ferenk

Yet, it makes great differences in ways of life. Don't you also underestimate the power of economics on humans ?

moon_dancer_withU

It is possible that we cast a different light on the matter, so let's see.

I think that the key word for both "ism"s is work. In both socialism and capitalism, one has to work for one's money, right?
It is also true that in both "ism"s, some of the organisms (IRS, banks, health/insurance/etc systems) are appropriating quite a big slice of one's revenues.
What differs, in my opinion, is the motivation for work induced to the tax payers of different "ism"s and the variety of goods that can be obtained with the results of one's work.

All these elements led me to the affirmation that capitalism and socialism are, in fact, labels put on a System that's actually working on his own benefit and to the detriment of the majority of its human components.

I think that the political platforms that initially founded and distinguished these "ism"s are no longer to be found in practice. They are just a theory now, but they work just the same. Not to mention that they are merely tools to rule, to get results looked forward by a handful of people and to satisfy their appetite for power.

If I would rather live in capitalism then in socialism? Definitely. In socialism I would probably be shot for heresy .

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).

moon_dancer_withU

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.

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.

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...

ferenk

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...