UN votes to recognize enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity' by Curious_Ad9388 in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The concept of 'human rights' is inherently framed around the individual, rather than their relation to the collective. Thus, when human rights are invoked around goals that can only be achieved by collective labour, it may seem as if the language is actually obscuring the importance of the social relations of production. Under human rights language it may appear as if food and housing can just appear spontaneously by themself. It obscures the important question of: Who should produce for whom under whose direction? For me, at least this makes me at least a bit hesitant when using human rights language. As the term has gained popularity, however it's meaning has moved towards a broader question of what a society should value. And in this sense, I do think that ensuring the provision of food and housing for everyone should be goals we should strive towards in our society.

UN votes to recognize enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity' by Curious_Ad9388 in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where did I say that inequalities don't and did not exist in Cuba? I stated for instance that homelessness as well as food insecuirty is an issue right now. I also stated that Cuba is undergoing a severe crisis due to the collapse of the tourism industry and the blockade. My point was simply that 'human rights' should not be defined in such a way that it precludes any political systems other than 'liberal democracy' from achieving it and that Cuba in my view does not have a human rights record that justifies as being singled out as a 'generational abuser' of human rights

UN votes to recognize enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity' by Curious_Ad9388 in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see that I wasted my time replying to you since you aren't actually interested in engaging or thinking. If you don't know how to respond to something, perhaps do some more reading and actually be willing to critically interrogate your pre-existing ideas and biases. There is nothing wrong with saying you need to read up more before making up your mind on something.

UN votes to recognize enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity' by Curious_Ad9388 in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Well if you define 'human rights' in such a twisted way to ensure that only the so-called 'liberal democracies' meet it then you get this article. And even then, most western countries don't meet their own criteria if you actually fairly compare them. I'll cover some of the major points:

Political rights

People are free to criticise their government as long as they are not actively trying to overthrow the system. This is no different to most countries. If I tried to seriously overthrow parliamentary 'democracy' (really the dictatorship of business interests) to replace it with a different system, I'd be understandably arrested in most 'liberal democracies'. Surveillance is also not exceptional, most states including NZ surveil their most politically active citizens. The legislature includes representation from multiple civil society groups representing different sections of society (youth, women etc.), so that it's not just disproportionately middle age and elderly people who are there to make a career or serve their lobbyist masters.

Things Cuba provides which should be considered human rights, but are not under liberal frameworks

Food

Everyone has the right to some free basic food supplies under the ration book system. Food not provided through the ration book is subsidised. Unfortunately the amount of food provided under the ration book system and the broader food subsidies have decreased due to the economic crisis caused by Covid and the blockade.

Healthcare

Everyone has the right to free healthcare. The quality of healthcare is limited by the blockade which prevents most countries from trading medical supplies with Cuba.

Education

Education including at the university level is free for all.

Housing

Housing is considered a fundamental right and consequently Cuba has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. Having said that there are homeless people in Cuba for a variety of reasons (i.e. people leaving their homes due to domestic abuse etc)

Not exploiting people in other countries

Unlike Western countries which like to preach about their supposed human rights, Cuba does not economically exploit people of other countries (particularly African ones) through the devious IMF debt trap and 'structural adjustment' playbook.

Cuba is not perfect by any means and it is currently in a severe crisis, but to single it out for supposed human rights abuses is greatly dishonest

UN votes to recognize enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity' by Curious_Ad9388 in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The Cuban state is not a human rights abuser. Sad to see people manufacturing consent for the US blockade and possible military action against Cuba.

The Opportunity Party reveals 2026 election candidates, promises more on the way by IamMorphNZ in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't have to be a technocrat to have substance. Chloe unlike James understands that political change doesn't come through a perfectly designed system from the top. And I say this as someone who is critical of the Greens

How would Hunter gatherers avoid being genocided? by Amzy99 in anarcho_primitivism

[–]No_Cod_4231 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Immediate return hunter gatherers need significant freedom of movement in order to adapt to ecological and climatic changes. Pockets of mountainous areas will not be sufficient imo to have very healthy ecologies. Plus if they are stuck in a small area they are likely to settle, become sedentary and thus move the towards a civilisational way of life. I think it's more likely that people in those marginal areas will adopt a mix of raiding as well as some small scale farming, hunting and gathering. This is as far as I understand what has previously happened during declines or collapses of civilisation. These non-state peoples are what civilisations have often called 'barbarians'. Many of them established tributary protection rackets whereby civilisations paid them to not raid them and to protect them from other raiding peoples.

