Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

[Mikal]

There are three kinds of Intellectuals in a Capitalist System and as sociologist Emile Durkheim revealed there is a lower level the two top structures create and use; The Super Class ensure their creation and the Superior Intellectuals use them to create what is called Institutional Society. Durkheim noted that the Super Class dubs them “the emotionally disposed” and the Superior Intellectuals dub them “the disenfranchised.” This level of society in a Capitalist system becomes the level that the third level—The Intellectuals must use within the Institutional Society as the means in which to thrive and survive.

The Super Class is those at the apex of society who have the power to create or subvert economic and social systems.

The Superior Intellectuals are those in the system of Capitalism who own the means of production, factories, tools, equipment and financial capital for investment.

The Intellectuals are those that in the system of Capitalism are deemed being a worker as selling your own labor power to the two higher structures in the system. This is the groups who after the experience of Capitalism have realized that in working this way, they have been selling their own potential, selling it to someone else.

This is the basis that structures a class society where some have power over the use and potential of others. The second level (superior intellectuals) holds the complication of aggressive competitiveness. This system in interaction with class and competitiveness created not just an economic system but a social system—occurrences in the economy affect every aspect of our lives.

Capitalism has been impressively successful in its material achievements however utter failures because benefits have been unevenly spread and greater social problems have been created.

Considering the above and looking at the questions below have the achievements of Capitalism laid the groundwork for moving on to a society based neither on class nor the drive to compete?

(1) Capitalism failed the lower structure, is it however, now even failing a greater number of people in the second and third structure?

(2) With the huge and demonstrable evidence of change occurring at a fast pace is the Super Class in the process of subverting the Capitalist System into a new creation?


(3) At the higher levels is the response we are seeing disguised attempts to address our economic/social problems or is it Capitalism being moved to the Global World level?

(4) Has internationalizing competition undermined economic stability and sustained an unfolding crisis of jobs and economic waste?


(5) Is the system working or is it benefiting only the top two structures, complicating and stressing the third level and further failing the bottom level?

(6) Does the third level understand that within Institutional Society they hold the position of being morally and ethically responsible for the needs of those in the third level whose lives collapse and in the lowest level who are those in the system that have always been failed by failing to address their needs and hopes as a substantial share of societies citizens?


(7) In all of the above is our civilization crumbling and if so how can we save ourselves in the fall?

This is Toequest, a place for people who think outside the box. Could we tackle the above strictly on the issues please?

Regards Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

This is Toequest, a place for people who think outside the box. — MIkal

I see that you have escaped the crate.

Um, please forgive me way ahead of time.

No offense.

Sorry.

Kisses and love.

[Mikal]

No offence taken Austin. The crate arrived and I filled it with foods and supplies a family I know will appreciate...

Can we address the above questions??

Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Zero Sum Politics of Hegemony and Mercantilism__The Essence of The Present Global Architecture...

"If there's a mercantilist, there's a hegemon - One can't exist without the other." LG

The Two America's - Empire and Democracy!

The Inertial Anatomy of A Statecrafted Hegemon!

The #1 scientific law of world problems - All problems exist in exact relationship to the imbalances between peoplecrafted intelligence and statecrafted laws verses the natural laws of mind, nature and science!

What is America's intention? The American spirit is hegemony. America's general intent is empire. What is the fundamental cause? [time and resources use]

We need political recognition of the inertia of global imbalances of labor due to nations' integration timing into modern capitalism, from past inflation impediments - Marxism and colonialism or mercantilism and hegemony into internal functioning capitalism.

The central world system is hegemony verses mercantilism__thus, the trouble with the world is hegemony and mercantilism.

America's hegemonic laws must change for her very survival!

America is the hegemon - Its entire law structure is geared toward hegemony!

Hegemony and mercantilism is exploitation by superior knowledge systems.

Hegemony and mercantilism's imbalances are strangling capitalism and all chances of improvement.

The natural law - Any incentivized imbalance will create an evil. Any pure and high incentivized balance will create a good.

In the final analysis, power can never cheat the natural laws and long survive!

A hegemonic empire grows and exploits until it exploits itself to death! [example - the castles of Europe - the peasants joining the invading armies in revolt]

The entropy theory of hegemony - Nations become so rich they destroy themselves - The Ol' King Midas problem.

The Inertia of Intelligence and Free Trade Limits__Where...?

The entropy factor of statecrafted intelligence's rise, decline and fall, of real power.

All societies exhibit an inertial increase and decline of intelligences over time, from growth through controlled trade to decline through free trade - The intelligence conundrum.

The inertia of academic-craft first producing our intelligence, then increasing our blindness to intelligence, or anti-intelligence__Our offshore intelligence conundrum...

The missing fundamental laws' connection from nature to statecraft__We must build anew...

Hegemony and the law of entropy - You can not exceed the boundaries of the natural laws - center of gravity and balance - for long - You do and you're done - Mercantilism eats you alive - Self-created hegemonic mercantilism__China example vs. America and EU...

Hegemonic laws are egoistic, away from the natural laws' center of gravity and balances. In the end, these imbalances always fail__History's many examples...

In the end, all hegemonic empires had to return to controlled markets, trade and exchanges, or semi-mercantilism.

Hegemony's extremely imbalanced exchanges blow massive asset bubbles, creating mercantilism through its excess reserve's expansion and speculation.

The major socialcraft and statecraft problem is the undue worship of equality at law, that took root in the `60's civil rights era. We used to believe in the truth of inequality and write the statecrafted tax laws accordingly. Now we believe unduly in the illusion of equality. The truth of inequality and the chimera of equality - We must get past the equality chimera...

Keynes' ideas were of an anti-hegemonic system of international Bretton Woods laws. White's ideas were of a hegemonic system of international Bretton Woods laws...

The American hegemon manipulated the entire 3rd world through its Bretton Woods System until itself became manipulated by Japan, China and her mercantilist minions, exercising their cheaper labor and banking rights over us...

All local moral and legal actions feed into the statecrafted evil law structure of hegemony, and contribute to its evil, unless you define and change the central fundamental axiom of evil - The statecrafted evil law structure of hegemony and its international financial suzerainty...

Your moral actions will accomplish nothing, unless you hunt for the axiom of cause, of American moral decline. The fundamental axiom of social cause is hegemony and its central exchange laws...

The global central battle is hegemony verses mercantilism, or the battle of mercantilism verses hegemony__is capitalism...

All the inertial statecrafted intelligence of a hegemonic nation can not overcome all the inertial statecrafted intelligence of its surrounding greater magnitude of mercantilist nations. The fundamental laws of nature controls all power, unless the hegemon changes course toward legal balance. Statecrafted inertia through action-reaction leads to hegemony and mercantilism by disrespecting the natural laws of center of gravity and the sanely incentivized balance of wealth and poverty. The natural law of inertia creates the increase of statecrafted intelligence from good to evil and destruction. The inertial intelligence increase of statecraft to build nations from mercantilism to hegemony, and back to mercantilism again, is created through the inertial rise and decline of statecrafted intelligence...

The huge imbalances and inequalities between wealth and poverty that has developed in the modern world is not what capitalism is about. This is no more than the evil and cruel battle of hegemonic created mercantilist struggles, against its master, hegemony and global financial suzerainty, by powerful national interests. The natural intuitive laws of mind demand a rebalance to its natural center of gravity of fairness and sanely incentivized equality to all the world's citizens... rrr

[Mikal]

There are three kinds of Intellectuals in a Capitalist System and as sociologist Emile Durkheim revealed there is a lower level the two top structures create and use; The Super Class ensure their creation and the Superior Intellectuals use them to create what is called Institutional Society. Durkheim noted that the Super Class dubs them “the emotionally disposed” and the Superior Intellectuals dub them “the disenfranchised.” This level of society in a Capitalist system becomes the level that the third level—The Intellectuals must use within the Institutional Society as the means in which to thrive and survive.

The Super Class is those at the apex of society who have the power to create or subvert economic and social systems.

The Superior Intellectuals are those in the system of Capitalism who own the means of production, factories, tools, equipment and financial capital for investment.

The Intellectuals are those that in the system of Capitalism are deemed being a worker as selling your own labor power to the two higher structures in the system. This is the groups who after the experience of Capitalism have realized that in working this way, they have been selling their own potential, selling it to someone else.

