... the State Executive [of Western Australia] at its last meeting, decided to do everything possible to encourage the circulation of News Letter through afliliated organisations...." The foregoing excerpts from Labor News Letter correspondence and subscription lists, though no doubt tedious and repetitive to read, seek to establish two points: (1) that Labor News Letter circulates amongst Labor Party activists, and (2) that the views it expresses get sympathy and support from some of them. Next I seek to establish that Mr. Fitzpatrick's attitudes are similar to those of the Extreme Left group arising out of the 1956--57 survey. I do not think he will mind being so described. Indeed, if 1 guess his reaction correctly he ,vill be proud of being so placed. In placing Mr. Fitzpatrick in the Extreme Left group it must be understood that I do not intend to imply that his attitude towards Communists is the same as that of Mr. F. G. Nolan as shown above. Indeed I would say that he is much more critical of them. Perhaps his attitude is best expressed in the words of Sir Charles Lowe, a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, who said in the Report of the Royal Commission inquiring into the origins, aims, objects, and funds of the 1 Communist Party in Victoria, 1950: :1 As to the allegation that he was sympathetic to the Comumnist Party, Fitzpatrick said that in political convictions he was a socialist but not attached to any party 13 Report ofRoyal Commission Inquiring into the Origins, Aims, Objects, Wid Funds ofthe Com munist Party in Victoria and Other Related 1Ilatters. (Melbourne: Government Printer, 1950.) IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 101 and to the extent that the Labour Party and the Communist Party appeared to advocate the socialist cause he was favourable to them. To this admission there must be added that there is evidence that he took part in the demonstration against Von Luckner as an observer for the Council ofCivil Liberties, that he had spoken against the National Security Act in 1940, that he was joint author of a pamphlet "The Case Against the Crimes Act", that he spoke at a c.P. meeting on the Yarra Bank opposing the internment of Ratcliff and Thomas [Communists who had been jailed for six months for seditious offences and then interned in 1941J, and at May Day meetings, and had spoken in support of a protest against the Rocket Range [established by a federal Labor government]. I think at least it is correct to say he was favourable to many movements supported by the c.P. Cecil Sharpley, a member of the Victorian State Executive of the Communist Party, defected and turned informer. This moved the Victorian Liberal Party govern ment to set up the Royal Commission principally to examine him and persons de nounced by him. The report says;14 Sharpley also gave evidence that in 1948 the State Executive of the Communist Party were seeking help to oppose what they regarded as oppressive legislation and decided that Brian Fitzpatrick, the Secretary of the Council of Civil Liberties, be asked to revive the activities of that body and that the Council be asked to issue propaganda opposing such threatened legislation. Sharpley said that Oke had reported back to the Executive that he had seen Fitzpatrick who had agreed to revive the activities of the Council and had agreed to discuss with other members the proposal for issuing a pamphlet. Sharpley said that Fitzpatrick was very sympathetic to the c.P. and one who could be approached at all times to do something for the Party that the Party might want done in a special direction. Fitzpatrick cross-examined Sharpley and gave evidence himself. In cross-examination Sharpley said not only that he did not believe Fitzpatrick to be a member of the c.P. but he knew him not to be a member. Fitzpatrick denied that Oke had spoken to him as alleged, and said that at no time had the Council of Civil Liberties discussed the oppressive legisla tion. Of Sharpley as a witness the Commissioner reported that though he was generally a good witness, parts of his evidence were shown in cross-examination to be un reliable. Moreover he was informing on his former associates and had received money for allowing his disclosures to be published in the press.15 However, that was in 1950. In 1955 Mr. Fitzpatrick published The Royal Com mission on Espionage: A Commentary.16 This Royal Commission was set up in 1954 by the Menzies-Fadden Liberal-Country Party government following the defection of Petrov, a Russian M.V.D. agent acting as Third Secretary at the Russian embassy in Canberra. In the issue of Labor News Letter for 28 February 1963 Mr. Fitzpatrick reported: Our Government announced earlier this month that Mr. Skripov, a First Secre tary in the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, had tried to organise espionage in Australia and was therefore persona non grata with us.... He had been led up the garden path by a bea.utiful Australian woman, who was really an agent of the Australian Security Intelligence organisation.... If only he had stayed with us he might have found mysterious scraps of paper "in the embassy safe", with names on them. Petrov "found" some, but could not name any local Red spy. H Ibid., p. 54. 15 Ibid., p. 7. If> Me1bourne:~National Press, 1955. 102 TOM TRUMAN Otie consequence of this latest imperfect Security coup is that a second Petrov witch-hunt can hardly be arranged to expose opponents ofthe Government whose names might have been written on scraps of paper. How this technique was used against innocent citizens is described in The Royal Commission on Espionage: A Commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, published 1955, in two editions, by C. B. Christesen. Mr. Fitzpatrick referred to the Royal Commission as "the 1954 character-assassina tion campaign". The Commissioners found that "the Petrovs are witnesses of truth" and "their accuracy to be of a high order"Y The Commissioners were Sir William Owen of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Mr. Justice Philp of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and Mr. Justice Ligertwood of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Mr. Fitzpatrick's interpretation of the Commission and its purpose followed the views of Dr. Evatt, then leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. Members of Dr. Evatt's staff, Messrs. O'Sullivan, Grundeman, and Dalziel, were implicated in the documents that Petrov brought with him. In the words of the Commissioners,18 What disturbed Dr. Evatt was that it had already been proved that his former press secretary, O'Sullivan, prior to entering his service, had given information (in the form of Exhibit H) directly to a Soviet official, and that the names of two other secretaries, as well as O'Sullivan's, appeared in Exhibit I as the sources of information given by the author to another such official. Petrov alleged that a Communist journalist, Lockwood, had typed document J in the Russian embassy at Canberra. But Dr. Evatt then charged that Exhibit J had been fabricated by the Petrovs as part of a political conspiracy with the enforced aid of O'Sullivan who, he alleged, had been blackmailed into collaborating in the fabrication of the document and into inserting therein as sources the names of himself, Grundeman and Dalziel. The political conspiracy was alleged to be one to injure Dr. Evatt and the Australian Labor Party by procuring the false insertion in Exhibit J of the names of three of his secretaries as sources with the intention that the Petrovs should so nicely time their actions that Exhibit J could be produced on the eve of the federal elections of 1954. He further charged that at least one senior officer of the Australian Secur ity Intelligence Organization, Richards, had been guilty of serious derelictions of duty in that without proper care and inquiry he had accepted from Petrov fabrica ted documents, had paid him large sums of public moneys for them, and had "uttered" these documents, presumably to the Prime Minister of Australia.l9 It was conceded by counsel for Lockwood and counsel for Dalziel and Grunde man that all these charges would be proved false if it could be shown that Lockwood had in fact typed document J.20 Lockwood admitted having typed a document very similar to Exhibit J in the Soviet embassy but said it was not identicaJ.Zl The Com missioners however found on other evidence that Lockwood had in fact typed docu ment J as al1eged by the Petrovs. 22 Documents Hand J were not themselves secrets of the Australian government or any other government. They contained information about Australians that was 17 See Report, Royal Commission on Espionage (Sydney: New South Wales Government Printer, 1955), p. 65, paragraphs 193, 194. 18 Intel'im Report, Royal Commission on Espionage (Sydney: 1954), paragraph 425, p. 45. 19 Ibid., paragraphs 425, 426, p. 39. 20 Ibid., paragraph 426, pp. 42, 43. 21 Ibid., paragraph 426, p. 45. 22 Ibid., paragraphs 427, 428. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 103 collected for the purpose of intimidating or persuading them to co-operate with Soviet agents in procuring secrets of the Australian government-getting them "on the small hook" as the Petrovs called it. However despite Mr. Fitzpatrick's allegation that Petrov could not name any local Red spy the Commissioners found that Walter Seddon Clayton, a member of the Communist Party, passed on to the M.V.D. information gained from the External Affairs Department. Frances Burnie, then a Communist, was engaged by Dalziel, who was Evatt's private secretary, to work as a stenographer in the office of Dr. Evatt who was then Minister of External Affairs, but she did not reveal to Dalziel that she was a Communist. She admitted having taken documents to Clayton. 23 Clayton tried to suborn George Legge and Miss June Barnett of the External Affairs Department.24 "Ric" Throssell was said by Petrov to be an agent of the M.V.D. in the External Affairs Department. Ian George Milner while an officer of the External Affairs Department supplied information to the Communist Party.25 Milner later sought refuge in Czechoslovakia. The Commissioners found that the Soviet had no significant success in penetrating the External Affairs Department after 1949 and this was because of the vigilance of the Security Service established in 1949 by the Chifley-led federal Labor government. 26 In the same issue of Labor News Letter (28 February 1963) Mr. Fitzpatrick refers to a letter he had published III the Melbourne Age on 14, Brisbane Courier-Mail on 15, and the Perth West Australian on 18 February 1963. The letter said: The deplorable Skripov affair, and the fact that in his diplomatic capacitythis Russian was on affable terms with Federal Ministers and members of Parliament must not be allowed to become a damper on legitimate controversial discussion of Australian defence policy. I refer, in particular, to the project for the establishment at North-West Cape, Western Australia, of an American base for communication with sub marines, carrying Polaris nuclear missiles, in waters around our continent. For example, as publisher of Labor News Letter, I have been in touch with A.L.P. Parliamentarians who have voiced the party's July and October 1962 resolutions to work for a nuclear-free southern hemisphere and to oppose the establishment in Australia of nuclear bases including "control" (i.e. communica tions) centres. Questions some of which I cooperated in preparing were asked by A.L.P. M.P.s in the Commonwealth Parliament last year, and in reply the Prime Minister indicated that debate by Parliament, before any Australian-U.S. agree ment for the N.W. Cape base is concluded, might be "a very useful thing to do" (August 28), and December 6 (before Parliament adjourned) that he would "certainly be prepared to consider the suggestion that has been made". Members of Parliament with whom I have discussed the situation are well aware that our two treaties with the United States do not include any guarantee of American armed help for Australia in the event of attack upon us. Those treaties are the ANZUS Pact of 1951 and the SEATO Pact of 1954. The fourth article ofeach provides merely that in such an event U.S.A. will "con sult" with Australia as to what could be done. In these circumstances many citizens feel that for Australia to house nuclear weapons, bases or control centres might amount merely to offering our country as a target for an enemy of U.S.A. without any counter-balancing gain. 23 Ibid., paragraph 420, p. 124. 34 Ibid., p. 127, paragraph 435, p. 135, paragraph 476. 25 Ibid., p. 137. 26 Ibid., paragraph 400, p. 118. 104 TOM TRUMAN f~isl~tter with its emphasis on the looseness of the American commitment to c,i¢fY'l1.dAustralia does not seem to me quite to represent Mr. Fitzpatrick's views. If itii.qid one would expect him to urge that the Australian government get from the U.S.A. a much more binding promise. Instead, there is reason to believe that Mr. Fitzpatrick does not like the United States alliance in whatever form it may take, or indeed, American foreign policy in general. In the following passage from Labor News Letter of 29 November 1963, distaste for the U.S.A., its foreign policy, and Australian involvement are plainly evident. It should also be noted that communism is id.entified with socialism, leading to the inference that Mr. Fitzpatrick still regards the Communists as fellow socialists as he did in 1950. Here is what he wrote: What a country, where a citizen-sniper shoots dead the President as he drives along the street. What a system of law and order, that allows of the destruction ofthe murder-suspect as, next day, handcuffed and police surrounded, he goes from one Texas gaol to another! What a "great and powerful friend"-Sir Robert Menzies' favourite tag for the U.S.A.-whose Presidential succession is decided by (it seems) the vagaries of a psychopath, a sometime U.S. marine of unstable history r Where "justice" is meted out to him by a r~ch and sentimental "strip-tease" club owner who shoots point blank a closely guarded state prisoner r What an example ofleadership for the Free World when a new President who like the two killers, and the incompetent police, adorns Texas--has as his claim to fame a "passion for the display of his initials" (Melbourne Age, 22.11.63): "The letters LBJ appear on every conceivable object-on tie-pins, cuff-links, shirt pockets, the personal pennant which flies beneath the Stars and Stripes and the Lone Star ofTexas from the flagpole above the homestead ofhis Texas ranch the L.B.J.-on the bank of the Pedernales River. "His wife was christened Claudia. But by good fortune, she had been known since childhood as 'Lady Bird'-and that is the name given her inthe Congressional directory biography of her husband. "Their two daughters are Lynda Bird Johnson and Lucy Baines Johnson. The family dog is Little Beagle Johnson...." What the tragedy may mean to the Free World. Lamentable (But Ioly) as in a national leader Rotarian nonsense ofthis kind is, here is a leadership to which every U.S. satellite, Australia included, is inexor ably joined. To quote the Times, London, on an aspect of the U.S.'s uniquely powerful presentation of itself to the small fry (Illustrated London News, 14.9.63): "Frenchmen, Italians, Englishmen may be seen looking with glazed eyes at their American colleagues who for their part wear the solicitous but faintly em barrassed air of visitors to a mental ward... ." This is the way we all are; and our dependence on the Americans, alarming enough at earlier stages when it was President Kennedy who was pushing us around-over Thailand, or South Vietnam, or Indonesia/West Irian-excites deeper uneasiness now that his opposite, or virtual opposite, the ultra-conserva tive, dyed-in-the-wool Southern States-righter, LBJ, is at the world's helm.... Mr. Johnson will be President, saving an act of God or another fellow-Texan assassin, until January 1965, when he or another elected in November 1964 will dictate-or the forces behind him will dictate--what the Free World, including Australia, will do. The prospect is not gay. It is rather as if F. D. Roosevelt had died again, and his place been taken by another Truman, that small-time haberdasher, and local Tammany boy, who presently gave the order for the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, in Japan, to ascertain how destructive this new weapon might be oflife, property, and the chances in or of life for unborn generations. Now, at the time of Kennedy's death world affairs were in a state which may IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 105 be stated to have been delicate and dangerous even by cold-war standards. Sometimes Kennedy had done something to ease exacerbated situations. The apparently implacable opposition between an irresistible U.S.S.R. and an immovable U.S.A.-between emerging socialism and (as we think) declining capitalism, had on occasion been mollified. We think Mr. Kennedy, as an individ uai, was quite a special one: we think he showed a willingness to establish constant contact with his Communist opposite number. In Labor News Letter for 26 March 1964 Mr. Fitzpatrick reprinted an interview with a British expert who was alleged to have said "U.S.S.R. was making such progress in automation that 'it might bring the Western world to its economic knees' ". He also quoted a gloomy report from Walter Lippmann that the United States was losing on every front allover the world. Mr. Fitzpatrick concluded: Look at the two statements together; consider from what authoritative mouths they issue-and savor again the senselessness of those among ourselves who tell us that the touchstone of everything is the Crusade against Communism, the isolating and dividing of Russia and China, Australian backing for every lost calise in our neighbourhood-Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand.... Mr. Fitzpatrick quoted the big gains made by the Communist Party in the Italian elections of 1963 to a quarter of the total vote, despite American post-war aid to Italy of 6,000 million dollars. He lamented that Sir Robert Menzies had committed Australia to "the discreditable venture" of the United States opposition to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam ("with the tacit approval of the Opposition"). "It will be hard", he wrote, "for us to disengage ourselves, because under the Barwick-Battle Act of 1963 [Mr. Fitzpatrick's title for the Australian government's agreement to the establishment of the United States naval communications base] there cannot be an Australian foreign policy until 1988. Two-thirds of Labor's Caucus shares THAT odium." Labor News Letter of 31 May 1963 also lamented the agreement to establish the communications base and Australia's "being a helpless agent ofAmerican policy" and took the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party to task for its "meaningless token objections" and for trying "pretty successfully to keep the facts from the people until the last minute". He said that Labor's leader Arthur Calwell should have called his new book "Labor's Role in Modern (satellite) Society". He praised Bob Holt, President of the A.L..P. in Victoria and former federal M.P. for Darebin, who "in February 1963 a member of Federal Executive's foreign affairs committee, worked with Leslie Hay1en to report against the Base as contrary to Labor's nuclear policy, and at a Special Conference [Federal] helped to organise the vote of 15 of the 36, for rejection of the agreement". Others to receive Mr. Fitzpatrick's praise included Tom Uren, M.P. for Reid, New South Wales, Jim Cairns, M.P. for Yarra, Victoria, Ned Ward, M.P. for East Sydney, New South Wales, Reg. Pollard, M.P. for Lalor, Victoria, Frank Crean, M.P. for Melbourne Ports, Victoria, and Clyde Cameron, M.P. for Hindmarsh, South Australia. These members are generally regarded, and are so regarded by Mr. Fitzpatrick, as being on the Left wing of the Federal Parlia mentary Labor Party. Bitterly Mr. Fitzpatrick concluded: We have now to fit into this American empire into which our leaders have committed us, perhaps through indifference, perhaps cowardice, and it would seem reasonable to suppose that the Americans, whose top brains are well aware that capitalism is fighting a losing battle, would prefer to negotiate with proven representatives of substantial Australian capitalism rather than with sometime radicals. Between them, Government and Caucus majority, have bound Australia 106 TOM TRUMAN for2Syears, put us in a situation in which A.L.P. democratic socialism cannot be tried. Labor politics has aborted Labor Government. Dissatisfied as Mr. Fitzpatrick was with the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party he nevertheless thought it was worth supporting it in the 1963 elections because "only Labor has a left-wing, a doorway open to the future" Y He said the Left wing amounted to a third of Caucus strength, but he deplored the failure of the Left to carry the day in support of the Indonesian claim to West New Guinea; in opposition to Australian military experts going to join American troops in South Vietnam; in opposition to Australian air force planes and men going to Thailand at the request of the U.S.A.; in opposition to supporting Malaysia. 28 He looked forward to men like "Cairns, Crean, Pollard, Clyde Cameron, Haylen, Allan Fraser" (the latter could not properly be assigned to the Left) making up a "good nucleus of a Labor Govern ment. Some of them would be given high Cabinet rank." In the next issue of Labor News Letter (29 November 1963) Mr. Fitzpatrick stated: "A university professor sending £50 said he agreed entirely that however ominous the influential move of some parliamentary Labor leaders towards an L.C.L.-like conservatism the Caucus bloc of Socialists would supply several Ministers of a Labor Government, and that made a Labor win most desirable. Also, the active survival of Labor News Letter as a gadfly." In the event, of course, the Menzies government increased its majority in the November 1963 elections. Though it cannot be said for certain it was a cause of the increased government vote, Sir Robert Menzies and his team made a feature in their campaign of the Left-wing attitudes to the Base and foreign policy. Other issues of Labor News Letter could be quoted to make the points that Mr. Fitzpatrick opposes the American alliance, American foreign policy, and Australian troops being engaged in fighting the Communist guerrillas in South-East Asia. Considerations ofspace forbid full quotation, but the issue for April 1961 was strongly against being involved with United States policy, with NATO, SEATO, "with every corrupt and bloody dictator, or invader whom U.S. policy chooses to support; with Adenauer's West Germany whose army is run by Nazis and whose tolerance covers Nazis in the government". The September and October 1961 issues were opposed to the Western commitment to defend Berlin and supported the recognition of the division of Germany not only as in fact permanent but as good in itself. The October 1961 Labor NeVI's Letter blamed the U.S.A. for the tension in world affairs. Mr. Fitzpatrick quoted approvingly the New York Monthly Review which said: The American ruling class by all accounts has many more than enough A- and H-bombs to wipe out all the cities in the socialist countries while at the same time totally poisoning the earth's atmosphere. And when President Kennedy, by no means an extreme fire-eater among American statesmen, says as he did to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April, that he is "determined upon our system's survival and success, regardless of the cost and regardless of the peril" can there be any doubt that he is announcing the intention of the United States to destroy the world rather than allow it to adopt another system? More quotations could be given to illustrate Mr. Fitzpatrick's hostile attitude to the U.S.A., its foreign policy and Australia's alliance with America, but just one more must serve. The Labor News Letter of 24 August 1962 contained a good deal about the foolishness of Australia sending troops and/or military aid to Malaya, Thailand, and South Vietnam for the reasons that they excited Asian nationalism against us and tied us to United States policy which we are powerless to influence. '7 Labor News Letter, 25 October 1963. • 8 Ibid. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 107 Mr. Fitzpatrick suggested: "Some M.P. might use Mr. Ward's approach and ask the Minister how many men and millions we lost in that other wholly futile and costly operation, the U.S.-started war in Korea in 1950-53 in which Australians of all three services were bloodily engaged." In the same Labor News Letter Mr. Fitzpatrick approved the agreement to transfer West New Guinea from Dutch sovereignty to U.N. control, thence to Indonesia, and warned Australians to be careful not to do anything to turn Indonesian nationalist feelings against us. Before this agreement was reached Mr. Fitzpatrick devoted a good deal of space to attacking Mr. Calwell, the Federal Parliamentary Labor Leader, and the Sydney Morning Herald for opposing West New Guinea's going to Indonesia. He said "Labor must mind its own business" and stop aligning itself with "jingoes" and prejudicing our status in Asia. 29 Labor News Letter of December 1959 justified the Chinese invasion and conquest of Tibet and ridiculed the alleged brutality to the Dalai Lama and what "the Free World sees as rude Communist subjugation of gallant little Tibet, latest democratic bastion to be menaced (cf. over 20 years, gallant little Finland, gallant little Korea, gallant little Formosa)". Mr. Fitzpatrick thanked Mr. Victor Stout, Melbourne Trades Hall Council Secretary and leading member of the Victorian A.L.P. Central Executive, for a quotation from Sir James George Frazer's The Golden Bough (New York: Macmillan, 1951), and agreed with him that the moral to be drawn was: "In view of the appalling theocratic-feudal repression-undenied-which monks and their living gods were lately practising in Tibet, it would appear that the Chinese People's Government has acted in strict conformity with old Chinese custom, in taking steps to protect its Tibetan citizens from the greedy jealous gods of the place." The same issue ofLabor News Letter contained a gibe at the American and Austra lian refusal to grant diplomatic recognition to Communist China in the form of verse sent in by a man "in the professional division of the public service". His name was suppressed to avoid trouble with security. The verse ran: The Russians now on Science have conferred a priceless boon, Revealing to mankind the hidden secrets of the moon. But Eisenhower and Menzies call for Universal Mirth By failing to admit there's another side of Earth. This Labor News Letter also contained a favourable report on the Melbourne Peace and Disarmament Congress sponsored by the Australian and New Zealand Peace Council in which Communists played an important role. So did a number of other issues. That for November 1959 attacked the Minister for External Affairs for saying that "the Congress was Communist initiated" and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization's making available to eminent non-Communist delegates evidence of the Communist role. Mr. Fitzpatrick said: "Nobody of experience supposed that anyone but communists or socialists would bother to organise a peace conference, shoulder the huge job of putting it into effect. And the reservoir of parsons for peace is bottomless." He agreed with Mr. Frank Crean that the Security Organization was "a parasitic body prying and snooping into the affairs of citizens". He thought that "the Prime Minister let an ill-smelling cat out of the Security bag when he said: 'The Security organization is our principal agent for gathering knowledge ofCommun ist activity, and I will continue to encourage it to perform its duties in that respect'." In the Labor News Letter of December 1959 Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that he had attended a reception in Melbourne "to celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the second Russian Revolution of 1917- 'ten days that shook the world'-I met the guests of honor there of the Australian-Soviet Friendship Society." In the issue of December 1958 Mr. FitzpatriCk spoke ofAustralian society as the "ulcerated carcase of bourgeois democracy" . 29 See ibid., 15 February 1962 and 23 March 1962. 108 TOM TRUMAN Tl1eluly 1959 Labor News Letter took a favourable stand on unity tickets, i.e. tJie alliance ofA.L.P. men and Communists to contest union elections. Mr. Fitzpatrick discoU11ted the arguments of Dr. Evatt, Mr. CalweJl, Senator McKenna, and other opponents of unity tickets that if the Federal Conference ban were enforced the A.L.P. would win back Catholic votes from the Democratic Labor Party which ex ploited them in its propaganda. He said: But D.L.P. leaders and executive leaders have stated, time and time again, that even complete abandonment of the unity ticket won't satisfy them. It is clear they won't be satisfied until (as A.C.T.U. President Albert Monk saidto me months ago) Labor reverses its radical, forward-looking foreign and domestic policies enunciated at the Hobart 1955 and Brisbane 1957 Federal Conferences ... be comes a negative anti-Communist instead of a positive Labor organisation ... advocates State aid to denominational (meaning Catholic) schools ... ceases to be a Labor Party. He then reproduced the Victorian Australian Railways Union election ticket which has been the main horrible example: "Australian Railways Union Victorian State Branch Elections 1959. For a Strong and Progressive A.R.ll. Work and Vote for The Return of the AR.U. Militant Team Vote thus: President: R. J. Pauline Vice-President: E. C. Bone State Secretary: J. J. Brown Assistant State Secretary: W. H. O'Brien Industrial Officer: A J. Cregan Organisers: H. Maxwell, J. Healy, L. Lowe Deputy Organisers: S. Parsons, A. W. Morelli Australian Council Delegates: V. Delmenico, J. J. Feehan, G. Tolliday" He commented: "Nothing on that card about the political party membership of J. J. Brown (Communist) or R. J. Pauline and others (AL.P.) Just so many 'militant' AR.ll. men, appealing unitedly to other A.R.ll. men to elect them, in the interests of a strong and progressive union" and argued: In effect the D.L.P. says.... You A.L.P. people have lost control of some unions to the Communists. Now you must, in these and other unions, repudiate the Communists and let the D.L.P. run the unions instead. This last is not to be borne and it seems to me that the AL.P. people in par ticular unions must be left to conduct their own affairs, work out their own tactics in accordance with the political truism that circumstances alter cases. Labor News Letter for September 1958 reprinted approvingly a speech by Mr. R. W. Holt, then federal Labor M.P. for Darebin, Victoria, in which he justified unity tickets because "in Victoria the Democratic Labor Party's threat of fascist control of the trade union movement is a very real thing". Some readers might be inclined to think from the evidence that Mr. Fitzpatrick does not differ in any important respect from the Communist viewpoint on the matters examined. This in my view would be an incorrect inference. I think there is a very significant difference. Although Mr. Fitzpatrick regards Communists as fellow socialists, and in any conflict between the Communists and the capitalist interests he is IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 109 always prepared to give the Communists the benefit of the doubt, he is by no means blind to their faults. He is no uncritical supporter of Communist policy and Com munist actions in the manner of Mr. Nolan as described above. On at least two occa sions he applied his own socialist and humanitarian standards to Communist behaviour, found them wanting, and courageously said so, and maintained his opinions under pressure from Communist friends and subscribers to Labor News Letter. The Labor News Letter of September 1958 ran a full-page article by Mr. Fitz patrick entitled: "Aftermath of Secret Trial and Execution oflmre Nagy." It said: Some critical subscribers to L.N.L. have objected to my comments on the execu tion in June ofthe Communist former Premier of Hungary, Imre Nagy, and asso ciates (See OVER TO YOU in this number). I do not think any A.L.P. spokesman, or observer of current affairs 30 can be in two minds about this dreadful and dis appointing volte face from recent Kruschev and Mao-Tse-tung policies of "many roads to socialism" and "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred sects con tend". The new stand-over, "conform or else...." policy, as revealed by the Hungarian executions and second sending of dissident Communist Yugoslavia to Coventry, may have taken rise from U.S. incitement of October 1956 Hungarian rebels, Western failure to go halfway to meet Soviet Russia's conciliatory gestures, for abolition of nuclear tests and stockpiles. But that "explanation" cannot excuse deliberate murder for the purpose of deterring dissatisfied citizens in Eastern Europe, "warning" Yugoslavia and Poland. Feeling still runs high on the executions, so much so that discontented Hungarians-Nagy is as common a name as Brown is here-may adapt an historic American song "Imre Nagy's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, But his soul goes marching on." 1 myself had the thankless task, on July 23, ofexpounding views on this issue to what the Melbourne University Labor Club committee said in a letter to me, after the event, was the "best attended of political meetings this year". At the meeting two identifiable critical groups were present inforce: on my left staff-and student Communists unwilling to believe the worst; on my right, staff-and-student D.L.P.ers and "freedom fighters", intent on representing bad as worse.... The Australian Communist Party you may not know, has been decimated by expulsions, resignations, just quiet cessation of dues-payment, first over the October revolt and Soviet intervention, then again over the Nagy executions, reversal of line on Tito. The case of Ian Turner, brilliant Melbourne graduate in politics and history, and law, ex-A.I.F. fighting man, who was expelled over Nagy, was publicised. But there were many more, including an editor, journalists, several economists and other university staff members and graduates, the bullets that killed Nagy's associate, Resistance General Pal Maleter, blew out much of the Australian Party's brains. For a careful detailed factual account of the Nagy affair, see Helen Palmer's 3-page article, "Who Was Imre Nagy?" in Outlook, An Australian Socialist Review, Vol. 2, No.4, August 1958. Other journals and commentators mentioned by Mr. Fitzpatrick to be trusted in their accounts are worth mentioning as they help to place his political position. He gave special mention to the New York National Guardian (Cedric Belfrage, editor-in-exile, James Aronson, editor). He said: "In my opinion this is incomparably the best militant socialist news-weekly in English." Konni Zilliacus, the British Labour M.P., is another favourite of Mr. Fitzpatrick's. He quoted him as saying: 30 Here I would ask the reader to note that Mr. Fitzpatrick regards himself as an A.L.P. spokes man and I think the evidence given of interest shown in Labor News Letter by Labor activists justifies his view of his standing. 110 TOM TRUMAN tlf6hews that IIllre Nagy, Pal Maleter and their two companions had been secretly d.pue to death, after a (likewise secret) trial on trumped up charges to which they refuse9- to plead guilty, has spread bewilderment and dismay among all those in the West fighting for a sane and civilised attitude towards the Soviet Union. Contrary-wise it has been a source of ill-concealed satisfaction to the U.S. and British governments, who see in it a Heaven-sent opportunity to ankle out of the Summit Conference they never wanted but dared not oppose openly. We can take it these are the sentiments of Mr. Fitzpatrick, too, who also regards himself as "a militant socialist". In the correspondence column "Over to You" Mr. Fitzpatrick quoted Katharine Susannah Prichard as writing " ... nasty reference to the Australian Communist Party, and association of it with the D.L.P. What is essential in the Australian Communist Party is that it is based on the fundamental needs of the people, ... [would] safeguard their welfare and social progress. You should not, in my opinion, drag any red herring across the path of better understanding among the workers of the need for socialist co-operation...." Pensioner, E. Prahran, v., wrote: "I enjoy the L.N.L., while not at all sharing your anti-Communist bias which I regard as deplorable. According to the Communists, Nagy was not given a safe conduct. ... He was a man who brought death to hundreds of his fellows...." On the occasion ofthe Soviet Union's breaking the agreement not to test nuclear bombs in the atmosphere Brian Fitzpatrick composed a letter of protest which was signed by a number of eminent people and published in a number of newspapers. The letter said, among other things: Whereas we recognise the achievement of the Soviet people we deplore the Soviet Government's initiative in resuming tests as in sad contrast with their initiative in abandoning tests in 1958. We cannot accept as valid the claim made in Soviet News published by the press department ofthe Soviet Embassy in London on 31.8.61, that "the policy of the leading NATO powers-the United States, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany-and of the aggressive NATO bloc as a whole, leaves the Soviet Union no other choice." No evidence has been adduced by the Soviet Government, or at any rate none has been published, to show that NATO policies provided for resumption oftests, and as reasonable people we cannot believe that the action of the French Govern ment in initiating tests, which action we understand was deplored by the British and American Governments, amounted to provocation ofthe Soviet Union. The Soviet decision came as a shock to most people, and for our part we consider the decision morally reprehensible. .. .31 The remonstrance, though composed by Mr. Fitzpatrick, was originated by Mrs. Julie Dahlitz and one of the members of the Left in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Caucus, Mr. Gordon Bryant, M.P. for Wells, Victoria. The latter presented the protest to Mr. P. Safonov, charge d'affaires ofthe Russian embassy in Canberra, and received an assurance that the letter would be forwarded to Moscow. It is not possible to test Mr. Fitzpatrick's views on the whole range of matters in the 1956-57 survey from the Labor News Letter alone. I am therefore supplementing the information from Labor News Letter with gleanings from other sources. Concerning Mr. Fitzpatrick's attitude to civil liberties an indication is contained in the passage from the 1950 Victorian Royal Commission on communism quoted earlier. Cecil Sharpley, the member of the Communist Party's ruling junta who de fected, alleged that Mr. Fitzpatrick and the Council for Civil Liberties of which he is the Secretary, worked closely with the Communist Party and acted to arouse sympathy ----~- -~------~- 81 Labor News Letter, September 1961. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY ] 11 for Communists who were likely to be imprisoned for offences against laws and governmental regulations. The Commissioner, Sir Charles Lowe, did not investigate the Civil Liberties Council but he did find that Mr. Fitzpatrick had been associated with the Communists in a number of Left-wing protest movements. Further evidence of his attitude to civil liberties is to be found in Labor News Letter for 26 March 1964, where a note reads: "Telegram to Tom Uren, Labor M.P. for Reid (N.S.W.) and a prized subscriber to L.N.L., on the occasion, March 11, of a Sydney jury's award to him against Consolidated Press Ltd., publishers of the Sydney Daily (and Sunday) Telegraph--'Heartiest congratulations. We lost on the Base, but this is some compensation.' " A report of this case in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 12 March 1964 said: "The jury awarded £5,000 on the first count, £10,000 on the second count, and a total of £15,000 on the third and fourth counts combined." To deal with the third and fourth counts first: the Courier-Mail reported that the Sunday Telegraph had alleged "unsuspecting Labor men" had been used as pawns by the Russian spy Skripov who persuaded them to ask questions in parliament about the U.S. radio communications base in Western Australia. This, ofcourse, is a serious charge to make against any individual and very damaging to his reputation. On the other hand the political liberty of the citizens of Australia must also be considered. The report of the case does not mention whether the newspaper was able to establish the truth of its allegations or not. (The case was not reported in the Law Reports and this reveals a serious deficiency in the recording of cases of no technical interest to lawyers but of great importance to the liberties of citizens.) It is not clear whether the plea oftruth was irrelevant in the libel case or not. But it is very relevant to the liberties ofthe citizens. Ifthe allegation was untrue the newspaper was very properly punished. If the allegation was true the action of the jury was detrimental to free speech and political] iberty. However, concerning the first and second counts the matter is much clearer. The first count arose out of an article in the Daily Telegraph. It referred to "a divided and warring rag-tag-and-bob-tail outfit ranging from Eddie Ward and Les Baylen through to Dan Curtin and Tom Uren". It also said: "This is a team that would have difficulty in running a raffle for a duck in a hotel on a Saturday afternoon, let alone run the country." The second count arose from an article in the Bulletin which said that during a debate on defence Dren "still stubbornly adhered to the line that Moscow- and Peking-controlled Communist Parties in non-Communist countries assiduously peddle mainly through peace movements". This matter is on appeal to the High Court of Australia. It will be surprising, indeed, if the High Court agrees with the New South Wales jury. There is something grievously wrong with the New South Wales libel law which permits such restrictions on free speech. Cotton wool laws are absurd in politics, and particularly in Australian politics where Labor politicians, even more than others, indulge in a good deal of rough and tumble. Any man who enters politics should be prepared for hard knocks. Politics, as Clyde Cameron says, is not a game played with puff balls. Not only are such laws quite inappropriate to political controversy and election campaigns but they are positively dangerous to democracy. They are opposed to the interests ofthe voters who do not know whether these charges against the politicians in question are true or whether the newspapers are lying, but it is important they should be able to find out. How can they find out except by permitting very wide limits of free speech and free enquiry? Clearly Mr. Fitzpatrick's congratulations to Mr. Uren on the jury's verdict were quite inappropriate for one who claims to be a defender of civiIliberties. One can only conclude that in this case he was not in favour of civil liberties for political opponents or even for the general public if such liberties should hurt the cause of socialism. The action brought by Mr. Uren also seems to illustrate an attitude fairly common to 112 TOM TRUMAN the Extreme Left of the A.L.P. that despite the closeness of their attitudes to those of the Communist Party they resent very much this being pointed out. They are ever ready to allege that they are being "smeared" and, moreover, seem genuinely to believe it. M. H. Ellis, a noted Australian historian and biographer, but one whose judg ments are not altogether to be trusted on the subjects of communism and Left-wing Labor politics because of the violence of his opinions, asserts certain facts about Brian Fitzpatrick in his book The Garden Path. 32 Ellis is a careful historian and is unlikely to be wrong on matters of fact. He states that Mr. Fitzpatrick, through the Civil Liberties Council, and Mr. Dalziel, through the Australian Civil Rights Defence League, had bitterly denounced the internment of Ratcliff and Thomas, two Com munists. These men, during the time before the German attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941 when the Communist line was that the war was an "imperialist" war, had urged people not to co-operate with the government in the war effort. The Civil Liberties Council demanded the repeal of the internment regulations. Mr. Fitzpatrick had, said Mr. Ellis, shown "great heat" at the banning of the Communist Party and the Young League of Democrats and other Communist bodies in 1940-41. However he very much approved the internment of some members of the Australia First Movement ("without trial, of course") a very anti-Communist organization which the Communists accused of fascism and of being in favour of collaborating with the Japanese without ever producing any credible evidence to substantiate these charges. He wanted the Australia First movement declared an unlawful association and their journal, the Publicist, banned. The members of the Australia First movement were later cleared of all charges against them-they had been interned on the evidence ofan agent-provocateur employed by the Labor government who wormed a confession out of an eccentric person with Nazi sympathies who happened to be a subscriber to the Publicist. Two members of the Federal Labor Party Cabinet, Mr. A. A. CalweJl and Mr. S. Rosevear, to their great credit "scouted the whole of the charges against the Australia First men and demanded their trial or release". 33 In an early work by Brian Fitzpatrick, A Short History of the A ustralian Labor Movement 34 the same attitudes as described above are exhibited. In addition there are hostile attitudes to compulsory industrial arbitration (pages 173, 174, and 218, 2(9) which are responses typical of the Extreme Left group of the 1956-57 survey. This completes the analysis of Mr. Fitzpatrick's political views. About the only omission from the range of topics in the 1956-57 survey is "immigration and race". 1 have not been able to find a direct reference to this subject in Labor News Letter though there is strong opposition expressed to the South African government's apartheid policy and to harsh treatment of Africans such as occurred at Sharpeville. The demands of scholarship and fairness to Brian Fitzpatrick have required a fairly full investigation even though this has greatly extended the size of what was intended to be a medium-sized monograph. An examination of the Tocsin, a monthly issued by the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party during the years 1955 to 1960 (and perhaps later, but my file ends at 1960), shows a position somewhere between the Extreme Left and the Moderate Left. 1 mean that some attitudes shown by the Tocsin are typical of the Extreme Left but others are more like those of the Moderate Left. The Tocsin for January 1958 was at pains to distinguish between Labor's policy of "control of the major means of production" and "a home, a privately-used motor car [which] are not sociaJly used major means of production". It stated that the capi talist economies were in a state of depression. Though "the capitalist countries claim to have beaten depressions by using more and more socialist methods of government guidance ... the monopolies are stiJl in control and State intervention is used only 32 Sydney: The Land Newspaper, 1949. "3 See ibid., pp. 466-79. ;), 2nd ed.; Melbourne: Rawson's Bookshop, 1944. JDEOLOGlCAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALlAN LABOR PARTY 113 when the monopolies want it. The monopolies have been too greedy--and a recession is the result." This issue of the Tocsin had a front-page article entitled "Why U.S.A. will lose! Are we, the people of Australia prepared to face the facts?" The article went on: ... The facts are that the U.S.A. will lose the present economic and armaments race.... We forecast U.S.A. falling behind because its cut-throat capitalist econo mic system cannot utilise resources as effectively as can planned socialism.... Labor aims at a different political system to Russia's. But the world Labor and Socialist Parties favor, with local modifications, the planned economy and social ownership of major industries. It then compared the performance of the U.S.S.R. with that of the U.S.A. to show the superiority of Russia in rate of annual growth of real national product, annual productivity of labour, education, and equality of opportunity for women. The Tocsin for 25 August 1958 announced "Our Policy" to be: Greater practical support for the United Nations. World disarmament. The use of ideological and economic weapons to combat Communism and Fascism. Generous economic aid to our Asian neighbours. Support for democratic nationalist movements in Asia and the Middle East. The use of S.E.A.T.O. for peaceful settlement of disputes in South-East Asia. A mutual regional pact for security and welfare between Australia, Indonesia and Holland. Withdrawal of armed forces from Malaya. Recognition of Continental China and admission of all nations to the U.N. Co-operation with the U.S. in the Pacific. These were essentially the policies of the 1955 Hobart Federal Conference of the AL.P. and as such represented compromises between the Left and the Right though with big gains for the Left. However, the flavour of the Tocsin is distinctly more Leftist than the Hobart Conference policies. The Tocsin has a distinct anti-American bias, as witness the issue of 30 June 1960. It stated that the United States State Depart ment with its "anachronistic policies of championing the corrupt Chiang Kai-shek and ignoring the fact that 650 million mainland Chinese happen to be alive in this world has demonstrated a bankruptcy of judgment that is as unbelievable as it is terrifying". Then it declared: "These blazing duffers are the same men who can press the nuclear button and bring about the death of civilisation as we know it within a couple of hours." The Tocsin proceeded to accuse the United States of lying in the matter ofthe lJ-2 spy plane and pilot Powers. It agreed with Dr. Billy Graham about "the moral breakdown in the U.S.A" and put it down to the policy of films and T.V. in glamorizing "spies and undercover agents", "lies and deceit". It also expressed distaste for atrocities committed by our ally "staunch Turkey". The same issue of the Tocsin gave prominence to Lord Montgomery's praise of the Communist regime in China and thus justified similar praise by Victorian AL.P. member .Percy Clarey. It also expressed opposition to the United States-Japanese treaty. The T()csin of 3 December 1959 contained more anti-United States items. It pointed out that half the world's people are hungry while the U.S.A. spends billions in storing surplus food. It expressed alarm at "U.S.A. Big Business moving into the armament industry in West Germany" and gave as evidence American firms' con nections with aviation and automobile industries in Germany. The same issue denied North Vietnam interference in Laos and ridiculed the statement of External Affairs Minister, Casey, that South Vietnam was "a bastion of the 'free' world". 114 TOM TRUMAN The Tocsin of 27 May 1960 had a cartoon showing "the Military Junta" directing the wheel of a craft with the name of "U.S.A. Foreign Policy" with another vessel called "Australian Foreign Policy" tied to it. A voter asks Menzies "who decides where we're going?" The issue of the Tocsin for 25 January 1960 accused the West German govern ment of "overdue [undue?] tolerance" towards "Nazi daubers" of swastikas, and charged it with permitting "the entry of ex-Nazis into courts, army and administra tion". It warned: "Big business was behind Hitler: it supports Adenauer today." The Tocsin of 1 February 1961 had an article entitled: "The Case for the Cubans: why do the Cubans hate America and why do they oppose American policies?" It saw the answer in American ownership of Cuban industry, American diplomatic bullying of Cuba, and American support for the dictator Batista. It declared: Before he was thrown out in 1958, he and his gangsters trained by U.S. military missions and using weapons supplied by the United States, wiped out some 20,000 Cubans. Cuba became a place of misery and filth; illiteracy and exploitation.... Out ofthat morass the Cuban revolution had struggled. It was building neither a capitalist nor a Stalinist society. It was not concerned with Communism or hemisphere defence, but mainly with economic reconstruction, with feeding and housing the people properly. The Tocsin contained a good deal of nuclear disarmamen:t and peace propaganda such as the particularly lurid cartoon in the issue of 21 July 1959 entitled: "Yesterday, Hiroshima! Tomorrow, Melbourne?" It showed a flattened city, a huge vulture perched on the wreckage, and the dead body of a woman in the foreground, with the pathetic figure of a child clutching a doll trying to arouse his mother. The same issue and following numbers gave strong support to the "Congress for International Friendship and Disarmament". It denounced the warnings of External Affairs Minister, Casey, that the Congress was a Communist "front" and warned him in turn that he might become one of the "apostles of hate" who endangered the peace of the world. The Tocsin of 3 December 1959 printed the Declaration of the Australian and New Zealand Congress for International Friendship and Disarmament. This included a demand for "total disarmament", "the banning ofnuclear tests for which an adequate system of detection has already been proposed", and "the admission of the Chinese People's Republic" to the United Nations. The Tocsin of 20 March 1959 was strongly against racial discrimination and the "white supremacy complex" whether it was in Africa, the U.S.A., or in relation to Australian treatment of the aborigines. It contained a horrifying report of white policemen clubbing African women in South Africa. The Tocsin of 25 January 1960 demanded action from the Menzies government to change the liquor laws which caused the jailing of aborigines for six months for buying alcohol. It supported the trade union boycott of South African goods and rejoiced that new independent African states were replacing colonial regimes. Generally speaking the Tocsin's attitudes seem to fit into the Extreme Left grouping but its declared attitude towards Communists puts it into the Moderate Left. The issue of 29 September 1958 was devoted to the subject of "Labor and Communism". It sought to distinguish between communism and democratic socialism "which is the inspiration of the Australian Labor Party", and the "World's Third Force". It saw this difference mainly in the denial of personal freedom and democracy in Communist regimes. It said: "The A.L.P. abhors the lack offreedom and democracy in Soviet Russia. But it is constructively anti-Communist. Progressive policies are needed to combat Communism." It saw those progressive policies as support for the nationalist movements, especially in Asia, some of which the Menzies government had IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 115 branded as Communist, allowing the Communists to profit from posing as nationalist leaders; and support for domestic economic reforms. It denounced the campaign against unity tickets as a plan ofthe Liberal Party to destroy the trade union movement. It declared that behind the talk of "an unholy alliance between A.L.P. and Com munist Party members in trade union elections" was a design to bring the trade unions under government control and this it warned would result in dictatorship replacing democratic government. The attempt to ban unity tickets it declared to be "an attack on a fundamental principle of British democracy-the right of the individual to asso ciate with anyone of his choice". Thus the article started out boldly anti-Communist and ended up decidedly equivocal. The have-it-both-ways attitude could result from the alliance of Extreme Left and Moderate Left elements in the Victorian Central Executive. Similar attitudes to those of the Tocsin can be seen in Outlook, An Independent Socialist Journal, published in Sydney. It repays study because most of its contributors are A.L.P. members. Its editorial viewpoint is socialist in the sense of "extensive nationalization of industries" and is equivocal on communism. While it certainly wants a socialism that is humanitarian and democratic and not totalitarian, it supported the Castro regime in Cuba, took the side of China in the fighting with India over the disputed border areas, and regards Communists, despite reservations about the lack ofpersonal freedom and democracy in Communist regimes, as being allies in the world socialist movement. In Outlook for April 1963 appeared a reprint of an article by Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy in the Monthly Review, an American socialist journal. It was entitled "The Split in the Socialist World" and concerned the dispute between the Soviet Union and Communist China. Huberman and Sweezy tend on the whole to support the Chinese but conclude: "Those of us who are not already committed to one side or the other and who have the interests ofinternational socialism at heart can perhaps make a contribution, however smaJl, by maintaining friendly relations with all groups concerned and urging upon them the desirability, nay the necessity, of maintaining a united front against imperialism, the real enemy of mankind." Outlook's own contribution to this discussion shows an agreement with Huberman and Sweezy in friendliness towards Russia and China and hostility towards the cause of the U.S.A. and its allies which is stigmatized as "imperialism". Outlook concludes: For lack of a theoretical lead by the U.S.S.R. we believe that it is indeed quite likely that the leadership of the socialist movement in the under-developed coun tries will pass to China. But just as Huberman and Sweezy are influenced in their assessment by their interest in Cuban and Latin American developments so we are influenced by the fact that for socialists of a country that is more remote from the centre of imperialist interest, many questions remain unanswered by either side. This position is like that of the Extreme Left group. (Like Brian Fitzpatrick, Outlook regarded the Soviet resumption of nuclear testing in the atmosphere as immoral.) Outlook's other attitudes confirm this. It is a supporter of the New Zealand and Australian Congress for International Friendship and Disarmament. It is strongly against racial discrimination. It campaigns for equality of the aborigines. It wants reform of the White Australia policy so as not to discriminate against Asians. It favours militant unionism and is suspicious of compulsory arbitration. The Moderate Left Dr. J. F. Cairns, M.P. for the federal seat of Yarra, an industrial part of Mel bourne, is one who would seem to be on balance a member of the Moderate Left, although he would appear to be just over the border-line between the Extreme Left and Moderate Left. He is a believer in extensive nationalization of industries. He TOM TRUMAN gisapproves of some yommunis~ regimes on moral. grounds. He does not lik~ to. call himself anti-CommunIst, and thmks that commUnIsm can only be fought effectIvely by bringing about democratic socialism. Dr. Cairns is a leading member of the Executive Committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. He is generally regarded as the effective leader of what Mr. Fitzpatrick calls "the socialist third of Caucus". His great abilities are recognized on both sides of the House. If and when the Labor Party takes office he will almost certainly hold cabinet rank. Some commentators even see him as a potential Prime Minister though at present he is too far Left to get Right-wing support. It is proposed to demonstrate Dr. Cairns's belief in extensive nationalization and in the course of doing so to illustrate his attitude towards Communists. His attitude to Communists is very much a product of his fervent and rather doctrinaire approach to socialism. A statement of his views is to be found in a pamphlet written by him and entitled Socialism and the ALP., issued as Victorian Fabian Society Pamphlet No.8. The material was originally prepared and delivered for the University of Queensland A.L.P. Club as the 1963 Max Poulter Memorial Lecture. On page four Dr. Cairns states: "The objective of the Australian Labor Party, as it is of the Australian trade union movement, is the democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange." Dr. Cairns reveals himself on page six as a believer in the Marxist proposition that economic factors are the prime determining factors in the course of human history. He writes: The economic factors, the way in which production is carried on, the way in which man sustains his life must be of vast significance in determining the way he lives and behaves. It seems obvious that one type of economic system will generally induce an appropriate form of social organisation and behaviour while a different one will induce different social organisation and behaviour. In all this Labor does not see the significant thing to be something within the individual, some individual worth or defect, but on the contrary sees social conditions, and behind them economic conditions to be specially significant in determining what the individual is and what he does, and in turn what the social organisation is. This is the Marxist doctrine that the mode of production is the base on which stand the social organization and ideological structure of society. Page seven elaborates this proposition and refers to the class struggle between the proletariat and the capitalists for control of the means of production. It says: For many centuries everywhere there has been a struggle for better standards. But in Australia that struggle took place within the property arena. On the surface the struggle was for better wages and working conditions and for social services. But it was really a struggle for power by means ofwhich these things were gained and without which they could not have been gained. Some wealthy people helped and supported those who sought these gains, but the gains were always won against the opposition of those who held economic and political power. The source and foundation of power in Australia is in private property. This, too, is the Marxist proposition that political power derives from ownership of the means of production. Dr. Cairns explains that Labor is concerned with "the dominant parts of the economy" and not the many thousands ofsmall shops, factories, and farms which possess no individual power to determine economic conditions. A social framework was built upon it, or was transferred from England, where it has a similar but deeper background. Within this framework were also positions of power--church, judicial, academic, civil, political-as distinct from IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 117 purely economic, but generally all those who occupied these positions acted in the interests of private property. Most of their laws, rules, customs and platitudes were derived from the needs of a private property system. The bishop, judge, or professor, or mayor, or statesman who took a radical view was unique enough to merit a place in history. All significant decisions were made by those whose power rested on private property and were consistent with its needs. Prices oflabour and commodities were amongst the most important decisions. Dr. Cairns went on to argue that the proposition that prices oflabour and commodities were fixed by the neutral forces of competition and the market was false. He also asserted that as the ownership of the improved means of production became concen trated in fewer hands the power ofthe capitalists and their wealth continually increased. He continued: "Not only did this economic condition of private property create a broad class division between those who owned and directly served the property system and those who did not, but it created the intricate network of conflicting interests among those who worked within it." Dr. Cairns on page nine outlined his belief in extensive nationalization. He wrote: Labor does not favour trying to break up the property system into small pieces so that no one can have enough property to be able to exercise great powers nor does Labor believe that the solution lies in seeking to outlaw practices which are essential for the efficient functioning ofthe system. Instead Labor bel ieves that the proper course is the socialisation of the system of property: the difficult but poss ible method ofmaking the property system subject to the will ofthe people as it is expressed through parliament and elsewhere. Although Dr. Cairns is a Marxist socialist he is essentially a democratic socialist or social democrat rather than a Communist. Mr. Bruce McFarlane of the Australian National University, in his commentary in Dr. Cairns's pamphlet, says on page 27: Cairns is no Leninist. On Lenin's view the role of the socialist is not to provide the working class movement with Socialist goals and at the same time assist in making the demands of the working class effective. Rather 'the aim of the socialist is to articulate demands and goals with doctrine'. Lenin would argue that without doctrine the A. L.P. could only be a party which accepts a political and economic system designed to protect the interests of employers. Cairns, on the other hand, rejecting both this approach and the 'pessimistic' right-wing view of the perman ence of capitalism argues that reforms have been and can be secured by the trade union movement and one Socialist party. What is new in his approach and deserving of closer study and documentation is the 'no compromise' strategy to be pursued by the pincer movement of collectively organised workers and Labor members of Parliament. Leninist doctrine that Mr. McFarlane referred to includes the necessity of revolution to bring about a change of social systems. Dr. Cairns is quite explicit in his attitude to the method of achieving socialism. He says on page nine: Labor's background philosophy and purpose lead logically on to a method. This method is to modify or change capitalist power, and it demands collective organisa tion of workers and political action through parliaments. There are those who believe this cannot be achieved without a revolution. But if it cannot be, then a revolution seems a much more difficult task than does reform. If reform is im possible, then revolution as a conscious directed policy is much more impossible. A revolution does not occur as the result of a choice by some revolutionary n8 TOM TRUMAN groups.gr pa.rty. It is the result ?f a total.historical and soc~al and economic situ,: tion. Every nation possesses a hIstory ofIts own. Every natIon possesses economIC and social conditions that are an outcome of history. Sometimes the internal distortions are so great that a revolution is possible or inevitable. Sometimes the internal conditions are such that quite considerable change is possible, but change very much short of revolution. It is obvious that revolution is not possible in any advanced capitalist country, and certainly not in Australia. It is obvious that not only was revolution possible in countries like Cuba and Vietnam, but that revolution was inevitable. It is equally obvious that improvement in the lives of the people in those and similar countries could not take place unless there was a revolution. But in Australia capitalist power is strong, secure and is still growing every day. Many people are satisfied with its performance; others are disinterested or apathetic about it. Dissatisfaction leads to widespread delinquency rather than to a widespread movement of reform. Acts of rebellion are, in the capitalist tradition, individualist not collective, because the stimulus to them are individual not collective. No one can claim any revolutionary intentions, and those who might toy with the idea are quickly segregated and rendered ineffective. Basically the reason is that revolutionary methods in Australia are not relevant to anything else but personal behaviour. But the evidence shows that capitalist power can be modified and changed. For this to be done it is necessary to be clear about methods and objectives. Dr. Cairns then outlines his policy using collective organization to secure these changes. He remarks: In Australia the form of collective organisation that has contributed far the most is that of the trade unions. While they remain of vital importance, organisation should extend further. Labor party branches were invented to try to achieve this extension but they have not in themselves played a significant role. Too often other collective organisations have either refused or have been denied affiliation with the Labor Party or have chosen to maintain their external existence to control the Labor Party from outside. 35 Both results have seriously handicapped political progress in Australia. Included in these organizations to which Dr. Cairns refers is the Communist Party. The Communist Party has been refused affiliation with the A.L.P. again and again since 1923. It has also attempted to control the A.L.P. from the outside by way of alliances with AL.P. men in the unions (unity tickets) and is following such tactics at the present time as Mr. L. L. Sharkey, the General Secretary ofthe Communist Party, himself declared in his report to the Central Committee. 36 The only other "collective organisations" that have played this role have been: the small socialist associations and Industrial Workers of the World which were absorbed into the Communist Party when it was created; the Fabian Societies whose members also belong to the AL.P. (Dr. Cairns is a Vice-President of the Victorian Fabian Society); and the National Civic Council and the Democratic Labor Party. One can always be certain that Dr. Cairns does not want the two last-named organizations which are anti socialist in the A.L.P., and besides there has been evident a good deal of bitterness in his relations with the D.L.P. It would seem that Dr. Cairns wants the Communist Party to disband and its members to apply for membership in the A.L.P. The other course that could be followed to satisfy Dr. Cairns's requirements is to grant affiliation to the Communist Party and for the Communist Party to cease trying to control the AL.P. and to become reconciled to using the Parliamentary Labor Party as well as the trade unions for the achievement of socialism. 3.5 The present author's italics. 3. See Communist Review, No. 250 (October 1962). IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 119 Dr. Cairns's references to revolution in the passages quoted above seem to support the view that he does not wish to take any action against the Communists other than trying to show they are wrong in their analysis of the current state of capitalism in Australia and therefore wrong in the methods they advocate to achieve socialism. He is not saying, as social democrats like E. F. M. Durbin in The Politics of Democratic 7 Socialism :l say, that true socialism cannot be achieved by revolution. He says that socialism could not be achieved in Cuba and Vietnam except by revolution. He says that "improvement in the lives ofthe people in those [Cuba and Vietnam] and similar countries could not take place unless there was a revolution". "Revolution was inevitable." He does not say that revolution is too high a price to pay for socialism as some democratic socialists do. He says simply that revolution is an ineffective method in Australia because it is irrelevant in the Australian conditions and "those who might toy with the idea are quickly segregated and rendered ineffective". Here is, it seems, a permissive tolerant attitude towards Communists. (They are fellow socialists but are too rigid in their application of Marxism. They are right about countries like Cuba and Vietnam but wrong about Australia.) This impression is strengthened by what Dr. Cairns is reported to have said about socialist liberty in his Curtin Memorial Lecture delivered at the University of Western Australia. Alan Reid in the Bulletin of 20 July 1963 reported him as saying: The threat of Communism in Australia, as it is in other countries, is largely a matter of economic and social discontent. Whilst support for Communist or any radical or dissident point of view will continue to exist and in many ways lead towards economic and social progress it will not and cannot be a threat to the sta tus quo unless the level of economic and social discontent is high. In a country like Australia where it is difficult even to change the Government there is little chance that the state will be overthrown ... provided Australia maintains foreign and defence policies consistent with security, which is not the case today, and maintains a satisfactory rate of social progress, Communism will not represent a threat. However, it would appear that Dr. Cairns believes not only that the Communists are not a threat, as a matter of fact, but also disapproves on moral grounds of some Communist regimes. Alan Reid quotes him as being opposed to "the emergence of dogmatic, extreme and morally offensive types of Communist dictatorships". Dr. Cairns describes himself as a "gradualist" and regards it as the task of the A. L.P. to prevent the Right from coercion and persecution of Communists because these trends would lead to an increase in the popularity and power of the Communists. As quoted by Alan Reid Dr. Cairns put it this way: For the Socialist, absolute (authoritarian) Left-wing Movements are not a power problem (in Australia). The Communist Party and its front organisations ... have so little power that they are not in any way part of the power structure. Compared with the power of concentrated wealth, the power of the Left-wing is completely insignificant. Its power could increase only if the power of the Right-wing was suddenly broken or was suddenly exercised to extremes. It is the Socialist objective to ensure that the power of the Right is gradually changed and never so exercised thereby to prevent an increase in the power ofthe absolute Left wing. The National Civic Council and the Democratic Labor Party, whose views are similar to those of the Extreme Right group ofthe survey of 1956--57, and some mem bers of the Liberal Party regard Dr. Cairns as a Communist sympathiser and as a 37 London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1940. 120 TOM TRUMAN "revolUtionary socialist". I have already stated that the evidence shows that while Dr. Cairns has a permissive attitude to Communists he is firmly committed to demo cratic socialism in Australia and, presumably, in similar capitalist democracies, although in his view revolutionary socialist or Communist methods may be applicable where a Right-wing or capitalist dictatorship exists as it did in Cuba before the Castro regime. The evidence adduced by these Right-wing opponents of Dr. Cairns is worth examining providing that one bears in mind their difficulty in discerning the differences between the groups on the Left of the A.L.P. Mr. E. J. Hogan, Labor Premier of Victoria 1927-28 and 1930-32, has written an article entitled "Communists and Evatt Party Members and the Hungarian Revolt".38 I-Ie accuses Dr. Cairns of having "parroted" Communist lies about the Hungarian national rebellion against the Russians. He reports Dr. Cairns as saying to a meeting at the Melbourne University on 11 November 1956 "that to a very large extent the Hungarian rising was a fascist uprising with some mass support. The Hungarian situation should not be exaggerated, the Hungarians were an excitable violent people who had become accustomed to killing each other through the course of their history." The same report was published in News-Weekly, the journal of the Catholic Social Movement, now National Civic Council, on 19 December 1956. M r. Hogan avers that Senator Gorton, who was present, agrees that this is what Dr. Cairns said. Mr. Hogan stated that Mr. Albert Monk, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on his return from the Congress of Free Trade Unions made a statement on the Hungarian rebellion which appeared in the Melbourne Herald of 13 December 1956. Mr. Monk was reported as follows: The whole world has been shocked by the ruthlessness ofthe Russians in Hungary. He said it was "completely untrue" that the Hungarian Revolt arose out of a fascist landlord movement. It was a workers' fight against oppression and for better conditions. Take the coal miners. They were previously 100 per cent Communist supporters. Now they were leading the fight against the Russians. They are fighting in the forests. The workers had made spasmodic efforts to get rid ofCommunist oppression -particularly oppression by the Russian military dictatorship. The Hungarian incident was not properly organised. This led to the massacre. They had no arms. They fought with their bare fists against Russian guns and tanks. Only history will show the debt that democracy owes to the Hungarians. The incident arose out of a student demonstration but the workers-and most of the Hungarian military force-threw in their weight. Mr. Hogan reports that Dr. Cairns wrote a letter to the Age, published on 19 December 1956, in which he stated: The revolt in Hungary is clearly one ofthe mass ofthe people. They deserve all the help and assistance we can give them. Soviet intervention is wrong and nothing can be said in its defence.... There are people in Australia whose aim is not to help the people in oppressed countries but to influence politics in Australia for their own advantage. They are being helped by some European migrants whose record in Europe is no better than that of the Communists in Hungary responsible for the slaughter. 1 hope the reaction against the extremes ofoverseas Communism will not be allowed to introduce the extremes of European anti-Communism to Australia with its violence and vendettas. 38 See pp. 33-56 of E. J. J:Iogan, Facts Everyone ShoulJ Know about Communism in Australia (Melbourne: Unification Printers, 1958). IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 121 Mr. Hogan thought the explanation of Dr. Cairns's somersault was that it was forced on him for reasons of expediency by Mr. Monk's statement. But he is, I think, mistaken. The pattern of Dr. Cairns's thought is remarkably consistent, almost predictable, because he is a doctrinaire thinker. His belief in the class struggle theory of society would naturally incline him to his first judgment ofthe Hungarian rebellion. It would seem to him as it seemed to others on the far Left of the A.L.P. that as Hungary was previously under the "fascist" regime ofAdmiral Horthy the Communist method of achieving socialism was inevitable. It would also seem to him that the workers and peasants would support a Communist regime and their opponents in the class struggle would necessarily be the former "owners of property", i.e. landlord and capitalist elements who to Dr. Cairns would appear "fascist". He would reason that Hungary has an authoritarian tradition. The absolute Left supplants the absolute Right and therefore the counter-revolution would be led by the absolute Right. However, he does realize the authoritarian and brutal nature of some overseas Communist regimes and, therefore, he could be convinced by Mr. Monk, himself a socialist, where he would discount reports in the capitalist press as Cold War propa ganda. But he is incapable of giving up the class struggle theory of politics even if it is demonstrated that major events like the Hungarian revolt cannot be explained by it. It is this style of thinking that causes him to see the Communist regimes in Cuba and North Vietnam and the Communists' ultimate success in South Vietnam as "inevitable". Less doctrinaire thinkers are very hesitant about "inevitability" in human affairs. It should also be noted from Dr. Cairns's letter that he is afraid of extreme anti-Communism in Australia. His reasons he gave in his lecture Socialism and the A.L.P. were that he feared such extremism would lead to a strengthening of the absolute Left, i.e. the Communists, and diminish the possibility of achieving demo cratic socialism. Some such motivation probably explains the fact that Dr. Cairns is patron of the Yugoslav Settlers' Association, an organization which said in a pam phlet: "The Menzies Government and the D.L.P. have given the Ustashi open or secret support. Of course, they know that the Ustashi is pledged to future violence and terrorist activities."a9 It is apparent from the lecture and the letter that providing that there is no extreme anti-communism he thinks the local Communists are not to be feared and indeed their existence can be a progressive influence. This is borne out by his statement, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of20 December 1961 and the Brisbane Worker of 1 January 1962, at a Christmas party of the Miscellaneous Workers' Union, "that members of the A.L.P. should be free to associate with any body, even Communists". In an article contributed by Dr. Cairns to Outlook40 he condemned "the brutal and unnecessary Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956, the Chinese crushing of opponents in Tibet and their campaign to humble India on the border". This article was about how far it was politically possible for the A.L.P. to go in developing an "independent" foreign policy for Australia. In a following issue of Outlook H. F. Palmer took Dr. Cairns to task for a defeatist, "if-you-can't-beat them-join-them" attitude in foreign policy. Mr. Palmer wanted "an independent progressive foreign policy", "a real alternative" that recognizes that "Asian nation alism and social radicalism are interwoven". He regarded United States and British policies in Asia as aggressive and imperialist. It would appear that for Mr. Palmer the world is divided into "the socialist forces" and "the imperialist forces". He said that he regarded the Left wing as "the only conceivable future leadership of a genuine [i.e. socialist] Labor Party".41 Dr. Cairns replied in the next issue that his differences with Mr. Palmer arose out of their very different positions, i.e. they did not disagree as to what they considered right, but they disagreed because Mr. Palmer lacked 39 See Courier-Mail (Bdsbane), 21 May 1964. Dr. Cairns's responsibility as a senior member of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and he lacked Dr. Cairns's sense of what was realistic and possible. 42 To complete the case for believing that Dr. Cairns is a believer in extensive nationalization of industries I refer to page nineteen of Socialism and the A.L.P. Dr. Cairns says there, after proposing a national plan to bring private enterprise under the power of parliament and to make it serve the needs of the people according to pri orities determined by the A. L.P. : What we are seeking to do remains basically a question of power and as power, even in this planning phase would still remain with "private" enterprise, there can be no doubt that private enterprise will continue to do much to frustrate the achievement of the national plan. This experience will bring the establishment of the public ownership of the key sectors43 even closer to the top of the economy. Thisis the direction inwhich thepursuit of higher living standards and consequent growth of the capital structure is taking our development. This is because the pursuit of higher living standards is in essence a pursuit of economic power. Unless we succeed in acquiring for the national parliament a greatly increased share of economic power little difference will be made to anything. Should we be satisfied with these "little differences"? Many, of course, answer "yes". They would say that if Labor proposes to make more than a "little difference" we will never be elected. Dr. Cairns answered the criticism of those who point to the opinion polls as proof of the voters' aversion to socialism by saying: ''The role of Labor is that of advocacy, not that of calculators of public opinion", and by quoting R. H. Tawney who wrote in The Attack:44 The Labor Party's business is not the passage of a series ofreforms in the interests of different sections of the working classes. It is to abolish all advantages and dis abilities which have their source, not in ditIerences of personal quality, but in disparities of wealth, opportunity, social position, and economic power. ... The Labor Party can either be a political agent, pressing in Parliament the claims of different groups of wage earners; or it can be the instrument for the establishment of a Socialist Commonwealth.... Dr. Cairns on page 22 quoted approvingly Aneurin Bevin as saying: "The issue is one of transfer of power, and it is this issue which must be kept to the front of all our reasoning about the future. We shall be able to afford the light cavalry ofprivate enterprise and competition in a number of business enterprises if the principal econ omic activities of society are articulated by means of a dominating sector of publicly owned industries." He concludes that democracy and the solution of national econ omic problems depend on Labor's choosing such a course. Dr. Cairns, according to Brian Fitzpatrick's Labor News Letter, was one of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Caucus Left wing who led the fight to have the party oppose the establishment of the United States radio communications naval base at Learmouth in Western Australia. Dr. Cairns is reported in News- Weekly of 26 March 1964 to have given the main address at the conference of the Australian Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. The paper stated that he said he thought that a national campaign "would serve to restrict Australia's growing involvement in United States nuclear strategy". However, Dr. Cairns is not an advocate ofAustralia's disarmament in conventional weapons as the Communists are. He does not assume that there is no danger of a clash between Australia and Indonesia as is typical in the '"Ibid., Vol. IX, No.2 (April 1965). 43 The present author's italics. "London: Allen and Unwin, 1953, pp. 62-64. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOlt PARTY 123 Extreme Left group. Alan Reid in the Bulletin of 20 July 1963 mentions a lecture Dr. Cairns gave to the Australian Institute of International Affairs in which he was discussing the possibility of a conventional attack on Australia by Indonesia or some other Asian country. Dr. Cairns is reported to have said: "It seems clear that Australia would be wise to assume that self-defence is possible and organise conventional forces planned to the needs of Australian geography." Alan Reid also said: In a recent debate in the House of Representatives, he took a view that came very close to advocacy of a national non-party attitude on defence. Ifthe defence, and the general developmental problem which he associated with defence, needed an increase in the proportion of national resources devoted to it, let both Labor and non-Labor take up a common position on the need for an increase in taxation for defence purposes was his theme ... And, amusingly, though he seldom finds much for which to commend the Menzies Government, he has been much more flattering about what it has done on defence than some of the Govern ment's own supporters. In the same debate he said: "The Government has given us an army which is based on the pentropic concept which is that of a small hard-hitting and easily moved unit. I think commonsense dictates that this is the sort of development most suitable for Australian continental defence. In many ways what the Government has done with limited resources in the develop ment of a defence structure has been a move in the right direction. But the Government has been moving only slowly in that direction." This concern for stronger defence forces is not typical of the Extreme Left group but is compatible with the attitudes of the Moderate Left. The Brisbane Worker of 12 June 1961 took Dr. Cairns to task for going against Labor Party policy and advocating a more flexible immigration policy with respect to Asians and other coloured people. The Worker said: "We don't know how long Dr. Cairns has been in Australia but we know that he has been speaking about the White Australia-immigration policy--in ways that are not the ways of Labor men who unquestionably adhere to Labor's unwritten policy." Dr. Cairns's views on immigration are typical of the views of the Extreme Left and a section of the Moderate Left. The Anti-Communist Moderate Left A fairly clear example of the anti-Communist Moderate Left is Spotlight, a Melbourne journal devoted to international and local trade union news. In the issue of 1 April 1964 the editors state that detractors in the A.L.P. and elsewhere have alleged that Spotlight and its publishers are in league with the Democratic Labor Party. The editors said: As democratic Socialists and supporters of the Free Trade Union Movement we would like to state categorically and most emphatically that we do not have any connections with the D.L.P. or, for that matter, with any other non-socialist organisations. Our only associations and connections are with other Democratic Socialist and Free Trade Union Movements in A ustralia and overseas. 45 We are convinced that this kind of smear campaign and accusations levelled against us are emanating from Communists and their stooges, who being afraid of a true Democratic Socialist Movement, will do everything possible to discredit us and divide the dedicated A.L.P. supporters. Immediately below this statement is a report headed: "Canadian Trade Unions Denounce Soviet Anti-Semitism". It quotes a resolution of the Canadian Labour " The editors' italics. 124 TOM TRUMAN Congress as acc)lsing the Soviet Union of engaging over a long period in "the most vicious form of discrimination against Jewish community life through the suppression ofJewish religious and cultural institutions". The Soviet government was also accused of singling out the Jew as a scapegoat for the failures of the Soviet economy. This issue of Spotlight also reports: "Mass Dismissals of Workers in Northern China", "Miners' Strike in Central Spain", "Yugoslav Workers May Have the Right to Strike", "ICFTU African Regional Organisation Urges End of White Rule in Southern Rhodesia", and many other international trade union news items. It would seem that the journal is written by European immigrants for European immi grants but also circulates amongst other anti-Communist socialists. The main story in Spotlight of 1 April 1964 was headlined: "Trial by Central Executive--Travesty of Justice for Jordan." This was a case that arose out of the defeat of Victorian AL.P. Central Executive member, Bob Brebner, a Left-winger, who was beaten for a Trades Hall seat by the forces led by Right-winger Mick Jordan. In reply to Mr. Brebner's remark that his defeat would damage the A.L.P., Mr. Jordan was a]]eged to have said: "I am not concerned with the damage it will do to the ALP." An enquiry was held by the Victorian Central Executive, which according to its own philosophy of "no politics in the unions" should not have been concerned at all. Members of the Central Executive were witnesses against Jordan and they as members of the Executive sat in judgment on a charge against him of disloyalty to the AL.P. Spotlight in the same issue published its aims and objectives. The journal said: We are, and we do not apologize for it, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS and supporters of Free Trade Unions. We are Democratic Socialists in the tradition of practical and non-doctrinal humanitarian socialism. We interpret socialism not as an arid economic dogma, but in terms of freedom, equality, social justice, and world co-operation. We believe socialism and democracy are like Siamese tWins-inseparable. There is no Socialism without Democracy, and there can't be any real Democracy without Socialism. 46 We propose to work for a Democratic Socialist Labor Party, broadly based and representative of all people, with particular emphasis on workers-manual and white collar, ... and a party that will build its strength and leadership on the leaders of tomorrow ... the young people. We are not anti-intellectual. We believe that intellectuals, like workers, have a role to play in the building of this broad based Democratic Socialist Labor Party. Intellectuals can, and should, playa leading role in the shaping of policy, particularly that which relates to the economic and social fields. [The trade union officials and the A. L.P. generally have a reputation for being anti-intellectual.] We believe passionately and sincerely that a Democratic Socialist Labor Party should always strive to enlarge the area of Human Freedom. The party must always defend the individual against authoritarianism, the consumer against monopoly, and the minority groups seeking to lead their own lives in their own ways, against encroachments on their liberties. As Democratic Socialists we are against any and all kinds of prejudice national, religious, or color. We believe that all peoples, no matter how small, have a right to freedom, self-determination and independence. We believe in WORLD GOVERNMENT as the only answer towards genuine peace and disarmament. We believe that the historic partnership between a Democratic Socialist· Labor Party and the Free Trade Unions is basic and natural, but the party must represent all sections of society, and it must be made absolutely clear that no one 46 Italics in the text. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 125 has the power or right to command, control or dictate to any section ofthe Party. With respect to the Australian Labor Party we would like to level some criti cism in the hope that it may help to transform the A.L.P. into a true Democratic Socialist Labor Party. Despite the fact that the A.L.P. claims to be a Socialist Party, it creates an image of a trade-union controlled party, a party with petty personal controversies and hatreds, a party without any real democratic socialist programmes and policies which could inspire and exalt the people of Australia, especially the young. Notwithstanding all this, we are still convinced that the Australian Labor Party, after recognising its faults and shortcomings, after adjusting its programmes and policies to the new times and conditions of an aflluent society, is destined to greatness and will bring the people of Australia social justice, equality and peace in freedom. This should not be considered unattainable. We would like to suggest that this is attainable-attainable if the A.L..P. becomes a real Democratic Socialist Labor Party, not only in name but in practice. rt is equally important that the A.L.P. loses the image of an anti-intellectual party and that all its members are discouraged and prevented from flirting and fraternising with the Communists'17-the worst enemies not only of Democratic Socialism but of everything the A.L.P. stands for. Finally we would like to make clear our stand in relation to Communism. Vve are strongly opposed to Communism because, contrary to the general opinion, it is not the extreme left-wing of the socialist movement, but it is a degenerate version of it, which perverts everything genuine Socialists stand for. Communism is a vicious form of totalitarian state capitalism masquerading as Socialism. In practice Communism is a regime of oppression and degradation for the working man, a big concentration camp for Socialists and genuine trade unionists, a regime of war against all Nations, and of suppression of free speech, organisa tion and the right of religious beliefs. It is a regime of the worst national and racial Chauvinism. This issue of Spotlight quarrelled with a glowing report on the Communist regime in East Germany made by the Melbourne Secretary of the Seamen's Union (which is mainly Communist-controlled) and member of the Victorian Central Executive of the A.L.P., Mr. Bert Nolan. It said: Let us look at some of the claims made by Mr. Nolan, He claimed that the economy was flourishing, he claimed that the trade unions are independent from the Government; and he claimed that the workers participate in the development of policy. All of these can be summed up with a single word-RUBBISH.... Nolan's reference to the Berlin Wall must be for the consumption of pre-school children. If the economy is flourishing, if the trade unions are free to do as they please, if the workers develop policy and if it is a workers' paradise as Mr. Nolan implies, we would like to know why Walter Ulbrecht and his henchmen built the infamous Berlin Wall. Was the Berlin Wall built to prevent others coming in and sharing the fruits of the East German "paradise"? Or, was it built to prevent its own citizens from following the 3t million who have chosen freedom and democracy in the Vvest? The Moderate Right The officials of the Queensland branch of the Australian Workers' Union are contemporary examples of the Moderate Right, if their official organ, the Worker, is any guide. -17 Spotlight often levels this charge against Left-wingers influential with the Victorian Central Executive. 126 TOM TRUMAN An examination of the Worker for the period January 1960 to April 1964 shows that journal to be anti-capitalist and socialist, but it is not very serious about either. They are attitudes which the Worker espoused with enthusiasm when it was established in 1890 and for some twenty years afterwards. It still continues in this tradition, reprinting the old cartoons which once had "bite" if anti-capitalist and could thrill if socialist. Nowadays, they just look museum pieces, quaint reminders of what our grandfathers thought and said. The Worker, like the politicians it favours, e.g. Mr. Ca1well, Mr. Whit1am, Mr. Duggan, and Senator Dittmer, does not envisage any Labor government that could be elected in the near future nationalizing anything, and even if it could, would be satisfied probably with the nationalization ofthe private banks and the establishment of a few government-owned enterprises in the first three years. It wants a Commonwealth shipping line, to punish the private enterprise shipping lines for which it has conceived a dislike, and would similarly punish Ansett airways. The Worker is aggressively Australian and considers patriotism a great virtue. It is very concerned about danger to Australia and Australian territory from Indonesia and is very hostile to President Sukarno. It champions the White Australia policy and is quick to condemn its critics. It is strongly anti-Communist and hostile to unity tickets and all forms of association between Labor men and Communists and fre quently attacks the Extreme Left in the A.L.P. It is very critical of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other Communist regimes. It is opposed to exchanging trade union delegations with those countries, regarding Communist trade unions as being mere agents of Communist governments, serving the employing interests rather than the workers. The Worker is pro-American in the Cold War but identifies with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the liberal wing of the Democrats on the American domestic political scene and attacks Big Business. In industrial relations it is critical of militancy, especially when it is Communist militancy, and regards the strike as a weapon to be used very infrequently. It has made the compulsory arbitration and industrial court system an article offaith for the union. In the support ofthese assertions the following evidence gleaned from the Worker is given. The Worker of9 December 1963, just after Labor's defeat at the federal elections, ran a story headed: "Australia's Press and its Federal Poll Role." With it was a cartoon showing a somewhat stout Victorian, or perhaps Edwardian, lady wearing elastic-side boots and grasping like a weapon a folded umbrella labelled "Capitalistic Press" and pictured bestriding "the world" (an example of an old cartoon dug up for the purpose). The story alleged that the newspapers were run by Big Business which al so controlled the other mass media, radio and television, in the political interests of Big Business. It traced out family connections between the newspapers and alleged a "Brotherhood of Big Business". It implied that the newspapers ganged up to prevent the Labor Party's case being presented fairly and said when returned to power Labor would set up an Australian press commission to run a national daily newspaper in the same way as the Australian Broadcasting Commission runs the national radio and television services. The Worker of 23 January 1961 carried an old-time cartoon entitled "The Great Offensive" and perhaps dating back to World War 1. It showed a horde of very portly gentlemen carrying the banner "Profits", pursuing with fixed bayonets a small lean figure labelled "Worker" who was depicted running for dear life clutching a packet, labeJled "Wages". The Worker of 6 February 1961 carried another ancient cartoon on the front page. A brawny figure labelled "Labor" menaces with clenched fist a very fat man in spats, silk hat, bejewelled waist coat and shirt-front, and labelled "Capitalism". The fat figure guards a strong-room door labelled "The World's Wealth" padlocked with "Monopoly". The brawny one demands: "Hand over the key." The Worker of 17 October 1960 featured a cartool1 showing the usual repulsively IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS 1N THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 127 fat and opulent figure of "Capitalism" with the whip of "the Constitution" driving the manacled figure of "Democracy" into a "Servitude" made up of smoking factory chimneys. It carries the comment: This old-time cartoon by the late Jim Case has its meaning today because there are some employers who want to drive their employees into servitude and keep them there. However, wise governments should ensure that Australian workers get their entitlements because Communism wiII only gain foothold where injustice prevails and men and women are deluded into thinking the Soviet system is better. Chinese and other coloured races have grasped at Communism because of hunger, slave-like conditions, etc. ; their second state could be worse than the first ~except that they eat more. The Worker of 21 November 1960 had a cartoon on page one that used the Canute and the Sea theme. "Capitalism" was shown seated on a throne with the sea of "Socialism" lapping his feet. Behind the throne showing signs offear were courtiers "Combines", "Profits", "I\1onopoJies", "Clergy", "War", "Interest on War Loans", and "Tory Press". The comment of the Worker was: The old-time cartoon by the late Jim Case drawn in the late 'teens of this century, tells its own story, and has meaning today for, commenting on the latest Menzies Government financial kick the Sydney Sun of November 16, said: "This sudden and inexplicable surge into a form of socialism~orderingthe investor where and where not to invest~is made necessary, says Mr. Holt. ..." Another Jim Case cartoon in the Worker of 19 December] 960 showed dilapidated and ugly workers' dwellings surrounding smoking factory chimneys labelled "Capital ism". The giant and brawny figure of "Labor" stood amidst the squalid buildings holding a picture of a well-planned city made up of Greek temples and gardens labelled "Co-operative Commonwealth". The Worker still carries the legend on its front page banner "Australia's pioneer co-operative Labor journal". The Worker of 8 August 1960 had another .lim Case cartoon on page one. It showed a fleet of liners out to sea whilst on shore the figure of Billy Hughes, Labor Prime Minister during World War T, ladled spoonfuls of some pleasant-tasting medicine from a huge bottle labelled "Socialism" into the mouth of a boy labelIed "Australia" who showed by his expression of gluttonous delight how much he enjoyed the experience. In the background a queer old lady in old-fashioned clothing labelled "Tory Press" danced in frantic anger. The comment of the Worker was: Never satisfied the overseas shipping ring is at it again! The monopoly did in the days when farmers and graziers were being mulcted during the first world war and the Commonwealth Shipping Line was established. The Line saved the producers huge sums in excessive freight; yet when Prime Minister Bruce (N ational Party) got the chance, he sold the line, at a great loss, and it was never fully paid for by the London buyers.... Before things are through the Australian primary producers will have to force the hands of the shipping giants to cut freights, or press for competition from the Australian Government-owned ships. Other cartoons of a like nature appeared throughout the period 1960-64, but the examples given are probably sufficient to illustrate the point already made. An article in the Worker of 17 October 1960 reported that the government-owned Commonwealth Banking Corporation made a profit of £582,035, and was obviously meant to show how successful government enterprises can be. The Worker of 17 April 1961 reported that General Motors in the U.S.A. was indicted by a grand jury for monopolizing the manufacturing of diesel locomotives. It said: "In Australia General 128 TOM TRUMAN Motors-Holden has become a motor-car octopus and its millions of profits go back to the United States-no dividends for locals, Sir-because G.M.H. bought out all local shareholders, and Australia will be hard-pressed without legislation to learn from now on how much the Company earns." The Worker features the speeches of Mr. Calwell, Labor's federal leader, a good deal in its columns. From its general treatment of Mr. Calwell it is clear enough that the Worker agrees with his views. In the Worker of 10 June 1963 appeared a story headed: Federal Labor Leader Calwell Says LABOR MUST KEEP POLlCY. The leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr. A. A. Calwell, M.H.R., said in Sydney a few nights ago that the Labor Party should never abandon its principle of democratic socialism.... Asked to define Labor's policy ofdemocratic socialism, Mr. Calwell said: "I do not believe capitalism can really be reformed. "1 believe in the system of society we have [i.e. democracy] and] believe in the extension of it when the people are educated to the point when they want to adopt it. "But we could not nationalise or socialise [note the interchangeability ofthese phrases for Mr. Calwell] anything unless Section 92 ofthe Constitution is amended to permit nationalisation of all or any particular industry.... "1 cannot see the prospect of the electors being willing to give the Common wealth power to engage in schemes of nationalisation", he said. "If it came to the point where Labor could not govern without change, we would seek constitutional change." Mr. Calwell said the Labor Party recognised that Australia would continue to function in a mixed economy-the Government-controlled public sector and private enterprise. "We will face the fact that we have to ensure the private sector ofthe economy is able to function, and function in the interests of the people generally", he said. The Worker's favourite Queensland federal politician is Senator Dr. Felix Dittmer. The issue of 3 February 1964 reported Senator Dittmer's address to the annual delegate meeting of the Queensland branch of the A.W.U. Among other things Senator Dittmer said: As delegates knew, the principle of the Australian Labor Party was democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. And what happened! As soon as an election was over, we forgot all about it-and political representatives were just as guilty as, or perhaps more guilty than, other sections of the Labor Movement; and then on the eve of the next election, practically . everyone got terrified and told you to eschew the word by all means; not to men tion it anywhere; to cover it up.... All it did was implement the utilisation of the natural endowment of this country in the interests of the people. It did not say that there should be no private ownership; it said private ownership should not be permitted to conflict with the interests of this country or its people. What we did say was this: ... where scientific and technological advancement resulted in increased production accruing not only because of capital investment but by and large because of the utilisation of scientific brains, and increased production through the usage of machines, the toilers were entitled to their share of the benefits resulting from that increased production. The Australian Workers' Union officials have generally been hostile to the Communists for forty years or so. The Queensland branch of the union in particular has always been so. The Worker of 14 November 1960 carried a front-page article by IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 129 Edgar Wiiliams, Secretary of the Queensland branch. It was headed "Communist Cupidity" and said: From the aftermath of World War I and the incidence ofthe Russian Revolution with the opportunities of the "isms" that developed through Engels, Lenin and Marx and developed further into international Communism, the attitudes of the discontents and opportunists were further influenced by the action of the ruling class of the day in imposing a man-made depression on the world. 48 In this depression era in the early thirties many people became dispirited and lost faith. In some it may be excusable, in others to be deplored.... During this depression period Communism in Australia received its greatest influx of membership, not because of ideology, but because of despair and false promises inlIuenced by people wrongfully believing Communism to be of local need rather than of international design. And so international Communism has continued to trade on the cupidity and the fancied needs and desires of people and indeed of nations. The article went on to discuss the failure of Communists to win political power through the electoral process and their being directed from abroad to enter the trade unions and to get control of industry through power to direct the trade unions. It drew a distinction between the honest militant unionist concerned to improve the workers' conditions and the exploitation of militancy by Communists for the ends of international communism. It said: "A Communist is a parasite who rides on the back of the honest militant." It went on to try to destroy the Communists' reputation for being "smart" union leaders. It instanced an example of slipshod preparation of a case for the Industrial Court by Gerry Dawson, leader of the Communist union officials and Secretary of the Carpenters' Union. The claim was so unintelligently presented that the employers' representative, Mr. H. E. Gartside of the Southern Electric Authority.ofQueensland, said among other things: "We oppose Mr. Dawson's attempt to have our employees' wage rates reduced to a substantial level." Mr. Williams carried his criticism of communism into the international sphere. He said just as Communists exploit militancy in industrial relations so they exploit nationalism in the interests of their foreign masters. He said: "In Cuba today oppor tunism and nationalism are in the process of being exploited by Communism." "Communists", he said, "are properly described and known as 'scabs' on their country -traitors." Back in 1958 when Imre Nagy, the Hungarian patriot, and his companions were put to death the Worker carried a front-page splash story: 49 A.W.U. Executive Condemns Latest Hungarian Horror. Warns Again of Communist Tyranny. Last Wednesday the Full Branch Executive of the Australian Workers' Union which was meeting in Brisbane scathingly described as butchers those responsible for the execution after a mock "trial" in Hungary of the former Premier, Imre Nagy, and several of his colleagues, who had participated in the revolt against Russian oppression and had tried to sever the bonds of tyranny in 1956. As reported elsewhere on this page, Nagy was executed after almost two years of captivity, and following his seizure in the first place by Soviet representa tives after they had promised him safe conduct from the Yugoslav Embassy. 48 The survey shows how widespread this attitude is through all ideological groups. 4. The Hungarian uprising and the executions are something of a touchstone in the A.L.P. to decide attitudes to communism. The minority who supported the Soviet action showed themselves to be incapable of a critical attitude and therefore could be expected to support the Communist line on any and every occasion even when it conflicted with official A.L.P. policy. 130 TOM TRUMAN In the resolution, which was carried unanimously, the Full Branch Executive expressed the belief that the whole action was condoned and inspired by Soviet leaders, and the Executive warned Queensland A.W.U. members and Australians generally of the great danger which could threaten democratic countries which shut their eyes to Communist infiltration and allowed their cherished freedom to be taken from them and replaced by blood-baths and despotism. On the same page as this report in the Worker which was dated 23 June 1958 appeared a cartoon which depicted a giant military figure with hammer and sickle insignia on its colIar reaching out from Moscow to grasp with greedy clutching hands the rest ofthe world, the while it called incessantly "Peace, peace". The cartoon carried the comment, "The Voiceis theVoice ofPeace but the Hands are the Hands of Aggres sion". Consistently throughout the period 1960-64 the Worker showed a strongly anti Communist attitude on both the domestic and international scenes. AL.P. members who associated with Communists were attacked. The Worker of 28 November 1960 carried front-page articles on this theme. The main story was headed: "Communists want Labor Men to Speak from the Same Platform; What forT' The article alleged that the Communists want to use the A.L.P. to make themselves popular with the workers and to further the designs of international communism. It cal1ed the Commu nists "political barnacles and traitors clinging to the Ship of Labor". It recalled that the Communist Party had repeatedly been denied affiliation with the A.L.P. but still tries to in6ltrate the A.L.P. to achieve its ends. "As though", the article said, "there could be affiliation between the cohorts of the Soviet Union in this country and the successors of those that established the Australian Labor Party! "The latter is all-Australian and very democratic, the former anti-Australian and wholly despotic! No goals could be wider!" The article drew attention to the fact that there were "leading Australian Labor politicians who risked the good name of the A. L.P." and its. electoral prospects "by speaking from the same platform as Communists". It mentioned that the New South Wales A L.P. Executive had refused to allow federal members of parliament, Mr. E. J. Ward and Mr. T. Uren, to appear with Communist speakers in a protest against the Crimes Act (a measure designed to protect the security of Australia against subversive organizations but whose provisions were thought by some people to be unwisely restrictive of free speech and freedom of association). The J,}'orker accused Mr. F. 1. Waters, Secretary of the Postal Workers' Union and a member of the Queensland Central Executive of the A.L.P., and Dr. Max Poulter, Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Queensland and A.L.P. Senate candidate, of appear ing without the consent of the Q.e.E. on the same platform as Communists in a Crimes Act protest meeting. An adjoining story reported that Mr. Edgar Williams, the Secretary of the A. W. U. in Queensland, called for the expulsion of these and other politicians who by flirting with the Communists "hold the Party to ridicule and contempt". Accompanying these stories was a cartoon showing a bear, labelled "Russia", driving wedges into a globe labelled "One World". In the Worker of 5 December 1960 Mr. Williams answered the protests of Mr. Waters and Dr. Poulter that they were being "smeared" with the delicious Australian ism that "those who fly with the crows must expect to get shot at". He pointed out that in New South Wales the Deputy Leader ofthe AL.P. protested against the Crimes Act but in a meeting sponsored by the A.L.P. and the Sydney T.L.e. He said Com munists were refused permission to use that platform. Mr. Williams admitted the charge that he had spoken from the same platform as Communist union officials during the shearing strike when Communist-led unions assisted the AW.U. Mr. Williams said: "I agree with Mr. Waters that it is to our and my everlasting shame, that because of an affiliation [to the Queensland Trades and Labor Council] we IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 131 permitted our dignity and unquenchable hatred ofComms. to be temporarily assailed." The Worker of 19 December condemned exchange of trade union delegations between Western democracies and Communist countries and all other forms of collaboration with "the Communist labor fronts" of Communist regimes because they were not genuine trade unions but merely agencies of Communist governments. The editorial of 17 October 1960 which was entitled "Freedom is Wonderful" took Paul Robeson to task for saying he would side with Russia in the event of war between U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. It sympathized with Paul Robeson and deplored discrimination against negroes in the U.S.A It said that there were Australians who would speak out against all forms of oppression and Australians who suffered injustice. But we couldn't imagine dinkum Australians, rebellious as they come, clapping an Australian-born citizen who would side with an enemy in time of war. ... Sweeping world changes are in the course of rapid development, will the day ever come when men and women will Jose the yearning to see and perhaps live again in the country of their birth.... That is why the Australian Workers' Union and the Australian Labor Party have always fought so valiantly for theworking man's home and Australia, with an understanding for all downtrodden races, coloured or white, educated or uneducated and plumped always for anything that could gain for those people some of the freedoms which we have won through battling and could so easily lose witho ut battling! The Worker of 22 August 1960 had a front page story headed: "Communism Still Aims to Control Labor and Unions, Clings to Pipe Dream of Unity." The article said Communists used their control of trade unions to try to influence the policy of the A.L.P. in order to get a united front. It said that in this way the Com munist-led unions were more of a menace to the A.L.P. than all the other anti-Labor organizations in the country combined. Workers who elected Communist union officials are "letting down themselves as well as their mates in other unions". The Worker of 29 August 1960 on its front page had a story headed: "Moscow Didn't Yell About This Racism!" The article reported that Africans in Moscow had been beaten up for associating with Russian girls. It pointed out that anti-Semitism was prevalent in Russia and declared that the Great Russians assume superiority to all the non-Russians in the U.S.S.R. This, it stated, was at variance with the Australian Communists' claim that communism was for equality of races and implied that their supposed concern for the Australian aborigines was for propaganda purposes only. On the other hand the AL.P. and the A.W.U. were genuinely promoting the aborigines' caUSe. The Worker criticized Russia's attempts to get the Western allies out of Berlin (18 September 1961). It applauded the American pledges to defend Berlin. In the issue of 12 June 1961 the East German Communist regime was condemned for "having erected a regime of slavery" and evinced as proof the mass flight of East Germans to the West. The Worker for 10 and 17 April 1961 denounced unity tickets, the practice of A.L.P. members making a united front with Communists in union ballots, and threat ened that the A.W.o. would disaffiliate from the AL.P. if the Federal Conference of the AL.P. were to "place the imprimatur of the A.L.P. on 'unity tickets' as the Victorian Executive and other left-wingers in the A.L.P. were seeking to get the Conference to do". Dr. Cairns, federal Labor M.P., was attacked in the issue of the Worker for 1 January 1962 for saying: "Mqnbers of the A.L.P. should be free to associate with anybody, even Communists." It called on the Victorian AL.P. Executive to declare where it stood in this matter and on the White Australia policy which Dr. Cairns and "the extreme Jeft-wing" were trying to undermine. Another front-page article alleged that in Indonesia the Communists are at the root of most of the aggressive acts ofthat country towards its neighbours and pointed 132 TOM TRUMAN out that the U.S.S.R. was arming Indonesia. Inside a release from the Chinese [Nation alist, of course] embassy in Canberra was published. It told the story of Tseng Ming, a coppersmith from Macao, who chose to go to Communist China to offer his services but while there was so overworked and underfed that he became exhausted and ilL He returned to Macao deeply disillusioned. Another article inside the issue of 1 January 1962 told the story of the origin of "the popular front" and the way the Bolsheviks cynically used their allies who imagined the Bolsheviks were just "feHow socialists". Then when they had served the purpose of allowing the Bolsh eviks to consolidate their power the allied democratic socialist parties were suppressed. In January, February, and March 1961 hints were put in prominent places in the Worker that the Fabian Society of Queensland was closely connected with the Com munists-and that prominent A.L.P. members were implicated. In the issue of29 October 1962 the Worker praised the resolute stand ofPresident Kennedy in the face of Russian installation of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba. The issue of 10 June 1963 accused Castro of disappointing and betraying the hopes of the Cubans for democracy and better living standards and selling them out to the Communists. The Worker of 30 March 1964 carried an article by the new editor James P. Dunn reviewing a Dissent "pamphlet" by Harold W. Crouch, a University of Melbourne political scientist and A.L.P. member, which declared that the Australian and New Zealand Congress for International Friendship and Disarmament was a Communist-front organization seeking to push Soviet foreign policy objectives. Mr. Dunn quoted with approval President Kennedy's call for "a genuine peace". The same issue carried an article by Frank W. Bulcock, a former Minister for Agriculture, pointing out the failures of Communist regimes in the field of agriculture. Another article gleefully revealed the split in the Australian Communist Party between the Moscow and Peking factions. In the Worker of 25 November 1963 Mr. Edgar Williams, the A.W.U. Branch Secretary in Queensland, was reported as saying that the union regarded the death of President Kennedy as "a sad loss in the world scheme for peace and prosperity". He said the union felt no satisfaction at the shooting of Kennedy's killer "but all decent people should heed the warning so vividly portrayed in the initial depicting of the history of the murderer, the association with Communism, the association with Cubanism, the association with the evil practices of Communism whose basic philo sophical foundation is 'The End Justifies the Means'." The story was headed: "Com munism the Real Culprit." Despite the fact that A W. U. leader Williams is as strenuously anti-Communist as the Democratic Labor Party and Mr. Santamaria's National Civic Council, the Worker frequently attacks these organizations which before the split in the AL.P. were part of the Extreme Right of the A.L.P. (In New South Wales, however, where the A.L.P. did not split, the A W. U. works in harmony with the Extreme Right to dominate the party.) The Worker of 14 November 1960 reported that two members of the D.L.P. were expelled from that party for criticizing Mr. Santamaria's control of the D.L.P. through his National Civic Council. The Worker asked: "How many mem bers of the Executive of the Queensland 'Labor' Party are members of the National Civic Movement, and if there are any, and Santamaria is boss of the National Civic Council, how do they work things out?" In the Worker of 5 September 1960 a regular feature, "My Column" by "I. C. Moore", said: "Recently we had a visitor from the South, a Mr. B. A. Santamaria. I am not assailing the integrity of the man, but I cannot be other than amazed at his stupidity. How he can imagine that smashing the Labor Party would help the cause of anti-Communism passes my comprehension." "1. C. Moore" then went on to ask Mr. Santamaria a series of questions implying that the N.C.C. is a secret organization aspiring to infiltrate and control political parties, and that by posing as Catholic Action it wrought great harm to the Catholic church. "I. C. Moore" is thought to be a prominent Catholic politician and long-time ally of tile A.W.U. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 133 The Worker of 1 January 1962 carried a report from a Sydney Sunday paper alleging that Catholic churches in the electorate of Gwydir helped the D.L.P. candidate because the bishop was favourable to the D.L.P. and to the sale ofthe National Civic Council paper News-Weekly at church doors. As mentioned previously, the Worker tends to identify with the AF.L.-C.I.O. and the liberal wing of the United States Democratic Party. Accordingly it spoke kindly of President Kennedy in the election of 1960,50 backed him in the Cuba crisis,51 and mourned his death and loss to the world. 52 It drew a favourable picture of Presi dent Johnson's character and career prior to his succeeding President Kennedy.53 The Worker frequently reprints pieces from American labour journals and expresses its approval of their opinions; for example, it endorsed the view of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. News that the defeat of Richard Nixon was good both because he was really a con servative in moderate disguise and because he used the techniques of "the innuendo, the half-truth and the smear". 