Scan barcode
weeties's review against another edition
4.0
This is a fascinating read and I enjoyed Streeck's analysis. My only complaint is that because the book is a collection of essays / papers, there isn't an arc to the analysis and Streeck does repeat his arguments (logically and obviously) in some of the papers. I also enjoyed the to-and-fro between Streeck and Tooze in the London Review of Books about Tooze's review of this book.
colepsmith42's review against another edition
4.0
Clear view of how Capitalism degenerates democracy and the spiraling, untenable cycle that Capitalism finds itself stuck in.
blackoxford's review against another edition
2.0
Compulsive Pontification
Streeck's academic thesis is straightforward: Capitalism has adapted successfully to the conditions it itself has created since its formation in the late 18th century. But capitalism now lacks potential responses to future crisis. Economic policy-makers, he believes, have run out of effective economic antibiotics and must simply wait for the next evolved super-bug to strike. Streeck is agnostic about the source of the next crisis - ecological devastation, inadequate consumer demand, technological stagnation, declining returns, social inequality, political un-sustainability - are certainly candidates. But believes that the end of the system which has come to dominate the planet is nigh through some combination of these, or from as yet undetected evils.
The logic supporting Streeck's argument is roughly this: The future of the world economy is not simply indeterminate but what he calls multi-morbid. That is, so many things could go wrong, there are so many bugs out there, that some of them are bound to evolve immunity, and when they do the interactions with the Body Politic and Economic will be so complex that neither economists nor national governments will have a clue about how to treat the effects. His evidence for this claim is mainly the disagreement among economists about what is likely to happen to the global economy. This disagreement, not economic facts themselves, is the foundational datum of Streeck's argument. It’s a bit like medical researchers concluding that because there are a potentially infinite number of hostile bacteria in the world, many of which we haven’t even identified yet, one of them is bound to kill all of us off.
So, as Marx predicted, capitalism will decline and fall through its own internal contradictions, of which there are many more than he realised to worry about. But what will replace capitalism won't be socialism, or any other system that we can now conceive. Instead, according to Streeck, we are heading into an economic and sociological void, an uncharted future of chaos and "social entropy" (interestingly a term of approbation that Freud had used about America in 1909. Could this be Streeck's inspiration?). This forecast seems hardly distinguishable from an economic confession of total ignorance. If read this way, much of what Streeck has to say is merely professional smoke to disguise the absence of anything meaningful at all.
He then proceeds to his institutional analysis. Our existing institutions - economic, financial, social, governmental - will be inadequate to stabilise these emerging conditions according to Streeck. He describes a global situation which is more or less the one that ensued in Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union. In short, we're in for a rough ride and we don't have any idea of the destination. So we are not only ignorant of the future challenges, we are also ignorant of the ability of our institutions to cope with whatever these challenges might be. In other words, we don’t know which antibiotics we might need, but whatever ones they are, we don’t have them. I suppose this is an economist's version of a double negative making a positive.
Even more fundamentally, Streeck sees a "decoupling" of democracy and political economy. That is, the restraints placed on capitalism by government policy over the last century will gradually disappear. Keynes and Samuelson are out the window; but so are Hayek and Friedman. The union of democracy and capitalism has only really been operational since WWII and has now been rendered sterile, mainly through the globalisation of finance. Governments are powerless; there is no theoretical script to guide policy-making. We can now look forward to essentially unregulated, "de-socialised," capitalist activity involving increasingly corrupt practices and unjust consequences. The idea of Adam Smith that private greed is transformed into public virtue has passed its sell by date. Already the odour of decay is reaching into even the best neighbourhoods. This indeed looks a solid conclusion, but one that most educated non-economists have already made.
Although written before Trump's electoral announcement, Streeck predicts the growing power of populism, especially on the political Right. But he also predicts a dramatic rise in oligarchic power, especially in America. Trumps executive appointments of largely super-wealthy sympathisers during his first two weeks in office appears to confirm Streeck's judgment. Populism after all has nowhere to turn, when it rejects the political class, except to these oligarchs. Labour leaders have been neutralised, racial leadership is fragmented, the middle classes are confused and without effective voice whatsoever. An outstanding observation, obvious once stated, but not before. Well done Professor Streeck.
Surprisingly, Streeck has little to say about China. He dismisses the importance of both the Chinese economy and the system of Chinese state capitalism out of hand.
Surviving in this new "entropic society" will, according to Streeck, depend on four civic virtues: coping, hoping, doping, and shopping. Essentially these involve believing in God but tying your camel first and having a stash at hand for socialising at the mall when the camel gets nicked. Economists are not known for their irony, so I have to take him seriously in these suggestions
The End of Capitalism is the ultimate curate's egg of a book: very good and very bad in about equal parts. Streeck's summary of recent economic thought is tight and informative. His conclusions from the diversity of opinion say much more, however, about the profound ignorance and arrogance of economists than the vulnerability of the world economy, however real that vulnerability may be. Similarly, his political observations are often acute and prescient. But the sociological implications he draws, especially his prescriptions for individual action, are trite, verging on the puerile.
I think therefore that just about half this book should have been written. I am reminded of John Wanamaker's famous quip: "I know that half my advertising budget is wasted; I just don't know which half." Fortunately, in the case of How Will Capitalism End?, it's fairly obvious which half. Economists and pollsters might want to lay off the predictive pontification and concentrate on thinking about why they don't agree with each other. It might improve their credibility enormously. And the rest of us could get back to the apocalyptic Book of Revelation.
Streeck's academic thesis is straightforward: Capitalism has adapted successfully to the conditions it itself has created since its formation in the late 18th century. But capitalism now lacks potential responses to future crisis. Economic policy-makers, he believes, have run out of effective economic antibiotics and must simply wait for the next evolved super-bug to strike. Streeck is agnostic about the source of the next crisis - ecological devastation, inadequate consumer demand, technological stagnation, declining returns, social inequality, political un-sustainability - are certainly candidates. But believes that the end of the system which has come to dominate the planet is nigh through some combination of these, or from as yet undetected evils.
The logic supporting Streeck's argument is roughly this: The future of the world economy is not simply indeterminate but what he calls multi-morbid. That is, so many things could go wrong, there are so many bugs out there, that some of them are bound to evolve immunity, and when they do the interactions with the Body Politic and Economic will be so complex that neither economists nor national governments will have a clue about how to treat the effects. His evidence for this claim is mainly the disagreement among economists about what is likely to happen to the global economy. This disagreement, not economic facts themselves, is the foundational datum of Streeck's argument. It’s a bit like medical researchers concluding that because there are a potentially infinite number of hostile bacteria in the world, many of which we haven’t even identified yet, one of them is bound to kill all of us off.
So, as Marx predicted, capitalism will decline and fall through its own internal contradictions, of which there are many more than he realised to worry about. But what will replace capitalism won't be socialism, or any other system that we can now conceive. Instead, according to Streeck, we are heading into an economic and sociological void, an uncharted future of chaos and "social entropy" (interestingly a term of approbation that Freud had used about America in 1909. Could this be Streeck's inspiration?). This forecast seems hardly distinguishable from an economic confession of total ignorance. If read this way, much of what Streeck has to say is merely professional smoke to disguise the absence of anything meaningful at all.
He then proceeds to his institutional analysis. Our existing institutions - economic, financial, social, governmental - will be inadequate to stabilise these emerging conditions according to Streeck. He describes a global situation which is more or less the one that ensued in Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union. In short, we're in for a rough ride and we don't have any idea of the destination. So we are not only ignorant of the future challenges, we are also ignorant of the ability of our institutions to cope with whatever these challenges might be. In other words, we don’t know which antibiotics we might need, but whatever ones they are, we don’t have them. I suppose this is an economist's version of a double negative making a positive.
Even more fundamentally, Streeck sees a "decoupling" of democracy and political economy. That is, the restraints placed on capitalism by government policy over the last century will gradually disappear. Keynes and Samuelson are out the window; but so are Hayek and Friedman. The union of democracy and capitalism has only really been operational since WWII and has now been rendered sterile, mainly through the globalisation of finance. Governments are powerless; there is no theoretical script to guide policy-making. We can now look forward to essentially unregulated, "de-socialised," capitalist activity involving increasingly corrupt practices and unjust consequences. The idea of Adam Smith that private greed is transformed into public virtue has passed its sell by date. Already the odour of decay is reaching into even the best neighbourhoods. This indeed looks a solid conclusion, but one that most educated non-economists have already made.
Although written before Trump's electoral announcement, Streeck predicts the growing power of populism, especially on the political Right. But he also predicts a dramatic rise in oligarchic power, especially in America. Trumps executive appointments of largely super-wealthy sympathisers during his first two weeks in office appears to confirm Streeck's judgment. Populism after all has nowhere to turn, when it rejects the political class, except to these oligarchs. Labour leaders have been neutralised, racial leadership is fragmented, the middle classes are confused and without effective voice whatsoever. An outstanding observation, obvious once stated, but not before. Well done Professor Streeck.
Surprisingly, Streeck has little to say about China. He dismisses the importance of both the Chinese economy and the system of Chinese state capitalism out of hand.
Surviving in this new "entropic society" will, according to Streeck, depend on four civic virtues: coping, hoping, doping, and shopping. Essentially these involve believing in God but tying your camel first and having a stash at hand for socialising at the mall when the camel gets nicked. Economists are not known for their irony, so I have to take him seriously in these suggestions
The End of Capitalism is the ultimate curate's egg of a book: very good and very bad in about equal parts. Streeck's summary of recent economic thought is tight and informative. His conclusions from the diversity of opinion say much more, however, about the profound ignorance and arrogance of economists than the vulnerability of the world economy, however real that vulnerability may be. Similarly, his political observations are often acute and prescient. But the sociological implications he draws, especially his prescriptions for individual action, are trite, verging on the puerile.
I think therefore that just about half this book should have been written. I am reminded of John Wanamaker's famous quip: "I know that half my advertising budget is wasted; I just don't know which half." Fortunately, in the case of How Will Capitalism End?, it's fairly obvious which half. Economists and pollsters might want to lay off the predictive pontification and concentrate on thinking about why they don't agree with each other. It might improve their credibility enormously. And the rest of us could get back to the apocalyptic Book of Revelation.
ylvak's review against another edition
3.0
I did not exactly enjoy this book, but I don't feel qualified enough to give it a low rating. I would for sure not recommend this book to someone like me, who knows fuckall about sociology and economy. That's not to say, though, that Streeck doesn't bring up some very interesting points. I felt like I learned a lot from this book, especially about the EU, the Euro and the role of austerity in western economic policy.
colin_cox's review against another edition
4.0
Near the end of How Will Capitalism End? Wolfgang Streeck explicates the benefits and limitations of sociology as a means of understanding the inherent flaws and contradictions of 20th and 21st-century capitalism by suggesting that, "Sociology...deals with historically unique situations in which more causal factors than one are at work, and if sociologists dare make[sp] predictions at all, these are typically highly hedged" (448). Indeed, How Will Capitalism End? is an attempt to understand and predict the viability of capitalism in an economy that increasingly sees the failed utopian promises of globalization. However, Streeck is also interesting in the methodologies that have failed (by his estimation) to predict these problems correctly, such as economics, politic science, and psychology. He seems to enjoy referring to contemporary economics as having an "intellectual hegemony" over discursive spaces about capitalism (472). This is a powerful line of argumentation since it suggests that modern theories that attempt to understand capitalism suffer from the same hegemonic problems, notably the comfortable assumption of their rightness. Or, as Streeck explains, "Economists, the social gurus of our time, with their machine models of economy and society, still have the boldness to offer exact predictions" (447).
Yet, Streeck's overarching idea regarding capitalism fails to pivot from Marx's suggestion that capitalism creates the conditions for its demise. Also, dwelling on the history of capitalism and its need for economic depression or crisis to survive once again fails to move beyond canonized critiques of capitalism. For example, at one point early in the book, Streeck argues, "The end of capitalism can then be imagined as a death from a thousand cuts, or from a multiplicity of infirmities each of which will be all the more untreatable" (39).
Nevertheless, this is a fine book that persuasively suggests that what we need is not only a new system but a new (or old?) methodology of critiquing our current one.
Yet, Streeck's overarching idea regarding capitalism fails to pivot from Marx's suggestion that capitalism creates the conditions for its demise. Also, dwelling on the history of capitalism and its need for economic depression or crisis to survive once again fails to move beyond canonized critiques of capitalism. For example, at one point early in the book, Streeck argues, "The end of capitalism can then be imagined as a death from a thousand cuts, or from a multiplicity of infirmities each of which will be all the more untreatable" (39).
Nevertheless, this is a fine book that persuasively suggests that what we need is not only a new system but a new (or old?) methodology of critiquing our current one.
andreaslindholm's review
4.0
A short essay in Swedish:
https://andreassorterar.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/kapitalismen-vid-vags-ande/
https://andreassorterar.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/kapitalismen-vid-vags-ande/
misterfix's review against another edition
3.0
3 1/2 stars
A bit too disjointed and repetitive for me especially given the wealth of similar books on this subject. For me this title suffered from its being mostly a series of essays that are often a response to another author's essay. Not having read these essays I felt disconnected from the analysis. I began to grow frustrated without the source material and I began to skim at times. Still, the author provides excellent footnotes and his analysis is cogent.
A bit too disjointed and repetitive for me especially given the wealth of similar books on this subject. For me this title suffered from its being mostly a series of essays that are often a response to another author's essay. Not having read these essays I felt disconnected from the analysis. I began to grow frustrated without the source material and I began to skim at times. Still, the author provides excellent footnotes and his analysis is cogent.
jocelynw's review against another edition
3.0
There was much that felt prescient in this (among a fair amount of it that was over my head with the amount of energy I was able to put into its reading), but this was the most: "Power, after all, is the ability to refuse to learn."