WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
RT @acts29: John Calvin is still dead (~500 years) and Jesus is still alive (~2000 years). Just sayin'
Why intellectuals hate capitalism
Capitalism makes lots of people angry. Why is this? In “Why Capitalism is Good for the Soul,” Peter Saunders says that capitalism’s biggest weakness is really an image problem: it lacks the emotional appeal of socialism or communism, and it offers no visible “dragons to slay.”
It is quite the opposite with socialism. Where capitalism delivers but cannot inspire, socialism inspires despite never having delivered. Socialism’s history is littered with repeated failures and with human misery on a massive scale, yet it still attracts smiles rather than curses from people who never had to live under it [...] Chic westerners are still sporting Che Guevara t-shirts, forty years after the man’s death, and flocking to the cinema to see him on a motor bike, apparently oblivious to their handsome hero’s legacy of firing squads and labour camps.
But why do intellectual elites still hate capitalism so much?
Saunders’s answer to that question is my favorite answer thus far in the debate: because capitalism doesn’t need them.
Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on perfectly well without them. It does not need them to make it run, to coordinate it, or to redesign it. The intellectual critics of capitalism believe they know what is good for us, but millions of people interacting in the marketplace keep rebuffing them. This, ultimately, is why they believe capitalism is ‘bad for the soul’: it fulfils human needs without first seeking their moral approval.
HT: AL Daily
back to top73 Comments to “Why intellectuals hate capitalism”
Please tell me this isn’t a whole book?
Report comment to moderator
Intellectual elites hate capitalism because they can’t succeed in/under it. These elites want socialism and/or communism because businessman and economists don’t run the show; party members (mostly from the intellectual elites – shocking I know) do.
Report comment to moderator
Please tell me if it is a whole book.
“This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant.” They’re arrogant.
But doesn’t capitalism inspire some people to achieve, to test their abilities? An artist wants to see what he/she can create. Perhaps creating a business is just another “art” form and it is capitalism that allows that creativity to blossom.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, please tell me what you exactly consider to be an “intellectual elite”, and then describe how these “intellectual elites” are not succeeding in a capitalist society.
Evidence of unsuccessful “intellectual elites” is escaping me which makes me wonder how you would define it.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Harrison,
You and the other folks here might also appreciate Robert Nozick’s take on this question — he argues essentially that intellectuals are trained for nearly two decades in a system where rewards are distributed according to cleverness, only to be thrust into a world where rewards are distributed according to the value one creates. So they conclude that the “game” of capitalism is somehow rigged or unfair, because they are no longer the honored members of society.
Report comment to moderator
Below is the link for the story-
“Why capitalism is good for the soul”
Peter Saunders
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer%2007-08/saunders_summer07.html
Report comment to moderator
This is incoherent. Find me an intellectual elite who is poor.
Intellectual elites — and not just them — unions, blue collar workers, and many others — distrust unfettered capitalism for the same reason you all distrust unfettered personal freedom.
It leads to outcomes we think are suboptimal. Unfettered capitalism would not have provided environmental, health, safety, and wage and hour restrictions. It would not have provided pensions, 401(k)s, and health care. It would not have provided any job security whatsoever.
Only the most skilled and valuable workers would have the ability to effectively negotiate these issues.
Most of you who praise the blessings of capitalism have no idea what you are talking about. You’ve never lived under a free market a day in your lives. You are arguing against excessive regulation but only by degree.
Report comment to moderator
And really, Harrison. Che Guevara is a straw man. Nobody cares. It’s just that wearing a t-shirt with a depiction of, say, Sweden or Denmark, two countries with higher standards of living than we do and far more government regulation of the economy just doesn’t have that counter-cultural ring to it.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, please tell me what you exactly consider to be an “intellectual elite”, and then describe how these “intellectual elites” are not succeeding in a capitalist society.
Evidence of unsuccessful “intellectual elites” is escaping me which makes me wonder how you would define it.
Elfman – I consider an intellectual elite to be a pompous gasbag who sits in his ivory tower, declaring what is good and what is not for the poor hoi polloi who must actually work, sweat or get dirty to make a living.
I stand by what I said. In a capitalist market, there is no overarching government entity staffed by elites telling everyone what to do. These elites must sit on the sideline and let those hoardes of uneducated masses, from Joe Six Pack up to Bill Gates, make decisions. How dare they!
In a socialist or communist system, those elites tell people what to make, what to buy and at what price. They are in charge and they like it.
DC Lawyer – I hear you. Capitalism has its flaws, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Socialism and communism have many more flaws. Capitalism works well when it is regulated only where/when necessary.
Report comment to moderator
DCL writes: “Most of you who praise the blessings of capitalism have no idea what you are talking about.”
They never know what they’re talking about because they’re not “intellectual elites”!!!
“You’ve never lived under a free market a day in your lives. You are arguing against excessive regulation but only by degree.”
Just as you argue FOR excessive regulation. No thank you.
What’s that old saying: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
Report comment to moderator
Oh it’s a feature article. That makes reading it seem so much more imaginable.
I browsed through it. I like how he qualifies “advanced capitalist.” So when he talks about workers and employers not living in an adversarial relationship, he excludes all of the workers without a profit sharing plan. Anyone want to try and guess what percentage of the world’s workers that excludes?
Gosh, you know it’s just easier to argue how great capitalism is when we only look at how it effects the most fortunate minority. We don’t have to use as many asterixes when we just ignore that other 99%.
Report comment to moderator
“This is incoherent. Find me an intellectual elite who is poor.”
Hahahaha! This is rich coming from an environmental lawyer who lives in DC but makes a heck of a lot less than he could if he worked in the private sector!
Go look in the mirror DCL.
Report comment to moderator
Lester — who is advocating throwing out capitalism for communism? Seriously, this argument, to the extent it was ever serious ended more than 40 years ago. Only on evangelical blogs and in the rhetoric of farthest right wing is this discussed.
We live under a highly-regulated market economy. The primary issues today are over how to guarantee health care. Now, that’s a debate we should have, but we should be able to have a discussion about it without having to constantly ressurect Eugene Debs and Joe McCarthy.
From a purely political perspective, I look forward to the day when the baby boomers and their elders no longer drive the political debate. Why? Because my generation is tired of fighting and refighting the battles of the 1950s and 60s.
Get over your obsession with communism. Get over your obsession with the culture wars. The world, for all intents and purposes, begins anew each day. Understand history, to be sure. But some of you are enslaved by it and seem to have no ability whatsoever to think beyond these same tired old debates.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not poor, Make it Man. If I was, I couldn’t afford to take the $60,000 pay cut I took when I left my firm. I could certainly be richer. I could go back to a firm tomorrow. But I’m rich enough and I like what I do.
Find me an intellectual elite who is poor.
Report comment to moderator
“The world, for all intents and purposes, begins anew each day.”
Oh. yeah. In other words history repeats. But lets ignore all that just because you’re tired of folks who disagree with you… Make way for the Same Old Stuff packaged in a new wrapper.
I tell you what gets old, is the supercilious attitude of the elite who know better than the rest of us idiots.
Get over yourself to you too.
Report comment to moderator
My bad. I just added the link to the original post. Thanks, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
DCL:You’ve never lived under a free market a day in your lives.
and Find me an intellectual elite who is poor.
You answer yourself. The reason they aren’t poor is that we don’t really live in a capitalist system. Intellectuals — those whose only product is thought — have always relied on government patronage. Whether it’s the royal astrologer, the royal priest, or the philosophy professor, they all require state sponsorship. They hate capitalism because they hate work.
Report comment to moderator
Elfman – I consider an intellectual elite to be a pompous gasbag who sits in his ivory tower, declaring what is good and what is not for the poor hoi polloi who must actually work, sweat or get dirty to make a living.
Okay Lester, I would like you to name one. I’ll get the ball rolling. Would Warren Buffett be an intellectual elite? He certainly spends most of his time in an “ivory tower”, offers up quite a bit of commentary on business as well as politics, and claims to know what’s best for the “poor” and middle class.
Would it not follow then that Mr. Buffett should have trouble succeeding in a capitalist environment?
You are still standing by your statement?
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer asked; “Find me an intellectual elite who is poor.”
Irrelevant request. The point is that free market captitalism (as ooposed to “unfettered capitalism”) results in far fewer poor people across the board in the world and in history than socialist or dictatorships. Captialism is the greatest overall cure for poverty for the most people of all categories that the world has yet to come up with.
Besides, the phrase “intellectual elite” is subjective enough to allow one to cook the result in advance.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism is better stated as “economic freedom.”In a WSJ article today we learn, according to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, that the countries in the top quintile have twice the per capita income than the second quintile and five times that of the bottom quintile. The top five countries are in order Hong Kong, Singapore Ireland, Australia, and the U.S. The bottom six in order out of 157 are Iran, Turkmenistan, Burma, Libya, Zimbabwe, and Cuba.
As to why the intellectual elites hate capitalism, first, many of them dream of some sort of utopia, second, they work mostly as scribblers for various outfits, third, they often despise and envy wealthy people, and forth, except for a few, none of them know how to earn serious money.
Meanwhile be glad that you live in an economically free country that earns enough to provide a safety net for the worthy poor that is beyond the dreams of most poor people in the world.
Also, take a close look at the presidential candidates to see who are the worthiest in terms of economic freedom.
Report comment to moderator
Saunders isn’t an intellectual? Guess not.
Report comment to moderator
The quality and extent of your work ethic plays a role, in my view, in how you feel about capitalism.
I offer a few biblical quotations to make that point for me:
“Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” Proverbs 10:4.
“…for each one should carry his own load.” Galatians 6:5.
“He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Eph 4:28.
“Work with your hands… so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
“We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12. (as opposed to eating the bread that others earned, I presume).
“The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.” 2 Timothy 2:6. The principle of fairness here mitigates against a system by which non-working people can live as a burden on hard-working people. But the word “first” in this verse does leave room for secondary a safety net principle to be allowed.
Report comment to moderator
I work 45 hours a week and go to grad school. I’m a socialist.
Report comment to moderator
But why do intellectual elites still hate capitalism so much?
Since there’s nothing wrong with capitalism but what fallen thinking makes of it, sadly we must agree that leftists hate laissez-faire because of their character flaws. If they became better people, perhaps improved themselves by inviting Jesus into their hearts as their personal Savior, certainly they would love capitalism like Adam and Eve loved Eden.
Hayek was wrong that capitalism doesn’t need elites, either to vindicate it or keep it going (thus causing their resentment). Capitalism does in fact produce elites who don’t like it. You can blame the elites, if you want. Yet, capitalism will keep producing them, and they eventually will impose limits on it, because they are more persuasive than Olasky, Harrison & Vincent.
Hayek didn’t say anything about economics to nip this bad flower of capitalism in the bud, because he went so far outside the discipline into philosophy and political science.
Report comment to moderator
We live under a highly-regulated market economy. The primary issues today are over how to guarantee health care.
DCL – what does a highly-regulated market economy have to do with guaranteed health care? I’m all for regulating markets to ensure a fair and equitable playing field: no oppresive monopolies, laws against graft, etc.
But I don’t agree that the government should feel the need guarantee health care, or for that matter, automobiles or energy or anything else for the populace. It has nothing to do with capitalism or a highly-regulated market economy.
All that does is weaken our economy and our government.
Okay Lester, I would like you to name one. I’ll get the ball rolling. Would Warren Buffett be an intellectual elite? He certainly spends most of his time in an “ivory tower”, offers up quite a bit of commentary on business as well as politics, and claims to know what’s best for the “poor” and middle class.
Nice strawman, elfman. He’s not an intellectual elite. He’s an investor. And please, tell me where he’s ever made a plea for abandoning capitalism for socialism and communism.
And yes, I’m still standing by my statement.
Most intellectuals are all for guaranteed health care. Look at DCL. Look at all the university professors and wonks who want it. Then, look at Moody’s, who is ready to downgrade our T-Notes because of our growing government entitlements.
Tell me, who do you think knows the economy better? Intellectuals or actual financial analysts?
Or, to put it another way:
You’ve just inherited a tidy sum. You want to invest it, make it grow. Who would you trust with your money? Yeah, I’ll take the financial experts too.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – 23
After Grad school, what do you intend to do?
Report comment to moderator
DC L
I know a couple of intellectuals who , while not poor, are certainly middle class at best.
They are my sister and her husband. She has the first recognized PhD in Ludology, the science of computer games. He has a PhD in “rat” psychology from CalTech.
She is a masseuse and he is a researcher at home.
He could make a six figure salary working at a defense related industry as a computer programmer… never has.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Your claim (24) about Hayek’s opinion regarding elites is confusing, because in one of his most famous essays, “Why I Am Not A Conservative”, he writes:
(By “liberal,” of course, he means the classical variety, which is a label he applied to himself.)
Since he didn’t separate capitalism from the social system in which it is embedded, I don’t think it’s correct to say that he argued capitalism doesn’t need elites. I would think his forays into political science and philosophy (he was a polymath, so he integrated these and other disciplines into his thinking) would only strengthen his, or anyone’s, efforts to understand societal forces.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
I don’t understand your claim (24) re Hayek, because in one of his most famous essays, “Why I Am Not A Conservative”, he writes:
“The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people – he is not an egalitarian – bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.”
(He uses “liberal,” of course, in the classical sense, not the socialistic sense.)
Report comment to moderator
Concerning the poverty of intelletual elites, I think the point is something like this: professors in a university who pontificate about economics will never make what some enterpeneurs do. In other words, the highest-paid professional intellectuals will always be poorer than the most successful businessmen.
DC Lawyer’s, “unfettered capitalism” is a redundancy. True capitalism is, by definition, unfettered. Everything else is just a weaker or stronger form of socialism. Capitalism is an unknown ideal, something that we’ve never actually tried, but something that has been a blessing the closer we get to it.
“Unfettered capitalism would not have provided environmental, health, safety, and wage and hour restrictions. It would not have provided pensions, 401(k)s, and health care. It would not have provided any job security whatsoever.”
I’m not so sure. First, we haven’t tried it, so we can only guess what capitalism would “do.” Second, the same forces that pushed for government to impose all these things could also have pressured employers to do so–without the heavy hand of government. Third, what you don’t say is how those things have driven up both taxes and prices, which still leaves people in poverty. And, fourth, you’ve proven the point made in the original post: most of those programs are planned, overseen, and implemented by paid government elites (I’m not sure how intellectual most of them are).
Report comment to moderator
Intellectual elites? . . . there are several different categories which the brilliant intellectual falls into, obviously, those who treasure knowledge, seek education, and excel- They gaze upon the written word, and the mass amounts of knowledge as a means to either gain more knowledge for their OWN shear pleasure, or to put all they have learned into a practical pursuit, there lies the difference.
One group who falls into the category of intellectual, uses the knowledge which they have to create something, be it science, medicine, finance, law or the sheer creative talent which we see in architecture, or design, YES people who are creative are often intellectuals. The other group doesn’t put their knowledge to use, rather entertaining themselves with their achievements, and expecting others to support their endless, fruitless studies.
Having knowledge, and intelligence is one thing, putting knowledge to work is another, . . . . that is the test of a truly brilliant mind.
The capitalist is one who works, his ideas, abilities are put into ACTION. Therefore he succeeds and prospers….and so do others who work for him and with him. The socialist, is the man who sits back, and dreams of others paying for his pursuit of knowledge, never developing his ability beyond the ’study’ stage. Their idea of money, is to spend someone else’s. The so called ‘intellectual socialist’ is envious of the ‘capitalist’- in essence they don’t want to work very hard-
Truly brilliant men and women, are ambitious, they work. I don’t consider so called intellectuals who don’t pay their own way to be brilliant. One can have all the education in the world, be very ‘book smart’ their degrees can line the bathroom walls, but if they don’t work, if they don’t contribute in a REAL way, that isn’t bright, its lazy!
Report comment to moderator
Tony Woodlief -
You obviously know Hayek better. I’m impressed. Harrison and Saunders made the point that, “the best explanation for the intellectuals’ distaste for capitalism was offered by Friedrich Hayek in The Fatal Conceit.(29) Hayek understood that capitalism offends intellectual pride, while socialism flatters it.” You add Hayek’s demand that these “superior people” must compete for influence with others — presumably movers and doers — who invade their traditional heirarchies, or displace it.
My response to these points is that socialist elites don’t have to compete with the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to survive and escape extinction, because capitalism produces a constant supply of them. They truly are elite, and they truly dislike capitalism, and they truly are influential. Eventually, their persuasiveness and leadership will prevail, because non-elites rely on them for the narratives that explain life. Also, “socialists” know economics better than Hayek did, whose work added more to philosophy and political science than to utility functions.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Do you think it’s more accurate to say that it’s our methods of education, rather than capitalism, that generate socialist elites? A system that didn’t reward test-taking over value-creation, for example, via some sort of apprenticeship model, might be less apt to generate the sense among the logical-mathematical and linguistically superior that they are the natural “winners,” i.e., it might tamp their aspiration to reward that Nozick claimed is the source of their dissatisfaction with capitalism.
Hayek would dispute your inevitability hypothesis, given essays like his “The Intellectuals and Socialism”. Especially since most intellectuals are, as he called them, “secondhand dealers in ideas,” there is the possibility of swaying them away from socialism. That would also go for movie stars and other non-intellectual socialist elites, I would imagine.
Some folks would probably dispute your claim about the content of economics. If it is purely a mathematical endeavor, you might be right, but if it is a science focused on the behavior of human beings in an environment of scarce resources and insatiable wants, perhaps he — and many non-economists, for that matter — are better economists than some current owners of that title.
Report comment to moderator
I just find the contempt you all share for intellectuals to be very revealing. I guess you have to have that to believe the things you do about God.
But it reminds me a lot of junior high when people threw you into lockers and called you “nerd” because you got straight A’s.
Also, those of you who don’t think intellectuals work — that’s pretty laughable.
Report comment to moderator
There’s no doubt our system of education produces elites in large part by the circular process of selecting elites. Regardless of what you eventually achieve, just the fact that a college admissions factory subjects you to multiple layers of examination and sorts you out from 10,000 rejects, has to be worth the equivalent of a $100,000 lottery prize. High-quality academic standards are widely dispersed all they way down to your humble state college, where anybody can walk in, and some students get great educations. Graduate schools don’t overlook these students, but the top tier of schools does maintain an unfair monopoly on academic prestige.
Why do you think our system of education isn’t a product of capitalism? The people who work in elite universities are far less loyal to them than are the people who want to send their kids to them, or want to recruit employees from them, or want to hang diplomas from them on their walls, or want to immortalize their names on handsome buildings on their maple-shaded lawns. I think that socialists would do a great job of upgrading the educational opportunities of young kids who haven’t learned the violin, three languages, fencing, and calculus, and have no trouble taking tests.
Of course, DCLAWYER is right about the hard work it takes to be in the intellectual elite (conservative or liberal).
Report comment to moderator
May I protest that without definition these terms, “intellectual” and “capitalism” are merely terms of our likes or dislikes, the stuff of prejudice. No different than the secular stereotype of evangelicals as say no-nothings, ill-educated and the like.
Who then are these intellectuals? Mark Noll? Peter Kreeft? George Marsden? Stanley Hauerwas? Who?
And capitalism — what form? Again a little bit of historical knowledge would uncover that many conservative protestants at the end of the 19th C were deeply concerned about the excesses of the business of that age; for them the Gospel stood in real tension with capitalism. Do we feel it?
And do we sense what is meant by Schumpeter’s “creative destruction?” How then do we propose to rein in the dynamism of capitalism, with its reduction of all, including faith, to the level of commodity. The 19th and 20th centuries proved how capitalism eroded traditional religion (the great accomplishment of fundamentalism/evangelicalism was the the co-opting of this dynamism).
Report comment to moderator
Harriss: Who then are these intellectuals?
One of them would be Harriss himself who asked the question:
How then do we propose to rein in the dynamism of capitalism, with its reduction of all, including faith, to the level of commodity.
How does it follow that the “dynamics” of capitalism reduces “all, including faith?” Why can’t Christians place their savings, i.e. capital, in various human enterprises?
Report comment to moderator
Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it.And in reference to unfettered capitalism;
No economic system creates itself nor maintains itself. All economic systems require structures created by humans. Feudalism relied on obligation and hierarchy to govern exchange and utility. The gradual change from feudalism to capitalism occurred when certain structures were modified, subtracted and created. Rule by law, property rights, limited government, impartial judicary, equality before the courst and state enforced contracts were all required during this time-period to help create the system we have today.
The list of impressive material and technological goods in the last 20 years is offered to support the superiority of capitalism yet does the opposite. A modicum of research would quickly reveal the extent to which the government through defence spending, NASA, and research grants to university has supported most if not all of the major gains in the last twenty years. One might say the list is a good indicator for the value of gov’t intervention.
Capitalism is an unknown ideal, something that we’ve never actually tried, but something that has been a blessing the closer we get to it.
A member of the intellectual elite once remarked that the only good Marxists left were neo-conservatives since they were the only ones who argued for the supremacy of economics and the need to “purify” the system so that we could achieve an utopian ideal. Unfettered capitalism is no more possible than unfettered feudalism or unfettered socialism. All required political and legal structures created by the government. The questions is which structures to create and for whose benefit.
Finally, the dichotomy presented here is tiresome. The either/or of capitalism vs communism assumes we either have to pick a minimal state or a totalitarian state. Most modern states existed somewhere in the middle. The US leans the furtherest towards communism and most of the European states lean one way or an other. Even the Dutch who invented global capitalism even before the Brits have established a fairly extensive social democratic state. Each state has created their own structures to govern economic activity and the question is only for what purpose do we govern.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting that nobody has brought up the theological part of socialism. Socialism is very atheistic, Marxism especially.
Vladimir Lenin said that “The philosophical base of Marxism is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.”
That the so-called “intellectually elite” support socialism, and most likely atheism as a result, reveals the state of our society. When atheism is considered “intellectual” we are in sad condition.
This brings up another point. Who exactly is considered the intellectually elite? Would it be professors or other people involved in education? If so, then it’s understandable that the “intellectually elite” would favor capitalism, as the majority of college professors in America are Marxist.
Consider this quote by Richard Rorty, a professor at Stanford University: “I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities.. try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.”
That is why 50% of students who enter college as Christians abandon their faith while there.
Report comment to moderator
Correction: I said “would favor capitalism” about halfway through. Should be “would favor socialism”.
Report comment to moderator
What are “intellectuals” and what is “capitalism”?
I ask, because I think Harrison Scott Key might know the definitions. He might also know the definition of “straw man argumentation”.
Report comment to moderator
Better question:
Why do right-wing fundagelicals think social Darwinism is a morally superior common-sense philosophy but condemn biological Darwinism as part of a dreaded “intellectual elitism?”
Report comment to moderator
Adam, Capitalism is an economic system in which the production of goods depend on invested private capital and profit making. Intellectuals are the ubiquitous leftist windbags and scribblers who whine about wealthy capitalists and dream about utopian alternatives.
Report comment to moderator
Dittos to what Peter Leavitt said in post 42. I can’t imagine how anyone living in the U.S. (or Canada) could think they’d have it better off, economically speaking, living (and doing business) anywhere else in the world.
Intellectuals tend to diss capitalism because they have college students under their spell, and students love to swim against the current. That, plus they teach using theories that are in the clouds when it comes to real life.
Report comment to moderator
DCL
DCL, those of us who believe in God can be either brilliant, or anything down the scale of intelligence. Your sly, snide remark speaks volume’s about YOU. It is your definition of what an intellectual is, which is the stumbling block you suffer from.
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1 Corinthians 1:27
Intellectual does not = socialism, nerd, liberalism, OR unbelief in GOD, far from it. Perhaps more honestly, the socialist equals pseudo intellectualism, which is prevalent around the world in many University’s . . . who attain many degree’s and are either to lazy to use them, or not gifted enough to attain the positions they seek after, so of course sitting, arm-chairing the world about them, they seek deliverance from their economic deficiency.
I believe as I wrote earlier, there are two different categories, which intellectuals fall. Those who work, and achieve, and those who don’t, but constantly create new and innovative ways for the capitalist society to pay their way, and that of others.
I didn’t go to schools where intelligence was thought to be ‘nerdy’- that sounds like something from an ‘air headed Hollywood film’-
Getting good grades is highly sought after where we live, but also the creativity to use those grades and then the degree’s once you have them.
Just a side note:
Wise men speak plainly to enlighten their listener, what they say is to important NOT to be lost in an ocean of meaningless words . . . men who have little to say, must make do with every conceivable word which they have learned to impress the listener.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #37 by HRW
HRW, as you point out, the shift from Feudalism to Capitalism was a shift toward Freedom. As a couple of other commenters pointed out, what we really mean by capitalism is economic freedom. For such freedom to thrive, the government must only do two things: (1) protect the rights of individuals, as you point out, and (2) stay out of the way. Even if laissez-faire capitalism didn’t work, it’s the only economic system in which people are free; therefore, the only moral economic system. Any other system requires some amount of coersion.
You wrote, “Most modern states existed somewhere in the middle.” That’s precisely my point. We’ve never tried laissez-faire, free-market capitalism. Every modern state has exercised some degree of control over business, and control is, of course, the opposite of freedom. Until we give economic freedom a chance to either fail or succeed, nobody should proclaim it a failure. One of the worst lies told is that the mess created by “mixed economies” is a mess produced by capitalism.
You have schizophrenic governments propping businesses up with one hand, and hindering them with the other. And then we blame those “evil Capitalists” for the economic mess brought about through this Statist approach.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt – 42
Peter I agree with so much of what you write. But the left are not the ONLY ‘intellectuals’ the left are the boring socialists, who incorporate their views so they can continue living without making the effort to support themselves. They encourage the rest of society to chime into whatever might make their lives easier, whatever wealth they might extract from the capitalist.
‘They’ are “windbags” as it takes four times as many words to convey what they have to say, even if it makes little sense to even the most illiterate ‘ding dongs’, to the brightest on the map………..all who sit with breathless wonder listen……sounds like Hitchens. What can you expect from anyone who cannot speak in plain language, which just might convey something in three sentences, rather than a barrage of words!
Report comment to moderator
Re: #33 by DCL
I can’t speak for others, but I have no contempt for intellectuals, per se. The original question is why many “intellectual elites” hate capitalism so much? I took the expression “intellectual elites” to refer to those, such as Noam Chomsky, who think that because they are thinkers, they, and they alone, have the knowledge needed to save the world.
Since you mentioned contempt, I’ll say that I don’t like the contempt I encounter for people who simply want economic freedom. Who want freedom to earn and to save and to spend and to invest as they see fit. Who want freedom from excessive taxes, especially double taxes like the capital gains tax and the death tax. Who want freedom from a government savings program that earns far less than a good private investment plan would.
Why such contempt for them? Oh, because they’re not smart enough to realize that a bureaucracy can run their lives better than they can themselves.
Report comment to moderator
A few final points. It’s just simply fallacious to equate “intellectuals” as a general matter with socialism. I don’t know any. I didn’t encounter any in college or law school. I don’t know any now in either political party. I couldn’t give a bleep about Noam Chomsky or for that matter Richard Epstein (a very radical conservative law professor). There will always be people on the fringe of intellectual thought whose identity is about being provocative. So what?
Prove your thesis. Define your terms. Why are we talking about socialism at all? You may disagree with the plans of various presidential candidates but it is simply a matter of rhetorical excess to brand any plans from Huckabees’ to Edwards’ as socialist. If you want to talk that way, fine. But you won’t be taken seriously. You are beating a dead horse.
Victoria, there are many brilliant people who believe in God. Many theologians against whom I can’t hold a candle. But many of them are also not evangelical. And even among those that are, I submit that faith in a literal inerrant Bible requires a blind spot to reason. That’s my position. Refute it.
And I did go to a school where people who were smart were treated poorly by their peers. A private Christian school at that. I bet others had similar experiences if they weren’t the bullies themselves.
And Kyle I’m all for saving and investing. I’m all for economic freedom. But you know, many of the founders of this country were deeply skeptical of creating an American aristocracy. Jefferson supported a massive tax on inheritance. He believed each generation should be self-made without the benefit of inherited wealth. We’ve come a long way from that view and not necessarily for the better. Your attack on Social Security is fodder for another day. Suffice it to say that the truth is Americans as a whole save next to nothing. Without social security you would still be paying to support them in the old age or through health care.
I have no contempt for a reasonably regulated capitalism. You however have contempt for regulation and appear not to care a whit about the consequences.
Report comment to moderator
And you know, it’s interesting. Jesus had a lot to say about the evils of accumulating wealth and the duty to pay taxes. I don’t recall him saying anything about economic freedom. But I guess that’s all part of the “social gospel” that evangelical conservatives like to ignore.
Report comment to moderator
DCL – 48
Who are these “brilliant people who believe in God. Many Theologians against whom I can’t hold a candle.” – - – I would like to know who you consider these people to be-
Whatever school you went to, where kids were treated badly because they excelled in their studies, and it was a so called ‘Christian school’? I don’t know who your “bullies” were, but it does occur to me that you hold much resentment to whomever has harmed you. There are ‘bullies’ in every school, whether it be private, or Christian, or public. Nasty kids are everywhere, certainly you learned this early on.
Report comment to moderator
DCL – 49
Did Jesus say there was something wrong with being rich, was it evil?
Paying taxes is everyone’s obligation, no matter what their worth. What have taxes got to do with intellectuals be they wealthy or poor, and their paying them?
Who do you think loved Jesus who buried HIM in his tomb? It was a rich man, a disciple of Jesus. A rich man and Nicodemus, a tax collector, buried JESUS.
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: Matthew 27:57
38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. John 19
Report comment to moderator
My take:
In the game of capitalism, money rewards the winners. Intellectuals value knowledge highly and money not so much. They feel that people who play for money are shallow and are living the unexamined life (which, being a little more generous than Socrates, they’d probably say is hardly worth living).
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt asks
How does it follow that the “dynamics” of capitalism reduces “all, including faith?”
A fair question, but even a cursory read of Adam Smith would begin to suggest an answer. The heart of capitalism is a common place, that we make our choices by weighing the respective merits (self-interest); Smith goes on to attach a metric to this — properly it’s labor, but he abstracts it to money. One metric measures all. this means that all things that can be valued can then be traded. I trade my writing for your sermon; this wooden box for that new cloak, etc. We should also note the reverse side: What cannot be measured, is considered for purposes of economic analysis to be of no value.
How much is courage? Beauty? Faithfulness? Love?
When you combine this measurement with mass production techniques (themselves the product of capitalism), you begin to create a commoditization. So in faith terms, we have Methodists here, Baptists there, and Catholics outside all competing for believers. the logic of the market propels us to start thinking in terms of commonality and share of market — commoditization. Our big box churches echo the big box retailers.
How then does one preserve what is individual? singular? How does one preserve a community? It is a fair reading that this thrust of market capitalism lies in some tension with the values of the Gospel. This lies in part behind the Dreher’s Crunchy Con approach.
Report comment to moderator
JJF – 52
What is knowledge,…………..if you must depend upon capitalism to pay your way?
It would seem that those who consider themselves to be adequately educated, would also be capable of taking care of themselves financially. Instead, the burden is upon those who take all the risks in business, to compensate for those who defend their right to a socialized lifestyle.
Who do you think subsidizes higher education with large grants and gifts, it’s those who the socialists criticize.
It doesn’t take great intelligence to see who takes advantage and who does all the work, takes all the risks. Then there are the so called pseudo intellectuals sitting, over stuffed, as they wax eloquent as to their lofty ideas, which couldn’t pay the insurance on a lawn mower.
Report comment to moderator
Harriss, Capitalism itself, as Smith conceived it, is a morally neutral entity. His basic purpose was to show that a system of economic freedom was superior to the governmental Mercantilism of his day that retarded economic growth for both individuals and nations.
Also, Smith was well aware that individual capitalists being fallen humans would conspire to corner markets and other forms of corruption making it necessary for some governmental regulation.
Probably his most important idea was that individuals working assiduously for their own interests in the long run promote the general interest. That is why countries with free economies greatly outperform socialist economies and in the process of richer cultural and even religious cultures.
The key paragraph in Smith’s hidden hand view in .Wealth of Nations follows:
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Smith, himself, BTW, was discovered after his death was to have given most of his income to charity. He, after all, was a professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – Jesus may not have had a problem with capitalism. He may not have espoused socialism, but he did lecture his followers on the pitfalls of being rich:
Luke 16:1-13
Matthew 19:13-26
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (#55):
I won’t dispute that capitalists grease the wheels of commerce while intellectuals ride in the cabin above and complain about how uncomfortable it is. (How’s that for a tortured metaphor?) Nor will I dispute that academics can, at times, be an ungrateful lot — criticizing positions and institutions that have afforded them the luxury of their lifestyle in the first place.
But that doesn’t mean that such criticism isn’t warranted. And capitalism certainly has its ugly excesses (Enron) and mixed up priorities (ballplayer salaries vs. teacher salaries).
Finally, I would resoundingly disagree with your implication that knowledge is worth little or nothing next to “paying your way.” Perhaps you only meant that one can’t eat books (and then I’d agree); but Solomon has much to say on seeking wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, and nothing to say on increasing shareholder value.
“Seek profits, my son, and incline your heart toward the greater market share.”
Report comment to moderator
Peter [56] — Nice quote, isn’t it?
Adam Smith is a more complicated character (and more interesting, in that regard) than what some free market ideologues would have it. The mechanisms of the market which he describes in some wondrous detail are indeed, in one sense neutral. The criticism of capitalism lies not with these mechanisms, but with their social impact.
Even the freest of markets nonetheless function imperfectly, e.g. we assume them to be governed by some sense of morality; even thieves have honor, notes Augustine. And it is a routine of the news to discover that so-called capitalist institutions end up caught in the sort of conspiracy or self-dealing that Smith noted. Further, the nature of undesirable outcomes in capitalism (i economic terms, “externalities”) often show up after the company or capitalist takes their cut; the bill falls to the general public who receive little in the way of benefit; we solve the problem at the end, rather than preventing them.
And then there is the problem of how to value non-economic goods. Market mechanisms function somewhat corrosively here, in effect creating a monetary pragmatism. It also subtly seduces us away from godly vision of the other: when the market (or capitalism) is conceived of as an impersonal force we can surrender our moral outrage say at the treatment of the poor, or like Dives simply become indifferent to their existence.
In the light of the above issues, it does a disservice to label all critics as “socialists”. Dichotomies (them or us, or in this case, capitalist/socialist) are the stuff of self-satisfaction. A narrower focus, some better definitions would serve Christian and moral reflection much better. And that in turn would make for better policy, as well.
Report comment to moderator
Hoi Polloi Wingnutia – 57
It is good to keep in mind, we are not talking about the Bill Gates and Ted Turner’s of this world. To my knowledge they do not profess the LORD Jesus Christ as their Savior.
JJF – 58
You mention “Enron” and those who are “ballplayers” vs. teacher salaries. You have a point, but lets remember it is the public who pays the price to see these games. What would you do JJF, make this a socialist country? This then becomes ridiculous.
As far as teachers are concerned, many of them are hard working and dedicated, BUT, there are many more who are infusing our children’s minds with worldly, sexually dysfunctional ideas, not to mention sinful, such as the homosexual lifestyle. Encouraging young girls to seek abortions. The entire school situation is one that doesn’t get very much sympathy from many of us any longer. And we should pay these people more? Not until the school administrations stop infusing the classroom with their liberal lifestyles, and come to the realization that math, reading, spelling, etc., are their main concern, not our children’s sex lives, and attacking their Christian values and upbringing.
Report comment to moderator
The rich man and Lazarus-
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And<b. in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Luke 16
On of these men represents the top of financial and the social ladder, the other the extreme bottom. These men were far apart on every scale, EXCEPT the most important part. Lazarus obviously believed in God, although he was the poorest of the poor, and sick with sores, he believed. The rich man on the other hand, didn’t, …read verses 27 to 31, it then becomes apparent when Jesus says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
It wasn’t the riches that kept the rich man from Abraham’s bosom, it was his unbelief, and his inability to help Lazarus who only had the ‘crumbs’ from his table. How different it would have been if the rich man had “believed” and repented before he died? If the rich man had helped the sick, gave them food to eat, a place to live.
Today we have those who are sick among us, they really aren’t able to work, however there are many organizations which are supported by Churches and others who give medical help for those who ‘can’t help themselves’- Our government also accepts those who are sick, they are in hospitals all over the country. One of the nicest hospitals in our area, is packed with those who are unable to pay, many of them come who are ‘illegals’ bringing their children and themselves for medical care, AFTER 5 PM, or if it’s a real emergency they come anytime. They don’t pay, the hospital absorbs the cost, therefore those of us with Insurance, etc., end up paying.
Those who are blessed with wealth, or any sort of funds, should be willing to help. Our church works in this area. There are others who go unnoticed who give. Let’s face it, all of us who are Believers in Jesus Christ, who are Born Again, should be doing more.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle #42
We’ve never tried laissez-faire, free-market capitalism. Every modern state has exercised some degree of control over business, and control is, of course, the opposite of freedom. Until we give economic freedom a chance to either fail or succeed, nobody should proclaim it a failure
You missed my orginal point in #38. Unfettered capitalism is a religious concept akin to the idea some die hard marxist who claim if we try “real” communism then it would work. In both cases, we advance the need for purity and the abscence of guilt. And like most religious concepts, the ideal is never attained and therefore not disproven.
In reality all economic systems are a creation of society as humans create, change and dismiss rules and regulations needed to maintain a semblance of order and purpose. Freedom is a vague undefined concept which can lead to anarchy in the marketplace. A more limited conception views freedom achieved within set boundaries.
Mixed economies are frequently justified by its admirers for bringing freedom from material wants and needs as opposed to freedom to move and act.
Report comment to moderator
Who gives – The Boston Globe
By Christopher Shea
Take that, self-satisfied liberals! A central trope in liberal political discourse is that conservatives are selfish guardians of their own wealth and privilege. But according to “Who Really Cares,” a new book by the Syracuse University public-policy specialist Arthur C. Brooks, it is liberals (especially the nonreligious sort), not conservatives, who are less likely to open their wallets to make charitable donations.
Consider two people, Brooks suggests in his book: One goes to church every week and believes it’s not the government’s job to reduce the amount of inequality in America. The other doesn’t attend church and believes the government must rectify economic injustice. Similar in every other way, which of these people gives more to charity?
The churchgoer, Brooks concludes, is twice as likely to give money. What’s more, she will give 100 times as much. And not just to her house of worship: She will give 50 times more to nonreligious charities, too. Brooks’s book is filled with statistics like these. It “really obliterates the stereotypes about who is philanthropic,” says Peter Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School, who read the book in manuscript.
If we want to improve America’s already impressive record of charitable giving — as much as $250 billion annually, including an average of $1,800 per family, a figure that dwarfs that of any other country — one important step would be “to work for cultural change on the secular left,” Brooks said last week at a forum on the book at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/12/10/who_gives/
Report comment to moderator
Wow, thanks for those stats, Victoria!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Outkast. I have another very revealing piece to post.
Report comment to moderator
Hilton gives fortune to charity (not Paris)
– Dec. 26, 2007
The 80-year-old billionaire intends to leave his money to a charitable group founded by his father – sorry, Paris and Nicky.
By Jia Lynn Yang, writer-reporter
“NEW YORK (Fortune) — The Hilton family patriarch, Barron Hilton, will pass on the $1.2 billion windfall from the sale of Hilton Hotels Corporation – not to his famous progeny, but to his family’s philanthropic foundation, Fortune has learned.”
“Although Barron Hilton still acted as co-chairman of the company until the Blackstone sale, the company hasn’t been run by a Hilton since 1996, when Stephen Bollenbach stepped into the top role. The Hilton Foundation, with assets now of about $1.1 billion, directs more than 50% of its grants to international causes. Since 1990, for instance, it has committed $62 million to building clean sources of water in Africa. A devout Catholic, Conrad Hilton wrote in his will that the foundation’s directors should “shelter little children with the umbrella of your charity.”
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/21/news/newsmakers/yang_hilton.fortune/
Report comment to moderator
.
HRW
Who gives? Fraser report uncovers ‘generosity gap’
Manitobans donate the most to charity among Canadians; Canadians overall donate less to charity than Americans
Canadians tend to give less money to charity than Americans, creating a “generosity gap,” according to a report released Wednesday by the Fraser Institute.
The Vancouver-based think-tank’s 2006 Generosity Index used personal income tax return data to show that 30.4 per cent of American tax-filers donated to charity, while 25.4 per cent of Canadians did the same.
Even Manitoba, which led the provinces for the sixth year in a row with 28 per cent of tax filers making charitable donations, ranked in 27th place among all North American jurisdictions.
“If we gave the same percentage of aggragate income to charity as Americans did, our charitable sector would have about $9.2 billion in increased revenues to do their good works,” LeRoy said Wednesday.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/12/20/generosity.html
Report comment to moderator
I’m not surprised charity, fundraising, anything-a-thons, pass the hat, penny jars at the cashiers are as American as apple pie. When people know they can’t rely on public institutions to help them in their hour of need, they look more favourable to charity as reciprocity enters their mind.
If one accepts stereotypes, Canadians are notoriously stingy, cheap tippers, and a nation founded on economic principles by a bunch of Scots — what more can I say. In a more serious vein, Canada has always been more statist relying first on paternalistic notions (peace order and good government is our founding motto) and later on social democratic ideals. Its one of many subtle cultural differnces.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, you spend a lot of time on this blog which is based in the USA.
You spend a lot of time trying to convince yourself that socialism is better than capitalism.
You spend a lot of time trying to convince yourself that our system of government doesn’t work.
You basicaly can’t make your arguments stick, we live here and you don’t.
Yep our northern neighbors are stingy. We also know that the Canadians aren’t happy that the American’s aren’t in the same condition they are in.
Spend your time with us, trying to convince yourself that the American’s need the Canadians help, through socialism- It must be difficult for all your work, to see your dreams of socialism for the USA fail-
Report comment to moderator
What happened to HRW?
:LOL:
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I guess you simply won the argument, Victoria, so HRW crawled back to Canada with his tail between his legs.
Report comment to moderator