Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
This is an interesting book with a lot of good perspectives and takes on late capitalism and democracy. Most political issues are trivial compared to these. Pre-WWII, capitalism and democracy were understood as adversaries. To achieve the redistribution required for a democratic polity, citizens expected capital to redistribute its wealth. Capitalists well into the late twentieth century were petrified that workers would seek to abolish and socialise private property. Likewise, workers expected capitalists to hold fiercely onto authoritarian rule in order to maintain a stronghold on private property. This adversarial position was somehow concealed with an emergent public ideology that democratic freedoms were somehow necessary to and dependent on “free” economic markets, never mind that the source of the economic growth allowing for those democratic gains was often remarkable global wealth transfers, and the erasure of any obligation on capitalist classes to pay for their wealth.
Now, contemporary democratic capitalism (and even more so than in 2012, the date of writing), is characterised by apathy, non-participation and populism. This is aptly described as neo-feudalism.
The ongoing legitimacy of post-WWII democracy could be seen to depend on an ongoing expectation and indeed obligation of the state to interfere in markets. However, gross income inequality raises grave doubts as to whether there is any capacity for that to occur. Declining tax rates and regressive tax systems are the source of public indebtedness. However, this same reduction in state revenue is used to justify a reduction in state expenditure and increased privatisation. Trade unions are universally on the decline, becoming increasingly irrelevant, and consumer-citizen participation is usually limited to transient engagement with issues of increasing irrelevance, with politics ultimately trivialised beyond recognition. Discourse on the left about moral purity and cancel culture can be added to this list. In my own view such discourse is often vital but also often gives rise to self-cannibalism driven by a masochistic desire to out-moralise one another through communal flagellation.
Capitalist democracy reprograms citizens as consumers, turning away from undifferentiated state-provided goods to individuated consumer goods. Social identity is rather a subset of consumer identity, with the barriers of entry and exit relatively low - merely cash only - and the system of consumerism promising to satiate all individual desires without compromise. Given that such consumer goods are primarily positional, serving only to mark a type of social status, that cannot be achieved by undifferentiated state goods. Included in those goods are political processes and participation themselves. So long as capitalists convince people to derive greater strength and social identity from, say, a pair of shoes or their Instagram brand, the more exacting requirements of political participation seem less attractive. This is especially so when that participation comes at the cost of the silencing of individual opinion within an aggregate system, or the requirement to abide by democratic outcomes with which one disagrees but nonetheless to accept it because of the political way in which that decision was reached. It's all too easy to slot into an echo chamber defined by certain status goods and virtue-signalling and all too hard to actually participate in coalitions working towards real political change.
Politics by consumption becomes a form of “politainment", accompanied by widespread disillusionment with politicians and absenting from voting and formal political engagement. This is categorically the case now, with the Trump family being its own form of entertainment. Politics as consumption has grave consequences for those unlucky enough not to fall in the consumer class. Working and lower-classed people, whoever don’t have the means to afford to participate in the consumer classes, greatly suffer. The withdrawal of consumer classes from public goods and services due to their undifferentiated nature means that those public goods and services will suffer. This will have a paralytic effect on those who are reliant on those public goods and services. Streeck's view of this is to take a longitudinal view of how we got here, and seeing it as a dialogical relationship. Indeed that dialectical view also applies generally to the relationship of capitalism and democracy.
Now, contemporary democratic capitalism (and even more so than in 2012, the date of writing), is characterised by apathy, non-participation and populism. This is aptly described as neo-feudalism.
The ongoing legitimacy of post-WWII democracy could be seen to depend on an ongoing expectation and indeed obligation of the state to interfere in markets. However, gross income inequality raises grave doubts as to whether there is any capacity for that to occur. Declining tax rates and regressive tax systems are the source of public indebtedness. However, this same reduction in state revenue is used to justify a reduction in state expenditure and increased privatisation. Trade unions are universally on the decline, becoming increasingly irrelevant, and consumer-citizen participation is usually limited to transient engagement with issues of increasing irrelevance, with politics ultimately trivialised beyond recognition. Discourse on the left about moral purity and cancel culture can be added to this list. In my own view such discourse is often vital but also often gives rise to self-cannibalism driven by a masochistic desire to out-moralise one another through communal flagellation.
Capitalist democracy reprograms citizens as consumers, turning away from undifferentiated state-provided goods to individuated consumer goods. Social identity is rather a subset of consumer identity, with the barriers of entry and exit relatively low - merely cash only - and the system of consumerism promising to satiate all individual desires without compromise. Given that such consumer goods are primarily positional, serving only to mark a type of social status, that cannot be achieved by undifferentiated state goods. Included in those goods are political processes and participation themselves. So long as capitalists convince people to derive greater strength and social identity from, say, a pair of shoes or their Instagram brand, the more exacting requirements of political participation seem less attractive. This is especially so when that participation comes at the cost of the silencing of individual opinion within an aggregate system, or the requirement to abide by democratic outcomes with which one disagrees but nonetheless to accept it because of the political way in which that decision was reached. It's all too easy to slot into an echo chamber defined by certain status goods and virtue-signalling and all too hard to actually participate in coalitions working towards real political change.
Politics by consumption becomes a form of “politainment", accompanied by widespread disillusionment with politicians and absenting from voting and formal political engagement. This is categorically the case now, with the Trump family being its own form of entertainment. Politics as consumption has grave consequences for those unlucky enough not to fall in the consumer class. Working and lower-classed people, whoever don’t have the means to afford to participate in the consumer classes, greatly suffer. The withdrawal of consumer classes from public goods and services due to their undifferentiated nature means that those public goods and services will suffer. This will have a paralytic effect on those who are reliant on those public goods and services. Streeck's view of this is to take a longitudinal view of how we got here, and seeing it as a dialogical relationship. Indeed that dialectical view also applies generally to the relationship of capitalism and democracy.
Wolfgang Streeck may not in fact answer the question that he poses in the title of this book, but it is still a superb read.
It consists of a set of essays and speeches from the German sociologist published previously in New Left Review (and elsewhere) and organised around the theme of the challenges to capitalism. Each is a thoughtful and valuable contribution to the analysis of modern capitalist, it's impact on society, politics, and environment, and what our options for the future might be.
The opening essay sets the tone. It poses the suggestion that capitalism has so successfully eliminated all opposition to it's conquest of politics and society that it's destructive nature now has free rein without constraint from organised labour or political control. The end result will be the long slow death of capitalism's ability to deliver for the majority of its inhabitants, without the prospect of its replacement by a different system which can pick up the baton as Marx originally envisaged.
The remaining essays work around similar themes. The emphasis is on the impact of the neoliberal project to disconnect the management of the economy from political and social control. This can be seen in Streeck's characterisation of the changing nature of the state leading towards the current "consolidation" state where having passed successively through private debt then public debt stages now exists to ensure that we reliably meet our obligations to asset holders.
Another theme of Streeck is the divide between social rights and free markets. Where the democratic state prioritises providing public services for its citizens identified through elections. By contrast the "consolidation" state prioritises the contractual claims of creditors and the servicing of debt. The tension between these two has been a major driver for social and political change since the second world war.
This is a thought provoking and very readable set of essays which should be of interest to anyone who doesn't accept the orthodox economist world view.
It consists of a set of essays and speeches from the German sociologist published previously in New Left Review (and elsewhere) and organised around the theme of the challenges to capitalism. Each is a thoughtful and valuable contribution to the analysis of modern capitalist, it's impact on society, politics, and environment, and what our options for the future might be.
The opening essay sets the tone. It poses the suggestion that capitalism has so successfully eliminated all opposition to it's conquest of politics and society that it's destructive nature now has free rein without constraint from organised labour or political control. The end result will be the long slow death of capitalism's ability to deliver for the majority of its inhabitants, without the prospect of its replacement by a different system which can pick up the baton as Marx originally envisaged.
The remaining essays work around similar themes. The emphasis is on the impact of the neoliberal project to disconnect the management of the economy from political and social control. This can be seen in Streeck's characterisation of the changing nature of the state leading towards the current "consolidation" state where having passed successively through private debt then public debt stages now exists to ensure that we reliably meet our obligations to asset holders.
Another theme of Streeck is the divide between social rights and free markets. Where the democratic state prioritises providing public services for its citizens identified through elections. By contrast the "consolidation" state prioritises the contractual claims of creditors and the servicing of debt. The tension between these two has been a major driver for social and political change since the second world war.
This is a thought provoking and very readable set of essays which should be of interest to anyone who doesn't accept the orthodox economist world view.
Capitalism has fucked itself, and fucked democracy in the process, but there's no new system poised to replace it. At supranational level, the EU is a wholly undemocratic power struggle between northern creditors and southern debtors; at national level, governments are forced into austerity policies in order to appear 'credit worthy' and service their debts, prioritising the market over the electorate; but the rotting away of these democratic institutions has actually screwed capitalism itself, which is reliant on a countervailing force to rein in its destructive (and ultimately self-destructive) tendencies.
I feel like this book has finally wiped away the last remnants of my belief (which I held quite strongly in my early 20s) of the political value of EU, and in the idea that democracy and capitalism were naturally allied.
I feel like this book has finally wiped away the last remnants of my belief (which I held quite strongly in my early 20s) of the political value of EU, and in the idea that democracy and capitalism were naturally allied.
(3.5) A good book with a lot of stuff in it. I found it a bit overly complicated at times however. It also dragged on, beating a dead horse, at times with certain uninteresting points being driven so far past home they ended up in the wrong city.
But still, a lot of things talked about were illuminating. I am glad I read this book and agree with its overall premise of the unsustainable nature of our current economic system.
But still, a lot of things talked about were illuminating. I am glad I read this book and agree with its overall premise of the unsustainable nature of our current economic system.
An interesting read that lacks a strong conclusion or takeaway. Yes, Streeck does a great job of showing our path from social democracy to consolidation state via neoliberalism. The chapter that focuses on the incompatibility of capitalism and democracy is the strongest aspect of the book and worth the price of admission alone.
The reason for three stars is his unwillingness to propose a potential solution for the income gap and the mounting obligations of the debt states. He briefly mentions getting rid of globalization and re-embedding democracy, but then immediately accepts the futility of such a notion. I won’t even bring up his “forecast” of a turbulent future with an under-governmented society (if I remember correctly that was his exact term).
His observations are well presented but are certainly not ground breaking. I give him big bonus points, however, for recognizing the failure of the welfare state - a significant admission from an economist who genuinely fears Hayekinism and favors redistribution.
A good work, but there was some meat left on the bone.
The reason for three stars is his unwillingness to propose a potential solution for the income gap and the mounting obligations of the debt states. He briefly mentions getting rid of globalization and re-embedding democracy, but then immediately accepts the futility of such a notion. I won’t even bring up his “forecast” of a turbulent future with an under-governmented society (if I remember correctly that was his exact term).
His observations are well presented but are certainly not ground breaking. I give him big bonus points, however, for recognizing the failure of the welfare state - a significant admission from an economist who genuinely fears Hayekinism and favors redistribution.
A good work, but there was some meat left on the bone.
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.
Clear view of how Capitalism degenerates democracy and the spiraling, untenable cycle that Capitalism finds itself stuck in.
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.
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.