Revolting young

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 am, June 14th, 2013 - 400 comments
Categories: class war, human rights - Tags: , , ,

Bernard Hickey asked such an interesting question on Twitter that it’s worth a post and discussion here:

hickey-question

400 comments on “Revolting young ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1
    14 June 2013 at 9:09 am

    1. How do you know they haven’t already?
    2. If you have to ask the question you probably won’t understand the answer.

  2. vto 2
    14 June 2013 at 9:21 am

    The “young” will and have revolted by simply melting away into other spheres.

    It is a quiet revolt but it is surely happenning. The baby-boomers can squeal and fight all they like over tax revenue – I get the feeling that everybody else (the ‘young’) have given up and ignore the whole set-up.

    So, it’s all yours baby-boomers. Whatcha gonna leave for us?

    • karol 2.1
      14 June 2013 at 10:02 am

      Baby boomer here;: been opposing the inequalities, divisiveness and attacks on the poor. The governments haven’t been acting on my behalf.

      Agreed though, the way things are going, a lot of boomers have benefited and increasing numbers of the young are getting screwed.

      I don’t actually have a lot to leave anyone, and many younger people have a helluva lot more.

      Let’s put the blame where it truly lies, with the neoliberal elites, whatever their ages.

      • geoff 2.1.1
        14 June 2013 at 12:57 pm

        Let’s not over simplify the matter either, karol.

        This may not be you but statistically is is far more likely that if a person is a baby boomer then the effects of neoliberal policies are much more likely to be less harmful to that person than someone from a younger generation. In fact for many boomers the policies have been beneficial as they see their asset prices increase and their tax burdens drop.
        I believe this has occurred largely because most politicians are 45yrs or older and they vote for policies in their self-interest.

        • karol 2.1.1.1
          14 June 2013 at 1:07 pm

          I agree, geoff. Boomers are more likely to have benefited from the situation, and things are getting more difficult for increasing numbers of young people.

          But even amongst politicians, Hone Harwira & Sue Bradford are boomers. Many boomers who are strongly anti-“neoliberal” probably have not found a place in the bigger (allegedly) left wing parties.

          Ultimately the underlying problem is not age, but the “neoliberal” values of the wealthiest and most powerful.

          And many attacking boomers use as a major argument the fact that young people can no longer afford to get on the housing ladder. The problem is the values that have resulted in the competition to get on said “housing ladder’ plus the focus on buying as the thing everyone should be aiming for.

          But many of the anti-boomers then tend to ignore, or marginalise the people most harmed by these values, those on low incomes who are just looking for affordable rents and a living age.

          And many of us older renters are feeling the insecurity of a future retirement on fixed income, where housing prices continue to inflate.

          PS: Op ed piece by Don Blair in today’s Herald:

          As long as safe, appealing and affordable housing is available to all who can afford it, people should be indifferent as to whether they own or rent their home. In most cases, renting is a much more affordable option (according to the 2012 Housing Europe Review, only 40 per cent of people in Germany own their home).

          The drive for ownership might make good sense in a fairness and equity argument, but is often bad economic policy waiting to happen, and can be socially disastrous.

          As an American, I have firsthand experience of how wrong the push for home ownership can go. Having been raised to believe that a good down payment was a key to financial security, I watched many friends and family members lose 30 per cent or more of their home’s value in the 2007-8 market correction; for many, the loss represented the entire value of the initial down payment, plus improvements.

          • Populuxe1 2.1.1.1.1
            14 June 2013 at 4:57 pm

            “But even amongst politicians, Hone Harwira & Sue Bradford are boomers.”
            And both of them enjoy considerably more income and influence than the vast majority of generations x an y, and the millennials

          • geoff 2.1.1.1.2
            15 June 2013 at 4:03 pm

            Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The reason many boomers are somewhat to blame is because they tolerate or vote for parties that implement those policies because they know they will benefit from them and either don’t understand or aren’t bothered that those policies will be harmful to many others.

            Regarding housing…. although there is a cultural push to ‘own your own home’, at least part of the reason people strive to do so is that they can escape from high rent prices. Even with a large mortgage you can argue that you will eventually accrue some benefit from paying all that money out rather than having the money simply flowing to the pockets of a landlord.
            It can’t be understated either that owning a property gives you a much greater feeling that you are not simply prey to forces outside of your control, ie fluctuating rent prices, getting booted out of your house etc. I don’t think it is valid to argue that the reason house prices have shot up is because people are merely under the influence of a ‘must own home!’ meme. The reality is that there is an accommodation shortage (at least in Auckland) which has developed because of the myriad effects of market forces ideology on all aspects of our housing system.

            The reason I’m pointing all this out is because there is the tendency for people to claim that we’ve all had the wool pulled over our eyes by the elites but that is simply not true. In my view, the most cynical you could be about it is to assume that the policies have organically developed such that they still benefit about half the population, which means they will be voted for.

      • Tim 2.1.2
        14 June 2013 at 5:59 pm

        “Let’s put the blame where it truly lies, with the neoliberal elites, whatever their ages.”

        That’s true Karol – it’s just that it was all those (neo-lib) Boomers that kicked the whole thing off this time round. It’s not surprising therefore that we all cop the flack for it.

        • Tim 2.1.2.1
          14 June 2013 at 6:19 pm

          Oh, and neo-liberalism might just disappear up its own arse given time, because the environment it relies on is not sustainable. The problem is that we’re all sick of waiting round for it to do so of its own accord.

        • karol 2.1.2.2
          14 June 2013 at 6:21 pm

          Actually, Thatcher, Regan and Roger Douglas who kicked off the “neolib” revolution were a generation older than boomers. Many boomers did what they could to resist those changes from above, but unsuccessfully. Boomers in NZ & the UK had been part of activism for a more socialist society until Thatcher et al decided to put a stop to it.

          The neolibs in the UK and NZ spearheaded a strong push towards individualist values of US capitalism – a strong wave of US-anisation globally followed. Prior to that, many young people in the UK had been more inclined towards collective processes, with strong support of unions, especially those from working class backgrounds. In NZ there was a bit more of a mix of UK socialism and US individualism prior to “neoliberalisation”. But, basically a lot of boomers here had left wing, collectivists, anti-materialist, anti-competitive values.

          • Tim 2.1.2.2.1
            14 June 2013 at 6:31 pm

            Yea that’s true now I think about it, however there were a helluva lot of my generation (or near to it) that embraced it here – and I see them still hard at it. It’s hard not to regard them as treacherous (certain past MPs/heads of regional councils, destroyers of broadcasting, those that once professed left-wing idealism right up until the time they discovered the benefits of company-supplied AMEX Gold, etc)

            • karol 2.1.2.2.1.1
              14 June 2013 at 6:37 pm

              Yes, there were always the treacherous boomers. I worked mostly in education, and most of my friends and colleagues voted Labour when I was living in the UK during Thatcher’s time. Some never gave up and are still active in left wing organisations. Some resisted neoliberalism for a while, then gave up and focused on furthering their careers.

              Most of my immediate family were in business, and more supportive of “neoliberalism”, in both my parents and siblings’ generations.

              I learned that it wasn’t enough to focus on the local and organise collectively, trying to bring about change from “below”. There needs to be a way to tackle the power of the elites with their ruthless “top-down” processes.

              • Ugly Truth …
                17 June 2013 at 9:02 pm

                There is a way, but it is based on reason, not need. It involves the law of the law, not the hollow public policy that the state calls law.

  3. Ancient Ruin 3
    14 June 2013 at 9:23 am

    Every time I hear the cry of ‘political correctness gone mad’ or ‘poor us, protect our interests’ etc from the BB’s I see the eroding of an entrenched and establised position of power. All in good time, all in good time….

  4. Smith 4
    14 June 2013 at 9:26 am

    They won’t – the impending grey tsunami will keep political representation firmly vested in shaky hands.

  5. Sanctuary 5
    14 June 2013 at 9:32 am

    I have twelve friends living in Sydney, five in Melbourne, two in New York, one in San Francisco, and three in London. The youngest is but 26 or 27, the oldest not yet 40. unlike their baby boomer parents, few seem to have much intention of returning to N.Z. There will be no revolution in this country, it has been cancelled due to lack of interest.

    The ultimate irony for the baby boomers – the Peter Pan generation whose vanity has made so petrified at the thought of their extinction – is they will likely die lonely and alone in crumbling, underfunded rest homes with their children and grandchildren growing up somewhere else. And they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

    • karol 5.1
      14 June 2013 at 10:04 am

      How is this different from those of us boomers who spent a lot of time living overseas? Is it a matter of numbers?

      • handle 5.1.1
        14 June 2013 at 10:12 am

        Moving overseas is not a temporary jaunt anymore. Young people are smart enough to see when NZ deserves them back.

        • karol 5.1.1.1
          14 June 2013 at 10:19 am

          When I went overseas, I thought I was going for good. it wasn’t a temporary jaunt. I was gone for 2 decades. Many others of my generation are still overseas.

          But,as I said, it may be the numbers going that way have increased.

          • handle 5.1.1.1.1
            14 June 2013 at 10:30 am

            It’s the motivation, not the numbers.

          • karol 5.1.1.1.2
            14 June 2013 at 10:34 am

            Muldoon was a lot of THE motivation for me and others to leave, as was Rogernomics for many. How has that fundamentally changed?

            • handle 5.1.1.1.2.1
              14 June 2013 at 10:39 am

              They are not leaving for political reasons. Better work and lifestyle prospects overseas. Friends who are scattered around the world already, who you can connect with instantly any time. Seeing yourself as a world citizen is a different mindset.

              • weka …
                14 June 2013 at 12:02 pm

                I bet they’ll want to come back when the shit hits the fan with PO, CC and the real GFC.

              • karol …
                14 June 2013 at 12:15 pm

                Actually, Id say, when I left NZ I considered myself to be more of a world than an NZ citizen.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  14 June 2013 at 4:59 pm

                  Quite a feat to see yourself as a world citizen before you’ve even ventured into the world, but whatever

                  • handle …
                    14 June 2013 at 6:35 pm

                    That newfangled internet changes things, pop.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      14 June 2013 at 6:38 pm

                      beetlebombs along quicker than the Model T.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 June 2013 at 6:59 pm

                      Pretty sure the internet wasn’t around when Karol went to the UK, handle

                    • handle …
                      14 June 2013 at 7:18 pm

                      Yes, there is a difference between being constantly in touch with friends and colleagues around the world, and reading a foreign newspaper or following a cause.

                  • karol …
                    14 June 2013 at 6:41 pm

                    Well, what a surprise! We can be born in one country, but have an interest, via various communicative technologies, in what’s happening in the rest of the world.

                    Are you not concerned for workers’ earning slave wages or dying of starvation in other countries, even if you haven’t been there?

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 June 2013 at 7:02 pm

                      What I have learned from international travel and greatly improved information systems is that I would be very arrogant to assume I understood all the cultural pressures happening in a society without seeing it, researching it, and knowing people who live in it before I passed judgments on what the problem was.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 June 2013 at 7:19 pm

                      I guess we’re all more arrogant than you

                    • karol …
                      14 June 2013 at 7:34 pm

                      Some people don’t understand the cultures and practices that exist in their own country.

                      In my travels,back in apartheid days, I met white South Africans who said no-one could judge apartheid if they hadn’t lived in South Africa.

                      When I lived in Stockwell, there were riots going on down the road in Briton. I saw more of the riots on TV than firsthand. Mostly I saw the aftermath. Some Afro-Caribbean and white English people in the area had different interpretations from each other. Margaret Thatcher said the rioters were criminals and thugs.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    14 June 2013 at 9:06 pm

                    Is New Zealand not in the world, Populuxe1?

                    Just what grouping we identify with is contingent. There’s no reason apart from particular socialisation practices, so far as I can see, why the nation state should take precedence. Belief in human rights, for example, may well require a sense of world citizenship.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      16 June 2013 at 12:48 pm

                      Much of what constitures human rights in our interpretation of the world is a western eurocentric construct

                    • Puddleglum …
                      16 June 2013 at 1:23 pm

                      No doubt.

                      But that doesn’t affect the discussion about being a world citizen, does it?

                      I was using concern for human rights – however they might be socially constructed, eurocentrically or not – as an example of what might constitute identifying as a world citizen or identify a sense of world citizenship.

                      Having the sense of being a world citizen is presumably more than simply travelling around the world, isn’t it? Lots of people travel around but very much feel they remain a nation-state citizen. Many New Zealanders still identify primarily with New Zealand and not the world, in terms of citizenship, after their OEs or other travel.

                      A sense of ‘world citizenship’ may or may not be a ‘good thing’ (e.g., because of its eurocentric bias or whatever) but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is possible to identify as a world citizen without travelling beyond your country.

                      I don’t see why that would be impossible.

        • Foreign Waka 5.1.1.2
          15 June 2013 at 11:21 am

          “Young people are smart enough to see when NZ deserves them back” If this is the attitude, I suggest that they stay were they are, NZ with its finite resources and small communities need people who have the frontier spirit. Always has. There are plenty of immigrants, equally if not better educated who are happy to settle here and contribute. The difference is, that they don’t have a entitlement gene.

    • ak 5.2
      14 June 2013 at 10:32 am

      Onnit Sanc. They sold their parents’ hard-wrought souls to the Thatcher/Reagan/Douglas scum for a handful of silver and dove lemming-like into the hell of selfish hedonism. Now they while away their few remaining dissipated minutes playing ponzi bingo with their own children’s future. Now and again an Aaron Gilmore flashback to their past emerges, so they squash it with haste and return to their own John Key present: listlessly and mindlessly tapping support for their ancient animal racism and oppression. Lost, bewildered, dying alone in a cold vault: lashing out in fear at a progressive optimism and humanity that they can never comprehend.

      • karol 5.2.1
        14 June 2013 at 7:36 pm

        yeah, ak. You have me and many friends and colleagues summed up nicely..

        • ak 5.2.1.1
          14 June 2013 at 11:45 pm

          God, not you karol, nor anyone here. Sincere apologies for not specifying.

          • Foreign Waka 5.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 11:30 am

            Have you got some excellent writing for the generation X? With the hedonism taken to a new level, bandaged with new names there ought to be room for comment.
            “It is only a step from boredom to disillusionment, which leads naturally to self-pity, which in turn ends in chaos.”Manly Hall

      • rosy 5.2.2
        14 June 2013 at 9:19 pm

        Who are ‘they’ ak? Are ‘they’ your own parents or grandparents? And do all in those age groups share the same values despite different social and cultural backgrounds, and variations in life experience?

        And the progressive optimism you speak of – is that the prerogative of only your own age group? and do all (apart from Aaron Gilmore*) share it?

        *I reckon though, that Aaron Gilmore typifies a lot of ‘progressive optimism’ – optimism in his own progression that is.

        • ak 5.2.2.1
          15 June 2013 at 12:18 am

          Sorry Rose, no of course not. The vast majority of my nearest and dearest vote tory: it’s for that very manipulation and suppression of essential goodness that I hold “them” most culpable. And “they” most certainly don’t comprise any or all here present (including the burts and Gosmans among us). Believe me, “they” are a distinctly separate breed that I have had the dubious privilege of observing closely over decades. Certainly, search for good in all; but never underestimate the capacity for utter inhumanity and cruelty in some.

      • Puddleglum 5.2.3
        15 June 2013 at 12:13 am

        Reagan – born 1911
        Thatcher – born 1925
        Douglas – born 1937

        None of them ‘baby boomers’. I’d also like to know the breakdown of the age of people who voted for each of them. In any event, it seems likely that their electoral victories owed as much to people born prior to the ‘baby boom’ than during it.

        It’s too easy to make theories ‘on the fly’.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.3.1
          15 June 2013 at 12:19 am

          neoliberalism was born as an active political economic force in the early 1970’s. Milton Friedman himself was born pre WWI, in 1912.

          However, baby boomers were crucial in building and sustaining the power of neoliberalism through the 1980s and 1990’s.

          Today a vast amount of wealth lies with those in the 50’s and 60’s age range even as those under 30 are being fucked over (essentially their own children and grandchildren), and they are still working hard to corner even more of the wealth for themselves. Yes, they are boomers.

          • karol 5.2.3.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 7:00 am

            Some baby boomers, plus many people in generations older than boomers, were crucial in building neoliberalism in the 80s and 90s. Not the whole generation, and probably a minority of such. In the FPtP days, neoliberal governments usually didn’t get the majority vote. Many boomers also strongly led the opposition to the neoliberal changes. There’s a lot of wealth among some 50 and 60 year olds. Others in that age range have far less.

            And now, in my 60s, I see many young people owning a helluva lot more than I do. I see acquaintances well younger, not boomers, accumulating houses for renting and wealth accumulation. I have had landlords for my little rental studio apartment, who are a couple of generations younger than me.

            The 1970s was a time of strong moves to the left among the general public, with boomers leading the protests and anti-materialist activism, and attempts to move society towards a more cooperative and less competitive direction.

            Agisim by any other name is still agism.

  6. Frank Macskasy 6
    14 June 2013 at 9:53 am

    Interesting… this is something I (re-)posted on TDB today. It fits in very well with Bernard Hickey’s tweet-post; http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/14/greed-is-good/

    With the Reserve Bank now considering raising deposits on homes to 20%, this will impact on first house-buyers (despite the BS from Dear Leader), whilst leaving established property owners (especially speculators) untouched.

    In fact, this will help speculators, as they’ll have less competition from first home buyers.

    The Nats are hell bent at doing anything but actually addressing the critical problem developing in this country.

    Expect more young NZers to look overseas for their future.

    • ianmac 6.1
      14 June 2013 at 10:00 am

      Perhaps a Capital Gains tax might help more to contain house price rises?

      • Saccharomyces 6.1.1
        14 June 2013 at 12:51 pm

        Capital gains tax will do nothing to reduce house prices, if anything it will raise prices. Most likely it will also increase rents.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1
          14 June 2013 at 7:21 pm

          It’s good if it raises house prices, more revenue to close the Government deficit with.

          If it increases rents, that more taxes for the Government too. Great!

          • Herodotus 6.1.1.1.1
            14 June 2013 at 9:46 pm

            The government receives this revenue once the property is sold. A cgt has been postulated could cause properties not being trade so regularly.
            Cgt will not suppress property values on its own. Pity many are falling for this isolated fix ( john minto et all )
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10890114
            Why did property ownership blossom in the 50’s and beyond ?
            With the capitalising and using family benefits to assist in deposits made it easier for 1st home owners to enter the market. Currently it is almost impossible to enter but extremely easy for people to own multiple properties. And if you can look at the entry point
            http://www.realestate.co.nz/residential/apartment/auckland/manukau-city/flat-bush
            The solution is multi layered and requires both local and central govts to co ordinate the fixes. The market has not failed in relation to the property market , what has failed is the tax distortions that have been allowed to give a few major advantages.

    • ropata 6.2
      14 June 2013 at 12:15 pm

      national’s supine policy is to continue to encourage waves of immigrants and foreign speculators to bid up the price of Auckland property thus enriching national voters.

  7. karol 7
    14 June 2013 at 10:16 am

    Some of the young are revolting. I see them on demonstrations and voicing their views in various platforms and locations. The question is, how to get more to join them?

    The “neoliberal” revolution was successful because it had multiple inter-related fronts, all giving the same message: in the realm of politics, education, the MSM and popular culture.

    The left needs to be active in all realms.

    Look for instance how the advance forces have desensitised young and old to the surveillance society: on facebook, on numerous TV dramas like NCIS, Strike Back, etc, etc, where the “good guys” pursue the “bad guys” using invasive digital technologies, and watching the pursuits live on big screens.

    All these realms need to be constantly exposed and new approaches and values need to be constantly dicsussed and promoted.

    • Populuxe1 7.1
      14 June 2013 at 5:03 pm

      Or perhaps the direction of the discourse has changed completely and your ambitions and methodologies seem increasingly those of the 20th, if not the 19th century, while the debates rage on facebook and twitter

  8. fatty 8
    14 June 2013 at 10:24 am

    There will be no revolt through the political system.

    Gen X and later have taken individualism (which emerged as part of the baby-boomer protest movements) and multiplied it by 10. Shutting the world out and de-politicising their life is their form of revolt.
    Gen X and later have never had a political voice, and they certainly don’t now. Greens and Mana give them a voice. Sadly, ACT and National resonate with youth just as much, because they promote the individual over society. Labour is Labour. Labour have no concept of image, and they fail to understand the power of image in a neoliberal world

    • handle 8.1
      14 June 2013 at 10:33 am

      Younger people are too smart to put their faith in political action when they see the number of older voters growing and the poor quality of political leaders now.

      • Foreign Waka 8.1.1
        15 June 2013 at 11:35 am

        Mistake number 1…
        Mistake number 2: indifference
        Mistake number 3: self is more important than the community
        Mistake number 4: Someone will act instead of you

    • karol 8.2
      14 June 2013 at 10:39 am

      fatty, so you accept the “neoliberal” terms of engagement via the politics of image, rather than working to undermine those terms and change the way politics is done?

      • fatty 8.2.1
        14 June 2013 at 10:55 am

        not really. I accept that the politics of image dominates, this is due to neoliberalism, but also to our hyper-connected world and technological advancements. There are few positives from this and multiple negatives. However, the only way to reverse neoliberalism (or better, replace it with a whole new system) cannot be achieved without playing the neoliberal image game. To do this is difficult as its easy to become the issue one is fighting against. The greens do it fairly well, look at the way they dress, their personal image, their collective image, their attempts to depoliticise political action etc. Image is very powerful for the Greens, as much as it is for ACT and National. Its also where Labour are about 2 decades behind.

        So to answer your question, to overcome or replace neoliberalism we have to beat the neoliberals at their own game, but at the same time limit the way the neoliberals use imagery. This is different from accepting it.

        • karol 8.2.1.1
          14 June 2013 at 12:17 pm

          Very good answer, fatty. It does indicate a fine line to be negotiated between working with the politics of imagery to go beyond it to a better politicos, and becoming sucked into it.

    • Populuxe1 8.3
      14 June 2013 at 5:06 pm

      What a load of crap – you obviously are not generation x, so you don’t get to speak for us with your idiotic generalisations. They haven’t shut out the world, we’ve gone into cyberspace and we haven’t politicised, we’ve specialised and diversified. It was the baby boomers who closed us out of “society” in the first place, so have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it. Also, Young Labour seems plenty active to me, so again more talking out your arse.

      • Colonial Viper 8.3.1
        14 June 2013 at 7:27 pm

        It was the baby boomers who closed us out of “society” in the first place, so have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it.

        Seems like you have successfully taken the concept of selfish individualism and multiplied it by 10

      • fatty 8.3.2
        15 June 2013 at 10:58 am

        Pop.

        I am from Gen X, and I wasn’t speaking for us, I was speaking about us. When I said we shut out the world, I meant we shut ourselves off (and yes, have been forced out) from the political world. I do think that individualisation has increased massively with the younger generations, but this is not due to any failings of Gen Xers. I believe that a generation doesn’t define itself, but instead a generation is created by the one before. Gen X is a product of neoliberalism – not pretty overall. The babyboomers were created by the war generation, etc. We are heading down an ugly looking path.

        It was the baby boomers who closed us out of “society” in the first place

        Yes, I agree. That was my point when I said – “Gen X and later have never had a political voice, and they certainly don’t now.”
        Gen X have been politically marginalised for the simple fact that there is a massive population bulge above us, so I agree with you again when you say have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it

        Also, Young Labour seems plenty active to me, so again more talking out your arse.

        Young people’s involvement with Labour is decreasing in comparison to 30/40 years ago. I don’t see them as a party with a long term future in 20 years time.

        Overall pop, I agree with you. I have been on here before and got into a very long debate with people who I otherwise always agree with. But I’ve come to understand that for some unknown reason, an age cohort cannot be seen as receiving structural privileged over another age cohort.
        If you read the postings from some on here, when discussing generational inequality, they will often ignore structural forces (such as changes in education, tax, wages, employment, property etc) and just individualise the argument. Those same commenters will do the opposite when it comes to race or gender. If I, as a Pakeha, said “there is no advantage to being Pakeha because I know Maori who earn more than me and own more property than me, and the government aren’t giving me special consideration” …then I’d be told I am unable to see my own privilege which comes from structural oppression. That structural argument is a valid argument, but if you try to do that by examining how different age cohorts have benefited from economic policies and political ideologies, then you’d get branded as ageist.

        Its hardly worth the argument. You can take ethnicity, gender or sexuality and have an acceptable argument of structural oppression. But try to take suggest that structural oppression has affected generations differently, and the argument will become individualised.

        I get that many boomers got screwed by neoliberalism. So did many Pakeha, but that doesn’t mean we can’t point out and acknowledge that neoliberalism has given an advantage to Pakeha.

        • Rogue Trooper 8.3.2.1
          15 June 2013 at 1:17 pm

          well-written.subscription.

        • Colonial Viper 8.3.2.2
          15 June 2013 at 1:27 pm

          Young people’s involvement with Labour is decreasing in comparison to 30/40 years ago. I don’t see them as a party with a long term future in 20 years time.

          90% of Young Labour today are university students, 90% of them seem to be studying pol sci, and 90% of them seem to have a fascination for getting a job in Parliamentary Services.

          This is certainly NOT a Young Labour which is representative of the wider youth of NZ, but basically represents young people attending Auckland or Victoria University.

          • Populuxe1 8.3.2.2.1
            15 June 2013 at 2:32 pm

            Are you going to accuse them of elitist snobbery with your wild generalisations? Do you have figures for this or are you simply pulling things out of your orrifice? I doubt you have a clue what motivates “the wider youth of NZ” however you are choosing to define that. I suspect you just want to monopolise political activism because you have nothing else going on.

            • Rogue Trooper 8.3.2.2.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 4:32 pm

              do you

            • Arfamo 8.3.2.2.1.2
              15 June 2013 at 4:46 pm

              Yep. Everything wrong with the way the world is is invariably the fault of the gormless & selfish generation before ours. I well remember explaining this to my father in the early 80’s when his solution was for everyone to have to spend a bit of time in the services. And so it will eventually be with the generation of Pop’s offspring.

            • Colonial Viper 8.3.2.2.1.3
              15 June 2013 at 5:42 pm

              Are you going to accuse them of elitist snobbery with your wild generalisations?

              Did I miss that out?

              Yes, too many Young Labourites, particularly those more senior in the organisation, tend to look down on young people who are in the trades, those young people who have never been to university, those young people who are unemployed school leavers, those young people from the regions and rural NZ, those young people who profess to have more socially conservative attitude towards – well, anything – etc.

              That is what you meant by “elitist snobbery”, in Young Labour right Pop?

              • Populuxe1 …
                15 June 2013 at 6:25 pm

                Are you in a party youth wing, CV? No. Fuck off.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 June 2013 at 7:32 pm

                  On this narrow issue, I’m right and you’re wrong. Live with it.

                  Are you in a party youth wing, CV? No. Fuck off.

                  99% of people under 30 are not in a youth party wing, Pop. That’s part of what I am saying.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    16 June 2013 at 12:53 pm

                    “On this narrow issue, I’m right and you’re wrong. Live with it.”
                    Only if you bring better evidence than “because I say so and I am the great and all powerful CV”

                    “99% of people under 30 are not in a youth party wing, Pop. That’s part of what I am saying.”
                    Which still means you don’t have any direct knowledge of what youth wings do these days, and just because they are not members doesn’t mean they don’t have contact/interraction – many do, and many are influenced to vote based on the activism of youth wings. You can shove your head back up your arse now.

        • geoff 8.3.2.3
          15 June 2013 at 5:35 pm

          If you read the postings from some on here, when discussing generational inequality, they will often ignore structural forces (such as changes in education, tax, wages, employment, property etc) and just individualise the argument. Those same commenters will do the opposite when it comes to race or gender. If I, as a Pakeha, said “there is no advantage to being Pakeha because I know Maori who earn more than me and own more property than me, and the government aren’t giving me special consideration” …then I’d be told I am unable to see my own privilege which comes from structural oppression. That structural argument is a valid argument, but if you try to do that by examining how different age cohorts have benefited from economic policies and political ideologies, then you’d get branded as ageist.

          This.

        • karol 8.3.2.4
          15 June 2013 at 6:12 pm

          I agree that increasing numbers of young people are finding life a struggle. It was somewhat easier when my generation left school. However, it wasn’t equally easy for all, and the first work years of most boomers’ lives was on pretty meagre incomes.

          There have been some structural changes since I was young re tax and education. However, the most significant structure is still in place, and has been strengthened: that of socio-economic divisions and inequalities. When I left school, education, career prospects and access to property ownership were far easier for middleclass white men than for women or Maori of Pacific people.

          Higher education was predominantly a middleclass white male activity. And for women of my generation, there weren’t very many career prospects, beyond teaching, nursing and social work, or factory or retail work (depending largely on class background). And such jobs were expected to support women mainly until they got married. Now I see more women with a wider range of opportunities and career expectations, although we’re still a long way from gender equality in the career structures.

          I think the reason many of us boomers react the way we do is because the impact of intergenerational differences are being exaggerated to the point where boomers are blamed for everything that is wrong today. It is made to sound like THE structural division that udnerlies all others. And it’s done in an emotive and highly personalised way (see ak @ 10.30am), whereby boomers are all painted as having certain negative personality traits that are making life hard for all younger people. That’s in spite of your rationalisation that all generations are shaped by the historical context (key word “shaped”, but along with a range of other factors), resulting in some negative qualities all round.

          Socio-economic background still has THE major influence, with “race”/ethnicity also playing a strong role. Children of well-off boomers have more prospects, opportunities and advantages, than the majority of working class, and many lower middle-class boomers had during their work lives. This is especially so for Maori and Pasifika boomers who’ve had a life of struggle.

          And the anti-boomer arguments usually totally ignore how agism kicks in when people, especially women, get into their 50s. Yes, there are those in their 50s and 60s who are sitting pretty on some prime high status jobs. However, they are not the majority, and anyone who loses their job in their 50s soon learns that it is more likely that younger people will be the ones to get the jobs that are going.

          I’ve seen women in my current workplace, on a fairly middling income after decades of work, become marginalised as younger people, most often young men, are given seniority.

          And, in this context, it’s hard not to take the following kinds of comments personally – can’t be just brushed aside as a “metaphor”:

          , so I agree with you again when you say, have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it

          That is pretty much what my mother got shouted at her in the street when she was in her late 70s/80s. She (born decades before boomer days) was told by some young people, “You’re getting too old. You should just die.”

          To me, that comment is just plain nasty, and is dripping with generations-old agism. It undermines the more valid arguments, about how things are getting increasingly tough, for an increasing proportion of younger people.

      • Foreign Waka 8.3.3
        15 June 2013 at 11:44 am

        Now this is the statement that says it all. “so have the decency to hurry up and die”?
        In cyberspace or what? Are you on earth or floating in some imaginary fantasy created by gadgets you cannot put down as otherwise boredom will get you?

        • fatty 8.3.3.1
          15 June 2013 at 11:53 am

          hurry up and die

          That statement is, of course, not to be taken literally.
          It is used to point out how Gen X will have limited political voice until boomer numbers come down. It is not wishing death upon anyone, it is pointing out how a statistical bulge marginalises the next generation

          • Foreign Waka 8.3.3.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 12:08 pm

            I appreciate that it is not to betaken literally, however there is some responsibility in making statements. As they say, it is the thought that counts. Generation X has the same voice as all others, belief me. Mostly it is none. Example: MMP referendum – baby boomers have voted, legally, in full force and what has happened? On the referendum re Asset sales, the PM said that it will not matter as he sees this as non binding. Now, I reassure you that the baby boomers do not appreciate having their and their parents (grandparents etc) hard won freedom taken away. Same with the legislation that is in the house regarding employment law. Even the Employer federation is iffy. Is Gen x and beyond interested in these oh so mundane issues? And yet, these are the very foundation the Baby Boomer Generation is trying to preserve. Not just for them but for future generations.

            • fatty 8.3.3.1.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 1:20 pm

              In general, young people have little interest in parliamentary democracy. There are only 2 parties who offer younger people any real change – the greens and mana. But the younger people get told they are extreme weirdoes. This message often comes from strange sources (even Norman claimed that Mana’s policies were from the 80s & 90s – that was the moment I promised to never give greens a vote until Norman goes).

              And yet, these are the very foundation the Baby Boomer Generation is trying to preserve. Not just for them but for future generations.

              There is nothing left to preserve. Employment went to the shitter in 1991, then again in 2000. There is nothing left to protect. Say Labour/greens/mana get in for 6 years.
              What do you think employment legislation will look like? Then National will get back in and shift it again for another 6 years.
              The more you think about where we’re at and where we’re heading, it becomes a logical decision to remove oneself from politics and wait for the older generation to die off.
              Remember, the boomers created Gen X. If it makes yourself feel better, you can go down the pull yourself up by your bootstraps route, but that will just marginalise younger people further.
              If you want to know why young people are politically apathetic, read the comments in this post with a critical perspective.

              • karol …
                15 June 2013 at 8:08 pm

                the boomers created Gen X.

                That is giving god-like powers to boomers, and seems like a distorted version of Marx’s:

                “Men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing.”

                Of course, on a base level, gen ex’s were the result of Boomers’ sexual activities.

                But in terms of the way people’s personalities, behaviours and values develop, people of any generation are “created” by a complex range of interacting factors. These include the natural environment, technologies available, social activities, on-going inter-generational and intra-generational interactions, and all kinds of unintended consequences. Also influecned by ones’ social, educational and occupational affiliations.

                for Marx, of course the circumstances differed according to whether a person was part of the ruling or subject class; usually strongly influenced by one’s parents’ class position.

                • fatty …
                  16 June 2013 at 9:21 am

                  I think its fair to say that boomers created Gen X, in the same way that the war generation/silent generation created the boomers.

                  All of these factors you have listed are arguably created, shaped or produced by each generation – These include the natural environment, technologies available, social activities, on-going inter-generational and intra-generational interactions, and all kinds of unintended consequences. Also influecned by ones’ social, educational and occupational affiliations.

            • Rogue Trooper 8.3.3.1.1.2
              15 June 2013 at 1:20 pm

              then it would be advisable BBG did not vote for Tory ‘fiscal conservatives’.

  9. Sosoo 9
    14 June 2013 at 10:29 am

    They’re too busy texting and looking at facebook on their mobiles.

    • Populuxe1 9.1
      14 June 2013 at 5:09 pm

      Does it occur to you that some of that texting and facebooking is of a political nature. “You stupid kids get offa my lawn!”

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        14 June 2013 at 7:27 pm

        yeah it really scares the powers that be when you decide not to Like their facebook page.

        • Populuxe1 9.1.1.1
          15 June 2013 at 2:34 pm

          Confirms you have a limited grasp on the extent of social media

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 5:40 pm

            Confirms that social media has a limited grasp on the extent of reality

            • Populuxe1 9.1.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 6:28 pm

              Confirms that YOU have a limited grasp on the extent of reality and the role of social media within it. Or you can swear never to post here again because that would be acknowledging the impact of social media on political discourse.

              • Colonial Viper …
                15 June 2013 at 6:33 pm

                negligible to zero according to Shearer’s office, and I presume he must know

                • Populuxe1 …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:47 pm

                  Captain Mumblefuck? You are taking the piss, aren’t you? See what the Greens are doing

      • Foreign Waka 9.1.2
        15 June 2013 at 12:21 pm

        Well, your comments really just confirms that the Boomer generation has to hold on a little longer…

        • Arfamo 9.1.2.1
          15 June 2013 at 12:41 pm

          Who can blame Gen Xers for not feeling connected to politics in any way. Surely they would have to be the most completely economically & politically brainwashed generation in our history? They have grown up in a selfish, individualistically competitive environment forced on them by greedy, self-serving politicians and lobbyists the world over. There is no serious or thoughtful political analysis or debate in the mainstream media which is full of meaningless fluff and sensationalist trivia. Many would have no idea there are other alternatives or what they are.

          • Rogue Trooper 9.1.2.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 1:22 pm

            generalization; I know many politically-aware Gen X, yet,many more who are not; seduced.

          • Populuxe1 9.1.2.1.2
            15 June 2013 at 6:29 pm

            Jeez, why don’t you just call gen x a bunch of luftmenschen who need to get some blut und boden under their feet.

  10. johnm 10
    14 June 2013 at 11:28 am

    Just my bob’s worth 🙂
    When I came to New Zealand in 1980 it was paradise for young people. There was virtually full employment and wages/salaries were more than adequate. My wife and I had a combined income of $18000 a year and we easily saved a deposit of $10000 within a year to deposit on a house. We bought a 20 year old house on a very big well developed section close to the city centre of Wellington for $32000!!! (These are the days before housing was turned into a get rich with capital gains using other people’s money monopoly sport which has ruined it for young people now.) That set up was worth working for by golly gosh!

    Now? If we arrived in 2013? Unemployment and low wages a ruthless attitude to workers and housing that’s almost impossible to buy due to the over inflated value supplied by cheap fiat money from foreign banks and endless speculator activity which governments refuse to stop with a proper capital gains tax. This situation is not worth working for you could hardly do worse than get out to Australia where at least they pay you decent money and if you’re an Australian Citizen they believe in looking out for you.

  11. Adrian 11
    14 June 2013 at 11:34 am

    The young have been disengaged for a while but things may be changing. In the Kaikoura electorate there is for the first time in decades a Young Labour branch with a very healthy membership.
    Most change does not suddenly erupt but starts very small and builds incrementally.

    • mac1 11.1
      16 June 2013 at 11:19 am

      Why the Kaikoura electorate, Adrian, that it should reactivate some of our young? What is it in the pure artesian Blenheim water? What factors?

      I’d suggest the fact that the Kaikoura electorate is one of the poorest regions in New Zealand for wages. It is also small enough for the young to connect more easily. It also has a strong motivator in the quality of the young people involved. There is also a strong tradition of being involved in local groups and taking action locally as a result of history and geography.

      What factors can be discovered and then built on to aid the young to regenerate the energy and spirit of earlier generations that can be channelled into political and social action?

      You said, “Most change does not suddenly erupt but starts very small and builds incrementally.” Very true locally where a vision planted literally in 1975 with one vineyard in Marlborough has grown into a 250,000 tonne wine industry.

      • pollywog 11.1.1
        16 June 2013 at 11:29 am

        Engage through social media. txt bomb cell phones.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.2
        16 June 2013 at 11:37 am

        “Why the Kaikoura electorate, Adrian, that it should reactivate some of our young? What is it in the pure artesian Blenheim water? What factors?”

        The leadership of just 2-3 extremely capable young people communicating with others is what has made the difference in Kaikoura. It’s that simple.

        • mac1 11.1.2.1
          16 June 2013 at 12:06 pm

          Oh, I agree, CV. I know those involved. I just hope that simple answer can be replicated by others with those skills and motivation, which is why I raised the issue.

          Motivation comes from hope that things can change, faith that sustains the work, and charity that sees this work is wider than our own interests.

  12. Olwyn 12
    14 June 2013 at 11:58 am

    The creation of divisions between baby boomers and the young is not a lot different from creating divisions between the working poor and the unemployed – it keeps us at each other’s throats rather than uniting against the real enemy. For starters, some boomers were not advantaged by Rogernomics but were in fact ruined by it. And as to those with property, it is simply harder to wrest property off of people when they already have it than it is to institute conditions that prevent them from getting it. People were encouraged for a couple of decades to believe that salvation was just around the corner, “no gain without pain” etc, and it is only quite recently that the real game, the concentration of wealth into few hands, has shown up in sharp relief. It is this practice that we should be opposing, not each other.

    • Bill 12.1
      14 June 2013 at 12:51 pm

      Quite agree Olwyn. Something too many people tend to overlook is that many young people voted for the likes of Thatcher. Older people tended to value the welfare state and were a part of the ‘post war’ consensus on state/social arrangements.

      That’s not to say that no older people voted in parties that peddled neo-classical economics when there was still a choice. And that’s not to say that older people haven’t tended to gain a comparitive advantage over younger people in the scatter brained scramble for material security that’s come off the back of 30 odd years of governments dancing neo-classical jigs.

      But the cliff edge we’ve been jostled towards is a cliff edge no matter our age or, with caveats, degree of material accumulation. Now, we can carp and bitch at one another if we like – blame this generation or that generation. But accelerating downwards at 10m/s squared (as it were) is going to be feeling exactly like plummeting at 10m/s squared when we go over. And we all go over. There are no parachutes. There are no anti-gravity devices. Just an inter-generational dash to the rocks after this present hard place.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        14 June 2013 at 7:35 pm

        But accelerating downwards at 10m/s squared (as it were) is going to be feeling exactly like plummeting at 10m/s squared when we go over. And we all go over. There are no parachutes. There are no anti-gravity devices. Just an inter-generational dash to the rocks after this present hard place.

        Yeah but some of us (nations/individuals) will be plummeting from a 3m cliff, others from a 30m cliff.

      • Puddleglum 12.1.2
        14 June 2013 at 9:33 pm

        Exactly Olwyn and Bill.

        The age issue is a red herring.

        Also, there’s a difference between cohort effects and ageing effects. As this study of voting in Australia between 1966 and 2001 found (see pp. 280-281 especially), those born 1945-1960 were more likely to vote ALP than for the Coalition than were there parents. The ‘age dividend’ for voting for the Coalition if you were over 60 went from 8-9% in the 1966 election to 24-25% in the 2001 election. This may have been partly because of Howard’s favourable policies for older people but also because of the more progressive socialisation of those growing up in the late 1950s, 1960s and 70s.

        Also, many studies have found growing narcissism in younger people in ‘the West’ over the past several decades (though there is some debate around the edges of this research) and greater acceptance of right wing values associated with individualism. That lines up with the survey reported in The Guardian to the effect that the group most likely to be anti-benefits and anti the NHS were those in the youngest voting age group (despite being more likely to be receiving it).

        There’s also a paradox in the research on young people – they often claim to be ‘sorted’ and optimistic about their personal life prospects but, at the same time, pessimistic about the world’s prospects and, most alarmingly and paradoxically (if their self reports are to be believed), suffering from increasing rates of mental illness, risk taking, etc..

        In all of that context, the baby boomers versus Gen X and Y ‘debate’ is just not relevant or worth pursuing, in my opinion. It’s divide and conquer stuff.

        The point is to unite against the very policies that now make life so difficult for many young people, many middle-aged people and many older people.

        • Rogue Trooper 12.1.2.1
          15 June 2013 at 1:24 pm

          Yep.

        • Populuxe1 12.1.2.2
          15 June 2013 at 2:36 pm

          So you choose to willfully ignore that the baby boomers had a significant head start in securing the lion’s share of economic equity and the political influence to maintain their grip on it? How baby boomer of you.

          • Clockie 12.1.2.2.1
            15 June 2013 at 6:27 pm

            All of the baby boomers?

            • Populuxe1 12.1.2.2.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 6:32 pm

              If you own a house or a car you already have more equity than I do. If you had a free education you have less debt than I do

              • Clockie …
                15 June 2013 at 7:49 pm

                My wife and I have worked hard all our lives, in my case since I left school at seventeen. We have a modest home worth about 350K a 1996 Nissan Cefiro which is getting to the point of being a liability rather than an asset and we owe about 100K.

                I’m assuming you’re about 35. At your age I was earning 15K a year self employed because unemployment was running at better than 10%. I was supporting a wife and two pre schoolers on that. We had just managed to squeeze into a modest first home and were paying a mortgage on that at, wait for it, 20%. Still reckon all my generation have had it easy?

                I suspect you will now read me a lecture on how if we’re not better off it’s all our fault because, as members of the baby boom generation we were on a road paved with gold.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  16 June 2013 at 12:57 pm

                  Do you want a medal based on your ability to achieve all of that under conditions considerably easier than those my generation has inherited? Wages are lower, unemployment is higher, the banks aren’t lending and there is a real estate shortage. Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

                  • Clockie …
                    16 June 2013 at 1:19 pm

                    For all that you accuse others of not reading or thinking, you’re not too flash at it yourself are you? All the statistical information exists to prove that the eighties and nineties were no easier for many of my generation than this decade is for yours. But you’re determined to make it an inter-generational fight and turn it into a blame game. You must have interesting conversations around the dinner table with your parents.

                    News flash. In the eighties and nineties real wages were going down (certainly for much of that period), The real cost of living was going up all the time. Banks were lending, at huge interest rates and from memory official unemployment peaked at just over 13%, but it was generally recognised that the real figure was much higher. Driving through many small towns and even main streets in our major cities was very depressing. Many shops closed, paint peeling, public works falling behind, roads cracking up and not being repaired. The reality is that out of the last 35 yrs of my adult life, the only time that the recessional clouds really seemed to lift were between approximately 2001-2006. There was a gradual improvement in the statistics for about 4-5 years before that but it took a fair while to show up as an improvement in prospects for most working people.

                    And if it’s good enough for you to say cry me a river to me, then it’s fair enough for me to tell you to do the same, Yes?

          • Puddleglum 12.1.2.2.2
            15 June 2013 at 7:33 pm

            No, I don’t choose to ignore that.

            I’ll try to make my position as clear as possible: One of the main reasons I’m so strongly opposed to what has happened since the 1980s is because of its effects on those born into the world it has created. Yes, it harmed people immensely at the time, but my long term concern is that it has so effectively depleted the social processes required to ensure that new-born members of our society get what they need in order to live lives that are vital and fulfilling.

            It’s quite obvious that different age cohorts have different material, social, ideological, etc. experiences and prospects. As Marx said, we can’t choose the world we’re born into.

            It’s also clear that the ‘baby boom’ generation were the beneficiaries of the structural changes (e.g., that formed the post – WWII economic boom, the spread of the welfare state, free education, etc.) that occurred in the preceding generation.

            It’s self-evident that baby boomers had the advantages of those policies and people born later did not as they were exposed to the ‘reforms’ of 1984 onwards.

            My main concern with the ‘Baby Boomers versus Gen Y and Gen X’ framing of inequality is not that it highlights an inequality of effects of neoliberalism; it’s the reverse. To me, it seems to hide the dimension upon which those inequalities are distributed and asserts that it was some attack on a particular generation. It wasn’t – despite the fact that one generation saw their prospects vanish as they approached them.

            I don’t think Douglas (not a baby boomer), for example, particularly had it in for people born in the 70s or 80s – he wasn’t discriminating against them, in particular. He was, if we want to use that ‘discriminatory’ language, discriminating against everyone born from that point onwards, from here to eternity. That kind of shows that it is not a particular generation being discriminated against but something more important: A structural shift in society itself.

            The same goes for the big increase in negative statistics for Maori at the same time. It wasn’t because Maori, in particular, were being targeted (although you can never discount the degree of racism that underpins policy development – e.g., privatising parts of the public sector first that have higher Maori participation because ‘they are only Maori’ and won’t be able to put up a fight). Neoliberal reforms always impact most on those with the least power in society – that includes the next generation.

            Those groups most vulnerable to suffer under the neoliberal reforms of course include those who never received the benefits of what existed prior to those reforms.

            What I would ask is why does this mean that the enemy is the baby boomers rather than neoliberalism?

            In the same way, is the enemy for women the patriarchy or is it men? Is the enemy for Maori Pakeha or colonialism and its continuing effects?

            Also, I’d like to know the evidence that baby boomers – as a group – have supported neoliberal policies and resisted attempts to overturn them (e.g., in voting trends).

            • karol 12.1.2.2.2.1
              15 June 2013 at 7:58 pm

              Very good analysis, Puddleglum.

              Neoliberal reforms always impact most on those with the least power in society – that includes the next generation.

              When there is a reconfiguration happening in society, it is always important to consider the power dynamics: And power often doesn’t rest with the “majority” or biggest block in society. It is most available with those that have the resources and structural power to start with.

              • Populuxe1 …
                16 June 2013 at 12:59 pm

                “It is most available with those that have the resources and structural power to start with.” which would predominantl be the baby boomers for having been around longer. And by failing to recognise the collective equity of that generation by continuing to push this “blame neoliberalism” shtick, you are sort of missing Marx’s point.

                • Puddleglum …
                  16 June 2013 at 3:43 pm

                  Well, if it is not neoliberalism that is the issue (‘to blame’) then the baby boomer problem will, indeed, solve itself.

                  They will die off.

                  Then the world will be a better, more just place irrespective of the continuation of neoliberal policies. Their ‘collective equity’ will inevitably distribute amongst the remaining Gen Xers, Yers and whoever comes next. All subsequent generations will then be on a level playing field and intergenerational equality will be restored.

                  And, yes, the (current? historical?) collective equity of the boomer generation may well be greater than the collective equity of the Gen Xers or Yers (when they reach a similar age to the current boomers to counteract age-related distortions in the comparison). First, there will be more boomers at their current ages than there will be of those who follow.

                  Second, some of the privatisation ‘windfalls’ clearly went to a relatively few number of people who were late pre-boomers, early boomers (and more who were born even earlier) rather than Gen Xers and so would massively improve the collective equity of that generation.

                  Third, boomers as a group did not accumulate student debts and may have been able to enter the housing market at propitious time (though there have been continual recurrences of housing booms – even one now).

                  Then again, there were also costs not experienced by Gen Xers and Yers – e.g., long periods of unemployment for significantly larger proportions of the working age population than today (in the late 80s and through to the mid-90s which would have affected those boomers who were in their ‘peak’ earning years), higher interest rates (taking a greater proportion of income to service) and stricter initial borrowing conditions for mortgages (e.g., higher required deposits). There were also ‘costs’ (or less generous benefits) relative to the pre-boomer generation (e.g., the age 60 retirement age introduced in the 70s pushed up to 65 by 2001, in time for baby boomers to start retiring some time after that – began in 2010 if 1945 is the start of the boomer generation).

                  Also, some 250,000 or so boomers had emigrated by 1991 pursuing prospects overseas, for reasons not unlike Gen Xers and Yers today?

                  Further, much of the equity of the boomers is tied up in houses. In that context, it’s interesting what effect an ageing population will have on house prices and on the ‘release’ of that equity:

                  International evidence suggests that population ageing will have a negative impact on real estate prices (Stephenson, 2006), although whether this will apply to New Zealand is uncertain. Slower population growth may mean lower residential investment, slower growth in prices, and less speculative volatility in the housing market. These are all likely to fluctuate with ups and downs in population growth, as they have done historically.

                  House prices may also become more aligned with personal and household incomes, as in other countries. With slower labour force growth, demand for labour may lift incomes, perhaps leading to higher house prices (assuming there is not an over-supply of housing).

                  Irrespective of the impact on capital values, housing wealth poses difficulties for the asset-rich and income-poor. People needing to access their housing wealth for retirement income can either trade down homes or release home equity via financial contracts such as reverse mortgages. As a result, one might expect further development, promotion, and understanding of equity release products in New Zealand.

                  The release of that equity will go to Gen Xers and Yers (as a collective grouping, of course/ Some Xers and Yers may not reap that benefit but the generation as a whole will) and so, in some ways, the boomers’ tied up equity is like a savings scheme for the next generation with investment in the housing market. It could produce a rapid lift in the collective equity of Gen Xers and Yers. The good news is that Xers and Yers may not need to wait for boomers to die to start harvesting their collective equity.

                  Could you direct me to the source of the figures you are using on the relative (current? historical?) equity levels by generation? What year cut-offs does the source use to identify different generations? (Might be important given that the changes did not all happen at once, so it may be that some early Gen Xers actually were not much more disadvantaged than late boomers, etc.).

                    • Puddleglum …
                      16 June 2013 at 8:29 pm

                      Thanks very much Populuxe1 for the links.

                      However, they don’t seem to provide the information I thought you might be familiar with.

                      The first link, written in 2000, concerns the issue of whether or not baby boomers have sufficient savings for retirement and points out that, contra other claims that they lack savings for retirement, they have equity in their homes (unsurprisingly, older boomers have significantly more equity than younger boomers). That is, it is pointing out what I noted, that reverse equity loans will likely be used by boomers to release equity in their homes to fund their retirements.

                      However, the link had no information as to whether this amounted to a relatively greater or lesser proportion of national equity as compared to other generations (i.e., are boomers holding a disproportionate amount of the nation’s equity, as I thought was being suggested – presumably after age-related causes/life cycle factors have been controlled for).

                      The second link, written in 2004, was talking about British retirees’ spending habits. It did mention that:

                      With a good chunk of the nation’s wealth in their grasp and more political clout than any other group, pensioners are a force to be reckoned with.

                      A ‘good chunk’ is obviously significant but it’s hard to say whether it is a disproportionately large share. At that time (2004), of course, a newly retired person would be 65 years old and would have been born in 1939 so would not normally be classified as a baby boomer. The pensioners discussed in the article would have been born even earlier as they were already well-retired.

                      It did, however, note that,

                      For every pensioner struggling with poor health or a paltry income there are others who are not only fit, but who have a good looking bank balance and few qualms about forgetting the kids’ inheritance to buy themselves a good time.

                      This is the ‘SKI’ joke, popular amongst retirees – ‘spending the kids inheritance’. Not nice, perhaps, if you’re expecting that inheritance, though many of those missing out would be mid to late baby boomers and early Gen Xers.

                      The article also finishes by discussing baby boomers themselves who, at that time, were only the anticipated ‘incoming wave’ of retirees arriving about 7 years from that time. It had this to say,

                      It is this which baby boomers will have to come to terms with if they are to wield the influence their numbers merit, says Mr Harkin. So far, their vanity means that’s not happening.

                      “They fear being part of a club called ‘the old,” he says. “They frankly don’t want to be around their peers.”

                      To me, this quotation suggests that baby boomers, at least in the UK, lack the cohesiveness to vote for their collective interests – because they are attitudinally averse to seeing their interests as being at one with ‘the old’.

                      I struggle to see how such sources allow you to pivot towards claims about how the baby boomers, as a generation, have harnessed the political system to their advantage or have amassed a disproportionate amount of equity to themselves.

                      Are there any official statistics you know of about equity levels by age or such like? I’ve been looking but can’t track them down on the Statistics New Zealand site.

    • fatty 12.2
      15 June 2013 at 12:57 pm

      The creation of divisions between baby boomers and the young is not a lot different from creating divisions between the working poor and the unemployed

      I disagree.
      The way I see it, intergenerational inequality is not like that at all.
      The division between the working poor and the unemployed is created and perpetuated by the elite as a way of shifting blame. In addition, the hatred towards unemployed is fostered by neoliberal discourses: individual responsibility; laziness; dependency; self-made person etc.

      In contrast, discussion on intergenerational inequality, that I’ve seen, comes from the younger generations who have been excluded at a structural level from employment, property political voice etc. (I agree that the the explanations for generational inequality often use neoliberal buzzwords, but that occurs for all types of inequality)

      I see intergenerational inequality as being similar to gender inequality and ethnic inequality. When the issue is discussed, those from the boomer generation will individualise the issue. ‘I’m a boomer and I’m not rich’ is very similar to I’m Pakeha but I don’t own land or I’m a guy, but I know loads of women that earn more than me.

      If a Pakeha, or a male individualise the issues of racism and sexism, then I’d call those people racist or sexist. So when a boomer individualises generational inequality…what’s that?
      When someone on here claims that feminism or culturalism is a myth that is created by the elite as a diversion from economic inequality, they get told they are sexist or racist.

      I’m a Pakeha male who owns no land and earns shit money, but I can see the structural inequalities and I speak out against them. Perhaps the boomers from the left can speak out and acknowledge structural limitations faced by younger generations, rather than ignoring their position of privilege by individualising the issue.

      I didn’t want to re-hash this argument, but fuck it, someone has to right?
      Just as many people on the left had to have racial and gender structural limitations drilled into their heads before they acknowledged it, it seems the left is still blind to the way our ideologies have changed historically to advantage one cohort of the population.

      Is it any surprise that there are few Gen X or younger on this blog?
      Just as it was all old man Pakeha talk before Karol and QOT shifted the discourse, perhaps if boomers were more reflective on their own position, there might be a few more young people getting involved in politics.

      Don’t think of generational inequality as trying to replace economic inequality. Think of generational inequality as another concept to be used when we think of intersectionality (alongside gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc).
      Nobody is claiming all boomers had it easy, or benefited from neoliberalism. Instead the point is that neoliberalism has disproportionately affected Gen X and later, particularly in regards to economic issues

      • Rogue Trooper 12.2.1
        15 June 2013 at 1:26 pm

        more good analysis.seduction and subscription.

      • Olwyn 12.2.2
        15 June 2013 at 4:19 pm

        Firstly I agree that the generation coming of age in the eighties and nineties did indeed get the sharp end of the deal with student loans, being shut out of home ownership, etc. But the thing is, these conditions were inflicted upon us all – most people who voted Labour in 1984 did not vote for them. They were conditioned to a world of full employment, adequate housing, etc, and mostly assumed that after certain large problems, like government debt, etc, were dealt with, we would return to a similar equilibrium. This didn’t happen, but even as recently as the Clark years, the thought was still entertained that “a maturing market economy” would deliver some level of social justice. Even Bolger, who ultimately sacked Ruth Richardson, had notions of building “social capital.” We were subjected to what was essentially an economic coup, with the compliance of our business leaders and governments, which still shows no signs of abating. Rail against the old because they haven’t lost out as badly as you have and guess what? They will turn the blow torch on them for your satisfaction but without any benefit flowing back to you. The real battle is not against the old per se, but against neo-liberalism.

        • fatty 12.2.2.1
          15 June 2013 at 5:18 pm

          But the thing is, these conditions were inflicted upon us all

          True, but that has never been the point of the discussion, its just a defensive response that the privileged always put forward.
          You know how neoliberalism disproportionately affects Maori. Well, some Maori are richer than some Pakeha.
          You know how neoliberalism disproportionately affects women? Well, some women earn more money than some men.
          This leads us to:
          You know how some Gen X’s are wealthy and some boomer are poor. Well, neoliberalism has disproportionately affected Gen X and younger.

          The interesting thing about neoliberalism is that boomers fail to understand how and why they benefited by a system that is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer….after all, as they’ll claim, most boomers have never been ‘rich’.
          The key to uncovering how neoliberalism has benefitted boomers is to look at when it came in, and why is it going out now. Its easy to say that neoliberalism is going out of fashion now because its failed us, GFC etc. But I think its also to do with when boomers were at the peak of their earning potential. In the mid 1980s, when neoliberalism was introduced, the older boomers were 30-35, and the younger ones were just beginning their careers. By 2010, older boomers are hitting retirement, and younger boomers aren’t far off.
          Neoliberalism is all about the individual and user pays. That’s a great idea if you have just finished free tertiary study, have a stable job, are well on your way to paying off & owning property, and have no intention of funding the education and housing of the next generation….enter neoliberalism (framed as freedom of course).
          Just coincidence that neoliberalism lasts for the same era when boomer’s are at the peak of their earning potential? Doubt it.
          Neoliberalism is an economic system that oppresses people who cannot work, are out of work, or have limited resources. So it only got voted in because it suited the strengths of the boomers (the statistical bulge) for a limited period of time.
          Its a selfish ideology that suited the largest cohort of society for a period of time. Just because you are in that cohort, does not mean you benefit from neoliberalism, or that you wanted it, or that groups outside the cohort don’t sometimes benefit from it. Nobody is saying that, all that is being said is that neoliberalism has benefited boomers disproportionately.

          Nobody is ‘railing against old people’. Old people suffer as much as younger people do from neoliberalism. Boomers are beginning to understand that now…why else do you think neoliberalism is going out of fashion?

          • Olwyn 12.2.2.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 5:25 pm

            What I was saying is this: the introduction of this selfish ideology was not announced to the population and put up for their approval. It was brought in by subterfuge. Yes, of course there are selfish baby boomers, but even they did not get to vote on the basis of their selfishness, but on the basis of false advertising.

            • handle 12.2.2.1.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 6:41 pm

              ‘Subterfuge’ explains one or two electoral cycles at most. Stop voting for parties and politicians when they rip you off. Unless they are mostly ripping off other people you do not care about so much.

              • Olwyn …
                15 June 2013 at 7:03 pm

                Well, 800,000 people did not vote at all last election, some of them probably for just that reason. And people did vote in MMP in hope of curbing the political tendency to campaign on one thing and then do another. You have to remember that at the time people did not have the wisdom of hindsight, as we now have. They voted for Labour again in 1987 in the hope that they would correct the damage they had done. Then they voted for Bolger to get rid of Labour, which with Ruth Richardson as finance minister, amounted to voting their way from frying pan to fire. They tried to vote that lot out in 1996 by voting for Helen, but Winnie chose a coalition with National. And so on. It is not as simple as you seem to think. A lot, of all ages, having given up and gone to Australia.

                • Olwyn …
                  15 June 2013 at 7:05 pm

                  I should add that all of these moves were accompanied by howls of “crisis” and “necessity”from our politicians.

          • geoff 12.2.2.1.2
            15 June 2013 at 5:41 pm

            fatty, you’ve completely nailed it. Really good posts, mate.

          • karol 12.2.2.1.3
            15 June 2013 at 6:49 pm

            The key to uncovering how neoliberalism has benefitted boomers is to look at when it came in, and why is it going out now. Its easy to say that neoliberalism is going out of fashion now because its failed us, GFC etc. But I think its also to do with when boomers were at the peak of their earning potential. In the mid 1980s, when neoliberalism was introduced, the older boomers were 30-35, and the younger ones were just beginning their careers. By 2010, older boomers are hitting retirement, and younger boomers aren’t far off.

            Are you saying there’s a cause & effect there? In what way? Because they/we, because of our numbers, became a large group of earning consumers?

            Neoliberalism had its roots in the 70s, with a backlash from the elites against the post war rise of the welfare state and shift towards social democracy, or some may say, socialist-type policies. But the “neoliberals, were developing their networks, think-tanks, philosophies, etc, from the late 60s at least.

            1980s was also the time of the rise of the internet – maybe that was the factor that propelled “neoliberalism” into the mainstream of politics?

            Merely saying something happened at the same time as something else, is not evidence of cause & effect.

            • Rogue Trooper 12.2.2.1.3.1
              15 June 2013 at 6:57 pm

              I do not see reference to “cause and effect” by fatty; implications.

            • geoff 12.2.2.1.3.2
              15 June 2013 at 7:41 pm

              I think it’s obvious that fatty is saying that the two are causally linked.

              Realistically, karol, there have been economic ideas akin to neoliberalism floating about since well before the 20th century, obviously that’s why they call it neo-classical economics.
              It’s just that when the baby boomer population bulge reached a point in their lives when they didn’t need help from the state, policies which dismantled the state were allowed to flourish by a majority who could now see how they would benefit from them.

              • karol …
                15 June 2013 at 7:52 pm

                Where is the evidence that the majority allowed it to happen. In the UK where I was living, Thatcher never got 50% of the vote. And are you saying the older generations also weren’t involved?

                That is a fairly 2-dimensional analysis, that ignores they way the media promoted neoliberal policies. It ignores they way people make choices, often from the limited range offered to them by people in power. A lot of boomers also strongly supported welfare state provisions and strongly opposed them.

                yes those ideas had been around for a while, but the Chicago School shift, and the ways neoliberalism was sold resulted from a particular flurry of think-tank and other right wing elite activity.

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  16 June 2013 at 12:54 am

                  Yes.Implications

                • fatty …
                  16 June 2013 at 9:42 am

                  I don’t think that linking neoliberalism to people’s life cycle is 2-dimensional at all (it actually adds another dimension), and as Geoff pointed out, I don’t think it is causal.
                  I know there is a generally agreed history of neoliberalism, where there were two teams, one on the left of capitalism and one on the right. As explained on Commanding Heights. That documentary outlines the key players, Keynes and Hayek, and how neoliberalism was imposed. Which I’m not saying didn’t happen, instead, why did it happen then?
                  It could be argued that the neoliberal machine is more powerful, more persuasive, and moke sneaky now than it has ever been before…but neoliberalism is on its way out due to a population shift. As boomers moved into retirement, neoliberalism was always going to fade out and older people’s welfare will begin to re-emergre.
                  If we think that Winston is getting to the end of our political career, we are kidding ourselves, he’s about to hit his prime and his polices will begin to resonate with more voters.
                  We had neoliberalism from 1980-2010, and then we will return to a more caring sort of politics as boomers move into retirement (especially if Gen X and younger continue to shun politics). Overall, this is not a bad thing as leftwing policies should be about caring for vulnerable people.
                  The so called ‘left-wing’ moved away from caring for the vulnerable as babyboomers moved through their working life years (the years when people are less vulnerable to the volatility of capitalism).

          • Puddleglum 12.2.2.1.4
            16 June 2013 at 8:34 pm

            “The key to uncovering how neoliberalism has benefitted boomers is to look at when it came in, and why is it going out now.”

            This is very good news fatty. But, what evidence are you thinking of when you make this claim about neoliberalism “going out now“?

            • fatty 12.2.2.1.4.1
              16 June 2013 at 9:10 pm

              True, its not going out, and won’t be gone for a long time, but anti-neoliberalism sentiment is far more prominent now. For example, Labour introduced the first wave of neoliberalism in 1984, then the second wave of neoliberlism under the guise of ‘third-way’. Now they are pretending to make murmurs.
              Same with the UK, France had a go. The cheerleading for neoliberalism is decreasing in many places in the Western world and the BRICS nations are emerging with slightly different ideas.
              But yeah, its not going out anytime soon

              • Puddleglum …
                16 June 2013 at 10:27 pm

                I agree that there has been, recently, a questioning discourse about neoliberalism that wasn’t around in the 80s and 90s to anywhere near the same extent. Then, it was all ‘don’t criticise until it’s had a chance’, etc. combined with ‘don’t you know we’re in a crisis!’ Voices of dissent were pretty much marginalised, especially the voices of dissenting economists (Brian Easton wrote about this quite well in his book ‘The Commercialisation of New Zealand‘. You might also be interested in his post on the student debt burden, written in 2002)

                What has astounded me, though, is how discursively well-managed that disquiet has been. It has largely been deferred and deflected in western countries. Political leaders incorporated that discourse (Obama perhaps being the most obvious example, but Hollande and other supposed social democratic leaders in Europe also are examples) but then simply have not delivered; quite the reverse.

                The BRICS states have their own geopolitical reasons for pushing “slightly different ideas” as they need to break the dominance of the existing large economies. I’m not sure those ideas, however, relate to the baby boomer issue.

                • fatty …
                  16 June 2013 at 11:39 pm

                  What has astounded me, though, is how discursively well-managed that disquiet has been. It has largely been deferred and deflected in western countries.

                  I just did a big rant below about what I think is one of the main problems the left currently face. I think the link between neoliberalism and identity politics (the social movements of the 60s/70s) is not acknowledged, and that is a reason why neoliberalism has remained hegemonic.

                  The BRICS states have their own geopolitical reasons for pushing “slightly different ideas” as they need to break the dominance of the existing large economies. I’m not sure those ideas, however, relate to the baby boomer issue.

                  Yeah, the BRIC nations avoidance(?) of neoliberalism is not related to western boomers. But I would say that the dominance of the existing large economies is neoliberalism.
                  So why have the BRIC nations not chosen neoliberalism? I think if they had a population bulge from the 20-35 year old range, as was the case for NZ around the 1980s, then they’d go with a more individualised capitalism (although comparing Western countries with BRIC countries is problematic)
                  Cheers for the Brian Easton links, I do like his work

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    16 June 2013 at 11:45 pm

                    So why have the BRIC nations not chosen neoliberalism?

                    Russia did, on the advice of the likes of the IMF, World bank and Goldman Sachs after the fall of the USSR. The Ruskies figured it out after a few years, and kicked them out.

                    The likes of Brazil, India and China know what it is liked to be colonised by western powers, and from their history were already on guard and very skeptical.

        • Clockie 12.2.2.2
          15 June 2013 at 7:29 pm

          I agree with all of what you say Olwyn. I’m a tail end baby boomer born in 1958. But I think that Pop1 and a few others here have overlooked the fact that my cohort were in our twenties and thirties during the eighties and nineties. We found it hard to get started. The older boomers (the so called hippie generation) were in their forties and fifties. Many of them were made redundant and found it very hard to get employed again. This period was arguably one of the longest if not the nastiest periods of recession this country has known. It blighted the lives of many people including many who were baby boomers. As is the case with any generation most people were utterly powerless and just tried to survive. As the new neo-liberal politics took root, there were winners and losers. It was not a case of baby boomers win, every one else loses. The winning and losing was much more indiscriminate than that. My fathers generation were born between the wars (b.1935) came of age in the mid 50’s. They experienced The first real opportunity for working class kids to get a tertiary education, State Advances home loans at (very) low interest rates. Rising wages but still very low inflation. A booming economy and full employment. A guarantee of full Govt Super at age 60, subsidised milk at 4cents a pint (when I was about 8yrs old) and so it went, on and on. We certainly grew up as children in households with those advantages. But by the time we were young adults they were rapidly disappearing in the rear view mirror.

          • lprent 12.2.2.2.1
            15 June 2013 at 8:33 pm

            I’m a tail end baby boomer born in 1958.

            1959. Joined the workforce full-time in 1981 after university.

            …my cohort were in our twenties and thirties during the eighties and nineties. We found it hard to get started.

            Sure was. For me the only advantage was that university was cheapish (definitely not free). But 15-20% inflation (and nothing like that in wage increases) and the same for interest on mortgages was a definite discouragement to doing anything in the house buying line. Not to mention going back to university to avoid the massive unemployment (and underemployment) amongst my contemporaries in the late 70s and early 80s.

            We spent the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s just trying to get this frigging country’s debt down to something where paying the interest on government debt wasn’t the major use of my taxes.

            Of course that just means that it has provided these current wastrel arseholes in National an opportunity to create more debt in the pursuit of getting elected on a taxcut bribe for the affluent voter….

            • karol 12.2.2.2.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 8:52 pm

              I’m a tail end baby boomer born in 1958.

              And here lies one of the problems with separating generations out of the ongoing flow of new-borns. There was quite a bit of social, economic and technological change between 1946 and the early 60s.

              The circumstances into which early and late boomers were born differed quite a bit, in terms of technologies available, and the rise & rise of “youth culture”. And there was no distinct cut-off between earlier & later generations: I had cousins and, later, friends who were born during the war.

              Us early boomers grew up with relatively little material possessions, even in middle-class households: no fridge; no washing machine, evening entertainment reading, radio, card and boardgames; hot water was rationed by the power companies, with staggered switch-offs; etc, etc. And uni education could only be afforded by a few. Wages weren’t very high, and we were brought up to save for things we required, to recycle what we could and generally be frugal.

              Some very good (social security) things between 1946 & 1959 for families, according to Te Ara, but not always so great for women.

              While settled family life was celebrated in the immediate post-war period, what happened in families was sometimes rather different. One person recalled hearing slaps and the cries of children as the pubs released men during the era of 6 o’clock closing. Women sought advice from Women’s weekly columnists about men who were unfaithful, did not provide them with housekeeping money, neglected their children or spent most of their free time with male friends. Rape within marriage and domestic violence occurred in neat, well-vacuumed homes with newly cut lawns as well as in shabby rental accommodation.

              • Clockie …
                15 June 2013 at 10:57 pm

                “And here lies one of the problems with separating generations out of the ongoing flow of new-borns.”

                Just so. My brother born in 1960 and I are “Boomers”. My younger brother born 1965 and sister born 1971 are Gen X. Where precisely does one draw the line when throwing accusations and apportioning blame??

                If it is bigotry to generalise about age, race, gender, religion etc..then why is it perfectly OK to lump an entire generation together and accuse them collectively of inter-generational theft, neglect and vandalism of the planets ecosystem and watering the garden during restricted periods in hot summers, while every other age-group apparently gets a free pass. Talk about highly dubious analysis of an extremely complex situation based on totally erroneous assumptions ..

                • fatty …
                  16 June 2013 at 10:00 am

                  If it is bigotry to generalise about age, race, gender, religion etc..then why is it perfectly OK to lump an entire generation together and accuse them collectively of inter-generational theft, neglect and vandalism of the planets ecosystem and watering the garden during restricted periods in hot summers, while every other age-group apparently gets a free pass. Talk about highly dubious analysis of an extremely complex situation based on totally erroneous assumptions ..

                  Do you really think its bigotry to generalise about age, race, gender and religion? Are you saying that pointing out a structural privilege afforded to one group over another is bigotry? …I don’t.
                  So you think that feminist movements are by nature, bigotry? ..Feminism was and is based on a generalised belief in a patriarchal society.
                  So you think the civil rights movement in the USA was bigotry because it generalised how whites were privileged?…Is pointing out white privilege bigotry? Am I on a radiolive message board?

                  I would say that bigotry occurs when one sits in the privileged group and then says we’re all in this together. Sounds like an echo of Don Brash’s we’re all Kiwis.

                  • Clockie …
                    16 June 2013 at 10:36 am

                    So YOUR’E allowed to generalise about “privileged” groups but not about “oppressed” groups? Who says that’s OK? Just a little rule we made up for ourselves? Bugger that! I challenge your right to criticise en masse ANY group (especially one of which I am a member) without having me or someone like me coming back at you, and frankly, yes, I take it bloody personally.

                    Using a term like “baby boomers” as short hand to stand for particular groups within the baby boomer generation whom you see as parasites or oppressors or a waste of space and lumping them all together is not only insulting but intellectually lazy and dishonest. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. One good insult deserves another I always say.

                    • fatty …
                      16 June 2013 at 10:46 am

                      So YOUR’E allowed to generalise about “privileged” groups but not about “oppressed” groups? Who says that’s OK?

                      No, you’ve simplified the issue.
                      Anyone can talk about any group at anytime, but one should always be careful about what is said, and from what position it is being said from.
                      When we come from a dominant group or dominant cohort, then we must be aware of our own privilege and power.
                      For example, as a Pakeha I can talk about Maori. I can say that Maori suffer from structural racism in the workplace and are less likely to be employed. However, it would be stupid for me to say that Maori need to pull themselves by their bootstaps if they want to get into the job market.
                      In both instances I have generalised about Maori. One was acceptable, the other was racist

                    • Clockie …
                      16 June 2013 at 10:56 am

                      Think about what you’re saying. It’s not ME that’s simplified the issue. It’s you and your fellow travelers who’ve done that. You can adopt a position where you regard yourself as being part of an oppressor group because of your skin colour if you like. I call that a martyr complex. You didn’t ask to be white. You’ve (presumably) done nothing to further the subjection of the oppressed. You are possibly in as bad a position as many of the oppressed for much the same reason. Do what you like but don’t expect me to follow you.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      16 June 2013 at 1:03 pm

                      Check your privilege, Clocky

                    • fatty …
                      16 June 2013 at 1:04 pm

                      You can adopt a position where you regard yourself as being part of an oppressor group because of your skin colour if you like. I call that a martyr complex. You didn’t ask to be white.

                      OK, we have completely different views about how power, especially hegemonic power, is held and used by different groups. If you can’t see how white privilege exists, then you will not be able to see how how age groups experience economics and politics differently.

                      You’ve (presumably) done nothing to further the subjection of the oppressed.

                      If we don’t resist and speak out against structural inequalities, especially when a group repeatedly has fingers pointing at them, then as far as I can see, we are furthering the subjugation of that group.

                      You are possibly in as bad a position as many of the oppressed for much the same reason.

                      What is the obsession on here with individualising this debate (which is ironically a neoliberal trait…how unsurprising)
                      For perhaps the 20th time, individualising this argument exemplifies the problem, it is not the answer.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 June 2013 at 1:42 pm

                      White Mans Burden (a great movie too).

                • geoff …
                  16 June 2013 at 10:19 am

                  Stop taking it personally, Clockie.

              • geoff …
                16 June 2013 at 10:08 am

                Your argument sounds similar to the ones that climate change deniers use, ie choosing convenient cut off years to show that warming hasn’t occurred.

                I think you’re doing exactly what fatty pointed out, taking it personally.

                Cherry picking specific data points, in an attempt to discredit what is essentially a statistical argument, is not valid.

                • Clockie …
                  16 June 2013 at 10:43 am

                  I didn’t choose the years which define the baby boom generation. There is a generally accepted range of years which define the various generations. It is the people like Pop1 and Fatty et al who are using the convenient intellectual shortcut of blaming all of the worlds ills on a group of disparate individuals who represent a huge range of political views and socio-economic backgrounds together as one identifiable lump. They chose the appelation and thence the year range for the group they chose to attack. Grow a brain and don’t be surprised if you get some blow-back when you accuse well meaning, hardworking and generous spirited people of effectively being a blight on humanity. Fuck that!

                  • geoff …
                    16 June 2013 at 12:14 pm

                    Can’t help but take it personally, can you? Nobody’s blaming you personally, Clockie.
                    I’m a member of Gen X and I’m happy to recognise the faults of my generation. What makes you think your generation is so fucking special?
                    It isn’t an attack on the characteristics which are generally attributed to baby boomers. It is merely an acknowledgement of the fact there was a big bulge in the population which benefited greatly from social services and then, due to self interest, allowed policies to be implemented that effectively ‘pulled the ladder up’ on the following generations.

                    I’m quite sure any other generation would have acted exactly the same given similar circumstances, that’s just human nature, plain and simple. But if you’re so up your self that you are unprepared to accept that those circumstances occurred then you’re just being a dickhead.

                    • Clockie …
                      16 June 2013 at 12:36 pm

                      “What makes you think your generation is so fucking special?”

                      My point, oh slow one, is that we are NOT “fucking special”. We are simply, as Karol rightly said, part of the continuum of human existence. You may choose to recast the argument NOW as only having talked about impersonal historical forces. But there have been quite a few mentions along the way of generalised characteristics of selfishness, venality and implied inter-generational theft of a conscious nature which are quite definitely insulting to the many baby boomers who were not only victims of the neo liberal experiment but worked bloody hard to stop it happening, roll it back when it did happen and in the meantime work every hour that god sends to try to support their gen x and millenial children. If you can’t recognise that then I suggest you’re something of a Roman yourself.

                    • Clockie …
                      16 June 2013 at 12:43 pm

                      “I’m a member of Gen X and I’m happy to recognise the faults of my generation.”

                      I’m sure all your generational cohort will thank you for that.

                      In my book, generations don’t have faults. Individuals and human institutions can have faults. It pays to be clear about the distinction between the several things.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 June 2013 at 1:47 pm

                      affirming the consequent.

                    • geoff …
                      16 June 2013 at 1:57 pm

                      You may choose to recast the argument NOW as only having talked about impersonal historical forces.

                      Where in this post have I recast my argument?

                      I notice that at no point during this entire comment thread have you actually responded to the guts of the ‘impersonal historical forces’ argument which I, and fatty, have been describing.

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 2:04 pm

                      Geoff, I am curious. While you guys are happily engaged in scapegoating the “baby boomers” for your dissatisfaction with the political and economic environment you find yourselves in (the majority of baby boomers are unhappy with it as well – only those baby boomers [and generation xers] who are doing extremely well out of the system seem to support it) I’m not at all sure what sort of political and economic system you would like to see in place.

                      Can you explain what your preferred political and economic system would look like and how it would work?

                    • geoff …
                      16 June 2013 at 3:12 pm

                      Geoff, I am curious. While you guys are happily engaged in scapegoating the “baby boomers” for your dissatisfaction with the political and economic environment

                      You’ve completely missed the point, Arfamo. I have not been engaging in scapegoating. What I have been doing is trying to convey my understanding of what has occurred over the last ~50 years. This has resulted in many, presumably, baby boomers on tehstandrd getting very defensive and failing to engage in the discussion in a mature fashion.

                      I’m not at all sure what sort of political and economic system you would like to see in place.
                      Can you explain what your preferred political and economic system would look like and how it would work?

                      I have discussed at length, across many posts, the changes I would like to see to the NZ politicial/economic system and I’m not about to reel them off here in great detail just to satisfy your curiosity. Suffice it to say that I would like to see NZ bring back many of the ideas that were in place during the youth of the baby boomers, so that future NZers can enjoy the benefits of growing up in a properly progressive country.

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 3:16 pm

                      Fair enough Geoff. Then we are in agreement on what the role of a democratic government should be. And that we do not have such a government, nor any encouraging signs that one will soon be formed.

  13. phillip ure 13
    14 June 2013 at 12:02 pm

    newsflash..!..young person ‘revolts’ by joining labour party..!

    ..pictures at six..!

    ..phillip ure..

  14. weka 14
    14 June 2013 at 12:04 pm

    I don’t think we can validly talk about the ‘young’ as one homogenous group.

  15. red rattler 15
    14 June 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Generation Zero knows no age
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=166459856858383&set=a.163064897197879.1073741826.163062643864771&type=1&theater

    Generational arguments are a tear gas smokescreens partially obscuring the class basis of politics.

    Young people’s contribution to the anti-capitalist/anti-neoliberal movements developing around the world are in their idealism and energy. But no generation has a monopoly on political activism or political quiescence.

    It is a fallacy to jump from wealthy babyboomers to impoverished youth. All generations have always been representative of all classes. By definition the life cycle produces a generational bias since youth are not born rich but nor do the vast majority of aged die rich. And against a backdrop of economic booms and busts it APPEARS that age is a significant factor. It is not.

    Pick up your slingshot babyboomers, join your parents who lived through the great depression and a world war so that we would be free to rise up against a Huxleyan Dystopia.

    • red rattler 15.1
      14 June 2013 at 2:17 pm

      Brazilian Youth [protest bus fares] Rising
      http://t.co/sLDGytvQsj

    • rosy 15.2
      14 June 2013 at 8:41 pm

      It is a fallacy to jump from wealthy babyboomers to impoverished youth. All generations have always been representative of all classes. By definition the life cycle produces a generational bias since youth are not born rich but nor do the vast majority of aged die rich. And against a backdrop of economic booms and busts it APPEARS that age is a significant factor. It is not.

      +1 this

  16. ropata 16
    14 June 2013 at 12:23 pm

    In reply to Hickey’s question, we saw in pre-WW2 Germany that there was a surfeit of disaffected young males with no work and no prospects. This is also the case in many Middle Eastern countries hence the explosive daily news from that region. If we continue down the path National is heading then we’ll end up with riots (and a vast underclass and omnipresent surveillance) just like England and France.

    But perhaps the Nats prefer the US solution — ship off the surplus males to all points of the globe and promote the interests of the elite through violence.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      14 June 2013 at 1:22 pm

      Greece’s Golden Dawn at 15%

      History returns to Europe

      • Rogue Trooper 16.1.1
        14 June 2013 at 1:26 pm

        some historical links below (hope the moderators understand; includes one to ‘Blackshirts’)

  18. Rogue Trooper 18
    14 June 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Test

  22. Rogue Trooper 22
    14 June 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Black Muslims,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Muslims , we are seeing an increase in the number of young people representing Islam here in Hastings, particularly among young maori.

  24. Rogue Trooper 24
    14 June 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Black Mondays
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday

    I respect, admire and value Bernard Hickey’s commentary.

  25. BLiP 25
    14 June 2013 at 1:18 pm

    ‘

    I doubt New Zealand’s yoof have the gumption to bestir themselves to any form of protest much beyond angry tweets and bleating facebook messages. Then again, if what’s going on in Turkey is at all indicative, our yoof may have revolution forced upon them by the actions of the state . . .

    By now, everyone has heard of the brutal suppression of protests all over Turkey, which began with a peaceful sit-in in Istanbul to protect a hapless apology for a park from demolition. Right by the city’s unofficial centre, Taksim Square, Gezi Park had been slated to become yet another one of the ruling AKP’s signature Ottoman-cum-Disneyland construction projects. It was hardly much of a park, by London standards, but it was one of the last remaining places in the area with a few trees and a bit of room to stroll around. The protesters found the idea of losing that tiny refuge from Istanbul’s urban chaos unbearable . . .

    . . . our authorities are becoming increasingly beligerent (and sneaky) in the imposition of their version of “law and order”. Keep it up, copper.

  26. Rogue Trooper 26
    14 June 2013 at 1:25 pm

    From “Nihilism : The Root of The Revolution Of The Modern Age.”
    -Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose.

    “In the following pages we shall characterize as “Nihilists” (people) of, as it seems, widely divergent views: skeptics, revolutionaries of all hues, artists and philosophers of various schools; but they are united in a common task. Whether in positivist “criticism” of Christian truths and institutions, revolutionary violence against the Old Order, apocalyptic visions of universal destruction and the advent of a paradise on earth, or subjective scientific labors in the interests of a “better life” in this world – the tacit assumption being that there is no other world- their aim is the same: the annihilation of Revelation and the preparation of a new order in which there shall be no trace of the “old” view of things, in which man shall be the only god there is.”

    ‘The Last Resort’- “call some place paradise kiss it goodbye”.
    -The Eagles.

  27. Rogue Trooper 27
    14 June 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Contents.
    I. Editors Preface

    II.The Stages of the Nihilist Dialectic
    1.Liberalism
    2.Realism
    3.Vitalism
    4.The Nihilism of Destruction

    III.The Theology and the Spirit of Nihilism
    1.Rebellion:The War against God
    2.The Worship of Nothingness

    IV.The Nihilist Program
    1.The Destruction of the Old Order
    2. The Making of the “New Earth”
    3.The Fashioning of the “New Man”

  28. Rogue Trooper 28
    14 June 2013 at 2:04 pm

    I. Liberalism
    “The Liberalism that we shall describe in the following pages is not- let us state at the outset- an overt Nihilism; it is rather a passive Nihilism, or, better yet, the neutral breeding-ground of the more advanced stages of Nihilism.
    …The incomopetent defence by Liberalism of a heritage in which it has never fully believed, has been one of the most potent cause of overt Nihilism…”
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
    (ahhh, that was quicker).

  29. AsleepWhileWalking 29
    14 June 2013 at 5:27 pm

    The Young will revolt by not buying into the massive ponzi scheme we call home ownership. Even if they can actually afford it.

    • ak 29.1
      14 June 2013 at 6:20 pm

      The Young will revolt by not buying into the massive ponzi scheme we call home ownership. Even if they can actually afford it.

      No, Asleep. Genes will rule as always, and Survival will utterly dominate. Which means they’ll want kids and a garden: in other words Love. Thwarted, they’ll smash the Hatemongers. The sooner the better.

  30. Rosetinted 30
    14 June 2013 at 7:28 pm

    But sometimes love thwarted, self turns in on itself, gets frustrated and dissatisfied,. turns from itself to unload onto others – sports people hitting others, getting drunk, domestic violence.

  31. pollywog 31
    14 June 2013 at 7:36 pm

    They’ll just stop paying for stuff and burn shit…

    …change identities, rinse and repeat.

  32. Foreign Waka 32
    15 June 2013 at 11:54 am

    The notion for the young generation to stand up and fight would mean that they have to have some knowledge of world history past and present. They need to be able to articulate ideas that benefit the whole of society and have a keen understanding of what any change will mean to their peers of all shades and the environment. In fact the baby boomer generation is actually waiting for this to happen.
    All that can be seen is eyes glued to a screen (any) and fast food being the main stay. Fight is something that happens in cyberspace or overseas. Opinion about what? The newest Apple tablet? So why would the baby boomer generation want to let go? To a future of what? Any Gen x and beyond – please dazzle my mind.

    • Populuxe1 32.1
      15 June 2013 at 2:40 pm

      That’s exactly the kind of attitude that turns younger generations off having anything to do with baby boomers politically. The smug, arrogant, patronising, know it all, been there done that, get ofa my lawn sneering that comes from people like you. You have no understanding of the discourse so you dismiss it as irrelevant.

      • Foreign Waka 32.1.1
        15 June 2013 at 4:47 pm

        Brilliant excuse, bravo! How childish. Proof me wrong, still waiting for some mind blowing statement that will show me that a true positive change is looming… besides, you also have to accept that it is the older generations prerogative to challenge the younger one to show definite ideas.

        • Populuxe1 32.1.1.1
          15 June 2013 at 5:40 pm

          Positive change? See, that’s half the probelm – you are a dinosaur stuck on some historically deterministic utopian linear teleology of social change. There can be no significant “positive” change in the terminal world you have bequeathed us. You don’t get it. We don’t even think that way – we think in terms of anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures, not this silly and redundant replacing of one vertical monopolar social instrument with another over and over again even though clearly it doesn’t work. The social reality is stochastic and interconnected, not this bleating over the heads of a million solitudes, and must be treated pragmatically and ad hoc – no fossil ideologies from the nineteenth century.

          • Clockie 32.1.1.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 5:45 pm

            Great to see you’ve got it under control. No problems then. Just wait a few years for the (spit) baby boomers (your parents) to totter off and then you can get on with creating this brave new world that’s obviously well-on in the planning..

            • Populuxe1 32.1.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 5:54 pm

              You lot never managed to get it all under control, and again you’ve chosen to view what I’ve said through baby boomer blinkers. We don’t want to save the world, we want to survive it. You are desperately trying to cling to obsolete social hierarchies and class consciousness when the discourse has shifted to mediating between identity politics, technology and the environment. Marxism is a useful critical tool, but it’s not actually a solution.

