Basic Income Stud. 2015; aop 2 H. F.

Dahms

Harry F. Dahms* 1 Introduction

Which Capital, Which Marx? Basic Income
The evidence is increasingly incontrovertible that the 1980s represent a pro-
between Mainstream Economics, Critical found sea change in the self-perception and self-understanding of modern
Theory, and the Logic of Capital industrialized societies. This observation applies especially as far as scholarly
and political debates are concerned, to public policy, the role and functions of
DOI 10.1515/bis-2015-0016 government, social welfare, social justice, democracy, the links between busi-
ness, labor, and government, the division of labor among the social sciences, the
Abstract: Piketty (2014) combines neoclassical economic theory and Keynesianism evolutionary trajectory of capitalism, and interpretations of classical social and
with an appreciation of how economic patterns and processes are tied to concrete economic theorists, especially Karl Marx.1 In the present context, I will focus on
socio-historical circumstances, and exemplifies how economists should compute in basic income as a public policy innovation designed to combat (or, at least, to
their models the socio-cultural costs accompanying economic growth and develop- alleviate) the phenomenon of increasing economic inequality, within the coor-
ment. Piketty’s concern with trends in economic inequality, returns from capital, and dinate system of mainstream economics, on the one hand, and renewed, expli-
economic growth, addresses issues is also consistent with Marx’s critique of political citly non-dogmatic efforts to interpret Marx’s theory as a means to illuminate the
economy. While Piketty deems Marx’s theory overly simplistic, Piketty’s contention underlying logic of economically driven transformations, on the other.
that modern democratic nation-states should confront the problem of increasing Since the 1980s, proponents have promoted universal basic income as a tool
economic inequality exaggerates governments’ ability to regulate the economy of choice for remedying the persistent problem of socio-economic inequality in
today. Basic income is indicative both of the diminished capacity of states to promote modern industrialized societies, along with such phenomena as structural unem-
social welfare via established policy strategies, and the heightened need to scrutinize ployment, employment discrimination, and exclusion from the labor market (e.g.,
the specific logic of capital in the twenty-first century. Recent reinterpretations of Howard, 2005; van Parijs, 1992, 1993, 1995;Widerquist, 2001, 2001a; Widerquist,
Marx affirm the need to resist orthodox, dogmatic and non-critical readings of his Noguera, Vanderborght, & De Wispelaere, 2013). In recent years, basic income has
analysis of the inner workings of capitalism, and are consonant with the idea of basic garnered additional attention as a possibly viable means to tackle the phenom-
income. enon of rapidly increasing economic inequality, in terms both of income and
Keywords: neoclassical economics, economic inequality, basic income, critical wealth. At the current historical juncture, it is not unusual for references to be
theory, Thomas Piketty, traditional Marxism made to basic income in the mainstream press (e.g., Bittman, 2015).
In this context, the research agenda Thomas Piketty has been pursuing for
more than a decade, culminating for now in his widely discussed work, Capital
The fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter. This doesn’t mean
in the Twenty-First Century (2014), produced what is to date the most ambitious,
that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out. But we should be
realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much
reliable and expansive dataset to provide evidence of the pattern, pace and
difference. extent of increasing inequality, especially since the 1980s. In this recent work,
Paul Krugman (2015) Piketty did not address basic income as a viable strategy to combat rising
economic inequality.2 Still, as proponents of basic income have been asserting
that this policy strategy may be a well-suited means for efforts to combat
inequality and adjacent phenomena, the conviction of their assertion raises

1 Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Polanyi are two other prominent examples for renewed interest
in foundational contributions to the theory of modern society that are economically oriented.
See especially Andersen (2011), Block and Somers (2014), Dale (2010), Carayannis and
*Corresponding author: Harry F. Dahms, Department of Sociology, University of Ziemnowicz (2007), and McGraw (2007), and Shionoya (1997).
Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Piketty has done so elsewhere; see the editor’s introduction to this issue.
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 3 4 H. F. Dahms

the question: does Piketty’s analysis have a bearing on the potential of basic critical theory during mid-1960s: the so-called “new Marx reading” in West
income, if implemented effectively and in terms of stated goals, to function as a Germany (see, e.g., Backhaus, 2011, esp. pp. 9–40; Bonefeld, 2014; Elbe, 2010;
tool to reduce, if not economic inequality in general, then at least its socially, Reichelt, 2008). In this reading, Marx above all was concerned with the nature
politically, culturally, educationally and medically detrimental effects on indi- and logic of the modern capitalist economic process, the concurrent role of labor,
viduals and their ability to pursue life chances, and on society more generally?3 and their impact in the modern age, on human sociality in general, on the
Thomas Piketty is unusual among mainstream economists working within relationship between humanity and nature, and on the resulting configurations
the neoclassical paradigm, in that, while retaining elements of Keynesianism, he of politics, culture and society – respectively, as well as across those spheres.
made it the focus of his work to critically examine the validity of one of the most
cherished propositions upon which modern economics rests: that a society’s
increasing wealth is bound to benefit if not all, at least the vast majority of its
members – and that the economic benefits outweigh whatever non-economic
2 Thomas Piketty’s diagnosis of inequality in the
costs may accompany the process of attaining the former. More importantly, in twenty-first century
adopting this stance, Piketty has positioned himself apart from the majority of
economists who continue to direct their efforts at identifying and examining Capital in the Twenty-First Century represents a comprehensive analysis of devel-
neglected or novel ways to seize upon existing or emerging profit opportunities, opments in economic inequality from the eighteenth to the twenty-first century,
on the assumption that such efforts will translate into the further expansion of with an emphasis on changes in inequality alongside the historical formation of
the wealth of nations. Rather than accepting such key tenets of neoclassical modern society. The widespread acknowledgement of, and response to, the
theory as gospel, which economists began to re-embrace and advocate on a publication of Piketty’s work suggests that the results of his labor promise to –
much broader scale after the purported demise of Keynesianism as the prevail- and certainly should – influence attempts in coming decades to tackle inequality
ing economic policy doctrine, also during the 1980s, Piketty’s work is informed globally, not just in modern, capitalist and industrialized societies.
by his genuine concern that economic inequality comes at a price of which to Three questions pertaining to the distribution of wealth guided Piketty’s
take account economists are less than well-positioned, a price that could be so research: first, whether “the dynamics of private capital accumulation inevitably
high as to imperil the achievements of the modern age (see Dahms, 2015). lead to the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, as Karl Marx believed in
In order to try to provide a preliminary answer to the question of whether the nineteenth century”; secondly, whether “the balancing forces of growth,
Piketty’s analysis of patterns of rising inequality is consistent with rationales for competition, and technological progress lead in later stages of development to
the promotion of basic income as a public policy, I will situate his stance reduced inequality and greater harmony among the classes, as Simon Kuznets
regarding Marx and his theory’s continuing relevance in relation to current efforts thought in the twentieth century”; and thirdly, whether our knowledge regard-
by theorists in the social sciences and humanities, particularly in sociology and ing the evolution of wealth and income “since the eighteenth century” is reli-
philosophy. Especially critical theorists in the tradition of the early Frankfurt able, and “what lessons [we] can … derive from that knowledge for the century
School (see Wiggershaus, 1994) were determined to develop an up-to-date and now underway” (Piketty, 2014, p. 1).
powerful interpretation of Marx’s theoretical contribution, with Postone’s (1993) Piketty summarizes his main insight as follows:
critique of “traditional Marxism” highlighting the problematic orientation and
conclusions reached by promulgators of orthodox or traditional approaches. When the rate of return on capital significantly exceeds the growth rate of the economy (as
it did through much of history until the nineteenth century and as is likely to be the case
Tellingly, the origins of this effort to provide interpretations of Marx – focusing
again in the twenty-first century), then it logically follows that inherited wealth grows
on his critique of political economy – with a more solid, sophisticated, and faster than output and income. People with inherited wealth need save only a portion of
analytically compelling foundation that is geared toward illuminating twenty- their income from capital to see that capital grows more quickly than the economy as a
first century constellations between economy and society, conceived broadly, whole. Under such conditions, it is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate
date back to the 1980s as well, although it originated within the tradition of wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labor by a wide margin, and the concentration of capital
will attain extremely high levels – levels potentially incompatible with the meritocratic
values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies (p. 26).
3 See Pickett and Wilkinson (2011) and Dahrendorf (1981).
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 5 6 H. F. Dahms

