“There was no-one like Laurie.” Last Thursday morning that refrain bounced off the concrete walls of the Nursing Federation union’s headquarters auditorium in Melbourne, as a few hundred people gathered to farewell Laurie Carmichael. Laurie Carmichael! Some readers will say. Was he still alive? Yes, to the age of 93, and fully compos pretty much to the end.
That old Broadway hit “The impossible dream” played at one point in the proceedings. Laurie like Mahler; this tune has the complexity of “Shaddap You Face”. Nevertheless, the story of a questing night, out of time works; Laurie’s name comes out of the past like the personnel of a medieval chronicle, of ancient battles in blurred crusades. The official record has him as the perpetual state or assistant secretary of the Metal Workers Union, but try and remember any general secretary from the time.
Ironically, we raised Laurie’s memory on high at an event with the sort of milkmans’ picnic level of intensity that used to drive him wild about the Australian union movement. Perhaps the heartfelt half-arsedness was in service of reminding us how singular he was.
From the 1950s onwards, Laurie Carmichael was driven by one big idea, manifested in many ways: that Australian labour could not simply bargain for “more” – as the US labour leader Samuel Gompers put it when asked what the working class wanted – but had to transform the conditions of life and society to create better jobs, better conditions, better lives.
So Bill Kelty, Sally McManus, Doug Cameron, son Laurie Jnr, and fleetingly, Billy Bob Shorten, gave the roll-call of his achievements: a radical from his teens, joining the Eureka Communist Youth League – initially because it gave him access to classical music, his lifelong passion – and then part of the militant push within Australian trade unionism in the ’50s.
From the ’60s onwards Carmichael was fighting the profound conservatism that ran through much of Australian labourism: the idea, more Methodist than Marxist, that workers should aspire to modest class-bound lives, be suspicious of higher education or any disruption of the “proper” boss-worker order of things. There was, in that sense, very few like Laurie. He grasped also that the Australian system, from Harvester onwards, had sequestered workers in demarcated trades, concretised and particular, a state form of class decomposition. His major achievements – never done alone, though you wouldn’t have thought that from the eulogies – were the push to campaign for cross-sector bargaining, for leave and conditions, then the ACTU-Labor Accord, then Australia Reconstructed and the “social wage”.
In the role he played in bringing these together, cementing a strategy that not only ensured Labor’s 1983 victory, but stability of government, and a series of succeeding structural changes – superannuation among them – Laurie Carmichael could lay claim to being the most influential Australian of the last half-century or so. For quite simply, the texture, the character of millions, of most, Australian working lives, in comparison to their Anglosphere counterparts, is distinctive due to such things.
For better and worse, but for the moment consider that the baseline 38-hour week, the integration of training and work, the widened scope of what is considered to be the purview of industrial relations – widespread unfair dismissal provisions, expanded ideas of leave – etc, and much more simply do not exist in the UK and the US in the way they do here. “He changed us, he changed the movement, then he changed the country,” said Bill Kelty, in an eloquent flourish, before his speech went into unpaid overtime.
In thus eulogising him, the Laboristas present had to deal with an inconvenient fact: Laurie was never one of them. He was a Communist from the mid-1940s and he never ceased being one; he was still a member when the CPA dissolved in 1991. His creative transformation of the Australian labour movement could only have been done from a Communist perspective. Whatever the radicalism of the Australian movement around the time of the 1907 Harvester judgment – which had Europe debating “the Australian system” until World War I started – it had long since run down by 1950s. Communism – with its dual conception of workers as both an oppressed class, and those who could bring full humanity to bear – was necessary to the expanded conception of what working life could be now. Whether those bold leaps were, for the country and its people, a bulwark against the worst, or a disaster which ushered in neoliberalism is something I’ll consider at a later date.
For the moment it’s worth remarking the paradox: the life of “no one like Laurie”, a committed Marxist, tends to reinforce the Great Man/Woman theory of history, that a single, or a few figures, can change whole movements, classes, nations. It’s no coincidence, as we folks say, that he joined the Communist Youth League for the music, for the grand romantic symphonies and operas he couldn’t get enough of. For these musical works, the thousand-strong symphonies and chorals, are utopias of form, a way of imagining how things could be otherwise, scrubbed of religion, rooted in the human capacity to soar. From such heavens descend dreams of possibility; the great question of the era is how far they fall.
Farewell comrade Laurie. Ya done good son.
“For quite simply, the texture, the character of millions, of most, Australian working lives, in comparison to their Anglosphere counterparts, is distinctive due to such things.”
Yes, lest we forget. And Carmichael was essential. Someone had to be imagining the practical ways in which more than just “more” could be achieved. And I agree, HIS communism enabled him to do this imagining. But I wouldn’t have been surprised if you had told us he was raised a Methodist. Something about the demeanour. I AM surprised by the classical music, until you indicate its vision-sustaining role.
Nevertheless, perhaps the great man “paradox” is only a paradox “for the moment” of his death. Many things and many people had to come together in the 80s to enable that government, that cabinet of giants (from today’s perspective), the two-way cooperation with industrial labour, and the resulting achievements.
Were they positive achievements? I think so, but I very much look forward to your “bulwark-v-disaster” discussion at a later date. Particularly Keatings’ role and effect, but wherever it takes you.
Hadn’t heard of him, bit before my time. Seems I should read up on him. Anyone got any recommendations of writing by him or about him?
Draco, I googled on reading your question and this interview in the Australian Left Review looks like a good starting point.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://au.search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2883&context=alr
Takes me back to the times. For example the stuff about education. As a TAFE worker, in that decade I felt incredibly connected to a national effort to transform the economy and working conditions through skill formation and so on. You’ll see stuff about trade and balance of payments. I remember the courses we ran to re-train textile workers whose tariff protection was dismantled. You felt directly connected to the ideas of people like Carmichael and Kelty
I remember speaking for the super initiatives in union meetings, with the boards mandating union reps, because of the prospect of worker influence over capital formation. The original proposal was for a majority of union reps on the boards! Oh the innocence! But at least now the industry funds are the best performers for members.
Hope its not too dry. The exchange is in fact quite spirited, reflecting the compromises Carmichael was making and the left debates of the time.
Thank you, mate.
Worth checking out track. One of those not quite leader of the party/ union guys who influenced everyone else’s thinking. Jack Mundey was a similar kind. Green bans decade before the green movement began. Need their likes now.
Draco, not track. Damn spell check
Sounds like the sort of person that modern society/culture sadly no longer values, a quiet achiever motivated by concern for others and improving the status quo.
Well done on writing this piece Guy.
Unfortunately, there is a paucity of material and writing about people like Carmichael and others such as his protege John Halfpenny and Neville Hill (who mentored hundreds of union activists). They were intellectual giants of the union movement, big picture internationalists, who were responsible for inspiring thousands of working people to agitate for and secure improvements in their lives. It beggars belief that they have not been written about more widely.
It is not a widely acknowledged fact that communists – though small in number – had great influence and made valuable contributions to the Australian union movement through their leadership on industrial and political issues. It was a loathing of Carmichael’s political beliefs that spurned Bob Santamaria to label him as ‘evil’ because he went against hostile governments, broke laws and ignored a partisan press to advance the interests of working people not just here in Australia, but around the world.
Sally McManus pointed out that Carmichael’s achievements were made against great odds. Perhaps greater than those facing unionists today.
“a paucity of material and writing about people like Carmichael and others such as his protege John Halfpenny and Neville Hill”
Some great PhD topics here, while contemporaries are still around.