Selfishness and Social Darwinism

Reconsidering the Foundations of Modern Capitalist Thinking

The following quote, one of Adam Smith’s most often cited, may suggest he was the laissez-faire ideologue his modern fans insist he was. Other quotes make it a bit more complex.

“It is not the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love.”

This quotation is used by right-wing libertarians, laissez-faire-ists, and others who wish to underpin the selfish and hyper-individualistic nature of the politics and policy that inevitably provides the skeleton of the (otherwise ruggedly independent!) flesh of the sort of capitalism they promote.

Other quotes that suggest Adam Smith was more complex a figure (all culled from his book, The Wealth of Nations):

“The sophistry of the merchants inspired by the spirit of monopoly has confounded the common sense of mankind.”

Recall the elite-enforced popularity of such notions as “What’s good for General Motors is good for everyone. Yeah, well Adam Smith, hero of the libertarian Right, so-called, disputed this.

‘...the clamor and the sophistry of the merchants and manufacturers easily persuade [the general population; the working class] that the private interest of a part ... of the society [that is, of the merchants and manufacturers] is the general interest of the whole.”

“The interests of ... those who live by wages is inseparably connected with the general interests of society. [B]ut the interests of those who live by profit [on stocks] has not the same connection with the general interest of society.”

He also commented on the selfishness and disloyalty of the “merchants and manufacturers”.

“Merchants and manufacturers are ... [more] ... commonly exercised ... about the interest of their own particular business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given the greatest candor (which it has not been upon every occasion), is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of these two objects, than with regard to the latter.”

“A merchant, it has been properly said, is not necessarily the citizen of any particular country. It is in great measure indifferent to him from what place he carries on his trade; and a very trifling disgust will make him remove his capital, and together with all the industry which it supports, from one country to another.”

Smith also warns about the dumbing-down effects of modern industrial capitalism.

“In the progress of the division of labor ... the great body of the people [come] to be confined to a very few simple operations... [And they therefore become] as stupid and as ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become... [In]n every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the laboring poor, that is, the greatest body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes somes pains to prevent it.”

What’s that?? Adam Smith a socialist!! I see countless right-wing libertarians clamping their hands over their mouths right now.

In addition to these however, the butcher, brewer, baker quote offers more, I think, if it can be taken apart, analyzed and reinterpreted.

First of all humanity need not be seen as distinct from self-love nor self-love from the social concern implied in Smith’s use of “humanity.” There is humanity in self-love. Taking care of yourself and your loved ones suggests humanity. Having a larger social concern can also suggest self-love in the sense that you realize you are part of a larger community and social setting.

Second, if we are depending on the self-love of the butcher, the brewer and the baker for our well-being, we are in effect already depending on their humanity and social concern. If it were pure self-concern on their part, would they not simply arm themselves and take what they wanted, rather than working and offering a service or product to others? They offer a service or product to others with their own labor because their humanity keeps them from being totally selfish. Now this humanity demonstrated here, where does it end and who decides where it ends? Of course the individual decides where and how far they will go with their humanity (social concern). But who decides philosophically for all of us? Do we think about these things? Or do we have the thoughts of others? Do those who want to remove the humanity (social concern) out of our lives shape our society? Do they begin such shaping by misshaping our understanding of figures like Adam Smith?

Smith’s quote is often deployed at the center of right-wing corporate capitalist Social Darwinist beliefs.  Of course, given the close connection of the economy with the government, and this means more than corporate welfare, and includes the very legal and infrastructural backup of capitalism. In other words, capitalism will never be as ruggedly individualistic as some like to pretend as long as the government is providing law and force to back its social arrangements and to build its roads and seaports and so on. But even so there are intellectual reasons in addition to intuitive reasons for opposition to Social Darwinism. In addition to the work on this matter by the late Stephen Jay Gould as well as Richard C. Lewontin [.pdf], there is the book by 19th century Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin called Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. The importance of these works is that they give the lie to the right-wing Social Darwinist junk science purporting to use evolution, biology and genetics to justify and explain social and economic inequality. Social Darwinism, as distinct from Darwinism, can be understood as an ideological notion, not a scientific theory. John Heweston, and English contemporary of Kropotkin and a colleague, summed up Kropotkin’s views, corroborated by his own studies, very nicely in his introduction to Kropotkin’s book:

Two aspects of animal life impressed me most during the journeys which I made in my youth in Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria. One of them was the extreme severity of the struggle for existence which most species of animals have to carry on against an inclement Nature; the enormous destruction of life which periodically results from natural agencies; and the consequent paucity of life over the vast territory which fell under my observation. And the other was, that even in those few spots where animal life teemed in abundance, I failed to find – although I was eagerly looking for it – that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant chararteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.

{ ... }

...when my attention was drawn, later on, to the relations between Darwinism and Sociology, I could agree with none of the works and pamphlets that had been written upon this important subject. They all endeavored to prove that Man, owing to his higher intelligence and knowledge, may mitigate the harshness of the struggle for life between men, but they all recognized at the same time that the struggle for existence, of every animal against all congeners, and of every man against all other men, was ‘a law of Nature.’

{ ... }

On the contrary, a lecture ‘On the Law of Mutual Aid’, which was delivered at the Russian Congress of Naturalists, in January 1880, by the well known zoologist, Professor Karl Kessler, the then Dean of the St. Petersburg University, struck me as throwing new light on the whole subject. Kessler’s idea was, that besides the law of Mutual Struggle, there is in Nature the law of Mutual Aid, which for the success of the struggle for life, is far more important than the law of mutual contest. This suggestion – which was, in reality, nothing but a further development of the ideas expressed by Darwin himself in The Descent of Man – seemed so correct and of so great an importance, that since I became aquainted with it (in 1883) I began to collect materials for further developing the idea, which Kessler himself had only cursorily sketched.

{ ... }

We have heard so much lately of the ‘harsh, pitiless struggle for life’, which was said to be carried on by every animal against all other animals, every ‘savage’ against every other ‘savage’, and every civilized man against all his co-citiznes – and these assertions have so much become an article of faith – that is was necessary, first of all, to oppose them a wide series of facts showing animal and human life under a quite different aspect [i.e., surviving and succeeding by way of mutual assistance].

It seems to me that Social Darwinism is just old authoritarian religion and social philosophy dressed-up in scientific costume. Sorta like ‘The Bell Curve’ BS of the last decade. Sorta like creationism and intelligent design ideas today. In the end Social Darwinism is nothing much more than a replacement excuse for inequality made necessary by the eclipse of the older ‘Divine Right of Kings’ angle by the advent of reason.

Clearly the reign of reason is not unfamiliar with the insurrections of the useful lie disguised as reason’s ally. Let's look to unleash anarchy and end the game once and for all for liberty!

Comments

[Randy]

Ron--Excellent essay on Adam Smith and Social Darwinism. The right is extremely dishonest in the way they seize on Adam Smith; he was a far more ethical and complex thinker--as you point out--then they choose to let on. It's almost unimaginable that he would support the kind of immense monopolistic corporate powers that now dominate our lives and "markets."

What a tragedy that Gould died at such a relatively young age; we could certainly use him now as Christo-fascism continues to creep into American public life.

Kropotkin is a neglected thinker who warrants far more respect and interest then he gets--thanks for bringing in Mutual Aid. All in all, a really interesting post. I hope you do more of this nature.

[Ron Leighton]

Thanks very much, Randy. Glad you liked the post.

I'm going to visit your site right now...

[walker frost]

Ron,

Thuroughly enjoyed the essay on social darwinism. I especially empathize with the connection you draw to religious rationalism. As Dewey suggests, the professed "neutrality" of liberal institutions inevitably "throws the burden for social improvement upon free will in its most impossible form". Though, I must say I jump ship with regards to your anarchical sentiments, with Rorty and Edmond Burke as my life vest.

Anyway, thanks.

Walker

[Jeremy]

Great essay! It's interesting: there was a point in time a few centuries ago where the arbitrary entitlement of the powerful was questioned by those espousing reason. Social Darwinism seems to be one mechanism among many with which the challenged elite employed reason to their own benefit by changing the rules of the game ahead of time and letting the pieces fall where they may. It's easy to advocate capitalism and "the free market" when you've altered the rules of the market via limited liability, corporate privileges, and other subsidies. It's easy to advocate democracy when you consolidate power into one city and sell your vote to the highest bidder.

Social Darwinism is simply the philosophy of elitists who want to explain market failure by simply spinning it as a good thing! I'm all for markets - in the sense that the fruits of individual labor are exchanged among actors to achieve maximal communal benefit (comparitive advantage and all that) - but if you change the rules by fiat, you change the terms on which market decisions are made. Consequently, the communal good will necessarily be negatively impacted. If we see wealth and power constantly accruing to a select few, to the disadvantage of the community, the existence of a "free market" should be questioned. Instead, these reactionary blowhards claim the inequality is proof of a healthy market! White is not black, and our current situation is not what the real libertarians of the 18th and 19th century had in mind.

I appreciate you distinguishing the right-wing of the libertarian movement from the left-wing. AGORA! ANARCHY! ACTION!!!