GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – What does being left-wing really mean?
Wellington based academic political commentator Bryce Edwards is an asset for good political discourse in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is largely through his Democracy Project hosted by Victoria University.
His NZ Politics Today providing links to published items, including but beyond the mainstream media, is an invaluable resource for all those interested in politics, regardless of their political persuasions.
But it is his weekly (or thereabouts) Political Roundup posts that are particularly thought-provoking. Recently Radio New Zealand featured an excellent series by Guyon Espiner on the role of lobbyists in Aotearoa’s politics.
But it was Edwards’ earlier posts that raised the flag on this issue and may have helped incentivise Espiner’s work.
Bryce Edwards: thought-provoking political commentator even when one might disagree
In the society in which we presently live the more thought-provoking you can be, the more you hit raw nerves, and consequently the more you run the risk of intimidation attempts. Edwards, in context, has certainly earned what I would call this accolade.
Thought-provoking but!
Edwards’ most recent post (27 April) on whether New Zealand’s tax system is likely to be changed in response to the Department of Inland’s meticulous research into untaxed income of the ‘mega rich’ continues his thought-provoking practice: Why New Zealand’s regressive tax system is unlikely to change.
I agree with his analysis and recommend it as a good, insightful read. However, it is not the subject of this blog. Instead it is his use of the term the ‘political left’ which is where I disagree with him.
Edwards correctly observes that debates on taxation are let down by politicians and political parties. Then he adds: this “…is especially the case for politicians and parties of the left.” By the left he means Labour and the Greens. He then goes on to argue that:
The best example of this was the 2018-19 capital gains tax debate sparked by the Labour Government’s consideration of implementing a new scheme. The debate back then was remarkably superficial, partly because the Labour Government deliberately stayed out of it. And then, of course, Jacinda Ardern simply announced that a CGT was off the agenda while she was Prime Minister. This was one of Ardern’s biggest failings as a leader – she claimed to believe strongly in a CGT, but wasn’t willing to make the case for it and convince the public.
Ardern epitomised the political left’s orientation to taxation reform. Whereas in the past, parties of the left would run major campaigns to convince the public and create a consensus in favour of reform, now when it comes to taxation, the contemporary left capitulate, and instead rely on focus groups and polls to tell them what they should do. [emphasis added]
Edwards is on the mark with this critical observation except that I disagree with his description of Labour and its former prime minister as being of the ‘political left’.
But nevertheless his use of this descriptor was thought-provoking and got me thinking about what it means to be left-wing. If it is nebulous the word serves no useful purpose.
From bland to absurd through meaningless
Most of the commentary around left-wing and right-wing is along the lines that one is what the other isn’t; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd.
In the United States the Democrats are considered by some to be on the political left and the Republicans on the political right. The reality is that both parties depend on big business backing and are equally loyal to it.
The Democrats only appear left-wing because, since the 1980s, the Republicans have moved to the far-right (including an influential neo-fascist element).
And yet in the 19th century, while the Democrats were either pro-slavery or badly compromised by slavery, the Republicans were anti-slavery.
To express it bluntly, there is a party duopoly in American politics comprising one party of the political right and the other of the political far-right.
Enter Paula Bennett
Former National Party Deputy Prime Minister, and cabinet minister for nine years, Paula Bennett gave her view on what distinguishes the political left from the political right in a video published by The Common Room (24 August 2022): Paula Bennett on political left and right.
It is an eloquently delivered but politically loaded analysis. In her view, the political left focusses on seeing people as victims who have been dealt a bad hand. There should, therefore, be an expectation the state should take care of them and that the economic pie should be cut up differently.
Paula Bennett on distinguishing the political left from the political left
On the other hand, according to Bennett, the political right see potential in people, believe what is required is hard work and effort, and it is fear that holds people back. There should be state support but only for the least amount of time that is needed. The pie should be grown, not redistributed.
Putting aside her highly loaded descriptions of left and right (which is not easy to do), defining the terms comes down to simplistic attitudinal characteristics based on contrasting negative and positive stereotypes masquerading as values.
Differentiating left and right
From my perspective, and putting Bennett’s bias to one side, being left-wing has to be much more substantive than this if it is to meaningful. If it isn’t more substantive then the term has no utility.
One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility.
This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another.
This is a big advance on Bennett’s analysis which is based on absolutist abstractions. It isn’t a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn’t. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this.
Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism.
