What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Prophets of Capital
As severe environmental degradation, breathtaking inequality, and increasing alienation push capitalism against its own contradictions, mythmaking has become as central to sustaining our economy as profitmaking.
Enter the new prophets of capital: Sheryl Sandberg touting the capitalist work ethic as the antidote to gender inequality; John Mackey promising that free markets will heal the planet; Oprah Winfrey urging us to find solutions to poverty and alienation within ourselves; and Bill and Melinda Gates offering the generosity of the 1 percent as the answer to a persistent, systemic inequality. The new prophets of capital buttress an exploitative system, even as the cracks grow more visible.
Enter the new prophets of capital: Sheryl Sandberg touting the capitalist work ethic as the antidote to gender inequality; John Mackey promising that free markets will heal the planet; Oprah Winfrey urging us to find solutions to poverty and alienation within ourselves; and Bill and Melinda Gates offering the generosity of the 1 percent as the answer to a persistent, systemic inequality. The new prophets of capital buttress an exploitative system, even as the cracks grow more visible.
153 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2015
27 people are currently reading
1402 people want to read
About the author
Nicole Aschoff
5 books18 followersNicole Aschoff is the author of The New Prophets of Capital and an editor at Jacobin magazine. Her work has appeared in numerous outlets including The Guardian, The Nation, Al Jazeera, and Dissent magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
June 21, 2019
کتاب به طور کلی نقد سرمایه داری است و روش کارش این است که در فصول مختلف، افراد مختلفی را که به نوعی به اشکالات سرمایهداری پی برده اند و سعی در ترمیم و اصلاح آن دارند، معرفی کرده و دیدگاههای آنها را به طور کامل شرح داده و نقد میکند.
نقطه قوت کتاب آن است که مثلا در فصل چهارم که به بنیاد (بیل و ملیندا) گیتس میپردازد، شیوه ی کار آنها برای رفع تبعیض و نابرابری در دنیا را کامل توضیح می دهد، به طوری که در ابتدای امر عملکرد آنها را تحسین خواهید کرد، سپس به نقد این عملکرد میپردازد و اثبات میکند که چطور فرضهای حاکم بر آنها غلط است و نتیجهی عملکردشان نهایتا باعث تعمیق بی عدالتی و فقر و ... می شود.
نگاه اصلی نویسنده این است که نشان دهد مشکل اصلی، ذات سرمایه داری است که تبعیض و بی عدالتی در آن نهفته و جزئی جدایی ناپذیر از آن است و دیگر اینکه نشان دهد راهکارهای اصلاحی که بسیاری بزرگان سرمایه داری دست به آن زدند، تنها و تنها به ادامه ی حیات این سیستم، کمک میکند.
خواندن این کتاب ۱۷۰صفحهای را توصیه میکنم
نقطه قوت کتاب آن است که مثلا در فصل چهارم که به بنیاد (بیل و ملیندا) گیتس میپردازد، شیوه ی کار آنها برای رفع تبعیض و نابرابری در دنیا را کامل توضیح می دهد، به طوری که در ابتدای امر عملکرد آنها را تحسین خواهید کرد، سپس به نقد این عملکرد میپردازد و اثبات میکند که چطور فرضهای حاکم بر آنها غلط است و نتیجهی عملکردشان نهایتا باعث تعمیق بی عدالتی و فقر و ... می شود.
نگاه اصلی نویسنده این است که نشان دهد مشکل اصلی، ذات سرمایه داری است که تبعیض و بی عدالتی در آن نهفته و جزئی جدایی ناپذیر از آن است و دیگر اینکه نشان دهد راهکارهای اصلاحی که بسیاری بزرگان سرمایه داری دست به آن زدند، تنها و تنها به ادامه ی حیات این سیستم، کمک میکند.
خواندن این کتاب ۱۷۰صفحهای را توصیه میکنم
August 27, 2015
Strangely obtuse when not stating the obvious. Lots of fog about "markets" and nothing about property and exploitation. More of an advertisement for Gates than a criticism, Aschoff's book misrepresents the goals of the outfit, obscures + prettifies its anti-democtratic mission, and covers up the most nefarious Gates activities including human medical experimentation in the 3rd world that has caused massive suffering and deaths (among them the deaths of poor rural girls used without consent for HPV trials in India, subject of a shocking government investigation. cf. http://www.rupe-india.org/57/gates.html)
Aschoff uses the Gates Foundation's own pr as sock puppet for her own spreading of its claims:
"Total deaths of children under five dropped from 12.6 million in 1990 to 6.6 million in 2012. The annual rate of reduction between 2005 and 2012 was three times faster than between 1990 and 1995. The Gateses credit the foundation’s efforts for the sharpening decline."
Aschoff presents this claim of Gates pr which she has taken directly from their website http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We..., leaves it unrebutted, and indeed treats it as true, although it is a patently absurd claim, as almost all this decline has occurred in regions where the Gates Foundation does little or nothing. In those countries where the Gates foundation does advance its medical and agricultural agenda, the result is in fact de-democratization, dispossession, plunder of the public treasuries and health budgets for profit, injury, illness and death. To avoid any acknowledgement and discussion of the devastation the foundation and its partners are inflicting, Aschoff avails herself of the vaguess of Gates' own claim. Thus she evades challenge and veils from criticism the fact that she doesn't even attempt to substantiate most of the allegations and assertions in her long apology for the foundation.
Further, it's not clear that Aschoff has any definite notion of what "capitalism" means. Unjustified faith in the benevolence of the imperial ruling class leaves her with what she perceives as the great mystery of the vastly wealthy and their hirelings unable to see what is so plain to herself.
Aschoff uses the Gates Foundation's own pr as sock puppet for her own spreading of its claims:
"Total deaths of children under five dropped from 12.6 million in 1990 to 6.6 million in 2012. The annual rate of reduction between 2005 and 2012 was three times faster than between 1990 and 1995. The Gateses credit the foundation’s efforts for the sharpening decline."
Aschoff presents this claim of Gates pr which she has taken directly from their website http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We..., leaves it unrebutted, and indeed treats it as true, although it is a patently absurd claim, as almost all this decline has occurred in regions where the Gates Foundation does little or nothing. In those countries where the Gates foundation does advance its medical and agricultural agenda, the result is in fact de-democratization, dispossession, plunder of the public treasuries and health budgets for profit, injury, illness and death. To avoid any acknowledgement and discussion of the devastation the foundation and its partners are inflicting, Aschoff avails herself of the vaguess of Gates' own claim. Thus she evades challenge and veils from criticism the fact that she doesn't even attempt to substantiate most of the allegations and assertions in her long apology for the foundation.
Further, it's not clear that Aschoff has any definite notion of what "capitalism" means. Unjustified faith in the benevolence of the imperial ruling class leaves her with what she perceives as the great mystery of the vastly wealthy and their hirelings unable to see what is so plain to herself.
April 5, 2015
Excellent, approachable examination of how efforts to reform or correct for the problems of capitalism often end up retrenching its worse tendencies. It's no surprise that LEAN IN or CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM can be found in airport bookstores everywhere, since they ultimately pose no threat to the established order: adding rich women to corporate boards doesn't mean policies will become any kinder to poor women, and nods in the direction of social responsibility don't break the cycle of consumption that drives environmental harm. Meanwhile, Gates pours his billions into social change by fiat (giving editorial columnists ever a case of the vapors) while Oprah follows Sandberg's lead by exhorting her followers to focus on self-betterment rather than agitating to change the existing order.
