Saving Capitalism from Itself

The remarkable reformer, lawyer, and jurist, Louis D. Brandeis,* attempted to persuade the partisans of plutocracy that it was in their best interests to reform capitalism if they were concerned to save it: “the great captains of industry and of finance,” he warned them “…are the chief makers of socialism.” And of course Brandeis himself did much to humanize (in the broadest sense) capitalism in the first decades of the last century. But the truth of his rhetorical warning is an open question: does the behavior of corporate and finance capitalists contribute to rendering socialist theories and practices more palatable to masses experiencing the sudden thwarting of both their needs and fantasies? Is floundering in the conditions of material uncertainty and psychological insecurity conducive to rendering hearts and minds more receptive to utopian visions and radical socio-economic reforms and experimentation of socialist pedigree?

* See Melvin I. Urofsky’s biography, Louis D. Brandeis: A Life. New York: Pantheon Books, 2009.

Comments

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Thanks Frank (nice to see you commenting here!).

I think the Left once thought in general that times of severe socio-economic crisis were ripe for radical social and political transformation but that belief included the premise of a violent revolution and was more persuasive before Gramsci explained the value and logic of the model of the "war of position," that is, the primary significance of a socio-cultural struggle for hegemony on the terrain of civil society. While Gramsci was not entertaining the prospect of a non-violent social revolution, I suspect the conditions for same, combined with Gramsci's insight, suggest we not take for granted the propitious character of dark times.

FDR, with the help of World War II, did in fact save capitalism from itself but I'm inclined to think that today a neo-Keynesian inspired way out of this global economic morass will (or can) only be short-lived and, in any case, has yet to be formulated in a manner by elites that is compelling or inspiring to electorates in the hyper-industrialized nation-states. In short, I take Henwood's concerns quite seriously although the final (or 'next') act has yet to be written.

[Frank Pasquale]

Doug Henwood has warned that crisis is much better for fascism, repression, and consolidation of oligarchy. I think Ben Friedman's work there is solid, too. But AJ Sutter has a good critical review of Friedman's correlations, and of course FDR stands as a great counterexample.