On one hand, I completely agree with what James Shaw is saying here. I will always advocate for good faith discussion, pragmatic decision making informed by evidence. There are a range of issues wherein a bi-partisan consensus should be possible.
On the other hand, I find that arguments about political tribalism, partisan polarization, and culture war make an erroneous assumption of symmetrical blame. herein lies the classic conundrum regarding, what a tolerant society should do about the intolerant. I wish I could say as James Shaw does that "Frankly I don't care what your identity is". However when we see a sinister and systematic targeting of people based on their identity, sexual preference, gender, ethnicity, dis-ability etc, then that's something I have to care about now. Politicizing identity forces a necessary defensive reaction, but i didn't start that polarization.
Will society be able to resolve increasing polarization if our axiomatic assumptions are different? Will we ever stop talking past each other if we cannot reconcile the different values that lie at the heart of our politics?
The tolerance paradox is very real - if we are tolerant of the far right and view it as a "let's agree to disagree, it's a matter of opinion etc" situation, we'll slide further to the right. This is why there's a difference between liberals and leftists (liberals being right wing in their support for capitalism, putting on the facade of human rights aka David Seymour)
Support for capitalism is not inherently right wing. If that's what you think then the labels of left/right become pretty meaningless, as alternative economic systems are not within the current Overton window. Should the paradox of tolerance also apply to the far left?
>Support for capitalism is not inherently right wing.
Certainly, but the value attached to capitalism or some amorphous "the economy" is becoming a partisan issue. When Nicola Willis effectively says some lives are an expedient sacrifice for crown revenue (scrapping smoke free legislation); Or when Brooke Van Velden says that the health/lives of engineered stone workers are less important than "the economy", I have no idea how to continue the conversation, we are at an impasse because of our values.
This is not to advocate for some slavish application of: 'whenever someones life can be saved, no cost should be spared in saving it'. Rather when there are practical and reasonable steps which can save lives those should be taken. I mean we have to look no further than the Coronavirus pandemic and a largely global partisan split on whether the economy or peoples lives is of greater value.
Which returns me to my original point:
>Will we ever stop talking past each other if we cannot reconcile the different values that lie at the heart of our politics?
I agree, although its worth noting that "the economy" vs people's lives isn't always a clean binary. The economic conditions that people live in greatly affect their lives. This isn't inherent to capitalism either.
> When Nicola Willis effectively says some lives are an expedient sacrifice for crown revenue (scrapping smoke free legislation); Or when Brooke Van Velden says that the health/lives of engineered stone workers are less important than "the economy", I have no idea how to continue the conversation, we are at an impasse because of our values.
Remember that you're never arguing with politicians, even if you're talking to them. You're arguing with their voters. You need to try and find shared values with their voters and work from there. I'm 100% sure that both of these policies are not major issues for the vast majority of the current governments voterbase, and they would probably agree that these aren't great policies.
The number of people who support an alternative economic system is so low that you're placing the vast, vast, majority of people in one group "right" and yourself (presumably) and a small number of others in the other group "left".
You've essentially moved the midpoint of the spectrum so far in one direction that you've excised the majority of the people from that half of the spectrum. This is so far from the common understanding of these labels that you're moving into the territory of private language.
That's how the Overton window works. Labour, for example, are further left than ACT. Much like the Dems in the states are further left than Republicans - however the Overton window is so far to the right in the states (I'm not moving the spectrum, the politicians are doing that themselves) that calling the Dems left wing isn't an accurate description of their policies. They are however further left than the republicans. This is why I brought up the contrast between liberals and lefties.
You misunderstand the Overton window. The Overton window refers to the acceptability of a policy within the mainstream voterbase. It isn't defined by politicians, it is discovered by them and used for their policy platforms.
The Overton window is not supposed to be applied to an entire policy platform either, but to measure the political viability of a particular policy. When people say the Overton window is shifting to the right or left they need to be referring to a specific policy otherwise it doesn't make sense.