Aschoff critiques all four through a Marxist lens, which is to say one that points out the embedded capitalist ideology in each and how they perpetuate some of the capitalist processes that contribute to the problem in the first place. To crib from crushingbort's great tweet about libertarians, each thinks "the problems are very bad while the causes, the causes are very good". All that's missing is a look at respectability politics, perhaps excluded because it's waning while the others still seem to be waxing.
Highly recommended, and a quick read with excellent resources for diving further.
Aschoff critiques all four through a Marxist lens, which is to say one that points out the embedded capitalist ideology in each and how they perpetuate some of the capitalist processes that contribute to the problem in the first place. To crib from crushingbort's great tweet about libertarians, each thinks "the problems are very bad while the causes, the causes are very good". All that's missing is a look at respectability politics, perhaps excluded because it's waning while the others still seem to be waxing.
Highly recommended, and a quick read with excellent resources for diving further.
March 2, 2017
When Whole Foods came to Detroit I remember Kai Ryssdal of NPR’s Marketplace doing an interview with Walter Robb, the CEO of the company at the time. Admittedly, I was on the bandwagon; I thought a Whole Foods in Detroit was a good thing, was part of the revitalization effort happening across the city. Ryssdal, though, posed some difficult questions to a clearly annoyed Robb (who at one point says something along the lines of “that’s why I’m an entrepreneur and you’re just a journalist”). The skepticism Ryssdal expressed was rooted in gentrification and because of Robb’s continued counter to the concerns over high prices always boiling down to “just doing it right” Ryssdal ended up asking him what his plans were to teach the residents of Detroit how to shop at the store.
This interview profoundly affected me. I began to see the urban revitalization led by Dan Gilbert and his ilk (whom I worked for at the time) as flawed, despite their intentions. At the same time, I had difficulties expressing this skepticism, I wasn’t sure why dumping private capital into economically disadvantaged areas seemed to result in more inequality when the intention and efficiency were in the right places. It was also difficult to explain to fellow suburbanites why I had my doubts about Detroit being labeled as a “comeback city” when they saw the city generating profit in ways it hadn’t for some time.
This was until, very recently, I read The New Profits of Capital by Nicole Aschoff. The New Profits basically breaks down the stories of successful, well-intentioned, entrepreneurs that seek to make the world a better place through capitalist markets. Aschoff focuses on four big players: Sheryl Sandburg of Facebook, John Mackey of Whole Foods, Oprah, and Bill/Melinda Gates.
Each section follows a pattern. The first part generally discusses the subject in a positive light; Sheryl Sandberg breaking barriers as a woman CEO, John Mackey hasn’t taken a paycheck in years and pays his employees profit share, Oprah’s unfettered benevolence, the Gateses wild success in reducing disease worldwide. This is important, Aschoff isn’t a snooty leftist whose aim is to defecate all over the capitalist class for being evil or greedy. She recognizes the importance of understanding each of these individuals as essentially good. For Aschoff, the flaw is in the philosophy.
The next part of each section usually delves into the limitations of capitalist markets to accomplish the endgame of each subject. The ideas here are enlightening and, in many ways, a total game changer. Some key points used against the subjects are that capital - unlike human needs - can’t be satiated, that markets require inequality, and that private capital is undemocratic. There are more about the limits of the individual vs the system (you can’t bootstrap your way out of poverty) and conscious consumerism as well. Each was backed up by an abundance of sources demonstrating that capitalism necessitates inequality and a certain amount of people left behind.
The final part of each section talks about ways in which society could be constructed, democratically and socialistically, that would serve the needs of people over the needs of capital. Whether or not you believe this is the answer, The New Profits of Capital is certainly worth reading. If only to poke holes in the success stories capitalists are telling in the wake of immense suffering and poverty. I can’t recommend this book enough, I almost wish it were a documentary for fear that too few people will read it.
And just FYI, I emailed Aschoff at editor@jacobinmag.org to request a Part II featuring Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Dan Gilbert, and Sarah Koenig from the podcast Serial. So...fingers crossed.
This interview profoundly affected me. I began to see the urban revitalization led by Dan Gilbert and his ilk (whom I worked for at the time) as flawed, despite their intentions. At the same time, I had difficulties expressing this skepticism, I wasn’t sure why dumping private capital into economically disadvantaged areas seemed to result in more inequality when the intention and efficiency were in the right places. It was also difficult to explain to fellow suburbanites why I had my doubts about Detroit being labeled as a “comeback city” when they saw the city generating profit in ways it hadn’t for some time.
This was until, very recently, I read The New Profits of Capital by Nicole Aschoff. The New Profits basically breaks down the stories of successful, well-intentioned, entrepreneurs that seek to make the world a better place through capitalist markets. Aschoff focuses on four big players: Sheryl Sandburg of Facebook, John Mackey of Whole Foods, Oprah, and Bill/Melinda Gates.
Each section follows a pattern. The first part generally discusses the subject in a positive light; Sheryl Sandberg breaking barriers as a woman CEO, John Mackey hasn’t taken a paycheck in years and pays his employees profit share, Oprah’s unfettered benevolence, the Gateses wild success in reducing disease worldwide. This is important, Aschoff isn’t a snooty leftist whose aim is to defecate all over the capitalist class for being evil or greedy. She recognizes the importance of understanding each of these individuals as essentially good. For Aschoff, the flaw is in the philosophy.
The next part of each section usually delves into the limitations of capitalist markets to accomplish the endgame of each subject. The ideas here are enlightening and, in many ways, a total game changer. Some key points used against the subjects are that capital - unlike human needs - can’t be satiated, that markets require inequality, and that private capital is undemocratic. There are more about the limits of the individual vs the system (you can’t bootstrap your way out of poverty) and conscious consumerism as well. Each was backed up by an abundance of sources demonstrating that capitalism necessitates inequality and a certain amount of people left behind.
The final part of each section talks about ways in which society could be constructed, democratically and socialistically, that would serve the needs of people over the needs of capital. Whether or not you believe this is the answer, The New Profits of Capital is certainly worth reading. If only to poke holes in the success stories capitalists are telling in the wake of immense suffering and poverty. I can’t recommend this book enough, I almost wish it were a documentary for fear that too few people will read it.
And just FYI, I emailed Aschoff at editor@jacobinmag.org to request a Part II featuring Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Dan Gilbert, and Sarah Koenig from the podcast Serial. So...fingers crossed.
August 18, 2020
A fun-size™ critique from a socialist perspective of the shortcomings of Sheryl Sandberg's, John Mackey's (Whole Foods), Oprah's, and the Gates Foundation's visions of capitalism.
An introduction, titled "Storytelling" (the above-mentioned folks are the new "elite storytellers"), makes obsessive use of the term stories - a pet peeve of mine. The book jacket uses the word "myth" which is much more appealing; "narrative" would also work. For me stories has a very woke odor bordering on jargon and is also linked to the way social media markets itself (Instagram stories) but admittedly I don't keep up. Maybe its associations are entirely different, or never were what I think they are.
The book is a quick, entertaining read. But the typos are ridiculous:
- periods and apostrophes incorrectly inserted
- Michael Pollen for Michael Pollan
- Medinda Gates for Melinda Gates
- mosquitos for mosquitoes
- Joane for Joanne
- whitehose.gov
- in the footnotes an author's name will be spelled several different ways
- Warren Buffett is referred to as Buffet three times
- The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is referred to as The Wind-Up Bird Chronicles
- in an anecdote a woman stands up to ask a question; four lines later "she jumped to her feet."
- the author quotes Milton Friedman and in the next sentence refers to him as Milton (first name only)
February 5, 2018
يقدم كتاب "الأنبياء الجدد لرأس المال" نقد لأربع نماذج شهيرة في عالمنا اليوم: شيرل ساندبرغ التي تشغل أحد أهم المناصب في شركة فيسبوك والتي أصبحت رمزاً نسوية في عالم التكنولوجيا الذي يسوده الرجال ، أوبرا وينفري الإعلامية الشهيرة وسرديتها عن النجاح والسعادة ، جون ماكي الرئيس التنفيذي لشركة هول فوودز ومفهومه لما يسمى بالرأسمالية الواعية ، وأخيراً بيل غيتس مؤسس مايكروسفت ومفهومه للرأسمالية الخيرية.
تبدأ الكاتبة بنموذج النسوية التي تؤمن به ساندبرغ (أن وجود نساء في القمة سيساعد بالضرورة المزيد من النساء للتحرر والحصول على حقوقهم) وكيف أن هذا النموذج يغفل الكثير من بنيوية القوى وعدم المساواة في مجتمعنا من خلال التركيز على استراتيجيات فردية للنجاح لاتنطبق على غالبية النساء الذين يعانون من التمييز الممنهج. يتشابه هذا النموذج مع سردية أوبرا وينفري حول النجاح التي ترتكز على تجربتها الشخصية كطفلة سوداء فقيرة تمكنت من تخطي العقبات وتحقيق حلمها من خلال الكفاح والعمل المجتهد. وكلا الشخصيتين (اوبرا وساندبرغ) يقدمان قصتهما على أنها قابلة للاستنساخ من خلال دعوة النساء للكف عن لعب دور الضحية والمضي قدماً لتحقيق أحلامها. أما مفهوم الرأسمالية الواعية والرأسمالية الخيرية الذي يروج له بيل غيتس وجون ماكي الذي يقوم بالتركيز على الوجه "المضيء" للرأسمالية وكيف يمكنها أن تقوم من خلال مزايا السوق الحرة وخبرتها المكتسبة خلال عقود في مجال الأعمال بأن تحد من الكوارث البيئية والانسانية التي سببتها الرأسمالية وأن تنقذ ملايين الأرواح من براثن الفقر والجوع والمرض والجهل التي تعصف بالعالم الحديث.
تنوه الكاتبة أن جميع هذه المناهج هي ليست أجندة مقحمة أو مؤامرة مدروسة لصالح النظام الرأسمالي ولكنها انعكاس لبنى القوى في مجتمعات رأسمالية قائمة بالفعل، ولذا فالخلل يكمن في أن هذه النماذج التي يبشّر بها هولاء الأنبياء الجدد تخفي دور البنى الاقتصادية والسياسة والاجتماعية للنظام الرأسمالي ولا تقوم بتحدي هذه البنى والكوارث التي يتسبب بها النظام جراء ميله البديهي للتنافس. ولذا فكل هذه النماذج تفشل ��ي تقديم حل راديكالي للحد من تداعيات الرأسمالية وكوارثها تجاه البشرية.
تبدأ الكاتبة بنموذج النسوية التي تؤمن به ساندبرغ (أن وجود نساء في القمة سيساعد بالضرورة المزيد من النساء للتحرر والحصول على حقوقهم) وكيف أن هذا النموذج يغفل الكثير من بنيوية القوى وعدم المساواة في مجتمعنا من خلال التركيز على استراتيجيات فردية للنجاح لاتنطبق على غالبية النساء الذين يعانون من التمييز الممنهج. يتشابه هذا النموذج مع سردية أوبرا وينفري حول النجاح التي ترتكز على تجربتها الشخصية كطفلة سوداء فقيرة تمكنت من تخطي العقبات وتحقيق حلمها من خلال الكفاح والعمل المجتهد. وكلا الشخصيتين (اوبرا وساندبرغ) يقدمان قصتهما على أنها قابلة للاستنساخ من خلال دعوة النساء للكف عن لعب دور الضحية والمضي قدماً لتحقيق أحلامها. أما مفهوم الرأسمالية الواعية والرأسمالية الخيرية الذي يروج له بيل غيتس وجون ماكي الذي يقوم بالتركيز على الوجه "المضيء" للرأسمالية وكيف يمكنها أن تقوم من خلال مزايا السوق الحرة وخبرتها المكتسبة خلال عقود في مجال الأعمال بأن تحد من الكوارث البيئية والانسانية التي سببتها الرأسمالية وأن تنقذ ملايين الأرواح من براثن الفقر والجوع والمرض والجهل التي تعصف بالعالم الحديث.
تنوه الكاتبة أن جميع هذه المناهج هي ليست أجندة مقحمة أو مؤامرة مدروسة لصالح النظام الرأسمالي ولكنها انعكاس لبنى القوى في مجتمعات رأسمالية قائمة بالفعل، ولذا فالخلل يكمن في أن هذه النماذج التي يبشّر بها هولاء الأنبياء الجدد تخفي دور البنى الاقتصادية والسياسة والاجتماعية للنظام الرأسمالي ولا تقوم بتحدي هذه البنى والكوارث التي يتسبب بها النظام جراء ميله البديهي للتنافس. ولذا فكل هذه النماذج تفشل ��ي تقديم حل راديكالي للحد من تداعيات الرأسمالية وكوارثها تجاه البشرية.
November 25, 2017
If Aschoff were more polemical, she would've title this The New False Prophets of Capital or The (False) Idols of Neoliberalism. If my alternate titles get more to her conclusion, her title preserves the ambiguity at the heart of of her case-study of (what I'll call) "apologist" capitalists. Apologist Capitalists are those who believe we can utilize the existing economic system to advance moral and social (especially global/internationalist) goals. Her examples are Sheryl Sandberg of "lean in" fame, John Mackey of WholeFoods, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates. All of these multimillionaires(+) propose to modify (thereby improving) capitalism by working within the system itself. In other words, the market itself can and will resolve the inequalities by means of eco-capitalism, philanthrocapitalism, etc. Aschoff denies that any permutation of capitalism can resolve the fundamental social and economic problems, but she gives each a fair hearing.
May 25, 2015
Aschoff ably exposes the pervasiveness of capitalist values by analyzing their manifestation in lauded (neo?) liberal institutions/figures like Oprah, Sheryl Sandberg, and the Gates Foundation. She makes a radical critique of capitalism accessible by eschewing jargon and writing with tremendous economy. The book is perhaps best as a primer for the uninitiated or a refresher for lapsed radicals tempted by the tasty abundance of a Whole Foods buffet. I do wish for more ecumenism by thinkers like Aschoff, but that didn't significantly diminish my appreciation for this particular project.
July 2, 2020
کتاب عالی ای بود. نگاهم به سرمایه داری رو دقیق تر کرد
December 31, 2015
Is capitalism for profit?
[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2014 posted revenues for $90 billion and a $271 million loss. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites].
The four cases usefully pulled together here seem to imply that no, capitalism is not so much about profit as the author herself thinks, religiously quoting David Harvey as the only possible authority on the matter. Also the fact that our master, the owner of GoodReads, Amazon Inc., has been recording losses for years (2013 was the exception), without being dumped by its shareholders for this (on the contrary) should support the inference.
The idea that a company's objective should be to make profits has no foundation in the US legal system either. Companies are allowed to make profits, whereas not-for-profits are denied this option. But companies can and do stay around if they just break even or make losses, as Amazon's case proves. The important thing is that what they do is legal, which should absolutely not be taken for granted, as Gates' antitrust troubles or Mackey anti-union behaviours suggest (and if they do something illegal, they lose their so called licence to operate, regardless of their profitability).
The four hard-nosed capitalists portrayed in these pages in a crescendo of horror make the case for a shift of our attention away from the profit red herring. Sandberg, who maybe is the odd one out, and Oprah preach hustling technologies of the self to encourage capitalism's subjects to submit to capitalism's discipline tapping into their inner resources, thus avoiding being sacrificed to the Moloch. Their ideology is notorious and goes under the name of 'meritocracy at the top (only)' (a magisterial exposé thereof can be found in Rosanvallon's The Society of Equals). Mackey and Gates' paternalism (branded conscious capitalism and philanthro-capitalism respectively) is a redux of the old 'entrepreneur as hero' of Schumpeterian tradition.
In sum, our capitalists just want to be the ones who decide who is good and who is bad, what is to be done, and how - without anyone getting in the way, thanks. Profit is not necessary, once you can undemocratically shape society as it pleases you, teaching people how to know their place, especially 'the poor', who are essentialized as a foreign nation (and will be probably provided soon with a special passport, courtesy of the Gates Foundation, so that they can be helped more efficiently). For more horror, see Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.
If capitalism were just interested in making profits, the world would be a better place - as loss making Amazon's employees know so well.
[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2014 posted revenues for $90 billion and a $271 million loss. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites].
The four cases usefully pulled together here seem to imply that no, capitalism is not so much about profit as the author herself thinks, religiously quoting David Harvey as the only possible authority on the matter. Also the fact that our master, the owner of GoodReads, Amazon Inc., has been recording losses for years (2013 was the exception), without being dumped by its shareholders for this (on the contrary) should support the inference.
The idea that a company's objective should be to make profits has no foundation in the US legal system either. Companies are allowed to make profits, whereas not-for-profits are denied this option. But companies can and do stay around if they just break even or make losses, as Amazon's case proves. The important thing is that what they do is legal, which should absolutely not be taken for granted, as Gates' antitrust troubles or Mackey anti-union behaviours suggest (and if they do something illegal, they lose their so called licence to operate, regardless of their profitability).
The four hard-nosed capitalists portrayed in these pages in a crescendo of horror make the case for a shift of our attention away from the profit red herring. Sandberg, who maybe is the odd one out, and Oprah preach hustling technologies of the self to encourage capitalism's subjects to submit to capitalism's discipline tapping into their inner resources, thus avoiding being sacrificed to the Moloch. Their ideology is notorious and goes under the name of 'meritocracy at the top (only)' (a magisterial exposé thereof can be found in Rosanvallon's The Society of Equals). Mackey and Gates' paternalism (branded conscious capitalism and philanthro-capitalism respectively) is a redux of the old 'entrepreneur as hero' of Schumpeterian tradition.
In sum, our capitalists just want to be the ones who decide who is good and who is bad, what is to be done, and how - without anyone getting in the way, thanks. Profit is not necessary, once you can undemocratically shape society as it pleases you, teaching people how to know their place, especially 'the poor', who are essentialized as a foreign nation (and will be probably provided soon with a special passport, courtesy of the Gates Foundation, so that they can be helped more efficiently). For more horror, see Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.
If capitalism were just interested in making profits, the world would be a better place - as loss making Amazon's employees know so well.
May 1, 2022
This is a very short book and I gave it one nearly a month of good faith effort, and still couldn't bring myself to finish it. Normally you'd have to pay me to get me to shut up about socioeconomic topics, and yet this book made my eyes glaze over. It's somehow superficial and self important at the same time, and it feels horribly dated even though it came out just a few years ago. The essay format fails at generalizing its examples to a broader discussion of the point it's trying to make, so it's just a lot of talk about public figures that are no longer that relevant and very little effort to make conclusions that may stand the test of time.
tl;dr: Life is too short to read this book so don't bother.
tl;dr: Life is too short to read this book so don't bother.
March 23, 2017
A brilliant critique of how the near-mythical status of today's "prophets of capital" is created while ignoring their underlying hypocrisy. Although Aschoff's book is often polemical, her adept condensation of contemporaneous critiques against advanced capitalism into an easily digestible read made me give the book four stars instead of three. Can be read in a day or two.
May 24, 2020
A good read critiquing the power and influence of 4 key billionaires in the United States and the downsides to philanthropic capitalism.
July 6, 2019
One of the recurrent characteristics of the capitalist era is those with power in the economic order debating the morals and ethics of business and of capitalism. It’s not new; the fundamentally exploitative processes a heart of capitalism were at the core of challenges from, debates including and actions by 18th and 19th century Quakers at Port Sunlight or Bourneville, Robert Owen at New Lanark and other corporate cooperativists as well as consumer and workers cooperatives in search of a more humane system of exploitation. The collapse of the post-war social democratic consensus, the rise of neo-liberal economic theory as not only the new orthodoxy but the only mode of economic thought and the decline of trust in the state and collectivism shifted those critiques from a form that saw failures or weaknesses in capitalism to an outlook that the problem is that capitalism is fettered. This historical shift is implicit in these engaging critiques of capitalism’s new advocates, while the sense of capitalism constrained is explicit.
Nicole Aschoff draws on the radical Weberianism of Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello whose exceptional The New Spirit of Capitalism provides the basis for her discussion of modes of thinking and modes of being successful in the capitalist world. Her argument, quite simply, is that cases for more humane capitalism as seen in corporate feminism (of the Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In type), in the apparent environmental consciousness of Whole Foods (and its libertarian owner-advocate David Mackey), in the caring capitalism and self-improvement of Oprah Winfrey and in the philanthrocapitalism of the Gates Foundation all turn on the ‘liberation’ of markets and the commodification of all. That is, in each of these cases there is an argument for an intensification of capitalist social relations to fix the world
This is not, then, a systemic critique of any form of a capitalist order, but an accessible exploration of the ways that neo-liberal and libertarian ideologies have embedded themselves as if they are critical voices. She makes the case that what looks like capitalism’s celebrated adaptability to take on board dissent is nothing of the kind, and is rather its engagement with a series of calls to more deeply embed the social relations and dynamics essential to capitalism’s operations. What is more, the extent of the global reach of each of these cases means that despite its US-focus the case bears weight well beyond its borders. It is a good example of The Jacobin has set out to do in making leftist analyses accessible and to stimulate activism in that it certainly succeeds on the accessibility question – but whether it has stimulated action remains to be seen, although this call to arms is perhaps the weakest part of Aschoff’s case.
Even so, it is well worth delving into.
Nicole Aschoff draws on the radical Weberianism of Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello whose exceptional The New Spirit of Capitalism provides the basis for her discussion of modes of thinking and modes of being successful in the capitalist world. Her argument, quite simply, is that cases for more humane capitalism as seen in corporate feminism (of the Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In type), in the apparent environmental consciousness of Whole Foods (and its libertarian owner-advocate David Mackey), in the caring capitalism and self-improvement of Oprah Winfrey and in the philanthrocapitalism of the Gates Foundation all turn on the ‘liberation’ of markets and the commodification of all. That is, in each of these cases there is an argument for an intensification of capitalist social relations to fix the world
This is not, then, a systemic critique of any form of a capitalist order, but an accessible exploration of the ways that neo-liberal and libertarian ideologies have embedded themselves as if they are critical voices. She makes the case that what looks like capitalism’s celebrated adaptability to take on board dissent is nothing of the kind, and is rather its engagement with a series of calls to more deeply embed the social relations and dynamics essential to capitalism’s operations. What is more, the extent of the global reach of each of these cases means that despite its US-focus the case bears weight well beyond its borders. It is a good example of The Jacobin has set out to do in making leftist analyses accessible and to stimulate activism in that it certainly succeeds on the accessibility question – but whether it has stimulated action remains to be seen, although this call to arms is perhaps the weakest part of Aschoff’s case.
Even so, it is well worth delving into.
December 30, 2023
کتاب درباره چهار سرمایه دار خاص است که هر کدام به نوعی جایگاه ایدئولوژی سازی دست یافته اند: شریل سندبرگ (مدیر ارشد عملیاتی فیسبوک)، جان مککی (مدیر ارشد اجرایی هول فودز)، اپرا وینفری (غول رسانهای)، و بیل و ملیندا گیتس(بنیانگذاران بنیاد گیتس)
نویسنده میگوید این چهار نفر داستان های جدیدی برای جهان تعریف میکنند که به نوعی تعارضات و خشونتهای موجود در ذات سرمایه داری را پنهان میکنند و به آن وجهه ای اخلاقی میبخشند
"شریل سندبرگ خاطره خود از گوگل را بیان میکند. زمانی که روزهای آخر بارداری خود را میگذارند به حالی دردناک افتاد و نفس نفس میزد. همان لحظه به ذهنش رسید که «لعنتی، گوگل به یک پارکینگ مخصوص زنان باردار نیاز دارد!»
او به سمت اتاق رییس رفت و تقاضایش را مطرح کرد. وجود یک زن باردار در رده های بالا موجب تغییر شد. سندبرگ دیگر باردار نیست و در گوگل نیز کار نمیکند اما پارکینگ زنان باردار همچنان در گوگل وجود دارد."
شریل سندبرگ با این نمونه ها میکوشد زنان فمینیست را تشویق کند تا به جای تلاش برای بهبود وضعیت عمومی زنان در جامعه، سعی کنند خودشان به جایگاه های مدیریتی بالاتری برسند. اما نویسنده مواردی را ذکر میکند که زنان پس از قرار گرفتن در جایگاه های مدیریتی بالا تصمیماتی علیه همجنسانشان گرفته اند و به این ترتیب رویکرد شریل سندبرگ را نقد میکند.
"نکته عجیب داستان «سرمایهداری وجدان مندانه» کمبود شرکتهای قدیمی منطبق با این تفکر است. در طول سالها تاجران بسیاری عناصر اصلی فلسفه سرمایهداری وجدان مندانه را داشته اند اما این حقیقت که هیچکدام از این اصول از آزمون زمان سربلند بیرون نیامدهاند نشان دهنده تأثیرات طولانی مدت «رقابت�� است نه طمع یا تنبلی. مهم نیست که صاحب کسب و کار چقدر با وجدان باشد، اگر با بازاری رقابتی مواجه شود یگانه انتخابش زیر پا گذاشتن اصول است."
جان مک کی کسب و کار عظیم خودش را یک سرمایه داری وجدان مندانه میداند که در آن پرداختی فاصله حقوق مدیران رده بالا و کارگران رده پایین خیلی کمتر از فاصله حقوق شاغلان والمارت است. اما نویسنده نشان میدهد علیرغم این شعارها، "رقابت" اصول خودش را به هر حال به هول فودز نیز تحمیل میکند و بیشترین فشار به کارگران رده پایین وارد میشود.
"تجدید ساختار نئولیبرالی مستلزم تبدیل کردن مسایل اجتماعی به مشکلات فردی است. منبع توجه در نئولیبرالیسم «خود» است.
کسب و کار «اُپرا وینفری» تمرکز نئولیبرالیسم روی خود را تقویت میکند. بنگاه اقتصادی اُپرا وینفری مجموعهای از کردارهای ایدئولوژیک است که به مشروعیت بخشی به دنیایی کمک میکند که آکنده از نابرابری است و با ترویج نوعی پیکربندی از «خود» که با این دنیا سازگار است فرصتها را کاهش میدهد."
اُپرا وینفری به شما کمک میکند در آخرالزمان بی رحمانه ای که سرمایه داری برایتان ساخته است همه تقصیرها را به عهده "خود" بدانید. و دیگر هیچ!
"بنیاد بیل گیتس به دنبال استفاده از سازوکارهای بازار در آموزش عمومی است. فکر پشت ماجرا آن است که با استفاده از منطق بازار در نظام آموزشی، رقابت، تمام مدارس را به عملکرد بهتر وامیدارد. با اداره مدارس به همان شیوه «شرکت ها»، نظامی ایجاد میشود که هر مدرسه عمومی یک قراداد عملکرد خواهد داشت که مردم اداره کننده آن آزادی عمل دارند تا آن را مدیریت کنند. اگر موفق نشدند باید در مدرسه را تخته کنند!"
بیل گیتس عزیز!
نویسنده میگوید این چهار نفر داستان های جدیدی برای جهان تعریف میکنند که به نوعی تعارضات و خشونتهای موجود در ذات سرمایه داری را پنهان میکنند و به آن وجهه ای اخلاقی میبخشند
"شریل سندبرگ خاطره خود از گوگل را بیان میکند. زمانی که روزهای آخر بارداری خود را میگذارند به حالی دردناک افتاد و نفس نفس میزد. همان لحظه به ذهنش رسید که «لعنتی، گوگل به یک پارکینگ مخصوص زنان باردار نیاز دارد!»
او به سمت اتاق رییس رفت و تقاضایش را مطرح کرد. وجود یک زن باردار در رده های بالا موجب تغییر شد. سندبرگ دیگر باردار نیست و در گوگل نیز کار نمیکند اما پارکینگ زنان باردار همچنان در گوگل وجود دارد."
شریل سندبرگ با این نمونه ها میکوشد زنان فمینیست را تشویق کند تا به جای تلاش برای بهبود وضعیت عمومی زنان در جامعه، سعی کنند خودشان به جایگاه های مدیریتی بالاتری برسند. اما نویسنده مواردی را ذکر میکند که زنان پس از قرار گرفتن در جایگاه های مدیریتی بالا تصمیماتی علیه همجنسانشان گرفته اند و به این ترتیب رویکرد شریل سندبرگ را نقد میکند.
"نکته عجیب داستان «سرمایهداری وجدان مندانه» کمبود شرکتهای قدیمی منطبق با این تفکر است. در طول سالها تاجران بسیاری عناصر اصلی فلسفه سرمایهداری وجدان مندانه را داشته اند اما این حقیقت که هیچکدام از این اصول از آزمون زمان سربلند بیرون نیامدهاند نشان دهنده تأثیرات طولانی مدت «رقابت�� است نه طمع یا تنبلی. مهم نیست که صاحب کسب و کار چقدر با وجدان باشد، اگر با بازاری رقابتی مواجه شود یگانه انتخابش زیر پا گذاشتن اصول است."
جان مک کی کسب و کار عظیم خودش را یک سرمایه داری وجدان مندانه میداند که در آن پرداختی فاصله حقوق مدیران رده بالا و کارگران رده پایین خیلی کمتر از فاصله حقوق شاغلان والمارت است. اما نویسنده نشان میدهد علیرغم این شعارها، "رقابت" اصول خودش را به هر حال به هول فودز نیز تحمیل میکند و بیشترین فشار به کارگران رده پایین وارد میشود.
"تجدید ساختار نئولیبرالی مستلزم تبدیل کردن مسایل اجتماعی به مشکلات فردی است. منبع توجه در نئولیبرالیسم «خود» است.
کسب و کار «اُپرا وینفری» تمرکز نئولیبرالیسم روی خود را تقویت میکند. بنگاه اقتصادی اُپرا وینفری مجموعهای از کردارهای ایدئولوژیک است که به مشروعیت بخشی به دنیایی کمک میکند که آکنده از نابرابری است و با ترویج نوعی پیکربندی از «خود» که با این دنیا سازگار است فرصتها را کاهش میدهد."
اُپرا وینفری به شما کمک میکند در آخرالزمان بی رحمانه ای که سرمایه داری برایتان ساخته است همه تقصیرها را به عهده "خود" بدانید. و دیگر هیچ!
"بنیاد بیل گیتس به دنبال استفاده از سازوکارهای بازار در آموزش عمومی است. فکر پشت ماجرا آن است که با استفاده از منطق بازار در نظام آموزشی، رقابت، تمام مدارس را به عملکرد بهتر وامیدارد. با اداره مدارس به همان شیوه «شرکت ها»، نظامی ایجاد میشود که هر مدرسه عمومی یک قراداد عملکرد خواهد داشت که مردم اداره کننده آن آزادی عمل دارند تا آن را مدیریت کنند. اگر موفق نشدند باید در مدرسه را تخته کنند!"
بیل گیتس عزیز!
August 24, 2020
Catastrophes like the 2008 financial crisis and—more recently—the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic have laid bare the exploitative nature of the status quo. The argument that free market capitalism promotes prosperity and equality has lost credibility. Consequently, throughout the world, political outsiders have sought to overthrow and remake established institutions. Left-wing social movements argue that climate change, poverty, and conflict can only be resolved with the advent of social, political, and economic equality. Fascists like Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Jair Bolsonaro, in contrast, posit that law and order can only be guaranteed with an iron fist.
Amidst the tumult, are the "new prophets of capital" who continue to insist that the free market is the cure rather than the cause of the present crisis. Aschoff supports this argument through four case study analyses of "prophets of capital": Sheryl Sandberg, John Mackey, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill and Melinda Gates. Different as they are, they all have one thing in common: they believe that capitalism is inherently good. For example, Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In" philosophy will benefit only a few—mostly elite—women. Aschoff rightly points out that it doesn't make any difference if the Exxon, Walmart, or the CIA are led by women. Exxon will continue to pillage countries like Nigeria for oil, Walmart will still to exploit its workers, and the CIA will still torture suspects and overthrow regimes. We only need to examine the track record of CIA Director Gina Haspel to know this to be true.
It's important to call bullshit on these "new prophets of capital" because, as Aschoff insists, "when the stories that manage our desires break their promises over and over, the stories themselves become fuel for change and open a space for new, radical stories." "The New Prophets of Capital" does exactly that.
I recommend this breezy—but cutting—book for anyone who regularly hate-reads news articles about "good billionaires." It'll give you good ammo the next time someone talks about what a great guy Bill Gates is.
Amidst the tumult, are the "new prophets of capital" who continue to insist that the free market is the cure rather than the cause of the present crisis. Aschoff supports this argument through four case study analyses of "prophets of capital": Sheryl Sandberg, John Mackey, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill and Melinda Gates. Different as they are, they all have one thing in common: they believe that capitalism is inherently good. For example, Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In" philosophy will benefit only a few—mostly elite—women. Aschoff rightly points out that it doesn't make any difference if the Exxon, Walmart, or the CIA are led by women. Exxon will continue to pillage countries like Nigeria for oil, Walmart will still to exploit its workers, and the CIA will still torture suspects and overthrow regimes. We only need to examine the track record of CIA Director Gina Haspel to know this to be true.
It's important to call bullshit on these "new prophets of capital" because, as Aschoff insists, "when the stories that manage our desires break their promises over and over, the stories themselves become fuel for change and open a space for new, radical stories." "The New Prophets of Capital" does exactly that.
I recommend this breezy—but cutting—book for anyone who regularly hate-reads news articles about "good billionaires." It'll give you good ammo the next time someone talks about what a great guy Bill Gates is.
September 23, 2020
A very accessible read that critically examines the ideas behind these famous elite storytellers. They are being recognized as saints, saviors of humanity, or "prophets" because we're being hegemonized by their noble intentions as the solution to many problems such as inequality, gender divide, environmental degradation, and poverty. When in fact, their market-based solutions reinvigorate an economic system that generates these problems in the first place.
Aschoff analyzes these new prophets respectively in four chapters. Sheryl Sandberg's feminist movement "on a systemic level it strengthens the forces that oppress and divide women"; John Mackey's Whole Foods conscious capitalism which its sustainability is still questionable; Oprah Winfrey's self-improvement story that overlooks structural inequality; and Melinda & Bill Gates' philanthrocapitalism which sets up free-market as a solution even though most people don't have the money to pay for what they need.
Another book with a similar issue is Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas. I've yet to read it, but recently I watched him on Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj and found his metaphor perfectly explains the situation: "Batman is what all these plutocrats do. You cause problems by day in the way you run your company. And then you put on a suit at night and pretend you are the solution. Let's tax the hell out of Bruce Wayne. Then we wouldn't necessarily need him to put on a costume. [H: Your take is anti-Batman?] I want to make Batman unnecessary."
Despite their good intentions, we need to question what repercussions these elite storytellers might actually bring in the future. As Aschoff concluded, "At the end of the day, for capitalism to function, most of us must believe in the system and voluntarily devote our energies to it." While this book doesn't dive much into a practical solution, it shows us how this "feel-good capitalism" helps to obliterate the public interest in alternative or adjustments to modern capitalism and touts what Bourdieu called economic fatalism. It's a refreshing read that we currently need, and it reminds us to keep an eye on more prophets to come. Now, let's watch a TED talk.
Aschoff analyzes these new prophets respectively in four chapters. Sheryl Sandberg's feminist movement "on a systemic level it strengthens the forces that oppress and divide women"; John Mackey's Whole Foods conscious capitalism which its sustainability is still questionable; Oprah Winfrey's self-improvement story that overlooks structural inequality; and Melinda & Bill Gates' philanthrocapitalism which sets up free-market as a solution even though most people don't have the money to pay for what they need.
Another book with a similar issue is Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas. I've yet to read it, but recently I watched him on Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj and found his metaphor perfectly explains the situation: "Batman is what all these plutocrats do. You cause problems by day in the way you run your company. And then you put on a suit at night and pretend you are the solution. Let's tax the hell out of Bruce Wayne. Then we wouldn't necessarily need him to put on a costume. [H: Your take is anti-Batman?] I want to make Batman unnecessary."
