Capitalism

Teachers Strike Against Government’s Self-Imposed Austerity

Teachers Strike Against Government’s Self-Imposed Austerity

Aotearoa’s education system is in crisis.  A perfect storm of underfunding, understaffing, low pay and long hours is causing people to leave the teaching profession in droves.  This exodus is demonstrated in two alarming facts: one, that between 2010 and 2016, there was a 40% drop in student teachers; two, and even worse — that nearly half of all new teachers are dropping the career in their first five working years.  Principals are feeling the pain as well: a study was released last year showing that too much work and unsafe hours are resulting in principals in primary schools experiencing dangerously high amounts of stress, burnout and sleep deprivation.

This education crisis is the direct result of a decade of chronic underfunding.  Between the 1999/2000 and 2008/09 budgets, when Helen Clark was Prime Minister, weekly spending on education adjusted for inflation and population size rose by $12.32.  By the 2017/18 budget, after nine years of National in power, real weekly spending per capita had decreased by $3.37.

Year after year, our teachers have put up with these conditions.  But no more. In August 2018, the New Zealand Education Institute (NZEI), the union for primary and intermediate school teachers and principals, went on strike; they struck again in November.  Their demands include the hiring of more staff, a 16% pay rise, a reduction in average class sizes for Years 4-8 from a ratio of 1 teacher to 29 students down to 1:25, and significantly more paid time for teachers to complete their extensive out-of-classroom responsibilities, such as marking.

It goes without saying that these demands have not yet been met.  The Ministry of Education have made weak offer after weak offer, with the latest (and, due to the pressure of the strikes, strongest) proposal involving a 3% pay rise each year for three years.  But NZEI members, sick of being underappreciated, are not backing down.

Not only are primary school teachers and principals not backing down — they are being joined by the secondary school union!  Members of both NZEI and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) voted earlier this month for an historic joint strike, which will include up to 50,000 workers across Aotearoa.  The two unions are entering this dispute with fighting talk, promising “the biggest strike this country has ever seen” to tackle the “unprecedented crisis in education”.

Independent polling has shown huge public support for the teachers’ struggle, and overwhelming agreement with the demands raised, with 89% of Kiwis agreeing that more funding for education should be a priority, 88-89% agreeing that there is a teacher shortage, 83% agreeing that teachers need a pay rise, 73-76% agreeing that class sizes should be reduced, 79% agreeing that teachers need more time for planning, preparation and assessment, and 91% agreeing that more support is needed for students with additional needs.

The only way to tackle the epidemic of low pay and poor conditions which scourges this country is for workers to organise, stand up, and fight back.  Primary teachers, nurses, public servants, bus drivers, fast food, cinema and retail workers, and many others led the fightback with their strikes last year. So far this year, secondary teachers, junior doctors, and still more union members — almost too many to count! — have joined them.  To all those who have created this strike wave in the last 18 months: solidarity.

The NZEI-PPTA “mega-strike” on 29 May 2019.

The Labour-led Government has had a different message to the strikers.  Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern insists that she “understands the frustration of teachers and principals”, but that her administration are “doing as much as we can right now for the education sector.”  The same line is being given to our teachers as was given to nurses last year: there is no more money, and therefore the lukewarm proposals being offered are as good as it gets.

Two responses are desperately needed to the Government’s position.  One, to highlight the blatant dishonesty of the claims Labour are making; and two, to be clear to all inside the union movement and the working class that the Labour Party refusing to meet demands for better pay and conditions does not mean we should give up hope of victory.

NZEI strike on 15 August 2018.

No More Money?

The Ministry of Education’s offer to teachers and principals constituted a package of $698 million over four years.  NZEI’s demands alone add up to $900 million over two years. So just one of the teachers’ unions are demanding nearly 30% more money, to be delivered twice as fast — that’s a lot, right?  An unreasonable request?

The (allegedly) independent Chief of the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), lawyer Jim Crichton — who was appointed to the ERA by Labour in 2004, and promoted to Chief in 2015 by National — certainly thinks so.  Crichton has called NZEI’s demands “totally unrealistic”, and proclaimed that the Government’s offer was “a handsome and competitive proposal in the current fiscal environment”.

On the contrary — the “current fiscal environment”, when cast into the light of day, is overwhelmingly positive.  Our Government currently has a $3.5 billion surplus, while net core Crown debt is down to 20.1% of GDP. Public debt, which has been far lower than the public debt of most OECD countries for over a decade, is projected to keep falling over the next five years.

If the Government did need extra cash — say they wanted to pay down debt and invest more in education at the same time — they could always raise more revenue by increasing taxes.  Granted, the majority of working people would be angry at a tax rise right now — and they’d be right to be angry, as making ends meet is tough enough as it is.  But the richest group of New Zealanders are not paying their fair share right now. Far from it — the top 20% of the population own nearly three times as much wealth as the bottom 80%, and even within the top 20%, over a third of the wealth is held by the top 1%.  Taxing the super-rich even a fraction more could raise the money to meet the demands of both teachers’ unions several times over — and the elite are so unfathomably wealthy that they wouldn’t feel one bit of difference.

Source: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2018. The Databook and accompanying Report are available for download here — see page 156 of the Databook, Table 6-5: Wealth shares and minimum wealth of deciles and top percentiles for regions and selected countries, 2018.

There’s no crisis in the Government budget, and there’s no lack of money to go around right now — quite the opposite, the country’s wealth is simply not shared fairly.  But even if there was barely any cash in the Treasury, that would still be no excuse to abandon teachers and principals to weather the raging storm of the education crisis.  If we can’t afford to look after those who have chosen to dedicate their careers to nurturing and educating future generations, what can we afford?  What NZEI and PPTA are asking for would be a price worth paying regardless.

Self-Imposed Austerity: Why Labour Aren’t Delivering

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Education Minister Chris Hipkins, and representatives of NZ First and the Greens, face the NZEI rally in Wellington during last August’s strike.

“We want to attract the very best teachers, provide them with ongoing development opportunities throughout their careers, ensure they are well paid and respected, and receive all the support that they need to thrive in their roles”

This was the education policy campaigned on by the Labour Party in the 2017 election.  On paper, it aligns entirely with what NZEI and PPTA are asking for. Why, then, are Labour not even coming close to honouring their promises, and instead refusing to meet the demands of teachers who have faced over a decade of appalling treatment from the National Government?

The answer lies with another key policy Labour committed itself to, alongside the Greens, during the last election: the Budget Responsibility Rules (BRR).  These self-imposed rules chained Labour and the Greens to the logic of austerity. The two main parties of the centre-left not only promised they would run surpluses and reduce debt — which, as explained above, is largely unnecessary given how rosy the Government accounts are looking right now — but, alarmingly, they made a pledge to keep state spending at the average of the last 15 years: 30% or less.  That wasn’t just a commitment to unnecessarily prudish management of the existing pot of money. It was a promise to continue the era of small government, no matter what.

Aotearoa didn’t always have a small, fiscally conservative government.  Before 1984, we had one of the most generous welfare states in the world, alongside comparatively high taxes on the rich, and among the highest levels of union density in the OECD.  That all changed between 1984 and 1993. Right-wing governments, led first by Labour, then by National, flogged off state assets in a fire sale, slashed funding for public services, attacked the unionsended full employment while decimating welfare, and made the tax system far less progressive than it had been previously.  The top income tax rate was halved, from 66% on the highest earners down to 33%, and introduced instead was the deeply regressive Goods and Services Tax (GST), which disproportionately hits the poorest in society.

35 years after this assault began, and we still live in the long shadow of ‘trickle down’ economics, otherwise known as neoliberalism.  No government since 1984 has even begun to challenge this framework.  Labour and the Greens proved with BRR that they have no intention of doing so either.  But the strike wave of the last 18 months has presented the challenge to the Government: if you won’t end austerity, we’ll fight you until you do.  For the demands of the 50,000 angry teachers cannot be met until and unless the Budget Responsibility Rules are cast into the dustbin of history.

Where Austerity Comes From

But why?  Why would the Labour Party, which came from the union movement and has always claimed to represent workers and the poor, hold to a economic doctrine which prioritises low taxes, small government and prosperity for the top 10% over the interests of teachers, nurses, and the rest of the working class?

Such a question can only be answered by understanding the very heart of our economic, political and social system: capitalism.  It is capitalism which creates a structural separation between those who create all the world’s wealth, the working class, and those who profit from it: the bosses, shareholders, landlords and bankers.  The capitalist class, the tiny minority at the top of society, hoard extraordinary wealth to themselves, while everybody else carries the cost, suffering under the crushing weight of unspeakable inequality.

Austerity is endemic to this capitalist system.  The welfare state, which provided free basic health and education services to the working class, and insured against unemployment and old age, was a victory won by the workers through huge industrial and political struggle in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.  It always endured in spite of the capitalist class.  The capitalists got their revenge, however, as they set about dismantling the welfare state as soon as they possibly could.  They made sure to break the power of the trade unions in the process. That’s why public health and education are always under attack by the capitalist class — and it’s why our governments, whatever their intentions, are always held to ransom by those who truly control the economic and political levers of power.

Ardern, Robertson, their Labour colleagues and their Green allies, may very well want to deal with the crises which have emerged in health and education in the past 35 years.  They may well want to solve the housing crisis and end poverty, as they claim. It’s not necessarily the case that their intentions are bad, or that they are dishonest — we have no real way of knowing whether or not they are.  But ultimately, that’s not what matters. What matters is that in practice, Labour and the Greens cannot solve our problems for us — they do not have the power to do anything about the capitalist system as a whole. But that is not for a second to say that we should give up hope of a better system.  The people with the power to make the world a better place are the very workers who have been on strike in 2018 and 2019.

Socialist Politics Is Needed To End Austerity

The strikes of the last 18 months have shown exactly how we can fight back against this rigged system, and exactly how we can win.  When workers go on strike, it’s not just another protest or demonstration. It demonstrates, in a microcosm at first, greater truths about the system we live under: that workers are the ones who really allow society to function; that we can shut down capitalism if we have the will to do so; and, ultimately, that we can take over and run the world in a far better way ourselves than the way the ruling class so desperately want us to.

The struggle being fought by teachers, nurses, junior doctors, public servants, bus drivers, fast food, cinema and retail workers, and so many others, is not just a collection of different struggles aiming for better pay and conditions within a range of different workplaces.  It’s a struggle for a better world for everybody, being fought on many different fronts, with currently separate goals, but with the potential to change everything. It’s a struggle that’s also being fought through school strikes, not just by teachers, but also by the students they are teaching, who have so far struck twice for climate action, and intend to do so again.

Low wages, long hours, underfunding and understaffing of services, precarious contracts, the housing crisisthe mental health crisis, and even the climate crisis, can all be defeated — if the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle is found.  That missing piece is socialist politics. Socialist politics is what is needed to connect the dots, make the links between disparate struggles, and bring people together from industrial and social movements, putting forward common sense demands which come from a vision of life beyond capitalism.

Free, high-quality housing, healthcare, education and public transport for all; higher wages across the board; the end of poverty and involuntary unemployment; the abolition of taxes on working class people; the rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy — these should not be far-off, crazy-sounding pipe dreams.  These ideas can and should become reality, if we are willing to stand together and fight for them. The people and the planet should always come before profit.

Another world is possible, and the striking teachers are showing the way to get there.



This article has been republished. You can read the original here.

Elliot Crossan is a socialist writer and activist.

31 May, 2019

Posted by Elliot Crossan in New Zealand Labour Party, New Zealand politics, 0 comments
Long Past Time For Climate Justice

Long Past Time For Climate Justice

Runaway climate change is the greatest crisis of the 21st Century.  It has been inspiring in the past few months to see new movements forming to take a stand for our planet — especially young people, as our generation have by far the most to lose from this fast-approaching disaster.  But we can never truly prevent environmental meltdown unless we challenge this problem at its root; unless we challenge the system which is the fundamental cause, both of climate change, and of the extreme inequality in today’s society.  We need to overthrow capitalism.

Capitalism = Profit > People + Planet

The science is clear: we have 12 years at the most to dramatically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions if we want to prevent catastrophic climate change from occurring.  This will require an economic and social transformation, the likes of which humanity has rarely seen throughout our history. That is no excuse for inaction — there is simply no alternative.

The problem is not that such a transformation is impossible.  It’s that the current economic system we live under will never be able to deliver it.  Capitalism is a system where a tiny elite own the vast majority of wealth, and hence control the way resources are distributed and used in our world.  Corporations make the decisions over what is produced, who gets employed, how much they are paid, and under what conditions — and inevitably, they always put their profits over the interests of people and the planet.

Just 100 corporations were responsible for 70.6% — nearly three quarters! — of all greenhouse gas emissions between 1988 and 2015.  This crisis has not been caused by ordinary people — workers, students and beneficiaries like you, me, our families and our friends — and it’s not our fault for consuming certain products or relying on cars to get to work, school or uni.  We do not have the choice of whether or not to make those decisions — and we do not have the power to decide the fate of the system as a whole. Only a system where the economy is controlled democratically by communities can prioritise such trivial things as the survival of our generation over the trillions of dollars which climate polluters rake in every day.

We Need a Just Transition

Union ACV-CSC Belgium demonstration for a just transition.

Even if capitalism could become a “green” system, and the “sustainable” businesses won out, this would not bring about climate justice.  The perfect example of an unjust climate so-called solution is the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax.  Yes, we do need to end our dependence on petrol and diesel powered cars to reduce our emissions.  But ordinary people who need to get to work or education on time are not to blame for the lack of decent public transport in this city; we cannot magic into existence overnight a functioning alternative to getting to work by car; and we should not pay the price of this transition — especially when low wages and unaffordable housing are already squeezing people’s incomes so much.

Our trips to work, school and uni are unavoidable.  Even if this policy wasn’t so unfair, it wouldn’t actually reduce emissions at all, because people need to travel across the city anyway!  A just transition would require making trains and busses free, investing far more than the government is currently prepared to into frequent, good quality public transport services, and taxing the fossil fuel and dairy companies to pay for it.

Workers who are currently employed in the dairy or oil and gas sectors are not to blame for the fact that their jobs and livelihoods depend on extracting unsustainable resources.  Even if we were to see a transition to a zero carbon capitalist economy, these workers would be shafted — they would be tossed out of work with no proper safety net to look after them.  A just transition must mean providing a guaranteed livable income and free retraining for all workers. Capitalism will not deliver this, because it is a system which only ever does one thing — turn money into more money for the top 1%.

Even Labour and the Greens Are Failing

Our Prime Minister has responded to the call for school students to strike for climate action by saying that what she’d like to think is that “in New Zealand there’s less cause for protest, [because] we’re certainly trying to do our bit.”  Jacinda Ardern does have better rhetoric than most politicians about how bad the climate crisis is — as, of course, do her coalition partners in the Green Party — but unfortunately, their policies do not match up with the scale of the threat.  It’s not necessarily because they don’t understand how bad climate change is, or because they don’t care. It’s because governments which are not prepared to challenge capitalism simply cannot reduce pollution, whatever their intentions.

Comic by Joel Pett.

As for the Greens — as well as supporting the cruel and ineffective fuel tax, Climate Minister James Shaw has explained why the Government refused to end existing block offers for deep sea oil and gas drilling by effectively saying that the “property rights” of the corporations who have already purchased the permits for this offshore exploration are more important than climate action.  Labour and the Greens have also refused to end permits for drilling on the land entirely — meaning Taranaki is still open to yet more destructive mining and fracking. This is not a green approach in any way, shape or form — it’s a capitalist approach, which once again protects corporate greed instead of the future of the planet.

Is There Any Alternative?

Yes, there is.  Young people and activists challenging inadequate action on climate change from governments, and challenging the very existence of fossil fuel companies, is a great start.  It shows where the real power to stop climate change lies — as the Māori proverb goes: he tangata, he tangata, he tangata; it is the people, the people, the people.

Workers, students and beneficiaries need to unite behind the movement for climate action, and widen our demands — not just an end to environmental destruction, but ultimately, an end to the entire capitalist economic structure which created this crisis in the first place.  We all deserve a better world and a future to believe in — young people more than anybody. Let’s stand together, as students, workers and beneficiaries, whether we are Māori, Pākehā or tauiwi, to demand real climate action, real climate justice, and a more equal society as a whole!



This article has been republished. You can read the original here.

Elliot Crossan is a socialist writer and activist.

14 March, 2019

Posted by Elliot Crossan in Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, New Zealand Labour Party, New Zealand politics, 0 comments
Taxing the Richardson Will Not Be Enough

Taxing the Richardson Will Not Be Enough

A shrill screeching sound has been echoing around Aotearoa in the last couple of weeks.  From Cape Reinga to Stewart Island, the deafening screams of the rich — terrified at the idea that they might have to pay a little more tax — have been reverberating across the country, reaching every corner of the land.

This ear-splitting pitch has been induced by the Government’s Tax Working Group, who have finally, after sixteen months of deliberation, released their report exploring ideas of how to adjust the country’s taxation system.  This report has the audacity to suggest that the Labour-NZ First Coalition should bring in a tax on capital gains at a similar rate to how ordinary income is currently taxed — a radical, far-left proposal which is found in the communist dictatorships of… the United States, Japan, Australia, and no less than 18 other OECD countries.

Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges has condemned this suggestion, issuing an outraged warning that a Capital Gains Tax (CGT) would be “an assault on the Kiwi way of life”.  Ever-outspoken and ambitious National Party frontbencher Judith Collins has proclaimed that Labour going ahead with a tax on capital gains “would make Simon Bridges Prime Minister” — something she must be even more worried about than everybody else in the country right now, given that her hopes of successfully challenging Bridges for the leadership of their party are currently looking rosier than ever!  Meanwhile, Business Central have called the proposed CGT “fatally flawed”, while the Taxpayers Union have complained that it would be “aggressive and unfair”, and the architect of our current free market economy, Sir Roger Douglas himself, has labelled the suggested policy “a joke”.

From page 33 of the Tax Working Group’s final report.

Take a glance at the anticipated effects of a CGT, which are outlined at length in the Working Group’s report, and you will instantly see why the richest people in Aotearoa and their political representatives in the National Party are so angry and upset.  Page 33 of the report shows the spread of total net worth for each fifth (or ‘quintile’) of New Zealanders, excluding owner-occupied family homes, which would not be taxed by CGT — something Business Central actually object to.  The bottom two-fifths of households combined have a net worth of around $28.9 billion — meaning 40% of the country own roughly 4% of the total net worth above and beyond people’s personal houses. The next 40% own $159 billion, or 20% of that wealth.  Then there’s the top fifth of the country. They own $602 billion, as well as the homes they live in; that means that the top 20% own 76%, more than three times what the other 80% of us do.  The kind of wealth which a Capital Gains Tax would apply to is concentrated in the hands of those at the very top of society.  The vast majority of the country hold very little of the wealth which CGT would affect — it’s far from “an assault on the Kiwi way of life” for ordinary people.

