I found this a really interesting book: Robert Chapman - Empire of Normality
An hour long interview with the author here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoBQ6q56fJE
How I came to dislike living in a capitalist society
Moderator: atreestump
Forum rules
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 1604
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: How I came to dislike living in a capitalist society
Thank you so much, I'll look into that now, but feel free to discuss anything in relation to that even before I might get to reading that and watching the video.
-
atreestump
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
How I came to dislike living in a capitalist society
[quote]thetrizzard wrote:
[/quote]
I'm in favour of Neo-Corporatism.
Where it helps:
First, inequality and wage insecurity. Centralised or coordinated bargaining compresses wage dispersion and strengthens worker bargaining power. That directly weakens the “discipline through precarity” dynamic described in the interview. It can reduce working poverty without eliminating private firms.
Second, macro stability. When wage growth is negotiated collectively, inflation control doesn’t rely as heavily on engineering unemployment through high interest rates. The trade-off becomes negotiated rather than imposed.
Third, austerity politics. Social partnership can make fiscal consolidation or expansion subject to negotiation. Governments can exchange wage restraint for welfare expansion, training, industrial policy, or employment guarantees. That moderates the harshness of unilateral austerity.
Fourth, legitimacy. If people see themselves represented in structured economic governance, the “facade democracy” critique weakens. Participation moves beyond periodic elections into ongoing economic coordination.
However, its limits are structural.
It does not alter ownership of capital. Investment decisions remain largely private. The “profit first” logic continues, though it may be constrained or guided by policy.
It can entrench insiders. Strong unions represent those in formal employment; precarious, gig, migrant, or informal workers may remain marginal. That can create dual labour markets.
It depends on power symmetry. Social partnership works when unions are strong, employer associations are coordinated, and the state is capable. In the UK today, union density is far lower than in 1970, and sectoral bargaining is weak. Without rebuilding institutional capacity, corporatism becomes rhetoric.
It does little on its own about global inequalities or supply-chain extraction. A high-wage coordinated economy can still rely on cheap imports or externalised environmental costs.
In short, neo-corporatism can meaningfully reduce inequality, precarity, and the reliance on unemployment as a disciplining tool. It is one of the more empirically grounded reform paths within capitalism. But it does not “escape” capitalism in the sense articulated in the interview. It stabilises and civilises it.
Whenever I talk to people about it, they immediately get on boad with it so politically it can be mobilised very quickly as it isn't alien to them.
[/quote]
I'm in favour of Neo-Corporatism.
Where it helps:
First, inequality and wage insecurity. Centralised or coordinated bargaining compresses wage dispersion and strengthens worker bargaining power. That directly weakens the “discipline through precarity” dynamic described in the interview. It can reduce working poverty without eliminating private firms.
Second, macro stability. When wage growth is negotiated collectively, inflation control doesn’t rely as heavily on engineering unemployment through high interest rates. The trade-off becomes negotiated rather than imposed.
Third, austerity politics. Social partnership can make fiscal consolidation or expansion subject to negotiation. Governments can exchange wage restraint for welfare expansion, training, industrial policy, or employment guarantees. That moderates the harshness of unilateral austerity.
Fourth, legitimacy. If people see themselves represented in structured economic governance, the “facade democracy” critique weakens. Participation moves beyond periodic elections into ongoing economic coordination.
However, its limits are structural.
It does not alter ownership of capital. Investment decisions remain largely private. The “profit first” logic continues, though it may be constrained or guided by policy.
It can entrench insiders. Strong unions represent those in formal employment; precarious, gig, migrant, or informal workers may remain marginal. That can create dual labour markets.
It depends on power symmetry. Social partnership works when unions are strong, employer associations are coordinated, and the state is capable. In the UK today, union density is far lower than in 1970, and sectoral bargaining is weak. Without rebuilding institutional capacity, corporatism becomes rhetoric.
It does little on its own about global inequalities or supply-chain extraction. A high-wage coordinated economy can still rely on cheap imports or externalised environmental costs.
In short, neo-corporatism can meaningfully reduce inequality, precarity, and the reliance on unemployment as a disciplining tool. It is one of the more empirically grounded reform paths within capitalism. But it does not “escape” capitalism in the sense articulated in the interview. It stabilises and civilises it.
Whenever I talk to people about it, they immediately get on boad with it so politically it can be mobilised very quickly as it isn't alien to them.
How I came to dislike living in a capitalist society
Thanks for the Clara Mattei interview, definitely very interesting, and good to hear someone so enthusiastic!
I've never read Marx, have always noticed countless mentions of him over the years. I always feel I'd be better off reading something more contemporary, that some of his writing will be less relevant now due to the technological changes we've witnessed, even in my own lifetime (my first PC was a 486 with a 25mhz clock speed and 4mb of ram - massive to me at the time, the dream, bought with inheritance money, mobile phones becoming ubiquitous, the internet, etc). AI is kinda different because there's a massive backlash against it. Change in the air? This stuff is becoming mainstream - CH4 news talking about anticapitalism for 40 minutes. The most recent book I finished was Capitalist Realism, I'm now starting Psycho Politics (Byung-Chul Han), Toleration in Political Conflict Glen Newey after that. Might add Clara Mattei's Escape from Capitalism to the list, or maybe Marx, or both, but I'm a much slower book reader than I used to be, thanks to social media and the internet.
I've never read Marx, have always noticed countless mentions of him over the years. I always feel I'd be better off reading something more contemporary, that some of his writing will be less relevant now due to the technological changes we've witnessed, even in my own lifetime (my first PC was a 486 with a 25mhz clock speed and 4mb of ram - massive to me at the time, the dream, bought with inheritance money, mobile phones becoming ubiquitous, the internet, etc). AI is kinda different because there's a massive backlash against it. Change in the air? This stuff is becoming mainstream - CH4 news talking about anticapitalism for 40 minutes. The most recent book I finished was Capitalist Realism, I'm now starting Psycho Politics (Byung-Chul Han), Toleration in Political Conflict Glen Newey after that. Might add Clara Mattei's Escape from Capitalism to the list, or maybe Marx, or both, but I'm a much slower book reader than I used to be, thanks to social media and the internet.