Liberals consider that capitalism is a wonderful paradox: when people are pursuing their own interests, the market will make sure that the end result is the best possible for everybody. So selfishness is good. The main prophet for neoliberalism, Milton Friedman (who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his monetary theory that has proved to be wrong), asked: “What kind of society isn't structured on greed?” In the 1987 movie “Wall Street” the hero, Gordon Gecko, states the argument more explicitly: “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind”.
After the Reagan-Thatcher neoliberal revolution in the 1980s, this view now permeates Western societies. Greed is good for society, we just need to regulate it to avert the worst excesses. Those who call for more regulation call themselves “leftists” and those who advocate for less are called “right-wing” or “neoliberals”. But nobody, left or right, questions the basic justification for capitalism.
Milton Friedman, here receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan in 1988, was influential in popularising the Reagan-Thacther neoliberal revolution, among others through his “Free to Choose” ten-part CBS TV series.
At the same time, monetization is permeating all spheres of society, that is to say that everything is about money, and that is considered legitimate. Sport is a commodity, football players are bought and sold, women are hiring out their womb for surrogate gestation, there are legitimate websites for “sugar-daddys” where young women can get some extra income, prostitutes are called sex-workers, some – among them the present Argentinian President - are arguing that human organs should be sold and bought on the market, and so on. Rich people are admired for their capacity to earn money. Success, measured in money of course, is beloved and losers are despised. If you really are so good at what your are doing, why are you not rich? Or: if you really are so clever, why are you not rich? There has been a “dance around the golden calf” since antiquity, but was is new is that the prevailing view is that this is OK. So Moses got it all wrong, poor guy.
The dance around the golden calf has been a motive of painters since the Middle Ages, here by Frančišek Karel Remp (“Der Tanz um das goldene Kalb”) (1674–1718). What is new in our happy liberal times, is that adoration of money is now considered absolute legitimate.
This really is a revolution. Greed, selfishness and lack of empathy with other people have during millennia been considered bad, sinful. The big religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) all condemn them and consider them sins. “Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” (Timothy 6:9-10). These beliefs are deeply rooted in most of humanity’s values, just like kindness. Buddhism: “Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others” (The Buddha, Udana-Varga 5.18 – 6th century BC). Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” (Confucius, Analects 15.23 – 5th century BC). Christianity: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”.
Now we are told that all these norms and beliefs are obsolete and asked to throw them overboard. Society should be structured on greed, Friedman tells us. Do-gooders are actually harmful. They want to do good, but Friedman liked to quote the proverb: “The hell to road is paved with good intentions”. These do-gooders should stop trying to do good, and instead work for their own benefit – that is best for society. Friedman was particularly scornful when the talk was of Corporate Social Responsibility (the idea that big companies should take into account the interests of others than the shareholders). “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” Friedman can rest in peace: most big companies actually do so, even while they pretend to do otherwise.
But is it true that humans are basically selfish? Selfishness is an important part of human character and it is a destructive force, which is why the different religions are so keen to keep it down. But humans are also kind, cooperative and unselfish, not only to their next of kin but also to others, even strangers. When people are unselfish to the point of harming their own interests, it is called altruism. Fire-fighters risking their lives to save others. The resistance fighter opposing occupation forces despite knowing that the chances for surviving are minimal. The volunteer soldier going to the front and sacrificing his life for his country. The worker leading a strike though he knows it will cost him his job. And so on.
This has been considered a contradiction by evolutionists. If you believe in the process of natural selection (Darwinism), how can an altruist gene survive in a population (of animals or people), as altruist individuals are at disadvantage compared to non-altruists? Particularly economists are keen to explain this by showing that what appears to be cooperative or altruistic behaviour in reality is selfishness in disguise. And still, unless you are blind, you can observe cooperation and altruism in bees, ants, primates, dogs – and humans. Different explanations have been put forward, showing conditions where a possible altruist gene can survive and multiply (using epidemiological models). Some also argue at the level of tribes or clans: tribes or clans where all the members are selfish are unlikely to prosper in the competition with other tribes or clans, where the members are cooperative and have an element of altruism. This should serve as a warning for societies “structured on greed” – they may be successful in the short term, but they may not survive in the long term.
The German philosopher Feuerbach argued that man created God in his own image – not the other way round.
Human societies have through thousands of years developed different forms of collective beliefs, sense of community, moral norms and rules. They are reflected somehow in their religions. However, it would be wrong to think that without religious beliefs, society would have no collective beliefs and moral norms. According to the German philosopher Feuerbach, humans created their Gods in their own image. So there will continue to exist collective beliefs, sense of community, moral norms and rules, even in societies where religiosity is declining (as it is almost everywhere). However, this sense of community, moral norms and beliefs may change over time, independently of the religion. And liberalism, and in particular its neoliberal version, is eroding it. For liberals “...there’s no such thing as society, there are only individual men and women and there are families”, as Margareth Thatcher coined it. So the world is made up of self-interested individuals, not bound by any bonds of the past.
According to the French (conservative-anarchist) philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa, liberalism is in principle void of values, as values are considered to belong to individuals only (except for private property rights, free markets and some sort of democracy, which are liberalism’s systemic values). He traces this back to the horrors of the religious wars in Europe that the Enlightenment thinkers wanted to avoid repeating. Liberals are therefore considering humans as “social atoms” (or “monads”), in constant movement and driven by only one consideration: that of their enlightened self-interest. The present extreme individualism, identity policies, narcissism and lack of moral values, is to him corroding society and destroying the social fabric. And even worse. He thinks that the reason that liberal countries are still functioning is due to the “capital” of collective moral beliefs and norms, which he calls “common decency”, inherited from earlier societies. This includes honest hard-working civil servants, doctors, nurses, teachers and so on, not driven by “enlightened self-interest”. But this capital is eroding over time. So according to him, we are pulling up the ladder after us, to the detriment of the coming generations. Après nous, le déluge. I don’t know if he is right, but if he is, it has serious consequences.
Despite the beret, Jean-Claude Michéa is not the typical French celebrity philosopher. His critics on the lifestyle left think he is backward looking to times when everything supposedly was better. He criticizes the “left” for devoting most of their energy to identity issues, rather than a coherent critique of the overall dynamics of the capitalist system, in particular financialized capitalism’s “suicidal flight forwards”.
Michéa is not the typical French celebrity philosopher. He is actually quite atypical. He has lived most of his life as a high-school teacher in the southern city of Montpellier while writing a dozen of books, and is almost unknown outside France. Yet Michéa’s thought has exerted a subterranean influence on a new generation of anti-capitalist radicals in France. I don’t agree with many of Michéa’s ideas, and I consider in particular his understanding of power and politics as naive, but he is refreshing reading and is hereby recommended (unfortunately most of his writings are only available in French).
What is the conclusion on all this? Both classic liberalism and its neoliberal variant consider that society should be based on “enlightened self-interest” or greed as the driving force for development, and they not only accept selfishness, but celebrate it as the most laudable human quality. Adoration of money and riches is considered legitimate. Amass fortunes is considered good. This is contrary to millennial beliefs and norms, and is both extremely risky and wrong. But to question this, is to question capitalism, which presently rules almost the entire world.
But that is another story.
