Capitalism and the Natural Order is under Assault by Society’s Worst Elements

Can I ask your ethnicity?

 

Okay, I hope you don't mind but I'm copying this post...I will give credit to "Adorno avatar" if I quote it to anyone.
One individuality and equality...Arendt wrote...

I found a copy of the whole darn text to Mendieta's The Frankfurt School on Religion, here for free!

 

Thankfully, Copleston's magisterial History has been combined and republished into a much more manageable 9 volumes - it's a great resource (although it took me years to go through it - not one summer! An impressive feat.)

Honneth's work is more recent - 3rd generation Critical Theory - taking up the argument after Habermas, Honneth centers his work on the recognitive element of intersubjectivity (his position is heavily influenced by the early Hegel) and its social and political implications. The Struggle for Recognition is extraordinary - easily (for me) one of the best philosophy books of the past 25 years.

​

O'Conner's analysis here is really engaging and insightful in its tracing of the legacy of German Idealism for Adorno. The discussion immediately following this passage looks at how Adorno's shift toward the internalization of antinomy moves him toward the Hegelian dialectic but at the same time away from it - since the transcendental element of critique cannot be reconciled with the experiential - in other words, there can be no reconciliation of subject with object as there is with Hegel (which I take to mean, among other things, no positive sublation of the concept through its determinate negations) - contradiction cannot be reconciled in the abstract idealist system. This I think goes a long way in prefiguring the concerns for Adorno's non-identity theory in his later work: there is no reconciliation of the normative with Spirit or culture as in Hegel. Or to put it another way: (famously) "wrong life cannot be lived rightly."

 

I am not surprised to see a new rise in marxism. We saw it in the great depression when capitalism has failed far too many americans and they were suffering economically, even to the point of going hungry. It was said that FDR saved capitalism from this marxism, socialism, communism. This is human nature to want to try something other than what made you suffer. So, no one should be surprised, that such a thing might happen in this cause/effect universe.

The problem today with capitalism is that it is part and parcel with globalism. Economic globalism. The means to max out profits, and create greater disparity in income, in favor of the top dogs. And so capitalism, the kind that created our history making large middle class, is no more. That capitalism benefitted the max number of american, average americans, while this new form destroys them economically as wages are in the process to rush to the bottom, not sustaining nor creating large middle classes.

And so the suffering, perceived suffering, is the cause of this new move for some into some form of marxism. It was predictable, by those that understand that we live in a cause effect universe, and also know enough about history to see it happened already once here in america, during hard economic times.

You want to reduce the marxists? Bring back a form of capitalism that serves the People in the US instead of exclusively serving the top one percent. Problem solved. And if not, then get ready for a growth in marxism.

 

And one at a time of desperate need, because so many have fallen victim to the illusion of being having been victimized by those who have excelled while they did little, and therefore making it right steal to what was rightfully earned by the others and call it justice.... Weak people are far more dangerous than strong ones, because they easily abandon honorable character values, and become easy to manipulate by unscrupulous leaders.

 

Some truth in what you say, but you are conflating Adam Smith type capitalism with crony capitalism.

 

Notice how I didn’t get an answer to this. I don’t expect to. There’s a reason.

 

Good morning! My goodness, I spring out of bed...I remember once being so weary of my job that I couldn't get up when there was nothing physically wrong.... Things change....
Honneth is in my sights....Oh, yes, I actually read Copleston's volumes for many years...but finished it up in a summer. The Struggle for Recognition, Okay, will get that!!! Let me catch up....first, I must fed the sparrows.

 

Sorry, I must swat this fly of an argument.

Incorrect! Early market economists thought the problem with capital could be resolved simply by re-location to other countries, Marx shoots this down—the misery of Capitalism is not a bug...it is a feature. One reason is the emergence of a class of people that simply harvest UNEARNED INCOME.

 

That's because at the University of Ad Hominem the tactic is to gather personal information and then launch a barrage of insults.

 

Sorry Adorno avatar, I have to feed the sparrows, swat the flies, and many other routines before getting down to business.

