Most intellectuals are socialist, and yet socialist policies always fail. How is that possible...

>Most intellectuals are socialist
And you base this on what exactly?

Capitalism isn't perfect but socialism/marxism has never succeeded. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

inb4 scandinavia. Not socialism (it's a favourite meme of socialists to say something isn't socialism, so I get to do this too)

Intelectuals don't have any resources so they have no real power to implement their systems. In democracies intellectuals are rarely elected and dictatorships are generally run by the military. The closest thing you can get to an intellectual government is ironically the Portugal government under the Estado Nuevo.

The intellectual history of the Western world from the early 20th century onwards.

Fact? Unless you consider corporate shills and government pundits to be intellectuals.

What do you expect when people aren't even taught what capitalism/socialism is.
It's all obfuscated capitalism is made out to mean markets and socialism is made out to mean communism, communism is further repressed
Prime example Anarchist Catalonia.

Hayek on intellectual socialists.
youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs

Anarchist Catalonia (like the Free Territory in Ukraine, or the Paris Commune, or Rojava nowadays) was a military dictatorship headed by an organization that called itself anarcho-communist.

Calling it a functioning example of communism, specially when it only lasted a few years, is like considering the territory ruled by Baron Ungern von Sternberg in Siberia during the Russia Civil war the "Mongol Empire", because he called himself the heir to Genghis Khan.

No, the truth is that, while social democracy works just fine, actual socialist policies when implemented fail hard.

I consider myself lucky for being able to see the rise and fall of Venezuela, so you cannot fool me anymore. I can remember the early 2000s, when socialist intellectuals like Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky couldn't shut up about how Bolivarianism was the "socialism of the 21st century". Now they don't talk like that anymore, but I remember.

I will remember Rojava too when it inevitably becomes shit.

(((intellectuals)))

they want to sit around all day and live a comfortable life style of the labor of others. that is why they want socialism.

>There are conflicting tendencies, and the question for Venezuela is which one will prevail. There are democratizing tendencies, devolution of power, popular assemblies, communities taking control of their own budgets, workplace cooperatives and so on. All of that is building towards democracy. There are also authoritarian tendencies: centralization, charismatic figure, and so on. These policies in themselves you can’t really judge in which direction they’ll go.
2007

Rubish, he is completely out of place talking about evolution. Arguments of teleological progression, doesn't know about behavoiral-ecological-morphological mismatch and non-adaptive evolution. He goes on the premise that markets are innate to capitalism and cannot exist under socialism. Being an archetypical economist, Hayek isn't even wrong,

>Most intellectuals
>socialist policies always fail
>intellectuals are supposed to be the smartest people

Your use of proposition makes it clear you don't understand anything outside generalizations.

Also, how would someone who is 'not intellectual" understand the workings of an "intellectual". One would assume you don't have the capacity to understand their ideas in the first place. Like a fish trying to understand the works of an intellectual.

Next, You presume intellectuals do not permeate every field and area. When, the nature of a field of study demands they must.

In other words, you're an idiot for being so abstract and generalizing, and probably don't realize it, because you're not intellectual enough.

But as for the question: Your perception of this 'conceptual intellectual' probably comes from witnessing people who lcaim to be intellectuals, but are not. Likewise, intellectualism makes the same folly of ignorance in the unknown, only, ALL PEOPLE don't consider what they don't know - they can only think in terms of what they DO KNOW.

So, have you ever had a belief so far outside your area of receptive knowledge and training through study, that you hold it in a way that you must generalize a field or nature to fit into your conceptual map of reality?

God comes to mind.
abstractions like "freedom"
thinking 'liberal' means 'progressive'

If you make those errors, you're an idiot. Yet, you don't know it, because you never looked into the terms and concepts you use enough to be able to utilize those terms and ideas properly.

I.E. who do you get your information from if not intellectuals in respective fields? surely, not 'average joe' idiots. . .

speaking of which, here's something to read so you don't sound silly, next time :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

>devolution of power, popular assemblies, communities taking control of their own budgets, workplace cooperatives and so on

This is exactly what happened, these are the exact tendencies that "won", that's why the country doesn't produce anything anymore. Farms became communes, factories were expropriated and handed over to "worker's councils", and everything went to shit.