Stressing that wealth accumulation and distribution contain “powerful forces political economy of transnational capitalism in combination (if not in collusion)
pushing toward divergence, or at any rate toward an extremely high level of with more or less nominally democratic governments. If, under conditions of
inequality” (p. 27), Piketty points out that his conclusions differ from what he neoliberalism, we are to rely on democratic political systems to take responsi-
refers to as the disheartening implications of “Marx’s principle of infinite accu- bility for containing rising inequality and for regulating capital, with the stan-
mulation and perpetual divergence.” Though Piketty does not regard divergence dard tools and apparatus at their disposal, even under the most optimal
as perpetual, but as only one possible direction for wealth distribution in the circumstances, then we must doubt that the regime of political economy that
future, he concedes that the prospects are not especially promising: with r was established after World War II is compatible with containing both inequality
representing the rate of return on capital, and g the economy’s growth rate, and capital. Acknowledging this condition is especially important in light of the
“the fundamental r > g inequality, the main force of divergence in [his] theory, probability that increasing inequality will amplify, at least in principle, and in
has nothing to do with any market imperfection”, and “the more perfect the various regards, an array of threats to maintaining and, especially, to further
capital market (in the economist’s sense), the more likely r is to be greater than expanding, democracy. After all, especially since the 1980s, democratic political
g” (ibid.). Trends in income inequality, especially since the late 1970s and early institutions and processes de facto have facilitated the expansion of economic
1980s, the time period during which the pattern of expanding inequality that inequality, as likely expression of more fundamental processes that occur at the
had been in place until World War I resumed again, are consistent with a logic social and cultural levels and as modes of adaptations to changing economic
that Piketty contends only can be restrained politically, not economically “by circumstances, manifesting themselves in the form of purportedly democratic
Ademocratic control of capital” (pp. 569–570): processes of collective will-formation. The resulting regime of neoliberal global
political economy, and the strengthening hegemony of neoliberal ideology, have
[I]t is possible to imagine public institutions and policies that would counter the effects of been less and less conducive, even detrimental, to the values and validity of
this implacable logic: for instance, a progressive global tax on capital. But establishing
democratic principles, and to efforts to reaffirm the desirability of the latter as
such institutions and policies would require a considerable degree of international coordi-
nation. It is unfortunately likely that actual responses to the problem – including various the necessary precondition and correlate of real solidarity between and across
nationalist responses – will in practice be far more modest and less effective (p. 27). people (see Crouch, 2004, 2011; Dahms, 2009).
In the remainder of this essay, Piketty’s (2014, p. 1) stated interest in under-
The actual status of democratic and social justice-related values and principles standing the underlying mechanisms of the distribution of wealth, and his
in modern democratic societies are not part of Piketty’s explicit consideration, to corresponding novel framework pertaining to the relationship between the rate
be sure, nor does he refer to the more or less paradoxical and contradictory of return on capital and the rate of economic growth, will serve as a foil for
relationship between capitalism and democracy as it has been the subject of delineating recent efforts to interpret the meaning and thrust of Marx’s critique
much debate and controversy among social scientists and political philosophers. of political economy on a more convincing, sophisticated, and currently relevant
This is not surprising in that economists do not regard related issues as part of foundation than well-established perspectives on the purpose and thrust of
their subject domain, except in the sense of a critique of government relying to Marx’s theory. I will take Piketty’s repeated allusions to Marx – including the
too great an extent on regulations and taxation, including democratically legiti- title of the book itself – as an occasion to distinguish traditional economics from
mated government. By contrast, despite mounting evidence to the contrary in social theory, as represented above all by the first generation of Frankfurt School
many parts of the world, as we move further into the twenty-first century, Piketty critical theorists, especially Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor W.
appears to work from the assumption that modern societies may be viewed as Adorno. Piketty’s interest in the mechanisms underlying increasing economic
both democratic and conducive to the advancement of social justice. inequality will be contrasted to the challenge of circumscribing what I will be
Piketty identifies above all four possible trajectories for regulating capital, at referring to as the vanishing point of Marx’s critique of political economy:
least in the medium term: a social-state of the twenty-first century; rethinking delineating the “logic of capital.”
the progressive income tax; a global tax on capital; and a novel conception of While Thomas Piketty is genuinely determined to comprehend rising
public debt (pp. 469–570). These strategies for buffering the expansion of inequality as a symptom of processes that are not directly observable, his
inequality, however, derive from and apply to the very same institutional and endeavor is hampered by limitations that are built into the design of mainstream
organizational framework that has been conducive to expanding inequality: the economic theory, and modern economics in general. By contrast, critical social
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 7 8 H. F. Dahms