This is the basis that structures a class society where some have power over the use and potential of others. The second level (superior intellectuals) holds the complication of aggressive competitiveness. This system in interaction with class and competitiveness created not just an economic system but a social system—occurrences in the economy affect every aspect of our lives.

Capitalism has been impressively successful in its material achievements however utter failures because benefits have been unevenly spread and greater social problems have been created.

Considering the above and looking at the questions below have the achievements of Capitalism laid the groundwork for moving on to a society based neither on class nor the drive to compete?

(1) Capitalism failed the lower structure, is it however, now even failing a greater number of people in the second and third structure?

(2) With the huge and demonstrably evidence of change occurring at a fast pace is the Super Class in the process of subverting the Capitalist System into a new creation?


(3) At the higher levels is the response we are seeing disguised attempts to address our economic/social problems or is it Capitalism being moved to the Global World level?

(4) Has internationalizing competition undermined economic stability and sustained an unfolding crisis of jobs and economic waste?


(5) Is the system working or is it benefiting only the top two structures, complicating and stressing the third level and further failing the bottom level?

(6) Does the third level understand that within Institutional Society they hold the position of being morally and ethically responsible for the needs of those in the third level whose lives collapse and in the lowest level who are those in the system that have always been failed by failing to address their needs and hopes as a substantial share of societies citizens?


(7) In all of the above is our civilization crumbling and if so how can we save ourselves in the fall?

This is Toequest, a place for people who think outside the box. Could we tackle the above strictly on the issues please?

Regards Mikal

Thank you Lloyd. I will keep bringing this forward as I would like several viewpoints. I am connected to numerous researchers working on solutions, I have invited them to view offline this thread as they are searching for differing insights which lead to viable solutions.


Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Émile Durkheim__Positivist Statistical Sociologist…

David Émile Durkheim (French pronunciation: [emil dyʁkɛm]) (April 15, 1858 – November 15, 1917) was a Frenchpositivistsociologist. He formally established the academic discipline and, with Karl Marx and Max Weber, is commonly cited as the principal architect of modern social science.[1]
Durkheim developed the sociological positivism of Auguste Comte in greater detail by founding a rigorous methodology combining sociological theory with empirical social research.[2] Also influential in anthropology, Durkheim was a structural functionalist and an early proponent of solidarism.[3][4] During his lifetime, Durkheim gave many lectures, and published numerous sociological studies on subjects such as education, crime, religion, suicide, and many other aspects of society.

Theories and ideas
Social facts
Durkheim was concerned primarily with how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in the modern era, when things such as shared religious and ethnic background could no longer be assumed. In order to study social life in modern societies, he sought to create one of the first scientific approaches to social phenomena. Along with Herbert Spencer, he was one of the first people to explain the existence and quality of different parts of a society by reference to what function they served in maintaining the quotidian (i.e. by how they make society "work"), and is thus sometimes seen as a precursor to functionalism. Durkheim also insisted that society was more than the sum of its parts. Thus unlike his contemporaries Ferdinand Tönnies and Max Weber, he focused not on what motivates the actions of individuals (an approach associated with methodological individualism), but rather on the study of social facts, a term which he coined to describe phenomena which have an existence in and of themselves and are not bound to the actions of individuals.
Durkheim argued that social facts have, sui generis, an independent existence greater and more objective than the actions of the individuals that compose society. Being exterior to the individual person, social facts may thus also exercise coercive power on the various people composing society, as it can sometimes be observed in the case of formal laws and regulations, but also in phenomena such as church practices or family norms.[14] Unlike the facts studied in natural sciences, a "social" fact thus refers to a specific category of phenomena: it consists of ways of acting, thinking, feeling, external to the individual and endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him. According to Durkheim, these phenomena cannot be reduced to biological or psychological grounds.[15]
Hence even the most "individualistic" or "subjective" phenomena, such as suicide, would be regarded by Durkheim as objective social facts. Individuals composing society do not directly cause suicide: suicide exists independently in society, whether an individual person wants it or not. Whether a person "leaves" a society does not change anything to the fact that this society will still contain suicides. Sociology's task thus consists of discovering the qualities and characteristics of such social facts, which can be discovered through a quantitative or experimental approach (Durkheim extensively relied on statistics). One can thus argue that Durkheim defended a form of sociological positivism,[16] often going as far as treating social facts from a medical point of view by looking for normal versus pathological characteristics.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(continued...)
Method and objectivity
In his Rules of the Sociological Method (1895), Durkheim expressed his will to establish a method which would guarantee sociology's truly scientific character. One of the questions raised by the author concerns the objectivity of the sociologist: how may one study an object which, from the very beginning, conditions and relates to the observer? According to Durkheim, observation must be as impartial and impersonal as possible, even though a "perfectly objective observation" in this sense may never be attained. Sociology should therefore privilege comparison rather than the study of singular independent facts.[17] Consequently, a social fact must always be studied according to its relation with other social facts, never according to the individual who studies it.


