I never thought I would see the day where a prominent figure of social and political commentary would stoop to advocating a Nazi solution "Gleichschaltung” to the issues facing the democratic process in Aotearoa today. (yes Mr Trotter I'm deliberately using the 'woke' name for our country, just to elicit a knee jerk reaction from you) I would have thought that the 4th Labour governments brilliant adaptation of this philosophy under Douglas and Prebble was a lesson no government should ever be allowed to repeat, either of the left or the right.
It's revealing that your treatise today relies not so much on offering an alternative to neoliberalism, rather the bagging of those most vulnerable in our society that have suffered intergenerational economic exclusion to a place at the table of the spoils of rampant neoliberalism. Your rubbishing of an inclusive society with vicious barbs concerning a leftist attempt at pluralism further reveals a rather surprising celebration of both The ACT Party and New Zealand First's attempts to paint anything that deviates from a homogeneous White, male, Eurocentric hegemony as 'woke' nonsense.
"Jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you're trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them." Noam Chomsky.
Just how insecure are you when you contemplate how far this country needs to travel in order to arrive at a 'spirit level' of social and economic justice? If you really believe that the current plan of this triumvirate to,
– to take back their country from the wealthy and the woke – is either an accurate analysis of their plans, or achievable, you must surely have completely lost your marbles! Or are you really, merely yet another quizzing doing the bidding of a corporate reality.
"The media propagates a message that corporations want, and there’s a belittling and mocking of the poor and celebration of wealth." Chris Hedges
Instead of having a 'bob either way' in your writings Chris why don't you reveal what you really stand for. If it's a world where everyone is valued for their contributions, their differences their beliefs and aspirations then writing negatively about people who live under the aspirations of words on a 'rat eaten parchment', 'wokism', or describing the disempowered as 'stupid' is counterproductive. If however you agree that the country has gone to the dogs at the hands of these 'woke, stupid' people, then say so. If you're not prepared to be part of a solution you most certainly are part of the problem!
"Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what Orwell called the official truth. They simply cipher and transmit lies. It really grieves me that so many of my fellow journalists can be so manipulated that they become really what the French describe as functionaires, functionaries, not journalists." John Pilger
My, but you're an angry man, Mike, and long ago I learned that arguing with angry men is pointless - plus you run the risk of getting punched in the face. So, I'll leave you to hurl your thunderbolts in righteous solitude. I will concede, however, that they are very good thunderbolts - lovingly crafted. You clearly have a gift for polemic.
Perhaps you meant Quisling; that Chris is a "traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy" - a fifth columnist for the dreaded "corporations"?
What the hell is happening to political discourse?
There is (was?) a regular contributor to Chris's Bowalley Road blogsite that I had many unpleasant interactions with; she was of a "progressive" persuasion so we disagreed on a lot of things. That's OK with me but what that meant for her, however, was that I must, inevitably be not only an idiot (or eejit) but morally beyond the pale. I don't think my views could reasonably be described as sufficiently extreme or "Far Right" to warrant such a toxic overreaction. It's increasingly common, it's not for the good, it doesn't impress or convince anyone, it comes across as emotional, childish and tribal.
Hi Mike. Can you please make sure that any comments you make on this Substack are fair, accurate and in good faith. I have a policy of not allowing misinformation or overly-vociferous personal attacks. I don't want this Substack to become toxic, which will just marginalise/suppress debate and discussion. So can you re-read your above comments and check that there's nothing you want to change in it? You do have your own Substack platform that you can make your points in if you feel this is unfair. Cheers - Bryce
Labour bought us to economic chaos due to their wasteful left wing spending policies. Labour bought us to cultural chaos due to their left wing divisive, separatist policies. They didn't support a free market and burdened business with more red tape......
Clearly Chris you want full blown socialism or communism. Do tell me how many wonderfully successful socialist/communist countries are out there and let us know why they fail, why their people, especially those that stand against these regimes, suffer human rights abuses. Tell me why socialism has a 100% success rate at failing.