Societies based on wealth accumulation dynamic
What drives capitalism more than anything else? Karl Marx nailed it for me as far back as 1857-58 in the Grundrisse (part of his preparation for the subsequently published Capital) when he described capital as a “limitless drive” to accumulate.
Karl Marx nailed it in 1857-58
This accumulation drive accepts no boundaries outside capital itself. Every boundary for capital has to seen as barrier for it to breach in the pursuit of accumulation.
Capital is a creation of the system we know as capitalism. Capitalism’s primary driver is wealth accumulation. This is more than being profitable. It is the constant dynamic of maximising profitability at every opportunity.
Inevitably this driver leads to conflict where wealth accumulation runs up against the rights of labour (workers) and the protection of nature (such as from the effects of climate change and land exploitation).
Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change.
Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses.
Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them).
Beyond social liberalism
But social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic.
Bryce Edwards highlights this well with his above observation about former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ruling out any capital gains tax while she held that office.
The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation.
If the term ‘left-wing’ is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen.
Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Political Bytes
What drives capitalism more than anything else? Karl Marx nailed it for me….
….he [Marx] described capital as a “limitless drive” to accumulate.
This accumulation drive accepts no boundaries outside capital itself. Every boundary for capital has to seen as barrier for it to breach in the pursuit of accumulation…..
….Capitalism’s primary driver is wealth accumulation. This is more than being profitable. It is the constant dynamic of maximising profitability at every opportunity.
Inevitably this driver leads to conflict where wealth accumulation runs up against the rights of labour (workers) and the protection of nature (such as from the effects of climate change and land exploitation).”
As well as running up against the rights of workers and the protection of nature. To which I would ad; Inevitably this driver leads to conflict where wealth accumulation by one capitalist bloc runs up against wealth accumulation of another rival capitalist bloc. which inevitably leads to war.
Understanding this, also helps us determine between Left and Right
The self titled ‘Anti-imperialist Left’ who side with Russia and China are no more Left than the Right which side with the Western capitalist bloc headed by the US.
Anyone who sides with an aggressive imperialist power that fires missiles into civilian apartment bllocks, is not Left, any more than a Labour Minister who wants to drag us into the nuclear AUKUS pact.
For a long time, as a Leftie, my focus rarely ventured outside of the workplace and to a lesser extent, government. Worker v Business, Worker v Govt was my lot. Silly me. I was blind to Imperialism. Silly, silly me, because Imperialism is just more business + government shenanigans, to put that nicely.
Now days, I suppose I would fall under the ‘Anti-imperialist Left’…never thought of it that way but since I support both Russia and China over the USA, so be it.
I know one thing is for sure, I am more Leftie than you for one bloody simple reason – I don’t believe in the corporate/capitalist media, where as you – jeez.
“I support both Russia and China over the USA, so be it. AO
By your own admission you support one imperialist bloc in competition with another imperialist bloc.
A O, does your admitted support for Russian imperialism mean –
– that you also support the brutal invasion of a sovereign nation?
– do you also support Russian missiles being slammed into civilian apartment buildings?
– do you also support Russian missiles destroying civilian electrical infrastructure in the middle of the Northern winter?
Do you also support Russian proxies in Sudan?
Do you also support 25 year prison sentences for Russian anti-war protesters and journalists?
If you do, you are making the same mistake millions of anti-imperialist Russians are making in supporting Putin.
If you do, you are making the same mistake millions of anti-imperialist Germans made in supporting Hitler.
In the ’30s German movie newsreels, print media, and radio of the time had huge coverage of the horrors of British imperialism. Hitler promised the German people that the German Reich would defeat British Imperialism. According to National Socialist propaganda German imperialism would be more humane, more modern, more liberating than British imperialism. Hitler even stood for election on an anti- imperialist, anti-war ticket.
But despite the Nazi propaganda claims to the opposite, the reality is that at its core every empire is racist and genocidal.
Ao if you think Germany or Russian can run another country like Poland or Ukraine better than they can, then you must believe that the Germans or Russians you are also better than the Polish or Ukrainian people.
When your racist fantasy crashes up against the reality, atrocities committed against resisting subject population are the result.
“By your own admission you support one imperialist bloc in competition with another imperialist bloc.”
They are only Imperialist according to the Western, corporate/capitalist media. Oddly enough, the very same media that lambasts the militaries of both nations, especially their navy and air forces, thee two most important elements needed to invade and occupy another nation.
