Why do intellectuals oppose capitalism?

[SeattleUte]

With all this manure in here, there has to be a pony somewhere.

I didn't make it up. People who have seriously studied Communism and Naziism agree with me. What you saw in 1989 was actually loss of religious faith on a mass scale; mass apostasy. It's kind of like if there were a new LDS prophet (let's assume for sake of argument he's 51 years old), and he said, sort of like the RLDS has decided, that Mormonism no longer holds that the Book of Mormon necessarily tells stories about real people and places, it's for everyone individually to decide. Likewise, the Book of Mormon holds no morallhy exalted place above other great books, including the Bible. Mormonism no longer holds that everyone must be a Mormon to be saved. In fact, Mormonism is agnostic on Final Judgment, Celestial Kingdom, etc. Baptisms for the Dead are suspended as too costly, and the source and purpose of the ordinance is muddled; these resources will be diverted to charitable causes. And the old regime of strict sexual morality doesn't seem to be working or in step with the times. Gays and women will be ordained, etc. I wonder what would happen to the LDS Church. It would change, that's for sure. I think it would lose its identity and cohesiveness.

[byu71]

The main problem with America's capitalism is that it provides for a significant transfer of wealth within a family thus creating a sort of quasi-feudalistic society of the haves and have nots. You end up with spoiled rich kids getting into Harvard and Yale because their parents went there and they donated a bunch of money, not because their kids did well in school. I would be more in favor of lower taxes on the living and higher taxes on the dead and strict thresholds on the transfer of wealth even within families (I'm talking about wealth.....er millions of dollars, not a small amount of affluence).

I am totally with you here. Make it even a good sum and index it to inflation. 70% tax on anything over 20 million sounds like a good number. You can't also go out and set up foundations to avoid the tax. If Gates and Buffet like taxing the rich so much, let them give their money to the government to pass out and not their foundations. This should be something SU even would be for as the money given to the LDS church would be cut back.

Of course doing something like this might means we wouldn't have such noble public servants as the Kennedy's, the Rockefeller's and the Heinz Kerry's , because they would probably have to get real jobs.

[wally]

There's a difference of course. Intellectuals don't make stuff up. Religious people do. So much of religious belief has been exposed by intellectuals as nonsene. In fact, religion is better off if it just sticks to identifying and reveling in mystery.

Do you like representative government? Due process? Extremely low rates of infant mortality in the developed countries? Clean water? Vaccines? Abundant food and eradication of famine? Marveling at the cosmos in all their unfathomable beauty and infinity? All these things happened after intellectuals started to stand up to religious people, even at great personal cost.

One side claims authority from a universal power whose existence cannot be empirically proven, the other derives authority from itself and its own merits. But each claims authority to influence and preside over all.

Each seeks its own power, in its own way. Each uses shame, guilt and “made up stuff” to influence the ‘uneducated masses’ (religion maybe more so), but ultimately ‘intellectuals’ are more like ‘religionists’ and vice versa, than either side cares to admit.

Also, let’s not forget the valiant Christians that sacrificed all being fed to lions by the secular Romans. The pendulum swings and man loves power more than money.

[SeattleUte]

With that said, I think there have been instances where religion hasn't necessarily retarded the growth of intellectual thought.

Of course not. For thousands of years religion was the means by which knowledge was preserved and transmitted. Religion fully occupied institutional life. The King's sole claim to his status and sovereignty was religious based; he required an alliance with the clergy (our country's foundes literally apostatized from their religion when they rebelled from the Mother Country). In fact, this duality (some say modeled on ancient Israel institutions), which didn't exist in Muslim states, was probably a key to the West's ultimate enlightenment and unprecedented progress. Universities and libraries in Europe were originally first founded by religious people. The flowering of artistic and other creative energy that we call the Renaissance--precursor to the Enlightenment as well as Martin Luther's rebellion--was driven by religious people and religious inspiration. Religion was our parents that we had to separate from (which is why the debate I heard on NPR yesterday about whether to teach relgiions in the schools is so idiotic). Even the unalloyed evil of Comunism and Naziism aped religious norms and institutions. It took truly daring and brilliant people to break out of that model in founding our country.

[SeattleUte]

Also, let’s not forget the valiant Christians that sacrificed all being fed to lions by the secular Romans. The pendulum swings and man loves power more than money.

lol Rome was a total thoecracy by then. Have you ever heard of Emperor deification? Rome hated Christians for the same reason Stalin did.

The intellectual world founds status on competition and merit. Imperfect and subjective to an extent to be sure. But better than "follow me just because I'm me."

[wally]

lol Rome was a total thoecracy by then. Have you ever heard of Emperor deification? Rome hated Christians for the same reason Stalin did.

The intellectual world founds status on competition and merit. Imperfect and subjective to an extent to be sure. But better than "follow me just because I'm me."

So any time intellectuals attempt to extend their power and influence to an institutional level, they are exercising their own form of unrighteous dominion?

[SeattleUte]

So any time intellectuals attempt to extend their power and influence to an institutional level, they are exercising their own form of unrighteous dominion?

Intellectuals rarely do it, outside the university setting, and even there, the administrators including the presidents are rarely intellectuals. They are fund raisers and managers. I don't consider intellectuals and government leaders or investment bankers the same thing.

[SeattleUte]

So any time intellectuals attempt to extend their power and influence to an institutional level, they are exercising their own form of unrighteous dominion?

I forgot about judges. Sorry. But how else do we do it without judges? Justice Marshall said the courts have to say what the law, including the Constitution, is. Is there another solution? Apparently not.

[il Padrino Ute]

Unless they are selling them on the black market they can only be used for food.

When I say food, I mean things such as fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. My sister has been on food stamps for what seems like many years, but she buys items like soda, candy, chips - things that really aren't what I consider food. According to her son, she's even found a place where she's been able to buy cigarettes with the EBT card, though I don't know how it's possible, unless the store has inventoried everything as groceries.

[wally]

I forgot about judges. Sorry. But how else do we do it without judges? Justice Marshall said the courts have to say what the law, including the Constitution, is. Is there another solution? Apparently not.

So judges are intellectuals?

I googled "intellectual" BTW:

Found this:

Pseudo-intellectuals
Noam Chomsky said that intellectuals, and their works, might become corrupted by special interest groups, power-seeking politicians, conditional funding, self-censorship, et cetera,[34] and further proposing that intellectuals usually have supported power:

So you are right accordingt to Chomsky, Marx was a pseudo-intellectual since he institutionalized intellectual ideals.

[SeattleUte]

I think in the history of our country federal judges have generally upheld intellectual values. They have been a primary means by which that value system is implemented and enforced in every day life. Judges have expansively read and applied the Bill of Rights in search and seizure cases, etc., more expansively applied speech and religious plurality and separation of church and state laws than in any other country, etc. That has been a primary role.

[byu71]

So judges are intellectuals?

I googled "intellectual" BTW:

Found this:



So you are right accordingt to Chomsky, Marx was a pseudo-intellectual since he institutionalized intellectual ideals.

One good thing about this site, at least for me, it encourages me to look some things up. I looked up intellectual greats and then got to a site that listed the 5 most noted intellectuals of our time. This Chomsky guy was on there, number 1 or two. I read about him and don't care for him much.

Havel was number 4 and Hitchins was number 5. I liked what I read about Havel and I am very familiar with Hitchins. I don't agree with Hitchins on a lot of things, but I like him quite a bit.

He reminds me of William F. Buckley in style. Was Buckley considered an intellectual. I would consider him one.

[SeattleUte]

One good thing about this site, at least for me, it encourages me to look some things up. I looked up intellectual greats and then got to a site that listed the 5 most noted intellectuals of our time. This Chomsky guy was on there, number 1 or two. I read about him and don't care for him much.

Havel was number 4 and Hitchins was number 5. I liked what I read about Havel and I am very familiar with Hitchins. I don't agree with Hitchins on a lot of things, but I like him quite a bit.

He reminds me of William F. Buckley in style. Was Buckley considered an intellectual. I would consider him one.

Yes. If Hitchins is he was.

[ERCougar]

Sign in the call room where I'm sitting right now:
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"

Right below it:
"America has the best wealthcare system"

I can't tell if it's the work of an idealistic doctor or a pissed-off nurse.

[cowboy]

I would argue that the 20th Century in the USA was a marvel of what regulated capitalism can achieve.

This is where you and I will find common ground. I believe that capitalism must be regulated to be effective. Regulation does not hinder capitalism, and actually helps capitalism create market efficiency.

Everything needs guidelines, and markets are no exception. Where regulation becomes anti-capitalist is when it is politically motivated to achieve an end other than ensuring fair competition. This is the gray area, and there is much debate over which laws are excessive and which laws are necessary to keep markets honest and efficient.

The main problem with America's capitalism is that it provides for a significant transfer of wealth within a family thus creating a sort of quasi-feudalistic society of the haves and have nots.

I hear this a lot, and I have not found any evidence to support this assertion. If true, this would suggest that ownership and control of assets is distilling into fewer and fewer hands, which is simply not the case. Sure, there are old money families, but there are just as many, if not more, new money families, and the self-made millionaire is alive and well here.

For a variety of reasons, wealth does not seem to be concentrating, but I think the primary reasons have to do with first generation critical mass and generational succession. An estate is divided among heirs with every generation, and creating a first generation estate large enough to be divided and still allow heirs to live a lifestyle of the rich and famous is very difficult. In theory, this could be done over generations, but it would require each generation to contribute and not screw it up, which decreases the probability of success exponentially. This all assumes that generational transfers can occur without heirs fighting over estates, and without divorces and other legal trouble that can thwart dynasty building.

There is a saying that the first generation builds it, the second enjoys it, and the third loses it. Anecdotally, that saying holds pretty true, at least in the world of agriculture. There are very few operations in the Midwest and Intermountain West that are more than 3 generations old, and even fewer that have expanded over the generations.

You end up with spoiled rich kids getting into Harvard and Yale because their parents went there and they donated a bunch of money, not because their kids did well in school.

Meh. Harvard and Yale don't have a corner on the education market, as much as they'd like to think they do. Plenty of wealthy people went to state schools.

I would be more in favor of lower taxes on the living and higher taxes on the dead and strict thresholds on the transfer of wealth even within families (I'm talking about wealth.....er millions of dollars, not a small amount of affluence).

The problem here, aside from the crab-like motivation, is that everyone has a different opinion about the thresholds. How much is too much to inherit, and who decides?