thispoint aboutthetendenciesof
capitalismtoeventuallyundermine
constraintsonit, is thatEITHERyou
transcendcapitalismORcapitalism
willundermineyou(thatis,under-
minetheconstraints youbringto it,
to capital).So,we,as humansubjects
in themodernperiodwithitsunique
economic formation,aredetermined
in thesensethatwecannotconstrain
thatformation,butwearealsofree,
freetotranscendtheformation.That
is whereourfreedomlies.It does not
lieinestablishinga stable,perman-
ent,setofsocial-democraticcon-
straints on capital since the
deterministictendenciesofcapital
willneverpermitsuchconstraints
anything more than a temporary
status.
Therelevanceofthistothede-
batesI mentionedis thatthereis a
position(callit ultra-Left if youlike,I
don’tcareabout labels,perhapsreal
worldultra-leftistswillrejectwhat I
amattributingtothem)whichsays
thefollowing: Becausecapitalismso
completelydominatesthepolitical
arenaanditsinstitutions,including
parliamentary politics, the latter
mustbeheldin suspicion;whatis to
besoughtis toovercomeandtran-
scendcapitalby someother,perhaps
moredirect,means.AndI thinkthe
otherposition(callit thepositionof
theorganisedLeft,againlabelsare
neitherherenorthere)is to saythat
thepoliticalpathtotranscendence
comesfromfirst establishingsocial
democraticconstraintsvia parlia-
mentary politics (under the full
awarenessthattherewillbenostable
accommodationof themwithincap-
italismandtheliberal ideologiesthat
propit up)andthenproceedto build
ontheseconstraintsso as to eventu-
allytranscendcapital. Thisis notthe
placeto discuss theseoptionsin de-
tail.
WhatI reallymeanttostressis
that contemporary populismsur-
faceseverywheretodaybecauseor-
dinaryworkingpeoplehavenotbeen
allowedbythetwincausalcondi-
tionsI outlined earliertoevenso
muchas configure conceptuallywhat
sucha transcendence wouldmean,
leavealoneto seetheirwayto a path
to politicallyachieveit.
Canyougiveamoreconcrete
exampleto explainwhatyouhavein
mindwhenyoutalkof “meaning”
hereandyourreferencesearlierto
howordinarypeopledonoteven
haveavailablein theirpolitical
zeitgeistthe“conceptual
vocabulary”to makea radical
critiqueof capitalismandseek
therebya pathto overcomingand
transcendingit?Howdoesthislack
havespecific orconcrete
consequences?Canyouexplain?
Yes,sure.Let’slookat thefirstfailure
ofinference,theoneI attributedto
ordinary workingpeoplewhohavea
soundscepticismabout globalisation
andthesupra-nationof Europebut
whodrawthewrong inference from
itwhen they expresstheirxeno-
phobicoppositionto immigration.Thepointhereis thatwithina
certainframeworkofthinking(the
one,forexample, sharedbya liberal
consensusbetweenBlairiteLabour
thinkingandTorythinkingwhich
dominatedBritishpoliticalculture
throughtheneoliberalperiod;actu-
allyLabourthinkingonthisgoes
backfurther,if yourecalltheearly
[James]Callaghantalkof austerity),
there are noconceptual resources
available bywhichyoucouldactu-
ally establish that immigration
couldbe anassetfortheeconomy. To
gettothatalternativeframeworkof
thoughtwhereby youcouldestablish
that,you’dhaveto push ina certain
directionthescepticismabout glob-
alisationand Europe that is ex-
pressed in the populist’s sound
premise, butpeoplejustdon’t have
theconceptual resources topushin
thatdirection.It’sjustsimplynot
amongtheoptionsthatareconcep-
tualisedin thepolitics frameworked
bytheliberalconsensus.That’swhat
makesliberalismthedeepestenemy
ofa genuineLeft. Marxsawthisin
thecelebratedessay“OntheJewish
Question”, andwehavetalked about
this more philosophically in an
earlierinterview.
You know,conservatismis an
easytarget. WhenI saythat,I amnot
denyingthatconservatism(whether
it is theTories ortheRepublicansin
thetwocountrieswehavefocussed
onin thediscussion)is veryoftenthe
moreimmediatedanger,noramI
denyingthatwhereverit winselec-
tions,lifegetsharderforworking
people.Butspeakingmoretheoretic-
ally,theeventualobstaclesarethe
roleplayedbyliberalisminmaking
surethatConservativesaretheonly
alternativetoa BlairiteLabouror
ClintoniteDemocraticposition. And
notonlymustit,forthisreason,be
theeventualtargetfora genuinely
radicalposition, butit isalsothe
moredifficulttarget becauseliberal-
ismalwaysclaimsthemoralhigh
groundbyopposing theunsavoury
populisms of the extreme Right
(while,ofcourse,atthesametime
constantlysneeringatSandersand
Corbynasunelectable“populisms”
too).Thus,mypoint is thattheyhave
noright to blamethexenophobiabe-PRABHAT PATNAIK.SUSHILKUMARVERMA“What[Patnaik]
hassaidis that
‘thespontaneous
tendenciesof
capitalism’
simplydo not
allowconstraints
uponcapitalto
bepermanent.”