I have sat in rooms where union leaders (not even parliamentarians) talk about the "fact" that there is only so much money to spend in a federal budget. This received neoliberal dogma sure as hell works to cut solidarity off at the knees.
I understand that the left want to be in government, but I don't understand who they are, what they want, or how they propose to get what they want.
If the left was constituted as a party with a membership and a policy platform, I think I would understand the who, what and how, regardless of whether its strategy was parliamentary or extra-parliamentary.
It looks as though communist parties in Aotearoa have risen and collapsed. It's the same in most western countries because the capitalist media are owned by the Epstein class and communism is feared mightily.
There's an incipient group called Communist Refoundation but it seems to be inactive at present. The neoliberal "left" are in hoc to the IMF the World Bank, Atlas, the TPU and NZ Institute so are not dependable.
The Labour Constituency Party is a supporters club- not unlike that of a sports team-, not a constituent assembly in a 'democratic centralist' sense. Since a supporters club's job is to be 'loyal' and to promote a 'win' for their team, they tend to defer to what the centre ordains to be the most winnable policy platform. Real power lies with the party managers, and their job it to get the party into office by whatever means possible.
The permanent Civil Service are the gatekeepers to what is and isn't possible politically. In most ministries this works well for the 'Left' (health, education, environment), but in Treasury it works in favour of the Right. Treasury is the enforcer on behalf of a supranational ideology, not a servant of the incumbent government. Thus they 'partner' with a National/ACT government, but they dominate over a Labour coalition.
Interestingly, ACT wants the heads of the ministries to be political appointments- i.e. to be subject to change when the government changes. Treasury has been dominated by ACT ideology since before ACT even existed, and there has been a revolving door between Treasury, ACT and the NZI ever since- that is to say since Graham Scott was a staffer at Treasury spoonfeeding Neoliberalism to Roger Douglas even before the election of the 4th Labour government, then being appointed by Douglas as it's head when Bernie Galvin retired. This has been a self-perpetuating bureaucracy since Scott's time under Douglas, with current incumbent Ian Rennie being a Graham Scott recruit decades ago.
Will ACT be keen to have Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a political appointment when they have already captured the position for the last 4 decades?
"Will ACT be keen to have Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a political appointment when they have already captured the position for the last 4 decades?"
Yes, I think they will, because they know that "the left", i.e Labour, will not change that tradition of 4 decades standing.
But why have political appointees as departmental heads? I thought that the minister was meant to be the political appointee. It is probably just a move to maintain ministerial power while evading ministerial responsibility. Good luck to them.
As for the Labour Party. My dear departed mother worked as a volunteer for the Labour Party. Delivering leaflets. Making cups of tea for the political types. Donating every spare dollar she could to party funds. Voted for Labour, of course. Carried on doing that through Rogernomics, which horrified her, because she trusted the party to one day come back to its senses. It never did come back to being the Labour Party in which she believed.
This is the colonialist political system. It callously exploits the good faith of ordinary citizens. Not for ever.
" I think they will, because they know that "the left", i.e Labour, will not change that tradition of 4 decades standing".
But why would the Right not stick with something that is already institutionalised in their favour?
IMO nothing will happen to this treasury/gov't abusive relationship in NZ until something catastrophic happens among the 'big boys'; US, UK, EU. Once these are preoccupied with their own disintegration, NZ will be free to make choices- not until; the potential for economic and military punishment from the big boys is too palpable.
Your article on the rich certainly went some way for me to answering the "how". We are thoroughly gulled into believing that we ourselves could get rich, that it is a laudable goal, that it matters more than the failure of opportunity of large groups of people who will never get rich or even subsist with dignity, that the planet doesn't matter if we're rich and that capitalism is king.
I really enjoyed reading this post. I also get so frustrated when people claim that "overly complex language" is the Left's main issue. Of course, accessible language is important, but basic demands like "fair wages" and "affordable rent" are already as straightforward as it gets.
Ironically, in many circles, leftist ideas are constantly dismissed as "naive, oversimplified concepts that wouldn't work in reality." To actually build credibility, we have to acknowledge and reflect the actual complexity of these systemic issues, rather than just watering everything down.
And we also need to be extremely careful not to buy into the conservative narrative here specifically, the arrogant idea that the 'broad masses' or the working class are just 'dumb' or gullible. Because that is exactly what gives the neoliberal ideology its ultimate legitimacy of „ruling“ and trickle down
The reason authoritarianism is disturbing our lives since Jan6’21 is that it is quite simply understandable once the Republican Party is recognized as a political organization that is not,fit to govern over any individual who must give consent to be governed by individual in government Who swear an oath not to violate the individual rights of the people they have sworn to protect. The Republican Party is our era’s King George III but no one sees the Republican Party as illegitimate because it intentionally violates several minority’s rights when it holds power. Every woman in a Red State that bans abortion becomes a violated minority at a moment of conception. Her right to pyis inexcusably violated by the red state as well as her right to freedom of conscience under the First Amendment’s separation clause.