The reasons why the rich are so scared of a CGT are further illuminated by the statistics provided on page 62 of the Working Group’s findings.  The bottom 30% of the country would have around 0.13% of their current disposable income taken by the proposed tax. How much would taxes go up for hard working middle New Zealand?  Well, an average of 0.5% of what the middle 40% of households are earning right now, after existing taxes, would be paid to the government through this new tax. It’s not even that bad for the upper middle class!  Deciles 8 and 9, the group richer than the bottom 70% but poorer than the top 10%, would have approximately 1.65% of their current disposable income taxed.

From page 62 of the Tax Working Group’s final report.

It’s only the top 10% who would be hit hard.  7.7% of their current disposable income would be paid to the state if the Government decided to accept the Working Group’s proposal of a CGT.  Even if you include owner-occupied housing, the five hundred thousand New Zealanders who make up decile 10 currently own significantly more total wealth than deciles 1 through 9 — the other four-and-a-half million of us — put together.  The wealthiest citizens in the land would still be ridiculously well-off even if the CGT was implemented — in fact, they would still be far, far richer than everybody else combined.

So, the poorest households in Aotearoa would have to pay as little as 13 cents out of every hundred dollars earned, while the average working family would only have to pay 50 cents, and even the upper middle class would be charged just $1.65 out of every $100.  The top 10% would have to rummage around in their oversized bank accounts and hand over just $7.70 out of every $100 they make. They can more than afford that, many times over. Taxing capital gains is common sense. It would help reduce the speculation in the housing market which has caused the price of buying a home to skyrocket in the last few decades, and it would raise a solid amount of money for the Government to spend — the Working Group have proposed to spend that money on income tax cuts of around $15 per person per week, but the money could also be spent on public services, or on building the new houses which we so desperately need.  Either way, it would reduce the obscene levels of inequality this country currently experiences by a small fraction. What’s not to like?

A Door Opens — Only to Be Slammed Back in Our Faces

It is most amusing to see the richest citizens of this country freak out at the idea of a minor increase in their taxes.  Unfortunately, amongst the panicked screams of greedy landlords and corporate fat cats terrified of a small reduction in their vast hoarded wealth, there lies a sinister pledge to take revenge if this CGT goes through.

It’s a pledge which perfectly demonstrates why merely tinkering around the edges of the existing economic framework — raising taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to working class people, but ultimately leaving the fundamentals of the system unchallenged — is always going to be entirely inadequate.  The unpleasant truth is that the wealthiest people in Aotearoa hold the real power in society. Their power is derived from their control over the economy — meaning they can hold the government to ransom if the elected representatives of the people dare to even think about going against the interests of the wealthy.  They can make day-to-day life very hard for ordinary people, because they own our workplaces, and they even own many of our homes.  They are determined to get their way, no matter the cost.

Enter ageing ex-cricketer Mark Richardson.  Richardson is a pundit on the AM Show — he is officially their sports presenter, but he also uses his platform on the popular radio program to give voice to his mean-spirited, increasingly brazen political views.  Last year, Richardson expressed exasperation at the media’s “unfair” treatment of Donald Trump, telling people to “give the guy a shot” in response to his co-presenter Amanda Gillies calling the US President racist.

Image from Newshub.

After Labour’s 2018 Budget a couple of months earlier, he had been complaining that “I’m going to be left out of pocket by this Budget […] I’m running a business here, you know!”.  He announced live on air, without even telling the people affected beforehand, that because of the rising costs the Budget would give him, he would be increasing rent for the tenants in the properties he owns.

The latest of Richardson’s angry right-wing rants came last week.  He insisted to AM Show listeners that “there is no housing crisis in this country, there is an accommodation crisis.  That’s very different!”  He elaborated by saying “I don’t give a rat’s arse if you can’t afford a house!  What I care about is if you can’t afford to rent a nice place to stay.”

Here are a few facts about the housing crisis which Richardson denies the existence of:

Never mind all that though — as he says, Richardson couldn’t give a rat’s arse about the colossal crisis in home ownership.  So surely, as he points out, everything is fine, and people are able to get by renting lovely accommodation to live in.

How utterly out-of-touch he is with the real lives of working class people.  Rents have also been skyrocketing in the past few decades, well outstripping wage growth.  The 600,000 households who rent are up to their ears in outrageously high bills from landlords, and it shows — housing costs for the bottom fifth of New Zealanders nearly doubled between 1990 and 2015, going from an average of 30% of their incomes to a staggering 54%.

Source: The State of New Zealand Housing, The House Site.

As for “a nice place to live”?!  Don’t make me laugh! The appalling conditions which so many renters have to put up with every day have been thoroughly documented.  Cold, damp, mouldy flats — it’s a story which scarcely needs repeating.  I know myself and too many of my friends have suffered symptoms such as disgusting skin conditions and shortness of breath in the winter — the situation is even more horrible for children who have to grow up in this environment.  Aotearoa is a developed country. It is positively criminal that serious health problems which were thought to have been eradicated are returning to the poorest and most vulnerable of our communities, while the wealthiest citizens of the nation enjoy such extreme affluence.

In response to the proposed Capital Gains Tax, Richardson decided that he needed to add yet more injury to his insulting attitude towards working people.  He once again proclaimed live on the AM Show that, if Labour’s planned CGT and accompanying $15 per week income tax cuts are implemented, he will take back whatever he loses by raising rents for his tenants.

“These tax cuts, alright?  I’m sorry — I went through how much people stand to make in tax cuts if it comes in, about $575 a year — I’m sorry, that might make a small difference to those right down the bottom, but that makes diddly-squat difference to the people who will be hurt by this tax, which is the middle class, who are trying desperately to get ahead, not to be a burden on the system when they retire, trying to get their kids ahead — they’re the ones who will take a proportionally greater hit!”

He continued:

“If they don’t own something, what are they doing, they are renting.  Well I will take that fifteen bucks a week back within the next couple of years, thank you very much!”

The sheer ignorance.  Richardson is genuinely convinced that the “middle class” are as wealthy as he is, and that people who don’t own investments, rental properties and businesses are a small group at the bottom of society.  He couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. The class who will “take a proportionally greater hit” are the top 10%. They’re the ruling class. They are the only group who will see a tax increase of 7.7% from CGT; they’re the group who between them own more wealth than the bottom 90% of us combined; they are the greedy profiteers, the leeches on society who live off the backs of the hard work everybody else does.  Yes, a $15 a week tax cut would make a difference to ordinary middle New Zealand — that is, if you didn’t raise rents and take that cash straight back for yourself, you elitist bully-boy.

The absolutely revolting hypocrisy.  Within a week of saying he will raise the rents of his tenants to make up for a modest tax increase on his massive wealth, to proclaim that there isn’t a housing crisis in Aotearoa!  To act as though it’s fine because people who don’t own anything can afford to rent “nice places”!  How Richardson can make these two statements within just a week of each other without the blindingly obvious contradictions causing his brain to explode simply baffles me.

A Useful Idiot

It’s infuriating that this man can espouse such ignorant, selfish and hypocritical views with such a mind-numbing lack of self-awareness.  However, on the other hand, I would argue that it is actually very useful that Richardson is being so honest. He is not only exposing to the rest of us, with absolute clarity, the odious position he occupies in society.  He is in the same breath illustrating the odious nature of his class. He is revealing for all to see the utter disregard for fellow humans which landlords embody; he is displaying the mental contortions they must necessarily exercise in order to avoid feeling guilty for their actions; he is demonstrating that himself and people like him either simply cannot understand the realities of life for the vast majority of working class people who exist around them — or even worse: if they do understand, they do not care.

Above all, he is shouting to the world, more sharply and concisely than a thousand of my wordy articles ever could, the exact reason why capitalism as an economic system and a political power structure must be overthrown.  Yes, it is possible to elect a Labour Government, and yes, if pressure from below is applied, that government will have to concede reforms to the majority of people in order to reduce extreme inequality and the daily suffering it causes the working class.  But reformist governments will always be powerless to actually change things on the scale necessary to truly end that suffering — precisely because a reformist government, even one led by the most brave and radical of people, will never hold any true power in society.

Housing Action Now march.

The power Mark Richardson is expressing when he tells AM Show listeners that he is going to raise rents for his tenants is the power which is the source of the crisis of inequality Aotearoa faces today.  We have a housing crisis because of the all-consuming greed of property speculators and landlords. It’s not a technical hiccup in an otherwise functioning system. It’s a problem which will always exist when the small group at the top of society control the vast majority of the wealth and power.  It’s a problem which will always exist under capitalism.

It’s not just a problem found in housing.  Workers experienced a huge reduction in our real median wages in the 1980s and early 1990s, aided by the policy of full employment being endedstate-owned industries being privatised, and unions being smashed.  Real median wages have been stagnant ever since this reduction.  Just as the housing market has been driven into crisis by speculators and landlords pursuing ever-higher profits, bosses have held down wages in order to achieve the same goal — cut the share of income going to workers so they can hoard that cash for themselves.

