Whole Foods' Co-Founder John Mackey: "Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism"

[JahFocus CS]

You don't get to use words like "slavery" and think you've made a point.

Thats the sort of unnecessary hyperbole that doesn't advance dialogue.

It isn't hyperbole. Slavery is a class system with definite relations of production and contending classes. It isn't simply something that is morally wrong... it is a system, a mode of production, just as capitalism is. Capitalism also has definite relations of production and contending classes. And the ruling class in each system uses almost identical talking points

Not to mention, bosses and slaveholders were closely intertwined or the same for 100 years of this country's existence It isn't even a thought experiment to see how they related to each other, just study history

 

[tmonster]

Some sort of system/society were property and owner ship is removed. A society that would pass Rousseau's criteria for what is needed so the nature of man won't be corrupted, and he can be free to reach his potential.

but this sentence does not make any sense to me

They believe that man can overcome self-interest and be immune to the influence of power, and that the current systemic processes/institutions(constraints) that happen to be in place, at the moment, is at fault.

in your sentence you say that intellectuals believe that men can over come a and b and that c is at fault; constraints are at fault for what?

you then go on to say that

Remove those constraints(Ex. free market economy) and man could begin his moral development and reach some form of moral perfectibility.

You never made a connection between your first premise and your last conclusion (which is loosely related to said premises)

if one stretches their imagination-something I did not think I would have to do given the explicit clarity of your grammar- they can claim that you are trying to say that intellectuals don't like the constraints in capitalism because they prevent man from exercising, developing and/or proving his moral rectitude

which
a) does not say that they actually dislike capitalism itself contradicting your opening statement in the discussion, just that there is not enough unconstrained capitalism
b) ergo you seem to claim that they want more capitalism

the myth of the free market and the apparent pettiness of such a reasoning on the part of the intellectual aside, your statement seems internally inconsistent to me

 

[Mikael Blowpiff]

You would think this guy would be some hippy but @DEAD7 would love this guy.

There were/are lots of hippie libertarians.

 

[DEAD7]

"Humans are naturally selfish" - capitalism tries to hammer this idea home at every turn so people internalize it and believe it as a justification for capitalism... and despite this gargantuan effort, there are still countless people who fight for and favor solidarity and cooperation every single day.

You could say heterosexual men are naturally almost always horny but does that justify rape? (I'm sure we have some far right-wingers on here who believe it does )

There is no single, fixed "human nature," especially not one independent of material and social circumstances

This is it. Cultural Marxist refuse to believe man is inherently self-interested, and fix'd into this state, biologically. They just don't work off that premise, so they can look at the same events that ppl on the right do, and reach wildly different conclusion because their thinking is shaped on a juvenile belief of how human nature works.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[JahFocus CS]

I'm willing to allow and permit some degree of stratification in society with reasonable levels of exploitation (however you define it)

Are you ok with this?

Is it ok for me to think this way?

"Reasonable levels of exploitation"

I am not okay with that. Oppressed people always have the right to resist their oppression. No one has the right to oppress other people.

It is okay for you to think that - if you're an oppressor, I don't care what you think. If you're the member of an oppressed group and think that, you're a fool and a tool but you can think what you want... just don't get in the way of people fighting for their freedom

 

[tmonster]

And here we devolve into just name-calling

I did not call you names, i told you to shut up because you are talking out of your ass and don't deserve a true critical response

Answer me this:

Why are you such a proponent of socialism that ends up being unchecked?

At what point do you say, theres a medium?

Because theres NEVER any nuance or leeway in your arguments. Its always hardlined and immature.

show me the argument in the post you responded to in this thread that made those claims or apologize fallacious straw man claims

because here are examples of the common way in which I refer to the paradigm
http://www.thecoli.com/posts/13522835/

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/7595568/

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/6409370/

 

[JahFocus CS]

Yeah, because that shyt is just patently false ("humans are naturally selfish and always have been like they are today") when you look at the totality of human history, from hunter-gatherer society to the present-day. It is an unnuanced and juvenile reading of human nature... and how convenient that people parrot it when it serves the definite material interests of those in power

For the working class, the fight for socialism isn't necessarily about some communal ideal. The class is fighting for more compared to the scraps it is given under capitalism. Socialism is self-interested from a class perspective.

If anything, the working class is being very selfless under capitalism, allowing bosses to live extravagant lifestyles from workers' toil and blood, sweat, and tears . Selfless to the point where its almost suicidal.

 

[Tate]

I don't think it's necessarily dishonest, it's just an attempt to separate theory from precedent, same as when people on the far left try to claim that Communism won't inevitably devolve into Maoist/Stalinist style fascism. Of course capitalism isn't a perfect system, but one can promote purity of an ideology while admitting the shortcomings of its implementation and seeking to resolve them.

As for your other points, capitalism's acknowledgment of greed as a fundamental element of human nature is what makes it a great system. Whereas Communism tries to ignore/overcome greed in their belief of the perfectibility of humanity, Capitalism seeks to harness it in the most efficient/productive manner. Modern capitalism is a success story breh. Selfishness in a system of capitalism results in innovation and growth. Selfishness in a system of communism results in bureaucratic nightmares and black markets. Believe that people at large can be selfless brehs.

