BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Ellis
18:05 / 03.07.01
While mooching around the net I came across this article by Robert Nozick.

Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

quote: It is surprising that intellectuals oppose capitalism so. Other groups of comparable socio-economic status do not show the same degree of opposition in the same proportions. Statistically, then, intellectuals are an anomaly.

Not all intellectuals are on the "left." Like other groups, their opinions are spread along a curve. But in their case, the curve is shifted and skewed to the political left.

By intellectuals, I do not mean all people of intelligence or of a certain level of education, but those who, in their vocation, deal with ideas as expressed in words, shaping the word flow others receive. These wordsmiths include poets, novelists, literary critics, newspaper and magazine journalists, and many professors. It does not include those who primarily produce and transmit quantitatively or mathematically formulated information (the numbersmiths) or those working in visual media, painters, sculptors, cameramen. Unlike the wordsmiths, people in these occupations do not disproportionately oppose capitalism. The wordsmiths are concentrated in certain occupational sites: academia, the media, government bureaucracy.

Wordsmith intellectuals fare well in capitalist society; there they have great freedom to formulate, encounter, and propagate new ideas, to read and discuss them. Their occupational skills are in demand, their income much above average. Why then do they disproportionately oppose capitalism? Indeed, some data suggest that the more prosperous and successful the intellectual, the more likely he is to oppose capitalism. This opposition to capitalism is mainly "from the left" but not solely so. Yeats, Eliot, and Pound opposed market society from the right.

The opposition of wordsmith intellectuals to capitalism is a fact of social significance. They shape our ideas and images of society; they state the policy alternatives bureaucracies consider. From treatises to slogans, they give us the sentences to express ourselves. Their opposition matters, especially in a society that depends increasingly upon the explicit formulation and dissemination of information.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:04 / 03.07.01
I don't think much of the section posted. Maybe it picks up in the rest, but to make a few obvious points - anticapitalist intellectuals are rarely employed by governments as policy advisors; the "occupational skills" of intellectuals are not particularly in demand, the market is flooded and it's increasingly difficult for graduates to find employment in the academy, nor are their salaries particularly high given the length of training (i.e., to work as an intellectual requires a minimum of around seven years university training, and is paid substantially less than a doctor or lawyer, with a minimum of around four years training); the idea that there are a disporportionate number of anticapitalists working in the media is farcical; reference to almost certainly imaginary "data" on correlation of financial success to anticapitalist fervour; the fact that a group of people with uncommon capacity to make their opinions known express anticapitalist sentiments suggests that, rather than this being somehow disporportionate, it's reflective of the general feelings of those less able to express themselves.
 
 
Naked Flame
20:55 / 03.07.01
i don't know if you can make the kind of demographic analysis that your source talks about: I am unconvinced that there's any mileage in this concept of 'professional intellectuals' as one can clearly be a pretty decent amateur intellectual...

then again, all right-thinking people oppose capitalism, don't they? (pinches self, wakes up from rose-tinted dream...)
 
 
Red Cross Iodized Salt
09:24 / 04.07.01
quote:the fact that a group of people with uncommon capacity to make their opinions known express anti-capitalist sentiments suggests that, rather than this being somehow disproportionate, it's reflective of the general feelings of those less able to express themselves.
I disagree. It is merely reflective of the opinions held by these individuals, opinions which have led them to their chosen vocations as anti-capitalist pundits. Not everyone with an 'uncommon capacity to make their opinions known' opposes capitalism - as witnessed by the many politicians, academics, business people, etc who do not. If certain professional intellectuals are to be considered representative of those in western society who posses anti-capitalist views, should not those who support capitalism be considered representative of a larger group?


quote:all right-thinking people oppose capitalism, don't they?
The implication being that anyone who does not oppose capitalism outright is somehow wrong-thinking?

[ 04-07-2001: Message edited by: basic ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:24 / 04.07.01
Okay, I disagree but the point was that his reasoning is shonky, in that it seems to exclude without consideration what I think is a reasonable hypothesis. That is, from the apparent premise that an awful lot of intellectuals are anticapitalists (which I agree is a very dodgy claim), my suggestion is at least as plausible as his. His failure to consider it is a) obviously ideologically motivated and b) one of many objections to his argument i outlined, and the only one you've even attempted to criticise.

I also think it was somewhat inappropriate to follow a quote from me with a quote from an unnamed source, the implication being that i said it, or at least believed it.
 
