Is capitalism a 'Noble Lie'?

[Publius]

I was reading up on Strauss a few days ago (I lead an exciting life) and I came upon the neoconservative/Platonic idea of the so-called 'Noble Lie', that there are different types of knowledge suited for different classes: intellectuals can know the truth, say, that there is no God, but commoners must believe in God in order to maintain a homogeneous morality; religion becomes a 'noble lie'. Now, I think this entire concept is bullshit, but I was wondering in what situations it could be meaningfully applied. Do you think capitalism, or property rights, are a 'noble lie' or could validly be considered to be one? That even though capitalism, in and of itself might be flawed or based on false premises, that its effects could outweigh this idea? What would that mean?

[colonelguppy]

whats being lied about?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It seems to me, without knowing anything more about this idea, other than your description, that it is similar to the "happy slave" concept.

The slave is happy so long as he has never tasted freedom and otherwise believes he has as good a life as he can expect.

He is better off at least in relation to another slave who is unhappy.

Like, workers in America, are better off than workers in say Somalia. While there may be more top - down coercion, the end result is American workers are content, the Somalis are not.

I think, the American Constitution (for Americans) is arguably a much more powerful noble lie than religion, because if the American constitution is right, then all Americans have the potential to make great wealth and maximise happiness.

Marx commented rather over simply, but non the less quite accurately, that the bourgeois are bourgeois for the working class. At least they say they do everything for the working class.

Things like the US constitution are institutionally coercive, and Americans are taught that such institutions are made for them, so they can be free from tyranny etc.

What Marx commented on, was that ideologically, the bourgeois class will act in ways to defend themselves. Part of this, is making workers happy and docile.

So, it would seem to me, the noble lie is probably an accurate projection of some bourgeois ideology.

I don't know if i completely misunderstood, probably...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think you got it. The big lie is that capitalism is democratic and egalitarian. The "nobility" of the lie is that through capitalism, the peons being lied to, will actually better off than if they had real power. The good (the material abundance of prosperous capitalism) outweighs te bad (subjugation to a capitalist ruling class.)

[encephalon]

This is classic Plato.. but I've never heard of it being defended by neocons. I did have a liberal professor once who claimed that the "American Dream" taught in schools was a noble lie that had to be propagated in order to preserve modern America, but I've never heard of a conservative openly admitting to the act.


I was reading up on Strauss a few days ago (I lead an exciting life) and I came upon the neoconservative/Platonic idea of the so-called 'Noble Lie', that there are different types of knowledge suited for different classes: intellectuals can know the truth, say, that there is no God, but commoners must believe in God in order to maintain a homogeneous morality; religion becomes a 'noble lie'. Now, I think this entire concept is bullshit, but I was wondering in what situations it could be meaningfully applied. Do you think capitalism, or property rights, are a 'noble lie' or could validly be considered to be one? That even though capitalism, in and of itself might be flawed or based on false premises, that its effects could outweigh this idea? What would that mean?

What it would mean is that the people actually making the products are too stupid and simple to manage said products, and that the nazis were justified in their social darwinist philosophy.

[chimx]

Do you think capitalism, or property rights, are a 'noble lie' or could validly be considered to be [a noble lie]?

For Strauss, if I'm not mistaken, for a lie to be noble, the purpose of the lie must be for the smooth management of society. It justifies itself by being in the best interest of the people. Do capitalists justify their morality to themselves along these lines? I understand what you are trying to get at, but you'll have to convince me of the perceived nobility of such an idea.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the most important way in which Capitalism is a noble lie is the idea of the American dream - the idea that through hard work and determination, one can move between classes independent of the family into which one was born and the oppurtunities to which one has had access. If the proletariat knew that this was not the case, then they might be inclined to use radical political change - A revolution, even - to further their position in society, or at the very least would demand immiediete change within the framework of the existing political system to improve their access to oppurtunities.

Those that are successful under the present political and economic system are allowed to know that this idea is a lie - they want to maintain the present political system, and so it is in their interests for the lie to exist. I wonder what implications this have for building class consciousness?

[Publius]

whats being lied about?

Well, very specifically the idea of property rights, thats valid for one person to own a piece of the earth.

If you trace it back, this idea is purely arbitrary fiat, but it's possible that even though it's arbitrary, it's desirable necessary.

I'm not saying it is, but it could be.

And certainly other aspects of capitalism, like the 'American dream' could be coined 'Noble lies' as well.

[Publius]

It seems to me, without knowing anything more about this idea, other than your description, that it is similar to the "happy slave" concept.

The slave is happy so long as he has never tasted freedom and otherwise believes he has as good a life as he can expect.

He is better off at least in relation to another slave who is unhappy.

Like, workers in America, are better off than workers in say Somalia. While there may be more top - down coercion, the end result is American workers are content, the Somalis are not.

I think, the American Constitution (for Americans) is arguably a much more powerful noble lie than religion, because if the American constitution is right, then all Americans have the potential to make great wealth and maximise happiness.

Marx commented rather over simply, but non the less quite accurately, that the bourgeois are bourgeois for the working class. At least they say they do everything for the working class.

Things like the US constitution are institutionally coercive, and Americans are taught that such institutions are made for them, so they can be free from tyranny etc.

What Marx commented on, was that ideologically, the bourgeois class will act in ways to defend themselves. Part of this, is making workers happy and docile.

So, it would seem to me, the noble lie is probably an accurate projection of some bourgeois ideology.

I don't know if i completely misunderstood, probably...

You've pretty much got it, yeah.

[Publius]

This is classic Plato.. but I've never heard of it being defended by neocons. I did have a liberal professor once who claimed that the "American Dream" taught in schools was a noble lie that had to be propagated in order to preserve modern America, but I've never heard of a conservative openly admitting to the act.

I don't know that they perceive capitalism to be a Noble Lie, Strauss was just a proponent of the idea.

Also, modern neo-cons differ more than a little from the originals, as I understand it. The original neo-cons were Trotskyite leftists who switched sides.

But to a neo-conservative capitalism might not seem a Noble Lie, it might just seem Noble. But I'm not as interested in what they think as in what is actually the case, if you apply the idea rigorously.

Again, 'noble lies' aren't something I can find myself support readily (though I guess I don't really have too much of a say in the matter; they take care of themselves because they are innately appealing).



What it would mean is that the people actually making the products are too stupid and simple to manage said products, and that the nazis were justified in their social darwinist philosophy.

The first premise they might agree with, but I doubt they'd follow it to the second. There's more than a little bit of Fascism in the idea, that other people know best how to run your life, that if you actually knew the truth and had real power, you'd just fuck things up, but that doesn't necessarily lead into full-on social darwinism.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:08 am

whats being lied about?

Well, very specifically the idea of property rights, thats valid for one person to own a piece of the earth.

If you trace it back, this idea is purely arbitrary fiat, but it's possible that even though it's arbitrary, it's desirable necessary.

I'm not saying it is, but it could be.

And certainly other aspects of capitalism, like the 'American dream' could be coined 'Noble lies' as well.
you don't have to believe in property rights to believe in capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:11 pm
you don't have to believe in property rights to believe in capitalism.
That's an odd position. Property is the central feature of capitalism in many ways

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+February 17, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Demogorgon @ February 17, 2007 03:09 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 08:11 pm
you don't have to believe in property rights to believe in capitalism.
That's an odd position. Property is the central feature of capitalism in many ways [/b]
i meant as in the way john locke would believe in it, as if you have a natural god given right to it. overall, yes i think people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, but i think it would be pretty hard to run a succesful society if you don't occasionally violate peoples property.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 17, 2007 08:58 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 17, 2007 08:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:09 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 08:11 pm
you don't have to believe in property rights to believe in capitalism.
That's an odd position. Property is the central feature of capitalism in many ways
i meant as in the way john locke would believe in it, as if you have a natural god given right to it. overall, yes i think people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, but i think it would be pretty hard to run a succesful society if you don't occasionally violate peoples property. [/b]
Yeah, but captalist conceptions of property have moved on a bit since Locke's day. Locke was from a very puritan school of thought so his ideas were a bit "coloured" that way.

If you look at most constitutions or laws in capitalist countries they never try and say property is invioable anyway, they simply say you are entitled to compensation if it is taken away and can only be taken under certain circumstances. I always feel capitalism has been much keener to protect some types of property over other anyway.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+February 17, 2007 04:13 pm--> (Demogorgon @ February 17, 2007 04:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:58 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:09 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 08:11 pm
you don't have to believe in property rights to believe in capitalism.
That's an odd position. Property is the central feature of capitalism in many ways
i meant as in the way john locke would believe in it, as if you have a natural god given right to it. overall, yes i think people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, but i think it would be pretty hard to run a succesful society if you don't occasionally violate peoples property.
Yeah, but captalist conceptions of property have moved on a bit since Locke's day. Locke was from a very puritan school of thought so his ideas were a bit "coloured" that way.

If you look at most constitutions or laws in capitalist countries they never try and say property is invioable anyway, they simply say you are entitled to compensation if it is taken away and can only be taken under certain circumstances. I always feel capitalism has been much keener to protect some types of property over other anyway. [/b]
well with any political system, certain peoples interests will naturally come before others for what ever reason.