Crime
Durkheim's views on crime were a departure from conventional notions. He believed that crime is "bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life" and serves a social function. He stated that crime implies, "not only that the way remains open to necessary change, but that in certain cases it directly proposes these changes... crime [can thus be] a useful prelude to reforms." In this sense he saw crime as being able to release certain social tensions and so have a cleansing or purging effect in society. He further stated that "the authority which the moral conscience enjoys must not be excessive; otherwise, no-one would dare to criticize it, and it would too easily congeal into an immutable form. To make progress, individual originality must be able to express itself...[even] the originality of the criminal... shall also be possible" (Durkheim, 1895).

Law
Beyond the specific study of crime, criminal law and punishment, Durkheim was deeply interested in the study of law and its social effects in general. Among classical social theorists he is one of the founders of the field of sociology of law. In his early work he saw types of law, distinguished as repressive versus restitutive law (characterised by their sanctions), as a direct reflection of types of social solidarity. The study of law was therefore of interest to sociology for what it could reveal about the nature of solidarity. Later, however, he emphasised the significance of law as a sociological field of study in its own right. In the later Durkheimian view, law (both civil and criminal) is an expression and guarantee of society's fundamental values. Durkheim emphasised the way that modern law increasingly expresses a form of moral individualism - a value system that is, in his view, probably the only one universally appropriate to modern conditions of social solidarity.[18] Individualism, in this sense, is the basis of human rights and of the values of individual human dignity and individual autonomy. It is to be sharply distinguished from selfishness and egoism, which for Durkheim are not moral stances at all. Many of Durkheim's closest followers, such as Marcel Mauss, Paul Fauconnet and Paul Huvelin also specialised in or contributed to the sociological study of law.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Convergence of Charles S. Peirce's and Emile Durkheim's Universal Sociologies...

Signs, Solidarities & Sociology: Charles S. Peirce and the Pragmatics of Globalization ...

A University College assistant professor's 1990 doctoral dissertation -- now extensively revised and expanded -- is the talk of academics in sociology, philosophy and globalization 12 years later, as Blasco Sobrinho's work was published as the book, Signs, Solidarities & Sociology: Charles S. Peirce and the Pragmatics of Globalization (Rowan & Littlefield).


Sobrinho, an assistant professor for the department of humanities and social sciences at University College, takes a different approach to relating the theories of "the founder of sociology," Emile Durkheim, and the "founder of American pragmatism," philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, and applying that viewpoint to the world events of the last decade such as the fall of the Soviet Union or the "global upsurge of religious fundamentalisms."

Sobrinho's interest in the research stemmed from a famous series of lectures Durkheim gave in 1913-1914, which were first published in the 1950s under the title of Pragmatism and Sociology.

"Durkeim was examining how societies create their systems of classification. In other words, how societies construct their world views in such ways as to then be able to deduce which behavior is normatively acceptable and which behavior is not," Sobrinho explains.
"Durkheim was aware that the only philosophy that had extensively addressed this was question of knowledge-construction had been American pragmatism, and his very first lecture had tackled the apparent divergence between the views of the early pragmatists William James and Charles S. Peirce.

"Whereas Peirce had seen language itself as communally or socially constructed, the more famous James had veered towards the relativism of subjectivistic truth-construction. Peirce was therefore dismissed by Durkeim as a non-pragmatist within these same 1914-1914 lectures, where Durkheim had also rejected James' individualistic relativism as sociologically naive."

Sobrinho, who earned his first doctorate in philosophy, insisted instead "on the almost total convergence between the 'social construction of meaning' views of Durkheim and of Peirce, a convergence Durkeheim himself had missed because he had not understood the 'linguistic turn' in contemporary philosophy which Peirce had so insightfully anticipated. It is this Peirce-Durkheim convergence," argues Sobrinho, "that may be the cornerstone of a truly global sociology which better explains how the terms of one culture's terminology translates into another's." The original dissertation earned Sobrinho a doctorate in sociology from the University of Pittsburgh.


Sobrinho's work applies his Peirce-Durkheim convergence theory to current processes of globalization by examining the writings of postmodernists and arguing for the possibility of the contemporary geopolitical world-order having broken into "four semantic regions of mutually misunderstanding cultures."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Charles Sanders Peirce

Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced /ˈpɜrs/ purse[1]) (September 10, 1839 – April 19, 1914) was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician, and scientist, born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peirce was educated as a chemist and employed as a scientist for 30 years. It is largely his contributions to logic, mathematics, philosophy, and semiotics (and his founding of pragmatism) that are appreciated today. In 1934, the philosopher Paul Weiss called Peirce "the most original and versatile of American philosophers and America's greatest logician".[2]
An innovator in many fields — including philosophy of science, epistemology, metaphysics, mathematics, statistics, research methodology, and the design of experiments in astronomy, geophysics, and psychology — Peirce considered himself a logician first and foremost. He made major contributions to logic, but "logic" for him encompassed much of that which is now called epistemology and philosophy of science. He saw logic as the formal branch of semiotics, of which he is a founder. As early as 1886 he saw that logical operations could be carried out by electrical switching circuits, an idea used decades later to produce digital computers.

Works
Peirce's reputation rests largely on a number of academic papers published in American scientific and scholarly journals such as Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, The Monist, Popular Science Monthly, the American Journal of Mathematics, Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, The Nation, and others. The only full-length book (neither extract nor pamphlet) that Peirce authored and saw published in his lifetime was Photometric Researches (187, a 181-page monograph on the applications of spectrographic methods to astronomy. While at Johns Hopkins, he edited Studies in Logic (1883), containing chapters by himself and his graduate students. Besides lectures during his years (1879–1884) as Lecturer in Logic at Johns Hopkins, he gave at least nine series of lectures, many now published; see Lectures by Peirce.
Harvard University bought from Peirce's widow soon after his death the papers found in his study, but did not microfilm them until 1964. Only after Richard Robin (1967)[18] catalogued this Nachlass did it become clear that Peirce had left approximately 1650 unpublished manuscripts, totaling over 100,000 pages.[19] Most of it remains unpublished, except on microfilm. For more on the vicissitudes of Peirce's papers, see Houser (1989)[20].
List of major articles and lectures

See Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography for extensive list of his works, along with links to many of them readable online.

• On a New List of Categories (Presented 1867, his philosophy's seminal work, see #Theory of categories below.)
• Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man (186
• Some Consequences of Four Incapacities (1868. Rejects Cartesian foundationalism, see #Presuppositions of logic, below. Also argues that the general is real.)
• Grounds of Validity of the Laws of Logic: Further Consequences of Four Incapacities (1869)
• The Harvard lectures on British logicians (1869–70)
• Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives (1870)
• Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research (1876)
• Illustrations of the Logic of Science (1877–7 (See #Pragmatism, below.)
  • The Fixation of Belief (1877)
  • How to Make Our Ideas Clear (187
  • The Doctrine of Chances (187
  • The Probability of Induction (187
  • The Order of Nature (187
  • Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis (187
• On the Algebra of Logic (1880)
• A Theory of Probable Inference. Note A: On a Limited Universe of Marks. Note B: The Logic of Relatives (1883)
• On Small Differences in Sensation (with Joseph Jastrow, 1884)
• On the Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation (presented 1884)
• A Guess at the Riddle (1887–88 MS)
• Trichotomic (1888 MS)

