Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism,Social Mechanics,and Labor Discipline

This article examines the perspective on labor in two critiques of “growth” as elaborated in the context of two capitalist crises: the Keynesian model of industrial development in the 1970s, and the neoliberal finance capitalist growth model of today. A landmark event for the first critique was the publication of the “Limits to Growth” report, and for the second the emergence of the “degrowth” theoretical current. Both critiques have a Malthusian point of departure, and their view on overpopulation is accordingly discussed. Comparison between them shows that despite their ecological and supposedly socially and politically neutral point of departure, both bodies of critique examined here—that of the 1970s and the contemporary one—prescribe for labor the obligation of social discipline and acceptance of labor-market insecurity, along with the undermining of welfare rights. First, I argue that there is no such thing as an ahistorical critique of growth, but only critiques of different, case-specific models of growth in each particular instance. Second, I argue that the idea of a steady-state economy that predominates in growth critical programs is incompatible with the process of expansion and continual enlargement inherent to capitalism. Finally, I argue that, in the framework of two different crises, both critiques of growth promoted a vision of social pacification and, on the basis of ecological arguments, justified the preservation of capitalist power relations.     

Beyond the Limits of Nature: A Social-ecological Perspective on Degrowth as a Political Ideology

This article offers a critical analysis of the ideological position of degrowth from the perspective of social ecology. It agrees with Giorgios Kallis' call to abolish the growth imperative that capitalism embodies today, but it also presents a critique of the conceptual underpinnings of this notion. More precisely, I argue that degrowth as an ideological platform reproduces a binary conception of society and nature, an oppositional mentality which is a key concept to hierarchical epistemology. Degrowth as a political agenda is thus prone to appropriation to authoritarian ends. In order to temper this tendency and help degrowth as a tool of analysis reach its liberatory potential, I advocate its consideration alongside a social-ecological position.     

From Provocation to Challenge: Degrowth,Capitalism and the Prospect of “Socialism without Growth”: A Commentary on Giorgios Kallis

Giorgios Kallis argues that Degrowth, as a pluralistic convergence of both theoretical perspectives and social movements, is part of a renewal of the critique of capitalism based on the ecological contradictions of this social order. In “Socialism without Growth” Kallis engages with other, more classical, approaches that have examined the contradictions of capitalism and the material conditions for a future, ecologically viable postcapitalist social order. After a quick exposition of the lineaments of a general theory of surplus and accumulation based on Bataille, Polanyi and Georgescu-Roegen, Kallis mobilizes Marx’s theory of accumulation to examine the growth drivers of capitalism. I will argue that economic growth in advanced capitalism can best be explained as a relation that articulates capitalist overproduction to overconsumption, and outline some analytical tools that such an explanation can provide to those interested in understanding the specific growth drivers of contemporary capitalism and their social and ecological consequences. This implies moving beyond the model outlined by Marx and mobilizing concepts and categories developed by the over-accumulation approach to capitalism, those developed by some of Degrowth’s most vocal Marxist critics, such as Foster. Through my dialogue with Kallis I will try and bridge these two approaches.     

Radical Reformism and the Marxist Critique

The mainstream environmental movement has tended to accept the continuation of capitalism and the growth economy. A de-materialization is hoped to follow from limits on the use of natural resources. Eco-Marxists have opposed this strategy, claiming environmental problems are intrinsic to capitalism. More recently a tendency which I will call “radical reformism” has been gaining strength. Radical reformists argue that a growth economy is not compatible with environmental limits. They look to regulate capitalism to prevent growth. The overall intention is for a peaceful transition within a broadly capitalist economy. The eco-Marxist critique of mainstream environmentalism can also be applied to radical reformism. While radical reformists may have some answers to this critique, these answers bring further problems.     

Socialism Without Growth

In this article, I take issue with (eco-)socialists who embrace an ecological critique of growth under capitalism, but remain supportive or agnostic of the prospects for socialist growth. First, I argue that economic growth is ecologically unsustainable—whether it is capitalist or socialist does not make a difference. Second, I claim that economic growth rests to a large extent on exploitation. While it is logically possible to have non-exploitative socialist growth, in practice it is unlikely. Third, socialist policies are likely to have a negative effect on growth. A transition to socialism is a transition beyond growth.     

Value and Nature: Rethinking Capitalist Exploitation and Expansion

Value is central to the political economy of capitalism, but Marxian value theory has generally been abandoned when it comes to including nature in the analysis. An important exception is the recent work of Jason Moore, and in this paper an effort is made to fill several lacunae in Moore’s approach. I argue for a unified measure of labor-nature time and joint exploitation of surplus value, then explore the significance of that for capitalist growth via rising productivity and cheap inputs, as well as what these mean for geographic expansion in search of labor and resources. I finish on the classic note of the insatiable drive for capital accumulation and its implications for the fate of the earth.     

历史唯物主义重建之下的民主观念

伍德把民主视为超越资本主义的一种力量。她虽然肯定在资本主义条件下,政治民主有所发展,但更为根本的是,经济并不是民主的,而是充满压迫与强制的。因此,民主的发展,必然要超出资本主义社会。为此,她对历史唯物主义的一些基本范畴进行了重新思考,包括经济"基础"与上层建筑的关系。她不同意把经济与政治视为截然分离的两个领域,而是把资本主义社会所特有的这种分离视为资本主义本身政治功能的分化。伍德的民主理论,是力图从马克思主义视角来回应当代资本主义的民主理论,与所谓的后马克思主义有着重大的差别。     

Capitalism,Socialism and the Challenge of Degrowth: Introduction to the Symposium

This is an overview of a symposium on degrowth centred on Giorgos Kallis’ call for a socialism without growth, which insists on the need to be mindful of throughputs and the ecological consequences of any socialist project. Summarising and critically evaluating the various positions expressed by all the symposium participants, we find that Kallis’ ideas can be promising in drawing closer different Green Left perspectives, including ecosocialist, ecofeminist, and eco-Marxist. This complementarity is possible provided that degrowth proponents clearly align themselves politically on the side of the broad anti-capitalist Left and that the critiques expressed by the other symposium participants-especially with respect to Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews and practices and the dynamics that subtend the capitalist mode of production—become essential to degrowth platforms. We find already enough overlap among the diverse leftist positions represented in this Symposium for, at a minimum, continuing dialogue and, hopefully, politically beneficial mutual transformation and unification.     

Capitalism, socialism, and democracy: An empirical inquiry

Abstract. Some prominent economists have argued that the structure of a nation's economic life – capitalist or socialist - helps to shape its political institutions. Though its importance seems self-evident, scholars have not yet integrated this idea into the literature of empirical democratic theory. Drawing on previous work, we formulate four propositions about the relationship between economic structure and political democracy. Economic structure does in fact mould political forms, but not in a simple, linear fashion. Rather, it does so in a more complex, non-linear manner, a relationship we label the 'mixed-economy' model. This relationship survives and flourishes in the face of extensive challenges. Its implication is simple: democratic political practice reaches a maximum under moderate amounts of public direction of economic affairs, but suffers at the extremes of both unfettered capitalism and socialism.     

‘Democratic Socialism’ and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism

This article explores the ‘democratic socialism’ being proposed by new left movements on either side of the Atlantic, and evaluates its claim to be a form of anti- or postcapitalism. It argues that in the democratic socialist worldview, the line between capitalism and socialism rests on the balance of power between workers and capitalists in the economic sphere. While traditional social democracy seeks to redistribute wealth but leaves relations between workers and capitalists within firms untouched, democratic socialism seeks to abolish private property in the economic sphere. Production is controlled democratically by the workers themselves, in league with a workers’ state. The article critically appraises the claim that such a scenario constitutes a form of postcapitalism. Drawing on the work of critical Marxists such as Moishe Postone, it argues that capitalism is not primarily defined by private property relations in the economic sphere, but rather the peculiar social form of capitalist labour. Unlike in pre-capitalist societies, for labour in capitalism to secure a continued basis on which to reproduce the means of subsistence, it must be socially validated as ‘value-producing’. The criteria for value validation is not set in the workplace, or within a single nation state, but rather on the world market. The article concludes that, for all its merits, the democratisation of workplaces does not overcome the need for this social validation, but rather constitutes an alternative form of managing the process of production in this context. As such, democratic socialism, like social democracy, remains susceptible to the same imperatives and crises as other forms of capitalist production, and so cannot be said to constitute a form of ‘postcapitalism’.     

