Philosophy Now Forum

(I am bored to tears with the religious threads, so I thought I would start something a lot more interesting)

The question seems to be justified because they have been winning almost every battle since the seventies.

I have had ample experience with both Capitalist and non-Capitalist meetings, conferences, caucuses, brain-storming sessions, whatever you want to call it.

There was the same amount of aimlessness, silliness, stupidity, manipulation and downright malice in both.

The major difference, as I see it, is in the power-structure.

In Capitalist groups the structure is dominated by fear of those above you in the hierarchy (I often call it a ‘fear-structure’ ).

The one, at the very top of this fear-structure, is in a position to ruthlessly enforce his main objective: maximize profit for the company, or failing that, his bonus in the next CEO-compensation-package.

In non-Capitalist groups you have this major element of fear missing, so the exercise is not as focused as in the Capitalist fear-dominated sessions.

Besides, we socialists have scruples, principles and don’t have a clearly defined objective.

The capitalists don’t have the scruples and the principles and their objectives are VERY clearly defined: they want it all.

They require different kinds of intelligence.

But you're right about one thing. It's a whole lot easier to agree on, and to focus a group's energies on, a single objective (or related cluster of objectives) than on a general notion of the commonweal. It's easier to be exclusive than inclusive; it's easier to give orders than to reach consensus.

The other huge obstacle is that the socialists are always fighting uphill. Elitists want power, grab power, hold power. The 'other' bunch is just living its life, trying to get along, until it finds itself too oppressed and bilked of resources to continue. All elitists are not necessarily capitalist, but all capitalists are naturally elitist.

I'm reminded by the first two posts of the guy who is asked at a job interview 'What is your biggest flaw?' He responds 'I work too hard' or 'I'm a perfectionist.' It shows a lack of insight and self awareness. Without actually, honestly scrutinizing your own flaws, you will never make progress. So saying things like 'We're just too darned scrupulous' and 'We can't focus because we have so many good ideas' is not only disingenuous, but self defeating.

Yes, but: Are Capitalists, as a group, smarter than Socialists?

If yes -- why?

If no -- why?

If both -- why?

If neither -- why?

I think this just about covers it.

Ned wrote:Are Capitalists, as a group, smarter than Socialists?

At least capitalists understand human nature and why capitalism results in greater prosperity for everyone, rich or poor. Socialists understand neither concept, ergo, they're not as smart as capitalists; in fact, I would say they're downright stupid.

Skip wrote:The other huge obstacle is that the socialists are always fighting uphill.

Tell me about it!

And they call it a "level playing field"!

Wyman wrote:I'm reminded by the first two posts of the guy who is asked at a job interview 'What is your biggest flaw?' He responds 'I work too hard' or 'I'm a perfectionist.' It shows a lack of insight and self awareness. Without actually, honestly scrutinizing your own flaws, you will never make progress.

Wyman, how does this post answer the question posed by the OP?