I posited (following arguments in previous chapters) that there may be much to be gained by imagining working-class and subaltern engagements with finance (and debt) as forms of resistance. Borrowing becomes a Pyrrhic and flawed means to reclaim a share of social wealth otherwise enclosed by capital, whether in the form of government or individual debts. While this form of "resistance" is by no means advisable or laudable, such a counterintuitive approach helps reveal the way that finance shapes and harnesses agency, resistance and hope. As such, I argued that resistance, at least as a normative good in and of itself, is largely futile. If finance depends on resistance and is, in some way, articulated as a form of resistance, we need to look beyond the term and the idea(l) for real answers to the crisis of financialized capitalism. Resistance, in this formulation, is an undialectic, idealistic term which simply obscures capitalism's contradictions in a feel-good phrase with no capacity to illuminate, let alone motivate, the forms of agency and action we would actually need to move beyond the foreclosed future of finance's endless reproduction.

Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, loc. 574