Eric Olin Wright is sadly no longer with us, but we are fortunate to have his new book, How to Be an Anti-capitalist in the 21st Century, to remember him by and to work with. In this first of (maybe) two or three blogs, I consider briefly his typology of strategic logics in relation to resisting, revising and/or displacing financialised capitalism, which certainly ‘fits’, as well as clarifying, my own thinking. Wright distinguishes between:
- Smashing capitalism: the classic logic of revolutionaries, maintaining that capitalism is unreformable and must be destroyed and replaced by socialism;
- Dismantling capitalism: the logic of that subset of revolutionaries who eschew the notion of ‘rupture’ – with all its ‘unpredictable’ sequelae – in favour of state-directed reforms that incrementally introduce a socialist alternative from above;
- Taming capitalism: this logic commends neutralising the ‘harms of capitalism’ without replacing it;
- Resisting capitalism: the logic of opposing capitalism from outside of the state and without the motivation and ambition of capturing state power;
- Escaping capitalism: the logic here is that capitalism is too powerfully entrenched to overthrow but that insulation from its harms is possible, for example in sheltered or cooperative communities.
Wright’s own judgement commends a kind of amalgam of logics, which he entitles eroding capitalism. No economy is purely capitalist, his argument runs; and it is always possible to build ‘more democratic, egalitarian, participatory economic relations … in the spaces and cracks within this complex system’. Such initiatives and innovations might in the long run lead to the displacement of capitalism’s dominant systemic, economic role in society.
How does the notion of ‘permanent reform’ that I have commended elsewhere fit with Wright’s logics and conclusions? It certainly endorses a revolutionary intent. At the same time, and notwithstanding the possible/probable implosion of capitalism in the medium term, it accepts Wright’s cautionary and pragmatic focus. The optimal route to a socialist alternative to capitalism – or what I regard as a reconstructed Enlightenment project oriented to the ‘good society’ – combines Wrights’ logics of dismantling, taming and resisting capitalism. I advocate extra-parliamentary alliances and mobilisation on multiple fronts, including building pressure on the state. At this juncture such an agenda, critically, entails backing Nancy Fraser’s progressive versus reactionary populism.
I might reference my last blog on ‘political layering’ at this juncture, the moral of which – taking UK politics as an illustration – might be summed up as follows: (a) even if elected as PM, Corbyn will not be midwife to a socially transformatory post-capitalist/socialist era (indeed he will do well to survive); (b) this is because, pace Ralph Miliband, top-down parliamentary measures to this end will ‘almost certainly’ – according to Steadman Jones’ biography, Marx saw a short-lived window of opportunity for a parliamentary breakthrough in mid-19th century England – be compromised and prove ineffective; (c) there will necessarily be a positive relationship between the strength of a (class-based) labour movement and the parliamentary potency of a Corbyn government; (d) capitalism must be attacked on multiple, and ‘layered’, fronts (ie top-down within parliament and, critically, bottom-up outside parliament; (e) this involves finding unity of purpose and a degree of consensus via the overlapping demands of heterogeneous movement, interest and campaign groupings (eg green, feminist, racial, sexual and so on); and (f) arising out of such ‘unity of purpose’ and ‘consensus’ as exists, underpinned by what people are against, there must be a concerted effort to construct an appealing narrative for a better, post-capitalist future.
What (a) to (f) add up to is encapsulated in my prior advocacy of a twofold strategy of ‘permanent reform’ and ‘alliance formation’.