If I know it, and it's wrong, then I don't know it: A skeptical review of Everything we know is wrong (part 2)

OK, so I will now attempt to continue my review of my reading of Magnus' book. In my last entry, I rambled on about skepticism. This time, I will turn my attention to the underlying notions of the book. Of course, I will continue questioning things, aiming to tear down what others have so meticulously built.

The words and the things: individualism, liberalism and capitalism

If there is one ism that Magnus really supports in his book, it is individualism. Chapter 1 of the book is about how individualization has changed capitalism. According to the book, increased individualization during the late 20th century has remolded capitalism so it does not fit the traditional notion of capitalism anymore. Hence Magnus' term, "MyCapital".

The arguments put forth for this development are mainly technology and globalization. Technological advances have made it possible for each of us to produce things without having to ask for permission. For example, anyone can record a film and distribute it on the Internet. All you need is a digital camcorder. And access to the Internet of course. But everyone has that, right? Globalization in this context means that you can get ideas from all over the world, and combine them into new ideas.

The problem with this line of arguing is not that it isn't true - as far as I know, Magnus is correct here - but that the scope of the argumentation is limited. Not everyone has access to the net or the means to get a camcorder, or the time to actually record a film, or to search for new ideas all over the world. I contend that this is limited to the emerging global middle and upper middle classes and above. This is a strata of society I belong to, as well as Magnus. But just because the two of us have these possibilities (as well as probably anyone who reads this), it does not follow that everyone has. The conclusion in the book, "We can do whatever we want", remains limited to a rather narrow definition of "we", even if the line of reasoning holds true.

Another argument is that more wealth is being generated by more people: the traditional elite, defined by inherited family fortune, is not representative of wealth anymore. A diagram from the 2003 World wealth report is provided as statistical evidence of this, showing the proportion of inherited wealth shrinking in relation to the newly generated wealth (p. 33).

Studying the diagram, I don't understand how this proves anything at all about the changed nature of capitalism. The diagram shows a proportional change from the 1960s to 2002. The conclusion drawn in the book is that this shows the emergence of "MyCapital": the rich people of today are not stuffy old white men sitting on inherited family fortunes, but young, risk-prone, open-minded people of all colors and sexes. Another conclusion, drawn by me, is that it only shows the increase in population. With the world population increasing 50%, in 25 years, from 4 billion in 1975 to 6 billion in 2000, it seems only natural that more room is added for some people to generate huge amounts of wealth. It does not show that capitalism has become "better". For this, we would need some kind of noticeable distributional change, for example that a significantly larger percentage of the world's population is richer, without anyone becoming proportionally poorer. Even if this could be proven, one would still have to demonstrate the causal relation between the distributional change and capitalism, for it to have any bearing on what capitalism means.

Is individualism and liberalism the same thing?
Well, statistics is really not my forte, so I've probably overlooked something. Let's instead discuss individualism as a value. It sounds nice, right? But what does it mean? Magnus defines it as "the idea that society is made up of separate individuals whose needs and desires should always prevail in a group, with the added disclaimer "as long as it doesn't harm other people"" (p. 31). This definition sounds very similar to classic liberal definition of freedom, as it was formulated in the Citizen rights bill during the French revolution: Freedom consists of doing whatever you want, as long as you don't harm other people. Even today, this is a very widespread and accepted definition of freedom.

Let's take a closer look at Magnus' definition of individualism. It consists of several notions. First, a factual claim: "Society is made up of separate individuals". Personally, I believe the "individuals" part, but not the "separate" part. But, for the sake of not making this review inhumanly long, lets skip ahead to the more interesting parts of the definition. The next can be written as follows: "The needs and desires of the separate individuals should always prevail in a group". Now this is a remarkable statement. I'm not really sure what it means. It could mean many things. For example, lets say that me and my 10 friends have collected an amount of money. Now I want to use the money to but a new TV, but the others want to buy food so they can survive. According to the definition, my desire should prevail, since I'm an individual.

Of course, I don't think that's what Magnus means. I'm merely pointing out that the definition is dangerously vague and could be interpreted in strange ways. In all probability, Magnus rather means that a group of people cannot impose its will on me, the individual. Or they can, but they shouldn't because then it wouldn't be individualism. So in the example above, I could use my own money to buy a TV, but not the money of the others: they have the right to their money and can do whatever they want with it.

I don't think this is a good line of reasoning. At first glance, it seems fine. But what if the fact that I don't contribute my money causes the other ten people to die? Is it still OK for me to not contribute my money? According to the definition, yes. This I don't accept. I think you're morally obliged to contribute your money in that case, whether you want to or not. This is an analogy to Peter Singer's famous moral dilemma: if you see a drowning child, are you morally obliged to attempt to save it, even if your clothes will get wet when you do it?

Now the liberals have tried to save their definition of freedom just like Magnus qualifies his definition of individualism: by adding the "as long as it doesn't harm other people". Once again, this sounds very nice, but what does it mean? I've never seen or heard anyone actually explain what it means not to harm other people. Most people probably agree that this principle rules out murder and rape. So far so good. But how about the Singer-example above? Is it possible that you can hurt someone through your lack of action? Or, is it acceptable not to attempt to save the drowning child?

The list goes on. How about mental suffering? How about commercial competition? I mean, when you compete, you hurt other companies, and thus the persons working there, financially. So, according to this definition, free competition is wrong. Right?

In sum, the liberal definition of freedom that Magnus builds his definition of individualism upon is very vague and, if taken literally, leads to conclusions that seem to contradict other values (such as capitalism) that are put forward as aligned with individualism. Perhaps there are ways to make it work, I'm not sure. But the definition appears a bit hollow (just like classic liberalism).

Personally, I think the liberal notion of freedom is bullcrap. And I think it is used as a shield behind which anything is actually considered acceptable, as long as it generates money. I am more inclined towards the existential definition of individualism. According to this definition, individualism is a statement about what kind of life is the best kind of life, namely the life of self-development/self-realisation. As Nietzsche put it, "become who you are". You can read more about this version of individualism in Mark Rowlands' excellent book Everything I know I learned from TV.

Twisted values: add a hint of Marxism, and let it simmer
After this rant about the problems of liberalism, let's turn Marxist for a while. What? Are we to enforce collectivization of all cultivated soil? No, fun though that may be, I was thinking more along the lines of philosophical Marxism. One of the problems Marx saw in a society dominated by capitalist thinking was that our value-systems would become twisted by capitalist thinking. Specifically, our view of other people would tend to become instrumental. In a society where economic growth is the only true measure of success, the tendency to quantify everything in monetary terms would spill over into all areas of life. Marx didn't like this tendency, as it could threaten to create a view of people as things that can be bought or sold like any commodity.

There are some signs of this "twisted view" in the book. Perhaps most clearly, what people do because they love to do it is categorized as a "hidden economy" (p. 39). The line of reasoning is then that what people do with their own free time is important, because with globalization, they can connect with like-minded people. Sure, but why view this as an "economy" at all? This is never explained in the book, it's just taken for granted. Of course it can be viewed as an economy, but should it be? I'm not sure, especially since I don't understand the purpose of labeling it as such.

Another example, which I sincerely hope is a glitch in the proofreading, is when prostitution is defined as "paying for love" (p.24). No, prostitution is usually defined as selling one's own body for sexual services. The one who pays solicits a prostitute. But what does prostitution have to do with love? Nothing, as far as I know. OK, so I don't have much experience in either field. But I really don't want any experience with prostitution (or, for that matter, soliciting prostitutes). And call me reactionary, but if that's how love is viewed today I don't want any part of it either. I know, I'm not hip or cool or following the trend here, but the very notion of "paying for love" is repugnant to me. Luckily for the rest of the world, this means I will not reproduce, and future generations will be rid of my untimely complaints.

If you're aggravated at my complete lack of focus in this text, or the fact that I'm so unashamedly subjective, you will be happy to note that the text is finished now. That is, it would be if I didn't have more to write about the book. So there will be a third part. Don't think Return of the Jedi, think more along the lines of Revenge of the Sith.