A Paradigm of Consent: Explanations of Working Class Moderation in South Australia

Abstract

Antipodean trade-unionists try to be practical, that is why they set themselves limited tasks and aspirations. They do not worry in the least about debating whether society is evolving towards collectivism or com munism, nor try to influence the direction of social change . . . (A. M?tin, Socialism Without Doctrine, 1901) M?tin's critique of the Australian 'workers' paradise' depicted South Australia as an agrarian backwater in which the labour movement was reformist, moderate, profoundly religious and motivated by the quest for respectable bourgeois lifestyles.1 This account differed substantially from the orthodox 'whig' view of the development of labour movement. In this latter liberal view, the evolution of labour organisation was seen as a 'magnificent journey' toward the achievement of labour's 'proper' political identity in the context of social reformism. Prime importance in the 'whig' interpretation was given to the struggle for political rights, the legalisation of collective unionism, and improved standards of living based on wage increments, better working conditions and social security. In Australia many of these demands had been conceded earlier than in either Western Europe or the United States. Indeed, the Australian labour movement throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries can be seen, relative to international comparisons, to be at the forefront of social reformism. There is much evidence to suggest that the development of the labour movement in Australia can be considered the most advanced international example of political organisation among the working class.2 Yet although this liberal view is persuasive, the interpretation does not take into account other important aspects. For instance, while this view concentrates on the liberalisation of citizenship rights and a 'civic culture' expressed through formal political avenues,3 it ignores the constraints imposed on the organisation and objectives of organised labour. To be more precise, it fails to account for a spectrum of analytical issues, including: the historical development of the regulation of organised labour?through the state apparatus, management and unionism; labourist ideology and the limitations of collective-sectional consciousness; and the nature of concessions arising from labour control over the production process conceded to effect the integration of organised elements of the working class. In short, it fails to explore the intended irony conveyed in Me tin's aphoristic 'workers' paradise'. This article attempts to redress this bias by analysing the nature of the