38 How are we to live What's in it for me? 39 human nature than Hobbes. and hence favoured a more lim- It is ironic that as the despised communist regimes of East- ited form of government in which individual citizens retained ern Europe and the soviet Union were collapsing and reform- rights against the government; but he still saw society very ers were hastily ushering in the forces of the free market, much as a loose and indeed optional association of individuals Western sociologists and philosophers were reviving theories Locke's conception of society strongly influenced the of the importance of community in politics and ethical life American revolutionaries and the authors of the american Karl Marx's criticisms of capitalism have held up far better constitution. Tocqueville, in the 1830s, found America already han his scanty positive proposals for a better form of society trikingly a nation of individuals, and while he admired th The Communist Manifesto is a powerful attack on the idea of self-reliance and independence of its citizens, he feared where society as a free association of individuals. Marx and his co- this might lead: 'Each man is forever thrown back on himself author Friedrich Engels were certainly no friends of traditional alone, and there is danger that he may be shut up in the or feudal forms of society; they nevertheless wrote with a litude of his own heart. Individualism triumphed over the and awe of the way in which such societies traditional idea of community in the Protestant countries of ad been destroyed by the rise of a society based on money Northern Europe, including Britain and its offshoots in North America. Australia and New Zealand. In late twentieth cen- The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put tury America, however, individualism has been pushed to a lyllic relations. It new extreme. Social scientists have developed scales for plac- essly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to ing societies on a continuum between individualism and col- his natural superiors, and has left remaining no other nexus lectivism: by these tests, the United States comes out as the between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous most individualistic of all societies. It is a society in which cash paymen everyone 'does their own thing or ' goes for it' where 'it' mean whatever I want. In many large American cities there simply Capitalism had thus ruthlessly created a society of free indi- is no community, in Tonnies's sense of the term viduals, but this was not a free society. On the contrary, it In the view of Robert Bellah, a Berkeley sociologist and was a society out of control principal author of Habits of the Heart, though America has long been individualist, modern American society is more one- Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of sidedly so than ever before exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sor. In earlier days the individualism in America was one that also cerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether honored community values. Today we have an ideology of indi- orld which he has called up by his spells.- idualism that simply encourages people to maximize personal dvantage. This leads to a consumer politics in which What's Among these 'powers of the nether world, Marx thought in it for me? is all that matters. while considerations of the was the proletariat, the great class of propertyless labourers mmon good are increasingly irrelevant. who are, for the bourgeoisie, merely another commodity, to
38 How ar e we to live ? human nature than Hobbes, and hence favoured a more limited form of government in which individual citizens retained rights against the government; but he still saw society very much as a loose and indeed optional association of individuals. Locke's conception of society strongly influenced the American revolutionaries and the authors of the American constitution. Tocqueville, in the 1830s, found America already strikingly a nation of individuals, and while he admired the self-reliance and independence of its citizens, he feared where this might lead: 'Each man is forever thrown back on himself alone, and there is danger that he may be shut up in the solitude of his own heart'.23 Individualism triumphed over the traditional idea of community in the Protestant countries of Northern Europe, including Britain and its offshoots in North America, Australia and New Zealand. In late twentieth century America, however, individualism has been pushed to a new extreme. Social scientists have developed scales for placing societies on a continuum between individualism and collectivism: by these tests, the United States comes out as the most individualistic of all societies.24 It is a society in which everyone 'does their own thing' or 'goes for it' where 'it' means 'whatever I want'. In many large American cities there simply is no community, in Tonnies's sense of the term. In the view of Robert Bellah, a Berkeley sociologist and principal author of Habits of the Heart, though America has long been individualist, modern American society is more onesidedly so than ever before: In earlier days the individualism in America was one that also honored community values. Today we have an ideology of individualism that simply encourages people to maximize personal advantage. This leads to a consumer politics in which 'What's in it for me?' is all that matters, while considerations of the common good are increasingly irrelevant." 'What' s in it for me? 1 39 It is ironic that as the despised communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were collapsing and reformers were hastily ushering in the forces of the free market, Western sociologists and philosophers were reviving theories of the importance of community in politics and ethical life. Karl Marx's criticisms of capitalism have held up far better than his scanty positive proposals for a better form of society. The Communist Manifesto is a powerful attack on the idea of society as a free association of individuals. Marx and his coauthor Friedrich Engels were certainly no friends of traditional or feudal forms of society; they nevertheless wrote with a mixture of anger and awe of the way in which such societies had been destroyed by the rise of a society based on money: The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors', and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment'. Capitalism had thus ruthlessly created a society of free individuals; but this was not a free society. On the contrary, it was a society out of control: Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world which he has called up by his spells.26 Among these 'powers of the nether world', Marx thought, was the proletariat, the great class of propertyless labourers who are, for the bourgeoisie, merely another commodity, to
40 How are we to live? it for me?”41 be bought when their labour power is needed, and thrown on litical leaders assume that to do so would be to commit the scrap heap at a time of recession. Marx was convinced electoral suicid that, in creating the proletariat, the capitalist system had pro- iAtt- the General Agreement on Tariffs and duced the seeds of its own destruction Trade, the Holy Scripture of global economic rationalism About this, Marx was simply wrong. The contradictions of extends this dominance of economics around the entire globe. capitalism did not relentlessly intensify; capitalism improved The lords of GATT tell the nations of the European Com- the lot of most of its workers, and, in the most advanced munity that they must expose their peasant farmers to com apitalist nations, enlisted a substantial part of the working petition from the mega-farms of North America and Australia classes on its side. In contrast, those who successfully carried mpetition that would surely wipe them out, and change out revolutions in marx' s name found themselves unable to irreversibly the landscape of Western Europe. When the create a society that satisfied the needs of the majority, and European Patent Office hesitates over the ethical question of mained in power only as long as they were prepared to use whether a living animal can be patented, the United State force to suppress opposition. Thus capitalism survived, and argues at GATT negotiations that to refuse to accept the now, at the end of the twentieth century, appears to have patenting of animals is an illegal restraint of trade that pre- mphed. Yet there is something valid in Marx's vision of vents American inventors from reaping their due rewards. capitalism as a society that has created forces it cannot con- (The United States was acting to protect potential profits trol. We see this once again in the recession that followed the from the work of US scientists who had patented such animal s the onco-mouse, an unfortunate creature genetically engi easons no-one quite grasps, commodity prices fall, and there peered to develop tumours that scientists can study. )In are millions of people who want jobs, but for whose energies another triumph of economics over ethics, however, the United and skills the capitalist system has no use States found itself attacked by a similar argument. Invoking Marx was right to suggest that the free market society, by its Marine Mammal Protection Act, the United States banned breaking traditional ties, reducing every bond to the cash Mexican tuna on the grounds that the Mexican fishing fleet, nexus and unleashing the forces of individual self-interest, has using methods now abandoned by the Us fleet, needless onjured up a genie that it cannot control. The genie has kills 50,000 dolphins each year. Mexico appealed to GATT, brought us a society in which politics is dominated by eco- claiming that the ban was an unfair trade barrier-and won/28 nomics. At every election the great issues of the day are eco- The genie released by our encouragement of naked self- nomic. We are told that we cannot stop development that is interest has eroded our sense of belonging to a community environmentally damaging because our nation must compete Every individual pursues the ethos of ' looking out for number economically with its overseas competitors. Proposals for one. We regard others as potential sources of profit, and we better health care, welfare or housing for the poor are wrecked expect others to see us in the same way. The assumption is on the reefs of the desire for lower taxes to provide more that you had better look after yourself because the other party ncentives for investment. To turn away from greater and will take advantage of you whenever possible and the greater material prosperity has become unthinkable.Our assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because there
40 How ar e we to live ? • be bought when their labour power is needed, and thrown on the scrap heap at a time of recession. Marx was convinced that, in creating the proletariat, the capitalist system had produced the seeds of its own destruction. About this, Marx was simply wrong. The contradictions of capitalism did not relentlessly intensify; capitalism improved the lot of most of its workers, and, in the most advanced capitalist nations, enlisted a substantial part of the working classes on its side. In contrast, those who successfully carried out revolutions in Marx's name found themselves unable to create a society that satisfied the needs of the majority, and remained in power only as long as they were prepared to use force to suppress opposition. Thus capitalism survived, and now, at the end of the twentieth century, appears to have triumphed. Yet there is something valid in Marx's vision of capitalism as a society that has created forces it cannot control. We see this once again in the recession that followed the boom years of the eighties. Economic confidence declines for reasons no-one quite grasps, commodity prices fall, and there are millions of people who want jobs, but for whose energies and skills the capitalist system has no use. Marx was right to suggest that the free market society, by breaking traditional ties, reducing every bond to the cash nexus and unleashing the forces of individual self-interest, has conjured up a genie that it cannot control. The genie has brought us a society in which politics is dominated by economics. At every election the great issues of the day are economic. We are told that we cannot stop development that is environmentally damaging because our nation must compete economically with its overseas competitors. Proposals for better health care, welfare or housing for the poor are wrecked on the reefs of the desire for lower taxes to provide more incentives for investment. To turn away from greater and greater material prosperity has become unthinkable. Our 'What' s in it for me? ' 41 political leaders assume that to do so would be to commit electoral suicide. Now GATT - the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Holy Scripture of global economic rationalism - extends this dominance of economics around the entire globe. The lords of GATT tell the nations of the European Community that they must expose their peasant farmers to competition from the mega-farms of North America and Australia - competition that would surely wipe them out, and change irreversibly the landscape of Western Europe. When the European Patent Office hesitates over the ethical question of whether a living animal can be patented, the United States argues at GATT negotiations that to refuse to accept the patenting of animals is an illegal restraint of trade that prevents American inventors from reaping their due rewards. (The United States was acting to protect potential profits from the work of US scientists who had patented such animals as the 'onco-mouse', an unfortunate creature genetically engineered to develop tumours that scientists can study.27) In another triumph of economics over ethics, however, the United States found itself attacked by a similar argument. Invoking its Marine Mammal Protection Act, the United States banned Mexican tuna on the grounds that the Mexican fishing fleet, using methods now abandoned by the US fleet, needlessly kills 50,000 dolphins each year. Mexico appealed to GATT, claiming that the ban was an unfair trade barrier - and won!28 The genie released by our encouragement of naked selfinterest has eroded our sense of belonging to a community. Every individual pursues the ethos of 'looking out for number one'. We regard others as potential sources of profit, and we expect others to see us in the same way. The assumption is that you had better look after yourself because the other party will take advantage of you whenever possible - and the assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because there
42 Howarewetolive? Whats in for me? 43 is no point in being co-operative towards those who will not sacrifice their own short-term gain for long-term mutual ben- by the acquittal of policemen videotaped in the act of be efits. But an association of isolated individuals bound not by Rodney King. While the acquittal undoubtedly caused justi- a sense of place, nor by extensive family connections, nor by fied outrage, the riots soon took on a life of their own. a key loyalty to an employer, but only by the fleeting ties of self- j element was that the riots made it possible to take consumer interest, cannot be a good society. Such a society will fail even I goods without paying for them. Everyone was doing it, and if it professes that its role is only to allow each individual citizen the police could not be every where at once. In addition to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It will fail to allow JDolice, at the time of the riots, there were 3, 500 private secu- this, not only for the poor, but even for the rich. As Robert rity firms in Los Angeles, employ ing 50,000 guards, but even lah and his colleagues write in Habits of the Heart: ' One Hhat was not enough. One journalist painted this picture cannot live a rich private life in a state of siege, mistrusting all strangers and turning one's home into an armed camp In ethics and the formation of a community there are virtuous The five-mile length of Western Avenue up to Hollywood urals and vicious spirals. If Aristotle was right to say that Boulevard was a looters alley of a bizarre modem kind. Like we become virtuous by practising virtue then we need soci- all the other Los Angeles commuters, the looters came by car, eties in which people are encouraged to begin to act vir parking on the pavements with doors and boots open, as shoes, tuously. In major cities whose populations are embued with clothes, television sets, compact disc players, and bottles we the individualist ethos of material self-interest, the green shoots tossed inside of mutual trust or a virtuous disposition struggle to survive. The parking lots of the big shopping malls look like so many let alone grow and flourish. Bizarre as it may seem, we shall bankruptcy sales. Looters stacked supermarket trolleys with see in Chapter 6 that enemy soldiers facing each other from their takings and wheeled them to their cars. Beds and sofas the trenches of World War I had a better basis for practising eciprocity than do the anonymous members of modern cities away. There was a traffic jam to get in to loot the giant Fedc We are in the process of creating societies that are mere discount store on La Cienaga, and at one Sears store, a helicop- aggregations of mutually hostile individuals, teetering on the er television crew filmed looters arriving in a yellow cab brink of hobbes's war of all against all. wherever the sover- On Sunset Boulevard on Thursday evening I watched children eign cannot bring enough force to bear, the war could break with mobile phones co-ordinate the movements of their gangs out, and the individuals are more lethally armed than Hobbes ith the arrival of police and fire trucks, warning looters when could ever have imagined. Unless we begin now on the diffi- police were on their way. cult task of restoring a sense of commitment to something other than oneself. that is the future we face Richard Schickel correctly made the link between the loot- I wrote the preceding paragraph early in April, 1992, and ing and the nation, s passion for acquisition: Modern Ameri wondered if readers would consider it an exaggeration. But at ca's great guiding principle, shop till you drop, was in process he end of that month. television viewers around the world of revision; steal till you kneel was more like it'.But Andrew
4 2 Howarewetolive ? is no point in being co-operative towards those who will not sacrifice their own short-term gain for long-term mutual benefits. But an association of isolated individuals bound not by a sense of place, nor by extensive family connections, nor by loyalty to an employer, but only by the fleeting ties of selfinterest, cannot be a good society. Such a society will fail even if it professes that its role is only to allow each individual citizen 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. It will fail to allow this, not only for the poor, but even for the rich. As Robert Bellah and his colleagues write in Habits of the Heart: 'One cannot live a rich private life in a state of siege, mistrusting all strangers and turning one's home into an armed camp'.29 In ethics and the formation of a community there are virtuous spirals and vicious spirals. If Aristotle was right to say that we become virtuous by practising virtue then we need societies in which people are encouraged to begin to act virtuously. In major cities whose populations are embued with the individualist ethos of material self-interest, the green shoots of mutual trust or a virtuous disposition struggle to survive, let alone grow and flourish. Bizarre as it may seem, we shall see in Chapter 6 that engmy soldiers facing each other from the trenches of World War I had a better basis for practising reciprocity than do the anonymous members of modern cities. We are in the process of creating societies that are mere aggregations of mutually hostile individuals, teetering on the brink of Hobbes's war of all against all. Wherever the sovereign cannot bring enough force to bear, the war could break out, and the individuals are more lethally armed than Hobbes could ever have imagined. Unless we begin now on the difficult task of restoring a sense of commitment to something other than oneself, that is the future we face. I wrote the preceding paragraph early in April, 1992, and wondered if readers would consider it an exaggeration. But at the end of that month, television viewers around the world ){ . ' W h a t' s i n 11 f o r m e ?' 43 ; Saw it confirmed all too vividly in the Los Angeles riots sparked , by the acquittal of policemen videotaped in the act of beating ' Rodney King. While the acquittal undoubtedly caused justi- ! fied outrage, the riots soon took on a life of their own. A key j element was that the riots made it possible to take consumer I goods without paying for them. Everyone was doing it, and ; the police could not be everywhere at once. In addition to the JJDolice, at the time of the riots, there were 3,500 private security firms in Los Angeles, employing 50,000 guards, but even Hhat was not enough.30 One journalist painted this picture: The five-mile length of Western Avenue up to Hollywood Boulevard was a looter's alley of a bizarre modern kind. Like all the other Los Angeles commuters, the looters came by car, parking on the pavements with doors and boots open, as shoes, clothes, television sets, compact disc players, and bottles were tossed inside. The parking lots of the big shopping malls look like so many bankruptcy sales. Looters stacked supermarket trolleys with their takings and wheeled them to their cars. Beds and sofas were piled precariously on to trucks and driven triumphantly away. There was a traffic jam to get in to loot the giant FedCo discount store on La Cienaga, and at one Sears store, a helicopter television crew filmed looters arriving in a yellow cab . . . On Sunset Boulevard on Thursday evening I watched children with mobile phones co-ordinate the movements of their gangs with the arrival of police and fire trucks, warning looters when police were on their way.31 Richard Schickel correctly made the link between the looting and the nation's passion for acquisition: 'Modern America's great guiding principle, shop till you drop, was in process of revision; steal till you kneel was more like it'.32 But Andrew
44 How are we to live? Stephen of the London Observer made a more important connection CHAPTER 3 h is no coincidence... that it all happened in the city that nost epitomises the burgeoning growth, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, of a powerless underclass-a Rich v Poor Using up the world polarisation in a city where the world's most obscene conspicu- ous consumption of wealth exists so closely alongside Third Nothing could have shown more clearly how in a society Jean acques Rousseau or Adam Smith? that elevates acquisitive selfishness into its chief virtue, the When Dennis Levine helped tie up the Revlon takeover deal Hobbesian war of all against all lurks just beneath the surface he celebrated by buying a Ferrari Testarossa. He may have found it enjoyable to drive, but essentially he was spending S125,000 on a symbol of success. Donald Trump, with greater means at his disposal, bought a $30 million yacht that he himself describes as 'a trophy!. Those with lesser incomes mus do the best they can. The car industry relies on people chang- ing over their cars at frequent intervals that, in most cases, have little to do with whether the car is still a safe and reliable means of getting from one place to another. hen the 1991 recession hit and people began holding on to their cars a little longer, the American automobile industry went billions of dollars into the red The same attitude is evident in many areas of consumption At one social level. one cannot be seen in the same clothes one wore to the last society gathering; lower down, it is a matter of not wearing something that was fashionable two or three years ago. Alongside stories of famines in Africa or the destruction of rainforests, and without the slightest sign of of advertisements for new cars, high-fashion clothes, furniture and ocean cruises. Newspapers carry stories of Indian villagers forced to sell their kidneys to clear their debts while the same
44 How are we to live ? Stephen of the London Observer made a more important connection: h is no coincidence . . . that it all happened in the city that most epitomises the burgeoning growth, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, of a powerless underclass - a Rich v Poor polarisation in a city where the world's most obscene conspicuous consumption of wealth exists so closely alongside Third World-type ghettoes." Nothing could have shown more clearly how in a society that elevates acquisitive selfishness into its chief virtue, the Hobbesian war of all against all lurks just beneath the surface. CHAPTE R 3 I Using up the world Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Adam Smith? When Dennis Levine helped tie up the Revlon takeover deal, he celebrated by buying a Ferrari Testarossa. He may have found it enjoyable to drive, but essentially he was spending $125,000 on a symbol of success. Donald Trump, with greater means at his disposal, bought a $30 million yacht that he himself describes as 'a trophy'. Those with lesser incomes must do the best they can. The car industry relies on people changing over their cars at frequent intervals that, in most cases, have little to do with whether the car is still a safe and reliable means of getting from one place to another. When the 1991 recession hit and people began holding on to their cars a little longer, the American automobile industry went billions of dollars into the red. The same attitude is evident in many areas of consumption. At one social level, one cannot be seen in the same clothes one wore to the last society gathering; lower down, it is a matter of not wearing something that was fashionable two or three years ago. Alongside stories of famines in Africa or the destruction of rainforests, and without the slightest sign of awareness of any incongruity, glossy colour magazines feature advertisements for new cars, high-fashion clothes, furniture and ocean cruises. Newspapers carry stories of Indian villagers forced to sell their kidneys to clear their debts while the same
46 How are we to live Using up the world 47 papers sprout supplements that promote gourmet eating and complaint, because they are better off than they would have drinking, or tell readers how to redecorate their homes. Such been if we had remained in a pre-industrial society. They are supplements make economic sense for the newspapers, since better off, in fact, than a king in Africa their readers are a ready market for advertisers. But we should Twenty years before he published The Wealth of Nations, stop and ask: in what direction are we -collectively- going? Smith wrote a critique of a recent work that was then causing If any single person pointed the direction in which the free Something of a sensation among intellectuals on the conti enterprise economy was to march, that person was Adam nent: Jean-Jacques Rousseaus Discourse on Inequality. Rou Smith, and the pointer was his extraordinarily influential work, seau's essay, which compared modern civilization unfavourably The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. Smith argued that with the life of the 'noble savage, was an attack on everything in a market economy, we can each become wealthy only by that Smith was later to champion. In Rousseau's vision of the being more efficient than our competitors at satisfying the original state of human beings, the earth was left to 'its natu wants of our customers or clients-a thought epitomized in al fertility and was covered with immense forests whose his famous sentence: 'It is not from the benevolence of the trees were never mutilated by the axe. These conditions butcher that we expect our dinner but from his regard to his I Vided 'on every side both sustenance and shelter for every own self-interest. To serve our own interests we will strive species of animal. As for the noble savage himself to produce goods that are cheaper or better than those already available. If we succeed. the market will reward us with wealth I see him satisfying his hunger at the first oak, and slaking his if we fail, the market will put us out of business. Thus, wrote thirst at the first brook; finding his bed at the foot of the tree Smith, the desires of countless individuals for their private which afforded him a repast, and with that, all his wants interests are drawn together, as if by a hidden hand, to work for the public interest. The collective outcome of the individ desire for wealth is a prosperous nation, which benefits For taking us out of this idyllic state, Rousseau blamed the not only the wealthy, but also 'the very meanest person in a institution of private property, which allowed us to accumu civilised country. On this last point, Smith waxed lyrical late more than we needed, and so made us compare what we had with what others had, and desire to surpass them in the accommodation of an European prince does not al ways so wealth. This multiplication of our wants he saw as the sourd much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the not only of inequality, but also of hatred, civil strife, slavery, accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an Africa crime, war, deceit, and all the other evils of modern life king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thou- Adam Smith, however, took a very different view of the naked desire to accumulate possessions. Both in his critique of rous- seau and in a larger work, Theory ofthe Moral Sentiments(which This became a standard justification for the inequality that he was then delivering as lectures at the University of Glas- esults from the pursuit of wealth under a free enterprise gow), he defended the multiplication of wants and the desire system. Even the poorest, we are told, have no grounds for to accumulate possessions. It was, he thought, our desire to
46 How are we to live ? Usin g up th e worl d 47 papers sprout supplements that promote gourmet eating and drinking, or tell readers how to redecorate their homes. Such supplements make economic sense for the newspapers, since their readers are a ready market for advertisers. But we should stop and ask: in what direction are we - collectively - going? If any single person pointed the direction in which the free enterprise economy was to march, that person was Adam Smith, and the pointer was his extraordinarily influential work, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. Smith argued that in a market economy, we can each become wealthy only by being more efficient than our competitors at satisfying the wants of our customers or clients - a thought epitomized in his famous sentence: 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher that we expect our dinner but from his regard to his own self-interest'. To serve our own interests, we will strive to produce goods that are cheaper or better than those already available. If we succeed, the market will reward us with wealth; if we fail, the market will put us out of business. Thus, wrote Smith, the desires of countless individuals for their private interests are drawn together, as if by a hidden hand, to work for the public interest. The collective outcome of the individual desire for wealth is a prosperous nation, which benefits not only the wealthy, but also 'the very meanest person in a civilised country'. On this last point, Smith waxed lyrical: the accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.' This became a standard justification for the inequality that results from the pursuit of wealth under a free enterprise system. Even the poorest, we are told, have no grounds for complaint, because they are better off than they would have been if we had remained in a pre-industrial society. They are better off, in fact, than a king in Africa!2 Twenty years before he published The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote a critique of a recent work that was then causing Something of a sensation among intellectuals on the Continent: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality. Rousseau's essay, which compared modern civilization unfavourably with the life of the 'noble savage', was an attack on everything that Smith was later to champion. In Rousseau's vision of the original state of human beings, the earth was left to 'its natural fertility' and was covered with 'immense forests whose trees were never mutilated by the axe'. These conditions pro- | Vided 'on every side both sustenance and shelter for every 1 species of animal'. As for the noble savage himself: I see him satisfying his hunger at the first oak, and slaking his thirst at the first brook; finding his bed at the foot of the tree which afforded him a repast; and with that, all his wants supplied.' For taking us out of this idyllic state, Rousseau blamed the institution of private property, which allowed us to accumulate more than we needed, and so made us compare what we had with what others had, and desire to surpass them in wealth. This multiplication of our wants he saw as the source not only of inequality, but also of hatred, civil strife, slavery, crime, war, deceit, and all the other evils of modern life. Adam Smith, however, took a very different view of the desire to accumulate possessions. Both in his critique of Rousseau and in a larger work, Theory of the Moral Sentiments (which he was then delivering as lectures at the University of Glasgow), he defended the multiplication of wants and the desire to accumulate possessions. It was, he thought, our desire to