Moralizing inequality

I complained yesterday about the non-Marxist left's tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error - the habit of over-emphasizing individuals' traits and under-emphasizing situational forces. We saw another example of this habit at the weekend, when Crystal Palace fans reacted to Wayne Rooney's new £300,000 per week contract with chants of "you fat greedy bastard."

Sadly, Mr Rooney did not respond in the manner of one of his celebrated predecessors. But he should have, because the chant is wrong. Mr Rooney is not getting £300,000 a week because he is unusually greedy: in the improbable event of being offered such money, who among us would turn it down? He is getting it because he is unusually powerful - a power which is not entirely due merely to his exceptional skill.

Palace fans, then, are committing the fundamental attribution error - they are blaming Rooney's salary upon his personal character rather than upon his situation.

Although Palace fans are - with the odd exception - not famous for their powers of thought, this error is a common one: "greedy bankers" is a cliche, "overly powerful bankers", whilst true, is not.  

It is also a pernicious error. It functions to moralize inequality; the rich are rich because they are greedy whilst the poor are poor because they are lazy.

What this effaces is the fact that inequalities in capitalism* are instead the result of inequalities of power - a power which rests in part upon ideology. Moralizing inequality tends to blind us to this fact. It creates the illusion that capitalism would be acceptable if only those at the top were better people, when in fact the faults in capitalism are structural and not due to the flaws of passing individuals.

Granted, there might well be differences in character between rich and poor. But these might be not the cause of inequality, but the result of it. As someone once wrote:

The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they were perhaps, very much alike

Who said that? Adam Smith, that's who. Palace fans, and other moralizers about inequality aren't therefore merely anti-Marxist, but anti-Smithian as well.  

* I mean actually-existing capitalism, not the utopia that exists only in the minds of sillier libertarians.

Comments

[SIS]

People like to moralize in this way because it allows them to ignore how much systematic power issues influence their lives, either positively or negatively. In general, individuals don't want to be reminded of just how central the group is to their status or well-being, since it forces them to realize just how little they individually control directly.

[pablopatito]

You've missed one thing. Rooney supposedly wanted to leave for Chelsea because he didn't feel United were playing well enough, or winning enough, to match his ambitions. He wanted to leave for football reasons, not financial. Or so he said.

By staying at a club that aren't playing well, or showing much signs of being able to compete with Chelsea and Man City, you could argue he is putting money before silverware. So on those grounds, he is a fat, greedy bastard.

Many bankers (but obviously not all) may prefer to be teachers or politicians or priests, but choose the less satisfying and meaningful career for financial reasons. Is there not an element of greed in that decision? Is playing in the Europa League for £300k over playing in the Champions League for £250k not greed?

[Luke]

pablopatito

"By staying at a club that aren't playing well... you could argue he is putting money before silverware. So on those grounds, he is a fat, greedy bastard."

Maybe. But another interpretation is that he wanted to be satisfied that Manure/the Glazers are prepared to put their hands in their pockets to buy or retain other top players. So he insisted that they put their money where their mouths were to demonstrate that commitment. Now they're spending all that on him, it's wasted if they don't win something, so they might as well pay up to buy/keep others.

[Lewis]

All people are guilty of this - the left just think they are more open minded and of course they aren't, they just happen to favour the poor over the rich and the deprived over the privileged. So when they accuse the Tories of demonising the poor, they forget that they do exactly the same to bankers, Etonians and right-wingers

[Sean]

Who cares? I mean, really, who cares? There are far more important issues out there. poverty, invol. unemployment, access to health care, affordable housing, govt. waste, obesity, global warming, drugs, and homelessness, to name but 9. I just see ceo/footballer pay as, well, kind of, a non-issue really.

[Socialism In One Bedroom]

It becomes greed when said filthy rich bastard resists attempts to redistribute the wealth, e.g. threatening to move abroad when tax rates increase, employing accountants to defraud the state. If you are very well rewarded and still seek to avoid paying for care for the elderly and the disabled, among others, greedy bastard is one of the more resonable descriptions I can think of.

[Martin Connelly]

Great post, thanks

[chris]

@ Sean - I agree that footballers' pay isn't a big deal. But the issues you mention are strongly related to the fact that income inequalities are misattributed to morality rather than power. If the poor are considered lazy and the rich talented, there's less demand for redistribution. And the power of the rich is surely a contributor to social problems.

[Socialism In One Bedroom]

"If the poor are considered lazy and the rich talented, there's less demand for redistribution"

This is bordering on being a non sequitur, your belief that labelling someone greedy leads to the assumption that poor people are lazy. No such assumption can be made, other than by being ideologically driven.

But, of course the apologists for the system will always claim that the system is built on merit, that those at the top deserve their rewards and those at the bottom theirs. But the fact that Rooney earns in a week what others will never earn in their entire lifetime easily proves that what is going on has no rational basis in merit. No sane system of merit would ever result in these outcomes.

But when you have a system that results in these startling inequalities it breeds greed, envy, despair etc etc. These are real, concrete and material things, whether they are symptons or otherwise. This is where the 'Marxist' left go wrong.

Having said that, I have to say that I cannot detect any real Marxism on this site. Don't get me wrong you bring a unique perspective to many issues and certainly provide plenty of food for thought. So keep up the good work!

[Igor Belanov]

You're being incredibly naive if you think it was merely a matter of Man Utd making an offer that Rooney couldn't refuse. He and his agent have spent a great deal of time over past years threatening to leave the club. In the present circumstances, with Utd in their worst position for 20-odd years, the club's management clearly panicked and caved in. Given that there are at least 20 players better than Rooney in the PL, there is going to be an awful lot of wage inflation in this sector, while wages for many remain static. The root of the problem is that there is far too much money in football.

[Zlatan]

Something to note is that by signing a new contract Rooney's transfer value has now increased, as players with longer to run on their contract command a higher fee than those with little time left, due to the risk they could just wait and leave on a free. And not only that, but United now don't need to spend £[x]m on a replacement for Rooney, such as Mandzukic or Cavani, who would also command similar wages to what Rooney's now on.

[Igor Belanov]

They already have replacements for Rooney, they could have tried playing Kagawa and Hernandez more, and Januzaj is effectively an attacking player.
Where Man Utd are weak is in control of the midfield. They badly need to replace Carrick and Cleverley.

[djb]

they are blaming [the rich persons] salary upon his personal character rather than upon his situation.

yes personal character comes in when they use their wealth and "power" to prevent programs that would help the poor

(so they dont have to pay any more taxes)