Editorial - May 2025

Martin Crick reflects on the state of the world, and the socialist left, for the 7th edition of The Commonweal

We are printing the following Editorial from volume 7 of The Commonweal as a promotional invitation for substack readers to consider purchasing a physical subscription (if they are in New Zealand). These cost $20 a year for two copies of The Commonweal, which are printed to a very high quality. Please consider supporting our efforts by visiting the subscription page here. Articles from this edition will be printed from October 2025 on our Substack.

The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters (Antonio Gramsci 1929)

Gramsci wrote these words in the third year of his imprisonment by Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy, and as the Wall Street Crash of that year led to the great depression which facilitated the rise to power of Hitler’s Nazi regime in Germany. As Donald Trump upends both the domestic and the international order, as Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, and Modi in India further erode democracy in their countries, as Netanyahu continues his campaign of genocide in Gaza, and as the far right continues to gain votes throughout Europe, have we entered another age of monsters?

There is little doubt that they and the European fascists of the 1930s all spring from different branches of the same populist nationalist tree. The word ‘fascist’ is increasingly bandied about both by opponents of these regimes and by the regimes themselves to describe their opposition. Is Donald Trump a fascist?

He is undoubtedly a demagogue, undeniably a racist. Like the fascists of the 30s he appeals directly to the masses, especially those suffering from economic hardship, the disenfranchised and the disillusioned, whilst at the same time surrounding himself with billionaire oligarchs. He stirs up fear and hatred by demonising (and deporting) illegal (and some legal) immigrants, and identifying certain sections of society as the ‘enemy within’. He promises law and order, whilst contemptuous of legality. He is vindictive and aims to destroy any personal, institutional or media opposition to his rule. The fascist playbook invariably includes attacks on the judiciary and the rule of law, witness his rant against federal judge James Boasberg, that ‘radical left lunatic of a judge’, and his willingness to use executive orders against law firms that were involved in the attempts to impeach him or in any of the law suits against him, removing their security clearances, barring them from any work for federal offices etc. Celebrating his second election win Trump claimed to have ‘saved free speech in America.’ Yet there has been a dramatic across-the-board clampdown on freedom of expression. One of his first executive orders was to bar from entry to the USA anyone with ‘hostile attitudes towards US citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles.’ Trump is criminalising dissent, most obviously in the case of pro-Palestinian protestors but also barring people from entering the USA if they have at any time criticised him, from professors to musicians. The FBI is authorised to trawl through people’s social media accounts for evidence of such. Fascists fear the power of the arts, and whilst we have yet to see any book burnings, we do see books being removed from library shelves if they challenge his world view, a lens which is demonstrably ‘straight white male’. His removal of the board of the Kennedy Arts Centre and his description of previous recipients of the Centre’s honours as ‘radical left, is another example of this.

The result of this frenzied assault on the liberties and rights of Americans is the creation of a ‘climate of fear’, leading to self-censorship as newspapers, universities, local government authorities, and businesses fall over themselves to ensure that nothing they say or do can be interpreted as critical of Trump or his government. Republicans in the Congress and the Senate, with a few honourable exceptions, are unwilling to oppose the MAGA cult which has grown up around Trump, whilst Democrats are seemingly similarly cowed. Thus, the main striking difference between the Trump administration and the fascists of the 1930s, that it is less militarised and less violent, can be explained by the sinister truth that it has no need to be. There can be little doubt that Trump’s core beliefs and modus operandi mirror precisely those of the fascist leaders, and his threat to seek a third term in office, and even to cancel the mid-term elections, in defiance of the constitution, cannot be dismissed lightly.

Before looking at how developments in the USA should give us pause for thought here, a brief mention of Trump’s tariff war. This has confused the economic and political commentariat as much as it has the mass of ordinary people. Is it a clearly thought-out economic policy or just Trump once again acting like a loose cannon? The oligarch friends expecting tax cuts and even further advancement of free trade were clearly taken by surprise. Is this the end of neoliberalism and the beginnings of a new global order? (See, for example, the Jacobin Newsletter 3 April, Trump’s Protectionist Turn is a Death Blow for Neoliberalism.) Why is Trump pursuing a trade policy that undermines the interests of US capital? The strategy isn’t about growing the US economy, as he claims, it is about power, about re-asserting US hegemony in the world system, which he sees as under threat, particularly from China. It is an economic war, the weaponizing of the US economy to force other nations to heel or be locked out. US leaders’ claims to support ‘free markets’ and ‘free trade’ have always been hollow, hiding a system of ‘imperial’ dominance. Trump wants control over the flow of capital and the behaviour of rival states, and he will use coercion and fear to achieve that. The so-called ‘rules-based international order’ was always used to serve US capital, not working people, and it is working people who will suffer from this trade war. What will be interesting will be the response of other nations. Will they come to heel, go cap-in-hand to Trump begging for preferential treatment, or will they seek to forge new alliances outside the US orbit? Contrary to Trump’s aim China may well benefit if they do.

How will New Zealand react? We are already seeing a divide within the coalition, as Winston Peters complains of being left uninformed about Luxon’s plans to consult with a number of world leaders and his promise of a firm response to Trump. Peters urges caution. But what about a radically new direction? What about New Zealand’s leaders thinking outside the box looking at what we can do ‘in-house’? We have more than adequate supplies of energy and of food. What can we manufacture here without relying on imports? What once flourishing industries can be revived, serving needs rather than wants? ‘Socialism in one country’ anyone? The other big issue, highlighted by Trump’s appalling televised interview with President Zelensky, is the US threat to withdraw from NATO and its other international commitments, particularly aid. Countries are now scrambling to increase their defence budgets, and here a government that says it cannot find more money for health, education, housing, welfare, has magicked $12 billion for defence. Is pursuing membership of the AUKUS alliance really a good idea given current US unreliability? Do we seriously think, however much we spend on defence, that New Zealand could defend herself against a Chinese attack?

And with those few thoughts back to the more pressing issues facing socialists here in Aotearoa.

We should not imagine that New Zealand is immune from the trends that have led to Trumpism in the USA. Four decades of neoliberal policy have made it a paradise for the rich and a nightmare for the poor. One in five children live in poverty; we have one of the highest rates of homelessness in the developed world; the 31 richest individuals here pay less than half the tax of an ordinary worker; 70% of New Zealand’s wealth is held by 20% of the population; we spend only one-third of the OECD average on primary health care.

Two recent reports emphasise the rapidly deteriorating social cohesion which is a result of this. The Helen Clark Foundation report Social Cohesion in New Zealand (April 2025) found that one-third of its respondents said that a ‘strong leader’ able to govern without having to bother with elections or parliament would be a good way to govern New Zealand, with 48% of men under 44 supporting this. 52% said that the government can never or only sometimes be trusted, with this response even higher from Maori, Pasifika and lower income respondents. Only 32% were satisfied with the current economic situation. As Bryce Edwards suggests, ‘New Zealand is in the throes of a trust crisis.’ The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer report Trust and the Crisis of Grievance demonstrates this even more starkly than the Clark Foundation report. It portrays an increasing dissatisfaction with the status quo and the role played by the rich in politics and society. 67% of its respondents had moderate to high levels of grievance against institutions. There is a pervasive belief that the system is rigged in favour of an elite few, and despair at the prospects for future generations. A widening chasm of economic and social inequality strips away people’s dignity and their ability to connect with their communities and wider society. The dissatisfaction was amply demonstrated in the anti-lockdown/anti-vaccination protests on the parliament grounds in February 2022, whilst the low turnout at the 2023 election demonstrated that many are tuning out of the political process altogether.

The current policies and pronouncements of the coalition government partners further highlight the widening divisions in New Zealand society, the most obvious example being the Treaty Principles Bill. Whilst that has now been voted down David Seymour has vowed to bring it back, and commentators of all shades of political opinion agree that the issue will not go away. Indeed, the government has already identified 28 laws where it will scrap or alter references to the Treaty of Waitangi. Seymour undoubtedly achieved his aim of cementing his political base whilst appealing to others who did not vote ACT last time round. The Treaty Principles Bill, however, was in many ways a smokescreen hiding another missile from ACT, agreed to by Christopher Luxon during the coalition negotiations, the Regulatory Standards Bill. This Bill is straight out of the Atlas Network playbook, seeking to elevate individual rights and private property above collective rights and the environment, and all other considerations in law-making. If it passes it will be the real win for the neoliberal right, allowing corporations to stop any environmental or taxation policy they don’t like. Seymour is the Minister for Regulatory Responsibility, and if the Bill is passed then he will be backed by a Board appointed by him, which would effectively bypass the courts. It should more accurately be termed the (De) Regulatory Bill, and taken together with the Fast Track legislation, and the overuse of Urgency in parliament, seeks to curtail democratic scrutiny of government to an alarming extent.

