It's official. Union-organised workplaces have higher wages. Figures collated by Melbourne University economist Mark Wooden show workers covered by unions earn up to 17% more money than workers in non-unionised workplaces.

The chief scientist in the Defence department is recommending drugs be issued to Australian soldiers to boost "human performance". "Defence is absolutely about gaining and exploiting advantages which may or may not be ethical in sport and on the playing field" said Dr Richard Brabin-Smith.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has backed off on attacking sub-contractors. The explosion of sub-contractors who pay 20% (PPS) tax is losing the federal treasury $500 million a year in lost taxes. Most of these self-employed contractors are really workers who gain a few dollars by paying less tax but miss out on holiday pay, RDO's and all the other entitlements of full-time employment.

Sub-contractors earning 80% or more of their income from a single employer were to be reclassified as normal workers, paying normal taxes. But massive pressure from building bosses saw Costello back down. Wiping out PPS would have boosted union influence in the workplace and this was more important than gaining $500 million!

Peter Reith has refused to condemn his department's Dispute Management training document, which openly coaches industrial relations bureaucrats on how to lie. "When you have many demands, introduce a few false issues. This disguises your serious interests and allows you to make concessions thus giving the other party sense of gain." It also advises negotiators how to stall for time, stage false walkouts and issue take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums.

The NSW Labor Party is charging $2,200 for private sessions with its politicians at its State Conference. A letter to business offers them a "unique invitation to a weekend of unparalleled access to State and Federal political leaders". The ALP is now not only a bosses' party, but a party for big bosses. It's a long way from the days of democratic debate amongst rank and file ALP members at party conference.

Visitors to the Sydney Olympics face searches for food and drink as they enter stadiums. Breast-feeding women and those on a special diet for medical reasons will need to show a medical certificate! Even water is banned. Once inside you can eat MacDonalds, Coke and the like. It's corporate dictatorship straight from a futuristic movie. Rest assured the Socialist Party will urge defiance of these anti-democratic measures come September.

The collapse of the planned economies in Eastern Europe ten years ago resulted in a tidal wave of pro-capitalist market propaganda against so-called socialist economies. Politicians and economists alike argued that planning was dead and that the 'free market' of capitalism was triumphant.

All of these individuals had a vested interest in upholding the capitalist system which accumulates private property and profits for an elite in society while the mass of the population struggle to survive.

Capitalism is a system that works on privilege and coercion but its defenders argue that it is the only economic system that works. This has caused many workers also to be sceptical about whether socialism could work. The Stalinist soviet economies were a caricature of socialism, which initially achieved economic growth but lacked the workers' participation and democracy that would have allowed a genuine socialist democracy to thrive. Instead the bureaucratic elites that controlled those societies drove the economies to collapse. Now sections of workers, increasingly disenchanted with capitalism, are looking for an alternative socialist way of organising the conomy.

Socialism takes away private ownership of the means of production. Common ownership and control of industry means more wealth is created and resources allocated according to social priorities. This works by:

a) The elimination of unemployment. We now have again what Marx called a 'permanent army of unemployed' in the advanced capitalist countries. Even at the height of an unpturn industry never works at full capacity. A planned economy will be able to guarantee work for everyone, with retraining provided to make sure the new jobs are meeting the needs of people, democratically determined.

b) Luxury expenditure for the rich will be ended. The capitalist experts are always keen to point out that ending the wealth of the rich will not solve the problems of society, because however obsenely well off they are, there are not enough of them to make a big difference. Nevertheless, the rich do consume 5% of national income which amounts to approximately US$80 billion a year.

c)Ending arms spending. On a world scale the waste of resources on arms is vast, reaching nearly US$2 trillion each year at the end of the cold war - approximately US$2,000 a year for every family on the planet. This money would be a big first step in lifting the majority of the world's popultion out of grinding poverty.

Although redeploying millions of highly skilled arms workers will be a formidable task, under capitalism such a transformation will never take place. This is because the reason for arms expenditure will not disappear, ie the hostility between rival capitalist countries, and because the market system could not plan the transfer of resources needed due to it anarchic nature.

d) Eliminating the waste of capitalism. The world is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations who duplicate expenditure in research and development, spend unnecessary vast sums on advertisingaand design productswith planned obsolesence. For example, rival drug companies spend billions on developing varities of pain killers with marginally different effectiveness.

e) Freeing the creative power of the working class. Workers in the market system have no incentive in putting in their energies to helpout the bosses. But in a socialist society it will be possible to release the creative instincts of employees beacuse no fundamental conflict of interests will exist. It is often said by management theorists that the real experts in any firm when a problem needs to be solved are the workers themselves. Although a factor which is difficult to guantify, in the long run this will be a very significant advntage of socialism.

It is allocating resources of labour and materials for the production of goods and services for the benefit of society as a whole, rather than to make profits for the capitalists. It will operate at three levels, nationally (and internationally) at industry or sectoral level and at the individual enterprise.

a) The overall performance of the economy will be decided at the national (and international) level. There will be targets for productivity growth, investment, consumption etc, which will be determined democratically by institutions created after the overthrow of capitalism. Here the decisions about the priorities that society wants to have, for example between health expenditure or housing will be made.

b)Industry or sectoral level. It will be necessary to determine consumer demand for the goods or services of that particular industry and to organise the efficient exchange of materials and semi'finished products with other sectors, eg from suppliers. The determination of demand will be done by obtaining information from powerful, democratically representative consumer bodies and by using the very sophisticated tools for market research developed under capitalism.

To organise the movement of goods between industries, avoiding bottlenecks, it will be possible to use the techniques, such as operational research, developed by the big capitalist monopolies to plan the complex movement of goods between their operations around the world.

c)Planning at the enterprise level. The methods mentioned above will also be used to determine consumer needs and preferences. It is also likely that as far as enterprises making consumer products are concerned (as opposed to capital goods - machinary etc used in the production process) a type of market system will be retained in the early stages of the transition from capitalism. This could operate through small business or worker co-ops, but only within the framework of a nationalised economy. If the market sector was too large it would threaten to impose its inherent inequalities onto society.

Since Marx's day, and particularly since the Russian Revolution, academics have written libraries full of books about why socialism won't work. One of the main criticisms is that planning the efficient allocation of resources is impossible because of the vast complexity of modern industrial society, where millions of economic transactions take place every day.

However, most of these economic interactions are between enterprises, they do not involve consumers, and it is quite clear that present-day multinational firms conduct planning of a similar complexity all the time. The activity of the multi-nationals answers a further criticism that the operation of supply and demand to determine price is the only efficient way to proceed in the exchange of goods. In their international operations companies like General Motors simply allocate resources between country and factories without reference to the market.

As far as planning for the consumer needs are concerned the key point is that active democratic institutions should exist that can compel the planning bodies to respond to their demands. In addition to this, techniques such as market research and using the internet will ease the tasks faced by future socialist planners. It is important, though, not to exaggerate the role that will be played by the internet or look for a technical fix; the existance of democratic institutions will be paramount.

The role of democratically elected and powerful consumer bodies will also make sure that shoddy goods are not produced and the quality is maintained. Here as well the advances in modern production management techniques can be applied, since the future socialist society will inherit; unlike the Soviet Union; a quality culture associated with the highest levels of technique development by capitalism.

The quote from Marx at the start of this aticle implies that there will be a super-abundance of goods and services under socialism which will not require rationing by price as under capitalism.

The concept of super-abundance, however, raises one of the most serious difficulties of the socialist project, namely environmental destruction caused by consuming energy and resources at the rate of the advanced capitalist countries.

Socialism will not work unless the standard of living of the world's poor majority is raised to that of the industrialised countries causing energy consumption to rise very sharply. This will not result in environmental disaster however.

In the first place, there is an enormous waste of energy in the industrialised countries, particularily in the US. Without affecting living standards, energy consumption could be reduced by up to 50% if appropriate investment is made.

Secondly, using fossil fuel is the key problem. Expansion will have to be based on other sources of energy. The technology for this exists now in the form of wave, wind and solar energy, but it will need huge investments to implement the change.

Under a socialist planned economy, a large impetus will be given to the development of science and technology leading to new non-polluting energy sources being developed.

The arguments for a new way of organising society will find a growing and receptive audience in the coming years.

By Paul True and Jack Munday

Some things never change. While it no longer has the union hating zeal of the Daily Telegraph, the Sydney Morning Herald has opposed every campaign by building workers for improved wages or reduced hours throughout the 20th century.

The Herald clearly regards itself as a fair and balanced observer, with a certain sympathy for ordinary people. Some of its social and environmental reports are excellent, but when it comes to wages and conditions, the historical record speaks for itself.

In the years 1905 to 1920, during the 44 hour week campaign, the Herald's position was one of consistent opposition. Indeed in one anti-44 hour week editorial, in October 1905, the Herald opposed the very concept of a 'week-end' for workers!

