Capitalism need not be hedonistic
‘Liberalism in many respects justifies hedonist behaviour and prioritising individual needs and wants, but this does not make liberal economic policies incompatible with responsible consumption and moderation.’
Humanity’s predisposition towards reductionism frequently explains our agency as driven by self-interest. Parochial or not, this argument is not without concrete foundations: Adam Smith attributed commercial growth to our indomitable commitment to improve our condition in his renowned Wealth of Nations, while Immanuel Kant recognised its ability to mitigate the “unceasing threat of war” in international politics. Contemporary liberal internationalists and free-market capitalists continue to hold self-interest in the highest regard given its relationship to the paradigmatic-ally liberal beliefs in human progress and free trade.
These convictions have increasingly come under attack from the progressive left and the populist right, whose mutual animosity does not preclude their shared disdain for capitalism. The former harp on promises to subdue the corporate world and make the arbitrary rich pay their “fair share”, whereas the latter champion protectionist economic policies under the pretext of benefitting those left behind by the neoliberal economic consensus of the Thatcher-Reagan era. With conventional politics becoming all the more polarised, free-market capitalists are relinquished to agonise between the Scylla of electorally successful populists and the Charybdis of progressivism, which has largely usurped the mainstream media and educational institutions. The pervasive association of capitalism with lavish lifestyles, unavailable to the majority, hardly helps us convince the disenchanted public that individual liberty and social mobility work for the many, and not for the few.
However, this does not have to be the case.
Liberalism in many respects justifies hedonist behaviour and prioritising individual needs and wants, but this does not make liberal economic policies incompatible with responsible consumption and moderation.
In addition to birthing some of the most munificent philanthropists in world history, free trade and entrepreneurship precipitated unparalleled socioeconomic advancements, as the invisible forces of competition made innovations more affordable. Moreover, the global foundations of individualism gave much more store by social modesty than by inflexible self-indulgence.
In the short run, some might outvie others for certain employment or educational opportunities, whether on merit or owing to a multitude of other reasons, but the long-term conjuncture of capitalism is much more positive. After all, the supply of wealth is infinitely replenished through commercial and industrial development. The Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries Europe registered disproportionate GDP growth across the continent, thereby enabling the Great Divergence between incomes in the West and elsewhere. Admittedly, not all were able to reap the immediate benefits of this industrialising process, but their amalgamation enriched Europe to the extent that it produced a significant disparity in economic well-being with those places, where capitalist and liberal ideas were quiescent. There is no reason why the former cannot empower the generations of today as much as they empowered their forebears.
Furthermore, philanthropy and responsible consumption are distinctly rooted in individualism and consistent with capitalism more than opinionated libertarian hedonism might appear. In none other than the incubator of free-market economics – Britain – such Protestant practices of temperance and self-discipline complemented industrialisation and defined contemporary entrepreneurs. Pioneered by Max Weber in his discourse on the correlation between Protestantism and the proliferation of capitalism, this line of thinking still attracts widespread support in academia. As sociologist William H. Swatos and historian Michael Hill purport, the emergence of Methodism in Britain reconciled the need for progress with local tradition and correspondingly dissuaded the same form of liberal radicalism that inspired the French Revolution. According to Swatos, “Methodist enthusiasm transformed men, providing in its system of mutual discipline, the psychological security necessary for liberal ideas to become internalised.”
The fact that religion had so drastically moulded capitalism in the past should not excuse today’s predominantly secular capitalists from promoting these views. Although this might require initial inspiration, this could be found in the scholarly works of Mozi (470-391 BCE). This Ancient Chinese philosopher articulated a response to the strictly conservative ideology of Confucianism in his treatise, Mojing, in which he identified peace and stable wealth generation as prerequisite for political stability and public faith in the institutions of power. Akin to Western philosophers, he associated individual benefit with increased happiness, but conceded the importance of duty. Duty, he argued, nonetheless cannot exist without a direction – such as an aim – and must, therefore, intrinsically contain a preconceived benefit. On these grounds, he considered modesty in consumption and pleasures, together with his universal love theory (which prescribed treating all individuals with respect, albeit to varying degrees depending on the relationship), compatible with self-interest.
Capitalism need not be seen as hedonistic. Neither its cultural roots, nor the nature of capitalism necessarily support egotistical self-indulgence. Contemporary admirers of Adam Smith and proponents of his economic outlook must recognise this and champion this message to restore the popularity of free trade in society.