              • Foreign Waka …
                15 June 2013 at 6:07 pm

                This is very funny, “vertical monopolar” “we think in terms of anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures” if this wouldn’t be online I would ask where the hidden camera is.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:09 pm

                  It’s not my fault you have a substandard vocabulary.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:10 pm

                  I like how he claims to speak for gen X and below with all this “we” talk, and seemed to claim Young Labour (!) as an example of what he’s talking about. anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures indeed.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    15 June 2013 at 6:22 pm

                    Yes, actually – our generation seems a lot better at dealing with diversity and dissent apparently. It may have missed you, but in the matter of marriage equalisation most of youth wings were in agreement. You all play tribal party politics, we seek out commonalities to work from.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      15 June 2013 at 6:30 pm

                      So are you gen x or young labour generation?

                      Just so as you know, I’m pretty much bang in the middle of gen x, have never belonged to a political party, youth wing or otherwise, and voted for plenty of different ones. Party partisan, I aint.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:10 pm

                  I definitely think in terms of anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures, why, don’t you?

              • Clockie …
                15 June 2013 at 6:47 pm

                So not only do you speak for all of generation X, you now claim to know exactly what motivates all of the baby boomers and exactly how much “we” as an amorphous bloc have contributed for good or ill to the state of the world during our adult lives. Not only this, you seem to imagine that all of the world’s ill’s can be sheeted home to every member of a single generation born in the twenty year period between (say) 1945-1964 (the last half of whom are considered tail enders and are really a different group to the first decade after the war). Now this generation did not come into their political own until about the late nineties. Nominally they have been in the drivers seat for about twenty years. If you and your generation can “get it all under control” in twenty years I assure you I will be the first to cheer in congratulation as you take your ticker tape parade down Queen St.

                • Clockie …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:50 pm

                  @Pop1 “Only compared to you”

                  You are correct. Compared to me you are an arrogant know-all.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:52 pm

                  Do you even read? Or are you just going to ignore the entire thread to spare your poor feelings? Funny, I’ve never known you to be as concientious in recognising the diversity amoung people you don’t like. All right wing capitalists being the same etc

                  • Clockie …
                    15 June 2013 at 6:55 pm

                    You’re starting to froth. Just take a deep breath old chap.

                  • Clockie …
                    15 June 2013 at 7:00 pm

                    “I’ve never known you to be as concientious in recognising the diversity amoung people you don’t like.”

                    Actually you’ve never known me at all, in any way although you profess to be able to judge individuals on a single sentence. Tell me, who are these “people I don’t like”? In what way have I generalised about them? If I have ever done such a thing, in what way precisely is that different from you generalising about the entire baby boom generation?

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      15 June 2013 at 7:19 pm

                      Defensive bristling as of a nerve being touched, otherwise you’d just ignore me

                    • felix …
                      15 June 2013 at 7:32 pm

                      Actually Pop, what looks defensive is not answering a straight question.

                    • Clockie …
                      15 June 2013 at 7:32 pm

                      No, freshly shaved this morning. No answer I see.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      16 June 2013 at 6:05 pm

                      People you don’t like? I suppose we could start with anyone you consider right wing, or rather not left wing enough.

                    • Clockie …
                      16 June 2013 at 11:59 pm

                      There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of people you won’t abuse. Or people who don’t like you. I wonder if the second could be a consequence of the first?

    • fatty 32.2
      15 June 2013 at 3:40 pm

      You seem content to continue with this fantasy that politics is the arena for younger people to change the world. But younger people have been shut out of politics for too long, and it will continue for another couple of decades yet.Take off your boomer lens.

      All that can be seen is eyes glued to a screen (any) and fast food being the main stay

      Its a shame you frame Gen X and younger with the same neoliberal rhetoric that was used against the occupy movement.

      Ask yourself why there are no young people on The Standard? If you are struggling to answer that question, get up and walk over to a mirror and ask again.

      So why would the baby boomer generation want to let go?

      When a group is marginalised, something has to occur for them to be included and begin participating (whether that is politics, society, sport or whatever).
      Although standing up for your rights, protesting, fighting for recognition etc are all needed, all of those are not as important as this – those who hold the power and voice must make space for the marginalised.
      The fight for Maori sovereignty, the end of slavery, women’s vote etc all required those with privilege and voice to step aside and create space. Gay marriage has only happened because heterosexual MPs voted for it. The Treaty became relevant because Pakeha people reconsidered history.
      Younger generations will become politically involved when space is provided for them, not by them (more of this).

      And you have the audacity to ask – “So why would the baby boomer generation want to let go?”

      The clueless generation need to look in the mirror

      • Rogue Trooper 32.2.1
        15 June 2013 at 4:39 pm

        some absolutely Amazing writing by you in this Thread fatty; cohorts holding on for dear life and not moving aside; saving their money for Ryman and Co.

        • fatty 32.2.1.1
          15 June 2013 at 5:26 pm

          thanks, this gets my blood boiling!
          This argument has been popping up more and more lately, and I think we are often talking on slightly different levels and as a result offense is taken. But its all good debate. I always learn the most from people when I get in heated discussion.
          Its also very difficult comparing generations, society has altered drastically from each generation. Some Gen X’s look back on the boomers era with rose tinted glasses, but we usually just focus on employment opportunities and forget the racism, sexism and exclusion of disabled people, LGBT…plus many more.

          • Foreign Waka 32.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 6:11 pm

            No pink colored glasses on my part, I can reassure you. Racism is not a prerogative of a few, I have experienced it first hand. Hunger? Deprivation? yes, I can give you some insight. And no the past was certainly not a lovely memory. But everything you take for granted was fought for.

            • fatty 32.2.1.1.1.1
              16 June 2013 at 1:31 pm

              Jeeze. What exactly do younger generations take for granted?
              Here are some things Gen X and younger take for granted and don’t question:
              – A lifetime’s debt to become educated.
              – A person should be educated if they want to get a liveable wage.
              – Worker’s are dependent on job creators.
              – Having a job and living in poverty is not unacceptable.
              – Never being able to afford a house is the rule, not the exception.
              – Children in poverty is just one of those things.
              – Decent housing is not a human right.
              – Being unemployed means you have a personal deficiency.
              – Being poor is a choice.
              – Your worth as an individual is defined by the products you buy.
              – For your life to have meaning, you need to consume *this product*

              Is that what was fought for by the previous generations?
              I’m not sure of your point – But everything you take for granted was fought for.
              I made the point that boomers made great advances in identity rights such as LGBT, racism, sexism…but you shot that down.
              What’s your point? What do young people take for granted?

        • Colonial Viper 32.2.1.2
          15 June 2013 at 5:34 pm

          Spoke to a mate today who is an HT driver, has has just started getting his NZ super…and intends to keep working for another 3 years at least despite being quite comfortably off currently…

          • Foreign Waka 32.2.1.2.1
            15 June 2013 at 6:23 pm

            Is he afraid that the comfort will be no longer? He is lucky to get any super. This will stop in a few years time and everybody will have to work until the fall over….

          • Rogue Trooper 32.2.1.2.2
            15 June 2013 at 6:48 pm

            Cohort expectations and familiarities. It’s f*cked-up really; Pop has made some relevant contributions to this debate. Somebody made a comment the other day to the effect there being “ordinary” people and the “intellectuals” (they used the term “intelligent”); while a broad generalization, it does suggest why regime changes often extinguish the “intellectuals” first. I feel for the Boomers that have invested and lost life-savings to finance companies and brokers, but then, sometimes when you reach too far…
            Anyway, many of the ‘hippie’ generation fell in with the establishment eventually, then there was that funny video with Branson and Bono not using their toilets anymore. A man (or woman) is unlikely to be able to even recreationally fish the same quota of snapper soon, this freakin’ economic inmperative, will be the death of them all.

      • geoff 32.2.2
        15 June 2013 at 5:46 pm

        Another scorcher, fatty! How about a guest post on thestandard from you about this?

      • Foreign Waka 32.2.3
        15 June 2013 at 6:02 pm

        It is no fantasy that politics ought to be also the arena of the younger generation. How else can you change anything? Younger people have not been shut out just recently but ALWAYS. This was true when the current baby boomer generation grew up as it is today. Why do you think protest marches in the sixties, concerts that provoked the establishment like Woodstock happened? The generation that tried to change the world at the time believed that more freedom, no restrained on anything and “authoritarianism” was the solution. Of cause it wasn’t but it it opened the way to move away from the cold war days. The fall of the Berlin Wall, Perestroika, Market alliances between the west and east, etc… However, greed in the end was the winner really. But this is not the intention of the generation that lived through it. Most worked very hard to give their children a better education. The baby boomer generation will also be the first that was taxed to the hilt betrayed the most and still has to work until they fall into the grave.
        As for your notion that “Younger generations will become politically involved when space is provided for them, not by them” you need to accept that there is enough space but this in itself is a political vacuum if it is not taken up. And this is what my assertion is, that I do not see any generation x filling this vacuum with ideas that are inclusive and not divisive. So I am still waiting for a brainstorm to unfold, for a new world to be interpreted and I do hope that the baby boomers are not starved out before they see anything unfolding.

        • Populuxe1 32.2.3.1
          15 June 2013 at 6:16 pm

          “you need to accept that there is enough space but this in itself is a political vacuum if it is not taken up.”

          There might be enough space, but it’s a space dominated by terms you insist on imposing. In the area of employment you all rant on about guaranteed long-term jobs without even asking us if we even want long-term jobs (many of us consider it quite natural to go from contract to contract and enjoy developing new skills). You bitch and moan about the brain drain without stopping to consider that we might just like a different context. You chatter about superanuation but care little about the fact we’ll have to pay for it out of a far smaller tax pool. You make assumptions about education without consultating the ones being educated. You keep telling us what we should think but you have no real interest in what we actually do think or how we live our lives.

          • Foreign Waka 32.2.3.1.1
            15 June 2013 at 6:24 pm

            Really? Did I?

            • Populuxe1 32.2.3.1.1.1
              15 June 2013 at 6:35 pm

              I was speaking in general of the cohort – no need to sound like butter would melt in your mouth

              • Rogue Trooper …
                15 June 2013 at 6:49 pm

                “wouldn’t”

                • Populuxe1 …
                  15 June 2013 at 6:55 pm

                  Thank you, mother. Can you change my nappy now 😛

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    15 June 2013 at 7:04 pm

                    if you behave yourself and try not to run from both ends. 😎 (it’s wude to poke your tongue out). anyway, the other week It seemed you were speaking on behalf of Gen Y, X. World War Z. go on Pop, amaze me with what cohort you do identify with (credit to you where it is due).

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      15 June 2013 at 7:26 pm

                      I was the tail end of Gen X, my father is a baby boomer and my mother was a war baby

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      15 June 2013 at 7:59 pm

                      you appear to have acquired considerable learning for one approx. 20 years younger than me then.
                      Thought of you listening to this dialogue the other night;
                      “Hear about our John, Kieran, he’s a gay mon now…oh but John, I bet he’s got a really nice cock”…”can I borrow your nice red biro (baffled husbands are a problem in Gateshead) How much shall I put you down for? for all those poor wee lads who can’t stand up to their missus co’s they know in their hearts they’re as soft as shite.” 😀

              • Foreign Waka …
                15 June 2013 at 7:29 pm

                If you put me in a generalization pot you better get your facts right. This is a rule you cannot run away regardless what generation you want to refer to. You are so enthralled with your own point of view that you have not really read what I wrote.

        • fatty 32.2.3.2
          16 June 2013 at 10:38 am

          As for your notion that “Younger generations will become politically involved when space is provided for them, not by them” you need to accept that there is enough space but this in itself is a political vacuum if it is not taken up. And this is what my assertion is, that I do not see any generation x filling this vacuum with ideas that are inclusive and not divisive.

          Young people’s biggest concern is the environment. And what political parties have a plan or policies to overcome this issue? Nobody. The Greens have moved into some sort of eco-capitalism, but that is not going to help much. Nobody can seriously claim that ecological issues will be avoided or solved by continuing with capitalism.
          Despite the way children and youth are portrayed, they are engaged with serious issues, but politics is defined by and for older generations.
          And its amusing that you claim that Gen X are pushing ideas that are exclusive, what about the policies that Gen X and younger have had to live under? And you have the nerve to claim that younger generations need to be more inclusive? Wow.
          Watch this video from a political scientist from Canterbury, she shows how we exclude children from welfare and the elderly have been included into welfare (that’s not to say that all elderly have it easy, but this video shows how effective universal welfare is). Young people want to make the environment central to politics…is that inclusive enough for you?

          So I am still waiting for a brainstorm to unfold, for a new world to be interpreted and I do hope that the baby boomers are not starved out before they see anything unfolding.

          Its happened, and continues to happen. Its called Occupy. Its non-political for a reason. Occupy has made no concrete economic demands for a reason…because both of those systems have excluded and silenced youth.
          If you are waiting for young people to use a system that they have suffered from, you’ll be waiting a long time. Young people are talking, they are asking for inclusiveness, but nobody’s listening.

          • pollywog 32.2.3.2.1
            16 June 2013 at 11:24 am

            Like I’ve said before…

            It’s not the economy, stupid…it’s the environment.

            • Rogue Trooper 32.2.3.2.1.1
              16 June 2013 at 1:51 pm

              Stable-state economics. No environment, no “economics” as we know it Jim.

  33. pollywog 33
    16 June 2013 at 11:19 am

    The answer is staring you in the face.

    Engage youth in the way they wish to be engaged.

    Create an online/smart phone based voting option.

    What will revolutionise x’ers and slackers to become more engaged with the political process is to revolutionise the process itself , not the people.

    The space we claim and own is cyber!!!

    • Arfamo 33.1
      16 June 2013 at 1:39 pm

      What will revolutionise x’ers and slackers to become more engaged with the political process is to revolutionise the process itself , not the people.

      The space we claim and own is cyber!!!

      The space you use is cyber. Same as the rest of us who have embraced it and choose what we use it for. What you use it for, & whether you use it to actually achieve anything worthwhile politically remains to be seen.

      • pollywog 33.1.1
        16 June 2013 at 3:12 pm

        For starters we will probably need x’er and slacker initiated discussions and possibly petitions to look at creating an online voting option.

        Then a feasibility study to see what that entails and probably a younger generation MP, the likes of Jacinda Ardern or Gareth Hughes to front and push a bill through.

        When and how will the non boomers revolt ?

        The real question is, what should we be revolting about and why?

        The answer, is the status quo that entrenches political power in the boomers by way of marginalising youth and discouraging them from becoming more active in the process by which we elect governments.

        • Arfamo 33.1.1.1
          16 June 2013 at 3:22 pm

          Pollywog you glibly ignore that the status quo entrenches political power in the wealthy – of whatever generation – and discourages everyone else from becoming more active in the process by which we elect governments. Because no major party offers anything significantly different from the status quo – or if they do, they are unable to convince voters they could form a credible government which would be able to run the country to the benefit of all voters.

          Your complaints about the “baby boomers” being self-interested establishment-led arsoles locking you in to the sick system are the same plaintive cry of the younger generation that was just as stridently advocated in my youth. And you will be equally assertive that this is not simply the case – that you are the start of a political and civil revolution – as we were.

          • pollywog 33.1.1.1.1
            16 June 2013 at 3:46 pm

            I’m not hating the player (the boomers).I’m hating the game…the political and financial structures they’ve erected to keep the game swung in their favour.

            Its the game we need to change and the rules by which the players have set themselves up to win, irrespective of the changing generations.

            As it stands, the financial system based on unsustainable economies in a world of finite resources and money that is becoming worthless is bound to collapse without needing a revolution.

            The politics and systems needed to ensure that like minds sympathetic to a baby boomer worldview which brought about the collapse is what’s need to ensure the corrupt players don’t usurp power again. That can only happen by effective use and control of social media which gets translated into a process by which we can elect our leaders using on line processes.

            • handle 33.1.1.1.1.1
              16 June 2013 at 4:18 pm

              It takes more than online voting to get people to vote. Motivation does not happen on its own.

              • pollywog …
                16 June 2013 at 4:46 pm

                It’ll be way easier to motivate youngers to access a secure website and tick a couple of options rather than truck down to a polling booth and tick off a piece of paper.

                Given the choice, what would you rather do ?

                • Arfamo …
                  16 June 2013 at 4:52 pm

                  I’d quite happily go with online voting. But who will you vote for?

                  • pollywog …
                    16 June 2013 at 4:58 pm

                    Depends who steps up at the time and promotes policies that resonate with me.

                    I’d imagine simplifying the voting process would also simplify the candidtae nomination process.

                    There’s 800 000 potential voters out there looking for someone or something to believe in…who knows who and what that might be ?

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:08 pm

                      Depends who steps up at the time and promotes policies that resonate with me.

                      And so it will be for everyone. A party that resonates with you would probably resonate with me as well. But I’d want to ensure they had a team who could run a country well rather than just sloganise.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:19 pm

                      They’d just need to be part of a team that could work in coalition with another team and cover all the skills needed to run the country well.

                      Its not about being able to step up and lead on your own. Maybe we’re seeing in Key the last of the charismatic, sloganeering leaders we think can do that. Man…were we wrong!

                      For all Shearer’s mumblefuckery, i think he’s basically an honest guy with his heart in the right place and with a decent team around him could be a competent leader.

                      Unfortunately his team lacks vision and talent but that’s offset by the Greens.That i see there is no room for Winston in the mix is why i think Shearer should, like Key did last time, rule out any coalition with him before the election.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 June 2013 at 4:56 pm

                  Nope.

                  I’m dead set against online voting. Has no one been paying attention to the information Snowden has released FFS.

                  If you want to participate in the democracy, go through, take time out of your Saturday and do it properly with the rest of your neighbourhood.

                  It’ll be way easier to motivate youngers to access a secure website and tick a couple of options

                  Don’t make the mistake of thinking paper and pen is a major reason why young people can’t be bothered to vote for our current lot of pollies.

                  • pollywog …
                    16 June 2013 at 5:01 pm

                    Whats Snowden got to do with it ?

                    Maybe we should go back and ban online banking and ATM’s as well CV?

                    or how about that 1.5 bil IRD overhaul ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:14 pm

                      Be flippant about it if you like. But it doesn’t change the fact that pen and paper aren’t the main reason that young people are less involved in the political process these days.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:26 pm

                      Not being flippant. I just fail to see the relevance of Snowden.

                      As to the “fact” that the effort involved in registering/voting by pen and paper isn’t the main reason. Do you have any evidence for it ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:56 pm

                      As to the “fact” that the effort involved in registering/voting by pen and paper isn’t the main reason. Do you have any evidence for it ?

                      Sure. It’s the same system which has always been used, no change there.

                      The fact that there is very little worthwhile for young people to vote for – that’s closer to the nub of the problem.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 6:16 pm

                      Voting for an online option is worthwhile.

                      Field of dreams stuff…Build it and they will come.

                      That would be enough of a revolution in itself and re-evolve how we interact with politics/politicians at the coal face.

                      We voted for MMP and that changed things a little. Taking the next step to voting online will change things a lot.

                  • Arfamo …
                    16 June 2013 at 5:05 pm

                    Yes I’m aware that online voting could be monitored and even maybe doctored by a dishonest repressive government CV, but I suspect any government that dishonest could pretty easily find a way to do the same thing with paper votes.

                    Agree with you though that going outdoors and down to a voting booth is a small price to pay for democracy. If someone mobile won’t vote if they don’t have an online option their vote/opinion/strength of commitment to democracy is probably worthless. They’d probably want fries with it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:18 pm

                      but I suspect any government that dishonest could pretty easily find a way to do the same thing with paper votes.

                      NB systematic online voter fraud in our General Election does not need to involve the NZ government of the day or any of our political parties at all.

                      Just someone with access to the vote counting and results compiling systems, either through malicious programming, a botnet, or some other network hack. It would all happen invisibly and could be co-ordinated from half way across the world through a remote terminal.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:21 pm

                      Which is why we’d need our own secure server farm based in NZ.

                      Maybe Kim.Com could help 🙂

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:30 pm

                      Think of the old, infirmed and the convenience it would offer them ?

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:43 pm

                      Gee, how do you think they get on now voting without an online option? They seem to manage really well.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:51 pm

                      Oh sure they manage well but they could be managed better….that’s the point.

            • Arfamo 33.1.1.1.1.2
              16 June 2013 at 4:40 pm

              The politics and systems needed to ensure that like minds sympathetic to a baby boomer worldview which brought about the collapse is what’s need to ensure the corrupt players don’t usurp power again.

              Your continual whinging about the older generation all having the same worldview is completely incorrect, tiresome, and frankly, both childish and a little chilling as it indicates you have a mind easily directed to scapegoating.

              That can only happen by effective use and control of social media which gets translated into a process by which we can elect our leaders using on line processes.

              I look forward to seeing your leaders identifying themselves on twitter and tweeting their policies so you can exercise well-informed voter choices.

    • kiwicommie 33.2
      16 June 2013 at 1:40 pm

      My generation is divided into those that give a shit and those that don’t. Those getting by are just plugged into their playstation or xbox – and only give a shit when they lose their jobs, and come to see the National utopia for what it really is. Young National supporters and the like are a bunch of right wing so-called libertarians that get daddy to pay for everything from their uni fees, to a new house. You can get those with a soul left to listen, but the rest are just brainwashed, brain dead, drinking Ayn Rand kool-aid, and only capable of being a useful idiot for some company. 😉

      • fatty 33.2.1
        16 June 2013 at 2:56 pm

        Arfamo:

        What you use it for, & whether you use it to actually achieve anything worthwhile politically remains to be seen.

        It doesn’t remain to be seen at all. You’ve just been keeping your boomer-goggles glued to Parliament TV, and finding out about youth behaviour via fairfax.
        The Occupy movement was created primarily from the younger generations through the internet. Sadly, younger generations have been taught all their life that politics is not the arena from which change can be created. The re-emergence of inequality as a prominent political discourse didn’t come from left wing political parties…it came from Occupy.
        So while you were laughing at young people for staring at tiny LCD screens and pointing the finger at them and saying “whether you use it to actually achieve anything worthwhile politically remains to be seen”…they were busy altering political discourse.

        kiwicommie:

        You have split Gen X into two groups – ‘slackers’ (non-political) and Young Nats (right-wing/libertarian political).
        I agree, but I would also say there is a third group which could be called ‘occupy’ (left-wing, non-political).

        The question should be why is that third group not engaging with ‘left-wing’ political groups? This is not a NZ issue, this is a problem faced around the Western world, and the product was Occupy.
        Ironically, this is exactly what the boomers did in 1968 in Paris. The left wing thought the boomer students would side with the workers struggle, but the left then, as is the case now, was completely oblivious to how they exclude and silence younger generations. The younger generations are repeating history by having different ideas and different demands from the ‘established left’, despite possessing similar values.

