With this book, I understood why Michéa was far superior to Clouscard. Starting from the Marxist which states a priori absence "besides the relations of production. The thing itself is the class struggle" (p.351), a priori indeed completely untrue (see "The . Hell things René Girard and the logic of the economy "Dupuy / Dumouchel) Clouscard completely loses sight of the real resistance to the liberal system: the anarchist and conservative in the face of legitimism understood or, if one is not royalist, for ideological preference, the Distributism (see Advocacy for an anti-capitalist property). If Clouscard remains visionary in the articulation of liberal-libertarian system, it is forced to make difficult contortions to put Kant and Marx in the same bag. Nevertheless, the overhaul of Lacan, Sartre, is extremely convincing. Also to be welcomed analyzes around Rousseau. In its reading of the novel he presented as an existential aesthetic of the bourgeois system, it remains unclear whether this is a purely rhetorical aesthetic or metaphysical revelation is known since the work of Girard. Indeed, the bourgeois system allows great novelists reveal the desire of the triangular structure, which presents itself, since, as demonstrated brilliantly Clouscard Sombart but long before him ("Luxus und Kapitalismus"), the company market is the maintenance of lust left to itself. One thing is to admit that liberalism promotes Eros according to Sade's logic (see Lasch), another is to recognize that desire does not depend at all of the liberal system. Clouscard replays the impasse of Lucien Goldmann, who in the novel To the sociology, says the exchange values and hubris by the emergence of market society while conversely, we must understand capitalism by media coverage of the objects of our desires, which is a real phenomenon and not strictly cosmetic. In this case, the approach of Baudrillard is biased. This sociologist (which has nothing to do with sociologism Bourdieu), sees perfectly the existence of an ideological seduction or it must go to the end of the analysis and recognize that "the Treaty of love fool "is only ideological alternative, which is the Liberal desire transmission belt as was established remarkably Denis de Rougemont in Love and the West Clouscard The only difference is based on the anthropological reality of seduction . Which brings me to the last point on the critical anthropology of Levi-Strauss. By reducing the actual production process, Clouscard goes on to say that Levi-Strauss "invents" a structuralist ideology based on the invariant; if they see limits to the analysis of the anthropologist of human society is acquired but which one is to reject the invariant on behalf of a Marxist reading grid would require a justification unfortunately not always present. The invariant is nothing but a scientific horizon worthy of all Aristotelian method. Finally, the glaring error of the book and that is the logic of collapse title ("against liberal revolution") is based on the confusion between theocracy and monarchist bourgeoisie. If the latter is one with the first, by the nobility of dress, it can quite be true; however, by the nobility of the sword, it is quite another! and therefore precisely what Clouscard called the cons-revolution association monarchist and republican liberalism considerably forgets to point out that the proletariat was also the side of the old nobility, badly overlooked by Marxist analysis. De Gaulle (French Action) and the Communists. As Clouscard is the opponent (shameful) de Gaulle (France and old capitalist paternalism - he believes), so it is an accomplice of the system he deconstructed. Therefore, emblematic of such a reading, will do we see Rousseau Savoyard useful to the Enlightenment, much like Switzerland eastern bank kingdom; of "Emile" to "La Nouvelle Heloise," Rousseau remains a tax haven in action.
