Sunday, October 11, 2020

For Green Universities: Insurgent campuses for sustainability

Lisbeth Latham

Climate Strike Berlin

The events of the past few years have repeatedly demonstrated that our planet faces an existential crisis generated by the way our currently existing social systems, dominated by capitalism, have sought to maximise economic growth at the expense of human need and the capacity of the planet to sustain and maintain the biosphere. Urgent action is needed now. This is a reality which has driven millions of people to mobilise to demand action to correct course. However, this action has been slow at best, as capital and its representatives in government continue to prioritise ever-expanding profits over existence itself, in the delusion that they can save themselves whilst destroying the planet. There has never been a more pressing need to transform our societies in order to save both ourselves and the planet. The question is, how can we turn back the neoliberal and capitalist offensive of the past five decades which has seen defeat after defeat of social movements? The reality is, there are no simple solutions, but we are seeing glimpses of what is possible based on the heroic mobilisations of students globally via the Fridays for Future actions initiated by Greta Thunberg in 2018 combined with a broad range of environmental action, and the rapid efforts to transition away from a carbon-based economy.

Urgent need for climate action and capitals continue resistance
The past few years have seen the acceleration of the climate crisis, with record temperatures, record averages, mass melting events, and ever more frequent extreme weather events. This acceleration has highlighted the urgency of heeding the dire warnings outlined in repeated international climate reports that we are fast running out of time to halt or reverse runaway climate change that will threaten the existence of not just human life, but all life on the planet. Despite this, wide sections of capital and their representatives in governments have refused to take sufficient action to address this crisis, but actively seek to deny the necessity for such action.   

Greta Thunberg outside the Riksdag

Student Strikes for Climate
In response to this inaction, beginning in August 2018, Greta Thunberg began an individual strike outside the Swedish Riksdag calling for concrete action to address the climate crisis. This action quickly inspired hundreds, then thousands, and ultimately millions of young people and their supporters to regularly not attend school/work and participate in protests on an ongoing weekly basis punctuated by truly massive internationally coordinated student strikes. This movement has been so inspiring that it has helped to give impetus to calls for, and in some cases actual, workers strikes in support of concrete action to address climate under a range of slogans such as a “Just Transition”, a “Green New Deal”, and a “Green Industrial Revolution”. This dynamic of student mobilisation inspiring and sparking the mobilisation of other sections of the working class is not surprising, indeed it is a long-term continuation of a pattern of mobilisation going back decades. As has been observed, due to their economic position and lived experience, young people tend to be more receptive to radical ideas than older people and are better positioned for extended participation in political actions and mobilisations.


Climate Strike Santiago, Chile

Limits of student strikes
As important as the student strikes have been in building and renewing the strength and confidence of the climate movement in the face of the very real dangers we face - student strikes at both high school and university level have serious limitations which have been repeatedly demonstrated in the experience of student mobilisations internationally is that as student mobilisation increase in size, frequency, and intensity of action particularly if and when they progress to an extended strike, the student strike tactic tends to act to weaken rather than strengthen the power of the student movement. This is because student organisation tends to be centred on their places of study. In extended strikes, students are no longer at school or university, and the mobilisations will tend to dissipate over time as a consequence of students being separated from the institution.


1968 Student Protests Belgrade, Paris, Rio 

Drawing on this observation, and the concrete experience of the global student radicalisation most notably in Yugoslavia, Western Europe, and the Americas, the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (an international Trotskyist organisation) developed a political strategy based not just on student strikes, but on the occupation and transformation of schools and universities into centres of political struggle and organisation through which the struggle can be transmitted and built in the broader community. They dubbed this strategy the “Red University Strategy” - drawing inspiration for the name from the Yugoslav Students’ demand for red universities.

Central to the strategy is not just about students operating individually and collectively as tribunes for an alternative vision of society but also transforming the character of their institutions of learning and their role within society, making them the centres for societal transformation. This is not just about enabling students to protest, or using art studios (and now IT facilities and studios) create campaign material to build the movement - but transforming the curriculum itself to support the envisioning and construction of an alternative society. In our current context this means the development of technology and production practices that will enable us to respond to the challenges of saving the planet.