54 In the Worker of20 January 1964 Mr. Edgar Williams, discussing the reasons for Labor's defeat in the recent federal elections, attacked the faulty handling of the American naval communications base issue by the Federal Executive of the A.L.P. (The Federal President, Mr. F. E. Chamberlain, a Left-winger, has been criticized several times in the Worker.) Mr. Williams applauded the decision of the Federal Conference ofthe AL.P. that a Labor government would insist on Australia retaining control of its own territory and having a voice in all important decisions concerning the use ofthe base. He went on: "But, nevertheless, with the United States ofAmerica we have the most important ally [of Australia] not only in the Pacific area but in the world today so I believe the way in which the North-West Base question was handled did not show good commonsense." (The Federal Executive appeared more hostile to the base than the Federal Conference.) Three strong attitudes of the Worker-an Australian nationalism and a fervent belief in the White Australia policy that have a distinct element of isolationism and anti-imperialism in them reminiscent of Labor and liberal views in the days before World War I, as well as suspicion of, and hostility to, the expansionist policies of the present regime in Indonesia--are all so much intertwined that they have to be taken together. The Worker of 1 February 1960 carried a picture of the Australian flag on page one with the comment: "Remember ... this is YOUR flag ... the Australian Blue Ensign. Remember, too, that today's holiday is because we are celebrating the 172nd anniversary of January 26, 1788 when our nation was founded. It will take a mighty big country to outpace us!" The editorial in the same issue was headed: "More Anti-Australianism." It condemned as unpatriotic what it considered to be plans of the Menzies govern ment to sell the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to private enterprise and the alleged shackling of the government-owned airline Trans-Australia Airlines in the interests of its less efficient private enterprise competitor Ansett-AN.A. This sentiment of patriotic pride in Australian government-owned enterprises is worth remarking. The Worker of 22 August 1960 reprinted Sir Walter Scott's well-known but intemperate and intolerant lines onlove ofthe land ofone's birth which begin "Breathes there the man with soul so dead ..." and end with a curse upon the man who feels no such sentiment, an anachronistic viewpoint in a time of a need for diminishing the barriers of nationality and race that divide mankind. 50 See Worker, 22 August 1960. 51 Ibid., 29 October 1962. 52 Ibid., 25 November 1963. 53 Ibid., 9 December 1963. 54 Ibid., 7 January .1963. 134 TOM TRUMAN Despite this element of isolationism the Worker takes a favourable view of the United Nations. A cartoon appearing on the front page of the issue of 24 October 1960 shoWs a great globe, "the World", being rolled by "Communism" to the edge of the abyss of "Nuclear War" from which the edifice of the U.N. firmly holds it back. On page one the Worker of 14 November 1960 applauded the remarks of Viscount Slim, a former Governor-General of Australia, who said: Immigration to Australia should be confined to white people because coloured immigrants would become a third-class community of labourers.... Australia was the last bastion of Western civilization in the Southern Hemisphere and if our population were diluted it would disappear as such. Australians could face hardships and they helped people in misfortune.... The Australian accent was good and far bettcr than the super-duper British Broadcasting Commission accent. ... Australian women are the best-looking white women anywhere. The Worker added this comment: "It's pleasant to read of his sweeping statement in our favour; so many visitors from overseas have tried to kick our ribs in-cspecially when it came to Australian Labor Party policy." This is the authentic note of a com placent nationalism covering an undue sensitivity to criticism. The Worker of 3 April 1961 featured a page-wide headline: "75th Annual Convention Re-affirms White Australia." The resolution carried by the Australia-wide conference of the A.W.U. read: "That this Executive Council representing over 180,000 members of the Australian Workers' Union, registers its emphatic opposition to attempts being made by a strange combination of certain wealthy employing intercsts and the Communist Party to secure the free entry of coloured and Asiatic labour into Australia." The resolution recalled proudly the part played by A. W. 0. members in establish ing the White Australia policy and included among other instances the miners of Lambing Flat who descended on a camp of Chinese, burnt their tents, and drove them with blows from the field. It recalled the long and bitter struggle by the founders of the A.W.o. and the A.L.P. "to secure racial purity and security". It said that the wisdom of the White Australia policy was in the absence of racial strife in Australia and its freedom from fifth-columns in time of war. It wanted the Commonwealth government "to uphold the White Australia Policy by rigidly enforcing the Immi gration Restriction Acts". It gave as reasons for this course its fear of coloured labour lowering living standards and "a half caste and piebald community" creating evils and troubles from which the Commonwealth is fortunately free. Despite these sentiments of racial intolerance the General Secretary of the A.W.U. declared, "What we are discussing is not a racial question, but purely econ omic". Mr. Dougherty attacked federal Labor member Dr. Cairns for advocating that the White Australia policy of the A.L.P. should be "scrapped". He demanded that Dr. Cairns should be disciplined by the party. The Tf'orker repeated approvingly what the Prime Minister of 1903, Alfred Deakin, had said: The White Australia Policy covers much more than the preservation of our own people here. It means the multiplication of our own people so we may defend our country and our policy. It means the maintenance ofsocial conditions under which men and women can live decently. It means equal laws and opportunities for all ... it means social justice and fair wages. The White Australia policy goes down to the roots of our national existence, the roots from which the British social system has sprung. The issue of 20 February 1961 lamented that the Prime Minister had chosen yet another Englishman to be Governor-General. It said that this action implied that IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 135 Australia was not mature enough to govern itself and enumerated the achievements of Australia to refute this notion. "Indonesian Newspaper Gets Cheeky" was the headline to a front-page story in the Worker of! January ]962. The story concerned the ne\vspaper l\.ferdeka published in Djakarta which allegedly caned for a tougher Indonesian attitude to Australia. The Worker recalled that Mussolini and Hitler gave plenty of warning oftheir aggres sive policies and cal1ed on Mr.Menzies and the L.c.P. government to heed the threats of war which President Sukarno and General Nasution were making against Dutch New Guinea. It said: "Indonesia under Soekarno is parading the big stick, and we should take serious note of it, because with Russia in the background, and with a big Communist population sooling them on, the Indonesians might make war on the Dutch ... and that would be a threat to New Guinea under Australian trusteeship, and eventual1y our own shores." The Worker of 7 January 1963 reprinted two articles from the Sydney It,lorning Herald with the apologetic explanation that this "Tory" newspaper was forced to face facts and criticize the "shocking shortcomings of the Menzies Government" and "Indonesia under President Soekarno, whose public statements and dictatorial actions especially in relation to West New Guinea, have been criticised by The Worker". The first article dealt with the Pri111e Minister's alleged "contemptuous indifference to foreign policy, especial1y in its Asian application, [which] had left Australia weak where it should be strongest". The second article dealt with the actions of Sukarno in reducing the Indonesian press to a servile propaganda agency of his government. In the same issue the I-Vorker reported that the A.L.P. and the Country Party in Victoria criticized the appointment of an Englishman as thc new state Governor. The Worker said it was "a pity that the opportunity had been missed to appoint a distinguished Australian". The Worker of 10 June 1963 criticized the choice by the Prime Minister of the name "Royal" for the main unit of the new decimal currency. It pointed out that many good names of a distinctive Australian character had been suggested. Other items in support of White Australia and Australian nationalism appeared in the issues of the Worker for 27 May 1963 and 22 July 1963. In the latter also appeared hostile references to President Sukarno. The Worker of 30 September 1963 carried headlines right across the front page asking: "Will Soekarno Turn Next Towards New Guinea and Papua in a New 'Diver sion Tack'?" The Worker reported that the former U.N. Commissioner in West Irian predicted "that President Soekarno's Government would soon launch a 'diver sion' grab at Australian-held New Guinea and that the move would come when the Malaysian issue was settled". It commented that the Worker had expressed this sus picion over many months. "Labor", said the Worker, "is too hard-headed to condemn Indonesia out of hand for wanting to express its nationalism ... but it is NOT nation alism if a Communist minority directs policy and sees that it is enforced. It is national subjugation." The article compared Sukarno with Castro as a catspaw for the Communists and the Soviet Union. It praised the action of the United States "in calling Russia's bluff when nuclear rocket bases were discovered from the air in Cuba". The Worker of 16 March 1964 in its editorial praised the warning given by Australia's Minister for External Affairs, Sir Garfield Barwick, to Indonesia "to pause in her present course and to review the position in which she had placed herself over Malaysia". It said that all Australians except Communists and fellow-travellers would agree with the pledge Australia gave to help Malaysia to resist aggression. "Brave, fearless words indeed", said the Worker. "Dr. Soekarno must surely be shaking in his socks.... BUT THE WORKER ASKS: 'WHAT DO WE USE TO BACK UP THESE BRAVE WORDS? SLING-SHOTS?''' The Worker went on to point to the ridiculous inadequacy of Australia's defence 136 TOM TRUMAN forces and blamed Sir Robert Menzies and his coalition government for this state of affairs. The Worker of 8 January 1962 in a front-page story supported the Federal Parliamentary Leader Calwell's demand for the return of Australian troops from Malaya and their stationing at Darwin. It disagreed with Sir Garfield Barwick that there was no threat at present to Australia or Australian territory. It said: "Soekarno's statement that he has 250,000 troops ready to 'take' West New Guinea 'this year' is not the words of a cooing dove!" It agreed with Mr. Calwell that Sukarno's "sabre-rattling speeches" were "rem iniscent of Hitler". The demand that Australian troops be withdrawn from Malaya and stationed in Australia could be interpreted as an element of isolationism in the thinking of the Worker and Mr. Calwell, though the situation was certainly alarming in view of the failure of the Menzies government to read the portents and to take proper defence precautions. However it must be said in fairness that the attitude of Labor's Left wing would probably have prevented a Labor government from doing any better. The Worker is very hostile to the Legislative Councils, upper chambers of state legislatures, and on the occasion of the attempt by the New South Wales Labor government to persuade the people ofthat state to endorse this policy in a referendum, the Worker of 20 March 1961 exhorted its readers in northern New South Wales "to vote for the end of a house that has caused so much stagnation and injustice throughout its long vested-interests history". The Worker is a champion of Australia's system of compulsory industrial arbitration by courts set up for the purpose. An article in the paper of 21 November 1960 headed" 'Get Toughers' Collective Bargaining and Our Way" reported that "Big Bosses" in the U.S.A. were threatening to "get tough" with the labour unions because of the many strikes. The Worker thought it had also something to do with the election of a Democratic President and recalled that President Roosevelt's New Deal was "a factor in helping to bring a large measure of justice to the workers". The Worker regretted that it is a sad feature of the American set-up that the strike weapon is, seemingly, regarded as the most convincing method of gaining results-collective bargaining as against conciliation and arbitration in Australia. Under collective bargaining the Communist has a greater chance of under mining established working class practices.... The A.W.U. discovered long ago (and voted by referendum) that the concilia tion and arbitration method of winning industrial justice for its members was much more preferable to strikes, although direct action was a stand-by in case unrelenting employers desired to return to the days of the jungle when round table conferences were backed by their industrial six-shooters which rested beside them! On the occasion of a new Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill introduced in the Queensland Country Party-Liberal government, the Worker featured aU over its front page a story headed: "The Death of Arbitration. We Mourn the Passing of a Long and Very Faithful Friend." A very good cartoon by Wilson Cooper showed Mr. Morris, the Liberal Minister for Labour and Industry, dancing on the coffin of "Arbitration and Conciliation". Whereas Liberals in the watching crowd had broad grins on their faces, Labor and Country Party members displayed looks of puzzlement and bewilderment. A Communist ina tree waved a hammer and sickle flag gleefully. The Worker carried a comment that stated that Mr. Edgar Williams had said the A.W.u. Executive was unanimous in refusing to join in illegal stoppages of work organized by the Trades and Labor Council in BrisQane as a method of protesting. He also said that the decision of the T.L.C. was illegal because it flouted the T.L.C. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 137 rule that two-thirds of the affiliated unions must consent to such stoppages and the decision had been obtained by the Communist unions "swamping" non-Communist unions "with their Communist shop stewards and job delegates". Mr. Williams said that these stoppages would only help the government by inflaming public opinion. However the Worker promised that the AW.U. would fight to restore the privi leges given the unions in the former legislation [enacted by a Labor government] and to eliminate "the harsh penalties" imposed by the present legislation on unions that resorted to strikes and other violations of the Act and awards of the Industrial Court. The issue of27 March 1961 claimed that the government had conceded important amendments due to the representations by the AW.U., the Federated Clerks', and other unions having influenced the government. It said that the legislation was still bad and could mean the end of the "Tory" government as "Tory" governments had come to grief before by trying to "ring-bark" arbitration. It gave notice that the Queensland branch of the AW.U. was preparing a petition "to Her Majesty the Queen protesting against the punitive clauses of the new industrial legislation passed by the Nicklin-Morris Government". The issue of 3 April 1961 featured on page one the petition to the Queen with a picture of Elizabeth II. The Worker of 10 April 1961 printed a reply from the state Governor, Sir Henry Abel Smith, stating that as the bill did not fall within the class of legislation which under the Constitution was reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure he had conceived it his duty to give assent to the bill. This incident shows that the AW.U. officials are, like most of us, capable of utilizing expediently institutions which they condemn on principle. The Worker occasionally betrays an anti-intellectual bias as when in the issue of 3 April 1961 it complained that some parties and groups seeking "a better class of member ... are commencing to get followers from the more sophisticated and learned section of the community". (The State Parliamentary Labor Leader had recently expressed dissatis faction with the type of candidates chosen under the pre-selection plebiscite of branch members of the A.L.P. and called for a better type person to represent Labor.) The Worker said these "brain trusts, these intellectuals" with their precise knowledge ofthe rules, tried to dominate meetings and score points off the chairmen. It went on: "That quiet, gruff-voiced, conscientious, untrained member of the organisation who has lived in the spirit of mateship and trust must become apprehensive when the 'efficient' human machine comes into the room." It can be seen that the Worker's attitudes correlate pretty well with those of the Moderate Right of the 1956-57 survey and justify the claim that this group probably exists today. 1 think a similar examination of the A ustralian Worker, the organ of the headquarters of the A.W.u. in Sydney, would reveal much the same results. The Extreme Right It will be remembered that the political views of the Extreme Right in the 1956-57 survey stemmed from two basic attitudes. They were the least socialistic group in the A.L.P., but were prepared to nationalize an industry if this was the only way to get justice for the people. They were also the most anti-Communist group, believing that the Communists should be fought by organizing AL.P. Industrial Groups to combat them in the trade unions. The Queensland Labor Party is a contemporary example of the Extreme Right group. Its attitudes are reflected in its official organ, the Standard. However, before producing evidence from the Standard it is probably necessary to refresh the reader's memory on some recent Labor history, especially in relation to the A.L.P. split. The Catholic Social Movement, originally a Catholic Action movement, was formed by Mr. B. A. Santamaria, the Director of the National Secretariat of Catholic Action, to mobilize Catholics in the trade unions to stop and if possible reverse the Communist advance towards control ofthe Australian Labor movement. The Catholic TOM TRUMAN SR6i~kMovement persuaded the AL.P. to give official recognition to the Industrial Groups so that non-Catholics would join the fight against the Communists and the (]roupscould profit by the trade unionists' habit ofvoting AL.P. The ALP. Industrial Groups were very successful in defeating the Communists in union ballots, especially afterthe Commonwealth government at their request legislated to make it possible for union elections to be properly conducted by Commonwealth electoral offlcials under the auspices of the Arbitration Court. By 1954 the A.L.P. Industrial Groups manipu lated by the secret Catholic Social Movement cells had effective control ofthe Victorian and New South Wales branches of the AL.P. and predominant influence in the Queensland branch. Mr. William Ginnane, a member of the Consultative Committee for Catholic Action at the time, has said: "Round about 1949 or 1950 (if not earlier) the 'Movement' leaders feeling their new and perhaps unexpected strength, formed the conscious policy of using the A.L.P. to implement their particular conception of the detailed application of 'Catholic Social principles'. These plans went far beyond the defeat of Communism and were common knowledge to the leadership of the orthodox Catholic Action organisations.";;5 Mr. Santamaria's intentions were known to very few outside the Catholic Social Movement, but some leading Labor men such as Dr. Evatt, the Federal Parliamentary Leader of the AL.P., probably had a very shrewd idea of what was going on. Dr. Evatt had, at first, made an alliance with the AL.P. Industrial Group leaders and in those days the A.L.P. was ruled by a combination ofExtreme Right, Moderate Right, and a considerable section of the Moderate Left. Until 1951 the Communists had foolishly followed the tactic of attacking the A.L.P. as a whole. This left their natural allies in the A.L.P., the Extreme Left, pretty well isolated and ineffectual and also consolidated support around the Industrial Groups who were popular with the general public as well. After 1951 the Communists began to woo the Left and to make use of the discontent and the fear aroused by the power and direction of the Grouper machine. The alliance between the Extreme Right and Dr. Evatt broke up as a result of Dr. Evatt's intervention in the Royal Commission on Russian espionage on behalf of members of his personal staff who were accused of giving information to the Russian spy Petrov and of being associates of Communists. It seemed to the Extreme Right that Dr. Evatt was helping to discredit the Royal Commission and to be making him self an accomplice of the Communists. They attacked his leadership in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Caucus. To Dr. Evatt it seemed that the Extreme Right, sus picious and grudging allies at the best oftimes, were now emerging in their true colours. He decided to place himself at the head of the rebellious forces of the Left, and in a sudden surprise move launched an attack in the newspapers on "the secret outside movement" and its stronghold, the Victorian State Executive of the A.L.P.In doing so he struck at the most vulnerable point in the A. L.P. Industrial Group machine-the secrecy of the Catholic Social Movement and its offlcial connection, as a Catholic Action movement, with the Catholic church. By this sensational revelation he won for himself the support of the great majority of the rank and file of the Labor movement, including at least half its Catholic members who were antagonized by Mr. Santamaria's involvement ofthe church in a political scandal, and he also got the support ofmost of the general public. The Evatt-led anti-Grouper forces won a narrow victory at the Federal Executive level and audaciously used the power of the Federal Executive to displace the Grouper Victorian Executive and substitute for it an anti-Grouper executive of their own (still in power in 1964). They put back the date of the Federal Conference until they had accomplished this feat which gave them the power to send a Victorian anti-Grouper delegation to the Federal Conference. Thus, two Victorian delegations went to Hobart for the conference-a Grouper delegation, chosen by the regular conference of the 55 Bulletin, 24 May 1961. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 139 Victorian branch, and an anti-Grouper delegation chosen by the Special-Federal Executive-managed Victorian conference. Control of the Federal Conference hinged on which Victorian delegation was admitted. It should be noted that each state branch of the A.L.P. sends six delegates to a Federal Conference. At the Hobart Conference in March 1955 there were six Grouper delegates from New South Wales; there were six Grouper delegates from Queensland, but one defected under pressure from his union, the A.W. U.; there were four Groupers and two anti-Groupers in the Western Australian delegation; there were two Groupers in the Tasmanian delegation and four anti-Groupers; the South Australian delegation was solidly anti-Grouper; and there were the rival dele gations from Victoria. Again displaying great audacity, the anti-Grouper majority on the Federal Executive, instead of allowing the conference, with the Victorians excluded, to decide on the issue as precedent required, took the matter into its own hands and seated its own faction giving it a narrow majority of nineteen to seventeen delegates. The Groupers, hoping to prevent the continuation of the conference, boycotted it. But again the audacious leadership of the anti-Groupers defeated them by going on with the "rump" conference despite the absence of any representatives from the most populous state, New South Wales, and with only one representative from Queensland and only two from Western Australia. This Hobart "rump" conference of 1955 decided to withdraw A.L.P. official support and recognition of the Industrial Groups, and adopted two foreign policy items which were anathema to the Groupers. They were admission of Communist China to the nN. and withdrawal of Australian troops from Malaya, where they were engaged in fighting Communist guerrilla forces. Shortly afterwards the Catholic Social Movement prevailed on the Extreme Right and most of the Groupers to part company from the anti-Groupers in the Victorian AL.P. The result was the formation of the Anti-Communist Labor Party in Victoria which in the Victorian elections of April 1955 began that strategy of splitting the A.L.P. vote and advising its voters to give their second preferences to the Liberal Party which has so effectively contributed to keeping the AL.P. out of office in that state and others, as well as in the Commonwealth sphere. The leadership of the Catholic church in New South Wales refused to support the plan to persuade Catholic supporters of the A.L.P. to transfer their allegiance to the Catholic Social Movement-sponsored Democratic Labor Party. Consequently, most of the Extreme Right remained in the A.L.P. in New South Wales. As for Queensland, it is important to note that the Premier, Mr. V. C. Gair, led the Queensland delegation, minus one who defected, out ofthe Federal Conference in 1955. Mr. Gair was, in fact, the acknowledged leader of the Groupers at Hobart. The Grouper-dominated Executive in Queensland was overthrown in a series of moves which were inspired partly by the General Secretary of the A w.n, Mr. Dougherty; partly by the Federal Secretary ofthe A. L.P., Mr. Schmella, who was also the Queensland Secretary; and partly by the Extreme Left and Moderate Left trade union leaders who were dominant in the Brisbane Trades and Labor Council. First, the Queensland leadership of the A W. U. was persuaded to withdraw its support from the Groupers. The A.W.U. alliance with the Left resulted in the Groupers being defeated at the Mackay convention of the Queensland branch of the AL.P. in 1956. The anti Groupers thus got control of the Queensland Central Executive and by adopting at Mackay the cernand fOf the implementation of three weeks' annual leave for all workers in the next session of the Queensland Parliament they found a way of forcing the Premier, Mr. Gair, his cabinet, and the Parliamentary Party to submit or to risk splitting the party. Mr. Gair and all but one of his cabinet ministers refused to submit; the vote in Caucus was twenty-six to twenty-one in his favour. Thereupon the Queens land Central Executive by a vote of thirty-five to thirty expelled Mr. Gair from the AL.P. on 24 April 1957. 56 140 TOM TRUMAN Shottlyafterwards, Mr. Gair and his followers formed the Queensland Labor Perty and though for some years afterwards it contained elements other than the E.xtreme Right this group always had the predominant influence and people who did not share its views gradually dropped out. Certainly, the Standard in the period 1960~63 was controlled by the Extreme Right and reflected its outlook. Catholic social teaching is opposed to both capitalism and socialism-communism is, ofcourse, anathema. Instead, Catholic social thought is distributivist anddecentral ist. That is, its ideals are the widespread ownership of small pieces of property-the small owner-worker business or co-operative ownership if a larger unit is necessary, and the small family farm producing nearly all its own needs-and the small town and small unit of government; therefore state rights and federalism are championed. Catholic social thought revolves around "the family", i.e. the large extended family of two or three generations of kith and kin with strong bonds between its members, as the bastion ofreligion. It regards large cities as harmful to the family and religion and favours the rural life. Capitalism with its large units of production and the cold im personal relations existing between management and workers it regards as generating class war. "Liberalism" therefore leads to "socialism", "communism", and "athe ism".57 Catholic social teaching is also distrustful of the welfare state, both because it tends towards the large and powerful central government and because it tends to destroy individual initiative and responsibility and the responsibility of members of the family to one another in sickness, old age, and misfortune. 5s The Standard of 8 September 1961 gave evidence of the influence of Catholic social teaching. The main front-page story was headed: "Q.L.P.-D.L.P. Policy" and said: "The following further extracts from the draft of Q.L.P.-D.L.P. Policy shows up the bankruptcy ofthe Conservatives and A.L.P. in contrast with the positive, construc tive, forward thinking of the Q.L.P.-D.L.P. programme." Under "Internal Policy" there followed this statement: In the field of internal policy, we will build a decentralised society, opposing all undesirable concentration of power, the undue power of the Commonwealth over the States, the great cities over provincial towns and countryside; the monopo lies trusts, and trade associations over individual working proprietors, operatives, small and medium-sized firms. We will examine the foundation of the present system of Social Services, substituting the principle of insurance instead of grants from Consolidated Rev enue, retaining the principle of direct grants for those who really need State assistance. It should be noted that the A.L.P. and the Liberal Party have one thing in common. The type of society which they perpetuate is based on the increasing centralisation of political and economic power. Whenever the A.L.P. and the Liberals specifically define their attitude to nationalisation, it is in almost the same terms. They are both happy with oligarchy. We believe, on the other hand, that individuals, acting through the protective associations of the family-co-opera tives, partnerships and other voluntary associations-are best fitted to build their own futures. This cannot be done if the State destroys their savings by penal taxa tion under the excuse of setting up a Welfare State, and, if monopoly is allowed to invade the economy, driving small ownership out of existence. The role of the 56 For a more detailed treatment of these events, especially the religious aspects, see Truman, Catholic Action andPolitics, op. cit., and Henry Mayer (ed.), Catholics and the Free Society (Melbourne: P. W. Cheshire, 1961). 57 See Leo XIII Rerum Novarum and Pius XI Quadragesimo Anno. 58 See the various Social Justice Statements of the Australian Bishops; Philip Hughes, The Popes' "New Order (London: Burnes, Oates, 1943); Catholic Action in Australia, Official Statement of the 4rchbishops and Bishops ofAustralia (Melbourne; Renown Press, n. d.); or for a summary, Truman, Catholic Action and Politics, op. cit. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARtv 141 Government is to protect the public interest in all fields, particularly in that of economics, foreign affairs and defence, and to prevent individual or collective enterprise exceeding their fields and taking over the State. The extracts from the Q.L.P.