“rational 1776 revival” explains this and presents the simple fix. But “Rational 1776 revival” needs to be visited by thoughtful Americans if we with feet planted on grassroots and eyes looking optimistically to our future will get the road to recovery built by July 4 2028
Yes, but criticising the criticisms of another critic may lose the essential focus "It's the lack of a coherent political line around which to build a mass politics" which I guess can be read as "I want someone to create a coherent political line" But I posit that this article concedes it ain't that easy, or the article would define, describe, enunciate such a line. For myself I think that would be a waste of time. The people need bread, not words. A program, a sequence of simple actions, that a party in power can take, actions with real effects, real outcomes, outcomes that (even slowly - but with believable certainty) will cause the intended aims. That is what is missing. That is what is needed. Oh, but they promise the outcomes. True, but they fail to name the causal actions. And why? Two reasons: (a) they haven't thought that far ahead, and (b) there aren't any; and perhaps also (c) they knew it was all fiction anyhow.
The article almost touched on this with the bit about Zizek, but the job of obscuring the reality is more easily achieved by using simple language, whereas demystifying reality requires precise language.
My thoughts on this have simplified a bit more recently after finding a political compass with the x-axis being left/right economic views, and the y-axis spanning from liberalism to authoritarianism... https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 my thoughts around what is happening and the rhetoric coming from the opposite "side" is that both sides are responding to the authoritarian aspects of the other economic political side. Its the authoritarianism/liberalism that splits within each economic viewpoint as well as the left/right difference. Helen Pluckrose has also written about this recently in her substack.
Yes, but as we all are well aware, to most anarchists, conformity to one string of language and a uniform isn't going to happen without a huge amount of resistance. It's not lacking if it's specifically undesired.
I have sat in rooms where union leaders (not even parliamentarians) talk about the "fact" that there is only so much money to spend in a federal budget. This received neoliberal dogma sure as hell works to cut solidarity off at the knees.
I'm confused.
I understand that the left want to be in government, but I don't understand who they are, what they want, or how they propose to get what they want.
If the left was constituted as a party with a membership and a policy platform, I think I would understand the who, what and how, regardless of whether its strategy was parliamentary or extra-parliamentary.
More on this to come
It looks as though communist parties in Aotearoa have risen and collapsed. It's the same in most western countries because the capitalist media are owned by the Epstein class and communism is feared mightily.
There's an incipient group called Communist Refoundation but it seems to be inactive at present. The neoliberal "left" are in hoc to the IMF the World Bank, Atlas, the TPU and NZ Institute so are not dependable.
The Labour Constituency Party is a supporters club- not unlike that of a sports team-, not a constituent assembly in a 'democratic centralist' sense. Since a supporters club's job is to be 'loyal' and to promote a 'win' for their team, they tend to defer to what the centre ordains to be the most winnable policy platform. Real power lies with the party managers, and their job it to get the party into office by whatever means possible.
The permanent Civil Service are the gatekeepers to what is and isn't possible politically. In most ministries this works well for the 'Left' (health, education, environment), but in Treasury it works in favour of the Right. Treasury is the enforcer on behalf of a supranational ideology, not a servant of the incumbent government. Thus they 'partner' with a National/ACT government, but they dominate over a Labour coalition.
Interestingly, ACT wants the heads of the ministries to be political appointments- i.e. to be subject to change when the government changes. Treasury has been dominated by ACT ideology since before ACT even existed, and there has been a revolving door between Treasury, ACT and the NZI ever since- that is to say since Graham Scott was a staffer at Treasury spoonfeeding Neoliberalism to Roger Douglas even before the election of the 4th Labour government, then being appointed by Douglas as it's head when Bernie Galvin retired. This has been a self-perpetuating bureaucracy since Scott's time under Douglas, with current incumbent Ian Rennie being a Graham Scott recruit decades ago.
Will ACT be keen to have Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a political appointment when they have already captured the position for the last 4 decades?
"Will ACT be keen to have Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a political appointment when they have already captured the position for the last 4 decades?"
Yes, I think they will, because they know that "the left", i.e Labour, will not change that tradition of 4 decades standing.
But why have political appointees as departmental heads? I thought that the minister was meant to be the political appointee. It is probably just a move to maintain ministerial power while evading ministerial responsibility. Good luck to them.
As for the Labour Party. My dear departed mother worked as a volunteer for the Labour Party. Delivering leaflets. Making cups of tea for the political types. Donating every spare dollar she could to party funds. Voted for Labour, of course. Carried on doing that through Rogernomics, which horrified her, because she trusted the party to one day come back to its senses. It never did come back to being the Labour Party in which she believed.
This is the colonialist political system. It callously exploits the good faith of ordinary citizens. Not for ever.
" I think they will, because they know that "the left", i.e Labour, will not change that tradition of 4 decades standing".
But why would the Right not stick with something that is already institutionalised in their favour?
IMO nothing will happen to this treasury/gov't abusive relationship in NZ until something catastrophic happens among the 'big boys'; US, UK, EU. Once these are preoccupied with their own disintegration, NZ will be free to make choices- not until; the potential for economic and military punishment from the big boys is too palpable.
Your article on the rich certainly went some way for me to answering the "how". We are thoroughly gulled into believing that we ourselves could get rich, that it is a laudable goal, that it matters more than the failure of opportunity of large groups of people who will never get rich or even subsist with dignity, that the planet doesn't matter if we're rich and that capitalism is king.
I really enjoyed reading this post. I also get so frustrated when people claim that "overly complex language" is the Left's main issue. Of course, accessible language is important, but basic demands like "fair wages" and "affordable rent" are already as straightforward as it gets.
Ironically, in many circles, leftist ideas are constantly dismissed as "naive, oversimplified concepts that wouldn't work in reality." To actually build credibility, we have to acknowledge and reflect the actual complexity of these systemic issues, rather than just watering everything down.
And we also need to be extremely careful not to buy into the conservative narrative here specifically, the arrogant idea that the 'broad masses' or the working class are just 'dumb' or gullible. Because that is exactly what gives the neoliberal ideology its ultimate legitimacy of „ruling“ and trickle down
The reason authoritarianism is disturbing our lives since Jan6’21 is that it is quite simply understandable once the Republican Party is recognized as a political organization that is not,fit to govern over any individual who must give consent to be governed by individual in government Who swear an oath not to violate the individual rights of the people they have sworn to protect. The Republican Party is our era’s King George III but no one sees the Republican Party as illegitimate because it intentionally violates several minority’s rights when it holds power. Every woman in a Red State that bans abortion becomes a violated minority at a moment of conception. Her right to pyis inexcusably violated by the red state as well as her right to freedom of conscience under the First Amendment’s separation clause.
“rational 1776 revival” explains this and presents the simple fix. But “Rational 1776 revival” needs to be visited by thoughtful Americans if we with feet planted on grassroots and eyes looking optimistically to our future will get the road to recovery built by July 4 2028
Please visit and ask a question. I love questions
https://daveweberva11.substack.com/p/republican-worm-ory-rational-1776?r=59cvkw&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Yes, but criticising the criticisms of another critic may lose the essential focus "It's the lack of a coherent political line around which to build a mass politics" which I guess can be read as "I want someone to create a coherent political line" But I posit that this article concedes it ain't that easy, or the article would define, describe, enunciate such a line. For myself I think that would be a waste of time. The people need bread, not words. A program, a sequence of simple actions, that a party in power can take, actions with real effects, real outcomes, outcomes that (even slowly - but with believable certainty) will cause the intended aims. That is what is missing. That is what is needed. Oh, but they promise the outcomes. True, but they fail to name the causal actions. And why? Two reasons: (a) they haven't thought that far ahead, and (b) there aren't any; and perhaps also (c) they knew it was all fiction anyhow.
The article almost touched on this with the bit about Zizek, but the job of obscuring the reality is more easily achieved by using simple language, whereas demystifying reality requires precise language.
My thoughts on this have simplified a bit more recently after finding a political compass with the x-axis being left/right economic views, and the y-axis spanning from liberalism to authoritarianism... https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 my thoughts around what is happening and the rhetoric coming from the opposite "side" is that both sides are responding to the authoritarian aspects of the other economic political side. Its the authoritarianism/liberalism that splits within each economic viewpoint as well as the left/right difference. Helen Pluckrose has also written about this recently in her substack.
Yes, but as we all are well aware, to most anarchists, conformity to one string of language and a uniform isn't going to happen without a huge amount of resistance. It's not lacking if it's specifically undesired.
This is on my reading list Will comment soon
https://daveweberva11.substack.com/p/republican-worm-ory-rational-1776?r=59cvkw&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I think the so-called ‘left’ was way more C00L during the 70s & 80s.
Reason … Just re-read this utter headache.
Nobody sat around being this petty. … It was casual — like ME MTHRFX.
Cut the semantics & BE REAL ☮️
We agree that the left is pathetic
I just quit tryna understand cuz everybody (not you … just slang) so DE4D set on tryna LYNCH ME.
It’s the SIMPLICITY of C00L that I miss so damn much … from back in the mid/late 80z … when CLUB N0USV0US rocked the house.
Nowadays I gotta walk around with an encyclopedia just 2 understand what the kids are talking about…
Dumb it down 2 a dance track 4 ME.
Just cuz I has ME a TERMINAL DEGREE … don’t mean I don’t C0DE SWITCH on the fly or even care 2 think too hard … 4 that matter.
-/-/-/-
KISS — keep it simple …
Whilst we still have so many people voting without knowing or caring of their chosen party’s policies, without knowing who is oiling their cogs.
How can we improve our own political connections, alongside open our oppositions eyes & ears… it may take a super hero!