5 ms·

Envy is deplorable and there are few to zero things that would justify it. It quite frankly is very strange to see it being somewhat justified or even outright

Envy is deplorable and there are few to zero things that would justify it. It quite frankly is very strange to see it being somewhat justified or even outright glorified by some here. I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies (but not necessarily ultra-hierarchies as I like to call them) are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity.

fit2rule 8y ago
The normalisation of envy as a means of social control is a key element in the socialist playbook. Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? So, just be aware that what we're seeing in this article is a pro-socialist/-communist stance, broadly dressed up in anthropological mythos in order to make a political point, which seems to be "envy is a moderator of inequality", whereas there is a big point missed: not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone.
- user5454 8y ago
  > not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone. This is a very 1st world sentiment. If you live on less than $1/day, you are not equalized even if you're too hungry to feel any envy.
- ddnb 8y ago
  > Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? I don't agree, you can ask for redistribution so the weakest in society are helped.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    What do you personally gain from having a stronger society of individuals who are no longer weak? No longer afflicted with pity?
    - hn0 8y ago
      It’s insurance against life events outside one’s control. Anyone can end up poor or disabled at any time.
    - ddnb 8y ago
      Safety. When people see no other way out they can do anything. Making sure everyone's basic needs are cared for makes it a safer and more stable society for everyone.
    - koopa184 8y ago
      "Personal gain" need not factor into things at all. Humans have some degree of natural altruism.
    - adventured 8y ago
      You're being downvoted but it's a good question, and there is a great answer. The more people can fully help themselves, the less I have to help them, the more of my production I get to keep. The increased standards of living of all people, increases the potential for all. More wealth in the economy, more capital that can be invested, more income, more potential jobs. Speaking simplistically, if my neighbor is doing better, now we can trade. Whereas perhaps he previously, in poverty, could not afford to trade with me. I just gained a new customer and perhaps he can fulfill a demand I have the other direction. The human mind in general is extraordinary when taken to its potential. Even people with median IQs are capable of tremendous productivity and contribution when they're unleashed. Violent crime in the US has declined dramatically at exactly the same time the US has dramatically expanded its welfare state. It's highly unlikely that's a coincidence (or solely to be chalked up to removing lead from the environment). People that are less desperate are going to be less violent, they will commit fewer crimes, it will produce a safer society. At the far end of the scale, I dramatically benefit from there being more Einsteins, not less. I benefit from more Edisons and Teslas, not less. A stronger society ensures that less Teslas die in childhood, and reach their full potential rather than otherwise languishing. How many great inventors were lost in Mao's genocides and famines? Or otherwise languished in 40 years of extreme, forced poverty with minimal education and sustenance? Plausibly a lot. The higher the income of the bottom ~2/3, the less welfare they require, the lower taxes can be, and the more they can net contribute to society. The lower taxes are, the more capital becomes available in the private sector to save and invest. As an example, if you considerably move up the incomes of the people in the 30% directly below the median (not the bottom 20%), then they require less of the tax revenue to go to them for social welfare purposes, and they can become greater net contributors to helping the 20% at the very bottom (whether through paying taxes or charity). At national levels, this has enabled for example the dramatic reduction in aid that needs to go to a country like China or South Korea, as they've climbed out of poverty and into greater prosperity. That aid can now go to the other remaining poor nations, and those countries like China & South Korea can become considerable net contributors to global aid. The whole process dramatically accelerates in a virtuous cycle. The exact same concept applies within a country as well, when it comes to lifting people out of poverty such that less aid needs to go to them and that those people can become net contributors.
- annabellish 8y ago
  I'm not sure your comment is an accurate description of any form of socialism I'm aware of. What forms of socialism are based around "asking the state to enforce redistribution"? What does that have to do with social ownership of the means of production??
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    "Socially owning the means of production" requires a state to enforce, with threat of force, the ownership of those resources of production..
    - loonyballoonys 8y ago
      How is that different then when the state, with the threat of force, enforces private property claims? I think you are confused about what owning the means of production means. Since lots of people have different opinions on what socialism actually is I can only offer my opinion. Here is a good real world example where the workers are democratically involved where they work: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
    - annabellish 8y ago
      That's definitely an opinion which a lot of people would disagree with.
- hn0 8y ago
  So it’s a propaganda piece? I read it as an evolutionary biology/psychology explaination for much of human political sentiment. It’s well established that hunter gatherer tribes (the predominant mode during most of human evolution) are very egalitarian.
  - andromedaworld 8y ago
    > So it’s a propaganda piece? Science and studies can be utilized to skew towards a specific and deliberate narrative. Somewhat tangentially, this is why science and conservatism have always had a tumultuous relationship. Most scientists are curious by their very nature whereas conservatism requires that status quo be observed and if questions must be asked then it has to be, as Burke alluded to, in small digestible portions. Revolutions are typically uncalled for and most of the time things tend to degenerate into worse conditions than what was being fought against initially. Case in point, a country that is on my continent - Libya. Things are worse now than under the revolutionarily deposed Muammar.
user5454 8y ago
> I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies [...] are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity. Better in what way? The Ju/’hoansi have lived in this egalitarian society for some 200k yrs[1]. It has obviously served them quite well. [1] Original article
- andromedaworld 8y ago
  > Better in what way? Better in the way that western civilization (with America leading the way) has been built on hierarchies. People in the States don't even realize how good they have it there because of this fact alone. Many egalitarian models have been attempted elsewhere and failed terribly only leading to mass deaths or eating out of the garbage can as is the case in Venezuela. Majority of the attempts at egalitarianism (if not all) are dehumanizing at best and murderous at worst. A lot of people would want to come to America - myself included - but I've come to detest the perils of illegal immigration as is the case in my country where we have our own version of the same problem being faced by America with illegal aliens pouring in in droves. Luckily we have strong borders and Americans should also be thankful for a president that cares about these issues and is willing to take the heat for it.
  - pyjammas 8y ago
    What makes you think the problems of immigration are not just Trumped up (heh) to distract from the much bigger problem that is the very hierarchy and filthy-rich class (that your president represents) of people that has steadily been fucking over the lower- and middle class, and reduced much of your country to a pretty shit place for the latter compared to more socialism-inspired countries? Scapegoating is an age-old tactic used by the powerful and there's tons of evidence that inequality on the level seen in the US is not a good thing. On the other hand, the evidence that immigration is terrible and that stronger elements of socialism (at least Europe-style) don't work is quite lacking. I'm not saying we should go for full on state socialism USSR-style, but there's a lot in between.
    - stevenicr 8y ago
vixen99 8y ago
Sure though it's not a question of picking. Nature doles out competence in unequal measure; thus hierarchies are inevitable. As we observe, in the aftermath of revolutions they rapidly reconstitute. Fortunately hierarchies of competence also compete. Since competence is not the same as human value, optimists trust that decent ideals prevail.
- hn0 8y ago
  I’m not even sure competence is the right term here. People have different inate characters which will trust them into different positions. There’s also plenty of incompetence by a good portion of those at the top of hierarchies. Those usually do not get replaced because of network effects, parasitism, coercion, etc.

