200703
(answer to the question "Are you a loser under capitalism ?" - only the fittest survive)
I read some interesting research about evolution and the relation towards risk taking for humans. Our brain couln't evolve as fast as our civilisation, and some of us still need the occasional chill to prove their ability to survive in a prehistoric environment. From that, one may deduce entrepreneurs or extreme sports lovers somehow missed some steps somewhen. They are great survivors where the law of the jungle is applied but global warming means the end of rain forests...
So here is my answer : I must be a loser under capitalism but could turn out to be a winner under evolution... which I don't consider such a sweet victory (ruling over a desert, anyone ?)
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Thursday
Red Blogule to the French language - No equivalent to "liberal"
Archives 20040901 (see blogules 2004)
(discussion : "neocon" a reaction to Bourdieu's "neoliberalism" concept)
There is a translation issue here. In French, a "liberal" person is in favor of unleashed capitalism and total deregulation. From an Hegelian point of view, one may think the French are so much enslaved in capitalism their language considers ultimate capitalism as ultimate freedom.
The thing is we frogs don't have a word that could match "liberal" as you mean it. We tend to stick to XIXth century references (capitalism vs socialism, progressivism...). Such adjectives as "pragmatic" fix some voids, and one could translate "centrism" with "how-the-heck-should-we-call-em-guys-that-don't-fit-in-ism".We badly need to change references, and economy remains a fairly exotic science to the bulk of my fellow citizens (the Bourdieu you quote is a philosopher). To sum it up I think we somehow dub "conservative" someone who didn't adapt to the first industrial revolution (the majority of the population doesn't even know such thing as an "industrial revolution" ever happened), "liberal" someone who'd like a longer leash for his attachment to our "omnipotent - ventripotent" state, and "socialist" someone who loves to consider himself generous but who'd never give up any of his privileges nor share his own wealth.
We're so much fond of "isms" that we're not likely to think "responsible economics" anytime soon.
SM on a forum
(discussion : "neocon" a reaction to Bourdieu's "neoliberalism" concept)
There is a translation issue here. In French, a "liberal" person is in favor of unleashed capitalism and total deregulation. From an Hegelian point of view, one may think the French are so much enslaved in capitalism their language considers ultimate capitalism as ultimate freedom.
The thing is we frogs don't have a word that could match "liberal" as you mean it. We tend to stick to XIXth century references (capitalism vs socialism, progressivism...). Such adjectives as "pragmatic" fix some voids, and one could translate "centrism" with "how-the-heck-should-we-call-em-guys-that-don't-fit-in-ism".We badly need to change references, and economy remains a fairly exotic science to the bulk of my fellow citizens (the Bourdieu you quote is a philosopher). To sum it up I think we somehow dub "conservative" someone who didn't adapt to the first industrial revolution (the majority of the population doesn't even know such thing as an "industrial revolution" ever happened), "liberal" someone who'd like a longer leash for his attachment to our "omnipotent - ventripotent" state, and "socialist" someone who loves to consider himself generous but who'd never give up any of his privileges nor share his own wealth.
We're so much fond of "isms" that we're not likely to think "responsible economics" anytime soon.
SM on a forum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search through my personal portal :
