Can Democracy Survive Capitalism’s Erosion? A Comment on Erik … · 2019-09-27 · Mudge 9/2019,...

Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation

1

CanDemocracySurviveCapitalism’sErosion?ACommentonErikOlinWright

StephanieL.MudgeSeptember27,2019

DRAFTpaperpresentedat“HowToBeAnAnti-Capitalistinthe21stCentury:AOne-DayConferenceinMemoryofErikOlinWright,”9/26/2019.

Wordcount:7,077

Commentswelcome:mudge@ucdavis.eduAbstractThispapercelebratesthememoryofErikOlinWrightviaanextendedcriticalengagementwithhisfinalwork,HowToBeAnAnti-Capitalistinthe21stCentury.ThroughacomparisonofWright’sandWolfgangStreeck’sanalysesonmattersofcapitalism,crisisandthestate,andcollectiveactionIhighlightthat,despiteasharedconcernwithhowcapitalismshapeshuman abilities for building and enacting anti-capitalist strategic political movements(either by sapping or inadvertently cultivating it), neither analysis gives a satisfactoryaccountoftheformationofhistoricalpersons—nor,indeed,fortheexistenceoftheoristslikethemselves. Instead,basedonmacro-theoreticalanalysesandbroadhistoricalknowledgebothinfercertainkindsofactors:hopelessself-medicatingworker-consumersforStreeck;partially-embedded human repositories of values, beliefs, and identities, whose anti-capitalistimpulsescanbehonedbywayofstrategicanti-capitalisttheory,forWright.Thesharedproblemofassumingthenatureofthecapitalistsubject,Iargue,isentirelyresolvablebymakingitanempiricalmatter,accessibleviaa longlineofsociologicalthinkingthat isconcernedwiththehistoricalconditionsofcriticalreason.Byincorporatingtheseconcernsintothenormalmethodologicalpracticesandorientationsofsociologicalpoliticaleconomy,Iargue,thereisthepossibilityofbridgingWright’sfuture-orientedoptimismwithStreeck’spessimistichistoryofthepresent.


2

CanDemocracySurviveCapitalism’sErosion?Erik Olin Wright’sHow to be an Anti-Capitalist in the 21st Century offers a refreshingly

optimistic take on future possibilities in a moment that is otherwise saturated with

foreboding.Ratherthansuccumbingto“gloomanddoom”Wrightimaginedasocietalorder

founded in equality and fairness, meaningful democratic freedom, and cooperative

solidarity,makingthecasethatabetterworldispossible—and,moreimportantly,plausible.

InhisfinalworkWrightfocusedhisenergiesonthequestionofthe“vehicle,”orgettingfrom

here to there, advancing a strategic theory of “eroding capitalism” via a combination of

resistance,avoidance,andhead-onpursuitoflegislativeandpoliticalpower.

Andyet,thoughWright’soptimismisheartening,hisfinalworkismoresketchthan

history; itdoesnotdwell inanygreatdetailonourcurrentpredicament.Herewemight

contrastWright’sutopianoptimismwiththedecidedlydarkerandmoredeeplyhistorical

analysis ofWolfgang Streeck, who argues that a world of accelerating finance-saturated

globalcapitalismanddecliningdebt-cum-consolidationWesternstatesaddsuptoastateof

indeterminate decline that exceeds the analytical capacities of sociological theories. In

Streeck’swords,“unexpectedthingscanhappenanytime.”Streeck’sanalysiscanbereadas

arefutationofboththeletterandthespiritoftheWrightiantake—thatis,ofitsanalysis(the

letter)aswellastheverynotionthattheoretically-informedsociologicalpoliticaleconomy

is able to contribute to transformational projects (the spirit). In Streeck’s view, future

possibilities are bothwide open and negatively skewed; theymay include capitalism or

democracybutnotboth(ormaybeneither);thechanceofasocialistfuture,ifnotforeclosed,


3

isexceedinglydim.AssumingthatStreeck’shistoricalanalysisisbroadlycorrect1wemight

ask, then, whether the political-economic ‘game’ is, in ElizabethWarren’s favorite term,

“rigged”suchthat“erodingcapitalism”—which,intheUnitedStates,onecouldsayisalready

underwayinsomecorners—ismorelikelythannottoculminateinsomethingentirelyless

desirable thandemocratically-grounded emancipatory socialism thatwill remainbeyond

ourgraspuntilitisuponus.

InthespiritofWrightianoptimism,however,wecannotbecontenttoleaveitatthat.

ThroughacomparisonofWright’sandStreeck’sanalysesonmattersofcapitalism,crisisand

thestate,andcollectiveactionIhighlightthat,despiteasharedconcernwithhowcapitalism

shapeshumancapacitiesforcriticalreasonand,byextension,buildingandenactinganti-

capitalist strategic political movements (either by sapping [Streeck] or inadvertently

cultivatingit[Wright]),neitheranalysispassesthelitmustestlearnedbygraduatestudents

intheirfirstsociologicaltheorycourses:thereisnosatisfactoryaccountoftheexistenceof

thetheorist—that is,ofthemselves.Themoregeneralcriticismhere istheabsenceofany

sustained theory of themaking of definite historical actors, anti-capitalist or otherwise.

Instead,basedonmacro-theoreticalanalysesandbroadhistoricalknowledge(and,nodoubt,

personalexperience),both infercertainkindsofactors:hopelessself-medicatingworker-

consumers for Streeck; partially-embedded human repositories of values, beliefs, and

identitieswhose anti-capitalist impulses can be honed byway of strategic anti-capitalist

theory,forWright.

1 This is a big assumption; Streeck’s analysis has attracted criticism on various fronts. A recent article inHistoricalMaterialismbyJeromeRoosoftheLSEcharacterizesStreeck’stakeasan“exceedinglycatastrophistworldview,devoidofanyemancipatorypotential” that,with itsemphasison thenation-stateasabulwarkagainsttheever-deeperencroachmentsofmarketsociety,veers“dangerouslyclosetothewelfarechauvinismof thenationalistright”(Roos2019,248;seealsoTooze2019). Ihavemyown,verydifferent,criticisms—elaboratedbelow.


