The End of Capitalism (as we knew it)
By Katherine Gibson and Julie Graham
Blackwell, 1996. 299 pp., $39.95
Reviewed by Greg Ogle
This book is written for political economists and activists who are interested in overthrowing, replacing or opposing capitalism. The authors draw insights from feminism and post-modernism, challenging in a fundamental way the Marxist/radical political economy tradition.
Gibson and Graham argue that in analysing capitalism, socialists and Marxists have pictured it as a large, all-powerful, dynamic system, thus contributing both to its power and to the pessimism and crisis of the left. Their task then is to deconstruct capitalism with a capital C — they are interested in the name, the discourse, the way capitalism is talked about and the political consequences of such an analysis.
The challenge is issued on the second page: "... when people say that the US is a Christian nation, or a heterosexual nation, we see this as a 'regulatory fiction' — a way of erasing or obscuring difference and of reinforcing dominance.
"Similarly, when we say that the US (or Australia) is a capitalist nation, we obscure all those things which are not reducible to capitalism — including the many forms of non-capitalist production."
Noting that many feminists have abandoned notions of all-embracing systems or power structures like "patriarchy", the authors want to problematise "Capitalism" as the dominant description of economy and society. Household production, self-employment, subsistence production or community work are not the same as, or modelled on, capitalism. Nor do they simply exist only at capitalism's margins, or before or after it. These non-capitalisms are surviving and powerful forms of economy (and society).
Forms of economy
Properly conceived, capitalism refers only to that form of production where surplus is appropriated from workers who sell their labour power to the owners of the capital. Commodities exchanged in the market are produced under a number of different production relations, some exploitative (capitalist, feudal household), some not (self-employment, communistic). Thus for Gibson and Graham, capitalism is not an entire system of economy, or a macrostructure, or a mode of production, but simply one form of economy among many.
In this view, capitalism is neither a unified system nor the base upon which a superstructure is built. The myriad of institutions and activities which Marxists argue make up the superstructure of capitalist society and are conditioned, if not determined, by the capitalist base, are now seen to have their own dynamics. They are constantly being formed and reformed ("over-determined" in the language of the authors and post-modern Marxists) in relation to all other institutions and activities.
No one dynamic (e.g. class) is privileged as the fundamental cause. Thus class process, defined as the flow and appropriation of surplus value, is only one of a number of financial flows and non-class processes, even within a capitalist corporation. Chapter 8 contains an interesting study of the growth and globalisation of BHP in the 1980s along these lines.
If class is only one process operating in capitalist industry, the logic of profit accumulation can no longer be seen as the fundamental logic of the enterprise, the economy or the society. Yet it is precisely this "structural logic", with its assumption that production is possible only if profits are made, that is underpinning industrial restructuring.
Mainstream left attempts to explain and direct this restructuring (the activism and academic debates based on post-Fordist models or French regulation theory) become trapped by the notion of a unified economy which is totally capitalist. Rather than pursuing socialist policies, left-wing proponents of industrial restructuring, enterprise bargaining and award restructuring are helping to build a capitalist future, albeit one in which workers have more say or better conditions. The authors lament that "once again, the left (or part of it) has convinced itself that the only way to create a non-capitalist alternative is to create a prosperous capitalism first".
Politics
This is key because Gibson and Graham are concerned about developing an anti-capitalist politics. The whole point of their deconstruction of capitalism is to "elaborate a theory of difference" so that "glimmers and murmurings of non-capitalism" might be seen or heard, perhaps inspiring others to pursue them. The importance of this project can hardly be overstated in the post-Cold War period where, for most people, capitalism is not just the best system, it is the only conceivable one.
The big question is whether, in giving us a vision of non-capitalism, Gibson and Graham have taken away the tools we need to get there. The deconstruction of capitalism as the totality of society is also the deconstruction of Marxist analysis. Gone is the understanding of society as structured by class, of people and institutions being constrained (if not positively formed) by material conditions which ultimately relate to a particular production dynamic. All history is no longer the history of class struggle.
Of course, many on the left abandoned such economic reductionism long ago, not least because of powerful feminist criticism that gender oppression could not be reduced to class. But in Gibson and Graham's over-determinist model, the basic Marxist understanding of the power of capital and the dynamics of a capitalist system are rejected. If it is the end of capitalism as we knew it, so too is it the end of Marxism as we knew it.
While I, and I suspect many other socialists, may be hesitant about giving up on the systemic analysis, we can not simply reject Gibson and Graham's work as "counter-revolutionary" or hopelessly utopian. The question they ask is real: what good has grand Marxist analysis of capitalism been in providing a basis for an anti-capitalist program?
Gibson and Graham note that the analysis has contributed to a wide range of political movements and successes, but claim that it is no longer fruitful. It has created a capitalism (with a capital C) which is not ultimately vulnerable to local and partial efforts at transformation. Reforms are doomed by the logic and power of a global capital; capitalism must be transformed in its entirety or not at all. We therefore fail to appreciate our successes and are left with the seemingly hopeless task of systemic change leading to the pessimism and crisis of much of the left, and its continued support for managing capitalism.
New possibilities are offered by a vision of a society which recognises that there already exist significant non-capitalist spaces which can be inhabited and expanded. Rather than waiting for the revolution, the project of socialist (re)construction can happen now, in the society we live in. This is a powerful counter to apprehension at giving up the systemic analysis.
Dominant system
Despite my sympathy, I remain troubled. "Difference" is important, but there are times when systemic analysis is important. My experience at Community Aid Abroad Trading and my analysis of similar attempts to "trade alternatively" with Third World producers suggests that these attempts were coopted or constrained by the dominant system. Just as market competition disciplines capital, so too it imposes a logic on non-capitalist producers. Capitalist enterprises are able to out-compete other productive forms because they are more efficient, more exploitative or have more resources to mobilise, including non-market resources like the state.
After 20 years in the market, the alternative traders were more changed by the system than they had changed it. To understand and counter this process, we need a systemic analysis of capitalist hegemony and power. Indeed, the cooption and/or constraint of alternative trade was made easier by the liberal assumptions of many of its proponents.
Thinking about this as I read Gibson and Graham's book, I concluded that alternative trade could be useful if it focused on production relations rather than markets and prices. Precisely because of my analysis of the systemic constraints of global capital, I argued for support for collective (i.e. non-capitalist) producers and organisations.
The similarity with Gibson and Graham's conclusion, despite the different analysis, makes me wonder whether we can take up their invocation to look for, celebrate and build (some) existing non-capitalisms without abandoning the power and usefulness of the Marxist analysis.
Perhaps. If there is ever going to be a politically useful post-modernism, this would be a good place to look. Read the book.