-D.L.P. policy draft also put emphasis on trade with "Free Asia", i.e. anti-Communist Asian regimes such as Japan, Nationalist China, South Korea, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. Commodities which Australia can export to Free Asia include fruit, wool, meat, rice, processed dairy and other primary products, also coal and base metals. These commodities are readily saleable in Asia; even greater opportunities exist for an increased export programme if we can expand and develop the in dustries producing in these fields. These are the industries which should receive positive encouragement from the Australian Government, both capital and labor being diverted to them in the first instance by taxation and other concessions. The draft went on to urge the opening up of the undeveloped lands of northern Australia. Under "Defence" the draft noted that "the present expenditure of £200 million per annum on national defence is merely 3.5 per cent of the gross national product. Britain spends 7 per cent, the U.S.A. 11 per cent." It urged that Australia must spend much more because "in thelast analyses Australiamustdefend itself, alone ifnecessary". The Standard of 11 August 1961 contained a column headed "Papal Encyclical" devoted to excerpts from Mater et Magistra, the Encyclical of Pope 10hn XXIII. The most significant of these was headed "Socialism". It said: Catholics are in no way permitted to be supporters ofmoderate Socialism, because its concept of life is bounded by time, inasmuch as it places its supreme objective in the welfare of society [instead of seeing that men get to heaven] and because it either proposes a form of social structure that aims solely at production, thus causing grave loss to human liberty, or lacks every principle oftrue social authority [i.e. that the authority of governments comes from God]. Under "Communism", it said: "The opposition between Communism and Christianity is fundamental. Where the personal initiative of the citizens is missing, and men are not allowed to own the fruits of their labour, there is political tyranny. "59 Under "Liberalism" it said: Free competition, due to its own intrinsic tendencies, has ended by almost destroying itself. It has caused a great accumulation of wealth and corresponding concentration of economic power in the hands of a few who are frequently not the owners but only the trustees and directors ofinvested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure. Fundamental in remedying such a state of affairs is the reinstatement of the economic world in the moral order [to enable man to serve his last end, eternal bliss with God-"the just price", "the just wage", distribu tivism, and decentralism, etc.], and the striving for individual or group interests within the framework of the common good. Under "Labour" it said: "Action must be taken to raise wages which in many lands condemn workers and their families to subhuman conditions of life. We ... hold as justifiable the desire ofthe employees to participate in the activity ofthe enter prise to which they belong." 50 Standard's emphasis. 142 TOM TRUMAN Wilder "Private Ptopetty" it said: "Private property, including that of productive ~08~s, is a natural right which the State cannot suppress. Embedded within it is a ~9ciaJfunction, and it is, thus, a right tl1at is exercised for one's personal benefit and for the. good of others." In the Standard of 2 June J961 Mr. V. C. Gair, the President of the Q.L.P., referring to co-operation between the Q.L.P. and D.L.P., said: "The D.L.P. like the Q.L.P. was a truly Australian, Christian Democratic Party...." The Standard of 14 July 1961 made this identification of the Q.L.P. and D.L.P. with the European Christian Democratic parties even more explicit. In an article headed "The Dangers of Social Democracy", the argument was advanced that the Social Democrats helped bring the Communists to power in Russia and then were suppressed by the Communist government. Our Social Democrats of the A. L.P., it said, should learn this lesson and "get into step with history and adopt the doctrines ofthe Christian Democrats, whose members now help to form the most progressive and dynamic governments in the world, including that of Western Germany". It went on: "In Australia, the Christian Democrats are perfectly represented by the groups at present bearing the names of Democratic Labor Party and Queensland Labor Party." On the same page appeared an article headed: "The Third Way-(a) Capitalism (b) Socialism (c) Co-operation." It identified the Liberal-Country Party government with capitalism. It said: "The Opposition [A.L.P.] policy as enunciated by their leader, Mr. 'Joe' Chamberlain, is Socialism. This system has been the downfall of Labor since the first disastrous essay by the late Ben Chifley, in trying to nationalise the Banks." Co-operation, it said, was the Q.L.P. method. Let us co-operate "just as we do when at war, to fight for our country". Also on the same page was an article headed: "Hobart Conference-key to the Labor Split." The article recalled the action of the anti-Grouper majority on the Federal Executive (seven to five) which with the thirteen anti-Grouper conference delegates: 1. Admitted the six bogus Victorian Conference delegates; 2. Upheld what was done in Victoria [displacing the Grouper Executive by means of the Special Victorian Conference under Federal Executive control]. 3. Adopted a new foreign policy, which the Australian Communist Leader, Sharkey, said was the same as Communist policy; 4. Banned Industrial Groups fighting Communism in the Unions. With regard to the Q.L.P. terms for unity with the A.L.P. the article said: "In 1961, at the Special Conference of the Q.L.P. in Brisbane, the Q.L.P. offered all Labor forces in Australia the opportunity of combining or co-operating with the Q.L.P. on the broad basis of effective opposition to Communists and support for the principles of democratic Government-i.e. outside direction of representatives in Parliament (in line with the fight by Mr. Gaitskell in the British Labor Party)." In the Standard of 30 May 1963 the Q.L.P. policy for the Queensland state elec tions was set forth in this fashion: Q.L.P. Policy Best For ... For ... For ... For ... For ... The Worker Small Business The Farmer New Australians The Family FQr the Worker, the Q.L.P. promised among other things: "c" Series Index to be revised to ensure an adequate NEEDS BASIC WAGE; A PRODUCTIVITY INDEX to be established to determine increases justified through increased production; CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION; IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY COMPULSORY UNIONISM; CONTROL OF UNION BALLOTS by an INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY, costs to be shared, and with compulsory voting: TRADE UNION FINANCES to be subject to approved audit. Mr. B. A. Santamaria, the leader of the National Civic Council, ex-Catholic Social Movement, has claimed to be the originator of the ideas of a productivity index and the control of union ballots by an independent authority. In a letter to Professor Arndt, published with other correspondence between these two as "The Catholic Social Movement" in the A ustralian Journal ofPolitics and History, Volume n, No: 2 (May 1957), Mr. Santamaria quoted Dr. Lloyd Ross in support of his claim as saYlllg: The ideas which the Industrial Groups have channelled into the Labor Movement are the importance of increasing production and the possibility of establishing a productivity index as the measure of wages; the defence of demo cratic methods in the government of unions, the need for trade unionism to deve lop methods of joint consultation; decentralisation; the revival and development of Australian agriculture; resistance to Communist expansion, especially in Asia; closer relations and dependence on America. For Small Business the Q.L.P. promised: The Q.L.P. proposes, with a view to passing legislation to correct abuses, that a Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission be constituted to ascer tain and report on the ramifications and operations of Trust Combines and Monopolies; The preservation of the Right of Private Ownership; Wise and judicious assistance and encouragement to Industries. For the Farmer, the Q.L.P. promised among other things: Organisation ofPrimary producers for their protection against exploitation by the middle man; Assistance to Co-operative Companies; Assistance for the Co-operative ownership of sugar mills. To New Australians the Q.L.P. said: "The Q.L.P. welcomes to its ranks, and comprises at present, all races, creeds and colours." It went on to say that the A.L.P. had a prejudice against new settlers from the European continent because they were so strongly anti-Communist and sometimes criticized pro-Communist activities. The A.L.P., it said, wanted only British migrants, who would not see that "the A.L.P. by its actions, and its pro-Communist policies, its unity tickets with the Communists, cannot be supported. The Q.L.P. dedicated to fight Communism, and any other dictatorship, is the only party the New Australians can vote for with confidence." The Q.L.P. promised to adopt economic policies which would make possible increased immigration and said "Balance between male and female migrants should be sought, and preference should be given to large families". For the Family the Q.L.P. promised: Fair and just determination of a Needs Basic Wage. Assistance to all approved organisations conducting public hospitals, charitable institutions, aged persons' homes, and the training of aborigines. [This would mean financial assistance by the state to the various religious bodies owning and running these institutions.] 144 TOM TRUMAN MOf~';ffrta.±1cial assistance for all forms of Education in accordance with the Wrtiversal Declaration of Human Rights. [State aid to private schools is already given in Queensland thol.l;gh it is disguised as "aid to the scholar.not ~he.s.chool".J Mf'.triage loans for hous1l1g purposes, the amount of outstandmg lIabIlity to be reduced upon the birth of each child; The setting up of Tribunals of Matrimonial Reconciliation and financial support for Marriage Guidance Councils. The Standard of 25 July 1963 announced in enormous black block letters on its front page: "Q.L.P. Objectives Based on Family". The Standard noted as a major achieve ment of Mr. Gair's government the passing of the Objectionable Literature Bill. (Under the Act a board of censorship was set up. So far the board has confined itself to the more lascivious ofthe cheap and nasty productions for the masses and has not prevented anyone reading works of literary merit or educational works.) The foregoing evidence has been produced to justify the statement that the Standard and the Q.L.P. show the influence of Catholic Social teaching. Dr. Lloyd Ross has stated and Mr. Santamaria has agreed that the Catholic Social Movement influenced the A.L.P. towards "closer relations and dependence on America". The Q.L.P. and the Standard reflect the same attitude. The Standard of 25 July 1963 welcomed in headlines "The U.S.-Australian Agreement and the U.S. Naval Station". It said that the agreement would give Australia at no cost to us better security and "minimise the danger of nuclear war". It would cost the U.S.A. at least £33 million and provide employment for Australian workmen and orders for Australian business. The scare propaganda of the Communist Party and the Extreme Left of the A.L.P. was countered by asserting that "the Station will be nothing more than a naval com munications station for defence purposes. It will have no other capability besides transmitting long range messages to surface and submerged naval vessels ofAustralian and U.S. forces in the Pacific and Indian Oceans." The article explained that the building of the station arose out of Australia's obligations under the Australian, New Zealand, and United States Treaty of Defence ~the ANZUS Pact. It condemned the poor performance of the Liberal-Country Party government on defence and said: "A.L.P. Policy can only destroy Australian security with its pro-Communist, unilateralist disarmament and anti-American policies." The Standard of 27 June 1963 carried banner headlines saying "Defence ... The Burning Question". It accused both the A.L.P. and L.c.P. ofhaving failed Austra lia badly. It warned of the danger to Australia from an Indonesia equipped with the latest Russian weapons and led by an unstable dictator more and more under the influence of "the largest Communist Party outside Russia or China". It warned of the danger of Red China with 600 million people, a large army, the third largest air force in the world, the imminent prospect of a nuclear weapon, and an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. The paper for November 1963 said the real issues for the federal election of that month were "Foreign Policy and Defence". It recalled that the D.L.P. in 1961 (the Q.L.P. is now merged with the D.L.P.) put forward "that Austra lia's' Defences be doubled in the three years of the next Parliament", and then under the heading "Powerful Allies Needed" it said: We need, however, not only defences-but powerful allies. Therefore the American Alliance is to Australia all-important. Believing that whatever legitimately associates the United States with our defence is to our advantage the D.L.P. supports the agreement for a U.S. Communications Station in West Australia. IfD.L.P. preferences had not blocked an A.L.P. Government in 1961 there would not have been a Radio Station. All through the period 1960 to 1963 the Standard called for state aid to private IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 145 schools and charged that the AL.P. was opposed to it. 60 Praise was given to Christians taking an active part in politics (November 1963). Santamaria and the activities of the Catholic Social Movement were defended by the Parliamentary Deputy Leader of the Q.L.P., Mr. Hilton. He said that Mr. Santamaria had been brought into the fight against Communists in the Labor movement by prominent Labor men like "Mr. Vic Stout, Mr. P. Kennelly, Mr. F. Crean and many others". Credit unions, long urged by Catholic Action organizations as cheap sources of finance for people of small means, were advocated by the Standard which is very critical of the charges made by hire purchase companies.61 To mitigate class antagonisms and to improve industrial relations profit sharing by employees and joint consultation between management and employees were recommended. 62 For reasons already mentioned the productivity index and wages related to it were put forward. 63 The Standard and the Q.L.P.-D.L.P. are strongly opposed to socialism, ~eaning "government ownership and control of the economy". The editorial in the issue of 30 March 1960 said the Q.L.P. convention at Rockhampton in 1959 declared itself "against Socialism because it-Suppresses individual freedoms; Denies the right of private ownership; and Aims at concentrating absolute ownership in the hands of the State." The Standard of 27 April 1960 said: The Labor Party was never truly Socialist, in spite ofA.L.P. claims, until the word "Socialism" was inserted for the first time into the A.L.P. platform in 1957 at the Brisbane Federal Conference of the A.L.P. It had never appeared before. "The Blackburn Declaration" accepted at the 1921 Federal Conference of the A.L.P. is used by Mr. Duggan and many others to prove that AL.P. thought always had a socialist background. In fact this declaration was put forward in 1921 to break down the Socialist objective aimed at by others. Item (c) of the Blackburn Declaration stated: "That the Party does not seek to abolish private ownership even of any of the instruments of production where such instrument is utilised by its owner in a sociaJ1y useful manner and without exploitation." The editorial of 30 March 1960 said: "Prior to 1957 the AL.P. always had a Socialist minority, but with most moderate Labor men now in the Q.L.P., the Socialists dominate the A.L.P. today." The Standard was probably correct in saying that the A L.P. has never been explicitly socialist except for a period at the end of World War 1. The socialists have usually been a minority. The Standard is also right to see significance in the decision of the dominant socialist element at the 1957 Federal Conference to put socialism into the objective of the A.L.P. But the Standard also noted that at the 1957 con ference there was also an attempt to make references to socialism vague and innocuous. This was done to prevent opponents frightening middle class voters and, of course, such vagueness can be exploited by forces in the A.L.P. wanting to interpret socialism away. The Standard said: "In view ofthe attempt by the A.L.P. to conceal its true and firmly-held Objective of Socialism under the term 'Democratic Socialism' we draw attention to the fact that Socialism and Democratic Socialism are ONE and THE SAME and we condemn it." The Standard of 27 April 1960 said: "Though many seem to think so Socialism is no 'Alice in Wonderland' word which can mean anything the speaker wants it to mean. It can only mean what the governing bodies in control intend it to mean 60 See for example Standard, 16 March 1960, 22 May 1960, 25 May 1960, 11 November 1960, 25 November 1960, and November 1963. 61 See e.g. ibid., 8 June 1960 and 24 February 1961. 6' See ibid., 4 October 1963, 27 June 1963, 2 June 1961. 63 Ibid., 27 June 1963 and 25 July 1963. 146 TOM TRUMAN y.r~~t~~1"rtbe National Socialism (Nazism), Scientific Socialism (Communism) or the D~m;()c1"atic Socialism of the AL.P." 'This is true, of course, and the split in the A.L.P. had certainly increased the influence of the socialists in the Federal Executive, the Federal Conference, the Vic torian Ex.ecutive, the Queensland Executive, and the Western Australian Executive. Despite the weakening of the anti-socialist Extreme Right the A.L.P. still remained predominantly Moderate Right in composition. In the long run this was bound to cOme to the fore as the condition for winning elections at a time when prosperity and changing social values were making the Australian community more and more an upwardly mobile middle class society. However the Standard felt that the socialists were firmly in control of the AL.P. The editorial in the issue of 30 March 1960 said: Mr. Duggan, Leader ofthe A.L.P. [in the Queensland Parliament] said on "Meet the Press" on a recent Sunday night, "Yes, I am a Socialist" and a "true socialist" at that. Mr. Egerton, President of the Trades Hall Council [and Q.C.E. Inner Executive member] in a speech he made at the Federal Conference ofthe Building Workers' Industrial Union (reported in the Building Worker October 1959) said:- "Referring to the need to ensure that the A.L.P. works for Socialism, he des cribed how he had seen Socialism growing and developing in China, and wished that Australian workers had the same opportunities as the Chinese." Also in his presidential report adopted by the Queensland Trade Union Congress and affiliated unions, Mr. Egerton said: "Comrades, We cannot afford the luxury of more than one working-class party. That party must be wide enough to cater for all shades of working class opinion, but at all times must work towards the goal of all thinking trade unionists-Socialism." Mr. Frank Nolan, the strong man ofthe Q.c.E. today, has said, "I believe in Socialism." In the Standard of 27 April 1960 it was reported: Mr. J. Schmella, the Federal Secretary of the A.L.P., has indicated the exact form of Socialism proposed by the AL.P. today. In the AL.P. paper, The New Age, on page one ofthe issue dated 3rd December 1959 he stated: "Most members of the Party (A.L.P.) are prepared to follow the Fabian (Socialist) line." Further evidence ties other AL.P. leaders and spokesmen to Fabian Socialism. This Fabian Socialism proposed by the AL.P. is simply "Communism prettied up". Alderman Harry Dean said at a meeting of the Sandgate A.L.P. that the only difference between Fabianism and Communism is that Communism is Socialism through revolution and Fabianism through evolution. Others accused by the Standard of being socialists are Dr. Cairns, M. H.R. (Yarra) and Mr. F. E. Chamberlain, President of the A.L.P. Federal Executive, whom the Standard regards as the "real leader of the A.L.P. "64 Whitlam, Ward, and Crean were mentioned as coming out for socialism in the Standard of 13 April 1960. Final proof that the AL.P. was now socialist was produced by the Standard of 13 January 1961. It said: DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. [n his New Year Message the Federal Leader of the AL.P., Hon. A. A. Calwell, said: "Let us perfect our organisation, propagate our policies and close our ranks as never before with the single aim of achieving victory, not only for ourselves but .. See ibid., 17 February 1960. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 147 for the millions of people in Australia and throughout the world who see in DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM the realisation of their hopes and fulfilment of their aims and ambitions." Here we have the Federal Leader himself now using the words "Democratic Socialism". Previous Federal Leaders never did so.... To those who persist in maintaining that there are still right-wing and left wing in the A.L.P. it is necessary to ask only one question. Tf their so-called right wing espouse Democratic Socialism what does the left-wing espouse? Truly as Dr. Evatt said after the 1957 Brisbane Conference "The AL.P. is now a left-wing party." However the Standard made no mention of the statements made by the Federal Parliamentary Leader, Mr. Calwell, before the 1961 and 1963 federal elections. In these statements Mr. Calwell had said that not only was it impossible constitutionally for the AL.P. to get a nationalization measure made law without first carrying a referendum to alter the Constitution but the AL.P. gave a specific promise not even to raise the question of nationalization in the life of the next parliament. As noted earlier the Standard was still in 1963 denouncing the A.L.P. for its socialism. Though the Standard and the Q.L.P. are anti-socialist they are also anti-capitalist. The editorial of30 March 1960 said: "The Q.L.P. believes in Constitutional State con trol or supervision of public utilities in cases where private enterprise fails to give or deliberately denies satisfactory public service." It is "full-scale socialism" that the Q.L.P. opposes, said the Standard of 25 May 1960, not the use of the state to supervise or control private enterprise. "We believe in social utilisation [what Pope John called "socialization"] ofthe nation's resources and in this we hold firmly and strongly to the true Labor tradition.... We believe the existing social order should be improved by the extension of Co-operatives and Credit Unions, by the establishment of wider group ownership, based on common interests and aspirations." The Standard regards as part of this "social utilisation" or "control of private enterprise" the ownership of industrial concerns by the government. The Standard of 14 September 1960 lamented "Liberals Sell-out Bell Bay Aluminium-Another asset, belonging to the people of Australia, the Bell Bay (Tasmania) Aluminium Plant, joins the long list of the people's assets sold by the Liberal Federal Government." It listed "OTHER SELL-OUTS: Commonwealth Oil Refineries, Commonwealth Whaling Commission, Amalgamated Wireless (Aust.) Ltd., Commonwealth Engin eering Ltd., Ships of Australian Shipping Line, Commonwealth Equipment Handling Pool, Glen Davis Shale Oil Equipment." It declared that on the Left the socialist A.L.P. infiltrated by Communists was a danger to the security of Australia. On the. Right the Liberals become "more arrogant in government as the people lose faith in the A.L.P. and the Country Party becomes weaker. The Liberals become more demanding and more under the grip of big business. Monopolies are prospering as never before and take-overs are the order of the day." The Standard since about 1960 has visualized the Democratic Labor Party as supplanting the Australian Labor Party, as the main rival to the Liberal Party, although occasionally toying with unity on anti-Communist terms with the A.L.P. The A.L.P. is regarded as an anachronism with its socialist objective and class war outlook and with its electoral decline made more certain by its undercover alliance with Communists. The editorial in the November 1963 issue said: After this Election the non-Communists still voting for the A.L.P. through habit will realise there is no future in it. Overtures have already been made to the Democratic Labor Party by repre sentatives of non-Communists now out-voted in the AL.P., and these overtures will be renewed more urgently after the Election. 148 TOM TRUMAN Alt~f1.~~sQrt1eFederal A.L.P. Parliamentary Members are trying to disclaim t.1ieirprevious left-wing associations in the hopes of being counted "in", when such overtures are renewed. They will not succeed but they realise which way the wind is blowing. Since 1955 in the South and 1957 in Queensland it has been a long hard fight. After this election we can go over to the offensive. We can dictate the terms. Broadly based democratic movements have always been founded this way by small groups ofdedicated men. For instance, only fifty-six men signed the U.S. Declara tion of Independence. We shall welcome to our ranks all those prepared to be anti-Communist in deeds, and the Democratic Labor Party will then really go places, and quickly. As already noted above the great new national party would be a "Christian Democratic Party" devoted to policies based on Catholic social principles. The issue out of which the D.L..P. arose was not socialism but communism, and more particularly the withdrawal by the Hobart Federal Conference of the AL.P. in March 1955 of official recognition of and support for the anti-Communist Industrial Groups. Of course the D.L.P. is still supporting the Industrial Groups. The Standard of November 1963 under the heading of "D.L.P. Policy Points Industrial", said: We will give full encouragement and support to the men and women in the Industrial Groups in defeating Communism in the Trade Unions, and in providing strong and enlightened Union leadership. We support the right of trade unionists to have ballots in their unions cleanly conducted by impartial electoral authorities, and will strengthen the Clean Ballots Legislation to prevent intimidation ofUnion ists invoking it. The Standard and the Q.L.P.-D.L.P., therefore, agree with the Extreme Right group of the 1956-57 survey in regard to their support for the Industrial Groups and in their attitude towards nationalization of industries. It is probably unnecessary to produce further evidence of the strong anti Communist attitude ofthe Standard, but to put the matter beyond doubt the following items from the Standard are mentioned. The Standard made a special feature of reproducing in its pages unity tickets in which members of the AL.P. made a united front with Communists to contest union elections as a "progressive" team. Most ofthe examples were drawn from Queensland and in such unions as the Waterside Workers' Federation,65 the Building Workers' Industrial Union,66 the Transport Workers' Union,67 and the Meat Workers' Union.68 The evidence presented seemed fairly conclusive as did the evidence for the collabora tion of AL.P. members and Communists on the Trades and Labor Council,69 the affiliation of Communist-led unions to the Queensland Central Executive of the AL.P.,70 and through these avenues and also the Trade Union Congress71 the bringing to bear of Communist influence on the direction of the AL.P. in Queensland. 72 The Standard of 3 August 1960 quoted a defector from the Communist Party who said that the Victorian State Executive of the AL.P. discouraged AL.P. men wanting to resist unity tickets. ---~ ------_. ------_._--_._._------_..... _---_._-----_.-----_._._._---- 65 E.g. ibid., 25 May 1960 and 6 July 1960. 66 Ibid., November 1963. 6' Ibid., 24 February 1961. 6. Ibid., 8 June 1960. 6. Ibid., 20 July 1960 and November 1963. '0 Ibid., 3 August 1960. 71 Ibid., 28 October 1960. '2 Ibid., November 1963. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 149 Likewise the Standard seemed pretty convincing in saying: 73 The reason why the Australian Labor Party has got involved in these Unity Tickets is money. The AL.P. needs the affiliation fees of these unions. At 1(6 per member the amounts involved are large. For example the AM.I.E.U. Unity Ticket netted the A.L.P. over £2,500 in affiliation fees during the 3 year period it covered plus donations of union funds at election times. The agreement is that the Communist Party will use its organisation in the unions to distribute the Unity Ticket provided Communists are included on the Unity Ticket for one or more key union positions. Since the A.L.P. disbanded the A.L.P. Industrial Groups in 1955 it has no organisations of its own in the unions, and it has either to accept the Unity Tickets the Communists propose or take the risk of a union executive being elected which will disaffiliate the union from the Australian Labor Party [as the Groupers have done in the State Service Union and the Federated Clerks']. Mr. Arthur Calwell, himself, has said that a major factor in Victoria is that teams nominated by the D.L.P. disaffiliate their unions from the A.L.P. when they win. (At election time, ofcourse, he tries to make people believe Unity Tickets do not exist.) All this the AL.P. can be fairly charged with and the Standard is also correct in stating that in Victoria and Queensland the Left-wing un,ion officials who control the AL.P. in those states would rather co-operate with the Communists than the Groupers. It is also probably true that the existence of unity tickets and Communist influence in the AL.P. so energetically publicized by the D.L.P. has been a very important factor in keeping the AL.P. out of office in the Commonwealth, Victoria, and Queensland. The Standard also presented evidence of collaboration of AL.P. men with Communists in peace fronts, associations to promote the cause of the aborigines, and women's organizations. 74 This observer gained the impression that the Q.L.P. men who entered these fields did so more to fight the Communists than to advance the causes with which they were associated. In this they were not unlike their opposite numbers, the Communists, in having an ulterior political motive in their work for international peace and co-operation and justice for the under-privileged at home. The Standard of 17 August 1960 and 15 June 1962 attacked Catholics and other Right-wingers who refused to leave the A.L.P. and join the D.L.P. It argued that the evidence showed that if they tried to fight they would be expelled and, in fact, most "stay-in-and-fighters" stayed away from A.L.P. branches and union meetings. The attitude of the Standard towards the A. W. U. was somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand the AW.U. defeats and humiliations were used to show the futility of "stay-in-and-fight" methods. 