Following on from my last post, I’d like to place the catalogue of conservative claims that I’m compiling within the context of the Theoretical Foundations topic as a whole.
I should start by saying, that, in previous descriptions of Theoretical Foundations, I’m not sure I’ve always succeeded in communicating that this topic isn’t about the values and principles that guide progressives.
Rather, it addresses the ideas about how the world works that progressive use to decide how to put those values and principles into practice. These ideas are what I call the ‘theoretical foundations’ for progressive action.
In theory, it would be perfectly possible for someone to, in terms of their emotions and ethics, completely agree with progressive values, and yet intellectually not be convinced at all by any of these ‘theoretical foundations’. Instead, this person might believe another set of ideas which say that the way the world works makes it very difficult, and often counter-productive, to accomplish progressive goals.
Presumably, such a person would be very unhappy. Yet it seems that very few such people exist. On the whole, and perhaps this reflects the way that human brains work, people with progressive values believe in at least some of the progressive ‘theoretical foundations’, whereas people with conservative or market-oriented values tend to believe that the world works in such a way that acting in accordance with those values is an effective way of achieving societal wellbeing (as they define it).
Sketching very very broadly, I would say that, while progressive ‘theoretical foundations’ will have many variants, the common theme is to assert that it is possible through collective action to achieve outcomes that better accord with progressive values than the outcomes that would arise of their own accord through the natural order of things.
In the twentieth and early twenty-first century, ‘the natural order of things’ means market outcomes. And ‘collective action’ usually, though not exclusively, means action through the state.
The way I wanted to come at this initially, however, is to consider the alternative set of ‘theoretical foundations’ — those which claim that collective/state action will not achieve better outcomes (even on progressives’ terms) than the market — and the reasons that are put forward for this.
That’s what I was asking for assistance with in my previous post. I want to get my head around the range of contrary arguments as I go forward on this topic.
That’s not to say that I think that the ‘theoretical foundations’ for progressivism should be reduced to a series of rebuttals against individual arguments. In fact, one of the reasons for including this topic in the work programme was a desire to contribute to a more systematic theoretical justification for progressive action. As I said when first mooting the topic:
An argument can be made that, ever since the decline in confidence in traditional Keynesian macroeconomic management from the 1970s and the demise of a socialist alternative to capitalism as even a long-term goal for the mainstream left, the progressive movement has lacked for both a long-term project (‘what kind of society are we trying to get to?’) and a convincing theoretical underpinning.
My focus is on the latter. I aim over the course of this topic to restate some of central strands of progressive thinking over time, trace key intellectual developments over the half-century since 1960, and identify if possible some emerging theories coming out of the experience of the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath.
For now, though, I’d just like to sketch some initial ideas about some of the key points on this trajectory.
I’d argue that the first really systematic account of the structural problem with ‘the natural order of things’ (capitalism), and how ‘collective action’ might address these, comes from Karl Marx in the mid-nineteenth century.
The first important theoretical break with Marx then probably comes from Eduard Bernstein. Writing at the end of the 19th century, Bernstein argued against the inevitable collapse of capitalism and declared he had “extraordinarily little feeling for, or interest in, . . . ‘the final goal of socialism’” and was more interested in achieving “social progress”. He’s regarded as the founder of reformist social democracy.
But Bernstein and his contemporaries had little in the way of a programme for what they would do once power was achieved. Indeed, the first wave of social democrats generally entered government without any distinctively progressive approach of governing. In the English-speaking world it was left to Liberals (ie the predecessors of Nick Clegg’s Lib-Dems) to provide them with a theoretical underpinning, most notably John Maynard Keynes in the field of economic policy and William Beveridge the architect of the British welfare state.
In the immediate postwar era, one can identify the importance of Anthony Crosland’s The Future of Socialism in the UK, which set out a theoretical basis for the postwar welfare state consensus, and in the US The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith and The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. In the New Zealand context, one might add the work of Bill Sutch and Wolfgang Rosenberg.
In the 1960s the emergence of the New Left brought a new radicalism, plus a broadening out of the issues to take in feminism, environmentalism and post materialism. Prominent writers within this movement included the ‘Structural Marxist’ Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault and his work on power, and Jürgen Habermas on modernity. Seminal feminist texts included Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics.
With the 1970s dominated by the oil shocks and stagflation, progressive thinking became both more pessimistic and more defensive. The ’slump’ was analysed through a return to Marxist theories of ‘capitalist crisis’ by economists such as Ernest Mandel and Ralph Miliband (father of the two current UK Labour leadership contenders David and Ed). James O’Connor tried to contend with The Fiscal Crisis of the State, critics like Ian Gough critiqued the welfare state from the left (often in ways that were later appropriated by the right), and André Gorz bade ‘Farewell to the Working Class’. Perhaps the most fundamental challenge to the capitalist order of things however came from the relatively conservative Club of Rome with its 1972 publication The Limits to Growth.
As we get closer to the present day, historical perspective becomes harder to sustain, and choices become more arguable. Amongst 1980s theorists I would point to the French Regulation School which includes Michel Aglietta, Alain Lipietz and Robert Boyer. Anthony Giddens‘ works Beyond Left and Right — the Future of Radical Politics (1994) and The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (1998) are important as the theoretical touchstone for the ‘third way’ approach of Blair and Clinton (amongst others), while Manuel Castells‘ Network Society trilogy stands as the premiere progressive theorisation of the ‘knowledge economy’.
That brings us into the 21st century, and raises the question: what have been the most important progressive theoretical works of the last decade? I’d welcome your suggestions, along with any comments on or additions to the preceding timeline.
Tags: Anthony Crosland, Eduard Bernstein, Karl Marx, progressive thinking, Regulation School
some initial thoughts -
I think you have got most of the schools of thought staked out – let’s not quibble over whether writer x has been left out of a particular school or who came first in precedence etc.
but some nuances in terms of schools of thought -
a) the 1970s also brought a greater emphasis on the global system as opposed to just looking at your individual nation’s system/problems – we need to emphasise that a bit more as I think in NZ we tend to focus on just NZ and the rest of the world is really only perceived as a couple of boxes in our economy representing imports and exports. i.e. nations can no longer solve their political ecponomy problems alone, they have to be part of a global progressive engagement.
b) hand in hand with this came (briefly) a focus on the relationship between the developed and developing world e.g through the Brandt Commission. but this quickly went out of fashion – but the recent global crisis and the fact that China (and the BRIC nations) are emerging as economic superpowers means developing nations are beginning to get a place at the table again.
c) the Green movement and I think the economic crisis of the 70s and 80s (with its emphasis on making money and consumerism) have lead to a fundamental questioning and discussion of the purpose of the economy and life in general i.e what should we be aiming for? is it all about GDP? is it all about the economy? what is it all about? in this sense the historical divide between socialists and capitalists were really 2 sides of the same materialistic coin and there is another dimension to be thought about. dare I use the ’s word’? ok seeing as it is polite company I will just refer to the more comfortable term of ‘Deep Green’ thinking
d) a contemporary resurgence of Keynesianism led by Krugman et al and spurred by the current economic crisis
Thanks Achela — some really useful insights there. Totally agree about (a) and will try to incorporate that more as I go along – who would you see as the key theorists here (partly it was a theme across a lot of people’s work, wasn’t it)?
Take your point about (b), too, but I’m afraid I’ll probably neglect that as, in the end, my focus is on thinking that can feed back into NZ public policy.
Well put on (c) — I wanted to say more about green thinking but wasn’t sure who to refer to as the key thinkers. Suggestions? (Both for this early period, and for more recent developments.)
And finally, I agree about the Keynesian resurgence. But is it new theoretical developments? Or just ‘the return of the master’ as JMK’s ideas come back into vogue? To some extent we’ll have to wait and see.
I don’t think you should so easily sideline Marx – or rather Marxists. Certainly I’d put Gramsci on your list.
Also (it has to be me who raises it doesn’t it) I think you need to find a place in there (even if we agree we’ve moved on (or back) to the rise of the moneterists as a critique/replacement for the Keynesians. We can (and do) argue about the continued relevance of the 4th labour government but the fact remains that they saw themselves as consistent with social democratic thinking at the time.
In that sense I think it’s a mistake of current relative analysis to look at where we stand now and try and draw a stright line backwards through history – I much prefer to buy into the hegelian wiggly line: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And that’s certainly occurred regularly through progressive history.
I’ll try and put more thought into US thinkers as well….
Interesting thoughts, James. I’ll try to address your point about the Fourth Labour Government in a post next week.
As for Marx, It wasn’t my intention to sideline him, I just didn’t feel he needed any introduction. And if anything, I think I gave too much space to late twentieth century Marxists, neo-Marxists and ex-Marxists like Althusser, Mandel, Miliband, Gorz, Gough, the Regulation School and Castells, and not enough to those of the 1890-1930 period when Marxist thought was actually more influential on left-wing political parties. Gramsci may have been part of that oversight, although, as I understand it, his case is complicated because his main period of influence was long after he wrote. In any case, while his work is important, it doesn’t really concern itself with the central issue of this topic, which is ‘how it is possible through collective action to achieve outcomes that better accord with progressive values than the outcomes that would arise of their own accord through the natural order of things.’
And, yes, some suggestions about US thinkers would be great. I’d also be interested in hearing a bit more about what you see as being the key junctures of the “hegelian wiggly line” of progressive history.
yeah that’s the technical term “Hegelian wiggly line”
sorry – will think seriously on that now I’ve laughed at my own expense.
Your point about Gramsci is, as always, well made.
Hi David,
I’ve read this post several times and each time I get more confused. Some parts of the post seem to want to mount an attack on capitalism as a mode of production while others seem to want to work within it to further social justice and the development of human potential. Some parts seem to be asking for a deep theory, which is necessarily bereft of action steps; other parts seem to want those same action steps.
Capitalism is by no means the “natural order of things”. For seven and a half thousand years after the development of civilization, other systems of control and production were used; some of them are still used in many places around the world today–think of the hill tribes of Afghanistan, for instance. We have remnants of them in our own society: churches and the like.
Capitalism was and is a powerful tool in the fight against misery and want–Marx recognised that. Like any powerful tool, though (think of a chainsaw), capitalism needs careful and skilful handling if we want its benefits without causing serious harm. That’s where Bernstein, Keynes, and Beveridge come in; my own opinion is that these people’s thought is a vast improvement on that of their successors (as well as predecessors). I’ve not had anything to do with Blair’s “third way” at all, because of sheer incredulity. Keynes-Beveridge managed capitalism, as we had in the 1940s-70s, is the third way. (If history is a guide, Blair’s “third way” is corporate socialism–state support of large corporations.) The lesson of the last few years is that we were wrong to abandon Keynesianism in the 80s just because a few self-described Keynesians tried to do something his theory said was impossible. Dress up Keynes and Beveridge in modern language, and maybe you’ll have the foundation you seek.
I’m doubly confused by the fact that you didn’t put “natural order of things” in irony quotes. (Though I chuckled at ’seminal feminist’.) If there is one thing we have learned in the last sixty years, it’s that social facts are socially constructed. Positivism, the idea that social facts like “debt” and “ownership” are natural phenomena which have always existed, is, in social science, a pernicious kind of fatalism.
The fact of the social construction of reality through the medium of discourse implies that the most powerful practical tools for progressives are discourse analysis and discourse construction. The Regulation School, from your link, appears to be engaged in trying to impose a discourse at variance to that of monetarist free-marketeers. This, surely, is the practical work of progressive intellectuals–giving people better images and better stories to describe their world and its possibilities, transforming the possibilities in the process.
If you want more theory, look at John Rawls’s theory of justice. Something more practically focussed, Amartya Sen. If you want to roll up your sleeves and engage in practical work, soft systems methodology may be useful. (The basic idea of SSM is that systems (including social systems) have stable states to which they return, and any successful intervention must start from a deep understanding of the system under study. SSM is an outgrowth of Jay Forrester’s System Dynamics which was the theoretical basis for Limits to Growth.)
The new “empirical sociology” (my term), that uses applied behavioural psychology and agent-based modelling to gain insight into social phenomena, is bound to grow in importance over time. I don’t know if it will coalesce into a school or retro-fit a theory, though.
If you want NZ-flavoured progressive philosophy, maybe practical, maybe theoretical, I’d look in the works of (off the top of my head) Mason Durie, Moana Jackson, Maui Solomon of Rekohu/Chatham Is, maybe Maria Bargh. Better yet, go to hui and listen to them. Maori thought is in dialogue with Canadians and a few others, and there’s some heavy-duty thinking going on.
I’m not at all in contact with Pacific Island thought, so I can’t help there.
Turning to your original request, I think the reason that it’s hard to find conservative theory is that it’s not really there. Conservatism is a position of the elite, because it holds that individual effort is the determinant of success. If a conservative started looking closely at the reasons for his position, he would find that his family’s history and sheer luck played the overwhelming parts. This would stir up uncomfortable feelings–better not to think too hard.
Thanks Greg, that’s actually one of the most thoughtful and interesting opinions I’ve seen on here to date.
To me capitalism and socialism are the 2 wheels of the economic cart – we need both otherwise you end up with the misery and crises of capitalism we see today or the excesses of the Soviet Union etc.
It becomes a question of what proportion of these 2 fundamental principles you should aim for – at the moment it is about 70-80% capitalism and only 20 odd % socialism (and that is probably being a bit generous).
Despite my cart metaphor, my view is that the ideal system doesn’t actually aim for about 50/50 as the right balance but rather 70/30 in favour of the socialist principle. Which means we have a ways to go – although Scandanavian societies indicate the very real possibility that society can move in this direction – I’m not saying they are there yet but the hysteria you get in Anglo Saxon countries if governments move even 1% in that direction is just ridiculous – particularly when the majority support it.
Anyway this particular episode of our cyberhui has inspired me to go and read ‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy
Happy Hunting
I like your metaphor, Achela. There used to be a philosophical school, Humanism, that was pragmatic this way. Its main feature was profound scepticism about absolutes and about grand theoretical models of anything. Modern humanism seems to have lost the original focus on justice and ethics, and got hung up on religion.
The hysteria is the main issue–it’s the work of the discourse of the elite . If progressives can create and impose a discourse in which “my sister’s lack is a painful loss to me,” and power and respect are like hugs–they only work when you give them to others, and everybody knows–duh! of course!–markets have to be firmly managed to make them work: when everybody knows these things so that they are unconscious guides to behaviour, then the job is done.
Schumpeter needs attentive reading.
Even after all this time, it’s not easy to know when he’s being ironic and when serious; and there’s a lot of ‘reading between the lines’ to do. Also remember, he wrote at a time when there was seemingly permanent 20%-plus unemployment in the west, “but everyone in the USSR has a job.” People seriously thought capitalism was broken beyond repair and central planning was the way to go. That’s why he goes on and on about some points. Have fun!
I agree with Achela, Greg — that’s really valuable. Thank you very much. I’ll definitely follow up those writers you suggested.
I’m sorry you found the post confusing and contradictory, though. Perhaps it will help if I emphasise that I wasn’t trying to set forth any view of my own about capitalism. I was just attempting to trace what seemed to me to be the most influential progressive theories of each period. I agree that over time there has been a shift in progressive theorists’ views about (and the extent of their accommodation with) capitalism, and I’ll talk a bit more about that in a post this week.
You’re right that “natural order of things” was an infelicitous phrase. I know and agree that capitalism, like any economic system, is a social and political construct. I should perhaps have written something like “what appeared to be the natural order of things” or “the prevailing institutional arrangements of the status quo.” I’ll frame that more carefully in future!
P.S. Schumpeter eh, Achela? Not part of the progressive canon, really, but definitely an important 20th century theorist.
You’re very kind, David.
I was perhaps primed to be sensitive to the phrase ‘natural order of things’, having recently read Foucault’s “The Order of Things” (an important precursor of “The Social Construction of Reality”) and skimmed a Norman Fairclough (Critical Discourse Analysis).
I didn’t say–perhaps I should have–that your third paragraph, about wanting a theory of the “how”, reminded me irresistibly of Bordieu.
Something that’s not useful to you, perhaps, but that I find fascinating, is that when I trace influences, two names come up over and over again: Max Weber, and John von Neumann. Most people have never heard of either.
[...] « Progressive theoretical foundations — an introduction and potted history [...]
[...] earlier Theoretical Foundations post discussing Eduard [...]