Despite their good intentions, we need to question what repercussions these elite storytellers might actually bring in the future. As Aschoff concluded, "At the end of the day, for capitalism to function, most of us must believe in the system and voluntarily devote our energies to it." While this book doesn't dive much into a practical solution, it shows us how this "feel-good capitalism" helps to obliterate the public interest in alternative or adjustments to modern capitalism and touts what Bourdieu called economic fatalism. It's a refreshing read that we currently need, and it reminds us to keep an eye on more prophets to come. Now, let's watch a TED talk.
January 4, 2021
Oprah is a sicko.
I would've finished this sooner but that Stardew 1.5 update that dropped last week has a cool feature that just makes time disappear. Pretty neat.
I would've finished this sooner but that Stardew 1.5 update that dropped last week has a cool feature that just makes time disappear. Pretty neat.
October 10, 2015
I'm very sympathetic to the argument but it's poorly written and organized, spends way too much time explaining the point of views of the prophets as if trying to lend them credence before the demolition, and falls into dumb New Left traps like declaring that social and cultural capital are real and productive rather than ideological mystifications of the inequalities created by the social relations of production, ie capital. Despite citing Harry Braverman (I will always love everything that cites Braverman), this just isn't a good book at all. In article form, it may have been better, if aimed specifically at willing liberals. The already indoctrinated are unlikely to find anything interesting in here.
January 25, 2019
اشاف در این کتاب به خوبی دست آن دسته از جریانهایی را رو میکند که از در اصلاح و بهینهکردن سرمایهداری وارد میشوند، اما در واقع کارکردی جز تعمیق، تثبیت و بازتولید وضع موجود ندارند. به تعبیر نائومی کلاین این «تغییرات تغییرناپذیر»(changeless change) قادر به رفع مشکلات ذاتی ناشی از اصولِ موضوعهی سرمایهداری نیست و بزک سرمایهداری، چهرهی پلشت و غیرانسانی آن را از میان نمیبرد. نقد منطق بازار آزاد، کالاییسازی و رقابت کشنده مانند بسیاری دیگر از کتابهایی که اصول پیشینی سرمایهداری را هدف قرار میدهند، در این کتاب نیز در کانون توجه قرار دارد. یکی از مشکلات این کتاب به نظر من عدم انسجام و ناپیوستگی در طرح برخی مطالب است. ترجمهی کتاب هرچند کاملاً قابل استفاده و کمغلط است ولی آنقدرها هم روان نیست.
February 9, 2017
Está bien pero es muy corto.
April 1, 2017
I'm baffled by the one-star review that is currently the most upvoted review for this book. It feels like a review of a different book from the one I read, which I personally thought was excellent. If the book's description intrigues you, I'd recommend you take the criticisms with a grain of salt and see for yourself how they hold up.
i-want-money
May 14, 2015Sounds kind of nice. Here's the bit about Oprah, the Prophet of Capitalism (I mean, if you didn't already know... I mean, old=hat for you Zizek/junkies) ::
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-rad...
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-rad...
October 7, 2016
Fantastic look at the new prophets of capital and their fundamentally flawed messages. It's primarily because people like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey offer such compelling stories that make this book all the more interesting.
June 30, 2017
Really interesting and accessible book about a difficult topic.
Essentially, anyone trying to sell you self-actualization and a new utopia through capitalism are ignoring the massive inequalities and barriers to mobility that exist. Our country really values the idea that hard work and frugality are the ways to achieve success, but that's not actually how things play out in real life. Unfortunately, our culture hasn't caught up and we tend to idolize extremely wealthy people with messages that reinforce those beliefs.
Lots of shocking-ish statistics through this book:
-Whole Foods, while constantly being celebrated as a champion of fair wages and workers, has the majority of its employees on Medicaid.
-one third of American households haven negative wealth or no assets
-one in three Americans wouldn't be able to pay that months rent or mortgage if they lost their job
-the United States ranks lowest out of first world countries in terms of intergenerational wealth mobility
All this being said, the author said some pretty outrageous things were going on in KIPP schools that 100% are not. As a former teacher there, I was pretty horrified that said said students were regularly publicly shamed and wore signs that said MISCREANT as a punishment. The school I taught in had its fair share of issues, but that was not something that ever happened there.
Overall, I think her message was strong and I'm glad there are people out there who are starting to identify that wealthy people aren't smarter and harder working even though our culture reinforces that idea.
Essentially, anyone trying to sell you self-actualization and a new utopia through capitalism are ignoring the massive inequalities and barriers to mobility that exist. Our country really values the idea that hard work and frugality are the ways to achieve success, but that's not actually how things play out in real life. Unfortunately, our culture hasn't caught up and we tend to idolize extremely wealthy people with messages that reinforce those beliefs.
Lots of shocking-ish statistics through this book:
-Whole Foods, while constantly being celebrated as a champion of fair wages and workers, has the majority of its employees on Medicaid.
-one third of American households haven negative wealth or no assets
-one in three Americans wouldn't be able to pay that months rent or mortgage if they lost their job
-the United States ranks lowest out of first world countries in terms of intergenerational wealth mobility
All this being said, the author said some pretty outrageous things were going on in KIPP schools that 100% are not. As a former teacher there, I was pretty horrified that said said students were regularly publicly shamed and wore signs that said MISCREANT as a punishment. The school I taught in had its fair share of issues, but that was not something that ever happened there.
Overall, I think her message was strong and I'm glad there are people out there who are starting to identify that wealthy people aren't smarter and harder working even though our culture reinforces that idea.
July 9, 2020
Succinct and sharp, The New Prophets of Capital discusses how the spirit of capitalism is being strengthened on different fronts. The book is divided into four sections: one that discusses Sheryl Sandberg's Feminist capitalism (or why women should also be capitalists), John Mackey's conscious capitalism (or why you should pay your workers, not destroy the environment and uh... sell the company to Jeff Bezos??), Oprah Winfrey's individualist perceptions (you should work harder, nothing else needs to change!), and the Gates' foundation's philanthrocapitalism (of course education and healthcare are commodities, not rights... right?).
My comments above might be laced with (a bit of) contempt at these capitalists, but Nicole Aschoff has done a great job at presenting the good that has come with the teachings of these prophets. All of the prophets identify valid problems in capitalism and the world at large, or at least approximately identify them, but their solutions ultimately entrench the current scheme of social relations and accumulations of wealth and power.
I think the dialectical analysis in this book was well done, and the main idea of organizing production around human needs, not profit-motives was effectively argued. We need to be aware of how capitalism absorbs its critiques and reframes them on its own terms. A multitude of approaches are needed to envision a different system, approaches that share between them ideas of democracy, de-commodification and redistribution.
My comments above might be laced with (a bit of) contempt at these capitalists, but Nicole Aschoff has done a great job at presenting the good that has come with the teachings of these prophets. All of the prophets identify valid problems in capitalism and the world at large, or at least approximately identify them, but their solutions ultimately entrench the current scheme of social relations and accumulations of wealth and power.
I think the dialectical analysis in this book was well done, and the main idea of organizing production around human needs, not profit-motives was effectively argued. We need to be aware of how capitalism absorbs its critiques and reframes them on its own terms. A multitude of approaches are needed to envision a different system, approaches that share between them ideas of democracy, de-commodification and redistribution.
December 2, 2019
Essays on the "progressive" capitalism of each of four billionaires: Sheryl Sandberg, John Mackey, Oprah and Bill Gates.
Sheryl Sandberg's boss-lady feminism is fine and well, but there's no guarantee that powerful women will address the needs of women lower in the hierarchy. John Mackey's Whole Foods is a better place to work than most groceries, but its employees still often work below the poverty line -- competition alone can't guarantee good conditions for workers. Oprah's feel-good philosophy and good deeds are heartwarming, but self-improvement and meditation can't address systemic socioeconomic divides. The Gates' Foundation has done incredible work in vaccine development, but their programs extending market principles to health care, education & agriculture are undemocratic and not clearly based in research.
The overall argument is that, while these elites may have good intentions (and even accomplish a lot), their stories ultimately serve to redefine and reinforce a fundamentally inequitable system. If this idea doesn't vaguely plausible to you going in, this book probably isn't for you. Otherwise, I found it a nice summary of these billionaires' ideas and a source of references. Basically, the author read Lean In so you don't have to (thank you, author).
Short, well-written, informative.
Sheryl Sandberg's boss-lady feminism is fine and well, but there's no guarantee that powerful women will address the needs of women lower in the hierarchy. John Mackey's Whole Foods is a better place to work than most groceries, but its employees still often work below the poverty line -- competition alone can't guarantee good conditions for workers. Oprah's feel-good philosophy and good deeds are heartwarming, but self-improvement and meditation can't address systemic socioeconomic divides. The Gates' Foundation has done incredible work in vaccine development, but their programs extending market principles to health care, education & agriculture are undemocratic and not clearly based in research.
The overall argument is that, while these elites may have good intentions (and even accomplish a lot), their stories ultimately serve to redefine and reinforce a fundamentally inequitable system. If this idea doesn't vaguely plausible to you going in, this book probably isn't for you. Otherwise, I found it a nice summary of these billionaires' ideas and a source of references. Basically, the author read Lean In so you don't have to (thank you, author).
Short, well-written, informative.
January 14, 2021
توی دوره و زمانهی سرسامآور و پرسروصدای ما دربارهی سرمایهداری هم مثل تقریباً هر رطب و یابس دیگری حرف و نقد زیاد زده شده و دائماً میشود. نقدهایی که به ندرت جدی و قابل اعتنا هستند و این کتاب قطعاً از این دسته نیست.
ایدهی اصلی کتاب را میشود در یک صورتبندی ساده اینطور بیان کنیم: پیشنهادهای سرمایهدارانی مثل بیل گیتس و شریل سندبرگ برای حل معضلات سرمایهداری با در نظر نگرفتن واقعیتهای اساسی نظام اقتصادی و اجتماعی عملاً ابزار توسعهی بیشتر بحران هستند. و خب، راهحل؟ یک نسخهی دستمالی شده از سوسیالم دموکراسی که پیچیدگیهای اولیه وضعیت موجود را هم نمیتواند حلاجی کند و معلوم نیست به چه چیزی ما را دعوت میکند. پیشنهادی که انگار یک دانشجوی پرشور با کمتوجهی معمول آدمها در این سن و سال و فضا آن را طرح کرده است.
توجه داشته باشید که زمینهی کتاب جامعهشناختی و اقتصادیست و نه فلسفی و به همین دلیل توقع کاربرد و کارآمدی و پیشنهاد ازش میرود و اگرنه با متون فلسفی دربارهی سرمایهداری جور دیگری باید مواجه شویم.
ترجمه پر دستانداز و معمولیست و کم نیست فرازهایی که این بیرمقیش واقعاً حوصله را سر میبرد.
ایدهی اصلی کتاب را میشود در یک صورتبندی ساده اینطور بیان کنیم: پیشنهادهای سرمایهدارانی مثل بیل گیتس و شریل سندبرگ برای حل معضلات سرمایهداری با در نظر نگرفتن واقعیتهای اساسی نظام اقتصادی و اجتماعی عملاً ابزار توسعهی بیشتر بحران هستند. و خب، راهحل؟ یک نسخهی دستمالی شده از سوسیالم دموکراسی که پیچیدگیهای اولیه وضعیت موجود را هم نمیتواند حلاجی کند و معلوم نیست به چه چیزی ما را دعوت میکند. پیشنهادی که انگار یک دانشجوی پرشور با کمتوجهی معمول آدمها در این سن و سال و فضا آن را طرح کرده است.
توجه داشته باشید که زمینهی کتاب جامعهشناختی و اقتصادیست و نه فلسفی و به همین دلیل توقع کاربرد و کارآمدی و پیشنهاد ازش میرود و اگرنه با متون فلسفی دربارهی سرمایهداری جور دیگری باید مواجه شویم.
ترجمه پر دستانداز و معمولیست و کم نیست فرازهایی که این بیرمقیش واقعاً حوصله را سر میبرد.
July 12, 2019
The New Prophets of Capitalism is not, as you might think from an initial reading of the title, a glorification of some of our demigods of Capitalism and market solutions. Ms. Aschoff is, dare it be said, a socialist, and while not dismissive of the virtues that the prophets, Sandberg (Facebook), Mackey (Whole Foods), Whinfrey (Oprah), and Gates (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) propound, she is not taken in by them either.
For all its ability to create wealth and generate profits, Ms. Aschoff argues that ideas like Lean In, eco-capitalism, personal empowerment, and philanthrocapitalism, will not, in and of themselves, end poverty, inequality, be it gender or wealth, and the like. Markets, designed to produce profits, are not enough and often, due to their very nature, continue to perpetuated the entrenched structural systems that oppress and diminish individual lives.
Should every aspect of our lives be market driven and orientated? The prophets say yes; the author argues no.
For all its ability to create wealth and generate profits, Ms. Aschoff argues that ideas like Lean In, eco-capitalism, personal empowerment, and philanthrocapitalism, will not, in and of themselves, end poverty, inequality, be it gender or wealth, and the like. Markets, designed to produce profits, are not enough and often, due to their very nature, continue to perpetuated the entrenched structural systems that oppress and diminish individual lives.
Should every aspect of our lives be market driven and orientated? The prophets say yes; the author argues no.
December 22, 2017
Couldn't help but think of Tommy the movie based on The Who's opera while I was reading this interesting book about this new prophets of capitalism; in a way it's like the successful Tommy when he preaches to the faithful that all you got to do is be deaf, dumb and blind and play pinball to be like him.
Now, this Ophras, Gateses, Mackey and Sandbergs shift to their successes the way of improve neoliberal capitalism through self help, commodification of education and healthcare, invented Ecologism and women in corporate and powerful places. Have this Sandberg lady noticed that a certain woman with power and an ex Potus husband is a war criminal?
Anyway, interesting analysis of these failed proposals by Nicole Aschoff while at the same time falls way short of proposing anti capitalist alternatives.
Good read.
Now, this Ophras, Gateses, Mackey and Sandbergs shift to their successes the way of improve neoliberal capitalism through self help, commodification of education and healthcare, invented Ecologism and women in corporate and powerful places. Have this Sandberg lady noticed that a certain woman with power and an ex Potus husband is a war criminal?
Anyway, interesting analysis of these failed proposals by Nicole Aschoff while at the same time falls way short of proposing anti capitalist alternatives.
Good read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews