System anti SDF social progress ..... .....?

[Ahmed]

Comparison is not right!
Smoking or alcoholism are easier to understand than the economy: who has real knowledge in this area?
Furthermore, if the addiction is personal, as much as its consequences, it is not the same with regard to economic reality.
No one is directly forced to indulge in these unhealthy practices, while addiction to the capitalist categories of abstract labor, the market, the commodity, money and value are not optional ...
It is moreover more than tempting to see in the recourse to drugs, an illusory flight in front of the implacable character of the economy: Laborit explains that when neither flight nor combat is possible, there remains only the possibility of aggression directed against oneself ...

[Janic]

Ahmed hello
No one is directly forced to indulge in these unhealthy practices, while addiction to the capitalist categories of abstract labor, the market, goods, money and value are not optional ...
These are just addictions like any other, nothing, and no one forces us to continue living in and out of the system. Some try to escape it partially and more rarely definitively by going to get lost in the middle of nowhere. For others, the system has, despite its shortcomings, also advantages that culturally we do not wish to lose. This is addiction! But everything has the disadvantages of its advantages.
So alcohol disinhibits, it gives the impression of being different, it reassures, consoles, allows you to flee a reality (even illusively like any drug) to hide what this system has as drawbacks and which we would like it not to has only advantages.
Laborit explains that when neither flight nor combat is possible, there remains only the possibility of aggression directed against oneself ...
except to have a philosophical awareness which relativizes work, the market, the merchandise, etc… which are only means (the impermanence of Buddhism) to relativize. However, with a few exceptions, most of us have the means of the real necessities: eat, drink, sleep, shelter, reproduce, everything else (which currently represents the largest part of the available income) goes towards the superfluous, the pleasant gadget (like this computer) which gives the impression of being a new "rich", which is only an illusion, as with other drugs, until the return to the harsh reality of the disadvantages of these benefits.
The homeless are only visible victims of this fall which threatens anyone in this system and should, theoretically, make us aware of its fragility, but which is not enough to escape it! ... like the alcohol and other drugs besides which are only forms of aggression against oneself also and which do not solve anything so far :?

[Ahmed]

I have the impression to read to you that our opinions are very close, with a few nuances and apart from the few linguistic misunderstandings inherent in any dialogue ...

Some try to partially escape it ...

If they try to escape it, and only a small number, it is because addiction is imposed on them. In reality, it is almost impossible to escape from it, because the economic system is not only economic, it is the determinant of all social relationships.
Certainly, as you rightly note, the system offers a certain number of advantages, the promotion of which is well orchestrated enough to entail the adhesion of many, or at least, which is more than enough, the renunciation of fighting ...

A remark: why establish a parallel between addictions, when it would be better, to use an electrician's terminology, to consider that they are "connected in series"?

[Janic]

Certainly, as you rightly note, the system offers a certain number of advantages, the promotion of which is well orchestrated enough to entail the adhesion of many, or at least, which is more than enough, the renunciation of fighting ...
You really only fight when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It is like cycling which, to be pleasant, should only be practiced on the flat or downhill, unfortunately there are also odds which are the other side of the coin.

A remark: why establish a parallel between addictions, when it would be better, to use an electrician's terminology, to consider that they are "connected in series"?
Precisely in electricity each system finally arrives at the same result: P = UI or RI 2 (a remainder of studies) what is privileged is to the detriment of other values, in parallel as in series.

[Ahmed]

You really only fight when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

The great strength of the Devil is to make believe that it does not exist!
That of capitalism is to colonize the imagination of its victims to the point of making them zealous.
Being able to pass on disadvantages for advantages or simply persuading that there is no other possibility * is the strength of the system.

Regarding the parallels between addictions, I wanted to say that comparing them is a much less fruitful process than that of examining the causal links that exist between them.

* It is the famous TINA of Mr. Thatcher: There Is No Alternative

[Janic]

Ahmed hello
Concerning the parallels between addictions, I wanted to say that comparing them is a much less fruitful approach than that which consists in examining the causal links which exist between them.
the inevitable need to touch the forbidden fruit!

[Ahmed]

In my opinion, addictions are hierarchical (although in a rather complex way) in relation to the social status of the subject subjected to the addiction.
This scale of appreciation is itself a reflection of the subjectivity of society alienated from the production of abstract value.
To use the theses of Laborit, the less individuals are gratified by their social circle, the more they will readily resort to substitute substances; conversely, intense gratification of their ego via value creation will take the place of drugs.

Things inevitably become complicated if one thinks that in order to reach and maintain this second state, it is often necessary to exert permanent efforts which generate stress which the use of drugs (well connoted socially) counterbalances.

There is indeed a constant, it is that the satisfaction obtained by consumption (or, more generally, any heteronomous act) is coupled with an essential dissatisfaction *; this explains why all consumption can only lead to future consumption supposed to remedy the incompleteness of the previous one; similarly, this also makes it possible to understand the unbreakable need of the wealthiest, to accumulate ever more ...

* A director of "General Motors" said: "The key to economic prosperity lies in creating a feeling of dissatisfaction"; cited in the excellent work of Jerome Baschet stated, "Farewell to capitalism ".

[Janic]

Totally agree!
I'm reading a little work by franz Broswimmer, prefaced by jean Berlan on: A brief history of the mass extinction of species (which we can assume would be better in the evolutionary subject , but which is much more focused on the current subject) which strongly underlines what you write here.
It goes without saying that with regard to biological evolution as a societal model, it takes up the discourse of synthetic theory, and its millions of years, which inevitably distorts the relationship between slowness or rapidity of the process of ecological degradation, economic and human.

[Ahmed]

I have not read this entire work which, however, seems to me to contain a number of interesting analyzes.
It also seems to me that some of its economic interpretations suffer from a certain lightness; even Berlan, in its introduction, which nevertheless shows a thorough knowledge of the subject, easily drifts towards a perfectly inappropriate moralizing interpretation (the famous tendency to "exaggerate" which would explain everything!).

[Janic]

Ahmed hello
even Berlan, in his introduction, which nevertheless shows a thorough knowledge of the subject, easily drifts towards a perfectly unsuitable moralizing interpretation
can it be otherwise? Otherwise, there is no reason to ask questions about "human" values ​​precisely dependent on these morals, newly replaced by ethics, which define certain limits not to be exceeded without putting oneself in danger and therefore, in the case, without endangering our living environment.