For Adorno, Benjamin, (and even Heidegger) our presuppositions are the suppositions of a fallen post-lapsarian language. Adorno joins his critique of disenchantment with Benjamin's notion of the Name in sacred language to describe the ruined condition of language and its failure to say the unsayable. Ultimately, language in this disenchanted existence is corrupted by the "impulse" for the control of nature. Roger writes,

Idealist systems fail to coherently account of experience and end in disenchantment. "Idealism" is considered by Adorno as any philosophy that affirms an identity between subject and object (this would include phenomenology and empiricism). We are only left with a corrupted "decayed language," "ruins of words," and the arbitrary nature of symbolic linguistic designation. Semiotics is the study of signs, symbols, and signification. Adorno writes, "It is a sign of all reification through idealistic consciousness that things can be arbitrarily named." (AROE., p. 79-80). The negative role of philosophy is to interpret and arrange these fragments in "...the hope of achieving an equitable and just world in the "traces and ruins [Trummern]" that lie before it as material for interpretation. (ibid., p. 79)." The failures and ruins are the internal contradictions of epistemological systems. Adorno claims philosophy can reach the nonconceptual while staying within the sphere of "alienated" concepts and using the notion of constellation as an interpretive principle. Philosophy can only say the Name negatively.

 

Well, this is an attack upon capitalism, no matter what kind is being practiced. Right?

Reality, what communism, socialism, marxism has yielded when used in the real world is all that people need to see, in how it actually works in the real world, and the effect of human nature upon the failed experiment.

Marxists seem to live under the hope, that the next time such an economic system will finally work! Repeating the same thing, but expecting different results.

Capitalism is not perfect, nor does it solve all problems. No one should expect it to, either the marxists nor the free market capitalists. It is imperfect, but at least it can positively serve the greatest number of a citizens, when not driven by only maximization of top dog profits, and it has proven that it can create history's largest middle class in america, when used, with an eye on benefiting an optimum number of people, i.e. the non elites, the non rich. As it allows for a rich class to be created and exist.

In order for any form of capitalism to remain viable, and not create social disorder, it must finance a Commons, that provides for the people that are not needed in the capitalistic driven economic model. We have seen much higher standards of living under capitalism, than any form of marxism, for the greatest number of people. And that is all that I need to know, and it has great relevance.

You can find plenty of things to critique when it comes to capitalism, and it depends also on what form of capitalism is being used by our elites, with the blessing of a gov't. Capitalism has been proven to create the largest middle class in world history, here in america, and it has been proven to do the opposite, like our current global capitalism had done. If capitalism is structured to serve an entire population, of a nation, it will yield different things than a capitalism only structured to exploit poor people in parts of the world that will work for non living wages, as it destroys a middle class in the nation that it once helped to create, by non globalist slave labor thinking.

No one in their right mind would want marxism over the kind of capitalism that created history's largest middle class and made america what she once was. But of course globalism, is not that model that created that middle class in america. In fact, it is taking away the ability of average americans to earn a living, to rise into the middle class. And this is what makes forms of marxism attractive for some people, even if it has always failed.

Wanting equality of outcome is the problem, and it is a facet of marxism, and no one in their right mind wants all but the ruling class to be equally poor. This is what any form of marxism has yielded in the real world. It should give pause, and yet it does not, when people are suffering, economically. So forms of marxism have proved time and time again to be failures, while a form of capitalism created history's largest middle class and the american dream, before it was changed by neoliberalism. I know which form I would choose, and it is the one that has presented the most success in the real world. Capitalism, but not slave labor globalism practiced by capitalists.

 

It is time to repudiate the Demon Moloch-the Devourer of Children.

This kind of abuse changes "human nature."

 

Non of these critiques in any way makes any form of marxism better suited as an economic system for the people who live in a nation. History proves that in spades. Now, you may have no use for what forms of marxism has yielded, but it is far worse than what the better forms of capitalism have yielded. I don't think you can rationally argue against that, no matter how much you want to use Marxian critiques of capitalism. One works unless it gets too biased in favor of the top, and the other, marxism, its various forms have been utter failures. Historically. And not being democratic, have produced some of the worst dictators to ever rule over a modern nation. It just does not work, and has always been a failure in many areas of human existence.

Capitalism needs to be critiqued, but marxism has never been viable, because of what it inevitably creates. Equality of outcome is an ideal, that if you try to achieve it, creates more problems than capitalism is capable of, even in its worst form. To reward people equally, even when people do not and cannot contribute equally, has never worked in a modern large civilization. Partly because of human nature itself. To go against such basic human nature, will always result in great failure, in trying to achieve an unrealistic ideal, a figment of the imagination.

