“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”, Kenneth E. Boulding, economist and co-founder of General Systems Theory. But continuous growth is central to capitalist ideology.

“All species suffer population collapse or species extinction if they overshoot and degrade the carrying capacity of their ecology”, “How to Avoid Population Overshoot And Collapse”, Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com > blog, Prof. Michael Mills, Loyola Marymount University, 2/11/11. Mills proffers insights from “evolutionary psychology” to aid in our survival, and help engender better solidarity within humankind as a whole.

“The codifiers of neo-liberalism are global power elites that include managers and executives of large transnational corporations (TNCs), corporate lobbyists, influential journalists and public relations (PR) specialists, intellectuals writing for a large public audience, celebrities and top entertainers, State bureaucrats, and politicians” (“Neo-Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction”, Manfred B. Steger & Ravi K. Roy, Oxford University Press [OUP], 2010, p11). 

“Unlike what neo-liberals say, market and democracy clash at a fundamental level. Democracy runs on the principle of 'one man (one person), one vote'. The market runs on the principle of 'one dollar, one vote'. Naturally, the former gives equal weight to each person, regardless of the money she/he has. The latter gives weight to richer people. Therefore, democratic decisions usually subvert the logic of the market” (“Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations & The Threat to Global Prosperity”, Ha-Joon Chang, Random House, 2007/08, p172. Reviewed by Jeremy Agar in Watchdog 120, May 2009, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/20/08.htm. Ed.).

“It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it” - John Pilger.

Presiding over the progress of global capitalist market development in the past several decades has been the ideology of what is called “neo-liberalism”, a very Rightwing version of the “free market” and “free trade”. This politically contrived ideology has become deeply entrenched in the West, although it is now increasingly under challenge. Even some elements within the ruling class itself are coming to see it as too prescriptive, and even counter-productive to their ultimate interests. 

Neo-liberalism is clearly having a corrosive effect on our culture and society in general, among other costs impacting upon both our future, and that of humankind in general. This article explores these costs in more detail. My goal is to try and come to better grips with the culture of neo-liberalism, especially as manifest in Aotearoa/NZ but also in general, in order to help foster action for positive alternatives.  

Neo-Liberal Hegemony

Since the 1980s, neo-liberalism was promulgated worldwide by Western agents and media as the rationale for market forces, although the actual term itself was little used by its proponents. The mainstream media, of course, have been central to the dissemination of the credo of the capitalist market (“The Global Media: The New Missionaries Of Corporate Capitalism”, Edward Herman & Robert McChesney, Cassell, 1997). Again, this process has had considerable success, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Communist Soviet Union, and along with the substantial adoption of market principles by the Communist regime of China. 

Today, in one form or another, the corporate market still rides high in hegemonic style (despite some recent disruptions), informing and driving political agendas, both at the national and at the international levels. It now proclaims and touts the prospect of a new, unfolding “industrial revolution” under the impetus of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic technology. While this prospect is largely US-led, as usual, the rising superpower of China is pushing its own cargo cult “Silk Road” to endless prosperity – its so-called “global trade and infra-structure development plan known as the Belt and Road Initiative” (“China's Plan For The World”, Sunday Star Times [SST], 14/5/17). 

Simon Draper, the Executive Director of the Asia NZ Foundation, which fosters economic and trade/investment connections, reports hearing about China's Belt and Road Initiative as “China's moon shot” (“Sobering Insights Into Asian Uncertainties: Speculation Flourishes In Absence Of Foreign Investment Data”, Press, 19/6/17). Ironically, however, Draper himself raises questions about the future stability of the region, including the potential challenges for trade routes through the contested waters of the South China Sea (ibid.). We need to be ready for change and perhaps increasing instability!

Explicating Neo-Liberalism

One definition of “neo-liberalism” describes it as: “An American hybrid of uncertain character, which may be more a label attached to a package of politically expedient positions than any important revision of liberal thought” (“The New Fontana Dictionary Of Modern Thought”, ed. A. Bullock & S. Trombley, HarperCollins, 2000, p572). Neo-liberalism: “rejects a Keynesian role for the State in the economy, accepts elements of conservative critiques of the Welfare State”, and pushes anti-trade unionism to a marked degree (ibid.). 

At this stage, we must take note in passing of a certain tension and inconsistency within the so-called “social sciences” themselves. What is known in the political science discipline of “International Relations” (IR) as “Neo-liberalism” needs to be demarcated somewhat from “neo-liberalism” as discussed in this article. The “neo-liberalism” of IR does, however, tend “to focus on economic issues”, as well as “institution-building” and diplomacy, rather than just brute military security (“Penguin Dictionary Of International Relations”, G. Evans & J. Newnham, Penguin Books, 1998, p362).  

In the scrutiny, analysis, and monitoring of political discourse, and especially the role of the Western media, my own guiding light has long been the iconic wisdom, insights, and prophetic vision of George Orwell. For a span of time now approaching four decades, the predominant form of Orwellian “Newspeak” in the West has been “neo-liberal speak”: i.e. the Western media operate within a political framework of discourse that constantly defines the situation in the language of the capitalist “free market”, and in the interests of those people who most benefit from this system. 

“Neo-liberal speak” is actually an extreme and twisted form of the ideology of traditional Anglo-American market economics. In essence, it expresses the American capitalist corporate credo, and is driven by the power and interests of the transnational corporations (TNCs) in pursuing markets, the exploitation of new technology, etc. Free trade agreements (FTAs) have been the vehicle for this market expansion. The ultimate aim of transnational capital is to do away with any governmental control and regulation, except of course wherever and whenever demands for corporate facilitation and welfare might arise, along with the security demands of the ruling class. 

Shooting A “Slam Dunk” Against The Environment!

For the globalist exponents of “free trade”, the environment can effectively go to hell as we plunge on ever deeper into resource wars and ecological ruin. For sure, they can count on the mainstream media for most part to peddle their blindly blinkered cargo cult. After all, they own and control the agencies of this media dissemination. The National government and its crony media mates are certainly messaging in cahoots for global capitalism unleashed, whatever the contradictions and confusions that are so regularly evident in their own proclamations, policies, and reportage. Yet, to be fair, there are also some indications of greater awareness and willingness in certain quarters to question neo-liberal shibboleths.

The Labour Party is also a fervent advocate for economic growth via FTAs, whatever its reservations on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). NZ First is similarly gung-ho about growing the economy, although with a more protectionist bent. Whereas the National Party is dedicated to its “blue-green” bullshit ideology on the environment, NZ First is little better. The Labour Party, at least, with its newly announced water policy and other initiatives, is at last adopting a much improved approach. 

So far as the Green Party is concerned, while I for one support this Party in a general sense, there is still plenty to criticise as well as to praise. The Greens might be the best party on the environment but a generation of neo-liberalism has watered down the deeper understanding, sense of immense urgency, and importance of the environmentalist cause as originally articulated by its leading thinkers and analysts (see “Philosophers Of The Earth: Conversations With Ecologists”, Anne Chisholm, The Scientific Book Club/Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972/4). In Parliament and other forums, the Greens often debate such issues as growth, productivity, manufacturing, exports, new technologies, etc., in quite conventional economic terms.

To be sure, from the ongoing discussions and debates in Parliament, it is evident that just about all MPs can easily reconcile continuing export-led economic growth with what they see as appropriate standards for environmental management and conservation. Across Parliament, there are huge gaps in knowledge and concern. Overall, there is vast room for improvement, and as non-government organisations (NGOs) it is our job to keep up the people pressures on MPs. 

A mainstream cultural consensus still prevails that is set on stifling serious discourse about any limits to growth. Consequently, the requirements are sadly lacking for proper discussion on the necessary transition to a steady-state type economy, genuinely geared for greater sustainability and cooperative inclusion of all members of society. According to local conditions - political, economic, social, environmental, etc. - various development paths beckon to the creation of more sustainable societies. We in Aotearoa/NZ have to carve out our own path, and we need to do this in the most democratic manner possible for the future health of our society.  

Mounting And Multiplying Costs Of Neo-Liberalism

At the most critical juncture and interface of all, the global market and its implementation of industrialism continues to destroy the planet's biosphere, urged on as normal by the cheerleaders of predatory, cowboy capitalism. For instance, State-owned TV1 is unrelenting in its promotion of the official line on FTAs (other than a pretence of democratic debate on the TPPA).

On the Anthropocene highway to material riches, a viable, sustainable habitat for humankind, along with so many other species with which we share this small “goldilocks” planet, are all assigned to be “collateral damage” on the altar of progress to oblivion. Most lamentably, we are in the middle of a monstrous extinction of life, the 6th Great Extinction, with the accumulating loss of biota: of multitudinous species of plants, insects, birds, and mammals, and the consequent accelerating erosion of ecosystems. 

While global industry is embracing renewable energy over fossil fuels (fortunately facilitated by the market here as well as by citizen action), which will help combat climate change, the general commitment to economic growth and consumerism goes on. While, too, there is much talk at the international level, and even increasingly a range of more meaningful initiatives towards a low-carbon economy, the pursuit of endless material prosperity remains the utopian creed of the market. 

Under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other such globalist institutions and agencies, free market fundamentalism is even making a comeback – neo-liberalism with a vengeance! 

The ruling hegemony purveys the vision of perennial and yet, as it were, heavenly-mandated production and consumption for all, with no recognition yet of the looming and inevitable constraints on materialist growth (“Overshoot: The Evolutionary Basis Of Revolutionary Change”, William R. Catton, Jr., University of Illinois Press, 1980;  “False Dawn: The Delusions Of Global Capitalism”, John Gray, Granta Books, 1998/revised ed., 2009; “Navigating Peak Everything To Secure Societies”, Richard Heinberg, in Pacific Ecologist [PE]: “Nine Earths Needed For Global Consumer Societies: Why We Must Phase Out Economic Growth, 16, Winter, 2008, http://www.pacificecologist.org/archive/16/).

When it comes to pushing industrialism and trade, there is often little difference between mainstream political parties, whether identified either as Right or Left, or whatever. Moreover, parties across the political spectrum are typically enamoured by science fiction prospects of technologically engineered utopias. This signifies the death of the natural world and its systematic suppression and substitution by human artifice, i.e. until the inevitable collapse of human society. 

Second to militarisation, the foremost symbolic expression of this syndrome is the space industry and its encapsulated/transmogrified humans. NZ social commentator, critic, and satirist Joe Bennett very appropriately takes the space industry to task. He remembers as a boy, the first successful human-landed Moon shot (“On The Red Planet Can Anyone Hear Your Ego Scream?”, Press, 14/6/17). He was certainly impressed at the time. “But [then] that was that. The Moon had been done” (ibid.). What did the so-called “giant leap for mankind” really mean? 

Nowadays, Joe Bennett says he hears constantly about tripping to Mars courtesy of: “All the billionaire Internet princelings (and business entrepreneurs, who) seem to want to go there” like Richard Branson & co. (ibid.). In fact, there is nothing on the Moon except wasteland. And, similarly, there is the same wasteland on Mars, and any other space rocks that humans are ever likely to reach. Such space exploratory expeditions may elicit some esoteric scientific knowledge.

But in terms of the human prospects on Earth this is eminently all such a tragic waste of time and resources! Meantime, this very same species continues instead to plunder and destroy the only viable habitat it will ever have, along with all its marvellous biodiversity in the 6th Great Extinction. So, shall we all then celebrate and acclaim the egoism, predatory outreach, technological exuberance, and suicidal stupidity of Western civilisation and its leadership!?

Reactionary Politics

The rise of anti-globalisation parties as signalled by Brexit and Trumpism has both clarified (for some anyway!) and confused the options and alternatives available, given the confounding of diverse issues in the popular international backlash to neo-liberalism. In particular, issues related to immigration have loomed large. In this case, the blowback from the militarist market in the form of the so-called “War on Terror” has compounded and clouded matters immensely. For those in the West who are uncertain or indeterminate in their political views, the general scene may look very confused indeed, and quite understandably so from their perspective. So again, we have plenty of challenging work to do in trying to persuade more people to our own viewpoints!

As well as more positive movements, Brexit and Trumpism have generated a widespread reactionary response to neo-liberal globalisation - an even more radical type of Rightwing extremism as much of the West lurches towards varieties of racist attitudes and neo-fascism. Ironically, the socio-economic costs within the West of neo-liberalism have led to this new outbreak of reactionary politics. The struggle of contending views to shape the future is hotting up (for the psychology of the reactionary mind, see my “Reactionary Pakeha Politics”, in Watchdog 135, April 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/35/11.html). The international movement for social justice and sustainable development has to redouble its efforts. 

We now have to deal with unprecedented challenges. A backlash against the Conservative government in Britain in the 2017 election, with the unexpected surge of youthful voters rallying behind Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn is certainly heartening. But such national elections are still contested according to traditional and socio-economic understanding and terminology, however much various globalist issues might influence voting outcomes.

Certainly, Western capitalism has by no means come to grips yet with its planetary limits in any meaningful sense, and this central question continues to grow in both scale and urgency. After all, the ruling class know that widespread recognition of these constraints would definitely mean the end of capitalist hegemony.

Peddling And Manipulating The Neo-Liberal Creed

The history of the concept of “neo-liberalism” is actually quite long and rather complex, and certainly very controversial (“Neo-Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction”, op. cit., see preface & Ch. 1). Drawing on the study just cited, a summary working definition for my purposes is as follows: “a capitalist doctrine enjoining policies aimed at deregulating national economies, liberalising international trade, and creating a single global market.  In practice, it is politically manipulative and even aggressive”. 

As indicated, the mass media have been central to the pursuit of the myth of the market, especially in its neo-liberalist form. “It came to be believed that only American-style 'democratic capitalism' is truly modern, and that it is destined to spread everywhere. As it does, a universal civilisation will come into being, and history will come to an end. This may seem a fantastical creed, and so it is. What is more fantastic is that it is still widely believed. It shapes the programmes of mainstream political parties throughout the world.

It guides the policies of agencies such as the IMF. It animates the 'War on Terror', in which al Qaeda is viewed as a relic of the past. This view is simply wrong” (“al Qaeda And What It Means To Be Modern”, John Gray, Faber and Faber Ltd., 2003, p3). In reality, al Qaeda and the whole phenomena of Muslim radicalism in reaction to corporate globalisation, and especially Anglo-American neo-imperialism, very much represent a modern movement too.

What Professor John Gray says in the above quote certainly holds true right up to the present. For instance, a very pertinent illustration is provided by a piece by political commentator David Slack (“Slack At The Back: A Short History Of History” [graced with his smiling photo], SST, 25/6/17). Slack often comes across as “liberal” in his opinions, with the term “liberal” being used here in a positive sense. He shows tolerance and open-mindedness. Indeed, he does so to some extent in the SST article cited (ibid.). He commendably advocates “tolerance” for the Muslims in our midst against the background of jihadist terrorist acts in the West. He makes an admirable plea for “peace” and harmonious multi-culturalism.

Perceiving, Understanding, And Acting On Terrorism

This is very good humane advocacy indeed. But, sadly, there is another dimension to David Slack's analysis, which demonstrates a startlingly very conventional and simplistic Western, especially Anglo-American, bias about international affairs. Professor John Gray's quote aptly applies to this bias shown by Slack in his article. Slack says that: “After 9/11, (former President) Bill Clinton wrote about terror and terrorists. ‘It's what I go back to each time there's fresh breaking news and I think: God, not again. It's what I go back to when politicians exploit that news to inflame hostility towards’” [Muslim members of our society] (ibid.).

But Slack then proceeds to say that: “What Clinton wrote was: in the short run, terrorists can inflict unspeakable misery. But in the longer run, he said, look at the long story of humanity. We keep rising, onward, upward, nothing stops us in the long run, from getting better” (ibid.). So, Slack concurs wholeheartedly with Clinton that: “terrorists might win in the short-term but ultimately larger forces will see them off” (ibid.). His optimism is in line with the “American-style” fantasies that Professor Gray sees as so characteristic of the so-called “War on Terror” (“al Qaeda And What It Means To Be Modern”, op. cit.).  

Moreover, Slack maintains his politico-religious belief in the Millennium, even in face of apparent contradictions. He declaims: “We are also absurd and foolish and wrongheaded, and doing our best to completely ruin the planet, but the point Clinton was making was true: the terrorists might win for an hour or a day, but not in the long run… Larger forces keep carrying us forward to be better, healthier, more prosperous and stable” (“Slack At The Back”, op. cit.).

At bottom then, David Slack expresses his faith in US-sponsored “democratic capitalism” and neo-liberalism on the crest of evolutionary overshoot. Interestingly enough, he has even written in the past about various challenges shaping the future in regard to Aotearoa/NZ (“Civil War…& Other Optimistic Predictions: Where Is New Zealand Going?”, Penguin Books, 2005).

Rooting For The Terrorist War On Terror!

But Slack's commitment to “American-style” progress goes much deeper in its explicit, if euphemistically worded, embrace of the militarist market. He is obviously at ease with the bloody ongoing slaughter perpetrated by Anglo-American State terrorism in pursuit of oil and other resources in the name of progress. Slack evidently has no issues with the “unspeakable misery” inflicted by the US-orchestrated coalition of the killing in the Middle East and elsewhere. He instead denounces those few thousand (or perhaps “tens of thousands”) Muslims he sees as enemy terrorists as only speaking for themselves (“Slack At The Back”, op. cit.). David Slack's views clearly typify a big Western attitudinal bloc.

