Why do intellectuals oppose capitalism?

[pellegrino]

Agree with LA Ute, your managers were idiots, but this doesn't represent a "flaw in the system". I think I understand the nobility of your intentions, but, ultimately, we have to fallback to neutral and measurable form of analysis. By failing to reward and promote your creativity and initiative, your managers have lost the benefit of your participation and assistance on a going-forward basis. You have since moved on to a different station that rewards your talents and efforts in a different way. It is their loss.

Why don't you take that great idea you had and use it as a fuel for an entrepreneurial venture that clearly has the potential for success given the real life results you have already observed? You will then not be reliant on the ability of others to adhere to standards of fairness.

I think this happens a lot more than people recognize or are willing to admit. It is most evident in large corporate structures and affects all workers from management to bottom.

My wife worked for IBM, sure they had their annual performance reviews that would determine pay raises etc., but that was essentially rigged in that middle management had limits as to how much of a raise they could give and how many raises were given. Even those who received the highest evaluation didn't get a huge raise, and essentially management would split the money equally, unless you really underperformed. Everyone knew that there was no point in busting your ass because in the end you likely wouldn't receive an appropriate award. The system didn't encourage productivity, on the contrary, it discouraged it and rewarded mediocrity. Don't get me started on the pay scales and how flawed they were.

This is even more evident in lower paying jobs. There is no reason to bust your ass or try and stand out, just do your job to satisfaction because in the end management (and sometimes even the owners) had in mind that your position was worth a certain amount and not a penny more. My own experience working in low paying jobs validates wuap's experience. It's anecdotal, but I'm confident there are many more anecdotes out there that would reflect this as the norm for working America. In short, the theory doesn't match up with practice.

Whenever I get into these discussions, I just ask what is the difference between N. Korea and S. Korea. Leaders of both countries are greedy. So what is the difference. Is the ground in S. Korea more fertile.

This isn't the discussion we're having here. Nobody is suggesting that we reject capitalism for communism or even socialism. If you can't see that there are flaws in a capitalist system then there's no sense in discussing it.

[byu71]

This isn't the discussion we're having here. Nobody is suggesting that we reject capitalism for communism or even socialism. If you can't see that there are flaws in a capitalist system then there's no sense in discussing it.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was the one thread ever posted here that stuck totally to the issue. I wandered off a bit.

Capitalism has flaws. A lot of progressives rarely have a good idea on how to fix the flaws. It is hard to come up with good ideas for fixing things when you spend most of your time in lala land.

[SeattleUte]

This is funny, but evokes a thought that I've had for a while: intellectuals hate religion for the same reason that the 'common idiot' hates intellectuals (also see statmans description of the bureaucratic class which is generally from the 'best schools,' that 'knows better').

On one hand the intellectuals 'know better' because they are 'superior' intellectually, on the other religious leaders 'know better' because they are 'superior spiritually.'

It's a struggle for superior influence on the 'masses.'

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.

[byu71]

Intellectuals don't make stuff up. Religious people do.

Out of curiousity, would Marx be considered an intellectual or religious person.

[pellegrino]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was the one thread ever posted here that stuck totally to the issue. I wandered off a bit.

Capitalism has flaws. A lot of progressives rarely have a good idea on how to fix the flaws. It is hard to come up with good ideas for fixing things when you spend most of your time in lala land.

Why should it be the progressives who have to come up with the ideas? I would gladly accept good solutions to the problems wuap has identified regardless of their source. I don't see that happening though. In my experience, capitalists (and by this, I'm referring to those who have capital and sometimes those who hope to have it) are so enamored with capitalism that they don't believe there are flaws, or if they do see the flaw, the solution is to "let market forces work it out." Market forces have no regard for humanity.

[SeattleUte]

Out of curiousity, would Marx be considered an intellectual or religious person.

Marx started a movement that bears all the indicia of religion. Marx was more Moses than Socrates, more Joseph Smith than Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson, that's for sure. He and his progeny only hated old time religion becasue it was a rival of their own religion. If you have read much at all of Marxist or Nazi writings they talk endlessly of faith (yes, they actually use that word, a lot), their destiny, the virtue of obedience to authoritarian leaders, their deified current leaders and founding leaders. They hated intellectuals, imprisoned and killed them as much as physically possible. Communism and Facsism were just new religions by a different name.

[byu71]

Why should it be the progressives who have to come up with the ideas? I would gladly accept good solutions to the problems wuap has identified regardless of their source. I don't see that happening though. In my experience, capitalists (and by this, I'm referring to those who have capital and sometimes those who hope to have it) are so enamored with capitalism that they don't believe there are flaws, or if they do see the flaw, the solution is to "let market forces work it out." Market forces have no regard for humanity.

I guess given a choice, I would choose market forces over humans to solve the problem. A good combination would be good, but I haven't seen that ever work before. I could be wrong though.

Thus comes the debate. If market forces had been in place, would we have had the banking debacle that came about. It is my contention that "market forces" were the result of interference with the markets.

I have no problem discussing ideas with people who are more "intellectual" than I am. Especially if they understand that being more intellectual doesn't automatically mean they have more or less common sense than I do.

[byu71]

Marx started a movement that bears all the indicia of religion. Marx was more Moses than Socrates, more Joseph Smith than Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson, that's for sure. He and his progeny only hated old time religion becasue it was a rival of their own religion. If you have read much at all of Marxist or Nazi writings they talk endlessly of faith (yes, they actually use that word, a lot), their destiny, the virtue of obedience to authoritarian leaders, their deified current leaders and founding leaders. They hated intellectuals, imprisoned and killed them as much as physically possible. Communism and Facsism were just new religions by a different name.

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

[pellegrino]

I guess given a choice, I would choose market forces over humans to solve the problem. A good combination would be good, but I haven't seen that ever work before. I could be wrong though.

Thus comes the debate. If market forces had been in place, would we have had the banking debacle that came about. It is my contention that "market forces" were the result of interference with the markets.

I have no problem discussing ideas with people who are more "intellectual" than I am. Especially if they understand that being more intellectual doesn't automatically mean they have more or less common sense than I do.

At their essence, aren't "market forces" essentially human actions within the sphere of the market place?

Perhaps somewhat unrelated, but we shouldn't forget that market forces can create monopolies just as easily as they can create competition.

[pellegrino]

Marx started a movement that bears all the indicia of religion. Marx was more Moses than Socrates, more Joseph Smith than Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson, that's for sure. He and his progeny only hated old time religion becasue it was a rival of their own religion. If you have read much at all of Marxist or Nazi writings they talk endlessly of faith (yes, they actually use that word, a lot), their destiny, the virtue of obedience to authoritarian leaders, their deified current leaders and founding leaders. They hated intellectuals, imprisoned and killed them as much as physically possible. Communism and Facsism were just new religions by a different name.

I've said this before, but I think you're discounting Marx's analysis of capitalism. Just because his solutions fail to address the problems doesn't mean the analysis is flawed.

[wuapinmon]

I guess given a choice, I would choose market forces over humans to solve the problem. A good combination would be good, but I haven't seen that ever work before. I could be wrong though.

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

Thus comes the debate. If market forces had been in place, would we have had the banking debacle that came about. It is my contention that "market forces" were the result of interference with the markets.

Well, history contains numerous instances of bubbles that happened without the interference of which you speak.

Here's a recent one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...mmodity-bubble

I have no problem discussing ideas with people who are more "intellectual" than I am. Especially if they understand that being more intellectual doesn't automatically mean they have more or less common sense than I do.

The elderly are rich in common sense.

[The_Tick]

The elderly are rich in common sense.

Now he is going to tax your common sense 71.

[Moliere]

I think this happens a lot more than people recognize or are willing to admit. It is most evident in large corporate structures and affects all workers from management to bottom.

My wife worked for IBM, sure they had their annual performance reviews that would determine pay raises etc., but that was essentially rigged in that middle management had limits as to how much of a raise they could give and how many raises were given. Even those who received the highest evaluation didn't get a huge raise, and essentially management would split the money equally, unless you really underperformed. Everyone knew that there was no point in busting your ass because in the end you likely wouldn't receive an appropriate award. The system didn't encourage productivity, on the contrary, it discouraged it and rewarded mediocrity. Don't get me started on the pay scales and how flawed they were.

This is even more evident in lower paying jobs. There is no reason to bust your ass or try and stand out, just do your job to satisfaction because in the end management (and sometimes even the owners) had in mind that your position was worth a certain amount and not a penny more. My own experience working in low paying jobs validates wuap's experience. It's anecdotal, but I'm confident there are many more anecdotes out there that would reflect this as the norm for working America. In short, the theory doesn't match up with practice.

Your IBM example may not be the best. I have some experience in very large corporations and suffice it to say that you did a good job of describing the performance review and pay raise process for administrative or operational type jobs. However, significant raises at large corporations almost never come in teh form of a pay raise, they come in the form of promotions.

I'm in an administrative job and there is one other manager in my department that does similar work as me. I frequently take on more work than my job description entails and this work lets me rub shoulders with upper management (the CFO even knows my name! ) The other manager comes in at 10am, gets her work done and goes home. I'm sure we both get very good reviews and similar raises, however when my boss quits or gets promoted I'd be shocked if she gets his job. In fact, if she got his job over me I'd most likely circulate my resume the next day.

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).

[byu71]

Perhaps somewhat unrelated, but we shouldn't forget that market forces can create monopolies just as easily as they can create competition.

It would be an interesting discussion to have. If the market forces created the monopoly, wouldn't market forces tear it down.

I believe there have to be rules to the game. A lot of things about Wall St. actually disgusts me and has from when I first got into the business. I have my own ideas on how things could be fixed, but it would never happen as long as there are powerful politicians that come from New York.

Again, IMHO, one of the greatest obstacles to honest Wall St. reform is that basitan of progressive thinking, Chuck Schumer. My guess is that since Anthony Weeney is from New York, he also would block my ideas.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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

I was watching a National Geographic documentary on Netflix that did a story on North Korea. Basically a crew had some hidden cameras on them and North Korea thought they were only doing a story on an eye doctor from Nepal performing surgeries on people suffering from cataracts.

This eye doctor performed dozens of these surgeries over a period of a week or so and all of these people were gathered in this room all at once a few days later so they could remove their bandages one by one. The North Korean handlers for the film crew made sure the crew was there to film the reaction.

Each person after removing their bandage would come up front and essentially offer a testimony as to how the eye surgery and restoration of his or her vision was a result of the "great leader" (Kim Jong Il and his father post-humously). It looked exactly like a Pentacostal religious revival.

So, I kind of understand what SU is saying. Both religion, Marxism and Communism call for the suspension of rational thought and for replacing it with the unquestioned allegiance to some cause. They're just different sides to the same coin.

With that said, I think there have been instances where religion hasn't necessarily retarded the growth of intellectual thought. People in the United States have probably been more religious than their European forebears for decades if not since the founding of this country and the US hasn't been the worse for wear. I don't think Buddhism has held back its adherents. If the reach of religion is limited towards application to people on an individual level as opposed to on a governmental level, then the people, culture and society can thrive. It's the mingling of government and religion that presents a problem.

If you put religion and stat-ism on different sides of the same coin, then you can see the problems it presents when either belief dominates the governments in different regions of the world -- the muslim theocracies, North Korea, etc.