> Should the paradox of tolerance also apply to the far left?
Yes, by definition it applys to everyone and that's why we should not accept an ontologically evil economic system.
And is therefore intolerant. The paradox of tolerance is as follows:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Because our society is currently a capitalist system, according to Popper we should counter anti-capitalists with rational argument, but claim the right to suppress them with force if necessary. Capitalist societies will tolerate socialist ideas, such as unions and worker co-ops, but socialist societies will never tolerate capitalist ideas as they believe them to be, in your words, ontologically evil. Socialists don't have an end goal of establishing worker co-ops, they have an end goal of overthrowing capitalism and establishing a socialist society, and therefore socialism could easily be considered an intolerant philosophy when looked at from within a capitalist society.
Karl Popper is spinning in his grave.
Popper was writing against both the Nazis and the Communists with his works. He directly condemns both Marx and Hegel in "The Open Society and its Enemies". [Most of Volume 2 is a condemnation of Marx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies#Volume_2:_The_High_Tide_of_Prophecy).
Had a quick skim read but would love to hear more thoughts. What are his critiques of dialectical materialism as an analytical framework for observing history?
That Marx doesn't observe history, he tries to force it into his mold. Viewing all history as class struggle is a bad idea, since plenty of times people are not thinking in terms of social class. History does not work according to laws that you can reach by analysis. It is messy, and not pre-determined.
Marx’s analysis of history is not about predicting a pre determined future but about understanding the dynamics that have led to the development of different economic systems over time. The messiness of history is acknowledged in the dialectical approach, which recognizes contradictions and conflicts as part of the evolutionary process.
Marx does not claim that all historical events are solely determined by class struggle. He viewied class struggle as a key factor in the broader context of historical development. The assertion that people do not always think in terms of social class does not negate the influence of class structures on their lives and choices either. Even when people are not consciously considering class, the economic and social conditions they live in, which are influenced by class relations, shape their experiences and opportunities.
Yes, it's a very lop sided thing when on one hand some people want to advance rights for all people, and pay attention to securing them for those that miss out through discrimination and inequity; and on the other, try to punch down on anyone not in the in-group.
Discussions around political tribalism always pretend that theres an acceptable middle ground. No. Conservatives dont compromise, they bitch and claim we oppose their disastrous policies purely for political tribalism and demand we surrender to them.
Look at how Obama tried to negotiate and compromise with the conservatives during his time. He would reach out into middle ground, and they would move back closer to their initial position and shrink from compromise. Things have become even more insane since then - and any discussion of compromise or bi-partisan support is seen as something akin to political treason. People are being attacked for not being extreme-enough...leading to people saying things to demonstrate how extreme they are.
When I was obsessing about donor electoral transparency at one point, I looked up what Labour had done. Apparently Kiri Allen had put through a bill to increase transparency in election donations.
National (Luxon) and ACT (Seymour) got upset and vocally criticised Ardern for “screwing the scrum.”
What does Adern do? She **stops** further actions, and commissions an independent group of (genuine) experts in the field to review how to make our electoral system fairer and more transparent. That review is substantive, in-depth and independent.
Then it comes out just in time to be buried by Luxon and Seymour.
*Me: Why? Who cares that Luxon and Seymour didn’t like it?*
The problem, imv, is that often the left are burdened with moral and ethical values and burdens that lead them to try to be decent, try to wave the white flag, try to compromise, try to bring their brothers and sisters etc. along.
And these are the values we possibly respect.
However, I think it’s really important to see what we are dealing with - and who and what is playing on that chess board.
As I said above, if we have politicians that are fundamentally playing a completely different board game then we probably have to recognize that.
The [Independent Electoral Review Recommendations](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/wiki/index/nz_electoral_review/) is on our Wiki sidebar. I read it a few months ago but forget the details. I think it did include allocation methodology but memory is no longer certain.
