WHY DO INTELLECTUALS OPPOSE CAPITALISM ?

Cato Online ^ | January/February 1998 | Robert Nozick

[Cosmo]

I'm in the midst of writing a paper on G.A. Cohen and John Rawls and came across this. Amusing to say the least, and poignant as Nozick always was.

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

What sounds sexy in theory is not always what really works on the basis of the reality of human nature. Intellectuals rely on seducing themselves by words and thoughts, not action.

[TonyS6]

Cave dwellers were highly competitive in order to survive. Some conclude that the achievement of a utopian society is one where there is no hunger, poverty, disease or crime. These people falsly conclude that the failure to achieve utopia is because of competition - that is, we still behave like cave dwellers.

We are a great nation BECAUSE of competition. Moving away from competition will result in a dismal society.

[Notwithstanding]

Didn't read it, but the answer is simple: supply and demand can be understood by uneducated people without any explanation from an "intellectual".

[Liberal Classic]

The short answer is they think they're so smart that they know what's better for us than we do.

[balrog666]

Why do people opposed to Capitalism think they're "Intellectuals"?

[Tacis]

I think Nozick missed one key point. It is extremely circular but is valid, just the same. Some stupid, lazy elitist slobs want to be perceived as intellectuals and believe that bad-mouthing capitalism will aid that perception.

Same holds with bad-mouthing Bush, Republicans or business. "I don't understand a thing he says but, since he opposes capitalism/Bush/Kyoto/IMF/Republicans, it must be because he is sooo intellectual!" THat's what they learn at their state university and, the unwashed [but easy] coeds they pick up enforce the perception.

[grimalkin]

A high IQ and common sense aren't necessarily found in the same place at the same time.

[Lil'freeper]

WHY DO INTELLECTUALS OPPOSE CAPITALISM ?

I'll give it a go. It is out of self-preservation. Capitalism rewards those who provide goods and/or services that others value. Intellectuals offer neither.

[lepton]

It is surprising that intellectuals oppose capitalism so.

Because by its very nature, capitalism is not precisely knowable, and does not lend itself to detailed control.

[Nataku X]

I think it has more to do with the mindset of a student entering college. Students who choose "employable" majors such as nursing, engineering, etc. are more likely to be conservative by nature.

Students (mostly female) who choose majors because these majors are "interesting" are more likely to be out of touch with reality, and therefore have an anti-capitalism mindset. There is not a whole lot of demand for philosophy, history, journalism, art, et cetera, and it's completely unrealistic to spend $100,000 majoring in such... so these students wind up hating capitalism that denies them a living babbling & writing nonsense.

[Alberta's Child]

WHY DO INTELLECTUALS OPPOSE CAPITALISM?

That's an easy one. Intellectuals oppose capitalism because they can't come to grips with the fact that capitallism is often capricious and unpredictable by its very nature. Notice how much effort has been made by "big-government" liberals to make human life more predictable by eliminating risk through regulation, social-insurance schemes that require a single "pool" of participants, etc.

[Alberta's Child]

LOL. See #12 -- You beat me to it!

[Cacique]

ping

[cyberaxe]

.....Ditto # 9, # 10 and # 12.....

.....plus.....

.....most "INTELLECTUALS" are dumb arses.....

[philetus]

Because most of them consider themselves elite, smarter than the masses, and the saviors of mankind,

[HenryLeeII]

I think a more fundamental question would be "Why are intellectuals so stupid?"

[The_Reader_David]

I think the explanation is simple. People tend to think of their own profession as "normal", then project the conditions, qualities, and virtues of their circumstances on others and other circumstances.

Commerce, academe, the press, the Church, the government all have their own natural internal dyanamic. For commerce, capitalism or more generally some form of free enterprise (syndicalism with worker-ownership of freely trading private enterprises is a competing model of free enterprise, though it has drawbacks in terms of capital formation) is the natural dynamic. In academics, where knowledge and inquiry are the "bottom line," a different dynamic-- peer-review, tenure as a guarantee of free inquiry by those who have made some degree of attainment in their field, fiduciary handling of temporalities--is the norm. The natural dynamic of government seems to be bureacratic (our democratic republic, the Soviet totalitarian state, the Roman Empire, the classical Confucian states in China and Korea, all evolved in this direction). The press seems to have a dynamic dicated by the poles of serving knowledge and operating in the market, though for some reason the writers seem to wish they were in academe. I will not try to explain the internal dynamic of the Church (by which I mean the Orthodox Church), but suffice to say it is different from that governing government, commerce, academe or the press.

No end of mischief is wrought by those who think the natural condition of their own endeavour should be universalized. Whether it is leftist professors who want job-security for all workers, and a benificient state to handle all temporalities as their adminstration handles those of their university, who would thereby destroy commerce and bloat and distort government, or rightist businessmen who think that universities and government agenies should be run like commercial corporations with the balance-sheet as the only data considered, who would thereby destroy the universities and rob government of its purpose of responding to those social needs not readily met by commerce.

I personally want to conserve all the social structures our forefathers have bequethed to us: the commercial corporation, the university, limited goverment, the Church (and the Latins, Copts, Anglican, Lutherans,. . . can have their hierarchies and organizations with their internal dynamics conserved as well), the free press, . . . and regard as a bad conservative anyone who wants to change any one of these into the likeness of another. (Those on the right in America do have a galling tendancy to want to make everything into commerce.)

[TalBlack]

The writer asks a valid question but he (no pun) overintellectualizes in his answer. The answer is hinted at all through the article but never hit upon, to wit: Intellectuals are at the center of their universe LITERALLY. They scoff at the idea of a Spritual God who created the universe and stands astride time itself. THEY are the source of all wisdom as far as they are concerned. This is why, no matter how badly their ideas fail, they never have to rethink them because THEY are good and therefore their ideas are correct. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions.) It doesn't matter if the failure even results in the deaths of hundreds, thousands or millions THEY ARE NEVER WRONG THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT CORRECTABLE. Believer, agnostic or athiest, Nature hates a vacuum so you MUST serve SOMEBODY and the "intellectuals" serve THEMSELVES.

[saminfl]

Why do people opposed to Capitalism think they're "Intellectuals"?

I had the same thought. In reality, these people are no more "intellectual" than anyone else. They just declare themselves intellectually superior. Go look at DU and you'll see it.