7s On the other hand the A W. U. was courted as the strongest anti-Communist force in the AL.P. and a potential ally. 76 The inflexibility of the Standard's anti-communism is reflected in its attitude to the Russian, Chinese, and other Communist governments. Talk of changes in Russian policy is met with the answer that the leopard cannot change his spots. The Standard of 20 January 1960 said, under the heading of "Red Rubbish": Those who have been taken in by Kruschev's overtures for peace should study the whole man. '3 Ibid., 6 July 1960. ,. Ibid., 13 April 1960, 25 November 1960, 27 January 1961, 7 April 1961, 5 May 1961, 19 May 1961,30 June 1961, 20 October 1961, 15 June 1962, 31 August 1962, March 1963. ,5 Ibid., 20 July 1962. ,. Ibid., 24 February and 10 March 1961. TOM TRUMAN lBoWasfj'eg9rteuby Truth that Mr. Kruschev told a Kremlin reception: i;01S in ancient days all roads lead to Rome, today all roads lead to Com tnunism, )vhether you like it or not. ..." During his speech, Mr. Kruschev suggested that the Soviet Union would redlJce. its armed forces. But Mr. Kruschev left no doubt that Russia would not be leaving herself defenceless. He said: "Soviet rockets and nuclear weapons will be strengthened so that only a lunatic would attack the Soviet Union." So much for disarmament! News of the growing antagonism between Russia and China was met by assertions to the contrary by Madame Suzanne Labin who is "an authority on China and authoress of the Book The Anthill which was favourably reviewed in Free China Gazette". Madame Labin said: "Communist China loyally supports the Soviet attempt at world conquest. ... Russia can well afford to promise her the rich prizes of South-east Asia and Australasia."77 On the same page under the heading of "The Unchanging Goal of Communism" it was argued that diplomatic recognition of Communist China should not be granted. Advocates of recognition refuse to take a realistic view of the struggle against Communist aggression. Communism is wicked. It is not only Godless; it is virulently anti-religious. Communism denies the existence of any absolute standard of right and wrong. Only expedience is to be considered. Because Communism is a crime against God and man any proposal to aid its advance (even such a "small" advance as selling the 50,000 free civilian in habitants of the Quemoy islands into Communist slavery), even a proposal to stop fighting Communism and peacefully coexist with it, is morally wrong. There are just two powers in the world today; one is the United States and its more or less able and dedicated allies. The other is the Soviet Union and its satel lites. The neutrals do not constitute a third power; they have no power at all. ... Red China is not a third power; it is part and parcel ofInternational Communism. Its vast manpower is a weapon in the hands ofthe ruler of the Kremlin. The article proceeded to argue that recognition of Communist China by India did not protect her from Red invasion and Britain's recognition brought no benefits to her. It then reasoned that the U.S.A. must protect Free China, Quemoy, and Matsu both as a moralduty and a policy of wisdom. It ended by saying: "The objective of Communism cannot change. You can no more have Communism without this fix.ed, unchanging goal than you can have Judaism without the Ten Commandments or Christianity without the Sermon on the Mount." However the Standard a year later (January 1963) was prepared to admit the reality of the rivalry between Russia and .China. At least, it printed such views by B. D, Hurley. Mr. Hurley gave an account of the areas in which Russian and Chinese interests clashed and said: "Points ofconflict between China and Russia are in prospect on widely scattered fronts. Chief among these is Asia where any expansion of China's historic sphere of influence tends to undermine the Soviet position as the dominant power in the Communist World." The Standard of 16 June 1961 said that the West must cease "its policy of appease nient" of the Soviet Union. It praised SEATO as "the only stumbling block against Red China's aims of 'peacefully' subjecting the whole of South-East Asia". It blamed the Communists for stirring up strife "in Laos, South Vietnam, and Burma; in the "'See ibid., 21 December 1961. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 151 Americas, Cuba and various Latin American countries; and in Africa, Algeria, the Congo and Portuguese Angola". It denounced as hypocrisy Mr. Khrushchev's protests against drastic measures in Angola while condoning Communist China's having "committed bestial atrocities in their attempt to bring about racial genocide in Tibet". However, the same article expressed the hope that the leaders of the military coup in Korea would not form a dictatorship "for if they do they will only be playing into the Communists' hands. There is little difference between a dictatorship and a Communist regime and a change from one to the other is a simple matter." The same issue of the Standard attacked Dr. Cairns. A front-page article said: "Dr. Cairns callously condoned and supported Castro, the butcher of the Caribbean, in Brisbane on Tuesday evening, 6th June 1961. 'There had to be a revolution in Cuba. And in any revolution somebody always getshurt.. Thus did Dr. Cairns back the kind of revolution he would like to see in Australia." (I would refer the reader back to the analysis of Dr. Cairns's views to see that Dr. Cairns does not want revolution in Australia but believes that the Labor Party in parliament and the trade unions are the only effective methods of bringing about socialism in Australia. But the Standard's statement shows the difficulty the Extreme Right has in distinguishing the difference between Communists and the groups on the Left of the A. L.P.-an inability that is mirrored in the difficulty the Extreme Left has in distinguishing between fascists and the Extreme Right of the A.L.P.) The Standard of 30 June 1961 saw as the reason for the floods in Communist China the sabotage of dams by the Chinese peasants protesting against being deprived of their individually-owned lands and contrasted the success of Free China (Formosa) in building dams. It went on to say that Communist China was dictating Russian support for Indonesia's campaign to get West New Guinea. It said: "In order to try and draw the eyes of the world off the disastrous results of his policy on Communes in China Mao is doing all in his power to create disturbances in other parts of the world and with Kruschev's help appears to be successful, vide Berlin, Indonesia, Angola and Laos." An article in the same issue on President Sukarno accused the Indonesian President of selfishness and indifference to the sufferings of his people and regarded a Communist victory in Indonesia as certain. The Communists would then "foment hatred for the white man". The article ended with "WHO IS THE NEAREST WHITE MAN?-YOU !" In the issue of30 May 1963 the Standard accused Indonesia of planning to prevent the plebiscite in West New Guinea as required by the U.N. so that the people can decide whether to remain in Indonesia or choose independence. The Standard sup ported Malaysia as a way of containing an Indonesia about to become Communist and warned Australia to build up its armed forces and to cherish the United States alliance against the day when Australian territory would be attacked by Indonesia. The Standard supports American foreign policy consistently all round the globe except when the U.S.A. appears to weaken in its attitude to Communist forces. The Standard of 20 July 1962 lamented that the United States had ignored the warning of Ruscoe Drummond in the New York Herald Tribune that the scheme for neutralizing Laos was a huge "Trojan Horse" put there by Khrushchev to facilitate a Communist takeover of power. A frequent subject of articles in the Standard was opposition to exchange of trade union delegates with Communist countries. 7S Trade with Communist countries, too, was condemned because it was alleged Communist countries used trade as a political weapon to force concessions, such as diplomatic recognition of Red China, or to disrupt the economies of free nations by a sudden cessation of trade. 79 In place of trade with Communist countries and as an offset to the European Common Market " See ibid., 12 October 1960. ,. See e.g. ibid., 11 August 1961, 15 June 1962, and 12 October 1962. TOM TRUMAN fl;!'¢/~vsiaill;Cb1l'l.TIl'0n.Matketof anti-Communist countries was put forward. This was later develop~d into a plan for a Pacific Confederation of Nations With similar defence interests and foreign policies and with economies that would c()mp1ement each other. These nations would include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaya, South Vietnam, Taiwan. Such an association would be a confederation of sovereign states, not a new single state. In terms offoreign policy, it would be an alliance of nations intent on preserv ing their independence against aggressive economic, military, and political designs of Communist China; ultimately it would be more effective than S.E.A.T.O. As might be expected the plan envisaged Australian concentration on primary products and the expansion of rural industries rather than secondary and urban industries. 80 The Standard makes a special feature of the anniversary of the Hungarian rebellion against the Russians.81 This is worth remarking to contrast the attitude of the Extreme Left on the subject. [n contrast with all groups on the Left of the AL.P. the Standard is a strong supporter of the Australian Security Service. On the occasion when this organization and the government were attacked by AL.P. federal members over the refusal ofa visa to visit New Guinea to Professor Gluckman, an anthropologist of Left-wing views, the Standard defended the decision as correct and praised the service for its vigilance. The issues were posed as "Security or Subversion".82 Amend ments to the Crimes Acts to tighten security denounced by the AL.P. were supported by the Standard in its issue of 28 October 1960. Another attitude ofthe Standard not shared on the Left of the A.L.P. is its respect for the German Federal Republic and in particular the Christian Democratic govern ment. On the occasion ofthe Eichmann trial West German spokesmen and newspapers were quoted as being ashamed of the Nazis and their crimes against the Jews. 83 The Standard is strongly against racial discrimination84 and would amend the Australian immigration policy to make it inoffensive to Asians. The Standard is, however, mainly concerned to increase the flow of migrants from Europe. It deplores the prejudice against non-British migrants and praises the anti-Communism of European refugees. 85 The issue of 20 July 1962 praised the decision of the Immigration Department to bring out Spanish migrants and approved a scheme for making £400,000 available to provide houses for Italian migrants in Western Australia-halfthe sum being provided by the Italian government. It has already been noted above that the Q.L.P.-D.L.P. industrial policy is designed to improve relations between management and employees and to increase wages by increasing production. Joint consultation, profit sharing, the "needs" basic wage, and the productivity index are advocated. The Standard frequently criticizes the "strike-happy" militant union officials ofthe Brisbane Trades and Labor Council. These it regards as either playing the Communist game of deliberately embittering industrial relations for the political objectives of the Communist Party86 or being politically ambitious A.L.P. men for whom "industrial strategy plays second fiddle to political expediency as the union rank-and-filers pay 80 See ibid., 25 August 1961 and 9 February 1962. 81 See ibid., 4 October 1963. 82 Ibid., 28 September 1960. 83 See ibid., 5 May 1961. .. See ibid., 24 March 1961. 85 Ibid., 3 February 1960. 8. Ibid., 27 January 1961. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 153 the piper".87 An article headed "Responsible Unionism-Are Strikes Necessary" argued that strikes must be used sparingly. "They were never intended as a negative irresponsible substitute for capable competent leadership." It went on to state that union leaders should be university trained in economics and industrial law and should be capable ofputting together a better case than the employers in the industrial courts.88 The issue of 27 January 1961 condemned the B.H.P. strike as stupid. It said it was "another example of the worker and his family being caught in the middle as the Boss and the Union slug it out in direct action". It said: "The Q.L.P. believes that Concilia tion and Arbitration with Employer-Employee joint consultation is the answer." In the Standard of 21 April 1961 the Parliamentary Leader, the Honorable P. J. Hilton, accused the Communists of setting out to wreck arbitration and charged that AL.P. union officials such as lack Egerton, Chairman of the Q.C.E. Committee set up to advise the Parliamentary AL.P., were their accomplices. Mr. Egerton was quoted as saying: "The arbitration system caused more disputes than it settled or prevented", and that "the trade union movement never accepted compulsory arbitra tion". These alleged views of Mr. Egerton were clearly regarded as heresy by Mr. Hilton and the allegations were made by him to embarrass the A.L.P. parliamentarians. Moreover he appeared to succeed in this judging by the indignant denials that were made. "Compulsory unionism" is Q.L.P. policy, the Standard of 17 February 1960 said. The Q.L.P. advocates "that trade unionism in Queensland be made compulsory, and when and where practicable voting in union elections be compulsory". Compulsory unionism used to be the policy of the A.L.P. but since the Groupers persuaded the Cahill government in New South Wales to introduce it the anti-Groupers have repudiated it. They now maintain that such a policy tends to help financially only Grouper-controlled white collar unions and brings into the trade unions non-militant elements who weaken the unions in their struggle with the employers. The outline of the Standard attitudes is now complete and the reader can see for himself the close correlation with the attitudes of the Extreme Right group in the survey of 1956-57. The examination of the views of Mr. Frank Nolan in the Railway Advocate, Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick in Labor News Letter, and the Sydney Outlook provided evidence of the contemporary existence of the Extreme Left. The examination of the views of Dr. Cairns and the Melbourne Spotlight tended to show the existence of a contemporary Moderate Left group with two very different approaches to the problem ofcommunism. The Brisbane Worker provided evidence of a contemporary Moderate Right group. Finally the Standard seemed to show that the Q.L.P.-D.L.P. are a contemporary Extreme Right group. That some members of this group are still in the AL.P. can be gathered from the Standard's gibes at the stay-in-and-fighters, and this group appears on reports appearing in the Sydney daily press and the Bulletin to be fairly strong in the New South Wales branch of the AL.P. THE REFUSAL OF iDEOLOGY TO DIE A great deal has been written in recent years alleging the end ofideology, notably by the American sociologists Shils, Bell, and Lipset, but quite a few British and Australian thinkers have agreed with them. This survey of ideological groups in the Australian Labor Party suggests that the death of ideology has been much exaggerated and its burial, however desirable it may seem to some, premature. This subject com prises an important theoretical problem in current social science and because the results of this survey throw some light on it perhaps a discussion of it here may be taken to be not altogether out of place. Although the results of this survey prompted "7 Ibid., 12 January 1962. ""Ibid. 154 the//cMl1enge t9YWe/orthodox view, and will be so used, it is the intention of this papY~i.~OTll;pf;Y1lJore widely in search of evidence. I!'i,tpt(jfall, there is the problem of defining "ideology", of setting the limits to t~e di~9H$sion. What Bell, Shils, and Lipset seem to mean by "ideologies" are such v~lgy;systems as aim at the thoroughgoing organization of society according to an ~p}pitious scheme or "blue-print"-attempts to remould the world after the heart's desire. They mean such abstractions, visions, and utopias as socialism, capitalism, tonlmllnism, and fascism-the "great isms". This way of defining ideology is perfectly legitimate, of course, but there is a much broader way ofdefining it also currently in use. lfwe take two well-known books by psychologists on socio-political affairs-H. J. Eysenck's The Psychology ofPolitics89 and The Authoritarian Personality by T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford90-we see that "ideology" means to these authors "a system of related attitudes the organising principle of which is a set of moral principles or values". Thus Eysenck regards liberalism and conservatism within the wider range of "liberal democracy" as ideologies and Adorno and his co-authors regard anti Semitism and other forms of racialism as ideologies. Obviously in the broad sense ideology has not died out. Indeed, we may say with Gustav Bergmann that man is an ideological animal and customarily sees conflicts of political, economic, and social interests in terms not only of fact but also of value. The more intense the conflict and the stronger the emotions generated, the more emphasis is usually given to questions of "principle" or morality. Conversely, if the conflict of interests is not overly important to the participants so that little violence is done to their feelings the less likely they are to stress principles and morals, though this is not to say that no questions of principle are at issue but only that there are times when the differences of value do not seem important enough to make a great fuss about. There are those writers on politics who regard the conflict of interests as the essence of politics and who think of "principles" and morals as humbug or naive confusion or as attempts, conscious or unconscious, to gain adherents and allies. Again, there are writers on politics who think of politics in the opposite way as pri marily a matter of morality, of conflicting principles and values, and who say of "the conflict of interests" school that they have mistaken the shadow for the sub stance or are condoning the activities of unscrupulous "interest-peddlers", "fixers", and other immoral persons. There is no intention here to side with either of these fundamentalist views. They both seem misguided. As a matter ofobservation the three elements of"interests", shared or conflicting, emotional response, and questions of principle or value usually seem to be present in political situations and disputes, although the proportions of each present may vary from situation to situation. They can, and probably must, be separated for the purpose of study and advancement of knowledge, but all three com ponents must be taken into account if our theorizing is to be profitable and to accord With real life. Likewise it seems misplaced intellectual effort to argue the primacy of one or another. In the broad sense ideology in one form or another does seem to be a permanent feature of politics. Lipset, Bell, and Shils would not wish to deny this though their ",ay of arguing about ideology obscures it and confuses people. One of our trilogy of sOc;iologists, Daniel Bell, has in fact made a specific denial. In a debate with Henry DayidAitken in the October 1964 issue of Commentary Bell not only rejected the contention that he was saying that ideology in this sense is dead but actually went further and asserted the desirability of emphasizing the ideological or moral compon.ent. Why, then, are the two ways of defining ideology mentioned here? The first 89 London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954. • 0 New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 155 reason has already been scouted. It is to avoid confusion and argument at cross purposes. In the debate mentioned above, Aitken, understandably but mistakenly, seems to have thought that Bell was attacking ideology in the broad sense and rushed in to defend "principled politics" whereas they really were in agreement on this point. The second reason is connected with the first, the two aspects of the subject are so closely related-the narrower being included in the broader-that it seems more profitable to discuss them together while remembering the distinction. Even in the limited sense ofideology used by Bell, Upset, and Shils our survey of ideological groups in the A.L.P. shows that they are mistaken in assuming ideology is dead. It seems probable that they have been misled by looking only at the outside of political parties and contemplating the official policies as they emerge from the struggle between factions, the compromises between them, and the tailoring of what the dominant group desires to the needs of getting votes from the electorate. Our analysis of the ideological groups in the A.L.P. reveals that the great isms of socialism and communism and hostility to capitalism are very much alive in that party. The Extreme Left are mostly supporters of nationalization of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange and all support the nationalization of basic industries, such as banking, coal, electricity, iron andsteel, and transport. They believe that "the workers and capitalists fire engaged in a continual class war" and that "the workers cannot win the class war until socialism is introduced". They aver that "wars, international tension, and imperialism are all products of capitalism". They want Australia to be neutral in the struggle against international communism. They are anti-American and believe that "American monopoly capitalism plans to subject all nations to world-wide imperialism". By contrast they think the "Soviet Union is a peace-loving non-aggressive country". "Communists should be sought as allies against capitalism", they say. The Moderate Left are believers in extensive nationalization of industries but are cool towards the Communists. They believe that "the workers and capitalists are engaged in a continual class war" and that "the workers cannot win the class war until socialism is introduced". They subscribe to the belief that "wars, international tension, and imperialism are all products of capitalism" but they support Australia's alliance with the U.S.A. and anti-Communist alliances of the countries of the Pacific. They believe "the Soviet rulers use international communism to further their aims of world conquest" but also that "America is a capitalist country where the workers are exploited". They are strongly anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, being equally as opposed to Communist imperialism as to Western imperialism. The Moderate Right are anti-Communist at home and abroad. They claim to be "socialists" but want to "nationalize only monopolies and those industries that exploit the people". The Extreme Right are violently anti-Communist, reluctant to nationalize indus tries, strongly pro-American, and for strong action against Communists at home and abroad. Our survey of the Queensland Standard revealed the same attitudes in the D.L.P. whose policies bear the mark of Catholic social principles especially its de centralist and distributivist ideas. We recalled that the National Civic Council led by Mr. Santamaria when it was the Catholic Social Movement before the Labor Party split attempted to use the Labor Party as the vehicle for the implementation of policies based on these Catholic principles. For the benefit of non-Australians who may chance to read this paper and to refresh the memory of those Australians whom I am shortly going to criticize, it is worth recalling the pattern of recent Australian political history. The attempt by the Catll0lic Social Movement to substitute Catholic policies for the mildly socialistic policies of the A.L.P. and to water down the socialization objective was one of the principal causes of the Labor Party split. The A.L.P. Industrial Groups of whichthe Catholic Social Movement was the hard core were engaged in a largely successful struggle to eliminate Communist influence from the Labor Party. The Industrial TOM TRUMAN Group "maohfne",wl1iob had control of the A.L.P. in the two most populous states of New South.Walesand Victoria and with its allies controlled Queensland, was well on the way t6 aohieving control of the federal organs of the Labor Party. It was over th.fOwn by .a combination of pro-Communists, socialists, anti-Catholics, and those Who.wanted to go back to the old ideological stance of the party or wanted to preserve or recapture their power positions in the party. Both Catholics and non-Catholics were in these groups. All these ideologicalgroups in the A. L.P. are nationalisticin the sense of asserting the value of things Australian and it seems probable that their nationalism has a class conscious component as a reaction to the admiration of British upper class culture by the local upper classes. But nationalism of all sorts comes into the wider definition of ideology rather than the meaning Shils, Bell, and Lipset have in mind. However socialism comes well within their definition of ideology and it is clear that in the A.L.P. the socialist sentiment is important and historically the socialist myth (in Sorel's sense of myth) has been important in holding together the various groups making up the A.L.P. The penetration of the A.L.P. by the Catholic Social Movement whose leaders abhorred the whole concept of socialism and their attacks on the socialistic objective were important factors in the split. It is significant that the ditIerent elements who revolted against the Grouper machine, controlled by the Catholic Social Move ment, did so under the banner of socialism. Since the overthrow of the Groupers the socialist myth has been restored and even strengthened by the specific avowal of "democratic socialism" (instead of the more ambiguous "socialization") as being the aim of the party.91 The socialist forces in the A.L.P. got a firmer grip on the party organization as a result of most of the Extreme Right group withdrawing, to form the Democratic Labor Party. In the states of Victoria and Queensland the influence of the pro-Communist Extreme Left is to be seen in the permissive attitude towards unity tickets between Communists and the A.L.P. men in union elections shown by the Labor Party Executives in those states. The Australian Communist Party, which is Moscow oriented, has followed a deliberate policy of alliance with Left-wing elements in the Labor Party since 1951 and generally seeks to use the A.L.P. as a vehicle for its policies, as the Catholic Social Movement did before it. It has been the misfortune of the socialists that at a time when their power in the A.L.P. has been greatly increased the Australian people-or that portion of it which decides the results of elections-have experienced unprecedented prosperity and have shown even less sympathy for socialist and Communist policies, at home or abroad, than formerly. They seem to approve the private enterprise-welfare state type of economy and to support the American alliance and the Western powers on the inter national plane. Before the split the Labor Party could hope to win elections occasionally when conservative governments which enjoy a natural lion's share of federal office92 fell Qut of favour, but the conservative Liberal-Country Party government has been in office continuously since 1949. It survived even its disastrous "credit squeeze" of 1960 when it turned a boom into a recession, though its majority dropped to a mere two seats in the House of Representatives. It has since won a much more comfortable margin of seats. The failure of the A. LoP. to win office in the national government or in the states of Victoria and Queensland is clearly the consequence of Left-wing predominance in 91 What is being asserted here is that the socialist myth has been strengthened relative to what it was in the thirties, forties, and early fifties. There is reason to believe that the socialist myth was even stronger in the periods 1900-1910 and 1917-23. 