Bruce Jesson: Socialist, Nationalist and Republican (1944-1999)

Joe Hendren explores the legacy of New Zealand political thinker Bruce Jesson. First published in The Commonweal volume five in May 2024.

From 1984 to c1993, the Minister of Finance appeared to be running the country. The neo-liberal free market agenda of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson dominated New Zealand politics. While much of the media acquiesced to this agenda, Bruce Jesson emerged as one of the most informed critics of the ‘New Right’ in a New Zealand context. Jesson’s endeavours reached culmination in his final book, Only their purpose is mad (1999), where Jesson looked to Herman Melville’s Moby Dick (1851) to illustrate how free market capitalism is ‘highly rational in the methods it uses but is ultimately deranged in the purposes to which it puts them’[1]. Underpinned by a deep understanding of New Zealand history and Marxist literature, Bruce Jesson engaged with the social, cultural, and political life of New Zealand, as a socialist, a nationalist, and a republican.

In the interests of brevity and space, this article will focus on Jesson’s advocacy of a New Zealand republic, his engagement with Marxism, and his insightful analysis of New Zealand capitalism. Emphasis will be placed on his earlier works, with the aim of providing valuable context to complement the reading of Only their purpose is mad. I will also consider Jesson’s assessments of the state of the political left and hope to demonstrate the relevance of Jesson’s work to the left today.

A Marxist Becomes an Ardent Republican

The son of a freezing worker, Bruce Jesson first engaged with Marxist ideas as a Christchurch Boys’ High student, around Year 11. This included the Communist Party of New Zealand publication, People’s Voice, and the left wing New Zealand Journal Monthly Review, leading Jesson to adopt a Marxism that was ‘materialist’ and ‘activist’[2]. From 1965 onwards Jesson adopted a more independent path, publishing a pamphlet with fellow Marxist Jack Sturt, Traitors to class and country: A study of the conservative left. Jesson and Sturt[3] saw a contradiction between New Zealand’s dependence on Britain and the possibility of the working class achieving and holding state power. They argued achieving independence from Britian must be the first goal, if necessary, uniting with other patriotic elements in New Zealand to do so. This view was challenged by representatives of the Trotskyist tradition such as the Socialist Action League, who denied that foreign capital was worse than New Zealand capital[4].

Jesson and Sturt, echoing other Marxist theories of ‘two stage revolution’, argued that a national democratic revolution needs to occur before a socialist revolution can be successful. Even social democrats have reasons to believe national sovereignty is a requirement before even moderate progressive change can happen. The exchange crisis of 1938–1939 provides a pertinent example. Despite New Zealand’s Labour Government being re-elected in 1938 with a healthy majority, the City of London and a conservative British Government refused to roll over historical government debt. There were strong suggestions their real target was Labour’s proposed system of import controls and plans for a more generous welfare system [5][6]. To Jesson New Zealand remained a British colony, forever dependent and subjected to the whims of London’s investors[7].

From 1975 to 1984 Robert Muldoon dominated New Zealand politics as both Prime Minister and Minister of Finance:

Muldoon is contro­versial for his personality more than anything else. People argue about what they think he is: opponents get hysterical (liberals always get hysterical) and accuse him of fascism and racism; supporters think that he is a strong man, destined to deliver us from economic depression and industrial lawlessness. The more contro­versy there is about him, the more his politics is obscured[8].

Muldoon expresses, transparently, the feelings of the business community in a belligerent mood. (op. cit.)

Muldoon also expressed a strong sentimental attachment to England. Jesson notes Muldoon’s statement:

No EEC [European Economic Community] and no British or New Zealand Government will break the ties that bind us to the lands from which we came. The difference between the ‘white’ commonwealth and the remainder is not the colour of our skin but our country of origin[9].

Jesson utilised his historical knowledge and the historical method articulated by Georg W. F. Hegel and Karl Marx to become a sharp political commentator, making several accurate predictions. Nearly a year before the pivotal 1984 election, Jesson astutely observed that ‘Labour’s economic criticisms of Muldoon come right from the textbook….Labour is committed to a Right-wing course when it gains power, simply by having accepted the terms of the economic debate that dominates New Zealand politics.’[10]. While Jesson predicted Labour would lurch to the right in government, it is also fair to say even he did not foresee the magnitude of change ushered in by the Fourth Labour Government (1984-1990). However, considering Jesson’s8 critique of the free marketeers as early as 1975, when their influence was relatively marginal, Jesson was well placed to provide insightful commentary.

