Abstract
Neil Harrison and John Mikler’s (H&M’s) new book Capitalism for All: Realizing Its Liberal Promise opens with the claim that the “free market” is an ideological mirage, that mega-corporations work closely with complicit governments to dominate global markets, and that the result is a political economy entirely unable to confront the significant challenges of exploding inequality and the looming climate crisis. Though these arguments might not seem particularly controversial to a Marxist readership, what is interesting here is that these claims come from self-proclaimed defenders of liberal market capitalism. H&M argue, drawing on a significant and varied body of empirical evidence, that “capitalism in its current form is neither liberal nor neoliberal” (4), and instead that we live in an era of “CorpoCapitalism,” in which a handful of large multinational corporations have leveraged state authority to consolidate their monopolistic control of the economy. Capitalism for All is thus a thought-provoking contribution to important debates about neoliberalism, corporatism, and the nature of the global economy, of equal interest to both the Marxist and liberal reader.
The book begins by setting up a curious theoretical problem—that we supposedly live in an era of (neo)liberal capitalism, and yet the authors, both ideologically liberal, find themselves dramatically out of step with the governing economic orthodoxy. H&M claim Western economies have experienced “a massive growth in corporate power coupled with a political capture of the state” (4), and that “not only is there nothing neoliberal, and certainly not liberal, about this as an ideological stance; there is also nothing neoliberal or liberal about the outcomes produced” (4–5). The rest of the book sets out the evidence and arguments for how the current system departed so dramatically from the principles of liberalism, and the steps H&M believe necessary to return to a fairer liberal capitalism. Throughout the book, the authors often seem genuinely surprised at how similar their arguments are to Marxist analyses, and I suggest that it is important and theoretically fruitful to consider why such significant overlap occurs, and also where differences emerge.
In part 1, H&M engage in an analysis of liberal principles, setting out what they believe to be “the promise of liberalism.” The account of liberalism here is surprisingly broad, encompassing both classical liberal ideas about individual liberty, but also ideas about human flourishing, drawing on the thought of both Jean-Paul Sartre and John Rawls. For H&M, “liberal political philosophy was the foundation both of capitalism and of the United States” (6). In contrast, they view neoliberalism as a distortion of liberal philosophy, with its excessive emphasis on market freedom demeaning the more pluralist liberal tradition. At times perhaps there is a tension between the claim that liberalism is interested in only opportunities and not outcomes, but also that a liberal government must intervene to achieve social outcomes such as “shorter working hours, greater income equality and social mobility” (34). These potential inconsistencies though are mostly remedied by conceptualizing liberalism as a broad school that can encompass both the classical liberalism of Adam Smith and the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. More notable to the Marxist reader is the absence of any significant engagement with the principle of private property. The result is an account of liberalism that is at times narrowly political, and which omits an analysis of how these political principles might be applied to the economy and the crucial question of the distribution of property.
Part 2 moves to an analysis of contemporary capitalism and is, for this reader, the highlight of the book. Here the authors substantiate their central argument that capitalism is neither liberal nor neoliberal, foregrounding the role of “MegaCorps” in leveraging their economic power to capture political power, and in turn utilizing that power to destroy free competition and other key facets of the liberal society. The authors point to compelling evidence about the concentration of economic power, and the manner in which corporations leverage that power to avoid paying taxes and prevent the emergence of competitors. Part 2 also incorporates a theoretically rich discussion of debates about the relationship between market and state. H&M argue that despite the rise of MegaCorps, the state has not retreated from the economic arena. Rather, H&M maintain that states and MegaCorps work hand-in-hand to maintain CorpoCapitalism. If the theorization of the state here seems curiously similar to Marxist theories of state capture, H&M readily concede the point, recognizing that “a Marxist analysis seems to ‘fit’ the reality rather well” (142). Nevertheless, they maintain that the phenomenon of states heavily intervening to support their largest corporations is not a liberal or neoliberal policy outlook, citing state bailouts for corporations in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, and the extensive expenditure governments invest in corporate research and development, as evidence that “governments can always find a reason to spend sums of money in support of their MegaCorps” (50).