Trust Your Compatriots, but Count Your Change: The Roles of Trust, Mistrust and Distrust in Democracy

Although trust is clearly central to human relations of all kinds, it is less clear whether there is a role for trust in democratic politics. In this article, I argue that trust is central to democratic institutions as well as to democratic political participation, and that arguments which make distrust the central element of democracy fail. First, I argue for the centrality of trust to the democratic process. The voluntary compliance that is central to democracies relies on trust, along two dimensions: citizens must trust their legislators to have the national interest in mind and citizens must trust each other to abide by democratically established laws. Second, I refute arguments that place distrust at the centre of democratic institutions. I argue, instead, that citizens must be vigilant with respect to their legislators and fellow citizens; that is, they must be willing to ensure that the institutions are working fairly and that people continue to abide by shared regulations. This vigilance – which is reflected both in a set of institutions as well as an active citizenry – is motivated by an attitude termed 'mistrust'. Mistrust is a cautious attitude that propels citizens to maintain a watchful eye on the political and social happenings within their communities. Moreover, mistrust depends on trust: we trust fellow citizens to monitor for abuses of our own rights and privileges just as we monitor for abuses of their rights and privileges. Finally, I argue that distrust is inimical to democracy. We are, consequently, right to worry about widespread reports of trust's decline. Just as distrust is harmful to human relations of all kinds, and just as trust is central to positive human relations of all kinds, so is distrust inimical to democracy and trust central to its flourishing.     

Value,Nature, and Labor: A Defense of Marx

In this theoretical intervention, I argue that Karl Marx’s theory of value remains a powerful way to understand nature–society relations under capitalism. I suggest environmentalist critiques often misunderstand Marx’s value theory as a theory that “values” workers over nature. His critical theory is better understood as an explanation of how capitalist value exploits both workers and the environment. My defense of Marxian value theory is articulated through five “theses.” I provide empirical illustration based on recent research into the nitrogen fertilizer industry. (1) Value theory does not refer to all values. (2) Marx’s contention that nature does not contribute to value helps us explain its degradation under capitalism. (3) Marx’s value theory rooted in production allows for a critique of environmental economic valuation schemes (e.g. payments for ecosystem services) which are based on neoclassical value theories rooted in consumption/exchange. (4) Value is abstract social labor, but that means it also abstracts from nature. (5) Capital does value certain parts of nature and that matters. I conclude by advocating a “value theory of nature” in the spirit of Diane Elson’s powerful articulation of Marx’s “value theory of labor.”     

Performing Counter-Hegemonic Common(s) Senses: Rearticulating Democracy,Community and Forests in Puerto Rico

Political ecologists have developed scathing analyses of capitalism’s tendency for enclosure and dispossession of the commons. In this context commons are analyzed as a force to resist neo-liberalism, a main site of conflict over dispossession, and a source of alternatives to capitalism. In this paper we elaborate a view of the commons as the material and symbolic terrain where performative re-articulation of common(s) senses can potentially enact counter-hegemonic socio-ecological configurations. Expressly drawing on the concepts of hegemony, “common-senses” (inspired by Antonio Gramsci) and “performativity” (developed by Judith Butler), we argue that counter-hegemony is performed through everyday practices that rearticulate existing common senses about commons. Commoning is a set of processes/relations enacted to challenge capitalist hegemony and build more just/sustainable societies insofar as it transforms and rearranges common senses in/through praxis. The paper draws on the experience of an anti-mining movement of Casa Pueblo in Puerto Rico, which for the last 35+ years has been developing a project self-described as autogestion. The discussion pays special attention to Casa Pueblo’s praxis and discourses to investigate how they rearticulate common senses with regard to nature, community and democracy, as well as their implications for counter-hegemonic politics.     

Better by design: Korea's neoliberal economy

Abstract

This paper examines the processes of bank and corporate restructuring in South Korea since the 1997–98 economic crisis, and seeks to highlight how the state has intervened in a highly dirigiste manner in order to expedite restructuring in both the commercial bank and corporate sectors. At the same time it demonstrates the clear neoliberal principles that have underpinned the state's attempts to promote restructuring. The state has shown a clear determination to take action against insolvent firms and financial institutions no matter how large or strategically important they may be, to impose hard budget constraints on key economic actors. Furthermore, the state has actively sought to engineer the sale of key domestic firms and banks to foreign investors. We argue that Korea's efforts to create a functioning neoliberal economy have been largely successful and are functional from the perspective of Korean capitalism, if not the perspective of individual Korean firms. Changes in the global economy in the two decades preceding the 1997–98 crisis imposed an increasingly inescapable pressure on the Korean state to effect a neoliberal transformation and Korea's future as a centre of capitalist accumulation has for some time been bound up with the success of the neoliberal project. In conclusion, this paper seeks to draw out the broader implications of this reading of the post-crisis restructuring programme for debates on global economic liberalization and the future of capitalist diversity.     

