3 ms·

But “the will of capital” is defined by market demand; in other words, consumers. This is what makes it different from totalitarian imposition.

claudiawerner 8y ago
You haven't given any reason to think that. I've already addressed why intention is not necessary for the critique. Are you aware of ideas such as structural violence, for instance? Imagine if you lived in a society in which the idea of liberty simply didn't exist, and the intentions of those in charge were good intentions (as far as they know), and those in charge were numerous, or even the whole populace. Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Why is capitalism totalitarian? Because it creates a totality in which all life is absorbed, from the economic foundation of society (even you would agree), but also to the way we do science, create art and how we interact with other people.
- andrenth 8y ago
  > Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded. > Because it creates a totality This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary: 1) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2) exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. Fantastic, I agree. So then the intentions actually seem to matter very little (or not at all) in the kind of society we create; so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter? What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? >The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary I don't trust the dictionary to define terms which are better defined in their own fields (in this case, sociology or politics or philosophy). But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition, since you say that the good-intentions-but-unfree society I described before is totalitarian. Another example: can racism be totalitarian? Even your second definition would seem to suggest so. What about gender roles? In the end, I see no reason at all why totalitarianism must come about as part of a coordinated intention or conspiracy. If good-intentioned bureaucrats can create a totalitarian society, why can't neutrally-intentioned capitalists and consumers?
    - andrenth 8y ago
      > so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter Because, regardless of intention, results are a consequence of human action. > What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? Are you asking if emergent properties can be totalitarian? I think this question is not very useful. Do we have a real-world system in which nobody is to blame for its properties? > But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition If you're talking about the capitalist societies we have today, yes, they can absolutely be totalitarian. But is that because of capitalism or in spite of it? The fear of totalitarianism is the reason capitalists defend freedom and the reduction of the state. > can racism be totalitarian? The idea of racism? The definition of the word? I don't think so. But a society where racists can exert power over people and reduce their freedom is totalitarian. But we're back to the human factor.

claudiawerner 8y ago

You haven't given any reason to think that. I've already addressed why intention is not necessary for the critique. Are you aware of ideas such as structural violence, for instance? Imagine if you lived in a society in which the idea of liberty simply didn't exist, and the intentions of those in charge were good intentions (as far as they know), and those in charge were numerous, or even the whole populace. Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Why is capitalism totalitarian? Because it creates a totality in which all life is absorbed, from the economic foundation of society (even you would agree), but also to the way we do science, create art and how we interact with other people.

andrenth 8y ago
> Would you call this potentially totalitarian? Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded. > Because it creates a totality This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary: 1) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2) exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. Fantastic, I agree. So then the intentions actually seem to matter very little (or not at all) in the kind of society we create; so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter? What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? >The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary I don't trust the dictionary to define terms which are better defined in their own fields (in this case, sociology or politics or philosophy). But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition, since you say that the good-intentions-but-unfree society I described before is totalitarian. Another example: can racism be totalitarian? Even your second definition would seem to suggest so. What about gender roles? In the end, I see no reason at all why totalitarianism must come about as part of a coordinated intention or conspiracy. If good-intentioned bureaucrats can create a totalitarian society, why can't neutrally-intentioned capitalists and consumers?
  - andrenth 8y ago
    > so why do you insist on the human factor, if the intentions don't matter Because, regardless of intention, results are a consequence of human action. > What do you think of emergent properties of a system, for which nobody is to blame individually? Are you asking if emergent properties can be totalitarian? I think this question is not very useful. Do we have a real-world system in which nobody is to blame for its properties? > But I can see capitalism fitting into the second definition, or the first definition If you're talking about the capitalist societies we have today, yes, they can absolutely be totalitarian. But is that because of capitalism or in spite of it? The fear of totalitarianism is the reason capitalists defend freedom and the reduction of the state. > can racism be totalitarian? The idea of racism? The definition of the word? I don't think so. But a society where racists can exert power over people and reduce their freedom is totalitarian. But we're back to the human factor.