In defence of the ‘user pays youth generation’

December 27, 2015 by
According to a US survey, 49% of millenials view socialism favourably.

According to a US survey, 49% of millenials view socialism favourably.

By Ian Anderson, Fightback.

The Daily Blog’s Martyn Bradbury recently posted an article seeking to characterise John Key’s electoral appeal. Bradbury contends that Key appeals to a ‘user pays youth generation’:

This empty aspiration appeals to a user pays youth generation who have no idealogical [sic] compass, and is best expressed through the naked narcism [sic] of Key’s son.

Bradbury has used the specific phrase ‘user pays youth generation’ before. In August 2015, the Daily Blog posted another article attempting to characterise Key’s base, with a nearly identical paragraph on the apparent superficiality of millenials:

[Key appeals] to our anti-intellectualism… He’s so laid back he burns books on his BBQ. This empty aspiration appeals to a user pays youth generation who have no idealogical [sic] compass, and is best expressed through the naked narcism [sic] of Key’s son.

Bradbury is right to suggest that Key’s PR-guided personality appeals to a certain Kiwi anti-intellectualism, a blokey ‘she’ll be right’ attitude in the context of the global financial crisis. National is supported by the rich, and by insecure middle-class folks relying on the property boom – which raises the question, how many people in their 20s own houses?

Although Bradbury may have a point about Key’s media-savvy philistinism, he’s wrong to imply that Key’s base is primarily young. While Young Nats offer a horrifying spectacle of privileged self-indulgence, this does not represent most ‘millenials.’ According to early voting statistics from 2014, students voted for a change of government, with Labour-Green-Internet Mana at a combined total of around 50%, and National votes at 37% (around 10% lower than the national average). This doesn’t say anything special about Kiwi millenials: youth generally tend to be progressive. According to a US survey, 49% of millenials view socialism favourably.

National’s electoral strength can be explained not only by who votes for them, but who doesn’t vote at all. 2011 saw the lowest turnout since the 19th century, and 2014 wasn’t a significant improvement. The ‘missing million’ of non-voters is comprised largely of youth, migrants, tangata whenua, poor and working-class citizens – the demographics most likely to vote left.

Surveys of non-voters reveal that they are more likely to cite disengagement (eg “my vote wouldn’t have made a difference”) than a perceived practical barrier (eg “I couldn’t get to a polling booth”). After 30 years of neoliberal assault and entrenchment by successive Labour and National governments, it’s unsurprising that so many are disenfranchised.

Generational narratives about ‘millenials’ and ‘Baby Boomers’ do in some ways resonate with lived experience. For example, I was born in 1988, during the reign of the Fourth Labour Government. Although Pākehā and relatively well-off, I was born into a world of privatisation, declining real wages, and ballooning private debt. Since leaving home I’ve only worked short-term casualised jobs, and lived in poorly maintained flats. If I’m part of a ‘user pays’ generation, I owe this in large part to Baby Boomers like Phil Goff, who introduced student loans (after getting through university with a universal student allowance). With a $40,000 student loan, I’m not inspired to vote for a party that recently promoted Goff as a potential Prime Minister.

However, generational narratives can also also conceal reality. Baby Boomers, in general, did not implement neoliberalism: a global minority carried out this assault. Many more resisted; thousands of leftists killed by Pinochet’s regime in Chile; thousands of miners in Thatcher’s England; and those of my parents’ generation who unsuccessfully fought a sudden, disorientating wave of restructuring initiated by the Fourth NZ Labour Government. I was raised with the idea that “socialism was a nice idea that didn’t work” – that there is no alternative – and didn’t come to understand this history until well into adulthood.

Reactionary complaints about the apathetic ‘selfie generation’ also conceal more than they reveal. My generation saw perhaps the largest ever global mobilisation, against the Iraq War, a mobilisation that did nothing to stop that military assault. This perception of political powerlessness, this sense that there is no alternative, seems more likely to discourage youth from political participation than the ability to take pictures with our phones.

A Baby Boomer coined the phrase ‘don’t trust anybody over 30,’ and in a certain sense he was wrong. Older radicals offer a reminder that not everyone grows conservative with age. Any socialist alternative to Labour and National’s business-as-usual will require the intergenerational self-organisation of workplaces, universities and communities. Otherwise, a privileged minority of millenials will find themselves managing a violent social system much like the one they were born into – likely dooming the species to extinction.

The kids aren’t alright, but generational warfare is a distraction. Capitalism remains the enemy.

