By FERNANDO NOGUEIRA DA COSTA*
Overcoming the global crisis would require the construction of interracial alliances and the radical transformation of the capitalist system, eradicating the expropriation and exploitation of labor.
In the book Cannibal Capitalism, published in 2024 by Nancy Fraser, the traditional definition of capitalism as a merely economic system is criticized for being “limited and insufficient to explain the multifaceted crisis currently experienced”. For Fraser, capitalism is best understood as an institutionalized social order. “It sustains itself by cannibalizing resources from other spheres of social life, such as social reproduction, ecology, political power, and the wealth of racialized populations”.
“Cannibal capitalism” is presented as the root of practically all contemporary problems, such as debt crises, precarious employment, the collapse of public services, racist violence, pandemics and extreme weather events. The expression “scapegoat” is used to designate something or someone chosen to be blamed for a negative event, even if they were not responsible. It seems to be the case that everything bad is attributed to the “system”…
The origin of the expression lies in the Israelite custom of holding a ceremony on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. During this ceremony, a goat was chosen to carry the sins of the people and was then abandoned in the desert.
Nancy Fraser argues that Marxist theory on capitalism is insufficient to explain the current crisis, as it does not systematically consider issues of gender, race, ecology and political power. The author recognizes the value of Marx's work, but points out the need to expand the concept of capitalism beyond the exploitation of wage labor.
For her, capitalism must be understood as an institutionalized social order. It is structured based on divisions between production and reproduction, economy and politics, human and non-human nature, exploitation and expropriation. These divisions are constantly renegotiated, in “border struggles”, to redefine the limits between these different spheres.
He develops a concept of “cannibal capitalism”. It feeds on natural wealth, human resources and unpaid work, exacerbating social inequalities and causing ecological, social and political crises.
Nancy Fraser criticizes the traditional view of capitalism as a strictly economic system and proposes a more comprehensive analysis, including social reproduction, dispossession and racial oppression, revealing how these dimensions interconnect with capital accumulation. Overcoming the global crisis would require the construction of interracial alliances and the radical transformation of the capitalist system, eradicating dispossession and the exploitation of labor.
Just like Nancy Fraser, in Cannibal Capitalism, Grégoire Chamayou in The Ungovernable Society: A Genealogy of Authoritarian Liberalism (2020) had also argued that contemporary capitalism feeds on external resources to sustain capital accumulation. However, while Nancy Fraser focuses on the cannibalization of social reproduction, ecology, and the wealth of racialized populations, Grégoire Chamayou focuses on the cannibalization of the political sphere and the erosion of democracy. Both authors point to the need to rethink capitalism more comprehensively, considering its interconnections with different spheres of social life.
It highlights the idea that the history of social and environmental struggles can be interpreted as a “revolt of externalities”. It represents society’s refusal to bear, through taxation and state intervention, the social and environmental costs of capitalism, with the consequent precariousness of work and environmental destruction.
The text by Bifo Beraldi, Hypercapitalism and semiocapital (2024), also engages in dialogue with the work of Grégoire Chamayou, The ungovernable society. Both authors analyze the ways in which contemporary liberalism articulates with authoritarianism to control and repress dissent.
While Grégoire Chamayou focuses on the depoliticization of society and the erosion of democracy, Bifo Berardi explores the hypercolonial dimension of this logic, showing how it manifests itself in the exploitation of the global South and in violence against migrants. His analysis critically reflects on the interconnections between capitalism, colonialism and technology, in search of alternatives for building a more just and egalitarian future.
Daniel Pereira Andrade’s article, “What is neoliberalism” (2019), reviews different theoretical perspectives. In the Foucauldian definition [by Michel Foucault], neoliberalism is seen as an art of governing that seeks to shape the conduct of individuals and institutions based on the logic of the market. In the Marxist definition, neoliberalism is analyzed as a political strategy to reinforce class hegemony and expand capitalism globally through financialization, market deregulation, and precarious work.
In the Bourdieusian definition [by Pierre Bourdieu], neoliberalism is presented as a utopia of neoclassical economic theory, converted into a political project. In the Weberian definition [by Max Weber], neoliberalism is seen as an attempt to replace political judgments with economic rationality, based on quantitative indicators and the logic of competitiveness.
In addition to these authorial definitions, there are a multitude of neoliberalisms. In the post-colonialist definition, it is the generalization of processes typical of developed countries as a universal paradigm. In the definition of government hybridism, neoliberalism is presented as a set of flexible practices capable of adapting to different contexts, interacting with other political rationalities and generating hybrid configurations of power. Finally, in the neo-regulationist definition, neoliberalism is analyzed as a contradictory process of pro-market government, marked by state interventions and constant regulatory restructuring.
Based on the analysis of different theoretical perspectives, Andrade identifies four main targets for the critique and fight against neoliberalism. In the globalized economic dimension, the aim is to confront financialization, accumulation by plunder, and the power of transnational corporations through class struggle and resistance to exploitation. In the anti-disciplinary struggle dimension, the aim is to combat the forms of regulation and social control that seek to impose the logic of the market and competitiveness, seeking alternatives for the organization of work, institutions, and public policies.
In the theoretical and symbolic dimension, the purpose is to deconstruct the ideology of the self-regulated market, question the validity of economic rationality as a criterion for political decision-making, and defend values such as solidarity, equality, and democracy. In the dimension of subjective dispositions, the objective is to resist the individualistic and competitive subjectivity promoted by neoliberalism, seeking alternatives for the construction of identities and social practices based on cooperation and emancipation.
Here, Vladimir Safatle, in an interview with the website UOL (13/20/2024) states “the left has not reached the periphery because it has nothing to say to the periphery. What does it have to say to the peripheral population? Will macro-structures of social protection be created, large public education structures, will we make secondary education completely free so that people are not forced to pay, or will there be a solid investment in the educational system? None of this is happening. None of this is on the agenda today”.
For him, “the far right says: 'Now it's every man for himself'. And that has a name, it's entrepreneurship. The problem is that the left has integrated this discourse, and that is suicidal logic. Because if that's the game, the left has nothing to say”.
He concludes: “Today, our role [of the left] is to defend the Judiciary, defend moral rights, defend institutions, defend democratic normality, defend contracts. How can we be anti-system? That makes no sense at all. That is why the left died.”
The philosopher from USP (and PSOL deputy) is clearly uncomfortable with the defense of a Broad Front government against the neofascism that threatens to take over the Executive Branch, whether through democratic elections or military coups. He seems to find the defense of democratic institutions a waste of time.
I have already come across a notable professor of sociology at IFCH-UNICAMP in an academic debate. When I defended the need to offer financial education to university students, as well as, in an appropriate manner, to students of all school levels, as a preparation for social ascension, he retorted loudly: – I am against it! Yes, we must make students read The capital!
Regrettable… I offer courses full of students, entitled “Behavioral Finance: Financial Life Planning”. I teach: – You can get rich without becoming stupid and an uneducated right-wing person!
*Fernando Nogueira da Costa He is a full professor at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp. Author, among other books, of Brazil of banks (EDUSP). [https://amzn.to/4dvKtBb].
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
