REVOLUTIONS ONLY SUCCEED when the societies in which they occur possess the means to sustain them. If David Lange and Roger Douglas had attempted to build neoliberalism in one country they would have failed. The success of Rogernomics was due entirely to the readiness of the rest of the capitalist world to support it. The latter had long since outgrown the political and economic constraints of the post-war period and its patience with the politicians and civil servants who attempted to preserve its regulatory framework was at an end. Capitalism was demanding a new style of political and bureaucratic leadership, and all around the world it got it.
Forty years later, Capitalism is in urgent need of new leadership. The neoliberal model, tested in Chile between 1974 and 1978, and then rolled out in the UK and the USA between 1979 and 1985, has failed to generate the broadly shared wealth Capitalism requires if it is to remain politically sustainable. The concentration of global resources in fewer and fewer hands is laying the groundwork for a massive social explosion. Not wishing to endure such a catastrophe, intelligent capitalists are once again in the market for a new breed of politician and bureaucrat: decision-makers more tuned-in to the new music of a post-neoliberal age. Unfortunately, the capitalists are not finding them.
Instead, the key institutions of the world’s most powerful states are stuffed full with individuals who either made their reputations in the early, ‘heroic’, phases of the Neoliberal Revolution, or, were inducted into its core principles at their feet. These people are completely deaf to the new music of post-neoliberalism. Indeed, the very idea that there might be some other – better – way to run a modern capitalist economy strikes them as being both ludicrous and dangerous. In such a hostile environment, the expression of new and unorthodox ideas is severely career-limiting.
As Bernard Hickey points out in his latest, brilliant, posting on Newsroom, New Zealand presents a classic case of the irresistible forces of a looming economic crisis being confronted by the immovable objects of the Neoliberal Revolution.
As he puts it in what are undoubtedly the most compelling sentences of his posting:
“It’s dawning on us that Ardern and Robertson, who were schooled in the ninth floor offices of the Beehive by the grizzled veterans of the early 1990s (Helen Clark and Michael Cullen), are actually fiscal conservatives. They are not the progressive and transformational pair they led the electorate to believe they were in 2017 and that the rest of the world believes now.
“They are showing that by not helping their Reserve Bank Governor when he needs it most. And they are not alone. In Britain, Germany, France, Australia and America, politicians are either choosing not to invest (Germany, Canada, Australia and America) or cannot because they already have too much debt (Japan, France and Britain). New Zealand has no such debt fears. But it does have fearful politicians.”
Hickey argues that what the global economy most needs now is a massive international effort to recalibrate and rejuvenate capitalism. Without such an effort, there is a very real danger that capitalism will end up eating itself: that the rapid growth of inequality, and the pathological political behaviour it engenders, will trigger a succession of national crises as intractable as they are long-lasting. Crises serious enough to throw the future of globalisation, and all its works, into serious doubt.
At least as far as the Labour Party is concerned, Hickey is absolutely right. There does not appear to be anyone left within its ranks willing to suggest even a slight deviation from the narrow neoliberal path. Any party activist or backbench MP foolhardy enough to suggest policies requiring the sort of recalibration and rejuvenation alluded to in Hickey’s posting will set off reflexive eye-rolling on the part of Labour’s senior parliamentarians. Economically, socially, politically – Labour’s leaders are simply incapable of thinking outside the box. And even if, by some miracle, they did; the eye-rolling of their civil service advisers would swiftly persuade them to crawl back inside it.
The opportunity is there for the Greens to seize hold of the new revolutionary agenda which far-sighted capitalists are now willing to back. There are those who, having seen James Shaw in action in front of business audiences, wonder aloud whether he may be the politician to break New Zealand out of its neoliberal straightjacket. If they could be convinced that the rest of the Green caucus were able to see what Shaw sees, then support might be offered on an unprecedented scale.
The stakes in this game could not be higher. As Hickey makes clear, New Zealand is better placed than most to embark on a truly massive programme of national renovation. A visionary programme, he insists, spanning several decades, could easily attract international invesment in excess of $150 billion.
Redirecting the innovative energy of capitalism, away from its present malignant preoccupations and reorienting it towards the light, is this planet’s last, best hope. Were New Zealand to place itself at the head of such a project, and demonstrate its viability, then all those clichés about this country “punching above its weight” would receive their ultimate vindication. We would, once again, have become the “social laboratory of the world”.
This shoul be required reading for all of our current politicians.
