Totalitarian Communism Paper

“Australia’s descent into totalitarianism”

YEAR 11 MODERN HISTORY
SEMESTER 2 RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT
BY MICHAEL STUART
PRESENTED TO MR BUCKLAND

Rationale:
Being of a capitalist-libertarian viewpoint I am personally irked by the concepts of both communism and totalitarianism. Despite my strongly held (and what some would call radical) views on politics, welfare and firearm ownership I was reluctant to choose this topic. However, after much procrastination and apparently futile mind mapping I decided to continue with it. Once I had decided to persist with the topic, a hypothesis transpired quickly. “Under the right conditions and the wrong leader there is substantial evidence that Australia could have and can still fall into the mould of a totalitarian state.” Although my views were slightly altered during the research process; I found that my hypothetical statement was just as relevant towards the end of the task as at the beginning. While some, upon reading this will likely brand me as a conspiracy theorist; I believe that it is incredibly naïve to dismiss the notion that Australia (or any other Western nation for that matter) could become totalitarian.
In the mid to late stages of my research I happened upon the work of Jewish, Russo-American philosopher and author, Ayn Rand. Rand was an advocate of objectivism, individualism and minarchism (very skeletal government). Her story corroborates effectively with the objective of my report as she lived through the Russian revolution and various famines, emerging as an individualist and supporter of the free market. The fact that Rand lived through communism for a number of years makes her story and work primary sources and incredibly useful to my research. These quotes of hers encompass totally the objective of this report, “Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.” And “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
Rand was instrumental in the voicing of the theory that, “Just because most people want it doesn’t make it morally right.”(Paraphrased) She and I at very different stages of time both found that this was and is the major flaw of democracy. Did the fact that most Germans in 1939 wanted all Jews dead make it right? Equally, just because “most people wanted” a gun buyback and registration in Australia in 1996 does that make it morally acceptable? Of course not, and this is illustrated in the second quote.
In hindsight it was a rather unwise decision to choose this topic as there was little academic an unbiased information concerning it. I would have been much better off choosing a clichéd topic such as, “Stalin was bad for Russia” but my argumentative nature as well as a strong concern for the nation of Australia and my rights as an individual prevented me from doing so. I presume that the reason that there is so little academic discussion surrounding this topic is due to its being “politically incorrect” and also the hereditary dominance of socialism within academic institutions and the education system.
To conclude this rationale and to authenticate my argument I refer to two quotes from the well renowned Benjamin Franklin. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” And, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”

Research questions 1. What current and historical oppressive actions have been authorised by government? 2. How do the actions of contemporary Australian governments corroborate with those of Totalitarian socialist regimes? 3. How easy is it for a government to exercise total control over the people and do the people has the power to resist? 4. What is the likelihood of an oppressive regime emergimg?

Hypothesis development
The initial and succinct hypothesis, “Under the right conditions and the wrong leader there is substantial evidence that Australia could have and can still fall into the mould of a totalitarian state” remains just as relevant as when it was first devised. Regrettably, there was little unbiased evidence to support the hypothesis. By the same token, there was just as little objective evidence which would refute it. The presumed reason for this is that unlike other topics such as “The five year plans were disastrous” et cetera, the debate of personal freedom is still a burning issue today, therefore most resources concerning the topic are emotive responses from concerned individuals and very few if any are academic analyses . Hence, it would have proven futile to expand on the hypothesis (not enough supporting evidence) and equally as futile to alter it (insufficient refuting evidence).

