If you liked Michael Moore’s latest movie, "Capitalism: a Love Story" (I did) and are long past being fed up with Barack Obama’s deep allegiance and service to his corporate paymasters (I am), then this essay might be for you. I start with some happy reflections on Moore ‘s apparent ideological evolution. The mood darkens, however, as I raise unpleasant questions about the extent of Moore ‘s break with existing American power relations. I discuss two critical and related matters that exist in curious tension with Moore ‘s newly proclaimed rejection of the capitalist system (portrayed as a sin in his new flick): the President of the United States ‘ love affair with capitalism and Moore‘s continuing love affair with the President.

 

"ທຶນນິຍົມຕ້ອງໄປ"

 

Moore’s film career began with a brilliant satirical, neo-Dickensian documentary (titled "Roger and Me" [1989]) on the bad behavior of General Motors’ (GM) CEO (Roger Smith) and other top GM managers towards autoworkers and ex-autoworkers in Moore’s corporate-de-industrialized hometown Flint, Michigan. Subsequent targets of Moore’s dazzling Dickens-like eye have included the managers and owners of: the gun and "defense" industries ("Bowling for Columbine" [2002] and "Fahreneheit 9/11" [2004]), Wal Mart ("Bowling for Columbine" and "The Big One"), the athletic shoe industry ("The Big One" [1997]), the mass retail book chains ("The Big One"), and the leading drug and insurance corporations ("Sicko" [2007]).

 

By the end of the Bush-Cheney administration, itself a leading Moore target, however, Moore seemed to have lost patience with skewering specific sectors of the capitalist and political elite. He had decided that the underlying profits system was the issue. As Moore announced last September, explaining why he "may stop doing documentaries" (he said he might take up fictional movie-making) to the audience at an early Toronto showing of his 2009 movie "Capitalism: A Love Story":

 

"ຂ້ອຍເຮັດສິ່ງນີ້ມາເປັນເວລາ 20 ປີແລ້ວ. ຂ້ອຍເລີ່ມຕົ້ນດ້ວຍການເຕືອນຄົນກ່ຽວກັບ General Motors, ແລະອາຊີບຂອງຂ້ອຍໄດ້ພະຍາຍາມເວົ້າວ່າ emperor ບໍ່ມີເຄື່ອງນຸ່ງຢູ່ທີ່ນີ້, ແລະພວກເຮົາເຮັດບາງສິ່ງບາງຢ່າງກ່ຽວກັບມັນດີກວ່າ. ເຄາະ​ຫົວ​ຂອງ​ຂ້ອຍ​ກັບ​ກຳ​ແພງ​ທີ່​ນີ້​ເປັນ​ເວລາ 20 ປີ​ທີ່​ເວົ້າ​ເລື່ອງ​ເຫຼົ່າ​ນີ້.”

 

"ສອງປີກ່ອນ, ຂ້າພະເຈົ້າໄດ້ພະຍາຍາມໃຫ້ມີການໂຕ້ວາທີກ່ຽວກັບການດູແລສຸຂະພາບ, ແລະໃນທີ່ສຸດ, ແລະໃນປັດຈຸບັນພວກເຮົາຢູ່ໃສ? ພວກເຮົາອາດຈະບໍ່ມີມັນ. ຂ້ອຍຈະເຮັດແນວໃດໃນຈຸດໃດຫນຶ່ງ?"

 

"I started this film before the crash. The crash happens, I’m thinking, oh, somebody’s going to start talking about what I’m talking about in this movie…I’ve yet to see a talk show or read an op-ed where somebody has just named it, just come out and said, ‘Folks, what has to happen here is capitalism’s got to go.’ Because we can’t have a system where the richest 1 percent own as much as the bottom 95 percent. That just isn’t democracy. That’s not America ."

 

"I’m tired of feeling like I’m doing this alone. All through the eight years of Bush, you Google `Bush’ and `nemesis’ and I’m the first name up. And there aren’t a whole lot of other names," Moore said. "It doesn’t work with Michael Moore and Sean Penn and Ted Kennedy and a few others. The people have got to get involved in their democracy." [1]

Near the end of his new must-see movie, Moore declares that "capitalism is evil" and that "you can’t regulate evil."

 

ຂ້ອຍຫັນໄປຫາຄົນທີ່ນັ່ງຢູ່ຂ້າງຂ້ອຍ ແລະເວົ້າວ່າ, "ດີແລ້ວ.

 

Moore had come to the conclusion that the profits system doesn’t work for any for the privileged Few – a judgment that the historical Left has held (with good reasons) going back though Marx and back at least as far as the great 17th century British "Digger" Gerrard Winstanley. Moore is announcing something of a mid-life shift from Charles Dickens (for whom the crucial issue was indecent behavior on the part of specific Victorian capitalist and other authorities)[2] to Karl Marx [3] (for whom the key issue was the underlying capitalist system of class oppression), consistent with the conclusion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who decided by at least the middle 1960s that: "only by structural change can current evils be eliminated, because the roots are in the system rather in men or faulty operations;" [4] "radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced;" and "something is wrong with…with capitalism. There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America should move toward a Democratic Socialism." According to one of his aides, King would commonly demand that his assistants "turn off the tape recorder" while he held forth on the virtues of "what he called democratic socialism" and on his belief that the needs of the poor could not be met under capitalism. "If we are going to achieve equality," Kingtold ayoungCivil Rightsworker (Charles Fager) in a Selma , Alabama jail in the winter of 1965, "the United States will have to adopt a modified form of socialism.’" [5]

 

ຍິນດີຕ້ອນຮັບ, Michael Moore. ຂ້າ​ພະ​ເຈົ້າ​ເປັນ​ຜູ້​ຕ້ານ​ນາຍ​ທຶນ​ເຊັ່ນ​ດຽວ​ກັນ.

 

 

ການຕ້ານການທຶນຮອນ ໃນຖານະການລາອອກ

 

There are two critical qualifications to Moore‘s conversion, however, from my perspective at least. First, I found it hard not to notice (with consternation) Moore ‘s sense of resignation as he accompanied the rolling out of "Capitalism: A Love Story" with a statement to the effect that he might "quit" documentaries. What ought to be a fresh beginning – a shift into hard-hitting investigative film work on and against the profits system as a power structure to boldly name, break down and resist – comes across instead as something of an ending linked to a sense of futility in trying to reach the public with fact-based narratives. Moore‘s move from Dickens to Marx (at least metaphorically speaking) was problematically connected to a statement of exhaustion with explicitly political left-documentary film activism. It sounded to me like Mike was saying that discovering "the real problem is capitalism" amounted to shrugging one’s shoulders and giving up.

 

In his new movie, Moore’s seeming resignation is captured by his comic exasperation at his final effort to speak directly with the CEO of General Motors and as he engages in the lonely and futile act of streaming yellow "Crime Scene" tape around the headquarters of a leading Wall Street firm. "I can’t keep doing this," Moore says.

 

"ຕົວຈິງແລ້ວ Mike," ຂ້ອຍຄິດກັບຕົວເອງ, "ເຈົ້າອາດຈະຢາກຄິດກ່ຽວກັບວິທີທີ່ເຈົ້າຫາກໍ່ເລີ່ມຕົ້ນໃນເສັ້ນທາງໃຫມ່ທີ່ຍິນດີຕ້ອນຮັບການວິພາກວິຈານຢ່າງຈະແຈ້ງກ່ຽວກັບລະບອບການປົກຄອງຂອງນະຄອນຫຼວງ. ນີ້ແມ່ນສິ່ງໃຫມ່ແລະຕື່ນເຕັ້ນທີ່ຈະເຫັນ, ບໍ່ແມ່ນບໍ? ຂ້ອຍຕ້ອງການຄິດວ່າເຈົ້າກໍາລັງເລີ່ມຕົ້ນໃຫມ່."

 

 

MICHAEL MOORE ແລະ BARACK OBAMA: ເລື່ອງຄວາມຮັກ, ພາກທີ 1: "ຜູ້ຊາຍພິເສດນີ້"

 

ອັນທີສອງ, ສອດຄ່ອງກັບຄວາມສັບສົນທີ່ປາກົດຂື້ນຂອງລາວ (ໃນຕອນທ້າຍຂອງຄໍາຖະແຫຼງທີ່ Toronto ຂອງລາວທີ່ໄດ້ກ່າວມາຂ້າງເທິງ) ລະຫວ່າງການຕໍ່ຕ້ານນາຍທຶນແລະການເປັນ (ພ້ອມກັບ Sean Penn ແລະທ້າຍ Ted Kennedy), ການຕ້ານ Bush, ການເປີດເຜີຍຂອງ Moore ຂອງ "Capitalism: A Love Story "ແມ່ນມາພ້ອມກັບຄວາມແປກປະຫລາດໂດຍການຖະແຫຼງການຕິດກັບປະທານາທິບໍດີ Barack Obama ທີ່ບໍ່ໄດ້ປະຖິ້ມໄວ້ຢ່າງຈະແຈ້ງ, ເຊິ່ງໃນ 9 ເດືອນທໍາອິດຂອງການດຳລົງຕຳແໜ່ງໄດ້ຖືກໝາຍໄວ້ໂດຍການຍອມຈຳນົນຂອງພວກຫົວຮຸນແຮງຕໍ່ Wall Street ແລະ, ດີ, ummm...... ທຶນນິຍົມ.

 

ດັ່ງທີ່ໜັງສືພິມ New York Times ລາຍງານໃນໜ້າທຳອິດຂອງພາກ “ສິລະປະ ແລະ ການພັກຜ່ອນ” ໃນວັນອາທິດທີ່ຜ່ານມາ ເມື່ອວັນທີ 20 ກັນຍາທີ່ຜ່ານມາ^th, "After the screening in Toronto, Mr. Moore took questions from audience members eager to know exactly what they should do. He offered some broad suggestions, stressing that he was worried that Democrats in the United States would begin to abandon Mr. Obama (whom he enthusiastically supports) now that the election is won." [6]

 

This account was consistent with Moore ‘s ringing spring 2008 endorsement of the future president, which mixed up the corporatist Senator from Illinois (see the next section below) with a vast social justice movement and called for a "nation of millions to stand behind" Obama’s supposed effort to seize control of "our government" from "corporate America ." Here’s what Moore wrote on his Web site in the April of 2008:

 

"ມີຜູ້ທີ່ເວົ້າວ່າໂອບາມາບໍ່ພ້ອມ, ຫຼືລາວລົງຄະແນນສຽງຜິດໃນເລື່ອງນີ້ຫຼືສິ່ງນັ້ນ, ແຕ່ວ່າການເບິ່ງຕົ້ນໄມ້ແລະບໍ່ແມ່ນປ່າໄມ້, ສິ່ງທີ່ພວກເຮົາເປັນພະຍານບໍ່ແມ່ນພຽງແຕ່ຜູ້ສະຫມັກເທົ່ານັ້ນແຕ່ເປັນການເຄື່ອນໄຫວສາທາລະນະອັນເລິກເຊິ່ງແລະຂະຫນາດໃຫຍ່ເພື່ອການປ່ຽນແປງ. ການຮັບຮອງຂອງຂ້າພະເຈົ້າແມ່ນຫຼາຍກວ່າສໍາລັບ Obama ການເຄື່ອນໄຫວຫຼາຍກ່ວາມັນແມ່ນສໍາລັບໂອບາມາຜູ້ສະຫມັກ."

 

"That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what’s going on is bigger than him at this point, and that’s a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him." [7]

 

 

ບາຣັກ ໂອບາມາ ແລະ ນະຄອນຫຼວງ: ເລື່ອງຄວາມຮັກ

 

"ຊັບສິນທີ່ຍິ່ງໃຫຍ່ທີ່ສຸດຂອງພວກເຮົາ: "ທຶນນິຍົມ

 

Perhaps the now fully anti-capitalist Moore would like to look back both on the pro-Wall Street policy record of the Obama administration and on Obama’s recurrent campaign statements of "love" for the so-called "free market" (code language for the profits system) and at an interesting passage from the candidate’s 2006 book The Audacity of Hope. One key question addressed in Audacity came straight out of the neoconservative world view: what makes the United States so exceptionally wonderful? To a remarkable extent, Obama found the answer to this nationally narcissistic question in the wise and benevolent leadership of the nation’s great white Founders and subsequent honored policymakers like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and JFK. But Obama also grounded the United States ‘ distinctive greatness in its "free market" capitalist system and "business culture." The American over-class should have been gratified by Obama’s paean to the United States ‘ "free-market" system of (state- and corporate-) capitalism:

 

"Calvin Coolidge once said that "the chief business of the American people is business," and indeed, it would be hard to find a country on earth that’s been more consistently hospitable to the logic of the marketplace. Our Constitution places the ownership of private property at the very heart of our system of liberty. Our religious traditions celebrate the value of hard work and express the conviction that a virtuous life will result in material rewards. Rather than vilify the rich, we hold them up as role models…As Ted Turner famously said, in America money is how we keep score."

 

"The result of this business culture has been a prosperity that’s unmatched in human history. It takes a trip overseas to fully appreciate just how good Americans have it; even our poor take for granted goods and services – electricity, clean water, indoor plumbing, telephones, televisions, and household appliances – that are still unattainable for most of the world. America may have been blessed with some of the planet’s best real estate, but clearly it’s not just our natural resources that account for our economic success. Our greatest asset has been our system of social organization, a system that for generations has encouraged constant innovation, individual initiative and efficient allocation of resources…our free market system."[8]

 

The Audacity of Hope left it to more radically inclined left progressives – characterized by Obama and many of his elite supporters as insufficiently "realistic" and excessively "moral absolutist" carpers, "cranks," "zealots," and "gadflies" (Obama’s insulting description of the revered populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone [9]) – to observe some of the undesirable and less-than-"efficient" outcomes of America’s heavily state-protected "free market system" and "business culture." Those results include the climate-warming contributions of a nation that constitutes 5 percent of the world’s population but contributes more than a quarter of the planet’s carbon emissions. Other notable effects include the generation of poverty for tens of millions of U.S. children while executives atop "defense" firms like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Raytheon rake in billions of taxpayer dollars for helping the United States maintain the deadly and controversial occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan . [10]

 

It was left to insufficiently "pragmatic" Left thinkers and activists to note the American System’s arguably wasteful and destructive allocation of more than a third of the nation’s wealth to the top 1 percent of the U.S. population and its systematic subordination of the common good to private profit.

 

"ບໍ່ມີເຫດຜົນ" "ຮາກ" ໄດ້ຖືກປະໄວ້ເພື່ອສັງເກດເຫັນວ່າສະຖານທີ່ເຮັດວຽກທີ່ປົກຄອງດ້ວຍທຸລະກິດແລະຕະຫຼາດແຮງງານໄດ້ລັກເອົາ "ການລິເລີ່ມສ່ວນບຸກຄົນ" ຈາກຄົນງານຊາວອາເມລິກາຫຼາຍລ້ານຄົນທີ່ຢູ່ພາຍໃຕ້ການຊ້ໍາຊ້ອນຂອງການດໍາເນີນງານທີ່ບໍ່ເຄີຍມີຊີວິດແລະຈິດໃຈທີ່ເກີດຂື້ນເລື້ອຍໆສໍາລັບເວລາທີ່ຍາວນານທີ່ບໍ່ສາມາດທົນໄດ້ - ໃນລະດັບທີ່ຢຸດຕິການໃຫ້ລາງວັນທາງດ້ານວັດຖຸ ແລະຄວາມປອດໄພ – ທີ່ຄົນເຮັດວຽກແມ່ນບໍ່ສາມາດເຂົ້າຮ່ວມຢ່າງມີຄວາມໝາຍໃນ “ປະຊາທິປະໄຕ” ທີ່ຍິ່ງໃຫຍ່ຂອງ Obama trumpets ເປັນມໍລະດົກອັນຍິ່ງໃຫຍ່ຂອງຜູ້ກໍ່ຕັ້ງ.[11] ພວກເຂົາເຈົ້າໄດ້ຖືກປະໄວ້ຍັງ "ຈົ່ມ" ກ່ຽວກັບຄວາມຈິງທີ່ວ່າອັດຕາການເຄື່ອນທີ່ທາງສັງຄົມຂອງສະຫະລັດແມ່ນຂ້ອນຂ້າງຕໍ່າເມື່ອສົມທຽບກັບລັດອຸດສາຫະກໍາຊັ້ນນໍາອື່ນໆ, ເຊິ່ງຊີ້ໃຫ້ເຫັນໂຄງສ້າງຊັ້ນຮຽນທີ່ຂ້ອນຂ້າງຄົງທີ່ໃນ " magical " (ຄໍາອະທິບາຍຂອງໂອບາມາ) ອາເມລິກາ.[12]

 

"ມູນຄ່າເງິນໂດລາຂອງ Starry-Eyed Idealist ແມ່ນຫຍັງ?"

 

Moore might also have consulted Ken Silverstein’s important article "Obama, Inc.," published in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine. Silverstein told the story of Obama’s early vetting by the money and politics class in 2003 and 2004, showing that Obama was found to be an eminently safe candidate for concentrated wealth early at the beginning of his national political career. "On condition of anonymity," Silverstesin reported, "one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a ‘player.’ The lobbyist added: ‘What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?’" [13]

 

ຜູ້ສ້າງຮູບເງົາອາດຈະໄດ້ກວດກາເບິ່ງຄວາມສໍາຄັນໃນຄວາມເລິກກ່ຽວກັບຜູ້ສະຫມັກພິເສດຂອງລາວໃນສະບັບວັນທີ 7 ພຶດສະພາ 2007 ຂອງ The New Yorker. ໃນຮູບແຕ້ມທີ່ຄົ້ນຄວ້າຢ່າງລະມັດລະວັງຂອງໂອບາມາໂດຍອີງໃສ່ການສໍາພາດຢ່າງກວ້າງຂວາງ, ທ່ານ MacFarquhar ພົບວ່າທ່ານໂອບາມາແມ່ນຢູ່ໄກຈາກການເປັນນັກປະຕິຮູບທີ່ຮຸນແຮງເທົ່າທີ່ຄົນເຮົາສາມາດຈິນຕະນາການໄດ້. "ໃນທັດສະນະປະຫວັດສາດຂອງລາວ, ໃນການເຄົາລົບປະເພນີຂອງລາວ, ໃນຄວາມສົງໄສຂອງລາວວ່າໂລກສາມາດປ່ຽນແປງໄດ້ໃນທາງໃດກໍ່ຕາມ, ແຕ່ຊ້າຫຼາຍ, Obama," MacFarquhar ກໍານົດ, "ແມ່ນອະນຸລັກຢ່າງເລິກເຊິ່ງ ... ມັນບໍ່ແມ່ນພຽງແຕ່ວ່າລາວຄິດວ່າການປະຕິວັດແມ່ນເປັນໄປບໍ່ໄດ້. ທ່ານ MacFarquhar ສັງເກດເຫັນວ່າ, ທ່ານ MacFarquhar ສັງເກດເຫັນວ່າ, ທ່ານໂອບາມາກ່າວວ່າບໍລິສັດປະກັນໄພສຸຂະພາບເພື່ອຫວັງຜົນກໍາໄລຂອງສະຫະລັດແມ່ນເລິກເຊິ່ງເກີນໄປ. ຍຶດຫມັ້ນໃຫ້ພວກເຮົາເພື່ອຂັບໄລ່ພວກເຂົາອອກຈາກການຄວບຄຸມທີ່ຄ້າຍຄືກັບ Mafia ຂອງພວກເຂົາໃນອະນາຄົດການດູແລສຸຂະພາບຂອງພວກເຮົາ. ບົດຂຽນຂອງ MacFarquhar ມີຫົວຂໍ້ວ່າ "ຜູ້ປະສານງານ: Barack Obama ມາຈາກໃສ?" [14]

 

"No One Has Asked You to Build a More Just America "

 

If he were to ever undertake a serious investigation of Obama, Moore would find that Obama falls short not just of the filmmaker’s "radical agenda of scrapping capitalism" [15] but also of Moore ‘s earlier Dickensian take [16] on the elite business class. Another key expression of Obama’s desire not to offend the nation’s real power centers was his curious effort to appeal, ala Dickens, to their supposed underlying and far seeing benevolence. In the late summer of 2007, Obama made a revealing statement at the end of a speech that purported to lecture Wall Street’s leaders on their "Common Stake in America ‘s Prosperity." Speaking at NASDAQ’s headquarters, he told the nation’s financial elite that "I believe all of you are as open and willing to listen as anyone else in America . I believe you care about this country and the future we are leaving to the next generation. I believe your work to be a part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America . I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal."[17]

 

These were strange beliefs to (claim to) hold in light of the actual historical pattern of business behavior that naturally results from purpose and structure of the system of private profit. An endless army of nonprofit charities and social service-providers, citizens, environmental and community activists, trade union negotiators, and policymakers has spent decades asking (often enough begging) the "American" corporate and financial capitalist over-class to contribute to the domestic social good – to little or no avail. Moore ‘s pre-"Capitalism" films can be reasonably interpreted as efforts to shame the nation’s corporate and political elite into better, more socially responsible and morally respectable behavior – to play the role of "good rich men" recommended in the novels of Charles Dickens. The positive results of all these institutional efforts and moral haranguing have been (as Moore accurately suggested in Toronto last month) marginal and fleeting as the "business community" works with structurally super-empowered effectiveness to distribute wealth and power ever more upward over and above any considerations of social and environmental health and the common good at home or abroad. Holding no special allegiance to the American people in an age of corporate globalization, the state capitalist elite is more than willing to abandon domestic U.S. society and its workers and communities to enhancing its bottom line.

 

As the founder of the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute Jeff Faux noted in his 2006 book The Global Class War: How America’s Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future and What It Will Take to win it Back, America’s largely business-based and bipartisan "governing class" holds no particular attachment to the people, communities, health, or even competitiveness of the United States per se. "As early as the 1950s," Faux observed, "A Ford Motor executive corrected a U.S. senator who referred to the company as ‘an American firm. We’re an American company when we are in America ,’ he said, ‘and a British company when we are in Britain , and a Brazilian company when we are in Brazil ." Forty years later, Ford Motor Company chief Alex Trotman told Robert Reich that "Ford isn’t even an American company, strictly speaking. We’re global. We’re investing all over the world. Forty percent of our employees already live and work outside the United States , and that’s rising. Our managers are multinational. We teach them to think and act globally."[18] General Motors’ and Chrysler’s executives didn’t and don’t think any differently.

 

"ຂ້ອຍຮັກຕະຫຼາດ"

 

ໃນລະຫວ່າງການໂຄສະນາຫາສຽງຂອງປະທານາທິບໍດີ, ຄາດວ່າ (ດັ່ງນັ້ນເຄື່ອງສຽງປີກຂວາຂອງພັກຣີພັບບລີກັນໄດ້ອ້າງຕາມພິທີການແລະທາງສາສະ ໜາ) "ໂອບາມາຝ່າຍຊ້າຍ radical." ຜູ້ຊາຍຕະຫຼາດເສລີ. ຂ້ອຍຮັກຕະຫຼາດ." [19] ທີ່ຢູ່ເບື້ອງຕົ້ນຂອງລາວໄດ້ປະກາດວ່າ "ຄໍາຖາມ" ຂອງ "ຕະຫຼາດເປັນກໍາລັງສໍາລັບຄວາມດີຫຼືເຈັບປ່ວຍ" ບໍ່ແມ່ນການໂຕ້ວາທີ. "ອໍານາດຂອງຕົນໃນການສ້າງຄວາມຮັ່ງມີແລະຂະຫຍາຍເສລີພາບ," ລາວປະກາດວ່າ, "ແມ່ນບໍ່ມີໃຜທຽບເທົ່າ." [20]

 

ຂ້າ​ພະ​ເຈົ້າ​ແລະ​ຜູ້​ອື່ນໆ​ອີກ​ຫຼາຍ​ຄົນ​ໃນ​ຕົວ​ຈິງ, ຊ້າຍ​ເບິ່ງ​ບໍ່​ເຫັນ​ຢ່າງ​ເປັນ​ທາງ​ການ​ເຫັນ​ດີ​ກັບ Laurence Shoup, ຜູ້​ທີ່​ສັງ​ເກດ​ເຫັນ​ໃນ​ລະ​ດູ​ຮ້ອນ​ຂອງ 2008 ວ່າ​ການ​ໂຄ​ສະ​ນາ​ຂອງ​ໂອ​ບາ​ມາ​ຂອງ "ຮັກ" ສໍາ​ລັບ​ຕະ​ຫຼາດ "ບໍ່​ສໍາ​ເລັດ​ທີ່​ຈະ​ສັງ​ເກດ​ວ່າ​ຕະ​ຫຼາດ​ຮັກ​ແລະ​ໃຫ້​ລາງ​ວັນ​ຜູ້​ທີ່​ມີ​ເງິນ. ແລະອໍານາດ, ບໍ່ແມ່ນຜູ້ທີ່ຂາດຂໍ້ໄດ້ປຽບເຫຼົ່ານີ້, ການເວົ້າວ່າທ່ານ 'ຮັກຕະຫຼາດ' ແມ່ນຄ້າຍຄືກັນ, Shoup ສັງເກດເຫັນ, "ການເວົ້າວ່າທ່ານຮັກຊົນຊັ້ນປົກຄອງ (ສູງສຸດ 1 ສ່ວນຮ້ອຍຂອງປະຊາກອນທີ່ຄວບຄຸມ 20 ສ່ວນຮ້ອຍຂອງລາຍໄດ້ຂອງປະເທດ. ແລະເກືອບ 40 ເປີເຊັນຂອງຄວາມຮັ່ງມີຂອງປະເທດ) ແລະບໍ່ສົນໃຈກັບຄົນສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ (60 ເປີເຊັນຂອງປະຊາກອນທີ່ຄວບຄຸມພຽງແຕ່ 25 ເປີເຊັນຂອງລາຍໄດ້ແລະ 5 ເປີເຊັນຂອງຄວາມຮັ່ງມີ). ເວລາທີ່ລະບົບການເງິນກໍາລັງເສື່ອມໂຊມຍ້ອນການຂີ້ຕົວະຫຼາຍສິບປີກ່ຽວກັບການຕະຫຼາດທີ່ບໍ່ມີການຄວບຄຸມທີ່ຍິ່ງໃຫຍ່ທີ່ເຮັດໃຫ້ເກີດການຄາດເດົາທີ່ຮຸນແຮງ, ການປະເມີນມູນຄ່າທີ່ຫຼອກລວງ, ແລະການຮັບປະກັນການຫຼອກລວງ - ແມ່ນການຫູຫນວກກັບຄວາມເປັນຈິງຂອງຜົນປະໂຫຍດທີ່ມີອໍານາດຂອງລັດຖະບານຖືກປົກປ້ອງໃນຂະນະທີ່ທຸກຄົນໄດ້ຮັບ. ບົດບັນຍາຍກ່ຽວກັບຄວາມຮັບຜິດຊອບສ່ວນຕົວ. 'ການ​ປ່ຽນ​ແປງ​ທີ່​ພວກ​ເຮົາ​ສາ​ມາດ​ເຊື່ອ​ໃນ,' ຈະ​ມີ​ສ່ວນ​ຮ່ວມ​ໃນ​ການ​ປະ​ເຊີນ​ຫນ້າ​ກັບ perversity ຂອງ​ຕະ​ຫຼາດ​ທີ່​ຂັບ​ເຄື່ອນ​ທຶນ​ນິຍົມ ... . " [22​]

 

ອຸດົມການການຂະຫຍາຍຕົວ

 