It is why inequality has soared in the last 35 years, to a point where the top tenth of the country own more than the bottom nine-tenths, and the two men at the very top — the richest men in the country, Graeme Hart and Richard Chandler — own more wealth between them than the bottom 1.4 million people.  It’s a class war which has been waged against the working class of Aotearoa by the bosses, landlords, bankers and investors.  It’s a war which has been fought by their representatives in government, both under National Party and under Labour Party rule.  And it’s a war which cannot be fixed even if Labour are prepared to tax the rich a bit more and redistribute the wealth — because the landlords can just make rents even higher, the bosses can just push wages even lower, and the banks can just raise interest rates.  They will get their way under this exploitative economic order.

Capitalism isn’t working.

Another World Is Possible

It’s time to fight back.  Mark Richardson has shown us why, as do all the statistics about the housing crisis, wage suppression and inequality.  We don’t even need those statistics to understand; most New Zealanders, especially young New Zealanders, can feel that something is deeply wrong.  We can feel the unbearable pressure we are under as we see house prices, rents and debts soar through the roof while wages are stuck on the floor; and we can see clearly that the super-rich are the only ones benefiting from this state of affairs.  The mental health crisis amongst the youth of today is largely caused by the hopelessness and stress produced as an inevitable result of capitalism.  Again, my personal experience, and the experiences of my friends, make the statistics on this issue strike far too close to home.

We’re ready to fight back.  That’s why National were kicked out of power after the nine long years of misery they gave us.  That’s why 2018 saw the biggest strikes in decades, with tens of thousands of nurses, midwives, teachers and public servants taking industrial action against the Labour-NZ First Government, demanding a better deal — these workers know that nothing is going to happen if we wait in vain for Labour to deliver, and that we have to take matters into our own hands.

The fight against obscene inequality is happening across the world, not just in Aotearoa.  Young people in the United States of America — of all places! — prefer the idea of socialism to capitalism.  Not only that, but in Britain and Germany, a majority of the total population have a favourable view of socialism and a net unfavourable view of capitalism.  Working class people, especially amongst the youth, are rejecting tired old status quo politics in favour of unashamed left-wing reformists who are willing to call out the rigged economic system for what it is, and promise meaningful changes which will make a genuine difference in people’s daily lives.  That’s why in the last few years, out of the political wilderness and into the centre stage have sprung self-proclaimed socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in America, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in Britain, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his La France Insoumise movement in France, Die Linke in Germany, Pablo Iglesias and the Podemos party in Spain, People Before Profit in Ireland, and SYRIZA in Greece, just to name a few examples.  Their political messages all contain a common theme: as Jeremy Corbyn’s iconic slogan states, they stand “for the many, not the few”.

There is no question that we need a new political party in Aotearoa which will fight without compromise for the interests of the bottom 90% of New Zealand — the workers, renters and debtors who deserve a better deal — and against the bosses, landlords and bankers who exploit us for their own gain.  There is no question that such a workers’ party would be popular — the number of people desperate for change is massive. The only questions are of detail: who, when, and most importantly, how?

I, for one, can’t wait to see the look on Mark Richardson’s face when his beloved ‘middle New Zealand’ turns out to be a complete myth; when the real majority in this land turns out to be the exploited and righteously angry working class; and when that working class turns out to be ready to stand up, fight back, put Mark and his rich mates in their place, and build an Aotearoa which works in the interests of everybody.



This article has been republished. You can read the original here.

Elliot Crossan is a socialist writer and activist.

6 March, 2019

Posted by Elliot Crossan in New Zealand Labour Party, New Zealand politics, 0 comments
100 Years Ago: The Murder of Rosa Luxemburg

100 Years Ago: The Murder of Rosa Luxemburg

“Today we can seriously set about destroying capitalism once and for all. No, still more; today we are not only in a position to perform this task, its performance is not only a duty toward the proletariat, but its solution offers the only means of saving human society from destruction.”

These were the words of socialist leader Rosa Luxemburg in a speech given on New Year’s Eve of 1918, just two weeks before her death. The First World War, a pointless bloodbath of nationalistic slaughter, had been ended only a month before, after four long years and the loss of around 17 million lives. The war was not ended by either the benevolence or the rationality of the rulers of the European empires which had contested it; it took the onset of the German Revolution to stop the massacre.

This was the context in which “Red Rosa” proclaimed the overthrow of capitalism to be the only means of saving human society from destruction, and rightly so: the imperialist wars we have seen in the hundred years since the First World War ended have caused unspeakable suffering. If anything, her words are even more relevant to the world of today than they were when she uttered them a century ago, with the ecological catastrophe capitalism is unleashing poised to make the very planet we live on uninhabitable — unless we can stop this mad system in the next decade.

Who Was Rosa Luxemburg?

Born in 1871 to a Jewish family living in Poland, Rosa Luxemburg became a Marxist at a very young age, and began organising workers to fight the system which exploited them as soon as she was able to. She joined the Proletarian Party in 1886, but had to flee the country three years later, aged just eighteen, after a failed attempt to lead a general strike resulted in the execution of four of the party’s leaders, and the organisation being disbanded.

After living in Switzerland and France for a few years, Luxemburg decided that she needed to base herself in the country where the socialist movement was the strongest at the time: Germany. She became a German citizen in 1897, and immediately began to immerse herself in the politics of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (‘Social Democratic Party of Germany’ or ‘SPD’), which at the turn of the century was the largest and most influential working class party in the world. To her alarm, however, what she quickly realised was that, instead of the SPD being the bastion of revolutionary socialism everybody believed it to be, in reality the party was becoming increasingly more conservative, watering down its programme, and focusing in practice on trying to win reforms through parliamentary elections instead of trying to build a movement to overthrow capitalism altogether and establish a socialist system in its place.

Luxemburg’s seminal work was a series of articles which became the book Social Reform or Revolution? (written in 1898-99 and updated in 1907), in which she sought to explain that, while it would be foolish for the SPD and other socialist parties to dismiss the vital importance of participating in and building on workers’ struggles to win reforms which could reduce their immediate suffering, ultimately capitalism is a system which has chaos, destruction, and the exploitation of the masses built into it; it is not a system which will ever be able to deliver lasting order or prosperity for everybody. She mounted a passionate defence of the core Marxist belief — nominally the belief of the SPD, despite attempts to “revise” and “update” what Marx and Engels argued in The Communist Manifesto (1848) — that the only way to win a society which could truly and permanently deliver a better life for all would be for the working class to conquer political power for themselves.

She stressed the importance of the fact that the capitalist class only became the ruling class in society because of their revolutionary overthrow in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries of both the feudal system, and the class which benefited from it. The capitalists did not settle for mere reforms within a political, social and economic framework which was never designed to function in their interests in the first place. Why should the workers’ ambitions for a better world be restricted to compromising with the capitalist system which is not designed to benefit us?

The crux of her argument as to why capitalism in the long term could not be reformed in the interests of the working class revolved around mocking the notion that the capitalist economy had managed to solve, or at least moderate, its regular crises. Arguments proposing this theory are always put forward during economic booms by capitalist ideologues, as well as by those who want to reform but not overthrow the system. Supposed “proof” that crisis was no longer a central part of the capitalist economy was presented in Rosa Luxemburg’s time by leading SPD reformist Eduard Bernstein and his followers, just as similar “original” theories to this effect were put forward during the 1920s, 1950s-60s, and, most recently, during the 1990s-2000s.

Immediately after Luxemburg published her book rejecting reformism, an economic crisis struck, as crises under capitalism always do. There have, of course, been many economic meltdowns since, all of which have proven both the capitalist and reformist conceptions of the system utterly wrong. No crises have humiliated proponents of the idea that “we have ended boom and bust” more so than the catastrophic global collapses of 1929 and 2008, both of which shook capitalism to its very core, and produced immense resistance — both socialist resistance and, unfortunately, reactionary resistance — to the powers that be. We are living through such a period of rising resistance and polarisation today.

Luxemburg — every bit as fiery a public speaker as she was a writer — addresses a crowd of workers.

In another crucial work, The Accumulation of Capital (1913), Luxemburg sought to explain the causes and consequences of these periodic economic crises. Her argument, which has caused much controversy among Marxists — especially due to her claim that Marx had made an error in Volume II of his magnum opus Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (which was published posthumously in 1885 by Marx’s life-long friend and collaborator, Engels) — was that capitalism can never truly resolve its crises, because the quantity of commodities the system produces must always be significantly greater than the market for purchasing these commodities. The explanation for why this is came from Marx’s theory of surplus value, which says that the profits which capitalists make must necessarily come directly from the capitalists paying their workers less than the value of the work they perform. In a system in which making profit is the dominant factor which drives the economy forward, no capitalist in their right mind would pay their workers more than the absolute minimum necessary at any given time. But the workers are the market. It is the vast majority of people who must consume what they have made, and by holding down the wages of the working class in order to increase the bosses’ profits, capitalism also takes away the workers’ means of consumption. In this act, the capitalist class cut away their own ability to profit from the commodities their workers have made, and the whole economy goes into a “crisis of overproduction” in which more value has been created than can ever be realised under the system.

Her argument then goes that the only way capitalism can continue to function in this context is to constantly expand into new markets through imperialism, to offload all the excess capacity in the economy. In doing so, it must — sometimes peacefully, but more often violently — bring the entire world into the system. Once it had done this, however, there would be nowhere left to go, and no more opportunities left to resolve the crises of the system — and the house of cards would collapse.

The Accumulation of Capital describes with remarkable foresight the events which have unfolded in the century after its publication. When China entered properly into the capitalist system in 1979, and when the USSR — the dictatorship which was for most of its existence in name, but not in practice, “socialist” — collapsed in 1991, capitalism had at last expanded into the remaining major economies of the world. Then the second greatest recession capitalism has ever experienced then broke out in 2008, followed by one of the weakest, if not the weakest recoveries in history — with the prospect of another, possibly even worse economic crisis on the horizon. Luxemburg’s theory is crucial as one part of (though by no means the whole of) the explanation as to why capitalism’s latest crisis is so deep and long-lasting now that the system appears to have exhausted all of the most significant avenues for imperial expansion.

War and Betrayal

But Luxemburg did not have to wait a hundred years to see her theory vindicated — a series of tragic events unfolded, and she was proved correct. Just one year after The Accumulation of Capital was published, the First World War broke out. The war was a direct result of what Luxemburg described: the capitalist powers of Europe had little room to expand their system into at that moment in time, and going to war with each other to try and redivide their existing empires was the only option which remained to them. How sadly prescient Luxemburg was. She described the war with her typical eloquence and moral outrage:

“Violated, dishonoured, wading in blood, dripping filth – there stands bourgeois society. This is it [in reality]. Not all spic and span and moral, with pretense to culture, philosophy, ethics, order, peace, and the rule of law – but the ravening beast, the witches’ sabbath of anarchy, a plague to culture and humanity. Thus it reveals itself in its true, its naked form.”

From The Junius Pamphlet, written by Luxemburg from prison in 1915 — she was locked up for opposing the war effort

Even more tragically, Luxemburg’s foresight was demonstrated in a second way: the parliamentary wing of the SPD, along with the politicians of nearly every other social democratic party in Europe (the Bolsheviks in Russia were a notable exception) voted in favour of their countries joining the First World War. Before 1914, the socialist parties of the world had all agreed upon the correct course of action if the capitalists were to try and start a military confrontation, and in doing so risk the lives of millions of working people: that the workers of all countries, realising they had far more in common with each other than they did with their capitalist masters, should unite, stop the war, and overthrow the system which tried to force them to kill each other. When the reformists in the German party, supposedly the bastion of international socialism, chose nationalism and its bloody barbarism over every principle they had previously proclaimed to uphold, Luxemburg rightly condemned the SPD as “a stinking corpse”. The social democratic so-called leaders abandoning the working class in their greatest hour of need, choosing the horrors of war over resistance and solidarity, remains to this day one of the most calamitous and murderous decisions in human history.

War Becomes Revolution, and Luxemburg Is Murdered

A rally in Berlin during the 1918 German Revolution.

The blood-letting was finally halted in November 1918, when first the sailors, then the workers and soldiers of Germany revolted against their rulers. In two short weeks, the German Revolution put an end to the war, and forced the ruler of the German Empire, the Kaiser, into resigning on November 9th. With workers’ and soldiers’ councils forming across the country, the “moderate” pro-war leader of the SPD, Friedrich Ebert, demanded to be made Chancellor. When Philipp Scheidemann, the SPD’s Deputy Leader, heard that Karl Liebknecht, a comrade of Luxemburg who had also been imprisoned for resisting the war, intended to declare Germany a “Free Socialist Republic”, Scheidemann instead grabbed the initiative and issued his own declaration of Germany becoming a republic, in a mad scramble to legitimise the SPD’s claim to government. Liebknecht’s declaration came just two hours later, two kilometers away from Scheidemann’s.

A power struggle then emerged. As had happened the previous year in the early months of the Russian Revolution, the working class looked first, once they had overthrown their capitalist rulers, to the established leaders of the labour movement — the reformists. Meanwhile, the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (‘Communist Party of Germany‘ or ‘KPD’), newly formed by the anti-war revolutionaries who had left the SPD in disgust, had a hasty debate as to whether or not to stand in the parliamentary elections of January 1919. Despite Luxemburg’s arguments, the majority of the KPD voted to boycott those elections — a grave error which only gave more legitimacy to the victorious reformists. Ebert and Scheidemann swiftly formed a government.

The KPD set about developing a programme for how to carry the revolution forward. Luxemburg knew, as Lenin and Trotsky had known in Russia, that the success or failure of the revolution would depend on striking at the right moment. Try to start a revolution before you have popular support, and failure will be inevitable. In Russia, this knowledge had compelled the revolutionaries to go to the factories and frantically convince the most radical elements in the working class not to start an uprising in July 1917, as the Bolshevik leadership knew that it was too early, and that they needed a majority in the workers’ and soliders’ councils. They declared the revolution only upon obtaining this majority in October, and succeeded as a result. Luxemburg knew the importance of ensuring the KPD did not move too quickly.

Unfortunately, in a meeting Luxemburg did not attend, the KPD leadership decided to call for a revolution in the first week of January. Upon Luxemburg hearing that her friend and comrade Karl Liebknecht had been among those who voted in favour, she was horrified, and wrote to colleagues that “it would no longer be possible to go on working [with him] in future.” But she also knew that it was too late to turn back, and joined the attempt to start an uprising, despite her certainty that it would have disastrous consequences.

The uprising was crushed, and, I must confess, I started to well up a little while trying to write about what happened next. The thought of anyone — especially someone so intellectually outstanding, so passionately committed to human freedom, and so brave in the face of her enemies — being tortured to death is bad enough. The fact that it was on the orders of her own ex-comrades is devastating beyond description.

The SPD under Ebert and Scheidemann had enlisted the “Freikorps” to crush the KPD’s attempted revolution. The Freikorps were paramilitary groups of far-right WWI veterans who had returned to Germany believing that the socialists and the Jews had “stabbed the fatherland in the back”. They were all too happy to assist the reformist government in crushing the revolution.

On 15 January 1919, one hundred years ago yesterday, the social democratic government, lead by the party Rosa Luxemburg had been a passionate member of for 17 years, ordered the Freikorps to capture and kill her and Karl Leibknecht. After they were both tortured and questioned, Leibknecht was shot, and his body was delivered unnamed to the Berlin morgue. Rosa was knocked to the ground by a rifle butt, before a bullet was turned on her as well. Her body was dumped in the nearby canal.

Many of the members and leaders of the Freikorps were to later become the basis for Hitler’s SS divisions — the Nazi secret police who carried out some of the worst crimes of that horrifying regime between 1933 and 1945.

Why We Remember

It is beyond crucial that we remember the lessons of the German Revolution, and the mistakes that were made by the KPD. It is beyond crucial that we remember the treachery of the power-hungry opportunists who were willing to murder working class leaders in order to cling on to their positions in government — only to have that government overthrown by the Nazis they had empowered just 14 years later. The cowards reaped what they had sown, and helped contribute to the Second World War, the Holocaust, and the deaths of 60 million people.

And of course, we should remember Rosa Luxemburg herself. A hero of the working class, who devoted every fiber of her being, and every day of her life, to ending the capitalist nightmares of exploitation, economic crisis and war. An idealist who envisioned a society in which true freedom and democracy could reign supreme — but also a cool-headed theorist, who so many times warned of the barbarism capitalism was preparing to unleash, and of the dangers of the socialist movement taking the wrong path in its struggle to prevent such barbarism. So many times she was proven, tragically, right.

Her last published words, reflecting on the KPD’s devastating mistakes in trying to start the revolution too early, were written so powerfully and so poignantly, as if she knew her enemies would be coming to kill her, and as if to give to those of us who remember her the courage to organise and fight, and fight again, instead of mourning her loss. But then again, having only read a fraction of her writings so far myself, I have found that everything she published had this same character which was represented in her final article: eloquence and clarity in every aspect, with not a word wasted — each sentence giving wisdom and guidance to the workers to which she gave her life, and her death. Her final written paragraphs tell us precisely the way to honour her memory. Everybody who gives their energy, their passion, their mind and their muscle to the struggle for working class liberation is continuing the legacy of Rosa Luxemburg. How proud she would be of each and every person who does so.

“The leadership failed. But a new leadership can and must be created by the masses and from the masses. The masses are the crucial factor. They are the rock on which the ultimate victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were up to the challenge, and out of this “defeat” they have forged a link in the chain of historic defeats, which is the pride and strength of international socialism. That is why future victories will spring from this “defeat.”

“Order prevails in Berlin!” You foolish lackeys! Your “order” is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will “rise up again, clashing its weapons,” and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing:

I was, I am, I shall be!”

January 14, 1919
Karl Leibknecht and Rosa Luxemburg remembered.



This article has been republished. You can read the original here.

Elliot Crossan is a socialist writer and activist.

16 January, 2019

Posted by Elliot Crossan in History, International politics, 0 comments
We Cannot Escape the Tide of History — Nor Should We Want To: A Class Analysis of the 2017 New Zealand General Election

We Cannot Escape the Tide of History — Nor Should We Want To: A Class Analysis of the 2017 New Zealand General Election

Part 2 of 2

The world is currently experiencing its greatest moment of political upheaval since the 1980s.  The presidency of Donald Trump is normalising authoritarianism and white supremacy in the United States to an alarming extent.  Worse still, ideological fascists are on the rise across Europe.  This year, Marine Le Pen of France’s extreme nationalist party, Front National, received double the number of votes her father managed at the party’s high point in 2002.  Austria is now ruled by a coalition between hardline conservatives and the far-right.  Most chillingly of all, given historical events within living memory, Alternative für Deutschland, a neo-Nazi party, is now the third largest faction in the German parliament.

Fortunately, the polar opposite of fascist politics is resurgent too, growing in a way we have not seen in the developed world for decades.  Socialists agitating for a confrontation with “the greed and reckless behaviour of the billionaire class”, and a world that works “for the many, not the few”, are also on the rise.  They are campaigning to expand worker’s rights, the welfare state, and environmental protections, while fighting racism and authoritarianism.  From Britain’s socialist Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to American left-wing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders; from France’s left populist Jean-Luc Mélenchon to Spain’s anti-austerity movement Podemos to Greece’s governing party SYRIZA, class politics and socialist reforms are fast becoming mainstream and popular again.  A bold message of hope and genuine change is charging back onto the field of political contention.

Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, Spain’s Pablo Iglesias, France’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon and America’s Bernie Sanders: the generation of leftists bringing socialism back into fashion.

Calm Waters Surrounded by Titanic Storms?

On the other hand, New Zealand’s recent general election produced a result that will leave society and politics almost entirely unchanged.  This fact is confusing given the context of international events.  The National Party’s level of support remained astoundingly high for a party in an MMP system, particularly given their nine years of office, and the fact that they had presided over and made worse an economic paradigm that works against the interests of the majority of the people.

Winston Peters may be an anti-immigration populist, but he is tame and mostly harmless compared to Donald Trump, let alone the fascist insurgents in Europe.  He is not unfamiliar to our political scene; he has dominated the headlines in New Zealand media for decades.  New Zealand First did not receive a large share of the vote, and the party has been in governments before — held them to ransom before, even — without very much effect.  His role in the new government is not demonstrative of New Zealand succumbing to international upheaval.

The social context of the election is that inequality, especially its most severe consequences in child poverty and homelessness, is at utterly unacceptable heights.  The housing crisis, precarious and low paid employment, underfunded public services, and a shockingly skimpy welfare system are making life worse for so many working class people in Aotearoa.  Mental health problems are worsening and suicide rates are escalating.  Our environment is being polluted in ways that may be beyond repair, with our rivers poisoned and our seas drilled for oil, while New Zealand’s net greenhouse emissions continue to increase.

These social and ecological crises are not just the result of National’s nine years in government — though National did make them worse.  These crises are features of the economic system we live under, and typical of international trends over the last 30-40 years of worsening inequality and environmental destruction — trends largely unaffected by whichever political party holds power.  In New Zealand, these problems have been exacerbated by the policies pursued by every government in the last 33 years — they are not nine years old.

Aotearoa’s inequality crisis is decades old — every government since 1984 is complicit. Image credit: Inequality: A New Zealand Conversation.

Do not believe their rhetoric for a second: the Labour government is committed to managing our current system as conservatively and unimaginatively as possible, and as a result we will see little to none of the change we so desperately need.

Those who have a vested interest in the status quo will celebrate the conservatism of the new government, overjoyed that they are not being confronted with political anger in ways their overseas counterparts are currently facing.  And yet they are fools if they believe that this rigged economic system can last forever.  If they do not believe that unrest will arrive on our shores, and sooner rather than later, they are sorely mistaken.  It will happen here, whether any of us like it or not.  The consequences of the storm we will surely experience shall be decided by whether a vision of hope or hatred can prevail.  Those of us who wish to see a better world must be ready to fight as hard as we can.

To understand what is happening around the world, why it will happen here, what is at stake, and what vision we must advocate, we must first explore the most recent era of world history: the neoliberal era.

The End of History

In 1992, political scientist Francis Fukuyama published ‘The End of History and the Last Man’.  The book argued that, with the advent of neoliberalism and the fall of the USSR, free market capitalism had finally triumphed over all other economic systems, and that humanity’s social evolution was at an end.  Fukuyama’s case was that the Washington Consensus of free trade and free markets was the final stage of history, and that future politics would simply revolve around the expansion of and minor adjustments to this political settlement.  Until 2008, it seemed that Fukuyama might just be right.

In the 1980s, conservative politicians around the world had aggressively implemented the free market reforms of the Washington Consensus.  US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher were the leading  exponents of this agenda.  Their aim was to dismantle the postwar economic order, known as Keynesianism, which had dominated the capitalist world from 1945 until the economic crisis of the 1970s, and replace it with a new economic paradigm, neoliberalism.  Keynesianism had involved:

  • a generous welfare state paid for by high taxes on the rich;
  • extensive state involvement in the economy, with a mix of public ownership and heavy regulation, especially of finance;
  • strong trade unions which were able to campaign in the workplace for better wages and conditions, and in the political sphere for the continuation and expansion of worker-friendly policies.

The neoliberals dismantled Keynesianism through:

This assault on the institutions and power of the working class was arguably the most thorough and successful class war in history.

Breaking the trade unions was the most important pillar of the neoliberal project. Image credit: New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

A Class Project

Many attempts have been made to explore the intentions of the neoliberals.  Reagan and Thatcher have been presented as moralistic true believers, who saw the government as inherently totalitarian, counterposed with capitalism, which they viewed as the ultimate expression of freedom.  They are attributed noble intentions as champions of their individualistic worldview.  Thatcher went as far as to claim that “there is no such thing as society”.  Their stated aims were to destroy socialist principles of collective struggle and provision, and to create the conditions for high economic growth, and therefore greater prosperity for everybody.

Neoliberals may or may not actually believe the narrative they espouse — it doesn’t really matter.  Whatever these people believe, their stated aims are proven to be either incorrect or flatly disingenuous by the actual results.  Neoliberal policies have, in practise, dramatically increased the wealth of the privileged few in society at the expense of the vast majority of people.  Everywhere neoliberalism has been tried, it has been unsuccessful in boosting economic growthas even the International Monetary Fund admits — and in growing the living standards of working class people.  It has not improved society by any measure that matters in people’s lives.  Neoliberalism has not smashed the state, but rather used the state as a tool for redistributing wealth upwards; it has not ended collective struggle, but instead acted to advance the collective interests of elites rather than the interests of the working class.  The only success of neoliberalism has been to further stratify society; inequality has increased in every country that has taken this route.  As a result, we have seen increasing poverty for the working class, while the capitalists have thrived.

A better explanation is needed for why neoliberalism has spread across the world so successfully.  David Harvey argues in ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’ that rather than being a utopian ideology of the supremacy of the market, neoliberalism is a class project by economic elites to restore and enhance their power.  Harvey demonstrates that in every instance where the supposed principles of market supremacy have come into conflict with the interests of the capitalist class, the latter have always prevailed.  As Harvey states, you can infer intent from probable outcomes.  Tax cuts for the rich alongside attacks on public spending and the unions are highly likely to redistribute wealth from working class people to the owners of capital.  Therefore, upwards wealth redistribution must have been the aim of the neoliberal project.

The rise in inequality is not local to Aotearoa, it is global — it is the product of a class project by the international economic elite.

The Disenchantment of Politics by Economics

The public posturing of neoliberals, with their protestations about the market, freedom and “personal responsibility”, need to be seen for what they are: a thin veil for an endeavour by the top 1% to increase their own wealth and power.  However, it is vital that we pay attention to the effects of market fundamentalism on democracy.  Here, Will Davies’ definition of neoliberalism is the most accurate: “the disenchantment of politics by economics”.  He is arguing that the neoliberals seek to depoliticise the very political process itself, to reduce democratic debate to nothing but political parties campaigning on marginally different ways of managing neoliberal capitalism.

Politics is about collective decision making.  Already, we encounter a problem for neoliberals; collective decision making goes against both the ideology of individualism, and against a policy agenda which benefits only a wealthy minority.  This is why since the birth of neoliberal ideology, its principal role has been, by necessity, to try to pretend that its ideas are not an ideology at all, but in fact that capitalism is the only way society can possibly be run.  Another of Thatcher’s common refrains was “there is no alternative!”  Neoliberalism can only ever succeed if people believe there is no other conceivable way to run society.

To succeed, neoliberals must depoliticise everything and everybody, remove all silly ideas about solidarity and the collective strength of a united class from the consciousness of society, and fundamentally stop democracy in its tracks.  Recent international events represent the return of democracy — a prospect that can only spell trouble for neoliberalism.

Social Democracy: An Impossible Dream?

If neoliberalism relies on tricking the majority of people into participating in a system rigged against their own interests, how on earth did it succeed in disenchanting politics?  The neoliberals had to destroy all opposition to their ideas and to their power, by convincing the opposition to vote for leaders who agree, on either an ideological or a practical basis, with neoliberal ideology — leaders who themselves believe deeply that there is no alternative.  Neoliberalism cannot succeed without subsuming social democratic parties in their entirety.  Conversely, the left cannot succeed without breaking fully and absolutely with neoliberal leaders of social democratic parties.

The Third Way is the tendency in centre-left politics to which the leaderships of nearly every social democratic party in the world subscribed from the 1990s until very recently.  Social democracy’s leaders, who once would have campaigned for the welfare state and represented the interests of the trade unions, now accepted that with the End of History had dawned the end of their political tradition, and that they should embrace neoliberalism themselves.  Third Way means social democracy accepting low government spending and a politically powerless working class.

Third Way politicians are often called ‘Blairites’ after Tony Blair, British Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007.  In an interview with Rupert Murdoch’s UK-based tabloid, the Sun, weeks before winning the 1997 general election, Blair reassured Sun readers that once Labour took power the UK would “still have the most restrictive union laws in the Western world.”  Blair defended this statement in the Guardian: “People on the Left have got to understand the realities of the economic world. You will do more to prevent people being treated as commodities by giving them the best educational skills and opportunities, and by having an employment service that is dynamic, than you will by trying to protect the workforce with over-restrictive union legislation. Again, we are under massive attack from the Conservatives in relation to the things we are offering.”  His response touches on another crucial point — that neoliberals in conservative parties must pretend that not only do Blairites represent the most change society can ever hope for, but that the ideas Third Way politicians represent are dangerous, radical, economically damaging, and a threat to the people.  They must do this not only to preserve the illusion that there is no alternative, but to justify the mere fact that Third Way and conservative politicians operate within separate parties!

Pivotal figures who helped cement neoliberalism around the world: economist Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, and David Cameron.

Elections in the neoliberal era are no more than contests of personalities.  That is a major reason why we have seen the archetypal politician in the last few decades change from the image of an elderly statesman to being young, charismatic, and attractive.  Politics?  Who cares?  Our leaders have become smiling, slick and polished for a very good reason: to hide from sight what is missing.  Trudeau, Macron, Blair, Cameron, Clinton, Obama, Turnbull, Key: they all seem so similar because they are.  They all represent the same style-over-substance approach, and exemplify the same neoliberal conceptions about the world.

Hillary Clinton’s recent book ‘What Happened?’ describes how she managed to lose an election to Donald Trump.  She used the book to blame everything but her utterly uninspiring campaign for this loss, particularly targeting Bernie Sanders.  In the book, she quotes a Facebook post which she believes demonstrates the dynamic in which she and Sanders were caught in their primary contest.

‘Bernie: “I think America should get a pony.”
Hillary: “How will you pay for the pony? Where will the pony come from? How will you get Congress to agree to the pony?”
Bernie: “Hillary thinks America doesn’t deserve a pony.”
Bernie Supporters: “Hillary hates ponies!”
Hillary: “Actually, I love ponies.”
Bernie Supporters: “She changed her position on ponies! #WhichHillary#WitchHillary”
Headline: Hillary Refuses To Give Every American a Pony.
Debate Moderator: “Hillary, how do you feel when people say you lie about ponies?”’

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton: a primary which polarised the Democratic Party.  Image credit: Daily Dot.

In reality, all Clinton’s witty post demonstrates is the mentality of Third Way politicians.  They believe that a society run, even slightly, in the interests of the majority of people, is laughably unrealistic.  Being challenged by socialists proposing mild reforms confuses them to the point of incredulity.  They believe so strongly that there is no alternative that they mock the millions of people crying out for one.  Perhaps that is how she managed to lose to Trump.

Tony Blair made similarly revealing remarks about Jeremy Corbyn during the 2015 Labour leadership election.  “Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform.  Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”

The Return of Politics

History has a funny way of making fools out of arrogant intellectuals who try to proclaim its end.  The War on Terror saw the Washington Consensus begin to fracture and fragment; all was not well in Fukuyama’s paradise.  When the 2008 Global Financial Crisis hit, the hegemony of neoliberalism was ended overnight.  The crisis flipped every claim of neoliberalism on its head.  What was supposed to be the perfect economic system, bound to perpetually grow and create great prosperity for all, immune to boom and bust cycles, had produced the greatest crisis capitalism had seen since the Great Depression 80 years earlier.  After that, it was only a matter of time before the clash of different ideas about how to run society started returning to the world; it became a race to see who could re-enchant politics with their ideas first.

The Global Financial Crisis caused the worst recession since the 1930s, and even the recovery resulted in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  No wonder working class people are so angry.  Image credit: Pavlina Tcherneva/Levy Economics Institute.

For the working class, 30 years of stagnating wages, jobs heading offshore, increasingly dilapidated and inadequate public services and infrastructure, skyrocketing house prices, increased indebtedness just to survive, and a lost sense of social cohesion, was more than enough, even before the Financial Crisis.  The giant tax cuts for the rich were revealed for what they were: a simple act of class war.  To add insult to injury, the debt that governments had accrued when they bailed out the banks was passed on to taxpayers in the form of even harsher austerity measures.  This explains why people are so profoundly angry that they are willing to vote for anybody who offers a different approach.Working class people no longer believe that there is no alternative; they want an alternative, no matter what.

Unfortunately, the far-right got a head start.  Paul Mason gave a speech at the 2017 Socialists Together conference, a meeting of social democratic leaders from across Europe.  He quoted Will Davies’ assessment of neoliberalism, adding: “The far-right and the nationalists have re-enchanted politics through nationalism, race, and violent misogyny.”  The void filled by the depoliticisation of society is fast being filled by this terrifying politics, which can only lead to the fascism, racism, totalitarianism and world war of the 1940s.

The left must now offer a more compelling alternative to both neoliberalism and fascism.  The stakes are too high for us not to succeed.  Fortunately, the Corbyn movement is in the process of showing us the perfect example of how to do so.  Mason, a Corbyn supporter and volunteer, went on to say, “what happened is that we got 12 million people to vote for us, because we offered an alternative to neoliberalism, and a narrative of hope.  […] Shortly after we published the manifesto, crowds started to be real, they started to be spontaneous.  You can look at what the manifesto contained — basically, it was a massive fiscal redistribution programme, which said, we will spend money in these blighted towns.”

“Crowds started to be real, they started to be spontaneous.”  Image credit: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images.

The Biggest Threat to the New Zealand Left

In 2014, when I was 16 years old, I paid attention to the New Zealand general election properly for the first time.  When John Key won, I shared the emotions of every other supporter of the left in the country: depression.  National had won and Labour had lost.

Three years later, my politics have evolved somewhat.  I trembled at the election of Jacinda Ardern as deputy Labour leader; I was horrified when Andrew Little resigned and Ardern took over as Leader of the Opposition, and when Winston declared he was going into coalition with Labour and that Ardern would be Prime Minister, I was every bit as depressed as I had been in 2014.  If you’re only just tuning in, er, no, I didn’t become a Young Nat in the intervening period, I, er… maybe you should read this essay from the beginning…

I struggled to write this follow-up to my original essay for three months, because I was trying desperately to work out how I could communicate my reasoning and emotions to those same people who groaned with me in 2014 — those who now celebrate ecstatically the election of a ‘progressive’ government — without alienating anybody who might read my work.  The thousands of words of extensive exposition leading up to the conclusions I am about to draw are my best attempt to communicate my reasons for this rational and emotional disconnect.

For the last year, I have been saying that Jacinda Ardern is the biggest threat to the New Zealand left — to any of us who want real change.  I ask you now, please, don’t celebrate.  Prepare to fight!  This new government is a Third Way coup de grâce.  They are as committed to managing neoliberalism as every other government we have had in the last 33 years.  Ardern represents everything we oppose.  She has moved any chance of systemic change down the agenda, possibly for years, and we do not have that much time to waste.

New Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern with her Finance Minister Grant Robertson.  Image credit: Marty Melville/AFP/Getty Images.

Style-Over-Substance Politics are Dangerous

Ardern represents a stunning victory for style-over-substance political culture.  Those who view Ardern in a more positive light than Andrew Little, ask yourselves: why?  Because she is more charismatic and therefore more electable?  All that demonstrates is that the new government’s mandate is built on sand.  If the centre-left is going to succeed or fail based on the popularity of its leaders, then as soon as a more charismatic National Party leader comes along, all Labour’s policies will be reversed.  Were we not right to despise the fact that John Key was popular for no reason other than his (inexplicable) personal appeal?  What Key represented could happen again; we have no choice but to reject personality politics and instead offer a substantive vision for society.

Many in the media are celebrating this bright new era, and the great change it will bring, just as they celebrated Blair, Clinton, Macron.  The corporate media exist to perpetuate the interests of the establishment; they cannot believe their luck that Labour are in power while tied to steadfast commitments against systemic change.

There is nothing more terrifying to the media than a genuine left-wing politician.  A study of the UK media’s attitude towards Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates that 75% of coverage in his first two months as Labour leader (usually the honeymoon period) was negative.  Meanwhile, during the US primaries, Trump received twenty-three times more coverage than Sanders, despite the fact that Sanders was consistently far ahead of Trump in head-to-head polling.  If the corporate media are celebrating, that is because neoliberalism has won the day!

Media coverage of Jeremy Corbyn: how the establishment treats threats to its wealth and power.  The fact that Ardern has not been treated in this way demonstrates that the establishment are not scared of the new government.  Image credit: Media Reform Coalition.

Austerity and Xenophobia?  Let’s Not Do This

The Ardern government is embarking on an unambitious political project which amounts to tiny increases to social spending in a broader context of continued austerity and privatisation, alongside xenophobia, and a punitive response to climate change.  It is a Third Way project which buys into every neoliberal narrative about society — and will end up entrenching neoliberalism in a way that National could never get away with.  For the same reasons, under Helen Clark’s Third Way government, the bottom 10% of New Zealanders got poorer, while house prices doubled and emissions rose.  Third Way politics destroy any hope of even the most modest attempt to run the economy in the interests of the majority.

The Budget Responsibility Rules, a set of goals for the new government’s budgeting process which include running surpluses, reducing debt, and limiting new government spending, serve the role of solidifying the neoliberal narrative.  The most significant of these rules states that Labour will not spend more than an arbitrary target of 30% of GDP, meaning that small government is a permanent fixture of New Zealand’s economy which not just National, but Labour as well, are committed to.  So committed is new Finance Minister Grant Robertson to this austerity framework, that he has already announced that there may have to be spending cuts in order to make room for the small increases in spending in health and education that the government intends to make.

