A POSTCAPITALIST PARADIGM: THE COMMON GOOD OF ...

Hierarchy of society 44
Capitalism was a rupture with all preceding societies. From about five
hundred BC, all existing societies, except primitive ones in remote areas,
were characterized by the same hierarchy between the different spheres.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle analysed the ideal type of such a society
in great detail. The economy (oikos) was at the bottom level and was
subordinate to the political level (polis). But also politics, responsible for
the distribution of wealth and the arrangement of social order, stood not
on its own, but was just as economics subordinated to something else.
Decisions in that sphere were not just a question of majority or hegemony,
but were determined and oriented by a set of values, ideals and
ideas, in short by the desire for the good life (eudamonia), or Common
Good.
Of course, we should not idealize the ancient societies. In society that
Aristotle described the citizens were exempted from work that was
done by slaves. Yet his description offers an interesting model because
the entire society focused on the most precious thing there is: the good
life.
Capitalism turned the hierarchy between the spheres upside down. The
economic sphere came at the top: originally it is small family businesses,
today it is transnational giants who dominate the world market and concentrate
unprecedented amounts of capital and means of production. As
we saw above, the political sphere is entirely subjected to those oligopolistic
powers. Finally the sphere of the values and ideas, is also geared
to economic interests. The peak values being promoted are con -sumerism,
prestige, exclusive individualism [68], self-development, the law of
the jungle, the superiority of the white race and Western civilization …
Cynicism and pragmatism are rampant. People or peoples who fight for
a better world are dismissed as dreamers and bunglers.
44 This paragraph is inspired by van Leeuwen A., De nacht van het kapitaal. Door
het oerwoud van de economie naar de bronnen van de burgerlijke religie, Nijmegen
1984.
116