92 The Labor Party's thinking is that only the federal Labor Party should be expected to introduce nationalization measures. The consequence is that the voters tend to go on re-electing Right-wing state Labor governments while turning to Labor federally only when a conservative federal govern ment has aroused their anger or bored them with its ineptitude: IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 157 the federal organization and Left-wing control in the states mentioned. In Victoria unity tickets with the Communists in union elections have provided the breakaway Democratic Labor Party and the Liberal Party with the kind of pigment needed to paint the Labor Party red. Similar Communist associations have kept Labor out of office in Queensland. The failure of the Federal Executive to carry out the official policy of a ban on unity tickets has hurt the Labor Party in federal elections. Even at the 1961 federal elections when the anger of the voters with the Liberal-Country Party government was sufficient to overcome their distrust of the Labor Party in other states, in Victoria Labor failed to gain a single seat and so lost the election. Apparently the image of the Labor Party in Victoria as pro-Communist repelled the voters suffi ciently to stop them punishing the Menzies government as they did in the other states. The A.L.P. link with the Communist Party has been of course the main factor in the survival of and the support for the Democratic Labor Party and the allocation by the supporters of that party of their second preference votes to the Liberal Party has been an important factor in keeping Labor out of power federally and in Queensland and Victoria. At the 1963 elections the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, and his supporters made very effective play with "the thirty-six faceless men" of Labor's Federal Con ference who decided the stance the Labor Party would take up on the American naval communications base in Western Australia. The Parliamentary Labor Party Leader, Mr. Calwell, went to the conference to persuade the delegates not to oppose the establishment of the base because it would be fatal for the party's chances at the coming federal elections. As we have seen from the study of Brian Fitzpatrick's Labor News Letter the Left-wing delegates felt that giving America this facility would make Australia a pawn in America's nuclear strategy and they did not want Australia to be involved in America's struggle against international communism. They wanted Australia to be neutral and some ofthem favoured Communist victories in South-East Asia which they regarded as the triumph of national liberation movements against imperialism and colonialism. Thus Mr. Calwell succeeded in his efforts and the con ference adopted a compromise resolution agreeing to the establishment of the base but demanding that Australia have an effective veto over its use. The Queensland Parliamentary Labor Leader, Mr. Duggan, saved the day for Mr. Calwell by courage ously voting contrary to all other Queensland delegates although he knew that ,the dominant group in the Queensland Central Executive would disapprove of his actibn. The Parliamentary Leader and his deputy were not members of the conference and they chose to wait outside the conference room, probably for tactical reasons, while the conference decided Labor's policy. Here they were photographed by some enterprising pressmen and the photograph provided the Liberal-Country Parties with very telling propaganda alleging that the parliamentarians had to wait outside while the party's policy was decided by non-elected persons. The influence of the Left on the Labor Party's policies was also clear from the decisions of the 1955 Federal Conference. Among other things it was decided to press for the admission ofCommunist China to the United Nations and to oppose Australian troops being sent to Malaya to fight the Communist forces. It was also decided to withdraw A.L.P. recognition of the Industrial Groups in order to cause their defeat in union elections. The 1957 Federal Conference struck a blow at the Catholic church by changing the education policy of "support for all forms of education" which was in effect a pledge of government aid for Catholic schools. Some Left-wingers find it difficult to believe that the voters disapprove of their policies. They, like Barry Goldwater's supporters, believe the voters want a real choice of policies involving different ends and not just a choice of means to the same ends. They protest bitterly and sincerely at the use of their Communist associations and sympathies in their opponents' propaganda and claim they are being "smeared". Some who are not quite so self-satisfied and an:; aware that the Left-wing image ofthe party loses elections are nevertheless content to put up with that and while preserving 158 TOM TRUMAN ~he:lr))cQntrol party-organizatiOn hope that some disaster such as a split over the leade1"shiB/rtl~)' overtake their opponents and give them the chance to see their fo.reigll polipy aims implemented. There is a distinct element of utopianism in their tpinkill~i)ypich causes them to be more interested in the victories of "the socialist ~01"2~~".abro M~lta. Communism is a vigorous ideology in Cyprus and to a lesser extent in Greece. Cofnmunists still control the bulk of the trade union movement in France and French workers are constantly bombarded with the Communist view of the world. Outside Western countries the old ideologies of socialism, communism, and democracy are important components of pOlitics. Nationalism, anti-imperialism, and anti-colonialism are attitudes based on ideological thinking. Large parts of Latin America and Asia and to a lesser extent Africa are in ideological ferment. Cuba has a nationalist-Communist regime. Communist regimes rule Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China, and North Vietnam, and are about to take over South Vietnam. The language of politics in those countries is Marxism-Leninism, or a variety of it like Maoism and "peaceful co-existence". The struggle between Russia and China for control of the international Communist movement takes the form of an ideological dispute which assails the ears of the world. In Indonesia communism threatens to take over the national revolution and attempts are being made towardoff this imminent danger by pushing the ideology ofSukarnoism. Even in terms of the great isms the evidence for the persistence of ideological politics is impressive, but if we take the broader meaning of ideology of which the isms are only a part we see that value-based systems ofrelated attitudes are and always will be a part of politics. Barry Goldwater put himself at the head of "get-tough-with communism", "rugged individualism" in the sense of reaction against the welfare state and Big Government, and anti-negroism. He found twenty-six million Americans to vote for his programme-almost two of every five voters. In South Africa and Rhodesia racialism is the main ingredient ofpolitics. It is not unimportant in Malaysia. Anti-Semitism still lives in Western countries despite the defeat of Hitler and finds official backing in the SovietUnion. Racialism was injected into the Sino-Soviet dispute and the great unspoken fear is that the world may divide in the not too distant future on racial politics, with China perhaps leading in the onslaught on the whites. It is the hope that it will build bridgcs between the races that constitutes the one thing of value in that rather politically meaningless association of countries once ruled by Britain. The United Nations is another slender hope for racial harmony. The oldest ideologies, the world religions, still play an important role in politics. The conflict between Hinduism and the Moslem faith are an Indian nightmare. In Ceylon Buddhists, Hindus, and Catholics are in conflict. In the Christian world in the days of Pius Xl and Pius XII Catholic Action used politics as a way of "conquering the world for Christ". Christian Democratic parties sprang up in Europe and Latin America. Mr. Santamaria's "movement" was political Catholic Action in Australia trying to take over the Australian Labor Party and to use it as a vehicle for its distri butivist policies. The advent of John XXIII changed all that and the new friendly tolerant look of the Catholic church calms the fears of Protestants and causes politi cians to angle for the Catholic vote with promises of increased government aid for Catholic schools. One could go on citing the evidence for the persistence of ideology in politics but enough has been produced to justify the question: "Why did anyone ever think that we had come to the end of ideology?" It would appear that Shils, Bell, and Lipset were impressed by two facts. The first had to do with the lack of interest of Western intellectuals in ideologies. The second had to do with the convergence of the political parties of Britain, the U.S.A., and northern Europe on the centre so that there seemed no ideological issues between parties any more. Most intellectuals are old enough to remember their own involvement in their youthwiththestrongly ideological politics ofthethirties. They were times when political passions ran deep in the Western world. The Great Depression and the suffering in mind and body of many millions lay at the base of these passions. The widespread unemployment caused great anger in the working classes and the intellectuals bitterly assailed capitalism as an intrinsically evil and doomed system. The desperate mood 160 TOM TRUMAN ledXdite¢tIyto utopian thinking and hence the appeal ofsocialism and communism. 1]-li8 in turn generated fear in the possessing classes and capitalism was stoutly defended;p.y conservative intellectuals as almost synonymous with freedom, democracy, .£l.nd pattiqtism. The rise of fascism, especially of Nazism, had much to do with this fe£l.t!tllsl:the pusillanimous attitudes of democratic governments towards them cul minating: in the Spanish Civil War, the Abyssinian War, and the Munich sell-out profoundly shook the faith of the Left in liberal democracy and in the commitment of ("onservative governments to it. Some socialists and most Communists genuinely SusPected the Conservative Party of Britain and the capitalistic forces generally of b~ing about to go fascist. This was the era of the Popular Fronts and united fronts againstfascism. It has not been noticed that the thirties were exceptional in their deep class di visions and the conviction that the political, social, and economic system was about to collapse. They were exceptional, too, in the profound distrust that existed in politics between the opposing sides and finally they were exceptional, as a consequence, in the degree of interest in politics and the almost total involvement of leading intellectuals in political thinking. In such emotional times moderates and moderate thinking are brushed aside and extremists and utopianists come to the fore. The wounds of the Great Depression have healed and capitalism has saved itself by accepting Keynesian economics and part of the socialist programme, and in the process has changed into the welfare state where bureaucrats rule in government and private enterprise. Unemployment which was undermining the social system from with in has been reduced to manageable proportions and the workers have never been as well off. The forces of fascism and Nazism have been defeated and discredited and the fears of the Left wing about the fascist sympathies of Western businessmen and con servative parties now look ridiculous after World War II, especially as they have accep ted the welfare state and even nationalization of industries quite gracefully. With the fear of fascism gone and the credit of conservatives restored and liberal democracy producing the goods, communism is less attractive. In a sober morning-after mood most Western intellectuals have become disillusioned with the Communist utopia and have reacted against Communist denials of cultural and political freedom. (In Australia, though, most Left-wing intellectuals, who are in a minority of the whole, stiIIsee the Communists as a progressive force while the Americans are regarded as imperialists, colonialists, and warmongers.) The threat to intellectual freedom is seen tq come from the Left now and not from the Right (except for the temporary scares ()f J',1cCarthyism and Goldwaterism). Many intellectuals, ashamed of the political gullibility of their youth and the unrealism of their former belief in romantic utopias, gaye withdrawn from politics and with the overall satisfaction of the workers in the ;\Xelfare state and the diversion of their interest from t4e remaking of society into ~I1creasing their stake in it, other intellectuals have become disgusted with the lack of Ptillc;iples in politics. Academic intellectuals have generally been converted to the philosophy of the s.¢i~ntific method and now regard ideologies and political philosophy, which is another cf:\,se of value-based systems of related attitudes, as either wrong-headed, religious, or pre-scientific. This is no doubt partly a product of the lowered temperature of politics, partly disiIIusionment with utopias, partly the realism of moderates in the sobering shadow ofnuclear war aware ofthe potential for violence ofideologies and determined to understand their world before attempting to change it, and partly due to the sheer conviction carried by the achievement of the sciences, especially physics. The attempt by Leo Strauss and his followers to resurrect Natural Law and the challenge to the rationalist tradition by Michael Oakeshott, who asserts that understanding of politics comeS from studying the precedents and getting the feel of a country's tradition in politi¢s, are not taken seriously by most students of politics who regard them in dulgently asaf some use in sharpening the arguments for the scientific method, but that is all. Sociology, psychology, and what are called "the behavioural sciences" IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 161 have all but squeezed out political philosophy, which lingers on in university courses only because of academic inertia and habit, as the means to understand politics. While agreeing that Western intellectuals generally have given up ideology it should be noted that Marxism still appeals to intellectuals outside the Western world in Communist countries and places like Japan and the under-developed nations. Even in the Western world Marxism still has its adherents. In Australia, for example, such journals as Outlook, Overland, and Arena point to its continued vigour. The second fact which Shils, Bell, and Lipset have in mind is the convergence of Western political parties on the centre as working class antagonism to the existing order changes to getting what they can out of it-a seeming general satisfaction with the framework and rules of welfare politics and with disputes only about shares and administration. It is necessary to point out that even these disputes about limited objectives have their ideological content and the opposing parties have different visions of the societies they want to create. The principles and ideals, however, tend to get lost in the endless bickering and compromise over practical administrative details. When there is enough to go round for everybody, nobody feels indignant enough to take a stand on principle, but when we look out from our affluent societies to the hungry ones of Asia principles seem important again. So they do when racial injustice occurs in our midst; witness the current interest in the welfare of aborigines and the reform of the White Australia policy. Ideology drops out of the class struggle only to turn up in other issues. I wonder whether this convergence on the centre notion has not been overdone. lfwe take Britain, for instance, it seems to have been a phenomenon only of the fifties when the Labour Party, desperate after losing~ several elections and impressed by the Tories' success in stressing "You Never Had It So Good", paid them the compliment of imitating them. If we go back to 1945 it was not so, and it does not seem to be the case with the Wilson Labour government which has put up some radical proposals such as steel nationalization, a national wages policy, a classless education system, a national land commission to buy land for houses, and vesting Britain's nuclear deterrent in NATO. In the U.S.A. and Australia convergence on the centre has always been the style of politics-Goldwater's campaign is the exception. Labor in Australia has never dared to put nationalization into its policy speeches. It has simply vied with the Liberals in offering more additions to welfare programmes and social service benefits. It was one of the gravest charges against Labor's bank nationalization bill that Chifley had not mentioned it in his election campaign. Policy differences between Australian parties are largely the result of internal party politics and the personalities of leaders. The issues are in the main fought out inside the parties with the factions keeping one eye on the electorate--a silent but most powerful influence. The com promises that are thus achieved make the parties' policies remarkably similar. Much the same can be said about American politics only in their case the whole process revolves around the nomination of the Presidential candidate and is, therefore, much more open to public view. Australian parties, whatever is the case elsewhere, are elected on their images and not on their policy speeches. In the case of the government party, usually the Liberal-Country Party, this image is developed with the unfolding of government policy and its impact on the electorate. Often these policies have little to do with cam paign promises and are the result of government action to meet contingencies not envisaged at election time, such as the 1960 Credit Squeeze. That section of the Australian electorate that is not part of the solid voting support of their party when voting at a federal election first takes a look at the record of the Liberal-Country Party government and if it does not like it then it next looks at the image ofthe Labor Party, which for some years after 1949 was formed by the abortive attemptto nationalize the banks but since the split, which touched off the reporting ofinternal Labor politics in the press, is more likely to be formed by the attitude of the ruling Labor Party groups to the Communists. TOM TRUMAN The Gold-waterR~pulmcannomination brought out an interesting fac~ about the two"par,ty systellfln the Anglo-Saxon world. The two-party system which is in the habit or' converging on the centre not only tends to make the parties appear to be verYl'lluch. alike but in doing so it hides the magnitude of ideological differences actually existing in the electorate and is unrepresentative of great blocks of opinion. If Rockefeller, Scranton, Cabot Lodge, or Nixon had got the nomination the white supremacists of the five southern states Goldwater carried would have voted for the liberal and southern Democrat Johnson and the state righters and rugged individualists would have got behind a Liberal Republican. The white backlash vote would have been extremely puzzled and it is anybody's guess how it would be divided up or even wbether it would have voted at all. As it is we saw a huge block of conservative 9pinion (two of every five voters) supporting Goldwater. This block of opinion Wilsnotably strongly ideological-at least, the more vocal parts of it were. Something like this also happens in Australia. The natural leadership of the A1,.l.stralian Labor Party lies in the Moderate Right, mainly because it is closest to the centre of the Australian political spectrum, but partly because it is by far the largest ideological group in the A.L.P. The natural leadership of the Liberals lies in its Left wing for many of the same reasons. This situation hides the existence of the pro Qm:nmunist Extreme Left, the socialist Moderate Left, and the Catholic Social prin Siples of the Extreme Right in the A.L.P. which the emergence of the D.L.P. made Plain. Similarly Left-wing leadership of the Liberals obscures the fact that there is among Liberal supporters a very conservative section believing in the sacredness of the private enterprise system, the British Empire (even if it has nearly vanished), and the British social system. The convergence ofthe parties on the centre then keeps great blocks ofideological opinion from entering the political arena and gives an appearance of ideological bomogeneity and consensus which is as false as it is important for the stability and effective working of democratic government. This trick of the two-party system is well illustrated by the phenomenon of McCartbyism which was, as Daniel Bell says, the eruption into politics of Main $~reetmoral conformism allied with populism and Americanism, not to mention fanatical anti-communism. These huge blocks of opinion though anti-intellectual and Without a doctrine were clearly an ideological component of the American nation of ~()fll.e importance and the political genius of Senator Joseph McCarthy brought them jntq politics from which they had been shut out by the convergence on the centre. The U.S.A. is fortunate in the strength of its traditional two-party system and first-past-the-post voting which ensures that political movements that deviate too far from the centre have but a brieflife. This is well exemplified in the course ofGoldwater i§l'll' the ultra-conservatives of the Republican Party have discredited themselves with ~l'i;e;professional politicians and machine men, the spoilsmen and office-seekers, by le~d-ing the party into catastrophic defeat in the 1964 Presidential race. This will enswe that the party will return to the leadership of relatively liberal politicians that has been typical ofthe Republican Party since the Great Depression, not only because the liberals can say "we told you so" but because the conservatives will have lost confidence and be more willing to follow liberal leadership. It is paradoxical that the closer the voting system comes to the democratic ideal, i!~, giving the parties representation in the congress, parliament, or assembly propor tio~~teto the popular vote cast for them, the more it hinders the democratic process bY>lflaking possible the existence of extremist parties and splinter parties, (Of course, 1l'i;8adoption of preferential voting and proportional representation systems has more tq do with considerations of party advantage or hard bargaining by practical politi ¢ians than democratic ideals. Thus preferential voting was conceded to the Country }>a.tty in. Australia by the Nationalist government in return for Country Party with dJ;'a""al from the contest for the Flinders seat where th~heir-apparent to the Nationalist leadership was running for election; and proportioniiI representation was introduced IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 163 for the Australian Senate elections because Mr. A A. Calwell convinced the Labor government that it would work to the Labor Party's advantage. However, such voting systems could not have been implemented if the Australian people had not been subjected to much propaganda from ardent advocates ofthese "democratic" electoral devices and if they had not been predisposed to them by the populist values of their culture.) The preferential system of voting in Australia facilitated the emergence of the Country Party and almost certainly enabled it to continue as an effective political force. Otherwise it would have been able to gain only a parliamentary seat here ami there and the forces that promoted it would have had to go back into the National Party whence they came to play an effective role in politics. Similarly the preferential system of voting for the House of Representatives and state parliaments allow~ the Democratic Labor Party to be an effective force in Australian politics, not in obtaining any seats itself (proportional representation allows them to win a Senate seat occasion ally), but in preventing enough Australian Labor Party candidates from getting elected to form a government, and ensuring the continued existence of Liberal and Country Party governments by allocating their second preference votes to Liberal Party candidates. For the relatively smooth working of the democratic system Australia has the Australian Labor Party to thank. The voting strength of the latter party has kept the two-party system going. It forced the Liberal and Country Parties into continuous coalition (except in Victoria where the resulting instability and factionalism prove the point) so that they became in effect one party. It has made of the Democratic Labor Party merely an adjunct of the Liberal Party. If the AL.P. had not had this strength Australia would have been subjected to unstable coalition governments and even more frequent elections than Sir Robert Menzies has inflicted on the country. However, the results of the preferential system have been bad enough. If the first-past-the-post system had been firmly entrenched it would have made the strategy ofthe Catholic Social Movement in setting up the Democratic Labor Party so risky as to rule it out of court. This block of Right-wing ideological opinion would then have stayed on in the Australian Labor Party as it did substantially in New South Wales with Cardinal Gilroy's encouragement. In the A.L.P. it would have preve~ted the present Left-wing dominance. In turn this would have made the AL.P. more attrac tive to the voters and resulted in its coming to power in the Commonwealth parliament and in one or two ofthe states possibly as well. The first-past-the-post system ofvoting would, then, by suppressing the emergence of a block ideological opinion as a separate party have provided the political system with an alternative government with good electoral prospects and thus have contributed to the better working of democratic process. In the U.S.A. and Britain the two-party system is not only buttressed by first past-the-post voting but by a mystique that attaches to institutions that have been long in existence and have proved adaptable and satisfactory to the participants and'the main political forces. A good deal of the prestige of a prosperous economy and the glory ofthe success ofthe state in world affairs rubs off on to the political institutions of the country including the party system. This mystique or tradition then is associated with the Englishness of English institutions or "nature" of American institutions anci can only be felt by empathy and through experience. It then becomes almost unpatri otic to suggest radical changes to the party system or method ofvoting and the tradi tion becomes a source of stability and moderation in politics. In newer countries like Australia especially under the influence ofan alienated working class finding expression through a reforming Labor Party the force of tradition is weaker and the desire to experiment correspondingly stronger. It is desirable for stability and moderation that experimentation should be confined to marginal changes and the main institutions acquire mystique. It is this mystique that Michael Oakeshott attempts to rationalize in his political philosophy, and which causes him to say that to understand politics TOM TRUMAN qne must understand tli~/cQ1lhtry's political tradition and get the "feel" of its institu tions amj.practices. There is something in Oakeshott's point of view that the skilled poHtcician "plays>by ear", i.e. from long experience and much practice and a flair for '8Qlitics dealing with political pro!Jlem.s becomes.second n~ture. He does not need. to think throllghevery step, reasomng lIke a treatIse on lOgIC. He grasps the solutlOn intuiti\'~ly.But then so do scientists, mathematicians, and other specialists. But they are intellectual enough to reflect on their reasoning processes and to fill in, for ex ):?l~RSl-tO(Y 'l-nd theoretical purposes, the steps that were jumped. Politicians are rarely r~~yC:tive enough to perceive their line of reasoning. They have little or no interest in W~.theory of politics. Indeed their interest is all the other way. The more mysterious their political skills and techniques the greater they seem. They do not want to see their magic disappear by being spelled out in a few elementary deductions so simple as to be almost truisms. What we need is not that intellectuals should cease to intellectualize, i.e. to try explain politics in rational terms or to theorize about politics. What we need is that Writers on politics should have first hand practical experience of politics as well as the ability to reflect on the experience and to theorize about it. It is the distance between practice and theory and not the application of scientific method or empirical reasoning that obstructs understanding. While the facts seem to indicate that ideological politics still go on even in the sense ofthe great isms, one can sympathize with the motivation ofthe "end ofideology" writers. They protest that we simply do not know enough about social life-our s6c.;iology, political science, economics, and psychology are not advanced enough for n;liable prediction-to engage in all-embracing plans for the reconstruction (or con servation) of society typical of the supporters of total ideologies. To undertake such revolutionary projects in the absence of knowledge of consequences is irresponsible. To commit oneself to carry out such half-baked schemes for a romantic vision is fanaticism; to do so in the knowledge that it will bring suffering and death to many people is simply cruel and inhumane; and to be willing to push through these schemes ilgairtst the wishes and the interests of the people affected is tough-minded authori tarianism. This protest is the same as Karl Popper raised in the ideological thirties against "wholism" and in favour of pragmatic, eclectic, tender-minded, reasonable, moderate politics that he called "social engineering". Similar points to these are made by Daniel Bell in his debate with Henry David ~it~en in Commentary. In giving up ideological thinking which asserts value-judgments t!i?>[)y facts, we give up neither values nor facts. We are simply concerned not to confuse tlje:p.. "The ladder to the City of Heaven can no longer be a 'faith ladder', but an empirical one", writes Bell in the paper mentioned above, "a utopia has to specify where one wants to go, how to get there, the costs of the enterprise, and some realiza tionof, and justification for, the determination of who is to pay." Public policy ~ljg~kl be determined as to both ends and means by a tender-minded concern for A;t;t:pan beings not as abstractions derived from ideologies, but as real people with nves to live and with feelings to be hurt or respected. It may sometimes be true that a minority government in the hands of a privileged andtough-minded few oppresses a majority and denies to it any constitutional avenue fot achieving its interests and aims. Such a case would be the South African Nationalist g(jvetnment today, or the Czarist government of Russia. Is the majority then justified itt! the use of violence to overthrow the government? Will the suffering and death iwvosed on the minority be justified by the cessation of suffering on the part of the ll1~j.wity? It is impossible to answer this question. One simply does not know. What USHSl-lly happens is that tough-minded methods on the part of the governing minority ~~;t;t~ethe majority in anger to reject the leadership of tender-minded and moderate meg/for the leadership of tough-minded authoritarian personalities who, when they achieve power, as the Bolsheviks did in 1917, establish an authoritarian government of atough-minded minority. The thing happens. One does not get a choice 01' a chance to IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY 165 weigh the costs. And it is impossible to tell whether the blood-letting and suffering were necessary to bring about the change or how much was avoidable. Hthe Czars had adopted constitutional government ... if Kerensky had not decided to continue the war ... could Russia have achieved. her present standards of living and other achieve ments without revolution and dictatorship? The if-game is fascinating but futile because we can never know. But when tough-minded personalities get into power or situations offear and anger bring out tough-minded qualities, people will probably be subjected to violence and cruelty, most of which could and would have been avoided if the political temperature had been kept low by moderate politics which by its nature favours tender-minded methods. Is it true that moderate pragmatic politics-convergence on the centre-neces sarily means or tends towards amoral interest-adjusting politics? Is it true that non ideological politics means, as Aitken asserts, "an end to judgment and to principle"? Is it true that convergence on the centre breeds smugness, complacency, and in difference to those outside "the affluent society"? Recent political history in the U.S.A. and Great Britain does not seem to support this view. In the U.S.A. the voters have rejected the tough-minded policies of Goldwater and chosen the tender-minded ones of Johnson. These involve helping the negroes to achieve equal citizenship and equal economic and social opportunities; they involve eliminating pockets of poverty in an otherwise well-off community; and they involve, as well as massive aid to under developed countries, the toleration of a very ambiguous and ambivalent international situation and the pursuit ofcautious compromises with opponents. The British Labour government is similarly devoted to policies sympathetic to the under-privileged at home and sympathetic to the interests of foreign nations including opponents in international politics. It does not seem to be the case that affluent moderate politics means the dominance of the tough-minded "I'm all right, Jack" attitude. Indeed there is a good deal of historical evidence to suggest that moderate politics tends to produce tender-minded humanitarian policies; witness, for example, the second half of the nineteenth century in England after the dangers of revolutionary and Chartist violence had receded. And, correspondingly, immoderate politics produces inhumanitarian policies; witness the first half of the nineteenth century in England as described in P. E. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class,93 when fear of Jacobin, Luddite, and Chartist violence caused the upper classes to adopt repressive tough minded policies towards the lower classes. Some day, perhaps, the psychologists will be able to advise us on how to bring up children so that tender-minded characteristics prevail in their personalities and they may be able to grapple better than we can with problems of getting more ofthe wealth of the affluent nations to help the impoverished and under-developed nations and of curbing world population growth, which problems promote tough-minded politics and in turn hinder their solution. The resulting world society might be a freer, more humane, more tolerant, and more peaceful one. In the meanwhile, those who value freedom and hope for a better life for all the world's people will wish to maintain and extend moderate convergence-on-the-centre politics and to see the end of the sort of ideological thinking of which Bell complains and to hope with him that the ladder to the City of Heaven will become an empirical ladder in place of the faith ladder. 93 New York: Pantheon Books.
R
