WHY DO INTELLECTUALS OPPOSE CAPITALISM ?

Cato Online ^ | January/February 1998 | Robert Nozick

[laredo44]

Rather, it produces anti-capitalist feeling among verbal intellectuals. Why do the numbersmiths not develop the same attitudes as these wordsmiths? I conjecture that these quantitatively bright children, although they get good grades on the relevant examinations, do not receive the same face-to-face attention and approval from the teachers as do the verbally bright children. It is the verbal skills that bring these personal rewards from the teacher, and apparently it is these rewards that especially shape the sense of entitlement.

I would offer that numeric excercises provide rewards independent of the instructor while verbal exercises do not. In other words, the numerically bright find objective confirmation of their brightness while the verbally bright must always depend on subjective confirmation from some higher human authority for their value. This easily conforms to a preference for society based on a hierarchical arrangement of humans among the verbally bright. Capitalism is not that system.

[gcruse]

True. Plus, the number types are exposed to a lot less social sciences than the writer types. Oddly, though, the core curricula usually make the math types take soshe, without making the soshe types take math. You can tell from that which types run the universities.

[yankeedame]

IMHO, we can trace a good deal of this back to 18th century European, particularly pre-Rvolutionary France and the contempt of the waning aristrocracy to the rising .

"To the aristrocrats she (Madame de Pompadour) was in incarnation of the (despised) Parisian bourgeoisie. While the nobles, living in a delightful insouciance at Versallies, neglecting their estates, gambling all of every night for enormous sums , spending far more than they could afford on horses, carriages and clothes...(they) were geting steadily poorer and more obscure, the bourgeoisie getting richer and more powerful...In his (Duc de Richelieu) eyes she (Pompadour) incarnated the abominable bourgeoisie, the wrong people with their deplorable ton, who were gradually accumlating money and power at the expense of all the right people..." Nancy Mitford, " Madame de Pompadour"

These aristrocrats - both in France and across Europe- evolved into today's intellectual, carrying with them the 200+ year contempt of the "abominable bourgeoisie" (both haute and petite),as well as the system that favors them (capitalism) and, last but certainly not least, the one nation that symbolizes it all: the United States.

[Mr. Jeeves]

The true intellectual understands that he needs to create value. The people discussed in this article are psuedo-intellectuals, poseurs who surround themselves with the trappings of academic achievement but who lack the discerning minds and self-critical outlook of true intellectuals.

[gcruse]

Exactly. The focus of the article is too narrow for the broadness of its conclusions.

[El Conservador]

I think it has more to do with the mindset of a student entering college. Students who choose "employable" majors such as nursing, engineering, etc. are more likely to be conservative by nature

Not necesarily true. I'm a Civil Engineering major and I have a few liberal classmates, who are really outspoken, but we're mostly indifferent to politics or conservatives (I think the former is more applicable).

As the author exposes it, engineering is totally disconnected with politics, since we don't deal with "ideas" but with theorems and formulas, we're mathematicians by nature.

I thank God that I chose to major in Civil Engineering, because I couldn't stomach all that drivel.

[FITZ]

the one nation that symbolizes it all: the United States.

Yes ---they consider themselves to be part of the "elite" and they despise what they consider middle class values and the middle class. They prefer aristocracies/oligarchies which allow a few elites to have all the power and control. It really irks them that a country that allowed peasants to have money became the richest and in many cases descendents of peasants came out ahead of the descendents of aristocrats.

[BamaGirl]

Hi Cosmo,

Wow! Thanks for posting this, this so hits the nail on the head. What a thought-provoking article!

Why do the numbersmiths not develop the same attitudes as these wordsmiths? I conjecture that these quantitatively bright children, although they get good grades on the relevant examinations, do not receive the same face-to-face attention and approval from the teachers as do the verbally bright children. It is the verbal skills that bring these personal rewards from the teacher, and apparently it is these rewards that especially shape the sense of entitlement.

I also suspect that the numerical kids derive the bulk of their satisfaction from the work themselves, as opposed to the personal rewards. Compare the pride a mathematican feels upon producing a proof, to that of a writer of a book. The writer depends much more on other people's appreciation (reviews, critiques, etc.) than the mathematician, who is just happy if he found a nice proof.

[BamaGirl]

Our explanation hypothesizes that (future) intellectuals are disproportionately represented in that portion of the schools' (official) upper class that will experience relative downward mobility. Or, rather, in the group that predicts for itself a declining future. The animus will arise before the move into the wider world and the experience of an actual decline in status, at the point when the clever pupil realizes he (probably) will fare less well in the wider society than in his current school situation.

This also makes a lot of sense with regard to some of my upper class friends -- the ones whose children have been the most well-balanced and successful are those who have a rather "middle-class" lifestyle, despite their wealth. These kids who believe that they are middle-class by definition still have the impression of possible upward mobility.

[BamaGirl]

Oh, I copied exactly what you said.

[BamaGirl]

I work in a department at an "elite university" and I've noticed a phenomenon related to this. Since most of the professors (and graduate students) don't have the funds to buy that Mercedes to show their eliteness, they instead become food snobs and incessantly talk about whatever fancy restaurant they went to the night before.

Actually I notice this is true of many liberals as well. Anyone else see this correlation?

[Maelstrom]

The root of their error lies in hubris.

In their hubris, they somehow manage to patronize the entire population of their respective nations making themselves responsible for creating a Utopia for their adopted presumed child-like people.

[Nataku X]

Not as much as "no role" as it is that 18-year-olds who make a $100,000 investment in something that will never give back financially are less likely to be money-driven (as you say) and consequentially less capitalistic. It's simple logic.

If you're focused on money, you're more likely to be capitalistic, and you're more likely to choose a major that will pay off financially. One of my good friends is a multi-millionaire by inheritance and is studying South American literature, and he hates capitalism, go figure.

[Nataku X]

While you are technically right, nearly every job out there requires a 4-year degree compared to a 2-year one... but anyway, my intention was not to slam liberal arts but rather to say people who decide to spend so much money just to study liberal arts are less likely to be capitalistic in the first place. I've met no liberal arts majors who fit your description, unfortunately...

[F16Fighter]

Elitism, intellectual dishonesty, and guilt-driven masochism.

[arasina]

Very interesting. I have a "wordsmith" older brother who indeed is a left-leaning anti-capitalist. Makes no sense in some ways because he is the most successful (monetarily, obtaining income from capitalism) sibling out of nine.

[WhaChuLookinAt]

Sure they do - instruction, consultation, literature, music, diversion, entertainment, etc. The anti-free-market pseudo-intellectual simply produces products that are undesirable. Even then, if approached with the proper mindset, the pseudo-intellectual's output has some value - at least as a guide to what not to do.

[WhaChuLookinAt]

Actually, what you're describing is a tyrant. Just because someone wishes to control everyone and everything else does not make him an intellectual. For example, two-time flunky AlGore.

[Blake#1]

The USofA is a Capitalist Republic and it is the only such organization on Earth. It has the richest and happiest people on Earth, explaining why the class envy all over the world. Every other country has a form of Socialism Democracy. These countries are jealouse of the USofA but will not become a Capitalist Republic. With this evidence why don't the people of Earth change things?