Matt McCarten’s candidacy in the Mana by-election is one of the most promising developments on the New Zealand left for many years. Not only does this mean that the by-election just became much more interesting, McCarten’s campaign has much wider political ramifications – for example, it could be the launching pad for a new party to fill the gaping big hole on the left of the political spectrum in New Zealand. This blog post looks at why McCarten is standing in the election, whether he could actually win the seat, who might support him, and what it all means for Labour and the Greens. [Read more below]
The industrial dispute over the filming of the The Hobbit in New Zealand is a long way from reaching the status of seminal political events in New Zealand history such as the 1951 waterfront lockout or the 1981 anti-Springbok tour. But it’s certainly got some similarities. As with those highly important events that divided the country, the Labour Party has been highly pragmatic in its attempts to keep its distance lest any actions or statements of principle have any possibility of damaging its electoral popularity. So just as in 1951, when Labour Party leader Walter Nash declared that ‘We are not for the waterside workers, and we are not against them’, again in 2010 Labour is essentially saying the same thing, desperately avoiding having to take the side of the workers against the torrent of the campaign against them. [Read more below]
The previous blog posts in this series on inequality in New Zealand have sought to show and explain why economic inequality unfortunately does not matter in New Zealand politics and society – drawing attention to the decline of the political forces that would normally foster the idea that it matters. Yet although this trend has been strong for a decade or two, there are very real signs that it is being reversed in some significant but uneven ways. Throughout the western world there appears to be a resurgence of interest in, and concern about, economic inequality. This is examined in this fourth blog post (and final one derived from the draft paper (Download Why inequality doesn't matter) that I delivered to a interdisciplinary Workshop on Inequality at the University of Otago in June entitled ‘Why Economic Inequality Matters’. Future blog posts in this series will expand on some of the issues raised. [Read more below].
The political left has traditionally been defined by, more than anything else, its agenda for increasing economic equality. In all its different forms – social democracy, socialism, communism, Marxism, anarchism, trade unionism – the left has pursued a fight against economic inequality and in favour of systems whereby the wealth and income can be more fairly distributed. The different elements of the left might have had many differences over means and goals, but their one uniting factor has been this orientation towards basic economic inequality. This used to ensure that politics in democracies like New Zealand was intrinsically concerned with issues of economic inequality and distribution. Voters had a choice between parties, movements, ideologies that represented two different approaches to the distribution of material, and this kept issues of economic inequality on the political agenda in some form or another. The left-right dimension thus structured New Zealand parliamentary electoral politics. For fifty years New Zealand politics orientated to the basic socioeconomic cleavage in which Labour and National were in dynamic competition. This has obviously changed significantly, as this blog post will argue. The material in it is taken from a draft paper that I delivered to a interdisciplinary Workshop on Inequality at the University of Otago in June entitled ‘Why Economic Inequality Matters’, and it also draws on some previous blog posts. [Read more below]
Sadly, the final edition of The Independent came out last week. I’ve been reading this newspaper fairly regularly for the 18 years that it’s been published – primarily to read the latest political analysis of Chris Trotter (pictured on the right, in the 1980s). I’ve been variously outraged, inspired, informed and impressed by Trotter’s 1000-word essays on a weekly basis. So as a tribute to Trotter – which he possibly won’t appreciate – I’m reposting an old parody of one of his columns that I originally read back in 1996 (in Metro, I think). It nicely captures the more romantic and whimsical style of Trotter’s sometimes personal polemics. Also, check out Trotter’s excellent final column on his Bowalley Road blog, and also Jenni McManus’ farewell piece. [Read more below]
Do socialists fetishise class, thus ignoring other social divisions that exist under capitalism? And does a class analysis crudely reduce questions of gender inequality, homophobia and racism to questions of economics and capitalism? Or is a ‘social liberal’ approach more relevant, in that it takes up the causes of a range of marginalized groups in society? Guest blogger John Bernstein explores these questions, and offers an analysis that rejects both the crude economism of the traditional left and the politics of contemporary social liberalism. [Read more below]
Many commentators and leftists have struggled to reconcile the parallel development and dominance of neoliberal economic policies with the development and dominance of social liberalism and identity politics in New Zealand. Since the mid-1980s, governments of all hues have, on the one hand been economically rightwing, and on the other, relatively ‘progressive’ on social issues. For example, during the new-right reform period of the 1980s, feminists and gay campaigners were welcomed into the Establishment. And the current National regime has now embraced Maori nationalists. Yet these have not been distinct and unrelated developments. In contrast to the commonly held view that sees the coexistence of neoliberal economic, and socially liberal policies as a contradiction, this blog post attempts to highlight how policies such as biculturalism and neoliberal orthodoxies actually supplement each other. More broadly, the new liberal social agenda promoted initially by the Fourth Labour Government and state bureaucracies went hand in hand with neoliberal polices. [Read more below]
One of the most perplexing questions in the history of the left in New Zealand has been: Why was it a Labour Party that implemented the radical anti-worker neoliberal reforms? What’s more, why did the ‘left’ of the party allow the programme of Rogernomics to be implemented? The answer is partly that the Labour ‘left’ was so surprisingly tolerant towards the economic programme of the government due to the political backgrounds of the now dominant social liberal element in the party organisation. Their experience within the new social movements had taught the ‘new left’ in the Labour Party to concern itself with identity politics rather than class politics. [Read more below]
An examination of the history of left politics in New Zealand since the 1960s shows how liberal identity politics has actually aided the forces of the right in carrying out and maintaining the neoliberal project. This has occurred in various ways. At one level on the left there has simply been a shift since the late 1960s whereby a focus on economics and inequality has been jettisoned in favour of a concentration on identity politics. In terms of all forms of social change, electoral activity, and protest activism, the priority has thus been in pushing for social change on non-economic issues. This blog post argues that this has meant a transformation from social liberalism into neoliberalism. [Read more below]
Increasingly the debates around New Zealand politics – especially relating to the left – feature concepts such as ‘identity politics’ and ‘social liberalism’. These terms are especially useful for understanding the history of Labour Party over the last thirty years, as well as for understanding the internal fights going on in the contemporary left. But just what is social liberalism and identity politics? This blog post argues that identity politics arose out of the rightwing of the new social movements that developed on the New Zealand left from the late 1960s. As liberation struggles developed around important issues relating to gender, sexuality and ethnicity, leftwing and class-based approaches to understanding and fighting for social equality were sidelined in favour of this more conservative approach. [Read more below]
Phil Goff’s recent controversial speech, criticising the Maori and National parties, has been misread as a shift to the right. As explained in this blog series about ‘identity politics vs class politics’, Goff’s speech was in fact the opposite – actually quite a left-turn. This particular blog post contextualises the speech in terms of other important recent left maneuvers made by Labour and Goff. The significance and reasons for these shifts is evaluated and explained. This left shift needs to be taken seriously, and it asks for a critical reevaluation of the Labour Party and its divisions. [Read more below]
Much of the left and liberal reaction to Goff’s speech has been to condemn Goff on the basis that he’s simply being opportunistic in his leftish attack on the Maori and National parties. This is – to some degree – a very fair criticism because, yes, of course Phil Goff is an innately opportunist politician, and because his newfound leftish critique of such issues jar against Goff’s own political history. But how much does such a charge of opportunism actually matter in evaluating Goff’s ‘left-turn’? This blog post discusses the salience of the charge and argues that although it means that Goff isn’t to be trusted in his newfound leftism, it’s no reason in itself to dismiss the shift. [Read more below]
Phil Goff has been accused by many on both the left and right of ‘playing the race card’ with his recent speech attacking the Maori and National parties. For example, on the Pundit blogsite, Tim Watkin says Goff has veered ‘in an unwelcome new direction, playing the race card’ and that the speech ‘has the air of dog whistle racism’. Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has called Goff’s speech ‘morally indefensible’, ‘a crime’, ‘cheap racism’, and a ‘cynical attempt to whip up racism’. But such kneejerk reactions show that New Zealand liberals have largely misread the nature of Goff’s speech. Rather than playing the ‘race card’, Goff has, if anything, actually been playing the ‘class card’. [Read more below]
Phil Goff has recently challenged issues that are at the core of socially liberal politics in New Zealand. The Labour Party leader has been asserting a more class-oriented and leftwing version of politics, effectively seeking to shift Labour away from a core part of its project of the last three decade: liberal identity politics. The meaningfulness and authenticity of this shift can be questioned, but the intrinsic tilt to the left cannot. While the conventional media and blogosphere interpretation of Labour’s new direction is to label it as either ‘social conservative’ or ‘rightwing’, Goff’s repositioning is in fact nothing of the sort. It is actually a newfound expression of relatively leftwing positions on important issues. What’s more, the controversy over the speech has sparked an important and long overdue debate within the New Zealand left about what it means to be leftwing in 2009, and what the way forward is for those interested in fighting for a more equal and just society. It has made the left confront questions of how concepts such as ‘social liberalism’, ‘political correctness’, ‘post-materialism’, and ‘identity politics’ fit into the leftwing project, if indeed they do at all. Yet, much of this significant debate occurs in an incredibly murky and confused manner, mainly due to an inability to conceptualise the different elements at play. So, in an attempt to contribute to this discussion, this blog post introduces a whole series of posts discussing these issues. The series attempts to reframe the debate and the terms of the debate in a way that is hopefully useful. It argues that to understand what’s going on in the Labour Party, what Goff has recently pushed for, and indeed what’s happened to the Green Party, is not a case of social liberalism versus social conservatism; nor is it left versus right; but instead it’s liberalism versus leftism – or simply: identity politics versus class politics. [Read more below]
Sue Bradford's resignation from Parliament has been met by dismay or sadness from much of the New Zealand left. Although the Green Party has been shifting rightwards for a number of years, the extent of this shift has become much more apparent now, and it will continue to do so because Bradford’s departure will be followed by further resignations from what remains of a leftwing in the Greens. Guest blogger John Moore argues that one positive outcome of Bradford’s resignation would be a complete leftwing break with the Greens – this would allow the Greens’ intrinsic political nature as a centre-right force to be exposed. In the meantime, Moore argues, any left-progressives that choose to stay in the party will inevitably only damage themselves by acting as a cover for what is in reality a pro-capitalist party of the Establishment. [Read more below]
This year's Bruce Jesson Lecture will be given by Robert Wade (Professor of Political Economy at the London School of Economics) on "How to stop the money men from taking over the world (or, when will we face another September 2008)?" The publicity says the following about Wade and his talk: "Taking off from Bruce Jesson’s ‘Only Their Purpose is Mad: ‘The money men take over NZ’, Robert Wade discusses several reforms of the international monetary and financial system aimed at stabilising global financial markets and curbing the power of the financial sector. After considering the easy part -- ‘what should be done’ -- he goes on to discuss ‘what can be done’, nationally, regionally and globally. Professor Robert Wade is one of the world’s most prominent independent thinkers about the contemporary challenges facing the global economy. As professor of political economy at the London School of Economics, Wade espouses a heterdox approach to economics in contrast to the prevailing neoliberal / neoclassical paradigm. As an expatriate New Zealander he has continued to contribute to discussions on New Zealand’s economic direction, including in the context of the global economic crisis."
Wednesday 28 October, 6:30pm Maidment Theatre, Alfred St University of Auckland
There’s an important discussion going on over at the Kiwipolitico blog on the question of “Does New Zealand have Public Intellectuals?” This is a topic of great interest to me, and I argued recently in my Drinking Liberally talk on “What’s left in 2009 in New Zealand?” (and subsequently posted on my blog here) that the New Zealand left is currently at an extremely low point partly related to the fact that ‘there’s few leftwing intellectuals of any prominence’ anymore, which seemed to spark some interest and debate. As a contribution to the ongoing debate at Kiwipolitico (and now on Chris Trotter’s Bowalley Road blog here), I’ve republished my own review of the seminar 2008 book entitled Speaking Truth to Power, edited by Laurence Simmons. My review was published in early 2008 in the Political Science journal. At the time I also published extensive explorations of the various chapters of Speaking Truth to Power. Here are the links to the relevant blog posts on Bruce Jesson, Nicky Hager, Brian Easton, Jane Kelsey, Sandra Coney, Laurence Simmons, Michael King, Roger Horrocks, Belich, Waring and Walker, as well as my posts about Chris Trotter’s review of the book, and Mark Broatch’s Sunday Star Times book review. But my own review is below. [Read more below]
The Unite union has taken on the ambitious project of ending poverty wages by initiating a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum petition. Its campaign aims to achieve an immediate rise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour, leading eventually to it being pegged at two-thirds of the average wage. In this blog post, guest blogger John Moore – who is currently collecting signatures to help Unite obtain over 300,000 signatures within the next 12 months – examines both the merits and limits of Unite’s drive to fight poverty pay. He argues that although this campaign is worthy of support by unionised workers, leftists and the low paid, it unfortunately falls short of seriously countering the current crisis of working class living conditions in New Zealand. He proposes more radical demands. [Read more below]
The news that New Zealand artist and social commentator Chris Knox has suffered a serious stroke is incredibly sad to hear. As a sort of tribute to Knox, I thought I’d post the responses that he wrote to a political questionnaire that I asked him to fill in about 15 years ago for a leftwing magazine. The content is a bit dated now, of course, but gives a good idea as to the interesting politics of this important leftwing New Zealander. Although in recent years, Knox has been rather soft on the Labour Party, his answers to the questionnaire indicate a rather critical and politically sophisticated punk. [Read more below]
The formation of the NLP appeared to represent the beginning of a radical or left-orientated realignment in the New Zealand political landscape. Rather than being merely a product of Jim Anderton’s personal dissatisfaction with the course of the Fourth Labour Government — as the media tended to portray the NLP — the establishment of this new party represented the rejection of neoliberal economic policies by a section of traditional Labour voters, and elements of both the far-left and new social movements. [Read more below]
The rightward shift of the NewLabour Party (NLP) that — as I have described it in the previous blog posts, mirrored a similar evolution of the Labour Party — is closely linked to a shift in class orientation, which is a process that again mirrored Labour’s own. In the case of the NLP, the watershed point was the formation of the Alliance, a multi-class electoral coalition. Thus, policy evolution, to an important degree, reflects class orientation. [Read more below]
Just as in the 1980s, when some members of the New Zealand Labour Party resisted what they saw as the corruption Labour’s traditional ideals and the rightward transformation of the party under the parliamentary leadership of the Fourth Labour government, substantial numbers of NewLabour Party (NLP) members attempted to resist the NLP’s shift towards the right in the ideological spectrum. To do this they had to fight against the attempts to suppress dissent, and had to choose between tactics of 'voice' or 'exit'. [Read more below]
In the short history of the NewLabour Party (NLP) and Alliance, the conservative and rightward political developments were paralleled by comparative organisational tendencies towards oligarchy. During their short existence, both parties undoubtedly displayed a concentration and consolidation of power within the leadership, as the Anderton group came to dominate both. As one senior member of the NLP said about working inside the Alliance: ‘Its just like in the old Labour Party again. People get power and they want more of it’ (Interview). According to Robert Michels, the writer of Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, an influential book about the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the rightward drift of parties usually goes hand-in-hand with organisational tendencies towards an increasingly narrow distribution of internal political power. [Read more below]
Social democratic parties have traditionally occupied an ambiguous position in relation to the economic system. While maintaining various degrees of opposition to the consequences of capitalism, they agree to work within the framework of capitalism and bourgeois democratic institutions. Such ‘State socialists imply that although class conflict, economic crisis, exploitation and poverty are consequences of capitalism, they can be eliminated (through state action) while capital remains’ (Allen et al., 1978: p.24). Operating within this framework, such parties continually adjust to the constraints of that environment. [Read more below]
After the formation of the Alliance, the NewLabour Party’s (NLP) speed in policy moderation increased substantially. This was largely a result of two processes: first, the pressure applied by the other Alliance partners for the NLP to drop its own more radical policies, and second, the NLP’s desire to keep the coalition together, which inevitably meant compromising on its own policies. Furthermore, involvement in the Alliance now gave the Anderton group in the NLP more power and influence through uniting with their more conservative allies in the other Alliance parties against the NLP leftwing. [Read more below]
During the early formation period of the Alliance, public opinion polls gave the as-yet-unformed coalition percentage ratings in the mid-30s. These results were largely illusionary, as some sections of the public which were probably outside of the Alliance’s potential support-base simply flirted with the novelty of the new coalition. Yet it still indicated that the Alliance was likely to be a substantial political force in at least the short-term future. [Read more below]
The NewLabour Parry (NLP) was born out of a rejection of political expediency. The people who formed the party perceived the old Labour Party to have given up its social democratic principles and traditions and implemented policies for which it had no mandate. Therefore the early NLP party organisation placed a strong emphasis on the fact that it would not be tempted by the methods of expediency and that it would strongly guard its original principles. But Anderton and the NLP constituted a peculiar contradiction – they claimed to be principled; they rejected expediency, yet they also claimed to be pragmatic and attempted to reject an image of idealism and of being ideologues. [Read more below]
The Green Party contest for its next female co-leader is essentially an ideological decision between two candidates from the left and right factions of the party. Sue Bradford is undoubtedly the left option in the contest – which is partly why she won't be elected. As pointing out in the blog post on Meteria Turei, Sue Bradford is incredibly unlikely to win the contest for the Green Party female co-leader – mostly due to the fact that she is - for better or worse - very strongly associated with the so-called anti-smacking bill, an elitist style of process for pushing forward this social change, and has been typecast as a radical ‘extremist’. In fact, the decision of who to select to replace Jeanette Fitzsimons will effectively decide the ideological trajectory of the party over the foreseeable future. Bradford is the choice of those that are uncomfortable with the party's very deliberate shift towards the centre of the political spectrum under Fitzsimons and Russel Norman. This blog post takes a look at Sue Bradford's past, suggests that the left option in the Greens will lose and the party will hasten its shift not only towards greater independence from the Labour Party, but also towards the right. It also tries to unpack the history and politics of Bradford, attempting to get beyond some of the simplicities and myths projected about this unique but also rather ordinary politician [Read more below]
The establishment of the Alliance, was a major turning point for many of those who remained in the radical left faction of the NLP. While some of the radical left capitulated to the swell of enthusiasm for an Alliance, others were concerned with the opportunism which they perceived in the NLP’s involvement in the Alliance. After all, membership of the Alliance depended less on what a party stood for, than what it stood against. Hence all five Alliance parties stood for distinctly different politics when they joined, but claimed a commonality in what they opposed — neoliberal economic policy. [Read more below]
The formation of the Alliance in 1991 was a watershed in the NewLabour Party’s (NLP) development, especially in that all four of the party’s Alliance partners were considerably to the right of the NLP on most economic issues, and largely unsympathetic to the NLP’s strong ideological emphasis on working class interests. Thus the NLP’s semi-merger with the Greens, Democrats, Liberals and Mana Motuhake contributed to the NLP leadership’s rightward movement. Politically, this project led to a watering-down of the policy and principles that the NLP has worked for. Organisationally it led to the NLP, especially its branches, being subsumed into the larger Alliance structure. [Read more below]
Following the NewLabour Party’s (NLP) 1990 general election campaign, some type of post-election evaluation period was made inevitable by the rushed nature of the pre-election preparations and the less than hoped for election result. The party finally had real time to take stock and for some to take a broader view of the direction of the party as an organisation and a political force. The post-election period was therefore a time for members to consider some fundamentals of the party: structure, organisation, political and activist orientation, and the decision-making process. [Read more below]
The general election of 1990 was the first real test for the NewLabour Party (NLP). The existence of elections every three years serves to intensify the selection and refining of a party’s particular policies and political positions. The election acts to test these policies as well as the party’s organisation structure including its ability to mobilise activists for the event. Elections also reassert the importance of the party’s leadership, as they shift the emphasis to the idea of particular members of the party potentially becoming representatives in the national legislature. Furthermore, because elections test the success of the organisation, they automatically lead to some sort of internal party evaluation of the many decisions that were made prior to the election. This means that elections are often substantial turning points in the nature of political parties. This was certainly the case with the NLP. [Read more below]
Parliamentary participation tends to require parties of the working class to seek electoral support outside a narrow definition of what might be seen as the working class. And, as can be seen in the evolution of the NewLabour Party (NLP), the compromises needed to gain this wide support had the effect of weakening the party’s original ideology. As the NLP moved beyond an attempt to appeal primarily to working people, its stated ideology and policies have shifted correspondingly. [Read more below]
Initially the NewLabour Party (NLP) membership voted against a purely parliamentary focus for the party. The 1989 Constitution stated that the objectives of the NLP ‘may include education, activity and organisation at all levels of New Zealand Society, not restricted to political electioneering’ (NLP, 1989: p.2). The NLP thus decided on a strategy that sought to put emphasis both on winning seats in Parliament and mobilising community fight-backs against the attacks on working people. As National Councillor Laila Harre contended, ‘It would be opportunist to expect people to elect you to Parliament if you’re not doing work in the community’ (quoted in CPNZ, 1991a: p.17). [Read more below]
The pre-election exigencies that acted to centralise the NewLabour Party's (NLP) organisational structure served also to make the party’s policymaking process a less than democratic and thorough affair. As a result, the early policymaking process acted as a crude filter on the diversity of perspectives within the organisation. Economic policy, in particular, was rather conservative as a result, with an essentially middle-of-the-road Keynesian approach adopted [Read more below]
On being formed in 1989, the NewLabour Party (NLP) adopted an organisational structure very similar to that of the old Labour Party. It had policy commissions, party branches, electorate councils, district councils, a National Council, a National Executive, and the usual positions within this (such as leader, president, vice president, general secretary). In a sense, organisational forms and routines perfected in the old Labour Party to ensure centralised control were used as armatures to give shape and organisational form to the NLP. The influence of this established labour organisation, which had evolved over three-quarters of a century, meant that the NLP was born with a more top-down party organisational structure than might otherwise have been the case. [Read more below]
In the history of the NewLabour Pary (NLP) – which this series of blog posts is covering - the question of whether the NLP would simply constitute just ‘another Labour Party’ was clearly intertwined with the struggle inside the party over its adoption of a particular ideology. The NLP was being pulled in two directions. On one side were those who wanted to re-create the NLP in the image of the old Labour Party, with its parliamentary bias, and generally Keynesianist economic approach. On the other were those in the radical left and social liberals who wanted a party concerned with bringing about more fundamental social change, or even some form of ‘socialism’. [Read more below]
As well as the revolutionary-reformist divide within the NewLabour Party (NLP) discussed in previous blog posts in this series on the history of the NLP, there were other axis-lines of significant political conflict in the early organisation. Many social liberals were strongly represented at the founding conference, and were involved in several important early debates over party policy (especially about environmental and gender issues). Most significant was the involvement of activists from the women’s movement. According to Alison McCulloch, an observer at the first conference, ‘Feminists at the conference were one of the most united groups’ (McCulloch, 1989: p.13). [Read more below]
The incompatibility of the three factions detailed in the previous blog posts proved too great to allow their coexistence, and the first eighteen months of the NewLabour Party (NLP) saw the far-left groups expelled, marginalised, or dissolved fully into the organisation. The Communist Left organisation was the first to be purged, after they made clear their intention to attempt to split the party. There was some debate and dissension from party members over the expulsion (Boyle, 1989), but no one outside the Communist Left appeared to be willing to support their somewhat inept tactical manoeuvres inside the NLP. However, the expulsion of the Permanent Revolution Group (PRG) in April 1990 for unspecified acts of disruption and for unspecified incompatibility with the NLP constitutional principles and objectives was not so clear-cut and uncontentious. The PRG’s expulsion provides an interesting example of the political process of the NLP National Executive and also of the tensions inside of the organisation. [Read more below]
The
existence of these three broad groups of the ‘labourites’, the ‘social
liberals’, and the ‘radical left’ inside the organisation (detailed in
the previous blog post),
did not mean that all party members were either in one or another, but
that they constituted broad divisions within the organisation. So these
groups were by no means mutually exclusive — there were some overlaps
in terms of membership of these groups. For example, there were, of
course, many ex-radical left members moving in a rightward direction.
Keith Locke (pictured on the right), for instance would probably be
better described as a member of the social liberals despite his former
membership of the Socialist Action League (SAL). [Read more below]
While it might sometimes appear that the Drinking Liberally political project has been hijacked in New Zealand by the Labour and Green parties for their own partisan purposes, it doesn’t have to be that way. In Dunedin we’re lucky enough to be starting our branch of the project (Tuesday 7pm, Velvet Underground), and hopefully we can be sure not to let its potential be siphoned off by politicians for their blatant permanent electioneering. If the project is to survive as a credible and useful project for the left, it needs to be protected from such partisan abuse and top down elitist speech making from MPs and party hacks. After all the Drinking Liberally project imported from the US is a potentially exciting development for politics in New Zealand – or at least for the small politerrati involved in activism, blogging, etc – as well as also for the search for new ways of ‘doing politics’. Yet there are a number of significant problems with the project – many relating to the highly contested definition of the term ‘liberal’. [Read more below]
Thirty staunch leftists gathered outside the Government’s Jobs Summit on Friday in Manukau, South Auckland. In the face of the growing recession they had come to chant on behalf of the working class that ‘We won’t pay for your crisis!’. In his latest From the Left column (‘New Zealand not ready for Irish anger – yet’) Chris Trotter draws attention to the very different protests being held against neoliberal recession in the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy of Ireland – where the numbers involved are somewhat larger: ‘an impressive 100,000 demonstrators marched through Dublin’s fair city to vent their anger at the centre-right’. Trotter points out the very different nature of the working class mood in the two comparative countries, and suggests that the slogan most likely to resonate with New Zealand workers at the moment is actually ‘We are all in this boat together’. A number of other interesting left commentaries on the Jobs Summit can also be found on the blogosphere. [Read more below].
