Quote:
Originally Posted by ferenk
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.
|
Good morning again, in this beautiful capitalist morning...
I think I understand quite clearly the "socio-transcendental" context of political and social systems the way you put it. I agree with you.
Regarding real strenght and power relationships of the "isms", so instable and shifting, I'm tempted to see them as a sort of a liant, that thin and not so visible layer that keeps together the bits and pieces of those systems. Or regroups them in another shape every now and then...
What are more important, similarities or differences between "isms"? Apart from the prestige of the theories and theoreticians adorning a specific period of time and emphasising one or the other, I think it ultimately depends on one's internal structure - analitical or synthetical - on what one wishes to, is used/taught to put one's finger on. For ones, differences are more obvious, others may point out the similarities. A matter of perspective, after all.
In my opinion, whatever one is living ("what is real is what does happen") is just as important as what one believes about what one is living ("the picture we have of it"). Obviously, as long as one's arguments are kept on the bright side of rationallity.
I have a question on market economy vs market society: on what grounds did the ex-PM say that "the first was now necessary, the second wasn't"? I'm still in the process of sorting out the distingo.
And another question regarding the intro of this discussion. You said that:
Since the 90's, capitalism is seen as the only right way to conceive human exchanges - and finally, human relationships, or even conceptions of live and existence.
I wonder why you used this generalisation. Socialism didn't vanish from the picture, even if many socialist systems are gone with the wind. Capitalism may be seen as "the only right way" by many, but not by all. Remaining socialists would surely disagree
.
And one last thing in this post: do you think it is possible for socialism and capitalism to blend in a mixed "ism" and to function as a whole, or are they for ever irreconciliable in the form in which they were originally designed? I wonder if China, for example, could not be seen as such an emergent hybrid...