Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

Cato Online ^ | January, 1998 | Robert Nozick

[snarkpup]

Those who are the most confident that they know how to run other people's lives have the least understanding of the Tao.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

To a philosopher, the perfect man looks a whole lot like a philosopher.

Aptly put!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Because socialism is simple enough that it can be fully captured and explained with words. The spontaneous order of a capitalist system, on the other hand, is simply too complex to be fully knowable or explainable by any human mind, no matter how bright it is or how good with language it is. It's easier to expound eloquently on something you understand than something you don't. Thus word people prefer socialism. It fits their gift.

Socialists certainly do like to oversimplify problems in order to come up with "solutions." I had great shadenfreude when I found an old socialist book advocating planning boards; it strained at gnats and swallowed camels trying to defend the proposition that such an arrangement could do a good job of deciding whether to make steam or diesel locomotives.

That was of course a great oversimplification of the real problem, which was (at the risk of oversimplification) whether to make locomotives at all or hurl all available resources into computer technology. Let's see, Mr. Galbraith - should we make steam locomotives or Ipods? Hmm?

[yankeedame]

Because capitalism rewards productivity.

You, my friend, have hit the nail square on the head. Capitalism rewards productivity with one thing: money.

Money, in turn, makes not only more money through investment(s), but it also buys those things that raises one socio-economic status in society: better clothes, better houses in better neighborhoods, better cars, better schools, etc. etc.

IMHO intellectuals have their tap-root in 18th century aristocracy.

Nancy Mitford said it best in her book, "Madame de Pompadour":

"...To the aristocrats she [Pompadour] was the incarnation of the bourgeoisie...While they were getting steadily poorer and more obscure, the bourgeoisie was getting richer and more powerful. They hated it. And they hated her for belonging to it...

"...in his eyes she [Pompadour] incarnated the abominable bourgeoisie, the wrong people, with their deplorable ton, who were gradually accumulating money and power at the expense of the right people..."

The coming, development, and permanency of the Industrial Revolution only made this contempt stronger, if more subtle. Oh, the fashions change, the words change, the attitudes change, but scratch today's intellectual and you'll find an early 19th century aristocrat complete with his nose in the air and patches on his pants.

In short, capitalism is held in contempt b/c it is a system which encourages, nay, rewards! the common man, bourgeoisie, to forget his place.

[auboy]

Steam Ipods. Hot! ;-)

[Element187]

Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

Because they are communist pigs...


I enjoyed this article... basically says "WAAHHHH IM NOT THE BEST ANYMORE WAHHHHHHHHH"


thank god these idiots are not in control of government... but they do end up indoctrinating young students in believing in socialism.

[Element187]

Interesting to note that when communists take over a country, the first thing they do is kill off the "intellectuals".

so one could say intellectuals are suicidal

[thingumbob]

Question:

Why do Intellectuals Oppose Capitolism?

Answer:

Because none of them have the required social skills and the ability to creatively apply their knowledge in real world situations to any level above mailroom boss...therefore the ideology of....."Workers Unite" sounds like an easier way to take from the smart to give to the stupid......

[Element187]

You know this actually explains liberals in general... take those idiots who goto college for a masters in history, or a masters in liberal arts, or a master in film... and then when they get their flashy shiney degrees, they realize they just wasted a shitload of time and a shitload of money on a worthless peice of paper that will not net any money, unless they turn around and be a professor... so it crushes their dreams knowing all their hardwork didnt lead to nothing and so they resent the capitalist system, because after all, in a socialist society, they wouldnt have to compete in the job market.

[TChris]

I believe the author makes many good points and his theory is persuasive. If what he writes is true, it further underscores the importance of a solid home life and the strong influence of positive role models in his parents.

To put it another way, without the influence of parents who expect from and reward the child for those things that are important to success "in the world" -- work, responsibility, cooperation, respect, honesty, etc. -- the school will be the biggest factor in the child's world view and success.

A child needs two good parents in a stable home to learn how to succeed in life.

[Dumb_Ox]

I found this to be a lazy endeavor in armchair psychoanalysis.

From the beginnings of recorded thought, intellectuals have told us their activity is most valuable.

Of course, an ancient philosopher is not an intellectual in the modern sense. But Nozick doesn't care. Also, "valuable" in the philosophic sense never exactly correlated with economic value.

Those who valued other things more than thinking things through with words, whether hunting or power or uninterrupted sensual pleasure, did not bother to leave enduring written records.

I guess this guy hasn't heard of poetry or drama?

He's attacking one big straw man. Where are his quotations from these intellectuals "proving" their resentment? He's shadow-boxing.

Some readers may doubt this explanation of the anti-capitalism of intellectuals. Be this as it may, I think that an important phenomenon has been identified.

And by "identified" he means "pulled out of his ass." This makes me very glad I never got around to reading Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Nozick could have made a better case had he not made psychology his defining method. Michael Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics notes the market's irrational nature and how this doesn't jibe with the rationalistic impulses of the academy, but Oakeshott, as I recall, doesn't slip into sophomoric analysis of resentments that might not even exist.

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[Revolting cat!]

The other question would be, why do philistines hate intellectuals?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The other question would be, why do philistines hate intellectuals?

And the final question is "Why do homosexuals call straight people philistines?"

[Madame Dufarge]

Good analysis of the world's perpetual teacher's pets.

Paul Johnson wrote a wonderful book on the subject of our "betters."

Intellectuals by Paul Johnson

[longtermmemmory]

I think it is a very valid point.

Resentment and jelousy are very powerful EMOTIONAL flaws of the intelectuals.

It also shows leftist intelectuals are not so smart after all.

[Restorer]

Let me try to add a historical element to this discussion.

During the Middle Ages, the intellectuals were the clergy. They were the First Estate and the most influential and respected members of society.

During the Enlightment, a counter-intelligentsia grew, typified by Voltaire and the encyclopedists of France. They attacked the First and Second Estates (clergy and nobility) on behalf (?) of the Third Estate (everybody else). I believe they had it in the back of their minds that when they won, they would be the leaders of the society.

Well, they did win, in the French Revolution and subsequent events, and these damn businessmen came tearing in out of left field and stole the intellectuals rightful position as the most-rewarded members of society! No wonder they are p*ssed off! They've been anti-capitalist ever since.

[longtermmemmory]

I think it is the LEFT WING intelectuals who at issue here. The intelectuals who embrace the capitalist free society seem to do just fine.

IOW there is no market for the Lennin "litle shop-o-communism"

[muir_redwoods]

My in-laws were both high school French teachers. They used to rant, quite vociferously, about sports figures salaries. When Roger Clemens first contracted for $4MM/year my mother-in-law couldn't stand the fact that she made about $30K a year and all Clemens did was play a stupid game.

I lost a bit of familial ground when I asked her when was the last time 35,000 people spent a minimum of $20 each to watch her teach French?

[arthurus]

But you know, they're gonna get it right this time. All those other times, well, the right folks weren't in charge. They had the right ideas but they weren't intellectual enough, like wthey are this time. That is always how it is. That's how they dismiss Ukraine famines and Ethiopia famines and China famines and the necessity to shoot a lot of people. Famines and such just help reduce overlarge populations, anyway, and aren't really all that bad- sustainability and all that, you know.