(From the Marxism list)
From: Gary MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hansonism - My take


Now as everyone knows Hanson lost her seat in Federal Parliament and her
party ended up with only one senate Seat.  She had proclaimed she was going
to get about six senators and 12 members in the lower house.  However the
major parties colluded in the distribution of preferences and her hopes
turned out to be fantasies.

So is Hansonism over?  The ruling class after all do not need her.
Significantly the Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fisher, the leader of the rural
based National Party campaigned against her on the grounds that she was
racist and thus 'anti-trade'. Hanson had been expected to wipe out the
National Party but failed to take anything but a senate seat of them. So
certainly I agree that she was taught a lesson.  Nevertheless we need to be
cautious.  Her party is not two years old and although it ran a chaotic
campaign that the press pursued mercilessly One Nation still managed to get
851,066 votes, in a country whose population is not quite 18 million.

So out there we have enormous numbers of deeply discontented suffering
people. They are by and large the rural petty bourgeoisie and lumpen
proles.  They dream of a return to the 50s when life was much better for
them but they cannot see a way back other than by supporting their beloved
"Pauline".  

Now my Marxist training was strictly classical and I would never argue that
we should be impressed by quantity rather than quality. Thus I am not
arguing that we should be spooked by the number of people who voted for
Hanson.  When I think of One Nation I recall Trotsky's remark about the
Fascist movement.  He said something like "the greater part of the fascist
movement is but human dust." But I am suggesting that we should not fall
into the glib celebration of the end of Hansonism.  The material
circumstances that created her are still there. Indeed they are likely to
be aggravated by the coming recession.

There have been an interesting number of articles by right wing journalists
almost mourning the end of Hanson.  They had helped make her great triumph
in the Queensland election and when ordered to they helped defeat her in
the federal arena. But journalists are by structure and so by nature petty
bourgeois. They have to kiss the asses of the powerful, and even though
they seem to go to it with enormous enthusiasm, beneath all that slobbering
devotion is the true petty bourgeois' hatred and envy of the rich and the
powerful. So there is a great deal of latent sympathy for Hanson in the
media. Accordingly she will never be attacked with the same ferocity that a
left wing movement would incur.

So what will One Nation do now?  There have been rumours of splits and
rows.  Within the Far Right everyone wants to be Fuhrer so such tensions
are inevitable, but my best guess is that One Nation will not self
destruct.  It has been dealt a blow and put back in its place.  The
question is - Will the party learn its lesson?  It dared to inconvenience
the ruling class through its anti-Asianism and got a smack on the gob for
its trouble.

To get some idea of what might happen to the party we need to grasp that
there are three closely inter-woven but distinct strands to One Nation's
politics.  There is firstly the rural based conservative's hatred of
modernity and its beneficiaries who are generally encapsulated in the
Political Correctness movement - gays, women, blacks. This merges with
racist contempt for Aborigines, resentment of their "privileges" and full
on loathing and fear of Asians and Asian migrants in particular. This in
turn merges with the third strand of opposition to economic rationalism or
neo-liberalism and the globalisation of Capital. Above all this has
entailed the re-orientation of Australian capital from the old British
Empire to the Asian region. In my opinion it was the third strand that gave
Hanson her mass support but also earned it the wrath of the capitalist class.

So this is the dilemma for One Nation, to the extent that it opposes the
prerogatives of Capital it gets a mass base.  But it does not want to be an
anti-capitalist party.  Hanson herself, like most of her party, is a Tory
through and through.  Her former adviser, Pasquerelli, has also argued that
her electoral failures are due to the fact that she moved away from the
main game - Aborigines and Asian migrants i.e. strand two. But if Hanson
simply returns to beating the anti-Aborigine and Asian migrant drum then
she will no longer represent the moment of opposition to the globalisation
and restructuring of Australian capitalism.  My opinion is that in these
circumstances her party would go into sharp decline.

The problem is that Hanson herself is simply too stupid to understand
anything of this. She is though genuine Joan of Arc material. But this is
Australia in the 20th century and instead of the fascinating Maid of
Orleans plagued and driven by the angelic voices in her head, we have the
fish and chip owner with the ugly whining tones - the genuine petty
bourgeois from the bush with a mission to save her nation.  Nevertheless
she is also charismatic.  I personally find that difficult to believe, but
the truth is there.  Hanson is enormously attractive to poorly educated and
culturally deprived males in the 35-55 age bracket (what I refer to as the
Viagra zone) and there are it seems enormous numbers of them.

It is also well to recall amidst all this talk of Hanson being finished
that there have been right wing movements with their leaders in Australia
before and they all attempted to form right wing parties.  But none of the
filth could do what Hanson has done and put far right politics on the
agenda on a national scale.

So the strength of One Nation, Pauline Hanson, is also its weakness.  It
may however now acquire its Hitler - someone who knows what the ruling
class want and will tailor the party's policies to suit that. This, as
Christine Jackman points out in her interesting Brisbane Courier Mail
article of Oct 13, could well be Hanson herself.  

It is true that for the present the ruling class do not need One Nation.
Yet talk of systemic collapse is in the air. Everyone is spooked by the
continuous outbreak of economic crises that are springing up on every side.
The global triumphs of Capital have made it more vulnerable than ever.
Moreover the dialectic lives and it cannot be long before we have a return
of the repressed - a genuine anti-capitalist movement.  And should the time
indeed come when a Left emerges from a radicalised working class then One
Nation will be revisited by the bourgeoisie and their media lackeys. 


regards

Gary



Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)



Reply via email to