THANKS to Descartes’ obsession with objectivity, his legacy continues to condition our view of nature as rational, empirical and mechanistic. Such a theory became the precursor influencing the thought of political thinkers and economists alike. The idea, when used in economics, gave rise to the term “homo economicus”, or economic man.

The economic man is a being who inevitably does that by which he may obtain the greatest amount of necessities, conveniences and luxuries with the smallest quantity of labour. It refers to the human being who acts in rationality who seeks to maximise personal utility or satisfaction.

Homo economicus was further propagated by Adam Smith in his book “Wealth of Nations”, in which he wrote: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer or baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest.”

Even in as early as the 16th-century European expansion, in the wake of the “reconquista”, corporations like British East India Co, Portuguese East India Co, Dutch East India Co and Virginia Co, were formed with the purpose of exploitation masked under exploration for shareholder wealth, i.e. homo economicus.

These companies were mandated to pillage and plunder to increase the wealth and power of favoured businessmen and the governments that favoured them. In short, monopoly and control for personal interest by means of war and conflict. As General Smedley Butler said in his book “War Is A Racket”, businesses commercially benefit and generate substantial profits from warfare, thus it is apparent that every war is a commercial war.

History is a good place in which to look for answers. The spoils of homo economicus was also evident at the conclusion of World War I, which brought Germany, the vanquished, into total economic and social chaos. Under the controversial article 231 of the Versailles Treaty 1919 “war guilt clause”, Germany was made to pay 132 billion gold marks in war reparations (estimated to be about US$500 billion, or RM2.3 trillion, in today’s value). Germany suffered loss of territory, natural resources and starvation.

The expansion of the “financial economy” plunged us deeper into the rabbit hole. Real events such as the Asian Financial Crisis 1997, Global Financial Crisis 2007 and the recent US Banking Crisis 2023, if anything, should be teaching us important life lessons. Financial instruments and institutions, thought to enhance people’s economic lives, instead turn people into victims and casualties of a global debt trap.

Debt has become an operative word in our economy. Debt instruments such as loans are most common, but the truth is that it is money that the banks do not have, created out of thin air i.e. money creation, permissible through “fractional reserve banking”. Loans do not help the marginalised lower-income group or the less well-to-do, which comprises the majority of the population. It only exacerbates their situation. Those able to afford loans are usually bigger established corporations and companies, a total misalignment of financial assistance.

Douglas Rushkoff in his book “Life Inc” explains how corporations went from a convenient legal fiction to the dominant fact of contemporary life. Corporatism did not evolve naturally, however, we have so willingly adopted the values of corporations that they are no longer even aware of it. We are living in a system where everything can be commodified, where humans are resources and communities have dissolved into consumer groups.

Homo economicus, devoid of benevolence, adopts objective measures in life, managing it like a balance sheet. This results in a “category error” when attempting to measure societal wellbeing. As pointed out by Nobel prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz et al, in their book “Mismeasuring Our Lives”, we are mismeasuring our lives as we hold on to outworn myths of usefulness, popularity and the desire to influence others. Gross domestic products (GDPs) do not add up. People can be worse off even though average income is increasing because GDP overlooks economic inequality.

An economy for people is one that ensures equitable stakeholder prosperity, not one that is fixated on increasing shareholder wealth. It is one that bridges the gap, not widens it. It is one that shares the pie, not hoarding it. It is about wellbeing and protection, not abandonment and leaving people stranded during pandemics. Unfortunately, moral and social obligation has become an afterthought. Corporations disingenuously give “donations” or undertake “corporate social responsibility” programs or even pay “zakat” only when there is surplus or done in lieu of tax relief. There is no longer room for morality, only profitability.

Business as usual is leading us astray from the true meaning and purpose of an economy, one that serves people. A reorientation of economic thought towards a “life economy” is essential. We need an economy, not solely built on idealistic imperatives but one that is in between, a balance of both individual economic freedom and the need to serve the community as espoused by scholars like Ibn Taimiyah, St Thomas Aquinas and Austrian “Vienna School” economists. Ultimately, an economy comprises people, made by people, therefore should help and serve all people. We have a moral and social obligation towards communities.

Education shapes thought. It, too, has been corporatised by homo economicus. Jiddu Krishnamurthi in his book “Education and Significance of Life” points out that there has been an intellectual misconception as the purpose of education is not to produce more technicians or specialists to serve the economy but integrated human beings. Human beings that are sensitive to nature both external and internal. Human beings that cultivate the right relationship, not only between individuals, but also between individuals and society.

Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in his book “The Concept of Education in Islam” emphasised that education is about instilling the “right thing” into human beings. The right thing being beneficial knowledge for life, not merely data and information for skill sets. Technical knowledge, however necessary, will in no way resolve our inner pressures and conflict to understand life. Present day education is a complete failure because it overemphasises technique. The right kind of education should accomplish something of greater importance. Not just about framework, systems and methods to fit the economy but knowledge that one can act upon in a just and equitable manner, through wisdom.

There needs to be a deconversion from thinking like corporations. Plato and Aristotle mentioned that the ultimate goal of a human being is “eudaimonia” which means happiness or flourishing to achieve a state of happiness or wellbeing. It is a condition of “good spirit” achieved through moral excellence, transcending material and physical objectives. Thus, knowing your “self” is the beginning of all wisdom.

When there is no self-knowledge, self-expression becomes self-assertion with all of its aggressive and ambitious conflicts, a reflection of homo economicus. Homo economicus, when put to power or position, are false leaders. Decisions no longer have the interest of people’s wellbeing. They become obsessed with return on investment. Policies now prioritise trade, not lives and livelihoods. Our reserves continue to be hoarded, never utilised. They put profit before people.

Concerned about our future, I implore fellow youth to arise from the slumber of ignorance and inaction. We cannot continue to live in delusional times, a smokescreen of fustian and fantasy, that we have inherited from homo economicus. Youth are already beleaguered with problems of debt and bankruptcy. This new year, it is time to correct the wrong.

We must stop thinking like corporations. Homo economicus has created a legacy of inequality and inequity. Society has spiralled into a deplorable state. It can no longer be a corporate economy if we wish to solve moral and social issues. A return to a people’s economy is essential for the common good, if not, it remains rhetoric and propaganda. – December 28, 2023.

* Anas Matsham reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.