Och väljarna är positiva till detta! Trump röstare vill ha chauvinistisk politik byggd på hat, självintresse och vrede.

Det är en så självklart oetisk och barnslig syn som bara kan resultera hons dem som aldrig fick en bra utbildning.

Man måste vara väldigt tydlig med att Trump och hans administration, likt tidigare republikaner, öppet hatar idéerna av internationell rätt och mänskliga rättigheter.

Bush gjorde i alla fall ett litet försök att gömma detta.

In both text she appeals to the New Liberals, originating in the British idealist movement, such as Green or Barker (maybe you even include Hobhouse here). She also holds the Catholic views of Jacques Maritain to be social democratic, although I don’t know if she’d consider them liberal.

-fering to him as a democratic socialist in her chapter of the intellectual history of the capabilities approach.

But unlike most other things we do not do so out of a striving for our own flourishing. Rather we do so simply because we find things fascinating and intriguing.

And that’s, I think, something meaningful.

As Aristotle would say, all human beings, by nature, desire to know.

There’s something so deeply wonderful about nature, we desire to know it.

Broadly also I don’t think it really matters that some people don’t own what they produce, because I don’t think that’s a meaningful or important part of the good life for the most part.

-lt to support that goal. Commodities are allowed to exist because they are the best way of allowing citizens to achieve sufficiently good living.

And I do so on the grounds that a proper social democracy should be directed at a common goal of developing human powers, where the economy is broadly aligned to promote the common good. And such a goal is explicitly stated. And all citizens are aware that the economic relations which exist are bui-

But realizing this about capitalism systems doesn’t do the same thing no?

Even if I accept for the same of argument that it invalidates contemporary relations. I would argue that a properly just social democracy is not a system in which man is dominated by commodities.

With religious alienation, when you realize that religion is basically man projecting his own ability onto a being of his creation, you’d naturally stop believing in such a god.

Because it’s “power”, was your own all along.

It’s an informational issue in that sense.

I don’t buy that once you see that capitalist relations are socially constructed and can be changed you have revealed anything wrong with them.

…inherent to them, rather being products of aforementioned social relations.

And such a thing is bad because we should be conscious of our ability to determine our own social world.

However, this can just be solved with something like a modified version of a Rawlsian publicity condition.

The idea of commodity fetishism seems a bit flimsy to me. I think there is one sense in which it is an issue and one sense in which it isn’t.

I think it’s probably bad if/that people don’t view commodities as products of labor and social relations and view the exchange value of commodities as…

But I really, really, don’t get the issue with workers not owning what they produce.

I can even potentially say that there is maybe something bad about labor being done primarily as a means to ensure other ends, rather than as something we’d want to pursue because we find it engaging itself.

Although I’d probably buy a much softer version of such a claim.

I can easily buy that labor is bad when it monotonous, time consuming or done in ways which doesn’t allow us to engage with others as ends rather than just means.