The Unbearable Weight of Being a Useful Idiot

Written By: - Date published: 9:57 am, March 23rd, 2025 - 93 comments
Categories: Left, nuclear-free, Politics, social democracy, socialism - Tags: , , ,

There must be no greater burden in this world than the sheer, crushing weight of a pro-authoritarian leftist’s intellect. Imagine waking up every day and knowing, with absolute certainty, that you alone see the grand chessboard of geopolitics while the rest of us simpletons are still trying to figure out how to play chequers.

It must be exhausting, constantly deciphering the hidden messages in every U.S. foreign policy decision while conveniently ignoring the actual, real-world consequences of authoritarian regimes.

The Intellectual Gymnastics World Championships

Being a pro-authoritarian leftist isn’t just a political stance; it’s an extreme sport. The gold-medal events include:

  • Whataboutism Vaulting: “Sure, China has concentration camps, but what about America’s prison system?”
  • False Equivalence Freestyle: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is bad, but NATO exists, so really, who’s the aggressor here?”
  • Historical Fan Fiction Relay: “Actually, the USSR was a utopia before Western sabotage.”

Of course, this level of intellectual acrobatics requires selectively ignoring the facts that don’t fit the narrative. Russian opposition leaders get poisoned? Meh. China has a mass surveillance state straight out of a dystopian novel? Western propaganda. Every single genuinely socialist movement in an authoritarian state gets crushed by the ruling government? That’s just a coincidence.

Moral Cowardice and the Worship of Power

One of the most fascinating aspects of these enlightened sages is their ability to talk endlessly about “the people” while defending regimes that treat actual people like expendable chess pieces. They scream about Western imperialism but shrug when China or Russia annexes territory. They wax poetic about workers’ rights but somehow always find themselves on the side of governments that jail union organisers and crush dissent.

The irony is striking. These are the same people who claim to be the true heirs of socialist ideals, yet they have nothing to say when an actual left-wing opposition movement gets stomped into the ground by an authoritarian regime. Russia bans communist parties? Silence. China cracks down on labour movements? Nothing but the sound of crickets.

Stalinism: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

This brand of leftist thinking isn’t new. It’s just the latest iteration of a long tradition of ideological masochism that has plagued socialist movements for over a century. Back in the day, it was the Stalinists, doggedly defending every purge, famine, and show trial while accusing anyone who dared criticise the Soviet Union of being a tool of Western imperialism. Today’s pro-authoritarian leftists are simply rehashing the same script—only this time, they’re running defence for Russia’s oligarchic kleptocracy, China’s technocratic autocracy, or whatever dictatorship they’ve decided is the “real” vanguard of anti-imperialism this week.

A fundamental precondition for this worldview is the complete erasure of agency from millions of people. Just as Stalinist apologists dismissed the struggles of Eastern European workers, today’s tankies lazily reduce entire populations to Western puppets when it suits them. Ukrainians resisting invasion? CIA assets. Hong Kongers fighting for democracy? Brainwashed by the West. Syrians rejecting Assad? American proxies. The people themselves—those whose lives are actually at stake—become nothing more than pawns in a game of grand geopolitics, conveniently stripped of independent thought so their oppression can be rationalised.

At its core, tankie ideology isn’t about solidarity; it’s about simping for fascists so long as they drape themselves in the right rhetoric. If the boot on your neck comes from an anti-Western regime, it is, apparently, a progressive boot.

And make no mistake: this is all done in bad faith. We are not dealing with naive idealists who simply misinterpret history. They are fully aware that the regimes they defend have crushed workers’ movements, imprisoned dissidents, and stifled free speech. They just don’t care.

Their arguments aren’t about building a better world but about excusing their preferred authoritarians, no matter the cost.

The battle between Stalinist authoritarianism and democratic socialism has defined the global left for decades. On one side, there were those who believed in genuine worker-led democracy and political pluralism. On the other, there were the true believers who cheered as dissenters were sent to the gulag in the name of “the revolution.” The only difference now is that instead of Pravda, they have Twitter threads, and instead of the NKVD, they have an infinite supply of whataboutism.

The Mythology of New Zealand’s Foreign Policy

And here, the pro-authoritarian leftist finds solace in a particular fantasy: the idea that New Zealand’s foreign policy is a beacon of moral clarity and neutrality, rather than the product of careful geopolitical hedging. The nuclear-free declaration, oft-touted as an act of defiance against Western militarism, is more accurately understood as a strategic compromise—one that allowed New Zealand to maintain its Western alliances while playing the part of a principled outlier.

For the pro-authoritarian leftist, this myth must be preserved at all costs. The idea that New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance was a pragmatic move rather than a wholesale rejection of Western hegemony? Unthinkable. The reality that this stance was entirely dependent on the continued security umbrella provided by the very alliances they decry? Inconvenient.

This same brand of fantasy extends to broader foreign policy aspirations—wherein New Zealand is imagined as a nation that could lead a bloc of “non-aligned” states, despite its deep economic and security entanglements with both China and the West. The illusion of neutrality, much like the illusions about Stalinist utopias, is a comforting one—but it does not survive first contact with reality.

New Zealand’s early Labour leaders were people of moral courage and clarity, many of whom were imprisoned for refusing to fight in the last, greatest, and most utterly pointless imperialist war. Michael Joseph Savage saw the dangers of both fascism and communism and chose the path of democratic socialism. Norman Kirk’s vision for New Zealand was one of true independence and genuine concern for the wellbeing of all Kiwis: not a fixation on knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

The pro-authoritarian leftists of today, however, are a far cry from these figures. Instead of building a future for working people, they spew bile into their little corners of the internet, fantasising about a world where the authoritarian regimes they admire finally put the “right” people in charge.

The Research Backs It Up

Recent academic research has identified left-wing authoritarianism as a real and growing issue. Studies such as Costello et al. (2022) have found that traits like dogmatism, selective morality, and punitive attitudes towards dissenters are common within these circles, undermining democratic processes and damaging the credibility of legitimate leftist movements.

Further, a large-scale study of online communities (Balci et al., 2023) examined over 1.3 million posts from self-identified “tankie” Reddit users, showing how these communities primarily exist to defend authoritarian regimes rather than engage with progressive policy or praxis. Their hostility towards social democrats and democratic socialists even suggests some tankies use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs (Krispenz, A. and Betrams,A., 2023).

Taken together, this rigid ideological focus,combined with punitive attitudes and a disturbing comfort with political violence,renders left-wing authoritarianism a politically toxic force.

A danger to the left. And to themselves.

Let’s be clear: these people do not speak for the left.

They are a self-sabotaging fringe, a distraction from real leftist progress. Much like the Militant Tendency in the UK Labour Party—whose actual influence was often exaggerated by its opponents but whose presence gave the right-wing media an easy way to smear the entire Labour left—they function as a readymade fifth column, undermining progressive movements from within.

If we want a progressive future free from the perils of authoritarianism, the baggage of the failed experiment that was the USSR, and the endless cycles of factionalism and splittism, we must cast them out of leftist discourse entirely. There is no path forward that includes them: only regression towards irrelevance, disgrace, and ideological rot.

A tragic fate indeed. Almost as tragic as watching these self-proclaimed intellectual titans reduce the left’s credibility to rubble in real-time.

Res Publica

93 comments on “The Unbearable Weight of Being a Useful Idiot ”

  1. SPC 1
    23 March 2025 at 11:19 am

    The lightness of being in the English countryside learning to play chess.

    https://images.theconversation.com/files/226285/original/file-20180705-122280-uc9tot.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip

    Cameron vs UKIP and onto Brexit.

    Mayday

    https://theconversation.com/a-chequers-history-the-country-palace-of-british-prime-ministers-99428

    and Johnson and Truss and Sunak later to the post Corbyn, return to Blair settings.

    To go with GWB and the Atlantic partnership or defend democracy in Europe

    Starmer …

    Reply
  2. Dennis Frank 2
    23 March 2025 at 12:39 pm

    The nuclear-free declaration, oft-touted as an act of defiance against Western militarism, is more accurately understood as a strategic compromise—one that allowed New Zealand to maintain its Western alliances while playing the part of a principled outlier.

    True, although the verdict of history seems likely to focus more on empowering anti-nuclear ethos inasmuch as proclaimed state policy provides substantial role-model influence which can have widespread effects on other states (arguable).

    There's an analogy with Holyoake's refusal to bend to US pressure [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_in_the_Vietnam_War] yet show western solidarity via a minimal contribution onside.

    self-proclaimed intellectual titans reduce the left’s credibility to rubble in real-time

    Bit of a downer to end your essay! Over-rates their influence though. I suppose the credibility of the left does suffer from evident internal discord even if it suffers more from the general reluctance to provide a positive alternative.

    I didn't really get how left authoritarians illustrate Useful Idiot theory. Currently it seems more relevant in the tech-bro ploy by Trump in giving Musk another game to play. Two rich & powerful narcissists pretending to work together seems like the kind of fun thing that happens when you try to force two positive poles of magnets together.

    There's a principle driving the thinking of left authoritarians: state power ideology is the moral apex of democracy. They usually lack the intellect to spell it out like that so one must discern it in their sub-text…

    Reply
    • Res Publica 2.1
      23 March 2025 at 2:11 pm

      There's a principle driving the thinking of left authoritarians: state power ideology is the moral apex of democracy. They usually lack the intellect to spell it out like that so one must discern it in their sub-text…

      I think thats the key difference between social democrats and the (I feel are misnamed) democratic socialists.

      We have to ask ourselves: what do we want to be as a movement? An electorally viable force for a more equitable, just, and fair society? Or a clique of idealogues fixated on its enemies; both real and imagined?

      In my opinion, the first option is infintely more preferable. But requires a laserlike focus on the conditions of the working class and a willingness to compromise and work within the systems we have.

      Grand theories of revolution are just that: grand. But their track record is piss poor.

      Reply
  3. tWig 3
    23 March 2025 at 12:59 pm

    Actions, not thoughts, count for me. Outside of differing in opinion about NZ's political position and modern-day Russia's, or rather Putin's, actions: if NZ tankies still are active in the NZ union movement, and/or support with practical and financial help, the NZ left, what do I care? Their reach and ideas are unlikely to affect NZ politics. Those anti-vax conspiracists who swallowed a big mouthful of pro-Russia propaganda via their Telegram channels are more danger to NZ, and to me personally.

    The problem plays out on anonymous forums, such as TS, and in the skirting around topics in personal relationships. The first is moot IRL, except as laying out the countering arguments to Russia-worship. The second, well, again, deeds, not words.

    The other day I had a loving chat with a family member, full of respect and mutual support. But, they said, they choose not to bring Trump or Israel into personal conversations anymore. Good on them, because we quite certainly would be out hard on separate sides. Because, in our daily lives, we need our friends and relatives even more in these days of uncertainty.

    IRL I also ran into my first face-to-face anti-trans lesbians, active and virulent anti-trans proselytisers. And proselytising is very much what they were trying to do in a public place. An hour's worth of argument showed to me that their position was as narrow and as hard as cultists. I don't know what to think about that. Transphobic lies (and these people peddled what I knew were lies in amongst their lines) are having a direct effect on NZ's overton window on trans acceptance in our society. These anti-trans activists already affect the lives of the 20 K or so NZers, who identify nonbinary, trans and intersex. They are far more dangerous in their beliefs in our society, because of their reach, than tankies.

    Reply
  4. barry 4
    23 March 2025 at 1:10 pm

    I sense a rather large heap of straw! Sure "tankies" do exist, but they get lost in the multitude of astroturf users. The author is in danger of exactly the same hubris that he/she is railing against.

    To defend Chinese incarcerations by comparing them with American rates (or calling it whataboutism) is missing the point. Incarceration rates are too high and should be condemned, but mostly fought against here in Aotearoa.

    Surveillance societies are popular for the same reason that populist lauranorda policies are. They work on peoples' fears that are heightened by the media. When something happens in the UK people reach for the CCTV footage (the narrative is that the UK has more cameras per square inch than anywhere else). I was recently in China with a bicycle. I heard from a resident that they don't worry about theft. An acquaintance had one stolen and it was returned within days due to their camera coverage and the facial recognition. That is very unlikely in NZ. Is it worth the loss of privacy? Depends on your own experience.

    To compare Russian aggression with Israel's or American threats to annexe Greenland is not to say that one is better, but that all are bad (and we should oppose them, starting with the ones closest to our camp).

    These issues are complex, and there is no one right view. If you want to support Western imperialism as better or less malign than any other then that is your choice. The most important thing is to recognise injustice nearby and make sure that our own actions are not furthering it whatever the ideology behind it.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 4.1
      23 March 2025 at 1:24 pm

      Thanks for your input Barry!

      Sure "tankies" do exist, but they get lost in the multitude of astroturf users. The author is in danger of exactly the same hubris that he/she is railing against.

      Therein lies the crux of my argument: despite their small numbers, their dogmatism and myopia combined with their stridency has given them an outsized impact: both in leftist discourse, and in how the electorate perceives the left.

      Just look at the enormous amount of screen time and column inches given to Democrats who refused to vote for Joe Biden over Palestine or Ukraine.

      It is a political risk we can ill afford. And simply a rehash of Stalinism.

      Reply
      • KJT 4.1.1
        23 March 2025 at 1:36 pm

        Refusing to vote for genocide in Palastine is a genuine moral stance.

        Russia is obviously also the aggresser in Ukrain, and other ex Soviet States.

        Refusing to continue to vote for the lesser of two evils in the USA is an understandable stance. The US supposed "left" The Democrates supporting oligarchy blew their credibility, and left a gap the Repubs could drive a cart through. However the US Democrats are "left" only compared with the US "right". They are still well to the right of the old NZ National party. Before it got "Seymoured"!

        Reply
  5. KJT 5
    23 March 2025 at 1:29 pm

    Straw man much!

    "Lefties" should not be defending those who bomb babies and indeed, authoritanarians of any stripe. I know of very few that even consider it.
    There is no “USA good”, “China bad”, “Russia bad” or visa versa. They are, at the end of the day, all, ruthless and callous baby killers.

    Yes. China is an overly authoritarian State Oligopoly. Russia is a callous semi dictatorship. The USA is a war mongering Oligopoly descending into fascism. The effect of any of these wannabee empires on the world is not positive. If someone is bombing your town, you fast forget about their claimed politics

    However characterising supporters of Democratic socialism, as most on TP, and the NZ left are, as "hard left authoritarian" and "Tankies" is a definite strawman example.

    Meanwhile actual wannabee fascists in NZ, are busily knawing away at the foundations of our society.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 5.1
      23 March 2025 at 2:00 pm

      Lefties" should not be defending those who bomb babies and indeed, authoritanarians of any stripe.

      I agree entirely. But there are plenty on the left, including on this very site, who beg to differ.

      Reply
    • weka 5.2
      23 March 2025 at 10:39 pm

      However characterising supporters of Democratic socialism, as most on TP, and the NZ left are, as "hard left authoritarian" and "Tankies" is a definite strawman example.

      I thought the post was delineating between democratic socialism and tankies.

      Reply
      • KJT 5.2.1
        24 March 2025 at 8:46 am

        I thought the post was a rather nuanced way of saying.

        "USA good. Russia and China bad". And "lefties" shouldn't criticise "Liberal Democracies" (which are generally not Democracies BTW) or say they are really no better than the above, because it makes "lefties" look bad. That was said about the Vietnam war protests, as well.

        I'be largely kept out of these conversations, because they rapidly descend into simplistic, "my bunch of murderous baby killers = goodies". "Your bunch of murderous baby killers = Badies".

        To me. They are all bad! Whatever the excuse.

        And it is way past time so called "human civilisation" made things like this past history.

        I'all sit back and watch the apologists, saying "at least they are not as bad as (insert your favourite baddies de jour)" as the Trump regime makes the underlaying barbarity of the USA, gruesomely apparent.

        I watched and protested against Mei Lai and the US supporting a repressive right wing Vietnamese Government and Pol Pot (Because he was fighting Vietcong) when I was young. Now we have civilians in Gaza and Somalia being bombed, again! by the "goodies". Russia bombing civilians in Ukraine to keep a Dictator in power. The "goodies" supporting those who wanted to violently overthrow an elected Government in Venezuala, and elsewhere. The US following the Nazi example of identifying "badies" to keep power. Something our own right wing Governments are happy to do with the unemployed, also!

        When will we learn?

        Hopefully not when my Grandkids are conscripted for another pointless piece of ape postering between the leaders of the USA and China, to make arms manufacturers, rich? Or when the simplistic fools on both sides escalate it to nuclear extinction?

        Reply
        • Res Publica 5.2.1.1
          24 March 2025 at 9:03 am

          I thought the post was a rather nuanced way of saying.

          I'll take the compliment wink

          "USA good. Russia and China bad". And "lefties" shouldn't criticise "Liberal Democracies" (which are generally not Democracies BTW) or say they are really no better than the above, because it makes "lefties" look bad. That was said about the Vietnam war protests, as well.

          I think that's more than a little ham-fisted. On the contrary, I have not at any point argued that the USA (or any state for that matter) is morally "better" or "good." That would be falling prey to exactly the same fantasy I'm decrying.

          Tankies are the ones embracing what they perceived to be a lesser evil (as long as it's dressed up in the right kind of drag) in their haste to find a counterbalance to what they perceive to be the greatest evil in the USA/capitalism/oligarchy/oppressive structure du jour.

          And, in doing so, perform all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to justify autocracy, repression, and flagrant human rights abuses.

          It's that attempt at moral equivalence which makes them so intellectually bankrupt and politically toxic.

          If we want social democracy to be electorally viable and stay true to our values, we have to call out all tyrants and all aggression. Not selectively ignore them when they're carried out by our favourite strongmen.

          Reply
        • Phillip ure 5.2.1.2
          24 March 2025 at 9:26 am

          Wot kjt said..

          ..and I find it puzzling that the author seems to conclude that others don't have the intellect to understand how the decades long west policy of encircling Russia ..the CIA driven coup in 2014..etc..etc..have all added to the paranoia fueling Putin…

          …and be opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine ..

          …these two ideas can exist side by side..

          .. understanding the causes of Putin's (well-justified it could be argued) paranoia…does not mean that one supports Putin/the invasion..

          And I feel the above illustrates the problem with the arguments you present. .

          ..they seem to be one-dimensional…lacking nuance…

          …and I think you are talking about a species that is nearing extinction…I have never heard anyone with the suite of political beliefs you list…

          Another example is that netanyahu is a war criminal…a fucken child killing monster. .and what was done to the victims of the invasion of Israel was also an unconscionable horror…

          ..these two ideas can also exist side by side..

          ..and opposing all the invasions/regime changes done by America over the decades..does not ipso facto mean that one supports leftwing authoritarian regimes…

          ..pretty much every president of America (Carter excepted…Obama included)..is a war-criminal..has blood dripping from their fingers…

          ..but once again..understanding/knowing this does not mean the believer is a Putin fanboy…

          …I would urge the writer to seek out nuance ..

          Reply
          • Res Publica 5.2.1.2.1
            24 March 2025 at 9:44 am

            And I'd urge you to actually read my submission instead of jumping to conclusions because I refused to embrace your reflexive anti-Americanism.

            What I am arguing is that there are elements on the left that are incapable of understanding the argument you just made: It is absolutely possible to deplore Israel's war crimes in Gaza while at the same time condemning the terrorist attack that promoted them.

            Instead, they justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine with some specious argument about Putin's paranoia or strategic encirclement. And by absolutely ignoring the fact that Russia's neighbours have agency too. They're allowed to decide to join NATO if they feel threatened by Russia's well documented aggression.

            Or, they embrace China as a "socialist" state by ignoring the brutality of their police state, their ever-growing preparedness to threaten the use of military force, and the absolute lack of anything approaching democracy or human rights.

            Reply
            • Phillip ure 5.2.1.2.1.1
              24 March 2025 at 10:40 am

              I did read your whole piece..

              ..and what you call my 'reflex anti-americanism'.. is just a reading of the historical records of American presidents..

              I do not consider myself to be anti-american…

              I do consider myself to be anti much of what America does/has done..in international politics..

              (That's that nuance thing again..eh..?)

              And identifying the source of Putin's paranoia…does not mean automatic support for his invasion of Ukraine..

              And..in general..I would double down on the idea that you are describing a cartoon figure…who once was..but now is largely extinct…

              And if discussing the imprisonment rates in other countries..maybe you should also look closer to home..
              (My support for kjt was for comment number 5)

              Reply
          • Tiger Mountain 5.2.1.2.2
            24 March 2025 at 11:59 am

            yes

            Reply
          • Tiger Mountain 5.2.1.2.3
            24 March 2025 at 12:00 pm

            yes

            Reply
        • Tiger Mountain 5.2.1.3
          24 March 2025 at 12:01 pm

          yes

          Reply
  6. KJT 6
    23 March 2025 at 1:45 pm

    I remember being told "you shouldn't be protesting about Vietnam, because the "communists" are much worse".

    Well. I expect better from someone who says they are "our friends", than carpet bombing uninvolved civilians and propping up ruthless Dictatorships, because they are "our side".

    Reply
    • aj 6.1
      23 March 2025 at 2:11 pm

      Yes. Pointing out double standards, and hypocrisy so thick you could choke on it, is completely different to suggesting a wrong isn't a wrong because of another wrong.

      Reply
    • Res Publica 6.2
      23 March 2025 at 2:14 pm

      Cool. As long as you are just as strident in your opposition to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine.

      And the worrying assertiveness of Xi Jiping's China.

      Reply
      • KJT 6.2.1
        23 March 2025 at 2:26 pm

        If China invades Taiwan. I will be opposing that as well.

        And the Saudi’s bombing Yemen, with US support.

        And. I’ve been known to support our Government sanctioning Putin, and removing assets from Russian Oligarchs.

        But where were you, as the USA destroyed Venezuela with saunctions for the "crime" of electing a Socialist?

        And the many other violent "regime changes" where the USA, installed authoritarian Dictatorships friendly to US business. How many died in Argentina, to name just one.

        It is not an either/or. They are all, arseholes!

        Putin has plenty of examples of the USA and others invading countries they had no right to and getting away with it, to encourage him in the idea that the “International rule of law” is observed more in the breach.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 6.2.1.1
          23 March 2025 at 3:29 pm

          But where were you, as the USA destroyed Venezuela with saunctions for the "crime" of electing a Socialist?

          I was at uni at the time and wrote many an essay on American imperialism and human rights abuses in South America and elsewhere.

          As for the Venezuelan regime, it may have started with the best of intentions, but has now inarguably devolved into an opressive police state that arrests and imprisons its critics.

          You can argue that the US has interfered, and youd be right. But ultimitely Chavez and Maduro are responsible for their actions.

          Reply
          • KJT 6.2.1.1.1
            24 March 2025 at 8:57 am

            Most States "repress" "dissenters" that are advocating their being violently overthrown.

            Reply
            • Res Publica 6.2.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2025 at 9:21 am

              Yes, but only some jail or disappear their opponents for the hideous crime of protesting, running legitimate opposition political parties, or speaking out against the ruling regime.

              As far as I'm aware, New Zealand has tried exactly one person who made death threats against the Prime Minister and had a plan to conduct terrorist attacks against key power infrastructure. But we're yet to haul Chloe Swarbrick or Chris Hipkins off tojail for daring to disagree with our glorious ruling triumvirate.

              Well, duumvirate really. There's probably a hilarious and entertaining post comparing and contrasting Luxon, Peters and Seymour with Lepidus, Octavian, and Marcus Antonius in that somewhere. Maybe the topic of my next submission….

              Contrast that with the tragic treatment of Alexei Navalny. Or all those anti-Putin or Putin-skeptical Russian oligarchs and politicians that have had convenient and tragic defenestration-related accidents.

              Reply
              • KJT …
                24 March 2025 at 2:51 pm

                Don't worry.

                The NZ right has their own ways of dealing with "dissidents'.

                Even more effective, because they are largely under the radar.

                I've had my own experience of this.

                Why so many "lefty" commentators remain under a pen name.

                Reply
          • Phillip ure 6.2.1.1.2
            24 March 2025 at 3:55 pm

            Res publica 6.2.11

            Nuance alert..!..

            Hard to estimate the effects in Venezuela of the full-on economic war launched upon it by America ..for the temerity of electing a socialist leader…

            The aim of the Americans was to damage the Venezuelan economy/government as much as possible…and in that they succeeded…

            Reply
        • mikeshUnderlying igt all are 6.2.1.2
          24 March 2025 at 11:15 am

          Underlying it all is a battle between two political/economic ideologies: social democracy and neoliberalism. Russia seems to favour the first, while the USA favours the second. Europe is just confused.

          Reply
          • weka 6.2.1.2.1
            24 March 2025 at 11:18 am

            please fix your username before next comment.

            Reply
          • Res Publica 6.2.1.2.2
            24 March 2025 at 11:44 am

            There is absolutely ZERO ways in which contemporary Russia is either Socialist, or a democracy.

            The underlying issue is more between authoritarians willing to prop up brutal, undemocratic, repressive and morally reprehensible regimes in the pursuit of some quixotic anti-capitalist and anti-western crusade, and social democrats willing to fight for pluralism, equity, and human dignity.

            Reply
            • weka 6.2.1.2.2.1
              24 March 2025 at 11:53 am

              pro-social vs pro-control

              Reply
            • mikesh 6.2.1.2.2.2
              24 March 2025 at 7:59 pm

              "Tyranny" in the past was not necessarily a pejorative word.

              There are benign authoritarians, as well less benign, and there are also thoroughly unbenign ones. The only idiots, useful or otherwise, are those who don't realize this; and in particular those who don't know the difference. The only true democracy is one in which the government rules for the benefit of all its citizens, not just for the benefit of a small. usually wealthy, elite. This seems to be the case in Russia and China, but I would doubt whether this is the case with many of the western so called democracies. However whether such states are authoritarian or not, is probably not the deciding factor.

              The only other characteristic of a true democracy would be that workers participate in the ownership and decision making of the entities in which they work. There are instances of this of course, e.g. Mondragon in Spain, but these instances are far and few between.

              PS:
              sorry about the problem with the user name on my
              previous comment. Now fixed.

              Reply
  7. Champaign Socialist 7
    23 March 2025 at 3:13 pm

    That is a very triggering article for a self identified 'pro-authoritarian leftist' and I definitely see the moral equivalence between different countries actions when it comes to geo-politics – shouldn't we all?

    I like to think it's because I try to take a more open minded perspective on geo-politics and look at things from all sides.

    And just to throw in some what about-ism: I'd be interested to know where Israel (not mentioned in the article) sits in ‘the great pantheon of morally superior nations’ (that the article implies exist) in terms of human rights? Is what the IDF does worse or better than what China does when it comes to managing difficult Muslim populations?

    How many Muslim civilians have been bombed by the Chinese air force and navy? Has the Chinese military killed more than 50,000 Uyghur people in the past year? I'm not sure but I guess we might have heard about it if they had.

    It’s not that hard to make the case that China and Russia are – at the very least – no better or worse than any other nation when it comes to the military atrocities we all (the global community) willingly commit ourselves, or accept from our allies to achieve geo-political outcomes.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 7.1
      23 March 2025 at 3:24 pm

      I'd be interested to know where Israel (not mentioned in the article) sits in ‘the great pantheon of morally superior nations’ (that the article implies exist) in terms of human rights? Is what the IDF does worse or better than what China does when it comes to managing difficult Muslim populations?

      I don't believe any nation can claim to be morally superior. Especially if they're a great power.

      Israel's invasion of Gaza may be somewhat justifiable given HAMAS terrorist attack on a bunch of civilians.

      But the IDFs conduct has been nothing short of deplorable, and conflict had devolved into an exercise in war crimes and ever escalating human righta abuses by Israel designed to prolong the confllict, keep Netenyahu in power, and generate as much devastatiom as possible.

      So yeah, war crimes bad.

      Reply
      • mikesh 7.1.1
        24 March 2025 at 8:11 pm

        So yeah, war crimes bad.

        Something of a tautology I think. If they were not bad they wouldn't really be crimes, would they.

        [If you deliberately choose to misunderstand the Author’s reply [not to you] @ 7.1 then you shouldn’t comment under this [his] Post with troll-ish obtuse replies. This is your warning – Incognito]

        Reply
    • Psycho Milt 7.2
      23 March 2025 at 4:31 pm

      I'd be interested to know where Israel (not mentioned in the article) sits in ‘the great pantheon of morally superior nations’ (that the article implies exist) in terms of human rights?

      There is no "great pantheon of morally superior nations," but there sure are liberal democracies with rule of law that are objectively less harmful to the people who live in them and less of a threat to their neighbours than the world's authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. It doesn't take any great depth of thought to notice which of the two groups Israel's in.

      Reply
      • Champaign Socialist 7.2.1
        23 March 2025 at 9:01 pm

        When I was much younger I also held a rose tinted view of 'liberal democracy' until I had to research its history for an essay.

        For most of it's history 'democracy' has been the preserve of the ruling elite not the popular expression of benign governance so many believe it to be.

        The early Greek democracy relied on 10 slaves for every voting citizen. The only reason any one in Europe got the vote, eventually, in the 1800's was because the Russian people started dragging the ruling class into the street and shooting them in front of their servants.

        New Zealanders who did not own property were not able to vote until the late 1800's.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 7.2.1.1
          23 March 2025 at 9:17 pm

          And your point is, what, exactly?

          There is no such thing as a perfect state or a perfect political system: those with power and wealth will always seek to further there interests.

          But liberal democracy (as opposed to it's classical forebears) at least allows for the rule of law, oppprtunities for everyone to participate in the political process, and a check on the most egregious abuses of power.

          As Churchill surmised: it's a terrible, messy system.

          But it's still better than the alternatives.

          Reply
          • Champaign Socialist 7.2.1.1.1
            24 March 2025 at 9:32 am

            My point is to look past the mythology we tell ourselves about 'liberal democracy' and look at the real world outcomes for the ordinary 'labor for income' reliant person. I question the claimed benevolence and 'rule of law' that you claim exist – ask disabled NZ'ers how 'the rule of law' is working out for them right now. Ask Maori how the democratic will of the Pakeha majority is impacting their economic well being at the moment.

            Reply
            • Res Publica 7.2.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2025 at 9:48 am

              We’ve been grappling with the idea of the “perfect” political system since Plato, and so far, nobody’s cracked it—including liberal democracy.

              So tell me—what’s the alternative? What system guarantees justice, equity, and freedom better than what we’ve got?

              Or maybe the real challenge is accepting democracy as it is: flawed, fragile, and always under threat—not least from majoritarianism.
              Maybe the task is to defend it fiercely, hold it accountable, and keep working to build something fairer within it.

              Reply
              • Champaign Socialist …
                24 March 2025 at 10:00 am

                I'm not the one making the claim that there is some type of 'better than others' system – I see a range of different governing systems that have good and bad outcomes for different groups of people (economic classes) living under that system. When you step back and take a more objective view of different governing models you can see the pro's and con's of each of them without, necessarily, claiming that one is superior to the other. Because that will always be context specific.

                If you want to examine a governing system that is focused on 'working to build something fairer within it' you'd do well to study the Chinese Communist Party and the economic outcomes they have delivered to living standards of the people they govern.

                Compare that to livings standards across the US, UK or NZ economies.

                Reply
                • Res Publica …
                  24 March 2025 at 10:20 am

                  If you're looking for a system that's "working to build something fairer," the Chinese Communist Party might look good. As long as you're Han Chinese, live in a major city, never question the Party line, and are okay being monitored by a surveillance state that makes the Stasi look amateur.

                  Step out of line, and you're one bad social credit score away from disappearing into a "re-education" camp in Outer Mongolia.

                  Sure, material living standards have risen. But from a very low base. Which cold comfort if you're on the wrong side of the regime, rural, Uyghur, dissident, or just unlucky.

                  And before you assume I’m parroting Western propaganda: I speak reasonably fluent Mandarin, studied Chinese history at university, and understand very well how the CCP functions—and how little it's changed from dynastic rule in terms of authoritarian control.

                  Also, if we’re talking about analyzing systems “in context,” Marx himself would probably raise an eyebrow at any analysis that divorces political structures from material power and class dynamics.

                  Context matters. But it doesn't mean suspending moral or political judgment.

                  Reply
                  • Champaign Socialist …
                    24 March 2025 at 10:36 am

                    "But it doesn't mean suspending moral or political judgment." – let's agree on that at least.

                    I'm impressed that you know Mandarin and studied Chinese history which means you will know a lot more of the details than I do.

                    Reply
                • Champaign Socialist …
                  24 March 2025 at 11:38 am

                  I'm not sure about this – maybe it happened in the past? Not sure if this is the case in modern China – is this openly taking place? Is there evidence for this statement: "Step out of line, and you're one bad social credit score away from disappearing into a "re-education" camp in Outer Mongolia."

                  I haven't hear of this but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

                  Reply
              • KJT …
                24 March 2025 at 11:01 am

                It would help. If we were actually 'allowed' democracy.

                I don't consider Equity of opportunity too much to expect either.

                Note. "Equality is giving everyone the same shoes. Equity is giving everyone shoes that fit".

                I don't think either is too much to ask in a wealthy functional State?

                Reply
                • Dennis Frank …
                  24 March 2025 at 12:04 pm

                  yes "Equality is giving everyone the same shoes. Equity is giving everyone shoes that fit" I googled that to see which genius originated the quote & got a woman on LinkedIn – nobody else.

                  Seems like an excellent summary of how the left went wrong historically as compared to what it ought to do. The equity principle isn't just aspirational: it is grounded in human evolutionary context.

                  Many science books inform us that surviving hunter/gatherer tribes don't accumulate wealth, with an actively conformist ethos marginalising hunters who are spectacularly successful. Specific descriptions of how they suppress the personal ego of such high performers abound.

                  As a believer in merit, it kinda gives me the shivers but the constraining effect on tribal behaviour is indeed awe-inspiring. It is clearly adaptive. It teaches excellent hunters to use a humility stance in collective context.

                  Reply
          • Phillip ure 7.2.1.1.2
            24 March 2025 at 3:33 pm

            Res publica @7.2.1.1. there are 'alternatives'/better ways of doing things..

            An obvious one is to look to the countries whose citizens regularly top the happiest scales ..

            ..the oft cited reason for that 'happiness' in all of them..is that they have strong social support for all citizens..

            ..can I suggest starting there..?

            ..and seeing how you go…

            Reply
            • Res Publica 7.2.1.1.2.1
              24 March 2025 at 3:49 pm

              You're preaching to the choir, friend. I'm very much an out-and-out social democrat.

              I simply abhor the strain of left thought that justifies authoritarianism and repression. And would gladly have me up against a wall for not displaying sufficient revolutionary ardour in the event they gain power.

              Reply
              • Phillip ure …
                24 March 2025 at 6:55 pm

                I was in the green party when the party was colonized by the ex-labourites…so I know of what you speak..

                Rigid thinking abounded…

                Then the party was colonised by the anti-ge mob…

                Yet more rigid thinking..

                I also had the experience of observing the negotiations between greens and labour around an upcoming local govt election..

                I half expected the thick necked labour reps to start talking about 'trouble at mill'…and the like…

                But that was the last time I saw the species you describe..

                (They are most probably all now on the committees of bowling clubs ..up and down the land..)

                Reply
    • SPC 7.3
      24 March 2025 at 10:45 am

      China's internal repression does not involve managing any armed resistance. Thus incarceration and indoctrination.

      It is (even more than the UK) a very panopticon society in terms of surveillance of its population and its people know they have no due process when the state comes for them.

      It’s not that hard to make the case that China and Russia are – at the very least – no better or worse than any other nation when it comes to the military atrocities

      They both have an unimpeachable record as to domestic atrocity (1930's and 1960's).

      The China regimes military record is basically Tibet, border conflict with India and Vietnam, involvement in the Korean War (to restoration of 1950 borders because some pillock went to the Yalu River to nimby provoke China) and territorial claims in the South and East China Sea (off Taiwan).

      And Russia … . 1945 Germany. Bombing cities in Syria. Feb 2022 invasion of Ukraine (people captive in Russia). Really?

      Reply
  8. alwyn 8
    23 March 2025 at 8:29 pm

    I wish that this post didn't have, on the home page, a photo of the man who stood up to the tanks in Tiananmen Square.

    I hope you don't mean to imply that he was just a "Useful Idiot" rather than a truly heroic figure.

    Reply
    • joe90 8.1
      23 March 2025 at 8:45 pm

      I'd like to think image is to remind useful idiots of their betrayal of the victims of authoritarian regimes.

      Reply
    • Res Publica 8.2
      23 March 2025 at 8:59 pm

      Not at all!

      It's a challenge to authoritarian leftists: tank man had the moral and physical courage to literally stand up to a regime prepared to run him over with a tank.

      They can't even find the intellectual wherewithal to midly criticise that same regime from the safety and comfort of their keyboards. While at the same time trying to claim his legacy.

      Reply
    • lprent 8.3
      23 March 2025 at 9:39 pm

      I hope you don't mean to imply that he was just a "Useful Idiot" rather than a truly heroic figure.

      Res Publica didn't pick the featured image or write the excerpt. Pro-tip for guest posts – pays to provide them otherwise I or someone with a editor role will make a decision for you.

      I did because RP didn't supply them. I got caught by the word "Tankie" which I hadn't run across before. So when I looked it up on wikipedia I got the reference along with images.

      Soviet tanks in Hungary in 1956 – when I was -3 years old

      Or 1968 in Czechoslovakia when I was 9

      At age 65, I couldn't remember either of these myself. Just from history books.

      So I queried for images of "tanks in protests", and picked a more modern photo of tanks being used to quell dissent and protest. In 1989 I was 30 years old. I even saw the TV images (we didn't get a TV until 1974).

      Reply
      • Res Publica 8.3.1
        23 March 2025 at 11:23 pm

        Turned out to be an inspired choice!

        But I'll definitely provide a photo next time

        Reply
      • Champaign Socialist 8.3.2
        24 March 2025 at 9:48 am

        https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/0c87e86/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3898x2590+0+0/resize/1260x838!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F56%2F8f%2F0bd1b7ad4cf5a89fbb007c97d172%2Fjohn-lewis-selma-1965.jpg

        Reply
      • Champaign Socialist 8.3.3
        24 March 2025 at 9:52 am

        Reply
        • lprent 8.3.3.1
          24 March 2025 at 11:28 am

          That one still tends to be a bit too real for me. Still have the stitch scar on my top lib from having a baton at the 3rd test.

          Reply
          • Anne 8.3.3.1.1
            24 March 2025 at 11:48 am

            Still have the horrible image of an anti-tour protestor outside Eden Park who had blood pouring out of his ear after having been bludgeoned by a police officer. The force used must have been tremendous and suggested to me it was delivered with excessive hatred.

            Reply
      • alwyn 8.3.4
        24 March 2025 at 4:17 pm

        I hadn't realised that the author didn't necessarily write the extract, or provide the photo. It was seeing the large heading and the photo together which made me wonder about an intended connection. I remember this from when it happened and found it an incredible act of protest. I wouldn't have ever had the nerve.

        The funny part about the photo is that the photographer was annoyed when the protestor came onto the scene. He thought it would ruin the composition of the shot which was only going to be the line of tanks.

        Reply
  9. gsays 9
    24 March 2025 at 9:18 am

    Yep, confirmation that the 'Left' will find more and more ways to divide, to other and to ostracize what would normally be our allies.

    Another example of being unwilling to accept that there may be something in what others are saying. Best to keep arguing past them and don't forget the ad homs.

    Be it 'cooker', ' trans-phobic', 'tankie'…rest assured, in a month or two there will be another dividing line.

    A crack, that too many will give too much attention to and turn it into a schism.

    We can't rely on the incompetence of Luxon et al to make this a one term government.

    We need to look at what we do have in common and be willing to ' forgive their trespasses'.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 9.1
      24 March 2025 at 9:51 am

      I hear the frustration gsays: being labelled can feel like a shut door when you’re trying to have a serious conversation.

      But here's the thing: naming power dynamics or problematic ideas isn’t always about “dividing” people. Sometimes it's just part of the hard, uncomfortable work of figuring out who we are, what we stand for, and how we move forward together.

      ACT makes a similar move when they say the Left is “dividing New Zealanders by ethnicity” just for acknowledging that Māori have distinct rights and historical grievances. Is that really division? Or is it reckoning with difference and injustice?

      I'm intending to do the same thing here. Sometimes the lines that feel like schisms are actually just people drawing boundaries around harm or expressing where solidarity needs work.

      That’s not the same as “ostracizing allies.” Maybe it's an invitation to reflect and reconnect more deeply.

      We can,and should,look for common ground. But we also can’t build solidarity by pretending real tensions and harms don’t exist.

      Reply
      • gsays 9.1.1
        24 March 2025 at 10:54 am

        "Maybe it's an invitation to reflect and reconnect more deeply."

        Moral cowardice, pro authoritarian leftist, simping for fascists, ideological masochism, and self-sabotaging fringe are not invitations they are accusations. Instantly provoking defensiveness not reflection.

        With:

        "…we must cast them out of leftist discourse entirely. There is no path forward that includes them: only regression towards irrelevance, disgrace, and ideological rot."

        this just another Achilles Heel of the left, Political Purity.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 9.1.1.1
          24 March 2025 at 12:32 pm

          shrug The hurly burly of politics occasionally requires us to throw a jab or two. Besides, I've been called far worse, even on this blog.

          Reply
  10. gsays 10
    24 March 2025 at 10:17 am

    Cheers for the thoughtful reply.

    Reply
  11. francesca 11
    24 March 2025 at 10:44 am

    I'm always a bit staggered by the cultural chauvinism of true believers .They are unwilling to concede that any declared western "adversary" may have relevant points

    Terms like "tankies", "cookers" , "deplorables" attempt to shut down any dissident thinking

    Here's one of those ignorant "tankies" for you (Good to keep abreast of how the enemy is thinking )

    Reply
    • SPC 11.1
      24 March 2025 at 11:00 am

      This guy.

      Two thousand years of geopolitics has taught us a simple and obvious lesson: All great powers will put their own interests first and, if necessary, sacrifice the interests of their allies.

      Trump is behaving like a rational geopolitical actor in putting what he perceives to be his country's interests first. Europe shouldn't just criticize Trump—instead, it should emulate him.

      It should carry out the currently unthinkable option: Declare that henceforth it will be a strategically autonomous actor on the world stage that will put its own interests first.

      Trump may finally show some respect for Europe if it does that.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishore_Mahbubani

      The EU and UN were formed for more noble purposes.

      Reply
    • Res Publica 11.2
      24 March 2025 at 11:38 am

      I tend to ignore any YouTube video that has the word TRUTH in capital letters in the title.

      As a general rule, it means it's either someone's ill-informed take masquerading as a major relvelation, or propaganda.

      Reply
  12. AB 12
    24 March 2025 at 11:03 am

    This is a good post, but with flaws. In particular, the more the author has to qualify and explain the original post, the more the group of people to whom his/her definition literally applies shrinks to something near vanishing point. 'Tankies' may barely exist in the flesh, but tankie-ism does. But tankie-ism can run in both ideological directions and it usually appears as a rational weakness, a moral lapse that maybe all of us are subject to at times. The desire to not see the world as irremediably evil on all sides and everywhere at the same time, is a powerful one. That is too dark a vision for humans to sustain.

    Reply
    • weka 12.1
      24 March 2025 at 11:23 am

      are you using tankie-ism there to mean the tendency to fall back into authority and control and the main way of achieving political ends?

      I was also thinking of the old school lefties like Chris Trotter, who have that tendency towards authority as fall back position.

      The challenge is we live in an increasingly scary global situation (climate/ecology, disease, rising fascism, peak capitalism) and we know that people tend to become more conservative when stressed and afraid. I don't think the left are immune to this, but we do have the opportunity to put our values and ideals into practice.

      I'd really like the left to have the conversation about the inherent fail of trying to force people to be liberal/progressive. At the moment it looks like we are relying on enough people hating the right, and this won't work in the polycrisis.

      Reply
      • AB 12.1.1
        24 March 2025 at 11:42 am

        are you using tankie-ism there to mean the tendency to fall back into authority and control and the main way of achieving political ends?

        Yes – mostly that. Also to believe that if evil exists, what contends with it must be good – a Manichean dualism. I think we could say that there is right wing (and maybe even centrist) tankieism too.

        Reply
        • weka 12.1.1.1
          24 March 2025 at 11:49 am

          huh, I'd missed that. So it's the self-framing of inherent goodness simply because one is opposing evil? Does this preclude self-reflection and the ability to see the the flaws in one's own politics?

          The RW one, I see that with the new righties who don't simply disagree with leftist politics, but see the left as basically destroying society. These people are often socially liberal, but don't have the excesses of liberal woke extremism and it's the latter they see as evil not social liberalism. The Triggernometry hosts would be an obvious example.

          Reply
    • Res Publica 12.2
      24 March 2025 at 12:50 pm

      Although I disagree with your analysis, I appreciate your thoughtful and well-reasoned critique.

      Maybe I'm just too terminally online, like many of the other young (well, 37-year-old) kids these days. But the spaces I live and play in are absolutely rife with tankies and tankie-ism.

      And I'm hopeful that if we can put aside seeing the world as some gigantic Manichean struggle between good and evil we are willing to sacrifice our values to fight, that there is a better and gentler way to build a better society, one step at a time.

      Reply
  13. SPC 13
    24 March 2025 at 11:21 am

    Tankie

    Historic

    1.anti-capitalist, so west bad

    2.with the anti-communism collective security of the west being a threat to socialism, western foreign policy and exercise of military power (NATO) is a bad thing.

    Current

    1.neo-liberal globalism a threat to democratic (nation state) socialism

    2.the continued existence of NATO and anti-China containment policy being a threat to peace loving regimes in Moscow and Beijing.

    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=tankie-ism

    Reply
    • lprent 13.1
      24 March 2025 at 11:43 am

      Don't know about China being peace loving. There simply isn't enough evidence outside of their borders. Disputes about borders with eroding mountains and even who owns what reefs haven't devolved into severe military or even significiant economic action.

      But Russia certainly hasn't been kind towards their neighbouring states in recent decades. They appear to have a overwhelming fetish that neighbouring states do not have any right to determine their own economic, political, and defensive futures. Classic empire posture. They appear to be puzzled about why many of their neighbours are clamouring to join anyone but Russia in binding economic and defensive treaties.

      The US also has that tendency. Less against their direct neighbours in recent decades than in times past. But they are still a pain in the arse within trade agreements – for instance the mess that they made of expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP).

      Reply
      • Res Publica 13.1.1
        24 March 2025 at 12:21 pm

        Although it has yet to engage in direct economic or military action, China has certainly become increasingly aggressive and assertive in it's competition over the South China Sea:

        China’s New Wave of Aggressive Assertiveness in the South China Sea

        What’s Really Behind Chinese Assertiveness in the South China Sea? – The Diplomat

        It's also proved itself willing to utilise plausibly deniable assets such as a "maritime militia" to enforce its will over its neighbours and maintain its claims over the Spratley and Paracel Islands.

        In particular, they've been disrupting Filipino efforts to supply their base at Holy Cross Shoal for several years now.

        Reply
        • lprent 13.1.1.1
          24 March 2025 at 1:27 pm

          Sure. That is worth watching and preparing to deal with if it ever becomes an issue.

          But with China the intent hasn’t been proven to date. eg with Holy Cross Shoal, the Chinese marines haven’t been sent in to evict Filipino marines. They have been pushing the bounds but not exceeding them. If I was Filipino I’d be concerned about military intent and capability. As a kiwi intent on trade, I’m mostly interested in keeping sea lanes and airways open and the rule of law.

          History is replete with examples of what I’d called ‘border jostling’, it is also filled with those threats either dissipating or being resolved on a reasonably equitable basis diplomatically. The number that wind up as trigger points or a wider conflict is actually pretty small as a proportion.

          I’m more concerned about changes in military and economic capability. Mostly military in our case because of our vulnerability to closed trade route issues. We can usually find other customers when we have to, it is something that happens regularly every other decade. So being leveraged economically by China would hurt, but wouldn’t kill us economically. We’d be able to shift markets at the cost of a lower growth rate before our economy gets hit badly.

