It's very interesting, Moon/dancer, that you seem to describe political and economical systems as what I call "socio-transcendantaux" (I don't know how to translate the word). What I mean is that they are produced by humans, by human activities or needs for a goal, but, as soon as they are pointed at, they seem to emancipate themselves, to "transcend" their origin, and 'live' by themselves. For this point, we can refer either to Hume (power of imagination vs reality), or Husserl (Sinngebung of the consciousness.
I think I begin to understand what you call "labels", and not only do I thank you for that, but I also agree - at least, partly. Because you make real strentgh and power relationships a too big abstraction. As Marx would have said, what is real is what does happen, not the picture we have of it. After all, it's normal you find some identity between the "isms", as they are instances of the same thins (political, economical platforms). But what counts is how they embodied themselves - i. e., their differences. I just watched on TV yesterday a political interview in wich a past French Prime Minister separated "market economy" (économie de marché, i. e. capitalism) and "market society" (société de marché, i. e. liberalism). He meant that both are not necessary linked, and that if the first was now necessary, the second wasn't. In other terms, one can always lead a system to the aim one wants.
Please excuse my long reply, but yet I'm waiting for what you think of this separation (distingo) between economy and society market.
|