When were laborers in control of the means of production in the USSR or Maoist China? Bureaucrats aren't workers. State social capitalism is still capitalism.

The communism I'm sympathetic to isn't about selflessness. It's about justice. Whens the last time that whole foods owner picked an orange or stacked a shelf? When's the last time he swept the floors or drove the trucks? If he isn't doing all the work why is he entitled to use profits as he sees fit?

He mentions that their payroll is 7-8 times larger than their profits. Anybody think a 12.5% universal bonus is peanuts?

Side note-Fascism and communism are not comparable morally. Fascism is at its core a racist and warmongering ideology that would inevitably lead to genocide or the next thing to it. Communism can and has been hijacked into tolitarianism, but there is little equivalency between an ideology that stresses equality, justice, and peace and one advocating supremacy, nationalism, and domination.

 

[tmonster]

Yeah, because that shyt is just patently false ("humans are naturally selfish and always have been like they are today") when you look at the totality of human history, from hunter-gatherer society to the present-day. It is an unnuanced and juvenile reading of human nature... and how convenient that people parrot it when it serves the definite material interests of those in power

For the working class, the fight for socialism isn't necessarily about some communal ideal. The class is fighting for more compared to the scraps it is given under capitalism. Socialism is self-interested from a class perspective.

If anything, the working class is being very selfless under capitalism, allowing bosses to live extravagant lifestyles from workers' toil and blood, sweat, and tears . Selfless to the point where its almost suicidal.

the mammalian line is quite fond of reciprocity, sharing, cooperation
competition comes in around sexual reproduction and environments where resources are scarce, both problems which homo sapiens have theoretically eradicated with social mores and technology respectively

 

[Tate]

Same goes for 'worker owned means of production' friend.

In an anarchist society

 

[King Kreole]

but this sentence does not make any sense to me

in your sentence you say that intellectuals believe that men can over come a and b and that c is at fault; constraints are at fault for what?

you then go on to say that


You never made a connection between your first premise and your last conclusion (which is loosely related to said premises)

if one stretches their imagination-something I did not think I would have to do given the explicit clarity of your grammar- they can claim that you are trying to say that intellectuals don't like the constraints in capitalism because they prevent man from exercising, developing and/or proving his moral rectitude

which
a) does not say that they actually dislike capitalism itself contradicting your opening statement in the discussion, just that there is not enough unconstrained capitalism
b) ergo you seem to claim that they want more capitalism

the myth of the free market and the apparent pettiness of such a reasoning on the part of the intellectual aside, your statement seems internally inconsistent to me

His point was very simple. "Intellectuals" don't like capitalism because they believe it rewards people's greed and promotes self-interest, which they believe to be a negative learned trait. They believe man isn't naturally greedy and social/economic factors make him so. Ergo, removing these social/economic factors will allow him to realize his true altruistic state. They want less capitalism, not more.

 

[tmonster]

Not to speak for the man, but the "intellectuals" I've spoken to who espouse this idea usually start rhapsodizing about some amorphous, mixed bag, politico-economic system that somehow avoids the pitfalls that every communist regime has succumbed to, whilst allowing for the levels of growth and prosperity that comes from capitalist systems. They still refuse to accept greed as an immutable element of human psychology, and pine for a communitarian world where the poor are magically lifted up using voodoo economics (many have used the line "Businesses will still produce at the same level!" ), but they don't want to give up their iPhones or Nikes or Whole Foods either.

too many ad hominems to argue against

 

[DEAD7]

Yeah, because that shyt is just patently false ("humans are naturally selfish and always have been like they are today") when you look at the totality of human history, from hunter-gatherer society to the present-day. It is an unnuanced and juvenile reading of human nature... and how convenient that people parrot it when it serves the definite material interests of those in power

This is it. Cultural Marxist refuse to believe man is inherently self-interested

 

[AJaRuleStan]

but this sentence does not make any sense to me

in your sentence you say that intellectuals believe that men can over come a and b and that c is at fault; constraints are at fault for what?

you then go on to say that


You never made a connection between your first premise and your last conclusion (which is loosely related to said premises)

if one stretches their imagination-something I did not think I would have to do given the explicit clarity of your grammar- they can claim that you are trying to say that intellectuals don't like the constraints in capitalism because they prevent man from exercising, developing and/or proving his moral rectitude

which
a) does not say that they actually dislike capitalism itself contradicting your opening statement in the discussion, just that there is not enough unconstrained capitalism
b) ergo you seem to claim that they want more capitalism

the myth of the free market and the apparent pettiness of such a reasoning on the part of the intellectual aside, your statement seems internally inconsistent to me

Capitalism is the constraint, not constraints "in" capitalism.
And dislike means to find something unfavorable
therefore
ect

Honestly though, you don't need a "logical" inquiry to determine the validity of the conclusion. There is empirical evidence on the matter. This is not an argument I made up which is what I think you're thinking -- it's one that I'm repeating. This is not my subjective speculation; these "type" of intellectuals have explicitly said this from the days of Rousseau.

Here let me post this vid(So I can plug the goat thomas sowell)