Duan Zhongqiao: Eroding Capitalism
Erik Olin Wright, a professor at the University of Wisconsin who passed away in January 2019, was a world-renowned sociologist and one of the important representatives of Analytical Marxism. In the 1980s, amidst the successive disintegration of socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the rampant spread of neoliberalism in Western capitalist countries, Wright committed himself to researching how to oppose capitalism and realize socialism within developed capitalist countries, proposing many thought-provoking new insights. This article will focus on explaining a new strategy for opposing capitalism proposed in his book How to Be an Anticapitalist in the Twenty-First Century, completed shortly before his death: eroding capitalism.
I. Why Oppose Capitalism?
Before discussing the new strategy for opposing capitalism in the 21st century, Wright first poses a question for people to consider: Why oppose capitalism?
Wright points out that, historically, people's opposition to capitalism has generally been based on two motives: first, class interests; and second, moral values. In his words: "You can oppose capitalism not only because it harms your material interests but also because it offends certain moral values that are important to you." If capitalist society were merely composed of the two antagonistic classes—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—then locating the reason for opposing capitalism solely from the perspective of class interests would suffice; this is also the fundamental view of classical Marxism. However, Wright believes that the reasons for opposing capitalism in the 21st century go beyond this. First, in contemporary capitalist society, there exist many middle classes or strata situated between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. For example, highly educated professionals and technical personnel, managers, and the self-employed have interests that do not obviously align with either capitalists or workers; therefore, their willingness to oppose capitalism depends largely on the moral values they believe in. Since the support of these people is vital to any anti-capitalist strategy, it is essential to build alliances to some extent around values rather than just class interests. Second, most people's motivation for opposing capitalism is at least partly based on moral considerations, not just practical economic interests. People’s actions often go against their own class interests, not because they do not understand those interests, but because other values are more important to them. For example, Marx's close comrade-in-arms Engels was the son of a wealthy capitalist, yet he exerted all his efforts to support political movements against capitalism. Finally, clear values are indispensable for thinking about alternatives to capitalism, because we need to judge the ills of capitalism not only morally, but also judge the desirability of its alternatives morally.
Based on the premise that opposing capitalism cannot proceed solely from class interests, Wright further proposes that, in the contemporary era, people’s opposition to capitalism is largely based on the assertion that "capitalism, as a way of organizing the economic system, obstructs the fullest possible realization of values such as equality/fairness, democracy/freedom, and community/solidarity."
First, consider equality/fairness. Most people in contemporary capitalist society hold some ideal of equality, even though they have many disagreements regarding the understanding of the meaning of equality itself. Wright believes that equality as a value should refer to: "In a just society, everyone has roughly equal access to the material and social means necessary for a flourishing life." The "flourishing" life mentioned here refers to "the development of human capacities and talents, enabling them to pursue their own life goals and thus, in some sense, realize their potential and purpose." However, capitalism inherently produces massive inequalities in access to the material conditions required for such a life, which leaves some people completely deprived of the material conditions to live a "flourishing" life. Even in developed capitalist countries like the United States, millions of people live economically precarious lives, trapped in hunger and poor health caused by poverty, living in unsafe neighborhoods, and subject to social stigma and discrimination associated with poverty. Capitalism also creates inequalities in the social conditions required for a "flourishing" life, which is prominently reflected in the inability to access fulfilling and meaningful work. Most jobs provided by capitalist firms are monotonous and tedious, even if they provide sufficient income. Of course, in any process of producing goods and services, there will always be unpleasant and uninteresting work to be done. But the problem is that capitalism exhibits severe inequality in the distribution of work that is a burden versus work that is interesting and satisfying.
Next, consider democracy/freedom. Wright says he discusses democracy and freedom as values together because both beliefs reflect a core fundamental value—one that can be called "self-determination": "In a fully democratic society, everyone has broadly equal access to the necessary means for meaningfully participating in deciding matters that affect their lives." Capitalism obstructs the full realization of this value. First, in capitalist society, the division between the public and private spheres prevents the vast majority of people from participating in key decisions subject to democratic control. For example, the right to decide when and where to invest or divest is a most basic right that comes with the private ownership of capital, yet capitalism excludes such decisions from democratic control; this clearly violates core democratic values. Second, private control over major investments puts constant pressure on government authorities to formulate rules favorable to capitalist interests, which places the interests of one category of citizens above others, thereby violating democratic values. Third, the wealthy find it easier to obtain political power. In all capitalist democracies, the wealthy can obtain political power by contributing to political campaigns, funding lobbying activities, and through outright bribery and other forms of corruption; this clearly violates the democratic principle that all citizens should have equal opportunities to participate in the control of political power. Fourth, capitalist firms are permitted to function as dictatorial organizations in the workplace. A basic power of private corporate ownership is the owner's right to tell employees what to do. Of course, an employer can also grant workers considerable autonomy in the workplace, but he still holds the fundamental power to decide when to permit such autonomy, which violates the principle of self-determination that is the foundation of democracy and freedom. Fifth, capitalism’s inequality of wealth and income also creates inequality of freedom. Whatever the meaning people assign to freedom, it involves the ability to say "no." A wealthy person is free to decide not to work for wages, whereas a poor person lacking independent means of subsistence cannot refuse employment so easily. Furthermore, as a value, freedom is also the capacity to take active action regarding one’s life plan; in this sense, capitalism deprives many people of real freedom.
Finally, look at community/solidarity. Wright points out: "Community/solidarity expresses the principle that people should cooperate with one another, based not only on what they personally get out of it but also on a genuine commitment to the well-being of others and a sense of moral obligation that doing so is right." When this cooperation occurs in the daily lives of people helping one another, we use the word "community"; when this cooperation occurs in collective action to achieve common goals, we use the word "solidarity." Capitalism promotes motives that erode the values of community/solidarity. The driving force of capitalist investment and production is economic egoism. Adam Smith pointed out in his classic work The Wealth of Nations: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The philosopher G.A. Cohen argued that the immediate motive for productive activity in a capitalist "market society is typically... some mixture of greed and fear." In greed, other people are seen as possible sources of wealth; in fear, other people are seen as threats. Capitalism also produces a series of cultural factors that erode the values of community/solidarity, particularly competitive individualism and privatized consumerism. The heart of competitive individualism is the desire to achieve success through competition, even at the expense of others. Privatized consumerism leads people to believe that satisfaction with life depends largely on ever-increasing personal consumption. This focus on personal consumption exacerbates the relative indifference toward the well-being of others associated with competitive individualism.
In Wright's view, capitalism fundamentally obstructs the full realization of these values of equality/fairness, democracy/freedom, and community/solidarity. It generates and perpetuates unjust forms of economic inequality; it narrows the scope of democracy, limits the freedom of the majority, and enhances the freedom of the few; and it fosters cultural ideals that support individual competitive success over collective welfare. It is precisely the critique of capitalism based on these values that constitutes a major motive for people's opposition to capitalism.
II. Five Strategies of Anti-Capitalism in the 20th Century
After showing why one should oppose capitalism, Wright reviews five strategies of anti-capitalism in the 20th century: namely, smashing capitalism, dismantling capitalism, taming capitalism, resisting capitalism, and escaping capitalism. He points out that although these strategic logics are intertwined in practice, each constitutes a distinct way of addressing the harms of capitalism.
Smashing capitalism. This is the classic strategy of revolutionary communists, who justify this strategy on the grounds that the capitalist system is already decayed; believing that it can be reformed to allow people to lead flourishing lives is an illusion—the only hope is to destroy it and build a new socialist system on its ruins. Regarding how to realize this strategy, figures like Lenin and Gramsci, drawing on the works of Marx, proposed revolutionary theories of anti-capitalism. This theory holds that the inherent contradictions of capitalism inevitably lead to the emergence of periodic economic crises, which make it possible for revolutionary parties to seize the opportunities created by the crisis to overthrow existing regimes through elections or armed uprisings, lead the broad masses of people to seize state power, and then use state power to suppress the resistance of the former ruling class and its allies to establish an alternative socialist economic system. In the 20th century, this theory injected hope and optimism into the struggle against capitalism, because it not only powerfully indicted the existing world but also proposed a reasonable vision for how to achieve the goal of replacing capitalism. This bolstered the courage of the broad masses, leading them to believe that history was on their side, and that the enormous dedication and sacrifice they made in the struggle against capitalism would ultimately be rewarded with the victory of socialism. However, Wright believes that while such struggles sometimes achieved victory, they did not necessarily create a democratic and egalitarian society as an alternative to capitalism. "Smashing the old regime and social structures is one thing; building new institutions of liberation from the ruins is another."
Dismantling capitalism. From the very beginning of anti-capitalist movements, there have been those who agreed with the critique of capitalism and the fundamental goals of revolutionaries, but who argued simultaneously that "the total destruction of capitalism, at least in mature capitalist countries, would not create conditions favorable for a democratic, egalitarian alternative." They proposed that the transition to a democratic, egalitarian socialism could be realized through state-led reforms that incrementally introduce socialist elements. This implies that capitalist relations and socialist relations would coexist within a mixed economy for an extended period. Under this strategy, there would be no single moment of a simple rupture between one system and another. Instead, capitalism would be dismantled gradually, and the socialist system replacing it would be established through sustained state action. The key prerequisites for realizing this strategy are: first, the existence of a stable electoral democratic state; and second, the presence of a mass-based socialist party capable of winning elections and holding power for a sufficiently long period to allow new socialist economic structures to develop robustly. This strategy of dismantling capitalism received significant support from anti-capitalists in the first half of the 20th century. Following World War II, with the nationalization of railways and other industries in several developed capitalist countries, the establishment of socialized healthcare systems, and the expansion of public utilities, this strategy appeared to achieve some success; however, it ultimately drifted toward failure. The vitality displayed by capitalism in the decades following the war, combined with the ideological offensive against socialist ideas in many nations, led to the forced suspension of continued nationalization within mixed economies. The setbacks encountered by socialism (for example, the 1973 overthrow of Chile's democratically elected socialist government by the military) further weakened the belief that democratic elections could provide a path of reform for the gradual dismantling of capitalism. By the final quarter of the 20th century, far from becoming the vanguard of a new type of economy, the state-led sectors within capitalist economies came under increasing attack and were replaced by policies dominated by neoliberalism.
Taming capitalism. Both the strategies of destroying capitalism and dismantling capitalism aim to replace capitalism with a fundamentally different economic structure—socialism. In contrast, the strategy of taming capitalism does not seek to eliminate capitalism, but only to reduce the harms it causes. In the thirty years following World War II, taming capitalism became the dominant strategic idea of socialist parties in the second half of the 20th century. These strategies were primarily reflected in the following three sets of state policies implemented in developed capitalist societies: (1) Some of the most severe risks people experience in life—particularly regarding health, employment, and income—were reduced through a fairly comprehensive system of publicly mandated and funded social insurance. (2) The state assumed responsibility for providing a large volume of public goods, funded by the government through a robust and relatively high-tax system. These were used for primary and higher education, vocational skill development, public transportation, cultural activities, recreational facilities, and research and development (R&D). While the primary beneficiaries of some of these public goods were capitalists, many still benefited the masses. (3) The state also established regulatory systems aimed at addressing the most serious negative externalities of investor and corporate behavior in capitalist markets: pollution, workplace and product hazards, predatory market behavior, asset market volatility, and so on. Similarly, while some of these regulations served the interests of capitalists strictly, others protected the welfare of workers and the general populace. These policies meant that the state assumed partial responsibility within the capitalist economy for correcting the three major market failures of capitalism: individual vulnerability to risk, the under-provision of public goods, and the negative externalities of economic activities aimed at private profit maximization. Capitalism was tamed in key respects, yet it continued to exist, merely becoming less "predatory." However, in the first decade or so of the 21st century, a reversal occurred. Everywhere, even in the Nordic strongholds of social democracy, there were calls to abolish "entitlements" related to social insurance, reduce taxes and the associated provision of public goods, deregulate many aspects of capitalist production and markets, and privatize many state-provided services. Capitalist globalization made it easier for capitalist firms to shift investment to places in the world with less regulation and cheaper labor, which fragmented labor movements and weakened their capacity for resistance and political mobilization. Accompanying globalization, the financialization of capital led to intensified wealth and income inequality, which in turn strengthened the political influence of opponents of socialism. Rather than being tamed, capitalism was liberated.