 
Red Cross Iodized Salt
09:24 / 04.07.01
I agree with you about Nozick's argument being flawed, and I agree with most of the points you made. I addressed only the final point you made because it was there that our opinions diverged.

I've changed the quote, by the way. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be misconstrued as being something you had said. My bad.
 
 
ynh
09:24 / 04.07.01
Intellectuals oppose capitalism becuase they have a higher capacity for empathy? Intellectuals oppose capitalism becuase their mommas live in trailers? Intellectuals oppose capitalism because they are better informed, and can therefore imagine more relevant consequence vectors? Just a few ideas, mind you, none of them supported by data, just like Nozick's.

I think pointing the finger at the academy and saying "you're just whining cause you feel betrayed" is probably the most fruitful method of inquiry here. Did I miss something? Are economics departments primarily marxist these days?

quote:Intellectuals now expect to be the most highly valued people in a society, those with the most prestige and power, those with the greatest rewards. Intellectuals feel entitled to this. But, by and large, a capitalist society does not honor its intellectuals.

Ah, that's it. Intellectuals feel entitled. Nozick backtracks later and notes that he's including all anti-free-market sentiment and not just exposing the pinkos: otherwise this hypothesis wouldn't make sense.

quote:Those who valued other things more than thinking things through with words, whether hunting or power or uninterrupted sensual pleasure, did not bother to leave enduring written records. Only the intellectual worked out a theory of who was best.

Holy shit! Intellectuals are the conspiracy. They write things down and gain purchase on the furture, while conquerors and breeders never leave any tangible mark.

quote:Identifying themselves as intellectuals, they can resent the fact that intellectual activity is not most highly valued and rewarded.

Dear reader, you are the worst of the intellectuals. Your whining arises from your self-identification.

He also makes the baseless assumption that verbal excellence is more praised in school that numerical excellence. This is arse. He ignores that one continues to be praised for mathematical excellence throughout one's life, and generally gets more of the tangible cash reward as well. Then the article becomes an indulgent wank with no support, and ends with the "no really, I think it's true, and therefore it's important," conclusion.

And anyone who doesn't oppose capitalism is somehow wrong-thinking. But this is the wrong thread for that. Next time you see a homeless person or a tired working class sap, be sure to tell hir I think s/he's getting what s/he deserves, basic. Presumably, all those Unions think capitalism is the fukn bomb and aren't a protective mechanism for members against an unethical power structure. My bad.

[ 04-07-2001: Message edited by: [Your Name Here] ]

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: [Your Name Here] ]
 
 
Red Cross Iodized Salt
09:24 / 04.07.01
Of course. Because no one who does not oppose capitalism in any and all forms could possibly abhor homelessness or exploitation.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:24 / 04.07.01
Are you going to disagree with the last line of everything anyone posts? I think it's a good way to advance an argument, really.
 
 
Red Cross Iodized Salt
09:24 / 04.07.01
quote:I think it's a good way to advance an argument, really.

I totally disagree.
 
 
ynh
09:24 / 04.07.01
Listen, basic, I could play philistine, too. But I don't. Explain how support for an exploitative system makes happy friends with abhorrence of exploitation.
 
 
No star here laces
09:24 / 04.07.01
That claim is a bag of shite. Questioning the last line of a post is the best way to argue ever, you're just whining because your teacher used to put your grades down by the last line of your essay.

Nozick definitely overstates his case and is an odious man generally. However he probably does have a point about the intellectual's desire for validation and recognition in society. Much in the same way as the school sports hero who ends up in the tractor factory may well hold a seething cauldron of resentment in his barrel chest - an argument that I sense most people here would probably find easier to swallow...

A much more interesting point, however, is that as he points out - those who are most rewarded by school are not those who are most rewarded by society at large. So surely schools are not training children in the skills that they need for success in today's world. Whether you take that as an indictment of the school system, or of the world, depends on your point of view.
 
 
ynh
09:24 / 04.07.01
He doesn't even point that out, Brother. He suggests that the literate receive more praise than the numerate, which is complete bullshit. My this is fun.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:24 / 04.07.01
Surely: intellectuals analyse. Analysis reveals iniquities and failures, assumptions biases and so on. It's in the nature of the analyst to complain about things.

They don't just complain about capitalism, of course.
 