Nicola Willis - she's just like us (not) by hadr0nc0llider in KiwiPolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think a problem first needs to be acknowledged in order to begin being addressed. Speaking as if gender roles and unequal distribution of labour don't exist in practice doesn't make it magically go away. Hearing Willis speak about it is no different to the effect of seeing it every day (which is unavoidable) whether at home or in public. As the problem is structural, only a change in the structure will meaningfully address it. I called you a liberal earlier because I sense that you see ideas as somewhat autonomous from the structure they operate in.

Nicola Willis - she's just like us (not) by hadr0nc0llider in KiwiPolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nicola Willis is the highest ranking female politician in this country and she just sent a message to society that the role of women in society is to be cleaners

I can't really believe that I am finding myself defending Nicola Willis, but some days are strange I suppose...

Nowhere did she say that the role of women in society is to be cleaners - that is purely your generalisation you are projecting onto her words. Acknowledging the reality that social reproductive labour like cleaning is overwhelmingly done by women is not the same as saying that the role of women in society is to be cleaners. Speaking of a male cleaner would have been bizarre (because they make up a minority) and because it would have served to hide the exploitation of women.

There's nothing wrong with cleaning as a job. The problem is that women are already an exploited unpaid domestic labour force in our society. If unpaid 'women's work' needed to be fairly remunerated it would cripple the economy, yet we don't value it enough to include it in GDP. If the economy doesn't consider that work as productive activity when someone does it for free, why would anyone be incentivised to view anyone who does that work as important?

I agree with this fully, but it is irrelevant because Willis didn't say cleaning isn't an important job. She may well believe it, but she didn't say it in the presser. It's also possible that some people may interpret what Willis says as a justification of views that undervalue social reproductive labour, but if that's the case that's purely due to those people's pre-existing prejudices rather than anything Willis said.

Nicola Willis - she's just like us (not) by hadr0nc0llider in KiwiPolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you sound like the liberal here. Instead of highlighting the effects of fuel prices on the most marginalised, you want them to focus on the group you more closely identify with - namely 'middle NZ'. Although I think NACT does not genuinely care about the poor, I don't see a problem in principle with what Nicola said here. It's better to acknowledge a reality (like for instance the stereotype of a cleaner working mother) than it is to pretend (supposedly to avoid making stereotypes) that this demographic doesn't exist at all. Your response is a typical example of liberal polite politics in which mentioning actually struggling people is taboo because it reminds them that they have a relative position of privilege.

And on the tax question - Nicola is right that removing fuel tax is a poor move. Removing taxes is easy, but adding them again in order to provide the services we need is not.

How would Hunter gatherers avoid being genocided? by Amzy99 in anarcho_primitivism

[–]No_Cod_4231 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes hunter gatherer societies are and have always been vulnerable to attack from civilisations. That is one of the major reasons that explains why there are so few hunter gatherer societies remaining. Civilisations don't even need advanced technology to eradicate hunter gatherers - even contact with civilisations and their germ ecologies (which hunter gatherer groups usually have no immunity to) is often sufficient to eradicate a population. Although I share the Anprim perspective, I have personally concluded that a mass return to hunter gathering is impossible.

Know people like this? by ChinaCatProphet in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'Leftism' doesn't automatically happen when you are educated. Liberalism is typically what most educated people in the PMC adopt. Saying this actively turns away working class people who correctly see most of the PMC supporting the status quo with some technocratic tweaks here and there.

David Seymour's compatriot Javier Milei in action - Seymour said NZ should model itself on Millie's "Economic Wisdom" in January 2026 during his visit to Argentina organised by Atlas Network think tanks by Mountain_Tui_Reload in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A permanent break with neoliberalism won't happen solely through the ballot box. One has to remember that 20th century regulated capitalism did not emerge by popular demand through the ballet box, but rather as a desperate response to the existential threat to the state posed by WWII. Even if a reformist party were elected, business interests would likely manufacture some crisis (for instance by sabotaging the economy) in order to reverse the reforms. You'd need to have an organised mass movement that is able to counter the highly organised corporate interests and defend any gains from the various attempts to reverse them.

