There was a time when I thought more women in power would make a positive difference.
After all, they are the caring sex, and it was my thought that that might be expressed through greater concentration on the long-term collective benefit.
The naivety of this thinking is more than idle. It is a window into the structural nature of power and everything that is wrong with our political discourse today.
To understand that, let’s do a brief refresher on the nature of power in a liberal capitalist society.
The best way to understand power is still the Marxist base and superstructure model.
In Marxist theory, societies consist of two parts: the base (or substructure) and superstructure. The base refers to the mode of production which includes the forces and relations of production (e.g. employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations) into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. The superstructure refers to society’s other relationships and ideas not directly relating to production including its culture, institutions, roles, rituals, religion, media, and state. The relation of the two parts is not strictly unidirectional. The superstructure can affect the base. However, the influence of the base is predominant.
In short, if you want to change anything, you must address the base, the forces of production, not the superstructure. Gender is superstructure.
Which is why we are seeing the rise of women changing nothing.
It has already happened across many of our economic institutions—ASIC, RBA, PC, DoF, state politics—and it has made no difference whatsoever.
If anything, it has made matters worse because the assumption that women do make a difference, if only by their presence being numerically fairer, covers up that they are making none at all.
This is what MB calls feminising the subject. It is the favourite trick of some of the most egregious forces of production in the country to distract from what they are really doing, which is marauding across the national interest.
This is why I despair when I read articles such as the one below.
By week’s end, the Liberal Party in Australia’s two largest states and at the federal level could be led by women. As of Tuesday evening, NSW was the only domino left to fall.
That outcome would be historic. It would represent a major shift away from the pale, male and stale image that has dogged the party for years and left it on the political fringes.
Yet, if Kellie Sloane replaces Mark Speakman as NSW Liberal leader later this week, she, like Jess Wilson—who became Victorian Liberal Leader on Tuesday—and Sussan Ley in Canberra, will inherit a party if not in outright crisis, certainly teetering on the edge.
Women also lead the two outlier parties of the Greens and One Nation. Does any of it make a difference to anything? Yes, it will probably help get the LNP elected.
But that’s the problem. It won’t actually change anything. It won’t address real power, which, in Australia, only means two things.
First, it will not address the class war of mass immigration favoured by banks. Already, despite great rhetoric, nobody is actually preparing to cut immigration much, if at all. To end the immigration class war, we need net-zero migrants. Instead, the forces of financial production are campaigning for endless population growth.
In relatively gentle questioning from Liberal MP Simon Kennedy about the interaction between migration and house prices and the nation’s infrastructure needs, Comyn volunteered his opinion that “something in the order of 180,000 per annum” was the right number of migrants.
“It gives both the Commonwealth and states the ability to plan for critical infrastructure, including housing,” he added.
The only problem, realised by those listening to Comyn’s testimony, is that Australia’s permanent migration intake has been around the 185,000 mark for the past couple of years. A cut of 5000 would be almost imperceptible. Cutting NOM to 180,000 would be a massive deal with major economic repercussions.
As we know, cutting NOM to 180,000 would not be cutting it at all. That Nine/Domain misrepresents this as a radical cut tells you all you need to know about who has the power here.
Second, more women will not address the power and distortions of mining. We have a female resources minister today, and she has proven every bit as corrupt as her male predecessors.
The area of the resources portfolio that matters most ebbs and flows, but it is always in control. For the past decade, the critical issue has been the hollowing out of the gas cartel. Are any female leaders making a difference on this? Don’t make me laugh.
Australia’s leadership caste of women is as groomed by capital as the blokes.
Only revolution will change Australia, and it does not wear a skirt.
