VIDA GOLDSTEIN SPEAKS AGAIN

The West Australian, Friday May 25, 1906

Socialism from a woman’s point of view

Address by Miss Vida Goldstein

Miss Vida Goldstein, the Victorian lady-suffragist at present visiting this State, fulfilled her desire to address a Perth audience on “Socialism” last night in St. George’s Hall. The audience, which was a good one, mainly consisted of ladies but there was a goodly sprinkling of men. Mr RH Hall, president of the A.N.A., occupied the chair.

Miss Goldstein said she felt particularly interested in so many women coming to hear what she termed a fair and impartial consideration of socialism, especially as in the Eastern States an attempt was being made to enlist the aid of women in the anti-socialistic movement.

No one could, with a mind above paltry and selfish consideration, be other than a supporter of the movement in favour of altering the present social system. She had seen herself too much misery to be other than a supporter of some alteration. Socialism was in ethics an economic problem. The system, as held by some in its application to marriage and religion, was apart. There were anti-socialists in those ranks as well. The simple fact was that the present social condition must be altered.

She briefly cited the views of writers and thinkers with respect to the misery that existed today. It did not follow that because most of her quotations were based on old-world conditions that they were applicable only to the old world. Some urged that the conditions were altogether different in Australia, where life was freer and wages better. But those who said this only looked at life from the attic window. Let them go and see the misery in Australia, and they would agree with her that a change was required even in this new world.

It was said Australia was a working paradise. Let them look at facts on pounds, shillings and pence lines and take a man with a wife and five children earning 37s. 6d. a week, which it was said was a living wage. A list of bare living expenses she had compiled showed that he would really require £2 18s. 6d., and at that he would have to be a non-smoker and non-drinker. In the absence of this wage he must always be in debt and want and become a burden to the State. That was how it worked out in New South Wales, and she did not think her case had been over-stated. (Hear, hear!)

Socialists contended that this would be remedied if property and the means of production were divided amongst the people. It was said that, if so, equality would result whether men were workers or not. That was not so. Under the system he who would not work could not eat. Every care was being taken to develop scientifically the vegetable and animal life of the world. But man was a lawless part of the world, and the individualists had attained a position which had become intolerable in every country. Could anyone conceive of the God-made law of supply and demand shutting out millions of tons of food and clothing, from starving and shivering millions. The God-made law meant equal supply and equal demand. The world’s law was really the devil’s law. (Hear, hear!)

The working man had all down the ages, been taught to work in support of others. Now, as the result of legislation, he was a voter and a legislator in fact. Of course, those who disliked restriction upon capital objected to the reforms these legislators had introduced and carried into law. But the conditions of the people had demanded them. In America capitalists poured fortunes into their pockets from the efforts of little children seven and eight years of age. That was sufficient to condemn capitalism root and branch. (Applause.)

The socialistic efforts in Australia had to some extent obviated the existence here of the American crime. But she could give some heart-rending accounts of the existence of hundreds she had personally met in Victoria and New South Wales and to whom the few laws already passed did not apply. Adulteration, which was the result of competition, also condemned capitalism. Anti-socialists put adulteration down to the great demand of the people for cheaper goods. It was the dealer who created this taste, in his desire to compete, to the detriment of his fellow-dealer. And so the people, believing they were getting the same article, and being enticed to buy it at a cheaper rate than before, bought adulterated goods. Dishonesty was an essential part of present-day commercialism. (Hear, hear!)

Trusts were a form of co-operation for the benefit of the capitalist; socialism was a form of co-operation for the benefit of the worker. (A Male Voice: “Oh !”) Collectivism, she had no doubt, would come in the form of public ownership of utilities and then the bigger industries, and she believed land would be the first of the former. In this connection she was glad to see that in Western Australia they had made greater strides than had been the case in other States.

As things were, the landowner sat down and watched his labourers increasing the value of his property, and year by year he raised the rent. Railways came, and he raised the rent. Towns grew up around, and once more the rent went up. But still he sat down.

Anti-socialists had made an attempt, said Miss Goldstein, to hoodwink the women into joining their ranks by pointing to the abolition of the marriage tie and religion. Quotations had in support been taken from articles written in Victoria and Queensland socialist organs. By themselves they were blasphemous and scurrilous, but taken as a whole they simply preached against the growing “churchianity” of the Church. (Hear, hear!)

The ethics of Christianity and the ethics of socialism were the same. Socialism, in fact, had its foundation in the Sermon on the Mount. Then what about the sanctity of the home and the abolition of the marriage tie? What about it now, in a system which allowed a double standard of morality in men and women, and even encouraged it in the divorce court, which allowed it in the giving away of daughters to titled roues; which allowed ten people of different sexes to sleep in one room? Would they like to go back to the old conditions when a man could sell his wife? That had been changed. Then followed other conditions; but women were still always held in bondage. But, with still further economic changes, women had begun to win independence, but so far only a little independence. She thought nothing was more degrading than for a woman to have to marry for a home. Love should be the sole reason. (Applause.)

Surely, those with a brain to think, eyes to see, and a mind to reason must realise that the capitalist system must cease and a co-operative system prevail in its place. She urged all women not to take any notice of the old interpretation of natural laws that would be dangled before them. Let them read and look for themselves. She fully believed that socialism would be the next development in society. There would be failures, no doubt, but out of these a success would evolve. The final socialism must rest firmly on the principle of love of God and love of man. Everybody would have equal opportunities with everybody else, till the final consummation came—a grand brotherhood of man. (Applause.)

A discussion followed Miss Goldstein’s address.