From their analysis of CorpoCapitalism and the relationship between MegaCorps and states, H&M conclude that “the free market is dead” (142), and that any remaining debates about liberating the “free market” are just so much ideological window dressing. However, though H&M insist that the contemporary corporate form of capitalism is not neoliberal, there is some ambiguity in their account as to the exact genesis of CorpoCapitalism and its relationship to neoliberalism. Some passages suggest CorpoCapitalism is a result of neoliberal policies “concerned with the liberty of the market and. . . the largest corporations” (3), while elsewhere H&M insist CorpoCapitalism is a distortion of neoliberalism and the market economy, instigated by corporations hostile to both liberal and neoliberal polices. Here some further engagement by H&M with radical political economy literature, and particularly the extensive literature on “actually existing neoliberalism” (see Peck, Brenner, and Theodore 2018), would help clarify exactly how they theorize neoliberalism. Proponents of “actually existing neoliberalism” agree with H&M that contemporary capitalism differs from the utopian ideological proclamations of neoliberal intellectuals, but claim that the messy and variegated results of neoliberal reforms originating in the 1970s should still be theorized as neoliberalism in practice. More attention, then, is required to differentiate which aspects of corporate power in contemporary political economy are results of neoliberal policies, and which aspects represent genuine departures from neoliberalism (see Maher 2022).
In part 3, H&M set out their solutions for a return to liberal capitalism. The broad scope of policies considered compatible with liberal capitalism is interesting, with H&M proposing a universal basic income, greatly increasing education funding, increasing opportunities for workers to collectively bargain, and restricting the activity of corporations on the stock market, particularly regarding corporate buybacks. One might note here the antinomy that, at least in the US context, the political figure closest to H&M’s liberal capitalist agenda is self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. Indeed, H&M recognize that in practice their model of liberal capitalism in many ways resembles Scandinavian social democracy (34). One possible reading here would be to recognize we are in an era of waning hegemony and interregnum, in which liberal capitalists make common cause with democratic socialists. An alternative reading is to see here only further evidence of the hegemony of liberalism, as in spite of recent upheavals, the most radical figures in mainstream Western left politics remain comfortably within the domain of liberal capitalism. Despite the emergence of supposedly radical “populisms” of both the left and right, we might still conclude with Fisher (2009: 8) that “not only is capitalism the only viable economic and political system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative.”
I have so far emphasized common ground, but there are two important analytical points of departure for the Marxist reader. The first concerns the importance of class struggle as it relates to the distribution of power within society. The liberal methodological individualism of H&M results in a theory of social change that foregrounds the actions of individuals—their proposal to implement the policy changes noted above rely on the hope that successful “populists espousing liberal capitalist values” (148) will be able to convince electorates to turn away from CorpoCapitalism and embrace “true” liberal capitalism. H&M argue for gradual “evolution” rather than dramatic change, hoping for a “death of CorpoCapitalism by a thousand cuts, each one devoted to the overall goal of making capitalism liberal once again” (179). Instead of gradual evolution directed by the rational persuasion of elected liberal populists, a Marxist account will more explicitly foreground the role of class struggle, both in the success of corporations seizing state power to institute CorpoCapitalism, and if there is to be any form of emancipatory reversal. It is precisely in the minutiae of technical reform of complex policies such as financial regulation that the power of corporations is most effective, and hence H&M’s belief that liberal populists might make headway against vested interests seems starkly utopian given their extensive description of the economic and political power currently concentrated in the hands of corporations. The rebuilding of collective bargaining power will not be instituted from above by a benevolent liberal populist, but is rather a necessary precursor to the successful implementation of the other reforms H&M consider.
Secondly, the Marxist reader will naturally reject the book’s concluding assertion that through the policy changes proposed we might finally achieve the utopic “capitalism for all.” Proponents of liberal capitalism have long maintained that the abuses of capitalism do not reflect the “true” version of liberal capitalism, and that the bountiful blessings of true liberal capitalism lie just around the corner (see for instance Friedman and Friedman 1984). Of course, the analysis of H&M is far more nuanced than Milton Friedman’s hackneyed insistence that the state should just get out of the way to finally let the free market thrive. Yet the fundamental underlying fantasy is the same—namely, that the crises of the present reflect a failure to implement “real” liberal capitalism, and if we finally return to genuine liberalism we can solve the pressing problems of the present. I should emphasize I mean fantasy here in the technical Zizekian sense, as an ideological narrative that creates and supports the material conditions of production, rather than as an empty ideological lie concealing the reality of capitalist oppression. Capitalism for All thus also poses a warning, demonstrating how easily the apparently radical reformism that today goes under the label of democratic socialism can be absorbed back into and even help reanimate the governing capitalist ideology.
I hope to have demonstrated in this short piece the important questions of theory and practice raised by H&M, and why Marxists should take seriously the claim that contemporary capitalism is neither liberal nor neoliberal. The book is written in a spirit of open discussion that invites broad engagement, and each section opens with a series of rhetorical questions and prompts that will no doubt prove useful as a teaching resource. The concept of CorpoCapitalism is also significant, and calls for ongoing consideration of the forms and scope of contemporary corporate power. Though I have expressed doubts about the policy prescriptions with which the book concludes, for its contributions to debates about neoliberalism and its analysis of the role of the state in contemporary capitalism, Capitalism for All remains an important scholarly contribution that should be read closely.
