OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS, the neoliberal ideology has been adopted by virtually the entire Right. Certainly, there is no serious right-wing political party – either here in New Zealand or elsewhere in the developed world – that does not subscribe to its basic tenets. These, according to the Free Dictionary, include “free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services”. Labour market flexibility should certainly be added to that list because a profound hostility towards organised labour is one of the key distinguishing features of all neoliberal regimes.
Anti-unionism is among the strongest of the Right’s anti-collectivist reflexes and has for long been a defining element of just about all right-wing political movements. This hostility towards organised labour, however, is one of the very few characteristics neoliberalism shares with the traditional Right. Neoliberalism, at least superficially, rejects the entrenched racial prejudice, patriarchal gender relations, homophobia, militarism and anti-intellectualism of more traditionalist social movements. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find neoliberals standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Left in opposition to these right-wing causes.
If you’re having trouble accepting this, just recall National Party MP and arch-neoliberal, Maurice Williamson, delivering his “Big Gay Rainbow” speech during the Third Reading debate of Louisa Wall’s Marriage Equality Bill. Or, John Key’s strategic casting adrift of the traditionalist Right by facilitating the passage of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation.
Without its antipathy towards so many of the same reactionary beliefs that antagonise the Left, it is difficult to see how neoliberalism could have taken root (and taken over!) so many social-democratic and labour parties. In New Zealand, for example, the neoliberal takeover followed hard on the heels of a dramatic expansion of Labour’s middle-class membership. Many of these folk had little experience of, or respect for, the party’s blue-collar working-class members. They disliked their socially disruptive unions and despised their socially conservative views. When Roger Douglas and his neoliberal allies derided the Old Left as “cloth cap unionists” and “dinosaurs”, these middle-class progressives nodded their heads in eager agreement.
But is this apparent neoliberal sympathy for the socially liberal causes of feminism, anti-racism and gay rights real? When stripped of its rhetorical camouflage, is neoliberalism actually so hostile to the shibboleths of the traditionalist Right? When we examine who bears the brunt of neoliberal policies do we not find exactly the same social and ethnic groups, the same victims, as we would if it was a traditionalist right-wing government we were studying?
The New Zealanders most afflicted by unemployment, homelessness and poor health are still the working-class. The ethnic groups most likely to be pulled over by the police, convicted of a crime and sent to prison are still Maori and Pasifica. The people most likely to suffer the worst rigours of poverty, deprivation and violence are still young women trying to raise children on their own.
Now, right-wing traditionalists will attribute the misfortunes of the working-class, Maori and Pasifica and solo mothers to such taboo causes as poor breeding, inferior parenting, inherent racial inferiority, gratuitously immoral conduct and the slow collapse of social discipline and public order. Were neoliberalism to do so, however, its claims to social as well as economic liberalism would collapse and everyone would see that the Old Right and the New were really not that different after all.
So, how does neoliberalism explain the fact that the victims of capitalism under its stewardship are practically indistinguishable from the victims of more traditional capitalist exploiters?
It is in attempting to answer this question that we begin to understand how totalitarian in its ambitions neoliberalism truly is. By transforming all human interactions into market interactions neoliberalism renders all the other markers of human difference – race, gender, class – irrelevant. For neoliberals, the only questions that matter are: “What do you want to buy?”, and, “What have you got to sell?” How you answer these questions determines your health, your happiness and your relative status in society. For those with much to sell there will always be much to buy. Exactly how much you are able to contribute – and therefore consume – is determined by the lottery of genetics and dumb luck. It’s beyond the capacity of any individual or institution to remedy without running the very real risk of making matters worse. According to the neoliberal, the best thing you can do in this world is just leave people to it – laissez-faire.
Stuff and nonsense, of course, because human societies are not based upon choice, they are based upon need. The infant has no desire to buy its mothers milk – any more than she has a desire to sell it. The child who is simply “left to it” is unlikely to grow into a very useful adult.
The other great totalitarian systems of the twentieth century – fascism and communism – at least recognised some common obligations. Either to the volk, or to that day when “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” would be the only law. But, for the neoliberal there is no journey to a better future; no perfecting of humanity’s rough clay. Under neoliberalism there is only an endless marketplace. A nightmare of dazzling variety and soul-destroying sameness. A world where, in the end, the only thing we are buying and selling is ourselves.
