The Worst Book Ever?

The new book by Oliver James, The Selfish Capitalist, has arrived. My criticisms of his previous book Affluenza - I think it is possibly the worst book I have ever read - did not prevent it becoming a bestseller.

So I don't suppose he'll be all that bothered that I only reached page four of his new volume before dropping it on the desk, awestruck.

On page three James asserts that:

The second fact substantiated by this book is that the advent of Selfish Capitalism in English-speaking nations since the 1970s has caused a high increase in the amount of emotional distress.

That seems pretty clear. He says that distress is caused by Selfish Capitalism, it is not merely that their growth is correlated. He says that this is a fact. And he promises to substantiate it.

Fair enough. Since that is precisely the question I raised about Affluenza (is it a causal link or mere correlation?) he had grabbed my attention.   

Then over the page he says this:

To be absolutely clear my new assertions are:

Selfish Capitalism led to a massive increase in the wealth of the wealthy, with no rise in average wages

and

there has been a substantial increase in emotional distress since the 1970s.

These assertions are not in themselves political, they are either true or false. Chapter 3 presents the evidence for them.

The cause of these changes is presented as being Selfish Capitalism and this, of course, is not a fact but a theory.

Hang on a minute! On Page Three he said it was a fact.  He promised the causal link would be substantiated.

Who edited this book?

Comments

[David Moss]

Devotees of Comment Central of a nervous disposition are advised not to click on http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/yvonne_roberts/2008/01/mad_to_be_happy.html

Others will find, there:

(a) an article which is, in its way, perfect, the distillation of everything that is the Guardian

and

(b) some ... lively readers' comments

[William]

Yes, I haven't wasted any money on his book, nor will I, but based on his recent columns in various publications, his views are total psycho-babble. One fact that totally destroys his argument is that Denmark, described by James himself as the epitome of state-driven well-being, has one of the highest suicide rates in the EU.

[Guido Fawkes]

He appears to be saying the book will eventually substantiate his presented theory as factual by the conclusion.

[Tony Francis]

Dan, he is addressing both camps: those who KNOW capitalism is a bad thing, and those who THINK capitalism is bad, at least in theory. This is good marketing, ie. having something to sell to all potential customers. Hence, it would appear this is capitalism at its best. Maybe not. But writing books which "preach to the choir" can lead to big sales. So maybe this really is Capitalism. Another book he might consider writing: "Just How Much Anxiety Did My Last Book Bashing Capitalism, While Engaging In Capitalism Really Cause? Fact and Theory." Anyway, add these two books to the list entitled: BOOKS I WON'T BE READING ANYTIME SOON.

[Anthony]

A dreadful book by Oliver James? Whoever would have thought?

I listened to him being interviewed on the wireless when Affluenza came out and... well on the grounds that this is a family site, I'll limit myself to noting that he was distinctly unimpressive.

[Simon Stephenson]

In your review of Affluenza you wrote:-

"So I think James and his friends have selected inequality as a culprit because they don’t like it, rather than because months of work in the stats lab convinced them of its explanatory power as a variable."

I'm sorry, but isn't flying false flags just part and parcel of contemporary methods of persuasion? Aren't we going through a phase where anything goes when it comes to achieving argumentative success?

Take the smoking ban. The powers-that-be worked for years to create the popular mindset that passive smoking is a serious health hazard, when the actuality is that NONE of the numerous studies into the effects of second-hand smoke produced even a scintilla of evidence that this is the case.

Maybe you might consider broadening your criticism to attack in generality the use of false reasoning in political and social argument. Otherwise, is there not a risk that the public will wrongly take the view that the examples you identify are untypical of the whole.

As things stand, I think the advice I gave in one of your earlier blogs still stands. Make sure you stock up with copious amounts of salt, so that you will never be short of a pinch to take with every piece of persuasive argument you listen to.

[jimmy]

"is it a causal link or mere correlation?"

Daniel, I congratulate you for saying this so clearly. I wish all journalists who report on "studies", "research" and "reports" would repeat the above as a mantra when preparing their copy.

Keep up the good work!

[Jenny]

Based on the evidence that is apparent to anyone who lives in the real world, what the author states as fact, is fact. The attacks on wages, ability to work and survive. Struggling to avoid homelessness, the helplessness as one falls into dire poverty. The staggering rates of malnutrition and anemia in the US among American citizens.. one would be hard pressed not to be depressed. It's imposing traumatic stress on people on a daily and weekly basis.

Finkelstein might find the truth inconvenient, but he can't sweep it under the rug. His willing indifference, his cavalier and selfish, yes SELFISH attitude, based on his greed and sniderly is only more proof that he advocates for selfish capitalism.

[Graeme Archer]

A perfect exposition of the woolly thinking that clouds most sociological "research", and the ghastly way it gets promulgated through the media as scientific fact ("A survey today has shown that eating fruit will give you 14 years extra life").

I wish every journalist was as capable of the statistical reasoning (ie epistemic reasoning) as Mr Finkelstein.

[Simon Stephenson]

Jenny (8.1.08 - 05.37)

There's little doubt in my mind that the effects of dire poverty, as you describe, in an otherwise prosperous society, are very likely to be triggers of widespread mental illness.

I'm also convinced that, left unregulated, capitalism will result in there being a hard core of have-nots who will be required to live in such conditions of dire poverty.

But:-

1. Neither of these positions can be established as FACTS - they're only opinions or theories, and the reason I hold them is because I believe it to be MOST LIKELY that they are true.

2. In my view it's counter-productive to over-argue a case, the reason being that this gives carte blanche to the opposing side to do the same. With both sides given the latitude to suggest that black is white, the argument, in rational terms, won't go anywhere. So trying to establish certainty out of most-likelihood is a futile argumentative technique.

3. How far is capitalism also responsible for the creation of the prosperity? Can relative poverty be eliminated without destroying at the same time the motive force behind the creation of wealth?

4. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? Is human selfishness the product of being nurtured in a capitalist world, or is capitalism the result of humans, naturally, being selfish? I believe that the race would be much better off if we were to seek personal well-being through co-operative endeavour rather than through selfish acquisition, but is such a transformation of attitude actually possible? Is not the preponderance of humanity hard-coded to be selfish?

[David Moss]

"The attacks on wages, ability to work and survive. Struggling to avoid homelessness, the helplessness as one falls into dire poverty. The staggering rates of malnutrition and anemia in the US among American citizens.. one would be hard pressed not to be depressed. It's imposing traumatic stress on people on a daily and weekly basis."

I rather agree with Jenny @ 8 Jan 2008 05:37:48 here. I mean, there was no selfishness in Stalin's Russia. QED.

Everyone had a home, no-one was helpless and there was no poverty, dire or otherwise.

Why? Because there was no capitalism. You don't believe me? Read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich -- not a hint of capitalism, nothing but stress-free denizens of a gated community.

No, unhappiness and mental illness had to be developed by capitalists. It was hard, but they did it. Why? To make everyone anaemic.

The same people invented logical consistency and fact-based decision-making. They're all examples of capitalist conspiracy against the happy masses.

And if you people can't see that, it's because you have become victims, unlike Oliver James, who is so happy he wants to share the Good News with everyone, £8.67 at Amazon.

Can you imagine capitalism inventing the web? Huh! QED!

(To his lieutenants -- please keep Mr Finkelstein away from http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Capitalist-Origins-Affluenza/dp/0091923816/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199809621&sr=8-1. The first review of Mr James's book says:

"Following the insights of Affluenza, here is the hard science that neoliberalism and Selfish Capitalism have been great news for the rich but made the rest of us poor and miserable. Full of fascinating scientific evidence, James is nonetheless good at bringing it to life. This is The State We're In for 2008."

Unless you want to have to peel him off the ceiling.)

Cheer up, Jenny, it may never happen.

[Simon Stephenson]

David Moss 8.1.08 : 16.32

I'd never really thought before that we have such a stark choice - between the fully-warted capitalism of today and the Stalinist tyranny of 60-70 years ago. Until you enlightened me, I believed that it was possible to construct the world order from any one of millions of shades of grey, and not just have the choice of the 2 possibilities of black or white.

Just goes to show that you learn something every day!