Essay
Since the beginning of civilisation the ultimate goal of government has been to oppress the people within that society. The dictatorial figures expect the bourgeois (the few that exist) and proletariats alike to accept their social standing and unashamedly place themselves above the lower classes. It is ironic then that the majority of social idealists who pleading equality, always imagine themselves to be at the top of the government pile, refusing to live the nirvanic peasant life which they promote.
Communism and totalitarianism is more often than not affiliated with developing and third world countries; Agrarian nations that typically lag behind in in industry and economy. But with the rise of individuals “with a social conscience” and the GFC induced high unemployment it becomes increasingly likely that major western nations may descend into totalitarian communism. In recent times various national and provincial governments have made subtle changes to laws, slowly suffocating the notion of free thinkers in the name of political correctness and “the common good.”
Free speech is tantamount to personal freedom. However, to allow one the liberty of free speech whilst disallowing their means of “backing their statement up” is contradictory to say the least. Hence, Prime Minister John Howard’s disarmament of Australians in 1996 was a leap in the direction of totalitarianism in the sense that free speech exercising Australians could no longer back up their bark with their bite. In a matter of months the ratio of armed government employees to private citizens became overwhelmingly high. The forced registration of firearms essentially brought all “Weapons” under government control; giving every respective state government total control of that state’s private arsenal thus extinguishing any possible future uprising.
The above is relevant to communism in that all dictators, especially the leftist ones have a vested interest in the disarmament of their subjects. It goes without saying that the more poorly armed a people are; the more easily they can be oppressed. The infamous National Socialist leader of the third Reich stated "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939. Hitler then went on to exterminate seven million Jews; needless to say they were unarmed.
Prime Minister Robert Menzies was implicated in many totalitarian-esque movements, backing them and opposing them on different occasions. Menzies aided in the diffusion of the 1948 attempt by Labour to nationalise the banks. Ironically, Menzies’ most totalitarian act was the attempt to ban the Communist Party; disallowing free speech for those who would disallow free speech. However, “The proposed constitutional amendment was rejected by the voters under both requirements, winning the support of 49.44% of the national vote and being approved by only 3 states…” (Museum Of Australian Democracy online)

Joh Bjelke-Petersen on many occasions established himself as a totalitarian figure, often being equated with Adolf Hitler. The then premier of Queensland was able to implement restrictions on free speech by requiring permits for demonstrations held on public land. Bjelke-Petersen utilised the Queensland police service to diffuse many riots which had Queensland labelled by many as a police state. Furthermore, the former premier was said to have skewed votes in favour of rural and regional areas which was met with varying reactions. Conclusively, Bjelke-Petersen was a highly discussed and disputed premier for both commendable and controversial reasons.

John Howard was a detriment to the lives of free Australians for his entire term in office. Howard raised passions amongst Australian minorities like none preceding him. The then Prime Minister instigated a firearm buyback in 1996 after the allegedly fabricated Port Arthur massacre, wasting in excess of $1 billion Australian dollars on ineffectual legislation, money that would have been better spent on mental health. Not only did this buyback inconvenience farmers and hunters; it stripped law abiding citizens of their divine right to self-defence. Howard also aggravated indigenes throughout Australia with his refusal to apologise on behalf of the government for the stolen generations. Some claim that Howard was good for Australia’s economy; this however, pales in significance to the civil wrongs which he committed during his totalitarian reign of terror.

Australia, in its recent history has had the severe misfortune of experiencing at least three politicians of totalitarian “leadership” style. Howard, Bjelke-Petersen and Menzies all at different stages stripped or attempted to strip individual Australians and organisations of their individual rights to further their own ideals. The second half of the twentieth century was one of the most sombre periods in the history of free thinking and freedom living Australians and the horizon is exceedingly bleak.

References

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/economic/250699.htm http://candobetter.net/?q=node/2128 http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/law/billofrights http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_guns_less_murder http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/years/8bjelke.htm http://www.uq.edu.au/study/course.html?course_code=MGTS7617 http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-14_u-116_t-312_c-1054/the-attempt-to-outlaw-the-communist-party/nsw/the-attempt-to-outlaw-the-communist-party/australia-in-the-vietnam-war-era/australia-s-responses-to-the-threat-of-communism-domestic http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/82-Communist-Party-ban.pdf http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html http://www.hawkerc.act.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/62472/7a_Tertiary_-_Rationale_for_the_Creative_Response.pdf Reflection
After weeks of research I feel that I have learned much and challenged my own personal beliefs and ideas. While I accept that it is not likely that Australia will become totalitarian in the near future, we do need to have a deep enquiry into the direction in which we are travelling as a nation and be wary of the implications of surrendering personal freedoms and liberties for “The common good.”