fit2rule 8y ago

The normalisation of envy as a means of social control is a key element in the socialist playbook. Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? So, just be aware that what we're seeing in this article is a pro-socialist/-communist stance, broadly dressed up in anthropological mythos in order to make a political point, which seems to be "envy is a moderator of inequality", whereas there is a big point missed: not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone.

user5454 8y ago
> not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone. This is a very 1st world sentiment. If you live on less than $1/day, you are not equalized even if you're too hungry to feel any envy.
ddnb 8y ago
> Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? I don't agree, you can ask for redistribution so the weakest in society are helped.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  What do you personally gain from having a stronger society of individuals who are no longer weak? No longer afflicted with pity?
  - hn0 8y ago
    It’s insurance against life events outside one’s control. Anyone can end up poor or disabled at any time.
  - ddnb 8y ago
    Safety. When people see no other way out they can do anything. Making sure everyone's basic needs are cared for makes it a safer and more stable society for everyone.
  - koopa184 8y ago
    "Personal gain" need not factor into things at all. Humans have some degree of natural altruism.
  - adventured 8y ago
    You're being downvoted but it's a good question, and there is a great answer. The more people can fully help themselves, the less I have to help them, the more of my production I get to keep. The increased standards of living of all people, increases the potential for all. More wealth in the economy, more capital that can be invested, more income, more potential jobs. Speaking simplistically, if my neighbor is doing better, now we can trade. Whereas perhaps he previously, in poverty, could not afford to trade with me. I just gained a new customer and perhaps he can fulfill a demand I have the other direction. The human mind in general is extraordinary when taken to its potential. Even people with median IQs are capable of tremendous productivity and contribution when they're unleashed. Violent crime in the US has declined dramatically at exactly the same time the US has dramatically expanded its welfare state. It's highly unlikely that's a coincidence (or solely to be chalked up to removing lead from the environment). People that are less desperate are going to be less violent, they will commit fewer crimes, it will produce a safer society. At the far end of the scale, I dramatically benefit from there being more Einsteins, not less. I benefit from more Edisons and Teslas, not less. A stronger society ensures that less Teslas die in childhood, and reach their full potential rather than otherwise languishing. How many great inventors were lost in Mao's genocides and famines? Or otherwise languished in 40 years of extreme, forced poverty with minimal education and sustenance? Plausibly a lot. The higher the income of the bottom ~2/3, the less welfare they require, the lower taxes can be, and the more they can net contribute to society. The lower taxes are, the more capital becomes available in the private sector to save and invest. As an example, if you considerably move up the incomes of the people in the 30% directly below the median (not the bottom 20%), then they require less of the tax revenue to go to them for social welfare purposes, and they can become greater net contributors to helping the 20% at the very bottom (whether through paying taxes or charity). At national levels, this has enabled for example the dramatic reduction in aid that needs to go to a country like China or South Korea, as they've climbed out of poverty and into greater prosperity. That aid can now go to the other remaining poor nations, and those countries like China & South Korea can become considerable net contributors to global aid. The whole process dramatically accelerates in a virtuous cycle. The exact same concept applies within a country as well, when it comes to lifting people out of poverty such that less aid needs to go to them and that those people can become net contributors.
annabellish 8y ago
I'm not sure your comment is an accurate description of any form of socialism I'm aware of. What forms of socialism are based around "asking the state to enforce redistribution"? What does that have to do with social ownership of the means of production??
- fit2rule 8y ago
  "Socially owning the means of production" requires a state to enforce, with threat of force, the ownership of those resources of production..
  - loonyballoonys 8y ago
    How is that different then when the state, with the threat of force, enforces private property claims? I think you are confused about what owning the means of production means. Since lots of people have different opinions on what socialism actually is I can only offer my opinion. Here is a good real world example where the workers are democratically involved where they work: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
  - annabellish 8y ago
    That's definitely an opinion which a lot of people would disagree with.
hn0 8y ago
So it’s a propaganda piece? I read it as an evolutionary biology/psychology explaination for much of human political sentiment. It’s well established that hunter gatherer tribes (the predominant mode during most of human evolution) are very egalitarian.
- andromedaworld 8y ago
  > So it’s a propaganda piece? Science and studies can be utilized to skew towards a specific and deliberate narrative. Somewhat tangentially, this is why science and conservatism have always had a tumultuous relationship. Most scientists are curious by their very nature whereas conservatism requires that status quo be observed and if questions must be asked then it has to be, as Burke alluded to, in small digestible portions. Revolutions are typically uncalled for and most of the time things tend to degenerate into worse conditions than what was being fought against initially. Case in point, a country that is on my continent - Libya. Things are worse now than under the revolutionarily deposed Muammar.

user5454 8y ago

> I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies [...] are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity. Better in what way? The Ju/’hoansi have lived in this egalitarian society for some 200k yrs[1]. It has obviously served them quite well. [1] Original article

andromedaworld 8y ago
> Better in what way? Better in the way that western civilization (with America leading the way) has been built on hierarchies. People in the States don't even realize how good they have it there because of this fact alone. Many egalitarian models have been attempted elsewhere and failed terribly only leading to mass deaths or eating out of the garbage can as is the case in Venezuela. Majority of the attempts at egalitarianism (if not all) are dehumanizing at best and murderous at worst. A lot of people would want to come to America - myself included - but I've come to detest the perils of illegal immigration as is the case in my country where we have our own version of the same problem being faced by America with illegal aliens pouring in in droves. Luckily we have strong borders and Americans should also be thankful for a president that cares about these issues and is willing to take the heat for it.
- pyjammas 8y ago
  What makes you think the problems of immigration are not just Trumped up (heh) to distract from the much bigger problem that is the very hierarchy and filthy-rich class (that your president represents) of people that has steadily been fucking over the lower- and middle class, and reduced much of your country to a pretty shit place for the latter compared to more socialism-inspired countries? Scapegoating is an age-old tactic used by the powerful and there's tons of evidence that inequality on the level seen in the US is not a good thing. On the other hand, the evidence that immigration is terrible and that stronger elements of socialism (at least Europe-style) don't work is quite lacking. I'm not saying we should go for full on state socialism USSR-style, but there's a lot in between.
  - stevenicr 8y ago

vixen99 8y ago

Sure though it's not a question of picking. Nature doles out competence in unequal measure; thus hierarchies are inevitable. As we observe, in the aftermath of revolutions they rapidly reconstitute. Fortunately hierarchies of competence also compete. Since competence is not the same as human value, optimists trust that decent ideals prevail.

hn0 8y ago
I’m not even sure competence is the right term here. People have different inate characters which will trust them into different positions. There’s also plenty of incompetence by a good portion of those at the top of hierarchies. Those usually do not get replaced because of network effects, parasitism, coercion, etc.