Rediscovering Selfishness

French billionaire Bernard Arnault decided to sue a news daily over a headline – ‘Get Lost you rich Idiot’ in response to his decision to apply for Belgium citizenship. France’s controversial proposed policy to tax the rich very heavily is driving them away from the country. And obviously there are many who feel the rich should stay and get fleeced. I know most in our country feel similarly and there are two reasons for it – one we believe, like many French socialists, that we should take money from the rich and give if those who do not work all in the garb of larger welfare; and, second, in our country money has been equated with fifth for most of that has been created by ‘few’ who could ‘fix’ the system. However that’s not how money has been created by everyone, everywhere. There are people who through their enterprising ability, hard work& industriousness have been able to create immense value and in the process have successfully created wealth.

And there are millions of taxpaying citizens of France, India and world over who know the value of hard work, who know what it takes to earn a day’s wages. Then there are sloths who want to live an easy life on the hard-earned money of those millions others. Research indicates that many, who received unemployment allowance in Europe, actually blew the money in night clubs, rather using the same on their essentials. But still they should be protected……..why? Why penalize those who work hard and contribute to the value creation in a nation, and reward those who do not want to work?

But that is socialism for you that parts of Europe, India and now Obama’s America believes in - social welfare at the cost of those who work hard every day. Protection of downtrodden, weak, poor….. similar logic? Ayn Rand in her epic book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ (1964) wrote- “Since nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist – collectivist code that permits a man to suppose (or idly to day dream) that he can somehow guarantee such security to some men at the expense of others. This is the psychological confession implied in such questions and in many issues of the same kind... More often, however that psychological confession reveals a deeper evil: it reveals the enormity of the extent to which altruism erodes men’s capacity to grasp the concept of rights or the value of an individual life; it reveals a mind from which the reality of a human being has been wiped out.'

The socialistic welfare concept is a fallacy that makes people believe that government can ensure their well-being even if they don’t do enough for themselves and their families. Even more evil is the premise that robs people who work hard and wants them to believe that they have an obligation to part a good share of their income for welfare of someone whom they don’t know

Ayn Rand further writes in her book – 'A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment – a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature- is not strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutional gang rule. Such a society destroys all values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival.'

I am not negating charity but engaging in such an act should be an individual choice not a gang –compulsion. Behind the garb of welfare, the corrupt political set-up and ‘match-fixers’ fool and loot all.

Take the FDI in multi-brand retail issue in India for example. A nationwide forced shutdown, hooliganism against public in general, all in the name of opposition against FDI in multi-brand retail. And what is the ground of such opposition – same rhetoric of ‘welfare’. People like Didi feel that FDI in multi-brand retail shall endanger the ‘shopkeeprs’. So they are worried about welfare of those shopkeepers who have been fleecing us for ages? Why they are not worried of the billions of consumers in this country? Why do they want to rob us of better products, improved service, more choice, better quality and more competitive prices?

The system is fixed and so is welfare. Nexus between traders lobby and politicians could not be exemplified any better. And, they are worried about handful of shopkeepers losing their jobs; then why are they not worried about millions others losing jobs (those jobs which could be created in the organized retail, if FDI is pumped-in).

More FDI, more choice better quality & better prices for consumers resulting in greater consumption, more revenues, more sectorial growth, more jobs, more disposable income, more consumption….. Is this logic so incomprehensible?

Not at all, those who are opposing FDI in multi-brand retail are only concerned about their own welfare, of their kins & friends, at the cost of others. So is selfishness bad? Selfishness in the garb of selflessness is bad. Being selfish and asking or rather forcing others to be selfless is bad. Like those call the French billionaire a rich idiot are or those who oppose FDI in India are doing!

Pure selfishness is actually a virtue. I know we have been taught the opposite and most of you must be shocked at my utterances. But man by nature is selfish. Man works, shares, loves, cares for selfish pursuits. Selfishness is at the root of civilization, existence and life. Ayn Rand had written – “In popular usage, the word “ selfishness” is synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet, the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness is ‘concern with one’s own interest’.”

And how being concerned of one’s own interest could be bad? However, only if everybody did that and did not expect others to forego their own interest whilst they pursue their own.

A person becomes selfish for a more secure future for himself and for his family and starts an enterprise. He becomes selfish to produce better goods and deliver better service than anybody else to his customers. The people who work for him become selfish for a better career and future for themselves and hence buy-in to the selfish ideas of the entrepreneur. The customer becomes selfish for better consumption and buys those goods & services. The result is better pay-off for everyone. However in this entire cycle, if anyone while remaining selfish himself/herself wants or forces others to relinquish their selfish motives then ‘some’ lose in the process. And if everyone remains selfish and accept others selfish pursuits as much they do their own then everyone stands to win.

Selfishness is at the heart of engagement too. An organization engages its employees for the selfish reasons of engaging its customers better. What’s wrong in that? An employee accepts to be engaged when he/she sees his/her selfish pursuits being fulfilled. Engagement cannot happen if people cease to be selfish.

Take the case of banks in India which according to recent newspaper reports are facing problems in keeping staff at smaller & rural locations. The employees, mostly younger lot, posted in such locations complain of factors like absence of cellphone signals, choice of food, weekend entertainment; women complain of too much distance from their home & having to stay away from their family as reasons behind their unhappiness with such postings. The resultant high attrition is concerning the banks.

Are the employees being selfish? Yes, but what’s wrong with them being selfish? And what should the banks do in this case. They should also act selfish. If they think that they need these employees to serve their customers better then they should try & act in a way that they can provide these facilities to their employee at such locations. And if they think they got the wrongs people inside, then they should look for the right people who can serve their customers better and who will not have such complains. Such selfish motives on everyone’s part shall engage employees better and consequently customers better. This shall result better payoffs for all & sundry.

In this regard, I quote from my 2011 book Employee Engagement – ‘In an employee feedback and organizational health survey of the employees in remote locations by Aditya Birla Group, the company found that employees in remote locations – factory townships had long-standing needs that were similar to their colleagues in urban locations. Some of the issues that emerged were healthcare, entertainment, education and career for spouses. The findings were very interesting and showed how place or location may not change the way people wanted to live. They found, for instance, that today’s middle-class, young engineer finds a dissonance. He not only wants a great job and a good company, he also seeks a contemporary look and location.

To ensure that such locational dissonance did not happen, the company came-up with a range of solutions. To start with it changed the exterior colour of the residential flats; it tied-up with an event management company to develop events that appeal to various constituencies like musical nights, devotional music programmes, concerts and so on. The company is also said to be discussing with PVR cinemas for setting-up multiplexes near the townships.’