Why are smart people always socialist/commies...

Why are smart people always socialist/commies? If capitalism is supposedly better then why are the smartest people (for ex. Einstein, or pic related) so opposed to it?
>inb4 jooz
I want an actual argument please, you can't just argue with a commie and throw the word jew around as if it meant anything. Most commies will stop listening to you at that point.

Other urls found in this thread:

xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=JPgIqDWBLDQ
youtube.com/watch?v=1XyUQ7xmAU4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Not all smart people are commies. Some of them understand economics.

Because the smartest thing is to get others to work for you.

Up until the early 1900s all universities were highly biased towards conservatism. You think smart people are commies, but you're just seeing the results of Marxists infiltrating institutions and indoctrinating young minds... see: public school.

Also, there's tons of smart entrepreneurs practicing capitalism and there are brilliant free market economists and historians. BUT (((the media))) doesn't promote top-tier conservative and free market intellectuals, they're too busy jerking off Bill Nye.

Public school isn't Marxist. I grew up in a very left wing area and public schools taught about Marx's flaws and the USSR.

>Einstein
If Einstein truly took this stance, he's was an idiot. The nazi's slaving him away in some laboratory would've paled in comparison to USSR treatment.

>you're just seeing the results of Marxists infiltrating institutions
If those conservative institutions were so strong then wouldn't they ought to have been able to withstand leftist rhetoric?

>there are brilliant free market economists and historians

Name a few, please.

>smart communist
404

Was it really the rhetoric that changed these institutions or infiltration of administrator positions then top-down change? The latter is what happened here.

first it was ethnic studies/feminism departments in the 60s, then it expanded with affirmative action in the 70s. During the 90s sociology and psych became the dominant departments. Currently, our standards are so lax we let people who are functionally illiterate into college as long as they can pay (with a student loan of course) in order to extract resources from them. Because we're letting in so many ignorant darkies, STEM departments get their budgets cut to make room for more soc/psych/ethnic.

So your ideas didn't win. It's more akin to you buying out the competition but declaring you made a better product when in reality you just bought the factory but make an inferior one for more money.

>George Orwell
>Writes multiple anti-state book
>Commie

Commies love books written by Jews. Here's a good one you should read. It answers your question in depth.

xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf

Anarcho-Communism exists.

They aren't that clever, just edgy.

when automation takes most human jobs and all the profited capital goes to the robot owners, most people will demand socialism and communism
communism will always prevail, just wait

I'll bite. Intellectuals often feel a disconnect from other people. This can sometimes build resentment, and this resentment often creates a superiority complex. After a time this becomes a sense of moral superiority which manifests itself as the most logically moral (at least on paper) philosophy, egalitarianism.

Since the intellectual often finds human nature counter intuitive to achieving this goal, they move to the most logical course of implementation. Force. Either through government regulations or coercive mass media.

In the end they hope to reconnect with the common man as their savior. To finally be respected and included. Unfortunately, it often ends with a greater rift between the two.

I don't think commies are evil, I just think it's a moral position that spirals ever further out of control by placing hard logic over rational understanding of human desire.

Because white supremacy is purely based on ideology. If you read what Gramsci or Althusser had to say about ideology then white supremacy crumbles as an argument. This is why no well-read person is a white supremacist and why it prevails as an ideology in communities/forums where people do not read much.

Until they outlive their usefulness.

>(((smart people)))

How many of them were able to run a business or do something other then take a check from the state?

You're assuming automation will be cheaper than hiring third worlders. So far that hasn't been the case.

Right the Lead Nazis were all genius level. And I'm a nazi. Cohenincidence I think not?

>pic related
>author of the two most famous anti-communist novel
>communist

>People complain
>Mr Goldenstein uses his Drone Death Squads™
>Only consumers are now another comapnies, probably what will happen

>Name a few, please.

Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Fredrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Han-Hermann Hoppe, David Gordon, Pat Buchanan, Tom DiLorenzo, Russ Roberts, Brion McClanahan

...there's plenty more, but they don't get championed by the M5M because they're not big government fags like Krugman.

/thread

> George orwell
> Commie
What the fuck man, since when? Have you even read 1984?
Einstein was a god damned jewish traitor, of course he would be communist. That explains why he helped building the atomic bomb, because communists are sociopaths who don't care about human life
I bet he didn't share all his science money or private property with the poor, the hypocrite

To answer your question, these "smart people" tend to socialism because they are so far removed from the rest of society that they think everybody has a good heart and that poor people are virtuous and given enough money they will work for society.
They receive gibs from interested parties to do their work, and are treated well and idolized by everybody around them, so they think everybody is like that. They don't understand that poor people are usually poor because they are generally selfish, vain, lazy and overall horrible people. People who aren't like that, but are born to poverty don't stay poor for long

You know that particular type of character you find in the middle class, the sort of person who really, really wants to just burn everything because he's bored? Probably the type of character that loves the idea of a bloody violent revolt (and a place for himself at the head of it)?

A lot of bored characters in the middle and upper middle classes. Communism on behalf of the poor is just a sort of justification for their principal fascination: a bit of exciting chaos and blood sport.

They are smart enough to think they can run everyone's live, they aren't smart enough to realize they actually can't and it's completely impractical

> Smart people are always socialists

Nigga what ? Milton Friedman? Hayek ?

George Orwell being a big supporter of the Spanish Anarcho-communal system setup during the 1930's does not fucking equal him supporting the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

He hated authoritarianism in any shape or form and spewed vitrolic venom at the tip of his steel pen and threw down novel after novel at the concept whenever he had the chance.

If he were alive today and heard the censorship ideals presented at College Universities today he would pull out a rifle and mow down every blue haired bull dyke he could see.

American educational institutions spend a lot of time to criticize capitalism, which is fine, but there is a lack of criticizing globalism and consumerism which created the walmart economy on the backs of foreign sweatshop workers.

They blame capitalism for the state of the world instead of rapid exploitative globalism

Have been looking for that one for some time, thanks!

So it's like when my corporate owner uncle tells kids in the school that they don't need education to become billionare and then tells his workers that he won't pay them more because they are uneducated and good luck trying to find another job without any qualification if they don't like it?

>If he were alive today and heard the censorship ideals presented at College Universities today he would pull out a rifle and mow down every blue haired bull dyke he could see.

Probably not. He was a notorious coward in the international brigades who was apparently there largely to 'experience' the world. 90% research for homage to catalonia, 10% workers of the world uniting.

He had a tendency to talk tough and opined at great length on salvadore dali and similar characters being bootlickers to franco and cowards fleeing the fight, but did not once fire a shot in anger himself. A lot of projection and tough talk, but really just a soft character who desperately wanted to be seen as tough.

He'd likely be throwing rocks at police with other soy boys in Berkeley and courageously charging trash cans.

> Virtually all economists, scientists, smart academians, etc. are pro-capitalist and support most of the neoliberal consensus
> A fringe variety of intellectuals who know very little about economics or shit are communists or socialists
Really gets the marbles rolling
Unless you seriously believe that people like Bakunin or Kropotkin are better authorities on the economy than say, Krugman, Stiglitz, etc.

Orwell turned his back on Socialism later in his life, Commies hate when you bring this up. After living with Coal Miners in Scotland he became disillusioned once he couldnt shake the idea that most Socialists just hate the rich and dont really love the poor. He wrote an article about it. Which if you see Crime and Punishment as a predictor of the Russian Revolution, is spot on. Benevolent ideologies are always just coopted by the dregs of society as a safe haven for their horrible beliefs.

From Adam Smith to Hayek, from Rothbard to Mises. Is this bait?

He was a socialist.
Trockij and Lenin were for example depicted as positive characters in Animal farm. He was against authoritarianism not communism.
And don't forget that he took part in Spanish civil war on the side of socialists-anarchists-commies.

Does the job /require/ an education that he won't pay more?

