Intellectuals Think

[GURPS]

Why Intellectuals Don't Like Capitalism​

Anti-capitalism is back in fashion. Even Marxism, which many had declared dead after the collapse of socialism, is experiencing a renaissance. Books such as those by the left-wing French economist Thomas Piketty are popular. In my home country, Germany, a book called Das Ende des Kapitalismus (The End of Capitalism), whose author advocates the introduction of a planned economy, has climbed the bestseller lists. She cites the British war economy of the Second World War as a potential model. In her opinion, we should introduce this kind of economic system as quickly as possible, as it is the only way we can save our planet.

So, why do many intellectuals dislike capitalism? Many of them fail to understand the nature of capitalism as an economic order that emerges and grows spontaneously. Unlike socialism, capitalism isn’t a school of thought imposed on reality; free-market capitalism largely evolves spontaneously, growing from the bottom up rather than being decreed from above. Capitalism has grown historically, in much the same way as languages have developed over time as the result of spontaneous and uncontrolled processes. Esperanto, invented in 1887 as a planned language, has now been around for over 130 years without gaining anything like the global acceptance its inventors were hoping for. Socialism shares some of the characteristics of a planned language in that it is a system devised by intellectuals.

Once we’ve grasped this essential difference between capitalism, as a spontaneously evolving order, and socialism, as a theoretical construct, the reasons why many intellectuals have a greater affinity for socialism – in whatever form – suddenly become obvious. Since their own livelihood depends on their ability to think and communicate ideas, they feel more in tune with an artificially planned and constructed economic order than with one that allows for unplanned, spontaneous development. The notion that economies work better without active intervention and planning is alien to many intellectuals.

 

[Kyle]

I would argue, based on the title, they don’t.

 

[GURPS]

I would argue, based on the title, they don’t.

Well they ' think ' but their thinking has little to no common sense .... more operating on feelings

 

[Hessian]

Control has ALWAYS been a fascination for the Germans. They deliberate endlessly about weather (because they can't control it). They are so proud of their transit system, their aircraft, their industrial output, their recycling efforts...(yup...carefully controlled).

So as they project anthropogenic climate change, they connect the dots: If we control the people, and all production, then we can control the weather. Its arrogant. Its intelligentsia 'knowing' exactly how to run everything. (and its roots go WAY back!)

 

[SamSpade]

She cites the British war economy of the Second World War as a potential model.

At least she has SOME idea of where things would go, instead of the anarchy that students on these campuses drone on about.

With the mindset of small children, they operate as though they believe the rest of the world exists to provide them with STUFF - just like Mom and Dad did. Did you see the lists of items they requested demanded? As some of the conservative pundits observed, if you're going to "war", might be good to at least come PREPARED. Or do what so many did, in the sixties, to which they compare themselves - go on hunger strikes.

There's a perspective that intellectual academia types develop, and it's bizarre - but not entirely unexpected, because when you live in a non-capitalistic bubble, you can argue and pontificate and develop all kinds of ideas about how the world should work. I wish I had a nickel for every "intellectual" who clearly believes that companies, businesses and corporations exist to provide people with jobs (and therefore, money and benefits).

Just as these protesting twerps think that the outside world is beholden to provide them with food (that meets their preferences) - that think that not having it delivered to them is a kind of violence - that on their list of demands include things like HIV tests and the morning after pill (which kind of gives you the idea of what is REALLY going on in there) - they don't grasp the harshness of the real world.

The alternatives to capitalism inevitably lead to virtue signaling by the ones profiting by it - and everyone else working for someone else and not profiting it for themselves. I suppose someone can say, yeah, well that's how capitalism works, because all they see is people doing that. Except that that's exactly how it does NOT work - if you're driven, you can work for yourself.

IF you're the kind of person who expects to be provided for and expects income and benefits and all the good things in life to be given to you, then yep, that's what you'll get out of capitalism.

IF you're the kind of person who is willing to work more, take risks, and expects that nothing will come to you unless you work for it, it's going to do well for you.

Because history has proven it, repeatedly.