 
Cavatina
09:24 / 04.07.01
Re Ellis's quotation from Nozick:

'By intellectuals I mean ... Those wordsmiths include poets, novelists, literary critics, newspaper and magazine journalists, and many professors.'

I haven't read his stuff and this is late in the discussion. But really. Were the people who participated in the huge demonstration in Seattle in 1999 against the W.T.O. necessarily 'intellectuals' of this sort? Or simply intelligent people who've got a grasp of the implications, for the majority of humanity, of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade? John Pilger commented recently that one of the reasons that such bodies as the W.T.O., I.M.F. and World Bank have 'such a free reign is that the Anglo-American intelligentsia - journalists, academics, writers, the "people with a voice" - are quiet or complicit or "twittering" ... .' The all too common assumption is that there is no other way. Corporate propaganda is all pervasive and we're being drawn by the media into 'history without memory' and confined to 'a sort of eternal present'.
 
 
Naked Flame
07:38 / 05.07.01
Originally posted by [Your Name Here]
quote:
quote:

"Identifying themselves as intellectuals, they can resent the fact that intellectual activity is not most highly valued and rewarded."

Naked Flame, my friend, you are the worst of the intellectuals. Your whining arises from your self-identification.



Erm, I didn't say that. at least read what I actually wrote before you flame me.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Tom Coates ]
 
 
ynh
15:22 / 05.07.01
Pardon? I'll go back and edit that out if it offended you. I was just racing along with the dipshit innanity of Nozick's hypothesis. I interpellated you 'cause you'd mentioned amateur intellectualism, not 'cause I think you're a whiner. I extend my deepest apologies and humbly hope you accept same.

basic, I'll offer you an apology as well, but maintain that your position is ill-considered.
 
 
Red Cross Iodized Salt
18:22 / 05.07.01
No apology necessary, I wasn't offended by anything you said. I've read enough of your posts on Barbelith to know that they are intelligent, well-informed and passionate, and I'm not so thin-skinned that I take umbrage when this passion causes you to dispute a point using strong terms (although I think you were perhaps overly harsh with Naked Flame).

However, I just plain do not agree with you on the subject of capitalism. Flawed though it may be, I do not know of a viable alternative system for democratic societies. Unconstrained capitalism is certainly problematic (observed nowhere so much as in the US), but I believe that the dehumanizing and exploitative aspects of capitalist systems can be held in check by Governments with strong social policies (as well as by other interest groups). You mentioned unions earlier, which I feel function as an integral part of a capitalist system that is more equitable.

Anyway, this is all moving away from Ellis' original topic. Perhaps it belongs in the alternatives thread (which I must admit to not yet having read).
 
 
Naked Flame
20:37 / 05.07.01
no offence taken YNH- but (offtopic) I'm disturbed when I read Headshop threads these days- it seems that everyone has their own entrenched intellectual position and can't be shifted, which is surely anathema to the interesting dialectic we used to see here a year or so ago.

back on topic- intellectuals oppose capitalism because only a purely theoretical viewpoint can envisage a world without a profit motive. Discuss =P flame on!
 
 
No star here laces
07:06 / 06.07.01
Interesting side point - the article was written back in the 80s when the intellectual climate around capitalism was probably very different.

I have to say that I often wonder about whether my own opposition to capitalism isn't a bit airy-fairy and intellectual, and maybe has too much root in the fact that I'm doing a job I don't want to do and, yes, quite possibly that has a lot to do with being lauded at school as someone who would acheive lots etc. etc.

Having said that, if you have a reason for disliking capitalism, or an alternative to it that you can reasonably defend, then does it really matter why you happen to think it?

Probably not...
 
 
synaesthesia
19:03 / 16.07.01
Hmm... As far as I can see the real issue is Nozick's definition of the intellectual. Remarkably narrow but by no means invalid in a sense he seems to be trying to bracket a group of generally priveleged people whose primary activity is intellectual and is at the same time got a strong emphasis on societal opinion forming. Probably running in tandem with the slogan "The intellegentsia is powers hall of mirrors" if you ask me. I honestly believe there is a mistaken conflation with the term intellectual with intellectual activity and those who have critical influence at critical leverage points in our societies.

<Jackie Nothing Special>
Maybe its different in the States but as far as I can see things are different in the UK.
I think it would be fair to say that quite a few policy wonks are left of centre. If you look at the current UK administration, which is Labour, most of the wonks have a early background with the Communist Party. Quite a few in the UK Civil Service have a strong public service ethic too. I don't think I have ever seen an employment survey that reports incomes on par with (never mind lower) for graduates. Of course there are exceptions.

quote:it's reflective of the general feelings of those less able to express themselves.
I'm not clear what you mean here. If you mean that intellectuals usually express views that the working classes and under classes cannot, as far as I can recall the WC's/UC's have throughout the 80's and 90's were more likely to vote Conservative.
In fact, The Sun, the biggest mainstream paper (mainly read by WC/UC's) till recently strongly advocated the Conservatives. The irony is research has pointed out most of its readers believe it has always been a Labour paper.

<Naked Flame -amateur intellectuals>
Quite but where does the 'amateurs' get opportunities to get the platforms (apart from the www) to exercise these abilities? I think it is fair to say that most of the people with key positions in the what Nozick describes as intellectuals do actually come from the same class as the key people they oppose. -It's certainly true in the UK and as far as I know in Europe and the US too.

Firstly let me say that I disagree with a lot of Nozick's views, however on the whole I believe there is a genuine difference in perception between those paid intellectuals who work in the arts and those who work in other fields.

Nozick:
quote: Wordsmith intellectuals fare well in capitalist society; there they have great freedom to formulate, encounter, and propagate new ideas, to read and discuss them

Although I would instinctively agree with his last paragraph, there are plenty of instances where intellectuals views have been disregarded.

Those in the arts and media have an easier opportunity to be able to communicate ideas because their work is the medium. Whereas someone working in engineering who has designed a revolutionary new air intake system. You may be able to say in the news that a new systen improves efficiency by X% and little else.
Consequently you get a bunch of priveleged people constantly self-referring. Powers hall of mirrors as mentioned above. These intellectuals then get an overvalued sense of self-importance and don't understand why because their views are so often reflected back to themselves that they believe they must be right. Puffed up with thier own self-importance.

Capitalism has another twist. There was an evening newspaper in London that leaned to the left but because most of its readers had lesser incomes advertisers were disinterested. The paper folded.

It's not a conspiracy but not a coincidence either.

quote: Intellectuals oppose capitalism becuase they have a higher capacity for empathy?
<red alert> (forgive the pun) I don't agree most of those who Nozick would consider as intellectuals that I have had any dealings with are alpha-plus emotional cripples. On both sides of the political divide.

<Dodgy spelling alert> Spell-checker is down and I'm partially dyslexic.
 
 
01
15:00 / 17.07.01
quote: Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

Because Capitalism is for morons.
 
 
Ever Perez
16:05 / 17.07.01
quote:Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

Ignoring the actual article... This does not apply to all cases, but it's my opinion (or at least my opinion as well as I could form it in 2 minutes):

Because it is fashionable in their social circles and anyone [despite their actual intelligence] that is prone to calling themselves an intellectual has a certain level of narcissism about them. It's the same mentality that makes people think of themselves as individuals because they conform to the ideals, dress code, and/or protocols of a "scene."

"Intellectuals" place themselves outside the norm of society and therefore overlook or [don't care about] the benefits of capitalism for that norm.

quote:
"The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does -- if that catch-phrase has any meaning -- but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."

-- Ayn Rand



What do I know though? I'm sure that most of you are all more educated than I am.
 
 
synaesthesia
20:00 / 17.07.01
Jeez I was right with you then you had to throw in that Ayn Rand quote.

quote: Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

Because they can!
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:06 / 18.07.01
quote: "Intellectuals" place themselves outside the norm of society and therefore overlook or [don't care about] the benefits of capitalism for that norm.

But outside a small minority of western countries, the "norm of society" is abject suffering caused, specifically, by capitalism. So your argument would address the facts better if you said something like, '"Intellectuals" consider things in broader contexts than their immediate personal interests, considering global norms before cheerleading for local profiteers.'

I don't think that's true; only a tiny minority of intellectuals are "anticapitalist" by any reasonable definition.
 
 
Dharma Bum
09:06 / 18.07.01
Theory #1)
Intelllectuals oppose capitalism because they are uniquely privileged to be allowed to sit and examine and think about all the problems in the system while the rest of the population actually has to work.

Theory #2)
Intellectuals oppose capitalism because capitalism is, for better or worse, the status quo, and if you agree with things the way they are now, then there's really nothing else to say, and if nothing else, intellectuals love the sound of their own voices-- thus they must complain.

Theory #3)
Intellectuals oppose capitalism, because all their young lives they enjoyed learning about art and philosophy and debating the grand human condition, all the things that make them intellectuals, and then they finished school and found out that none of that will do them any good in a capitalist system since you can't make a profit by discussing things. (Except for a small minority lucky enough to work as pundits, analysts, all that-- and we're already seeing a market overflow of them).
 
 
Ever Perez
09:06 / 18.07.01
Maybe I'm odd or just dull in the head, but I associate capitalism with democracy or at least socialist democracy. As an American, I can visibly see the benefit of capitalism. I see the dismissal of capitalist ideals as a step towards fascism—maybe it’s just me, but I will always opt for democracy in the face of Fascism (or maybe I'm just confusing my "isms" though).

I'm also assuming the pretentious lot (or majority of you) who responded to this thread would call yourselves "intellectuals."
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:06 / 18.07.01
In America you personally see the benefits of capitalism. I accept that, I can see where you're coming from. My point is that maybe we need to think about something other than whether or not capitalism benefits us, personally. The majority of people live in what gets called 'the third world'. Basically, that means they work in incredibly poor conditions, for incredibly low wages, to make incredible amounts of money for a relatively small group of incredibly wealthy corporations. The same thing happens, to a greater or lesser extent, in 'the first world', where most of us have to work long hours for lousy pay doing boring work to make money for the same rich corporations. Governments around the world consistently enact legislation that reinforces the rights of corporations to make profits at the expense of individual, social and environmental concerns - whether that's american politicians refusing to provide universal free health care, or military dictatorships murdering people who try to start a union.

When people are critical of capitalism, generally this is what they're against - UNCONSTRAINED capitalism, with governments on the side of the corporations, ignoring their obligations to the broader public. Now, I don't know anybody who's in favour of that. Whether they're intellectuals or drunken morons, as far as I can tell everyone with anything like a conscience agrees that out of control corporate greed is a huge problem. If some intellectuals express that as "anticapitalism" (and realistically, I think only a tiny minority do), I really don't think their views are that out of tune with the rest of society.
 
 
Cavatina
09:06 / 18.07.01
quote:'only a tiny minority of intellectuals are "anticapitalist" ...

I think you're right, Jackie.

Ever Perez, take a look at the standard textbooks and reading lists set for University Economics courses. How much criticism of economic rationalism and concern for distributive justice are evident? It would be not just refreshing but revolutionary to see works of the ilk of Hugh Stretton's recent Economics: A New Introduction (1999) displacing what's set.
 
 
synaesthesia
13:29 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Ever Perez:
....I can visibly see the benefit of capitalism. I see the dismissal of capitalist ideals as a step towards fascism—maybe it’s just me, but I will always opt for democracy in the face of Fascism (or maybe I'm just confusing my "isms" though).

I'm also assuming the pretentious lot (or majority of you) who responded to this thread would call yourselves "intellectuals."

Admittedly it was a long time ago but if I can recall my Marx correctly, although 'The Man' was critcising capitalism primarily with its own rationale.
However he did recognise that it was the only mechanism that could possibly effectively deliver the goods to the people.
Lenin described communist Russia as being in a state capitalism mode. Gorbachev quoted both of them in this when he was advocating Glasnost/Peristroka.

Being born and bred in Glasgow, Scotland there is a different take on this. Many cultural observers describe Glasgow as the least British city in the UK and there are many ex/implicit validations of people choosing intellectual pathways which is not exclusive to the middle or upper classes. Believe me do the pretentious stuff and the carpet would be pulled from under you before you had time to react.

Many people have described me as an intellectual. Sometimes disparagingly. Instead of it being something that should only be excercised by a handful I believe it should be done by everyone.
Hence Gramsci's concept of the Organic Intellectual.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:38 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Ever Perez:
I see the dismissal of capitalist ideals as a step towards fascism—maybe it’s just me, but I will always opt for democracy in the face of Fascism (or maybe I'm just confusing my "isms" though).

Maybe. Or maybe what you're doing is implying that anyone who doesn't support capitalism is a closet fascist, based on the proposition that capitalism and fascism are bipolar opposites... because you say they are.

quote:I'm also assuming the pretentious lot (or majority of you) who responded to this thread would call yourselves "intellectuals."

Honestly, if you're going to be that pre-emptively insulting and defensive from the get-go, why should anyone bother to respond to you?
 
 
synaesthesia
15:06 / 18.07.01
Ooh, bloodsports!
 
