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

[Nick Bakker · Rating 4 out of 5]

All in all Smith manages to do what he set out to do. I think any Marxist or Marx-sympathizer familiar with some of the bigger names of normative social theory will already have had a strong intuition that capitalist market societies are simply incapable of meeting the normative requirements that the liberal egalitarians like Rawls, Sen and Nussbaum have set up. Smith turns this intuition into a sophisticated argument. I especially liked how he uses political Marxism's bifurcation of the political and economic to attack the central thesis that capitalist market societies are normatively adequate institutions so long as the proper background conditions are in place. Necessarily, any reforms that aim to enduringly address the ills that Marxists and liberal egalitarian agree upon must overcome this bifurcation, at which point there is no tinkering with background conditions at all anymore. Strongly recommended for any Marxist who is interested in or wants to orient themselves with regards to normative social theory.

A few relatively minor gripes, though.

1) I find the title could potentially set people on the wrong foot, even though in an ideal world people read the back descriptions of the books they buy. In terms of the social theory, this book certainly goes beyond liberal egalitarianism. In terms of normative claims and evaluate standards however, Smith concedes Marxists and liberal egalitarians are largely committed to the same (although Marxists could strongly question the strength and sense of doing normative theory as such). So do not expect a meta-theoretical or meta-ethical book that criticizes normative or liberal methods of theorizing as such (akin to political realism), nor an ideological analysis as to how this mode of philosophy gained ground in the first place, although Smith does allude to such issues via Lukacs in the conclusion and in a footnote in Chapter 4.

2) In general, some of the main strands of liberal egalitarianism are treated very seriously and considerately as far as I am familiar with the big-name representatives, but at later points in the book it becomes harder for me to verify whether Smith justifiably mashes a lot of names under the nomer of liberal egalitarianism. In particular, proposal 3 of Property Owning Democracy in Chapter 12 sounds a lot like some of the core tenets of market socialism, and Smith is clear proposal 2 carries elements of John Roemer. I am left wondering why Smith does not conduct his argument against those proposals under the header of market socialism, if only with a qualification that the content, form and underlying commitments of market socialism vis à vis liberal egalitarianism are worthy of a book-length treatment.

3) Structurally, it feels a little bloated and repetitive. I think Smith takes on more than he really has to in order to argue for his core thesis, even though the relatively "superfluous" material does follow naturally from other issues he discusses. And although steel-manning and repetition are seen as academic virtues, the restatement of his own theses and the commitments of his liberal egalitarian adversaries are repeated more often than I think is necessary due to the way he has set up the book, almost becoming a little overbearing. Some set expressions also come back a little too often for my liking.

[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.