AUSTRALIA’S NON-EXISTENT HIGH SPEED RAIL

The Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane high-speed rail (HSR) proposal requires agreement on the method of funding. State, ACT and Commonwealth governments have common interest in providing a modern alternative to currently inadequate rail and air transportation on this intensively busy route. However, proposals to tax lands and towns adjacent to the HSR route are unduly restrictive and costly. The funding impasse seems to explain inaction on what constitutes an essential Australian infrastructure project. 

To stronger or lesser degrees, HSR would increase land values across the whole of Eastern Australia. For cost efficiency, therefore, it should be the federal government which funds the project – as with the 1917 Trans-Australian Railway. This could be done with the governments of Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland cooperating by providing the use of their municipalities’ current site value assessments in which increased value from the HSR would be reflected nicely, if ‘hidden’ within their land valuations. A flat rate federal charge on site values, using municipal site valuations, could be levied along with income tax assessments, or separately in monthly instalments.

The Commonwealth government has the power to levy such a tax, as shown by the former federal land tax from 1910 to 1952, and the federal government clearly has an overriding interest in having the HSR project completed successfully. HSR fares would then be a matter of agreement between the states and the ACT. It would be a welcome offset if such a federal levy were to be introduced along with the Henry Tax Review’s proposals to abolish less worthy state and federal taxes.

THE GREEN NEW DEAL

~~~~~

ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS

~~~~~

  1. LVT: Tax land and all natural resource rents – to de-commodify them and put greater charges on their use and abuse. At the same time, reduce those taxes on incomes and purchases if an end is to be put to inflation.
  2. MMT: Acknowledge how money actually works within economies. i.e. Governments create money, and spend before they tax. If a government has its own currency, it can’t ‘go broke’. Deficit national budgets are common, whereas a surplus budget usually heralds bad times.
  3. UBI: Distribute a universal income. It’s not inflationary, alleviates poverty, and trumps the creation of unnecessary jobs in delivering full employment.

LVT + MMT + UBI = VIMMLBUTT

It’s the necessary package for the upcoming financial collapse!

Let your political representatives know!

REAL ESTATE 4 RAN$OM

Right now, this video about the 2007-2008 bubble-burst is worth a revisit.

If the 18-year real estate cycle plays out, we can expect the easy credit of banks over the next two years to pump a final frenetic bubble scheduled to peak in 2026 and crash in 2027.

And it’s a biggie!

LANDLORDS, LAND TAX, AND OTHER MATTERS

I wish I had a dollar for every landlord ringing Tom Elliott up on radio 3AW to complain about the effects the Victorian land tax is having on them. Many of them are going to have to sell and invest interstate.

While renters probably aren’t having the greatest time, they don’t get the same radio airtime. They’re busy, working hard – to pay the rent.

Young homeowners aren’t doing too well, either, trying to keep up with the rising cost-of-living that’s largely mortgage-driven. They’re virtually radio-absent, too.

Yep! So, why is it landlords who get the better political hearing?

Isn’t it largely landlords denying homeownership to many aspiring young people? Whereas economists are saying that negative gearing and the 50% capital gains discount are of minimal benefit to landlords, they’re clearly providing more clout for investors at residential auctions. Just attend any auction!

If we peruse governmental policies (of whatever political party), it’s not renters nor young new homeowners feeling the pinch who are getting a hearing: it’s noisy landlords complaining they might have to sell a property or two.

Am I being too cynical, then, in seeing Australian politicians as largely representative of the landlord class? After all, there’s only a handful of politicians without at least one investment property.

Maybe we’ll have to wait for the upcoming property crash from all the speculative real estate investment to see who merits the greatest assistance? I don’t think landlords should be top of the list.

In the period from 2027 to 2030 we’ll certainly be needing the whole VIMMLBUTT package! We can only hope we’ll all get it!

AUSTRALIA HAS A ‘HIDDEN’ HOUSING CRISIS

I’ll be concise. The crisis stems from the so-called ‘property market’ which is a speculative mess because–by taxing incomes and purchases instead–we’ve failed to tax land values sufficiently.

[No, I’m sorry neoclassical economists and politicians, our unaffordable housing is not simply a matter of ‘undersupply’!]

So, we have the two-year frenzy of the ‘Winners Curse’ ahead of us now.

Since we were told “The land shall not be sold“, many others have also warned of the serious repercussions from choosing to inflate land prices –the real generators of inflation–but for our own reasons we’ve chosen not to heed this injunction.

As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, folks, that’s worse than unfortunate! 🙁

“The Homes That Built Australia”

I recommend a peep at the ABC’s series “The Homes That Built Australia“.

We get to see the increasingly mounting problem of commodifying our homes for speculative purposes. Promoted as a security “for mum and dad investors”, Australian property is said to represent “real estate markets”. However, without a significant land rental/ land tax on all properties which poses the question “Do I want to live here, or am I speculating?”, can Australian real estate be a genuine market?

A real market would penalise holdouts and speculators and reward those who need to house themselves and their families, affordably.

Were currently seeing “mum and dad investors’ having to leave “the market” in Melbourne because of the Victorian state land tax, but it remains insufficient levels to make housing affordable for all.

Australia’s Future Tax System (the Henry Tax Review) called for an impressive tax reform that would have only four taxes: income tax; the GST; an all-in land tax and; a mining tax. Some 130 other bothersome taxes would be abolished as a trade-off for introduction of the latter two.

Curiously, there are calls for a new inquiry into tax reform in Australia. Why? That’s probably, so we may skirt around the recommendations of the Henry Tax Review and extend the GST – a regressive sales tax, similar to an income tax having no threshold and which doesn’t bear upon foreign investors in Australian real estate.

2027: THE DEPRESSION WE HAD TO HAVE