theorists working in a Marxian mold have begun to frame as one of the pre- have an interest in the kind of explicit, self-reflective, and critical exchanges that
eminent challenges for social scientists and social and political theorists today, would be required for an understanding to result that points beyond the status
the task of explaining the origins and causes of rising inequality as symptomatic quo – today, the neoliberal regime of political economy. Also frequently lacking
of dimensions of capitalism that economists – especially those that adhere to is an interest in the specific societal context in which policy is to be constructed,
what critical theorists have been referring to as the traditional theoretical pre- whose problematic features it would have to address and endeavor to alter, what
cepts of economics – are ill-suited to confront, and which indeed may be precise ends are to be pursued and achieved, and what kind of interventions are
inconceivable from the vantage point of mainstream, neoclassical economics.4 most likely to be effective. The absence of a rigorously dynamic perspective on
the link between inequalities and social problems, at the cultural, organiza-
tional, and structural levels, also is a major impediment to conceptions of social
policy as a means of qualitative transformation.5
3 Basic income: a public policy strategy for the Basic income-related designs diverge from implicit assumptions about the
twenty-first century nexus between inequalities and social problems that prefigure most discussions
about the purpose and scope of social policies. Most policies intended to
The main difference between basic income and more standard social policy alleviate specific social problems and conditions rest upon constructions of
approaches is that the former is inspired by the prospect of engendering strate- causality links between societal conditions, the functions and functioning of
gies that are geared towards tackling specific types of social problems which, in institutions, and the malleability of “human nature”, on the one hand, and
turn, are functions of structural inequalities. By contrast, traditional approaches possibilities to alter structural inequalities by means of policy, on the other.
to designing social policy move within a perimeter whose boundaries are deter- By contrast, proponents of basic income contend that under present conditions,
mined by implicit assumptions about how existing inequalities constitute the set we are not in the position to adequately identify the link between existing
framework in whose context to conceive of the purpose and scope of social inequalities and determinations of the kinds of policy designs that are possible,
policies – a framework that adherents of established social policy would be probable to be effective, and desirable, in a manner that would be consonant
hard-pressed to explicate, or even to acknowledge. Put differently, traditional with, or translatable into, prevailing norms and values in modern democratic
approaches to public policy must be understood – and scrutinized – as a societies. Yet as long as assumptions about the nature of underlying causality
function of existing socio-economic and political contexts that are perceived as chains remain implicit, or entirely submerged, they are prone to perpetuate and
given and related to as “normal” – if not “natural.” In many instances, such implicitly legitimate policy failures, in the sense that solutions to persistent
implicit assumptions constitute impediments to conceiving of the nature of social problems do not enter the relevant arenas, or if so, in name only.
social or economic problems on their own terms, independently of the institu- Rather, they tend to be grounded in and foster “ideology,” in the sense of
tional context in which, and the tools with which, they are to be alleviated, if not reference frames that negatively relate to the specific nature of problems at
solved: how a given problem has come to be defined, in the context of political hand, rather than the functional character of those problems, and their struc-
and economic institutions and organizations, in preceding decades. Politicians, tural origins in time and space, that is, in concrete socio-historical contexts. In
policy makers, and even social scientists concerned with policy often do not addition, most public policies constitute efforts to justify, distract from, or
rationalize, inequality in general, and specific inequalities, in particular.
4 It should become apparent below that Marx’s critique of political economy provides the most Basic income reflects a genuine interest in policy designs that are oriented
far-reaching basis for conceiving of the logic of capital, especially according to Postone’s (1993) toward identifying necessary preconditions for solving key social problems. The
reinterpretation. I am not referring, though, to the logic of capitalism, which refers to the latter must be seen in relation to existing structures of social and economic
combination of a socio-historical formation and a particular ideology, despite an undeniable inequality, and economic and political power, and to past policy decisions and
link between the logic of capitalism and the logic of capital. Rather, “capitalism” denotes the
result of multiple yet cohesive economic processes, as they are mediated via social, political,
and cultural processes that conceal the logic of capital, and which only can be scrutinized on 5 The most compelling effort in the direction of a dynamic analysis of social problems may be
the basis of a radical reading of the tools and categories the classics of sociology developed and Leisering and Leibfried’s (1999) study of poverty in western welfare states. On problems related
provided. See Dahms (in preparation). to the grounding of a rigorous dynamic analysis of modern western societies, see Dahms (2002).
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 9 10 H. F. Dahms

strategies predetermining the scope of perceived available options and future a manner that perverts the very objectives that inspire the current debate? What
choices. At the same time, however, proponents of basic income are reluctant to if the inability of modern political systems to tackle social problems is sympto-
adopt an explicit stance on whether, under present conditions, and especially in matic neither of flawed policy designs, nor of a lack of commitment on the part
the most “advanced” societies, the combined political and policy apparatuses of decision-makers in the political and policy establishments, to solve social
do, or do not, have the capacity to bring about qualitative change, as far as the problems by altering structures of inequality? An alternative explanation would
causes of socio-economic inequalities and injustices are concerned. be that there are systemic impediments in western societies – with correspond-
How, then, do proponents reconcile the assertion that modern political ing barriers in academia and politics – which thwart attempts to implement
systems are not capable of eliminating social problems that emanate from policies that would support values relating to liberty, equality, and solidarity.
inequalities, with the assertion that those same systems will allow for the Under conditions of globalization, in the context of an increasing concern with
implementation of basic income? How would basic income facilitate – in the the future of the nation-state, inherent, systemic flaws and impediments to
sense of simplify – the capacity of modern political systems to surmount the qualitative progress that took hold during the Cold War are beginning to become
societal barriers to social policy success, to implement a new policy regime that more visible. For present purposes, the notion of the logic of capital may provide
is directed explicitly at overcoming the limitations of life chances imposed by a promising starting point for circumscribing these structural, built-in impedi-
structural inequalities? How is it that modern political systems continue to be ments and barriers.
incapable to achieve policy success (see Dahms, 2011 [2005]), but ought to be
able to implement basic income? This is the central challenge to constructive
arguments for basic income. While many proponents of basic income are aware
of this paradox, its acknowledgement entails the risk of hampering the formula-
4 Mainstream economic theory vs. critical theory
tion of strategies intended to be constructive, forward-looking, optimistic.
The problem with efforts to relate the social and economic world as represented in
The importance of basic income derives directly from the assertion that it is
the tradition of neoclassical economics, to how this world appears in Marx’s
a policy design that ought to allow modern political systems, as it were, to
critique of political economy and the tradition it inspired, pertains directly to
“jump over their own shadow”, i.e., to first acknowledge, and then to confront,
compatibility between the divergent intellectual and research orientations for
their neglected, unsightly, disturbing, dark side. Under present conditions,
which those traditions have been standing.7 While classical and neoclassical
solving social problems relating to inequalities does not appear to be a realistic
economists were working with the assumption that the variegated benefits result-
and realizable option, yet implementing a policy innovation that increases the
ing from increasing prosperity in society far outweighed the related costs, Marx –
likelihood of future possibilities to tackle social problems more effectively, may
along with Engels – was determined to confront the glaring absence of conceptual
and, indeed, must be, for an entire array of positive social, political, cultural,
tools, a focused analytical mindset, and an overall theoretical framework, to
and technological achievements of the modern age to persist, as well as the
assess the damage the pursuit of national wealth evidently had begun to inflict,
possibility of further achievements – without the destructive correlates (precon-
partly via industrialization, on human beings, society, culture, politics, and
ditions, implications, consequences) overtaking the former. With the welfare-
nature, and to develop the requisite tools and frame to address the costs involved.
state having been, at least in part, a regime to police inequalities – without
Neoclassical economics has been interested, above all, in establishing –
altering their nature and prevalence–and to protect against concurrent threats to
and critically examining the precepts of – the kind of knowledge on the basis
social and political stability – while increasing opportunities for individuals to
of which it is possible for the spectrum of economic actors, from individuals,
improve their life chances, in a manner that is compatible with the principles of
liberty, equality, and solidarity: how could basic income become a reality?6 In
particular, how can we make sure that basic income will not be implemented in 7 I am referring here, as will become apparent below, to Marx’s critique of political economy,
specifically, as his most rigorous endeavor to provide a radical alternative to classical economic
theory – which, to be sure, did not pursue the same objectives as the former – rather than his
6 As I put it elsewhere, “In practice, the primary purpose of [social] policy has been to police work as a whole. I will also refer to Marx’s critical theory (see Postone, 1993) as an analytical, as
social problems, not to solve them” (Dahms, 2011 [2005]: 182), manifesting itself as “a shift from opposed to a political, program, and the tradition whose roots are located in Marx’s theoretical
policing problems to policing those who suffer from them” (ibid., p. 219n36). writings, as “Marxian”, rather than “Marxist”.
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 11 12 H. F. Dahms

via households and businesses, to entire nation-states, to enter and follow a Still, by and large, related endeavors continue to suffer from decades of
path of increasing prosperity in a continuous, stable and reliable fashion. The research practice characterized by narrowing horizons, general neglect of
discipline thus involves the establishment of microeconomic, technical knowl- adjacent issues, professionalization, ratification of scientific standards, and
edge about economic actors’ opportunities to attain economic success, and the the delegation of the study of purportedly non-economic challenges to other
expansion of our understanding of macroeconomic conditions in the absence disciplines, especially sociology.9
of which it would not be possible–or exceedingly difficult–to retain and build By contrast, critical approaches to social research posit that implicit
upon the fruits of previous efforts and achievement. Put differently, econo- assumptions about the nature of modern societies are most in need of rigorous
mists emphasize the variegated benefits that, undeniably, result from the scrutiny. Critical theories are calibrated to examine those dimensions of mod-
successful pursuit of prosperity, for the various kinds of actors, and concen- ern societal life whose systematic analysis is a necessary precondition for the
trates on producing the kind of knowledge that is conducive to maintaining development of strategies for solving social problems that relate to structural
this pursuit. Identifying and examining potential economic costs that accom- inequalities. Traditional, noncritical theories–not including the classics of
pany specific strategies and policies for pursuing prosperity, or for tackling social theory, Marx, Durkheim and Weber, who each was more critical than
economic challenges, is integral to the production of such knowledge. By dominant interpretations during the twentieth century would have conceded
implication, however, and from its outset, economics as a social science (see Dahms, in preparation)–either ignore these dimensions altogether, or
evolved in a manner that did not consider systematically the non-economic regard and define them as aspects of the “natural” constitution of society.
costs–which come in many different forms–that have accompanied and Lack of concern with any of these dimensions, however, makes impossible
resulted from the expansion of economic wealth.8 In part, the neglect of non- consideration of the necessary preconditions of meaningful social change that
economic costs no doubt is due to simple lack of interest; after all, each is compatible with, and advances the espoused values of, western democratic
academic discipline self-selects, is attractive to, and represented by certain societies. In a first step, I propose the following working definition of critical
personality types with particular interests, aspirations and motivations, at the theory:
exclusion of others. Over time, to be sure, the lack of interest in non-economic
issues deepened and was codified, via the division of labor among the social Critical theories are concerned with identifying and analyzing those dimensions of social
life that “traditional” theories presume as non-problematic (e.g. capitalist, gender-based,
sciences, and the concurrent emphasis of some questions, challenges, and
and Western definitions of social reality). The rigorously critical elucidation of these
tools, rather than others. As a consequence of this process, especially since dimensions is essential to determining what it would take to solve, or to resolve once
the 1980s, the discipline of economics and its proponents and practitioners and for all, the social problems (e.g. poverty, unemployment, discrimination, exclusion)
have become less able to consider the multifarious non-economic costs that prevalent in modern societies today – in light of the fact that modern societies are not
inevitably accompany the pursuit of prosperity, than was true for economic
theorists a century ago, when neoclassical economics began its march of 9 No doubt it would be difficult for economists to begin to include the determination and
victory. Admittedly, in recent decades, in the context of globalization, there analysis of non-economic costs in their consideration. A telling indication of how difficult it
has been a proliferation of research areas in economics, especially outside of would be to overcome the hurdles involved may be found in the failure to date of economic
the United States, whose proponents are willing to concede that economic sociology, as it has been on the rise since the 1980s, to establish a distinct agenda of its own that
would be capable of immunizing itself against the appeal and gravity systematic neoclassical
growth comes at a price that economists ought to take into consideration.
economic theory and analysis have been exerting on efforts to study constructively the modern
economy in ways that do not position themselves explicitly against the dominant economic
paradigm. Parallel to neoclassical economics attaining the status of preeminent approach within
8 This lack of interest in non-economic costs was not inevitable, though, as the founder of the larger field of economics, during the 1980s as the decade that has come to be associated with
modern economics, the Scottish enlightenment thinker Adam Smith was keenly aware that the rise of neoliberalism, economic sociologists started to try to produce “better” knowledge of
delegating human decision-making responsibility to the self-regulating market mechanism, on the economy than neoclassical economists were claimed to be able to, but remained too closely
the assumption that the results inevitably would be beneficial to humans, society, or humanity tied to the tools and frameworks of the latter, transposed into sociology, and in fact incapable to
generally, was highly problematic and incongruous with an adequate understanding of the escape from the draw of economics. See Sparsam (2015). On differences and tensions between
modern economy he advocated. See Smith ([1789] 1937), pp. 240–50, Hill and Montag (2014), economics and sociology as social sciences with competing, yet divergent claims to scientific
and Dahms (2015). validity and importance, see Fourcade, Ollion, and Algan (2015).
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 13 14 H. F. Dahms

capable of overcoming these social problems given currently prevailing conditions. The analytical and theoretical agenda and set of phenomena, critical theorists
kind of fundamental change that would be necessary for solving these problems, however, started out from the assumption of the relative autonomy (“inner logic”) of the
would change the nature of modern society. (Dahms, 2002, p. 306).
social sciences’ respective tasks in relation to the diverse dimensions of social
The concept of critical theory was coined first by Max Horkheimer in 1937 (1972 life (“social value spheres”) that are the domain of these disciplines (see Dahms,
[1937]). Horkheimer and his colleagues had set out from the assumption that our 1999). The goal was to critically evaluate the relative importance of different
understanding of society is itself shaped by society, and that there is an immi- inner logics, respectively, in light of prevailing patterns determining how exactly
nent need for the kind of theory that does not reproduce the patterns of the actually existing societies fulfill an array of functions. In this context, Friedrich
social formation it is intended to illuminate. To achieve this feat, critical theor- Pollock was responsible for providing an updated diagnosis of political economy
ists first had to attain an understanding of advanced capitalism that would be along Marxian lines, while it fell to the community of scholars at the Institute,
conducive to future possibilities for qualitative social transformation. With on the third level, to generate a highly sophisticated, systematic critique of post-
regard to its research agenda, the vanishing point for such a critical theory liberal capitalism and its effects on political, social and cultural dimensions of
was to be a qualitatively superior critique of political economy, to confront life. As Benhabib put it, in “Traditional and Critical Theory”, Horkheimer
conditions that had taken shape by the 1930s, in light of three facts: that the contended
relationship between state and economy had changed profoundly since the that the findings of the specialized sciences cannot be integrated with philosophy without
nineteenth century, that analytical and research tools had become more varied the latter exercising a critique of the foundations upon which the sciences are based. Both
and more refined with the formation of newly established social-science disci- the specialized sciences and those philosophical theories which consider their achieve-
plines, especially sociology; and that in light of both changes, perspectives on ments to be the only valid model of knowledge perpetuate an epistemological illusion: the
object of cognition is presented as a ready-made, ahistorical reality, and the relationship of
the likely and desirable future of modern societies needed to be revisited.
the knowing subject to this object is presented as one of passive cognition or limited
Along the lines of an Institute for Social Research that would rely on experimentation…. Traditional theories question neither the historical constitution of their
and integrate all the human sciences – the humanities as well as the social own object, nor the purposes to which the knowledge they produce is put in society.
sciences – Horkheimer ([1931] 1993) presented an overall division of labor to be (Benhabib, 1986: 152)
implemented and pursued at the Institute. For Marx, the critique of political
economy had been an integrated endeavor, with any one element being relevant Since Horkheimer envisioned the core of critical theory as an explicit and sys-
in relation to all the other elements, in order to confront the totality of modern tematic engagement with the gravity concrete socio-historical conditions exert on
society (see Jay, 1984), with diagnosis and critique, and theory and practice the process of social research and the development of the theory of society,
being complementary dimensions of the effort to illuminate the logic of the including especially critical theory itself, it is necessary to establish how exactly
process of capital accumulation. By contrast, in Horkheimer’s vision of the concrete socio-historical conditions facilitate and impede the formulation of
Institute for Social Research, the analysis of different dimensions of modern research questions, and the pursuit of research and theory. Lack of concern
capitalist society was to be the responsibility of individual researchers, within an with regard to this issue translates more or less directly into a process of normal-
overall division of labor, while it was the charge of the entire staff to work izing that which is specific, unusual, and especially problematic, in a manner that
towards the most sophisticated critique of advanced capitalism. perpetuates and solidifies the defining features of particular societal circum-
The members of the Institute of Social Research engaged in the critique of stances in time and space. In modern capitalist societies, moreover, how precisely
capitalism on three levels. On the first level, they endeavored to revitalize Marx’s societies are modern and capitalist must be considered, recognized, and expli-
critique of political economy, to be applied to the stage of capitalist develop- cated fully, in order to reduce as much as possible the likelihood that the
ment reached during the first decades of the twentieth century. Acknowledging formulation of questions, and the processes of research and theory-formation
the persistent division of labor in the social sciences, Horkheimer determined themselves, reflect and are expressions of existing societal conditions. For
that – on the second level – the members and affiliates of the Institute would be instance, if modern capitalism is fraught with competition and the Protestant
responsible for specific dimensions, e.g., for sociology, psychology, economics, work-ethic, it follows that it is inevitable that research and theory replicate,
or law. Since each individual social science is concerned with a specific perpetuate, and deepen competition and work-ethic, paradoxically, in the attempt
to illuminate how competition and work-ethic are integral to modern society.
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 15 16 H. F. Dahms

Critical theory emerged as the explicit effort to track and trace the permuta- (as opposed to “traditional” neo-classical economic theory) of economic organi-
tions of social life that resulted from the ongoing dynamics of capitalist market zations as well as their relationship to the state in postliberal capitalist society
economies as they changed, as it were, under the feet, around the bodies, and became all the more urgent, since anything but a systematic critique was bound
above the heads of people living their lives, more or less successfully, in what to merely reflect (in the sense of mirror), rather than reflect on, this society and
they experienced as normalcy of everyday life. Yet, this experience was saturated its corresponding mode of capitalist production.
by patterns endemic to corporate capitalism – without individuals being fully The agenda of the early Frankfurt School translated into the interpretation
cognizant of this fact, and in the absence of categories and tools conducive to and experience of a “socially” constructed world – really, a world constructed
illuminating this condition, interpreting the latter as natural and inevitable char- by capital that is being experienced and interpreted as social and socially
acteristic of life in mass societies (see esp. Horkheimer and Adorno ([1944] 2002). constructed – as given, as if it were possibly to presume the existence of life
The distinction between traditional and critical theory is especially pertinent in modern society once and for all, whereas critical theory is a radical form of
with respect to economic theory. The critique of political economy in the Marxian epistemology: patterns of social life exist not as persistent forms, but as expres-
sense entails a “philosophical” dimension facilitating three types of insights: sions of the transmutations of the logic of capital. Mainstream approaches, then,
first, the core concepts of economic theory are self-contradictory (in terms of need to be conceived of negatively, in terms of an absence, rather than posi-
their logical implication, they are not capable of explaining the capitalist mode of tively, in terms of a clearly discernible characteristic: they neglect to recognize
production); secondly, the critique of political economy emphasizes the fact that how precisely they are situated in time and space, and how they reflect concrete
capitalist society is not “an objective, law-governed, nature-like sphere,” but socio-historical configurations, on the assumption that it is possible, as it were,
“socially constituted”; and thirdly, the critique of political economy “exposes to step outside of modern society. In light of Horkheimer’s concept of critical
the internal contradictions and dysfunctionalities of the system in order to show theory, however, doing so would be impossible (see Dahms, 2011 [2008]).
how and why these give rise to oppositional demands and struggles which
cannot be satisfied by the present” (Benhabib, 1986, pp. 154–55).
To put it differently, the logic of the social sciences in capitalism is itself a
manifestation of the effects of capitalism: the theories of capitalism are epiphe-
5 Postone’s reinterpretation of Marx as a critique
nomena of capitalism, theories in, rather than of, capitalism; they are reflections of traditional Marxism
of, rather than on, capitalism. The “traditional” theories of capitalism from
Smith to twentieth-century neo-classical economics are not also critiques of Moishe Postone’s Time, Labor, and Social Domination (1993) may well be the
it – capitalism shapes the way we think to such a degree that we cannot help most comprehensive and sophisticated effort at a reinterpretation of Marx’s
but reproduce its defining features and core patterns even in our theories of it. social theory in the tradition of critical theory in the English language to date.
In this context, critical theory (as arguably the most sophisticated version of His reinterpretation is also the most prominent English-language interpretation
Weberian Marxism) is the project of analyzing the logic of capitalist production of Marx that shares themes with the “new Marx reading” mentioned earlier
and development, which leads from liberal capitalism to various forms of post- (dating back to West Germany in the mid-1960s). In the literal sense, such
liberal capitalism: bureaucratic capitalism, managerial capitalism, finance capit- efforts as legitimating non-market work, which is one of the desired outcomes
alism, and beyond – to a “totally administered world” (see Dahms, unpublished of the successful implementation of basic income, are compatible with Postone’s
manuscript). In the process, the contingencies of an increasingly complex socio- critique of traditional Marxism, his interpretation of Marx’s theory as a critical
historical reality are reduced to means-ends relations. Critical theorists were theory of labor in capitalism, and his perspective as it contributes to and
interested in the relationship between the inner logic of capitalist production supports – even though it was not meant to – the debate about basic income.
at the stage of postliberal capitalism reached during the 1920s and early 1930s, The affinity between a highly refined interpretation of Marx, on the one hand,
and the different inner logics of other spheres of life in society, which become and basic income as the only serious endeavor to keep alive motives of his
increasingly assimilated to the ever more sophisticated logic of capitalist orga- thought that point toward practically oriented efforts to engender change
nizations, for which there is no social, cultural or political counterweight in intended to be compatible with the political, social, and economic principles
society. Under such circumstances, the need for a systematic critical theory guiding western societies, on the other, is instructive. More specifically, the
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 17 18 H. F. Dahms

argument put forth by proponents of basic income, that at some point in the not interpretations and continuations of Marx’s theory, but to point out a basic
necessarily so distant future the “uncoupling [of] work and income” will become flaw in most interpretations of this theory during the twentieth century that
a necessary precondition for continued economic growth and development, can be circumscribed clearly only since the direction of the capitalist trans-
resonates well with central tenets of Postone’s reinterpretation of Marx. formations underway since the 1970s has become identifiable, in terms of
Modern society relies on “rationalizations” of alienated forms of life, “globalization.” He states,
practices, and institutional arrangements (see Dahms, 2011 [2005], esp. 167–176).
Among the paradoxes of social science is that dimensions of social life that are By “traditional Marxism” I …mean …all analyses that understand capitalism–its basic
social relations–essentially in terms of class relations structured by a market economy
part of the basic design of modern society, and whose consequences manifest
and private ownership and control of the means of production, and grasps its relations of
themselves at all levels of social organization and activity, tend to remain domination primarily in terms of class domination and exploitation. Within this general
submerged–and neglected in analyses of social life. In the absence of specifi- interpretive framework, capitalism is characterized by a historical dynamic (driven by class
cally tailored instruments, the social sciences tend to disguise these dimen- conflict, capitalist competition, or technological development) which gives rise to a grow-
sions further. If strategies to implement basic income are to function as a ing structural contradiction between the society’s basic social relations (interpreted as
private property and the market) and the forces of production (interpreted as the industrial
means for overcoming the most restrictive aspects of work society, its propo-
mode of producing) (Postone, 1997, p. 49f).
nents must be willing to hone in on how labor casts a net over social life, how
it necessitates continuous modulations of social reality, social organization, Starting out from the observation that traditional Marxism has not been suffi-
social processes and social action, so as to facilitate the construction of mean- ciently conducive to analyzing the transformations of capitalism and their
ingful life-histories, in a context fraught with irrationalities (Vidich, 1995). As underlying dynamic, Postone endeavors to delineate the core dynamic of current
Postone put it, transformations, and concurrent opportunities for qualitative social change (see
esp. Postone, 2007). To begin with, many purported critiques of Marx’s theory in
Marx’s analysis of the historically unique character of labor as a socially mediating activity
fact targeted highly flawed, traditional versions of Marxism. For Postone, the key
in capitalism is central to his investigation of the social relations and forms of subjectivity
that characterize this society. According to Marx, the dual function of labor in capitalism issue is how to interpret Marx’s theory in order to elucidate “globalization”. For
as abstract labor and as concrete labor, as an activity that mediates people’s relations with our purposes, the consequences resulting from the developmental dynamic of
one another and with nature, constitutes the fundamental structuring form of social life– capitalism today for the possibility of effective social policies are most crucial:
the commodity (Postone, 1993, p. 385). how to reflect upon necessary preconditions for solving key social problems?
Have arguments for basic income been impaired by key tenets of traditional
An adequate interpretation of Marx’s theory, then, involves the challenge of
Marxism? Five points are most central to Postone’s critique of traditional
understanding the nature of a specific problem–in this case, the role of “labor”
Marxism, as a contribution to the debate about basic income.
in modern society–in a manner that is directly related to the nature of the
Especially in its mature version, in Grundrisse (Marx, 1973 [1855) and Capital
problem, whether in terms of analysis, or with regard to explicitly acknowledged
(Marx, 1967 [1867]) it is necessary to distinguish propositions in Marx’s theory
norms and values. Such an interpretation of Marx’s theory draws attention to the
that were trans-historical and universal in nature or intent, and those that were
degree to which, in most cases, social science is about framing the analysis of a
means for analyzing liberal capitalism in the nineteenth century. We must
specific problem in the context of accepted related notions. For instance, it is
clarify how and where Marx’s theory was historically specific, and how and
impossible to meet the challenge suggested by Postone’s interpretation of Marx,
where it continues to be relevant in the early twenty-first century. As Marx’s
if social scientists are not willing to question the perspective modern society has
theory involved, but did not constitute, a theory of exploitation, a theory of
on itself as inherently progressive and evolutionary – especially insofar as such
surplus value, a labor theory of value, and a theory of class struggle, these
a perspective subverts possibilities to grasp the mediated nature of many, or
“theories” were aspects of his attempt to answer the most decisive question: how
most socially, relevant problems.
to identify the nexus between bourgeois society and the capitalist mode of produc-
Postone’s critique of traditional Marxism is a critique of most versions
tion, in order to distinguish between the specificity of nineteenth-century liberal
of Marxism, as well as a critique of “actually existing socialism.” The purpose
capitalism and the dynamic principles of twentieth – as well as twenty-first –
of his critique is not to deny across the board legitimacy of previous
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 19 20 H. F. Dahms

century capitalism?10 In his earlier writings, Marx tried to present as trans- Marxism concentrated on the critique of the mode of distributing wealth in
historical certain key features of bourgeois society he later identified as specific capitalism, as a mechanism to reinforce the prevailing structure of social and
features of nineteenth century capitalism. As in modern capitalism, the primary economic inequality, neglecting the critical analysis of the organization of
purpose of production is to generate profits, rather than to supply society with production, and the fact that the latter can be molded by collective actors,
the means to satisfy needs, the commodity is the most fundamental form of public authorities, governments, etc., to a degree and in a manner impossible
social relations, revealing the inverted nature of business-labor-government to determine beforehand by means of either economic theory or critical theory.
relations in bourgeois society. At the same time, the commodity is constituted In capitalism, it is a definite minority that determines what is being produced,
by labor whose task it is to produce commodities. In societies where profits under what conditions, in whose interest, for whose benefit, with what kind of
result from the production of commodities, as the basic principle of the labor consequences for the human condition, and the future of the species. Traditional
process, social relations evolve in relation to the commodity form. Yet this only Marxists employed Marx’s theory to criticize the mode of unequal distribution of
applies in capitalist societies. the wealth produced, without acknowledging the importance of the organization
In addition, it is necessary to note how Marx’s concept of labor was histori- of production. Yet to analyze the specific consequences resulting from the
cally specific, as opposed to trans-historical, especially in his later works. The capitalist mode of production, for politics, culture, and society, and to theorize
distinction between concrete labor and abstract labor draws attention to the the obstacles to realizing freedom, the critique of political economy must involve
latter fulfilling a unique social function in capitalism: to facilitate and sustain a a critique of the “inner logic” of the market process in capitalism, as it pertains
new type of social interdependence. For Marx, the category of the commodity to both distribution and production.
serves the purpose to abstractly identify the underlying features of modern Thus, a new form of social domination is endemic to capitalism. What Marx
forms of social life – underlying features that social analysts and researchers had described in his early writings as “alienation” reappears, in his later work,
must not neglect. In order to grasp how, in its aftermath, the thrust of Marx’s specifically in Capital (Marx, 1967 [1867], pp. 71–83) as “commodity fetishism” –
theory was misconstrued by most interpreters, including especially his self- referring to a “form of self-generated structural domination” (Postone, 1997, p.
proclaimed followers, it is important to distinguish two modes of critical analy- 62). Conceiving of this form of domination as class domination, or other forms of
sis that engender two very different interpretations: “a critique of capitalism concrete political or economic domination, distracts from the fact that
from the standpoint of labor, …and a critique of labor in capitalism” (Postone,
it has no determinate locus and, although constituted by specific forms of social practice,
1993, p. 5). Under conditions of globalization, the commodity form is a concrete,
appears not to be social at all. The structure is such that one’s own needs, rather than the
empirically viable category for social analysis.11
threat of force or of other social sanctions, appear to be the source of such “necessity.”
Furthermore, Marx’s theory was both a critique of the prevailing distribution …The Marxian analysis includes [relations of class exploitation and domination], but
and a critique of the prevailing mode of production in capitalism. Traditional goes beyond it…. [T]he forms of social mediation expressed by categories such as the
commodity and capital develop into a sort of objective system, which increasingly deter-
10 Regarding his take on twenty-first century capitalism, see Postone (forthcoming). mines the goals and means of much human activity (Postone, 1997, p. 62f).
11 “In a society in which the commodity is the basic structuring category of the whole, labor
and its products are not socially distributed by traditional ties, norms, or overt relations of This abstract form of domination produces a peculiar kind of dynamic upon
power and domination–that is, by manifest social relations–as is the case in other societies. which modern society is based. This dynamic is highly complex and, which is
Instead, labor itself replaces those relations by serving as a kind of quasi-objective means by even more important, it is not linear. Its two key characteristics are, first, that it
which the products are acquired…. [A] new form of interdependence comes into being where no engenders continuous transformations emanating from the economy, and affect-
one consumes what they produce, but where, nevertheless, one’s own labor or labor-products
ing all aspects of life12; and secondly, that it continuously reconstitutes “its own
function as the necessary means of obtaining the products of others…. Instead of being defined,
distributed, and accorded significance by manifest social relations, as is the case in other
fundamental condition as an unchanging feature of social life” where labor is
societies, labor in capitalism is defined, distributed, and accorded significance by structures
(commodity, capital) that are constituted by labor itself…. [L]abor in capitalism constitutes a 12 “[O]ngoing transformations of the technical processes of labor, of the social and detail
form of social relations which has an impersonal, apparently non-social, quasi-objective char- division of labor and, more generally, of social life–of the nature, structure, and interrelations
acter and which embeds, transforms, and, to some degree, undermines and supersedes tradi- of social classes and other groupings, the nature of production, transportation, circulation,
tional social ties and relations of power” (Postone, 1997, p. 59). patterns of living, the form of the family, and so on” (Postone, 1997, pp. 63–64).
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 21 22 H. F. Dahms

the dominant mode of social mediation, and “living labor remains integral to the accumulating capital occurs in the early twenty-first century. One the distinguish-
process of production …regardless of the level of production” (ibid., pp. 63f). ing features of Thomas Piketty as an unconventional mainstream economist is
Postone’s rereading of Marx sheds light on the specific kind of impediments that he does what critical theory demands: pay attention to the specificity of
to understanding and theorizing modern capitalism, attempts to tackle or solve socio-historical circumstances and the fact that they have a bearing on the validity
social problems, modes of collective social and political action, and opportunities and scope of well-established economic categories. Yet, per the criticisms formu-
to pursue qualitative social change. Implications resulting from these impedi- lated in terms of the “new Marx reading”, he is not as successful at remedying the
ments for social policy and the prospects of basic income ought to be immediately deficit in strong explanatory power of the categories economists use. For instance,
apparent. If labor (not as the labor movement, or organized labor, etc.) is the that capital is much more than a quantifiable entity, and indeed an economic
dominant mode of mediating social relations in capitalism, then social relations force that is uniquely socially transformative (see esp. Lotz, 2015), receives no
are not independent from the workings of the economy, how the labor process is attention in Capital in the Twenty-First Century. What also does not receive con-
organized, and how workers, and citizens in general, experience their position in sideration, presumably in large part because doing so is beyond the purview of
society. If social policy ignores the specific mediating labor in capitalism, as it mainstream economics as a social science, is the evidence, both empirical and
permeates, influences, and even constitutes modern society in all of its dimen- theoretical, that suggests that the social, economic, and political reconfigurations
sions, policy is bound to replicate the problematic nature of the context in which that began in the 1980s, are likely to have gone much deeper than the increase in
policy success is to be achieved. This applies especially with regard to existing inequality would suggest. The latter, instead, and perhaps in no small measure,
structures of inequality, as features of modern society that are linked to the may be indicative of the degree to which processes of individual identity-forma-
dominant mode of organizing the labor process–but not as a function of it. If tion reflect the transformation of forms of sociality, the progressive evisceration of
proponents of basic income start out from the assumption that there is a funda- solidarity as a real and sustainable social force, and the assimilation of life goals
mental difference between the nature of social relations in the labor process, on and expectations to the categories and imperatives of expanding capital that
the one hand, and in society, on the other, and that the role of labor has not corresponds with the decline of a meaningful social imaginary, and – as
changed qualitatively, as the foundation of alienation as the foundational experi- Habermas put it – what appears to be the final “exhaustion of utopian energies”
ence of modern social life, then proponents overlook the potential impact of basic ([1985] 1989).13 Or, as Postone (forthcoming) put it in a recent essay,
income, and the consequences of its implementation, if successful. For instance, if
the implementation of basic income is to foster the establishment of economic
citizenship rights for the twenty-first century, without altering the dominant role 13 With a definite sense of foreboding that from today’s perspective sounds like the echo of an
irretrievably bygone era, Habermas (1989 [1985], pp. 64–65) wrote, “The welfare state has
of labor in its specificity–i.e., in terms of how it mediates social relations–the
arrived at an impasse. With it, the energies of the utopian idea of a laboring society have
implementation of basic income will not advance the espoused objectives. After exhausted themselves. The responses of the legitimists and the neoconservatives move within
all, if we were to establish basic income, without altering the manner in which the medium of a Zeitgeist which at this point can only be defensive; they are the expression of a
labor structures social relations, what would be its purpose? historical consciousness that has been robbed of its utopian dimension. The dissident critics of
a growth-oriented society also remain on the defensive. Their response could be turned to the
offensive only if the welfare state project were neither simply maintained nor simply terminated
but rather continued on a higher level of reflection. A welfare state project that has become
6 Conclusion reflective, that is directed not only to restraining the capitalist economy but to controlling the
state itself would, of course, lose labor as its central point of reference. For it is no longer a
question of protecting full employment, which has been raised to the status of a norm. A
Piketty’s proposal of four possible trajectories for regulating capital in the medium
reflective welfare state project could not even limit itself to introducing a guaranteed minimum
term – a social-state of the twenty-first century; rethinking the progressive income in order to break the spell that the labor market casts on the life history of all those
income tax; a global tax on capital; and a novel conception of public debt capable of working – including the growing and increasingly marginalized potential of those
(2014, pp. 469–570) – at the very least to slow the increase in economic inequality, who only stand in reserve. This step would be revolutionary, but not revolutionary enough –
are consistent with the spirit of basic income. They also highlight the need to not even if the lifeworld could be protected not only against all the inhuman imperatives of the
employment system but also against the counterproductive side effects of an administrative
create circumstances that alter the conditions under which the process of
system designed to provide for the whole existence.”
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 23 24 H. F. Dahms

The emergence of the possibility of a future, in which surplus production no longer must Backhaus, H. -G. (2011). Dialektik der Wertform. Untersuchungen zur marxschen Ökonomiekritik
be based on the labor of an oppressed class, is, at the same time, the emergence of the (2nd ed). Freiburg: Ça ira.
possibility of a disastrous development in which the growing superfluity of labor is Benhabib, S. (1986). Critique, norm, and utopia. A study of the foundations of critical theory.
expressed as the growing superfluity of people. New York: Columbia University Press.
This approach, then, reconceptualizes post-capitalist society in terms of the overcoming Bittman, M. (2015). Why Not Utopia? The New York Times Sunday Review, March 20. (down-
of the proletariat and the labor it does – that is, in terms of a transformation of the general loaded March 28, 2015).
structure of labor and time. It differs both from the traditional Marxist notion of the Block, F. and Somers, M. (2014). The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique.
realization of the proletariat, and from the capitalist mode of “abolishing” working classes Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
by creating an underclass within the framework of the unequal distribution of labor and Bonefeld, W. (2014). Critical theory and the critique of political economy: On subversion and
time nationally and globally. At the same time it suggests that the realization of the negative reason. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
possibility of the abolition of proletarian labor is not only desirable, but is a necessary Carayannis, E. G. & C. Ziemnovicz (Eds.). (2007). Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruc-
response to a deep structural crisis of capitalism. The possibility of historical liberation, of tion evolving into “Mode 3”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
the liberation of humans both from and through history, emerges historically in a form Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Malden, MA: Polity.
such that the category of human appears as a problem for humanity. Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neo-liberalism. Malden, MA: Polity.
Capital, therefore generates the possibility of a future society in a form that is Dahms, H. F. (1999). Postliberal capitalism and the early Frankfurt school: towards a critical
increasingly destructive of the environment and the working population. theory of the inner logic of social value spheres. Current Perspectives in Social Theory,
19, 55–58.
The desire for, and focus on, bringing about lasting and qualitative social and Dahms, H. F. (2002). Sociology in the age of globalization: Toward a dynamic sociological
economic change by means of politics may have turned into a major impediment theory. In J. Lehmann (Ed.), Bringing the state back in for critique by social theory (Current
to related success, including on the part of social movements, as politics in the Perspectives of Social Theory, 21) (pp. 287–320). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dahms, H. F. (2009). Democracy. In G. Honor Fagan & R. Munck (Eds.). Globalization and
interest of meaningful change is contingent on the strong commitment among
security, Vol. 1: Economic and political aspects (pp. 42–60). Santa Barbara, CL: Praeger
large segments of a given populace to make a profound investment of time and Security International.
energy – and material resources – to demanding and pursuing political goals Dahms, H. F. (2011 [2005]) Globalization or hyper-alienation? Critiques of traditional Marxism as
beyond the status quo. Rather than constituting a step toward the solution of the arguments for basic income. In The vitality of critical theory (Current Perspectives in Social
problem of increasing inequality, politics more and more seem like a further Theory, 28) (pp. 157–222). Bingley, GB: Emerald.
Dahms, H. F. (2011 [2008]) How social science is impossible without critical theory: The
hurdle that must be overcome, in order to tackle rising economic inequality.
immersion of mainstream approaches in time and space. In The vitality of critical theory
Proponents of basic income, if they are committed to promoting it in theory and (Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 28) (pp. 249–303). Bingley, GB: Emerald.
in practice, must begin to appreciate that the depth of the problems and Dahms, H. F. (2015). Toward a critical theory of capital in the twenty-first century: Thomas
challenges at hand may be much greater than the self-understanding of con- Piketty between Adam Smith and the prospect of apocalypse. Critical Sociology
temporary democratic politics – as it is entangled with, conceals, perhaps even 41(2), 359–374.
constitutes, what used to be called “dominant ideology”, i.e., in the current Dahms, H. F. (In preparation). Modern society as artifice: Critical theory, the dynamics of
alienation, anomie, and the protestant ethics, and the logic of capital. Farnham, Surrey:
time-period, the increasingly single-minded approach to confronting an array of
Ashgate.
challenges on the basis of purported market principles – would allow for. Dahms, H. F. (Unpublished manuscript). From Critical Theory’s ‘Totally Administered World’ to
the World of ‘Finance Fascism’.
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Lain Myers-Brown for stylistic and Dahrendorf, R. (1981). Life chances: Approaches to social and political theory. Chicago:
grammatical suggestions intended to make this essay more accessible to readers University of Chicago Press.
Dale, G. (2010). Karl Polanyi: The limits of the market. Malden, MA: Polity.
not familiar with the tradition of critical theory.
Elbe, I. (2010). Marx im Westen: Die neue Marx-Lektuere in der Bundesrepublik seit 1965. Berlin:
Oldenbourg Akademieverlag.
Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic
References Perspectives 29(1), 89–114.
Habermas, J. ([1985] 1989). The new obscurity: The crisis of the welfare state and the exhaus-
Andersen, E. S. (2011). Joseph A. Schumpeter. A theory of social and economic evolution. New tion of utopian energies. In The new conservatism. Cultural criticism and the historians ¼
York: Palgrave Macmillan. debate (S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.) (pp. 48–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
 Which Capital, Which Marx? 25 26 H. F. Dahms

Hill, M., & Montag, W. (2014). The other Adam Smith. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sparsam, J. (2015). Wirtschaft in der New Economic Sociology: Eine Systematisierung und Kritik.
Horkheimer, M. ([1931] 1993). The present situation of social philosophy and the tasks of an Berlin: Springer VS.
institute of social research. In Between philosophy and social science. Selected early Van Parijs, P. (Ed.). (1992). Arguing for basic income. Ethical foundations for a radical reform.
writings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. London: Verso.
Horkheimer, M. ([1937] 1972). Traditional and critical theory. In Critical theory. Selected essays Van Parijs, P. (1993). Marxism recycled. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.
(pp. 188–243). New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real freedom for all : What (if anything) can justify capitalism? New York:
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, Th. W. ([1944] 2002). Dialectic of enlightenment. Philosophical Oxford University Press.
fragments (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Vidich, A. J. (1995). Toward a rational grasp of irrationality: Some gaps in social and economic
Howard, M. (2005). Basic income, liberal neutrality, socialism, and work. Review of Social theory. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 9(1), 5–28.
Economy 63(4), 613–631. Widerquist, K. (2001). Perspectives on the guaranteed income, Part I. The Journal of Economic
Jay, M. (1984). Marxism and totality. The adventures of a concept from Lukács to Habermas. Issues 35(3), 749–757.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Widerquist, K. (2001a). Perspectives on the guaranteed income, Part II. The Journal of Economic
Krugman, P. (2015) ‘Hating Good Government’, The New York Times, January 18, 2015. Retrieved Issues 35(4), 1019–1030.
from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/paul-krugman-hating-good-govern- Widerquist, K. Noguera, J. A., Vanderborght, Y., & De Wispelaere, J. (Eds.). (2013). Basic income:
ment.html. An anthology of contemporary research. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Leisering, L., & Leibfried, S. (1999). Time and poverty in western welfare states. United Germany Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt school: Its history, theories, and political significance.
in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lotz, C. (2015). Is capital a thing? Remarks on Piketty’s concept of capital. Critical Sociology
41(2), 375–383.
Marx, K. (1973 [1855]). Grundrisse. Foundations of the critique of political economy (M. Nicolaus,
Trans.). New York: Random House.
Marx, K. (1967 [1867]). Capital. A critique of political economy Vol. I: The Process of Capitalist
Production (S. Moore and E. Aveling, Trans.). New York: International Publishers.
McGraw, Th. K. (2007). Prophet of innovation. Joseph Schumpeter and creative destruction.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Pickett, K., & Wilkinson, R. (2011). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies
stronger. New York: Bloomsbury.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Postone, M. (1993). Time, labor and social domination. A reinterpretation of Marx ¼ s critical
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Postone, M. (1997). Rethinking Marx (In a post-Marxist world). In C. Camic (Ed.), Reclaiming
the sociological classics: The state of the scholarship (pp. 45–80)). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Postone, M. (2007). Theorizing the contemporary world: David Harvey, Giovanni Arrighi, Robert
Brenner. In R. Albritton, B. Jessop, R. Westra (Eds.), Political economy of the present and
possible global future(s). London: Anthem Press.
Postone, M. (forthcoming). The task of critical theory today: Rethinking the critique of capital-
ism and its futures. In H. F. Dahms (Ed.), Globalization, critique, and social theory:
Diagnoses and challenges (Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 33). Bingley: Emerald,
2015.
Reichelt, H. (2008). Neue Marx-Lektüre. Zur Kritik sozialwissenschaftlicher Logik. Hamburg:
VSA-Verlag.
Shionoya, Y. (1997). Schumpeter and the idea of social science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, A. ([1789] 1937). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New
York: The Modern Library.