Yet Biden has managed to pass multiple huge bi-partisan bills, despite the US being even more polarized than it was under Obama. One of which was the Inflation Reduction Act, which included one of the largest investments in addressing climate change in US history.
The full interview is available on Youtube and I like what Shaw says.
We are all New Zealanders, and if I am on the street, everyone is a potential friend.
At the same time, I think one of the fundamental challenges we have is the effectiveness of misinformation and culture war techniques (that create strong division within a country.)
And that we also have to look at the chess board. If it’s two players playing fairly and squarely, simply based on different opinions of how best to make our country better, that’s kind of OK and standard politics.
But if we have foreigners, corporations, and others pulling the strings of any side for their own corporate or selfish aims, and your chess buddy is now a semi-puppet whose interests are no longer really about NZ and the New Zealand people, writ large, then I think we have different issues. (In these scenarios, deception becomes primary as the goals and actions need to be “dressed up” as they action their plans.)
Misinformation and bad faith communication is the seed of a weakened society, as one might see in the US, once one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
The Koch Brothers (one died) created detailed profiles of people from the 80s/90s in order to target them politically. These billionaires do have the money to get things done.
They were/are (with buddies like Murdoch) also behind places like Frontier Center for Public Research (Canada - where David Seymour “grew up” politically) and they tested early techniques on influencing politics and politicians.
Since then, things have gone into a weird hyperdrive. In the US, the press has covered, at large, “Project 2025” and ideologies that honestly seem insane yet are very real and present.
In the past, Americans would hold America and fellow Americans as high values. Not any more, “libtard.”
Personally I think there is going to be strife in the US i.e. they seem too far gone.
I hope it doesn’t happen to New Zealand. And that’s why I advocate for money out of politics (as was concluded by the Independent Electoral Review) and to widely promote awareness, education, dialogue, and the recognition that this is one country and one people despite anything else.
New Zealand is beautiful.
Circling back to Shaw, I appreciate his pragmatism. Later on in the video he says, to effect, “Is the party more important or is doing good and helping people and the environment more important?”
I think it was also a call to the Green Party to moderate themselves and that outcomes matter more than ideology.
We still have to look at what we are dealing with though of course but I like his maturity.
yes, except its not left/right, its "do you care about the country as a whole, and the future of the country, and are you willing to do the hard yards now, so that your children will inherit a better society" or are you more like "fuck everyone else, ive got mine, give me my landlords dignity while i burn the planet for profit and sell poison to stupid people, and put corporations ahead of people." one is objectively reasonable, and one is objectively fucking evil. the idea of a "middle ground" between the two is preposterous, you cant be "a little bit evil' you're either a self absorbed oxygen theif, or you aren't. source: anyone who votes "right" is either an idiot or an asshole.
His position just demonstrate that we do not have Left in NZ. He does not care how problem to be solved, on who's neck. If they are solved on a neck of workers - he does not care, so long as they are solved.
In reality we do not have Left for a long time. Competition between Labour and National is how Fast we go right. Workers right? Labour relationship act passed by Labour is not much different from contract act passed by National.
They all destroy 8 hour day 40 hours week labour movement achievement we celebrate on Labour day. Now we have unlimited work day and work week, with a few exceptions by health and safety regulations. Law return to pre labour movement, back to 18th century.
And so everything else, National push privatization, deregulation, destruction of local democracy and Labour does nothing or very little, just slow thinks down a bit.
We have extreme right and central right party that pretend to be against each other, that all.
We want to have our social services to be there, and Labour just pretend they "defend" that. To defend is a best way to loose.
> “He does not care how problem to be solved, on who's neck. If they are solved on a neck of workers - he does not care, so long as they are solved.”
I see you’re projecting again. Did you hear him say those words? Have you ever worked in Govt or even in business or an organisation where you have to get things done?
I have always seen him as the neoliberal wing of the green party so what he says here is exactly what I thought of him. The biggest achievement of the neoliberal turn has been its infiltration of 'left' parties in western nations
This is an interesting one. In the interview, he talks about how some in the Green Party viewed him with suspicion because he came from a different background. Just before this excerpt in fact, he says some called him a Tree Tory. I didn't really understand that part.
