GUEST BLOG: Hadley Grace Robinson-Lewis – Real-liberalism vs the woke-left

10
0
Real liberals are inclusive, are against dividing the people and are willing to debate without hating the individual that disagrees with them.
The woke-left say they are against hate yet they verbally or even physically hurt right-wing conservatives.
We shouldn’t automatically hate people that challenge our opinions.
The only constructive way to encourage people to see your point of view is through healthy debate.
Real liberals don’t silence people, they believe everyone is entitled to having an opinion. We understand that we will miss out on many important conversations if we alienate the right.
I’m a liberal and believe in inclusivity. The one aspect that disturbs me about the ‘woke left’ is that they tend to exclude right-wing conservatives as if they are satan. I empathise with people on each side of the political spectrum, but that’s just me.

 

 

ABOUT HADLEY GRACE ROBINSON-LEWIS: I’m based in Ōtepoti and my iwi is Ngāi Tahu. I’m an RN, social activist and vice chair for NZNO/TR in the southern region. I’m passionate about psychotherapy, philosophy, charity, social activism and Māori health. My greatest achievement was raising $25,000 for a women’s refuge in Auckland with Habitat for Humanity.

10 COMMENTS

  1. I agree completely with this view. Not so sure about the quote from Chomsky “… people we despise”. Generally it is their opinions we despise, not the people, though there are exceptions. As for the “woke” left, they are doing immense damage but then that was always the intention of postmodernism.

  2. Hadley Grace, must say at your age I was not as wise, my generation were in the grip of Marxist ideological possession as we did what youth naturally do which is rail against their parents generation.

    We knew damned well the evils of capitalist imperium, we saw Vietnam, East Timor, South Africa and Chile. The mistake not learned was the horror of the Soviet system, and when it became known Marxist intellectuals drew over themselves a cloak of denial and went “post modern”.

    Seems to me that we have not yet developed the ability to debate issues in a multi polar manner where we recognise more views than merely alt-Right or ctl-Left. Or that we are all capable of multiple and at times contradictory views.

    So, well done and please keep reformulating the debate. We currently have two sides where the extremes have demonized the whole debate. A plague on both their houses. May you help bring forward asome sanity.

    • You say ideological possession. I say it’s filtered through western propaganda machines mixed with cheap mass produced fashion. So I’v got a different point of view when analysing post-modernism and the starting point for analysing the economy rather than a focus on any final conclusion. Peterson starts from cultural references, and I start from the government and then add money in. For instance Peterson will tell you how wonderful it is for free online education yet he’s hypothesising about a world with out state run universities and no government regulation, so it’s a natural monopoly.

      Basically Peterson is saying surplus is exploited from the land, and that’s more correct than Karl Marx labour theory of value. So for every unit of wealth there must be at least one unit of inequality everyone’s willing to put up with. There’s no argument that inequality is a feature of capitalism the argument is how it happens. So the division of labour is one job done by one worker and another specialises, then you’ll increase output through specialisation. And that’s what give Jordan Peterson his increasing value, patreon, YouTube revenue ect. Not only does Peterson make money but his students makes money as well.

      So Marx said when calculating value that adding in more and more machinery would increase productivity but and over all declining rate of profit and that declining rate would make capitalist greedy, workers fight back and you’d get a class struggle and then transition to socialism.

      And a lot of this is trash. The truth of the matter is as Sir Isaac Newton stated which is “surplus is created by exploiting the free energy stored in fossil fuels, fissile material and stars.” So if you look at what people are prepared to pay a lot of it is mass produced trash.

      Minority groups don’t actually care for any of this, they literally role there eyes at this stuff. They’re more concerned with access to clean drinking water, health and education and this stuff comes from the state through state programmes. The rescan we have all these state programmes is because when the ginny coefficient is so out of whack that one guy is horsing all the resources, we are supposed to use the tax system to redistribute wealth so the masses don’t kill that one guy for fun, food, catharsis. So there’s nothing wrong with a bit of a planned socialist economy. Nothing wrong with universal health and education and nothing wrong with having a well provision army. These are all classic mainstream socialist values.

      • So Sam, were you taught at Uni in the 1970s when there was still a Cold War, when Marxist theory was taught openly especially by sociology and history departments? If you were there then you would be aware that in a pre internet age you took what you could from whoever at face value, bonafides and veracity was hard to check. It was easy to become ideologically possessed. Same happened in the 80s when the New Right ideas blossomed.