In the conclusion to his article, he enjoins us that: “Our task is to keep a sense of proportion about that. And hunt them down like dogs” (ibid.).  Using a simile here that displays his fine sensitivity to animal rights and welfare, David Slack thus unashamedly signals his full support for Anglo-American death squad and drone operations, along with all the other depredations of Western neo-imperialism. Such is the smiling face of “liberalism” today.

Pernicious Propaganda

To sum up here: in his article, Slack reports how he regularly finds inspiration from the words of Bill Clinton after a terrorist attack in the West. The “larger forces”, that he considers will eventually defeat the perpetrators of such attacks include, as he indicates in his conclusion, the Pentagon's military-industrial complex and the CIA. Yet, in fact, as President, Bill Clinton himself was very instrumental in devising the militarist strategy of the “War on Terror” and its public rationale (“Clinton, New Terrorism, And The Origins Of The War On Terror”, Chin-Kuei Tsui, Routledge Studies in US Foreign Policy, 2017).

As academic Chin-Kuei Tsui observes: “My analysis demonstrates that based on the rhetorical foundation of President Reagan's 'war on terrorism', President Clinton created and constructed the 'new terrorism' discourse.  The discursive formation of 'new terrorism' was later provided as a comprehensive framework for President Bush to respond to the tragedy of 11 September 2001” (ibid., p2). The cynically contrived American rhetoric portrayed US's foes as the evil enemies of freedom and democracy. Anglo-American forces are the good guys charting the course ever onwards and upwards to the heavenly light of freedom and materialist bounty for all!

Chin-Kuei Tsui continues: “Most important of all, the dominant discourse has functioned to exclude other alternative discourse and measures, suppress dissent, (and) silence other opinions, such as the 'war for oil' discourse,(and public discussion of)State terrorism, and non-violent responses to terrorism” [my emphasis] (ibid., p46). Clinton's propaganda and militarist strategy was critical in furthering the pursuit of US neo-imperialism. Correspondingly, we have illustrated how his rhetoric has its cheer-leaders in Aotearoa/NZ, in conformity with the neo-liberal dictates of the capitalist market.

Dual Track Politics: Overt And Covert

In self-laudatory style, neo-liberalism glorifies “individual self-interest, economic efficiency, and unbridled competition” as making for the good society (“Neo-Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction, op. cit., p. x). In practice, of course, it is very often characterised by various types of crony capitalism and corporate welfare, and as we have also seen, predatory militarism. 

In Aotearoa/NZ, the reign of neo-liberalism has indeed been very egregiously distinguished by crony capitalism and the closely connected practice of corporate welfare (for an overview see Murray Horton's article “Corporate Welfare: Government Ensures Every Day Is Christmas For TNCs”, in Watchdog 134, January 2014,http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/34/01.html).

Most disturbingly, during the 2014 election, investigative journalism uncovered a very wide-reaching, interconnected, and multi-layered covert “dirty work” network operated by the National Party in collusion with key elements and agents of the mainstream media (“Dirty Politics: How Attack Politics Is Poisoning New Zealand's Political Environment”, Nicky Hager, Craig Potton Publishing, 2014. Reviewed by Jeremy Agar in Watchdog 137, December 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/37/13.html. Ed.).

This network has fostered crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and, even more ominously, a clearly anti-democratic, and even incipiently physically intimidatory, para-political framework. If ever authoritarian forces were to try to seize power here in a crisis, or a manufactured crisis, elements of the existing (and former) security authorities would be involved, according to the usual patterns of such social behaviour.

There has certainly been some real cause for concern. For example, in their (fortunately ultimately unsuccessful) persecution of investigative journalist Nicky Hager, the Police have demonstrated a marked tendency to Rightwing politicisation, as has again the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), which has a long and well proven track record in this regard.

As time goes on, the dangers of the increasing trend to neo-fascism in the West are likely to become more evident. The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance! Given the record of “Dirty Politics” to date, the pervasive role of the crony “glove puppet” media, and the ongoing structure and functioning of National's network, we must stand warned and be alert – remember there is also a serious meaning to the old joke that the country needs more lerts!

(See my previous Watchdog articles on these themes - “Media Manipulation: From Future Perfect To Militarist Machinations; From Free Trade To Globalist Conflict”, 136, September 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/36/07.html; “Subverting Democracy: The Dirty Politics Of Media Machinations”, 137, December 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/37/04.html; “Contesting Crony Media & Neo-Liberal Dirty Politics”, 142, August 2016, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/42/12.html;  “Media Machinations, Cronyism, And Dirty Politics: The Neo-Liberal Agenda”,143, December 2016; & “Deconstructing The Dirty, Neo-Liberal Media: Politics Of The Democratic Deficit”, 144, May 2017, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/44/09.html).

National's Collusion With Crony Media

At the overt, public level, a calculatedly pragmatic version of neo-liberalism has been exemplified in Aotearoa/NZ by the three-term National government, and especially its personification in the leadership image purveyed by former Prime Minister John Key. As Murray Horton well observes: “John Key is a consummate individualist, who personified exactly the self-centred, self-obsessed, egotistic and narcissistic spirit of the age.  Being so in tune with that popular culture is a major reason why he remained so popular throughout his years in power” (“It Really Is At The End Of The Day: My Name's John And I'm Gone” (Watchdog 144, May 2017, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/44/03.html).

The crony media stuck a conveniently very self-serving label on Key, calling him “Teflon John”. Indeed, the exponents of Key's “nice guy” image remain quite unrepentant and unashamed, despite the revelations of various highly unsavoury matters connected with this particular PM. For instance, Fairfax Media's Parliamentary Bureau Chief and Rightwing PR agent, Tracy Watkins, pontificates that Key “earned his nickname as Teflon John for his ability to walk away unscathed from controversies” (“Barclay On His Todd In Scandal”, Press, 22/6/17).  By far the biggest and most important such controversy was, of course, connected with the covert “Dirty Politics” programme run by Key and the National Party (“Dirty Politics”, op. cit.).

In fact, crony media PR agents like Tracy Watkins were eminently instrumental in providing Key with his teflon protective cover. “Suffice to say (here) that 'Dirty Politics' revealed the true way that Key and National operate, and the methods they used to ensure that they stay in power” (“It Really Is At The End Of The Day”, op. cit.).  National cheerleaders reveal their neo-liberal bias in a multitude of diverse ways. Labels and terminology like “teflon” have been critical camouflage for covert action.

Key was central to the poisonous “Dirty Politics” network. But the crony media carefully maintained his “nice guy” image. Whereas Tracy Watkins recently saw fit to label Matt McCarten as the Labour Party's “one-time strategist, chief of staff and long-time political Machiavelli (my emphasis),” she has - in glaring contrast - persistently portrayed Key as “Teflon John” and “Mr Nice Guy” (“One-All On The Political Scorecard”, Press, 24/6/17).

As the kingpin of “Dirty Politics”, the prime puppeteer and ringmaster (via “black-ops” agent Jason Ede & co.) of the attack bloggers like scumbag Cameron Slater, David Farrar, and National's whole nasty network, Key himself would have instead far more deserved this particular label. But the crony media epitomised by the likes of Watkins, Mike Hosking, Duncan Garner, and Paul Henry did the very opposite of holding Key to account. So much then for the pretence of democratic accountability by the media!  They have their own foreign control corporate agenda to promote!!

Crony Contortions? 

As Murray Horton has intimated, Key's values resonated deeply with the popular culture that the mainstream media agenda has been crucial in helping foster (“It Really Is At The End Of The Day”, op. cit.). Not only that, but key elements of the mainstream media have until lately been very much on track in trying to do their best for PM Bill English as the countdown to the election in September goes on. But unfortunately for English and the National Party, the wheels came spinning off the crony media/National Party PR bandwagon when it hit a very bad road bump called the Barclay Affair by mid-June 2017. 

English has got caught up in the controversies swirling around current Clutha/Southland MP Todd Barclay.  Clutha/Southland is English's old electorate, which he represented for over 20 years, and which Barclay took over from him. The issues relate to secret recordings of electorate staff; invasion of privacy; dereliction of MP constituency duties; deliberate misleading of the public; talk of “sex and drugs”; abusive treatment of employees; intimidatory threats; and compensatory payouts to a wronged staff member with taxpayer money.  Possible criminal charges are at stake, and Police have re-opened their inquiries into various allegations. 

Bill English was obviously involved in a cover-up of the Barclay Affair back in early 2016, and has since tied himself up in a complicated, contradictory web of self-serving lies and evasions following recent damning revelations (NZ Herald “Political Roundup: The Hugely Damaging Barclay Scandal”, 27/6/17, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11882660). As I was writing this in the last week of June 2017, it was as yet uncertain as to how much of the media would really press home the case against English. Would the standard pattern of crony collusion unravel to some extent?

A Most Revealing Comparison

Former Labour Leader David Cunliffe was ruthlessly pilloried as “tricky” by the National Party/crony media “Dirty Politics” network during the 2014 general election year, particularly in what can be called the “Donghua Liu Affair” (e.g., “David Cunliffe Advocated For Donghua Liu”, Stuff.co.nz, 18/6/14). This case centred on a form letter that Cunliffe signed off 11 years earlier in relation to an immigration application (ibid.). The then Deputy PM Bill English said Cunliffe had been “tricky”, and that what he had done “looks deliberately deceptive” (ibid.)  PM John Key said that the public would struggle to trust Cunliffe after this (ibid.).

Consequently, the media took their cue from National and labelled “Cunliffe” as “Tricky”, with TV3's Political Editor Patrick Gower and TV1's Political Editor Corin Dann to the fore in pushing this particular image. National's “black arts”, in conjunction with its crony media, paid off handsomely when the election took place in the latter part of 2014. David Cunliffe had been regularly portrayed as shifty and untrustworthy, along with other negative labelling. 

This media circus was very artificially contrived and maliciously directed hype (“Dirty Politics”, op. cit., pp128-132; “The Donghua Liu Timeline – Damn Lies, Dirty Tricks, And A Docile Media”, The Daily Blog, 23/6/14; “The More Complete Donghua Liu Timeline”, The Standard 22/2/15; “The Donghua Liu Affair: One Year On”, The Daily Blog, 10/7/15). Compared with all the real substance of the Barclay Affair and Bill English's obvious litany of lies, the media now have another real challenge in being seen to be non-partisan!

National's Spin Machine In Overdrive!

English has been facing a continuing barrage of questions about the Barclay Affair in Parliament (as shown on Parliament TV). While some of the media, including the TV channels, have to date closely scrutinised aspects of the Barclay Affair, and even grilled the PM over it, there now seems to be a calculated loss of momentum.  Some typical signs of collusion are apparent, indicating that the media in general will do their best to move on. 

After all, the prime functions of the mainstream media are to promote neo-liberalism, and get National re-elected. Time is now a matter of urgency. Following Todd Barclay's forced retirement from the Clutha/Southland electorate, the National Party has still to select a new candidate for the upcoming election in September.

As a consequence, and in long practiced mode, the National Party has clearly been signalling to its media “glove puppets”, conveying the message to drop coverage of the Barclay Affair, and move on as much as possible. In Parliament, facilitated by the ploys and cues purveyed by the grossly biased Speaker, David Carter, there has been a marked shift in National's tactics.

Bill English and his mates are now blatantly posturing along the lines that he is not accountable in any Ministerial role; and, so, does not have to answer any questions that only supposedly relate to his role as a National Party member, and not to his behaviour as a Government Minister or PM. Speaker Carter has been routinely indicating that PM English only needs to answer any question in so far as it applies to him as a Minister. 

Even the reopening of the Police inquiry raises suspicions as to whether the Police are simply taking the heat off National. They can give English an excuse in the run-up to the elections to deflect away questions. Moreover, after the election the Police can say that there are no grounds for prosecution as there is not enough evidence.

National's manipulation of the authoritarian State and its security services raises a host of disturbing ongoing issues for close monitoring and scrutiny: from the Government's increased powers for citizen surveillance to its political use of the SIS; from Police harassment in the case of the so-called “Teapot-Tapes Affair” (breaking in election year 2011) to the similar harassment of  investigative journalist Nicky Hager over “Dirty Politics”, and its chilling effect on any such journalism; and to the Government's cover-ups from the Clutha-Southland electorate to remote villages in Afghanistan. 

And these are just the most dramatic examples of National's authoritarian State in action. For instance, the Government's abuse of the Official Information Act (OIA) is systematic and routine (“Complacent Nation”, Gavin Ellis, Bridget Williams Books Ltd., BWB Texts, 2016. Reviewed by Jeremy Agar in Watchdog 143, December 2016, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/43/11.html. Ed.). Having been an active participant in the movement long ago to establish the OIA, I number myself very much among those who regard its current abuse in the most serious terms. Its sound application is vital for our democracy.

The Opposition Parties and the few investigative journalists left must try and keep the Barclay Affair story running sufficiently, given the significance of the issues involved. Otherwise, the operative maxim for the crony media nearing election time will be “don't mention the 'Barclay Affair!'”. In the last week of June 2017, the Opposition Parties were still grilling English in Parliament about it.

Dodgy Deviousness And Crony Cover-Ups

Proper accountability should be sheeted home. As an electorate MP, Bill English was earlier exposed for ripping off taxpayer money over his housing allowance, earning himself the title of the “Double Dipper from Dipton”. However, as was the case with Key, the mainstream media have eschewed any such negative labelling for English in his PM role.  But, as PM, Bill English has been the butt of international satire and humour (also like John Key) for such dirty deeds as “murdering” pizzas! 

At the other polar extreme, English has even been quite unashamedly involved in trying to cover up human murders in the form of civilian deaths at the hands of a joint US/NZ Special Air Service (SAS) death squad operation in Afghanistan (see my “We Must Strike First!: Pre-empting Warfare Strategy And Technology From Spinning Out Of Control”, in Peace Researcher [PR] 53, June 2017, http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/pr-backissues/pr53.pdf; for the original disturbing revelations, read “Hit & Run: The New Zealand SAS in Afghanistan And The Meaning Of Honour”, Nicky Hager & Jon Stephenson, Potton and Burton, 2017, which is reviewed by Jeremy Agar elsewhere in this issue). 

PR 53 highlights the legacy of “John Key: Loyal Servant Of (The) Covert State” and the Anglo-American empire (ibid.). Bill English is again faithfully following in Key's footsteps. Covert action and cover-ups in the case of English reach from his old electorate to remote villages in Afghanistan.  It has indeed been very significant that it was a recently established online news Website - and not a mainstream media agency - that broke the Barclay Affair story, albeit a news Website with some very seasoned journalists (e.g., “Politicians, Police, And The Payout”, Newsroom, 19/6/17; “PM Bill English Accused Of Cover-Up Over Barclay”, Newsroom, 21/6/17).

During the reign of the National Party since 2008, there have been many examples of the crony media letting this Party off the hook over various issues and controversies. The most dramatic example, of course, was their joint conspiratorial cover-up of the implications of the “Dirty Politics” revelations just before the 2014 election (for a good reminder refer to: “The National Memory Key-Hole: Retrieving Dirty Politics Laundry From The Media-Spin Cycle”, Snoopman News, 20/3/17). The problem now for the crony collusion between the National Party and the media is that English today stands exposed as an outstanding liar and totally untrustworthy. Once again, then, the fast eroding credibility of the mainstream media is also at stake.

Cultivating Neo-Liberal Culture

At this stage, putting aside such political controversies for the moment, we need to take a closer look at some of the aspects of neo-liberalism previously raised in the course of this article. From a more general perspective, neo-liberalism aims at “deregulating national economies, liberalising international trade, and creating a single global market' (“Neo-Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction”, op. cit., p. x).  At its purest extreme, and in “ideal” conditions, neo-liberalism would purportedly do away with all government, except of course to safeguard the rich by the provision of the military, intelligence, and the police/prison security system. 

In his book “Neo-Liberalism, Media, And The Political” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2014), Sean Phelan charts the culture of neo-liberalism, and especially its political dimensions (“Anti-Ideological Ideology”, MEDIANZ – University of Otago: https://medianz.otago.ac.nz). Neo-liberalism so permeates “capitalist democracy” that this creed constitutes “an ideological discourse that paradoxically functions as non-ideology” (ibid.).

Journalists operate within this cultural framework with “the concept of press freedom… colonised by neo-liberalism” (ibid.).  Market forces and Big Business rule over the purportedly democratic State. Journalists have a corresponding set of operative assumptions and expectations that ascribe to this ideological discourse as some kind of natural order.

Perhaps the most obvious indicator during this election year as to how the mainstream media assiduously promote neo-liberalism is the outrageously disproportionate attention given to soundbites and images featuring the single far Right ACT MP, David Seymour, alias the “The Weasel”. For example, besides very regular appearances on the crony TV channels, Seymour's image and comments regularly feature in the Politics Today news snippets column in the Press. He is continually given the opportunity to bark at any “passing car” issue that happens to come up. He takes up an inordinate amount of space and time that should instead be far more deservedly allocated to Opposition MPs and NGO representatives on matters of fundamental substance.  