ໂດຍການເຊື່ອມຕໍ່ "ຄວາມຮັກ" ຂອງລາວສໍາລັບ "ຕະຫຼາດ" ກັບ "ການຂະຫຍາຍຕົວທີ່ສົ່ງເສີມ", ທ່ານໂອບາມາໄດ້ເຂົ້າຂ້າງກັບທັດສະນະຄະຕິທາງດ້ານນິເວດວິທະຍາແລະສັງຄົມທີ່ມີມາດົນນານຂອງລັດວິສາຫະກິດທີ່ວ່າການແກ້ໄຂບັນຫາຄວາມຫຍຸ້ງຍາກໃນປະຈຸບັນແມ່ນການຂະຫຍາຍທາງດ້ານວັດຖຸບໍ່ແມ່ນການແຈກຢາຍຄືນໃຫມ່ຂອງຄວາມຮັ່ງມີແລະອໍານາດ. "ນ້ໍາທີ່ເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນເຮັດໃຫ້ເຮືອທັງຫມົດ," ມາດຕະຖານສູງສຸດຂອງຕາເວັນຕົກຮັກສາ, ເຮັດໃຫ້ການປຽບທຽບ "ໃຈຮ້າຍ" ລະຫວ່າງ yachts ຂອງ Few ແລະ rowboats ຂອງຈໍານວນຫຼາຍລ້າສະໄຫມ. "ການຂະຫຍາຍ pie," ປັນຍາຂອງບໍລິສັດທີ່ປົກຄອງ, ຍົກເລີກຄໍາຖາມທີ່ບໍ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງຂອງການແຈກຢາຍຄືນໃຫມ່ຂອງເສດຖະກິດສັງຄົມ - ຂອງວິທີການແບ່ງປັນ pie. "ເພື່ອຫລົບຫນີການປະເມີນຄືນໃຫມ່," ນັກຂຽນນິເວດວິທະຍາຂອງຝຣັ່ງທ່ານ Herve Kempf ສັງເກດເຫັນ, "ພວກ oligarchy ສືບຕໍ່ເຮັດຊ້ໍາອີກອຸດົມການທີ່ເດັ່ນຊັດໂດຍວິທີການແກ້ໄຂວິກິດການສັງຄົມແມ່ນການເຕີບໃຫຍ່ຂອງການຜະລິດ. ນີ້ແມ່ນວິທີດຽວທີ່ຈະຕໍ່ສູ້ກັບຄວາມທຸກຍາກແລະການຫວ່າງງານ."

 

ຂໍ້​ມູນ​ທີ່​ອຸດົມສົມບູນ​ໃນ​ສາມ​ທົດ​ສະ​ວັດ​ເຄິ່ງ​ທີ່​ຜ່ານ​ມາ​ສະ​ແດງ​ໃຫ້​ເຫັນ​ວ່າ​ການ​ເຕີບ​ໂຕ​ທາງ​ເສດຖະກິດ​ບໍ່​ສາມາດ​ແກ້​ໄຂ​ຄວາມ​ຊົ່ວ​ຮ້າຍ​ເຫຼົ່າ​ນັ້ນ​ແລະ​ສັງຄົມ​ອື່ນໆ​ໄດ້. ແຕ່ແນວຄິດທີ່ວ່າການຂະຫຍາຍຕົວທາງດ້ານວັດຖຸແມ່ນຄໍາຕອບທີ່ມີຊີວິດຢູ່ເພາະວ່າມັນເຮັດໃຫ້ສັງຄົມທີ່ເກີດຄວາມທຸກຍາກແລະຄວາມອຶດອັດທີ່ມີໂຄງສ້າງ "ຍອມຮັບຄວາມບໍ່ສະເຫມີພາບທີ່ຮຸນແຮງໂດຍບໍ່ມີການຕັ້ງຄໍາຖາມ."

 

ນອກເຫນືອຈາກການສະແດງອອກຢ່າງບໍ່ຖືກຕ້ອງໃນຂໍ້ກໍານົດຂອງຕົນເອງ, ນອກຈາກນັ້ນ, ຄໍາສອນຂອງການປົກຄອງບໍ່ສົນໃຈ nega ຍັກໃຫຍ່ຂອງການຂະຫຍາຍຕົວ.

---