We have a capitalistic sort of society. In this kind of society, trade builds a cooperative condition. We just don't want to admit it.
This is a hidden area, a hidden topic. We need to look with fresh eyes. There are two aspects to this that, I reckon, I can discern. There is the objective condition of capitalism. Capitalism did establish itself; it somehow had the power to usurp the kings and queens who had been in power up until then. That is history. It is a big transition of some kind. One system appears to have replaced another, quite different one. It is not clear what kind of transition this is, nor is it clear exactly what needs to come next, although presumably, there will continue to be progress (and not Fukuyama's "End of History," although the dark possibility of apocalypse is also to be considered). Now in addition to the facticity or apparentness of capitalism, which includes the fact that there is a large aspect of co-operativeness, there is another thing I am able to discern, which is the co-existent fact that we do not admit the specific fact that it is cooperative.
Instead we enact a big ideological drama, a big masquerade. We do not simply forget to notice that capitalism is co-operative. We have to actively fend off knowledge of it, so we enact the counter-theory. This would encompass all theories that now exist. It is really incredible that I am saying this. But it appears that all of the theories --- they are establishment, right-wing, neoliberal or in fact any other systems of thought --- all follow the same pattern: all of them miss the co-operativeness of the new kind of society that is being created. All the existing systems of economic theory should therefore be understood as being ideological. They fail to get at the notion of co-operativeness in capitalism. So: it's a big deal.
Yet as I have formulated the matter myself, capitalism has a very important side that is cooperative. This we might call one of the present author's original findings. And amongst theories that fail to discern the true cooperative nature of capitalism we must even include Marxism, which appears to "oppose" the other theories.
Everyone thus totally agrees on the wrong thing----it's really amazing----what they have in common is an incorrect judgment. This convenient and necessary finding is an incorrect finding that as a result continuously broadcasts to the world the "ideologically correct" notion that capitalism to not be understood as cooperative.
As I said, we have two elements, in this analysis. There could be other analyses, for example a three-part one. But in this analysis, the first part is the objective condition. That is one thing. We see the objective condition of our society. (To some extent.) Then there is the denial of that objective condition, for the real condition is that it is cooperative, and it is necessary not to see that fact. So, the seeing of the true condition is masked, by means of a whole slew of ideologies of competition, self-interest and so on. All of these perform the same necessary service. They cover up the social side of capitalism.
Anything else would have been crushed, because capitalism could not afford to comprehend its co-operative side. Now, presumably, it can, and I have noticed it. (Readers may also see similarities with Marx's "superstructural ideology" concept my view of which is that it is a rather good concept and comes close to what I am saying, too.)
Plato is considered to be an objective philosopher, and also an idealist. Therefore, ideas can be objective, too. The objective condition can also be related to its ideas. So a society has its "condition" and also its characteristic set of myths, or ideas. This latter is the society's ideology, or its characteristic ideas. A society, then, has its "idea condition." Capitalism, therefore, is going to have its characteristic idea-set. We can therefore discern both an objective condition of society as such as well as an objective "idea condition" of that society. We can discern both a condition, and, an ideology about that condition. An objective idea, held by society, proceeds through history right alongside the material objectivity of the society as such.
The objective idea that manifests in the capitalistic sort of society is (to give one popular term as the example) that capitalism is competitive. This is what the idea is supposed to be. It is what you are supposed to think. According to prevailing (and also incorrect) ideas about what capitalism is it is based on individual desires for wealth and profit, it is based on rational self-interest, and it is based on privately held properties. And so forth.
That's the ideology and they do as well as they can with it. This is something like the case of what some call the "superstructural ideology." But, in this case, it gets cheaper and crasser as time goes on. Capitalism as somehow essentially a private thing is a cultural fabrication perfected (OK, I just said crass and now I'm saying perfect, I know) over the last two hundred years. They created an objective language, or set of terms, to go along with or accompany the objective reality. This means that the response of the society to objective reality was---to lie about it. So as a result of all that----we call capitalism private. That fact is not true.
The truth is hidden, but this, alas, is simply how capitalism proceeds. It really needed to lie about itself, to keep the participants on board. They then proceed to become quite busy with the Left vs. right debate, you see. Liberals usually make the mistake of being full of rancor about this whole ball of wax of "private" capitalism and so forth, decrying the corporations and so forth. They would be better to knock it off with the hostility, which does not in the end (i.e. today!) do anyone any good, but rather they ought to just responsibly replace untruth with truth.
If humanity fails to do it----we could be in for a, Um----rough ride.
The frontal part of capitalism: "I'll take your money." The hidden part of capitalism: "I want to be an elite and remain separated from you and your interest." These two parts are in total contradiction. This is the whole story of capitalism as human system, as society, as culture. Perhaps the game has gone on long enough, and we can change now. I'm not sure but it is a possibility that I would like to float. (Along with some shares in my new "jack silverman" brand.)
[note: the idea of Plato, along with Hegel, as being "objective idealists" is something I read about a long time ago, when I was studying philosophy on my own. May have been Isaiah Berlin, but I am not sure where I read this, nor of whether it is a common kind of terminology: "objective idealist" was a label applied to certain philosophers, in that book.]