Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Let me state it simply. The mind, the more educated, develops the habit of natural equilibriating logic. This logic is against capitalism because it is not equilibriated, it is a dis-equilibriating class system, even though I support it more than the other wrecks. What may be required is a mixed equilibriated economic system of truly balanced supply and demand, then maybe the intellectuals could support it. But don't tell the intellectuals, they fear what they don't think of! |
It's a good reason. I also disagree with capitalisma lthough there is no better system developed, either economic or simply theoretic-social (postmarxists like Althuser and Gramsci are interesting to read, though). But this is the precise reason that I dislike capialism: the fact that during it's supremacy no new political/social/economic systems have been developed. It just stops that, it is the best system because it is self-reference, a circle, capitalism fights the others by puting capitalism into them. And yet, if capitalism is so good and leads to a state of utopy, how is it that most people don't have happiness? Something is wrong for sure. Also, capitalists claim to be pragmatists and realists. What!? Pragmatism itself is about what is good, but Americans have interpret this as 'what is valuable for our measurement system' they haven't seen that good is different to value, not relative as value. Now they measure everything from money, therefore for the pragmatistm that capitalists take, a piece of art is not valuable itself but in money, just like a scientific or philosophical research. Whiles pragmatism considers everything's positivity from the goodness to it's central role. Also they are not realists because realistm is all about fighting the problem, eliminating them. Whiles america dedicates to get used to the problems, and then have counter-attacks. This is living with problems, but also with good things. This is not realist, realist is getting te problem out.
But of course now to talk about intellectual's opposition to capitalism not only we must refer to the schools-universities as Nozick does in his article, not only to the natural principle of equilibrium, and not only the the long list of errors in capitalism, but also, and most importantly, to the histography of philosophy. After the WWII Europe was destroyed and divided. So bad conditiosn impplied that the goverments had to start from zero, like the states in Africa, by covering first needs (health, work, food) and so had to be much more totalitarian. I'm democratic, but I admit that hne countries are in big trouble, dictators are necesary to come out. Now, France didn't have a dictator, and yet in the 1960s it was already a powerfull country again. But it controlled everything, every single part of people's life, these nearly worked for the state. Such a controlling state couldn't stay like that, and of course here came the famous 1968, months of manifestations. Deleuze met Guatari with whom he would write several books later on. Baudrillard was student under LeFevre, and there were also Lacan, Foucault... And we shouldn't forget the itallians: Negri, Tronti, Vattimo... What is this to do with all? Well, these had seen how their countries were first destroyed by fascism and later on controlled by a false democracy. Therefore, they all enter postmarxism. This wasn't the only cause, of course, philosophers like Sartre and the mentioned Althuser and Gramisci had a lot of intellectual power. It is obvious that the centre of the intellectual philosophical-cultural world was France between 1960s and 1980s (in the 90s most of them died leaving a few: Baudrillard, Mafessoli, Badiou...) and so this meant that the centre of intellectual was anti-capitalist. This is the main reason, I believe.
The world of ideas, even more, the history of ideas, is one of the most interesting studies of all. Having read as many philosophers and philosophies that I have, I could never tell what tendency there will be in 10 years. Certainly it is now since the 90s a period of crisis. Will the differences between analytic and continental philosophers dissapear? Will there be a new ground-braking movement? Will we ever manage to eliminate philosophical conditioning (that is, the lagacy of greats is always in us) and at least develop metaphysics without the influence of Heidegger's Hermeneutics, Sartre's existentialism, Husserl's Phenomenology...? I believe we won't, until we get rid of the dominance of a wrong conception of capitalism.