I just came across a 1998 paper from the Cato Institue entitled Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? I'm guessing, if correct in 1998, the analysis would still apply. I admit I'm still working on the rather lengthy thing, but the gist of it seems to be (my take, I may be unqualified since not an intellectual myself) that up until the moment many "intellectuals" actually have to abandon academia to earn a living in a competitive, open market, they have experienced a good sum of entitlement (and praise and regard) by virtue, simply, of their being so damn clever! Winning awards, summa cum this and that, heaps of fawning from those in the same environment with lower SATs or less impressive vocabularies. Then, for some, here enters some sub-115 IQ slob who could not hold our  intellectual's jock, to mix metaphors (or is that similes? or onomatopoeia?), in a formal debate, and he outworks the sucker or, with his limited vocabulary and plebeian IQ, comes up with something better for the boss. Or he gets along with coworkers better? Makes more money. Buys a bigger house. In short, capitalism, the scurvy discipline, has allowed an inferior to eat our intellectual's lunch.

Voila! God given gifts and a knack for testing, then, may not necessarily be the "be all" and "end all" requirements for success (and status) in a free, capitalistic society. Just look at the accumulated fortunes of the ignorant unwashed in America. Is this just? Don't you hate it too?

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion