Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
What's with "intellectuals"? Are they "left"? Do they hate capitalism, life,
and all that's true and good, not to say the common man, stock car racing, trailer park culture, dogs, and Santa Claus.
are you an intellectual? why do you hate capitalism and Santa?
what are your thoughts these topics? i'd like to hear from lots of people, not just the 'usual suspects,' though as you know, almost everyone, especially the women, is suspect.
===
First, it's a pretty weird topic. Who are we talking about? It's said, writers, poets, philosophers. Thinkers. Uh oh. There might be the problem. It's the folks that think too much.
A disclaimer: I suppose I'm an "intellectual," if that means can put two sentences together, something increasingly difficult for the "common person", for example those applying to university. Yep, have a couple degrees.
What are the politics of "intellectuals"? Again an impossibly broad question. Plato and Aristotle were quite cozy with the society of their day. St. Thomas was a pillar of the Catholic church. Calvin started his own.
Were a disproportionate number of "intellectuals", radical critics of their society? Well, St. Thomas wasn't. Calvin was.
But let's cut to the chase. Since capitalism reared its pretty head, have "intellectuals" hated it, along with the new middle class and especially its nouveau riche specimens? Do they hate industrial production and hi-tech developments and want to return to sheep herding ways of life?
Well, the great 18th century intellectual, Adam Smith, wrote The Wealth of Nations, and seems to have a lot that was good to say about capitalism. Thomas Jefferson and the US founding fathers, though slightly precapitalist, i.e., landed gentry slave owners, had no problem with the merchant classes of their time. They themselves were quite wealthy, had lots of land and slaves. I don't think they hated the rich, i.e. themselves.
But what about socialists? That's the real bugbear of the rightwing and fascist thinkers and non thinkers. I suppose Fourier was an intellectual, scribbling away about his ideal society with its communes, reformed relations of the sexes, cultural provisions. Robert Owen, a premier socialist, was also a factory owner, and implemented some of his ideas, e.g. in the form of better working conditions, infant care, and so on.
Owenites, indeed had no problem with industry. They set up model factories.
Karl Marx was an intellectual, a bit impractical. Engels, his pal, iirc, was a factory owner. I don't think either hated industry. Marx celebrated its productiveness. He, too, had no love of any established religion.
Were a disproportionate number of intellectuals of the 19th and early 20th century, Marxists? I'm not sure. I'm unaware of evidence that this is the case. Did Darwin have a problem with the society of his day? Not that I'm aware of. It *is* true that many marxists, if you mean the writers, were "intellectuals"; that's almost true by definition. But that's a different issue. Trotsky was an "intellectual," but it's hardly the case that most intellectuals were trotskyist, though one thinks of Christopher Hitchens and some others who were both.
Again, cutting to the chase, what is it that burns the ass of Ms Rand, Mussolini, and the Rush Limbaughs of their day, like Father Coughlin. It's about Stalinism. Were US and British "intellectuals" supporters of Stalin, and his experiment in the Soviet Union. Here, the thesis has some substance. Yes, in the 30s and 40s, many leading "intellectuals" were hopeful about Stalin. Even more supported the Soviets in their fight against Hitler.
This is the treason and perfidy that rouses the right wing. What were the right wing doing during the rise of Hitler, when the left were saying how well Stalin's Soviet society was doing. Well, they had a thing for Mr. Hitler. This applies to Henry Ford, as well as Preston Bush, ancestor of the Bushes we know and love. Hitler, you see, was going to stamp out "Bolshevism", and most bolshies were Jews, so why not stamp out Jews? Oh, and gays and gypsies, etc. The folks that amicus is on about to this day. (Do intellectuals tend to be Jews? Do Jews tend to be intellectuals. Issues for another time. There are, in any case, lots of Jewish intellectuals, from Spinoza to Phillip Roth, Woody Allen, Betty Friedan, and so on.)
The point to remember is that the right wing, who loved Hitler, did not prevail, in the US or England (where some royals supported Hitler), though they did keep those countries from interfering with Hitler's actions for several years, while he got going in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria.
The Soviet Union was a US ally in the war against Hitler. A very committed one, since Hitler's army was driving into Russia, the Caucasus, etc. This odd alliance, I submit, is behind the right wing's impotent fuming to this day. Stalin--and his "left" admirers in the West-- was on the right side of the war against Fascism, the greatest evil of the day, and one that got the US attention at Pearl Harbor. How could that be?
If the 30s are an embarrassment to lots of intellectuals, like Chris Hitchens, they are a very great embarrassment to the right wing.
A non trivial number of "intellectuals", indeed, were on the "right", e.g Ezra Pound and Heidegger. Carl Jung, also, to the Jungians' subsequent embarrassment.
But, to be fair, I will stipulate that more US intellectuals were "left", and even pro Stalin, in the 30s and 40s, and a main reason is given above: idealism about socialism and hatred of Hitler. This is the root of Ms Rand's ax she was grinding ever after, since she fled the Soviet Union, for the States. No small "intellectual" herself, having studied a bit of philosophy, she set herself up in the States, and became a screenwriter, and then a novelist celebrating human freedom, and excoriating tyranny.
Getting to the post WWII period, we see the root of Amicus' anger, as well as his predecessors'. Joe McCarthy, the US Senator, decided China had been lost by the Democrats. Democratic "intellectuals" especially those of the Ivy League were responsible They'd been pro Mao, some of them, as well as pro-Stalin. McCarthy hauled in the Hollywood screen writers and asked them about all the pro Stalin petitions they'd signed.
He wanted to drag out the "intellectual" evil doers, and he succeeded.
Some were ruined by the treason charges, and fled the country. A few, like Ronald Reagan, kowtowed to Mr. McCarthy, and "named names," that is they said, "Yes, we were pro Stalin, and we were terribly wrong and to make up for it, here are the names of those we saw at the antifascist meetings."
The "conservatives,", the right, had their hero in Mr. McCarthy. He went after the "left" intellectuals with a vengeance. Unfortunately, he was crazy, or at least foolish, and went after General George Marshall, a patriot who had been in charge of the recovery of western Europe, preventing the rise of communism, there. The US Army, President Eisenhower, some Republicans and lots of Democrats shut down Mr. McCarthy, ending his headline grabbing career.
---
In the present decades, are most "intellectuals" "left"? William Buckley thought so, when he wrote God and Man at Yale. He continued McCarthy's critique of academics as Godless lefties, though he was no fan of McCarthy.
What are the facts? Surveys of university faculty reveal that they tend to be *liberal*, disproportionately. Yes, the voted McGovern, and Kerry. For the rabid right, of course, "liberal" is socialist, so there you have the factual roots of the right's hatred of university faculty.
The American Psychological Association are liberal too, and they ended up declaring, in the 1970s, that gays were not sick, so you can see why the right are peeved to this day. (Read amicus on the topic.).
What about the writers and artists? Here the picture is rather mixed, for lots of them are apolitical or disinterested in politics. They simply want to be left to their devices. Some, indeed, are Republicans, though no names come to mind.
Hollywood is indeed very "liberal," though not socialist (assuming there's a difference). You look for Republican actors and you come up with J. Wayne, Heston, Bruce Willis and Bo Derek! What does that suggest?
Do these folks hate freedom, industry, progress and the human spirit, as Ms. Coulter and Amicus suggest? Well, they mostly vote democratic.
Some are very "green," which is any irksome point for the right wing.
(Topic of many threads, already).
What about Amicus' "usual suspects"? They/we are lit writers who range from independent to mildly 'left' (Democrat) to farther left, like yours truly, a supporter of social democracy in W. Europe. (That's another topic: the democratization of socialism, the shucking off of the Marxist Leninist authoritarianism, and adoption of parliamentary politics.)
What they/we have in common is a critical spirit, and generally a rejection of right wing tenets.
It's a whole other topic, the right and religion; generally the right are supportive of established religion, the Objectivists (atheists) being the small exception. The left, since the time of Marx, are generally critics of religion, though many Christians are social democrats, in W. Europe.
It might be noted that being a critic of religion doesn't make one very far left, Voltaire and Sade being examples of pro-aristocratic intellectuals.
Certainly rejection of religion, especially traditional religion is behind the intellectuals leaning to the left. The right's shameless courting of religious right, led by the late Mr. Rove is another reason "intellectuals", including the "usual suspects" lean left.