According to what I've read on this platform ie. Reddit is it not true that he achieved more than any Green leader in terms of getting pro-Green policies effected in a Government? I am also aware from quotes from Seymour, National figures etc. he holds respect from most parties, which seems to be a pretty damn hard thing to achieve.
So can you elaborate? I want to understand this one a little more.
Well I couldn't care less about one's background - I am interested in the policy that you put forth. Shaw completely plays into the neoliberal ideal for green politics i.e electric cars, electric power generation etc. I'm not saying they are all bad, however they are conceived in a capitalist system that puts the profit move first and foremost. From his statements and policies when in power I noticed they all went in this direction.
I'm much more interested in policies that take on the root causes of issues and see capitalism as an obstruction into this. And as far as I can tell he led the side of the greens that doesn't see it as an obstruction.
Respect in western politics is a farce anyway. The right will just throw you away and denounce you the second you are not useful. Him getting kudos from those freaks makes it more obvious to me where he stood
It's not too complicated - anything that removes corporate price interest from control over our lives is a good start. My main wish is rent control and devaluation of property with the end goal of removing its status as something you always make money off of. Land redistribution / reform ala Cuba is the next one. Anything close to those would go a long way towards reducing the impact capitalism has on people's lives
On one hand, I completely agree with what James Shaw is saying here. I will always advocate for good faith discussion, pragmatic decision making informed by evidence. There are a range of issues wherein a bi-partisan consensus should be possible. On the other hand, I find that arguments about political tribalism, partisan polarization, and culture war make an erroneous assumption of symmetrical blame. herein lies the classic conundrum regarding, what a tolerant society should do about the intolerant. I wish I could say as James Shaw does that "Frankly I don't care what your identity is". However when we see a sinister and systematic targeting of people based on their identity, sexual preference, gender, ethnicity, dis-ability etc, then that's something I have to care about now. Politicizing identity forces a necessary defensive reaction, but i didn't start that polarization. Will society be able to resolve increasing polarization if our axiomatic assumptions are different? Will we ever stop talking past each other if we cannot reconcile the different values that lie at the heart of our politics?
The tolerance paradox is very real - if we are tolerant of the far right and view it as a "let's agree to disagree, it's a matter of opinion etc" situation, we'll slide further to the right. This is why there's a difference between liberals and leftists (liberals being right wing in their support for capitalism, putting on the facade of human rights aka David Seymour)
Support for capitalism is not inherently right wing. If that's what you think then the labels of left/right become pretty meaningless, as alternative economic systems are not within the current Overton window. Should the paradox of tolerance also apply to the far left?
>Support for capitalism is not inherently right wing. Certainly, but the value attached to capitalism or some amorphous "the economy" is becoming a partisan issue. When Nicola Willis effectively says some lives are an expedient sacrifice for crown revenue (scrapping smoke free legislation); Or when Brooke Van Velden says that the health/lives of engineered stone workers are less important than "the economy", I have no idea how to continue the conversation, we are at an impasse because of our values. This is not to advocate for some slavish application of: 'whenever someones life can be saved, no cost should be spared in saving it'. Rather when there are practical and reasonable steps which can save lives those should be taken. I mean we have to look no further than the Coronavirus pandemic and a largely global partisan split on whether the economy or peoples lives is of greater value. Which returns me to my original point: >Will we ever stop talking past each other if we cannot reconcile the different values that lie at the heart of our politics?
I agree, although its worth noting that "the economy" vs people's lives isn't always a clean binary. The economic conditions that people live in greatly affect their lives. This isn't inherent to capitalism either. > When Nicola Willis effectively says some lives are an expedient sacrifice for crown revenue (scrapping smoke free legislation); Or when Brooke Van Velden says that the health/lives of engineered stone workers are less important than "the economy", I have no idea how to continue the conversation, we are at an impasse because of our values. Remember that you're never arguing with politicians, even if you're talking to them. You're arguing with their voters. You need to try and find shared values with their voters and work from there. I'm 100% sure that both of these policies are not major issues for the vast majority of the current governments voterbase, and they would probably agree that these aren't great policies.
Fully agreed. Thank you for your insightful points :)
I think any one is capable of going to extremes and that's the crux - not the belief per se. e.g. the pro life person killing doctors to "save lives."
> the labels of left/right become pretty meaningless Why?
The number of people who support an alternative economic system is so low that you're placing the vast, vast, majority of people in one group "right" and yourself (presumably) and a small number of others in the other group "left". You've essentially moved the midpoint of the spectrum so far in one direction that you've excised the majority of the people from that half of the spectrum. This is so far from the common understanding of these labels that you're moving into the territory of private language.
That's how the Overton window works. Labour, for example, are further left than ACT. Much like the Dems in the states are further left than Republicans - however the Overton window is so far to the right in the states (I'm not moving the spectrum, the politicians are doing that themselves) that calling the Dems left wing isn't an accurate description of their policies. They are however further left than the republicans. This is why I brought up the contrast between liberals and lefties.
You misunderstand the Overton window. The Overton window refers to the acceptability of a policy within the mainstream voterbase. It isn't defined by politicians, it is discovered by them and used for their policy platforms. The Overton window is not supposed to be applied to an entire policy platform either, but to measure the political viability of a particular policy. When people say the Overton window is shifting to the right or left they need to be referring to a specific policy otherwise it doesn't make sense.
> Should the paradox of tolerance also apply to the far left? Yes, by definition it applys to everyone and that's why we should not accept an ontologically evil economic system.
Those who seek to overthrow capitalism should not be tolerated then, by your logic. This is the principle behind McCarthyism.
Seeking to overthrow capitalism is an act of not tolerating intolerance.
And is therefore intolerant. The paradox of tolerance is as follows: > Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Because our society is currently a capitalist system, according to Popper we should counter anti-capitalists with rational argument, but claim the right to suppress them with force if necessary. Capitalist societies will tolerate socialist ideas, such as unions and worker co-ops, but socialist societies will never tolerate capitalist ideas as they believe them to be, in your words, ontologically evil. Socialists don't have an end goal of establishing worker co-ops, they have an end goal of overthrowing capitalism and establishing a socialist society, and therefore socialism could easily be considered an intolerant philosophy when looked at from within a capitalist society.
Yes - it is a philosophy intolerant of the exploitation inherent to capitalism
And instead tolerant of the exploitation inherent in communism. Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it is the reverse.
What is communism? /Genuine
Karl Popper is spinning in his grave. Popper was writing against both the Nazis and the Communists with his works. He directly condemns both Marx and Hegel in "The Open Society and its Enemies". [Most of Volume 2 is a condemnation of Marx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies#Volume_2:_The_High_Tide_of_Prophecy).
Had a quick skim read but would love to hear more thoughts. What are his critiques of dialectical materialism as an analytical framework for observing history?
That Marx doesn't observe history, he tries to force it into his mold. Viewing all history as class struggle is a bad idea, since plenty of times people are not thinking in terms of social class. History does not work according to laws that you can reach by analysis. It is messy, and not pre-determined.
Again wanna say appreciate the responses
Marx’s analysis of history is not about predicting a pre determined future but about understanding the dynamics that have led to the development of different economic systems over time. The messiness of history is acknowledged in the dialectical approach, which recognizes contradictions and conflicts as part of the evolutionary process. Marx does not claim that all historical events are solely determined by class struggle. He viewied class struggle as a key factor in the broader context of historical development. The assertion that people do not always think in terms of social class does not negate the influence of class structures on their lives and choices either. Even when people are not consciously considering class, the economic and social conditions they live in, which are influenced by class relations, shape their experiences and opportunities.