Equal under the law is one thing, equality in economic outcomes is a different animal, and is only indulged in by low IQ people, or people who are emotionally driven, in their idealism. Who have to ignore the history of marxism, and what it has yielded when tried in the real world. Making all but the ruling elites equally poor is what stupidity would call for. No middle class, only the poor peasants and the rich ruling elite. No thanks. Bad thing is, this current form of capitalism is trending to create something not much better. A very rich elite, a tiny middle, and the majority working poor peasants who if not for a Commons would end up in prison for stealing food, or starve to death.

 

It’s not an ad hominem. It’s just helpful context when someone named “Adorno” is giving lessons on Marxism and Frankfurt School political strategy. It’s no different than if you were to go to an Italian Restaurant and find out the chef is actually Italian and from the old country. People should know where this stuff is coming from and if it’s authentic. Don’t you agree?

 

Your logical fallacy is Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque yet again....Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial....etc., etc., ... Sadz (sic)

 

False analogy.

 

I said that "Negative Dialectics" was originally to be entitled "The Recovery of Experience." That is incorrect...it was the introduction, and the title was to be, "The Theory of Spiritual Experience."

 

Good points. Capitalists sing the praises of "competition," while doing everything in their power to limit competition in the field of their own business. American history is filled with good examples. Capitalism is all about profits for owners or investors--nothing more. It cares nothing about the workers or the society that provides the environment where it thrives. Communism is theoretically all about the workers, but in practice becomes a twisted system rewarding those who make it into the governing hierarchy, pretty much eliminating all concern for anyone else. As you said, socialism often gets blamed for the failures of both Capitalism and Communism, but that's undeserved. Socialism is Capitalism with a heart. It's Capitalism where the business owners are forced to share their rewards with the workers too. Socialism is the most fair system of government & economics in the world, and has proven its potency in many countries around the world. No system is perfect, but socialism is closest to that mark we have available.

 

Trying to call prehistoric and subsequent human tribal and larger social ordering "socialistic" is absurd and ignorant. "Despotic?" sure. "Monarchial?" sure. "Elitist?" sure. "Feudal or quasi-feudal?" probably the best descriptor. "Socialistic?" No, just no, on so many levels of flat out wrong.

@thread To the actual topic, yes, the self-interested, self-enriching gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, in all its corrupt, immoral, incompetent, grossly expensive branches, in all its bogus lie narratives, is waging constant war against the legitimate private sector, but NOT in a quest to wholly undermine it or replace it... any more than a tick wants to kill the dog outright or any parasite wants to kill the host.

They want all the advantages of capitalism just like honest, ethical people do. The difference is that they want those advantages by use of force and in exchange for the least actual work possible.

The current progressive left are good old capitalists, they just don the clothes of collectivism because there has never been as effective a tool for social destabilization and government and related growth and enrichment than Marxist class/identity-based social destabilization, as immoral and socially destructive as those are proven to be in so many historical datapoints. Ironically, the actual leftists of the mentioned Frankfurt School et al would spin in their graves at the way their vision of society has been perverted into what amounts to "bureaucratic crony fiat capitalism." At least the old Marxist kooks were SINCERE. The human waste product that replaced them are simply manipulative, immoral thug "mafia capitalists" using whatever "ideology" works best for self-enrichment and growth of fiat power.

 

Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem--and always the same ones.

 

I said much more, verifiable facts in regards to the forms of marxism we have seen since its use by a nation. I find your refusal to address the facts, and to center on one logical fallacy, in a long, detailed post rather amusing. And it is also amusing that you cannot logically refute it.

One logical fallacy when not the major content of a post is hardly a justifiable reason to dismiss the entire post. It did not poison any facts given. What it did do was to give someone a poor reason to not refute what reality has evidenced in regards to various forms of marxism.

I will agree with the shortcomings of capitalism, especially particular forms of it, for it is just observable fact. You do not operate in this manner, and that too can be observed. Call that an A.H. fallacy if it suits you, and then you can dismiss this post as well.

Your denial, or refusal to admit what is obvious, even self evident about the different forms of marxism is a major problem, if anyone wants to have a serious, concerned debate with you. I have given you reasons why I prefer the imperfect and even sometimes darwinian driven capitalism, over any form of marxism, and yet you have not given me the successes of marxism, as being a reason that you embrace it, believe in it, and think capitalism is far inferior in all manner of ways. You seem to embrace it, not for its successes, but because you hate capitalism, and use the writings of marx to justify that and the rejection of any form of capitalism.

I think Marx was correct in some of his opinion and assessments of capitalism, but his ideas may look good on paper, but they have never worked out as well in reality as on paper. The reasons for this are many, perhaps, but a primary factor involves human nature itself. Human nature will inevitably corrupt any ideal, and change it, and even make it unrealistic and unworkable in some instances. Capitalism, IMO, and this is just my opinion, is more agreeable, more in line with human nature, and that is why it has sustained instead of failing. Humans tend to be selfish, to various degrees, and capitalism plays to this selfishness, the desire to have more than others, and to much of western culture, having more wealth, more income, is involved in self value, and the way others determine value, which is your status, income and wealth. Marxism seeks to condition people to not be selfish, to not have these natural feelings about themselves and others. And it failed, for it goes against human nature itself. Equality of outcome is a disaster, and the kind of thinking that does not solve problems but creates even more, out of an ignorance of how badly human nature rebels against an form of marxism. That is why once a nation became marxist, you get dictatorships who rule with an iron fist with the threat of violence and death if you deviate from the marxist system or look like you are against it.

You have to keep marxism forced upon a people, and all such regimes have murdered their higher intellects, like Profs and lawyers. Can't have anyone question what the marxist dictator installed. And since you are trying to cultivate, condition the people into ideals like equality of outcome, indulging the intellectuals will only hurt this marxist conditioning, for it must not be questioned. So these marxist regimes always seemed to start out violently, using mass murder to clean up the society, to remove its thinkers. The troublemakers.

Capitalism does not have to incorporate such things when a people change to it, as an economic model, and capitalistic nations are primarily democratic in some form. Not dictatorships. In a few cases, the people democratically have voted in a marxist, and chose it, but even those , like venezquela are coming apart. It is tearing the nation, socially and politically apart. Not to mention the suffering of the non elites.

So capitalism has been much more viable and success because it meshes better with human nature, and human nature is not contrary to it. And then there are the better average standard of living to consider as well when comparing the two. Capitalism is the best way we have created and the proof is in the history of both economic philosophies. That would be impossible for you to refute logically and historically, the facts.

 

There is a kernel of truth to the above, but it omits some important aspects. 1. Our law has recognized the importance of free competition for 100 years in statute and far further back generally. We have antitrust laws in place designed to prevent the stifling of competition. Those laws are some of the -very few- legitimate functions of central government in a vast interstate economy of competitors. 2. But if those laws aren't enforced, or are suspended in exchange for say hundreds of millions of dollars of "speaking fees," then what results is worse than having no antitrust law at all... as we learned in the 2008 consequences of the financial merger "too big to fail" wave of the 90s. 3. So, whereas Complex beneficiaries often repeat half truths such as the above portion of a post, very few if any "capitalists" would agree with wholly unregulated capitalism any more than they would agree with allowing companies in their city to dump PCBs into the local water supply. 4. The most abused method of limiting competition in the status quo U.S. is via one of the Complex's chief wares, out of control, expensive, duplicative regulations. Without overpowered central government -selling- regulations to the highest bidder, its entrenched cronies, small firms could compete far more easily. Oh, you thought regulations were "for your protection?" Stop being so naïve.

The fact is that overlarge, overpowered, overcentralized -government- moreso than the 30,0000,000 overwhelmingly honest small, medium and large businesses in the U.S. .02% of which are public and listed on exchanges, .000X% that are engaging in anticompetitive practices (but of course hundreds of movies and other Complex media will be dedicated to the outlier bad actors... why is that?) is responsible for our current state of crony capitalism, not the other way around. Politicians are the ones who go around with the hand out to start the rotten cycle, not generally the other way around up to a certain point.

... and they inevitably make my job easy with rehashed manure like the above... while typing on a cheap computer, taking calls on a cheap phone, listening to cheap music, eating a variety of cheap, wholesome food, enjoying more lifespan, in climate controlled luxurious comfort, and enjoying 100 other benefits of free, voluntary commerce others in less "capitalist" parts of the world could only dream of. But yeah, sure, the drive to innovate is all about greed. What an imbecilic joke.

Whatever you say, Pol Pot. I think you should spend a little less time reading the union newsletter and a little more time learning actual human history. I for one am eternally grateful to live in this part of said history than most any other... and that's due to relatively free commerce, strong property rights, the genius of the Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, not any aspect of any form of collectivism.

 

Go check out a logic 101 textbook. You need to learn what an ad hominem is as it's plain you don't know. And while you are at it, learn what a red herring is. One example of it is ignoring substantive arguments entirely and claiming nonexistent fallacies instead.

 

[My bold text highlight for emphasis in your response above.]

Question begging epithets - "troublemakers" You systematically ignore the fact of Nordic forms of Democratic Socialism.