Ahmed wrote:I believe that it would be sterile to debate these questions very early when the amalgamations you practice prohibit it. Thus, in your simplifying vision, you put on the one hand the interest for money (= power) and on the other hand motivation, in the general sense where "no one acts without a reason to act *" in the same box; "to discover" this last psychological spring is to state the obvious.
Your stance as a champion of liberalism, techno-science and the world as it is, ...
The "world as it is" is actually what I base myself on, unlike you who base yourself on an imaginary world, invention or fad.
The world is made of a planet and beings who have evolved and survived through their adaptation. This adaptation corresponds to the development of abilities, instincts and behaviors without which survival on the planet would not have been possible. To be concrete, for example the instinct of survival, the search for meaning, so curiosity (for the prehistoric man, a sound could be a sign of danger), group life and mutual aid (life becomes more comfortable by sharing spots), acceptance of confrontation (animals, enemies), individualism (diversity is less risky than if we were a race of clones, we need explorers) ...
My world is a world of men. Your world is an abstraction that you call economy without any connection with people, as proof what you write to follow.
The notion of "abstract value" obviously does not correspond to what you are talking about: if the economy manages to meet needs and strives to create a maximum **, it is only because it is difficult for it to successfully transmuting the commodity into an increased sum without a substantial or symbolic use value; as a result, it tends to reduce this use value to the minimum possible, or even to do without it as we currently see, by using regulatory bias forcing users to change cars under the pretext of "ecological" expiration or by financing from public funds an energy transition that is supposedly virtuous in climate terms, but at the same time continuing an orientation contrary to this objective.
The economy becomes for you a thinking entity which would act on its own, which "tends" towards this or that, succeeds or not, plays with regulations and people ... This economy does not exist. The economy is just a macroscopic view in the form of a shapeless blob, of men and their actions responding to their psychology shaped by thousands of years of evolution. You hope to draw universal laws like Newton's from it, waste of time, we are not in hard sciences as in physics.
This economy is only your interpretation of all the interactions of men between them, which respond to stimuli, their neuronal treatments, intimate motivations such as the desire for property or domination, to utopian dreams of ideal worlds, each of which to its version, to sadistic deviations, looking for pleasure, comfort, stability ...
From this diversity you draw this formless average called "economy" but which does not correspond to anyone, and you deduce that it would oppose men when it is the product of them. Men are everywhere in the economy. My world is that of men. Capitalism is their current stage of evolution, the one towards which men tend when we let go of them. To deny the real man by claiming that the Economy is the god who manipulates them, what you are doing is simply inverting the causes and the effects.
* Leibnitz.
** The existence of advertising proves that "needs" are a social creation and do not in any way relate to an alleged human essence.
Advertising is at the outset the need for those who produce, to make their product known, both for the reasons of satisfying their ego and to effectively allow a social position, or simply to be able to live from their work. All these points start from intimate concerns related to psychology. Placing "social" on "creation" is like plating "economy" on "society", that does not make them autonomous realities. The only reality from which the economy and the social emerge, it is men and their intimate mode of functioning which shapes both.