Socialist Progressives

TBF

(34,297 posts) Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:05 AM Jan 2016

Envisioning Utopias

Wright’s project is best understood as a form of neo-Tocquevillian Marxism. The basic elements of his critique of capitalism derive from Marx. But his image of socialism, as well as his political vision, is much more indebted to Tocqueville or Durkheim (although he discusses neither of these authors explicitly). This is clear both in his view of socialism as “social empowerment” rather than a mode of production, and in his preferred political strategy — which relies not on class struggle, but on broad social cooperation.

We need to engage with and extend the revolutionary Marxist tradition — not reject it. In this connection, it’s worth noting that “How to Be an Anticapitalist Today” distorts one of the central messages of this line of thought.

An Anticapitalism That Can Win
We should engage with and update the revolutionary Marxist tradition — not reject it.
Dylan Riley 1-7-16

Today’s left boasts many brilliant students of capitalism, the state, culture, and geopolitics. But its strategic thinking is woefully underdeveloped. There are two obvious explanations for this: the chasm between the injustices of global capitalism and the sorts of social agents that could potentially transform it, and skepticism about the project of a scientifically informed radical politics.

Whatever the reason, the Left still awaits a figure who could plausibly claim the mantle of Gramsci, the early Kautsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, or Trotsky. Erik Olin Wright’s “How to Be an Anticapitalist Today,” which is a pithy summation of the main political message of his 2010 book Envisioning Real Utopias, focuses precisely on the questions of socialist strategy that were at the core of the revolutionary Marxist tradition. If only for this reason, his courageous and clearly stated position deserves close attention.

The specific problem of Envisioning and “How to be an Anticapitalist Today” is how to develop a radical politics in a context where”no existing social theory is sufficiently powerful to even begin to construct . . . a comprehensive representation of possible social destinations, possible futures.” This theoretical failing creates a “gap between the time-horizons of scientific theory and the time-horizons of transformative struggles.” ...

Much more here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/olin-wright-real-utopias-socialism-capitalism-gramsci-lenin-luxemburg/

And the back-up article written by Erik Olin Wright: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/erik-olin-wright-real-utopias-anticapitalism-democracy/

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Envisioning Utopias (Original Post) TBF Jan 2016 OP

Recommended, and in addition, guillaumeb Jan 2016 #1

It worked to some extent for a period - TBF Jan 2016 #3

One critique: guillaumeb Jan 2016 #2

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

1. Recommended, and in addition,

Reply to TBF (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:30 PM

Jan 2016

From the article:
Diagnosis and Critique

The first part of Wright’s book develops a diagnosis and critique of capitalism. He begins by developing two criteria to judge any social order: social and political justice. A socially just society is one in which people have equal access to material resources and intangibles such as recognition. A politically just society is one in which people are able to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their own lives, and their lives in the broader community.

By these measures, unregulated Capitalism is an utter failure in the US. Could a significantly regulated capitalistic system work, or would the dynamics that comprise capitalism seek to revert to the savage, me-first, winner take all form of capitalism that currently exists in the US?

TBF

(34,297 posts)

3. It worked to some extent for a period -

Reply to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 06:43 PM

Jan 2016

but not a very long one. After WWII the owners were downright generous in allowing taxation etc. Until their main rivals bounced back, of course, and then they felt they needed to cut back. And here we are.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

2. One critique:

Reply to TBF (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:45 PM

Jan 2016

Also from the article, and dealing with the author's contention that Marx did not anticipate how a regulated form of Capitalism could thrive:

Self-employment has increased rather than decreased in contemporary capitalism. Stock ownership has become relatively widespread, giving a wider share of the population a stake in capitalist relations of production. More households have become cross-class, with husbands and wives occupying positions on the class ladder. Finally, wage inequalities and job differentiations have increased at both the bottom and the top of the income distribution, thus belying the notion of homogenous working and capitalist classes.

While the rate of self employment and stock ownership have both increased, these gains are illusory at best.

While the number of people who are self-employed has increased, many of these people are "employed" as part time, conditional, on demand employees. An Uber driver might be legally classified as self-employed, but if self-employed was understood to mean "making a living", many of the self-employed would be seen as partially and unsustainably employed.

And yes, many people do own stock, but 83% of common stock ownership is held by the top 1%. If I have an IRA invested in stocks, and my IRA is worth less than a million dollars, any gains are negligible at best. The last studies that I read talked of a median IRA account value of approximately $18,000. Even if such an account gained 20% a year there is no way that account holder could retire on that account.

In addition,

As such, the capacity of the working class to act collectively has declined rather than expanded in contemporary capitalism. In addition, workers have been able to successfully pursue their interests within Democratic capitalist states in a way that Marx could not have imagined. According to Wright, these arguments cast serious doubt on the extent to which the working class can be considered a revolutionary actor.

The idea that the vast majority of workers have been able to "...pursue their interests etc..." is an illusion. Workers are working more jobs, and more hours just to keep pace with expenses.

Reply to this discussion