        I would also say that being a ‘slacker’ is political action in itself. To remove oneself from the capitalist utopia is surely more revolutionary than joining the Young Nats or ACT On Campus.

        • Arfamo 33.2.1.1
          16 June 2013 at 3:03 pm

          Fatty, politically, what has Occupy achieved? Nothing. It told us what we already know. You think it was news that so-called left wing and right wing parties have become indistinguishable and all have their noses in the trough? Dreamer. And what have you achieved? Nothing. You sound like a typical keyboard warrior trying to claim vicarious success off the activities and courage of others.

          The hippy generation achieved far more change, notwithstanding that some of them have since joined the wealthy elites and done their best to undo the positive changes that flowed from 60’s and 70’s youth activism.

          Change for the better will happen sometime, somehow, I hope, but I bet you aren’t involved.

          • fatty 33.2.1.1.1
            16 June 2013 at 3:41 pm

            Fatty, politically, what has Occupy achieved? Nothing.

            Exactly. That was the point of Occupy, to move political action away from politics.
            See how you think the solution is actually the problem?
            Did you really expect Occupy to create change through politics, when it went to great lengths to stay non-political?

            And what have you achieved? Nothing. You sound like a typical keyboard warrior trying to claim vicarious success off the activities and courage of others.

            I’ve noticed that the first form of defense against debate around generational inequality is to individualise the issue. You are the first to move it on to individual achievement, which is a shame (sounds like a neoliberal soundbite…coincidence?). Unfortunately, when you are comparing generational inequality, individual experiences or individual actions are irrelevant.
            What is important is how do generations differ in their opportunities, access to resources and their voice.
            What individuals have achieved is neither here nor there.

            The hippy generation achieved far more change

            I agree, but why was it so easy for youth to create change (both good and bad) in the 1960s/70s. What conditions were different back then, and what is different now?

            • Arfamo 33.2.1.1.1.1
              16 June 2013 at 4:14 pm

              Fatty, if the point of Occupy was not to ultimately achieve politico-economic change, what was its purpose and what good has it done? I’m afraid I can’t see that it amounted to anything than an organised grizzle about the way the people everywhere are being shafted by the current system which is unsustainable in the long-term. I entirely agree with that. And I’m a baby boomer.

              But until the right party and leaders stump up around the world with a new democratic government representative and economic model that people will vote for, I’m aware that all I can do is express my dissastifaction with the system and vote for change if any party offers a better choice. Which so far is all you can do. Blaming an entire generation before yours for everything wrong is scapegoating.

              What conditions were different back then, and what is different now?
              A pretty healthy economy with good access to UK markets for our primary produce, and successive governments commitments to our parents’ hard-won rights to free education for all, unionised workforce, managed wage rates, regulated banking and markets, and to full employment, and affordable housing.

              • fatty …
                16 June 2013 at 6:34 pm

                Blaming an entire generation before yours for everything wrong is scapegoating.

                Its not like that, every generation has its downsides and upsides, and each generation is created by the context it grows up in. There’s no scapegoating and no blame.

                Fatty, if the point of Occupy was not to ultimately achieve politico-economic change, what was its purpose and what good has it done?

                From what I can see Occupy’s point was to show that both the economic and the political system wasn’t working. The message, as Pop points out below, focused on the 1% and the extreme inequality (as you already knew). But their other message is not only that politics isn’t working, but Occupy wants nothing to do with traditional politics. At local, national and international levels, politics offers no answer.
                Forget political demands, forget established institutions and forget official outcomes. Obama, who was arguably not in the pocket of the establishment, got in and there was no change. Protesting for specific change fails and was not the answer. Plus there were too many conflicting views across the world (there was a stronger libertarian view throughout the USA compared with many other places). The best option is to stop, Occupy, talk and look to create change from the bottom up.

                The outcome has been the development and spread of networks which focus more specifically on localised or prominent issues. It is developing, and it was developed by many existing movements (anti-WTO, anti-globalisation).

                If you were looking for political change, you missed the message.

                Your last point shows all the resources that the boomers had to create change, as well as being a very large group – which gave boomers greater access to political power. Its a shame that the Occupy group have been excluded from politics. Their best option is to pitch a tent and say ‘fuck it, if we make changes via politics, then we just perpetuate the top down model, we’re better to do it from the ground up’.

          • Populuxe1 33.2.1.1.2
            16 June 2013 at 3:42 pm

            Actually Occupy achieved quite a lot. Talk of the 1% became mainstream. “It told us what we already know.” You use “we” very selectively – Occupy brough the politics of poverty and inequality into the discourse of the comfortable and complacent who previously didn’t give a shit. Suddenly the comfortable learned they were being exploited too. Arguably events in Iceland directly stem from the influence of Occupy, and for some more concrete examples in the US:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/occupy-wall-street-6-months-later_n_1352752.html

            • Arfamo 33.2.1.1.2.1
              16 June 2013 at 3:51 pm

              Pop, grow up. You are labouring pointlessly under the simple misapprehension that Occupy somehow suddenly brought the politics of poverty and inequality to light. It was just another symptom of a general malaise that many such as I have seen & railed against for 30 years. Nothing significant has happened to change anything yet. You are confusing a courageous few of your peers suddenly reacting against it with youth suddenly somehow gaining a revolutionary insight. Stop bashing your keyboard about whose fault it is and start doing something positive about changing things.

            • fatty 33.2.1.1.2.2
              16 June 2013 at 3:52 pm

              Tru Pop, well said.
              Occupy was never about creating political change. As a social movement, it is vastly different to 1970s movements such as feminism and Maori rights.
              No leader, no concrete demands. Although the identity movements in the 1970s were by no means hierarchical with focused demands, Occupy took horizontal organisation and pluralism much further.
              If Occupy came up with specific demands and then met them through politics, then most of the participants would see this as a failure.

              • Arfamo …
                16 June 2013 at 3:59 pm

                No leader, no concrete demands.

                That will be why nothing has changed and Occupy has faded away and is already but a small, insignificant footnote in the history of protest. The thing that amazed me was how bloody few people were involved.

                • pollywog …
                  16 June 2013 at 4:06 pm

                  It showed what needed to change and that there is a movement there to be led….babysteps!

                  • Arfamo …
                    16 June 2013 at 4:28 pm

                    It showed what needed to change? Jesus. It wasn’t already obvious? I took a great interest in Occupy. It looked like it might be the start of something big in the way that the 60’s and 70’s rebellions were. Then it fizzled out. I blamed facebook, twitter, and i-tunes.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 4:51 pm

                      No brainiac…to some, it wasn’t already obvious.

                      Think of Occupy as being groomed for something bigger.

                      What was so big about the 60’s/70’s protests ? Given the current state of affairs, how effective were they ?

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 5:36 pm

                      Well ?…Given 20/20 hindsight what did the 60’s/70’s ‘rebellions’ really achieve?

                      If your generation were so big on change why is it still left to mine and the next generation to finish the job ?

                      Nothing’s fizzled, its just simmering…IMHO.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      16 June 2013 at 9:11 pm

                      Most of the 60s and 70s were a bunch of solipsistic twats dropping out to indulge their naive hedonism and bitching about the materialism of their parents which allowed them to in the first place.

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 9:21 pm

                      Were they? I did none of those things. But then my parents weren’t particularly well off or materialistic. I certainly benefited from the things largely Labour governments that our parents’ voted for put in place until some egotistical shyster heading the National Government sent the country into receivership and then some shyster in the Labour Party under the pretence of fixing things screwed everyone except fellow politicians and the wealthy, and basically things have stayed much the same ever since – until John Key added insult to injury.

                      Present a practical political alternative and I’ll vote for it.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                16 June 2013 at 5:06 pm

                fatty, pollywog, Arfamo and Pop,
                was just reading an overview of “The New Digital Age” -Eric Scmidt and Jared Cohen (in the know I’d suggest), by Gaynor, where they suggest political party membership is falling as individuals use technology to make their voices heard, blogs included, a great deal of these voices anti-government, and therefore one of the greatest challenges for governments is this tension between greater political articulation and the maintenance of state security, hence the recent security intelligence agency revelations in The Guardian and China’s closure of much social media. As many of the astute on TS agree, little to be progressed by adherence to the established parties and the status quo. May be power has to be wrenched from their dead (metaphorically speaking) neo-liberal hands. The consumer dictates.Is that not a foundational principle of the ‘free market’?

                • Arfamo …
                  16 June 2013 at 5:21 pm

                  That is why I say whether the digital age will change anything for the better politically remains to be seen. The wealthy powerful who drive our governments already have the ability to control the net. Criminals exploit it brilliantly. Corporates and big business have learned to do the same. It is overloaded with good and bad science, good and bad politics, good information, misinformation and disinformation. It may be a major technological tool that functions as a source of political change for the better, or it may simply be another mechanism by which the rich and powerful continue to exploit everyone else, whilst allowing opponents to rail against them and console each other uselessly.

                  These things are always easier to predict in hindsight. I still remember futurists 40 years ago predicting that computers would mean governments everywhere would have to start working out how we would all manage in economies where we worked fewer hours to spread the jobs around, and speculating on what we would all do with that spare leisure time.

                  • pollywog …
                    16 June 2013 at 5:40 pm

                    I still remember futurists 40 years ago predicting that computers would mean governments everywhere would have to start working out how we would all manage in economies where we worked fewer hours to spread the jobs around, and speculating on what we would all do with that spare leisure time.

                    Build more prisons run by private enterprise and get into gaming.

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    16 June 2013 at 5:42 pm

                    off the beaten path;
                    Whatever the Way, the Master of Strategy does not appear fast. Of course slowness is bad. Really skillful people never get out of time, and, are always deliberate and never appear busy.

                    Much “exploitation” is now conducted at the ‘beach’. the sound of the ocean.

                    Do not sleep under a roof, carry no money or food. Go alone to places frightening to the common brand of man. Become a criminal of purpose. Be put in jail and extricate yourself by your own wisdom.

                    “Come
                    as you are
                    as you were
                    as I want you to be
                    As a friend
                    As a friend
                    As an old enemy
                    take your time
                    hurry up
                    the choice is yours
                    don’t be late
                    take a rest
                    As a friend”

                • pollywog …
                  16 June 2013 at 5:48 pm

                  Traditional Parties of the status quo don’t use social media for membership drives, like what the Civilian attempted though do they ?

                  http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/editorial-why-were-registering-a-political-party/

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    16 June 2013 at 5:53 pm

                    Traditional Parties of the status quo don’t use social media for membership drives, like what the Civilian attempted though do they ?

                    Welcome to the Obama 2009 Democratic election campaign

                  • Arfamo …
                    16 June 2013 at 5:53 pm

                    Traditional Parties of the status quo don’t use social media for membership drives, like what the Civilian attempted though do they ?

                    Their youth wings may do so, and if they don’t, the parties will try to. Their biggest challenge will be trying to find a way to connect with the self-promoting vacuousness that drives so much of social media and persuading those open to youthy slogan-like thinking to vote for them.

                  • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                    16 June 2013 at 6:31 pm

                    What makes you think (Neo)Labour wants to talk to youth – even using The Matrix?

                    Fuck they don’t even want to talk to old unionist punk rockers like me and in the last 35 years have stripped away your incomes, your working conditions, your right to strike, your right to housing, your free education…….

                    I’m just surprised you’re not angrier.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 6:38 pm

                      That’s just it. The revolution in a nutshell.

                      The status quo re: voting booths serves traditional parties of the left and right equally.

                      Last thing either, and their fatcat donors, would want, is a devil they didn’t know.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 June 2013 at 6:42 pm

                      FFS if you think that the problem with our democracy and our political leaders is the location of the voting booths in the real or virtual world space, you’ve lost it

                      Last thing either, and their fatcat donors, would want, is a devil they didn’t know.

                      You mean the billionaire factcats who created run and surveil facebook, google, twitter, yahoo! and the backbone infrastructure of the internet? The ones who organised the Tea party and the Obama campaign? They don’t know about the online space?

                      They don’t know about online politics? They defined the very space. Fuck off mate you’re dreaming now.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 7:49 pm

                      Nah champ…i’m afraid your knickers are so bunched up its cut of circulation to your thinking parts.

                      The trick is to set up a secure local space outside of fatcat influence and engage the younger population on political matters there.

                      Whats your solution…Bitchmoan on the internet?

                      How’s that working for ya?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 June 2013 at 7:54 pm

                      And thank you, finally, for making my point.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 8:08 pm

                      That point being, if you keep doing the same things expecting a different result, you’re an idiot?

                      That’s hardly revolutionary and simply a repeat of failed babyboomer philosophy…isn’t it?

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 8:19 pm

                      The trick is to set up a secure local space outside of fatcat influence and engage the younger population on political matters there.

                      Whats your solution…Bitchmoan on the internet?

                      How is this any different? You have some vague plan in mind for people of a verified age group to sequester themselves and discuss politico-economic issues without letting anyone older join in, because they won’t be smart enough to use the media and/or they’ll just want to argue, and then explode onto the world with a completely new power structure and system of government which doesn’t involve you getting off your arse?

                      When all you can do is whinge about the one we’ve got and mutter vaguely about change gonna come and in OUR way? Yeah, good luck with that.

                    • pollywog …
                      16 June 2013 at 8:29 pm

                      Naturally there’s still some details need fleshing out 🙂

                      But thanks for the wishes of good luck. I understand it’s hard to cope with the failure of your generation to change the status quo.

                      Just don’t take it as a personal failure and try not to get in the way of real progress towards a revolution in political engagement.

                      K.thnx

                      Btw…of course we’ll let you oldies play, even though you don’t tend to let us.

                    • Arfamo …
                      16 June 2013 at 8:35 pm

                      What’s irritating me is the failure of your generation to change the status quo.

                      Plenty of mine have been trying to every election and every poll. The problem is not enough of your lot are involved and available to vote for if they have worked out what’s needed.

            • Puddleglum 33.2.1.1.2.3
              17 June 2013 at 10:54 am

              “Actually Occupy achieved quite a lot.”

              It still is. Currently, there are occupy movements at the heart of the action in Turkey, Bosnia and Brazil. They are a way that (young) people have learnt to take back what powers and processes they can. I think that’s very worthwhile – particularly in non-Western countries, perhaps.

              I admit, though, that I’m not sure what is meant by claims (e.g., by fatty) that occupy is not about politics. It strikes me as being extraordinarily political. ‘Politics’ does not, in my mind, refer solely to ‘electoral politics’ or ‘party politics’ but it does refer to any movement that seeks to rearrange how we interact, come to collective decisions and express ‘values’ (for want of a better word).

              I also think there’s a difference between having a clearly articulated view of how the world works and thinking that that view is the only view or, confusingly, thinking that one (as an individual person) is able to free oneself from having a view or can abstract oneself from acting in conformity with a view (even if you can’t articulate it).

              I’m generally sceptical of claims that ‘pragmatic’ (common sense?) responses to issues that avoid ‘political positions or ideologies’ are possible. Whenever I look at these ‘pragmatic’ responses they almost always align with a particular broad view of human society and economic relations (irrespective of whether or not the proponents of such responses believe they do).

              It is, for example, an ideological position to claim that connectivity, inclusiveness, etc. are (or should be) the basis of collective responding to issues. Complexity theory, resilience theory, actor network theory, intersectionality, postmodernism, poststructuralism – none of these are ideologically neutral theories or notions.

              It is no coincidence, for example, that such ideas have arisen at a time that ‘market’ and ‘exchange’ ideas have permeated the ether for several decades more or less hegemonically. Markets, after all, are inclusive (theoretically), highly interconnected and have no ‘authority’ or contentful rules organising the pattern of exchanges and interactions.

              • fatty …
                17 June 2013 at 12:42 pm

                I admit, though, that I’m not sure what is meant by claims (e.g., by fatty) that occupy is not about politics. It strikes me as being extraordinarily political.

                True, Occupy is all about politics, but it is the failure of politics and its proposed (but very vague) roadmap for change is away from political institutions.
                My claim that Occupy is not political is that Occupy have realised that traditional political institutions are not only ineffective, but are the problem across the whole spectrum, and must be avoided. Arfamo keeps asking (repeatedly) for empirical evidence of political change to justify the claim that Occupy has created change. I keep telling Arfamo (repeatedly) that policy changes are not the primary goal, and to many Occupiers, this would be seen as a failure – if Occupy was credited with altering our tax system by a few percentage points, then that would be the most effective way of countering the message of Occupy.

                ‘Politics’ does not, in my mind, refer solely to ‘electoral politics’ or ‘party politics’

                Agreed, but my claim of Occupy being not political was in relation to Arfamo, who appeared to view the term ‘politics’ as our parliamentary political system.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                17 June 2013 at 1:31 pm

                ‘bracketing’ is possible if one embraces a broad comprehension simultaneously, intuitively, and reads the scriptures. 😉 and then relaxes with a nice Chianti or doobie.

        • Rogue Trooper 33.2.1.2
          16 June 2013 at 5:10 pm

          what happened to ‘left-wing political’ in your analysis fatty?

          • fatty 33.2.1.2.1
            16 June 2013 at 8:56 pm

            I guess most people would say that the left lost their way economically, which I think so too, but I don’t think there is enough discussion into why. Once we look at all the reasons why the left lost the economic debate, then we can see why the left fails to create change.

            Most would also say that neoliberalism was installed by Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher, Reagan, Douglas etc by taking control of governments and turning their focus towards business to increase inequality. I agree with that too, but I think there were wider issues which not only allowed this to happen, but also accelerated it. In effect, I think that the social movements of the 1970s are part of neoliberalism – I don’t see them as separate.

            Feminism is a good example, and obviously I’m not blaming feminism for neoliberalism, but the shift for women into employment and out of the home was a change to society that I think we all underestimate. Prior to second-wave feminism, it was a male world and the life of women was defined by men, it was oppressive and change occurred. Nobody except some seriously deranged people could say this change shouldn’t have occurred, or that it was a mistake. However, the effects and processes of the change are not explored too closely (Most of us would also argue that not enough change occurred and that gender inequality has a long way to go, but that’s another issue).
            I am not referring to more women in the workplace = less jobs = unemployment = inequality, etc. Although that happened, we shouldn’t focus on that, instead we should ask why did inequality rise then. Why did neoliberlism become popular, and why did social democracy die?
            I think it was partly due to the way neoliberal discourses were embedded in social movements. To look at how feminism and neoliberalism are related, we should look at the underlying discourses of that era – what are the discourses used by both neoliberalism and feminism? Which discourses feature in both, or are there opposing discourses? The conclusion I come to is that the discourses of neoliberalism and feminism shared many similarities: freedom, individual rights, dislike of existing political processes, rhetoric of ‘unleashing the shackles’, decreased government regulation etc.
            The interesting part aspect to this is that the discourses are in general the same, however, the meanings behind the discourses for feminism and neoliberalism were very different. Very similar again for the Maori protest movement – same discourses, but viewed differently through different lens. The outcome of this is that neoliberalism and feminism and other social movements all perpetuated each other.
            Looking back further, I think going back one generation shows us how the discourses resonated with almost everyone in society, including feminists and greedy capitalists. One reason for this is that the individualised discourses of the 1980’s were influenced by the discourses from the 1950s-1970s( when boomers were getting brainwasheds as children) – Rostow’s stages of growth – which is based on a brighter future, technological advancements will improve our lives, drive to modernity, etc. This was the period when children were being brainwashed as children that the future would be all about jet-packs, time machines and leisure time. Boomers were brainwashed by the dream of modernity in a similar way to how recent generations are brainwashed by corporate advertising. Boomers were moving into stage 5 of Rostow’s Theory, whereas we have now finished stage 5 are now realising that there is no stage 6….still on the same path we’ve always been on, but we have got nowhere to go.

            Back to the link between the discourses of identity politics and neoliberalism. Our problem is that they are both interlinked, and the left is trying to undo neoliberalism without undoing feminism etc. Which is great, but is it possible? It is almost impossible for one reason. Labour is now a card-carrying member and advocate of Rostow’s Stages of Growth. Even in the face of environmental collapse, its just full steam ahead to the non-existent stage 6.

            The best metaphors that I’ve heard for this came from Chris Trotter in the last Citizen A. Perhaps the metaphor was for something else, but it shows how the Left are mystified when they get hated on for helping people.

            “Left wing parties never seem to understand this, that conservative governments are patting the cat from the head to its tail, and so the cat very seldom scratches a conservative government. A left-wing government, if it is indeed a leftwing government, tends to try and pat the cat from the tail to the head, and gets clawed, immediately. And so they think the same rules apply to John Key as apparently applies to them, and its just not true.”

            The fur is the dominant ideologies.
            The right wing own the argument because over the past 50 years because since 1999 Labour are stroking the fur the wrong way (for identity politics but against neoliberalism)…whereas the Right stroke the fur the right way (for identity politics and neoliberalism).
            This rant has been a long way of saying that to repeal neoliberalism, but keep identity politics cannot be done without destroying neoliberal discourse. That for me is where the left have lost it and they have zero chance of creating change without a full on attack against neoliberal discourse. Freedom and growth would be where I would start. This does not mean we should forget about identity politics and focus back on class. I think the left needs to include and use all identity groups, empower them and allow them to define their own discourses separately from neoliberism. If we take our eye off feminism and focus on class, then we allow capitalism to rebuild its inherent structural inequalities.
            The other option of course is a whole new paradigm, but altering discourses is difficult enough. A whole new system is laughed at, look at Occupy.

            • Arfamo 33.2.1.2.1.1
              16 June 2013 at 9:04 pm

              Present the new paradigm. Place its exponents in the political arena. Garner support by whatever means. If it means a more equitable system of government that what we have I’ll vote for it. Until you do that, you are having an academic argument with yourself. Some of my generation would say what is needed is a return of the Labour Party to its original values. I don’t see that happening. The way is clear for another Party to get my vote. Change won’t happen because a particular age group brings it in, it will happen when the majority of people of all ages see a better future for themselves and their children under something different than the current system.

              • fatty …
                16 June 2013 at 10:03 pm

                I explained Occupy’s paradigm here.

                If you want me to simplify Occupy’s paradigm for change:
                Take every comment you’ve posted here, take every suggestion you’ve posted here, do the opposite, and that would be close to Occupy’s paradigm.

                See how out of touch you are with Occupy. What I’m saying here is that Occupy see you as the problem, not the solution.

