Lets try this on- Synechdoche- referring to the whole by its parts (or in some cases vice versa).Exmpla Gratia:
Referring to actions by the British government as actions by 'The Crown', the American version being 'The People'.
Both of these refer to an agency by a specific part, in fact by the significant part, the part that affixes meaning and legitimacy to the whole system, the part which justifies the system, and keeps it in existence.
We can think of the term 'capitalism' as a synechdoche, it refers to a society in which 'capital' and the production of capital, is most significant, in fact dominant- it rfers to specific parts of the society, empricially fidable actions and rituals, which while not comprimising teh sum of teh social totality, in fact form a potent and significant part of it, and with reference to which all other parts must pay obessence.
You yourself, sweet Joel, have used Synechdoche thusly- you refer to 'tribalism'- which is a society where the tribe is the most significant part, in which even capital had to pay homage to the polis. If you accept the existence of 'tribalism' as a term, you must accept capitalism as a term on the like basis.
Does this strike you as grounds for a proper truce? Rather than the complete surrender you demanded of me?
