Replies

I guess I am forever doomed to be mystified by these "academics" who worship at the alter of socialism/communism. The simple beauty of free enterprise in a constitutional republic, with its natural checks and balances, depending on human nature rather than opposing it, and its history of success for the good of mankind, versus the proven failure of socialism is something I think a true academic would embrace. Yet, for some strange reason they cling to the shallow facade of collectivism rather than the freedom of each individual "doing his own thing". The very fact that they must depend on a littany of lies to sell their philosophy should be enough to clue them in but it apparently is not. I have considered the possibilities of guilt, power seeking, altruism, etc., but none of them make much sense past the surface emotion. But I also think the same about religion. The pursuit of a belief in and faith in God is much more challenging and thrilling than the simple copout of "prove it", but most are too fearful of being thought foolish to probe the intellectual depths of belief. Perhaps that is why the same people who love collectivism hate God and religion, the fear of being thought to be mean and uncaring causing them to support policies that are truly mean and uncaring once you get past the bs..

guess I am forever doomed to be mystified by these "academics" who worship at the alter of socialism/communism

Thomas Sowell, in his book Knowledge and Decisions made reference to them. If you and the lurking prof Sowell will forgive a paraphrase, (my copy is not handy at the moment):

He claimed that because their only coin of the realm is their ideas, they adopt positions which are designed to challenge the credibility of those groups who base their claims to authority on other "products" (specifically businessmen who base their authority on wealth, and the military who base it upon use of force)

This would follow then that all "intellectuals" (meaning those who's sole product is information so it would include members of the media) would without fail adopt a position considered to the left of the mainstream.
I can't confirm it at the moment, but it seems to me that if a Russian University professor in 1972 was to take a "radical" position, he would not argue for strengthening the communist party but for a more capitalistic view. This would be viewed as revolutionary, and would still be contrary to those parties in authority.

In my opinion, so much of what Prof. Sowell has stood up to verification, that I'm willing to give his assertions the benefit of the doubt. In other words, ... makes sense to me.