Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Sat Nov 19, 2016 3:05 pm

jerkey wrote:There is a synthesis between decentralization and centralization: the hypocritical oligarc, who out of spinelessness either magnifies his ill gotten power, or cynically masks it to portray a benevolent modest lover of humanity. And such a person likes to call himself the right person in compromising situations.
Nothing farther from the truth, they are usually shallow and deceptive.

A decentralization is alraedy a synthesis between centralization (thesis) and anticentralizaition (antitheisis). Take a political example: The current Germany has a decentralized structure, whereas the current France has a centralized structure. Both have one national capital, which means centralization, and smaller capitals of Bundesländer or Départements, which means decentralization. The difference is that the power is more decentralized in Germany and more centralized in France. But no one of the both is anticentralized (thus: antithetical to centralization).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Sat Nov 19, 2016 3:16 pm

Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a Jew-who-officially-hates-Jews, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, ... and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.

The method is very easy: You jump with your "thesis" (e.g.: "X is evil") into your "synthesis" (e.g.: "if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good") - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the "antithesis" (e.g.: "X is good") and telling the lie that "the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role".

The group "X“ depends always on its "therapist“ or "teacher“ or "reeducator“. It has no chance to become a good one, if its "therapist“ or "teacher“ or "reeducator“ does not want that, because it can always be ointerpreted as being "evil“.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby CelineK » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:31 pm

sorry, your words prove the intellectual masturbation that has become philosophy.
Coercion or NO coercion are the absolute bottom line, all the rest is superfluous and dualistic digressions by/for people who do not grasp (or think they can ignore or bypass) the natural and Immutable Law of Polarity.

the less coercion in a society the more peace

mainstream sciences, philosophy and sociology are about to go down the drain, they all have caused the moral and material bankruptcy of the planet

what is the hegelian dialectic again: problem, reaction, solution... create the problem, wait for the reaction then present the solution already concocted ??? Yeah hegel was right. Another one that just helped the world go from bad to worse.


jerkey wrote:There is a synthesis between decentralization and centralization
The Laws Of Light, Emotions And Sexuality. http://www.celinek.net The time has come in the history of man's journey from his material jungle to his spiritual mountain top when it is imperative that he must live more and more in the cosmic Light universe of knowing, and less in the electric wave universe of sensing -- Walter Russell.
=============================================================
A Money-Free Society Is Now Reality! The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to fall under the will or legislative authority of man but only have the law of nature (immutable principles) for his rule. Samuel Adams. -- http://www.earthcustodians.net
User avatar
CelineK
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:37 pm
Location: No Man's Land In A Money-Free Wold

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:00 am

@ All.

Is Jesus 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after him in his name?
Are Jesus’ apostles and evangelists 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after them in his name?

No.

Is Hegel 100% responsibe for everything certain people of politics, media, and economy have done after him in his name?
Are all Hegelians 100% responsible for everything certain people of politics, media, and economics have done after him in his name?

No.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Venture » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:14 am

MagsJ wrote:There's territorial and then there's TERRITORIAL, and war is the latter. Lands were fought over for centuries only to be handed back to the original peoples, but not until many lives were needlessly lost in the process.


Realizing ourselves during burial efforts was the first attempt at fantasizing about the negation of death, destruction and warfare. Has peace and harmony really existed as physical forms, as something we know? This fantasy is our divergence from nature, hiding away from trauma and death by idealizing its significance, idealizing an afterlife, the longing for its negation (peace, harmony, happiness, etc.). Dialectical materialism confounded in Zizek's object/ideology and Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus offer some interesting insights. There is an antagonism against 'nature' because of our nature, our sublime contradiction. There is never balance, only a fetish for equilibrium. Hegel was right, but Marx was not (Marx still had some good stuff to say though).
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
"
User avatar
Venture
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:12 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:38 am

RHARDBC wrote:Everything that exists has a germ of its own destruction in its very birth (Eastern wisdom)

Summary:

• Capitalism as an intermediate link between economic formations within itself brings the reason to move to another formation.
• The success of capitalism accelerates its "final" (move to other formation), but not a crisis, as Marx thought.
• The next formation after capitalism is the cooperative (‘employee-owned companies’) economy, not the communism, as Marx thought.
• The driving force of the transition is the creative class, created by capitalism itself, and not the working class, as Marx thought.
• The creative class cannot satisfy higher-level needs of Maslow’s Pyramid within the capitalist corporations and needs new motivation, that can be provided by employee-owned companies.

Full statement:

1. How is the development performed by Hegel
• There is a certain phenomenon - thesis.
• Thesis’ activities generates its opposite - antithesis.
• The struggle of thesis and antithesis.
• Solution of this struggle is in the new phenomenon - synthesis of thesis and antithesis, which combines the properties of both.
• The synthesis becomes the new thesis, and the cycle begins again.

2. Thesis: perfect competition and individual producers
• A new branch begins with the perfect competition of individual producers.
• Each producer is both the worker and the owner of his business.
• Production takes place without the use of hired labor.
• Individual producer is not a "capitalist" because he receives income only from his own labor, not the capital.

3. Antithesis: Successful producers hire workers and become "capitalists"
• More talented individual producers displace competitors and hire labor.
• Prior to the stage of hiring workers, individual producer does not know what a "capital" is.
• "Capitalist" begins to generate income not only from his own work, but also from the work of others on his "capital".
• Individual worker-owner forks on the individual owner and the collective worker within the same firm.

4. The struggle of thesis and antithesis: "holy war" of trade unions and shareholders

Trade unions:

• Hatred of the "capitalists" and the desire for revenge for the exploitation.
Objective: to get more "freebies" of the social package, even at the expense of the company.
• Opposition to innovation and increased productivity.
In case of victory: unprofitable business and society of dependents.
Capitalists:
• Neglecting to workers and the desire to use them.
Objective: to use cheap labor to maximize profits.
• Opposition to improve working conditions and social security.
In case of victory: increase of wealth inequality and social protests.

5. Institutional framework for the synthesis: successes of postindustrial capitalism
• Capitalism meets the basic needs of the people (physiological and safety)
• Capitalism creates conditions for the personal development of the general population:
1. The quality of education. Capitalism is the "customer" of the highly educated workforce, which service high-tech means of production.
2. Availability of information. Capitalism has started mass production of Internet, television, radio, paving the way for self-education.
3. Development of сommunications. Mass production of vehicles and devices to communicate at a distance promotes personal development.

Image
6. Maslow Pyramid: capitalism offers not enough motivation for the creative class
Intangible needs are not met because:
• Alienation from the profits and overall success of the company (belonging to a company);
• Non-involvement in the decision-making process (belonging to a company, the need for respect and self-realization).
Result: The creative class, working in corporations, does not consider these corporations as its own, do not identify with corporations’ successes and sees them as antagonists.

7. Definition of the Creative class
Creative class is part of post-industrial society as its intellectual and cultural level formed on the basis of success of capitalism in the fields of education, information technologies and communications, but it cannot fully succeed in capitalist system due to lack of motivation of higher level: ability to satisfy needs of belonging, respect and creativity within capitalist corporations.
• The more capitalism reaches success, the more growing the share of the creative class, which becomes a "foreign body" for capitalism and makes new demands to the economic system.
• Reaching the critical number of the creative class (which previously was the proletariat) leads to a qualitative change in the economic system.

8. In order to meet the higher level needs the ownership is needed
• The alienation of the worker from the company overcome by giving him the ownership of it.
• Worker-owner, along with the ownership, gets a voting right in issues of the company’s activities, a voting right to elect the top-management of the company and has a guaranteed share of the profits.
• The voting right on the company's activity is the right to self-realization, that is creativity. Everyone can express his opinion and offer new ideas as an equal partner.
• The work in such an atmosphere becomes interesting, it starts to bring pleasure, and motivation is restored.

Image
9. The worker-owner is a synthesis of thesis and antithesis of capitalism
• Confrontation of collective employee and individual owner-shareholder ends in the face of the collective worker-owner of the company.
• Worker-owner cannot complain about the owner, because he is the owner, and cannot exploit workers, because he is the worker.
• Absolute power of the individual owner is distributed to the members having equal rights.
• Instead of economic authoritarianism comes economic democracy.

10. Example: Mondragon Corporation – the world leader of cooperation (http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/eng/)
• More than 12.5 billion. Euros gross income;
• Offices in 41 countries;
• Sales in more than 150 countries;
• 15 technology centers;
• 74 thousand workers (84% are the members and real owners);
• 103 cooperatives;
• Co-operative Bank;
• University of Mondragon: 11 master's and 3 doctoral programs.

Video of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJ1hfVPUe8
Read more here: http://www.creatorsociety.org/index.php ... ifesto-eng


Maybe he was wrong maybe he was right but he was definitely something.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby MagsJ » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:14 am

Venture wrote:
MagsJ wrote:There's territorial and then there's TERRITORIAL, and war is the latter. Lands were fought over for centuries only to be handed back to the original peoples, but not until many lives were needlessly lost in the process.


Realizing ourselves during burial efforts was the first attempt at fantasizing about the negation of death, destruction and warfare. Has peace and harmony really existed as physical forms, as something we know? This fantasy is our divergence from nature, hiding away from trauma and death by idealizing its significance, idealizing an afterlife, the longing for its negation (peace, harmony, happiness, etc.). Dialectical materialism confounded in Zizek's object/ideology and Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus offer some interesting insights. There is an antagonism against 'nature' because of our nature, our sublime contradiction. There is never balance, only a fetish for equilibrium. Hegel was right, but Marx was not (Marx still had some good stuff to say though).

In what way was Hegel right and Marx not.. on this matter?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16858
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:28 pm

The younger Marx was right, but the older Marx was not right because of his change from philosophy to political economy. Marx became wrong when he became more political / politico-economic than philosophical.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Meno_ » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:19 pm

Venture wrote:
MagsJ wrote:There's territorial and then there's TERRITORIAL, and war is the latter. Lands were fought over for centuries only to be handed back to the original peoples, but not until many lives were needlessly lost in the p
rocess.


Realizing ourselves during burial efforts was the first
attempt at fantasizing about the negation of death,
destruction and warfare. Has peace and harmony really existed as physical forms, as something we know? This fantasy is our divergence from nature,
hiding away from trauma and death by idealizing its significance
, idealizing an afterlife, the longing for its negation (peace, harmony, happiness, etc.). Dialectical materialism confounded in Zizek's object/ideology and
Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus offer some interesting insights. There is an antagonism against 'nature' because of our nature, our sublime contradiction. There
is never balance, only a fetish for equilibrium. Hegel was right, but Marx was not (Marx still had some good stuff to say though).


True, Zizec's attempt in line with deconstructing structural hierarchy, and instituting object-ideology is noteworthy, but logically incoherent up and down. If, the idea of absolute reduction holds water, then can that be an affirmation of of Marx and the invalidation of Hegel? I suppose, but would it work? Would the derivative of such illogical system serve well the owner/worker?

That is a big question, since the function of such a system would inherently pre-suppose an obvious fault: that of the arising conflict between profit, cost, and income. The cost of goods would increase directly with the rise of wages and that would effect buying power. I see no realistic power structure which could relate to an organizational hierarchy, for surely they will offset any normative attempt at regulation, without taking advantage of the system in their favor.

The reductive effect would entail no possible calibration apart from power to power applications to the use of such schematic, neither material dialectic implicates the power motive in justifying any off set of residuals, as for instance relating to the ongoing question of choosing between increasing salaries, or decreasing prices, or re-investing into the economic infrastructure.

The reduced affinity to structural determinants would minimize the effect of the latter, leaving are an open field of power struggle, with splitting it into various over accumulated parts between a new hierarchy of haves and not haves.

It would undermine itself, just like the failure of Democracy, to live up to the goals of the founding fathers. Democracy was also a reapplication of a destructured ideology, founded on pretty words added to an early objective naïveté, with the hope of filling in material along the way.

Look at it now, despite the seemingly soothing balm of Trumpianism, there are glaring inconsistencies from the get go, irreparable, and manageable only by applications of power.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Meno_ » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:35 pm

As to Your earlier suggestion, Arminius, as to the application of the dialectic to the dialectic per se, that both aspects of it, vis. the synthetics between Marxian materialistic and Hegelian idealistic ultra synthesis; - and I believe this 'super-logic-underlies the idea of the worker-owner, this is Exactly the paradigms of the absolute logical reduction, par excellence, of the ultimate criticism leveled against both: Russell and Quine. Any basis dissolves into it's opposite, making meaningless any attempt at a veritable model.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:17 pm

Marx' philosophical development went from philosophy to political economy - but not back from political economy to philosophy. His mistake was that he did not go back to philosophy where he began. This mistake left a gap, and it was just this gap that Lenin later used disastrously for his terrorism.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:12 pm

And by the way:

When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called "social life") the alleged "enemies" capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:48 pm

Real history makers are seldom a kind of party, and the one who sides unilaterally, is seldom a real maker or driver / leader of the history. Relal world drivers / leaders are true masters of dialectic processes, in particular they know how to push these processes and how to drive them to a desired and advance-calculated synthesis.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:40 pm

If everything is born with the seeds of it's own destruction, then that too would have the seeds to it's own destruction, which makes your entire thread pointless.

Try saying something next time
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6748
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:42 pm

Yes, but ultimately there is a point, but it is a vanishing point, to a construction, a conception, a reason.

There is method to the madness.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

Postby Arminius » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:29 am

Yes, and those few who have enough power to make use of that method have an advantage over the many others.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users