In seeking to explain the ideological push of free market economics in New Zealand in 1986, Jesson looked to Marx and Hungarian Marxist George Lukács and their discussion of false consciousness.

This is particularly relevant to our present political situation. New Zealand is being inundated with ideas about the marketplace and so on, that amount to a mystified view of social reality. Yet mystified or not, these ideas are an actual political force[11].

During the 1970s and 1980s under Muldoon and the Fourth Labour Government New Zealand had an elected but autocratic character to its government. Muldoon had too few checks on his personal power, whereas the Fourth Labour Government abused the wide and arbitrary power of cabinet to push through its free market agenda. I think this influenced Jesson’s belief that while New Zealand remained a constitutional monarchy the country would continue to be governed on monarchic, rather than democratic lines. In his self-published journal, The Republican, which he began from 1974, Jesson advocated for New Zealand to become a republic, free from economic, social, and sentimental ties with Britain. Later he extended this analysis to also consider the relationship of New Zealand to the global economy. A few months before his untimely death in 1999, Jesson[12] wrote that ‘the need for a New Zealand nationalism was a logical need, rather than a felt need. More than anything it is an economic need bought on by the stresses of globalisation’.

A Skilled and Informed Political Commentator

The Republican became a ’magazine of left-wing analysis and discussion’, attracting contributions from several authors, and gaining influence well beyond its immediate circulation. Broader topics included debates over the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori/Pakeha relations. Jesson had a huge amount of respect and empathy with Māori, whom he regarded as the original republicans in New Zealand. He recognised that the passions inflamed by the race relations debate were usually Pakeha ones and suggested this had more to do with the Pakeha psyche than anything to do with Māori. Jesson’s contributions remain a fascinating read.

There are threads of continuity running through the history of changing attitudes and the one that concerns us here is the tradition of humanitarian concern that has accompanied the history of colonial and racial oppression in New Zealand. Essentially this tradition is religious….Although it requires political involvement, the motivation of this tradition is not political but moral, and has never coped adequately with political reality. Its concerns are sin and atonement. Its function has been that of the guilty conscience of Pakeha society[13].

Jesson’s critical method also allowed him to predict when political changes could have wider implications. Following the 1984 election, the briefings provided by Treasury to the incoming government acted as a key influence on its free-market direction. Analysing these documents in July 1985, Jesson recognised that the unfolding logic of the free-market approach advocated by Treasury would also have to apply to the most basic market of all, for labour.

This is one issue a Labour government will have problems dealing to, but it mightn’t matter because there is a political logic operating here. A one-term Labour government deals with the sectors such as farming, that National can’t touch. And then National returns as the natural governing party, and completes the process by devastating the union movement[14].

National returned to government in 1990 and passed the Employment Contracts Act the following year. While Jesson got several important predictions right, he could also admit when he got things wrong. Encouraged by Winston Peters’ efforts in the mid-1990s to expose the fraudulent corporate tax scams at the heart of the Winebox Inquiry, Jesson became very enamoured with New Zealand First in the early half of 1996, and failed to predict that Peters would form a centre-right coalition with National following the 1996 election. In The Jester Steals The Crown Jesson freely admits his mistake, and predicts the National-NZ First government will end in tears[15]. That prediction turns out to be accurate.

From the 1970s Jesson also undertook a close study of the structure of capitalism in New Zealand, leaving him ideally placed to analyse the significant upheaval of business that occurred in the 1980s, as family-owned firms gave way to large corporate focused entities, and the focus of the economy moved from the productive sectors to finance. In the same way Marx used the capitalist press as an authoritative source for his critique of capitalism, Jesson spent many hours studying the business press and the paper records at the New Zealand Companies Office to analyse company structures and their relationships to the business elite. His analyses of the evolving dynamics of wealth and influence in New Zealand culminated in two books, The Fletcher Challenge (1980) and Behind the Mirror Glass (1987).

To give an example of how these kinds of analyses can be put into practice, I found Jesson’s example to be particularly helpful in my work as a trade union researcher, where the union sought to understand the industries it organised in, and to identify potential areas of leverage for bargaining. Thankfully, by the time I undertook my research, the Companies Office records were available online.

