Strategy for Anti-Capitalists: Is the Workplace Central?
What is the relation of capitalism to racism, imperialism , social reproduction and ecology?
Cannibal Capitalism, How Our System is Devouring Democracy , Care and the Planet — And What We Can Do About It,
Nancy Fraser Verso, 2022
This is a very interesting book stressing some of the non-economic background conditions to capitalism — Social Reproduction, Nature, the State, and Expropriation (Racism and Imperialism). Fraser makes the very accurate point that capitalism has always relied on these features that are not directly part of commodity production. Fraser also stresses that capitalism is a form of society, not just an economic system. The drive for profit which is the basis of capitalism pushes the cannibalization of nature, state spending, social reproduction and intensification of expropriation. Though capitalism needs nature, social reproduction and the state, capitalists don’t want to pay for them. Even further, capitalists are quite happy to undermine them if needed to increase their profit. Each historical regime of capitalism addressed these contradictions in different ways. Contradictions in each phase led to a new regime of capital. She thinks that the contradictions are greater now, in large part because of the Climate Crisis.
“Failing to replenish or repair its hidden abodes, capital persistently devours the very supports on which it relies. Like a serpent that eats its own tail, it cannibalizes its own conditions of possibility” (24)
Fraser tries to update how these contradictions play out today. She seeks to deepen Marx’s analysis going behind the “hidden abode of production” by looking more deeply at the background conditions. It is very helpful to delve into these conditions. However, her assumption that she is fundamentally improving on Marx and Engels (M/E) is misplaced since Marx and Engels discussed these “boundary issues” extensively. This is also true of at least some parts of the Marxist movement. Fraser is wrong to claim Marxists have not paid attention to these issues, pg. 25:
“What counts as an anti-capitalist struggle is thus much broader than Marxists have traditionally supposed”
If Marxists have not paid attention to the broader struggles that Fraser mentions, it is hard to understand the persistent involvement of Marxists in anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-imperialist and ecological struggles over the last century and a half!
As is often the case, what is correct is not as completely new as the author suggests and what is new is at least sometimes incorrect.
The author unfortunately lumps together background conditions that are very different. For example, nature is unconscious. The others are social conditions that flow from and/or underlay capitalism. Nature, social reproduction, and the state are background conditions outside of normal commodity production which capitalism relies on to survive. Expropriation (racism and imperialism) are processes that capitalism uses to augment profit. This means that capitalism is willing to cannibalize nature, social reproduction and even state expenditure. On the other hand, it does not cannibalize racism and imperialism. It intensifies its use of them as the crisis increases. It undercuts resources to social reproduction which in turn increases oppression of women and LGBTQ people.
Here is a brief look at some of the background conditions or boundary issues the author describes:
Nature — As Fraser notes, Marx discussed the “metabolic rift”. Marx and Engels discussed the inevitable destruction of nature by the drive for profit. Of course, the crisis including the Climate disaster is more intense now, but this is not new.
Social Reproduction — The replenishment of the working class is necessary to capitalism and always has been. Fraser is right that capitalism is cannibalizing social reproduction under neo-liberalism. This includes withdrawal of aid which puts more and more burden on the family. Capitalism also pushes women into the workforce undermining their ability to provide the needed replenishment of the working class. M/E noted this. They believed capitalism would destroy the working-class family. Fraser presents social reproduction as a necessary background to capitalism but also as somewhat independent, with its own separate set of values. This is exaggerated. Production shapes reproduction. The fight against exploitation and for more free time is part of the fight for working class interests. It does not flow from a separate source. Obviously, women’s role in social reproduction is central to the oppression of women. The fight for more support for social reproduction flows in part from opposition to sexism. It is in the interest of workers to fight for more resources for social reproduction and to oppose the oppression of women.
Politics — The author talks about capitalism undermining democracy — — This implies that Bourgeois Democracy is actually democratic. In fact, the “democratic” state is controlled by capital and cannot be reformed into an instrument that can fight capitalism. The author rightly argues that the political crisis flows from the overall crisis of capitalism, not just from the political sphere alone. It comes from a similar source as the ecological crisis. Capitalism needs the state to provide services that are not profitable. For capitalism to function, the state is necessary to provide conflict resolution, infrastructure, a legal framework etc. However, just as with nature, capitalists resist paying for these state services. This is even more true as the rate of profit declines and capitalists are under more pressure. It often results in splits in the ruling class over these issues as it does now.
“… the thirst for profit periodically tempts some fractions of the capitalist class to rebel against the public power, to bad-mouth it as inferior to markets, and to scheme to weaken it. In such cases, when short-term interests trump long term survival, capital (actually some capitalists, SL) once again threatens to destroy the very political conditions of its own possibility.”(pg 122)
The author rightly makes clear that socialists should not support either wing of the ruling class, “progressive” neo-liberals or right wing populists. Neither have solutions of benefit to the working class and poor. The Democratic Party created the conditions that led to the rise of Trumpism.