        Fortunately I am blessed by healthy scepticism. I remember a lecturer telling me about the marvellous communist things a fellow by the name of Pol Pot was up to. We both know how that ended. Then of course Solzenitsyn exposed the gulag.

        If you want to harp on about economics as the single foundation of human interaction I’d suggest you do us a disservice. We are all far more than that, which is one of the reasons a Marx or a Hayek will fail to convince. Peterson doesn’t pretend to be an economist, why string him on that? He does talk religion, do you think Jihadists are economically or religiously motivated?

        Myself I’m becoming more empiricist. Communist states have high body counts and fail economically. Fact. There must be a problem.

      • Micky baby-” do you think Jihadists are economically or religiously motivated?”

        Me: I do actually. It’s been proven that the U.S. DoD directly funds and material supply’s ISIS.

        Same again with Venezuela, CIA and U.S. Media was heavily involved in the destabilisation of Venezuela leading to huge civil unrest.

        Yet all this gets filtered. This isn’t some small game between two nobody commentators and there professors. This is economics. Like it or not, there are worse fates than a military defeat. You could lose your culture, dress sense, language, elders, children. You could lose your favourite soup or some thing.

        When comparing Amartya Sen great study into famines, he found that India (representing capitalism, imperfect I know but hey, results) so he found India put as many skeletons in the closet in 50 years, as China did in 30 years. Conclusion is the body count is the same, the only difference is time.

        Study finds U.S has killed 20-30 million since WW2 directly through war, and that’s the low number, the real number is likely higher through starvation, refugee movements, loss of economic security, health, education ect: https://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two

        So when you’ve got two competing superpowers they act as a natural suppression on the death toll capitalism or communism or what ever may kill directly through war. But when one becomes stronger or weaker then the death toll starts accumulating and when one super power disappears then the death toll remains constant over time no. After what the system.

        So it does have a lot to do with economics.

  3. I’m re-posting what I posted yesterday about liberalism on another blog which is now gone from the main feed, as the topic of this blog is also about liberalism. It’s important to get this stuff right if we’re to move forward as a nation & adapt, so that we can survive the perfect storm that’s heading our way.

    This is the confusion that many of us are labouring under. Globalisation is a philosophy that draws its support mainly from left leaning progressive liberals & neo-liberals (new liberals & neo-cons/new conservatives) who place more emphasis of economic liberalism than social liberalism. Funnily enough the new liberals are not new at all as they were the driving force behind the expansion of the British Empire & colonisation.

    But the fact is that social & economic liberals work hand in hand to further the globalisation agenda. As I’ve said before John Key was a master at bridging these two worlds which is why he was so popular. He was a populist political animal who could mince it with social liberals & play hard ball when it came to things like privatisation.

    This is why since the Rogernomics revolution both Labour & National have both been playing the let’s put foreign interests before those of NZ & New Zealander’s game. The differences between such groupings is purely cosmetic, as the truth of the matter is that they’re both working toward furthering the entrenchment of the globlisation worldview.

    The hegemony of which I speak is the rotten liberal establishment who lord over each & every one of us & have the destroyed the very fabric & morale of our nation.

    Globalisation is just another sorry chapter in the long history of the colonisation of minds, bodies & souls.

    More thought need to go into matters such as these before we the people can come together for the purposes of overthrowing of the globalisation establishment & bringing about radical change.

  4. Hi Hadley

    You seem like a genuinely nice person. Welcome!

    I like people that are open to ideas, free speech, and the fact that you raised a significant amount of money for a charity of your choice speaks volumes

    Best wishes for the future!

    Andy

    • What a charmer you turned out to be Andy. I think sitting in a bar with a cocktail in her hand speaks volumes about who she really is. As they say “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Ingenuous but playful. Maybe if she was wearing a yellow vest or doing good works on a beach covered in plastic I could take her seriously. Observations form a mauled over old dog with the battle scars to prove it.

  5. Both Labour & National have followed the Milton Freedman Neoliberal Economic Thinking Model which came out of the Chicago School of Economics in the 1960’s – 1970’s.

    Free Market Ideology whereby the market will dictate pricing.

    The problem with this is the wealthy with the access to capital ie $’s control everything can influence the markets.

    For example Asian House Buyers with capital ie $’s can outbid New Zealander’s for our Housing Stock. Some Asian investors own 20-30 houses here in NZ with all the rental return $’s going back offshore to Asia. I have a friend renting one room in a house in Auckland for $275 per week plus expenses and the Asian Landlord owns 16 houses here in Auckland.

Comments are closed.