An impossibly broad topic, but those are some of my thoughts and opinions? What are yours?
and all that's true and good, not to say the common man, stock car racing, trailer park culture, dogs, and Santa Claus.
are you an intellectual? why do you hate capitalism and Santa?
what are your thoughts these topics? i'd like to hear from lots of people, not just the 'usual suspects,' though as you know, almost everyone, especially the women, is suspect.
===
First, it's a pretty weird topic. Who are we talking about? It's said, writers, poets, philosophers. Thinkers. Uh oh. There might be the problem. It's the folks that think too much.
A disclaimer: I suppose I'm an "intellectual," if that means can put two sentences together, something increasingly difficult for the "common person", for example those applying to university. Yep, have a couple degrees.
What are the politics of "intellectuals"? Again an impossibly broad question. Plato and Aristotle were quite cozy with the society of their day. St. Thomas was a pillar of the Catholic church. Calvin started his own.
Were a disproportionate number of "intellectuals", radical critics of their society? Well, St. Thomas wasn't. Calvin was.
But let's cut to the chase. Since capitalism reared its pretty head, have "intellectuals" hated it, along with the new middle class and especially its nouveau riche specimens? Do they hate industrial production and hi-tech developments and want to return to sheep herding ways of life?
Well, the great 18th century intellectual, Adam Smith, wrote The Wealth of Nations, and seems to have a lot that was good to say about capitalism. Thomas Jefferson and the US founding fathers, though slightly precapitalist, i.e., landed gentry slave owners, had no problem with the merchant classes of their time. They themselves were quite wealthy, had lots of land and slaves. I don't think they hated the rich, i.e. themselves.
But what about socialists? That's the real bugbear of the rightwing and fascist thinkers and non thinkers. I suppose Fourier was an intellectual, scribbling away about his ideal society with its communes, reformed relations of the sexes, cultural provisions. Robert Owen, a premier socialist, was also a factory owner, and implemented some of his ideas, e.g. in the form of better working conditions, infant care, and so on.
Owenites, indeed had no problem with industry. They set up model factories.
Karl Marx was an intellectual, a bit impractical. Engels, his pal, iirc, was a factory owner. I don't think either hated industry. Marx celebrated its productiveness. He, too, had no love of any established religion.
Were a disproportionate number of intellectuals of the 19th and early 20th century, Marxists? I'm not sure. I'm unaware of evidence that this is the case. Did Darwin have a problem with the society of his day? Not that I'm aware of. It *is* true that many marxists, if you mean the writers, were "intellectuals"; that's almost true by definition. But that's a different issue. Trotsky was an "intellectual," but it's hardly the case that most intellectuals were trotskyist, though one thinks of Christopher Hitchens and some others who were both.
Again, cutting to the chase, what is it that burns the ass of Ms Rand, Mussolini, and the Rush Limbaughs of their day, like Father Coughlin. It's about Stalinism. Were US and British "intellectuals" supporters of Stalin, and his experiment in the Soviet Union. Here, the thesis has some substance. Yes, in the 30s and 40s, many leading "intellectuals" were hopeful about Stalin. Even more supported the Soviets in their fight against Hitler.
This is the treason and perfidy that rouses the right wing. What were the right wing doing during the rise of Hitler, when the left were saying how well Stalin's Soviet society was doing. Well, they had a thing for Mr. Hitler. This applies to Henry Ford, as well as Preston Bush, ancestor of the Bushes we know and love. Hitler, you see, was going to stamp out "Bolshevism", and most bolshies were Jews, so why not stamp out Jews? Oh, and gays and gypsies, etc. The folks that amicus is on about to this day. (Do intellectuals tend to be Jews? Do Jews tend to be intellectuals. Issues for another time. There are, in any case, lots of Jewish intellectuals, from Spinoza to Phillip Roth, Woody Allen, Betty Friedan, and so on.)
The point to remember is that the right wing, who loved Hitler, did not prevail, in the US or England (where some royals supported Hitler), though they did keep those countries from interfering with Hitler's actions for several years, while he got going in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria.
The Soviet Union was a US ally in the war against Hitler. A very committed one, since Hitler's army was driving into Russia, the Caucasus, etc. This odd alliance, I submit, is behind the right wing's impotent fuming to this day. Stalin--and his "left" admirers in the West-- was on the right side of the war against Fascism, the greatest evil of the day, and one that got the US attention at Pearl Harbor. How could that be?