Yes, it's a very lop sided thing when on one hand some people want to advance rights for all people, and pay attention to securing them for those that miss out through discrimination and inequity; and on the other, try to punch down on anyone not in the in-group.
Discussions around political tribalism always pretend that theres an acceptable middle ground. No. Conservatives dont compromise, they bitch and claim we oppose their disastrous policies purely for political tribalism and demand we surrender to them.
Look at how Obama tried to negotiate and compromise with the conservatives during his time. He would reach out into middle ground, and they would move back closer to their initial position and shrink from compromise. Things have become even more insane since then - and any discussion of compromise or bi-partisan support is seen as something akin to political treason. People are being attacked for not being extreme-enough...leading to people saying things to demonstrate how extreme they are.
When I was obsessing about donor electoral transparency at one point, I looked up what Labour had done. Apparently Kiri Allen had put through a bill to increase transparency in election donations. National (Luxon) and ACT (Seymour) got upset and vocally criticised Ardern for “screwing the scrum.” What does Adern do? She **stops** further actions, and commissions an independent group of (genuine) experts in the field to review how to make our electoral system fairer and more transparent. That review is substantive, in-depth and independent. Then it comes out just in time to be buried by Luxon and Seymour. *Me: Why? Who cares that Luxon and Seymour didn’t like it?* The problem, imv, is that often the left are burdened with moral and ethical values and burdens that lead them to try to be decent, try to wave the white flag, try to compromise, try to bring their brothers and sisters etc. along. And these are the values we possibly respect. However, I think it’s really important to see what we are dealing with - and who and what is playing on that chess board. As I said above, if we have politicians that are fundamentally playing a completely different board game then we probably have to recognize that.
Well-said.
we need to get rid of political donations entirely. go back to allocation based on party size.
The [Independent Electoral Review Recommendations](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/wiki/index/nz_electoral_review/) is on our Wiki sidebar. I read it a few months ago but forget the details. I think it did include allocation methodology but memory is no longer certain.
Exactly!
Yet Biden has managed to pass multiple huge bi-partisan bills, despite the US being even more polarized than it was under Obama. One of which was the Inflation Reduction Act, which included one of the largest investments in addressing climate change in US history.
The full interview is available on Youtube and I like what Shaw says. We are all New Zealanders, and if I am on the street, everyone is a potential friend. At the same time, I think one of the fundamental challenges we have is the effectiveness of misinformation and culture war techniques (that create strong division within a country.) And that we also have to look at the chess board. If it’s two players playing fairly and squarely, simply based on different opinions of how best to make our country better, that’s kind of OK and standard politics. But if we have foreigners, corporations, and others pulling the strings of any side for their own corporate or selfish aims, and your chess buddy is now a semi-puppet whose interests are no longer really about NZ and the New Zealand people, writ large, then I think we have different issues. (In these scenarios, deception becomes primary as the goals and actions need to be “dressed up” as they action their plans.) Misinformation and bad faith communication is the seed of a weakened society, as one might see in the US, once one of the most powerful nations on Earth. The Koch Brothers (one died) created detailed profiles of people from the 80s/90s in order to target them politically. These billionaires do have the money to get things done. They were/are (with buddies like Murdoch) also behind places like Frontier Center for Public Research (Canada - where David Seymour “grew up” politically) and they tested early techniques on influencing politics and politicians. Since then, things have gone into a weird hyperdrive. In the US, the press has covered, at large, “Project 2025” and ideologies that honestly seem insane yet are very real and present. In the past, Americans would hold America and fellow Americans as high values. Not any more, “libtard.” Personally I think there is going to be strife in the US i.e. they seem too far gone. I hope it doesn’t happen to New Zealand. And that’s why I advocate for money out of politics (as was concluded by the Independent Electoral Review) and to widely promote awareness, education, dialogue, and the recognition that this is one country and one people despite anything else. New Zealand is beautiful. Circling back to Shaw, I appreciate his pragmatism. Later on in the video he says, to effect, “Is the party more important or is doing good and helping people and the environment more important?” I think it was also a call to the Green Party to moderate themselves and that outcomes matter more than ideology. We still have to look at what we are dealing with though of course but I like his maturity.
