Quote:
Originally Posted by ferenk
I don't understand quite well your "labels" notion. Do you mean they are just nouns put on an economical system that barely differ ? You confess by yourself that those systems are different in tems of motivations to work. And that supposes a completely different global organisation (for example, private property or not). Besides, you write that "political platforms [...] are no longer to be found in practice", though you conclude you prefer capitalism ("In socialism [...] for heresy"), which means there still are real political differences that interfere in lives - perhaps not, or no more, for you : but ask a North-Corean or people from Argentina.
On the contrary, I don't think something as a systeme working for his own exist. Behind each possible systeme, there are people that imagine, want it, and work according to it. This kind of systeme is a systeme of interests, i. e. individuals more or less able to use it, and in the meanwhile, other people.
(I'm looking forward to an answer, as those questions really interest me).
|
Thank you for better sorting out these ideas, ferenk. By "labels" I tried to designate nouns applied to economical systems that differ in appearance (motivations to work, regime of private propriety, freedom of speach, freedom to locate from one place/country to another and so on) but have obvious similarities when examined in the depth of their goals.
A few examples of these systems' main goals, as I see them, would be the goal of accumulation, or the goal of ruling - as impersonal concepts. It is perfectly true that behind each possible system (political system in our case), there are people that imagine, want it, and work according to it. Therefore, on the personal level the accumulation concept could be translated in accumulation of power, accumulation of money, accumulation of personal prestige, the ruling concept - in satisfaction given by ruling over a mass of people and so on.
Somehow, it's as if a system existed simultaneously on 2 different but interweaved plans: as an abstract concept brought to life by human minds and as a functional "being", put to work by the individuals that use it and form it.
Let us move on to political platforms, whether they are capitalist or socialist - a hyperdelicate subject for many.
I'd advance the idea that political platforms are merely tools... different tools ment to differentiate political systems or subsystems, indeed, but above all tools for ruling the system. Necessary tools, too. Diversity of political platforms is a must for the development of any "ism" system, and this development means, in fact, governation. People are more governable if they can be convinced that they actually choosed their leading team, and it works the same from North-Corea to USA, for example. (There are elections in socialism as well as in capitalism.) As such, people are needed to and some need themselves to adhere to a political platform, whether it is socialist or capitalist in order to keep the "ism" system alive, functional.
As for the preference stated before, of capitalism over socialism, well, it was more a manifestation of my sense of humour. After all, we are adaptable human beings.
Sorry that this answer took so long. I hope you'll can make some sense out of it and point out "tout ce qui cloche dedans"
. As usual.