See also

Filed Under: Electoral Politics

Change Everything: “We can no longer act like each of our struggles are single causes” (video + text)

December 13, 2015 by

Text of a speech originally delivered by Kassie Hartendorp at Oil Free Wellington‘s Change Everything flotilla & rally, December 13th 2015.

Tēnā koutou, talofa lava, malo e leilei, kia orana, bula vinaka, aloha!

Tēnā koutou ki te whenua, ki te moana, ki te hunga mate, ki te tipuna.

Ko Ngāti Raukawa te iwi, nō Te Whanganui-a-tara ahau. Ko Kassie tōku ingoa.

Tēnā koutou katoa.

I acknowledge our land, our waters, our ancestors, our passed. Kia ora to the organisers, fellow speakers and to all of you here today. A special shout out to those on the water – you are more coordinated than I and I appreciate it!

My name is Kassie Hartendorp, and I am speaking here on behalf of Fightback, a group that is based on ecosocialism and socialist feminism. Like others here, I want to speak past the talks in Paris, past surface level solutions to a deeprooted crisis.

If there’s one thing socialists love to hate – besides bosses and landlords, it’s conspiracy theories. But it is not a conspiracy to say that the wealthiest 1% have control over the resources and production that has accelerated climate destruction. It is not a conspiracy to say that the demands of profit are currently centred over the needs of people, and of the world around us. It is not a conspiracy to say that the richest Western powers have made decisions that have benefited their position, and destroyed areas they deemed as unworthy. The poorest, remotest and least resourced people of the world have been the first to be affected by these decisions – and narratives around racism and colonialism secure the structural demise of indigenous communities, people of colour and superexploited areas of the world. These aren’t conspiracies, they are just the everyday truths of our existence.

We can no longer pretend that the impacts of capitalism and colonisation are benefiting or even neutral to our planet. We have a system that is based on limitless growth, of unceasing accumulation with the destruction of natural resources and communities being the consequence of this. There have been many arguments made by ecosocialists and activists worldwide that a healthier planet cannot go hand in hand with the logic of the market and endless private profit.

We can no longer act like each of our struggles are single causes, existing in a world of their own. Our fights for social justice, the rights of women, sexuality and gender minorities, beneficiaries and low paid workers are all interconnected with the need for systemic and sustainable change.

We can no longer place all our faith into individually merely recycling more and driving less. These small changes aid us on our way, but they cannot measure up to the structural damage being caused by mass producers and players – which will continue to undo our everyday work.

We need change. We need change that meaningfully acknowledges the kaitiakitanga and mana of tangata whenua in Aotearoa, as well as indigenous people of the world. We need widespread decolonisation that unlearns the language of our colonisers and tears down the systems that have overwritten our ancestors’ knowledges. I am hopeful and romantic that we could have prevented environmental catastrophes earlier, had those knowledges not been destroyed. We need practical action around the idea of interconnectedness. Of us to our environment of us to one another. We need bold challenges to the machines of capitalism – brave actions towards harmful companies and defiant stands against complacent governments. As a well resourced country, we need solidarity with those who are in danger of their communities being uprooted, flooded and displaced.

Our power doesn’t come from talks in closed meetings, among the elite. It doesn’t come from spineless world leaders, biased corporate interests, or parties that propose to ‘green’ capitalism. It comes from a groundswell of collective desire for a world outside of the narrow confines of capitalism. It comes from feet planted firmly on the ground, buckled into boats, refusing to move, on behalf of our unborn grandchildren. It smells like the leaves of Tāne-mahuta, and feels like the waves of Tangaroa. It sees us as a connected Te Moana-nui-a-kiwa, of likeminded islands that must nurture and protect each other. Our power comes from manaakitanga and tino rangatiratanga. We cannot undo what has been done, but we have the power to change what happens next – and that power is in all of you, in all of us together.

He taura whiri kotahi mai anō te kopunga tai no i te pu au
From the source to the mouth of the sea all things are joined together as one

Filed Under: Environment

Film Review: This Changes Everything

December 5, 2015 by

this changes everything trailer

Submitted to Fightback by Maria Ramos.

Although the seriousness of global warming and climate change has been made clear through the work of scientists and environmental advocates, it’s sometimes difficult to present this message in a way that resonates with the general public. As long as modern practices of pollution and resource extraction continue unchecked, ecological harm will almost certainly get worse. The documentary film This Changes Everything aims to alert viewers to the environmental hazards inherent in our economic system and ways of going about addressing the problem.