You can bag out our current system all you like but under socialism, the people end up worse off as do they under communism.......normally attributed at not only the greed of those at the top, but the large and ever increasing numbers of people who don't pull their weight in society which under these regimes, with the removal of any rewards for trying hard to improve yourself, removes the incentives to do so. All too often this leads to the country ending up broke and the people destitute and desperate to leave.
Neoliberalism hasn't caused anything, Labour has to own where we are today. If neoliberalism was such an issue can you explain why under a National (labour lite) government that trends show a falling rate of poverty, yet Labour government trends have the rate increasing?
Jarrod, come on! Everyone should now realise communism as we saw it in Russia and eastern Europe was nothing but a dictatorship. Neoliberalism has created inequality, the well-off have become the uber-rich. The 1% have become obscenely rich. We have in NZ a low-wage, low productivity economy, based around housing and land banking which helps to keep increasing the wealth of the rich and middle & low socioeconomic groups poorer.
You dislike the idea of social democracy because it allows for a better distribution of wealth and avoids the obscenity of massive concentration of wealth in the hands of the few & global business that avoid paying the tax it should.
We all use public services at some stage during our day. The colossal under investment in our infrastructure is caused by neoliberal policies. Chris Trotter is totally correct in his argument in this post.
In my 75 years, I grew up with Keynsian economic policy governments in the UK that help to create a reasonably fair society where home ownership, good education to University level and good public services were the norm.
Then I watched as Thatcher, Reagan and Rogernomics destroy that situation which gave us what we have today.
I defy anyone other than the rich & global businesses to prove that, as an ordinary citizen, we are better off with a neoliberal system.
The problem we have Tony is that the other systems have proven to be failures too and I agree that communism is a dictatorship by any other name...but the failures of those communist and socialist societies, in my opinion, revolves more around the failure to reward those who work harder and are more creative....that disincentivises people which results in lower productivity and in time they run out of money. State control of the means of production is the problem and the states inability to reward those that deserve it over those that they like. As society goes backwards these self serving governments tend to need to commit human rights abuses to remain in power......power isa like money and some people are addicted to it.
I'm all for supporting lifes genuine strugglers and there are many of them who will need the help of the state forever. I'm all for creating a society where home ownership is possible for the majority of working people (who are willing to make the sacrifices and good life choices to achieve that). What I am not for is creating a society where people choose whether they contribute or not. During the UBI trials in the 70's and 80's there was an average 11% reduction in workforce participation and shows when people have a choice some will choose the easiest path.
One of the challenges with society these days is that growing numbers of people from all demographics have an increased sense of entitlement and on the other side of the coin the ultra rich (billionaires) control too many things in our societies from being able to influence governments, the media and markets.
I'll point out to you that if it weren't for rogernomics the country would have gone broke. Society would have fallen apart.......everything would have needed to be sold for a pittance. I grew up under rogernomics and found that society improved and the government sold a lot of things that they were inefficient at running....things like power got cheaper....roading was fixed faster.
Sadly times have changed and things have got a lot worse in our society in general....from people accumulating too much wealth off the backs of the poor or working class to those who choose to wallow on welfare.
I challenge you to prove that there is a better system than the current one. I personally believe it to be the best of a bad bunch.
Jarrod, I think that we need to pull out a bit and look at the big picture. Maybe we should clear up some definitions such as “socialism” and communism” (often used incorrectly in the pejorative as a term of abuse).
“Communism” means many things, but it does not mean simply democratic-run state intervention in a capitalist economy. That is what we and most of the developed world have as a central system – all under a short spectrum between neo-liberalism and social democracy/state intervention which has elements of “socialism” (the social control of the economy) embedded.
“Communism” historically was defined as the wholesale collectivization of all private property and wealth.... in a Leninist state controlled by a central government. You must agree that that is a remote possibility with any NZ party!