Resisting capitalism. [Erik Olin] Wright [5] argues that the term "resisting capitalism" can serve as an umbrella term for anti-capitalist struggles, but he uses it here in a narrower sense to mean "struggles against capitalism that occur outside the state and do not themselves attempt to gain state power." While taming capitalism hopes to use state power to eliminate the harms of capitalism, and dismantling capitalism envisions turning state power against capitalism itself, resisting capitalism attempts to influence the state or block state actions without using state power. Its basic propositions are as follows: Resisting capitalism aims to mitigate the harms of the system without attempting to seize state power. Instead, it attempts to influence the behavior of capitalists and political elites through protests and other forms of resistance outside of state power. We may not be able to change capitalism, but we can protect ourselves from its harms by making trouble, protesting, and raising the costs of elite actions. This is the strategy of various grassroots activists—environmentalists protesting toxic waste sites and environmentally destructive developments, consumers organizing boycotts of predatory corporations, and advocacy lawyers defending the rights of immigrants, the poor, and sexual minorities. It is also the basic strategic logic of labor unions organizing strikes to increase wages and improve working conditions. Resisting capitalism in one form or another is perhaps the most universal response to the harms of the capitalist system. It is rooted in civil society and linked to workplace and community solidarity. Various identities outside of class, such as nation, religion, race, and gender, often animate the agenda of resisting capitalism. In more organized forms, the resistance to capitalism is primarily advanced by social and labor movements. Moreover, even when union power is weak and a hostile political environment makes collective social protest difficult, workers on the shop floor can resist the oppression and exploitation of the capitalist labor process and class relations. An inherent feature of exploitation is that the exploiter depends on the effort of the exploited. Since humans are not robots, this means people are capable, to some extent, of refusing to provide maximum effort and diligence. This is the most fundamental form of resisting capitalism.
Escaping capitalism. One of the earliest responses to capitalist predation was escape. While escaping capitalism may not have formed a systematic anti-capitalist ideology, it possesses the following coherent logic: Capitalism is a system too powerful to be destroyed. Truly taming capitalism—let alone dismantling it—requires sustained collective action, which is unrealistic. Furthermore, the system as a whole is too vast and complex to implement effective control. Those in power are also too strong to be ousted; they will always co-opt the opposition and defend their privileges. You "can't fight City Hall." The stronger the resistance, the more powerful the authority becomes. Our best choice is to find ways to shield ourselves from the destructive effects of capitalism, perhaps escaping its ravages entirely within some sheltered environment. We may not be able to change the whole world, but we can liberate ourselves as much as possible from its web of domination and create micro-alternatives in which to live healthy and happy lives. Faced with the harms of capitalism, this impulse to escape is reflected in many familiar responses: the 19th-century migration of poor American farmers to the Western frontier out of a desire for stable, self-sufficient farming rather than production for the market; 19th-century experiments in utopian communities that sought to establish essentially self-sufficient neighborhoods operating on principles of equality and reciprocity; and attempts at worker cooperatives that tried to create workplaces organized around principles of democracy, solidarity, and equality to eliminate the alienation and exploitation of capitalist enterprises. Escaping capitalism was also implicit in the 1960s hippie motto "turn on, tune in, drop out." Certain religious groups, such as the Amish, attempt to build strong barriers between themselves and the rest of society to remain as far as possible from the pressures of the capitalist market. Describing the family as a "haven in a heartless world" expresses an ideal people invest in the family: that it is a reciprocal, caring, non-competitive social space, a sanctuary people find within the ruthless world of capitalist competition. Furthermore, intentional communities seeking to escape capitalist pressures, cooperatives aimed at escaping authoritarian workplaces and capitalist exploitation, and "do-it-yourself" movements aimed at reducing dependence on market exchange can all be seen as classic cases of escaping capitalism.
