Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism: Marx and Normative Social Theory in the Twenty-First Century

Historical Materialism #142

by Tony Smith

Progressive theorists and activists insist that contemporary capitalism is deeply flawed from a normative point of view. However, most accept the liberal egalitarian thesis that the serious shortcomings of market societies (financial excess, inequality, and so on) could be overcome with proper political regulation. Building on Marx's legacy, Tony Smith argues in Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism that advocates of this thesis (Rawls, Habermas, Stiglitz, et al.) lack an adequate concept of capital and the state. These theorists also fail to comprehend new developments in world history ensuring that the 'destructive' aspects of capitalism increasingly outweigh whatever 'creative' elements it might continue to possess. Smith concludes that a normative social theory adequate to the twenty-first century must explicitly and unequivocally embrace socialism.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Academic, History, Theory

386 pages, Paperback

Published October 30, 2018

About the author

Tony Smith is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Iowa State University of Science and Technology

Reviews

[Left_coast_reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many of the Marxist criticisms of liberal political theory might be familiar to you--liberals fail to recognize that capitalism is exploitative, coercive, alienating, environmentally destructive, etc. There is a branch of liberal philosophy we might call liberal egalitarianism (LE). It acknowledges the above problems, but argues that they can be removed from capitalism with proper regulations. Tony Smith argues that LE theorists lack a nuanced understanding of capital and therefore underestimate what is required to achieve their goals.

LE is committed to the moral equality principle: all persons are equally worthy of concern and respect as ends in themselves. Proponents of LE like Rawls, Nussbaum, Habermas, and others argue for various forms of Keynesian economic policies, public provision of basic necessities, progressive taxation, even worker ownership in some cases.

The issues arise with these proposals when we consider the "valorization imperative" of capital and the "dissociated sociality" of production in capitalism. Any reforms which limit the profits of economic firms will be subject to constant pressure and eventual roll back. Capital must expand. To pay back loans, to pay dividends to investors, to survive against competing firms, etc.

Any reforms sufficient to remove, for example, the coercive nature of labor markets (i.e work or starve) would totally alter the economy. Why would workers agree to capitalists taking surplus value if they are in an equal bargaining position?

Because production in capitalism is undertaken by competing firms which don't coordinate with each other, there is a tendency to overproduction. This leads to recessions and environmental problems. LE reforms cannot avoid this tendency.

Even if we get rid of capitalists and disperse all ownership shares among workers, if firms are competing for market share there will be pressure to work longer hours, reduce pay, shift environmental costs onto others, etc. Smith argues persuasively that the issue isn't capitalists--it's capital.

This book is excellent. Clear, concise, meticulously sourced. It treats LE with respect and still defeats it. You can tell I like it from all the pages I marked.

[Giorgio · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is how early Christians must have felt reading the apologist Tertullian.