Until people understand that the system is not something we can moralize, we will not be able to initiate any positive change.
The denunciation of the "banksters" who, as agents "close" to the system enjoy substantial advantages, leads to criticism in the moral field and it is a very bad plan since, at the same time, it justifies their conduct (because this judgment arises from mimetic desire).
Likewise, the idea that the state could "regulate" finance is an absurdity in itself. When the states bailed out the banks after the subprime crisis, on the contrary, they sent them a strong signal to persevere in risk-taking (privatization of gains-pooling of losses!).
Most of the social struggles are based on the maintenance of growth.
The idea is not to fight the system, but to beg the system to stay within it ...
In fact, the challenge is only immanent ... ; this is why it is strictly conservative and cannot lead to anything new, at most small adjustments that are always called into question. To imagine a real rupture, therefore a radical rupture, supposes to be situated outside these ultra marked conflicting debates between “social partners” (name which says well what it means).