Whatever happened to student protest? This is the question asked in the latest edition of the University of Otago Magazine (‘A magazine for alumni and friends of the University of Otago’). Although there’s still occasional protest on campus, the article points out that these only tend to be about ‘student issues’ by ‘groups interested purely in their bank balances or banned substances’ and wider political issues are no longer up for challenge or championing. The last big ‘wider issue’ protests on campus were back in 1981 against the Springbok tour. It seems that while university students used to be in the forefront of demanding radical social change, they appear to be are increasingly conservative or apathetic. This blog post gives further details of the Otago Magazine article, and draws on a previous blog post on The rise of the young fogiesto argue that amongst explanations for the depoliticisation of students, the dire state of the New Zealand left should play a big part. Any reluctance by students to be swept up in any cause should be situated in the general death of radical and anti-establishment politics. So while it might seem that the problem of student apathy and conservatism is partly due to an increase in selfishness and shallowness in youth, the left really need to take some of the blame for killing of the political passion of youth. [Read more below]
Chris Trotter writes his recent weekly syndicated newspaper column about the socialist left's approach to National's election win. Those on the left that aren't used to Trotter's provocations would be best not to read any further, as they might find themselves rather outraged. As usual, when Trotter deals with anything to the left of Labour, he is rather provocative. The picture he paints of the socialist left is rather inaccurate and based on the outdated idea - if indeed it was ever true - that socialists prefer to see rightwing political parties in power because by their more blatant anti-worker programme of government they bring about some sort of "heightened contradictions" through their intensified class oppression. Yet rather than wishing for any sort of “heightened contradictions” under National, the socialist left are probably thinking to themselves: 'It's better to have National stabbing you in the front than to have Labour stabbing you in the back’ [Read more below]
In terms of covert police surveillance of civil society and its political participation, the New Zealand left often displays extremes of either naivety or paranoia, and unfortunately little in between. In the contemporary case of "leftwing activist" police informant Rob Gilchrist, the left appears to have been incredibly naive. [Read more below]
There’s been very little insightful or interesting analysis of the New Zealand general election results from the left of the political spectrum. This is partly because much of the left is so strongly tied to either the Labour Party or the Greens – both losers in the election. However, John Braddock’s socialist analysis is fairly solid. Writing on the World Socialist Website, Braddock’s article Labour government dumped in New Zealand elections is a hard-hitting explanation of Labour’s loss, which he explains as a clear ‘clear repudiation of Labour and its pro-business orientation by significant layers of the working class’. [Read more below]
Chris Trotter is returning to form. After the death of his strangely beloved ‘social democratic’ Labour Government, he’s been in a much more reflective and insightful mood (rather than his previous phase of agit-prop defence of ‘lesser evilism’). In this week’s Independent Financial Review column he reflects on the political degeneration of what currently passes for social democracy. He shows how the Labour Party – and the much of the wider left in NZ politics – has a deeply problematic relationship with the New Zealand working class. Essentially Labour now sees workers as victims to manage rather than as a positive political force with the tremendous potential to change society. [Read more below]
An increasing array of socialists, anarchists and anti-capitalists are turning to the Green Party as the choice in the coming general election. Guest blogger John Moore argues that these leftists are either being naive or acting to deceive. He suggests that the old New Left ‘tripod’ approach of trying to combine the issues of class, race and gender have now been extended to a ‘quadpod’ approach that includes environmentalism as also having equal status in the broader leftwing struggle. [Read more below]
New Zealand society is increasingly made up of atomised individuals who are disinclined to participate in public life and politics, and when they actually do participate, they do so more as individuals than as members of groups. Third parties from business groups, to trade unions, through to the Freemasons and the Countrywomen’s Institute – as well as environmental and socialist groups – have been in significant decline. This blog post details the decline of such societal organisations in NZ. [Read more below]
The rise and fall of the Alliance party (and the continuation of Jim Anderton’s solo party in Parliament) presents some interesting examples of the weak relationships that modern minor political parties have with third parties. [Read more below]