Valerie Morse, writing for Feijoa Dispatch on 6^th April, argues that whilst Trump’s attacks on the rule of law are explicit there is a difference only in degree between Aotearoa and the USA . New Zealand First and ACT, she suggests, are operating from the same playbook. They aim to:

Undermine public goods including environmental, economic and social justice – Seymour justified the Treaty Principles Bill as necessary because ‘activist judges and bureaucrats had twisted the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi to give different groups of people different rights.’ His proposed re-write of course would have given free rein to ecological vandalism, colonial land theft and foreign asset sales.

Undermine human rights – by appointing highly partisan and unqualified people to courts and tribunals - The replacement of half the members of the Waitangi Tribunal is an egregious example, but then there is the appointment of Stephen Rainbow, a vocal supporter of Israel, as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and Melissa Derby as Race relations Commissioner. Both have a history of anti-trans views. The interview panel specifically noted that Rainbow’s appointment was ‘not recommended’, and since his appointment he has publicly expressed anti-Muslim views.

Concentrate powers in the executive – thus both Shane Jones and David Seymour have attacked decisions of the courts and judges when they are unfavourable to their interests. Jones described one judge as a ‘communist’, and some judicial decisions as demonstrating signs of ‘totalitarianism’.

Reduce the power of the courts – one simple way of reducing the power of the courts is to make it more difficult for cases to be heard, and the government is increasingly denying or restricting access to legal funding particularly for claims involving Te Tiriti, environmental, economic or social justice.

Reduce transparency and accountability – the unprecedented use of Urgency in parliament. In the government’s first 400 days in power it was used to process 133 stages of 51 unique Bills, without the select committee process, and thus the opportunity to review the proposed legislation.

Benefit the wealthy – Bryce Edwards has referred to ACT as ‘a confederation of lobbyists led by professional politicians’, but the description could equally be applied to the other coalition partners. In spite of the fact that New Zealand has the laxest rules in the West about how vested interests can operate through professional lobbyists, the government has frozen the review of lobbying. I have written in previous issues about the tobacco industry and the mining industry, but to them we can now add the Dairy Industry. ACT MP Andrew Hoggard, former Federated Farmers President, is now Minister for Food Safety. A conflict of interest? His sister, Kimberly Crewther, is a lobbyist for the Dairy Council Association of New Zealand. A conflict of interest? Details of ‘How multinational dairy companies convinced ministers to back away from new rules for baby formula’ can be found in a report by Anusha Bradley for Radio New Zealand (online 4 April), whilst Bryce Edwards explored the role of Crewther in an Integrity Institute briefing the previous day. Shane Jones is open about his intention to ‘Build, Baby, Build’, and ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’, and the Fast Track legislation will make it much easier for companies to get consents to do that.

Morse describes a Dual State, with ‘one law for the favoured, one for those considered enemies.’ And then we have the more open and direct attacks on, the demonisation of, those considered enemies. Here New Zealand First seem to have taken on the role of attack dog. Winston Peters has declared a ‘war on woke’. He described pro-Palestinian protestors during his State of the Nation address in Christchurch as ‘woke, extreme left, fascists’, and singled out one in particular as a ‘ginger nut’. He mounted particularly abhorrent personal attacks on new Green MP Benjamin Doyle. Tamatha Paul’s comments about the police were taken completely out of context, she was totally misrepresented, and used to portray the Green Party as anti-police. Whilst the billboard posters demonising Paul cannot be attributed to New Zealand First they were funded by Hobson’s Pledge and the right- wing Taxpayers’ Union, and Peters is certainly creating the climate within which it is considered acceptable to promote such views. Shane Jones follows his party leader with an assault on ‘genderism, climatism, wokeism’, singling out the ‘luxury beliefs’ of the Green Party whilst proclaiming the ‘rights of garden variety, God-fearing Kiwis.’ Inside Parliament both Peters and Nicola Willis have accused Chloe Swarbrick of ‘Marxism’ for even daring to suggest that neo-liberalism has failed. She is attacked outside Parliament too. Andrea Vance in The Post has accused her of ‘outlandish left- wing views’ and ‘ignoring basic economic principles’ for her plans to renationalise the railways and partly privatised energy companies. The Green Party, Jones charges, is leading New Zealand to ‘economic armageddon’, whilst he attacks the ‘ethnic warping’ of our democracy. And of course, the party slogan is ‘Make New Zealand First Again’, an obvious nod to MAGA land. As Martyn Bradbury writes: ‘I don’t think the vast majority of Kiwis have any comprehension just how far right the government actually is.’ (Daily Blog, 14 April 2025)

