One of the most dangerous ideas in politics is that good intentions create prosperous societies.
Bernard Mandeville, in one of the most scandalous and important books in intellectual history, argued almost exactly the opposite.
In his 1714 book The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Public Benefits, Bernard Mandeville told the story of a prosperous beehive where every bee was driven by vanity, greed, luxury and self-interest. The hive flourished with industry, trade, innovation and wealth precisely because of these private vices. Then, one day, the bees suddenly became virtuous and frugal. Demand collapsed, workers lost their jobs, and the once-thriving society descended into poverty and stagnation.
Mandeville’s provocative thesis was that what was often thought of as private vices often produce public benefits. Self-interested behaviour - when channelled through markets - creates far more prosperity and social cooperation than deliberate attempts at collective virtue or moral perfection.
This insight was revolutionary. It showed that the pursuit of personal gain does not lead to chaos, but to order and abundance. People working to satisfy their own desires end up producing goods and services that benefit others. Greed for profit drives innovation. Vanity fuels demand for quality and beauty. Self-interest, not altruism, powers the division of labour and economic progress.
Adam Smith would later refine this idea into the famous “invisible hand”. But Mandeville stated the uncomfortable truth more boldly: a society that tries to suppress self-interest in the name of virtue usually ends up poorer and less civilised.
The Fable of the Bees is a powerful defence of commercial society which reminds us that what left-wing moralists condemn as vice is frequently the engine of human flourishing.
What we're told is waning support for capitalism is really people losing belief that enterprise, skill and discipline will be rewarded in a culture that increasingly vilifies success and personal responsibility.
I'm so tired of pointing out that yes, capitalism has its issues, but it works; socialism doesn't.
Whereas socialism has long, well documented history of abject economic failure with devastating consequences for ordinary people, capitalism has dragged billions of people out of abject poverty.
I mean, do we really have to argue about if you'd rather live in countries like the South Korea, US, Denmark and Japan or Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba?
The verdict is in: the more you move from socialism towards capitalism, the better life becomes for ordinary people. We all know this. Why do we have to keep discussing it?
