Posted on 08/18/2007 3:43:19 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
As my wife will attest, I often suffer from futterneid. This is the term Germans use to describe the envy we feel when, for example, someone orders a better meal than ours. I’m also prone to schadenfreude, the tendency to take pleasure in the misfortune of others. So if I get the braised short ribs and you get stuck with the snail tartare, your futterneid will fuel my schadenfreude.
Perhaps it’s no coincidence the Germans have so many words for the chillingly petty emotions that run like cold streams through the human heart. Poor, dark, and divided, Germany was an ideal location to harbor resentment against one’s neighbor, be he a slightly more prosperous farmer, a Jew, a Catholic, or even a nation. Latecomers to unification, industrialization and empire, Germany’s 20th-century thirst for war and conquest might be blamed less on high-fallutin’ philosophical theories or Romantic poetry and more on plain old envy. The Germans craved their “moment in the sun” and they were going to have it, no matter what.
Don’t worry, this isn’t a column about Germany. Rather, it’s about envy, which Thomas Aquinas defined as sadness for the good of others. We almost never discuss envy anymore. “One may admit to pride, avarice, lust, anger, gluttony, and laziness, and one may even boast of them,” Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora wrote 20 years ago in Egalitarian Envy. “There is only one capital sin no one admits to: envy. ... Its symbol ought to be a mask.” This is a shame; the most pathetic of the seven deadly sins is perhaps the most consequential.
Indeed, just look again on the 20th century. Envy turned Germany cruel. In Russia, the ideology of envy — socialism — likewise ran amok under the label Bolshevism and threatened to overrun the world. The consequences of envy run even deeper. It will never be known how many millennia man endured in misery and darkness under the moldering blanket of envy. Helmut Schoeck writes in his timeless masterpiece, Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, that whole societies, hobbled by envy, rejected innovation, and prosperity, preferring the arrested development of all to the advancement of the few.
In primitive societies, “No one dares to show anything that might lead people to think he was better off,” Schoeck observed. “Innovations are unlikely. Agricultural methods remain traditional and primitive, to the detriment of the whole village, because every deviation from previous practice comes up against the limitations set by envy.”
Bigotry has many wellsprings, but it always draws on the groundwater of envy. “How can that (choose your slur) have two horses when I only have one?” the envious man asks. Hence August Bebel’s famous description of anti-Semitism as the “socialism of fools.”
In America, we have our own politics of fools. John Edwards leads an all-star cast of liberal politicians and intellectuals (Edwards is decidedly not the latter) who worship at the altar of Invidia, praying that she will exact penance from the undeserving half of our “two Americas.”
Like the “scientific socialism” that concealed envy behind a slide rule, today’s liberals invoke social science as justification for their covetousness. In one famous study, a majority of people said they would rather make $50,000 if others earned $25,000 than earn $100,000 if others were making $200,000.
Such studies are deeply flawed. For starters, as Arthur Brooks notes in the current edition of City Journal, they don’t address the question of whether people would be happier in a world of total equality. Rather, they ask whether people would be happier in a world of inequality so long as they could be richer than everybody else.
More damning, however, is that these studies turn a vice into a virtue. With the exception of the self-esteem movement, which glorifies pride, it’s difficult to imagine another area where we so shamelessly tout a sin as the basis of public policy. All men lust in their hearts; shall we dole out concubines for those of us who can’t live like Hugh Hefner? Envy has its social utility, of course. Schoeck argues, along with Nietzsche, that envy helped hone our sense of justice. Fine. But America is supposed to be different, in part because unlike, say, Germany or Russia, America had no feudal past and hence lacked the historic breeding swamps of envy. America’s egalitarianism is supposed to be political and nothing more: No man is the involuntary servant of another. Beyond that, he is the captain of his self.
The man who orders a better meal than me has done no harm to me. And it is no man’s (or bureaucrat’s) job but my own to cool the fever of my futterneid.
Hence August Bebel’s famous description of anti-Semitism as the “socialism of fools.”I don't find this description all that great. It implies that there is a "socialism of the wise", when there isn't.
I'm not sure how I'd characterize anti-Semitism -- beyond simply racism and hatred -- but I'm sure how I characterize all socialism: the ideology of fools.
Envy - one of the Seven Deadily Sins
I agree. Jonah should have caught that.
Having seen their shining city on the hill, the Soviet Union, fail so miserably they need something to unite their fellow idiots. The Left has absolutely nothing positive to offer so what better way to unite stupid people than with one of the oldest and most powerful prejudices on the face of the earth? It's the natural culmination of a failed and destructive philosophy and economics.
Jonah wrote:
The consequences of envy run even deeper. It will never be known how many millennia man endured in misery and darkness under the moldering blanket of envy. Helmut Schoeck writes in his timeless masterpiece, "Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior," that whole societies, hobbled by envy, rejected innovation and prosperity, preferring the arrested development of all to the advancement of the few. --"
We discuss socialism every day here on FR, -- with socialists who insist that our various levels of gov't can 'arrest the development of all to the advancement of "the goals" a supposed 'majority'.
I've never been a fan of Jonah Goldberg, -- but I have to admit he makes a great point in this essay.
I actually think this is one of his weaker articles. In fact, I would say his 3 weakest articles are all packed into to his last 5 releases. Maybe there’s something going on in his life...
Nothing against Agust Bebel, and of course the Left is anti-Semitic, even the stupid, stupid, utterly stupid and moronic American Jews who vote for the Treason Party.
I just was taking issue with the phrase “socialism of fools”, when, in fact, all socialism is utterly and completely foolish (for those who believe it will actually help people) and evil (for those who use it to become dictators).
There is no other socialism than the “socialism of fools”. That was my only point.
While I agree with your basic position, I would ask you this: What race are Jews?
Tribal, perhaps, ethnic, yes, but racial, no.
Often in this time of the world, “race” implies an ethnic group. Races are distinctive and it is important we understand that there are three major races of human kind.
Jews may be any of the three.
Regards,
AR
Good point. I typed “race” without thinking. Thanks for the correction.
Or maybe the majority just understood economics and monetary theory better.
Assuming the total amount of goods and services is the same in both worlds, a person IS better off if he is making twice as much as everyone else (he makes $50,000 and everyone else makes $25,000) than if he makes half as much as everyone else (he makes $100,000 and everyone else makes $200,000). In the world in which everyone makes $200,000, prices for goods and services will be much higher than the world in which everyone makes $25,000. While real purchasing power is the same in both worlds, nominal prices will be much higher in the world where everyone makes $200,000, so that $100,000 won't go as far in that world as $50,000 does in the other world.
May I add that one of the reasons we have so much financial turmoil is because folks are acting on their “covertness” - living way beyond their means. It’s really not the subprime mortgage market (14%) only 2% of the subprime are in trouble. The REAL problem is the ADDICTION to CREDIT cards and maxing out.
The descendents of the Commie Left has much deteriorated since the its intellectual heyday. While such a deterioration is understandable because of Marxism being completely against human nature — at least in those days they weren’t the inarticulate, elderly New Left savages they are today.
You are making the unjustified assumption that the lower-income world has the same total amount of goods and services available as the higher income world.
I think the basic study, as understood by the participants, was not with regard to number of dollars, it was with regard to the standard of living.
“Would you rather live at a 2X standard of living if everybody else lived at a 1X standard, or at a 4X standard if others lived at an 8X standard?”
The dollars are just a different way of saying X.
The descendents of the Commie Left has much deteriorated since the its intellectual heyday.Socialism could almost be excused back in the early days of the 20th century, when it was just a promise, and hadn't really been applied, at least not in its truly modern, Marxist form.
But as the century wore on, the idea of socialism as something good wore down until today the only people pushing socialism are either utter imbeciles or those who imagine themselves at the top of the dictatorship.
Unfortunately we have a lot of imbeciles and a lot of wannabe dictators in our own country.
I must confess to an occasional bout of schadenfreuden. smirk*
Wrong. His example was stated in terms of dollar income.
The example did NOT claim that universe A had 8 times less goods and services produced in aggregate than universe B.
Perhaps he misdescribed it, and in reality the example in the study was limited in that the people against whom one compared oneself was just a small circle of acquaintances, and not all “others.” That kind of a study would actually support the point Jonah was making.
Bump for later...
"2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics "
This well defines Muslims.
I wonder if this can't be put under the sin of pride. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, greed makes people want more, pride makes them want more than others.
I agree that there is inadequate detail as to the study’s fine points.
But a study in the terms you describe would be quite meaningless.
The terms I describe mean something.
Would you rather have twice as much as others (situation A), or twice as much as in situation A, but with that amount being half as much as others have.
I believe the study is correct that most would prefer the second option. I’m not one of those people, but the “resolution of rising expectations” really does exist.
25 years ago I had a client who was bemoaning her financial troubles, which would require her to cut her annual trip to Europe from three months to one.
In her eyes this was a true hardship.
Once you get significantly above the subsistence level, which essentially all Americans are, I suspect most people view their financial condition in relative rather than absolute terms.
I’m not sure whether it defines Muslims, as such, as that it defines people in relatively primitive circumstances, which includes most Muslims.
I’ve read several books recently by Tony Hillerman, and the exact same dynamic is found among the Navajo. Anybody who does well financially is looked down upon, on the theory that he should instead have shared his wealth with his (extended) family. Tony seems to approve of this point of view, and never seems to recognize that if this is implemented there will in the long run be a great deal less to share out.
In Navajo, and Muslim, and in most “primitive” societies, the total amount of wealth is a lot less important than the distribution of what there is. Which liberals are trying to get us back into with their whole “income inequality” meme.
Another interesting fact about “modern” societies is the disconnect between political power and wealth. In most primitive societies there is a direct connect between wealth and power. As a matter of fact, the only really effective way to gain wealth is through political power.
The peasants don’t seem to resent the wealth of the king nearly as much as that of the merchant.
Ethicity, to the extent it has any meaning, would be a subset of a particular race.
You just cannot say that Jews are of a particular ethnic group or tribe, but of all races. That would be an oxymoron.
I agree that the left is intellectually vacant today - but as far as I am concerned it has always been so. Try mucking through some of Lenin’s books. The constant circular logic is simply painful.
and the three groups are caucasion, mongol and ???? negro??
I thot that too — it defines Muslims. They’d prefer to destroy the thing they envy than to emulate it. This is how jealousy works on an individual level, tho, too.
I actually consider not only that is "liberalism" Newspeak for socialism, but that "socialism" is a euphemism for governmentism, that is, for tyranny.If you notice, whenever the leftist says "society" he means nothing other than government. Hence, "social"ism is really governmentism. Which is a synonym for tyranny.
I am continuously struck by how clear it is that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore Rooseveltnails not only socialists who criticize capitalists but will not touch the risks that capitalists undertake, but also the journalists who promote themselves by criticizing executives who work to a bottom line, and who give positive labels such as "progressive" or "liberal" to the socialists who do likewise. Until such time as they happen to get jobs as journalists, of course - then the same person (George Stephanopolis, poster boy) with the same political attitudes magically becomes "objective."
Book of Job says:
“the human heart is corrupt;who can understand it?”
Accurate, today, and throughout history in practice.
However, up to the Bolshevik Revolution most if not all socialists believed that socialism would result in less government, not more.
To the point that the Bolshies were surprised when they found that harsh government controls were required if the free market was not to re-emerge spontaneously. They then proceeded to develop the whole "planned economy" model over the next decade or so, but as an ad hoc improvisation, since prior to the Revolution very little thought had been given by the theoreticians of socialism to the persnickety details of how society would actually function.
But where did the identification of "society" with "government" come from? Without that sleight-of-hand, the term "socialism" makes no sense at all as a term for what leftists were promoting. Again, if there is no difference between "society" and "government," then freedom is excluded. The identification of "society" with "government" could only have been a propaganda coup. I am unwilling to give any sort of pass to the people who ginned that propaganda up - they had to know what they were doing.In promoting governmentized medicine, Michael Moore and Hillary are typical of the moonbats. They prattle constantly about "quality health care." But the reality is that if "everyone is entitled to 'quality' health care then no one has a right to excellent health care. The reality is that governmentized medicine is cheap medicine.
The reality is that throughout history people have (perfectly literally) been dying, not for "quality" health care but for SUPERB health care. Accordingly "the blessings of liberty" secured to us by the Constitution have included geometrically improving health care. In my lifetime medicine has gone from simple X-ray imaging as state of the art, to CAT scans, MRIs, PET scans, and so forth. Surgery has gone from cutting people half in two to remove a diseased kidney to minimally invasive procedures allowing patients to be discharged in relatively good shape the day after having an organ removed. And most of the medicines now in use were developed in my lifetime.
We do not now know, can scarcely conceive, of the medicine our grandchildren might live to experience. Provided that America, at least, continues to nurture its medical entrepreneurs. Because most of the world sees our medical expenses, and recoils from sharing the burden of paying for all that innovation. And if we join them in suppressing the practical efforts of our people to produce superb health care, our grandchildren will not look back on our health care with pity. They will look back at it with envy. And that would mark an unfathomable betrayal.
Accurate, today, and throughout history in practice.
However, up to the Bolshevik Revolution most if not all socialists believed that socialism would result in less government, not more.
Socialism is predicated on the theory that a moral majority can issue decrees-'laws'-prohibitions, -- based on long term, social and cultural harms .
Such socialistic theories are a political disease.
Some “reformed” anthropologists consider American Indians (indigenous peoples) as a separate race.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the record is quite clear. Socialists in Europe had given very little thought about what would be required to run an economy after the revolution. They more or less assumed that their egalitarian utopia would emerge spontaneously once the existing oppressive order was removed by the Rev.
The “planned economy” was an ad hoc improvisation once events demonstrated that all their assumptions were in error.
As I’m sure you know, true socialist theory assumes that government will “fade away” eventually. Massive governmental control was never part of their initial plan. Naive, no doubt, but those are the facts.
I absolutely agree with you about the health care issue. We could provide 1980-style health care to everyone for quite a reasonable price. Which, on a global or historical scale, is pretty darn good medicine.
What we will NEVER be able to do is provide true state of the art health care to everybody at anything remotely resembling a reasonable price, whether that price is paid by employers, patients or taxpayers.
Medical innovations will inevitably increase the cost of state of the art medicine much faster than the general expansion of productivity or GDP, IOW our ability to pay for it. This will result in rationing of medical access, whether formally or informally.
This is the traditional division. It has no particularly logical basis in biology or genetics. There are so many ethnic groups that are obviously intermediate or that just stand outside the three-fold division that it loses most of its meaning.
The division into three races rather than some other number was probably based originally on the Biblical story of Noah's three sons.
Medical innovations will inevitably increase the cost of state of the art medicine much faster than the general expansion of productivity or GDP, IOW our ability to pay for it. This will result in rationing of medical access, whether formally or informally.
That strikes me as a Malthusian argument. It is perfectly true that it is possible for the government to spend so much on medical care research that it damages the economy and in the long run actually impedes health care development. Our politicians are capable of all manner of folly, when spending someone else's money. But the real issue, it seems to me, is that our choice is between equality and excellence. If you opt for equality, you prevent Bill Gates from buying better health care for himself than you can get for free if you are indigent. That will strike all too many as a good thing - why should Bill's mother live, while my mother dies of the same illness?But if you turn the telescope around and ask, "How will that decision affect my grandchildren?" then IMHO the trade-off looks entirely different. For if you eliminate excellence, you assure that (medium) quality will stagnate. If OTOH there are billions to be made keeping Bill Gates' mother alive, medical entrepreneurs will learn by doing and become able to profitably treat the merely rich, not simply those on the Fortune 100. And if there are billions to be made keeping the rich alive, then medical entrepreneurs will learn by doing and become able to profitably treat the middle class - and by the time your grandchildren are your age, medical entrepreneurs will be able to profitably treat the poor for the same malady.
Sound far fetched? Not when you consider that for all her fabulous wealth and prestige, an American secretary today would not want to swap for Queen Victoria's (1819-1901) circumstances, not least because the health care available to Victoria's family was so much worse than today's standard. Victoria herself lived a long enough life, as those things go - but she was depressed for the last 20 years of it because of the death of her beloved husband at about age 60. And he died of a disease that almost never kills Americans any more.
Will people classify cancer and Alzheimer's Disease that way in a generation or two? IMHO that depends on whether America retains its dedication to "the blessings of liberty" or settles for the siren song of government-enforced "medium" quality. In health care, mediocrity kills.
Quality Health CareTM is only too likely to kill our grandchildren.
My point is that it is ludicrous to suppose, under any health care system, that Bill Gates or GWB will receive the same health care as the homeless guy who staggers into the emergency room. Yet that is what is theoretically being proposed by Michael Moore and his ilk. It doesn’t happen now in socialized medicine countries. The CEO of a major French or Canadian corporation doesn’t wait in line for treatment with hoi polloi.
We could provide, at quite reasonable cost to the taxpayers, pretty darn good health care to all. Whether this is desirable is another question.
The primary obstacle to doing so is the insistence that all must receive equal care. Which will never happen under any scenario.
I disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.