Ahmed wrote:It's not that difficult: you just have to agree on the content of the terms used! I would like the "natural" economy to be distinguished from the capitalist economy. Unfortunately, there is no separate phrase, but this does not pose so much of a problem, since it is a question of specifying each time the semantic scope concerned. The impermanence of the world leads us to use the same terms to designate phenomena which are formally similar, but nevertheless substantially different.
The term of exponential economism seems to me suitable for designating the process at work (since the Enlightenment).
Economyisme because the economy becomes ideology, the means being transformed into a goal, and exponential because it tends to saturate all the domains in space, time, and concepts.
What do you think?
In a world of cyborgs, the notion of capitalism would indeed be obsolete, but I was only referring to real socialism, which was only a state variant of capitalism.
One of the biggest mistakes of our time has been to consider phases of economism as possible solutions to the problems encountered and to transform them into ideologies.
Defenders of liberalism would like to settle the main ills of society with more liberalism, without understanding that this is only a period of economism as adolescence would be for a human being.
When it is cold in a room it is possible to increase the temperature of the radiator, however in summer this operation would be completely stupid, and yet, the current policy consists in wanting to fight the ecocide by more growth!
This simple example does not seem audible to most listeners ... proof that the brains are saturated.
The same remark can obviously apply to socialism, an adjustment variable to capitalism, which explains the complete failure of politicians claiming it today, as much as wanting to disguise an old man as a toddler ...