What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?

Despite a growing interest in corruption, the topic has been absent from democratic theory. The reason is not a lack of normative issues, but rather missing links between the concepts of corruption and democracy. With few exceptions, political corruption has been conceived as departures by public officials from public rules, norms, and laws for the sake of private gain. Such a conception works well within bureaucratic contexts with well-defined offices, purposes, and norms of conduct. But it inadequately identifies corruption in political contexts, that is, the processes of contestation through which common purposes, norms, and rules are created. Corruption in a democracy, I argue, involves duplicitous violations of the democratic norm of inclusion. Such a conception encompasses the standard conception while complementing it with attention to the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion within democratic politics. By distinguishing the meanings of inclusion and exclusion within the many institutions, spheres, and associations that constitute contemporary democracies, I provide a democratic conception of corruption with a number of implications. The most important of these is that corruption in a democracy usually indicates a deficit of democracy.     

The Global South is dead,long live the Global South! The intersectionality of social and geographic hierarchies in global capitalism

Abstract

This article explores two critical approaches to the study of the continuing relevance of the North—South divide. One is based on a postcolonial politics of difference and stresses the fundamental geographic divergences between the North and South. The other, referred to as the global capitalism school, argues that the North—South divide is rendered obsolete by social divisions, represented by the rise of a transnational capitalist class. I criticize the former due to its dismissal of the idea of capitalism as a universal force. In regards to the latter, to determine whether the primary fault line in global capitalism revolves around transnationally organized classes, I conduct an interpretive analysis of the world views of capitalist elites in Latin America. My findings demonstrate the complex, intersecting nature of different axes of identity, and contradict this literature by suggesting the continuing relevance of a place-based North—South divide. In other words, neither position can by itself elucidate the contours of our contemporary global economic system. What I propose is a framework that captures the intersectionality between the social and geographic within a universal story of capitalist globalization. The key is to conceptualize how global capitalism operates as a universalizing force, but not a homogenizing one.     

Deficit by Design

This paper focuses on the distinguishing concern of the discourse of democratic deficit: namely, that there appear to be some striking discrepancies between democratic norms and institutional practice. I argue in this paper that the problem of democratic deficit is in fact the normal condition of the institutions of representative government. Indeed, early arguments in favour of representative government insist that it departs from and is superior to democracy itself. If representative government provides the predominant modern understanding of democracy, then democratic deficit is an integral part of its design.     

A Boom with Review: How Retrospective Oversight Increases the Foreign Policy Ability of Democracies

In the ongoing debate concerning whether democracies can carry out effective national security policy, the role of transparency costs has received little attention. I argue for a more nuanced understanding of how some democracies that possess specific investigative institutions, such as national security–relevant freedom of information laws, legislative oversight powers, and press freedoms, are able to avoid the problems of which democracy skeptics warn. Using a new dataset on national security accountability institutions in democracies within a Bradley‐Terry framework, I find that national security oversight mechanisms raise the probability that a democracy wins international disputes as well as increasing the expected number of enemy casualties, as compared to democracies that lack effective oversight. Contra previous theories of foreign policy efficacy, I find that the chances for democratic foreign policy success are maximized when competitive elections are linked to institutions that increase the retrospective revelation of previously classified information.     

Marxism Beyond the Economy and Exploitation Beyond the Wage

Since its inception Marxism has largely operated with a narrow definition of the economy which closely resembles capitalism’s own, focusing on wage labor as the pre-eminent example of capitalist relations of labor. A century-long series of challenges from heterodox radical economists, including those based in feminism and anti-colonial theory, has yet to broaden this definition of capitalism, but the fading importance of wage labor and the advent of new forms of precarious labor relations may allow us to break the hold of restrictive ideas of the economy. A larger, more comprehensive concept of economics locates value production and material exploitation in many forms of labor in addition to waged work, and provides a theoretical platform for building solidarity among seemingly disparate movements and constituencies. Marxism can and must incorporate critiques if it is to have continuing relevance. In fact, Marx’s original understanding of capitalism included the concepts of primitive accumulation and the reproduction of labor power, allowing broader concepts of capitalist exploitation to be incorporated into the Marxist worldview. New insights into the essential nature of capitalism and new possibilities for organizing and change may emerge from this paradigm shift.