Thank you Tony. I find it difficult to argue with capitalist influence on literature - that seems to me unavoidable in a capitalist system. What I find unendurable is people like Sinykin arguing that that is somehow a positive or even historically inevitable. I think something very peculiar has happened in Sinykin's little corner of acad…
Thank you Tony. I find it difficult to argue with capitalist influence on literature - that seems to me unavoidable in a capitalist system. What I find unendurable is people like Sinykin arguing that that is somehow a positive or even historically inevitable. I think something very peculiar has happened in Sinykin's little corner of academia, where marxist analysis - materialism, historical determinism, etc - is completely intact but applied instead to a narrative of capitalist ascension. Sinykin really is rooting for conglomerations and against the romance of the individual. It's hard for me to see why anybody would believe in a position like this - unless they were getting sufficient stock options - but that's where academia seems to be have routed itself to.
You go inside a lot of family households and they function in an essentially socialist manner, not capitalist. So it seems to me that socialist influence is unavoidable even within any greater capitalist system - and manifests itself in culture and art and ideas. And right-wingers feel this "threat" immensely, as do any establishment types, liberal, conservative, you name it. They construct whole ideologies, or religions, and tyrannical micro and macro systems to quash it. So capitalism, socialism, they clash in art as elsewhere in many societies.
As far as those who lobby for the rule of money over the rule of the people, for capitalism over democracy, this is a manifestation of a type of problem that is as old as philosophy itself, wherein philosophers, like rulers, and other establishment intellectuals say, "This is what is, therefore it ought to be." Logical fallacies don't stop intellectuals who are willingly or blindly subservient to power any more than they stop the rulers themselves. In fact, entire careers and empires are built upon both logical fallacies and outright lies. Lots of professional liars out there. We live in an Empire of Lies. The resistance intellectuals - sometimes called prophets - sometimes called socialists - sometimes called liberatory artists, for varying reasons they go another way. In a capitalist society especially, it's typically a very challenging way.
As a form of macro economic architecture, there’s no clash whatsoever. It’s not a coincidence that well over 30 of the 40 highest quality of life countries on earth or social democracies.
Completely understanding what to socialize and what not to socialize.
Incarceration
Healthcare insurance
Quality public education, through post Doctoral, if earned
They DO NOT socialize federal projects, such as nationwide highways. The Eisenhower interstate system, for example. I’m sick of carrying Walmart, Amazon, and the rest of the Fortune 500.
They don’t offer Socialism to the largest revenue and income entities of the sovereign. Again the Fortune 500.
They DO, implement, thoughtful and strictly enforced, consumer protection, and let the market be free and unfettered, unless there is an unfair advantage built-in. Then, they attempt to even the playing field.
We don’t do any of that. In America, the reference.
Thank you Tony. I find it difficult to argue with capitalist influence on literature - that seems to me unavoidable in a capitalist system. What I find unendurable is people like Sinykin arguing that that is somehow a positive or even historically inevitable. I think something very peculiar has happened in Sinykin's little corner of academia, where marxist analysis - materialism, historical determinism, etc - is completely intact but applied instead to a narrative of capitalist ascension. Sinykin really is rooting for conglomerations and against the romance of the individual. It's hard for me to see why anybody would believe in a position like this - unless they were getting sufficient stock options - but that's where academia seems to be have routed itself to.
You go inside a lot of family households and they function in an essentially socialist manner, not capitalist. So it seems to me that socialist influence is unavoidable even within any greater capitalist system - and manifests itself in culture and art and ideas. And right-wingers feel this "threat" immensely, as do any establishment types, liberal, conservative, you name it. They construct whole ideologies, or religions, and tyrannical micro and macro systems to quash it. So capitalism, socialism, they clash in art as elsewhere in many societies.
As far as those who lobby for the rule of money over the rule of the people, for capitalism over democracy, this is a manifestation of a type of problem that is as old as philosophy itself, wherein philosophers, like rulers, and other establishment intellectuals say, "This is what is, therefore it ought to be." Logical fallacies don't stop intellectuals who are willingly or blindly subservient to power any more than they stop the rulers themselves. In fact, entire careers and empires are built upon both logical fallacies and outright lies. Lots of professional liars out there. We live in an Empire of Lies. The resistance intellectuals - sometimes called prophets - sometimes called socialists - sometimes called liberatory artists, for varying reasons they go another way. In a capitalist society especially, it's typically a very challenging way.
As a form of macro economic architecture, there’s no clash whatsoever. It’s not a coincidence that well over 30 of the 40 highest quality of life countries on earth or social democracies.
Completely understanding what to socialize and what not to socialize.
Incarceration
Healthcare insurance
Quality public education, through post Doctoral, if earned
They DO NOT socialize federal projects, such as nationwide highways. The Eisenhower interstate system, for example. I’m sick of carrying Walmart, Amazon, and the rest of the Fortune 500.
They don’t offer Socialism to the largest revenue and income entities of the sovereign. Again the Fortune 500.
They DO, implement, thoughtful and strictly enforced, consumer protection, and let the market be free and unfettered, unless there is an unfair advantage built-in. Then, they attempt to even the playing field.
We don’t do any of that. In America, the reference.
Where are you that you have this “capitalist system”?