Expropriation/Racism/Imperialism — -She agrees with David Harvey in saying capitalism relies on continued expropriation, what Harvey calls “accumulation by dispossession”. The author puts too much emphasis on this. Of course, defined processes of expropriation continue but capitalism no longer relies on them. It relies fundamentally on exploitation. (Squeezing wealth out of workers by not paying them the full value of what they produce.) Fraser oversimplifies to say that racism and imperialism are primarily the result of expropriation. In fact, Imperialism today mostly relies on exploitation not expropriation. She says that the exploitation of the working class is based on the continued expropriation of people of color. She does note that the form of racism has changed with the various regimes of capitalism, Mercantilism, Liberal capitalism, managed capitalism and finally neoliberalism. The capitalist reliance on expropriation was mostly true of the early period.
A big problem is her broad definition of expropriation. In that process she includes what is often called super-exploitation (workers not being paid enough to reproduce and replenish labor power). Super-exploitation is better seen as still a form of exploitation! Most of the world working class are now people of color but in her overbroad definition of expropriation, Fraser underemphasizes their exploitation. The author is right that racism is fundamental to capitalism as it has developed, but not for the reason she states. Racism is primarily a tool for intensified exploitation of workers of color and weakening of the working class through division. Exploitation of workers of color is a more important process than direct expropriation. Her overemphasis on expropriation underemphasizes recognition of the point of production as the bulwark of capitalism. This in turn undermines the centrality of class struggle at work as a central pillar of overthrowing capitalism. This downplaying of the central dynamic of class struggle is shown in her discussion of different historical regimes of capitalism. The author doesn’t include class struggle as an important factor in the change of one regime to another.
The overemphasis on expropriation also weakens the understanding of capitalism as a unique system. Every previous mode of production was based at least in part on expropriation. They were based also on the physical and/or political coercion of the labor force. Capitalism instead relies primarily on economic exploitation. It for the first time creates surplus value , rather than just surplus product. For the first time, the goal of production is exchange rather than use. Capitalism alone makes accumulation the “law and the prophets” (Marx). Exploitation and creation of surplus value at the point of production is the centerpiece of Marx’s understanding of capitalism. Instead, the author focuses on background issues that are also often present in previous modes of production. It is important to understand capitalism as a unique system. Only capitalism creates the two conditions necessary for successful socialist revolution: abundance so that people no longer have to compete over the means of survival and creation of the “grave diggers” of capitalism, the modern collectively organized working class.
The overall framework of the book has good and bad aspects. It is good to see racism, sexism, social reproduction, ecology, imperialism etc. as fundamental to capitalism. The author thinks that all these movements should unite to fight the common enemy capitalism. As the Fraser says on page 108:
“.. an eco-politics aimed at preventing catastrophe must be anti-capitalist and trans-environmental.”
The author stresses the interconnectedness of all these issues. Her approach calls for movements to take up these interconnections and become anti-capitalist. One problem is she does not recognize the need for a revolutionary socialist party. Movements are politically and often class divided. They will not spontaneously come together to overthrow capitalism. Revolutionaries need to be organized in a party to fight for solidarity within each and to lead the revolution to victory when the revolutionary crisis emerges.
Just as important is her failure to see workers at the point of production as foundational to the struggle against capitalism. “Boundary issues” are actually central to the interests of the working class. The author doesn’t seem to recognize this. She thinks that the anti-capitalist logic of boundary issues flows from their individuality. Ironically, this undercuts her emphasis on capitalism as a society not just an economy. Even when a process is outside the market, the capitalist economy shapes it. It does not have an independent logic that can be the major source of its anti-capitalism.
This is especially wrong in relation to nature. Since it is not conscious, there is no logic that flows out of it. In contrast, opposition to oppression arises from oppression itself. This covers racism, sexism, and imperialism. However, resistance to these can go in different political directions. Resistance to oppression can go in an anti-capitalist direction but it doesn’t have to. This depends on which class and which political forces lead the fight.
What ties these “boundary issues “together is working class interests. It is in the interests of workers to oppose racism, sexism, imperialism, ecological destruction, and failure to prioritize social reproduction. Working class interests can tie these struggles to the center of working-class power — -the point of production. Workers can use their power at work to cut profits and fight for policies that oppose oppression and imperialism. They can finally use this power to overthrow capitalism.
The idea that each of these boundary issues are tied to anti-capitalism through their own independent logics is wrong about ecology and politics and only partially and potentially true of the oppressions. Not seeing their connection to anti-capitalism as flowing primarily from the interests of the class at the center of capitalist production is a weakness. It ties directly with the downplaying of the economic contradictions of capitalism and especially class struggle as a fundamental source of anti-capitalism. It also connects to the author having no discussion of the revolutionary party which is the vehicle for workers taking power and solving economic and “boundary” issues.
Overall, this is a stimulating, provocative and useful examination of the current crises of capitalism, even with some theoretical weaknesses that can cause mis directions in organizing.