4

Thissharedproblem,Iargue,pointstoameansofbridgingWright’sfuture-oriented

optimismwithStreeck’spessimistichistoryof thepresent.Becausemanysocial theorists

havetakenuptheproblemofthemakingofcertainkindsofhistoricalpersons,practices,and

action-orientations—an incomplete list would include Marx,Weber, Durkheim, Du Bois,

Mead,Dewey,Cooper,Gramsci,Fanon,deBeauvoir,Bourdieu,andmoreorlessthewholeof

feminist,postcolonialandcriticalracetheory—italsopointsthewaytoaneededcorrective

toStreeck’stroublingcontentionthatsociologicaltheoryisrenderedhelplessinthefaceof

crisis-ladenindeterminacy.Inshort,myoverarchingclaimisthat,iftheaimisaneleventh-

thesiskindoftheory—thatis,anassessmentofthepresentinlightofthepastcapableof

addressing the strategic question of what is to be done—then the practice of political

economyneedstoincorporateameaningfulanalysisoftheconditionsof(im)possibilityof

transformativesocialactors.

Theletter:WrightvsStreeck—or,will“erosion”leadtosocialism?

Streeck’srecentwork—includingespeciallyHowWillCapitalismEnd?(2016[2017]2)and

BuyingTime:TheDelayedCrisisofDemocraticCapitalism(2013[2017])—canbereadasa

refutationofboththeletterandthespiritofWrightianoptimism.InthissectionIfocuson

theletter.Inparticular,IworkthroughacontrastofWrightandStreeck’sviewsofcapitalism,

crisisandthestate,andcollectiveactiontoarriveatacrucialquestion:whether“eroding

capitalism”maykillthe(alreadyill)democraticpatient, leaddownapathotherthanthat

Wrightenvisioned—onethatmaybeentirelylessdesirablethanademocratically-grounded,

emancipatory socialism.However, lackingany sustained theoryof themakingofdefinite

2HowWillCapitalismEnd?featuresworkpublishedbetween2011and2015.


5

historicalactors(anti-capitalist,democratic,socialist,orotherwise—allofwhich,wemight

note,canbefoundincontemporarytheworld),despiteasharedemphasisonthecentrality

ofhumancapacityforstrategiccollectiveaction,andnoshortageoftheoriesoftheformation

of different sorts of historical persons, neither perspective is capable of answering this

question.

Capitalism

Wright defines capitalism as a two-fold “form of social organization” defined by “a class

structurecharacterizedbyprivateownershipof themeansofproduction” inwhichmost

peoplegetby“sellingtheirlaboronalabormarket”andamodeof“economiccoordination

organized through decentralized market exchange” (Wright 2006, 100). Two hallmarks,

“poverty in themidst of plenty” and environmental destruction, are among its “gravest”

failings (Wright 2018, 1). Prioritizing future-oriented normative critique over the more

conventionalMarxianconcernwithstructuralcontradictionsandthesupposednecessities

thereof,Wrightmakes the case that our startingpoint shouldnotbewhether things are

betterinacapitalistorderoverthe“longrun”butrather,lookingforwardfromthepresent,

whetheranalternativeeconomywould“bebetterformostpeople”(ibid).

Wright’snotionofcapitalismasaclassstructureplusmarketcoordinationcontrasts

withStreeck’sdynamic,sociological,“progressive”conceptionof“capitalistsociety”:

… “a ‘progressive society’ in the sense of Adam Smith and the enlightenment… that has

coupled its ‘progress’ to the continuous and unlimited production and accumulation of

productive capital, effected through a conversion, by means of the invisible hand of the


6

marketandthevisiblehandofthestate,oftheprivateviceofmaterialgreedintoapublic

benefit(Streeck2016,1-2).

Streeck focuses on capitalism’s mode of self-legitimation, dependencies, and internal

contradictions: capitalism legitimates itself via unsustainable promises about the future

(“infinitegrowthofcommodifiedmaterialwealthinafiniteworld”),achievableintheshort-

to-mediumtermonlybypiggybackingon“modernscienceandtechnology”andpushingfor

thecontinuous“expansionoffree,inthesenseofcontestable,riskymarkets”andriding“on

thecoat-tailsofahegemoniccarrierstateanditsmarket-openingpoliciesbothdomestically

andinternationally”(Streeck2016,1-2).

Streeck’snotionofcapitalismisfarmoretotalthanWright’s.Morethananeconomic

systemandaclassstructure,forStreeckcapitalismisanall-encompassingdynamicsocio-

cultural-political-economic-technological order. Streeck concurswithWright’s normative

assessmentofcapitalism’smostcriticalproblems:theconcentrationofownership(backed

by[capitalists’]propertyrights);thepowerlessnessofthemajorityofuswhomustworkat

themercyofprivateownersofcapital(Streeck2016,1-2).ButunlikeWright’sselectiveand

(very)structuralnotionofwhatlieswithinthecategory“capitalism”andwhatliesbeyond

it, for Streeck capitalism both exists ‘out there’ and reaches into the core of experience,

feeling,andbelief—by,forinstance,convertingour“ever-presentfearofbeingcutoutofthe

productiveprocess”intoa“beliefinthelegitimacyofcapitalismasasocialorder”andmaking

“insecureworkers” into “confident consumers” (Streeck2016,2).HereStreeckveers inan

almostFoucaultiandirectioninwhichcapitalistlogicsbegetthoroughlycapitalistsubjects,

their faith in capitalism impervious to experience, whose daily lives are organized by


7

individualized consumption (“shopping”), staving off despair (“coping”), self-help

(“hoping”),andself-medication(“doping”).

Insum,thoughneitherusethevariousconceptswehavethatsensitizeustomatters

of practice and practical reason, Wright’s and Streeck’s notions of capitalism are

distinguishedbyverydifferentnotionsofthehabits,styles,anddispositionsthatcapitalism

cultivates—thatis,inBourdieusianterms,thehabitusofthecapitalistsubject.Thedistinction

betweenthetwothinkersonthisquestionroughlyparallelsGranovetter’s(1985)contrast

betweentheundersocializedandoversocializedsocialactor,andmightbesummarizedthus:

forWrightcapitalismisasetofstructuresthatwelivein/under,butisnotconstitutiveof

whoweareorourvaluesandbeliefsinafundamentalway(except,perhaps,byprompting

themakingof anti-capitalists—onwhichmore later); for Streeck the capitalist subject is

constitutedinandthroughcapitalistprocesses,renderingthemunabletothinkoutsideor

againstthem.Theseopposingviews,aswewillsee, informbothauthors’perspectiveson

crisis,thestate,andstrategicaction.

Crisisandthestate

Viewing today’s financialized democracy as a technocraticmirage, for Streeck capitalism

remains—asever—aconstitutionallycrisis-riddenorderpronetoself-destruction(Streeck

2016,2).This,andthewayinwhichcrisisisinternalizedandprocessedbythestate,sitsat

the crux of Streeck’swhole analysis—amode of thinking that he traces to a long line of

figuresincludingnotonlyMarxbutalsoKeynes,Polanyi,Ricardo,Mill,Sombart,Hilferding,

Schumpeter,Luxemburg,Kondratieff,Hayek,andWeber.“Thefactthatcapitalismhas,until

now,managedtooutliveallpredictionsofitsimpendingdeath,”heargues,“neednotmean


8

thatitwillforeverbeabletodoso”(Streeck2016,3-4).Norneedcrisiscomeintheformof

adramaticordecisiveevent;ifanything,crisisismorelikeaconditionorasyndromethat

makesthestateterminallyill,evenifitdoesn’tknowityet.

What characterizes the current crisis for Streeck? Taking the Schumpeter-

Goldscheid-O’Connornotionofthe“taxstate”asastartingpoint,Streeck’sgeneralstoryisof

a cycle inwhich crisis-induced political-social settlements (a certain formof the state; a

certainmodeof cultural legitimation),orequilibria,produceneweconomicdisequilibria,

whichthendestabilizethepoliticalorder,producingnewsettlementsandnewdisequilibria

…andsoforth(Streeck2013[2017],xix).Thusfromtheinflation-inducedruinsofthe“tax

state” emerges the “debt state” (on the public side) and the expansion of credit (on the

privateside);this, inturn,pushesthetaxstatebeyondthelimitsofitsextractivepowers,

leadingusintothenext,drawnoutbuteventuallyfatal,phase:

Could itnotbe that thestubbornlyrisingstatedebt isseeking to tellus that theneed for

collectiveinvestmentandcollectiveconsumptionhasgrownbeyondwhatademocratictax

statecanmanage…toconfiscatefromitspropertiedcitizensandorganizations…(Streeck

2013[2017],xx-xxi)?

Capitalismtodayexhibits,inStreeck’sview,astateofpervasivecrisis:“multi-morbidity in

whichdifferentdisorderscoexistand,moreoftenthannot,reinforceeachother.”Nothing—

not“pluralism,regionaldiversityandunevendevelopment,politicalreform,orindependent

crisiscycles”—cansaveit(Streeck2016,13).

Consistentwithhisnotionofthecapitalism-saturatedmodernsubject—but,itwould

seem,withlittleconsiderationofhowsuchanotioncanbereconciledwithhisownexistence

or practical commitments—Streeck suggests that sociologically-informed transformative


9

theorizing has met its match. A crisis of contemporary capitalism that has the special

character of “deep indeterminacy” renders “traditional” sociological theories helpless.

“Knowledgeableobserverscanlegitimatelydisagreeonwhatwillhappen,”but“long-valid

causalrelations…becomehistoricallyobsolete”(Streeck2016,12,emphasesaddedinthe

latterquote).Asociologicaldarkage is, inStreeck’sview, “aresult,butalsoacause,ofa

destructionofcollectiveagency”(Streeck2016,12).

Unsurprisingly Streeck’s views on crisis and the state bear little resemblance to

Wright’s.Forreasonsthatarenotspelledoutinhisfinalwork,Wrightessentiallydismisses

Marxiancrisistheory—thatis,thewholeunderpinningofStreeck’sanalysis—inHowToBe

AnAnti-Capitalist.Thisisconsistentwithearlierwork,includinga2006pieceintheNewLeft

ReviewinwhichWrightdeclaredthattheclaimsthat“capitalismnecessarilydestroysitself

andwillthereforeneedtobereplacedbysomealternative,”andthatitexhibitsa“systematic

tendency for crises to intensify over time,” rest on “questionable theoretical grounds”

(Wright2006,103).Wright’s finalwork indicates that, even in theunstablepolitical and

economic aftermath of the financial crisis, he continued to attach little value to the

deterministic notion that capitalism’s internal contradictionsusher in “intensifying crisis

anddecline”(Wright2006,102).

TheWrightian state, by (sharp) contrast, mainly appears as one of two strategic

problems inHowToBeAnAnti-Capitalist (the other is collective action): a host through

whichcapitalistinstitutionscanbechippedawayfromtheinside,allwithintheframework

ofexistingdemocratic institutions including,especially,politicalparties.Totheargument

that the capitalist, tax-dependent, elite-oriented,privateproperty-basedstate can’tbean

instrumentoferosion,Wrightresponds thatstates’variablepathsofhistorical formation


10

adduptoimportantvariationsintheirdegreeofcapitalist-ness(Wright2018,45-6).3While

Streeckappears tohavegivenuponpoliticalparties (or, at least, theydonotattracthis

explicit analytical attention4),Wright sees democratic institutions and practices as non-

capitalist(ormaybenon-necessarily-capitalist)intra-statespaces.Andsothe

more robustly democratic are the forms of decision-making and accountability, the less

purely capitalist is the class character of a state apparatus. Even ordinary parliamentary

democracyhasalwayshadacontradictoryclasscharacter:whileitmaybetruethattherules-

of-the-gameofelectoraldemocracyhavethegeneraleffectofconstrainingandtamingclass

strugglesoverthestateinwaysthatsupportcapitalistdominance,itisalsotruethattothe

extentthatelectionsinvolverealdemocraticcompetition,theyintroducepotentialtensions

anduncertaintiesintheclasscharacteroflegislativebodies(Wright2018,47).

Theupshot,echoingBernieSandersandtheDemocraticSocialistsofAmerica(DSA),isthat

the strengthening and revitalizing democracy on all levels, and especially local levels, is

equivalenttodilutingthecapitalistcharacterofthestate(Wright2018,47).

Wright also emphasizes the state’s contradictory and contested functions (Wright

2018,47).HehasnouseforStreeck’slanguageof“equilibrium”onmattersofthestate;he

findsnobasisforalogicofeventemporarystasisbecause(asStreeckalsosays)asolution

toanygivenproblemimmediatelycreatesorintensifiesothers.Wrightthennotesthatthe

capitaliststate’sconstantfluxcreatestemporalinconsistencies:“short-termeffectsofstate

actions,” but “long-run dynamic consequences” (Wright 2018, 48). These longer-run

3[NotehereStreeck’scommentaryonthereconcilabilitypastemphasesonthe‘varietiesofcapitalism’andhismoreglobalandunifiednotionofcapitalisminrecentyears,explainedinBuyingTime.]4ForoneaccountofStreeck’spoliticalandintellectualtrajectory,seeRoos2019.Iwillsimplynoteherethatthis account falls short ofwhat I have inmindas far as apolitical economy that attends, as anormal andnecessarypartofitsanalyticalpractice,tothebiographicaltrajectoriesandinstitutionalformationofhistoricalactors,includingfigureslikeStreeckhimself.IaddresswhatIdohaveinmind,albeitpartially,furtherbelow;seeMudge2018a,2018bforfurtherelaboration.


11

dynamicsareimportantstrategicallybecause,“[s]ometimes”they“becomerealthreatsto

theexistingstructuresofpower”(Wright2018,48).

Wright’s key example in this regard is thehistory of social democracy (onwhich,

becauseIplantorevisitthispartofhisthinkingasIcontinuetodevelopthisportionofthe

paperwithreferencespecialtomyrecentbookoncenter-leftpartiesandneoliberalpolitics

[Mudge2018],Iwillquotehimatlength):

[I]nthemiddleofthetwentiethcenturythecapitaliststatefacilitatedthegrowthofavibrant

public sector andpublic regulationof capitalismassociatedwith social democracy. Social

democracy helped solve a series of problemswithin capitalism commonly referred to as

“market failures”: insufficient aggregate demand to provide robustmarkets for capitalist

production;destructivevolatilityinfinancialmarkets;inadequatepublicgoodstoprovidefor

the stable reproduction of labor; and so on. In helping to solve these problems, social

democracy strengthened capitalism; but, crucially, it did so while at the same time it

expanded the space for various socialist elements in the economic ecosystem: thepartial

decommodification of labor power through state provision of significant components of

workers’ material conditions of life; the increase in working class social power within

capitalistfirmsandthelabormarketthroughfavorablelaborlaws;andthedeepeningofthe

administrativecapacityofthestatetoimposeeffectiveregulationofcapitaltodealwiththe

most serious negative externalities of the behavior of investors and firms in capitalist

markets (pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, market

volatility,etc.).Theshort-run,practicalsolutionsembodiedprinciplesthathadthepotential

in the long-term to weaken the dominance of capitalism. Many capitalistsmay not have

embracedthesestateinitiativesandevenfeltthreatenedbythem,butthesocialdemocratic

statedidhelpsolvepracticalproblemsandthereforewastolerated(Wright2018,48-9).


12

IntruePolanyianstyle,Wrightthensituatesthehistoricaleffectsofsocialdemocracyinstate

formationasprimarycausesofa“neoliberal”counter-movement:

…itispreciselythepropertyofsocialdemocraticinitiativestoexpandinwaysthatencroach

oncapitalism thateventually lead to theattackson the socialdemocratic stateunder the

bannerofneoliberalism.Ascapitalistsandtheirpoliticalalliescameincreasinglytoseethe

expansive state as creating progressively suboptimal conditions for capital accumulation,

theywaitedforthepoliticalopportunitytolaunchanoffensiveagainsttheaffirmativestate

(Wright2018,49).5

Andyet,astoday’scracksinneoliberalhegemonydulyattest, itdidnotamounttoatotal

erasureofnon-oranti-capitalistpossibilities.Here,however,Wrightseemstowaveronthe

matterofpervasivecrisis—or,atleast,asensethereof:

Neoliberalismmayhavebeenfairlysuccessfulindismantling,tovaryingdegrees,thesocialist

elementswithin the late 20th century capitalist state and the capitalist economy inmost

capitalistsocieties,butitcertainlyhasnotbeenabletoeliminatethecontradictorypressures

onthestateortheinternalcontradictionsinitspoliticalstructures.Inthefirstdecadesofthe

21stcenturythesecontradictionshavebecomeacute,generatingapervasivesenseofcrisis

withinboththeeconomyandthestate(Wright2018,49).

Wright’sanalysisthusreturns,despitehisdismissalofcrisistheory,tothequestionofthe

characterofthecurrentcrisis.

How do we evaluate whether anti-democratic, authoritarian, populist turns, the

remakingofAmericanRepublicanismunderthecurrentadministration,thereturnoflabor

unrest and mass public protest, geopolitical instability, and constant indications of an

5SeeHarvey2005forasimilartake.Foracriticalperspectiveonunderstandingsofneoliberalismasaclassproject,seeMudge2008,2017,2018a.


