In Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story, he uses a lighthearted yet moralizing tone to establish the problems with America's relationship with capitalism. His main point seems to be that capitalism encourages people to adopt predatory practices, and these predatory practices are both unethical and go against the Constitution. He instead supports democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism is a political system that favors a gradual and peaceful transformation of modern democracies away from capitalism and towards some sort of common ownership model. The particulars of this model vary wildly, but the basic ideas are of equality and a certain grassroot ethos.
The outstanding flaw in Capitalism is that there is no suggestion for an act. The audience is given all this dramatic and interesting information, and even people to blame, and yet there is nothing to be done. This is a common theme with democratic socialism; there is no real way to get there from here. The reason why is simple; it is a political theory that is not based on political science.
In Weber's seminal work, Politics as a Vocation, he says that "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Since violence defines the state, maintaining this monopoly is the highest goal of any functional state. Thus, moralizing reasons to change the system fail to motivate change; only a proof that socialism is better than capitalism at maintaining the monopoly, will change the state. Such an argument I have never encountered, whereas capitalism has the military-industrial complex in its corner. Socialism with something similar might work, but would also lose some of its appeal as a morally superior system. Certainly though, the argument that the poor have sacked capitals of empires before is a motivating reason to divide the wealth at least a little more equally.
No comments:
Post a Comment