          But military capability risk is a lot harder for us to raise capability in a timely manner. That takes decades to increase substantially, whereas political changes can happen rapidly. So risk from relative changes in military capabilities and alliances is what we need to focus on.

          Russia has a repeated track record of intent in invading and generally being militarily involved in other countries. Fortunately, they aren’t close and are largely landlocked. Outside of nuclear, our main concern with them would be destroying European markets in the event of a large war.

          China has a military capability capable of interference with trade routes, but little apparent intent. The capability and how to respond to it is requires our attention now. The question about intent I can probably leave to my younger relatives to find out.

          Reply
        • Drowsy M. Kram 13.1.1.2
          24 March 2025 at 1:58 pm

          Moreover, major power improvements notwithstanding, in the years when the assertive behavior took place, China was still far away from overtaking the United States. In other words, China’s power did not pass any particular threshold in the “assertive” era.
          …
          Hence, I argue for the theory of China’s “reactive assertiveness,” at least when it comes to the events in the South China Sea.

          That 2017 article, the second linked to @13.1.1, suggests (to me) that China is 'playing' 'assertiveness catch-up". I prefer NZ's democratic governance (simply the best, better than (nearly) all the rest), but flawed democracies and undemocratic countries have no less a 'right' to be assertive – imho, 'assertiveness' will be increasingly needs-based in the overshoot pressure cooker that is spaceship Earth.

          China's Coercion of States in the Asia-Pacific Region [book; 2025]
          Through two in-depth case studies of Chinese coercion, targeting the Philippines and South Korea, respectively, the book demonstrates that, first, the reason China coerces is that the secondary state engages in actions that fundamentally threaten China’s security interests, and, second, it will coerce these states only if other policy options geared to change the secondary state’s course of action have not worked. Employing balance-of-power theory, and particularly wedge strategies, the book solves a pertinent research question and improves our knowledge of contemporary security politics in the Asia-Pacific.

          https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=Z3RGv6sAAAAJ&hl=en

          EXAMINING CHINA’S COERCIVE ECONOMIC TACTICS
          TO: RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS
          FROM: RULES COMMITTEE MAJORITY AND MINORITY STAFF
          On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, at 2:00 P.M. ET, the Committee on Rules will hold a hearing entitled, Examining China’s Coercive Economic Tactics, to explore how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) utilizes economic coercion to achieve their goals, discuss what tools are available to combat this approach, and what should Congress do going forward.

          https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115789/documents/HHRG-118-RU00-20230510-SD118.pdf

          The PRC government will have held similar meetings on what it should do about Trump's tariffs, 'going forward'.

          Reply
  14. SPC 14
    24 March 2025 at 11:38 am

    The difficulty of being Winston

    1.Quotes Peter Fraser at the UN (threat of the UNSC veto undermining collective security)

    2.Upholding our multi-lateralism – collective security, free trade and human rights values in the age of Trump tariffs, Trump seeking to expand US borders and his crass abuse of power against (only) the weaker to pose as the strong leader that has to be feared and obeyed.

    3.Pretends not to notice any of this while meeting Rubio.

    Now he comes home with some weird mixed metaphor, is he posing a parody of the populist right winger of the 1970's Muldoonist/Archie Bunker era (Murray Ball's Stanley) or as a reborn American seeking Trump's endorsement as a GOP candidate in 2026?

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/03/23/nz-first-leader-winston-peters-declares-war-on-woke/

    Reply
  15. Tiger Mountain 15
    24 March 2025 at 12:24 pm

    The original post is classic right opportunism–and falls into the trap so many do–of adopting “our” imperialist power as better than the other imperialist powers at various points in time, often on a nationalistic basis.

    KJT and Phillip Ure are onto it with “nuance” being important.

    The anti capitalist, class left, internationalist attitude is “neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing”. There are many practicalities and difficulties for working class people in implementing that obviously, but a better starting position than sucking up to 5 Eyes and Aukus or looking the other way re the Gaza IDF butchery.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 15.1
      24 March 2025 at 12:42 pm

      Please, do show me where in my post I argued that any one imperialist power is morally superior to the others.

      What I did argue is that if we’re going to condemn one, we have to be willing to condemn them all. Anything less opens the door to apologism and authoritarian creep — the same dynamic that fractured the Left in the ‘70s and ‘80s, when internecine street battles between authoritarians and social democrats rendered the movement politically impotent.

      I’m perfectly comfortable with “neither Washington, Moscow, nor Beijing.” But if we’re serious about that, then we have to be consistent. Which means being clear-eyed about the failings of all three. And yes, as a small state, our room for maneuver in foreign policy is limited. That’s not an excuse, just a fact worth acknowledging.

      But let’s also not lose the plot: all this grand theorising about imperialism, including my own contributions, humble or otherwise, is electorally marginal.

      Most voters aren’t parsing foreign policy nuance or debating multipolarity; they’re worried about rent, wages, healthcare, and the climate.

      If we want to build power for working people, that’s where our focus should be. Otherwise, we’re just shadowboxing with ghosts — and mistaking it for movement-building.

      Reply
  16. tWig 16
    24 March 2025 at 2:27 pm

    And comes back neatly to my point that if NZ tankies are full on supporting NZ unions and other left-supporting organisations that actually DO things IRL that support Nz’s socialist state, then for me, they are entitled to their view on international events, except for spreading mis- and disinformation.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    Reply
  17. Ad 17
    24 March 2025 at 3:19 pm

    It is a very, very small step now for Trump to simply withdraw from the United Nations altogether, as Hitler did in 1933 from the League of Nations the UN predecessor.

    We had a fairly authoritarian leftist state in the 1940s and 1950s because the scale of threat we faced necessitated it.

    Europe is remembering now the necessity of a much, much more empowered state looks like.

    We briefly remembered the necessity of the authoritarian state through our COVID response. We loved it for the 2020 election, then decided we didn't like it again.

    Sometimes we have to remember what the modern state was built for. The World Trade Organisation has already pretty much collapsed. The memory about the modern state gets revived when the structures we all built to avoid global war get dismantled. A UN collapse would do it, but it won't be built again.

    Reply
    • SPC 17.1
      24 March 2025 at 3:57 pm

      He will not withdraw from the UN – that would mean loss of the veto.

      Undermining the UN's global institutions is the path he is on.

      Setting the main UN body in New York was a way to lock the US in.

      The UNGA should pass a resolution that only nations that have paid their dues can exercise their veto.

      Reply
      • Ad 17.1.1
        24 March 2025 at 4:07 pm

        Trump already withdrew out of UNESCO, UNHRC, WHO, denuded the UN $$ contribution, and wiped out USAID.

        He's withdraw from Kyoto.

        He has collapsed US-EU detente.

        He has collapsed NAFTA and successor.

        That's his first 2 months.

        He is in process of destroying 5 Eyes and NATO.

        He's preparing to withdraw all US military bases from Europe.

        Elon and the 2025 program are fully locked in for UN withdrawal.

        He doesn't give a flying fig about any veto anywhere.

        You're not reading the moment we're in correctly.

        Reply

Leave a Comment