Christophe wrote:I do not abstain at all (do I have the capacity?) But we are not there to make the lawsuit of capitalism so? There we would really spend in the debate Melenchonism ... We're not here for that ...
Instead of the "less worse" I should perhaps rather have said: "the economic system most compatible with human nature" (that we have tested for the moment ... the modern economy is young and there is surely other systems to discover)
Le
capitalism no longer exists, now we have to talk about
liberalism and its neo / ultra derivatives. These last are in their turn only a phase of what should be called in the most objective way possible
Exponential economism.
The economism and are leaning material the
technologism are nothing more or less than bits of information - that is, structured energy - that colonize our brains.
The systems mentioned above do not have to be judged as good or bad since they result from determinisms that go far beyond human nature.
If those there and not others were selected it is for a simple reason: it is about the most dissipative models in energy, it thus allowed us, human hosts, to develop very quickly at detriments from other complex life forms.
However, if such bits of information (
Memes) have developed it is "in exchange" (if I can put it that way) for saturation on a global scale, once better hosts are found we will be "pushed aside".
In such an approach * the question of the banks, which are only historical representations of economism, is only very secondary, because these are also called to disappear when the time comes.
So there is no alternative 2.0 to the development of the economy, just a logical extension, more powerful and even more penetrating.
* As part of a so-called approach
meta-historicalthat is to say, encompassing the whole of history, banks are only forms that are made and unmade, to grasp the dangerousness of the process in progress it is necessary to grasp the full depth.
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.