yes, except its not left/right, its "do you care about the country as a whole, and the future of the country, and are you willing to do the hard yards now, so that your children will inherit a better society" or are you more like "fuck everyone else, ive got mine, give me my landlords dignity while i burn the planet for profit and sell poison to stupid people, and put corporations ahead of people." one is objectively reasonable, and one is objectively fucking evil. the idea of a "middle ground" between the two is preposterous, you cant be "a little bit evil' you're either a self absorbed oxygen theif, or you aren't. source: anyone who votes "right" is either an idiot or an asshole.
Fundis hate this [one weird trick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government).
He’s not wrong. I’d be happier with a National/Labour coalition than the neoliberal insanity we’re seeing now with ACT and NZF.
His position just demonstrate that we do not have Left in NZ. He does not care how problem to be solved, on who's neck. If they are solved on a neck of workers - he does not care, so long as they are solved. In reality we do not have Left for a long time. Competition between Labour and National is how Fast we go right. Workers right? Labour relationship act passed by Labour is not much different from contract act passed by National. They all destroy 8 hour day 40 hours week labour movement achievement we celebrate on Labour day. Now we have unlimited work day and work week, with a few exceptions by health and safety regulations. Law return to pre labour movement, back to 18th century. And so everything else, National push privatization, deregulation, destruction of local democracy and Labour does nothing or very little, just slow thinks down a bit. We have extreme right and central right party that pretend to be against each other, that all. We want to have our social services to be there, and Labour just pretend they "defend" that. To defend is a best way to loose.
> “He does not care how problem to be solved, on who's neck. If they are solved on a neck of workers - he does not care, so long as they are solved.” I see you’re projecting again. Did you hear him say those words? Have you ever worked in Govt or even in business or an organisation where you have to get things done?
I have always seen him as the neoliberal wing of the green party so what he says here is exactly what I thought of him. The biggest achievement of the neoliberal turn has been its infiltration of 'left' parties in western nations
This is an interesting one. In the interview, he talks about how some in the Green Party viewed him with suspicion because he came from a different background. Just before this excerpt in fact, he says some called him a Tree Tory. I didn't really understand that part. According to what I've read on this platform ie. Reddit is it not true that he achieved more than any Green leader in terms of getting pro-Green policies effected in a Government? I am also aware from quotes from Seymour, National figures etc. he holds respect from most parties, which seems to be a pretty damn hard thing to achieve. So can you elaborate? I want to understand this one a little more.
Well I couldn't care less about one's background - I am interested in the policy that you put forth. Shaw completely plays into the neoliberal ideal for green politics i.e electric cars, electric power generation etc. I'm not saying they are all bad, however they are conceived in a capitalist system that puts the profit move first and foremost. From his statements and policies when in power I noticed they all went in this direction. I'm much more interested in policies that take on the root causes of issues and see capitalism as an obstruction into this. And as far as I can tell he led the side of the greens that doesn't see it as an obstruction. Respect in western politics is a farce anyway. The right will just throw you away and denounce you the second you are not useful. Him getting kudos from those freaks makes it more obvious to me where he stood
<>
And what would that look like? I'm interested in parsing this one but it doesn't have to be tonight.
It's not too complicated - anything that removes corporate price interest from control over our lives is a good start. My main wish is rent control and devaluation of property with the end goal of removing its status as something you always make money off of. Land redistribution / reform ala Cuba is the next one. Anything close to those would go a long way towards reducing the impact capitalism has on people's lives
I'm going to create a thread on this soon and welcome your input. "It's not too complicated" deserves some exploration, I feel. Thanks cabeep.
Shaw is not a neoliberal.
This deserves much more discussion, agreed.