Venezuela would still be shit, but it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't try so hard to implement Real Communism™ with their "communal state" bullshit.

venezuelanalysis.com/news/13123

counterpunch.org/2016/12/30/venezuelas-communal-movement/

nacla.org/article/communal-state-communal-councils-communes-and-workplace-democracy

Your own links say that the democratic bottom up movements are in conflict with the government and only affect a very limited portion of the population.

Most named intellectuals, of the 20th century, at least, in the wikipedia article are socialist or communist.

>Jean-Paul Sartre
>Noam Chomsky
>Edward Said
>Antonio Gramsci
>György Lukács
>Anthony Giddens
>Michael Burawoy
>C. Wright Mills
>Richard Posner

The only part where anti-communists and anti-socialists are mentioned is in the "Criticism" section.

same guy.

Think about this:

At what point does one become an intellectual?

Can you tell me exactly how someone 'becomes an intellectual'?

If not, your idea is already building a taxonomy of categories that don't actually exist, a meta-categorical error.

If there is no metric or deciding factor for an intellectual, and it's generally just a term used by dumb asses to describe intellects they don't like, I assume this is what you're doing in context; as you waste my time with this troll content. . .

In other words, the 'intellectual' is categorically, anyone who expresses themselves intellectually - because intelligence is an expression, and not an innate capacity (in reference). That alone is a 'red pill' for a lot of people who never picked up a psychology book: intelligence is expressive, and an expression of intellectual functionality.

So, if you're not functioning intellectually, be a dumb rock someplace else - at least my dog tried harder to understand human meaning than these people seem to do. .. to put it into perspective.

>Burgeoning republics being smothered to oblivion with sanctions and all sorts of subversive schemes are an example of an ideology's efficacy.
Call back when there's a sovereign republic left to develop freely under its own instruments without constant foreign subversion.

ok, time to kill your arguement. First paragrraph:

"Socially, intellectuals constitute the intelligentsia, a status class organised either by ideology (conservative, fascist, socialist, liberal, reactionary, revolutionary, democratic, communist intellectuals, et al.), or by nationality (American intellectuals, French intellectuals, Ibero–American intellectuals, et al.). " - Wikipedia.

ergo, there are two categories of intellectual, in general reference. Of those, one must encompass the works of non-socialists, else they would not exist.

in other words, you're categorically error-ing when you consign all intellectuals to a socialist in concept.

That concept is clearly fucking retarded, and wrong, when you ask: "who wrote all the other shit"? "who wrote all the non-socialist material"? Must not have been ""intellectuals".

Case closed.

Can you perphaps (1.) share your definition of "intelectual", them (2.) prove your statement (most of them are socialist) to be true?

Except they do work for a lot of people and your bias probably leans on the side of the news presented to you by the msm™.
Until you have stats, legislative records, and actual on ground reports from all sectors, no one can truly be knowledgeable what's actually happening there. Constantly memeing the same rhetoric over private airwaves doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry for my hostility, but this is /pol/ type shit posting, and it's not for here.

Attempting to language game all intellectuals into socialists is a big give away.

>decentralized elective monarchies are the best! If only they could develop without being surrounded by centralized absolute monarchies like France, Prussia and Russia

No one would take the argument of someone defending the Holy Roman Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with these terms seriously.

Why should I take yours?

They work for giving a political (and military) basis for the regime, but they don't produce anything.

The right constantly bashes welfare recipients for being leeches and wanting more gibsmedat but will shift to their support when they're in "socialist" countries.
You rightist scumbags are a bunch of moralless doofs.

No they don't plenty of elderly can attest to the comfort of their pensions atm.

Principles are for fools. The objective of politics is to destroy your enemies. The left has learned that with Carl Schmitt, why shouldn't we learn it too?

So commienism works?

>Production of capital being the objective
>not meeting the peoples needs.

It works at giving political power to communist intellectuals.