Buying into the idea that governments can either pursue this spending programme or that programme, but not both, because it would be too expensive, is just an excuse for Robertson to reassure the capitalist class that the government will not even dream of breaking with neoliberal orthodoxy and, say, raise taxes on the rich to increase spending and deal with our social, economic and environmental crises.

But it gets worse.  Robertson has also signalled that the government is prepared to pursue public-private partnerships in order to meet its social targets.  This is privatisation by stealth.  Public-private partnerships have long been used to partially privatise state assets, and to bankrupt areas of the public service so that neoliberal governments, whether Third Way or conservative, have an excuse to sell them off.

Ardern demonstrated how eager she was to shy away from even the most modest of tax rises on the rich when she ruled out raising the top tax rate near the beginning of her short election campaign.  Ardern and Robertson could not be clearer if they tried: they believe, as Blair, Clinton and Clark did before them, that there is no alternative to a neoliberal approach.  Meanwhile, if you are wondering how the National Party are trying to differentiate themselves from a neoliberal Labour government, how they are trying to not only make Third Way politics look separate from conservative politics, but portray this Blairite administration as dangerous and radical, look no further than the brave champion of the people, David Bennett.  In his speech decrying the evils of Ardern’s programme, he used the word “socialism” 26 times.  Comrade Bennett, as a socialist myself, how I wish this government was giving us even the most moderate social democratic reforms!

Another example of this government’s neoliberalism is the Auckland regional fuel tax.  It is a punitive response to climate change.  Rather than taxing large corporations, or stopping new mining, fracking and oil drilling projects, the government is going to tax working class Aucklanders to pay for a transition away from fossil fuels.  This is one of the great concerns of the climate justice movement, a concern championed by the trade unions’ Just Transition campaign — that neoliberal politicians will act to save us from climate change, but will pass the cost onto working class people rather than the wealthy in the process.  It is a climate policy for the few.  Workers are right to oppose the fuel tax, and the left of the environmentalist movement, and of the Green Party, should stand with trade unions in demanding a Just Transition away from fossil fuels.

“System change not climate change”, the demand of the union-led Just Transition movement, is not being lived up to by the government’s climate policies, which push the costs of pollution onto the poor instead of the rich.  Image credit: Sentro.

Finally, the government’s immigration policies are simply unacceptable.  The goal of cutting net migration by 20,000-30,000 is scapegoating migrants of colour for our social problems.  Make no mistake — when people hear “migrants,” they think “people of colour”.  I know I do, and I moved here from England when I was four.  This puts people of colour in danger.  By inferring that migrants are to blame for low wages and the strain on housing and public infrastructure, and then pursuing policies that supposedly deal with these problems by stopping people coming to Aotearoa, the government gives license to xenophobes to spread anti-migrant hate.  After Britain voted to leave the European Union, a vote seen as a protest against high levels of immigration, hate crimes against minorities surged by 29%, the highest increase on record.  The same xenophobia could take root here.

The left must be loud and clear.  Migrants are not to blame for our problems, capitalism is.  Low wages, a housing crisis, strained public services?  These are the direct result of the implementation of neoliberal policy, and of the greed of bosses and landlords.  Austerity has undermined our living standards.  Shifting the blame for falling living standards from the rich to people of colour not only puts ethnic minorities in serious danger, it allows the wealthy and their allies in government and the media to get away with what they have done!  We must oppose the government’s xenophobic immigration policies, and say loudly and clearly, as Corbyn and Sanders have consistently done: do not give in to racism, do not blame some of the most targeted and vulnerable people in society for our problems.  Blame the greed and reckless behaviour of the capitalist class, and strive to build a society that works for everybody, regardless of ethnicity, migration status, and all other factors.

It is not the National Party that stops any chance of real change in Aotearoa.  It is both National and Labour — as well as New Zealand First, ACT and elements within the Greens, for that matter.  There is no question that if we want to change society, we have to first dismantle these organs of capitalist politics and build an alternative for the many, not the few.  We have to destroy the Third Way narrative, and to do so we have to oppose Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party.  So, to misappropriate Tony Blair’s attack on Corbyn: “let me make my position clear.  I wouldn’t want to win on a Third Way neoliberal platform.  Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”  Incidentally, now that the majority of people are desperate for an alternative to the crushing weight of the status quo, class politics and socialist reforms are more popular than neoliberalism and are more likely to win.  When presented with an alternative, working class voters will turn out!



Author’s note: I ended part one of this series by posing questions which I have not fully answered: “What, then, is to be done?  What can the left do now to beat National and marginalise the racist voice of Winston Peters in the next general election, in 2020?  Was Metiria’s sacrifice for nothing?”  After events changed and my thinking developed — after the special votes, the conclusion many drew on election night that we were in for a National-NZ First coalition suddenly became less likely, and indeed, Labour-NZ First took power with support from the Greens — I had to revise my concept for part two significantly. This essay is the result.

Elliot Crossan is a socialist writer and activist. At time of writing, he was Co-Convenor of the Young Greens of Aotearoa New Zealand.

1 January, 2018

Posted by Elliot Crossan in 2017 New Zealand general election, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, New Zealand Labour Party, New Zealand National Party, New Zealand politics, 0 comments
We Must Not Stop Challenging Power — Our Fight Has Barely Begun

We Must Not Stop Challenging Power — Our Fight Has Barely Begun

The Green Party exists to challenge power.  Our Charter principles are impossible to implement without a sustained assault on wealthy interests.  We must defy every premise of the capitalist system whose existence relies on colonisation, unlimited material growth, fossil fuel extraction, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

The government has just changed to a supposedly friendly, socially-conscious Labour administration, and the Greens have a Confidence and Supply deal and Ministers for the first time. But I worry that any arguments for structural change in Aotearoa that our Party has been (or should be) making will be suppressed in favour of acting to prop up the new face of the status quo.  This instinct, if followed, will lead to the dying away of the Greens as a genuine alternative — a catastrophe for any hope of real action in the coming years on any of the issues and values we care about.

We may have portfolios and a deal with the Labour Government, but we must not for one second make the mistake of believing that the Greens have power.  We are exactly where the Labour Party wants us to be — small, weak, unable to seriously challenge them, and unable to position ourselves clearly as a more progressive alternative to them.  We have only what power the Prime Minister and Finance Minister will allow us to exercise — able to make minor tweaks in the areas we have been given control over, but no ability to do anything at all that would threaten the capitalist, extractivist system that is harming people and planet.

Just look at what isn’t in our deal with Labour.  There is no mandatory Te Reo in schools, no carbon tax, no capital gains tax, no higher taxes on the rich at all, and no increase in core benefits, or systemic changes to the culture of WINZ and its sanctioning regime.  This constitutes a frail imitation of basic and vitally necessary changes to New Zealand’s benefit system — changes so bravely championed by Metiria.  There is not even a guarantee that there will be an end to new mining, fracking, or deep sea oil and gas drilling projects.  Fairly moderate policies that would have seen a more just and sustainable society were taken off the table by Labour before the Government had even begun.  Fossil fuel extraction will continue, everyday colonisation will go on as before, and the particularly savage model of capitalism we live under — neoliberalism, with the vast level of inequality it creates — will continue entirely unchanged.

When it comes to immigration, Labour and New Zealand First intend to be xenophobic and nasty.  Labour decided during its third term in opposition that trying to campaign in even a moderately social democratic way is too hard, and that it would make migrants the scapegoats for social problems instead.  Underfunded public services and infrastructure are the result of austerity, not migrants.  Low wages are the result of union busting and a low minimum wage, not migrants.  Inequality is the result of neoliberalism, not migrants.  In challenging power, it cannot be more crucial for the Greens to stand up to the xenophobic and factually untrue narrative that any of our problems are either caused or exacerbated by our already fairly restrictive immigration system.  We cannot call ourselves a party that believes in social responsibility unless we stand up to the xenophobia of this Government and say loudly and clearly that migrants and refugees are welcome here.

Over the next three years, in the next election and beyond, we need not only to continue challenging power as much as we can despite our compromised position, but we need to rethink the current direction of the Green Party and begin to fight a more bold, coherent and all-encompassing battle for the soul of Aotearoa.  We fought this election on a platform of fairly limited changes — our fiscal policy was restricted by the neoliberal straightjacket of the Budget Responsibility Rules, and we were not advocating truly systemic changes to the economy.  A bigger government will be necessary to urgently tackle climate change and inequality, and to grant serious reparations for colonisation.  Next election, we need to campaign on a platform of raising taxes on the rich in order to pay for bringing the essentials of life back under public, democratic control, spending more on services to benefit everybody, and implementing a Green New Deal that will shift New Zealand towards becoming a carbon neutral economy, fast.

A better world is possible — not with the current government, but with a new, radical vision for the future of Aotearoa.



This article was originally written on behalf of the Young Greens of Aotearoa New Zealand and published in issue 56 of Te Awa, the Green Party magazine. It has been republished with the kind permission of the editor.

Elliot Crossan is a socialist writer and activist. At time of writing, he was Co-Convenor of the Young Greens.

5 December, 2017

Posted by Elliot Crossan in 2017 New Zealand general election, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, New Zealand Labour Party, New Zealand politics, 0 comments