Some concepts remain hidden until pointed out by others. Then, once spotted for the first time, they begin to appear everywhere. The Fourier complex is one such concept.
Mises defined the Fourier complex as the pathological desire to accept a less favored condition as long as someone else – the object of envy or resentment – is made to suffer to some degree. There is the obvious example: the desire of the ardent socialist to suffer the ravages of nature so long as the capitalist suffers as well. And then there are the oh-so-subtle examples. Consider this interaction I had with someone suffering from the complex.
While a group discussed the high winds we experienced from the remnants of Hurricane Ike, a woman noted the lack of emergency sirens in our area. She said, “We should have had sirens to warn folks of the winds.”
I replied, “The winds were obvious. Plus we had high winds for over five hours. The sirens would have driven us mad long before my first shingle took flight.”
She dug in, “We have to have sirens so that folks remain in their homes during high winds. People in my neighborhood were playing outside during the storm as if nothing was wrong.”
Aha! The Fourier complex.
So, there you have it. This woman would rather be driven mad by the wail of sirens than see her neighbors enjoy the high winds from the edge of a dying hurricane. Look around, you’ll find the Fourier complex everywhere.
{ 6 comments }
Fourier complex is a pathology and it is a socialistic viewpoint. Fourier was a pathological socialist.
Although most people who think like this are not pathological they are definitely indoctrinated to be socialists. Socialism has a perverted type of morality that causes numerous variations of this complex.
The perverted morality of socialism is a blend of ego-driven interventionism and ego-driven interpretation. Both of these leave the confines of personal belief and enter the realm of imposition and take on the form of ‘you should.’
The woman seems like a nice person! She was worried about the safety of her neighbours, and you seem unworried. Are you sure you’re not looking for conspiracies where non exist?
Jim is correct. The high winds are self-evident (in addition to the endless cable news coverage, how could one NOT be aware of them?).
I wonder if that woman would have still supported the sirens if, a neighbor, driven mad by the sirens, attacked her.
Perhaps we would then need a siren to warn of impending assaults?
Quote from nick:” She was worried about the safety of her neighbours, and you seem unworried.”
She can worry all she wants, but she also apparently has the opinion that her worries justify confining other people who are outside and paying for sirens to be blaring everytime the wind blows.
Hedrick Smith wrote about the complex in his book “The New Russians.” He wrote that the average Russian would rather die of starvation than see his neighbor go better than him. It’s part of human nature.
Fascinating blog. I wholeheartedly agree with Bruce, who boiled it all down to basics:
“Both of these leave the confines of personal belief and enter the realm of imposition and take on the form of ‘you should.’
Good enough to quote. The woman in the story knew the winds were self-evident. they were evident to her without the siren. But that was not enough: she desired to force her viewpoint on her neighbors that they “should” be indoors, or suffer something unpleasant.
How truly the distilled essence of socialism!
Comments on this entry are closed.