• The Monist Metaphysical Series (1891–93)
  • The Architecture of Theories (1891)
  • The Doctrine of Necessity Examined (1892)
  • The Law of Mind (1892)
  • Man's Glassy Essence (1892)
  • Evolutionary Love (1893)
• Immortality in the Light of Synechism (1893 MS)
• The Logic of Relatives (1894)
• The lectures on "Reasoning and the Logic of Things" in Cambridge, MA (1898, invited by William James)
• F.R.L. [First Rule of Logic] (1899 MS against barriers to inquiry, see #Presuppositions of logic below)
• Minute Logic (1901–02 MSS)
• Application of C. S. Peirce to the Executive Committee of the Carnegie Institution (1902)
• The Simplest Mathematics (1902 MS)
• The Harvard lectures on pragmatism (1903)
• The Lowell lectures and syllabus on topics of logic (1903)
• Kaina Stoicheia [New Elements] (1904 MS)
• What Pragmatism Is (1905)
• Issues of Pragmaticism (1905)
• Prolegomena To an Apology For Pragmaticism (1906)
• A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God (1908, outlines much of Peirce's philosophy)

[Mikal]

There are three kinds of Intellectuals in a Capitalist System and as sociologist Emile Durkheim revealed there is a lower level the two top structures create and use; The Super Class ensure their creation and the Superior Intellectuals use them to create what is called Institutional Society. Durkheim noted that the Super Class dubs them “the emotionally disposed” and the Superior Intellectuals dub them “the disenfranchised.” This level of society in a Capitalist system becomes the level that the third level—The Intellectuals must use within the Institutional Society as the means in which to thrive and survive.

The Super Class is those at the apex of society who have the power to create or subvert economic and social systems.

The Superior Intellectuals are those in the system of Capitalism who own the means of production, factories, tools, equipment and financial capital for investment.

The Intellectuals are those that in the system of Capitalism are deemed being a worker as selling your own labor power to the two higher structures in the system. This is the groups who after the experience of Capitalism have realized that in working this way, they have been selling their own potential, selling it to someone else.

This is the basis that structures a class society where some have power over the use and potential of others. The second level (superior intellectuals) holds the complication of aggressive competitiveness. This system in interaction with class and competitiveness created not just an economic system but a social system—occurrences in the economy affect every aspect of our lives.

Capitalism has been impressively successful in its material achievements however utter failures because benefits have been unevenly spread and greater social problems have been created.

Considering the above and looking at the questions below have the achievements of Capitalism laid the groundwork for moving on to a society based neither on class nor the drive to compete?

(1) Capitalism failed the lower structure, is it however, now even failing a greater number of people in the second and third structure?

(2) With the huge and demonstrably evidence of change occurring at a fast pace is the Super Class in the process of subverting the Capitalist System into a new creation?


(3) At the higher levels is the response we are seeing disguised attempts to address our economic/social problems or is it Capitalism being moved to the Global World level?

(4) Has internationalizing competition undermined economic stability and sustained an unfolding crisis of jobs and economic waste?


(5) Is the system working or is it benefiting only the top two structures, complicating and stressing the third level and further failing the bottom level?

(6) Does the third level understand that within Institutional Society they hold the position of being morally and ethically responsible for the needs of those in the third level whose lives collapse and in the lowest level who are those in the system that have always been failed by failing to address their needs and hopes as a substantial share of societies citizens?


(7) In all of the above is our civilization crumbling and if so how can we save ourselves in the fall?

This is Toequest, a place for people who think outside the box. Could we tackle the above strictly on the issues please?

Regards Mikal

Thank you Lloyd for the run down on Emile Durkheim but I do have his collection in my library as do numerous researchers I am connected with.

I would make a correction here concerning society and suicide as I have Durkheim's book which is long out of print.
The statement "Individuals composing societies do not directly cause suicide" is a false respresentation of Durkheim's true statements.

Durkheim stated in Le Suicide..."The individual yields to the slightest shock of circumstances because the state of society has made him a ready prey for suicide." I do understand that statement from a personal, horrible tragedy that encompassed my life. I also understand it from my own six year study into society and suicide.

Now could I have some viewpoints on my original post above? I am not interested in who did the best work among our professionals and neither am I concerned with whether Durkheim respected and liked or disliked Pierce or whether Pierce liked or disliked Durkheim.

I would like viewpoints on Capitalism/Intellectual Structure based on the above and its questions. The researchers who would like viewpoints are into solutions not history...

Regards Mikal