Suchergebnisse

Professors Dye and Zeigler (D&Z) take the easy way out. They invite the reader to think of their present critic as one of those "academic Marxists" in the grip of a "secular religion" "insulated from world events, spinning out theoretical webs." This approach enables them to rest secure in their ideological assumption that, while their critic is a hopeless ideologue, they themselves are value-free social scientists arguing closely from evidence.Yet they continue to ignore evidence they do not find agreeable agreeable—as with the numerous examples of capitalist militarism and aggression I proffered. I noted other variables that could measure militarism, including treaties, overseas bases, striking power, mobility, levels of technology, etc. Given this opportunity to respond to these specifics, D&Z choose not to. One is tempted to conclude that they fail to answer because they have no answers.

In the December 1989 issue of PS, Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler argue that socialist nations are inherently more militaristic than capitalist ones because they are "driven by the bureaucratic imperatives of a society organized on collective coercive principles." In contrast, "capitalist states, whether authoritarian or democratic, rely principally upon markets to organize societal activity. Markets organize people for private enterprise and rely upon voluntary exchange to carry on these enterprises" therefore, capitalist nations are inherently less militaristic (Dye and Zeigler 1989: 812). Below are some major differences I have with their position.

Critiques the premises behind the movement to legalize narcotics and the Reagan and Bush "drug war" efforts.