Chris Trotter suggests the government is aiming for five big shifts in policy: from public to private investment and delivery; from an emergent bi-cultural back to a colonial nation; from universal to user charges; from regulated to market-use resources, and from limits on, to incentives for, private investment returns. It may seem obvious to say it but there is no effective left- wing opposition in New Zealand to counter that right now. The Labour Party conference in Christchurch last December was lacklustre; after the disastrous result of the last election, one might have expected an energetic and reforming party, offering fresh new policies, but no! Hipkins was more concerned with cementing his own position as leader than winning back any of Labour’s lost voters. He, and the party, have lost touch with the poor and the working class. In a speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce Chris Hipkins stressed the continuities in National and Labour’s policies. Whilst saying that he opposes any privatisation of public services he has promised that Labour would honour any public-private partnerships signed up to by the coalition, despite the overwhelming evidence that they do not work. The fate of the Health Service in the UK provides convincing evidence of this. Hipkins has adopted the ‘small target strategy’ of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in the UK before the last general election, giving one’s opponents nothing to aim at, offering no bold or detailed policies to reinvigorate and convince the angry, frustrated and disillusioned electorate.

So, What Is To Be Done ?, we asked the New Zealand Left in our special issue of Commonweal? In an interesting exchange of ideas on System Change Aotearoa’s website Justine Sachs argued that socialists should join the Labour Party and engage in mass politics, whilst Elliot Crossan responded that the Party’s rules made it impossible for socialists to operate within the party and successfully install a left-wing leadership. (29 and 30 March 2025) There is no left-wing faction in the Labour caucus, and the fate of Jeremy Corbyn, who did have 20-40 committed left-wing MPs to support him, demonstrated that even that was insufficient to achieve success. Crossan argues that that MMP gives a left alternative a greater chance of success than any entryist policy. So, what should we members of the New Zealand Federation do?

‘Educate, Agitate, Organise’. After 6 years of educational work we have achieved modest growth, but surely it is time to move to the next phase also? You will see in the Canterbury Society’s branch report that our comrade Tom Roud is planning to stand in the coming council elections in Christchurch. There are undoubtedly members who are not in favour of electoral politics. We know that socialism will never come about merely by voting for it. So why engage? Good ideas don’t emerge from nothing. The Victorian Socialists have shown that by engaging in electoral campaigns socialism can be dragged from the margins of political life and into the daily and weekly discussions of thousands. They help to build socialist political forces, normalise socialist campaigning. The Victorian Socialists are an electoral front, combining both revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries, people engaging with socialist politics for the first time, people sick of Labour sell-outs and establishment corruption, the disillusioned I mentioned earlier, those who might otherwise turn right. Our forces are too small to insist on ideological purity, we ourselves are a broad church. So, I appeal to members in Canterbury to turn out and support Tom’s campaign, help with leafletting, door-knocking, in whatever way you can, start to build a socialist alternative. Members of the Society have also been present on the picket line this week, supporting workers in struggle, a duty for any socialist, an opportunity to show solidarity, become recognised, and present arguments for socialism. Let us all turn out on May Day to support the Fight Back Maranga Ake For Health Campaign.

One of our aims in launching Commonweal was to promote debate and discussion, and elsewhere in this issue we have two articles, by Tyler West and Hayden Taylor, which have been prompted by that special issue. Byron Clark writes on NZ First MP Tanya Unkovich’s links with the Croatian far right. This issue is published shortly after Anzac Day, so as a counter- balance to the carefully scripted patriotic romanticism of that day I tell the story of those brave enough to oppose the war in Christchurch. Another conscientious objector was Garth Carsley Ballantyne in Auckland, and Craig Stephen includes his story in his history of Comrades FC, the first article with a sporting theme to appear in Commonweal. And finally, Quentin Findlay reviews a recent biography of firebrand socialist Harry Holland, a Labour leader radically different to any of those who have followed him. My thanks to all contributors and, as always, an appeal for contributions to future issues. I leave you with the following profoundly depressing words from W B Yeats, written just after the First World War, very apt for the current situation, but followed by the inspirational Percy Bysshe Shelley, written shortly after the Peterloo Massacre in 1819, a call to arms for the current generation of socialists:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned’

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

(W B Yeats, The Second Coming, 1919)

Rise like lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number –

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you –

Ye are many they are few.

(P.B Shelley, Masque of Anarchy, 1819)