In 1928 the Herald supported Arbitration Commission moves to overturn the newly-won shorter hours and re-introduce the 48 hour week. And in 1944 the Herald made the extraordinary assertion that, "The forty-four hour week was a grave factor in the depression."

A similar pattern emerged during the campaign for the 40 hour week, which took place from the 1920s through to 1947. Even in October 1955, twenty years after Queensland building workers had won the reduction, Herald editorials were still complaining about it.

Likewise the 36/35 hour week campaign from mid 1950s on. In the June 1972 issue that featured the headline "Short Week Would 'Pauperise' Australia", the editorial demanded the government "strongly resist" the workers claims. Indeed, there are so many examples that there's a serious risk of boring the reader by itemising them.

And laced through all of them is the same fundamental argument - the 'economy' can't stand it. Yet looking back at the Herald's industrial coverage over the last century and a half, one point clearly emerges - no matter what stage of the capitalist economic cycle we're in - boom, slump, and all points in between - according to the Herald it's never the right time for workers to win improvements in wages and conditions.

In the 1850s, with the winning of the 48 hour week by Sydney and Melbourne building workers, Australia led the world in terms of workers rights. Sadly, 150 years later in Howard's Australia, the corporation is god and workers rights are the last thing on the agenda.

Instead a 'me me me' culture has oozed its way into the national psyche, and the mercenary values of the corporate world have now become government-approved national philosophy. While governments in Europe are taking concrete legislative steps to reduce working hours - thereby improving the quality of life and helping reduce unemployment - Australia encourages longer and longer hours. People often remark that Howard's Australia is like a return to the 1950s; on industrial questions it is more like a return to the pre 1850s.

Some of the hours currently being worked in construction are insane. Construction is a dangerous industry, involving heights and the use of cutting tools that will sever a limb in an instant.

The reality for a building worker is that knocking back overtime courts the very real risk of the sack. It is also quite true that some building workers want to work excessive hours - "get the hours up and get some money in", "you don't know how long you'll have a job" are common feelings about the situation.

The problem is that over time, excessively long hours become the norm. To keep a job, you either work ridiculous hours or don't work at all. Exhaustion, stress and family breakdown are the visible results. It's a vicious cycle that ultimately benefits only the corporate sector. The Macquarie Encyclopedia of Australian Events says that in 1800 the governor of NSW set the working hours for convicts at 50 hours a week. It is an appalling indictment of our society that today many people are working longer hours than convicts in a penal colony 200 years ago.

Building workers in Victoria, at some risk to themselves and despite the usual hammering in the press, have again put the question of civilised working hours on the agenda. They should be congratulated.

By Stephen Jolly

Since the mid-1970s there has been a bosses' onslaught against the gains won by workers in the post-war boom. Deregulation, outsourcing and privatisation have undermined the number of unionised, stable jobs and gradually replaced them with casual jobs on low pay. Australia's 26% casual workforce is the second highest in the advanced capitalist world. The insecurity and low pay that result from casualisation has made workers more willing to work long hours. This has filtered through to the rest of economy.

Overtime, often unpaid, has never been higher. In 1980 37% of the workforceworked over 45 hours per week, now more than 50% are in this position. 500,000 new jobs created in the past period see workers working over 49 hours a week and, on the opposite side, 800,000 jobs are less than 29 hours a week.

In banking alone, one million hours of unpaid overtime is worked every week. The effects of this are obvious: How many of the industrial accidents that lead to 500 deaths and 300,000 injuries per year are due to overwork?

Family life suffers are absent and stressed workers. In the US, 1 in 7 beds are filled with stress-related illnesses, the figure is probably little different here. The use of drugs and alcohol at work is increasing as workers seek to alleviate stress or merely get through the day. The ability of workers to be active in their union or in politics is also undermined by the long hours worked. A shorter working week would boost employment. Bosses either increase overtime or take on more staff when they want to speed-up production. We must fight for the latter.

Bringing new workers into work cuts back on unemployment expenditure, increases demand as these workers spend more money, and boosts production. However capitalism is content with a section of the working class out of work as a means of keeping down wages. The sharing out of available work without loss of pay is a key demand of the SocialistParty. Under capitalism we support every move in that direction; most recently seen in the Victorian branch of the CFMEU.

Under socialism we would see a massive boost to production as the unemployed and underemployed join those already working to build houses and schools, public transport and the like. Only on the basis of a publicly-controlled economy will need of the many be put before profit for the few.