To be sure, the job of the crony media is to ensure that “The Weasel” wins the “blue-ribbon” Epsom seat in a deal arranged with the National Party as he plays a role in National's coalition Government, helping ensure its ruling majority. As well, the media constantly strive to keep alive far Right aspirations and sentiments for societal emulation. In this vein, far Right “Dirty Politics” players like David Farrar and Matthew Hooton have prominent roles as media commentators, along with former ACT MPs and corporate lobbyists/pundits like Heather Roy and Stephen Franks.  As usual, strong Leftwing commentators are conspicuous by their absence, or very rare appearances.

Meanwhile, Jordan Williams, another “Dirty Politics” player, continues to posture as a purported news maker in fronting the NZ Taxpayers' Union, a neo-liberal pressure group, which he helped establish with David Farrar.  And, so it goes…It is highly portentous, today, that with the marked and increasing overlap between media reportage/commentary and PR, that PR consultants regularly feature on TV1's Q & A and TV3's The Nation, including Hooton and former National Party Chairperson Michelle Boag.

The statistics on the gathering trend to PR treatment of information and opinion are very sobering. PR personnel have grown markedly in number over the years while journalists have similarly declined. “Census data shows that in 2015 there were 1,170 print, radio, and TV journalists in NZ, compared with 3,500 PR professionals – a ratio of 1 to 3 [my emphasis]” (“Complacent Nation”, op. cit., p66).  

Free Falling And Failing Markets

Over the years, various movements and initiatives have arisen in the West to both counter the manifestations of neo-liberalist globalisation and chart positive alternatives. In making “an impassioned call for the realisation of a progressive Left politics in the US” and beyond, Professor Jodi Dean describes the insidious workings of neo-liberal ideology in subverting democracy and civic participation in public decision-making forums (“Democracy And Other Neo-Liberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism And Left Politics”, Duke University Press, 2009). 

We have, for instance, former British PM Margaret Thatcher's mantra that, “There is no alternative” (TINA) to the dictates of the market, recited continually and pervasively by the Anglo-American power elite, whatever the actual form of words used. As Professor Dean says, this “ideology installs in its subjects a belief in markets - anything else fails, is inefficient, can't be funded, won't last, can't compete in a global arena” (ibid., p49).  Neo-liberalism really took off during the Reagan/Thatcher era in the 1980s. So-called “Rogernomics” was its NZ expression during this period.

Professor Dean further explains how the creed operates in the real world: “To succeed, though, neo-liberalism depends on the organised political occupation and direction of governments, on the use of the bureaucratic, legal, and security apparatuses of the State in ways that benefit corporate and financial interests (the most obvious examples here include the Bush Administration's support of a collusion with oil and energy interests as well as private military contractors and Clinton's revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 so as to enable the formation of financial superpowers composed of commercial, banking, investment banking and stock brokerage)” (ibid., pp49/50). This crony capitalism/corporate welfare all came to grief in the 2007-9 Global Financial Crisis (GFC).

At the time, the GFC shook confidence in the market. Writing in 2010, the authors of the study of neo-liberalism, which I cited earlier above, observed that: “neo-liberalism has been discredited as the global economy built on its principles has been shaken to its core by a financial calamity not seen since the dark years of the 1930s” (“Neo-Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction”, op. cit., p. xi). They asked whether “neo-liberalism is doomed, or will it regain its former glory?” (ibid.). 

Corporate Welfare To The Rescue!?

Well, governments bailed out banks and TNCs to the tune of many trillions of dollars. Corporate interests, courtesy of their crony media, manipulated public perceptions on an international scale as never before and set the world up for even worse problems to come (“Secrets And Lies Of The Bailout”, Rolling Stone, www.rollingstone.com, 4/1/13). Recently, the international commitment to free market fundamentalism has even increased in a number of respects.

In the aftermath of the GFC, banks and TNCs squeezed corporate welfare from the governmental purse to the maximum degree. Now, as the global capitalist Titanic ploughs on, the question becomes ever more urgent as to how we can avert looming disaster. Can we effectively challenge the ruling canons of capitalist doctrine in time, given the huge vested interests pitted against us?

For example, in the wake of Trumpism, various experts are warning us that we have only a few years left to really tackle climate change. Hearteningly, in Aotearoa/NZ a very active and growing movement is determined to combat global warming and its fallout (e.g., “Fighting For Our Survival And Inspiring Political Action”, Scoop News: www.scoop.co.nz > World, 3/7/17).

With regard to the global economy, independent NZ economist Shamubeel Eaqub also well warns us that: “The lessons of the GFC may be undone soon. The US will be appointing a new banking regulator at the Federal Reserve – and Trump has promised to undo recent reforms”; and, “it looks increasingly likely the US will unwind some of the post-GFC regulations” (SST, 9/4/17). He points out for Aotearoa/NZ that, “we have too much debt in the economy – it has risen from less than 80% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or the total size of the economy, to more than 150% now. Too much debt makes the financial system and the economy vulnerable to shocks” (ibid.). 

Too much money in Aotearoa/NZ, he says, is going into trading houses instead of, in his terms, productive investment. In addition, “lending massively amplifies the economic cycle, meaning we have bigger booms and busts” (ibid.). As well, Eaqub stresses the fact that “our largest banks have Australian parents” whose regulations diminish our sovereignty. He concludes that our Reserve Bank needs to take measures giving us both much more “local control, and are fit for our country” (ibid.). CAFCA would certainly say “amen” to that!

Militarist Market

Over the years, the application of neo-liberalism has taken varying forms across national economies, according to country and culture, and in the shifting context of trends and pressures of the global economy. We can add here, in light of the definition signalled by the study of international relations (IR), that the creed's policy on “defence” issues has been a variable mixture of aggression, and economic, cultural, and diplomatic methods of “soft power” and “cultural imperialism”.

Militarism has, for certain, always been deeply embedded in the promotion of the Western capitalist market, however indirectly and covertly it might seem on the surface. The seemingly friendly hand of the market can quickly clench into a fist, whenever, and wherever capitalist players deem appropriate. “Soft power” can soon turn into hard power!

Furthermore, there is a surprising and yawning gap in the critical booklet cited earlier, reviewing and analysing this creed (“Neo-Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction”, op. cit.). There is hardly any mention of the environment at all other than a passing reference to the challenges of climate change and global pandemics (ibid.). But the authors do expressly take geopolitical conflict over resources into account. Growing resource conflict worldwide underlies the trend to the militarist market. To be sure, neo-liberalism promotes an industrial civilisation ultimately on track for increasing and inevitable conflict on a global scale. Resource wars, of course, are already very much in train, however screened from public view by the machinations of the mass media.

What analysts Manfred Steger and Ravi Roy call “first-wave neo-liberalism in the 1980s was interlaced with the geopolitical imperative to stop the spread of Communism and socialist developmentalism in the Third World” (ibid., p47). These days, the latter aim is very evident in Latin America with Venezuela having long been the main target of both US overt and covert subversion and antagonism. After 9/11, US administrations have brazenly embraced the expansion of the militarist market, especially on the Eurasian continent – from the springboard of Afghanistan deep into Central Asia, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-facilitated free market/trade invasion of Eastern Europe right up to Ukraine's border with Russia.

Close To Home

Closer to home, given the retrospective concerns recently and openly expressed by some moderate and reflective Rightwingers like former National PM Jim Bolger about neo-liberalism, the mainstream media have actually made some passing mention of this particular political doctrine and its negative effects (e.g., “The 9th Floor: Jim Bolger Says Neo-Liberalism Has Failed NZ And It's Time To Give Unions The Power”, www.stuff.co.nz, 21/4/17). Yet as a term “neo-liberalism” still probably remains, and very understandably so, pretty esoteric for a lot of the general public. 

For any NZ politicians who might actually venture to criticise the policies and practices of neo-liberalism, the most equivalent meaningful term available is probably “free market”. Unfortunately, this particular term does not quite capture the essence of “neo-liberalism” and its manipulative aspects, including its pernicious “dirty politics” dimension so integrated with the policy and practices of the mainstream media. 

As suggested by the definition of “neo-liberalism” quoted above (“The New Fontana Dictionary Of Modern Thought”, op. cit.), political expediency - and indeed, political manipulation! - has been a prominent feature of this creed in action. So, we have to expose and counter the workings and implications of this doctrine as much as possible; and in order to do this, we have to keep up the campaigning against “neo-liberalism” itself.

Shifting Media Parameters

Meanwhile, the mainstream media itself continues to be in some considerable turmoil, with the surviving firms necessarily adapting and adjusting to the ever-innovating electronic era. With the intensifying impact of the digital world, the globalist media scene today is dynamic and changing rapidly.   

“By the mid-1960s television had embedded itself in the life of the West, and acquired its own aesthetic codes and conventions. The 1960 [US] Presidential campaign marked the moment when the medium began to transform the conduct of politics. Now, political life, particularly elections, in most of the world is conducted through television. By 2000, in the West, just under a quarter of adult waking hours were devoted to watching it. In its classical analogue form, the number of channels available was sharply restricted, giving rise to many public and private monopolies and duopolies”. 

“The arrival of multichannel satellite and cable broadcasting has swept this restriction aside and made international boundaries increasingly permeable. So far, new media conglomerates have managed to hold on to a significant share of output and power, but as TV merges with the Internet the fragmentation of the audience threatens even these titans” (“Where We Are Now: The Smartest, Clearest Guide To The Issues That Shape Our World”, Cambridge International Reference on Current Affairs [CIRCA], Mitchell Beazley, 2008, p188). TV, at present however, with its picture images and pithy soundbites is still a most influential form of communication, whether beamed direct or online.

Corporate Contortions And Politicised Games Go On

Since 2008, the date of the summary assessment of the media just cited, the international scene has become even more structurally dynamic, including here in Aotearoa/NZ, with pressures mounting for further corporate mergers. Earlier in 2017 the Commerce Commission rejected a proposed merger between NZME and Fairfax Media (“Commerce Commission Sinks Fairfax/NZME Media Merger”, www.stuff.co.nz > business > industries, 3/5/17).

These media had, in the meantime, blatantly used their powerful duopoly to argue their case as much as possible to the public. Fortunately, this has proved to be in vain for the moment. Yet the struggle for a better democracy and a much-improved media continues. “Publishers Fairfax NZ and NZME are in the process of appealing (the) Commerce Commission decision to reject a planned merger) and Media Works (owner of TV3, etc.) "has been touted as a potential partner for Fairfax due to its profitable radio stations” ("MediaWorks Pays For Perfect Storm'", Press, 31/5/17).

“The Commission acknowledged that NZME and Fairfax 'face a challenging commercial environment as they seek to transition from their traditional print products to a sustainable online model'” (ibid.). But the Commission considered that “'a merger would concentrate media ownership to an unprecedented extent for a well-established modern liberal democracy'” (“Commerce Commission Sinks Fairfax/NZME Media Merger”, op. cit.). It would establish a monopoly (out of the already existing duopoly!) and would create “'a risk of causing harm to NZ's democracy and to the NZ public '“(ibid.).

In the context of the fast-changing mass media, including the popularity and influence of social media as typified by Facebook and Twitter, there is greater uncertainty than ever as to how political messaging is being conveyed and received by the citizenry of a country like Aotearoa/NZ. Twitter, of course, has been taken to a new level by the antics of US President Donald Trump. The Internet and social media have become new political battlegrounds. Even in the sphere of international affairs and foreign policy, we can now regularly access a news/information disseminator like al Jazeera with views often alternative, or at least more nuanced, compared to so much of the official foreign policy propaganda peddled by the big Western media corporates. 

New Transformations And Combinations

As noted, even the TV watching scene is being transformed to some considerable extent by the increasing inroads of the Internet. Indeed, in June 2016, it was reported that “a new study shows that the Web is taking television's primetime slot from 7pm to 9pm” (“Internet Stealing Primetime Viewers”, Press, 22/6/16). Although this study was actually done in the US, it is claimed that there is evidence indicating similar trends in Aotearoa/NZ to the use of “streaming service” electronic applications, using such companies as Netflix, Lightbox, and Neon (ibid.). 

In particular, Snapchat is reaching a lot more younger people than TV. But “TVNZ, TV3 and Sky TV all have an online presence so they're still in the fight for viewers”, and the battle for what viewers actually “watch when they are online is far from over” (ibid.). In the future, simplistic soundbites and images may predominate more than ever in the general public consciousness, given fragmented audiences but the stuff available that most people still see and hear.

Such generalised messaging can still span a wide range of diverse participants covered by the global reach of the great conglomerate disseminators and news manufacturers/purveyors. If some of the big players are struggling, or have gone under, others have amalgamated, or effectively amalgamated, with new forms of cross-platform bonding and collaboration. At the same time, various forms of in-fighting and competition go on too.  For instance, “Sky Television is suing publishers Fairfax NZ and NZME and Television NZ over their use of clips from Sky Sports on their Websites. The dispute stems from a disagreement over what the law allows” (“Cabinet Papers Warn Of Copyright Conflict”, Press, 30/6/17).

Revitalising Democracy And Meaningful Discussion

An absolutely vital sign of a healthy democracy is vigorous public discourse with the cut and thrust of reasoned opinion, analysis, and at least proffered “facts”, whatever the exact nature and quality of the evidence tendered in support. In any democracy where the citizens can actually vote and otherwise hold their leadership to account there is realistically going to be some division between Right and Left as to the distribution of societal benefits, and the forms these might take. The constant struggle is over the formulation of policy and practice to achieve the desired outcomes. 

Those of us on the Left want a much broader and deeper acceptance of the principles of social justice, cooperative enterprise, and fair shares for all. And then there is the enormously important and urgent question of the environment and its relationship to genuine sustainability. We have to adapt our economy to the imperatives of the biosphere and climate change. We must reject the fantasy of trying to dominate Nature, a project which has so dramatically backfired. Climate change has become the most obvious blowback.

One very significant indicator - however seemingly minor in nature - of the pervasive and insidious influence of neo-liberalism throughout our culture is the perverse use of the term “ecosystem” by economists, politicians, and others in a purely economic sense, with no reference at all to ecology. Nothing could better illustrate the intellectual invasion of ecology by capitalist economics and the consequent downgrading of the global environment. 

The Roots Of Crisis

The use of the term “ecosystem” in an economic sense can be quite bizarre and most revealing. For instance, in reviewing the Australian government's innovation policy for commercialised technology in December 2015, “Andy Hamilton, head of business incubator (NZ firm) Icehouse”, openly worried about a risk of NZ losing researchers to Australian competition (Greymouth Star, 12/12/15). “Hamilton said that: 'A strong Australia is a good thing but we have to look across our ecosystem and ask 'are we doing the best we can?''' (ibid.). This term is often used in an economic sense by politicians, technocrats, and businesspeople when the meaning should be kept with reference to natural environment.

Instead of the natural environment coming first, human-contrived economics is given priority. Instead of the environment being primary, and the human-contrived economy fitting within this context, political discussion is still overwhelmingly in terms of growing the economy, production, and consumption, promoting free trade, and increasing exports. As emphasised earlier, the main themes of debate and discussion in Parliament relate to such efforts and the accompanying issues. 

This capitalist doctrine is broadcast daily in the mainstream media. “Free trade” and “entrepreneur” are key watchwords expressive of the goals and values most idealised by neo-liberalist doctrine. Such terms are complemented by other neo-liberal jargon like “deregulation”; “downsizing”; “privatisation”; “efficiency”; and the outrageous moniker “NZ Inc”, explicitly identifying a supposedly democratic nation with a corporation.

Free Trade And Evolutionary Overshoot

There are, of course, countless examples of such capitalist growth promotion we could cite. For the sake of a relevant example, take the expressed opinion of Catherine Lye, Regional Manager of ExportNZ Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty on Stuff, while noting here for our purposes that “Stuff Business is the media partner of the Air New Zealand Cargo ExportNZ Awards 2017” (“Free Trade Deals Still Vital For New Zealand”, www.stuff.co.nz, 13/5/17).

Catherine Lye observes that: “Export of goods and services accounted for 28% ($70.9 billion) of GDP in 2016. The goal is to grow this to 40% by 2025 – so we've got a way to go yet. One of the ways we can help our export community achieve this is through our FTAs” (ibid.).  She yearns for a free trade agreement (FTA) with the US, worrying that otherwise: “Our commodity and agri-exports will become increasingly less competitive if other countries have FTAs with the US” (ibid.). At present: “Australia remains our number one market” (ibid.).

Among other prospective FTAs, Lye promotes the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes “ten Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states along with Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and NZ” (ibid.). She even looks forward to resurrecting what can be salvaged from the wreckage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) framework, an enterprise on which our Government has eagerly embarked. Significantly enough, Australian-owned Fairfax Media's Stuff online service saw fit to include a caption under a photo accompanying Lye's article of anti-TPPA protesters that read: “Despite the opinion of some members of the public, NZ stood to benefit from the TPPA, which now looks unlikely to proceed” (ibid.).   

Ironically, one of the anti-TPPA posters in the photo read: “It's a Planet not an Empire”!!  (ibid.).  To reiterate a central line of my argument: “Free trade” is so obviously the cutting edge of evolutionary overshoot and eventual collapse. A planetary dominant species is destroying its habitat by industrialism, whether through climate change, or the already long-term operative processes of ecosystem erosion. FTAs are the continuously expanding vehicle of production and consumption, and environmentally damaging technologies. 

