Are capitalists stupid?

[T Blair]

For obvious reasons this form generates much debate between the left and right. The right are often condemned for being profoundly ignorant and stupid among other humiliating insinuations. One thread is dedicated to the complete absence of intelligent capitalists. My question is: are capitalists ignorant and stupid? Or are they aware of their self-interests and their capacity to pursue them? Though exploiting the working class to make millions may lack principal, can it be accurately considered stupid? If indeed it can, is stupidity to be perceived in a negative context? American is ridiculed for its foreign policy…again, though American foreign policy is not entirely harmless, has it not attributed to their ultimate success as a super-power. While people who contribute to the capitalist agenda by working for slave wages in the labour force could perhaps be deemed ignorant and stupid, can the same really be said about the old boys at the top?

----
Don't hate us because we're beautiful, hate us because we're better than you.

[革命者]

yes,but not automatically.

[hazard]

you probably mean people who live under the capitalists. the capitalists ( bourgeoisie ) themselves are less stupid than they are evil.

as for their slaves, they are only stupid once they reject the truth of socialism. once they have been presented with the irrefutable evidence that explains their position and their value in a capitalist society, only an idiot would accept and or defend it.

then again, years of mind control, propaganda and brainwashing make these people stupid. so in reality, it isn't really in their nature to be stupid. they are molded into cattle through years of abuse and exploitation.

[kylie]

less stupid than they are evil.


evil? what is this?

My question is: are capitalists ignorant and stupid?
yes, in that they continue to use a system which damages itself. though in other aspects, like preserving their own position in the short term, no they are not.

as for their slaves, they are only stupid once they reject the truth of socialism.
most people reject socialism on the basis of media influence, something they cant be blamed for. i dont think stupid is the right word, ignorant is more like it. it being unlikely that the majority will be educated on the true nature of socialism and communism until after a revolution has taken place. after this it is extremely important, to prevent people from opposing the revolution, and perhaps challenging it.

[Charred Phoenix]

Hazard, Che, Lenin and Marx were all members of the petty bourgeois, so think twice before you call all bourgeois ignorant and evil.

[Goldfinger]

I'm a member of the petty bourgeois

[革命者]

if you're at the top you're almost certainly hated.. i think that is a stupid thing to want.. thus i am, or just stupid, or they are....

[Ghost Writer]

Oops. I thought Scotty had made a rude remark to me, so I went to burn him back. Then I realized I targeted the wrong person. It was someone else that needed a good thrashing.

Disregard.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:17 pm on May 1, 2003)

[革命者]

Disregard.

will do

[redstar2000]

Speaking only about the capitalists I've known personally, I found them to be remarkably astute in perceiving their own class interests. Indeed, judging from remarks that some of them made, they looked at the world around them with a special kind of vision..."how can I make money from this?" seemed to be their foremost concern. One could say they were "single-minded" or one could call them "ruthless"...it would amount to the same thing.

The arguments raised by the defenders of capitalism on this board often lack intellectual substance (to put it mildly). But that really doesn't say much about intelligence in general; it just says that when your motivation is making money, intellectual coherence is strictly a secondary consideration.

Historically, the working class is a "young class"...it really only emerged in the 19th century. Like all young classes, it carries a huge amount of ideological baggage from its predecessor...the peasantry. It has not only occurred to me that an office worker with a house in the suburbs is in many fundamental ways not that far removed from his peasant ancestors. It takes time for a new class to learn to see things through "it's own eyes."

This was true of the capitalists as well; for many centuries, capitalists wanted most of all to rise into the ranks of the aristocracy...it never occurred to them that they could be a ruling class themselves.

In what way working class consciousness will develop over the new century is difficult to predict; that it will develop seems to me to be certain, provided, of course, that Marx was right.

And that's the real question, isn't it?

:cool:

[Felicia]

well, what's your I.Q???? :biggrin:

well, hmm, are you a cappie?

(Edited by felicia at 1:28 pm on May 1, 2003)

[hazard]

I don't think some people are too clear on what a communist is if they are coming out and saying things like "I am a petty bourgeois".

even so, a petty bourgeois is simply a proletariate who is between exploiting his labour and yet to be exploited for his labour yet again. so, what makes you a "petty bourgeois"? the fact that you took out a bank loan to start your own petty business or the fact that you hope to one day be successful enough to have your petty business bought out by the bourgeoisis? you make mention of that fact like its something to brag about. it isn't. my belief about all petty bourgeois is that they are the worst conned out of everybody in the capitalist system. this is because they believe, since they attempt to become such, that they can one day become a member of the bourgeois ruling class. fat chance.

as for all the greats that came form the bourgeois or petty bourgeois class, thats great. for they rejected all class ties in an attempt to erradicate the system. hopefully the half assed commies around here can take a cue from their example.

[synthesis]

Historically, the working class is a "young class"...it really only emerged in the 19th century. Like all young classes, it carries a huge amount of ideological baggage from its predecessor...the peasantry.

Very true, but don't forget that the bourgeoisie are descendants of the peasantry as well.

[NDPof2003]

forget peasantry? I'm gonna answer the question which was asked
Yes, capitalists are intellingent. North America is somewhat based on capitilism. How else do you think the U.S became such a super-power. Not, only do they create conformity in society, they also make globalization work in a world that is technologically advanced. At the same time making billions of dollars and they manage to keep labourors at bay

But it is also said that "ignorance is strength," george orwell, 1984- Doublethink

[NDPof2003]

Hazard, Che, Lenin and Marx!!! ignorant no, they weren't good either, they all lack apathy

[hazard]

I don't consider it intelligent to create the very tools of your own destruction. that is what the capitalists do. regardless, it was I who said that they weren't as stupid as they were plainly evil.

[T Blair]

If the commies were free to create anything of their own, or had any thing tangible to destroy...beyond a pipe dream, which they've been rather successful in bastardizing I'm sure they'd find a way to fuck it up.

It's easy to win when you've got nothing to lose...easy, but worthless.

[redstar2000]

"...but don't forget that the bourgeoisie are descendants of the peasantry as well."

That's an interesting thesis, DyerMaker...and, of course, undeniable the way you put it.

The small peasant who is successful becomes, in time, a big peasant. Noticing the difference between what he is paid for his products by the trader and what the trader charges in the city, he resolves to become a merchant himself. If he becomes a successful merchant, he often then resolves to return to the countryside as a major landowner and even, given the right connections, a minor member of the aristocracy.

Thus things happened for the emerging capitalist class for more than half a millennium...until the 19th century when capitalists began to think of themselves as not simply "jumped-up" peasants and "Lord Wannabes", but a real ruling class...superior in every way to the old aristocracies.

They began to see things "through their own eyes."

The working classes in the advanced capitalist countries are much closer to their rural ancestors in many ways. To own a house on a large piece of land is essentially a peasant characteristic, as is religious fundamentalism.

On the other hand, modern workers also see many things "through capitalist eyes" -- a great goal in life for many workers is to "own a business" and achieve "luxury"...perhaps allowing one's children to even attain a minor position within the ruling class itself.

It was Marx's thesis that workers would eventually learn to see things "through their own eyes"...though his timing was off by a substantial margin.

It must be confessed that we still don't really know if he was right about this or not. There is evidence to support him...but not yet nearly enough.

:cool:

[synthesis]

It was Marx's thesis that workers would eventually learn to see things "through their own eyes"...though his timing was off by a substantial margin.

Historically, the proletariat often has recognized its oppression . . . simply look at the final gasps of Tsarist Russia, the Paris Commune, or the numerous Latin American countries I'm sure you're aware of and therefore I won't detail.

The problem with the ruling set of countries is that they did undergo the downward spiral of failing capitalism... most notably, the Great Depression in America.

This is my hypothesis, anyways... the reason the current industrialized societies are so dominant in global politics today is because they have each undergone their individual 'downward spirals'... and they each enacted measures that were just socialist enough to prevent the popular revolution commonly occuring in more "laissez-faire" capitalist economies... but not socialist enough to allow the proletariat self-determination and self-awareness.

Therefore, the reason for the current dominance of Western(ized) countries like America, Britain, and Japan is because, through measures like the New Deal, they have been able to circumvent class strife between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat while still allowing the former to continue exploiting the latter. In this way, they are able to concentrate their energies on other, more "important" things... like brutally crushing any real attempts at proletarian self-determination.

I'm not really sure how to reduce it to a single concise, informative sentence... but I'm working on it.

[redstar2000]

At the moment, DyerMaker, they (the ruling class) appear to be intent on dismantling all the reforms they enacted to reduce class consciousness among the proletariat...perhaps in the conviction that they have truly "mastered" the business cycle and that there will be no more "great depressions".

That's a big gamble on their part; if they're wrong, they could lose everything.

If you look at the two worst capitalist economies at the moment--Japan and Argentina--there doesn't seem to be any "capitalist consensus" (yet!) that serious reforms are required to "soften" the possibility of class consciousness amongst the workers.

Of course, that could change. We shall see.

:cool: