In case anyone is curious about my take on the possibilities of democratization of capitalism, this is a preview of some things I will be talking about here in Brighton. In academic jargon, it is an abstract, starting with a couple of conceptual clarifications.
A full paper will be available later. I post these short lines here with the hope that someone might care to give me constructive criticism (or any other comments).
Right now a wonderful conference on What’s The Point of International Relations is going on at the University of Sussex. Various key people of our academic discipline (or however one wants to call IR) are speaking here. It was a real honor to be included in that list, also because I have wanted to come to Sussex University (and the cool town of Brighton) since a long time.
Some of the words I might be playing with today are:
–Very political economy explores the inherently political nature of things that are commonly defined as economic. It is opposed to the kind of political economy that merely analyzes the interaction between the political and the economic. It does sound better in Romance languages and I first came up with the term when I was teaching economía política at the economics department of the Catholic University of Perú. I informally renamed my course economía muy política.
–Economism is a term I find better than, say, neoliberalism to describe the key ideology of capitalism. It is sometimes used in wildly different meanings, which helps obscure debates about it. For me it refers to the idea that the economic is a non-political sphere in which democratic claims have no validity.
–Democratizability says something about the legitimacy of democratic claims upon an entity. I am fascinated by the extent of democratizability of non-state entities, including social movement organizations and capitalist corporations. On the former see e.g. my article on Global Democratization without Hierarchy or Leadership.
–Politicization can increase the legitimacy of making democratic claims about something. The politicization of the economic may open new possibilities for democratic transformations of capitalism. Politicization is by no means a sufficient condition for democratization, but it can be considered its necessary condition.
–Learning from feminist struggles includes various kinds of political inspiration. Attention to gender-related issues is one of them, but there are also other lessons for strategies of democratizing the world. When talking about anti-capitalist movements I sometimes make an analogy with how feminist movements were able to politicize patriarchal family by insisting that the personal is political. Without such politicization, subsequent democratic reforms concerning intra-family violence or childcare would have been difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Even if the impact may not have been particularly revolutionary, it was an example of politicization practiced by theorists and activists that contributed to social change.
In my talk today I will argue that within the academic discipline of International Relations, including the field of International Political Economy, the capitalist corporation has often been approached through excessively depoliticized theoretical lenses. Even if political aspects of corporate power are recognized, the political tends to be derived from the state.
Despite repeated declarations to transgress the boundary between the political and the economic, much of the research in International Political Economy rests on a separation between the two categories.
The corporations tend to be considered political either because the state intervenes in their actions or because they influence the state. Thus, the inherently political nature of the corporation itself is left without sufficient attention.
This limits the usefulness of state-centric IR in both explaining and transforming global capitalism. When something is politicized, the legitimacy of making democratic claims about it increases.
In the paper I will explore the possibilities for a global politicization of non-state actors in general and capitalist corporations in particular. Examples of the global political will be located in intra-firm trade and other instances of corporate planning and command. The role of anti-corporate social movements and corporate social responsibility claims will also be analyzed.
In the paper I will suggest an analogy with earlier feminist strategies of claiming that the personal is political. What kinds of implications will there be for IR theory and for democratic strategies if we take seriously the claim the corporation is political?