If the 30s are an embarrassment to lots of intellectuals, like Chris Hitchens, they are a very great embarrassment to the right wing.
A non trivial number of "intellectuals", indeed, were on the "right", e.g Ezra Pound and Heidegger. Carl Jung, also, to the Jungians' subsequent embarrassment.
But, to be fair, I will stipulate that more US intellectuals were "left", and even pro Stalin, in the 30s and 40s, and a main reason is given above: idealism about socialism and hatred of Hitler. This is the root of Ms Rand's ax she was grinding ever after, since she fled the Soviet Union, for the States. No small "intellectual" herself, having studied a bit of philosophy, she set herself up in the States, and became a screenwriter, and then a novelist celebrating human freedom, and excoriating tyranny.
Getting to the post WWII period, we see the root of Amicus' anger, as well as his predecessors'. Joe McCarthy, the US Senator, decided China had been lost by the Democrats. Democratic "intellectuals" especially those of the Ivy League were responsible They'd been pro Mao, some of them, as well as pro-Stalin. McCarthy hauled in the Hollywood screen writers and asked them about all the pro Stalin petitions they'd signed.
He wanted to drag out the "intellectual" evil doers, and he succeeded.
Some were ruined by the treason charges, and fled the country. A few, like Ronald Reagan, kowtowed to Mr. McCarthy, and "named names," that is they said, "Yes, we were pro Stalin, and we were terribly wrong and to make up for it, here are the names of those we saw at the antifascist meetings."
The "conservatives,", the right, had their hero in Mr. McCarthy. He went after the "left" intellectuals with a vengeance. Unfortunately, he was crazy, or at least foolish, and went after General George Marshall, a patriot who had been in charge of the recovery of western Europe, preventing the rise of communism, there. The US Army, President Eisenhower, some Republicans and lots of Democrats shut down Mr. McCarthy, ending his headline grabbing career.
---
In the present decades, are most "intellectuals" "left"? William Buckley thought so, when he wrote God and Man at Yale. He continued McCarthy's critique of academics as Godless lefties, though he was no fan of McCarthy.
What are the facts? Surveys of university faculty reveal that they tend to be *liberal*, disproportionately. Yes, the voted McGovern, and Kerry. For the rabid right, of course, "liberal" is socialist, so there you have the factual roots of the right's hatred of university faculty.
The American Psychological Association are liberal too, and they ended up declaring, in the 1970s, that gays were not sick, so you can see why the right are peeved to this day. (Read amicus on the topic.).
What about the writers and artists? Here the picture is rather mixed, for lots of them are apolitical or disinterested in politics. They simply want to be left to their devices. Some, indeed, are Republicans, though no names come to mind.
Hollywood is indeed very "liberal," though not socialist (assuming there's a difference). You look for Republican actors and you come up with J. Wayne, Heston, Bruce Willis and Bo Derek! What does that suggest?
Do these folks hate freedom, industry, progress and the human spirit, as Ms. Coulter and Amicus suggest? Well, they mostly vote democratic.
Some are very "green," which is any irksome point for the right wing.
(Topic of many threads, already).
What about Amicus' "usual suspects"? They/we are lit writers who range from independent to mildly 'left' (Democrat) to farther left, like yours truly, a supporter of social democracy in W. Europe. (That's another topic: the democratization of socialism, the shucking off of the Marxist Leninist authoritarianism, and adoption of parliamentary politics.)
What they/we have in common is a critical spirit, and generally a rejection of right wing tenets.
It's a whole other topic, the right and religion; generally the right are supportive of established religion, the Objectivists (atheists) being the small exception. The left, since the time of Marx, are generally critics of religion, though many Christians are social democrats, in W. Europe.
It might be noted that being a critic of religion doesn't make one very far left, Voltaire and Sade being examples of pro-aristocratic intellectuals.
Certainly rejection of religion, especially traditional religion is behind the intellectuals leaning to the left. The right's shameless courting of religious right, led by the late Mr. Rove is another reason "intellectuals", including the "usual suspects" lean left.
An impossibly broad topic, but those are some of my thoughts and opinions? What are yours?
Last edited:
