Socialism & Envy

[Apollodorus]

I was reading 'Criticisms of socialism' in Wikipedia and although most of the criticisms could be easily refuted, even by me, I struck upon one which has been nagging me ever since. It was a criticism raised by an Austrian economist known as Ludwig von Mises (with the aristocratic 'von', I noticed; typical): that socialism is based upon envy and jealousy, a sentiment he summed up as: "No one shall be idle if I have to work; no one shall be rich if I am poor."

This, combined with doubts over my favourite argument in favour of socialism (see Supply & Demand *hint hint*) has led to doubts over whether we really need socialism or communism. Could it be that it only really exists not for the greater good but because of the selfishness of those who have not prospered in the current economic system?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ On the un-Marxist notion of equal income for all (distribution on the basis of need isn't entirely equal, and certainly the notion of distribution on the basis of labour contribution isn't equal):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/32cPareconOverall.html


Parecon focuses a good deal of attention on trying to ensure equity in how much people are paid. It focuses attention on different moral ideas about what a just pay scale would be, and what deductions or additions to pay should be made to deal with how much effort a worker makes on the job, or how much a worker sacrifices to make that effort. It ends up with a basic hourly wage rate that is equal for all workers in a parecon economy.

...

This marketplace dream is parecon's "economic vision" for rectifying the vast economic inequalities of the present. Thus parecon is weak in dealing with the vast differences between regions. Until these regions agree to join together, "solidarity" and mutual assistance will be expressed only in trade relations. Under these conditions, one wonders how fast different regions will actually join into a common parecon economy.

Aside from this, the lack of direct solidarity can also affect relations between neighborhoods in the same parecon economy. Even if income doesn't vary too much from one individual to another, one neighborhood might be much better than another. Some neighborhoods might have a legacy of better housing and public buildings, and less need for social services. Other neighborhoods might require extra help. But under parecon, each neighborhood basically is on its own in dealing with its problems. In theory, a higher-level council could recommend, during the formulation of the parecon annual plan, that an exception be made in the normal method by which each neighborhood finances its own public services, and some resources diverted from richer neighborhoods to poorer ones. In practice, Albert doesn't discuss this in his book Parecon. Perhaps one reason for his silence is that it goes against the parecon idea of equity. Normally, each individual and each neighborhood is supposed to receive from the economy an equivalent of what they themselves have contributed to the economy.



Here's the problem:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/theory-f16/index.html


The state apparatus must be made up of suitable staff, and here the utilization of capitalist science begins in full measure. The highest posts need trustworthy people whose devotion to the interests of the proletariat is beyond doubt, having been subjected to stringent verification. From them the proletariat demands a profound understanding of its interests at the current stage and the ability to realize these interests in concrete activities, in well chosen executors and in current policy. But all-proletarian control and evaluation must accompany them in every activity.

A particularly important sphere of activity for the socialist state is the economy. In replacing the capitalist striving for maximal profits with the socialist demand for maximum production effectiveness the socialist state must subordinate the entire management system to this demand.

In the first place, this applies to the management apparatus. The apparatus of production organizers must be rewarded in direct dependence on the organizational investment in heightening the productivity of labour and must be very highly rewarded.

Why is this so? Why can not (or must not) the victorious proletariat dictate to the technical intelligentsia its own, different conditions? Why can the leading class not exploit the creative capabilities of the specialists in the same merciless way that the capitalist exploits the workers?

Because this is not advantageous to the proletariat, it contradicts its interests.

The display of talent and creative ability possess an individual character. The struggle for social and self recognition serves as the stimulus for individual manifestations of ability. As long as commodity-money relations continue to exist in society, recognition in the distribution of goods will remain one of the elements of recognition in general.

But it is precisely upon creative activities that the perfection of production depends, the growth of its effectiveness; whether it be the activities of the production organizers or the creative initiative of the masses themselves. Growth in production of goods without an additional expenditure of labour - this is also the economic aim of the proletariat; it is quite ready to devote a portion of this growth to movement in this direction.

And if we glance back at the capitalist and learn from him, it may be seen that he loses nothing through the highly paid specialist but rather increases his profits. Besides which, he encourage a competitive struggle for recognition among them, leading to a full disclosure of their abilities, permitting him to select the best among them. In refusing to adopt such an approach, the proletariat can only harm itself.

The individual evaluation of each specialist must be based on the extent to which his activities are useful to the proletariat and this must be an assessment in the grand scheme, from the heights of class interests. As far as the share of any remaining capitalist is concerned, it must be said that if the proletariat does not offer its specialists the opportunity of obtaining more benefits that in the service of any capitalist, then it is a bad boss. Work for socialist society must attract, for their own benefit, the most prominent specialist of the capitalist world. The proletariat will only become richer through the exploitation of their abilities, since that which is advantageous to the capitalist is many times more advantageous in the socialist economy which is not limited by the competitive monopolies.

[Demogorgon]

Go and read a bit on who Von Mises was. Any criticism he comes up with will rapidly lose its credibility once you do.

[jake williams]

You could just about use Mises's argument (I'm guessing he concludes from this "envy" stuff "Hence, capitalism is Christ"?) as an argument for slavery. "Oh well the Negroes are just jealous, they're only angry because they wish they were the plantation owners". It may or may not have been true for any particular slaves at any particular point in time, but it's kind of irrelevant.

[gilhyle]

Onn the history of this, it is notable that it goes right back to the origin of socialist ideas. For example, if memory serves Stirner serves up this argument against communism in the 1840s.

It is also interesting how easily this argument constantly reemerges.

It is an ad hominem argument (as I use that term anyway - attacking the man, not the ball), not necessarily wrong just for that, but that is a useful way to begin thinking about it.

On top of that the form of the argument seems to be - socialist views are motivated by an emotion, namely the emotion of 'envy', this is a bad emotion, therefore socialism is bad or wrong.

Strictly speaking all such arguments are false, commiting a genetic fallacy. It is quite possible for someone to reach a good or desirable conclusion for a bad reason.

However, we should not rely on that point too much as it is a powerful (as useful) shortcut in judgement to rely on rules of thumb such as that bad motives tend to produce bad conclusions.

There is also another aspect to this, which is that the motive is characterised as an 'emotion'. If we redefined this concept of envy in rational terms, it could be characterised as the claim that the available wealth is limited, I can only get richer if the rich get poorer therefore they should get poorer.

Two things to say about that. Firstly it would be a mostly false view. But leave that complication aside, what is notable about this is that restating the motive in that rational form looses the force of Von Mises argument, which really depends on the motive being an emotion. It depends on an ascribed irrationality to the socialist.

What we see from this is that the argument is itself a denigration rather than an argument of any substance. It involves the claim that there are a group of people who tend to undesirable political conclusions because they lack the capacity to make rational political calculations.

Mises' 'Von' is indeed telling !!

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So the Austrian dumps "rational human beings" out the door... :lol:

[Apollodorus]

Strictly speaking all such arguments are false, commiting a genetic fallacy. It is quite possible for someone to reach a good or desirable conclusion for a bad reason.


Quite right. But, putting aside the fact that it is not really an argument at all but rather a slur upon the character of the proponents, is the slur truthful?

I was a bit puzzled by what your point was comrade Richter. Were you trying to say that the purpose of socialism is a matter of justice rather than envy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Nope. The purpose of socialism is the distribution of compensation based on one's labour contribution (if I work more hours, I get more compensation).

[bobroberts]

So I guess slavery and exploitation are fine, because the ones being enslaved and exploited are just jealous? That doesn't make much sense to me.

[jake williams]

So I guess slavery and exploitation are fine, because the ones being enslaved and exploited are just jealous? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Are you replying to me? Because I was trying to point out that Mises is a fuckwit.

[bobroberts]

Are you replying to me? Because I was trying to point out that Mises is a fuckwit.

I was responding to the Mises quote, and I agree with you.

[mikelepore]

In addition to the excellent answers that others already gave here, may I add:

The envy hypothesis is attempt to distract attention away from the fact that capitalism causes many social problems. Even if I did have an emotional reaction to the fact that I'm not wealthy, that still wouldn't explain away the fact that capitalism is the major cause of war, genocide, political corruption, air and water pollution, the waste of natural resources, child abuse, poor quality educational and medical services, and just about any other social problem we can name.

Naturally, it would appear to the supporters of "pure" capitalism that the only possible consideration is who has more money. After all, their god is money.

[mikelepore]

Find any supporter of capitalism who cites that envy hypothesis, and, guaranteed, five minutes later they are complaining about having to pay taxes. So suddenly it's all right to raise a discussion of who is entitled to receive or keep wealth. Apparently it's all right when they do it. They just don't want the socialist to point attention to the fact that the source of the capitalist's profit is a deduction from the wages of the workers.

[Dimentio]

I was reading 'Criticisms of socialism' in Wikipedia and although most of the criticisms could be easily refuted, even by me, I struck upon one which has been nagging me ever since. It was a criticism raised by an Austrian economist known as Ludwig von Mises (with the aristocratic 'von', I noticed; typical): that socialism is based upon envy and jealousy, a sentiment he summed up as: "No one shall be idle if I have to work; no one shall be rich if I am poor."

This, combined with doubts over my favourite argument in favour of socialism (see Supply & Demand *hint hint*) has led to doubts over whether we really need socialism or communism. Could it be that it only really exists not for the greater good but because of the selfishness of those who have not prospered in the current economic system?

While *a few* socialists might be socialists for envious motives, most socialists are either socialists because they are impoverished (third world) or cares for those impoverished (first world) and want to have a more sane distribution of wealth within the company. Now I was talking about your every-day left-wing supporter, and not ideological socialists, who often are driven by deep, almost religious convictions, or by reason.

[Apollodorus]

^^^ Nope. The purpose of socialism is the distribution of compensation based on one's labour contribution (if I work more hours, I get more compensation).

Yeah, justice. :lol: (by that I mean fairness, not law and so forth)


In addition to the excellent answers that others already gave here, may I add:

The envy hypothesis is attempt to distract attention away from the fact that capitalism causes many social problems. Even if I did have an emotional reaction to the fact that I'm not wealthy, that still wouldn't explain away the fact that capitalism is the major cause of war, genocide, political corruption, air and water pollution, the waste of natural resources, child abuse, poor quality educational and medical services, and just about any other social problem we can name.

Naturally, it would appear to the supporters of "pure" capitalism that the only possible consideration is who has more money. After all, their god is money.

So, capitalism is driven by greed? (I am just paraphrasing your arguments so I remember them, you see.)


While *a few* socialists might be socialists for envious motives, most socialists are either socialists because they are impoverished (third world) or cares for those impoverished (first world) and want to have a more sane distribution of wealth within the company. Now I was talking about your every-day left-wing supporter, and not ideological socialists, who often are driven by deep, almost religious convictions, or by reason.

Will it fix poverty though?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You've got to differentiate between mere survivalism (which is natural) and greed (which is a culture thing).

[gilhyle]

There is a text within the 1844 manuscripts (Im just recalling it from memory) where Marx talks about crude conceptions of communism as ownership in common, without any understanding of the importance of wealth and the realisation of potential. What Marx says (if I recall correctly) is that such a conception of communism is really only a generalisation of the capitalist conception of ownership and property. Instead of the individual owning some property then all people own all things in common. The point is that, by way of one of those acts of conceptual gymnastics with which he rightly astonishes (Im full of envy !!), he then links property ownerhship to envy and therefore this primitive conception of communism to generalised envy......Im not doing his argument justice but its somewhere in there (possibly in Manuscrpt 3)