Interesting points raised, Chris.
It’s long been my belief that there is only a superficial difference between the dictates of neo-liberalism and the dictates of fascism and top-down ‘communism’.
All three demand absolute adherence to their respective ideological constructs.
All three ignore social, community, and personal realities.
All three will brook no dissent, and any dissenters will be vilified (eg; Key and Nicky Hager; Paula Bennett and two solo-mothers; Amy Adams and Dr Mike Joy, etc).
All three rely on dubious “data” (or none at all) to demonstrate “success”.
Ad infinitum.
Which is why I believe the fad of neo-liberalsm is destined for the scrap-heap of history. Once people tire of the constant promises of a “brighter future” (which always seems to be in the future, never now) they will seek alternatives.
Which is why we must keep resisting. It may sound like a cliche, but yes, history is on our side. Change will happen. We are the agents for that change.
Well summed up. You are for us or you are against us. And if this results in the many shortcomings evident from our belief, well then, we’ll make it up to pretend there isn’t. It’s an absolute hallmark of Key’s government!
The reason the bullshit “Brighter Future” remains nothing more than a postcard from some exotic magical place is because this system and this government are not interested in taking everyone with it, only the select subscribers who can line their individual pockets with this system.
It works so far by exploiting a fair percentage of the population with continuing uncertainty, on low wages, high basic costs and crap working conditions.
For me, the perfect society would be totally libertarian, but the main tenet by which everyone would live would be, do unto others as you would have done to yourself.
Having said that, neo-liberalism is an economic hard right philosophy, however in terms of personal freedoms it is almost entirely libertarian.
You need to look at the spectrum not as a straight line but as a piece of graph paper. You have your left and right representing economic collectivism (left) and economic individualism (right). Then you have your up and down being authoritarianism and libertarianism.
Neo-lib is almost off the scale to the right but generally somewhere near the bottom for personal liberties. If you head up the top right, you will find a more conservative view where freedoms go but almost exactly the same in economic terms (Colin Craig is not really a conservative, economy wise, if you think about it but he is quite authoritarian, or at least that is what people are hoping he is – gay marriage and all)
Anyway, go have a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org do the test and then you may understand a bit how it works and you will also begin to forget about just left and right, and no-one ever again will be able to fool you that libertarianism is the sole preserve of the right. In fact, you may come to the realization,as I have, that the only true libertarianism is libertarian left.
Liberal and Libertarian are different things, I concede, but they do get confused, and sometimes, I think, on purpose.
“Having said that, neo-liberalism is an economic hard right philosophy, however in terms of personal freedoms it is almost entirely libertarian.”
True, but that’s a neoliberal version of freedom – it ignores capability. I despise that kind of freedom rhetoric because it ignores power, is ideological and utopian. To me, this freedom is really an act of violence
What use is freedom without the capabilities to experience that kind of freedom?
I think that Amartya Sen’s understanding of freedom is far better and less oppressive.
Neoliberalism is in no way libertarian. Under libertarianism as ordinarily understood, people are free to agree to non market arrangements, such as democratic decision making.
Neoliberal governments have no respect for such agreements and seek to actively sabotage and destroy them. Forcing free markets on people who do not want them is not compatible with classical libertarianism, yet that is what neoliberals do.
Exactly which is why I said what I said simply because people do get the two confused, and neo-libs are in no hurry to correct that mis-understanding. It should not take too much to figure out why
Neoliberals believe in meaningful personal freedoms for the rich, all of the rich, and no one but the rich. For the poor, there are the freedoms to be arrested, to starve, to suffer from exposure, and to be vilified on a daily basis. Their repugnant view of freedom can be summed up by remembering that it is illegal for Alan Gibbs as well as for someone who’s been kicked off their benefit to steal a loaf of bread. They parrot slogans without context, and make me sick.
Youve touched on an interesting point here, chris. I should recommend the book ‘death of the liberal class’ written by american journalist and activist, the great chris hedges. In it he talks sbout how after the 60s, identity politics became the defining cause of the american left, and decades of culturally imposed anti-communism and paranoia towards socialism led to the american left effectively abandoning union and working class labour movements, leaving the door open for a neo-liberal infiltration. Seems as though that is what has happened in every western country. Neo-liberalism is what we all get when we take the workers struggle for granted. I wonder where we could have progressed to if it had never fallen out of favour – a four day work week? Less hours of the day for more money? Unfettered capitalism leads to a kind of ‘inverted totalitarianism’ corporate neo-feudalism.
I would like to see another “ism” which I would call enterprisism. Capitalism is sort of fine, so long is does not morph into corporatism which it tends to do, that’s when we get the problems with it. The word itself kind of tells you what its about, it is about gathering as much of the resource as you can, whether you need it or not, in order to get to the top of the heap. For me, enterprisism expresses something else much smaller.
I really think big is the issue of the day, when you end up with a few giant corporations, pretty much dictating everything, right down to the food you eat. Now, most “capitalists” would run for the hills if they realised how corporate control of the people is not much different to governmental in the end.
One of the things that neo-liberalism espouses is that those who have, have the right to protect themselves against those who don’t (US gun laws, anyone?). Perhaps the neo-libs need to understand that if one person can gain over others by means of guile, then those who only have brawn to benefit them should have as much right to gather resources by their means as well. Then, maybe, even neo-libs will see neo-liberalism for what it truly is – the law of the jungle
Great article Chris. Really sums up Neo liberalism well. This being an election year where should I put my vote if we want to be heading toward a future without neo-liberalism. My understanding from other bloggers is Labour still has a neo-liberal agenda is that still true? So where to put my vote??
Greens or mana internet party.
Indeed, Geoff. On the Left, we’re almost “spoiled” for choice.
Meanwhile, on the Right, it’s a choice between National (corporate cronyism); ACT (dog-eat-dogism); or Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (religion meets chemtrails, but only for heterosexual men in the workplace, and women in the kitchen).
No wonder (some on) the Right hate us. We have better options! 😀
Yes Jono & Geoff Lye, we have to move on from Labour.
I hate on National as much as the next person, but our real problem is Labour, and also the people who vote for them. Why do people accuse National of being extreme right neoliberalists, then assume Labour are Left, even though the top tax rate difference is 3%?
George Monbiot articulates the Left’s problem – that being the chase of the middle ground. I’d recommend this whole presentation, or at least a few mins from 41.12.
And the problem is that whenever bloggers and commentators such as Chris dare to critique Labour, they get called traitors and told to focus on National.
No, no, no, no, no!
We need our representatives to represent us. When Labour announce a policy we want National and the media to be frothing at the mouth like the mad dogs they are. We need the (so called) Left to denounce neoliberalism through policies, not just through speeches to party members.
Until then, vote IP/MANA or Greens, or further Left. Whatever you do, don’t vote for the problem. The only thing Labour are offering us is 6-9 years of neoliberalism before Simon Bridges is elected as PM. If you think that’s a solution then you’re delusional.
All our lives we are sold junk, and we are sold fear!
The thing with neo-liberalism is that it clothes itself in the traditional virtues of thrift and industriousness – so that good-for-nothing scum like speculators, rent-seekers, banksters and others parasites can pass themselves off as respectable people.
My own industry, fishing, was taken over by such vermin. Quota holders. Chair-polishing rent-seeking fools who never even bother to develop a full understanding of the resource. The whole industry has lost net productivety. NZ fisheries now produce 1% of the income and employment of Japanese fisheries – from an equivalent littoral area. The economists should be demanding government intervention – but they are ideological captives or government creatures with no serious commitment to the national interest. Pitiful.
Fishing quota, don’t get me started. It should never, ever have been made a tradeable commodity. It made a whole bunch of people who just happened to be fishing at the time of its inception rich by basically just handing money to them on a plate, because they then OWNED it.
I saw people who would have made a perfectly good living prior to the quota system we now have, going under as they could not afford the lease prices for quota
Yeah – it overcapitalised everything too. If you can catch $2000 worth of fish a week in a dinghy that’s a great income with low overheads and a neglible carbon footprint. A dinghy fisherman can’t dump 100 tonnes of offal and trawl damaged fish a day like a Russian slaver.That’s the artisanal model – more sustainable and profitable than the colonial extraction model. But you have to sell locally, and there are no retirement board seats for MPs who’ve outlived their notional usefulness.
Scratching my head….when did I last see a cloth cap?
Have you looked behind the sofa?
Kiwis still seem to believe in a left and right party. In England the labour party no longer has an official working relationship with the unions, I kid you not.
It is all a marketing gimmick to keep getting elected, keep transferring wealth from the working class to the rich.
The US empire has a revolving presidency with colonial outposts in NZ,Australia,Canada, UK etc. Each colony also has elections for the local “governor” often called a “Prime Minister” for domestic consumption. The artists,actors and entertainment industry are court jesters for the Empire’s ruling classes. The media are the state propaganda machine geared to ensure election victories for the elite. And ever so often if a sheeple gets to smart by suggesting an alternate form of government, the fellow zombie sheeple are unleashed like an avalanche.
In England, the “new” Labour party is just another off-shoot of the Tories, in all but name – as are the Lib-Democrats
Quote: “Under neoliberalism there is only an endless marketplace. A nightmare of dazzling variety and soul-destroying sameness. A world where, in the end, the only thing we are buying and selling is ourselves.”
Yes, this post by Chris is an interesting read, and it reminds us of the challenges we face this election, yet again.
According to the “neo liberals”, the propagators of a staunchly capitalist system, we are meant to view ourselves as individual entrepreneurs with “capital” to our avail. Even if we only have our bodies and minds as “capital”, that still allows us to “invest” it by selling our labour as a “service”, in return for an “income” that pays for our necessities – and in the better off circles for some more.
To fit in with this ideology, we now even have the medical profession being indoctrinated, to follow nothing much more than bought “science”, that was developed by one Professor Mansel Aylward at the ‘Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research’ at Cardiff University, Wales, which was “sponsored” for many years by highly controversial insurance giant UNUM Provident.
Reinterpreting the so-called “bio psycho-social model” (BPS model), Aylward et al have been writing reports asserting that most “illness” is nothing much more than “illness belief”, and that WORK does not only have “health benefits”, he claims it is THERAPEUTIC.
UNUM Provident was one of other corporate “advisors” on welfare reforms in the UK, where Aylward was also Chief Medical Officer for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). He went over to the above named Centre to go onto the UNUM sponsored payroll, and to formulate new “approaches”, which have been designed to serve the insurance industry AND governments, by enabling them to throw more people off claims and benefits.
Now people are also here in New Zealand increasingly denied certain health and disability related benefits, and told to “invest” their labour, no matter how limited, to compete with others on the MARKET for employment. WINZ has adopted much of the UK approach, as Paula Bennett and this government are a fan of the approach. Principal Health Advisor Bratt is likening benefit dependence to ‘drug dependence’, and he is instrumental for bringing about the desired “change” under an “investment approach” to welfare.
That is how far we have got with neo liberalism, I am afraid, and one must ask with concern, what will come next?
Some info on all this:
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15188-medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-bps-model-aimed-at-disentiteling-affected-from-welfare-benefits-and-acc-compo
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/16092-work-ability-assessments-done-for-work-and-income-%E2%80%93-partly-following-acc%E2%80%99s-approach-a-revealing-fact-study/
Most of us that are informed enough, and who read this here, know full well what neo liberalism is about, and what dangers it holds for society. The most frightening think is, that one to two generations of younger people know little else, have grown up under it, and have (without much awareness) been indoctrinated, so that they do not see the risks and dangers, they do not even see the reasons behind why parts of society are suffering and being left behind.
That is why sadly too many come with the “responsibility” arguments and the “blame game”. It is all about individual freedom, perceived “choices”, about lifestyle, career and money, and the meaning of “society” is different to what it once used to be. The MSM are a prime example of how neo liberal thought has taken hold and is being spread even more. The media now even ignores much of what goes wrong, does not research information, engages in neo liberal slogan reporting, and also goes into full gear with beneficiary bashing, reporting more on “benefit fraud” than on tax fraud and other stuff that goes on in white collar circles.
To change this, we must inform people, and this post can only be a humble part of it. Thanks for it, Chris.
Quote: “Under neoliberalism there is only an endless marketplace. A nightmare of dazzling variety and soul-destroying sameness.
I’d rather have the marketplace and it’s endless variety than anything socialism ever served up.
Old Soviet Union Joke –
Q: What’s long and eats cabbage?
A: A meat queue
This is the problem we face. People like Andrew will defend neoliberalism by using Thatcher’s TINA logic…as if our two choices are either 1970s Soviet Union, or what we have now.
Weird how these TINA ideologues think of Western affluence as the only neoliberal reality.
Andrew, do you think you can include the third-world’s reality over the past 30 years when you think about neoliberalism, or does that not fit neatly into your zombie economic wet-dream? I suppose us Kiwi’s just got rich off hard work, while people living in the debt-ridden third world are where they are because of laziness and corruption?
Our form of neoliberalism cannot be disentangled from the suffering around the world. It’s nothing to be proud of…and I’m not surprised that the best argument I’ve heard for neoliberalism is by changing the subject to Stalin’s totalitarian reign of terror.
Interesting that you equate the old Soviet system with socialism. The two systems were never one and the same.
True socialism meets the collective needs of the people, whilst allowing personal growth to flourish.
The Soviet system demanded 100% fealty and brooked no ideological opposition.
Much like the neo-liberal system which does not tolerate “market distortions” such as state ownership of essential services (electricity, water, etc) and social services (housing, education, health, etc).
So you’d “rather have the marketplace and it’s endless variety than anything socialism ever served up” ? I think you’d rapidly change your mind when you got your first $100,000 bill for a vital operation and had to sell your house to pay for it.
The “marketplace” seems only inviting to you because you’re still protected from it’s harsh realities by what is left of our socialist services.
Ponder that before making rash statements.
” The “marketplace” seems only inviting to you because you’re still protected from it’s harsh realities by what is left of our socialist services.”
Amen Frank!
The “marketplace, and it’s endles variety”, and all it’s endless “opportunties”… yeah, right…. for people like Gibbs to pillage and plunder at the expense of the citizens, and for overseas based “investors” to own most of our assets, leaving us very much like the Irish were in the eighteenth century, impoverished serfs in our own country, unable to afford to ever own a house in our largest city, and with endemic systemic unemployment, in order to have “labour flexibility”…. and, with all our great iconic NZ businesses…. think F&P, think BNZ, think Feltex Carpets…. all owned overseas…. yeah, right, GREAT!!!!
You sound like a recent immigrant who never knew NZ before neo liberalism , mate.
And if you arent… consider that the very heritage you now spit on was a healthy social democracy that gave you sustenance and opportunity, equality and security …only for you to now turn on a system and the benefits it gave you.
disgusting.
Scorn. Russia never was and never has been a rich, well-off country. It is huge, and can therefore seem good at times like the last century when it temporarily appeared to be strong enough to challenge the USA. (Hitler put 80% of Germany’s war effort into the East, and it was Russia that defeated the Nazis, not us.) A questionable credit to Stalin’s horribly undemocratic state that it rose to superpower status to nearly rival USA, . But not a great thing for our ideal of civilisation. Stalin was not such a communist – he was the most recent of the nasty megalomaniac Tsars that Russia has always produced.
Andrew, you seem equally ignorant of what is wrong in the 1%-owned “Democracies” that we 99% live in.
Actually Andrew what Neo liberalism is serving up now is the GFC and climate change. These two events should shake awake even the most stupefied and mesmerised Neo liberal consumer. Can you not see the connection between de regulated financial sector, oil companies, environmental regulators etc etc and the abysmal state the planet and world economy is in?
Did I say life was perfect?
Capitalism is certainly an imperfect process but it’s a vast improvement over any system you can think of.
One of the problems with assigning value to only those endeavors which yield a cash-flow is you ignore all the work that needs to be done in our lives which does not, and all the people around us who cannot yield a cash-flow for one reason or another.
What of those born disabled? What of their parents and caregivers who must eschew paid work to care for their disabled children? What of those caring for aged family members? What of women who necessarily must have time off work to bear children? What of workers incapacitated by their jobs due to work injuries? What of people who get physically sick? What of those who get mentally sick? And, unless we have an economic system which can maintain full employment, what of those unlucky enough to miss out in the employment lottery?
In a fully liberal, less government, user pays, fully privatised world, if you have not got equity or cash-flow you’re stuffed.
I don’t want to live in a society which treats its most vulnerable with such disdain and carelessness.
andrew – theres more than one type of capitalism – neo liberalism isnt the be all and end all of capitalism – it is but a tiny subset out on the extreme edges
its much like your confusion with socialism and state communist russia
Socialism gave you a health system 80% cheaper and 20 world ranks better than the US.
You confuse hating Americans with hating Capitalism.
The US medical system is a disaster, not because of a free market but because of just the opposite.
I’m calling you on that mate – C’mon, lets hear an explanation.
Long and complex I’m afraid. But here’s a few examples:
1/ Medical insurance companies cannot operate across state borders. This is a rule to prevent the more efficient insurers putting the rest out of business. The result is that many health insurers are woefully inefficient and so costs are high. A level playing field would sort that out.
2/ The US medical industry has to pay list price for US made drugs (which is most drugs). Negotiating prices down or using generics is banned in law over there. Pharmac pays a fraction of the price US hospitals pay and this has been one of the sticking points in the TPP for years – the Big Pharma wants Pharmac shut down because it is afraid of it.
3/ One reason medical costs are sky-high is the abundance of tort law issues. Doctors pay millions in premiums and this has to be passed on. The lawyers make a killing but Obama’s election campaign was heavily sponsored by the trial lawyers association so don’t hold your breath for any tort law reform in the US.
IOW – It’s a mess
How the heck do you work that out?
your confusing discussing the operating model of a countries infrastructure with hating the people who live in that country
The Soviet Union was never socialist, and not even truly communistic, whatever it called itself.
Ah Chris Trotter . What a brilliant Post . Thank you .
Maurice Williamson’s Big Gay Rainbow speech and jonky’s anti smacking etc ? Talk’s not just cheap . It’s free . Free to air . In so far as the Big Gay Rainbow speech is concerned ? Perfect . A little disingenuous lip service , pardon the pun and you get the DINK’y vote . ( Double Income , No Kids . )
Neoliberal narcissistic egotists regard it as sport old chap , to fuck people on the deal .
Here’s an interesting link to an interesting debate at the Oxford Union only this morning .
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361294652861958.html
Neither smacking or not smacking kids nor gays being able to marry or not affects the neo-lib’s ability to make money from the system, therefore it is very easy to see how it can be.
Do not be fooled by it, is the moral of the story, as they would like to think you are.
I think some are confusing neo-liberalism with conservatism where you would see the rich guy jumping up and down about gays marrying and parents being able to hit their kids
Further …
It’s a neoliberal sport , to mislead with truisms . To lie so convincingly that it appears as a truth , a fact . It’s bloody confusing to the uninitiated .
@ Andrew . Is ‘ Andrew ‘ your name or is it an unimaginative nom de plume ? If the latter , you need to get out more .
While I’m no socialist , I’m certainly no neoliberal cunt like you seem to want to be .
Socialism gave us Nu Zild Mate . Neoliberalism gave us destruction . Are you sure you want to argue this ?
The Russian quote you must giggle over is exactly what I mean . Use a truism to mislead .
Ah the C-word! Always the mark of an intellectual
I’ve travelled the world and seen the damage the Socialism has wrought.
Give me freedom any day.
“I’ve travelled the world and seen the damage the Socialism has wrought.
Give me freedom any day.”
Who gets this freedom you keep talking about? And who will spill the blood sweet and tears so that we can live with this freedom? Can you point out one liberal country that has prospered without being violent to many people?
I don’t mean to be harsh, but your comments on here read like a Fox News reporter. You can’t just throw the ‘F’ word around without getting the odd ‘C’ word back. This ain’t kiwiblog – ‘freedom’ isn’t an argument here.
WE get this freedom and it’s worth cherishing, maybe sometimes even worth fighting for.
Like most Socialists you seem willing to throw away what we’ve got (which is pretty damned good) for some idealised alternative which history has shown results in appalling oppression.
In the end both the extreme left and extreme right are coercive in nature. People are individuals and as soon as people like you begin to enforce your idealisations on individuals, it’s not long before gulags are being built.
So yes, I will continue to talk about freedom.
“it’s not long before gulags are being built”
like Wiri? a private enterprise gulag.
Nice one Andrew…another capitalist who cannot name a capitalist society that hasn’t grown wealthy through other’s suffering.
Ideologically blind…
And I’m not a Socialist either btw.
It’s a stupid argument – not worth bothering with really.
Try defining ‘society’ or ‘suffering’ for a start. If I was to suggest an example, one of these left wing clowns would find some obscure example of ‘suffering’ to show I’m wrong.
Actually NZ itself would be a good example, although some idiot would quickly suggest Maori have suffered (when in fact they have materially benefited from Colonisation)
“Actually NZ itself would be a good example, although some idiot would quickly suggest Maori have suffered (when in fact they have materially benefited from Colonisation)”
I rest my case. Apparently the best defence of capitalism is colonialism.
Now we can see why you usually defend capitalism by talking about gulags.
Me: ‘Andrew, why is capitalism so great?’
Andrew: ‘Because it’s either capitalism or gulags. Also, as a side note, colonialism caused no suffering’
Winter is Coming!
Woof!
The striking uncredited image at the top of this article is by Brazilian digital artist Tiago Hoisel, also known for his caricatures and “real-life” versions of characters from The Simpsons.
http://www.cgarena.com/archives/interviews/tiago/tiago.html
http://tiagohoisel.blogspot.co.nz/
Really? It looks like Salvador Dali.
@ Lilar: “It looks like Salvador Dali.”
That’s what I thought, too. Perhaps Dali influenced him.
@ Andrew . I agree . ‘ Cunt ‘ is a vulgar little word but like a punch in the balls , to be able to deliver one can come in handy from time to time .
By you defending a culture of sociopathic greed at the expense of beauty , peace , tranquility and calming sameness while being swept along on a tide of frenzied greed by neoliberal narcissistic egotists is frankly being just a bit cunty , you must admit . I’ve never pretended to be an intellectual , I just come across that way . You , on the other hand … etc .
cunt |kʌnt|
noun vulgar slang
• an unpleasant or stupid person.
ORIGIN Middle English: of Germanic origin; related to Norwegian and Swedish dialect kunta, and Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, and Danish dialect kunte .
I’m all for beauty , peace & tranquillity but that is a personal choice.
Or are you suggesting a political system where someone (let me guess – you) decide what is good taste and what isn’t?
To Andrew and other apologists for the status quo: tech billionaire Nick Hanauer has just come out swinging at his fellow billionaires with mentions like these:
As for NZ, post-Clark Labour’s hasn’t so much lost votes to the Nats. Rather it’s been to the Greens, NZF, and most of all to the common nouns of cynicism and disillusionment.
Inequality in the US is now about the same as it was in the ‘gilded era’ in the late 19th century.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/frederickallen/files/2012/10/300px-2008_Top1percentUSA1.png
It is too high in my opinion but I doubt there is any revolution coming in the US. They are mostly too lazy to even reach for their TV remotes.
Just as he says in the article, a society needs competition and the winners to be rewarded. However, the problem comes when the offspring of the winners inherit a fortune and get access to the best schools, clubs and jobs, denying access to others who are smarter and work harder. Thus perpetuating and widening the inequality – not a merit based society. We’re talking about the creation of dynasties here. Even worse, in the US these elites use their influence in DC to ensure democracy doesn’t get in the way of their inherited advantages – the law is bent to their desires.
But then, who was talking about the US?
In NZ there is some intergenerational wealth but nothing on the scale of the US. Old Money: Ask Sue Bradford & Laila Harre about their trusts before you point fingers at self-made people like Key.
Chris Trotter what a great article, just when we thought you’d gone to seed or Key and his forth Reich had taken every dissenting public commenter off the air for the election.
Why have they placed a media oversight committee above the TV1 staffers?
Apparently the stated reason to staff is to prevent any negative news that would impact on the Government policies. me thinks Election?
The media seem to have been gagged during the reign of this load of mobsters.
Maybe you as an insider can alert us to what is going on here in your next blog, maybe you can call it “The New Zealand model of neo-liberal administering a version of “Enlightenment & Propaganda” something akin to Joseph Goebbels’s 1933 construct of Hitler’s Ministry of Enlightenment & Propaganda”
Is it a pure coincidence that National Party has a marketing company that has produced an election 2014 platform which is also called “Enlighten”?
Comments are closed.