Archive for the ‘NZ Identity(ies)’ Category
by Daphna Whitmore
The internet is a vast ocean littered with so much stuff it is possible to paddle around for many years and miss out on some real treasures. A newly discovered treat for me is Ross Himona’s blog Te Putatara. Thank you Mark Eden, for highlighting the essay The Maori Worldview and Maori Policy, in the comments section of a Redline article. Himona’s essay on the Maori Worldview is one of the most rational discussions on the subject I’ve come across.
Himona starts by asking what is the Maori worldview? To explore that question he lays out the facts of Maori in today’s world.
He contends what is commonly portrayed as the Maori worldview has been constructed by modern elites and does not represent most Maori. The elites have “cleaved ‘traditional’ tikanga values incorporating them into their various fields of endeavor, and on speaking Te Reo Maori”.
Those elites are a minority, so how can they speak for most Maori? Most Maori are not sitting on corporate iwi boards, or in high paid government department jobs. While it is not news that most Maori are poor – or only just keeping their heads above water – Himona quantifies it with plenty of numbers.
What he describes is contemporary society. He is not describing Maori of a hundred years ago, but of the 21st century. Most Maori are in urban areas, all speak English, around 22 percent can speak conversational Maori, 98 percent identify as Christian, more than half identify as other ethnicities as well as Maori. Most live in the suburbs, like most pakeha do. Many live in Australia – a substantial 17.6 percent, and they treat New Zealand and Australia as virtually one country. (more…)
by Philip Ferguson
The big victory of the right-wing opposition in Venezuela along with the capitulation to the European bourgeoisie on the part of the majority of the supposedly ‘anti-capitalist’ Syriza governing party in Greece reveal yet again the limitations of a left politics focused on using capitalist parliaments and the capitalist state to carry forward fundamental, radical change. In New Zealand, however, no-one on the left has much to stand on in criticising the Chavistas or the (apparently not-so-left) left social-democrats in Greece; after all, what has the revolutionary left in New Zealand achieved in the past four decades or so?\
Most people who were active in revolutionary groups in the 1970s and afterwards have long since abandoned revolutionary politics and made peace with the form of society based on exploitation and oppression. For individuals, most especially in the imperialist world, there is always a way back into ‘mainstream’ society, successful careers in academe, law, parliamentary politics, the union bureaucracy, the state apparatus, and so on.
Nevil Gibson, the paranoid right-wing editor of the NBR was, in his wayward youth, a Marxist and early (possibly even a founding) member of the Socialist Action League. Another prominent journalist was once in the Workers Communist League. Cheryl Gywn, the inspector-general (‘public watchdog’) of the state’s snoop services (SIS, GCSB) was also in the SAL and was for some years in the 1980s a freezing worker at the Tomoana works in Hawke’s Bay and happily talks about this in interviews. Peter Conway, the last head of the CTU, was around several far-left groups in his 20s. Several ex-SAL and WCL members were MPs for the Alliance and the Greens. And on it goes. Most, however, simply dropped out of politics altogether and slipped easily into ‘civilian’ life, having families, doing DIY and their gardens in the time they once devoted to trying to overthrow capitalism.
Now. . . and then
What is left is a few tiny sects that are not even a pale reflection of the far left of the 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, the collective far left numbered in the hundreds, produced weekly and fortnightly papers that sold thousands of copies, had scores and scores of members in core industrial sectors like the freezing works, the timber industry, the car plants, electrical assembly and elsewhere. I remember in the late 1970s, when I was a full-timer on the SAL’s newspaper, that we had several thousand subscribers and that in some of the timber villages in the central North Island half the houses had subscriptions. The CPNZ, in the last stages of its Maoist period, led a massive struggle by timber workers in the central North Island for a democratic rank-and-file-controlled union against corrupt right-wing union leaders. The WCL, while also having a small industrial base, was a real force among clerical workers in Wellington.
These organisations led real mass movements of tens of thousands of people on the streets: the (more…)
The October 31 article on how the necessary NZ capitalist ideology today focuses on ‘respect for diversity’, an outlook the ruling class shares with the liberal-left, mentioned the scare-mongering over Don Brash a decade ago. Brash, we were ridiculously told, was going to ‘tear up the social fabric’ of the country and discard the liberal race relations industry.
Below are two articles, one from October 2005 and one from late 2006, on Brash, left scaremongering and capitalist ideology. While so much of the left made themselves look quite silly indeed in relation to Brash, no lessons were learned by most of them. They simply repeated the same mistake when it came to stuff like the appointment of Susan Devoy as race relations commissioner. Sadly we have a left which, in its big majority, is far too preoccupied with histrionics over individuals to bother with dreary stuff like analysing the laws of motion of contemporary NZ capital and changing demographics in order to be able to also analyse changes in bourgeois ideology.
Here on Redline and in earlier publications like The Spark (up til early 2011) and revolution magazine, we engaged in clinical Marxist analysis. The reason we have been proven right about this stuff is not because of any brilliance on our part, but because of our determination to present that sort of analysis rather than just trail along with the liberal-left swamp.
People seriously interested in the analytical tools of Marxism and the politics of anti-capitalism should get in touch with us: email@example.com
How scarey is Don Brash? (2005)
by Philip Ferguson
To take some of the far left seriously, you would think Don Brash was practically a fascist. In the run-up to the elections these elements scare-mongered that a Brash/National victory would be some kind of disaster for the working class and for Maori and race relations in particular. It would mean a dramatic return to the neo-liberal 1984-1993 period of Labour and National; the Treaty industry and the funding of Maori institutions would be slashed, we often heard.
There are two basic problems with this approach.
Firstly, it (more…)
by Phil Duncan
On the New Zealand left, one of the most misunderstood questions is that of the state. One reason for this is that the state in this country has played a particularly instrumental role in the creating and cohering of society, frequently stepping in to do things capitalism simply could not, like constructing much of the infrastructure of the economy – roads, rail, bridges, dams, telecommunications, for instance. The state was also the necessary instrument through which the education and health of each new generation of workers could be guaranteed – markets couldn’t do this either. The third role played by the state was in guaranteeing cheap inputs for industry – so coal and other primary products were often extracted through being owned by the state and the operations being organised by government departments.
The ‘mixed economy’ model confused many on the left about a middle way between the rampant capitalism they associated with the United States and the state totalitarianism they associated with the Soviet bloc. The ‘mixed economy’ model, particularly when administered by a Labour government, was indeed viewed as a kind of ‘New Zealand socialism’.
Thus the capitalist state in New Zealand was seen simply as the state. On the left, people talked about “the state” far more than “the capitalist state”. Since state ownership was associated with socialism, the state was simply not seen as a key institution of capitalism. The left were always calling on “the state” to do this, that or the other, as if such action somehow was socialist.
The existence of a large (more…)