But yeah, keep on drinking the capitalist kool-aid media. Anytime you want to preach peace, anti-economic inequality or worker/people well-being, then we are back on common Leftie ground.
“They are only Imperialist according to the Western, corporate/capitalist media” A O
Biden has been reported by US media as saying that Russia is imperialist. Putin has been reported by Russian media saying America is imperialist. Both Putin and Biden deny that their country is imperialist.
America is a capitalist state. So is Russia both countries are driven by the same capitalist imperative which Ian Powell quoting Marx, identifies as a “limitless drive” to accumulate. “that accepts no boundaries”
To deny that the Russian Federation is imperialist, as you do, is to deny that the Russian Federation is capitalist.
Which I feel, even you would have to admit, is a frankly absurd notion.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/apr/25/unequal-russia-is-anger-stirring-in-the-global-capital-of-inequality
Interesting counter for its lack of, well…
Nonetheless, we are capitalist, most countries are, guess we are imperialist, ditto most other nations too. Can’t say this is true although we, like most Western nations, do support imperialist actions…grudgingly I might add, better to keep onside of the world’s super bully rather than feel its wrath after all, as so many countries can unfortunately attest.
[America is a capitalist state. So is Russia both countries are driven by the same capitalist imperative which Ian Powell quoting Marx, identifies as a “limitless drive” to accumulate. “that accepts no boundaries”]
I don’t think Marx was talking about geographical boundaries.;
Bennett spent most of her life sucking on the welfare teat and that includes her time serving the public. For her to suggest the rest of the country should pull themselves up by their bootstraps is laughable. I’m not sure what left is but I think a right winger is an entitled, Porsche driving white male who after studying eye surgery takes the Hippocratic oath and then proceeds to gouge someone’s eye out, because the world owes them everything when life gets a bit difficult.
The left want to capital gains tax to everyone but themselves, aka Maori land has no capital gains tax, rich charities no capital gains tax, overseas investors with all the loopholes, no capital gains tax, family home, no capital gains tax! Look at the UK when the rich do not have to pay stamp duty due to being an offshore company.
“Tony and Cherie Blair avoided paying £312,000 in tax on the purchase of a London property by acquiring an offshore company, according to a trove of leaked documents.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pandora-papers-blair-stamp-duty-b1931531.html
Few middle class believe that tax reform will work or that it is designed to target the rich – in practise it seems designed to eradicate the professional and working middle class, (rich enough to have assets, not rich enough and have the time, to lobby and have tax loopholes), and it’s even worse when you look at what the government waste their money on – like a million dollar, newly built state house, that fell off it’s foundations in the flood and the occupants that will just get another one, built for them. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/01/auckland-flooding-several-k-inga-ora-houses-lifted-off-their-foundations.html
Government can’t pay working foot soldier workers, like nurses, doctors and so forth because the money gets siphoned off into white elephant woke projects, enriching those that lobby and bid for them and creating a welfare mentality, and so the cries for more taxes are now laughable.
Government so busy taxing for the fuel tax, but never spent half of it! They just love to tax with zero results to improve anybodies life. They just make it worse.
Increasingly NZ doesn’t have anyone competent to lead, recruit or have the skills needed in our wokeforce, as we have fallen so far behind on everything, medical, eduction, public transport, infrastructure. Government have had plenty of money (in fact NZ was going to build the worlds most expensive road and spend more on education than Finland) but the money is wasted because now NZ’s skills and policy and management of them, is so poor. (and getting worse).
I don’t believe Natz will be better, they are both stuck in neoliberal globalism, that seems to be creating poverty and crime here – but increasingly the woke is so dangerous and taking over policy, that they need to be voted out before they do more damage. (especially to children, puberty blockers given out like candy, Woke Mātauranga Maori 50% science and research projects).
Nicely put Ian. Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
The baseline of collectivism vs individualism was what I noticed most of all back when this libertarian shit was unleashed on us some thirty years ago. It has broken whatever sense of identity we had as Kiwis all living together on these islands and opened us all up to exploitation by overseas capitalists who now own more of our country than we do.
And for this wonderful opportunity we have been repaid with higher electricity and telecommunication costs, unavailable minimum healthcare, the end of the home ownership dream, law and order only for the wealthy, extra laws to keep the great unwashed repressed, infrastructure that no longer functions, a national railway system that apes the American railroads with their endless derailments due to parsimony and sheer stupidity, a tv and broadcast and journalistic morass that no longer serves to inform and unify the nation, more and more people living without a roof over their heads, more and more children going hungry and being denied any hope at all, a political system that completely nullifies voting, and total dominance of the economy by large medieval corporations and their lobbyist enablers.
At the same time the definition of left and right changed so that it was skewed further and further to what normal people would call the right as a result of which the class war was redefined conning people into believing we’re all just ‘consumers’.
That was when the left ceased being the left.
Until the class war reasserts itself, nothing has the potential to change.
TAX THE RICH!
100% Ian. Pitch perfect. Capitalism = Greed and that’s why it can never work in a functioning society. Because by its nature it is unchecked. It is how the world got to be a handful of people owning most of the world’s wealth.
In my view – Identity Politics is just an invention of global capitalism to allow businesses to sell more through identifying thousands of special clans (niches) and to keep people fighting amongst themselves while the Capitalists rape our societies and our earth.
Anybody else think that Wall E was prescient when it came out?
“What does being left-wing really mean?”
It means willfully ignoring the lessons of 20th century history and the 100 million killed by socialism.
I remember reading a newspaper item, about forty years ago, concerning a dispute between Bob Jones and a tenant who was grumbling about a rent increase. Jones was reported as saying that capital was entitled to its return. (What he meant of course was that Bob Jones was entitled to a return on the capital that he owns.) The left, I think are those who believe that the employment of capital should be regulated to ensure that the capitalists’ share of the national product is not so great that it places an unwarranted limit on the share going to labour. The difficulty labour faces in this is that the capitalists control the purse strings, which makes it easier for them to control the share going to labour. Labour’s answer to this is collectivism.
It would be silly to criticise capital which, not being a person, cannot reasonably be accused of greed. In fact it seems to be a necessary factor of production. It is the owners of capital who are sometimes greedy.
But Mike it is the unrestrained nature of the system itself that will not change unless effectively structured. Particularly in a world where greed is seen as good and laudable.
Structured? How?
Excellent to focus on the economic (and how it impacts the social). The left/right distinction in a liberal democracy is fundamentally about the creation of wealth generated through capitalism and the (re)distribution of resources. Economic and social justice are indeed the goals (along with environmental justice since under capitalism the environment is exploited for the economic). Social issues (as opposed to social justice) have always been part of politics, ranging from women’s suffrage in the late 19th C to same sex marriage in the early 21st C, and much much more. While there is clearly a relationship between social conservativism and the economic right (and conversely social radicals and the economic left) many of those on the left/right continuum tend to vote on their conscious, and on the basis of religious beliefs, arguably more recently influenced by identity. I suspect Michael Joseph Savage may have been somewhat of a social conservative in some respects, in part trapped by his era, but his commitment to economic and social justice is hard to fault. Where one sits on the generation and (re)distribution of wealth is where the rubber hits the road. The new woke would do to remember this when ticking the two boxes.
Excellent analysis Ian. I believe Rogernomics destroyed the political Left in NZ and until a visible section of the electorate show they want to move back to the Left no political party will enact such a move.
Redistribution of wealth is Paramount in any advanced capitalist nation. The economy wouldn’t look, feel, or be the same if the pie were to be continually grown and not redistributed.
The numbers, especially at this fragile time in world affairs, who are reliant on state assistance, is increasing, and it will continue to rise in the short and medium terms.
As such it is imperative for the wealthy to pay their fair share in tax obligations. There are simple tweaks which could easily by made to the taxation system by the government of the day, like a gradual reduction in the rate of GST, and a slight hike in the top rate of Company Tax.
Bob, no matter how much the rich may like to deny it that ‘hardy chestnut’ is as true today as it ever was. Facts do not cease to exist because we wish for our own benefit to ignore them.
I agree that innovation, responsibilty, and capital investment should be fairly rewarded.
Factually any business that does not pay a living wage is involved in a degree of slavery. If everyone was paid a living wage the need for ‘income support’ would be removed. Our economic model is so full of subsides, tax write offs, tax free gains, benefits, charitable support, loyality rewards, obscene levels of corporate profits, etc, that I doubt anyone knows what things actually cost anymore.
Any business that relies on paying less than a living wage is ultimately unsustainable. Also a country that relies on importing cheap labour to provide labour essential to its industry and social services is involved in a modern form of slavery.
“I doubt anyone knows what things actually cost anymore”.
Never a truer word Peter Kelly. Externalities!