Untitled

Jacinda Ardern’s government has recently come under criticism from conservatives, who argue that the Government spent too much and thereby increased New Zealand's public debt. Back in 2019, her government had introduced a ‘wellbeing budget’, which reshuffled public investment greatly towards psychological health and to people living in income poverty. According to UNICEF, 27% of children in New Zealand were living in income poverty at the time, without needed food, healthcare, or a warm and dry home. To solve this critical issue, the budget included more than $1bn to fight child poverty. 

Picture 1: Jacinda Ardern.

The decision of her government was made to prioritize a minimum standard of living for Kiwis above directly fighting the income gap, the Gini coefficient (what socialists would have wanted), and above the growth of GDP (what National would have wanted). In these policies, we see different answers to the above-stated question. Let’s imagine the three different models of economic policies from socialist, capitalist, and liberal on exemplary cases.

Table based on Ladwig (2022). Moderne Politische Theorie, p. 250.

A socialist strives for equal income for all social classes. The poor are empowered, and the rich are weakened. Socialists will argue that societal equality has precedence over general prosperity – the main measure they would concern for ‘good’ is the Gini-coefficient. A defensive socialist would, seeing this table, argue that the weak general economic output is at least partly due to the liberal world order and American foreign economic policy, and he might have a point in saying this (see, for example, Cuba). 

On a totally different side of the spectrum is Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism. It proclaims the greatest overall prosperity as the goal of the state—disparities are disregarded. As an example, you could imagine the US, with strong capitalist tendencies, weak social safety nets, and therefore huge differences in financial resources between classes. Overall prosperity takes precedence over equality and justifies inequality. A theory that lies somewhere between is John Rawls's theory of justice, representing a liberal theorist. Central to his theory of justice is the maximum-minimum rule. It fundamentally states that the goal of politics should be to maximize the minimum standard of living within one's own state. Sweden serves as an exemplary model here. While capitalist, it has a strong social safety net with a focus is on empowering the poorest. 

Picture 2: John Rawls.

Should rationality or emotion be our means to power? And which emotion should be the guiding principle?

Fascism found its answer to this question with the German thinker Carl Schmitt. Schmitt's central argument is that politics are based on an existential hatred between one's own group and those who are existentially different. He himself acknowledges that the other side isn't necessarily morally inferior; they are just existentially different. 

‘The political foe need not be morally evil; he need not be aesthetically ugly—he is simply the other, the stranger, and it suffices for his essence that, in a particularly intense sense, he is something existentially different.’

Carl Schmitt (1927). Der Begriff des Politischen. p. 27

Thereby, he tries to legitimize violence by naturalizing an existential fight between two groups. However, this fight is not natural, but constructed by the groups themselves. His statements are not only dangerous for others, but for ourselves. Since we, as human beings, act and provoke reactions, our own hatred of a group provokes that group's hatred of us. An endless spiral of existential struggle that we should avoid for our own good. 

Picture 1: Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe

Mouffe and Laclau offer a different answer to the question of emotion. They realized that Schmitt's bipolar distinction between two self-contained groups, only one of which can hold power, is inaccurate. Multiple groups come together in various constellations to achieve majorities. These constellations are dynamic and change over time as powers shift. Furthermore, the groups require a fundamental respect for one another, as they must cooperate to wield power. A successful group is therefore interested in maintaining good relationships with the other groups because it collaborates with them. Taking the existential hatred out of politics, Laclau and Mouffe changed Antagonism into Agonism. I believe that the answer of Mouffe and Laclau is an important guiding principle. We should respect others and their values. 

Picture 2: Mike Davis in his final interview for The Guardian, 2022. 

The question, then, is not just what we fight against, but what we fight for — and what holds us together in that fight. Mike Davis, in his final interview, said: ‘There is so much unmobilized love out there.’ Perhaps that is our answer. When hatred is weaponized, we need each other's love; we owe it to everyone fighting for a better world to meet their courage with warmth and solidarity. But for love to mean something, it must have a compass. I think that we should love and appreciate all those who honour the fundamental dignity of every human being as a daily commitment, visible in the small choices people make: do they respond to the world by punishing, or by helping those in need? There is a broad alliance from liberals to lefties, from foreigners to migrants, united in mutual respect for our shared humanity.

The neoliberal hustler mentality has gripped our young generation. The day begins at 6 a.m. with a core workout and six eggs. Until noon, you peddle terrible insurance deals to other people around the country. That's good, it’s what the market demands. Lunch break? Not for someone as motivated as you are. The day continues with Zoom meetings and a well-crafted LinkedIn post. You are proud of having landed a rare internship at Stratton Oakmont. Sweet ass, the Wolf of Wall Street worked here too. You attach some pictures from the inspiring documentary that you saw. Then a few more emails and beers until you fall asleep at 10 o’clock. A successful day. 

Picture 1: You, the reader of this blog, having a successful day at the office.

Some people in our modern age present this as life itself. Others reasonably think that a day like this sounds quite horrific. How did we get this far? I believe that days or even a life like this result from a lack of direction. Capitalism offers an easy answer to it. A good life is a rich life. 

Some millennia ago, Aristotle explored the question of what makes a good life in Book 1 of his Nicomachean Ethics. The main idea in this book is simple: Aristotle understood that many goals people pursue are not valuable in themselves. Instead, they serve as a way to reach a higher purpose. All goals ultimately lead to a single highest goal, eudaimonia. This term can be translated as contentment or happiness. The Founding Fathers of the United States recognized this concept and expressed it in one of the most famous phrases in political history, the pursuit of happiness. 

However, Aristoteles recognized that on the path to happiness, we can confuse instrumental goals with the goal itself. This is certainly the case when an instrumental goal is pursued in a way that is detrimental to the higher purpose. Within the everyday face of neoliberalism, hustler culture, financial success is pursued in a way that is not conducive to individual happiness. Let's examine how this happens.

Initially, a lot of time is invested, leaving us less time for leisure. Our freedom to act as we wish is subordinated to our career. 

This lack of time is also a lack of time for friends and family. Social contacts can be lost over time.

By making our job the main point of our life, we value our own worth by the value we provide to our company. 

Picture 2: Not so happy.

Research has already shown that these characteristics are not conducive to our happiness. Inglehart et. Al. (2001), representative for Human Development Theory, show that financial success only makes us happy to the extent that it grants us positive freedom—the freedom to do something. Our job, therefore, is meant to enable freedom. Within certain limits, a motivating job is thus perfectly justified, but only if we simultaneously have time to enjoy time and freedom time with friends and family.

Picture 3: Inglehart, Foa, Peterson, and Welzel (2008). Development, Freedom, and Rising Happiness. A Global Perspective (1981–2007). In Perspectives on Psychology 3, 4, p. 280

Politically, it is unhealthy for us to link our worth to economic success. Rather, decommodification is beneficial to our well-being, meaning that a minimum standard of living is guaranteed. In this way, we free ourselves from the constant fear that our existence depends on our ability to work. 

Picture 4: Own table, based on Radcliff, Benjamin (2001). Politics, Markets, and Life Satisfaction: The Political Economy of Human Happiness. In: American Political Science Review 95, 4, p. 949