In seeking this transformation we need to recognise that such a transformation represented a significant break in power relations and class character of learning institutions in capitalist societies, this has become all the more the case in the context of neoliberal late capitalism. Schools and universities operate as transmission belts of pro-capitalist ideas, but more importantly, they reproduce capitalist notions of control and capitalist reproduction. While this is most immediately recognisable in the role they play in the preparation of students to take their place in the workforce of the capitalist economy, but equally importantly the commodification of not just education but also research. This has seen universities as operating in ever-increasing corporatised ways. This has disempowered and alienated both students and university workers. This has occurred as Universities have both massified to provide an ever-increasing number degree qualified workers as governments have sought to shift the cost of education onto students

In order for students to be able to engage in the political struggle in an ongoing way, it is necessary to transform education from a system aimed at achieving “job-ready” graduates but instead encourages the capacity of students to engage critically not just in their chosen fields but in broader society. In doing so, we must break the disciplinary power of university administrations. An objective which is also in the interest of university workers, enabling them to break key components of discipline and control over their working lives.

In addition, transforming universities requires a fundamental transformation of the funding processes in Universities along two key lines. The first is a shift in the conception of education from a commodified individual good, which individual students pay for, which is central to the neoliberal conception of education, and back into a social good supported collectively by society via the payment of taxes, particularly the taxing of the rich and corporations.

Equally important is the reconception of the role of university research both within institutions and within the broader society. Within Australia, government funding priorities have sought to emphasise the role of research to find and develop ideas, technologies, techniques which “boost our comparative advantages and our Boosting the commercial returns from research”. This has led not only a shift away from pure research for the sake of benefiting our understanding and may lead to yet unknown practical applications, but also in developing prioritising funding relationships between universities and businesses - which means research and other university work will prioritise the direct making of corporate profits and maintaining these relationships. While problematic at the best of times, when the majority of major corporations are intimately connected with environmental destruction it is particularly problematic.

General Assembly, University of Grenoble 2019

So what would a “Green University” look like? 
The first thing is that it would need to be controlled by students and staff in sharp contrast to the current dynamics which places power primarily in the hands of unelected senior administrators and university councils/senates dominated by senior executives drawn from the corporate world. This student/staff control should be exercised via mass popular assemblies of staff and students which are a common feature of mass student and staff mobilisations in much of the world, most notably France. Such a body is not simply seeking to be given a say by university management, but instead an assertion of power against university management and the right of staff and students to control and direct the university and an assertion of the right of working people to guide society more broadly.

A Green University would see its obligation not just to make itself more sustainable as an institution, but to help transform society to meet the challenge of the climate crisis. In practical terms, this means seeking to infuse the curriculums with a full understanding of the challenges facing us and prioritising critical engagement with these problems where the addressing of these problems is prioritised over profit. It also means prioritising and supporting research aimed at addressing the climate crisis both within and between institutions - not with the aim of commodifying or monetising that research but instead enabling humanity to respond to the crisis so we can collectively save the planet.

Campus Blockade, University of Strasbourg, 1999

How do we get there?
The reality is that we do not have a movement with the confidence and organisational capacity to currently conduct this struggle with confidence - and we have not had such a movement for decades. Such a movement will not just materialise based on us wishing it into existence. The challenge is to expand and build the capacity of the movement as it exists today. This includes normalising and expanding the existing movement based on building not just concern about the depth and extent of the climate crisis, but by building people’s confidence that via a combination of social mobilisation and practical social action we can address and effectively respond to the current crisis. That such action will require both a change in individual and community consumption but more importantly will require placing pressure on both governments and corporations to act in our collective interests rather than private profit and if they will not do so force them to do so via collective action. A central aspect of this would include:
While the movement that is necessary seems distant from where we are at, the need for such a movement has never been greater and it is only by starting to build such a movement now that it can be achieved.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

Saturday, October 3, 2020

Is increasing the superannuation gaurantee the solution to poverty in retirement?



Lisbeth Latham

In 2021 workers are scheduled to receive a point five per cent increase in the superannuation guarantee paid by employers, this increase has become the centre of a new struggle as the government is widely expected to again delay this increase. In response unions, particularly unions representing predominantly feminised workforces, have been trying to build public pressure on the government to not postpone the increase based on the need to combat the problem of retirement poverty particularly amongst women. Largely absent from this discussion has been the question of whether the superannuation system operating within Australia is an effective or appropriate mechanism for providing economic security for in their retirement.

Prior to the 1980s, superannuation schemes were primarily part of industry awards negotiated by unions, and they applied to only a minority of the workforce, predominantly men. The current compulsory employer superannuation contribution scheme was first established as part of the Prices and Incomes Accord under the Hawke Labor government in 1986. The initial employer contribution was set at 3%, this was funded as a deferred pay rise for workers, and thus whilst nominally “paid for” by employers was actually paid for by working people. The idea was the superannuation scheme would help provide a better standard of living for workers in retirement based on three pillars: 
  • a safety net consisting of a means-tested government-funded age pension; 
  • compulsory employer contributions to superannuation funds; and 
  • further contributions to superannuation funds and other investments.
As the scheme was envisioned not as a supplement to the aged pension, but a replacement for it, it was a mechanism by which the cost of supporting retired workers off of the state (and therefore capital), and back onto working people themselves. Moreover, with the majority of workers not expecting to be reliant on the pension, it was politically easier for successive governments to let the aged pension decline as a proportion of the median wage, albeit not by as much as other welfare payments, as a consequence those retirees who were unable to build up a sufficient superannuation fund, and who were forced to rely to rely on the aged pension face a retirement in poverty, highlighted by Australia having the second-highest poverty rates in the OECD amongst people aged over 65, with 35% per cent living in poverty against an OECD average of 14%.

In response to this growing problem of poverty of old age, the Rudd Labor government in 2012 legislated for a stepped increase in the compulsory employer contribution by point two-five of a per cent every year until it reached a super contribution of 12%. However, only the first two increases were made, as following the ALP losing government, the Abbot Coalition government postponed the remaining increases, and they won’t begin until July 2021. As we have gotten closer to the next increase pressure has been building for a further delay, now justified by the COVID pandemic, as a way for businesses to instead use the money to boost the economy by instead using the money earmarked for the increased super guarantee money for wage growth to boost the economy.

Of course, there is no reason to expect a further postponement of the superannuation payment will result in a boost to any part of the economy other than company profits. The previous postponement occurred during a period of record-low wage growth in Australia. Whilst companies will have been factoring the scheduled increase into their bargaining positions, there is no mechanism via which companies can be made to shift the expenditure into higher wages - they would more than likely just pocket it as profits.

However, while the logic for business and the LNP’s opposition to boosting the employer contribution is flawed and deeply cynical, this does not mean that increasing the contribution is an effective way to address poverty in old age amongst working people.

Increasing the employer superannuation contribution will not eliminate inequality in retirement, it is more likely to increase it. This is not to say it won’t boost the potential balances of retirees with projected lower balances, it will, but the primary beneficiaries of any boost in super contributions will be those workers who already have the largest balances. This is because the whole superannuation system is built on an unequal system, where women on average have lower incomes and are more likely to have breaks in their employment. Moreover, it does nothing for those members of the working class who are entirely excluded from the labour market due to injury, disability, illness, or caring responsibilities whose marginalisation from the labour market and resultant poverty extends into retirement.

Average Balances by Age Group 2016
Age Average Balance - Men Average Balance - Women
20-24 $5,294 $5,022
25-29 $23,712 $19,107
30-34 $43,583 $33,748
35-39 $64,590 $48,874
40-44 $99.959 $61,922
45-49 $145,076 $87,543
50-54 $172,126 $99,520
55-59 $237,022 $123,642
60-64 $270,710 $157,049

Source: Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Superannuation account balances by age and gender 2015-16, October 2017, pg. 9.

Adding to this problem is the fact that whilst Australia’s massive superannuation system is seen as being highly stable due to its size, it is built on and contributes to the instability of the financial markets. At the end of the June 2020 Quarter, the total value of Australian Superannuation assets was $2.9 trillion, approximately 155% of GDP. This massive volume of assets has pumped money into a system driven primarily by speculation - giving the sense superannuation is a guaranteed future income. However,, we have repeatedly seen massive amounts of wealth wiped out of the value of superannuation savings as a consequence of the inherent instability in the domestic and international financial systems - the bulk of which play no productive role in the real economy.

Following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the average balanced fund lost 22% of its value. Whilst the average asset value was back at pre GFC balance by 2012, that was just to get back to the level and part of that was based on contributions into the funds not gains in the value of assets. We can expect to see a continued cycle of funds losing huge amounts of wealth and having to rebuild it over time, delivering retirement insecurity and uncertainty to working people.

So what is the solution? While ideally, we would start from scratch with a more equitable pensions system that meets the needs of all working people - such an approach would face significant resistance including from working people, who would see it as a government raid on their retirement savings. In this context, the solution is to maintain the current three-pillar system, but shift the priority onto the old-age pension ensuring that it provides a liveable income to all, so rather than being a safety net is sufficient to provide a comfortable existence and can then be supplemented via other mechanisms. This emphasis would be achieved by generating income by withdrawing the tax-free thresholds from superannuation and instituting a truly progressive taxation system which substantially increases the tax rates on high-income earners, ramps up company tax, and closes the capacity of companies to offshore their tax liabilities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

About This Blog

Revitalising Labour attempts to reflect on efforts to rebuild the labour movement internationally, emphasising the role that left-wing political currents can play in this process. It welcomes contributions on union struggles, internal renewal processes within the labour movement and the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP  

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.