Quote:
Originally Posted by moon_dancer_withU
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... |
First, I'd like to apologize and confess you're absolutely right about my unreasonable generalisation. There still are different "isms" (in Asia, in Africa, in South America - Chavez, or Castro, f. ex. - or even in Middle East with the importance of religion) than capitalism (Kism) : and perhaps that's not so bad (even if one can disagree on such undemocratic countries as China, Russia, and so on). Yet, you mustn't forget that the present aim of Kism is globalization, and
by nature : the more you have partners, the more you can reduce production prices, and also the more you can make benefit. What does it imply ? Doesn't it mean each country is less and less free to decide of its economical, and then political, policies? What would China do if suddenly no more countries would buy its products? Then, is it really free to decide how to handle? I think Kism is particularly insidious and subversive, because it shows as "natural" and "necessary" what isn't. At least, other "isms" (except in theocraties), and of course socialism, present themselves as a deliberate choice founded on reasons - justice, equality, even maybe respect of God, etc. I don't necessarily agree with those, but I hate the way Kism present itself proudly as the "more realistic" system.
That's why I don't think, but with no absolute certainty, you can find mixed shapes, as you pointed for China. Emerging economics means growing ones, i. e. unfinished ones : noone can assume how they will end, but one can see and analyse each step they jump.
Two more things, and I stop (for the moment) ennoying you, thoug I may perhaps didn't answer all your questions :
1/ I'd like to discuss what we can call
socio-transcendantaux with you, even outside the field of economics, as it is a very import concept for me.
2/ About the former P.M., you have to know that he is a socialist. So one would expect him to condemn Kism; but as you know, in Western Europa, socialism is changing, or perhaps has already changed, itself into social-democratism (Prodi, Blair, Schröder, and so on). So Kism is accepted as obvious, and as a system without any serious challenger. But by separating Kist system and society, you can leave some freedom or decision to the citizens in their developping future. They don't have to do what Kism/ Nature/Reality tell them to, they can on the other side
think their future.
Excuse this long reply. But I'm waiting as usual for your answer. By the way, we have here a sunny Kist noon...