I don't agree with your uncle fully but I also disagree with you because you fail to see his point, you don't need to go to college, but you need skills, you still have to educate yourself

Is that george carlin?

Read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell. Youll understand the appeal.

>He wrote an article about it.

The road to wigan pier was him being a proto-hipster and outdoing his contemporaries. It was a big wank (look, you don't know suffering, I was down in the mines for a whole day and crawling is tough work - check my credibility out).

He could barely disguise his disgust at the other boarders in the halfway house.

Shitalism and Crapitalism are two sides of the same kike coin. Both are horrible, unsustainable systems that put money on the pedestal, where as the Third Option places the Volk; the PEOPLE, on the pedestal.

Republicunts and Demoshits, Commies and Capitalists, all of them are shit. The Third Option reigns supreme.

>commie
>smart

>Benevolent ideologies are always just coopted by the dregs of society as a safe haven for their horrible beliefs.

did you just pen that yourself or is that a quote from another text? excellent point

Orwell was definitely commie:

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."

"...in the stage of industrial development which we have now reached, the right to private property means the right to exploit and torture millions of one's fellow creatures. The Socialist would argue, therefore, that one can only defend property if one is more or less indifferent to economic justice."

On why he wrote 1984/Animal Farm:
"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement."

His point isn't that the job require an education but that the guy who is bitching for more wages can't go to another company for bigger wages so it's unnecessary to pay him more because he either deal what he has or finds himself unemployed.

This is what I'm saying.

There are some ideas that are so impractical that you'd have to be an intellectual to actually believe them

> the third option
Fashitsm is just socialism with extra steps Hanz. Stop lying to yourself.

No, some ideas so romantic and true that you devote and risk your life fighting in a foreign land for an idea, as he did, experiencing the closest a society has gotten to true socialism.

It's that the workers don't have a skill that makes them hard to replace, they need to learn more skills.

you don't get wealthy by making a bunch of lateral moves to companies that pay you more, you have to educate yourself to acquire new skills

>Has socialism in the name
>"ITS SOCIALIST (as in the communist version of socialism)"

How does it feel being a brainlet?

Because smart people don't live lives anything like normal people do you fucking stupid faggot

They don't have to deal with shitskins anywhere near as often, if ever, and often when they do it's in an academic or highly successful scientific or financial context meaning they're meeting outliers who don't represent the average shitskin

>experiencing the closest a society has gotten to true socialism
Which consisted of enslaving the working in a "people commune", killing priests, steal people's property, and generally being an authoritarian socialist/communist

>Carl Schmitt
>Mircea Eliade
>Leo Strauss
>Carl Jung
>Bertrand de Jouvenel
>Jacques Maritain
>Eric Voegelin
>Hillaire Belloc
>Gilbert Chesterton
>René Girard
>Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
>Oswald Spengler
>Georges Dumézil
>Martin Heidegger
>Franz Hoppenheimer
>Ludwig von Mises
>Raymond Aron
>Raymond Boudon
>Pierre Boutang
>Élie Halévy
>Wilhelm Röpke
>Murray Rothbard
>Michael Oakeshott
>Arnold Toynbee
>Xavier Zubiri
>Étienne Gilson
>Henri de Lubac
>Elizabeth Anscombe
>Georg Henrik von Wright
>Russel Kirk
>Plinio Correa de Oliveira
>Helmut Schoeck
>Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

>Don't be X or Y, be Z
>But Z is X with some Y and some more!
Exactly, fucktard

Because intellectual institutions (such as universities) have been hijacked, initially by Marxist academics but now mostly just generic leftists, although there's no animosity to Marxism. It isn't often overt, but the status quo culture on any university campus will be leftist by default. Here in the UK the student's union has a ban on anyone it deems a fascist, but not communists. This isn't anything new by the way, universities have become progressively more leftist since the 60s, some would argue earlier.

Go back to the early 20th century and a sizeable number of intellectuals would have been on the right. Fascism and national socialism, at their heart, were deeply intellectual and many philosophers of the time (Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola) attached themselves to them. Ever since the end of WWII it's become taboo to do this, and the leftist hijacking of Western consciousness has attempted to portray ideologies with a focus on race or nation as the indulgence of the stupid or
bigoted (skinheads, hooligans). If we ever want to succeed we need to challenge this image and show the world that it isn't true.

Its the exact opposite of what you think m8
youtube.com/watch?v=JPgIqDWBLDQ

No company would hire you for your hypothetical skills.
You can either prove it with actual paper or goes to the same category where people who are lieing about their amazing skills they "just don't have the papers" goes.

youtube.com/watch?v=1XyUQ7xmAU4

>being anarcho anything

toppest of keks

Joos

Americans don't realise that their precious television was a French and commie invention.

not in real life it doesn't

er, I didn't go to college and taught myself computer science and have had no issues with employment

surely this thread will get replies!

Thanks a lot guys. (Not going to mass reply like a fag) The reason I posted this is because I want to save a friend from the poison that is communism. He's not full commie yet but he's a big fan of literature and his favorite authors are socialists. It breaks my heart he's falling for the communism meme. He's the nicest person I know (which is why I assume he fell for communism's faux-morality) and I don't want him to go the SJW/nu-male way (literally every modern Marxist eventually becomes that). I know it's wrong to want to change someone's opinion on something but from what I see nowadays, communism is a dangerous ideology that leads to a downward spiral of nonsense mental gymnastics in order to convince you it works. Doesn't help that Latin America in general is very, very left leaning in general, especially in media and education. It took me some years to notice the amount of anti-capitalism brainwashing we got during our school years. I'm not saying capitalism is a perfect system either but it's the best we've got.

Dostoevsky

Smart people, or should we say educated people, are more aware and understanding of the human condition. They understand that material pursuits of wealth are selfish and destructive for humanity and societal progress. A capitalist thinks only of his wealth, the well being of himself, but has no regard for humanity, or the world, as a whole. People who pursue fields that seek to benefit humanity know very well their knowledge and discoveries are not for their OWN SELFISH pursuits, but for the progress of humanity. Capitalism as an economic system is not bad per se but it is easily exploited by selfish individuals. In a true just society, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

how old are you?

Orwell's books were not anti-communist. I don't believe you have read them, and if you did, you obviously did not understand them.

>Why are smart people always socialist/commies?

>communists
>educated

Moldbug, Maistre, Malthus, Carlyle, Scruton, Kaczynski

> nationalization of property
> hate of capitalism
> lack individuality
> blaming your problems on the rich
> militaristic
> authoritarian
> social welfare
> THE GREATER GOOD
> hate of jews
> never worked
It's socialism combined with mindless nationalism Fritz. Stop lying to yourself.

>All commies are the same
Dude was an anarcho-syndicalist that fought for CNT-FAI, anarchists hate stalinist gommies because they hate any form of authoritarianism.

George Orwell was a socialist. I know you felt smart but you aren't read his actual views on politics. He did critique Stalinism often though.

>never worked
Except it did. National socialism is arguably the most efficient ideology to ever have existed.

>mindless nationalism
Nice oxymoron

And Solzhenitsyn and Tolstoy :D

It's perfectly balanced. Most of the greatest writers of fiction have been philosophically weird. Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist.

Well, I'm arguing that Z is actually just a version of X. I don't think that Z is combination of X and Y, because Y is completely removed from Z and anything that is pretending to be Y under Z is actually just a disguised X.
You know what I mean right?

Can you show me an example of it working?

> nationalism
I think my country is nice and I'm prideful of what my people achieved over the years.
>mindless nationalism
WE WAS KAISERS AND SHEEET! We are fucking best at everything! All other nations are inferior! REEEEE

The people you consider as intellectuals are creative people and more often than not, they tend to have enhanced feelsing about everything.
Naturally people who create their worldview through the lense of feels, no matter how accurate, will be one biased by feels and caring.
Does that mean that they are absolutely wrong in their assessments?
Subjectively, no, but objectively they can't reach a solution that would work in an objective world.
Which is where we exist and the only feels part is us. It shouldn't be a huge struggle to understand the fundamental flaw when the single most dominant aspect (the objective reality) is just a nuance in an ideology.