The Republican also allowed Jesson to incorporate influences from his own reading, thereby introducing his New Zealand audience to the work of the Frankfurt School of Western Marxism, Antonio Gramsci and Lukács. Jesson sought to separate himself from both the ‘vulgar’ Marxists who he considered to be anti-intellectual and out of touch, and the social liberals who he saw as unserious—motivated less by politics but by moral and humanitarian concerns. This led Jesson to describe himself as part of the ‘independent left’, made up of those critical of capitalism but not a member of the Labour party or involved in the sectarian communist scene. Jesson’s wish to separate himself from a Leninism he saw as ‘an action-oriented, grossly simplified version of Marxism’[16] is likely to have led him to describe himself as an ‘Hegelian’, rather than a ‘Marxist’. While I have never found Hegel that easy to understand, I have often found it useful to consider Jesson’s work alongside the work of the philosopher Tom Rockmore[17], who interprets Marx as a Hegelian philosopher.

Jesson on the Left

According to Jesson, both the Labour Party and New Zealand’s radical movements “absorbed the anti-intellectualism of New Zealand’s pioneering colonial heritage. ‘Action and theory are commonly regarded as opposites or at least as alternatives. Action is preferred for being practical and showing commitment; whereas theory is disparaged as indulgent, elitist and removed from reality.’10. This could be considered alongside Marx’s[18] famous quote ‘The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.’ Rather than being seen as a break with philosophy or as a rationale to dissuade intellectual pursuits, Marx’s use of the semicolon here can be interpreted as ’and’ rather than ‘or’. Seeking an independent political and intellectual culture, Jesson called on socialists to become intellectuals and engage critically with the social, cultural and political life of the times2. This included applying the critical philosophy to an analysis of the political left to identify any weaknesses. Such criticism was not always welcomed and contributed to Jesson being somewhat of an outsider. New Zealand as a society often rewards conformity, as Jesson himself noted.

Jesson believed the political left needed to pay more attention to economics:

Ironically enough, the New Right mirrors Marxism in its thinking. Like Marx, the New Right sees society as being organised along economic lines. However, although there are one or two very good leftwing economists, the Left as a whole has a mental block about economics, and evaluates economic arguments from a social and moral point of view. There is some validity to this approach—even the New Right realises that there is a moral dimension to the economy—but it is totally insufficient. By flinching from the economic argument, the Left refuses to contest the New Right on its own ground and thereby concedes the intellectual battle[19].

In Looking at The Labour Party: Where Have All The Workers Gone? in September 1983, Jesson looked at some of the choices facing those who wished to be politically active among the Left.

Many radicals find substitutes for effective political involvement in the unions, and in the Communist sects where they aggregate their impotence. Others drift towards the Labour Party, either as individuals or groups (the former Socialist Action League), in search of a realistic political vehicle for their liberal and humanitarian aims. Then they find themselves in a project that is doubly reformist—reforming the Labour Party in the hope it will become a reformist party. This blurring between Labour and radicalism in New Zealand means there is an immediate need for an uncompromising Leftwing critique of the Labour Party.

Jesson wrote the following in December 1991:

Some gullible people in union and liberal circles still believe that Labour is reformable and that it might shift back to the Left. However this would be a bad thing in itself as it would demonstrate once again Labour is a party of expediency with no firm principles of either Left or Right[20].

Jesson was also critical of the focus of the ‘protest movement’ on ‘overseas issues’ such as Vietnam and South Africa, issues he saw as only appealing to an educated minority with a liberal and Christian conscience. He warned that the Left could find itself distracted away from the big questions by ‘liberal’ causes such as conservation and nuclear ship visits. He also noted that these issues tended to build the Labour Party instead of strengthening the Left. This is likely to be an expression of Jesson’s disappointment at the failure of the New Zealand Left to take up the issues he saw as more important—republicanism and forming a challenge to the dominant Right-wing vision of New Zealand’s future.

While Jesson is right to warn the Left not to get distracted from its larger aims, I think he underestimates the degree to which these ‘liberal’ issues have contributed to a more independent identity for New Zealand[21]. The ban on nuclear ship visits led to New Zealand being freed of the neo-colonial trappings of the 1950s’ vintage ANZUS Treaty (a military alliance with the US and Australia), and the nuclear free policy became a cornerstone of a more independent foreign policy.

On several occasions Jesson admits he is prone to exaggeration. Others have noted he can be excessively pessimistic and negative[22]. While I agree with Jesson that anti-intellectualism runs deep in New Zealand society, perhaps Jesson could have paid more attention to the intellectual culture that did exist, even if this culture was underdeveloped. In my PhD I identify a distinct political culture on the left centred around Jesson’s hometown of Christchurch. This nurtured, among other things, a publishing base for influential left-wing journals such as Tomorrow, Monthly Review and Foreign[23]. That said, it should also be remembered that Jesson as a political writer often aimed to get a reaction. His friend Peter Lee notes that many of his pieces were ‘designed to goad a politician at a specific moment, to try to influence them to shift their ground and change course’[24].