And those states today who restrained themselves against the neoliberal tide of the 80’s -90’s, such as those in northern Europe consistently retain the highest level of productivity, social wellbeing, happiness and wealth standards. All have CGT and/or wealth taxes. (It’s not a coincidence that the media mostly ignored the fact that the IMF and OECD suggested that we install a CGT. It takes more money to increase productivity...and the wealthy have been hording it here)
That said Labour is still clearly the least of the 2 main parties of neoliberalism (slightly more spending and taxing) with the Greens taking over for the Alliance as the further left hope of breaking this cycle (as in Spain’s Sumar) of the race to the bottom. Mysteriously it is this party that Chris attacked the most during the last election. And if the jury’s still out on NZ First, then why did they join and prop up the most right-wing government in decades? They have ultra-neoliberal Taxpayer Union members now in their upper ranks while Winston is floundering. But here’s hoping that Winston pulls the plug in the next 2 years...or sooner.
Labour and National are far from right wing (nor do I want a true right wing party in NZ). National is little more than Labour lite in my opinion. They rarely reverse labour policies, only tweaking them. Business friendly doesn't equal right wing. Right leaning yes, but far from right wing.
The countries in scandanavia are not socialist. They are capitalist with a heart and their economies afford them the luxury of doing just that. What is more interesting, and I believe a key to their success is their education standards are high while successive governments have let NZ's slip into the abyss. Socialism and communism in their true form will always fail because they have to have reliance on the state to differing levels and control of the means of production. I do agree that true forms of communism are unlikely to ever get a foothold in NZ.
A CGT is nothing more than a tax on inflation unless that is taken into account, and I agree the balance isn't right but at both ends of the scale. There are hundreds of thousands of people that (in a net sense) pay no tax. A CGT will ensure those ultra rich stay ultra rich and the middle class fades away. Making the tax system fairer by making everyone poor is not a great option.
The economies of most countries above us with higher spending per person have far different economies that are not reliant on farming, food, dairy, beverage, and logs for the majority of their exports and our economy is far smaller, we are more remote.....spending comparisons can be made but a direct comparison will only paint a selective picture without taking into account the many differences within each economy.
We saw how NZ has gone backwards under Labour both socially and economically and with the greens policies relying even more heavily on the artificial redistribution of wealth NZ would soon go broke. Sadly we don't have a true Green party in NZ because humans are ruining the planet and if you want evidence that the greens aren't green then explain to me why they removed their population control policies many years ago.
Chris: "So far, the National-Act-NZ First coalition government has failed to do any of these things. That’s why it’s losing."
The latest Curia poll shows the coalition pretty much the same as on election night with 52.2% of the decided vote (66 seats) against 43.3% for the Lab/Green/Maori (56 seats in parliament). Labour and Greens appear to have swapped a bit of support but otherwise nothing to get excited about - or prompt a change of direction from what was promised to the voters.
That is a mixed-up assessment of us now. I thought the last Labour govt was lazzes-faire, just look at education. And arent our biggest problems economic ones, caused by all that money printing creating a cost of living crisis ? The Legacy Media are anti-govt, but the govt cant easily intervene.
Chris makes a good point, neo-liberalism has failed to deliver. There have been so.e positive changes since 1984, but it New Zealand has only continued it steady decline as a first world nation.
I have often wondered if New Zealand is coming close to another turning point, a shift back to the political left. The last two governments have been incrementalist - only making tweaks to legislation to maintain public support.
We have been badly let down by Labour and National and we should be thinking objectively about the challenges facing New Zealand, and preparing to build a vetter nation.
I very much doubt the tax cuts will be cut. It's too late. The crunch for the Coalition is the impossibility of running a country with the public service arrayed against you. The media is one thing. If they don't change they will go bankrupt. People don't like doctored news. But conservative replacements are needed in the main ministries if new policies are to fire.
Chris is right, neoliberal economics has failed. Will it need a far greater disaster than 2010 before we fashion a responsible conservatism?
I never thought I would see the day where a prominent figure of social and political commentary would stoop to advocating a Nazi solution "Gleichschaltung” to the issues facing the democratic process in Aotearoa today. (yes Mr Trotter I'm deliberately using the 'woke' name for our country, just to elicit a knee jerk reaction from you) I would have thought that the 4th Labour governments brilliant adaptation of this philosophy under Douglas and Prebble was a lesson no government should ever be allowed to repeat, either of the left or the right.