                • Arfamo …
                  16 June 2013 at 10:11 pm

                  No I’m not out of touch with Occupy. What I am saying is Occupy has not continued to occupy. It has achieved nothing. It has not found a way to achieve anything. It does not know exactly what it wants to achieve, or for whom it wants to achieve it. It has not mobilised enough people. Occupy is a feeling, briefly experienced by many who have then shrugged their shoulders and gone back to what they were doing.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 June 2013 at 11:58 pm

                  Not bad at all fatty.

                  Neoliberalism: leave society behind, there is no society, only individualism will lead to freedom

                  Identity politics: leave the rules of society behind, only individual rights and individual equality of opportunity will lead to freedom

                  Also agree that the Left has become a highly confused, sometimes incongruent mish-mash of economic ideas, too often still neoliberal, almost always capitalist.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    17 June 2013 at 6:17 pm

                    “Identity politics: leave the rules of society behind, only individual rights and individual equality of opportunity will lead to freedom”

                    Wow, that just REEKS of privilege. Clearly you have no experience of the kind of subtle and not-so-subtle torments and oppressions that identity politics was a direct reaction to. Lucky you. The failure to acknowledge that society is made up of individuals, cliques and cohorts has always been the achilles heel of the left.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                16 June 2013 at 11:22 pm

                Individualism is the cat basket.
                Stroking Identity Politics Giving ’em enough rope.
                The criticisms of Rostow in the link are valid and actual.
                Yes, freedom and growth to be critiqued.
                Yes, as Uturn identified, seperate, yet over-lapping spheres of discourse.
                No, the neo-liberal discourse is not being attacked by Labour, or convincingly enough by the Greens. MANA, yes.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  17 June 2013 at 6:26 pm

                  MANA not so much, not until they address the apparent ideological contradition between indigenous nationalism and socialist collectivism.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 June 2013 at 7:20 pm

                    you know what, that’s exactly what some arsewipe said to me about the Mana Party the other day. That he couldn’t support a party which contained such “blatant internal ideological contradictions”.

                    Could’ve knocked me over with a feather.

                    Well, I said to him once I had recovered my feet, best not vote at all then mate, they’re all like that, every single bloody last one of the wretched bastards.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      17 June 2013 at 8:11 pm

                      Few would be as contradictory as vesting privilige and customary ownership in Maori based on whakapapa and tangata whenua status versus all things for all citizens being held in common by the state. It’s not as though MANA are rife with equivocators like th eother parties – Even the Greens compromise to reach the broader electorate.

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    17 June 2013 at 9:48 pm

                    vote for Mana Motuhake; Nation? What Nation, unless it’s sport and the NZDF.

            • karol 33.2.1.2.1.2
              17 June 2013 at 9:17 am

              fatty, for all you are arguing that feminism was necessary, and paying lip service to the powerful forces from above that were behind a vast network of neoliberal shifts, this is just looking like another left wing attack of feminism as the cause of, or at least part of, neoliberalism and the destruction of the left. You are in good company with boomer Chris Trotter (for all I agree with Trotter on many things, but not on that), and, in aligning yourself with him on this, you expose a highly flawed and contradictory atttack on “boomers” as “individualists” and “identity” ideologues.

              And ultimately, this rant/philosophy, is antifeminist, and shifts the cause from where it really lies: the operation of ppwer-from-above” and the way “neoliberals used what was available at the time, to insert their values into every realm of life. You’re argument is starting to look like a cross-generation masculinist backlash against feminism.

              fatty:

              I think it was partly due to the way neoliberal discourses were embedded in social movements. To look at how feminism and neoliberalism are related, we should look at the underlying discourses of that era – what are the discourses used by both neoliberalism and feminism? Which discourses feature in both, or are there opposing discourses? The conclusion I come to is that the discourses of neoliberalism and feminism shared many similarities: freedom, individual rights, dislike of existing political processes, rhetoric of ‘unleashing the shackles’, decreased government regulation etc.

              Oh, please. This is such a skewed and reductionist and distorted rewriting of second wave feminism, I just despair. I was strongly involved in second wave feminism in London in the late 70s and 80s and spent a lot of time engaging in discussions, reading etc with a range of feminists and texts. And basically, you haven’t a clue about what actually happened.

              The women’s movement in England was strongly embedded in left wing networks and philosophies. Unfortunately it was often distorted by the MSM of the time, and the US more liberal feminist, individualist-based feminism tended to get more airplay. For instance, one of the most influential writers, researchers and theorists among London grass-roots feminists at that time was Sheila Rowbotham, and a quick read of her wikipedia outline points to where she and the majority of second wave Brit feminists come from. Even the “radical feminists” of the time, which put primary emphasis on the oppression of women, worked from a base of socialist princples.

              Rowbotham was especially influenced by Marxist social history as practised by E. P. Thompson and his wife Dorothy.[5] Combining a Marxist analysis with feminism, Rowbotham contends that capitalism not only systematically oppresses the working class, but also particularly oppresses women.[5] In Rowbotham’s view, women are doubly oppressed as they are forced to sell their labour in order to survive, but also forced to use their labour to support their husbands and children.[5] Rowbotham is critical of traditional Marxist history for what she sees as the neglect of such issues as family history, the role of housewives in supporting the economy, sexuality, and maternity.[5
              …
              In such books as Women, Resistance and Revolution (1972) and Hidden from History (1974), Rowbotham put her ideas into practice by examining the experience of women in radical and revolutionary movements in Cuba, Algeria, Vietnam, China, Russia, France and Britain from the 17th century to the 20th.[6] In Rowbotham’s opinion, working within the established order has never brought women any gains, and only through revolutionary socialist movements have women made any social gains.[6] Rowbotham has argued that though male revolutionaries are willing to accept women as partners as long as the revolution lasts, once the revolution is over, women are expected to return to their traditional roles.[6] In Hidden from History, Rowbotham examined British women’s history from the 17th century to 1930 from a Marxist viewpoint[4] For Rowbotham, the history of British women could best be defined through class oppression, the Industrial Revolution and sexism.[4]

              Collectivist values strongly-permeated the second wave women’s movement: it was in the grassroots, leaderless groups, it’s processes and its aims. All that popular and media propaganda that you (wrongly) refer to as being embedded in feminist “culture”, was strongly opposed within the women’s movement. There was active resistance to all that, especially in the UK women’s movement (think for instance of the anti-fashion dress styles of feminists, so derided in the stereotype of the “uniform” of drab, unsexy, feminists).

              There were also socialist feminists that were very active in the US during second wave feminism, but liberal feminists quickly gained dominance in the mainstream, probably because they supported already existing individualist capitalist values of the US dominant political culture (Betty Firedan et al). International neoliberalisation was also the Americanisation (more truly the US-ianisation) of other English-language countries.

              For a look at how neoliberalism was able to gain such leverage and a strong foothold in the West, read David Harvey’s ” A Brief history of Neoliberalism”. He shows how the movers and shakers of neoliberalism ultimately moved to roll back the left wing gains of the 60s and 70s using whatever tools were at their disposal. The fact that it gained most traction in English language countries is because of the fact it was largely led from the US, and TPTB in the UK, NZ, etc, re-freshed their long-term allegiance to the US. (e.g Thatcher’s “special relationship” with Regan).

              Neoliberalism theory and values, and the way it was put into practice are different things. The “neoliberal” philosophy used whatever it could to promote it’s cause, which, as Harvey shows, was ultimately to reinstate the powers of the elites. And ultimately, very often its restructuring practices contradicted its “free-market”, small government theory. The think tanks had looked at the current state of culture as it was, and bent it to serve its ends. This includes reduction of feminism’s wider goals, splitting US-led liberal feminism from it’s socialist roots, etc.

              You are separating the cause from the means and using it as a masculinist backlash against socialist feminism.

              By throwing your hat in with Trotter’s anti-feminism and anti-Maori-70s-revival, you make your lip service towards feminism, and inter-generational conflict look a little thin.

              But worst of all, you ignore and marginalise what is really important: i.e. how the “neoliberal” ideologues have used power from above, via the media, academia, multinational corporations, political process, etc, to insert their values and propaganda throughout society.

              There is no socialism without socialist feminism, without the collectivist activism of women and men of colour, and without anti-imperialism.

              • just saying …
                17 June 2013 at 9:45 am

                Great reply Karol.

                It’s frustrating to hear this line repeated over and over.

                The arrogance and assumptions this position is based on are glaring. Members of “identity” groups with an interest in ending discrimination and oppression against them have always formed the majority of people. Females outnumber males by themselves, leaving out all the many other intersecting interest groups. I find the inherent implication that the only oppression that has ever reeaalllly mattered is that perpertrated against the traditional, working class white men really bloody offensive, and the lip service of your apparent support for the changes that women fought (and continue to fight for), is contradicted by the idea that the feminist revolution shared the pernicious attitudes of, and was an integral part of the neoliberal revolution that destroyed social democracy.

                Which begs the question – social democracy for who?

                • karol …
                  17 June 2013 at 10:04 am

                  Thanks, js. Feminism, and especially second wave feminism and beyond is something I know quite a bit about. And I get pretty angry when I see such misinformation about it getting continually recycled. Many sections of the MSM undermined it at the time, and now we get subsequent generations peddling a Disney version of second wave feminism-as “identity-politics”. Time that misleading “identity politics” term was buried along with its “PC” mate.

                • marty mars …
                  17 June 2013 at 10:28 am

                  Very interesting karol thanks.

                  ‘Identity politics’ or fighting against (often structural) oppression is imo the opposite of neoliberalism – it isn’t selfish, it isn’t divisive and it isn’t based on maintaining elites. It, at its simplest, is about equality and the neoliberals hate equality.

                  • karol …
                    17 June 2013 at 10:39 am

                    marsman:
                    ‘Identity politics’ or fighting against (often structural) oppression is imo the opposite of neoliberalism

                    I agree that so called “social movements” have been fighting against structural oppression. Somehow, though, the term “identity politics” has become associated with de-politicised individualistic identities. Actually though, feminism, anti-racist and pro LGBTI movements have more to do with collective identifications and politics: it involves groups of people that have been marginalised and oppressed by the categories applied to large sections of the population.

                    80s+ consumer capitalism have focused on consumer practices as ways to construct individual identities: you are what you buy. And this individualisation of what began as a collective identifications and political actions, has thus become undermined the political intent, by the way the term “identity politics” has been used.

                    Actually, even the term “social movements” undermines the original conceptions and practices of feminism, anti-racist, anti-imperialist and other movements. As seen with socialist feminist theory, research and practice, the various oppressions are not just social, they are integrated with economic systems and forms of oppression.

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  17 June 2013 at 1:58 pm

                  ahhh, js, but check out what Fiske has to say on what balance of authority ranking, communal sharing, equity matching and market pricing structures a society that motivates the majority of ‘white women’

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  17 June 2013 at 2:08 pm

                  “To all the girls Iv’e loved before…”
                  Fiske ; worth a bookmark.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 June 2013 at 10:05 am

                I was strongly involved in second wave feminism in London in the late 70s and 80s and spent a lot of time engaging in discussions, reading etc with a range of feminists and texts. And basically, you haven’t a clue about what actually happened.

                The women’s movement in England was strongly embedded in left wing networks and philosophies. Unfortunately it was often distorted by the MSM of the time, and the US more liberal feminist, individualist-based feminism tended to get more airplay

                You described fatty’s concerns in a nutshell, right there.

                The neoliberals picked and chose the aspects and angles that they wanted to promote amongst the wider public and promulgated those at every opportunity.

                – Individualism
                – Giving people the right (and duty) to walk away from (discard) the normal family and community expectations of the day
                – The breaking down of society’s long established traditions, rules and shackles.

                All themes very useful to the ideological changes sought by the neoliberal agenda.

                Traditional family and economic structures, as well as unions, were male dominated and an outdated burden to freedom of the individual.

                It doesn’t matter that fatty and I “don’t have a clue about what actually happened” during “second wave feminism”. Happy to admit that is likely the case, in fact.

                Because neither do 96% of the voters out there, and the media advisors to the neoliberals know that very well.

                • karol …
                  17 June 2013 at 10:19 am

                  CV:

                  The neoliberals picked and chose the aspects and angles that they wanted to promote amongst the wider public and promulgated those at every opportunity. Individualism, giving people the right to walk away from the normal family and community expectations of the day, and the breaking down of society’s rules and shackles.

                  I agree with your statement there, CV. However, somehow fatty was skewing it to sheet the ultimate blame to 60s-70s social movements and “identity politics” of feminism”, and the sum total of boomer existence.

                  I say, it’s necessary to look at the way power-from-above is exerted to undermine any flax roots political movements from below. It was already in operation prior to the 60s, but shifts in communication technologies and media formats and platforms shifting the grounds of the struggle, and making us all potential agents of our own enslavement.

                  The “neoliberal” revolution also coincided with vast international changes in communications, resulting in the intensification of the means of propaganda, and the politics of image, most evident in the 80s: (video killed the political left). Image politics and culture thus came tot infiltrate and intensively permeate all areas of life.

                  The 80s saw a big shift towards technologies of reproduction like video, audio-cassettes etc, followed int he 90s by digitisation. 1980s saw the commodification and recycling of an individualist consumerist and reduced form of feminism – as spear-headed by Madonna and the girl power, etc. Neoliberal values became inserted into our own daily practices of consumption and increasing capabilities for us all to recycle the values that enslave us.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 June 2013 at 10:48 am

                    I read a US piece recently which basically said – “liberals” are very well meaning, but that they hardly ever anticipate the blowback that their good-intentioned initiatives have on society.

                    For instance, women have the right and the capability to become well qualified, excel at any career they want, be paid at the same rate as men for the same work, and to reject traditional expectations of a role as some sort of stay at home parent, AKA “housewife”.

                    BUT this also means absent/over tired parents, children raised by childcare centres, atomised family units, couples under relationship stress who hardly see each other due to different shifts, and employees being paid too little for a single worker to support the household.

                    After all, why would you also want wages high enough for a single parent to support a household when you’ve been consistently pushing for the right for both parents to go out, have an income each, and have any career that they want?

                    Blowback and unintended consequences.

                    • karol …
                      17 June 2013 at 11:14 am

                      CV, @ 10.48 am: You are just going with the liberal feminist and MSM view of the parts of the wider second wave women’s movement that they cherry picked. They were/are often OK with anything that didn’t/doesn’t fundamentally restructure the whole capitalist system.

                      There has long been on-going feminist debates about the role of domestic labour, child care etc. Feminists have long been aware of the dilemma of achieving equality in the workplace and in the home, without restructuring the whole masculinist career structure and capitalist division between the domestic sphere and other areas of life such as the workplace.

                      One angle was the “wages for housework” campaign by a group of radical feminists. Another has been to focus on totally restructuring the whole approach to paid work and industrial-postindustrial systems.

                      As far as the wider feminist movement goes, they have long been aware of a range of consequences – not necessarily unforeseen or “unintended”. Trying to get any serious attention for socialist feminism has been an on-going battle, before, during and after the second wave movement of the 60s and 70s.

                      And in recent times, there’s been quite a bit of feminist research, activism etc. around the problems related to increasing female participation in the workplace: the “double shift”; the way having children creates a conflict between women’s work and home lives; the way so many young single women have bought into the neoliberal post-feminist (feminism is no longer needed) propaganda that young women today can easily “have it all” – career, husband, children – when the whole capitalist system works against that.

                      The reductionist and revisionist view just uses the liberal feminist, pro-capitalist, media-favoured views to beat-up on all feminist activities.

                    • Olwyn …
                      17 June 2013 at 11:51 am

                      This sort of blow back could have been controlled had “the breaking down of society’s long established traditions, rules and shackles” not been so intensive. Some countries in Europe seem to have managed to balance liberal and working class concerns for quite some time. Without such a balance, liberal freedoms readily become working class shackles.

                      At first there were numerous strands to feminism, with quite a few overlaps. Those wanting equal pay and career opportunities, those wanting to be earth mothers, concerned with natural childbirth, long-term breast feeding, etc, and those concerned with gay and lesbian rights, to mention just a few.

                      But by the eighties and nineties, the career version held sway, which of course provided license for coercing working class wives and solo mothers into low-paying, soul-destroying jobs; a far cry from the promised freedom and equality. Along similar lines, when the so-called establishment abandoned its conservatism, attacks on the establishment became indirect attacks on working class men. Which comes in handy when such men have also become an “establishment” target, with manufacturing jobs on the wane, no major war on the horizon and private prisons on the lookout for new clients.

                      In the end, I think we need to distinguish between power and privilege: the powerful reshuffle privilege according to their own interests, not ours. The only way to gain and maintain a balance it to find a way of preventing the accumulation of too much power into too few hands.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 June 2013 at 11:53 am

                      Thanks for rounding out those points, karol. The Right Wing love to take over ideas and labels and twist them around for their own agendas. Meanwhile the Left specialises in fighting over nuances in concepts, academic theory and vocabulary that no one outside the discussion not in the interest groups can follow, or even catch up on.

                  • fatty …
                    17 June 2013 at 12:18 pm

                    I agree with your statement there, CV. However, somehow fatty was skewing it to sheet the ultimate blame to 60s-70s social movements and “identity politics” of feminism”, and the sum total of boomer existence.

                    If I did, that wasn’t my intention. I don’t want to apply a blanket blame on identity politics for neoliberalism. I just think that norms in society are produced and reinforced primarily through discourses, mostly hegemonic discourses.
                    And if you ask the average punter to point out the key discourses behind second wave feminism, neoliberalism and other social movements around that time…then the discourses are essentially the same – freedom, individual rights, dislike of existing political processes, rhetoric of ‘unleashing the shackles’, decreased government regulation etc
                    I’m happy to be accused of lumping the discourses of social movements and neoliberalism, because that is my point.
                    But this is not comparable to lumping social movements with neoliberalism. If this is your response, then you don’t understand what discourses are and how they work.

                    • just saying …
                      17 June 2013 at 12:29 pm

                      I’m happy to be accused of lumping the some of the discourses of social movements, but not the predominant ones with, neoliberalism, because that is my point.

                      fify with my point.

                      As a feminist during much of the time you are talking about, and as Karol has described, the predominant feminist discourses were socialist and anti-neoliberalism. There were exceptions, but in my experience, they were not the dominant discourses.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      17 June 2013 at 2:15 pm

                      I agree that karol appears to not always understand her own ‘written discourse’ fatty; “masculinist backlash”? Wotteva.

                • just saying …
                  17 June 2013 at 10:26 am

                  Because neither do 96% of the voters out there, and the media advisors to the neoliberals know that very well.

                  Are you arguing that perception is reality CV?

                  And it’s pretty easy to be nostalgic about the days before “traditions” were “broken down” if said traditions didn’t actually oppress you, and actively privileged you.

                  I’m vehemently opposed to neoliberalism, but my Mum was a virtual indentured skivvy and chattel to my father, and the relative freedom from oppression that I’ve been able to enjoy because of feminism, is no little distraction from some greater cause.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 June 2013 at 12:35 pm

                    Are you arguing that perception is reality CV?

                    Perception creates electoral reality. As John Armstrong said today: “And, as oft-stated, perception is everything in politics.” Are you arguing that this is not the case?

                    And it’s pretty easy to be nostalgic about the days before “traditions” were “broken down” if said traditions didn’t actually oppress you, and actively privileged you.

                    Nostalgic? Hardly the point. But you better accept that a loss of the grounding that traditions and societal/community/family structure provides often has wider impacts other than the ones you wanted. If you take the medicine, don’t pretend to be surprised – or deny- that there are adverse effects too.

                    I’m vehemently opposed to neoliberalism, but my Mum was a virtual indentured skivvy and chattel to my father, and the relative freedom from oppression that I’ve been able to enjoy because of feminism

                    I know people married in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s who had excellent relationships. And some who had rubbish ones. Now, thanks to feminism, women have far more options and opportunities in life, good.

                    However, in the research I see, I can’t see much evidence that women today are any happier or feel better off, relative to either to men in general or to women from several decades ago.

                    • just saying …
                      17 June 2013 at 12:59 pm

                      If you take the medicine, don’t pretend to be surprised – or deny- that there are adverse effects too.

                      Freedom from oppression, for any group, does not necessitate adverse effects for that group, the prevailing situation usually dictates these as events do not occur in a vaccuum.
                      However, it is quite possible for there to be a society in which no member is abused or oppressed, or excessively privileged. Should we all (the majority who belong in one or more “identity” group) have waited for the “right time”?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 June 2013 at 1:41 pm

                      I’m not saying wait for the right time, or don’t go ahead and do it, or don’t keep pushing for more.

                      I’m saying that people need to have a full and objective assessment of the total impacts of the changes they have sought and have accomplished.

                      As I said, from what I can see in the research women certainly have more “freedom” now than decades ago but that hasn’t translated into more “happiness” now than decades ago.

                      However, it is quite possible for there to be a society in which no member is abused or oppressed, or excessively privileged.

                      In concept, sure. In reality? Please go ahead and name some.

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    17 June 2013 at 2:17 pm

                    personalizations

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    17 June 2013 at 6:35 pm

                    This reminds me very much of John Pilger and his minions’ attack on marriage equity as a western middle-class distraction from the middle east. This monolithic binary black and white thinking has got to stop because it simply doesn’t reflect reality or fairness. The reality is society consists of overlapping spheres of influence, all of which are worthy of attention.

              • fatty …
                17 June 2013 at 12:00 pm

                Karol, you’ve not only misinterpreted many of my points, but my underlying argument as well.

                Firstly, I’d like to refute a nasty and baseless accusation you’ve just made , I ain’t no Trotter supporter, in fact when I dish out the blame for the Shearer fiasco, I put most of the blame on Trotter. How can you possibly accuse me of throwing your hat in with Trotter’s anti-feminism and anti-Maori-70s-revival? I used a metaphor from him which I admitted that…Perhaps the metaphor was for something else…so I don’t agree with Trotter’s use of the metaphor, I used it to suit my own point (I actually think Trotter used the metaphor in relation to Labour’s stance on whistleblowers). I agree with you that Trotter’s position can be anti-feminism and anti-Maori-70s-revival.

                Secondly, I agree with your general history of feminist movements, but I disagree with basically, you haven’t a clue about what actually happened.
                Your view of second wave feminism is projected through a political economy lens – so you cite David Harvey and your analysis separates feminism from neoliberalism. You frame feminism as good and neoliberalism as bad (which I agree with). However, using a political economy lens limits your analysis.
                I have used a poststrucuralist analysis of both feminism and neoliberalism to look at the discourses which are inherent to both feminism and neoliberalism. So I agree that the actors within second wave feminism and neoliberalism have opposing views and and their desired outcomes oppose each other. But if you look at the discourses of both groups, they are similar and perpetuate each other.
                Feminism is great at deconstructing everything except itself, and that is its weakness. Feminism uses a poststructuralist approach outwardly very effectively, but there is little use of that as a reflective process.
                The aims, demands and values of feminism usually opposes neoliberalism, but the discourses are similar, that is all I’m saying.
                Nancy Fraser explores this here, check pg 107 for the 2nd point within the essay. Fraser discusses how the discourse in feminism resonate with neoliberalism.