Moreover, human expectations are being cranked up worldwide for ever increasing consumerism even as militaries multiply in reach and power across the planet in the compounding, conflict-ridden competition for markets, investment, and resources (for background see e.g., “Resource Wars: The New Landscape Of Global Conflict”, Michael T. Klare, Metropolitan/Owl, 2001/2; & “The New Great Game: Blood And Oil in Central Asia”, Lutz Kleveman, Atlantic Books, 2002/3).

Capitalist globalisation must inevitably end in catastrophe (see my “Globalisation, Capitalism And Crisis: Contesting The New Social Darwinism”, in Watchdog 122, December 2009, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/22/06.htm, and “Globalisation Into Global War? Terrorism And The Capitalist State”, in Watchdog 98, December 2001, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/98/05.htm).  This is all ultimately madness!

How then can humans be so blind, and so wedded to the delusions of short-term prosperity!? This cargo cult mentality is a carry-over of religious utopianism redirected to the bounty of materialist progress (“Overshoot: The Evolutionary Basis Of Revolutionary Change”, op. cit.; etc.). Yet this very blinkered approach focused on short-term satisfaction can be interpreted as integral to the evolutionary trajectory of our species. Can we wake up in the very era of the Anthropocene and take pre-emptive action in time?!

Egregious And Erosive Entrepreneurialism

Besides the more obvious manifestations of neo-liberalism, e.g., privatisation of public assets, there are also more pervasive subtle processes at work. There has been a systematic attempt at the undermining in Western culture of the meaning of terms like “political citizenship and civic virtue”, a process incisively described and analysed by Jeff Sugarman of Simon Fraser University (“Neo-Liberalism And Psychological Ethics”, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, vol. 35. no. 2, 2015, pp103-116: American Psychological Association; https://www.apa.org > teo-a0038960). Neo-liberalism has been eroding the very concept and practice of the public good in Western society. 

The concept of “entrepreneurship” is central to this process, inculcating the individualistic pursuit of material self-interest throughout society, and aggravating and compounding other trends towards disintegration (ibid.). This term, of course, has been used instead of “capitalism” itself, with all its pejorative associations for many people. 

Big Business has even succeeded in Aotearoa/NZ in levering the learning and practice of entrepreneurship into our school system. In this cunning way, capitalist social engineering takes on the image of promoting the public good!  The pursuit of individualist capitalist greed is now ingrained in our national education. Being an entrepreneur is touted as an admirable model of behaviour, a notion regularly promulgated by the mainstream media. It is a term widely employed by politicians, along with other elements of neo-liberal jargon.  Reaganite/Thatcherite doctrine has become entrenched. 

Society for former British PM Thatcher was effectively a myth, being only composed of individuals pursuing their various self-interests. In practice, of course, she preached in another dimension the worst sort of warmongering nationalist collectivism, with the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas naval expedition against Argentina the most dramatic demonstration of this syndrome - a military venture which so fortuitously saved her political skin. The British ruling class certainly manipulated this display of imperial militarism to its advantage. Most recently, Trumpism is following in the wake of Thatcher and Reagan with the embrace of a radically aggressive market approach to the rest of the world.   

All this sort of thing, I would add, in turn bolsters the efforts of warmongering leaders to try and unify their peoples by the manufacture of external enemies. Internationally contrived divisions go hand in hand with increasing internal divisions as we are witnessing with the rise of neo-fascist and racist movements in Europe, and deepening social conflict in America. These movements and strife are fuelled in numerous ways, both directly and indirectly, by the endless wars initiated by the Anglo-American axis in the Middle East and beyond, with Brexit and Trump's Presidency now giving them extra momentum  

Contesting The Neo-Liberal Contrived Consensus

A widely peddled notion in Aotearoa/NZ, especially by the self-serving media, is that a middle ground consensus has developed whereby the momentum for neo-liberal “reforms” has yielded to the retention of at least the core of the Welfare State, with its public provisions for education, health, housing, and welfare. But, as we have seen under the National regime, the Government has continued with its programme of entrepreneurial privatisation, including so-called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), making constant inroads into the public sector, coupled with plenty of strategic crony personnel appointments to help facilitate the process of foreign/comprador corporate takeover. Such “Public Private” collaboration can be the economic basis for the rise of neo-fascism in the West.

The media-promoted corollary about the touted middle ground consensus is that political parties, if they are to gain more votes, should pitch their appeals to this so-called neutral Centre. It is transparently clear here that the main ploy of the Rightwing mainstream media is to try and suppress any shift of this so-called Centre to the Left.

At the international level, as I observed in a previous article, the leading agencies of Western-induced globalisation like the IMF and the World Bank are now pressing for even more drastic neo-liberal “reforms” to stimulate world economic growth (“Contesting Crony Media & Neo-Liberal Dirty Politics”, Watchdog 142, August 2016,  http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/42/12.html). And this despite the fact that such neo-liberalism has ushered in the backlash of both Trumpism and Brexit, along with a big boost for racism, militarism, etc., as capitalist fractions, or extremist factions, of the Western power elite manipulate the fallout from growing socio-economic inequalities and frustrated expectations. 

Grappling With Future Challenges

There are, of course, various initiatives and signs of positive change within capitalism itself, however dubious we might be of them when seen in context of “The Big Picture”. My own view is very pragmatic on the new wave of what is called “social entrepreneurship”. It is always so easy to be critical. Positive radical social change often happens in a groping, stumbling fashion. Any greater awareness and concern about the environment, and how we can all work for a fairer society at the same time should certainly be most welcome. 

The panel of so-called “futurists” on the five-part TV1 programme series What Next? (screened June 11-15, 2017), and hosted by presenters Nigel Latta and John Campbell, see themselves as “social entrepreneurs” (for background material see the SST, 11/6/17). While this particular TV1 series was very much in line with the capitalist orientation of the mainstream media in some significant ways, at least it attempted to recognise and deal with the huge future challenges posed by technology, the environment, and the economy. And that for the mass media is a most unusual step forward! 

Ever since the National government under Muldoon axed the enormously vital Commission for the Future back in 1982, Rightwing capitalism has had a free rein to push its ultimately self-destructive creed in Aotearoa/NZ. Wider environmental concerns have been effectively buried on the delusionary “blue-green” path to endless prosperity as mandated by the Business Roundtable and other such free market outfits.

In the era of neo-liberalism, taking a longer-term view of the future by What Next? - in this case out to 2037 - was certainly innovative. Furthermore, while as technocratic “futurists” the panel members were preoccupied with the impact of new technologies and generally capitalistic in outlook, they did demonstrate a strong social conscience on equity issues, and even most admirably promoted the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in their final conclusive round-up. Most aptly, they see the UBI as essential to hold society together through the inevitable disruptions and turmoil to come. Yet, still today, the UBI is unfortunately seen by the established political set as much too radical

Machines Versus Ecosystems

Any further comments about such “futurism” and technocratic social entrepreneurship are best left to a future article. There were glaring gaps, contradictions, and confusions in the What Next? series. Neo-liberal capitalism was being challenged but much of it obviously carried on, especially in the notion of market-inspired technological progress. Suffice to say here that it was very significant the panel had no human ecologists or environmental experts. Lewis Mumford's warnings about the “Myth of the Machine” are more relevant than ever (see his brilliant visionary tome “The Pentagon Of Power”: vol. 2 of “The Myth Of The Machine”, Secker & Warburg, 1964/70). 

“Mumford's thesis is that gradually Man (during his history) came to despise the world of Nature, to feel that his mind had outflanked it, and his machines could take over its essential functions” ('Lewis Mumford: Inventing The Environment' (ch. 1) in “Philosophers Of The Earth”, op. cit., p3). Man embraced the delusion that he could dominate, control, and transform the natural world, and even replace and improve life's functions and qualities interminably by machine applications. “The study of the ecology of natural systems, he (i.e. Mumford) indicates, is the crucial counterbalance to this arrogant (science fiction) view” (ibid.).   

Neo-Liberalism Versus The Future

During the What Next? series, it was observed more than once that humankind was running out of Earths in terms of resources and ecosystem services, e.g., in 20 years’ time we shall need three Earths to maintain our material standard of living. It was interesting to see that presenter Nigel Latta boasted about having the “optimism gene”. Being facilely gung-ho about new technology in dealing with the future can yet be very much a blind alley. 

What neo-liberalism has done is to blind humans to the implications and impact of new technologies, and how we could devise far more environmentally benign alternatives as expounded so eloquently in the past by economist EF Schumacher (“Small Is Beautiful: A Study Of Economics As If People Mattered” (Abacus, 1973/5), Lewis Mumford, and various others. Technology needs to be as benignly designed for the environment and sustainable living as possible.

A current egregious example of badly misplaced technological exuberance is the enthusiasm currently demonstrated in Parliament by MPs for what is being promoted as NZ's new space industry.  For instance, on 20/6/17, Parliament had its second reading of the Outer-Space and High-Altitude Activities Bill, instrumental in launching the legal and logistical support framework for the US aerospace corporation Rocket Lab in Aotearoa/NZ.

The Bill provides licensing and regulatory legislation for this American TNC, which aims at putting customers' satellites into orbit. The company has a NZ subsidiary. Indeed, New Zealander Peter Beck, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Technical Officer (CTO), has been the company's guiding light since its launch. Beck actually founded the company in 2006. 

MPs celebrated the passage of this Bill as expressive and symbolic of NZ's embrace of high-tech industry and engineering. Yet, along with American global venture funds Khosla Ventures and Bessemer Venture Partners, Lockheed Martin is also an investor (Rocket Lab, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab).   Lockheed Martin is “the world's largest defence contractor”, getting 78% of its revenues from military sales, and receiving nearly 10% of the funds paid out by the Pentagon (Lockheed Martin, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin).  

Plunging Off The Planet!

It was quite extraordinary to see the Green Party so enthusiastic about NZ becoming the 11th country joining the space industry (Parliament TV, 20/6/17). MP Gareth Hughes, who is usually on the ball about environmental issues, waxed lyrical about Rocket Lab and NZ becoming a participant in exploiting space. Like so many other MPs exhibiting the “toys for boys” ethos, Hughes saw this foreign investment as tapping into, and fostering NZ ingenuity, research, and development; and, of course, “entrepreneurialism” in vital high-tech engineering industry. He said it was “one of the most enjoyable Bills” to work on; and that it was “incredible”, “exciting”, and “fantastic” (ibid.). To be sure, he was over the Moon about it! Meantime, the technocratic pollution of space increases with so much man-made space junk and debris.

The political Establishment and the media are jointly promoting Rocket Lab as “a nationalistic kind of achievement” and extolling the “space economy” as the way to go (e.g., “Peter Beck: Space Pioneer”, Press, 1/7/17). But all this enthusiasm for a space industry in Aotearoa/NZ not only violates sound environmental principles, it displays a stunning naivety and ignorance about the global reach of the US military machine. Not only is Rocket Lab now an American TNC, it is also a fast track for integrating NZ deeper into the US military-industrial complex.

Embracing The Military-Industrial Complex And The Race To Doom

Astonishingly, the Greens and others have evidently swallowed hook, line, and sinker, American assurances about various requirements for secrecy, security, and protection from democratic scrutiny. But one or two voices have been raised in Parliament, casting doubt on motives and certain aspects in the proposed legislation. The strongest expression of doubt came from a Labour MP, who keenly supported the space project and its facilitating Bill, and yet at the same time, had some very pertinent and most commendable concerns. Aupito William Sio expressed real concerns about the partnership with the US. He even asked the question: “Are we being used by the USA as a kind of secondary military base” (Parliament TV, 22/6/17).

Well, of course, there is a host of ways that the Rocket Lab programme can be used by Lockheed Martin and its politico-industry mates for military purposes! So much relevant engineering can have dual use – both for civic and military purposes. In the final version of the legislation, there is no provision that specifically safeguards peaceful purposes for the enterprise. The Greens even accept that the secrecy and security around the technology involved in the programme is justifiable. 

As the US rages - in typical propaganda mode - about “Missile Advances (by potential enemy countries that) 'Leave (the) West Defenceless'” (Press, 28/6/17), it will seek every possible opportunity to research and exploit any relevant research, development, and experiment. “States (are) racing to develop ballistic and cruise missile systems as 'cost-effective weapons and symbols of national power'… Both Russia and China are developing (new rocket) manoeuvrable vehicles, which travel five times faster than the speed of sound and fly at much lower altitudes than typical ballistic missiles” (ibid.). Lockheed Martin's tentacles will thus be trying to reach everywhere possible in this latest phase of the arms race.

Lewis Mumford saw the space industry, including all its intimate military connections, as both expressive and symbolic of the disregard for, and actual trashing, of planet Earth. In “The Megatechnic Wasteland”, chapter 11 in “The Pentagon Of Power” (op. cit.), he has a section on rocket development and what he calls the “space flight from reality”. Space research should be demonstrably and accountably oriented to peaceful purposes and the conservation of our “Goldilocks” planet Earth. Like the other political parties, the Greens risk losing the plot and plunging off into outer space!

Meanwhile, world-famous primatologist and environmentalist Jane Goodall, during her 2017 visit to Aotearoa/NZ, made a passionate and urgent plea for a “Revolution” in our attitudes, values, and behaviour in order to address and solve the huge ecological crisis on Earth (e.g., “Goodall Won't Give Up Faith In People”, Press, 26/617). She emphasised that otherwise: “what we're doing now is a path to total ecosystem collapse and disaster” (ibid.). She appealed for greater people power, seeing grounds for hope in the energies of so many young people.

Charting Creative Change

Here in Aotearoa/NZ - in our very own touted clean, green, 100% pure “Godzone” - socio-economic inequalities are increasing, and the sad state of our environment is worsening. As well, many of our children are now suffering severe deprivation in a so-called “developed country” (front page headline: “UNICEF Report: New Zealand 34th Out Of 41 Countries: *NZ Teen Suicide Worst In World; *NZ Child Homicide Rate 7th Highest; *NZ Failing Its Children”, Press, 16/6/17). Again, hearteningly, there is a widespread movement wanting to renew the roots of Aotearoa/NZ's finest cultural inheritance – its egalitarianism.

So, the struggle must continue against the comprador class and the neo-liberal forces of foreign exploitation!  We need to mobilise mass movements of our citizens to reclaim our democracy. CAFCA itself has launched a movement for genuine independence, namely the Aotearoa Independence Movement campaign, http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/community/CAFCA/aotearoa-independence-movement.html). We need to adopt sound environmental policies and practices for genuine sustainable development.

Hearteningly, too, new youthful activist movements and NGOs have sprung up on a host of important issues. There can be big pluses and cons according to the various ways in which social media is used. A really big plus is how younger people are often sidestepping the mainstream media and traditional means of communication. They are building their activism through the clever employment of social media and online networking. For instance, the ActionStation movement is setting a fine example with regular protests and petitions to Parliament, along with a range of creative actions to help inspire greater civic participation and shape a better future (www.actionstation.org.nz ).

A most inspiring model has been initiated and coordinated by Green MP, Kennedy Graham*. He has got together a group of 35 MPs, representative of every party in Parliament, to form an active pressure group, Globe NZ, to campaign positively on climate change issues. As the elder statesman of the Greens, Kennedy Graham continues to make an impressive contribution both to his Party and the country. A significant sign of progress is that only some years ago in Parliament, National MPs used to occasionally scoff at the Greens on global warming. * This was written before Graham’s resignation in August 2017. Ed.

On another tack, Waikato University law student Sarah Thomson is suing the Government over its lack of meaningful action to tackle climate change (“Student's Climate Change Lawsuit Starts”, Press, 27/6/17). Her lawsuit is backed by “10,000 pages of scientific evidence, as well as affidavits from NASA (US National Aeronautics and Space Administration) climatologist James Hansen, and one of NZ's leading climate change experts, Professor James Renwick” (ibid.).

Towards Creative Growth

During the course of this article, I have advocated various pathways for creating a better future. We need to counter the obsessively technocratic preoccupation with high-tech innovations by fostering ways of connecting more closely and sustainably with the natural world. A thread running through this article is about activating the public impetus for grass/flax roots movements to feed into the agendas and actions of political parties. Obviously from a Leftwing perspective, the Labour-Green coalition is the most important vehicle for positive change in Aotearoa/NZ. 

But as Globe NZ shows with its cross-political party cooperation, and wider, if indirect, connections to activist groups (e.g., www.https://350.org) driving the international and local agendas on climate change, we can mobilise accumulating support for vital causes. From social justice to environmental issues, from anti-nuclear and peace to human rights issues, we can join hands across larger constituencies than might initially seem possible. Certainly, constructive dialogue and discourse is both urgent and imperative wherever and whenever we can find the opportunity, or we can actually create the opportunity. This approach needs to complement protest and creative direct action as appropriate.

We can work more effectively for better joint policy and programmes to combat climate change; and there is scope too for wider constructive initiatives and projects on a range of issues conducive to improved sustainability and social viability. We need a lot more of them in our endeavours to deal with all the challenges unfolding around us.