(...) The problem that confronts us then is this: if it says " systemic crisis, "what system is it? Of neo-liberalism as it would drift (or too direct an expression) of capitalism? Or capitalism itself?
In the first case, we find again François Fourquet: "No two civilizations, first civilization liberal or neoliberal, and secondly a civilization interventionist, interventionist or "Fordist" like our friends regulationists nominate (if they adopted the concept of civilization), which operated from the First World War to the 1970s. There is only one civilization, ours sometimes and sometimes liberal interventionist, liberalism and interventionism are two forms of organization that Western civilization has power since the Middle Ages, sometimes one is updated more than the other, sometimes the reverse: they do not preclude as two separate entities and closed, but are two social forms accomplices who need each other to exist. "The crisis will be painful, the state will take things in hand, and spreads on a cycle dirigiste - until the next crisis.
In the second case, it is obvious that the modern individual as the State will also affected than capitalism, since it is essentially linked. Let the first [2] and focus on the second: as an emanation of society, it is also the state has a role to play, especially in issues of redistribution of wealth. But as part of the capitalist market society, it is also the root of the current crisis (still assuming a "systemic crisis" of capitalism itself), and is thus both part of problem and potential factor solution: put the whole question of jurisdiction to hand, we understand that our leaders are somewhat confused.
Do not know - and who knows? - In what cases we are today (as the phrase of Adorno and Horkheimer still likely to be tragically confirmed one day), the crisis of neo-liberalism and the crisis of capitalism, we not push further prospective. It implies that more is that I advance a little more evidence that the citations of MM. Fourquet and Gauchet consubstantiality about this state and the capitalist market economy, and that I explore further his theoretical and practical consequences.
That said, in conclusion, it must be remembered, in one case as in the other, if that should establish a "global governance" - that is to say a world state, but " Governance is supposed to be less afraid, be more cool, this problem of the nature of the modern State will rely fast.
Perhaps he should recall here the remarks already quoted of Claude Levi-Strauss, Allah bless him:
"There are already thirteen centuries, Islam has formulated a theory of solidarity of all forms of human life: technical, economic, social, spiritual, the West should find that recently, with some aspects of Marxist thought and the birth of modern ethnology. We know how prominently this prophetic vision has allowed the Arabs to occupy in the intellectual life of the Middle Ages. "
If increased trade of all kinds, between cultures, should one day lead to something like a world state, it is desirable - and one more reason that Westerners are not ... who care - those who will develop keep in mind that "Solidarity of all forms of human life" - whether in short, to return to our starting point, the holistic assumed. But that would mean the end of the modern state as separate from society (even if not completely separate in practice, even if it is the emanation), it would mean a break anthropological ...
is in this sense that I could recently advocating "a mass conversion to Islam, World, Universal! "To save us from Crisis: Islam is aware of the non-separation of state from the rest of society, and is continuously expanding: this will only hasten a little movement, for the good of all ... We'll just secretly booze! (...)
Coffee Trade