 
Ever Perez
17:42 / 18.07.01
The only pure form of capitalism or democracy exists in textbooks, and people's imaginations. No, laissez-faire economic and governmental policies do not work in the real world. America learned that the hard way during our depression era, and World War 2. We have established social legislation like welfare programs, antitrust laws, and a social security system. We are not flawless, but we are flexible enough to try to fix flaws when we see them. Capitalism’s principles should not ever be fully discounted.

Competition inspires productivity, and invigorates markets, but unchecked competition will eventually lead to monopolies and or stagnant markets devoid of creativity. In a free market the consumer gets the types of products he wants in the market because he more or less votes for that product by giving a dollar amount for it. Products get better because one company wants to make sure that their product is better than another company's so it will sell better. In a democracy like America's you have smooth transitions of power (more or less anyway...) not violent and bloody coups. Capitalism is a component of my freedom—maybe that skews my perspective a little but I still think capitalism is the best way if only for now. Just like I dislike some of the negative of effects of America’s Affirmative Action program, but realize its positive effects outweigh its negatives even if its positives will never nullify its negatives.


America has its share of poor and disenfranchised workers just like anyone else but that number is steady growing smaller. Why? Because we are a capitalist nation. Waitresses own cars and have their own apartments. Our middle class is steadily growing and expanding into new sections of our population. What we define as poor is being steadily redefined. We do not live under the tyranny of an elitist monarchy--we are governed by ourselves or at least by the representatives we choose for ourselves who still remain accountable to us. The problems with economic and governmental systems that do not at least hold some capitalist ideas is that their power base eventually will erode through rebellion of some kind. Capitalism may not be the only way, but I believe that it is the best way we have.


The injection of democratic or rather capitalist ideals into the economic & governmental workings of nations like China & Japan [in my mind at least] have helped to further those nations towards the universal goal of prosperity.

quote: "What they have to discover, what all the efforts of capitalism's enemies are frantically aimed at hiding, is the fact that capitalism is not merely the "practical", but the only moral system in history."

[ 18-07-2001: Message edited by: Ever Perez ]
 
 
Ever Perez
17:59 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Cavatina:


I think you're right, Jackie.

Ever Perez, take a look at the standard textbooks and reading lists set for University Economics courses. How much criticism of economic rationalism and concern for distributive justice are evident? It would be not just refreshing but revolutionary to see works of the ilk of Hugh Stretton's recent Economics: A New Introduction (1999) displacing what's set.

Sure, I'll do that. I'm mainly just talking from the seat of my pants here, which would account for some of the flaws in my arguments. I have not taken any university level courses yet, but I do firmly believe the points I am arguing are right (even if I'm arguing them improperly). I’m a 19-year-old slacker/writer/designer arguing with people in college or already in the workforce.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:05 / 18.07.01
quote:Originally posted by Ever Perez:
The injection of democratic or rather capitalist ideals into the economic & governmental workings of nations like China & Japan [in my mind at least] have helped to further those nations towards the universal goal of prosperity.Lots of points made in your post, but that one sticks out at me like a thumb in the eye. Better trade relations with China have not done a goddam thing to improve the country's appalling human rights record--it may be doing the opposite, by encouraging the use of slave labor to produce competitively-priced goods.

With that example in mind, there's a cogent deconstruction of the “free trade leads inevitably to democracy” axiom here. quote:As Congress prepares to vote for the last time on renewing China's normal trading relations (Beijing's impending entry into the World Trade Organization will put an end to the annual ritual), you'll be hearing the argument a lot: To promote democracy, the United States needn't apply more political pressure to China. All we need to do is more business there.

Alas, the historical record isn't quite so clear. Tolerant cultural traditions, British colonization, a strong civil society, international pressure, American military occupation and political influence--these are just a few of the explanations scholars credit as the source of freedom in various parts of the world. And even when economic conditions do hasten the arrival of democracy, it's not always obvious which ones. After all, if economic factors can be said to account for democracy's most dramatic advance--the implosion of the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites--surely the most important factor was economic collapse.

And if not every democracy emerged through capitalism, it's also true that not every capitalist economy has produced a democratic government... So it’s not quite as simple as that. Free trade is part of a free society, but one does not necessarily lead to the other—and to trust the future of a country's citizens to the "invisible hand" of market forces is, frankly, loading more faith onto the market than it warrants.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply