BUYING TIME by Wolfgang Streeck: Politics, Social Justice, and Capitalism
- Madeline Reilly
- Oct 13, 2023
- 7 min read
By Madeline Reilly
Date of Origin: November 2022
In Wolfgang Streeck's Buying Time, he paints a clear view of how the lines of late-stage capitalism and politics and how the two coexist are beginning to blur in an irreversible tangle of what is considered public norms and good. What is considered the public good for the people as citizens and the people as consumers is giving the market the power to determine what is normal and profitable. That being said, as consumers turn to companies and demand them to be beacons of progressive idealism, it allows the market to set norms in the political public sphere.
An example of this can be found in Streeck’s examples of breaking down crisis theory into three points; (1) capitalism and self-regulated markets (2) the legitimation of “market-driven ways of life” (3) economic crisis as an upcoming economic catastrophe (page 2-3).
When talking about the overlapping influence of the market we need to talk about the shift in the role people as a tool in capitalism play. This is in line more with the second phase of crisis theory; ‘the market-driven ways of life'.This is important to acknowledge when we are talking about social v. market justice; What norms is the market willing to get behind to still turn a profit? A large example of this is the neoliberal reconciliation between gender and racial equality as issues that were “consumed” and therefore ‘normalized’ to broaden the expanse of the market.
In layman's terms: in a post-civil rights world it was more fiscally responsible to value women and people of color as a viable consumer base. In the era of Wall Street, they made things like racism and sexism not just issues about civil liberties in public society but also alienated a consumer base that could potentially make more money.
As Streeck acknowledges, this was preceded by decades of social change (Page 1); which in turn had the market have to evolve around these changes by trying to reduce these social tensions that were built up around class and race. The theory of ‘late stage capitalism’ as Streek puts it, comes from arising tensions that presuppose and exploit people's fears and wants of class inequality in hard economic times.
Under the terms of postwar neoliberalism, capitalism dictates who you are as a consumer to something akin to an identity. How the market, as it even stands today exploits this by setting norms in the lives of day-to-day people. In the post-war/post-civil rights era, As Streek points out at the beginning of the book, post-war reconstruction ended in the 1970s which coincided with the end of movements like theAnti-war movement, t and civil rights; gender equality for women, the BlackPower movement the most notable. Both of these movements also evolved into calling for economic justice. For women it was equal opportunity in the workplace and for race it became about class equity. Neoliberalism demolished these demands by erasing the concept of gender and ignoring the historical context of race.
Black Americans in particular were targeted as part of a vital piece of the market but were never allowed to participate in it. A lot of what Neoliberalism is comes down to erasing and homogenizing those experiences in favor of the blank space idea of consumerism where racial identity, gender, and class do not exist. People and their strive for civil liberties in the public sphere become a tool that can be welded to make them not just a consumer but adamant defenders of capitalism. A more recent example is how companies use the LGBTQ+ community as a consumer base when getting them to buy their products. It erases the meaning of that identity to an individual.
As Streeck states when talking about the legitimation crisis, there are three key actors: The state, Capital, and Wage earners. If you can turn wage earners into a homogeneous and dependent demographic it is easier to say that you are in fact behind their cause. Capital becomes a source of democratic obligation; where you are putting your money is therefore political.
But this brings in the reliance on this type of consumer betting “A limitation crisis theory that starts with capital, treats firms and their owners and their managers' demand is not set in stone; it varies with time and place” So gains without being able to bet on what type of consumer will take capital just at face value depending on the context in which it exists. “Above All they see their social environment as hostile and inclined to impose exaggerated obligations onto them”.
This comes back around to setting social norms within the capital. One of the greatest critiques of neoliberal capitalism is its timing in adopting norms. There is no starting of any revolution regarding making safe bets. But if there is a demand for it, what is the market to deny buying itself into those norms? Gaining the interest of the public not only through reflecting those norms but also by influencing how the public should resist those norms by being consumers of what the market is offering.
A more recent example is how the market turns to adopt norms can be seen in things like rainbow-washing with the LGBTQ+ community as a consumer base rather than as paving the way for social justice. When getting them to buy their products. It is not necessarily the market seeing an injustice in people's civil liberties as it does exploit identity and the concept of being a part of the revolution while betting on the right side of history. And this call to appeal to as many as possible, and has also been done with other movements and identity groups like environmentalism, racial groups (specifically black and native people), and feminism. It is a way that the market can make do with Gooding's narrative while profiting from it justifiably.
This is where we get into Market justice vs. Social Justice. The Market economy and Democratic public spheres have long overlapped in terms of the market evolution to provide services to coexist with the changes in political and social justice. When talking about social justice Streek compares it to market justice, saying that the two principles compete in the postwar world; where market justice protects the productivity of the market, social justice sets cultural norms.
But more and more, as capitalism creeps into its later stages, these two concepts are merging. For the market to survive it must take into account the norms and standards set up by society and it must appeal to the market first.
So how does this relate democratically? Well, it starts with the market setting its norms with the economy. A large part of what allows Capital to influence the first place is creating reliability and necessity. If there is something you can introduce to the public that becomes a part of day-to-day life then the market for that will be crazy.
An example of this is mostly found in the service industry. Specifically within the last decade, services like Uber and Amazon have become part of people’s daily lives and shifted entirely how people function. This reliance that the public has on these amenities to life has ushered influence not only in the economy but also the legislation around it.
In terms of favorable legislation, it allows new social norms to take root in the law. This can be benign to some extent but the issue lies in how much power the market has over the public; how much of the norms we are willing to be allowed to be influenced and how this will affect the smaller injustices that come as a tax. And the concept of social justice is not only not suited to be reinforced by the market on a completely controllable scale. As Streek puts it when proposing a solution to market justice taking the place of social justice is to declare “The concept of social justice is nonsensical and to configure political and economic institutions in such a way that demands social justice which interfers with the market justice are excluded from the offset.”
But as Streek points out there is always the risk that social justice will usurp the market and capital’s ability to make progress. So keeping public opinion while trying to make the market work in their favor is a slippery slope.
A real-life example of this can be found in the 2020 California state elections with Proposition 22 where app-based services like Uber and Lyft companies proposed this proposition as a way to advocate for their service providers to be seen not as employees but as freelancers. This passed but failed in the eyes of the public but the power to normalize this part of the economy as less valuable initially worked but was refuted by members of a public organization. But it highlights an important struggle not just between the economy and technology, but what Capital argues is a necessity to the public and how to make that readily available without losing money. And in this intense, it is about meeting a demand by the public to make people's standard of living more efficient, by also cutting costs in ways the public may not approve. As Street tries to illustrate this is not a harmonious relationship to balance, in fact as he states before, it is nonsensical.
So when we think about democracy, the demand of the surface-level advocacy of neoliberalism, and the true hopes and dreams of social justice, the reality of those three working together is much more complicated. One can not out rule This reality concludes the others, but all working harmoniously is another challenge entirely. “Politics, to the extent that it is driven by demands of social justice, therefore confuses the market process, muddies its outcomes, creates false incentives and ‘moral hazards’, undermines the performance principles and is generally alien to the ‘business world’. Streek says. “On the other hand, from the point of view of social justice, the ‘democratic class struggle’ is an indispensable corrective in a system which, resting upon unequal contracts between wage earners and profit makers,”
He then talks about the advantage this gives under the terms of Matthews Principal and how it “gives rise to a cumulative advantage”. It states; For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have abundance; but for those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away (Matt. 25:29).” It is a pretty grim reality the balance between the public good (Social Justice) and Capital (Market Justice) in the relation of politics. But at the end of the day Capitol justice doesn’t support the revolution as it happens but evolves to it when it becomes part of the norms. Economic populism is the key to sustaining both.
This reality concludes that there is no wonder how this can become a characteristic of late-stage capitalism and economic crisis. We are bound by norms in everything we do because there is nothing to look forward to that is new and everything to look back on and with that norms are created and kept in how Politics, public life, and the economy are kept in synchronicity with each other. But the days of that are numbered and they are already trying to pull away, and work against each other, and when that happens all we can do is buy more time.
Notes: Page of Original Essay including notes and citations
Comments