3.5 stars
In Making Capitalism Fit for Society, Colin Crouch presents the case for an “assertive social democracy” as an alternative or corrective to the neoliberalization of social democratic parties seen throughout the West. Social democratic parties in Europe are either stuck playing defense to protect their past gains or (in some cases) helping to dismantle them. Is there a different path forward, one with renewed vigor? Crouch hopes so.
He points out how “actually existing neoliberalism” is nothing like the textbook economics that its proponents preach—perfect competition is not a natural state of the economy, nor is complete information common. (Although public goods and externalities, positive or negative, are present in such textbook accounts, they are often undervalued and certainly given no moral import.) But what is missing most from this abstract technocratic vision is the workings of power. Rather than some perfect state of competition, “actually existing neoliberalism” often entails no-bid contracts of former government services handed over to politicians’ friends at low cost.
Markets are wonderful tools for coordinating consumer goods, but not everything is a consumer good (education, health care, etc.) Crouch offers the affirmative case for investment and regulation to promote general well-being, reduce inequality, and protect the environment, and he emphasizes how social democracy, rather than being stifling innovation or competitiveness, has often been one of the best systems of governance for them. By investing in people and offering a foundation of economic security, it sets the conditions for the flourishing of individuals as well as the market. As he says—and as many Fabians believed in late nineteenth/early twentieth century Britain, social democracy is the highest form of liberalism. It helps prevent liberalism from degrading into mere administration or from undermining its own professed goals.
There was little that felt particularly novel in this book. Post-Democracy is still my favorite of his books because it offers a sharp and useful analytical framework for understanding contemporary politics. Many of the ideas in Making Capitalism Fit for Society could be found in that work or The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. As he has in the past, he articulates the need for social democratic/labor parties to re-imagine themselves as a party of the diverse movements working for progressive social change (not just trade unions but also environmentalists, feminists, etc.) Such collaboration and cross-fertilization is essential.
But the book often felt anticlimactic in part because Crouch never fully addresses how to “get from here to there.” Is there a way to reinvigorate not just labor parties but labor unions as well? Their importance as voting base and funding base cannot be understated.
And how does he expect to achieve the democratization of the EU that he alludes to? What we’ve seen in Greece this year in the case of Syriza (I would have liked to see Crouch give more attention to the growth of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain—and analyze the implications) is that the EU uses monetary policy as a noose with which to strangle democracy, and it is a way to render social democratic parties—or those to their left—impotent. And monetary policy has been used in the same way in the US, such as when Paul Volcker engineered a recession because living standards were “too high” for his taste.
The same questions could be raised of institutions like the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, which often work to subvert democracy in the interest of financial elites. Are such institutions reformable? If so, how? And if not, how does one manage to get past their dominance?
I was also disappointed that Crouch didn’t really engage with issues of ownership. He never directly presents a definition of “capitalism” (that I can remember). Capitalism, of course, is not equivalent to markets; markets can exist with or without a capitalist system. Capitalism refers, instead, to the private ownership of the means of production. And if we recognize that having the means of production owned entirely by a centralized state can lead to corruption (in much the same way that capitalism does), and if we want to seek something beyond the garden-variety “mixed economy” concept, then ownership is the place to look. What role can worker cooperatives play in a renewal of a solidarity-oriented economy? Why is external stock ownership something to be defended (given that it leads to a rentier class and divorces decision-making power from those affected by the decisions)?