                I do find it amusing that when I present a Foucauldian analysis, I get labeled a sexist. Perhaps if you put aside your political economy hat for a second, you might better understand why the social movements lost the economic war despite winning (?) the social war. As long as you hold onto your binary view of economic issue vis-a-vis social issues, you cannot see how they perpetuate each other.

                • karol …
                  17 June 2013 at 12:34 pm

                  Well, fatty you have done a very good job of trying to undermine feminism(s). Actually, I have been strongly influenced by postructuralism, especially via Foucauld. But, I find, while that is indeed very good for analysing discourse and the creative workings of power within diverse networks, I have come to the conclusion that it falls short in understanding the impact of power elites. I find David Harvey especially useful as he has taken on board discursive analysis, for instance of some of his examination of popular culture, while incorporating that within a political economy framework.

                  2nd wave feminisms did not use a poststructuralist approach, but were more strongly influenced by neomarxism. Poststructuralism gained more currency among academic feminists throughout the 80s and 90s.

                  In recent years I have been working to try to integrate the most significant aspects of both approaches. Post Marxist theorists like Manuel Castells are also helpful there.

                  I separate the main core of British and European feminism from the more dominant form in the US during the 60s-80s, liberal feminism.

                  You tend to treat feminism as one unified body of work and action. In fact, it is a loose network of theories practices and approaches, of which certain strands get more attention at particular times and places.

                  I have found some of Nancy Fraser’s work, especially on issues of justice etc., to be very useful. But she also is coming form a US standpoint on feminism, that tends to be less grounded in neomarxist theory. I like that she aims to integrate critical theory and poststructuralism.

                  Please point me to a source for the Fraser work that you are referring to, or even a citation for it. I would like to see where she got the evidence for her discursive analysis.

                  • fatty …
                    17 June 2013 at 1:18 pm

                    Well, fatty you have done a very good job of trying to undermine feminism(s).

                    You can accuse me (again) of trying to undermine feminism if it makes you feel better.

                    Here’s what I assume we agree on with second wave feminism: It was needed, it was a pluralistic movement which had numerous factions and ideas, overall it was effective in creating change, however, genders remain unequal and more needs to be done.
                    Do we agree on that?
                    The last point is important for me – why are genders still unequal?
                    I look back at the problems faced by the feminist movement back then, and what do you do? – claim I’m trying to undermine feminism. Nice one.

                    I separate the main core of British and European feminism from the more dominant form in the US during the 60s-80s, liberal feminism.

                    Irrelevant.
                    Again you are missing the point of a discursive analysis. Just as you separate neoliberalism from social movements. You are splitting feminism into factions.
                    Yes, social movements and neoliberalism can be separated with a political economy lens. I agree that they are separate and contrasting ideologies with opposing ideals and opposing actors.
                    But put that aside and homoginise them to see which discourses are used by all of them.

                    You tend to treat feminism as one unified body of work and action.

                    Only when using a discursive analysis to look at how their discourses relate.
                    I am aware that feminism has many branches. Just as I am aware that the protest movement era had many branches.
                    To simply homogenise these movements in an historical analysis will limit analysis…just as to not homogenise these movements in a discourse analysis will limit analysis

                  • fatty …
                    17 June 2013 at 1:28 pm

                    I linked to this essay of Fraser’s, she wrote a whole book about it I think, but I haven’t read it.
                    There has been more analysis of identity politics and their link to neoliberalism by Bryce Edwards here.
                    Also the work of Elizabeth Rata looks at how neotribalism emerged.
                    Although they don’t go into a deep analysis of the discourses from the protest movements and neoliberalism. They way they link it helps to illuminate how the discourses are essentially the same.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 June 2013 at 1:58 pm

                      Many of the aspirations of members of these new social movement could be met, at least in a superficial way but at times in a real and substantial way, without threatening or curtailing the profit accumulation abilities of business in New Zealand. Within the new social movements and the Maori nationalist movement was an ascending and conscious aspiring middle class. Many aspired to new ruling class status, and saw opportunities to use the leadership opportunities in organisations defined by feminist, Maori nationalism or gay politics as a base from which to rise within mainstream political and economic structures. The Fourth Labour Government was adept at uniting and transforming these various strands into a ‘new right’ synthesis

                      From your Bryce Edwards link. Very interesting indeed.

                    • fatty …
                      17 June 2013 at 2:15 pm

                      yeah, that was back when Bryce Edwards was writing and releasing some really interesting analysis. I guess most of his work now goes to academic journals and takes 12 months to see the light of day, and only then behind a pay-wall.

                      His point is that the supposedly opposing ideologies over-lapped quite easily, and at superficial level they have many similarities.

                      My point is that if you dig deeper, and look at the discourses which are embedded within both social movements and neoliberalism, they move from having similarities to being almost the same (despite both opposing groups interpreting the discourses differently).

                • karol …
                  17 June 2013 at 12:58 pm

                  OK: found it:

                  Looking at p107, without having had time to read the whole thing – thanks for the ref (will read and digest). She is making some bizarre claims that distort timelines, certainly as they unfolded in the UK during the 60s-80s. She seems to be treating neoliberalism and feminism as coming to maturity at the same time, when, in fact, (especially in the UK and Europe) feminism rose and had an impact in the 70s, while neoliberlism rose to prominence and gained tractiON in the UK

                  Scrolling back to p105: She seems to be referring to the dominant liberal feminist strand as in the US, and does not equate to my experience of femisim int he UK. (curiously the section I’m referring to copies and pastes into capitalised gibberish)

                  She seems to be relying on some sweeping generalisations about feminism internationally. (Actually, Sheila Rowbotham’s book on the Century of Women highlights the similarities and differences between the US and the UK as regards issues for women and political responses to that.)

                  Soley using cherry-picked US sources on feminism is always going to be problematic when focusing on historical changes in the latter part of the 20th Century. One of the results of neoliberalisation has been increasing permeation of US values internationally. Prior to the neoliberal revolution, there was a lag between developments in capitalism within the US and those elsewhere. Ditto for the “social” (actually “socio-economic”) movements of the 60s onwards. And in the left in the UK, and to a lesser extent in NZ, there was resistance to those cultural values and related political approaches.

                  You and Fraser are unfortunately using a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism(s), even while acknowledging the different strands that were part of it. Poststructuralist discursive analysis can also be fruitfully applied to yours and Fraser’s arguments.

                  • fatty …
                    17 June 2013 at 1:40 pm

                    You and Fraser are unfortunately using a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism(s), even while acknowledging the different strands that were part of it.

                    You have applied a political economic / historical analysis.
                    Forget your facts and figures of second wave feminism for just a few minutes. As long as you keep thinking this way, you will not be able to see the common discourses hidden deep within these ideologies.
                    unfortunately using a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism(s)

                    Yes, its unfortunate and limiting to always do this. But try applying a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism /social movements and you will then see the hegemonic discourses which are also embedded in neoliberalism..

                    Ironically, you use a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to neoliberalism all the time, and as a result you can see the broad discourses in society that propel it. Do the same for feminism.

                    She seems to be relying on some sweeping generalisations about feminism internationally.

                    Yeah, discursive analysis requires that.
                    How many times do you think I’ll have to keep repeating this until you get it?

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  17 June 2013 at 2:20 pm

                  on to it fatty, same lack of reflexsiveness I encountered in the nursing profession; none so blind.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                17 June 2013 at 1:43 pm

                so, karol, you agree that “liberal, individualist, feminism got the ‘airplay’, i.e women, dominated other women- horizontal violence.
                Are you not assuming a “masculinist backlash” by fatty; like us all, your written discourse reveals your emotionality.

                • Arfamo …
                  17 June 2013 at 1:56 pm

                  Academic one-upmanship arguments don’t resonate with the general population – economic academics saw to that. What is it exactly that you want, how many others want the same thing, what impacts will it have, what adjustments to how things work now will be required, what will the effects of those adjustments be, and how do you plan to achieve what you want are the important questions for me.

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    17 June 2013 at 2:31 pm

                    Those are very good questions;
                    What- ‘needs’ before ‘wants’
                    How many- clearly the ‘democratic majority’ are in error, or ‘following’ consensus.
                    Impacts- conflict / violence (not necessarily against the personal body) is inevitable; Ellul conceded this.
                    Adjustments- paradigm shift
                    Method- emergent.

                    Arche- Demotic (is the only way).
                    Denouement- horizontal (which is synonymous in itself).

                    • Arfamo …
                      17 June 2013 at 3:17 pm

                      People still need to resolve in their own minds how much is what anyone does for a living actually really worth. A billionaire CEO who has recently purchased and re-structured a health services company and laid off many staff to increase its bottom line profit is the sole survivor of an executive jet crash, and lies in the wilderness, badly, potentially fatally, injured. Our system currently allows her to be worth a multi-million dollar salary plus benefits because they say her skills generate profits for shareholders and maybe employment for hundreds or thousands of lesser beings so she is worth it. She hasn’t considered ways to retain employees, merely the fastest way to improving the bottom line, destroying the income earning potential of some former employees, but that’s their problem, those are the breaks.

                      She won’t get out of bed or do anything for anyone for less than she’s currently paid, because that’s what she and neolibs consider she’s worth.

                      Now she lies, arms broken, arteries bleeding, in the wilderness, unable to do anything to prevent herself from dying. Along comes a paramedic from her restructured hospital on a hiking trip. He recognises her. Save me, she says – its your duty. No it’s not: I’m on holiday, he says. It’s my choice. I can look at this as a moral or a business issue. How much are you prepared to pay for me to meet your current needs?

                      Whose skills are actually worth the most?

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    17 June 2013 at 6:40 pm

                    Feeling left out, are we?

                • karol …
                  17 June 2013 at 3:10 pm

                  Damn right I get emotional about it, RT. I participated in an intense and multifaceted struggle back int e 70s and 80s. It resulted in the elite’s moving to close us down in ways that the majority of us felt powerless to prevent, no matter how much we were aware of what was happening, and tried to resist. I still retain some of the anger. But now to be accused of being part of the problem – that does too many people a disservice.

                  So I sure do get angry when I see the whole struggle disparaged and a dismissed as on some parts of this thread, albeit with various caveats and pats on the head.

                  Overall. I’d say there is too much disparaging of second wave feminists and other movements of the 60s and 70s, and a failure to see it in context of on-going struggles that pre-existed the time and still continue. The tendency is to explain it in retrospect as some sort of neatly unfolding narrative, rather than one chapter in an ongoing struggle between all sorts of intersecting, overlapping and competing forces But first wave feminists also had that happen. History diminished their struggle to one for the vote, when their struggle was also far more multifacted, with significant political depth and breadth.

                  I also am not assuming so much, as reading the discourse re-a “masculinist backlash”. It often reads to me as yet another younger generation kicking against the parent generation as being the perpetrator of all ills, and especially from a white male perspective..

                  I could go on debating this in detail, but each comment spawns more and there’s other pressing issues to attend to. And you are right. Academic debates are never going to be attended to by the majority.

                  Yes the left, feminists etc, did some things wrong in the 60s-80s. Yes, we can learn from the mistakes, especially in terms of strategy, and in underestimating the power and persistence of the elites. But trying to dismiss us all as failed, individualists etc, does a major disservice.

                  All this has happened before, and will happen again.

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    17 June 2013 at 5:35 pm

                    sadly, yes. as you are aware, my closest, and dearest friend is an experienced feminist and nurse. I told her about this thread and the central theme elucidated by fatty; she, in general, agrees. In the real world, working with teens and young adults, ‘day in, day out’ 😉 , when asked or challenged about the gains of the feminist movement, which you know I support in principle, the replies are along the lines of “hairy arm-pits” and the ‘unifom’ clothing (which I value) characterisation you made earlier. This is all very unfortunate, but there you have. Wise to choose our ‘battles’ indeed.
                    Kind Regards, j.

                    • karol …
                      17 June 2013 at 5:59 pm

                      Ah, yes. So it goes, RT.

                      I will withdraw from this debate for the moment, but no doubt it will be revisited again in the future. I have other research and topics I’m trying to work on.

                      Ultimately, I enjoy discussions and debates, and usually learn something from them, as well as being spurred to learn more. Social research & history are some of my preoccupations. The researching and writing of history is itself a site of struggle, and people too often get into writing it as a smooth and uncomplicated narrative.

                      The discourses are often in the over-looked daily activities, political organisation, posters, images, popular representations, web pages, and actions, as in the theoretical writings that arise out of them.

                      h/t to your nurse friend – a job that contributes much and is too often under-appreciated.

                  • fatty …
                    17 June 2013 at 6:26 pm

                    Cheers for closing off the conversation with the excuse I could go on debating this in detail, but each comment spawns more and there’s other pressing issues to attend to
                    I’m sure the old white leftists used that one on you when you were trying to get your voice into Leftwing discussion.

                    Damn right I get emotional about it, RT. I participated in an intense and multifaceted struggle back int e 70s and 80s

                    That’s the problem with any kind of qualitative, reflective analysis. Its difficult when we are emotionally tied to the issue and have an insiders view.

                    But now to be accused of being part of the problem – that does too many people a disservice.

                    True. If we look at how second wave feminism was fostered with the same discourses which pushed neoliberalism, we might find that all your time and energy actually assisted neoliberalism. That might be a disservice to you. But I’d say its a disservice to all women if we don’t look at why feminism has not produced the results we hoped it would.

                    I also am not assuming so much, as reading the discourse re-a “masculinist backlash”. It often reads to me as yet another younger generation kicking against the parent generation as being the perpetrator of all ills, and especially from a white male perspective.

                    You know what is just as bad as being a racist or sexist?…falsely slinging those accusations on others. Yes, that fucks me off.
                    This discussion started as a general critique of what happened to left wing politics. I understand that the discussion within the Left is a little more than a boomer-centric echo-chamber, traditionally, the Left have not only silencing youth, but also gleefully put the boot in.
                    According to you I know nothing about 2nd wave feminism. Bullshit. You are the one who views the history of 2nd wave feminism from a feminist perspective. That’s as stupid as viewing neoliberalism from a libertarian perspective and claiming ‘nothing to see here, carry on, its OK’.

                    The sad thing is that when the issue of generational inequality is raised, you silence it with the same blindness and the same rhetoric that you’ve spent most of your life challenging.
                    As you fought for women’s rights or Maori rights, I’m sure that those on the Left (old white dudes) tried to shoot down your argument with the false claim that these side issues are a diversion from real issue – class.

                    Karol, your position now is as a gatekeeper of the Left, you now hold voice within the Left (which has accepted ethnic and gender issues as worthy Left values). However, when the younger people point out that there are inherent structural oppression against younger people, as well as silencing of an age cohort following a statistical bulge…you replicate the actions of that stupid old generation that excluded your voice. I’m sure you didn’t have to think too long about the argument and rhetoric you apply to generational inequality, because you spent years fighting against it.

                    I want to leave two points, one regarding generational inequality, the other 2nd wave feminism.

                    The debate on generational inequality is your friend and your tool. Use it, explore it, shape it and announce it. Generational inequality is easily proved, and it can be a powerful illuminator of the problems with neoliberalism. It is not a threat to feminism, it is not a threat to the Left. It is another way to point out gender and economic inequalities.

                    Put simply, I ain’t impressed with the current gender inequalities in society and I know you aren’t either. So if someone deconstructs 2nd wave feminism, that does not mean they are anti-feminist or sexist. Maybe I’m just fucked off that the best option open to most of my friends is to get pregnant and pretend to not know the father. I’ve never scoffed at 2nd wave feminism, but I ain’t gonna avoid looking at reasons why we are in our current situation.

                    I’ll be over on Daily Blog interacting with the Gen Xers. I’ll be laughing at 2nd wave feminism and moaning about greedy old people

              • Populuxe1 …
                17 June 2013 at 8:21 pm

                When did feminism cease to be an evolving discourse, karol? You treat it as though it were set and strone and only you and the theorists you approve of have the right to determine or analyse it – like the Pope speaking ex cathedra. You might as well have just pointed the finger and accused fatty of mansplaining or declared it all secret womyn’s business. Also this “collectivism” of yours tends to ignore that the experience of oppression is quite diverse and individual. I’m a white male, sure, but I’m also gay. A brown woman is likely going to be twice as oppressed than you, but you as an educated white woman (yes, I know I’m assuming you’re white) are less oppressed than an uneducated white woman. It’s entirely disengenious that one size fits all. Capitalism also skews things again.

            • Puddleglum 33.2.1.2.1.3
              17 June 2013 at 11:42 am

              Thanks to all of the above for a very interesting discussion that I think is getting to the nub of something very important.

              Neo-LIBERALISM is called that for a reason. Liberalism is a particular view of how freedom is to be attained – through the absence of any constraining, institutionalised force on the individual. Liberalism – beyond an analysis of ‘property rights’ – is more or less absent of any contentful prescriptions.

              No-one that I know is in favour of not being free. But there are, of course, other ways of understanding what freedom comprises and how it is generated. I don’t just mean the ‘freedom from’/ ‘freedom to’ debate in political science (both of those are individualistically framed). There is a further option that, I had always assumed, distinguished the ‘left’.

              That option is that freedom, fulfilment and all those very human ‘goods’ are best achieved through ‘autonomous cooperation’ – with both emphasised. Autonomy (the liberal utopia) is achieved within cooperative settings, not individually by being ‘left alone’ to follow your preferences through exchange with no (moral or structural) need to consider consequences on others (‘buyer beware’).

              In some ways it is an act of faith that, given equality and equity, we will find ourselves treating each others’ rights to live in particular chosen ways with respect because we structurally depend upon us all cooperating over substantive, material matters that affect us all. It means that we invest everything in a fully democratic structure (non-hierarchical) and that that structure trumps economic freedom largely because economic activity is almost inevitably a collective matter for humans. Economic freedom cannot trump democracy.

              Part of the issue, of course, is that ‘democracy’ is so incomplete that when it does trump economic freedom it often does so in an arbitrary, cronyistic manner that favours those who dominate the political/economic system (witness the central city re-development of Christchurch). That’s why I understand the impulse behind right wing libertarianism without agreeing with it. Rather than push for greater economic freedom to achieve human freedom, I think it more sensible to push for greater democracy to achieve human freedom (with the option of opting out of one collective and joining another – which apparently happened quite frequently between hunter gatherer bands in many instances).

              The kind of second wave feminism that karol describes (thanks karol!) is sophisticated and ideologically aware. From what I can understand, it realised that both (individual and collective) autonomy and cooperative/collective political practice were needed for women to be fully free. That is an advance for developing a more truly democratic order.

              Yes, neoliberalism co-opted aspects of that but it is hardly a regrettable development from a ‘progressive’ perspective.

              Thanks to all for the efforts put into this thread.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                17 June 2013 at 12:21 pm

                epilogue
                despite the ‘consumption-led’ “economic upturn”- cheaper imports and housing- Westpac economists warn of New Zealanders returning to their high-spending ways,
                particularly OLDER HOUSEHOLDS. Going for broke, I would suggest, in view of what ‘their’ economic freedoms have wrought upon society and the environment; suggesting another brick in the foundation of “inter-generational” conflict (theft) theses.

              • Arfamo …
                17 June 2013 at 12:51 pm

                Isn’t the problem with discussing identity politics that fundamentally all politics is identity politics and the current system simply exploits the confusion of objectives and labels and academic debate that entertains the intellectual elites and just perpetuates itself?

                Where is the well-argued debate in society about what the fundamental role of a democratic government should be, how accountable it should be, what “democracy” really is, (e.g complete freedom on the interent, as advocated by Anonymous – is it ok for paedophiles, terrorists, malignant hackers, criminals, scamsters, to thrive on the net) what the role of a national (and international) economy should be, what change is needed, how that change can be brought about, and (from our own experience) how any gains in freedoms and economic advancement for all can be prevented from simply becoming perverted by those of original high ideals who have achieved power but invariably become seduced and corrupted by it and by their own self-interest and self-preservation.

                We live in interesting times.

  34. pollywog 34
    16 June 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Is there a need for younger generations to revolt ?

    Yes.

    Do we know what needs revolting against ?

    Yes. The “system” (political and financial)

    Do we know what the most effective form of revolution is that will bring about effective , lasting change ?

    Going by the Arab Springs and Occupy Movements…No, not really.

    Do we want violent revolution, blood in the streets, elites up against the wall, anarchy and populist leaders without a realistic, sustainable vision for a post revolution future ?

    Might be fun in the short term but no, that’s never achieved any real progress.

    What do we need first and fore most before we start revolting willy nilly ?

    Leaders !…where and who are they ?

    • Arfamo 34.1
      16 June 2013 at 3:35 pm

      So, you are against the system, political and financial. And so am I. And you are waiting for leaders to appear to articulate a vision and to tell you what you should do? Is that correct?

      • Populuxe1 34.1.1
        16 June 2013 at 3:43 pm

        It’s not about leaders organising, it’s about leading by example

      • Colonial Viper 34.1.2
        16 June 2013 at 3:45 pm

        When the people are ready, the leader will appear.

        • Populuxe1 34.1.2.1
          16 June 2013 at 6:22 pm

          I thought you were supposed to be all horizontal and anarchist and shit.

          • Colonial Viper 34.1.2.1.1
            16 June 2013 at 6:30 pm

            The people are not ready, hence no leader shall be apparent no matter where you look.

            • Populuxe1 34.1.2.1.1.1
              16 June 2013 at 6:57 pm

              “The people are not ready, hence no leader shall be apparent no matter where you look.”

              Divine fiat, CV? Still not really nderstanding the whole leaderness nature of the concept?

      • pollywog 34.1.3
        16 June 2013 at 3:58 pm

        Yeah, sort of.

        Isn’t that how it starts? Someone has to lead and set an example to follow.

    • Colonial Viper 34.2
      16 June 2013 at 3:36 pm

      Leaders? I thought you were going to say Focus Groups.

  35. Rogue Trooper 35
    16 June 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Come on all of you big strong men
    Uncle Sam needs your help again
    he’s got himself in a terrible jam
    way down yonder in Afghanistan