A quarter century after his death, Bruce Jesson remains one of New Zealand’s most important left-wing thinkers, with a contribution distinguished by its originality and requisite attention to theory. Jesson defended the role of the intellectual, laying a challenge to New Zealand’s underlying culture of anti-intellectualism, while at the same time retaining a writing style accessible to a general audience. In 1975, while assessing the political personality of Robert Muldoon, Jesson8 noted a ‘timelessness about New Zealand politics’ and suggested not much had changed politically in New Zealand since the 1950s. While New Zealand subsequently did see significant political change, particularly through the 1980s, I still think Jesson’s observation holds true in a different sense. As a historical writer Jesson’s work helps to highlight how present political issues and personalities have echoes in the past. Indeed, aspects of Jesson’s characterisation of Muldoon in 1975 could also apply to other National Party leaders, including Don Brash, John Key and perhaps even Chris Luxon. Additionally, many would suggest that Jesson’s call for ‘an immediate need for an uncompromising left-wing critique of the Labour Party’ is as relevant today as it was in 1983, with many activists questioning if Labour is at all reformable as an effective vehicle of centre-left politics.

---

[1] Jesson, B. (1999a). 'Only their purpose is mad'. Dunmore Press.

[2] Sharp, A. (2005). 'Bruce Jesson: The making of a patriot'. In A. Sharp (Ed.), To build a nation: Collected writings 1975-1999 (pp. 13–36). Penguin.

[3] Jesson, B., & Sturt, J. (1965). Traitors to class and country: A study of the conservative left. Workers Action Movement.

[4] Locke, K. (1976). 'The Campaign Against Foreign Control: Is it progressive?' In Red papers on New Zealand. Marxist Publishing Group.

[5] Sinclair, K. (1976). Walter Nash. Auckland University Press ; New York.

[6] Sutch, W. B. (1966). The quest for security in New Zealand 1840 to 1966. Oxford University Press.

[7] Jesson, B., & Sturt, J. (1966). Te Tao (The Spear). Workers Action Movement.

[8] Jesson, B. (1975, September). 'The demolition of Robert Muldoon'. The Republican, 9.

[9] Muldoon, R. D. (1974). The rise and fall of a young Turk. A. H. & A. W. Reed.

[10] Jesson, B. (1983b, September). 'The Labour Party—Where have all the workers gone?' The Republican, 47, 12–18.

[11] Jesson, B. (1986, March). 'The changing face of New Zealand capitalism'. The Republican, 58.

[12] Jesson, B. (1999b). 'To build a nation'. New Zealand Political Review, 8(2), 24–33.

[13] Jesson, B. (1983a, July). 'A legacy of colonialist guilt'. The Republican, 47, 2–3, 20.

[14] Jesson, B. (1985, July). 'Rogernomics and the socialist alternative.' The Republican, 55.

[15] Jesson, B. (1997b). 'The jester steals the crown'. New Zealand Political Review, 6(1), 12–17.

[16] Jesson, B. (1984, August). 'Reconsidering Marxism'. The Republican, 51, 4–10.

[17] Rockmore, T. (2002). Marx after Marxism: The philosophy of Karl Marx. Blackwell Publishers.

[18] Marx, K. (1969). 'Theses on Feuerbach'. In Marx/Engels selected works (Vol. 1, pp. 13–15). Progress Publishers. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

[19] Jesson, B. (1997a).'Condition terminal'. New Zealand Political Review, 6(4), 25–35.

[20] Jesson, B. (1991, December). 'The birth of the Alliance'. The Republican, 73, 1

[21] Hendren, J. (2006, August). Review: 'To build a nation: Collected writings of Bruce Jesson 1975-1999.' Foreign Control Watchdog, 106.

[22] Horton, M. (1999, August). 'Obituary: Bruce Jesson'. Foreign Control Watchdog, 91, 19–21.

[23] Hendren, J. (2022). Assessing the Impact of National Political Civil Society Organisations in New Zealand: A Case Study of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) [Doctoral thesis, The University of Auckland]. https://hdl.handle.net/2292/61257

[24] Lee, P. (2005). 'Thoughts among the ruin'. In A. Sharp (Ed.), To build a nation: Collected writings 1975-1999 (pp. 355–366). Penguin.