The James Shaws of this world are the problem. As a bank employee advising Coca Cola what sort of sustainability transformation did this lead to? AHHHHH………Nothing! Nor in any other business he “advised”. He is the banks man doing the bankers job just like John Key. Once he is chucked out of the Greens he will go back to his banking masters and be richly rewarded just like John Key. The only question is the damage he does to the Greens in the mean time. What we need is a Rod Donald and while I am tempted on occasions to dig up his grave and try cloning him I dont think the Greens would see that as a solution 🙂
While some in the Greens get what Hickey is on about (and I mostly agree with his analysis and solutions) to get someone with the nous to sell that to the Greens membership and front it to the public right now would be difficult. What Hickey is trying to do is be proactive to avoid serious future problems. I suspect it will take economic crisis before a will to actually risk doing something different. Either way James Shaw will not do anything the banks don’t approve of in the meantime even though they are their own worst enemies (and of humanity).
The real key to the James Shaw issue is that it turns out he was the initiator of the budget responsibility rules that are constraining the government from doing anything very useful for the country.
Then again maybe he is right, parliament doesn’t have the power to change the neoliberal settings, and he’s doing everything he can. In which case, it will only change when people take to the streets.
This means we should stop discussing which of the current crop of politicians will do what we want and start building a new movement. We should also vote the Greens out so that there is room in parliament for the political arm of that movement.
I’m hopelessly dumb when it comes to the finer points of economics, so would appreciate someone answering this for me.
How could James Shaw be our best hope when he signed up to the Budget responsibility rules.
What has he said subsequently that would lead one to believe he now challenges those rules?
Apart from that , and without getting bogged down in the more esoteric elements I thought this post and Hickey’s article was terrific
A bit of hope out there yet.
How do we get a media that sees its function as informing the populace rather than getting profits for its shareholders?
Ah ‘GROWTH’….the blind mans panacea
Any politician who cites “growth” positively is overdue for replacement. Fucking idiots. Parrots. Puppets.
Bernie Sanders three years ago put a stake in the ground for real change. If he gets the Democratic nomination this time, (or Elizabeth Warren), then they could be the lightning rod around which a new electorate base could swing behind, and allow them to transform the USA in a fashion not seen since FDR. For them it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Indeed, his manifesto is in many respects even to the left of where NZ currently sits. Oh how far we have strayed.
Interesting to note how Chris has mentioned the Green Party as a potential location for such a revolution. For it very rare for a watershed election or revolution to occur from within the governing parties themselves. In a party that size it would be possible for a few new Bernie, Warren or Norman Kirk style candidates to transform it’s economic wing and then its off to the races.
I’m a Bernie fan but history demonstrates that whoever is El President of US of A, inevitable becomes a puppet of the Military Industrial Complex.
And the Greens as a lighting rod?
Yeah right m8
Poetry
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52071.htm
In my view the answer to capitalism is not more capitalism. To my mind that’s like saying the answer to cancer is increased tobacco production. Capitalism is a failure and its not a new failure either. In fact in one form or other its been around for a long, long time and all its caused is misery, death, inequality and progressive environmental degradation.
What has worked and still works is Socialism. Indeed as resources grow scarce its the only system that stands a chance of succeeding in keeping the majority of people fed in my opinion and any possible banners of revolution tucked away in closets.
My view is the current political establishment simply don’t have the will or the creative insight to make the changes necessary to usher in real change. This government could have been a golden opportunity to do things differently but what we have instead is essentially more of the same. What that means over the longer term remains to be seen.
“Government must use rail for climate change mitigation.”
CEAC press release 9th August 2019.
The latest political polls suggest that Labour are losing support for a second term Government.
We at CEAC have been for 19 years fighting to restore the regional rail services on the East Coast from Gisborne to the ‘main trunk line’ at the Palmerston North rail hub, so we can use rail to export-import/distribute our 35% of all NZ’s export products that we in Gisborne/HB collectively produce every year.
Rail is a far more fuel efficient mode of transport to move every tonne each km than truck freight is, while rail emits far less GHG (greenhouse gases) to help fight climate change, and produces no tyre dust air pollution which causes cancer and nervous system damage as tyres are made from petroleum and is a form of plastic synthetic nylon, while trains have ‘steel wheels on a steel track’ = no wheel air pollution being emitted.
Today on the news we see that the Local Government (LGNZ National Council) is calling on the Central Government to put into place a “National climate policy” and give financial support for the regions to use to combat the effects and causes of climate change.
We searched for a Government financial policy for regional local Governments to request assistance from and only found this older (mfe) ‘Ministry for the Environment’ document.
https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-guidance/guidance-local-government-preparing-climate-change
This Local Government (LGNZ National Council) call to Government to produce a clear National Climate Change policy fits exactly what our CEAC Environment Centre has been requesting of successive governments for all those last 19 years and we commend local Government for making the call today.
We recall;
PM Jacinda Ardern stood on the Auckland Town Hall Podium in that memorable first pre-election speech in September 2017 saying “Climate Change is our generations nuclear moment” and said “lets do this” but so far we have not seen any real “National climate policy” even in the Governments ‘year of delivery’ before the 2020 election which is fast approaching, so we are reinforcing the local Government (LGNZ National Council) call to Central Government to get a ‘National Climate change policy’ in place now.
Firstly Government now needs to heed the recommendations in the ‘Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’ (PCE) 2005 report to Government https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/pdfs/Hawkes-Bay-Expressway-Noise-and-air
-quality-issues-June-2005.pdf
The (PCE) report (link above) calls for a more integrated approach that promotes alternatives such as buses, cycles, and trains and a greater co-ordination between land use and transport planning.
So as history shows; that when the last Labour Government in 2005 under PM Helen Clark received the PCE report above from the PCE in 2005 with those recommendations to make more use of rail then on ‘HB export transport activities to Napier Port’ recommending to use rail to reduce the increase of the national truck fleet inventory, Labour did respond then, as PM Helen Clark and Michael Cullen as Finance Minister moved to buy back our former NZ Rail infrastructure in 2007/8 which was a great start for restoring our regional rail infrastructure again after years of languishing in a dysfunctional privatisation model that did nothing but “defer all maintenance” on the rail infrastructure and sell parts of it off slowly until the whole network was at risk of collapsing. – During the National Government nine years rail was left to die a slow death with most of the regional rail funding redistricted to the Auckland/Wellington passenger rail services only.
So finally Winston Peters our Deputy PM, and Leader of NZ First is now with his Minister of Regional Development the Firebrand MP Shane Jones actually the only part of Government who are actually promoting rail by using the Regional Growth Fund (RGF) to lower our carbon footprint from overuse of truck freight still today expanding unchecked today.
Government should instead restore all adequate funding for our restoration of all regional rail to all our regions that produce all of NZ’s exports such as Gisborne/HB does, to increase our economic wealth, while lowering the GHG emissions from transport that is still not being reduced since Labour took over in 2017.
“Lets do this”
Far-sighted capitalists are willing to back one thing: profit, in exchange for zero labour on their part, with all costs externalized. Property is the swansong note of capitalism.
There is no such thing as a socially or ecologically responsible capitalist – for anyone who is practicing these things, is not practicing capitalism by definition: you can’t both extract/exploit from someone/something and be wholesome in relation to it at the same time.
James Shaw will save nothing but his neck when the sinking ship that he captained doesn’t make 5% in the next election – and he jumps into a cushy business role.
EVz is the first of many steps. However, this government has many other steps in creating a truley successful Leftwing Project of our own.
Infrastructure spending! Low cost borrowing! Jobs through fiscal profligacy and probably throw in some Keynsianism? What a rehash. We need more than this. This is exactly the sort of outdated thinking that you’re complaining about Chris. We need so much more before another round of grid construction for the so called economy. We need independence from all this, to stop getting gouged on everything while getting exploited six ways from Sunday, get out of Afghanistan, and the rest of the laundry list I can’t be bothered elaborating on
Fiscal cowardice will be the end of this government. We will be left with rabid national who also won’t do anything except more tax cuts and slash and burn and a disappointment about what might have been.
Francesca, I think that you are less economics- illiterate than you claim but just in case you need a different perspective, and easily understood, try the following link:- “Neoliberalism Has Met Its Match in China”
Ellen Brown https://www.truthdig.com/articles/neoliberalism-has-met-its-match-in-china/
She writes in a number of blogs about monthly and always makes sense.
I am disappointed in Bernard Hickey’s article. Only a few years ago he held the view that , since NZ is a sovereign nation it can and should print its own money supply, just like the private banks do, and does not need to borrow from outside. If he still believed that, his article would look much different
Sadly his article is pretty standard economics. Also lots of reference to the primacy of “production” and nil about global warming, so totally irrelevant.
Bernard Hickey writes:
“It’s dawning on us that Ardern and Robertson, who were schooled in the ninth floor offices of the Beehive by the grizzled veterans of the early 1990s (Helen Clark and Michael Cullen), are actually fiscal conservatives. ..”
The obscure writing of Hickey fails to tell us what mad things he proposes for his money magic.
And as for his caning of Michael Cullen, why is Bernard Hickey scornful of the very excellent provision offered every working person in New Zealand. Money now now in the $billions.
Comments are closed.