Based upon Naomi Klein’s 2014 book of the same name, the film was directed by her husband, Avi Lewis. Instead of focusing upon one or two specific effects of corporate disregard for our natural surroundings – say, a decline in polar bear populations or increased illnesses caused by polluted water – Klein and Lewis indict our entire neoliberal capitalist system as a whole. An ethos of viewing the earth as something to be ruthlessly exploited has caused unsustainable growth and ecological degradation. Most of the negative consequences hit hardest in poor communities, whose residents lack the financial resources and political clout to protect their rights through normal channels.

Even though certain pollution-reducing initiatives and public policy goals have been spearheaded by the wealthy and elite, the filmmakers show how these efforts have either been illusory from the start or have been derailed. The cap-and-trade system in particular is rife with abuse, often amounting to little more than the rich trading emissions among themselves with no overall reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. Corporate titans often parrot lines about green energy and clean business practices, but the reality is that any gains thereby achieved are often negated by the wholesale expansions of production in a quest for market share and profits.

This Changes Everything shows the stories of assorted individuals and communities around the world who have been adversely affected by the activities of big enterprises. This allows the documentary to explore the human side of climate change, which is often neglected in other similar works that focus their attention on lakes, rivers and animals. Unfortunately, the broad scope of the film combined with its running time of only 90 minutes mean that the final results feel a bit scatter-shot and disjointed. It’s difficult for the viewer to parse how the various stories relate to each other and to the overall theme of the movie.

Instead of just concerning itself with the damage caused by multinational businesses, This Changes Everything shows us how to fight back against these soulless entities. Through grassroots campaigns directed by the very people whose livelihoods or homes are threatened, depredations against Mother Nature can be halted. People in India have physically blocked the construction of fossil-fuel-burning plants while ranchers in Montana are defending themselves and their homes against a polluting oil company. Meanwhile, municipalities in Germany are purchasing their electric grids back from private companies. Because large national and international bodies are likely to be co-opted or have their missions subtly shift and morph over time, it is these small-scale, locally directed, authentic movements that are most promising.

According to a report from Direct Energy, more than 30 gigatonnes of CO2 were released from the combustion of fossil fuels in 2010, up from less than 15 gigatonnes in 1970. Clearly we must halt and reverse this trend if we would leave succeeding generations a healthy, comfortable planet to live upon.

This Changes Everything and other documentaries are important in order to drum up support among ordinary people for combating dangers that could make the Earth uninhabitable or at least a poor place to live. While the scientific case for the reality of climate change is incredibly strong, we need public outreach and entertainment as a way of delivering the news in a way that the average person can easily access. After all, climate change deniers spend a lot of money spreading their version of the facts, so it’s only fair that we raise our voices against them in whatever media are available.

See also

Filed Under: Environment, Film, Reviews

No Hashtag – Why campaigning needs to look more like a movement than marketing.

December 3, 2015 by

hashtag activism

Article by Ben Peterson, originally published on his personal blog leftwin.

If you speak to some activists, they’ll tell you that it’s a time of change. From the union office to the rally in the street, a new way of doing things is on the rise. The hard times for the left are coming to a close. There’s a new sheriff in town. The “social media campaigner” is here.

Or so the story goes.

Social media campaigning and “messaging” are now central to discussions on the left. Analysis of the political situation increasingly plays second fiddle to “framing” and media talking points. For example, at the recent Council of Trade Unions (CTU) conference the keynote speaker wasn’t a leader of a movement reflecting on a successful campaign. Rather, the key speaker was international language and communications consultant Anat Shenker-Onsario, on messaging. “Digital campaigning” is at the core of influential conferences such as Campaign Bootcamp and Step It Up.

Discussing social media is not a problem in itself. It is self-evident that unionists, environmentalists or anti-TPPA protestors should seek to be as effective as possible in communicating their ideas.

However, the focus and emphasis on media campaigning covers a deeper and more problematic political perspective.

Strategy must come first
The union movement is a good example. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, union membership has shrunk significantly since 1991, when the then National government brought in anti-union legislation. The union movement has steadied, but struggled to regain its influence.

As the economy changed towards service industry jobs, the union movement was slow to adapt, initially believing that these industries were too difficult to organise.  This has now changed, with Unite and FIRST union actively campaigning in hospitality and  retail respectively.

Both these unions seek to use effective messaging in their campaigns, but this is only effective due to the strategic choices of these unions. Media campaigning is only significant after identifying the shape of an organising campaign. For both of these unions, social media campaigning is part of their drive to organise and mobilise these workers.

Unite’s first campaign was #SuperSizeMyPay. It is impossible to understand this campaign without understanding the centrality of the organisation and mobilisation of union members and supporters. The campaign’s strength was built both before the media event, and was used to stimulate greater organising after. The media work was savvy, but it came after the strategic political choice to organise in fast food. Focusing on media messaging misses this important point. It also sidesteps a discussion on why significant parts of the union movement were convinced that organising young workers was not possible.

The same applies for the climate movement. Effective messaging is obviously important, but messaging to what ends? Is the solution to lobby politicians and fossil fuel companies? Or does the movement adopt a strategy of community mobilisation? The endpoint of one is a cup of tea and a chat in a corporate board room. The other might be a community blockade. The focus on media campaigning at best distracts from these vital discussions. At worst, it implicitly takes a side in these strategic debates and reinforces some of the problems that leftists need to overcome.

Movements of people, not “change corporations”
Having media as the central focus of campaigning can be at odds with the emancipatory project of the left.

The basis of a radical left project is ‘the people’. In short – the world is not run by or for the billions of ordinary people who populate the planet. Instead, a small financial and political elite runs the political and economic institutions that define our world. The solution is to reverse this situation and build new, more democratic institutions. This strategic analysis is built around one central assumption – the power and potential of working people to run their own society.

Social media campaigning often runs counter to this idea. The social media campaigner creates online content and hopes other people ‘retweet’ or share their content on Facebook. Most people are therefore only passively involved. People are encouraged to share content, but have no way of being involved in creating that content themselves.

Focusing on “effective messaging” reinforces this dynamic. A select few professionals drive a campaign. They are the ones with the media training. They decide on the message, and find graphic designers to make the content. For those outside the professional bubble, the scope for involvement in strategic decisions is non-existent.

This has a flow-on effect to other aspects of political organisation. Fundraising money is channelled away from maintaining a meeting space, printing for mass distribution or upskilling a range of volunteers. Instead funds go towards providing wages for professional spin. Organisations adopt organisation models with a board of directors, or even a CEO, instead of an organising committee accountable to regular membership meetings.
Ironically, this form of organising ends up mirroring the kind of institutions that we are organising against. It is a political perspective of creating “change corporations”, and like other corporations, ordinary people are not participants. Instead they are reduced to political consumers of the change-corp’s political product.
Campaign Bootcamp was a good example of this process. The camp was pitched to young people wanting to “make change”. It had a strong focus on online campaigning tools and media messaging. For the record, it is admirable to set out to provide training for young people to be better political activists. However, the perspectives put forward at the camp were likely to reinforce an elite conception of progressive politics.

In the first instance, the suggested cost was $1200 per attendee; this was later clarified that it would be for those who were paid to go by their employer. This may work for an up-and-comer in a wealthy church charity, but a young person working in a service industry job was not likely to be able to convince their employer to foot the bill. After being challenged, the organisers changed the fee to $800 for those working full time and $400 for students or unemployed.

On top of the cost of attending, organisers required “ideal participants” to “have a minimum of one year’s experience working on social or environmental issues”. If this wasn’t enough, there were interviews to vet potential participants.

Taken together this paints a fairly clear picture. For Campaign Bootcamp, change is a professional process. The ideal person is someone who is young, educated, with a disposable income, and who either works for an NGO or wants to do so. Beneficiaries, high school dropout fast food workers, or even people who have not yet been involved in activism need not apply.

A left perspective.
The real problem is that this approach moves away from our strengths. The corporations that unionists or environmentalists find ourselves organising against will always have more money and resources. They will always be able to pay for the best PR and advertising, or commission the most studies.

A strategy that aims to create an elite group of trained media campaigners gives up our biggest strength – people. Our strategies need to focus on mobilisation and organisation of this base. Being effective in our messaging is important, but we need to encourage a more active involvement than simply asking people to ‘like’ and ‘share’ on Facebook.
Building real organisations where participants have active involvement and control over the direction of the campaign is possible – in fact it is how unions and environmental movements came about. The long tradition of organising meetings and active participation of members in their organisation needs to be continued. This kind of organisation gives movements the real roots and strength that can change the world. Online campaigning alone cannot substitute for the power that comes from the people.

Filed Under: Society