A-Infos (en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: The End of Aotearoa's "Work Hard, Get Ahead" Fantasy (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

There is something quietly collapsing in Aotearoa, and it isn't just 
household budgets or the promise of home ownership. It's a belief, once 
almost hegemonic, that if you work hard, keep your head down, and play 
by the rules, you will be better off. The recent reporting by Radio New 
Zealand captures this erosion and highlights the fact that more and more 
people simply don't believe the deal holds anymore. The old social 
contract, work equals reward, has started to look less like a contract 
and more like a myth we're expected to keep repeating out of habit.

What's striking is not just the economic reality, but the ideological 
shift. This is a country that historically prided itself on 
egalitarianism, on the idea that effort translated into opportunity, 
that class was something that happened elsewhere. That self-image was 
always fragile, but it held enough weight to organise how people 
understood their lives. Yet over the last few decades, particularly 
since the neoliberal restructuring of the 1980s, that foundation has 
been steadily hollowed out. Inequality has widened, wages have stagnated 
relative to costs, and the promise that hard work pays has become harder 
to sustain without a certain level of self-deception.

The RNZ piece points to a growing scepticism, people are working hard, 
often harder than previous generations, but not seeing the expected 
returns. This isn't simply a matter of perception. It reflects a 
structural shift in how wealth is generated and distributed. When 
housing costs devour incomes, when secure employment gives way to 
precarious work, when productivity gains are captured by capital rather 
than labour, the link between effort and reward breaks down. The system 
continues to demand discipline, punctuality, and ahrd work, the full 
moral vocabulary of work, but increasingly fails to deliver the material 
outcomes that once justified those demands.

There's a cruel irony here. The harder people work under these 
conditions, the more they sustain the very system that undermines them. 
This is the core contradiction of capitalism.  Labour produces value, 
but does not control it. The worker is told that their effort is the 
source of their future prosperity, yet the surplus they create is 
extracted and accumulated elsewhere. So when people begin to doubt that 
hard work leads to a better life, they're not becoming cynical or lazy, 
rather they are recognising a truth that has always been present but 
often obscured.

The political response, predictably, has been to double down on the myth 
rather than interrogate it. We see this in the rhetoric around "work 
ethic," in the moralising discourse that frames unemployment or 
underemployment as a failure of individual character rather than a 
feature of the economic system. The idea that young people need to be 
taught to "show up," to develop discipline, to earn their place persists 
even as the material conditions that once made such narratives plausible 
continue to erode.

This is where ideology does its most effective work. If people can be 
convinced that their struggles are the result of personal shortcomings, 
they are less likely to question the structures that produce those 
struggles. The focus shifts from exploitation to self-improvement, from 
collective conditions to individual responsibility. It becomes a 
psychological problem rather than a political one. You're not being 
underpaid   you're not working hard enough. You're not trapped in a 
housing market designed to extract rent   you just need to budget 
better. The system disappears, replaced by a mirror.

But the cracks are widening. When people say they no longer believe hard 
work makes them better off, they are articulating a kind of everyday 
critique of political economy. It may not come wrapped in theory, but it 
carries the same insight  that the relationship between labour and 
reward is mediated by power, not morality. This matters, because 
ideology relies on consent as much as coercion. If enough people stop 
believing in the fairness of the system, the system has to work harder 
to justify itself, or resort more openly to force.

New Zealand's historical narrative complicates this further. The idea of 
a "classless society" was always more aspiration than reality, but it 
functioned as a kind of national myth. It allowed people to see 
themselves as fundamentally equal, even as disparities existed. That 
myth has been increasingly difficult to maintain. The data shows 
widening inequality, persistent poverty, and entrenched disparities 
along both class and racial lines. What we are witnessing now is not 
just economic hardship, but the collapse of a narrative that once made 
that hardship intelligible.

And when narratives collapse, people look for alternatives. Sometimes 
those alternatives are reactionary   scapegoating migrants, blaming 
beneficiaries, clinging to nostalgic visions of a past that never quite 
existed. But there is also the possibility of something more radical,  a 
recognition that the problem is not individual failure but systemic 
design. That the issue is not that people aren't working hard enough, 
but that the fruits of that work are being appropriated.

From an anarcho-communist perspective, this moment is both predictable 
and potentially transformative. The breakdown of belief in the 
work-reward equation exposes the fundamental irrationality of 
capitalism. Why should survival be contingent on selling your labour? 
Why should access to housing, healthcare, or food depend on your 
position in the labour market? Why is productivity celebrated when it 
increases profits, but ignored when it fails to improve living standards?

These questions have always been there, but they become harder to ignore 
when lived experience contradicts ideological promises. When someone 
works full-time and still cannot afford rent, the system's legitimacy 
starts to fray. When someone follows every rule and still falls behind, 
the narrative of meritocracy begins to look like a cruel joke.

There is a tendency, particularly in mainstream discourse, to treat this 
disillusionment as a problem to be fixed. How do we restore faith in 
hard work? How do we make people believe again? But perhaps that's the 
wrong question. Perhaps the erosion of belief is not a problem, but a 
starting point. If people no longer accept that hard work guarantees a 
better life, they might begin to ask what kind of system would.

Of course, the system has its own answers. Policy tweaks, targeted 
supports, incentives designed to "make work pay." These measures can 
alleviate some pressures, but they rarely address the underlying 
dynamics. As long as the basic structure remains where labour is 
commodified, where wealth accumulates at the top, where access to 
necessities is mediated by the market, the gap between effort and reward 
will persist.

This is not to say that nothing matters. Reforms can make real 
differences in people's lives. But they operate within constraints set 
by a system that prioritises accumulation over wellbeing. And those 
constraints become more visible as contradictions sharpen.

There is also a deeper question about what "better off" actually means. 
The traditional framing is economic   higher income, more consumption, 
upward mobility. But this framing is itself a product of the system. It 
reduces wellbeing to purchasing power, life to a series of transactions. 
When people say they are not better off despite working hard, they are 
often speaking not just about money, but about time, stress, 
relationships, a sense of control over their lives.

In this sense, the crisis is not only economic but existential. It is 
about the alienation that comes from a life organised around work that 
does not fulfil, that does not provide security, that does not lead to a 
meaningful sense of progress. It is about the dissonance between what 
people are told, that work is the path to a good life, and what they 
experience, that work can be exhausting, precarious, and insufficient.

This is where the anarchist critique cuts through with a certain 
clarity. The problem is not that work doesn't pay enough, it's that 
work, as organised under capitalism, is fundamentally alienated. People 
do not control the conditions of their labour, the products of their 
labour, or the purposes to which that labour is put. They are inserted 
into systems that extract value from them while offering limited agency 
in return.

If we take seriously the idea that people should have control over their 
own lives, then the question is not how to restore faith in hard work, 
but how to reorganise society so that work is no longer a condition of 
survival. This does not mean abolishing activity, effort, or 
contribution. It means disentangling those things from coercion and 
scarcity. It means recognising that people are capable of organising 
production and distribution collectively, without the need for markets 
or wage labour to mediate every aspect of life.

That might sound utopian, but so did the idea that hard work would 
guarantee a better life. The difference is that one is a promise 
increasingly contradicted by reality, while the other is a possibility 
foreclosed by the current system. The erosion of belief in the former 
opens space to imagine the latter.

The RNZ article doesn't go this far, of course. It stays within the 
bounds of mainstream analysis, noting the shift in attitudes, the 
pressures people face, the sense that the rules have changed. But even 
within those limits, it captures something important   a growing 
recognition that the game is rigged. That effort alone is not enough. 
That the promise of reward is contingent, uneven, and often illusory.

What happens next depends on how that recognition is interpreted and 
acted upon. It can lead to resignation, to a quiet acceptance that this 
is just how things are. Or it can lead to anger, to collective 
questioning, to a refusal to accept the terms that have been set.

There is a long history of workers refusing those terms. Strikes, 
unions, mutual aid, cooperative forms of organisation, these are not 
relics of the past but tools that remain available. They represent 
attempts to reclaim some measure of control over labour and its 
outcomes, to challenge the structures that separate effort from reward.

In Aotearoa, that history intersects with the ongoing reality of 
colonisation. The dispossession of Maori land and resources was not just 
a historical event but a foundational moment in the development of the 
capitalist economy here. The inequalities we see today are not evenly 
distributed, they follow lines of race as well as class. Any serious 
challenge to the current system has to reckon with that, to recognise 
that exploitation and colonisation are intertwined.

So when we talk about the erosion of belief in hard work, we are not 
just talking about an economic trend. We are talking about a shift in 
consciousness, a potential opening. The old story is losing its grip. 
The question is what replaces it.

Will it be another version of the same myth, repackaged and rebranded? 
Or will it be something that confronts the reality that people are 
already beginning to see: that the system does not reward hard work 
because its purpose is not to reward work, but to extract value from it?

There is no guarantee that disillusionment leads to liberation. But 
without disillusionment, liberation is almost impossible to imagine. In 
that sense, the quiet scepticism captured in that RNZ article is more 
significant than it might first appear. It is a crack in the ideological 
surface, a moment where lived experience pushes back against received 
wisdom.

And once people start to question one part of the story, it becomes 
easier to question the rest.

https://awsm.nz/the-end-of-aotearoas-work-hard-get-ahead-fantasy/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en