It's revealing that your treatise today relies not so much on offering an alternative to neoliberalism, rather the bagging of those most vulnerable in our society that have suffered intergenerational economic exclusion to a place at the table of the spoils of rampant neoliberalism. Your rubbishing of an inclusive society with vicious barbs concerning a leftist attempt at pluralism further reveals a rather surprising celebration of both The ACT Party and New Zealand First's attempts to paint anything that deviates from a homogeneous White, male, Eurocentric hegemony as 'woke' nonsense.
"Jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you're trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them." Noam Chomsky.
Just how insecure are you when you contemplate how far this country needs to travel in order to arrive at a 'spirit level' of social and economic justice? If you really believe that the current plan of this triumvirate to,
– to take back their country from the wealthy and the woke – is either an accurate analysis of their plans, or achievable, you must surely have completely lost your marbles! Or are you really, merely yet another quizzing doing the bidding of a corporate reality.
"The media propagates a message that corporations want, and there’s a belittling and mocking of the poor and celebration of wealth." Chris Hedges
Instead of having a 'bob either way' in your writings Chris why don't you reveal what you really stand for. If it's a world where everyone is valued for their contributions, their differences their beliefs and aspirations then writing negatively about people who live under the aspirations of words on a 'rat eaten parchment', 'wokism', or describing the disempowered as 'stupid' is counterproductive. If however you agree that the country has gone to the dogs at the hands of these 'woke, stupid' people, then say so. If you're not prepared to be part of a solution you most certainly are part of the problem!
"Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what Orwell called the official truth. They simply cipher and transmit lies. It really grieves me that so many of my fellow journalists can be so manipulated that they become really what the French describe as functionaires, functionaries, not journalists." John Pilger
My, but you're an angry man, Mike, and long ago I learned that arguing with angry men is pointless - plus you run the risk of getting punched in the face. So, I'll leave you to hurl your thunderbolts in righteous solitude. I will concede, however, that they are very good thunderbolts - lovingly crafted. You clearly have a gift for polemic.
My riposte would be if you're not angry Chris you can't be paying attention. But I will not resort to threats of physical violence.
Quizzing?
Perhaps you meant Quisling; that Chris is a "traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy" - a fifth columnist for the dreaded "corporations"?
What the hell is happening to political discourse?
There is (was?) a regular contributor to Chris's Bowalley Road blogsite that I had many unpleasant interactions with; she was of a "progressive" persuasion so we disagreed on a lot of things. That's OK with me but what that meant for her, however, was that I must, inevitably be not only an idiot (or eejit) but morally beyond the pale. I don't think my views could reasonably be described as sufficiently extreme or "Far Right" to warrant such a toxic overreaction. It's increasingly common, it's not for the good, it doesn't impress or convince anyone, it comes across as emotional, childish and tribal.
Hi Mike. Can you please make sure that any comments you make on this Substack are fair, accurate and in good faith. I have a policy of not allowing misinformation or overly-vociferous personal attacks. I don't want this Substack to become toxic, which will just marginalise/suppress debate and discussion. So can you re-read your above comments and check that there's nothing you want to change in it? You do have your own Substack platform that you can make your points in if you feel this is unfair. Cheers - Bryce
I have direct messaged my reply Bryce
Labour bought us to economic chaos due to their wasteful left wing spending policies. Labour bought us to cultural chaos due to their left wing divisive, separatist policies. They didn't support a free market and burdened business with more red tape......
Clearly Chris you want full blown socialism or communism. Do tell me how many wonderfully successful socialist/communist countries are out there and let us know why they fail, why their people, especially those that stand against these regimes, suffer human rights abuses. Tell me why socialism has a 100% success rate at failing.
You can bag out our current system all you like but under socialism, the people end up worse off as do they under communism.......normally attributed at not only the greed of those at the top, but the large and ever increasing numbers of people who don't pull their weight in society which under these regimes, with the removal of any rewards for trying hard to improve yourself, removes the incentives to do so. All too often this leads to the country ending up broke and the people destitute and desperate to leave.
Neoliberalism hasn't caused anything, Labour has to own where we are today. If neoliberalism was such an issue can you explain why under a National (labour lite) government that trends show a falling rate of poverty, yet Labour government trends have the rate increasing?
Careful what you wish for Chris.
Jarrod, come on! Everyone should now realise communism as we saw it in Russia and eastern Europe was nothing but a dictatorship. Neoliberalism has created inequality, the well-off have become the uber-rich. The 1% have become obscenely rich. We have in NZ a low-wage, low productivity economy, based around housing and land banking which helps to keep increasing the wealth of the rich and middle & low socioeconomic groups poorer.
You dislike the idea of social democracy because it allows for a better distribution of wealth and avoids the obscenity of massive concentration of wealth in the hands of the few & global business that avoid paying the tax it should.
We all use public services at some stage during our day. The colossal under investment in our infrastructure is caused by neoliberal policies. Chris Trotter is totally correct in his argument in this post.
In my 75 years, I grew up with Keynsian economic policy governments in the UK that help to create a reasonably fair society where home ownership, good education to University level and good public services were the norm.
Then I watched as Thatcher, Reagan and Rogernomics destroy that situation which gave us what we have today.
I defy anyone other than the rich & global businesses to prove that, as an ordinary citizen, we are better off with a neoliberal system.
The problem we have Tony is that the other systems have proven to be failures too and I agree that communism is a dictatorship by any other name...but the failures of those communist and socialist societies, in my opinion, revolves more around the failure to reward those who work harder and are more creative....that disincentivises people which results in lower productivity and in time they run out of money. State control of the means of production is the problem and the states inability to reward those that deserve it over those that they like. As society goes backwards these self serving governments tend to need to commit human rights abuses to remain in power......power isa like money and some people are addicted to it.
I'm all for supporting lifes genuine strugglers and there are many of them who will need the help of the state forever. I'm all for creating a society where home ownership is possible for the majority of working people (who are willing to make the sacrifices and good life choices to achieve that). What I am not for is creating a society where people choose whether they contribute or not. During the UBI trials in the 70's and 80's there was an average 11% reduction in workforce participation and shows when people have a choice some will choose the easiest path.
One of the challenges with society these days is that growing numbers of people from all demographics have an increased sense of entitlement and on the other side of the coin the ultra rich (billionaires) control too many things in our societies from being able to influence governments, the media and markets.
I'll point out to you that if it weren't for rogernomics the country would have gone broke. Society would have fallen apart.......everything would have needed to be sold for a pittance. I grew up under rogernomics and found that society improved and the government sold a lot of things that they were inefficient at running....things like power got cheaper....roading was fixed faster.
Sadly times have changed and things have got a lot worse in our society in general....from people accumulating too much wealth off the backs of the poor or working class to those who choose to wallow on welfare.
I challenge you to prove that there is a better system than the current one. I personally believe it to be the best of a bad bunch.
Jarrod, I think that we need to pull out a bit and look at the big picture. Maybe we should clear up some definitions such as “socialism” and communism” (often used incorrectly in the pejorative as a term of abuse).
“Communism” means many things, but it does not mean simply democratic-run state intervention in a capitalist economy. That is what we and most of the developed world have as a central system – all under a short spectrum between neo-liberalism and social democracy/state intervention which has elements of “socialism” (the social control of the economy) embedded.
“Communism” historically was defined as the wholesale collectivization of all private property and wealth.... in a Leninist state controlled by a central government. You must agree that that is a remote possibility with any NZ party!
And those states today who restrained themselves against the neoliberal tide of the 80’s -90’s, such as those in northern Europe consistently retain the highest level of productivity, social wellbeing, happiness and wealth standards. All have CGT and/or wealth taxes. (It’s not a coincidence that the media mostly ignored the fact that the IMF and OECD suggested that we install a CGT. It takes more money to increase productivity...and the wealthy have been hording it here)
And all such nations have much higher rates of spending see per GDP see 2.22. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6c445a59-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6c445a59-en (we are still 25th in the world per GDP...and it shows!)
That said Labour is still clearly the least of the 2 main parties of neoliberalism (slightly more spending and taxing) with the Greens taking over for the Alliance as the further left hope of breaking this cycle (as in Spain’s Sumar) of the race to the bottom. Mysteriously it is this party that Chris attacked the most during the last election. And if the jury’s still out on NZ First, then why did they join and prop up the most right-wing government in decades? They have ultra-neoliberal Taxpayer Union members now in their upper ranks while Winston is floundering. But here’s hoping that Winston pulls the plug in the next 2 years...or sooner.
Labour and National are far from right wing (nor do I want a true right wing party in NZ). National is little more than Labour lite in my opinion. They rarely reverse labour policies, only tweaking them. Business friendly doesn't equal right wing. Right leaning yes, but far from right wing.
The countries in scandanavia are not socialist. They are capitalist with a heart and their economies afford them the luxury of doing just that. What is more interesting, and I believe a key to their success is their education standards are high while successive governments have let NZ's slip into the abyss. Socialism and communism in their true form will always fail because they have to have reliance on the state to differing levels and control of the means of production. I do agree that true forms of communism are unlikely to ever get a foothold in NZ.
A CGT is nothing more than a tax on inflation unless that is taken into account, and I agree the balance isn't right but at both ends of the scale. There are hundreds of thousands of people that (in a net sense) pay no tax. A CGT will ensure those ultra rich stay ultra rich and the middle class fades away. Making the tax system fairer by making everyone poor is not a great option.
The economies of most countries above us with higher spending per person have far different economies that are not reliant on farming, food, dairy, beverage, and logs for the majority of their exports and our economy is far smaller, we are more remote.....spending comparisons can be made but a direct comparison will only paint a selective picture without taking into account the many differences within each economy.
We saw how NZ has gone backwards under Labour both socially and economically and with the greens policies relying even more heavily on the artificial redistribution of wealth NZ would soon go broke. Sadly we don't have a true Green party in NZ because humans are ruining the planet and if you want evidence that the greens aren't green then explain to me why they removed their population control policies many years ago.
Chris: "So far, the National-Act-NZ First coalition government has failed to do any of these things. That’s why it’s losing."
The latest Curia poll shows the coalition pretty much the same as on election night with 52.2% of the decided vote (66 seats) against 43.3% for the Lab/Green/Maori (56 seats in parliament). Labour and Greens appear to have swapped a bit of support but otherwise nothing to get excited about - or prompt a change of direction from what was promised to the voters.
National 37.3% (+0.2)
Labour 30.0% (+4.3)
Green 10.2% (-4.4)
ACT 9.4% (+2.2)
NZ First 5.5% (-0.8)
Māori 3.1% (-1.5)
That is a mixed-up assessment of us now. I thought the last Labour govt was lazzes-faire, just look at education. And arent our biggest problems economic ones, caused by all that money printing creating a cost of living crisis ? The Legacy Media are anti-govt, but the govt cant easily intervene.
Chris makes a good point, neo-liberalism has failed to deliver. There have been so.e positive changes since 1984, but it New Zealand has only continued it steady decline as a first world nation.
I have often wondered if New Zealand is coming close to another turning point, a shift back to the political left. The last two governments have been incrementalist - only making tweaks to legislation to maintain public support.
We have been badly let down by Labour and National and we should be thinking objectively about the challenges facing New Zealand, and preparing to build a vetter nation.
Stirring stuff Chris! This will set the cat among the pidgeons!!
I very much doubt the tax cuts will be cut. It's too late. The crunch for the Coalition is the impossibility of running a country with the public service arrayed against you. The media is one thing. If they don't change they will go bankrupt. People don't like doctored news. But conservative replacements are needed in the main ministries if new policies are to fire.
Chris is right, neoliberal economics has failed. Will it need a far greater disaster than 2010 before we fashion a responsible conservatism?
Sadly Facebook wont let me share this post says its spam. Tried twice.