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

tmonster

Superstar
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
17,900
Reputation
3,205
Daps
31,789
:dahell:
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.
actually no, he doesn't say that. but let's say he had articulated that
no intellectual hates capitalism because it does not let man realize his altruistic state and if they did the are irrelevant arguments to me, besides being petty.
the intellectuals I follow from Chomsky to Zinn have issues with runaway capitalism because of the suffering it causes and they desire more restraints on capitalism.
The general idea that any restraint is anti-free market is bullshyt

You can have laws that create fair play for everyone in the market and laws that prevent fair play in the market.
 

Tate

Kae☭ernick Loyalist
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
4,274
Reputation
800
Daps
15,042
You advocate for communism? :ohhh:
Or are you just pointing that out?

Just pointing that out. Not quite sure where I would place myself on the far left spectrum, still need to read more and figure it out. Probably most sympathetic to anarchism at the moment. That may just be due to Orwell's strength as a writer
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,619
Reputation
4,503
Daps
43,214
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.
Yeah exactly, this is what John Mackey was doing. Separating the theory from the implementation. Just as he said crony capitalism isn't pure capitalism, you're saying Stalinist/Maoist communist isn't pure communism. It's disingenuous to claim your right to adapt to historical occurrences that harm your position while denying someone else's.

As for your other points, John Mackey isn't being paid to pick oranges or stack shelves. He has his role and the other workers at the company have theirs. Specialization has been a sine qua non of the greatest period of prosperity the world has ever known. If your problem is that he is being compensated at a rate incommensurate to the value he provides, I would ask how you're determining value. Because the skill set needed for an individual truck driver or floor sweeper doesn't seem to be equal to whatever skills Mackey employs at CEO of the 4 billion dollar company overseeing 58,000 truck drivers and floor sweepers. Those people are easily replaceable because they have a low skillset.

Also, I agree that "pure" Communism's ideology isn't inherently genocidal or racist, the point is that it almost always inevitably becomes so. We have to look at why this ideology is so susceptible to being hijacked, and my hypothesis is that it's because it doesn't acknowledge basic factors that are imbedded in human psychology. Communism is something that is wonderful on an individual scale but completely disintegrates on a national scale because it fails to incorporate the whole range of human behaviours and psyches. It's telling that it's usually the leaders of these communist regimes that display the behaviours and beliefs that end up counteracting its ideology.
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,619
Reputation
4,503
Daps
43,214
too many ad hominems to argue against :whoa:
Yeah I was just riffing on some bs arguments i've had, there are many left wing/communist thinkers who posit worthwhile and engaging critiques. I just haven't personally met many of them :russ:
 

JahFocus CS

Get It How You Get It
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
20,462
Reputation
3,742
Daps
82,453
Reppin
Republic of New Afrika
Yeah exactly, this is what John Mackey was doing. Separating the theory from the implementation. Just as he said crony capitalism isn't pure capitalism, you're saying Stalinist/Maoist communist isn't pure communism. It's disingenuous to claim your right to adapt to historical occurrences that harm your position while denying someone else's.

As for your other points, John Mackey isn't being paid to pick oranges or stack shelves. He has his role and the other workers at the company have theirs. Specialization has been a sine qua non of the greatest period of prosperity the world has ever known. If your problem is that he is being compensated at a rate incommensurate to the value he provides, I would ask how you're determining value. Because the skill set needed for an individual truck driver or floor sweeper doesn't seem to be equal to whatever skills Mackey employs at CEO of the 4 billion dollar company overseeing 58,000 truck drivers and floor sweepers. Those people are easily replaceable because they have a low skillset.

Also, I agree that "pure" Communism's ideology isn't inherently genocidal or racist, the point is that it almost always inevitably becomes so. We have to look at why this ideology is so susceptible to being hijacked, and my hypothesis is that it's because it doesn't acknowledge basic factors that are imbedded in human psychology. Communism is something that is wonderful on an individual scale but completely disintegrates on a national scale because it fails to incorporate the whole range of human behaviours and psyches. It's telling that it's usually the leaders of these communist regimes that display the behaviours and beliefs that end up counteracting its ideology.

"Pure communism" :dead: Communism is a stateless, classless society. Stalinism isn't communism, it isn't even socialism. Maoist China wasn't communist, you could argue it had some socialist aspects... Communism is something that exists on the horizon of socialism (worker ownership and management of the means of production). This isn't a matter of separating theory and implementation; if you're referring to societies that did not even have worker ownership and management of the means of production, how can they be socialist? It isn't a matter of "pure this" and "pure that."

The difference between "crony capitalism" and the sort advocated by right-wing "libertarians" is the difference between the interests of small/medium-sized business owners and big business owners. It's a struggle within the bourgeoisie for power over capital. But the smaller business owners switch it up real quick when that enterprise becomes bigger :mjpls:

Please show where communism is genocidal or racist :dead:

Just because a political party or regime says it is something, does not make it so. Rachel Dolezal has a stronger claim to being Black than Stalin did to being a socialist or communist. Is Dolezal Black? :jbhmm:
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,619
Reputation
4,503
Daps
43,214
actually no, he doesn't say that. but let's say he had articulated that
no intellectual hates capitalism because it does not let man realize his altruistic state and if they did the are irrelevant arguments to me, besides being petty.
the intellectuals I follow from Chomsky to Zinn have issues with runaway capitalism because of the suffering it causes and they desire more restraints on capitalism.
The general idea that any restraint is anti-free market is bullshyt

You can have laws that create fair play for everyone in the market and laws that prevent fair play in the market.
The notion of human perfectibility is essential to communism. Without the idea that humans are consistently capable of putting aside their self-interest for the betterment of the collective, communism falls apart, which is what history has shown us.

The deleterious effects of unfettered capitalism is definitely a worthwhile subject, but there is room on the capitalist bench to discuss these issues as well. One doesn't have to hand in their capitalist card to be concerned with suffering. In fact, I find it to be quite the opposite. I very rarely hear people on the left acknowledge that capitalism has been the greatest engine for alleviating suffering in human history. Runaway capitalism is one thing, and I really enjoy Chomsky and Zinn and believe they are providing a very useful service, but the majority of modern leftist discourse isn't even adhering to historical fact. I'm all for calling for more restraints on capitalism as long as it's predicated on a well thought out and substantiated theory. I'm no anarcho-capitalist.
 

AJaRuleStan

All Star
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,466
Reputation
-2,575
Daps
5,478
Reppin
Killa Queens
sacrifices in war refute that idea
a father risking life and limb to save his child refute that idea
women and children first to the life boats refute that idea
Uh, I didn't say perception didn't exist. Jesus Christ.
I don't know what that means
I was doing something irl, and hit the enter keyboard before I finished my post. I've update my last post since then.
 
Last edited:
Top