13

acceleratingofdescentintoanecologicalabyssshouldallbereadasStreeckian“unexpected

things,”asopposed towhatWrightseesasopenings forstrategic intervention?Streeck’s

analysisofthedebtstateasaservantofacosmopolitanfinancialelites,orwhatSandyBrian

Hager calls “the bondholder class” (Hager 2016), as opposed to non-cosmopolitan,

nationally-centered,wage-earningandindebteddemocraticconstituencies,hasarelentless

(andrelentlesslydepressing)logic.OnecancriticizeStreeck’sconceptualterminology(eg,

Tooze2019)ortheuncomfortablepoliticalimplicationsofhisanalysis(eg,Roos2019)but,

foranyonewhohasreadMarxorknowsabitofeconomichistory (orsimplychecks the

news), one can’t help but sympathizewith Streeck’s story of aworld that appears to be

teeteringontheedge.

OnafirstreadingoneisthustemptedtodismissWright’sdismissalofcrisistheory.

And yet there is a non-totalizing impulse inWright’s understanding of capitalism that is

appealingly correct. “No economy has ever been – or ever could be – purely capitalist,”

Wrightnotes;inanyotherwisecapitalistordertherearenon-marketformsofexchangeand

non-wage- and labor market-based forms of work. Wright points to state-directed

production and distribution, families and communities, cooperatives and non-profits as

“hybrids,combiningcapitalistandnon-capitalistelements.”“[I]nrealeconomicsystems,”he

notes,“avarietyofdifferentgamesarebeingplayedsimultaneously,eachwiththeirown

rulesandmoves”;capitalismmaybe“dominant,”butitisnevertotal(Wright2018,26).This,

then,helpstoaccountforthehistoricalemergenceofavarietyofanti-capitaliststrategies:

“smashing capitalism,dismantling capitalism, taming capitalism, resisting capitalism, and

escapingcapitalism”(Wright2018,17).“Erosion,”Wrightargues,isthestrategybest-suited

tothemoment.


14

Andsointheend,whereStreeckseescapitalistpathologiesWrightsaw“spacesand

cracks” in a “complex system” filled with “more democratic, egalitarian, participatory”

potential. Globalwarmingbecomes “grounds for optimism”because it signals thedeath-

knell of neoliberalism (“The market is simply not going to build sea walls to protect

Manhattan”);theriseofprecariousemploymentandthethreatoftechnologically-induced

massunemploymentmeantheexpansionofstateprojectsandtheprospectofstate-funded

employment;proposalslikeUBIareameanstoerosion(Wright2018,49-51).Thisglass-

half-fullviewpointisthebeatingheartofWright’s“erosion”theoryofanti-capitaliststrategy:

Theideaoferodingcapitalismimaginesthatthesealternativeshavethepotential,inthelong

run, of becoming sufficiently prominent in the lives of individuals and communities that

capitalismcouldeventuallybedisplacedfromthisdominantroleinthesystemasawhole

(Wright2018,26).6

This,then,bringsustoWright’ssecond“strategicproblem”:thequestionofcollective

action. As Iwill discuss in the next section, here it is crucial thatWright does not share

Streeck’sdireassessmentoftheoversocializedcapitalistsubject.Andyet,atthesametime,

6 Further: “Alternative, non-capitalist economic activities, embodying democratic and egalitarian relations,emergeinthenicheswherethisispossiblewithinaneconomydominatedbycapitalism.Theseactivitiesgrowovertime,bothspontaneouslyandasaresultofdeliberatestrategy.Someoftheseemergeasadaptationsandinitiativesfrombelowwithincommunities.Othersareactivelyorganizedorsponsoredbythestatefromabovetosolvepracticalproblems.Thesealternativeeconomicrelationsconstitutethebuildingblocksofaneconomicstructurewhoserelationsofproductionarecharacterizedbydemocracy,equality,andsolidarity.Strugglesinvolvingthestatetakeplace,sometimestoprotectthesespaces,othertimestofacilitatenewpossibilities.Periodicallywhatseemstobestructural“limitsofpossibility”areencountered,andtogobeyondsuchlimitsmayrequiremoreintensepoliticalmobilizationdirectedatchangingcriticalfeaturesofthe“rulesofthegame”withinwhichcapitalismfunctions.Oftensuchmobilizationsfail,butatleastsometimesconditionsareripeforsuchchanges,andthelimitsofpossibilityexpand.Eventually,thecumulativeeffectofthisinterplaybetweenchangesfromaboveandinitiativesfrombelowmayreachapointwherethesocialistrelationscreatedwithinthe economic ecosystem become sufficiently prominent in the lives of individuals and communities thatcapitalismcannolongerbesaidtodominatethesystemasawhole(Wright2018,27).


15

Wright’s undersocialized and (more importantly) undertheorized notion of the (anti-

capitalist)strategicactor,Iargue,leavesmuchtobedesired.

Thepossibilityofstrategiccollectiveaction

Streeckseeslittleroomforthesurvivalofcapitalistdemocracy,andevenlessforasocial

democratic future, short of a major reversal in the very structure of the international

economy.InStreeck’sretrospectiveprefacetothesecondeditionofBuyingTimehenotes

tepidlythat“[t]hebooktriestobelessthantotallypessimistic.”Onthematteroffinancial

regulationStreecklocatesquestionsofcapacityandimplementation“beyondthescope”of

hisstudy—butnotes,lestweshouldplacetoomuchfaithinregulatorysolutions,“howlittle

hasbeenachievedsince2008”(Streeck2013[2017],xxviii).

Consistentwithhiscontentionthatsociologicaltheoryhasmetitsmatch,Streecksees

suchscopelimitationsasasymptom“notoftheresearchapproachadopted,butofthereal

worldunderstudy”(ibid).7Ultimately,inStreeck’sview,thepresentconjuncturefarexceeds

the predictive power of “traditional and sociological theories” thanks to the intertwined

nature of the contemporary economic order and the “destruction of collective agency”

(Streeck2016[2017],p.12).Sociologicaltheoriescannothelpusthinkourwayoutofthe

crisis, because the practical machinery that makes analysis actionable—capacity for

collectiveaction—isbeyondrepair.Capitalistdemocracies’ability(inStreeck’swords) to

“buytime”dependsonthecultivationof“agentsoftransformation”capableofovercoming

“privatized lives,” class fragmentation, and competing identities—a prospect for which

7[FootnoteonhisdiscussionofendingEMU,returningtonationalcurrencyregimescapableofstrategicdevaluation,anda‘EuropeanBrettonWoods.’]


16

Streeckholdsout littlehope.The implicationas farasWright’s finalwork is that itsaim,

whileadmirable,restsonapremisethatisnowuntenable:thatthereexistsintheworlda

capacityforsustained,strategiccollectivepoliticalaction,anticapitalistorotherwise.

Wright’s position on “agents of transformation” flirtswith Streeck’s notion of the

oversocializedcapitalistsubjectbutresiststhetemptationtoseeitasapermanentortotal

condition. Capitalism, Wright notes, exhibits a tendency to contract the space of the

political—or,inhiswords,“thewaytheboundarybetweenthepublicandprivatesphereis

drawnincapitalism,”suchthat“crucialdecisionsthataffectlargenumbersofpeople”are

madeintheabsenceofparticipatorydemocraticcontrol(Wright2018,12).Primaryhere,

andreminiscentofaStreeckiandebtstatethatpanderstothebondholdingclass,arematters

ofspendingandinvestment:privatepower“createsaconstantpressureonpublicauthority

toenactrulesfavorabletotheinterestsofcapital”(Wright2018,12).Wrightacknowledges

thewealth inequality/political inequalityrelationshipthat isdulydocumentedacross the

socialsciences(andwouldcomeasnosurprisetoMarx)andarguesthat, incombination

withasymmetricpowerdynamicsintheworkplace,thecumulativeeffectisthatprecious

fewofusreallyhave“theabilitytosay“no””(Wright2018,12-13).Meanwhile,aneconomic

system that operates on “[g]reed and fear” on the level of individual motivation, and

“competitive individualismandprivatized consumerism”on the level of “cultural forms,”

doeslittletofoster“thevalueofcommunityandsolidarity”(Wright2018,14).

But just as capitalism is always partial in theWrightian view, so is the capitalist

subject.Capitalismsocializesus incontradictoryways:on theonehand it “promotes the

emergenceandpartialdevelopmentofbothfreedomanddemocracy,”butontheotherhand

it“obstructsthefullestpossiblerealizationofthesevalues”(Wright2018,12).


17

Capitalism breeds anti-capitalists. In some times and places the resistance to capitalism

becomescrystallizedincoherentideologieswithsystematicdiagnosesofthesourceofharms

andclearprescriptionsaboutwhat todo toeliminate them. Inother circumstances, anti-

capitalism is submerged within motivations that on the surface have little to do with

capitalism,suchasreligiousbeliefsthatleadpeopletorejectmodernityandseekrefugein

isolatedcommunities(Wright2018,2).

Theproblem,then,isremovingtheobstructionstotherealizationofanti-capitalistvalues.

Herewe encounterwhatWright presents as the “biggest puzzle” that an erosion

strategyconfronts:collectiveaction.How,Wrightasks,dowefoster“thecreationofrobust

collectiveactorscapableofactingpoliticallytochallengeandchangetherulesofthegameof

capitalisminaprogressivedirection”?Identifyingpoliticalpartiesas“traditional”driversof

the formation of progressive-transformative actors, Wright also points to “lobbying

organizations, interest organizations of all sorts, labor unions, community organizations,

socialmovementorganizations,andmanyothers,”butarguesthat“theyneedtosomehow

be connected to progressive political parties capable of acting directlywithin the state.”

Offeringlittleinthewayofanalysisofactuallyexistingparties,hesettledontheargument

that“thestrategyoferodingcapitalismdependsontheexistenceofawebofcollectiveactors

anchoredincivilsocietyandpoliticalpartiescommittedtosuchapoliticalproject”(Wright

2018,57).

OnewisheshereforthekindofsustainedattentiontopartiesthatWrightgivestothe

state.Instead,however,WrightturnstoalooselyWeberiansketchofthesocialactorand

socialaction.Arguingthatclassinterestsandmoralvaluesarethe“[t]wogeneralkindsof

motivations”in“diverseformsofstrugglewithinandovercapitalism,”Wrightboilsdown


18

the possibility of anti-capitalist collective action (“in part”) to “values” rather than

“interests”:

becauseofthecomplexityofclassinterests,therewillalwaysbemanypeoplewhoseinterests

donotclearlyfallononesideofthefenceortheother.Theirwillingnesstosupportanti-

capitalist initiativeswill depend inpart onwhatotherkindsof values are at stake

(Wright2018,3,emphasisadded).

“[M]ost people,” he notes (with reference to no person, time, place, or context), “are

motivatedatleastinpartbymoralconcerns,notjustpracticaleconomicinterests”(Wright

2018,4).Thewaytodealwiththis,Wrightcontends,isviaacombinationoftruth-claiming

andvalue-defining:first,to“identifythespecificwaysinwhichcapitalismharmsthematerial

interestsofcertaincategoriesofpeople,”andsecondto“clarifythevaluesthatwewouldlike

aneconomytofoster”(Wright2018,4,emphasisadded).

Touching (too) lightly on the questions of how, by whom, where and under what

conditionsanti-capitalistvaluesmightbecultivatedanddefined,Wrighttakesupthetaskof

value-defining himself, offering up three principles—equality/fairness,

democracy/freedom,andcommunity/solidarity—andlayingout“somegeneral[strategic]

guidelines”forthepracticeofprogressivepolitics(Wright2018,66),asfollows.

• First,thediscussionofvaluesshouldbeattheverycenterofprogressivepolitics.Thethree

clusters of values discussed in chapter one – equality/fairness, democracy/freedom,

community/solidarity – should be made explicit and explained. … It is important to

emphasizetherelationofthesevaluestotheconcretepoliciesthatadvanceradicaleconomic

democracy(Wright2018,66).

• Second,thesevaluescanprovidethevitalconnectionbetweentheclassinterestsattheheart

oferodingcapitalismandotheridentity-interestswithemancipatoryaspirations.Whathas


19

beentermed“identitypolitics”ofoppressedsocialcategoriesshouldbetreatedasanintegral

elementwithinabroademancipatorypoliticsratherthanamatterofsecondaryconcern.…

(Wright2018,66).

• Third, the value of democracy… should be given particular emphasis in articulating the

concreteprogramofprogressivepolitics.Adeeperdemocracy,arealdemocracy, is in the

interestsofaverybroadpartofthepopulationbeyondtheworkingclass.Thethinnessof

democracywithin capitalist states constitutesoneof theprincipleobstacles to advancing

policiestoreducethedominanceofcapitalism,buteffortstorestoreanddeependemocracy

alsoconstituteaunifyingobjectiveforpeoplewhomaybe lesssympathetictotheoverall

anti-capitalistagenda.(Wright2018,66)

• Fourth, … the overall strategy of eroding capitalism is not exclusively a state-centered

strategy,andpoliticalpartiesarenottheonlycollectiveactorsneededforthisstrategytobe

carriedout.…Inparticular, theeffortsatbuildingandexpandingthesocialandsolidarity

economy,thecooperativemarketeconomy,andthearrayofneweconomicpracticesopened

up by IT-enabled economic relations such as peer-to-peer collaborative production, is

essential for the long-term prospects of eroding capitalism. Remember: eroding the

dominance of capitalism means both encroaching on capitalism by reversing the

privatizationof theprovisionofpublicgoodsandservicesbythestateandexpandingthe

diverse forms of noncapitalist economic activity outside the state. New technological

developments, which reduce economies of scale and facilitate cooperation, are likely to

increase the potential growth of these non-capitalist ways of organizing economic life.

Recognizingtheimportanceoftheseinitiativesfrombelow,andformulatingasetofreform

policiesthatwouldexpandtheeconomicspacefortheirgrowth,wouldalsodeepenthesocial

baseforthebroaderagendaoferodingcapitalism(Wright2018,66).


20

Does“erosion”endwithsocialism?

Arguably,theStreeckianresponsetoWright’sstrategicprogramhingesonthequestionof

thecapitalistsubject:thatis,whetherWright’snotionoftheincompleteandcontradictory

socializinginstitutionsofcapitalismismorecorrectthanStreeck’sbleakassessmentofour

hopelessly oversocialized condition. There is much at stake. If we indeed cannot be

anticapitalistsinanymeaningfulhistoricalsense,havinglostourcapacitytoactcollectively

inasustainedwayinaworldthatlurchesfromcrisistocrisis,thennecessarilyshort-lived

effortstoenactastrategicframeworkofanysortseemjustaslikelytomakethingsworseas

theyaretomakethingsbetter.Giventhedelicatestateofdemocraticpoliticsandtheplanet,

the broader question here is whether a Wrightian strategy, played out by Streeckian

capitalistsubjects,pointshistoryinanentirelylessdesirabledirectionthanthesocialistone.

Thespirit

HowdoweadjudicatebetweenWright’sfuture-orientedoptimismandStreeck’spessimistic

historyofthepresent?How,inshort,dowekeepthespiritofWright’sprojectalive?

There are grounds for disputing Streeck’s notion that sociological theory has

somehowexhausted itself.Herewemight start bynoting that such a contention, if true,

rendersourpresenceataneventcelebratingthelifeandworkofErikOlinWrightamystery.

Wemightalsonotethatitisentirelywithinthepurviewofexistingsociologicaltheoriesto

treatthequestionoftheoversocializedcapitalistsubjectasahistoricalandempiricalmatter,

asopposedtoanunexplored(andunexplorable)hypothesis.Indeed,manysocialtheorists

havetakenuptheproblemofthemakingofcertainkindsofhistoricalpersons,practices,and

action-orientationswithspecialattentiontotheconditionsandcultivationofcriticalreason;


21

an incomplete listwould includeMarx,Weber,Durkheim,DuBois,Mead,Dewey,Cooper,

Gramsci,Fanon,deBeauvoir,Bourdieu,andmoreorlessthewholeoffeminist,postcolonial

andcriticalracetheory.

Marxian theorizing has long struggled with the problem of treating persons and

intentionality as incidental to macro-historical change and, by extension, first-person

accountsasindicativeratherthanexplanatory(Martin2003).Buttherearealternativesto

thiswayofthinkingaboutthings,evenwithintheMarxiantent.Somearebuiltonincisive

analysesofwhatwemightthinkofastheMarxian‘field’—thatis,aspaceofhistoricalsocial

relations,organizedbyasharedinvestmentinMarxiantheorizing,thathasitsownspecific

logic.HereIhaveinmindCedricRobinson’s(1983[2000])assessment,whichidentifiesa

certaintendencyinMarxisttheorizinginwhichthedriveforhistorically-groundedcertainty

begets its opposite: dogma, over-certainty, and pure empiricism. Citing Trotsky’s call to

“liberatemanfromallthatpreventshisseeing”(Trotsky,quotedinRobinson1983[2000],

208),RobinsonarguedthattheimpulsetoabsolutetruthintheMarxiantraditiontendsto

giveriseto“theemergenceofitscorrosives,itsoppositions.”Ratherthan“anintellectualor

theoreticalproblem,”hecontendsthisshouldbeunderstoodasadefiniteorganizationally-

andsocially-rootedsocio-politicaldynamicthatMarxistdialecticismisinfactwell-equipped

torecognize,even(orperhapsespecially)withintheMarxisttradition(ibid).

Recognitionofthisdynamic,andmoreimportantlyanabilitytoescapeitandadvance

innewdirections—thatis,tomovetheoryin-stepwiththemovementsofhistorybytaking

up,forinstance,thequestionofthecapitalistsubject,asopposedtocapitalismwritlarge,in

the contemporary moment—was, in Robinson’s view, a function of the socio-historical

locationof the theorist: theyhad tohaveacertainoutsiderqualitymadepossibilitybya


22

partialexternality,orpartialinvestment,toboththeacademicandthepoliticalgame.Here

Robinson pointed toW.E.B. Du Bois,who operated in critical engagementwith, but at a

practicaldistancefrom,bothMarxist-Leninism(bychoice)andwhite-dominatedAmerican

historiography(bychoiceandnecessity)inthe1920sand1930s.InRobinson’swords:“It

wasinthose…irreconcilableroles--asaBlackradicalthinkerandasasympatheticcriticof

Marx--thatDuBoiswastomakesomeofhismostimportantcontributionsconcerningBlack

socialmovements”(Robinson1983[2000],207).

Andso,forRobinson,DuBois’indictmentofhishistoriancontemporaries’blindness

to“thethingsthatactuallyhappenedintheworld”attheendofBlackReconstructionhad

muchbroadersignificance:itwasanefforttobothcorrecttheracializedhistoriographyof

Reconstructionandtoshinealightontheethicalpracticesofthehistorianwho,“posingas

scientist,”insteadsetsout“toconcealordistortfacts,”thuspavingtheway“foramuddled

worldout of sheer ignorance tomake the samemistakes ten timesover” (DuBois1935

[1998],722,quotedinRobinson1983).DuBoisthuscalledfornew“standardsofethicsin

researchandinterpretation”—withoutwhich,hefeared,historyoffersnofutureguideposts

butratherameansof“pleasureandamusement,…inflatingournationalego,andgivingus

afalsebutpleasurablesenseofaccomplishment”(DuBois1935[1998],714).Withoutanew

ethics,DuBoisargued,“wemustgiveuptheideaofhistoryeitherasascienceorasanart

usingtheresultsofscience,andadmitfranklythatweareusingaversionofhistoricfactin

ordertoinfluenceandeducatethenewgenerationalongthewaywewish”(ibid).Thedanger

ofthiscourse,asDuBoissawit,wasthereductionofhistorytopropaganda:

It ispropaganda likethis thathas ledmen inthepast to insist thathistory is"liesagreed

upon";andtopointoutthedangerinsuchmisinformation.Itisindeedextremelydoubtfulif


23

anypermanentbenefitcomestotheworldthroughsuchaction.Nationsreelandstaggeron

theirway; theymakehideousmistakes; they commit frightfulwrongs; theydo great and

beautifulthings(DuBois1935[1998],714).

TakingRobinson’sandDuBois’analysistoheartsuggests,inthepresentmoment,anurgent

needtorevampthetheories,methods,andpracticesofhistoricalpoliticaleconomy.Heremy

argument issimple: if theaimisaneleventh-thesiskindof theory—anassessmentof the

presentinlightofthepast,aimingtoaddressthestrategicquestionofwhatistobedone—

thensurelyonetaskistograsptheconditionsof(im)possibilityoftransformativetheorists.

Indoingsopolitical-economicmethodacquiresameansofunderstandingthemaking

andworldviewsofrecognized“politicaleconomists”(or,forthatmatter,“economists”)and,

more importantly, key socio-historical processes by which political and economic

alternativesareconstructed,interpreted,andruledinorout(thatis,ifwetakeseriouslythe

literatureoneconomics’“performativity”).Intheprocess,politicaleconomybecomesbetter

abletosupportandinformthecultivationofanewgenerationofpoliticaleconomistswho

share a commitment, in Julian Go’s phrasing (referencing Chakrabarty 2000 [2007]), to

‘provincializingthecanon’(Go2019),sustainingthespiritoftransformativetheorizingfor

whichWrightwillsurelyberemembered.

ReferencesChakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000 [2007]. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and

HistoricalDifference.PrincetonUniversityPress.DuBois,W.E.B.1935[1998].BlackReconstructioninAmerica.TheFreePress.

Go,Julian.2019.ASACoserLecture.Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of

Embeddedness.”AmericanJournalofSociology91,3:481-510.


24

Hager,SandyBrian.2016.PublicDebt,Inequality,andPower.UCPress.

Harvey,David.2005.ABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism.OxfordUniversityPress.Martin,JohnLevi.2003.‘WhatisFieldTheory?’,AmericanJournalofSociology,109,1–49.

Mudge,StephanieL.2008.“WhatisNeo-liberalism?”Socio-EconomicReview6,4:703-731.Mudge,StephanieL.2017.“Neo-liberalismandtheStudyof‘Isms’.”InOuthwaite,ed.,SAGE

HandbookofPoliticalSociology.Mudge, Stephanie L. 2018a. Leftism Reinvented: Western Parties from Socialism to

Neoliberalism.HarvardUniversityPress.

Mudge,StephanieL.2018b.“ForaFirst-PersonPoliticalEconomy:ACommentonMichaelMcCarthy’sDismantlingSolidarity.”CriticalSociology0,0:1-5.

Polanyi,Karl.1944[2001].TheGreatTransformation.BeaconPress.

Robinson, Cedric.1983[2000].BlackMarxism:TheMakingoftheBlackRadicalTradition.Roos,Jerome.2019.“FromtheDemiseofSocialDemocracytothe‘EndofCapitalism’:The

IntellectualTrajectoryofWolfgangStreeck.”HistoricalMaterialism27,2:248-288.SewellJr,WilliamH.2008.“TheTemporalitiesofCapitalism.”Socio-EconomicReview6:517-

537.

Streeck,Wolfgang.2013[2017].BuyingTime:TheDelayedCrisisofCapitalism.Verso.

Streeck,Wolfgang.2016[2017].HowWillCapitalismEnd?Juggernaut.Tooze,Adam.2019.“AGeneralLogicofCrisis.”LondonReviewofBooks39,1.Wright,ErikOlin.2006.“CompassPoints:TowardsaSocialistAlternative.”NewLeftReview

41:93-124.

Wright,ErikOlin.2019.HowtobeanAnti-Capitalistinthe21stCentury.

Can Democracy Survive Capitalism’s Erosion? A Comment on Erik … · 2019-09-27 · Mudge 9/2019,...

Documents

Transcript of Can Democracy Survive Capitalism’s Erosion? A Comment on Erik … · 2019-09-27 · Mudge 9/2019,...