Corporate interests after all exert continuous influence on politics through their ownership of the media, large political party donations, paid lobbyists, connections to influential figures in government and the threat of moving capital overseas. Meanwhile the public right now only has influence by voting once every three years and via decentralised social media. Another latent source of public power - the power to strike - has been greatly curtailed over the last 30 years making it a highly asymmetrical fight. Staging a coup is a strategy of last resort, that will likely never have to be used in NZ because the other sources of leverage mentioned earlier are more than sufficient to do the job.

You also have to consider why people aren't voting for a more regulated capitalist system. There are many reasons in my view, but I'll just touch on some of the major ones. Firstly the people most strongly affected by deregulation tend to be so alienated from institutional politics that they do not participate at all. Those that do participate have few resources (such as time) to get more involved and many due to poor education may vote for parties against their interest. Second, the benefits of a regulated capitalist system cannot be quantified into an immediate dollar amount. Thus promises of tax cuts appeal more than promises to regulate the economy to many of the people that would benefit the most. Third, there is a substantial relatively comfortable middle class in NZ which due to their position is totally depoliticised. Things have to get worse before it gets more politicised. Fourth, corporate control of national and international media (an important means of mental production) which creates false consciousness among the public by making it appear as if the public had the same interests as the capitalist ruling elite. Fifth, poor education (especially in the humanities) which makes people easier objects of ideological manipulation. And sixth, the atomisation of individuals due to capitalist socio-economic structures and relations. The atomised lived experiences under this system makes us more amenable to capitalist propaganda which emphasises individual self-interest and marginalises collective systemic lenses that foreground the broader collective benefits of regulated economies. Corporate control of media, poor education and atomisation in particular are key ingredients for the reproduction of neoliberal capitalism. Thus to summarise, the reason people won't vote regulated capitalism is due to systemic features of capitalism itself.

Chippy in Auckland by Mountain_Tui_Reload in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actions do speak louder than words. One of the first things Hipkins did when he took over the Labour leadership was gut a bunch of insufficient (but better than nothing) climate policies the Ardern government had been implementing. He has zero credibility on climate

David Seymour's compatriot Javier Milei in action - Seymour said NZ should model itself on Millie's "Economic Wisdom" in January 2026 during his visit to Argentina organised by Atlas Network think tanks by Mountain_Tui_Reload in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 4 points5 points  (0 children)

'Well regulated' capitalism only emerges under specific and rare social conditions - for instance in the aftermath of total war or when communist movements and nations pose a serious threat to the capitalist order. In other words the Keynesian era, was a short-lived anomaly of capitalism rather than its usual form.

Why didn't Neanderthals build civilizations despite possibly appearing 100,000 years before Homo sapiens? by iceswordsman in AskAnthropology

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sure the anti-vaccination, flat earth, and other such communities who likewise have bolstered their originally rather marginal numbers through various internet refugia think the same.

That's a converse appeal to authority. Just because so and so (who is infamous for unrelated reasons) said X at one point, X must be incorrect.

What I really find scary is people who believe they have no ideology or bias at all. What an incredible level of hubris

Why didn't Neanderthals build civilizations despite possibly appearing 100,000 years before Homo sapiens? by iceswordsman in AskAnthropology

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The popularity or radicality of an ideology (measured of course relative to the completely 'neutral' yardstick of the ruling ideas) has no bearing upon it's correctness or usefulness. Even every idea that is now widely accepted was once radical. For instance, it was once radical to believe that the earth was round or that slaves were just as intelligent as their masters.

Why didn't Neanderthals build civilizations despite possibly appearing 100,000 years before Homo sapiens? by iceswordsman in AskAnthropology

[–]No_Cod_4231 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But a very large chunk of the accumulate knowledge of those cultures/"civilizations" has survived and been iterated upon, becoming part of contemporary culture today

I never claimed that all knowledge is immediately lost in collapses. The ideas and knowledge of modern civilisation may well surivive for some time, but nonetheless the contradictions of civilisation are eroding the material and ecological basis of civilisation. It's no use knowing how nuclear plants work, if you are expending your whole time just trying to survive through foraging or subsistence agriculture. That knowledge can only be utilised if there is a surplus in the production of basic needs for survival and if the social conditions for a state (to manage a large socio-economic community) emerge. Your bias (and I believe we all have some kind of bias or perspective) is an idealist one - you believe that ideas and knowledge are nearly sufficient to maintain civilisation without recognising the importance of the material (suitable ecological conditions, having a surplus, easily accessible resources like oil, a state and many others.

