Rising inequality has been the norm in most developed
countries, but few have seen it increase by as much as New Zealand. Income
inequality is either at the highest level it has been since records began in
1982, or is very close to that level. It has also risen sharply in both the
last two years.
In 2004 the
wealthiest five per cent of New Zealanders collectively had seven times more
wealth than the poorest 50 per cent. This survey also showed that the
wealthiest one per cent of Kiwis owned three times more than the poorest 50 per
cent. The 2015 National Business Review's rich list shows the wealthiest one
percent of people now own 17 percent of all wealth in New Zealand. But the
poorest half (50 percent) of the country own just 5 percent.
The number of Kiwi children in relative poverty has jumped
over 300,000 for the first time since 2010. In percentage terms, 29 per cent of
Kiwi children are now in relative poverty, up from 24 per cent in 2013 and only
a fraction below the 2010 peak of 30 per cent.
National Business Review's rich list shows the global
financial crisis has ended for the wealthiest, but ordinary New Zealanders are
still struggling, inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke, said. New Zealand’s
economy was a "trickle-up"
one. The total wealth of the top 184 earners in New Zealand now tops $55
billion. Graeme Hart tops the list with a total value of $9 billion.
The super-rich like Hart may well be the only folk who can
afford Intercontinental Wellington’s $350 burger which is actually three
burgers, not one, as if $166 was a much more sensible price for some meat and
sauce in two toasted buns. The first burger is crayfish, with truffle
mayonnaise. Crayfish is an annual, only-at-Christmas treat for many. The food
comes with an ice-cold vodka martini, made with upper tier Absolut slow-dripped
through kaffir lime and sprinkled with gold leaf. The buns are not made of
gold, but they’re brioche — the gold standard for any sort of burger.
After a lemon sorbet refresher, topped with Krug Champagne,
comes burger number two: simple groper topped with Beluga caviar. Salty and
fishy, the tiny caviar bubbles are something of an acquired taste and they’re
served with another generous pour of Champagne. The next burger was slow-poached paua with
king crab hollandaise. Was it worth $350? Not the point. This is food for
people who don’t lie awake at night wondering if that last dinner bill will
stop them paying rent this week.
Lee White, CEO of Chartered Accountants Australia and New
Zealand, looks at the issue of trust writes:
“The Socialist Party of Great Britain's recent paper, ‘World
Without Accountants’, painted a bleak future, saying accountants would be made redundant
in a socialist society where common ownership and production for use (rather
than for market sale) was the norm. Although the likelihood of New Zealanders
abandoning private ownership in the near future is non-existent”
Despite the glaring facts and figures of inequality this
observation of Lee White’s is unfortunately only too true. The companion party
and co-founders of the World Socialist Movement the World Socialist Party (New Zealand)
has endeavoured to argue that only by replacing capitalism with socialism can
poverty and inequality be ended. Those miseries will remain as long as
capitalism and its insane priorities continue. We can't hope to end poverty and
inequality until we get rid of production of wealth for the exclusive profit of
a few who order $350 burgers at exclusive hotel restaurants.
What is often missing from media coverage of poverty is a
real understanding of its cause and of its solution. The fundamental cause is
the way that society is organised, with a small minority owning the means of
production and the overwhelming majority forced to sell their labour power for
a wage in order to survive. We, as workers, are forced to attempt to sell our labour
power, since there will not always be a capitalist in a position to exploit a
worker and therefore willing to employ us. Workers may sometimes be able to
maintain a reasonable standard of living, while at other times they may be
excluded from what is by any criterion a basically acceptable way of life. But
we are always excluded from true empowerment over our lives and those of our
families – and that is not something that can be achieved under the present
social system. Ending poverty would of course be very worthwhile, but capitalism
cannot achieve this. Proposals for ‘ending poverty’ are effectively put forward
in a vacuum, unencumbered by the existence of a world dominated by a small
number of super-powerful corporations and a tiny minority of super-rich
capitalists.
The WSP(NZ) does not oppose attempts of our fellow workers
to improve their status under capitalism. But we do know the limitations of
these attempts. It is one thing to say that socialists should not oppose the
non-socialists fighting for reforms, and quite another to state that socialists
should place themselves in a position of trying to make capitalism work in the
interests of the workers, when all along they know it cannot. There are so –
called “socialist” organizations which seek to gain leadership over the workers
by aiding them to improve their position under the present order, at the same
time they know this is a futile struggle. We should not be confused with these
“socialists.” It is inconsistent, in the WSP(NZ) opinion, for socialists to
seek to solve problems for the workers under a system which they say cannot
solve these problems, but in a practical sense, such a twin-directional
approach would never bring about socialism. Suppose the WSP(NZ) were to embark
on a campaign to obtain better housing, hospitals, roads, and so forth. Perhaps
we would get a lot of people to join our organisation. On what basis would they
join? The same basis on which we appealed to them. We would in the end have an
organisation consisting of workers who were seeking continual improvement under
capitalist methods of production and distribution, under a price, profit, and
wage economy. What happens when such an organization is voted into political
power as a majority? It merely uses the power of the state to carry on
capitalism under different forms state- ownership or ‘nationalisation. It
cannot use the control of the state to abolish capitalism, because its own
members who joined on a reform basis, would be in opposition to it. The Party
would have to carry out reform of capitalism, or lose its members to another
organization which advocated remedial measures. We could cite example after
example where a party calling itself “socialist,” but advocating immediate
demands now and “socialism in the future” came into political power, and
instead of abolishing exploitation, merely altered the form of it.
The WSP(NZ) appeals for members on the one issue of
obtaining state power for the purpose of abolishing capitalism. Whereas, if
elected to office, we would not oppose social reforms, at the same time we
would not advocate them. By the same token, by putting forth a programme of
immediate demands, we would not be educating any workers to the necessity for
socialism. We would instead be educating on the need to get all they can under
the capitalist system. This latter type of education has never produced
socialists from among the workers. The WSP(NZ) does not spurn the day-to-day
struggle. By the very nature of the fact that they are workers they participate
in the fight for better wages and working conditions. But with an important
qualification, which arise from the fact that they are socialists first, and
members of unions second. First, socialists understand that this economic
struggle against the capitalists is merely a defensive struggle, to keep
capital from beating the working class living standards down. For this reason
they couple their struggle on the economic front with political education of workers.
They point out the limitations of wage increases. So socialists are involved in
the economic struggle by the fact that they are members of the working class
which naturally resists capital. But this is not the same thing as stating that
the World Socialist Party engages in activity for higher wages and better
conditions. This is not the function of the socialist party. Its task is to
fight for socialism, and the method it employs is education of the majority.
The socialist party is not concerned with reforms under capitalism.
It is not true that we ignore daily struggle and think only
of the future in heaven. Rather it is those who postpone socialism to the
unlimited generations ahead who are spurning everyday life. By this we mean
that socialism today is a practical proposition. It is the profit system which
prevents workers from obtaining decent homes, clothes, education. Those who
call themselves realists, and call the socialists dreamers and utopians, are in
truth unrealistic themselves in believing they can gain the good things of life
under capitalism. By the way, if the latter be true, then why fight for
socialism at all? Only if people see the need for socialism, and work actively
for it, will we ever obtain socialism. On the other hand, if everyone who
reaches a socialist understanding comes to the conclusion that socialism will
never come about in his lifetime, this is this the best guarantee that we will
never see socialism.
WSP(NZ) website:
E-mail:
wsp.nz@worldsocialism.org
No comments:
Post a Comment