Voting Labour, Joey Tribbiani and enlightened self-interest
Ever since Theresa May called a ‘snap election’ as a result, in her view, of the House of Commons repeatedly blocking Article 50 and Brexit by having the temerity to vote for it, I find my self fixated with the question of self-interest. I’m not referring to the concerns of Tory MPs sweating through their suits at the thought of doing porridge for election fraud. I’m not even thinking of May’s own selfishness in seeking to establish a one-party-state.
No, I’m thinking about myself and all of you. Let me explain.
Remember that episode of Friends, you know the one where Joey and Phoebe get into an argument about whether true altruism actually exists? Joey, after getting a gig doing a telethon for PBS, angrily tells his friend that there’s no such thing as a genuinely selfless act, after she points out he’s only doing it for the exposure.
Here Mr Tribbiani is raising an important ethical and philosophical question. Why do people do good things? Funnily enough Richard Dawkins, ethologist and evolutionary biologist, has weighed in on the side of Joey on this very important issue, hypothesising that selfishness is hardwired in the DNA of all living creatures. The point being that apparent altruism by any organism is simply programmed behaviour, which aims to increase that creature’s chances of passing on their genetic code. It’s just selfishness really.
Take the honey bee for example. It is known that bees often die after they have used their sting. Yet bees will often carry out ‘suicide’ attacks to repel invaders of their hives, thus saving their colony. Surely this is evidence of genuine altruism. Not so says Joey and, as it happens, Dawkins. Although it doesn’t know it, the humble insect is simply acting in a way that will improve the survival chances of it’s kin and by extension ensuring the genes it has in common are passed on.
Where’s all this coming from? Well, I only bring it up because I am being repeatedly told that, in advocating socialist ideals, I’m not living in the real world. I’ve seen the interminable vox pops on the nightly news and social media status’ opining that while Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s ideas are all well and good, life just isn’t like that. Instead the views espoused by Labour belong to some mythical utopia.
People only vote in their own self-interest, they say, so anyone standing on a platform of policies that serve the ‘greater good’ is ultimately doomed to failure. If you’re one of those people, I can honestly see where you’re coming from. However, I can’t help but think that you are missing the point. As Joey and his fellow traveller Richard Dawkins would attest, apparent altruism may actually be rooted in selfishness anyway, albeit subconsciously.
In other words advocating a programme based on fairness and social justice, while seemingly dreamt up by tree hugging ‘commies’ and ‘do-gooders,’ is actually rooted in pure unadulterated selfishness. Think about the life you want to lead for yourself. For now let’s be completely selfish and ask, how much is the pound in your pocket really worth if society is collapsing all around you?
It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that any of us could become ill or develop a disability. Should that happen to you, wouldn’t you want there to be a robust benefits system that ensured you don’t end up on the streets or dependant on food banks?
Again, thinking only of yourself, do you not hope that you will live out your days in dignity. Of course you do and why shouldn’t you. Trouble is you need a welfare state and a National Health Service to guarantee that.
If you have children you surely want them to have a decent education and to grow up happy, healthy and safe in a world as free of crime, war and disease as is humanly possible. This may be because you want to see them grow older and give you grandchildren or to see your family name live on. Most likely it is because you feel a bond with them, stronger than anything you have ever encountered in your life. You love them and seeing them happy and thriving fills you with joy.
Is that selfish? Joey from Friends and Richard from Oxford would say yes. However, your selfishness is actually of the enlightened variety, because it serves both you and your community as a whole. Happy and healthy children are, after all, more likely grow up to be productive and upstanding members of society.
However, the ‘selfish’ ambitions you harbour can only be achieved if society is organised in such a way as to make the dreams you have for yourself and your family, a reality for everyone else and theirs. Are you with me yet?
Normally, when preaching to the converted, I would now be bringing up the words of socialist thinkers like Marx, Engles, Hardie and Benn to justify my argument. However, I am aiming my words beyond the walls of my usual echo chamber. I am appealing to the tired and huddled masses, weary of politics and politicians and those who perhaps vote Tory because they feel it’s the best choice for them and their families.
So instead of Lenin and Marx, I am going to quote to you the words of a man widely regarded as the father of capitalism, Adam Smith. Writing in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, Smith had this to say on the subject of political economy,
“Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.”
Leaving aside any critique of his work and acknowledging that Smith could not be described as a socialist, it’s clear that even he could see that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole to seek the betterment of the “greater part of every great political society.” Now please ask yourself is that the path we are on today?
Look at the positions being taken by the respective parties in this election and consider which of them is articulating a programme that will truly contribute to the wealth of the nation. Who is advocating policies that will serve your self-interest, as Smith, Tribbiani and Dawkins would define it.
Indeed you may also ask which of them is promoting a form of myopic selfishness, or greed, that will ultimately lead to conflict and division. Whose manifesto is likely to lead to lost productivity, due to breakdowns in cooperation and disenfranchisement through underemployment or redundancy and thereby squander the wealth most of us create?
I would argue that this is what the Conservatives are offering. It is a route to unenlightened self-interest, what I call the me society. This is not a vision even the father of capitalism himself, Adam Smith would support. As he points out, how many of us can truly thrive in such a world? How sustainable is the wealth and health of such a nation, if it is based on an ever increasing sense of injustice and discontent amongst the many?
So, I am not asking you to be charitable. I am not even asking for you to care about those other than your kin, as nice as that would be. I am actually asking you to be selfish and appealing to you to consider voting Labour in this election. I am doing so precisely because it is only their policies that are rooted in your own enlightened self-interest.
It’s not complicated really. Even Joey Tribbiani can see it.
Good piece Jeff.
Voting Labour is the obvious choice, if we are to rescue swathes of our society that are being systematically destroyed by the Tories
Sent from my iPad
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no political affiliations and abore governments in general but in light of the Tory souless savages in suits and their quest to turn the UK into a giant sweat shop i became a Labour member 3 days ago. I will most definitely be voting for Jeremy Corbyn as he does not strike me as the least bit Narcissistic but more of a compassionate human being. I am also encouraging those around me to vote for J.C too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is so heartening & encouraging to read.
Are you happy for what you’ve said to be reproduced elsewhere – in support of Corbyn + Labour campaign?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes of course Peter go for it. I only ask you acknowledge the source.
Thank you Wendy and welcome to Labour
A beautiful piece of writing, persuasive and intelligent, especially – in these hectic and overly emotional times -moderate in tone, appealing to reason; and recognising that political opponents are also capable of reason and altruism. This piece should appear in the Telegraph. I think they might even print it.
Jeff, I do hope that more of our socialist sisters and brothers will follow your example and use language that doesn’t inflame and injure that audience we want to convert to our philosophy, and collaborate with people who aren’t our sworn enemies, but rather people like ourselves with different experiences of life that have led them to different conclusions about how society should be ordered. Differences have to be reconciled. Most young people understand and argue for a different kind of politics to manage our transition to a wholly different future, a future most of us can’t conceive of. Let’s not let ourselves, and them, down by using terms like ‘soulless savages’ (I can perhaps understand your use of words like this, Wendy, but I think they are not going to persuade people to our cause).
Keep up the good work, Jeff, in the same noble spirit of human solidarity and socialist friendship to all of good will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you very much for reading and taking time to comment and for your kind words. Solidarity
Hooking up the clip Jeff…
Your blog needs The Spectator distribution- Very welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your words are so true, Jeff 🙂
I became a Labour Party member just before the elections that made Jeremy Corbyn the leader of our party – and it was his words, full of honesty, love for his fellow man, and the wonderful ideal that there really can be more for everyone, as long as we can join together and fight the Tory machine, that drew me into politics again for the first time in many years.
Yes, my reasons, too, are selfish, as I wish that myself, and the many other people I know who are ill/disabled, can eventually live in a society that truly cares about each and every one of us, instead of pillorying us as the cause of everyone else’s ills. My reasons are also selfish, in that I want my daughter and her generation and, hopefully, many more generations beyond ours, to know what it’s like to have everyone contributing to the whole of our society, instead of living as we are right now, in a world that cares nothing for us, unless we are of any use to them financially.
All I can hope for, is that there are many other people out there, who are also willing to be selfish in what they wish for everyone, and that we can show them what’s possible, before it’s too late! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Declaration Of Opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that Dawkins is wrong, and that it is altruism, not selfishness that is hard-wired into our DNA. Human beings cannot survive as individuals or even nuclear family units. The minimum size for a genetically viable group is in fact around fifty individuals. Not all primates are the same in this respect, with some, like the Loris, living separate isolated lives, but humans and our closest relatives, Bonobo chimps, living in much larger groups. There are also aspects of behaviour that cannot be explained by Dawkins’ theory. We know from the archaeological record that even tens of thousands of years ago, severely disabled people were cared for by their societies, as they are today. Also, people have always been cared for long past their reproductive age, and people care for those and others with whom they have no reliance on for their own survival. This, and much more evidence, indicates that we cannot survive without the altruistic instinct.
Instead of Dawkins, have a look at the writings if the late Stephen J Gould, a very learned Darwinist, and the bane of Richard Dawkins’ life while he was still alive. He was also very witty, and a great joy to read.
Reblogged this on perfectlyfadeddelusions.