On 17/11/2013, at 1:37 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, my hypothesis is that that socialist vs trade unionist influence
> account for the difference. Trade unions, especially those of skilled
> trades, went mainly for higher wages, wheras socialists demanded social
> protection policies. In Australia, socialists had limited influence as
> major fault line lied between Communist/anarcho syndicalist influences
> fighting against the war (WW1) and more conservative unions demanding high
> wages. The unions won. In Sweden, by contrast, labor was organized by
> socialists, hence the welfare state. This is not far from the Leninist
> line on limits of trade unionism.
You may be underestimating the influence of socialists in the Australian trade union movement. In the post-war period, quite a large number of trade union organisers were communists, right up until the 80's. There was a huge split in the labour movement in the 50's, during the cold war.
This was when the Menzies government attempted to ban the Communist Party of Australia. But that failed and both the political and industrial wings of the labour movement were split for decades. The Groupers split from the Labor Party and formed the DLP, which helped keep conservative governments in power for over 20 years and the groupers also worked relentlessly to undermine the powerful influence of communists in the trade union movement, capturing some (particularly white-collar) unions.
But communists continued to be a powerful influence in the trade unions, if not so much the political wing of labour, for decades. Particularly in key trade unions, like metal workers, building workers, transport workers.
And of course this did have an effect politically. Labor achieved power federally under Whitlam in 1972 and implemented many radical reforms, including welfare reform such as a national health insurance scheme, Medibank. When the conservatives got back into government 3 years later, one of the first things they tried to do was dismantle Medibank, which led to a full-blown national strike, forcing them to back down.
Now to me it seems clear that throughout this period, both politics and industrial relations were consumed by class politics. As to race, well up until 1967 indigenous Australians were not even counted in the census, could not be afforded citizenship under the constitution. And of course the White Australia Policy kept non-whites from coming in. So South-African style apartheid was quite crude by Australian standards. Australia was implementing an unofficial, but thorough genocide against non- whites, Aborigines kept on reserves working for slave labour rates, if they got paid at all. Recommended reading: The Unlucky Australians http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-reviews/the-unlucky-australians/2006/09/08/1157222319244.html
This may not necessarily undermine your overall theory though, since your premise that Australia is not a welfare state is probably also wrong. Perhaps not a welfare state like the high welfare states of Eurpope, but a welfare state adapted to Australian conditions, I think so. At the very least a hybrid of the European Welfare state and the USA law of the jungle.
So it doesn't undermine your theory. But I still think your theory is wrong. ;-)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas