Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Problem with Capitalism is there are no limits and it thrives on exploitation. Any human that condones that is pretty sick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The US was founded by intellectuals, who fomented revolt among the underclasses against colonial capitalism.

The capitalists involved were the colonial English - the Revolution involved a collective debt repudiation by a bunch of freeloaders who didn't want to pay rent and work out their contracted indentures and so forth. They nationalized a bunch of private property, and gave themselves "free land", and never paid their bills.

If you read about the Boston Tea Party, for example, you can find a list of the buildings attacked and burned - the houses of the rich capitalistic businessmen, mostly. The rioters knew their enemy.

Be interesting to see the Mexicans who are mowing Sandy's lawn decide they own it, and start putting up shacks and planting corn.

 

Capitalism is human nature, anyone who tells you any different has something up their sleeve.

 

Your focus on rich and poor motive betrays your inability to see the vast spectrum of reasoning in which most people live. George Washington was a farmer who picked up a rifle. He wasn't president of x y z university. His peers were much the same. As for wealthy people taking land... Everyone took as much land as they pleased. After shooting or scaring away the local indians the land was theirs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

The men listed above, who wrote the Constitution under which we live, were by and large intellectuals. Most of them were lawyers, some were doctors (an intellectual occupation at that time), a couple were theologians, a couple were scientists.

They were not (except for Washington, who was a surveyor from an estate and married great wealth, not a "farmer") among the most wealthy landowners or businessmen - the most wealthy men of the colonies, the major capitalists who paid big taxes, were loyal to the Crown.

Several of them were associated with universities (president, treasurer, on the board of regents, etc) and publishing or printing operations (Franklin, etc)and several others not present but important were as well. A respected early founder of Princeton University was among the Founders not present, some officials of Yale figured prominently, and of course radical intellectuals such as Thomas Paine were very important in the Revolution.

They were the most bookish, intellectual men of the Colonies. The laws that set them at war with England were not so much taxes, but other oppressions. Look up the Intolerable Acts - not a tax law among them.

Not the wealthy taking land, but the poor, was the striking feature of the American Revolution. And they took it not only from the Indians but from the British Crown and British capitalists who owned it. They simply squatted on the land, and refused to be removed.

The intellectuals fomented an uprising of the Scotch Irish and other smallholders and peasants, and in the end got more than they bargained for.

 

As to the founders, most of what I've read suggests that they were good old fashioned mercantilists, rather than capitalists (in the modern sense).

I've not heard many people say that they weren't intellectuals. If Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Franklin, Hamilton, and the other "idea men" who designed the government weren't intellectuals, then I'd have to guess that American had no intellectuals at all.

 

You are correst and that's why I choose Socialism.

 

I don't know many lawyers, doctors, engineers or scientists who are deeply anti-capitalism, so are we now to limit the definition to professors and lecturers? (In fact, of the professors and lecturers I know, I'd suggest that a majority support "capitalism with regulation.")

Decrying the excesses and shortcomings of capitalism, is not the same thing as denouncing the whole system.

 

Tiger woods walks around on green lawn (sometimes in a cart) and hits a ball around, who is poised to be the first billionaire athlete by 2010, while some people work all their life and can't do that. Thats fucked. Just a though.

 

You've got to be kidding me. The number of people that watch golf is very little, and more people derive happiness from basketball and soccer than golf. Basketball and soccer also requires actual physical exercise. Giving millions to Tiger is saying it takes more smarts to play golf than any other mainstream sport. Kmguru, I KNOW you are an intelligent guy, do you really think it takes that much more smarts to play golf? Golf is filled with controlled variables-that means once the weather and wind stay relatively stable you are home sweet home, unlike basketball when you never know what the defense will do next. And even if we are talking about intelligence, then Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov's combined wealth should equal the whole Easten Europe's. Capitalism sometimes leaves one in utter awe.

 

since we are talking about hand eye cordination I'l like to introduce you to my friends, thier names are Volleyball, Tennis, Baseball, Cricket, e.t.c. Why does golf have to be the leader of hand eye cordination sports, is it supposed to be some kind of joke? I really don't have a point, like I said, its just a thought. I actually like capitalism but irresponsible capitalism is something to laugh about. However we must accept that golf is a high brew, high life game, watched mostly by the corporations who sponsore it.

 

what are you trying to say? That the hand eye cordinaion in golf is more delicate? Can you prove that? Okay lets assume Tiger has great hand eye codination, which he does, does that mean he can make a three point shot? Does that mean he can make a three point shot while some 6 feet guy has his hands blocking him? Does it mean he can make a soccer goal from a direct free kick 40m away? Or can Tiger hit a tennis ball right along the side line to leave the opponent struggling? Or can he throw a football with precision and accuracy like quaterback do under pressure? My point is every game is different, with none more better or delicate than the other. Tiger is just benefiting from a corporate sponsorship and culture associated with his sport. And I have to also add that he is a very good player.