I don't think Trump and Musk and their team are dictators. The real dictators are the likes of Jack Dorsey (former CEO of Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg and some of the private owners of major media outlets. Musk's greatest achievment is allowing free speech to prevail. The beneficiaries of the anti-capitalist movements are the likes of Greta Thunberg, Patrice Coulors (BLM) and others who seem to live just like the old time Soviet leadership - very much like wealthy capitalists - while the masses pay for it and without. Capitalism lets anyone rise up to be great. The socialism of the left decides who can rise up. Give me Trump and his team over the others any day.
You need to define liberal. The proper definiton is not a raving socialist loony but someone who says that you are free to run your own life as you see fit; you are also free to experiences the effects/ consequences of those choices. So yeah, I am a liberal. FWIW I support NZ First.
I was saying that given the choice of the likes of Trump/Musk who do allow free speech, and don't just cancell dissenting opinions v Kamala and crew I would go Trump. I didn't say i agree with Trump on all his points.
Apparently allowing the free expression of ideas makes you a "far right wing nut", Andrew.
Some of the "far left wing nuts" are waking up though.
Cenk Uygur:
"I think Trump or Musk are more likely to come on @TheYoungTurks
than any Democratic leader. We disagree more with Trump and Elon, but they're at least willing to have a conversation. Whereas Democratic leadership thinks it's offensive if you ask them hard questions. They think they're entitled to positive media coverage and get furious if they don't get it."
TYT is pretty far left, by the way, so good to see they are finally seeing what Tim Pool saw when he walked away from them a few years ago.
If I could sum up in one word why the Dems lost it would be epithets - In the US think deplorables, garbage, red neck etc. In NZ think un-educated, phobic (of whatever prefix you want to add), red neck etc. Fortunately, we have a vote and in the US the deplorables made it count. Oh right - they are simple children influenced by Russsia or foreign powers - can't think for themselves so we will help them -
Those guys are for freedom of speech but only if it’s what they agree with. Banning of certain books in school, banning of mask wearing, banning of certain journalists that are critical of him, banning certain medications etc ….and on and on
If you mean banning sexually explicit, in fact downright perverse, books from primary school kids - I am all for. If I wrote crap such as Tusiata Ava (Savage Coloniser), who is herself a coloniser, I would be arrested. Do you think her divisive book should be read in primary schools?
It is up to the individual states as to what they allow or don't, including mask wearing etc.
Remember St Jacinda refusing to go on Mike Hosking?
While loving your conclusion (beware the tyranny of the pure) I hesitate to agree with your characterisation of Trump as having 'genuine tyrannical potential'. A demagogue indeed but not a tyrant. Remember when Trump had the emergency at his fingertips to become a dictator he remained far to the liberal (in its real sense) end of politics than our own supposedly liberal Labour government. Was it that he lacked the political know-how to become a dictator? Or was it that shutting down free-speech and the freedom to act on ones own conscience is inimical to his approach to politics?
Trump who has told us he would go after the "enemies of the people" - which included prominent democrats by name - has most certainly taken a potentially tyrannical path.
Remember Trump instigated a hillbilly fascist attack on the capital. His assistant told Congress under oath that he cleared the capital of metal detectors, knowing that this mob coming to hear his speech had weapons. Congress and the vice president were not evacuated some likely would have been killed. And this beerhall putch was all based on the big lie...one that was proven false by his very own self appointed judges.
Now he is freeing these criminals and stopping all investigations into himself, assisted by his appointed far right supreme court who granted this tyrant immunity from prosecution.
Indeed it was the Trump Republicans who latched on to the anti-vaccination conspiracy theories to promote their special form of neo fascism. It worked brilliantly and was exported overseas including New Zealand successfully.
Correct but Project 2025 aims to end FDA approval of medications for early abortions ( used in 63% of abortions in the US), allow hospitals to deny lifesaving treatment for pregnancy complications , prosecute people for shipping or supplying abortions medications and establish a surveillance system which will allow people to access pregnancy records .
If the new Trump Administration attempts to implement the whole of Project 2025, the resulting civil unrest will be massive - and perhaps uncontrollable without recourse to an equally massive deployment of coercive force. How that might end I shudder to think.
Excerpts: "And for all Trump’s idiosyncrasies, he is vastly preferable to the alternative. And everyone needs to calm down: this isn’t the dawn of American fascism. Rather, Trump’s election confirms that however stagnant things remain in Britain, in Washington democracy is working as it should — and history is well and truly back. Even Francis Fukuyama agrees."
"It’s a whole worldview, that’s comprehensively displaced the 20th-century free-market outlook Roberts dismisses in his book as characteristic of “wax-museum conservatives”. Indeed, Roberts’ own 2021 appointment as director of Heritage, until relatively recently one of Con Inc’s institutional bastions, is a case in point. So, too, is the man who wrote the foreword to Dawn’s Early Light: New Right leading light J.D. Vance, now Vice President-elect of the United States."
"Roberts frames his side as the “Party of Creation” in contrast to his enemies’ “Party of Destruction”, whose end goal he characterises as a “conspiracy against nature”.
