Samuel Moyn (#6: Liberal Democracy and Capitalism)

(Yale)

When I hear interventions on the question of capitalism and democracy, and their potential compatibility, I begin to worry. Why? Because we need to be far more precise about what we mean by both capitalism and democracy. It’s not obvious what either is.

These are old words. “Capitalism” is from the 19th century. “Democracy” is from ancient Greece, but was updated in the 19th century with the adjective “liberal.” They have both been stretched across so many historical contexts that it becomes unclear what exactly we are comparing or trying to reconcile.

Capitalism is usually taken to refer to some historically specific structural features of modern society. Of course, Karl Marx gave a highly detailed analysis of these features and dynamics, and the Black Marxist tradition built upon that work in crucial ways. However, Marx also insisted that one of capitalism’s defining traits is its constant self-reinvention in new guises. So, we would need to be clear about what, if anything, is enduring, and what is merely transient across capitalism’s different mutations.

As for democracy, my favorite saying by far is from Claude Lefort, who said nearly 50 years ago:

“It is a dream to suppose that we already know what democracy is, whether out of satisfaction with its present state, or in order to attack its misery. Democracy is simply an open space of possibility, inaugurated in a past still close to us, and one we have barely begun to explore.”

That is a provocative, and even a nihilistic claim, especially if we emphasize the word simply in the citation. After all, we do know some things about democracy, just as we know some things about capitalism.

However, to proceed as if we fully understand democracy and capitalism as settled and defined is I think a mistake, maybe even a disastrous one. If anything, democracy, like capitalism, is marked by the possibility of perpetual institutional reinvention. This means we should be especially cautious about reifying inherited forms.

What has been the recent liberal posture toward these two big concepts? In the American context at least, liberals have mostly critiqued the current form of capitalism or more often scapegoated its latest phase, neoliberalism, while waxing nostalgic for some prior more “moral” version. At the same time, they have defended deeply flawed forms of democracy, treating its current iteration as something sacred that must simply be preserved: Defend #OurDemocracy.

Both of these instincts reflect what Daniel very insightfully called out: the absence of a liberal or left program that is not restorationist. It is all backward-looking. The recent enthusiasm for “abundance liberalism” says something about the vacuum we are in.

I also agree with Daniel’s point that the loss of the future is really a loss of capitalism’s future, and its ability to conjure one. Yet if we are going to reconnect socialism and democracy, we need more than values; we need institutions. That means going beyond slogans and building a repertoire of democratic structures that are not just mirrors of capitalism’s logics around production, distribution, and exchange, and are not confined to electoral rituals either.

Frankly, liberals have not helped us much here. Christina mentioned that liberalism’s basic principle is “no kings” — but that is only partially true. Historically, liberals were often monarchists. They have also been deeply anti-democratic for long stretches of their history. Today, they can be hostile to democracy’s outcomes when those outcomes don’t align with elite liberal values.

That is why I have argued elsewhere for giving liberalism a last chance, trying to salvage something productive from it, while also going beyond its limits. Even if one disagrees with that project, the problem remains: the left also lacks a robust institutional alternative. It is not just liberals who are short on detail.

I will end simply: if we are serious about a future beyond the impasses of capitalism and democracy, we are going to need much more detail at the level of institutional alternatives — not just critique of inherited forms.

---

---