Description:

Rising inequality of income and power, along with the recent convulsions in the finance sector, have made the search for alternatives to unbridled capitalism more urgent than ever. Yet there has been a global retreat by the Left: on the assumption that liberal capitalism is the only game in town, political theorists tend to dismiss as utopian any attempt to rethink our social and economic relations. As Fredric Jameson first argued, it is now easier for us to imagine the end of the world than an alternative to capitalism.

Erik Olin Wright’s Envisioning Real Utopias is a comprehensive assault on the quietism of contemporary social theory. Building on a lifetime’s work analyzing the class system in the developed world, as well as exploring the problem of the transition to a socialist alternative, Wright has now completed a systematic reconstruction of the core values and feasible goals for Left theorists and political actors. Envisioning Real Utopias aims to put the social back into socialism, laying the foundations for a set of concrete, emancipatory alternatives to the capitalist system. Characteristically rigorous and engaging, this will become a landmark of social thought for the twenty-first century.

Review

Erik Olin Wright wrote Envisioning Real Utopias against the grain of his time, and perhaps against the grain of ours. The book landed in 2010, two decades after the collapse of the Soviet bloc had supposedly sealed the “end of history” and rendered the very word socialism an embarrassment. It arrives now—into a world of resurgent authoritarianism, cascading climate breakdown, and platform capitalism’s remaking of daily life—as both a vindication and a challenge. Wright’s wager is that the fatalism that took hold after 1989 was never intellectually warranted, only politically enforced, and that the task of the left is not to predict capitalism’s self-destruction but to map the terrain of structural possibility and start building. That wager pays off in a book of extraordinary range and moral seriousness. But it also leaves a set of tensions unresolved, because the pluralistic “compass” Wright offers points in too many directions at once, and the civil society he trusts to carry the weight of emancipation has a darker face he names but cannot tame.

The book’s most distinctive move is its redefinition of socialism itself. Wright sets aside the stale public-versus-private ownership dichotomy and replaces it with a typology of power. Capitalism is an economic structure in which the dominant coordinating mechanism—and the dominant source of power—is economic: owners of capital deploy it to command resources and labor. Statism is the parallel configuration in which state power, wielded through bureaucratic command, subordinates both economy and civil society. Socialism, in Wright’s formulation, is “an economic structure within which the means of production are socially owned and the allocation and use of resources for different social purposes is accomplished through the exercise of what can be termed ‘social power.’” Social power is “rooted in the capacity to mobilize people for cooperative, voluntary collective actions of various sorts in civil society.” This is the book’s central conceptual innovation: democracy, understood as the subordination of state power to social power, and socialism, understood as the subordination of economic power to social power, become two faces of the same emancipatory project. “Democracy is thus, inherently, a deeply socialist principle,” Wright writes. “If ‘Democracy’ is the label for the subordination of state power to social power, ‘socialism’ is the term for the subordination of economic power to social power.”

The definition is elegant and capacious. It cuts through decades of sectarian dispute about markets, planning, and the state, and it opens space for a strategic pluralism that Wright develops across the book’s twelve chapters. The three tasks of what he calls “emancipatory social science”—diagnosing and critiquing existing institutions, envisioning viable alternatives, and constructing a theory of transformation—are given equal weight, and the normative anchor is a “democratic egalitarianism” that marries radical social justice (equal access to the means of human flourishing) with radical political justice (equal access to the means of participation). The book then proceeds through a systematic diagnosis of capitalism’s inherent harms (Chapter 3), a respectful but devastating critique of Marx’s deterministic historical trajectory (Chapter 4), and the construction of the “socialist compass” and its seven pathways to social empowerment (Chapter 5). Parts II and III turn to real existing cases—Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting, Wikipedia, the Mondragón cooperatives, the Quebec social economy, Swedish wage-earner funds—and to the three competing logics of transformation: ruptural, interstitial, and symbiotic.

The diagnosis of capitalism is worth pausing on, because it reveals both the book’s analytical care and its methodological commitments. Wright offers eleven propositions, each arguing that a harm—eliminable human suffering, blocked flourishing, freedom deficits, equality violations, inefficiency, environmental destruction, consumerism, commodification, militarism and imperialism, community erosion, and democratic limits—is inherent to capitalism’s core mechanisms, not a contingent correctable flaw. On the environment, for example, he argues that competitive pressure to externalize pollution, short market time horizons that underprice nonrenewable resources, and a consumerist growth bias that translates every productivity gain into rising consumption combine to make ecological destruction a built-in feature. The claim is not that capitalism always makes things worse in absolute terms, but that relative to feasible institutional alternatives it systematically obstructs solutions. The normative framework is Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, rendered as “human flourishing,” and Wright is careful to acknowledge that empirical counter-arguments must rest on counterfactuals about what is “eliminable,” which are inherently contestable. The carefulness is intellectually honest; it also means that several of the eleven propositions are asserted rather than proven, because the counterfactual worlds they invoke do not exist.

The break with Marx is sharper. Wright reconstructs five theses he attributes to classical Marxism—the intensification of crisis, the falling tendency of the rate of profit, the progressive proletarianization of the class structure, the growth of working-class system-challenging capacity, and the revolutionary transformation to communism—and finds four of them unsound. Crises, in his reading, show no inherent tendency to intensify, because the capitalist state has learned to moderate them. The labor theory of value that underpins the falling rate of profit is theoretically flawed. Class structures have become more complex and internally stratified, not homogenized. And the working class’s capacity to challenge the system has declined precisely through the class compromises and welfare-state institutions that made life under capitalism bearable. What remains is a shift in strategic posture: from a theory of dynamic trajectory—a road map to an inevitable destination—to a theory of structural possibility, a compass that identifies the direction of desirable movement and leaves the route to be discovered through experiment and struggle.

The compass yields seven pathways: statist socialism (direct state ownership), social-democratic statist regulation, associational democracy, social capitalism (labor-controlled funds that direct capital), the social economy (nonprofit and cooperative provisioning), a cooperative market economy (worker-owned firms competing in markets), and participatory socialism (the full subordination of economic planning to civil-society deliberation). Wright insists that all real economies are hybrids of capitalist, statist, and socialist elements; what we call “capitalism” is simply a configuration in which the capitalist element is dominant. This is the “combinatorial structuralism” that runs through the book, and it is at once a liberation and a dodge. It frees the socialist imagination from the single-model imperative that produced so much authoritarian statism in the twentieth century. But it also evades the hard question of how we know dominance when we see it. Wright concedes he has no rigorous metric; dominance is defined functionally, by the degree to which non-capitalist elements occupy spaces within “the limits of functional compatibility” with the dominant form. In practice, this means that a society with universal single-payer healthcare, strong unions, and a large cooperative sector might still be “capitalist,” which makes the term so elastic it risks meaning whatever the analyst wants it to mean.

The real-utopian cases that fill Part II are the book’s most energizing material. Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting—instituted by Brazil’s Workers’ Party in 1989, drawing roughly eight percent of the adult population into direct deliberation over municipal spending priorities, shifting resources to the poorest neighborhoods, and largely eliminating corruption—is presented as the paradigm of Empowered Participatory Governance. Wright and Archon Fung’s six design principles (devolution to local units, formal linkage to state power, bottom-up participation, deliberation, problem-solving orientation, and a state commitment to redistribution) are genuinely useful for anyone trying to design democratic institutions. The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, a randomly selected body of 160 citizens that studied electoral systems and recommended a single transferable vote, offers a model for breaking the stranglehold of moneyed interests on representative democracy. And Bruce Ackerman’s “Democracy Card”—a modest $50 per adult citizen, usable only for campaign contributions, with accepting candidates barred from private money—is a concrete, administrable mechanism that would shift the entire political economy of elections if enacted. These are not utopian fantasies; they have been tried, and Wright presents the evidence of their functioning with an attitude he describes as “neither gullible nor cynical.”

The most compelling case, however, may be Wikipedia. Wright’s reading of Wikipedia as “a profoundly anti-capitalist way of producing and disseminating knowledge” is not rhetorical overreach; it is anchored in a precise analysis of four institutional features: nonmarket relations (no one is paid, no one is charged), egalitarian open participation, deliberative interaction over content, and a governance structure that, despite its residual hierarchy—co-founder Jimmy Wales retains “ultimate authority” and appoints the Arbitration Committee—is largely democratic. Wright sets Wikipedia against two rivals: Larry Sanger’s Citizendium, which retained the social-economy form but reinserted paternalistic expert oversight, and Google’s Knol, which “rejects the social economy model altogether” by enlisting the profit motive, ad revenue, and credentialed-author competition. Knol is “velvet-glove capitalism” designed to siphon off the volunteer enthusiasm that powers peer production. The contrast is a microcosm of the book’s larger argument: the viability of a non-capitalist, egalitarian, deliberative production model, and the constant pressure toward co-optation from market and hierarchical forces. Wright generalizes that knowledge production is “most efficiently done as cooperative social activity” and that the strong intellectual-property regime acts less as an innovation incentive than as a “fetter” on it.

Mondragón, the Basque cooperative complex that by 2007 employed nearly 100,000 people, is the book’s most dialectical case. Wright presents it as an emergent cooperative market economy, with a cooperative bank (the Caja Laboral Popular) that provides patient capital, solidarity mechanisms that redistribute resources across cooperatives, and a governance structure that subordinates capital to labor. But he also documents the mounting contradictions: fewer than forty percent of Mondragón workers were owner-members by 2007; the parent cooperatives had acquired capitalist subsidiaries whose employees were wage-laborers, turning the owner-members into “collectively capitalist employers”; the corporation resisted unionization in those subsidiaries; and two profitable cooperatives exited in 2008 to avoid redistribution. The globalization of Mondragón, Wright concedes, is “intensifying its capitalist character,” and the design principles that made it a real utopia are under severe strain. This is the book’s most honest moment: it demonstrates that even the finest real-existing cooperative institutions are not self-perpetuating. The struggle never ends, and the capitalist environment exerts a gravitational pull that no single institutional island can fully escape.

The theory of transformation in Part III is where the book’s pluralism does its most difficult work. Wright distinguishes three strategic logics. Ruptural strategies envision a sharp break with existing structures through a frontal assault on the state; the metaphor is war. Interstitial strategies build emancipatory institutions in the cracks and interstices of capitalist society, “forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old,” in the IWW preamble’s phrase. Symbiotic strategies use the state to solve problems for capitalists that capitalists cannot solve for themselves—wage restraint in tight labor markets, skill formation against poaching, aggregate demand management—while incrementally enlarging the space for social power. Wright argues that ruptural strategies are implausible in developed liberal-capitalist democracies because any successful rupture must traverse a “transition trough” in which the material conditions of the median person decline, likely triggering an authoritarian backlash. The diagrammatic argument, drawn from Adam Przeworski’s work, is elegant: the optimistic and pessimistic mid-transition paths look identical, and staying the course requires the very undemocratic means that foreclose a democratic destination. Interstitial strategies, drawn from the anarchist tradition of Proudhon and Colin Ward, are attractive but neglect the state in ways that leave them vulnerable. Symbiotic strategies, modeled through the “reverse-J” curve in which rising working-class associational power first harms but then, past a threshold, helps capitalists solve coordination problems, offer the most promise—but only if the organized working class can cross that threshold and sustain positive class compromise without being captured.

Wright’s synthesis is strategic pluralism: all three logics, deployed simultaneously and opportunistically. Ruptural moments may become available in parts of the system during crises; interstitial building must continue regardless; symbiotic engagement with the state and capital must be pursued where feasible. “We can never relax,” he warns, because no institutional design is self-correcting and the limits of future possibility are opaque. The struggle must be experimental, guided by a compass, not a map. This is an honest conclusion, but it is also a counsel of despair disguised as methodological sophistication. If all three logics are to be pursued simultaneously, and none is sufficient alone, and the conditions under which each can be advanced are contingent and unpredictable, then strategic pluralism risks becoming a name for having no strategy at all—an open-ended enumeration of things one might try, without a theory of how they combine into a vector that actually moves a society toward social empowerment.

The book’s canonical placement is revealing. Wright writes squarely within the Marxist tradition, but he has reconstructed its historical materialism so thoroughly that what remains is a class analysis without a theory of history, a theory of exploitation without a labor theory of value, and a socialism without a proletariat whose destiny is revolution. The analytical Marxism of G.A. Cohen, John Roemer, and Philippe van Parijs is the immediate intellectual milieu, and Wright acknowledges his debts to them while pushing past their limitations: Cohen for his moral philosophy, Roemer for his coupon market socialism, van Parijs for his “real freedom for all” and unconditional basic income. But the book also draws on the anarchist interstitial tradition, on Polanyian embeddedness, on Gramscian hegemony and social reproduction theory, and on the social-democratic experience of the Nordic welfare states. The tensions with Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and libertarianism are explicit and well-argued; the tensions with Foucault and Bourdieu are mentioned in passing and less satisfactorily resolved. Wright criticizes their accounts of power as near-totalizing, leaving too little room for agency and collective transformation, but he does not fully reckon with their core insight—that power operates precisely through the shaping of desire and the production of subjectivities that experience existing arrangements as natural, not merely through the institutional arrangements he is so good at analyzing.

The book’s weaknesses are not failures of rigor. The evidence base is, as Wright’s own methodological notes attest, unusually broad: personal interviews, multiple-country case studies, diagrammatic formal modeling, systematic engagement with counterarguments. The problem is a structural mismatch between the analytical ambition and what the cases can bear. Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting is a city-level experiment in a single country; scaling it to national governance, or to domains beyond municipal spending, encounters obstacles the book does not address. The Quebec social economy of nonprofit childcare and eldercare is subsidized by a provincial state whose fiscal capacity depends on a broader capitalist economy; it is a real utopia within a capitalist sea, not a template for a full-scale alternative. The Swedish wage-earner funds were defeated by a ferocious capitalist counter-mobilization in 1976, and the book presents their theoretical promise as if the political defeat merely confirmed their transformative potential rather than demonstrating the limits of symbiotic strategy when capital perceives an existential threat. Wright’s own “zones of unattainability” concept—the systemic and institutional thresholds beyond which class compromise becomes impossible because it would tip into socialism—suggests that capital will fight tooth and nail precisely at the point where symbiotic gains begin to produce durable shifts in power. If that is right, then the symbiotic path always runs up against a wall that only ruptural or interstitial strategies could breach, but the book has argued that ruptural strategy is implausible and interstitial strategy is incomplete without the state.

Then there is civil society itself. Wright places an enormous bet on social power, defined as the capacity for voluntary, cooperative collective action in civil society. But as he acknowledges—and as any honest observer of actually existing civil society must—civil society is shot through with exclusionary, particularistic, and dominating associations. The National Rifle Association, fundamentalist churches, ethnic nationalist movements, patriarchal family structures: these are all civil-society organizations exercising exactly the kind of social power Wright celebrates. He admits that empowering civil society “can easily reproduce and even deepen various forms of oppression and inequality,” and he offers no institutional design that guarantees the virtuous associations will outcompete the vicious ones. The democratic egalitarianism that serves as the book’s normative foundation is a statement of values, not an engine that can be built into the associational structures themselves. This is not a minor lacuna; it is the point at which the entire edifice of social empowerment as an emancipatory strategy risks collapsing into a naive pluralism that assumes the good will drive out the bad if only the state gets out of the way.

Still, Envisioning Real Utopias is an indispensable book, and its contribution does not depend on resolving every tension it exposes. What Wright achieves is the recovery of a certain kind of intellectual courage. The book opens with a verbatim transcript from a 1970 Berkeley seminary seminar in which the young Wright, a draft-dodger wrestling with the utopian tradition, says: “It would be undesirable, I think, for the task of constructing an image of utopia, as we are doing, to be seen as an attempt to find definitive institutional answers to various problems.” He did not abandon that insight; he spent four decades refining it into a systematic research program that insisted utopian thinking could be rigorous without becoming rigid, visionary without becoming otherworldly. The result is a book that gives the left something it has been starved of since 1989: permission to imagine that another world is possible, and a set of conceptual tools with which to begin designing it, without pretending to know in advance what the finished structure will look like.

The audience for this book is anyone who needs that permission. It is an essential text for social scientists, organizers, and students of political economy who recognize that the existing order is incompatible with human flourishing but who recoil from the vanguardist certainties that have so often accompanied that recognition. It will frustrate those who want a five-point plan and those who want a purity test, because it refuses both. Wright’s compass points toward a horizon he knows he will not reach, and his final lesson—that “the opacity of the future limits” means the struggle must be experimental—is at once the book’s greatest wisdom and its deepest limitation. The compass is real. Whether the left has the strategic discipline to use it, and the power to overcome the countervailing forces that blocked the Swedish wage-earner funds and are currently turning Mondragón into another multinational corporation, is a question the book poses but cannot answer. That it poses it so clearly, and with such intellectual integrity, is enough to make Envisioning Real Utopias a landmark of the post-1989 socialist imagination.

Notable Quotes

The idea of Real Utopias embraces this tension between dreams and practice. It is grounded in the belief that what is pragmatically possible is not fixed independently of our imaginations, but is itself shaped by our visions.

Chapter 1, introducing the core concept of the book and defending the apparent contradiction in its title — utopia, political imagination, possibility, social change

What we need, then, is 'real utopias': utopian ideals that are grounded in the real potentials of humanity, utopian destinations that have accessible waystations, utopian designs of institutions that can inform our practical tasks of navigating a world of imperfect conditions for social change.

Chapter 1, defining the central concept that organizes the entire book — real utopias, institutional design, pragmatism, social change

Emancipatory social science seeks to generate scientific knowledge relevant to the collective project of challenging various forms of human oppression. To call this a form of social science, rather than simply social criticism or social philosophy, recognizes the importance for this task of systematic scientific knowledge about how the world works.

Chapter 2, defining the intellectual framework of 'emancipatory social science' with its three tasks: diagnosis, alternatives, and transformation — emancipatory social science, methodology, knowledge, oppression

In a socially just society, all people would have broadly equal access to the necessary material and social means to live flourishing lives.

Chapter 2, stating the first of two normative principles that anchor the book's entire analysis — social justice, equality, human flourishing, normative theory

Wikipedia is a profoundly anti-capitalist way of producing and disseminating knowledge. It is based on the principle 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.' No one gets paid for editing, no one gets charged for access.

Chapter 1, presenting Wikipedia as a real utopia that demonstrates alternatives to capitalist production are already functioning — Wikipedia, anti-capitalism, commons, knowledge production

There are three ways of getting people to do things: you can bribe them; you can force them; you can convince them. These correspond to the exercise of economic power, state power, and social power.

Chapter 5, introducing the tripartite distinction between forms of power that grounds the Socialist Compass — power, economic power, state power, social power

If 'Democracy' is the label for the subordination of state power to social power, 'socialism' is the term for the subordination of economic power to social power.

Chapter 5, defining socialism through its relationship to democracy and social power rather than through state ownership — socialism, democracy, social power, political theory

Capitalism is not the root of all evils in the world today; there are other causal processes at work which fuel racism, ethno-nationalism, male domination, genocide, war, and other significant forms of oppression.

Chapter 3, cautioning against the temptation to attribute all social problems to capitalism — capitalism, oppression, intersectionality, intellectual honesty

Social limits of possibility are not independent of beliefs about those limits. When a physicist argues that there is a limit to the maximum speed at which things can travel, this is meant as an objective constraint operating independently of our beliefs about speed. Claims about social limits of possibility are different from these claims about physical and biological limits, for in the social case the beliefs people hold about limits systematically affect what is possible.

Chapter 2, arguing that studying viable alternatives is worthwhile even if they are not immediately achievable, because beliefs about limits change limits — social limits, possibility, self-fulfilling prophecy, agency

No actual living economy has ever been purely capitalist or statist or socialist, since it is never the case that the allocation, control and use of economic resources is determined by a single form of power. Such pure cases live only in the fantasies (or nightmares) of theorists.

Chapter 5, introducing the concept of economic hybrids that is central to Wright's theory of gradual transformation — hybrid economies, capitalism, statism, socialism, institutional diversity

The more the decisions made by actors exercising economic power determine the allocation and use of resources, the more capitalist is an economic structure. The more power exercised through the state determines the allocation and use of resources, the more the society is statist. The more power rooted in civil society determines such allocations and uses, the more the society is socialist.

Chapter 5, presenting capitalism, statism, and socialism as variables rather than all-or-nothing categories — economic structure, capitalism, socialism, statism, continuum

Emancipatory transformation should not be viewed mainly as a binary shift from one system to another, but rather as a shift in the configuration of the power relations that constitute a hybrid.

Chapter 12, distilling the book's core implication for how to think about social transformation — transformation, hybridity, power relations, gradualism

The basic idea of symbiotic transformation is that advances in bottom-up social empowerment within a capitalist society will be most stable and defendable when such social empowerment also helps solve certain real problems faced by capitalists and other elites.

Chapter 11, introducing the concept of symbiotic transformation as the most promising strategy for durable change — symbiotic transformation, class compromise, strategy, social empowerment

The democratic left makes progress under capitalism when it improves the material well-being of workers, solves a problem for capitalists that capitalists cannot solve for themselves, and in doing both wins sufficient political cachet to contest capitalist monopoly on articulating the 'general interest.'

Chapter 11, quoting Joel Rogers and Wolfgang Streeck on the conditions for robust left-wing political success — class compromise, democratic left, political strategy, general interest

Equilibria unravel. Systemic crises destroy the foundations of hegemony. Ruptures may happen rather than be made, and in such conditions a ruptural strategy may become what Marxists used to call an historical 'necessity.'

Chapter 9, arguing that even if systemic revolution is implausible now, conditions may change unpredictably — revolution, crisis, hegemony, historical contingency

Suffering and irrationality are never enough to generate fundamental social transformations. As in previous periods of financial collapse in the aftermath of speculative frenzies, so long as a viable alternative to capitalism is not actively on the historical agenda with broad popular support linked to a political movement able to translate that support into political power, capitalism will remain the dominant structure of economic organization.

Chapter 12, opening the conclusion with a sober assessment that crisis alone does not produce change — crisis, transformation, political organization, alternatives

Socialism should not be thought of as a unitary institutional model of how an economy should be organized, but rather a pluralistic model with many different kinds of institutional pathways for realizing a common underlying principle.

Chapter 12, summarizing one of the book's key lessons about institutional pluralism — socialism, institutional pluralism, diversity, democratic egalitarianism

The argument for socialism defined as democratic power over the allocation and use of productive resources is thus not that socialism guarantees social and political justice, but rather that it creates the most favorable socio-economic terrain on which to struggle for justice.

Chapter 12, making the modest but important claim that socialism is a terrain for justice rather than its guarantee — socialism, democracy, justice, humility

We simply do not know what the ultimate limits to the expansion of democratic egalitarian social empowerment might be. The best we can do, then, is treat the struggle to move on the pathways of social empowerment as an experimental process in which we continually test and retest the limits of possibility and try, as best as we can, to create new institutions which expand the limits themselves.

Final passage of the book, expressing Wright's combination of epistemic humility and moral commitment — limits of possibility, experimentalism, social empowerment, hope

A vital belief in a utopian ideal may be necessary to motivate people to leave on the journey from the status quo in the first place, even though the likely actual destination may fall short of the utopian ideal.

Chapter 1, arguing that utopian vision has practical value even when full realization is unlikely — utopianism, motivation, political action, idealism

People are born into societies that are always already made. The rules of social life which they learn and internalize as they grow up seem natural. People are preoccupied with the tasks of daily life, with making a living, with coping with life's pains and enjoying life's pleasures. The idea that the social world could be deliberately changed in some fundamental way that would make life significantly better for most people seems pretty far-fetched.

Chapter 2, describing the fatalism that makes alternatives seem impossible and that the book aims to counter — fatalism, naturalization, social reproduction, ideology

The history of the human struggles for radical social change is filled with heroic victories over existing structures of oppression followed by the tragic construction of new forms of domination, oppression and inequality.

Chapter 2, acknowledging the dark history of emancipatory movements that have produced new forms of oppression — revolution, tragedy, unintended consequences, historical lessons