This conspiracy attacks what he calls “the permanent things”: the natural family, the importance of faith, the necessity of strong community ties, the dignity of work, and the common (national) good. In aggregate, it’s a war “against ordered, civilised societies, against common sense and normal people” coordinated by “political, corporate, and cultural elites” whose interests diverge radically from “those of ordinary Americans”. But these are not, or not only, Democrats: Roberts characterises his enemies as “the Uniparty”
The question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal is now a matter for each American state to decide. In many of those states, the majority in favour of abortion have enshrined a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy in the state's constitution.
In other American states, a majority of voting citizens have rejected that option.
In other words, abortion rights are now resolvable democratically. Preferable, I would have thought, to being imposed by a Supreme Court made up of justices who are not in any way answerable to the will of the people.
Is it tyrannical to deny women autonomy over their reproductive lives? I note with Chris that Trump's overturning of Roe versus Wade hands this decision to each state to decide democratically so isn't an example of Trump's tyranny; but in the scale of the various tyrannies we see played out over women in places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, it seems insignificant. Clearly there were enough women in the US sufficiently satisfied with abortion access under the Trump's regime who agreed and didn't make abortion their election priority.
I absolutely agree with 'if you don't approve of aborton, don't have one', but it seems that enough women in the US weren't sufficiently exercised by the loss, in some states, of access to abortion to vote for the Democrats and swallow the soft-glove tyrannies of self-censorship and right-think. And among tyrannies, having to cross state lines to get an abortion isn't as tyrannical as being forbidden to speak in public
That wasn't on the agenda at this election, despite efforts to dishonestly pretend that it was.
It's certainly a difficult issue; there's another body involved in this, that of a vulnerable and innocent human striving to be. I don't think that can be just dismissed as of no consequence without also throwing out the whole notion of the sanctity of life itself.
OK, Chris, see what you unleashed with tactily supporting the anti-vax crazies? We all saw this coming. Whipping up conspiracies theories without merrit (some have merrit) was a brilliant way to bring rightly disgruntled working class men into the neo fascist fold. It has worked for over 200 years. And it is especially potent in distracting us away from the elephants in the room. Wages for the working class, as Bernie Sanders in the US continues to tell us have declined while GDP after inflation/our wealth has more than doubled in the last 5O years in the US (and here). So the scapegoats this time around instead of the real culprits, the billionaires like Musk, Woody Johnson and Miriam Adelson, the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, are the strawmen/women by calling them "elites" and clicking their heels when these real eltites and neo fascist scum tell them to....the weak and the "pure"..the snowflakes. Musk never invented a thing in his life except screwing over workers efficiently. but, like Trump, is great at using other people's ideas, and then taking credit for it. Yes the Dems painted themselves into a corner with the Cheanys (?), billionaire doners ( that in reality pale compared to the Republican mob of billionaires) and Clintonomics pushed by citizens united and a court run by the far right which tRump installed. I'd always hope people were smarter than that.
Musk never inveted Tesla. He bought the company from Eberhard and Tapenning who did all the ground work. Space ex is only profitable because of US taxpayer money injected into NASA, who did the initial ground work ...and more recently Musk took credit from the designer, Tom Muller who did the actual work. Sorry, he is "scum" in my world. He has tried to buy his own brand of fascism through his illegal manipulation of Trump's Pennsylvania election. Indeed most people in my world dislike people who support neofasism..and call it when we see it.
Given your reliance on "neo-fascism" as a term of political abuse, Richard, it would be helpful if you could spell out for us what you think "neo-fascism" entails.
Personally, I am doubtful as to whether you possess the slightest idea what fascism is, how it arises, which social layers support it, or why it is able to persuade so many people to give it their vote.
What fascism did, when it was a live political force, is better known. But, nothing Trump has yet done comes anywhere close to replicating the actions of genuine fascists such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.
I used teach a political science course and posted a definition on here earlier you may or may not have read. General Milly quoted a reasonable definition of fascism recently. Neo fascism is similar but has embraced neoliberalism in most quarters. Trump's action are identical or at least very similar to the early stages of Hitler (beer hall putsch) and Mussolini who had conspiracy theory driven thugs violently attack the left...Mussolini who like you Chris identified with the left in his youth as a journalist.
Oh boy, Richard, that information only makes your behaviour on this site even more disturbing.
That a person with your demonstrated proclivity for offering intolerant and abusive responses to expressions of contrary opinion was teaching young New Zealanders is concerning enough. The possibility that the sentiments you have posted here might in any way be reflective of WHAT you were teaching them, is cause for even greater concern.
That you use the past tense when writing about your academic career will, I am confident, come as a huge relief to readers.
It's performative, a manipulation. All those outrageous fascism claims are not genuinely believed even as they are spoken.
" Do not cast pearls before swine ..... if people are not listening to you, stop talking to them. Start watching them instead - they will tell you what they're up to"
You've replied to my comment while addressing Chris... are you saying that I am among those duped scapegoats he's unleashed who '[do what] the fascist scum tell them to' do? Is that really the way to persuade a scapegoat that she has been duped by fascists?
I believe you'd benefit from consulting some of those dark sources of information that are duping the likes of me. I read this morning that the right are aware of the narratives of both the right and the left; but the left have censored those of the right and so are only aware of their own narratives. It can be limiting.
And one final thing: like Chris, I was proressive left until the progressive left became illiberal purtitanical tyrants and rendered me politically homeless
Do you mean Mussolini was very "effective" or much 'affected by' - i.e. brought to tears - 'enrolling disaffected left[?] scum like you'? Your language is so persuasive. I will immediately revert to your puritannical tyranny.
Did you not notice every time the righteous call their opponents garbage, or deplorables, they increase in number and their own sense of righteousness? Have you not noticed the political capital we scum make of your finger-wagging? Do please take my advice and get an outsider's view of yourself
The citizen of a democracy is obliged to tolerate the views of any fellow citizen, no matter how obnoxious. What a citizen is not expected to do is sit back and watch as the holders of obnoxious views attempt to put them into practice by means of deception and/or force.
That sort of behaviour must be resisted.
If, however, a political party has successfully persuaded a majority of the electorate to embrace its obnoxious ideas, then it is mandated to introduce them.
Any successful attempt on the part of a minority to subvert the victorious party's electoral mandate, if allowed to stand, can only result in democracy's fall.
Toleration of those views that are different from ones own is crucial if one is to avoid tyranny. It is why he tolerates even the inchoate rumblings of the righteously intolerant who think they are advocating for the workers; but when workers tell them no thank-you mate, they screech that the workers are deplorable garbage duped by the fascists.
Not sure I agree about the emergence of the rights movements of the '60s and '70s, at least as I experienced them, mostly in Australia (racial discrimination, feminism, struggles of gays/ lesbians, environmentalism). People were identifying genuine problems and trying to right wrongs. Feminism is what most affected me, as I now recall that a female friend (whose parents were war refugees) was turned down for an entry-level solicitor job, despite having a much better academic record than the man who got it. And a young married woman fuming when she found out that in arranging a mortgage, the bank would talk only to her husband, despite her own good income. Hostility to gays and lesbians and to indigenous people was more overt. What then happened, I think, was that progressive parties became more dominated by the middle classes and so the concerns of the working classes and the poor became less important - a space being evacuated, as it were. So it's a matter of readjusting priorities, rather than discounting some of the problems. Talked just this morning to a woman in her 40s who was annoyed that when the new car she'd paid for herself turned out to have faults in the warranty period, the dealers would always want to talk to her husband rather than to her.... tho' admittedly this attitude problem can't be legislated away.
We've come a long way since then, but in some cases gone to far.
Diversity quotas can unfortunately lead to the same problem as your entry-level solicitor friend. In my own story, a few years back I was filtered out of an interview process at the end of round 1 of 4. In requesting feedback I was told in no uncertain terms that there was nothing to improve on, that my record and qualifications were excellent, that I interviewed well, and all together well exceeded their expectations. They then told me the classic guff about 'lots of other strong candidates'. I query why you would then filter at the first round. The only logical conclusion is that this company, which prides itself on being more diverse than the NZ population as a whole, filtered me out because I'm a white male. They obviously can't explicitly say that (though it's also mathematically impossible to have a diversity policy if you don't), which is probably the difference between the 60s and today... Then the prejudice was able to be displayed more overtly.
It’s not doom and gloom as your predicting. Wait and see. To me 4 more years of democrats were chilling. Their policies of no border, critical race theory, the trendy children able to cut of body parts. No leadership at all as they’re trying to please the socialist mindset.
Mr Trotter makes the same mistake as those who foolishly expect that “Green” parties around the world actually care about the environment. That is, he supposes that “progressivism” represents progress for the humanity and society, when in actual fact the progressives have been working assiduously to destroy the very fabric of decent society. I hope that we are seeing a real wake up of the younger generation to recognise that the actions of the old and not-so-old figures who keep telling them what is good for them are lying and deceitful.
My use of the term "progressive", Anthony, is descriptive, not approbative. The term is used by the group in question to describe itself, the amount of faith to be placed in that self-description is, as you rightly suggest, debatable.
I would, however, suggest that causes long thought of as progressive: the quest for racial and sexual equality; recognising and extending workplace rights and responsibilities; regulating the safety and quality of food, water, housing and the air we breathe; making health and education services available to all; did - and do - represent progress for humanity and society.
I would be interested to learn what you would single out as measures calculated to "destroy the very fabric of decent society". In my experience, that sort of language is usually to be found in the mouths of reactionaries - a political tribe far superior to progressives in its propensity for destruction and misrepresentation.
If I hadn't gob-smacked my way through these comments, I would continue to find your commentaries interesting and agree with quite a bit of your perspective.
Now you look like just another ranting bloke and so I won't have to waste my time on reading more that you write. I've got it, ok?
Politics was ruined by the self-replicating Political, Administrative and Academic elites that emerged within the framework of the government of post-war, formerly progressive parties. While maintaining their attachment to those parties, in the sense that they still make up a large part of the activist cadre, their initial loyalty to the progressivism that promoted their roles has been subsumed by their own class-interest, which is highly divergent from the interests of ordinary working people, beneficiaries, small-to-medium businesses etc.
This now fully-formed so-called 'Professional Managerial Class' has taken over from 'labour' as the second major force in modern politics alongside capital itself, However, being too small to make a party of it's own, and understanding the concept of 'leverage', it remains parasitically embedded within the various Labour and Social-Democratic parties around the world, where it has bent party policies to its own agenda. As beneficiary of the 'public purse' and public policy (which they are largely responsible for creating) and because 'fascists need administrators too', the PMC will always tend towards the interests of the dominant force in society, that presently being the corporate and finance sectors rather than the public service sector as previously.
I disagree that populism has killed democracy. True neo liberalism dismantled the egalitarian Era, and the resulting rise of the billionaire oligarchic class represented by the Davos crowd, and the WEF, and their political minions is they are becoming increasingly authoritarian. The rise of Populist parties in Europe, and now Trump represent a genuine attempt to push back against the erosion of national sovereignty, and the imposition of deeply unpopular policies.
"If democracy and equality continued marching in lock-step, then the very survival of capitalism, along with the skewed distribution of economic wealth and social influence that kept it functioning, could no longer be assured."
Capitalism doesn't require inequality to be successful. Capitalism can work perfectly well in settings where everyone has equal wealth, and is able to access capital markets, both owning shares in companies and receiving dividends for the privilege, while selling their labour to the highest bidder.
Rather, capitalism is - like any system that rewards merit and efficiency - doomed to result in inequality as a natural consequence of that reward.
Exceptional insight. Captures entirely the essence behind my conservative, time-stalled father's unwavering support for America The Great. My cousin once called him "the greatest living American who was never born there". I was proud though, of the respectful conversations around the dinner table last week.
Another interesting piece Chris but as with so many commentaries the meaning of egalitarianism and neo-liberalism are sweeping gneralisations. If egalitarianism means equal opportunity this in no way implies equal rewards or outcomes let alone equal regard (although we like to think this is still in the picture).. And not all 'neo-liberals' were conspiring to reinstate the power and wealth of ruling classes and oligarchies. They were simply deluded in thinking that their pathway to economic growth would indeed float all boats. Whether this is cause for hope or further disillusionment is a moot point. David
Gosh Chris, you now are spouting the neo-fascist Trump Republican party line on supposed "state rights" (used to justify civil war, slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and now bans on abortion). Who would have guessed that you have sunk this low?
Presumably, then, Richard, you would oppose the governors of some American states announcing the creation of "sanctuary cities" to offer undocumented aliens a safe haven from the harsh anti-immigrant policies of other American states?
Or, perhaps, you would prefer a highly-centralised, non-federal, and untrammeled American state, with the power to make its writ run from sea to shining sea?
The geriatric left still dont get it, do you? The welfare state has failed. Its being dismantled because its inter generational theft. The world is not owned by "Mega Maga Wealthy " but rather by super funds- the things the political Idiotocracy has resisted in NZ
I want to thank you, Jim, for providing an excellent example of the sort of ignorant and obnoxious opinions that the citizens of a democracy are required to tolerate. That the votes of these same citizens are routinely thwarting the destructive neoliberal policies favoured by people like yourself must be extremely galling. Long may it continue.
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state".
That definition makes clear that democracy has no place in a capitalist system other than being used by the private owners of capital to accomplish their self-centred ends. By democracy here we mean political democracy.
Sarkar's Progressive utilisation theory (PROUT) offers another ideology, one that is distinguished by acknowledging the physical, mental
dimensions of the created universe we inhabit. It stresses the need for economic democracy which is achievable by ensuring medium to larger businesses are run as cooperatives. For more on PROUT see www.prout.info
Looks like the Post Capitalist Aotearoa conference planned for Wellington 23-24 April 2025 will be well timed. For more on this event write proutaotearoa@gmail.com
Sarkar's Progressive utilisation theory (PROUT) offers another ideology, one that is distinguished by acknowledging the physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of the created universe we inhabit.
Chris: "mobilising citizens on the basis of racial, sexual, and religious antagonisms"
Obviously manifest in the accusatory rantings of the defeated US "Democrats" ; women, Latinos cost us our rightful victory those that pretend inclusivity claim. They are utterly clueless.
I don't think Trump and Musk and their team are dictators. The real dictators are the likes of Jack Dorsey (former CEO of Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg and some of the private owners of major media outlets. Musk's greatest achievment is allowing free speech to prevail. The beneficiaries of the anti-capitalist movements are the likes of Greta Thunberg, Patrice Coulors (BLM) and others who seem to live just like the old time Soviet leadership - very much like wealthy capitalists - while the masses pay for it and without. Capitalism lets anyone rise up to be great. The socialism of the left decides who can rise up. Give me Trump and his team over the others any day.
Chis how did your once liberal left collum become populated by far right wing nuts?
I assume you are referring to those whose views do not accord with your own, Richard.
You need to define liberal. The proper definiton is not a raving socialist loony but someone who says that you are free to run your own life as you see fit; you are also free to experiences the effects/ consequences of those choices. So yeah, I am a liberal. FWIW I support NZ First.
I was saying that given the choice of the likes of Trump/Musk who do allow free speech, and don't just cancell dissenting opinions v Kamala and crew I would go Trump. I didn't say i agree with Trump on all his points.
Apparently allowing the free expression of ideas makes you a "far right wing nut", Andrew.
Some of the "far left wing nuts" are waking up though.
Cenk Uygur:
"I think Trump or Musk are more likely to come on @TheYoungTurks
than any Democratic leader. We disagree more with Trump and Elon, but they're at least willing to have a conversation. Whereas Democratic leadership thinks it's offensive if you ask them hard questions. They think they're entitled to positive media coverage and get furious if they don't get it."
TYT is pretty far left, by the way, so good to see they are finally seeing what Tim Pool saw when he walked away from them a few years ago.
If I could sum up in one word why the Dems lost it would be epithets - In the US think deplorables, garbage, red neck etc. In NZ think un-educated, phobic (of whatever prefix you want to add), red neck etc. Fortunately, we have a vote and in the US the deplorables made it count. Oh right - they are simple children influenced by Russsia or foreign powers - can't think for themselves so we will help them -
Those guys are for freedom of speech but only if it’s what they agree with. Banning of certain books in school, banning of mask wearing, banning of certain journalists that are critical of him, banning certain medications etc ….and on and on
If you mean banning sexually explicit, in fact downright perverse, books from primary school kids - I am all for. If I wrote crap such as Tusiata Ava (Savage Coloniser), who is herself a coloniser, I would be arrested. Do you think her divisive book should be read in primary schools?
It is up to the individual states as to what they allow or don't, including mask wearing etc.
Remember St Jacinda refusing to go on Mike Hosking?
While loving your conclusion (beware the tyranny of the pure) I hesitate to agree with your characterisation of Trump as having 'genuine tyrannical potential'. A demagogue indeed but not a tyrant. Remember when Trump had the emergency at his fingertips to become a dictator he remained far to the liberal (in its real sense) end of politics than our own supposedly liberal Labour government. Was it that he lacked the political know-how to become a dictator? Or was it that shutting down free-speech and the freedom to act on ones own conscience is inimical to his approach to politics?
Trump who has told us he would go after the "enemies of the people" - which included prominent democrats by name - has most certainly taken a potentially tyrannical path.
Remember Trump instigated a hillbilly fascist attack on the capital. His assistant told Congress under oath that he cleared the capital of metal detectors, knowing that this mob coming to hear his speech had weapons. Congress and the vice president were not evacuated some likely would have been killed. And this beerhall putch was all based on the big lie...one that was proven false by his very own self appointed judges.
Now he is freeing these criminals and stopping all investigations into himself, assisted by his appointed far right supreme court who granted this tyrant immunity from prosecution.
Indeed it was the Trump Republicans who latched on to the anti-vaccination conspiracy theories to promote their special form of neo fascism. It worked brilliantly and was exported overseas including New Zealand successfully.
Correct but Project 2025 aims to end FDA approval of medications for early abortions ( used in 63% of abortions in the US), allow hospitals to deny lifesaving treatment for pregnancy complications , prosecute people for shipping or supplying abortions medications and establish a surveillance system which will allow people to access pregnancy records .
If the new Trump Administration attempts to implement the whole of Project 2025, the resulting civil unrest will be massive - and perhaps uncontrollable without recourse to an equally massive deployment of coercive force. How that might end I shudder to think.
A timely and perceptive essay from the marvelous Mary Harrington.
https://unherd.com/2024/11/project-2025-is-the-new-normal/
Excerpts: "And for all Trump’s idiosyncrasies, he is vastly preferable to the alternative. And everyone needs to calm down: this isn’t the dawn of American fascism. Rather, Trump’s election confirms that however stagnant things remain in Britain, in Washington democracy is working as it should — and history is well and truly back. Even Francis Fukuyama agrees."
"It’s a whole worldview, that’s comprehensively displaced the 20th-century free-market outlook Roberts dismisses in his book as characteristic of “wax-museum conservatives”. Indeed, Roberts’ own 2021 appointment as director of Heritage, until relatively recently one of Con Inc’s institutional bastions, is a case in point. So, too, is the man who wrote the foreword to Dawn’s Early Light: New Right leading light J.D. Vance, now Vice President-elect of the United States."
"Roberts frames his side as the “Party of Creation” in contrast to his enemies’ “Party of Destruction”, whose end goal he characterises as a “conspiracy against nature”.
This conspiracy attacks what he calls “the permanent things”: the natural family, the importance of faith, the necessity of strong community ties, the dignity of work, and the common (national) good. In aggregate, it’s a war “against ordered, civilised societies, against common sense and normal people” coordinated by “political, corporate, and cultural elites” whose interests diverge radically from “those of ordinary Americans”. But these are not, or not only, Democrats: Roberts characterises his enemies as “the Uniparty”
You don’t think legislating against the right for women’s autonomy over their bodies is tyrannical?
The question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal is now a matter for each American state to decide. In many of those states, the majority in favour of abortion have enshrined a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy in the state's constitution.
In other American states, a majority of voting citizens have rejected that option.
In other words, abortion rights are now resolvable democratically. Preferable, I would have thought, to being imposed by a Supreme Court made up of justices who are not in any way answerable to the will of the people.
Is it tyrannical to deny women autonomy over their reproductive lives? I note with Chris that Trump's overturning of Roe versus Wade hands this decision to each state to decide democratically so isn't an example of Trump's tyranny; but in the scale of the various tyrannies we see played out over women in places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, it seems insignificant. Clearly there were enough women in the US sufficiently satisfied with abortion access under the Trump's regime who agreed and didn't make abortion their election priority.
Personally I think it is tyrannical to legislate what a woman’s choices are. If you don’t agree with abortion don’t have one.
I absolutely agree with 'if you don't approve of aborton, don't have one', but it seems that enough women in the US weren't sufficiently exercised by the loss, in some states, of access to abortion to vote for the Democrats and swallow the soft-glove tyrannies of self-censorship and right-think. And among tyrannies, having to cross state lines to get an abortion isn't as tyrannical as being forbidden to speak in public
That wasn't on the agenda at this election, despite efforts to dishonestly pretend that it was.
It's certainly a difficult issue; there's another body involved in this, that of a vulnerable and innocent human striving to be. I don't think that can be just dismissed as of no consequence without also throwing out the whole notion of the sanctity of life itself.
OK, Chris, see what you unleashed with tactily supporting the anti-vax crazies? We all saw this coming. Whipping up conspiracies theories without merrit (some have merrit) was a brilliant way to bring rightly disgruntled working class men into the neo fascist fold. It has worked for over 200 years. And it is especially potent in distracting us away from the elephants in the room. Wages for the working class, as Bernie Sanders in the US continues to tell us have declined while GDP after inflation/our wealth has more than doubled in the last 5O years in the US (and here). So the scapegoats this time around instead of the real culprits, the billionaires like Musk, Woody Johnson and Miriam Adelson, the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, are the strawmen/women by calling them "elites" and clicking their heels when these real eltites and neo fascist scum tell them to....the weak and the "pure"..the snowflakes. Musk never invented a thing in his life except screwing over workers efficiently. but, like Trump, is great at using other people's ideas, and then taking credit for it. Yes the Dems painted themselves into a corner with the Cheanys (?), billionaire doners ( that in reality pale compared to the Republican mob of billionaires) and Clintonomics pushed by citizens united and a court run by the far right which tRump installed. I'd always hope people were smarter than that.
"Musk never invented a thing in his life"
Musk is chief engineer of Tesla and Space X.
RS: "scum like you. May you rot in hell".
One of the good things about free speech is that you get to see what people are really like. Not good in this case.
Musk never inveted Tesla. He bought the company from Eberhard and Tapenning who did all the ground work. Space ex is only profitable because of US taxpayer money injected into NASA, who did the initial ground work ...and more recently Musk took credit from the designer, Tom Muller who did the actual work. Sorry, he is "scum" in my world. He has tried to buy his own brand of fascism through his illegal manipulation of Trump's Pennsylvania election. Indeed most people in my world dislike people who support neofasism..and call it when we see it.
Given your reliance on "neo-fascism" as a term of political abuse, Richard, it would be helpful if you could spell out for us what you think "neo-fascism" entails.
Personally, I am doubtful as to whether you possess the slightest idea what fascism is, how it arises, which social layers support it, or why it is able to persuade so many people to give it their vote.
What fascism did, when it was a live political force, is better known. But, nothing Trump has yet done comes anywhere close to replicating the actions of genuine fascists such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.
I used teach a political science course and posted a definition on here earlier you may or may not have read. General Milly quoted a reasonable definition of fascism recently. Neo fascism is similar but has embraced neoliberalism in most quarters. Trump's action are identical or at least very similar to the early stages of Hitler (beer hall putsch) and Mussolini who had conspiracy theory driven thugs violently attack the left...Mussolini who like you Chris identified with the left in his youth as a journalist.
Oh boy, Richard, that information only makes your behaviour on this site even more disturbing.
That a person with your demonstrated proclivity for offering intolerant and abusive responses to expressions of contrary opinion was teaching young New Zealanders is concerning enough. The possibility that the sentiments you have posted here might in any way be reflective of WHAT you were teaching them, is cause for even greater concern.
That you use the past tense when writing about your academic career will, I am confident, come as a huge relief to readers.
Thanks Chris.
It's performative, a manipulation. All those outrageous fascism claims are not genuinely believed even as they are spoken.
" Do not cast pearls before swine ..... if people are not listening to you, stop talking to them. Start watching them instead - they will tell you what they're up to"
40 seconds clip: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J0NERhDWqDc?feature=share
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion."
You've replied to my comment while addressing Chris... are you saying that I am among those duped scapegoats he's unleashed who '[do what] the fascist scum tell them to' do? Is that really the way to persuade a scapegoat that she has been duped by fascists?
I believe you'd benefit from consulting some of those dark sources of information that are duping the likes of me. I read this morning that the right are aware of the narratives of both the right and the left; but the left have censored those of the right and so are only aware of their own narratives. It can be limiting.
And one final thing: like Chris, I was proressive left until the progressive left became illiberal purtitanical tyrants and rendered me politically homeless
Do you mean Mussolini was very "effective" or much 'affected by' - i.e. brought to tears - 'enrolling disaffected left[?] scum like you'? Your language is so persuasive. I will immediately revert to your puritannical tyranny.
Did you not notice every time the righteous call their opponents garbage, or deplorables, they increase in number and their own sense of righteousness? Have you not noticed the political capital we scum make of your finger-wagging? Do please take my advice and get an outsider's view of yourself
One wonders by Chris encourages the far right.
The citizen of a democracy is obliged to tolerate the views of any fellow citizen, no matter how obnoxious. What a citizen is not expected to do is sit back and watch as the holders of obnoxious views attempt to put them into practice by means of deception and/or force.
That sort of behaviour must be resisted.
If, however, a political party has successfully persuaded a majority of the electorate to embrace its obnoxious ideas, then it is mandated to introduce them.
Any successful attempt on the part of a minority to subvert the victorious party's electoral mandate, if allowed to stand, can only result in democracy's fall.
Toleration of those views that are different from ones own is crucial if one is to avoid tyranny. It is why he tolerates even the inchoate rumblings of the righteously intolerant who think they are advocating for the workers; but when workers tell them no thank-you mate, they screech that the workers are deplorable garbage duped by the fascists.
Not sure I agree about the emergence of the rights movements of the '60s and '70s, at least as I experienced them, mostly in Australia (racial discrimination, feminism, struggles of gays/ lesbians, environmentalism). People were identifying genuine problems and trying to right wrongs. Feminism is what most affected me, as I now recall that a female friend (whose parents were war refugees) was turned down for an entry-level solicitor job, despite having a much better academic record than the man who got it. And a young married woman fuming when she found out that in arranging a mortgage, the bank would talk only to her husband, despite her own good income. Hostility to gays and lesbians and to indigenous people was more overt. What then happened, I think, was that progressive parties became more dominated by the middle classes and so the concerns of the working classes and the poor became less important - a space being evacuated, as it were. So it's a matter of readjusting priorities, rather than discounting some of the problems. Talked just this morning to a woman in her 40s who was annoyed that when the new car she'd paid for herself turned out to have faults in the warranty period, the dealers would always want to talk to her husband rather than to her.... tho' admittedly this attitude problem can't be legislated away.
We've come a long way since then, but in some cases gone to far.
Diversity quotas can unfortunately lead to the same problem as your entry-level solicitor friend. In my own story, a few years back I was filtered out of an interview process at the end of round 1 of 4. In requesting feedback I was told in no uncertain terms that there was nothing to improve on, that my record and qualifications were excellent, that I interviewed well, and all together well exceeded their expectations. They then told me the classic guff about 'lots of other strong candidates'. I query why you would then filter at the first round. The only logical conclusion is that this company, which prides itself on being more diverse than the NZ population as a whole, filtered me out because I'm a white male. They obviously can't explicitly say that (though it's also mathematically impossible to have a diversity policy if you don't), which is probably the difference between the 60s and today... Then the prejudice was able to be displayed more overtly.
Yes, that is true: diversity hires can be over-used, at the expense of strong candidates.
It’s not doom and gloom as your predicting. Wait and see. To me 4 more years of democrats were chilling. Their policies of no border, critical race theory, the trendy children able to cut of body parts. No leadership at all as they’re trying to please the socialist mindset.
Mr Trotter makes the same mistake as those who foolishly expect that “Green” parties around the world actually care about the environment. That is, he supposes that “progressivism” represents progress for the humanity and society, when in actual fact the progressives have been working assiduously to destroy the very fabric of decent society. I hope that we are seeing a real wake up of the younger generation to recognise that the actions of the old and not-so-old figures who keep telling them what is good for them are lying and deceitful.
My use of the term "progressive", Anthony, is descriptive, not approbative. The term is used by the group in question to describe itself, the amount of faith to be placed in that self-description is, as you rightly suggest, debatable.
I would, however, suggest that causes long thought of as progressive: the quest for racial and sexual equality; recognising and extending workplace rights and responsibilities; regulating the safety and quality of food, water, housing and the air we breathe; making health and education services available to all; did - and do - represent progress for humanity and society.
I would be interested to learn what you would single out as measures calculated to "destroy the very fabric of decent society". In my experience, that sort of language is usually to be found in the mouths of reactionaries - a political tribe far superior to progressives in its propensity for destruction and misrepresentation.
If I hadn't gob-smacked my way through these comments, I would continue to find your commentaries interesting and agree with quite a bit of your perspective.
Now you look like just another ranting bloke and so I won't have to waste my time on reading more that you write. I've got it, ok?
Well, there's a mature response. Toodle-oo.
Politics was ruined by the self-replicating Political, Administrative and Academic elites that emerged within the framework of the government of post-war, formerly progressive parties. While maintaining their attachment to those parties, in the sense that they still make up a large part of the activist cadre, their initial loyalty to the progressivism that promoted their roles has been subsumed by their own class-interest, which is highly divergent from the interests of ordinary working people, beneficiaries, small-to-medium businesses etc.
This now fully-formed so-called 'Professional Managerial Class' has taken over from 'labour' as the second major force in modern politics alongside capital itself, However, being too small to make a party of it's own, and understanding the concept of 'leverage', it remains parasitically embedded within the various Labour and Social-Democratic parties around the world, where it has bent party policies to its own agenda. As beneficiary of the 'public purse' and public policy (which they are largely responsible for creating) and because 'fascists need administrators too', the PMC will always tend towards the interests of the dominant force in society, that presently being the corporate and finance sectors rather than the public service sector as previously.
More here: https://substack.com/@kevthefarmer/note/c-76593258
I disagree that populism has killed democracy. True neo liberalism dismantled the egalitarian Era, and the resulting rise of the billionaire oligarchic class represented by the Davos crowd, and the WEF, and their political minions is they are becoming increasingly authoritarian. The rise of Populist parties in Europe, and now Trump represent a genuine attempt to push back against the erosion of national sovereignty, and the imposition of deeply unpopular policies.
"If democracy and equality continued marching in lock-step, then the very survival of capitalism, along with the skewed distribution of economic wealth and social influence that kept it functioning, could no longer be assured."
Capitalism doesn't require inequality to be successful. Capitalism can work perfectly well in settings where everyone has equal wealth, and is able to access capital markets, both owning shares in companies and receiving dividends for the privilege, while selling their labour to the highest bidder.
Rather, capitalism is - like any system that rewards merit and efficiency - doomed to result in inequality as a natural consequence of that reward.
Thanks for this Chris. By and large your argument accords with my own assessment but put far more eloquently than I even could.
Exceptional insight. Captures entirely the essence behind my conservative, time-stalled father's unwavering support for America The Great. My cousin once called him "the greatest living American who was never born there". I was proud though, of the respectful conversations around the dinner table last week.
Many thanks, Tracy.
I'm envious of your dinner-table.
Another interesting piece Chris but as with so many commentaries the meaning of egalitarianism and neo-liberalism are sweeping gneralisations. If egalitarianism means equal opportunity this in no way implies equal rewards or outcomes let alone equal regard (although we like to think this is still in the picture).. And not all 'neo-liberals' were conspiring to reinstate the power and wealth of ruling classes and oligarchies. They were simply deluded in thinking that their pathway to economic growth would indeed float all boats. Whether this is cause for hope or further disillusionment is a moot point. David
Gosh Chris, you now are spouting the neo-fascist Trump Republican party line on supposed "state rights" (used to justify civil war, slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and now bans on abortion). Who would have guessed that you have sunk this low?
Presumably, then, Richard, you would oppose the governors of some American states announcing the creation of "sanctuary cities" to offer undocumented aliens a safe haven from the harsh anti-immigrant policies of other American states?
Or, perhaps, you would prefer a highly-centralised, non-federal, and untrammeled American state, with the power to make its writ run from sea to shining sea?
Who's the authoritarian now?
The geriatric left still dont get it, do you? The welfare state has failed. Its being dismantled because its inter generational theft. The world is not owned by "Mega Maga Wealthy " but rather by super funds- the things the political Idiotocracy has resisted in NZ
I want to thank you, Jim, for providing an excellent example of the sort of ignorant and obnoxious opinions that the citizens of a democracy are required to tolerate. That the votes of these same citizens are routinely thwarting the destructive neoliberal policies favoured by people like yourself must be extremely galling. Long may it continue.
The Oxford dictionary defines capitalism as
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state".
That definition makes clear that democracy has no place in a capitalist system other than being used by the private owners of capital to accomplish their self-centred ends. By democracy here we mean political democracy.
Sarkar's Progressive utilisation theory (PROUT) offers another ideology, one that is distinguished by acknowledging the physical, mental
dimensions of the created universe we inhabit. It stresses the need for economic democracy which is achievable by ensuring medium to larger businesses are run as cooperatives. For more on PROUT see www.prout.info
Looks like the Post Capitalist Aotearoa conference planned for Wellington 23-24 April 2025 will be well timed. For more on this event write proutaotearoa@gmail.com
Sarkar's Progressive utilisation theory (PROUT) offers another ideology, one that is distinguished by acknowledging the physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of the created universe we inhabit.
Chris: "mobilising citizens on the basis of racial, sexual, and religious antagonisms"
Obviously manifest in the accusatory rantings of the defeated US "Democrats" ; women, Latinos cost us our rightful victory those that pretend inclusivity claim. They are utterly clueless.