Marx would argue that liberal democracy is nothing but another opiate of the masses, not an actual tool for their own welfare. However, I agree with Charlie that this is a mistake, though for slightly different reasons. Marx's proletarian revolution has not occurred in the West because capitalism's image has remained good enough for people of all social classes to "buy into". Hence the farthest left the West has gone is only democratic socialism--working within a democratic market economy to promote an egalitarian social theory. Marx also underestimated the flexibility of democracy to incorporate populist movements that would promote the "general welfare", universal happiness, a pony for every poor child, etc. So rather than an explosive proletarian revolution, the state has instead slowly expanded to incorporate much of Marx's ambitions within the scheme of a democratic society.
Another angle, perhaps, is the enduring legacy of the Enlightenment in Europe and America. Thomas mentioned this in his comment, and I agree. Because we're so Lockean and steeped in ideas of equal access to liberty and opportunity, American politics tends not to revolve around differences of economic class. On both sides of the Atlantic people on the whole put their lot in with the democratic process as the best way to resolve issues of "social justice".
Not that this is a good thing. In fact, it makes it all the more insidious because socialism is no longer the monstrous, oppressive, and coercive beast that it is but merely a cog in the state's machinery.
No comments:
Post a Comment