Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

And if you want to rhetorically misuse these polemical two (thesis and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis is much more suppressed than considered.

(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an era of much misuse.)

however we want to call social systems, there are only 2 possibilities: centralization (coercion) or DEcentralization (non coercion) , and all what we have gotten for 4K years is much of the same: centralization which ultimately brings about oligarchy and serfdom.

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.

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.

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).

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.

@ 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.

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).

Maybe he was wrong maybe he was right but he was definitely something.

In what way was Hegel right and Marx not… on this matter?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yes, and those few who have enough power to make use of that method have an advantage over the many others.