Introduction
The modern economic system is built on fear, which Albena Azmanova calls precarity capitalism. In this model, uncertainty about the future is not a bug, but a tool for stabilizing power. This article analyzes the author’s radical proposal: the need to eliminate competition, profit, and productivism as the foundations of social life. It is not about abolishing the market, but about stripping it of its role as the ultimate judge of the right to exist. Readers will learn how subversion—the methodical undermining of the system’s logic from within—can become a path toward reclaiming autonomy and building a political economy of trust.
Precarity Capitalism: A Systemic Fear of Survival
According to Azmanova, precarity capitalism is an order in which the compulsion for competitive profit production has become a condition for survival. In this arrangement, the competitive imperative is not an economic fact, but a normative dogma: you must accelerate or disappear. The author advocates for the elimination of these pillars, which in practice means decommodification—removing basic means of subsistence from the market. The goal is to decouple human existence from the labor contract so that profit ceases to be the primary justification for public decisions. Only in this way can we dismantle the tyranny of productivism, which transforms human beings into projects of constant optimization.
The Crisis of Crisis and the Rich Uncle State
Modern institutions exploit the phenomenon of the crisis of crisis—a state of inflammation that becomes a permanent governance environment used to enforce discipline. In this context, the rich uncle state model emerges. This is a selective state that, in the name of security, socializes the risks of large corporations while privatizing their profits. Azmanova points to a triple loop of domination: relational (inequality), structural (the rules of the game), and systemic (the accumulation imperative). Classic reforms often fall into the paradox of emancipation—by fighting for equal market access, they merely strengthen its legitimacy without challenging the compulsion to struggle for survival. Without deep change, we risk technofeudalism, where access to infrastructure becomes a new form of rent.
Subversion and the Political Economy of Trust
The alternative to violent revolution is subversion, or a "passive revolution" that changes the system's logic without tearing down its walls. It requires the introduction of new rights to time (reduction of working hours, the right to be offline) and rights to information (transparency of governing algorithms). A political economy of trust is an institutional state in which citizens can make decisions without the paralyzing fear of degradation. To prevent the capture of rebellion by elites, anti-capture institutions are necessary—mechanisms that make the decisions of those in power truly subject to critique. While critics charge the project with a lack of realism, Azmanova responds that compulsion is a product of institutions, and institutions can be changed. Institutional trust thus becomes a prerequisite for the survival of a new, just order.
Summary
In a world where crisis has become a technique of governance, does subversion stand a chance? Azmanova’s analysis proves that the injustice of our times is primarily the compulsion to subordinate life to a logic that no one democratically chose. Escaping this trap requires the courage to question the system's foundations. We can stick with fatalism disguised as realism, accepting compulsion as a hard reality, or we can attempt to rebuild our institutions. Ultimately, the debate over profit and competition is a debate over whether we can imagine a future where trust replaces fear as the primary driver of social dynamics.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF