Emphasizing the role of volatility in contemporary capitalism evident at the time of writing, as the stock market is experiencing a downturn is important as an antidote to notions of market efficiency and equilibrium. But it is a mistake to think that it provides a sufficient basis for effective critique. Predictions regarding the limits or collapse of neoliberal finance have simply not enjoyed a good track record. Over and over, the contemporary financial system has proven capable of sustaining higher levels of speculative activity than anticipated.
Capitalism and the efficacy of education reform by Patrick Wills 1. Introduction The majority of political discourse on the national stage — with varying degrees of philosophical and rhetorical decorum — makes it evident that the question of public education is a matter of contention and debate.
There have been countless efforts in the last few decades to prop up the American education system and notwithstanding some small successes on small fronts here and there, it has been, for the most part, a complete failure.
However, this essay is, in effect, a critique of the dominant American ideology of Capitalism rather than a critique of the American education system. Hence, throughout this piece I use the terms dominant ideology, capitalism and American neoliberalism; but for the purposes of this paper these terms are synonymous.
What I mean when I use those three synonymous terms more precisely is the free-market, capitalistic economic system that goes by as neoliberalism: And it is this system, or rather, this philosophical assumption that I am going to posit is the reason the American education system cannot transcend beyond what it always has been.
From this position I will argue the following thesis: That is the long way of saying American education cannot be repaired until the system it is subordinated to is repaired as well. Capitalism qua Success Capitalism, as the dominant American ideology, is wholly and completely illiterate, which is to say that it does not have the capacity or wherewithal to comprehend anything that is measured qualitatively.
The only method it has for comparing one individual to another, one ideology to another, one organization to another, one government to another and even one philosophy to another is by forcibly reducing everything to quantifiable units of capital — in short, to money.
And success as such, is the rendered outcome from said quantifiable assessment and is henceforth the only metric for success in capitalism. Moreover, it could be further argued — although I am only going to grant a cursory consideration to this point — that the normative ethical system in actu under capitalism is a product-of the aforementioned dichotomous formulation.
The avid — and perhaps compulsive — positivist qua rationalist would persist that quantitative assessment allows an objective comparison that is not susceptible to biased and subjective projections.
In other words, if you do not formally declare the ends of the education system, capitalism will supply one for you — to create success, as rendered in quantifiable units of capital.
Capitalism only values people by their ability to produce capital and their ability to consume with their capital — make money and spend money.
Capitalism qua Freedom Education is not the only system or concept that has failed to explicitly denote its own ends and has henceforth received the ethos of the capitalist ideology projected on it.
Freedom, as being the tacit core quality of the American experiment, is a very difficult term to define, measure and apply and notwithstanding the implicit virtue in championing freedom, eo ipso, what does it actually mean? The deep philosophical question that roots within this question — to which Rousseau articulated in great style and depth — is, simply put: And secondly, what free activity is implied by the word freedom?
In sum, the role of government is to grant the freedom for people to assert their freedom. And without a prescriptive notion of the ends of freedom it will reduce itself — as does education — to assuming quantifiable units of capital are the metric to determine the value of one actualized freedom to another.
And, further, the degree to which you can generate capital is the degree to which your patriotism can be measured. This formula side-steps the paradoxical problem of freedom, by making the closed loop of freedom by utilizing the ends as a justification to the means that hence bring forth the ends.
Hence, capital success capital accumulation — as justified as being intrinsically correlated to freedom — is an ends in itself. And, moreover, this would imply that capitalism uses education as a mere means to an ends — to create conditions that maximize capital accumulation — and that education, eo ipso, has only instrumental value in the United States.
That is to say, education is an instrument used for the promotion of capitalism qua freedom and freedom qua capitalism is a tautology. Since American education does not denote a normative and transcendental teleology — to which John Dewey persists as a necessary condition for the enablement of a free democracy — then it could be only reasoned that the descriptive teleology of the American education system is a product of capitalism insofar as it is used instrumentally for the replication of the freely willed projected ends of the capitalist ideology.
That is to say, if family brings you happiness there could be a degree to which too much family creates diminishing returns, or too little family fails to make you happy. As the act of infinitely increasing any qualitatively measured quality dilutes the value of any particular quanta of happiness within the set and henceforth creates an infinitely diminishing value to the happiness content as you infinitely increase the size of your happiness schema.
In other words, capitalism does not say you need to make a fixed amount of capital to be perceived as a success, but rather, it perceives success as the process of perpetually achieving capital with success.
To stop striving to accumulate capital renders you a failure.Many critics see this excellent story as a critique of the way that American society was beginning to embrace capitalism as a doctrine that would come to transform and define it.
Capitalism is not a rigid, inflexible economic and political system—there are many forms of capitalism around the world. It is illustrated as being different variations of capitalism outside the United States; there is the Dutch version, the French version, the British version, as well as the American version.
Modernity, Modern Social Theory, and the Postmodern Critique* By Robert Antonio and Douglas Kellner Over a century ago, Nietzsche (, ) berated the modern scientist's narrow "factualism" and "renunciation of all interpretation," and a few decades later Weber (, ) declared the age of the generalist to be over.
unfairly neglect the efforts of the capitalist system to regulate itself refuse to address the problems that exist in socialist countries argue that critical criminologists blame capitalism without adequate explanation or regard for other social and environmental factors.
The view that criminal law and the criminal justice system are means of defending and preserving the capitalist system. left realism An approach that views crime as a function of relative deprivation under capitalism and that favors pragmatic, community-based crime prevention and control.
However, this essay is, in effect, a critique of the dominant American ideology of Capitalism rather than a critique of the American education system.
Hence, throughout this piece I use the terms dominant ideology, capitalism and American neoliberalism ; but for the purposes of .