THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON why conservative politicians and commentators call Jacinda Ardern a “pretty communist”. “Communist”, “socialist”, “leftist”, are all what the woke like to call “trigger words”. For those who believe in capitalism and liberal democracy, just hearing the words spoken will likely raise heart rates. Whether the accusations are true or false is of no consequence. Among those not prone to the serious contemplation of matters ideological, it is enough to hear their traditional foes described in this “triggering” fashion. Those deploying the terms are simply seeking to evoke fear and loathing, and they are almost never disappointed.
Of course, Jacinda Ardern is not and has never been, a communist, socialist – or even a traditional leftist. At this point, New Zealand right-wingers usually object with: “Well, if she’s not a socialist, how come she ended up leading the IUSY – International Union of Socialist Youth?” For those unversed in the fraught relationship between labourites, social-democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists, this is a reasonable question. A comprehensive answer is available in any good history of the Western Left. For those interested only in Jacinda’s motivations, however, the short answer is: because it looked great on her CV.
That sounds disparaging, but it is not meant to be. Most of us interested in politics have heard the much-quoted quip, attributed to Winston Churchill, which says: “He who is not a socialist at twenty, hasn’t a heart. He who is still a socialist at forty hasn’t a head.” Even in the post-Rogernomics Labour Party, a youthful declaration of socialist ideals, and a fair number of speeches beginning with the word “Comrades!”, will in no way harm the ambitious political aspirant’s chances of making it into the House. But, to paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Socialist is as socialist does.” Those who hasten forth to find examples of Jacinda’s socialist reforms will swiftly reach the conclusion that they are on a fool’s errand.
Neither KiwiBuild, nor the Prime Minister’s campaign to wipe out child poverty, nor even her campaign promise to make climate change “my generation’s nuclear-free moment” has produced any results that come close to being socialist – either in their conceptualisation, or their execution. A socialist, bowing to the realpolitik of MMP coalition politics, may well have withdrawn her plans for a Capital Gains Tax. But would she have then gone so far as to rule out such a tax while she remained Prime Minister? That promise shows someone mighty keen to shake-off the socialist sobriquet – not embrace it!
“Alright”, the conservative might object, “but what about the unprecedented level of state intervention, not to mention the ruinous quantity of government debt incurred, during the Covid-19 Pandemic? Surely, that constitutes socialism on steroids?”
To which the genuine socialist would reply: “When assessing any form of state intervention, your very first question ought to be: ‘On whose behalf is the state intervening?’” The answer to that question is critical. Genuine socialism seeks to bring about a profound shift in the balance of power between “Capital” and “Labour” – in “Labour’s” favour. Hence the chosen name of the British, Australian and New Zealand working-class parties. (Genuine communism, on the other hand, seeks to seize all privately owned “Capital” and place it under the control of a workers’ state.)
Consider the example of Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the German Empire. His domestic policies were purloined shamelessly from the manifesto of the fledgling Social Democratic Party of Germany. Determined to loosen the SDP’s hold on the allegiance of the German working-class, Bismarck embarked on a series of what, at the time, were regarded as radical social reforms. He introduced state-owned and state-run unemployment and accident insurance, old age pensions, and even a form of socialised medicine. “Socialism!”, cried his conservative critics. But Bismarck was no socialist. His objective was to keep Germany’s working-class movement as weak as possible, so that the aristocratic militarism of his beloved Prussian state (which he had transformed into an empire) would be subjected to no serious challenges from below.
As a side note, the young Winston Churchill and his Liberal Party colleagues borrowed heavily from the Bismarckian example when designing their own programme of social reforms in the early 1900s. As, indeed, did New Zealand’s innovative Liberal government of the 1890s. The latter’s reforms, especially the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, were, like Bismarck’s, intended to defuse class tensions, most especially the trade union militancy laid bare during the Great Maritime Strike of 1890.
Even in the Twenty-First Century, the tactics developed by Bismarck in the 1880s live on. Who can forget the Newsweek cover celebrating President Obama’s nationalisation of the American motor vehicle industry following the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09. “We are all socialists now!” proclaimed the news magazine. They were, of course, joking. If Obama had been the dangerous socialist his Republican Party enemies accused him of being, then he would never have given those car companies back! Nor would he have taken advantage of the period during which they were under state control to extract vital concessions from the powerful Auto Workers Union. Obama was no more a socialist than Bismarck.
Or, for that matter, Jacinda Ardern.
Those still in doubt about her ideological leanings should ask themselves this question: After the dispersal of tens-of-billions of borrowed (and Reserve Bank created) dollars, is the overall shape of New Zealand society substantially changed? Is the top 10 per cent of income earners materially worse off than they were before the Covid-19 Pandemic? Is the bottom 25 per cent materially better-off? Has the massive flood-tide of dollars re-oriented the economy in favour of the young and the poor? Or, here in New Zealand, has it led, as it has everywhere else, to an obscene spike in asset values? Are the young families still locked out of home ownership really justified in looking upon Jacinda as their socialist saviour?
In Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s famous novel, The Leopard, one of the principal characters, a shrewd aristocrat under pressure from the forces of modernity, embarks on a Machiavellian campaign to so alter the politics of his country that, when all the dust of what the people are assured are long overdue reforms has settled, his wealth and position emerge from all the political excitement more-or-less unscathed.
Because, as the wily aristocrat puts it: “Everything must change for everything to remain the same.”