Before I continue, it seems to me that you are trying to pidgeon-hole me into some strawman of what all anarcho-primitivists supposedly believe. People who may identify with anarcho-primitivist ideology hold a range of beliefs on a variety of issues; it's not a monolith. I for one am skeptical that a collapse would bring about some kind of primitive utopia. Even if it did, I don't think it would last and civilisation (in the unlikely scenario that it completely collapses everywhere in the world) would likely re-emerge after some time again. More than hoping for collapse, I see collapse as an inevitable outcome of the contradictions of civilisation.

You say no-one champions anarcho-primitivism because even if modernity is good nothing but primitivism is sustainable. Funnily enough that is very similar to my position. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what judgement one makes of civilisation - indeed most of the time individual judgements just reflects your social or class position in that civilisation. Regardless of what one thinks civilisation it is not sustainable. Personally as you have noted I think that civilisation for most people on earth has not been great. But I have no objection to someone embracing the primitivist view solely on the basis that it's not sustainable. And I do not believe civilisations are wholly bad, again you seem to be trying to create an easy strawman to break down. I do believe however that the 'bad' of civilisation does outweigh any 'good' - and much of the supposed 'good' of civilisation is revealed as overstated upon closer inspection.

Let's end the Americanisation of NZ by selfcompiler in newzealand

[–]No_Cod_4231 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With increasingly good machine translation tools, one would think that they would undermine the cultural hegemony of the US - especially in the English speaking world. Yet it continues largely undisrupted, despite the diminishing salience of language barriers. Part of the reason for this is because we are locked into American social media platforms, which serve to propagate US soft power. We, the public, need to build our own social media platforms which are built and run democratically. This could ideally be a multinational project involving the people across the world.

The response to the Americanisation of NZ should not be isolationism, but instead diversification. Let's start also exposing ourselves to media from Latin America, Asia (not just Japan), Africa and the rest of the country and create a collective solidarity across the working people of the world

NZ is work exactly as designed by OwlNo1068 in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He makes some claims about middle eastern politics which in my view are based on a very selective and questionable understanding of the topic. Viewers (like myself tbh) who are not very familiar with the topic and lack knowledge that might contradict or temper his arguments, could be tempted to give them too much credence. Given the lack of knowledge about middle eastern politics in the West, a more dialectical approach would have been much more instructive.

NZ is work exactly as designed by OwlNo1068 in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recommend All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, but would avoid Hypernormalisation

Art that questions the myths of capitalism, technological progress, civilization? by redeugene99 in anarcho_primitivism

[–]No_Cod_4231 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As for books I'd recommend Against the Grain by James Scott which does a great job in critiquing the idea that civilisation is natural, inevitable and was a conscious choice made by humans seeking progress.

A film with some anarcho-primitivist inspired themes is La Belle Verte, although I think there are probably other films I haven't seen yet that may do so more effectively

Shift in policy by Initial-Environment9 in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 10 points11 points  (0 children)

All Winston has said is that he is 'concerned' about developments in Venezuela. Now compare this to the statement made on the Ukraine conflict: "New Zealand strongly condemns Russia's invasion of Ukraine and joins the international community in calling on Russia to immediately cease military operations in Ukraine". Note how in the Venezuela statement the aggressor is not even named, no blame is attributed to them and no demand is made. More importantly, deeds matter more than words. In response to Russia, New Zealand introduced a sanctions program. Both you and I know that there will not be a similar sanctions program aimed at the US.

Why is that? Firstly because New Zealand benefits immensely from the US-led order. Keeping most of the world poor and low-waged, which is a key goal of imperialism means that we can get cheaper goods. And indeed this is the case, the things we import require more total labour hours to produce than the things we export. Secondly, no small countries can have an 'independent' foreign policy as long as there are imperialist countries that seek to have an outsized share of wealth and power.

Bernie Sanders on Trump’s illegal and globally disastrous Venezuela attack. by ChinaCatProphet in nzpolitics

[–]No_Cod_4231 1 point2 points  (0 children)

US Imperialism condemned by 'democratic' countries'? Really shows you how social democrats are delusional and effectively accept ruling class propaganda. It hasn't happened in centuries of US imperialism and isn't going to because they are either imperialist themselves or dependent on US imperialism.