III. The Emergence and Prospects of the Strategy of Eroding Capitalism
Wright notes that in the anti-capitalist struggles of the 20th century, the five strategies mentioned above appeared respectively in four different political propositions and actions. Revolutionary Communism advocated combining the resistance to capitalism with the destruction of capitalism, viewing the labor movement as an essential part of building working-class solidarity and transforming working-class consciousness, with the strategic ultimate goal of breaking with the old system by controlling state power when the "time is ripe." To this end, revolutionary communists actively participated in radical resistance to capitalism within the labor movement. Democratic Socialism abandoned the idea of destroying capitalism but still sought a strategy to eventually transcend its structure through the gradual dismantling of capitalism. This strategy combined reforms to eliminate the harms of capitalism with efforts to build a strong state sector and support the labor movement. The strategy of Social Democracy included resisting capitalism but combined it with taming capitalism, largely abandoning efforts to gradually dismantle capitalism. Anarchist social movements generally resisted capitalism only to defend against its predations, a resistance sometimes combined with the practice of attempting to construct new alternatives to capitalism.
These four propositions and actions were the primary strategic responses to the injustice and oppression of capitalist society in the 20th century. By the end of the 20th century, at least in developed capitalist countries, the first two propositions had almost vanished from the political stage. Democratic socialism was marginalized due to the repeated failure of electoral strategies to establish a state-socialist sector within capitalist economies. Although social democracy has not disappeared, it is in decline and has largely lost its connection to labor struggles. The most vibrant anti-capitalist strategies in the first decade or so of the 21st century are rooted in social movements, which are often accompanied by strong anarchist currents. In most cases, this resistance to capitalism is disconnected from a general political program involving state power, and thus disconnected from political parties. However, in at least some anti-capitalist movements in Latin America and Southern Europe, the seeds of a new strategic idea are emerging. It combines bottom-up, civil-society-centered actions of resisting and escaping capitalism with top-down, state-centered initiatives of taming and dismantling capitalism. Wright calls this new strategy "eroding capitalism," [6] arguing that the strategy of eroding capitalism is based primarily on the following grounds:
The strategy of eroding capitalism is based on a particular understanding of the concept of economic systems. Let us consider capitalism. There has never been, nor can there ever be, an economy that is purely capitalist. Capitalism is defined by the combination of market exchange with private ownership of the means of production and the employment of wage-laborers recruited through labor markets. Existing economic systems combine capitalism with many other ways of organizing the production and distribution of goods and services. These combinations include: direct integration through the state; integration within the intimate relations of the family to meet the needs of household members; integration through community networks and organizations often referred to as the social and solidarity economy; through cooperatives democratically owned and managed by their members; through nonprofit market-oriented organizations; and through peer-to-peer networks involved in collaborative production processes. Beyond these, many other possibilities exist. Among them, some ways of organizing economic activity can be considered hybrids combining capitalist and non-capitalist elements; others are entirely non-capitalist; and still others are anti-capitalist. We call this complex economic system "capitalism" when capitalism is dominant in determining the economic living conditions and means of subsistence for the majority of people. This dominance is highly destructive. One way to challenge capitalism is to build economic relations that are as democratic, egalitarian, and participatory as possible within the spaces and cracks of this complex system. The theory of eroding capitalism holds that, in the long run, these alternatives have the potential to become increasingly important in the lives of individuals and communities, ultimately displacing the dominance of capitalism within the system as a whole.
This way of thinking about the process of transcending capitalism is quite similar to the typical historical account of Europe's transition from pre-capitalist feudal society to capitalism. In the feudal economies of the late Middle Ages, proto-capitalist relations and practices emerged, particularly in cities. Initially, these involved merchant trade, guild-regulated handicrafts, and banking operations. These forms of economic activity filled gaps in various sectors and were often very useful to the elites of feudal society. In these areas, the rules of economic transaction were starkly different from those of the dominant feudalism. As these market activities expanded, they gradually became more capitalist and, in certain places, eroded the established feudal rule across the entire economy. Following a long and convoluted process spanning several centuries, feudal structures no longer dominated economic life in certain European regions, and feudalism subsequently vanished. This process might be interrupted by political upheavals or even revolutions, but these did not cause a rupture in the economic structure; rather, they served more to recognize and rationalize the changes that had already occurred within the socio-economic structure.
The strategic vision of eroding capitalism views the process of displacing capitalism's dominant economic role in a similar light. Non-capitalist economic activities embodying democratic and egalitarian relations emerge in small niches within a capitalism-dominated economy and grow over time—some spontaneously, others as a result of deliberate strategies. Some of these activities arise from the responses and initiatives of grassroots communities, while others are actively organized or facilitated from above by the state. These alternative economic relations constitute the building blocks of an economic structure whose relations of production are characterized by democracy, equality, and solidarity. Struggles involving the state are sometimes aimed at protecting these niches and sometimes at promoting new possibilities. People involved in these activities regularly encounter structural "limits of possibility"; to move beyond these limits may require more radical political mobilization to change key features of the "rules of the game" under which capitalism operates. Such mobilizations often fail, but at least occasionally, the conditions for such change ripen and possibilities expand. Eventually, the cumulative effect of the interaction between changes from above and initiatives from below may reach a point where the socialist relations established within the economic ecosystem displace capitalist relations and occupy the dominant position in the lives of individuals and communities.
As a strategic synthesis, eroding capitalism combines the visions of social democracy and democratic socialism—that is, changing the rules of the game for capitalist operations from above to eliminate its worst harms and create state-rooted alternatives. Furthermore, eroding capitalism draws upon the anarchist vision of creating new economic relations that embody emancipatory aspirations from below. Wright argues that, at present, no political movement has explicitly embraced this strategic synthesis, which integrates resisting, taming, dismantling, and escaping capitalism to erode its dominance over the long term. However, the impetus for this direction can be found in political parties closely linked to progressive social movements, such as Syriza in Greece and the Podemos party in Spain. Wright also notes that eroding capitalism might resonate with younger generations in some established center-left parties—for example, supporters of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party during the 2016 US presidential election or adherents of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Labour Party.
However, Wright acknowledges that as a strategic vision, "eroding capitalism is both enticing and far-fetched." It is enticing because it suggests that much can still be done even if the state does not identify with social justice and emancipatory social change. We can build a new world, not from the ruins of the old, but in the interstices of the old. We can establish "real utopias"—emancipatory camps that transcend capitalism within a society still dominated by it. It is far-fetched because, in an economy dominated by capitalism, where large capitalist firms possess immense power and wealth and most people's livelihoods depend on the smooth functioning of the capitalist market, the idea that the accumulation of emancipatory economic spaces could truly erode and displace capitalism is difficult to believe. If emancipatory forms of non-capitalist economic activity and relations were to develop to the point of threatening capitalist dominance, they would surely be destroyed. To address these doubts, Wright further discusses three issues closely related to the implementation of the strategy for eroding capitalism in his book How to Be an Anticapitalist in the Twenty-First Century: first, the realization of "economic-democratic socialism" must be treated as the goal for transcending capitalism; second, the advancement and deepening of democratic processes must be seen as a reliable path to gradually weakening capitalist dominance; third, the key to realizing the strategy of eroding capitalism is the fashioning of effective, politically organized collective actors.
The above constitutes a general exposition of the new strategy against capitalism in the 21st century proposed by Wright—eroding capitalism. In my view, Wright’s discussion of this new strategy holds significant theoretical and practical importance. First, his discourse powerfully refutes the neoliberal "no alternative" to capitalism argument, clearly pointing out that "another world"—namely, a socialist society—is possible. Second, Wright’s discussion demonstrates that capitalism cannot fully realize the values of equality/fairness, democracy/freedom, and community/solidarity that most people embrace. This provides new arguments for the motivations behind opposing capitalism. Third, Wright’s discourse provides an in-depth analysis of the five strategies against capitalism in the 20th century, offering a relatively objective evaluation of their respective historical contributions and limitations. Finally, Wright’s discussion offers a beneficial exploration of how to realize socialism in developed capitalist countries in the 21st century, further clarifying people's goals in opposing capitalism. Of course, many problems remain in Wright's discourse, particularly reflected in the lack of feasibility demonstrations for his new strategy, which consequently retains a largely utopian character. Nevertheless, in any case, we should express our respect for Wright, as he was, after all, fighting for socialism in a developed capitalist country like the United States.
(Author: Duan Zhongqiao, School of Marxism [7], Shandong Normal University; Research Center for Political Philosophy, School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China) Web Editor: Tong Xin Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends [8], Issue 2, 2022