Which is also why we still have dysfunctional societies, but luckily lord and savior skynet will free us.

Because if you are not part of the ~10% of world population who owns most of the capital, then capitalism is BAD for you.

Though you need to be smart to understand that.

Hence why ameritards still believe in the "MAGIC OF THE MARKETPLACE"

Communism is just another Jewish lie.
Jews are really really good at lying

Einstein and Orwell lived in times when west wasn't aware of socialism's consequences. USSR seemed a distant place, and it was portrayed to public as paradise by (((mainstream media))), especially during ww2.
Back then capitalism seemed for westerners the greatest burden especially after 1929 Wall Street crash

>feudalism is weird
The shit your read here these days.

Anti-tankie*
But the majority of communists are tankies so isnt wrong

Freidrich Engels wasn't a Jew.

He was from Lutherans.

This perception is totally debunked, ravaged, raped and thrown into a dumpster fire in this book.

Read it.

>Commies
>listening to others
Good one kike

>Why are smart people always socialist/commies?

>The marxism we're teaching you isn't the "old" marxism, goy

That's just part of the propaganda, user

ITT it is the middle ages.

Why are smart people always christians? If paganism is supposedly better then why are the smartest people (for ex. Scotus Eriugena, or pic related) so opposed to it?

>inb4 IVDAE
I want an actual argument please, you can't just argue with a christian and throw the word IVDA around as if it meant anything. Most christians will stop listening to you at that point.

At some point you just have to admit that those PAGANI (rednecks) from the PAGUS (backwoods) with their maypoles and household gods are ignorant. They don't even have BIBLIAE SACRAE to learn how to read latin properly - they're completely uneducated!

Actually the massacre of the non christians probably set botany and medicine back in europe a considerable amount especially since in france notavly but in all celtic countries really a lot of knowledge was forbidden from being written and for oral transmission only.

Per this book, you'll learn to see right through their arguments, see:

This post is an example of verbal virtuosity. When you dig into it, you'll notice he's ascribing emotions to what he assumes is empirical evidence. The only evidence from which to cite it is where central planning has actually occurred, ie. East and West Germany, North and South Korea. It's a farce, and so is every bit of leftist "intellectualism" that propagates it. Even Marx and Engles were aware that selfish actions were a necessity of markets, even if they deplored the so-called "chaos" they engendered.

Literally, eat a dick faggot.

Smart people are always socialist/commies?
NO.
People who think they are smart, but can't keep a job and have plenty of time to write manifestos are always socialists/commies.
People who think they are smart and that it's not fair they aren't rich and in charge are socialists/ commies.
People who think they know better than anyone else are socialist/commies.

Smart people are too busy DOING.

Orwell's "Road to Wigan pier" is the most anti leftist book you'll ever read. Animal farm etc are picturing evil Stalinism and any Chelsea fag was saying, in general, true Marxism was never tried bs. Wigan pier is unabomber manifesto level of leftism critique - rich kids hating their country, freaks of all kinds, pandering to some brown peasants and so on.

Orwell had a great respect to ordinary working class people, and hated all professional Marxist, who felt nothing to them but contempt. As their bs was obvious for everyone at 60-s, they switched from working class rights to identity politics in a blink of eye. It's become ok to call every hard working man a redneck and so on, you don't give a shit about him anymore.

Orwell was a prophet of this, while back in 40-ths leftist went bananas in blaming him as a liar.

"Smart people". Smart in what sense exactly? Smart when compared to others in their respective fields perhaps, but "socialism/communism" could be broadly defined as economic models, and the fields in which what you consider to be "smart people" operated within certainly weren't economics. Being "smart" when judged based on the standards of the field you operate in doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll also be "smart" in fields completely unrelated to your own.