On social change

Norm expresses an old fogey's scepticism about whippersnapper Owen Jones' claim that "with a bit of a shove - the whole edifice [of wealth and power] could shatter." As one of middling years, I'm in two minds about this.

I side with Norm because history suggests that social systems rarely change solely because of conscious collective action. Feudalism didn't disappear because of a peasants' revolution, and dissidents weren't the prime cause of the collapse of communism. "Whole edifices" tend to shatter not (just) when they are shoved, but when their material economic foundations weaken.

Which brings me to two reasons to side with Owen.

1. Perhaps the foundations of hierarchical capitalism are weakening. The longstanding investment dearth is a sign that capitalism can no longer see the monetizable projects it once did, and so - as Marx predicted - is now a fetter on growth rather than an engine of it. And large parts of hierarchical capitalism are faltering: retailers and the media are in decline; banks would have disappeared but for state support; and mass production has long since left the west.

2.Organizations are brittle; quite small changes can cause them to suddenly and unexpectedly collapse. This is not just true of companies but of social systems; think of the demise of communism. One reason for this is what Timur Kuran calls preference falsification. People support a system because they believe that others do so, and sometimes they wake up and realize this is not true. Thanks to this, says (pdf) Kuran, "revolutionary surprises will occur repeatedly."  

Now, you might think here that, despite this, a socialist revolution is improbable.

It is, if you think a revolution is a Battleship Potemkin-type uprising of starvelings from their slumbers. But this is not the only type of revolution. The industrial revolution was perhaps the greatest transformation in human history. But it took decades, and few of those who lived through it - Marx being an exception - thought they were part of a revolution.

And perhaps we are seeing a slow-motion revolution. Credit unions and peer-to-peer lenders, owners of coffee shops competing against Starbucks, the steady rise in the numbers becoming self-employed, the growth of bloggers, tweeters and file-sharers are all taking small - not necessarily deliberate - steps away from hierarchical capitalism, just as early factory owners made small contributions to the industrial revolution.

What Erik Olin Wright calls (pdf) interstitial transformations can ultimately add up to more radical economic change than windbags on marches.

Comments

[LordSidcup]

The hastening decline of the dollar will speed the process.

[Jon]

Great piece. Links broken, however, on an old fogey's scepticism and Erik Olin Wright's call.

[chris]

Thanks Jon. Links are fixed!

[Marty Heyman]

Ignoring the lessons of the American, French, Russian, Iranian, and Egyption Revolutions is probably a foolish approach. The Enlightenment and its lessons for the masses may just be more durable and dangerous to entrenched wealth than you suggest.

[Martin]

I have heard it argued that feudalism in England collapsed after the Black Death of the 1340s as with so few peasants to work the land the system was no longer economically viable.

[rich]

[This is going to sound somewhat techno-utopian, but here I go ...]

Some of the people (arguably) driving the revolution -- the internet architects and programmers -- have long seen this as a revolution. We've been saying for more than a decade that things like journalism, political discourse, the development of software would all be overturned, and it all seems to be coming true.

The next big things to change will be: production of music and films (cheap laptops, cameras), certain types of manufacturing (3D printing). Perhaps one day even law-making itself.

[Broilster]

I can't help wondering if this discussion reflects just how little 21st british capitalism has to offer. Either get yourself massively into debt (private debt good, public debt bad obviously) and go to university/college. Only to have bleak job prospects, rendering you unable to pay off the debt (apparently this is an advantage of the new tory educational dispensation!). Alternatively you could forego university and look forward to a life of starvation pay, topped up (if you are lucky) by minute contributions from the state via the taxpayer. Of course if you do avail yourself of any help, expect to be pilloried by all and sundry as a shameless sponger. Oh and if you are struggling, you can always go and see your local usurer.

The main economic argument contra stalinist command economies was that capitalism would easily ensure a better quality of life.

If the capitalism in question had resembled today's crony - financial capitalism it would have hardly been the enticing prospect proselytized for by the great and good at the time.

[Broilster]

Actually that last post more properly belongs to the discussion on 'Payday loans: statism vs libertarianism'

[john malpas]

Nothing will happen in England - 'their metal is all bred out'.
Blair was a symptom as well as a cause.

[The Thought Gang]

I have often thought how wonderful it would be to time travel and live in one of the great revolutionary ages. But when watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, when the commentator remarked that Michael Schumacher made his F1 debut (which I well remember, and I am not an old man), the Internet was just a few days old.

We don't need time machines to live in a great revolutionary age.

[Broilster]

Ah yes, formula 1, boys with their fast toys. Real progress.

[dell laptops]

We don’t tolerate texting while driving and we’re certainly not standing for it while flying,” said Sen. Franken.