In his work «The Theory of Moral Sentiments», Smith writes:
«How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.»
In the same book he writes too: «…. every human being is born with a «fellow-feeling» that makes possible for human beings to live together orderly and in all kinds of organizations.»
It would not be crazy then to say that the capacity of coexistence between legitimate individual egoism and the empathic satisfaction of the needs of the fellow-human beings, through what Smith used to call «the impartial spectator», was central in the vision of Smith on Ethics and on Economics. I would say that he took for granted this «skill» of the human beings of being, using his words, «sympathetic», as the guarantee of the «balanced social order». That would explain the «invisible hand» that balance the market.
Thereby, in my view, Adam Smith never stated that individual egoism was the only driver in market economics, but on the contrary, he took for granted the «social» skill of perceiving the needs of the fellows. In fact, and this is a very well know fact, he rejected strongly the «wealth storers», the greedy business men that simple store the wealth instead of redistributing it.
So, Adam Smith is not the father of the Neocon Capitalims. Being very kind, let’s say that this Neocon Capitalism has been a kind of lie, destined to promote the survival of certain social classes, as the state comunism was too. Both lies had created decades of suffering to millions and millions of people, all around the world in the 20th and begining of the 21st century.
Some economic dogmas could be re-formulated in this new light:
- The main driver of economics is not the individual ambition, but the balance, through the capacity of becoming a impartial spectator, between the individual self-interest and the interest of the fellow human beings.
- This social skill that was still alive in the time of Adan Smith has dissapeared along the 20th century. The more is lost, the more troubled becomes society and, with it, economics.
- The interest of the anglosaxon culture in defending individual freedom and individual self-interest are connected, and based in a wrong idea on human freedom. This is impossible to understand without taking into account the consequences of my own actions in my fellow human beings. Freedom and Need are the two sides of the same coin.
- Thereby, the main driver in economics is not individual ambition, but collaboration.
John Nash, the famous mathematician whose life is portrayed in the film «A beautiful mind», formulated «collaboration» as a mathematic theory (the theory of games), and because of it, he received the nobel prize in 1994. From this point of view, he represents the path of an human being struggling to become conscious of the «social» principle.
According to Nash theory (that has been used in the GATT global trade negotiations during almost 20 years), in economic processes, and in general, in every social process, the best result is the one in which all the members of the social organism look for the best possible solution for themselves and for the group.
I would like you to consider a statement of a philosopher of the XIX and beginnings of the 20th century:
«The well-being of a community of cooperatively working human beings is the greater the less individuals demand the proceeds of their work for themselves or, in other words, the more they make over these proceeds to their co-workers and the more their needs are met not by their own work but from that of others».
1905. Rudolf Steiner.
Does it sound familiar?….
How can it be done?…just some examples: trans-companies associations, self-funded and with funcional mobility; negotiation skills in every possible role, school and university; true consumers associations focused in negotations with producers and dealers..these are just abstract examples; much more can be done. It’s needed to learn, to work, to act.
In front of us, an old world is dying, and a new one is been born. Everything is in our hands.