Capitalism on the Edge: Subversion and the Political Economy of Trust

Fundacja Dobre Państwo • January 18, 2026 • 🇵🇱 Polski

The Crisis of Crisis: The End of Capitalism's Cyclical Collapses

Modern capitalism is not standing on the edge of an abyss; rather, it persists in a state of permanent "jitteriness." Albena Azmanova diagnoses the crisis of crisis: a situation where shocks have ceased to be anomalies and have instead become a living environment and a technique of governance. Instead of awaiting a spectacular systemic collapse, we must understand its institutional metamorphosis. This article analyzes how the system processes its own instabilities into fuel for political stabilization and why traditional methods of resistance are losing their significance in the face of a new logic of domination.

Three Faces of Domination and the Paradox of Emancipation

Azmanova distinguishes three levels of power: relational domination (group asymmetry), structural domination (institutional rules), and systemic domination—the impersonal compulsion of competitive profit production. This shift exposes the paradox of emancipation: the struggle for inclusion and equal opportunity often only reinforces a model of life subject to market valuation. Currently, political conflict does not play out along the left-right axis, but rather along the line of opportunity vs. risk. For some, globalization is an ocean of possibilities; for others, it is a minefield destroying job stability and social security.

The Rich Uncle State in an Era of Mass Precarity

The evolution of the state has led to the emergence of the rich uncle state. Unlike the "nanny state," the uncle supports selected economic "champions," socializing risks while privatizing profits. The foundation of this arrangement is precarious capitalism, in which uncertainty becomes a mass experience, affecting even the educated middle class. Responses to these phenomena include regulatory attempts like the Platform Work Directive, which seeks to limit algorithmic power and the outsourcing of risk to the individual.

Subversion and the Political Economy of Trust

The solution is not revolution, but subversion—a "radical pragmatism" that changes the system's logic from within. The goal is a political economy of trust, guaranteeing material freedom from the blackmail of poverty. Key tools for decommodification include: cash benefits (requiring a tough fight against rent-seeking and monopolies), universal basic services, and shorter working hours. This project draws criticism: liberals fear a decline in innovation, while radicals accuse it of being overly procedural. Azmanova responds, however, that only institutional trust allows individuals to regain control over their own life trajectories.

A Coalition for Subversion: Unity in a Divided World

The chance for real change lies in a coalition based on the shared experience of precarity, uniting the interests of various social groups. However, we must avoid the trap of a "rich uncle state 2.0," which, under the banner of the "green transition," would continue to protect only the privileged. True subversion requires the institutionalization of claims for recognition and transparency. Will we manage to forge fear into the language of institutional interest, creating a foundation for systemic trust, or will we remain prisoners of a system that inherently undermines our security?

📄 Full analysis available in PDF

Summary

This article analyzes the contemporary evolution of capitalism, moving away from the traditional perception of crisis as a transitory phenomenon toward a permanent mechanism of governance. The author, Albena Azmanova, highlights the transformation of the state's role—from a welfare state, through neoliberalism, to the "rich uncle" model supporting market leaders. A key element of the argument is the concept of subversion and decommodification as tools for systemic change. Instead of revolutionary upheaval, the text proposes radical pragmatism and building institutional trust through basic income and public services. This is a profound analysis of structural domination and precarity, forcing a reassessment of existing emancipatory strategies in the face of competitive pressures and the socialization of risks by contemporary political and economic systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the current crisis of capitalism differ from those of the past?

According to Azmanova, the crisis has ceased to be a temporary event leading to change and has become a permanent environment and technique of governance, i.e. the so-called 'crisis of the crisis'.

What is the difference between relational and systemic domination?

Relational domination concerns the asymmetry of power between groups, while systemic domination is the impersonal compulsion to produce profit that governs all participants of the game regardless of their intentions.

Why can emancipation be paradoxically harmful to system change?

Because the fight for an 'equal seat at the table' often reinforces a model of life based on productivism and market value, rather than questioning the very logic of economic coercion.

What models of state does the author distinguish in systemic evolution?

The author points to a triad: the nanny state (protective), the stepmother state (neoliberal disciplining) and the rich uncle state (supporting selected corporations at the expense of the rest).

What are the main tools for building a political economy of trust?

Two families of tools are identified: monetary protection (e.g. minimum income) and universal basic services (health, transport, housing), which remove key needs from the market.