can democracy survive capitalism’s erosion? a comment on erik … · 2019-09-27 · mudge 9/2019,...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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,
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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).
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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).
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.’]
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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).
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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).
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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;
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.
Mudge9/2019,notforcirculationorcitation
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.