What do you think?
Rate this book
Sociology, Capitalism, Critique
Three radical perspectives on the critique of capitalism
For years, the critique of capitalism was lost from public discourse; the very word “capitalism” sounded like a throwback to another era. Nothing could be further from the truth today. In this new intellectual atmosphere, Sociology, Capitalism, Critique is a contribution to the renewal of critical sociology, founded on an empirically grounded diagnosis of society’s ills. The authors, Germany’s leading critical sociologists—Klaus Dörre, Stephan Lessenich, and Hartmut Rosa—share a conviction that ours is a pivotal period of renewal, in which the collective endeavour of academics can amount to an act of intellectual resistance, working to prevent any regressive development that might return us to neoliberal domination.
The authors discuss key issues, such as questions of accumulation and expropriation; discipline and freedom; and the powerful new concepts of activation and acceleration. Their politically committed sociology, which takes the side of the losers in the current crisis, places society’s future well-being at the centre of their research.
Their collective approach to this project is a conscious effort to avoid co-optation in the institutional practices of the academy. These three differing but complementary perspectives serve as an insightful introduction to the contemporary themes of radical sociology in capitalism’s post-crisis phase.
For years, the critique of capitalism was lost from public discourse; the very word “capitalism” sounded like a throwback to another era. Nothing could be further from the truth today. In this new intellectual atmosphere, Sociology, Capitalism, Critique is a contribution to the renewal of critical sociology, founded on an empirically grounded diagnosis of society’s ills. The authors, Germany’s leading critical sociologists—Klaus Dörre, Stephan Lessenich, and Hartmut Rosa—share a conviction that ours is a pivotal period of renewal, in which the collective endeavour of academics can amount to an act of intellectual resistance, working to prevent any regressive development that might return us to neoliberal domination.
The authors discuss key issues, such as questions of accumulation and expropriation; discipline and freedom; and the powerful new concepts of activation and acceleration. Their politically committed sociology, which takes the side of the losers in the current crisis, places society’s future well-being at the centre of their research.
Their collective approach to this project is a conscious effort to avoid co-optation in the institutional practices of the academy. These three differing but complementary perspectives serve as an insightful introduction to the contemporary themes of radical sociology in capitalism’s post-crisis phase.
352 pages, Paperback
First published October 25, 2009
15 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
About the author
Klaus Dörre
49 books2 followersKlaus Dörre is Professor of Sociology at the Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena (Germany) where he chairs the Department of Labor, Industrial and Economic Sociology. He specialises in the Sociology of Labour as well as industrial and economic sociology. His areas of research include the theory of capitalism, finance capitalism, flexible and precarious employment, labour relations and strategic unionism, and the Green New Deal, among others. He is the current director of the German Research Foundation research group Post-Growth Societies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 1, 2018
Three German sociologists each submit their own critique of capitalism in three opening essays, then each makes a robust attack on the other two essays, while defending their own. The format turns out to be effective in making the material come alive: making the various insights seem relevant and the differences of opinion seem important. Unusually, for all I know uniquely, this is a book by no less than three German sociologists that can be read by civilians without incurring brain melt. What emerges is a sobering reflection on the hostile conditions in which people are presently attempting to construct lives for themselves and their families.
They recognise (without accepting) the widespread conviction that capitalism in some form may always be necessary. “James Fulcher takes an unambiguous stance on this question: ‘The search for an alternative to capitalism is fruitless … Those who wish to reform the world should focus on the potential for change within capitalism’. [P87] “Another line of argument could be that which Marx deployed against his anarchist critics: capitalism, just as the capitalist state, cannot be ‘abolished.” [P302]
More to the point, capitalism is all pervasive: for this reason, if no other, merely in order to do their job at all, it is necessary for sociologists to provide a meaningful account of capitalism. Lessenich writes: “Should sociology take this task seriously, it will have to recognise and come to terms with the fact that the capitalist form of social order found in contemporary societies (not only) of the West represents the basic determining factor forming, shaping, and transforming the conditions under which subjects individually and collectively pursue their own life plans.” [P141]
If Capitalism is indeed pervasive, they do not accept the resulting illusion that capitalism is inevitable or can be regarded as an impersonal force of nature, beyond the reach of informed policy making, since there are more than a few quite different forms of capitalism to be considered. In one sentence, Rosa lists “Manchester Capitalism and social market economy; early capitalism; Fordism and flexible post-Fordism; as well as Anglo-Saxon, Rhenish and Southeast Asian Capitalism” [p113] and his list does not even include Dorre’s main preoccupation, which is financial capitalism. The differences are quite systematic, differing not just historically but also between different countries in the same time periods (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Norway, Britain, the USA are all, after all, capitalist economies: “Just as all cats are grey by night, so is capitalism always capitalism.” P218). These differences demand an explanation, which can only be found by examining the political processes by which those various conditions have been established, organised and enforced. Behind the so called “hidden hand” of the market, they find the perfectly visible hand of the state.
Lessenich in particular describes how capitalism and the welfare state are entirely interdependent and complementary. Recent transformations in the organisation of the market have been associated with corresponding changes to all aspects of the welfare state. The point is that it is not sufficient for society to be arranged in a particular way, it is also necessary for people to be brought to believe that this is how things ought to be, even if the laws of nature have to be rewritten for that purpose. He writes, for example: “The fact that the Federal Republic of (West) Germany in a specific world-economic and geopolitical constellation still managed – thanks to an expanding welfare state that was not only active in terms of social policy in the strict sense but also in terms of economic, fiscal, infrastructural and subsidies-related policies – to become one of the world’s leading industrial nations is obscured by a negative retrospective myth-making designed to politically discredit the antiquated welfare-state agenda of political regulation, social protection and economic redistribution (however limited the latter may be). The relevant institutional mechanism is well-known to sociology: the ‘old’ is portrayed to be obviously unsustainable, indeed even mischievous and reprehensible, so as to then let the ‘new’(a different welfare state, an altered regime of state activity) appear all the more plausible and inevitable; to turn it into ‘the conclusion of a long chain of imperative “necessities”’. As we know, such a view of the old versus the new – if repeated and heard often enough – will begin to seem perfectly plausible; positive and negative readings are gradually perceived as self-evident, indeed as ‘true’.” [P184]
Dorre deals with the same argument in his own way. writing that “capitalism was never, not even in its beginnings, a self-regulating market economy; rather, the state served as a crucial midwife of the new mode of production. It ensured that market formation occurred under the conditions of structural power asymmetries. ... Market formation during that centuries-long period of primitive accumulation was, then, a process to a large extent politically motivated and marked by power asymmetries. Marx held the view, however, that political coercion, including open violence in its most extensive manifestation, would remain a mere episode in the early history of capitalism. Over the course of history, a class of workers that ‘by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of that mode of production as self-evident laws of Nature’ would emerge. Violence outside the economic realm would only be deployed in exceptional cases, but usually, the workers could be left to the ‘natural laws of production’. ‘The dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjection of the labourer to the capitalist’.” [P41]
Yet what can be decided politically can be changed politically. As Dorre writes, wittily enough: “no historical social formation has a monopoly on eternity. After all, the example of state-bureaucratic socialism has shown rather clearly how quickly scientifically veiled guarantees can be embarrassed by reality.” [P90]
Rosa sums up his view of the debate as follows: “The authors of this volume unanimously agree on three points: firstly, social critique represents both a vital impulse and an indispensable component of sociology; secondly, such a social critique requires a careful diagnosis of the times; and thirdly, neither in modernity nor in the present day can such a diagnosis of the times do without an analysis of capitalism.” [P240] “...the argument against the contemporary capitalist social formation then would read: firstly , the formation is not sustainable over the long term, and secondly , the formation is unjust. I see nothing stopping us from adding to these two points that, thirdly , it systematically makes us unhappy.” [P241]
One contribution Rosa makes to the debate is a discussion of the nature of sociology, which is worth describing here. He writes: “Whether we choose to believe it or not, the ultimate object of sociology, though rarely articulated (at least not consciously), is the question of the good life , or more precisely: the analysis of the social conditions under which a successful life is possible.” [P103] “In my view, sociology is born out of the diffuse but probably universal basic human perception that ‘something is wrong here’.” [P104] “What the analyses of the sociological classics, from Marx to Durkheim and from Weber to Simmel or Tönnies, have in common is that they all proceed from the observation of massive changes in the conditions of life – leading to the classical juxtaposition of ‘archaic’ versus ‘modern’ societies described by all the founding fathers of sociology – and that they all exhibit great concern for the consequences these changes may have for the human condition. These include, for example, alienation and demystification in Marx and Weber; anomie, loss of a sense of community, and the disappearance of individuality in Durkheim, Simmel and Tönnies. Underlying this socio-critical dimension of the sociological classics we find always the fear of both an almost ‘invisible’ loss of freedom which lurks behind modernity’s manifest liberalism – or rather, under its ‘steely shell’ – as well as a loss of meaning (as the downside of the possibility for individual self-determination).” [Pp 105, 106]
They recognise (without accepting) the widespread conviction that capitalism in some form may always be necessary. “James Fulcher takes an unambiguous stance on this question: ‘The search for an alternative to capitalism is fruitless … Those who wish to reform the world should focus on the potential for change within capitalism’. [P87] “Another line of argument could be that which Marx deployed against his anarchist critics: capitalism, just as the capitalist state, cannot be ‘abolished.” [P302]
More to the point, capitalism is all pervasive: for this reason, if no other, merely in order to do their job at all, it is necessary for sociologists to provide a meaningful account of capitalism. Lessenich writes: “Should sociology take this task seriously, it will have to recognise and come to terms with the fact that the capitalist form of social order found in contemporary societies (not only) of the West represents the basic determining factor forming, shaping, and transforming the conditions under which subjects individually and collectively pursue their own life plans.” [P141]
If Capitalism is indeed pervasive, they do not accept the resulting illusion that capitalism is inevitable or can be regarded as an impersonal force of nature, beyond the reach of informed policy making, since there are more than a few quite different forms of capitalism to be considered. In one sentence, Rosa lists “Manchester Capitalism and social market economy; early capitalism; Fordism and flexible post-Fordism; as well as Anglo-Saxon, Rhenish and Southeast Asian Capitalism” [p113] and his list does not even include Dorre’s main preoccupation, which is financial capitalism. The differences are quite systematic, differing not just historically but also between different countries in the same time periods (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Norway, Britain, the USA are all, after all, capitalist economies: “Just as all cats are grey by night, so is capitalism always capitalism.” P218). These differences demand an explanation, which can only be found by examining the political processes by which those various conditions have been established, organised and enforced. Behind the so called “hidden hand” of the market, they find the perfectly visible hand of the state.
Lessenich in particular describes how capitalism and the welfare state are entirely interdependent and complementary. Recent transformations in the organisation of the market have been associated with corresponding changes to all aspects of the welfare state. The point is that it is not sufficient for society to be arranged in a particular way, it is also necessary for people to be brought to believe that this is how things ought to be, even if the laws of nature have to be rewritten for that purpose. He writes, for example: “The fact that the Federal Republic of (West) Germany in a specific world-economic and geopolitical constellation still managed – thanks to an expanding welfare state that was not only active in terms of social policy in the strict sense but also in terms of economic, fiscal, infrastructural and subsidies-related policies – to become one of the world’s leading industrial nations is obscured by a negative retrospective myth-making designed to politically discredit the antiquated welfare-state agenda of political regulation, social protection and economic redistribution (however limited the latter may be). The relevant institutional mechanism is well-known to sociology: the ‘old’ is portrayed to be obviously unsustainable, indeed even mischievous and reprehensible, so as to then let the ‘new’(a different welfare state, an altered regime of state activity) appear all the more plausible and inevitable; to turn it into ‘the conclusion of a long chain of imperative “necessities”’. As we know, such a view of the old versus the new – if repeated and heard often enough – will begin to seem perfectly plausible; positive and negative readings are gradually perceived as self-evident, indeed as ‘true’.” [P184]
Dorre deals with the same argument in his own way. writing that “capitalism was never, not even in its beginnings, a self-regulating market economy; rather, the state served as a crucial midwife of the new mode of production. It ensured that market formation occurred under the conditions of structural power asymmetries. ... Market formation during that centuries-long period of primitive accumulation was, then, a process to a large extent politically motivated and marked by power asymmetries. Marx held the view, however, that political coercion, including open violence in its most extensive manifestation, would remain a mere episode in the early history of capitalism. Over the course of history, a class of workers that ‘by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of that mode of production as self-evident laws of Nature’ would emerge. Violence outside the economic realm would only be deployed in exceptional cases, but usually, the workers could be left to the ‘natural laws of production’. ‘The dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjection of the labourer to the capitalist’.” [P41]
Yet what can be decided politically can be changed politically. As Dorre writes, wittily enough: “no historical social formation has a monopoly on eternity. After all, the example of state-bureaucratic socialism has shown rather clearly how quickly scientifically veiled guarantees can be embarrassed by reality.” [P90]
Rosa sums up his view of the debate as follows: “The authors of this volume unanimously agree on three points: firstly, social critique represents both a vital impulse and an indispensable component of sociology; secondly, such a social critique requires a careful diagnosis of the times; and thirdly, neither in modernity nor in the present day can such a diagnosis of the times do without an analysis of capitalism.” [P240] “...the argument against the contemporary capitalist social formation then would read: firstly , the formation is not sustainable over the long term, and secondly , the formation is unjust. I see nothing stopping us from adding to these two points that, thirdly , it systematically makes us unhappy.” [P241]
One contribution Rosa makes to the debate is a discussion of the nature of sociology, which is worth describing here. He writes: “Whether we choose to believe it or not, the ultimate object of sociology, though rarely articulated (at least not consciously), is the question of the good life , or more precisely: the analysis of the social conditions under which a successful life is possible.” [P103] “In my view, sociology is born out of the diffuse but probably universal basic human perception that ‘something is wrong here’.” [P104] “What the analyses of the sociological classics, from Marx to Durkheim and from Weber to Simmel or Tönnies, have in common is that they all proceed from the observation of massive changes in the conditions of life – leading to the classical juxtaposition of ‘archaic’ versus ‘modern’ societies described by all the founding fathers of sociology – and that they all exhibit great concern for the consequences these changes may have for the human condition. These include, for example, alienation and demystification in Marx and Weber; anomie, loss of a sense of community, and the disappearance of individuality in Durkheim, Simmel and Tönnies. Underlying this socio-critical dimension of the sociological classics we find always the fear of both an almost ‘invisible’ loss of freedom which lurks behind modernity’s manifest liberalism – or rather, under its ‘steely shell’ – as well as a loss of meaning (as the downside of the possibility for individual self-determination).” [Pp 105, 106]
June 2, 2021
C'était difficile mais très stimulant. 3 sociologues, 3 critiques du capitalisme. Le travail intellectuel derrière ce livre est incroyable. Les auteurs, après avoir présenté leur analyse, se critiquent mutuellement et ripostent ensuite à chaque critique émise. En ressort une co-construction fascinante, une pensée approfondie et articulée et une vision, si elle n'est pas nécessairement à 100% partagée, augmentée et bonifiée par le regard de l'autre. Un exercice exemplaire qui démontre les gains incroyables qui sont possibles lorsque l'échange d'idées est mis de l'avant.
September 22, 2018
Contemporary sociological theory, like much other thinking about the world, our place in it and how it all works has been in a state of flux for some time. Whereas some modes of thought, economics for example, have in the wake of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) been marked by a retreat to recent orthodoxy, other forms of social theory have been characterised by fairly dynamic debate and rethinking of some of the big issues (not that much of this is making its way in policy and institutional practice, most of which remains dominated by 1950s structural functionalism). Not so Dörre, Lessenich and Rosa, colleagues at the University of Jena and among some of the most well-known names in German critical theory. This wonderful book is a sign of why they should be more widely recognised.
There were two ways I considered into this review; the first was to explore, tease out and unpack the arguments the authors make: consider Dörre’s highlighting of the contemporary structural significance of Landnahme (very close to the ideas of primitive accumulation David Harvey has been accentuating in his discussions of Marx over the last 10-or-15 years), Rosa’s emphasis on the cultural significance of acceleration (implicitly but not explicitly drawing on ideas circulating around analyses by the Italian workerists and similar thinkers, most notably Paul Virillo) and Lessenech’s prioritisation of activation (activity, movement and so forth) as a social force. These are all powerful ideas that have had a major influence in critical social theory for the last 20 or more years, and deserve full and comprehensive treatment. The discussions are packed full of insight, of critique and extension of major trends in contemporary, left-ish, social analyses and BIG theory. Newcomers to these approaches need not worry; Dörre, Lessenich and Rosa do a good job of explaining them. This is not to say this is an easy read: it is demanding, requiring concentration, patience and focus: be prepared to stop, go back and re-read.
The second, and the more important approach, is to review, discuss and explore the structure of this/these analyses – because in many respects that is the more important knowledge for readers setting out on this adventure in recent critical social theory. In short, this is not a single coherent analysis where three learned thinkers have got together to work through a coherent, overarching analysis of the state of the post-GFC world (the original German edition was in 2009); this is a debate. Dörre, Rosa and Lessenich each make their case for Landnahme, acceleration and activation respectively as the best way into making sense of the current condition; each then responds to the other two; each then responds to those responses. After 240 pages of this trialogue there is a 7 page jointly authored conclusion where they remind us that amid all this debate, critique, jockeying for position and all there is more they agree about than disagree on, but at the heart of that agreement is the place and role of critical sociology as a tool of public debate, engagement and responsibility.
The effect of this three way discussion/conversation marked by a deep sense of collegiality (comradeship even) where it is clear that these authors show great respect for their co-authors’ views and analyses is a fabulously open debate that doesn’t close down scholarship and growth through the assertion of a single voice, but opens up options. That is not to say that each of the authors is anything other than forthright in the evaluations and critiques of the other two (there is a sense, a suspicion I have, that there is a bit of dramatic effect involved in the trialogue, which is not to say they are insincere in their positions): there are places where blows land hard but they are both made respectfully and responded to generously.
For this English language 2015 edition each author has added a 5-years-later review of developments, principally focussed on the GFC but not exclusively, as a self-critical review of the position they advocate for. Dörre and Rosa are sceptical both of themselves and their approaches – emphasising Landnahme and acceleration – to that extent that their more empirically grounded discussions disrupt but to a large degree uphold their earlier positions. Lessenich is not so certain of his approach, not that he rejects activation as a driving force in contemporary social practice, but he revisits some of his terminology and in doing so reframes elements of his position, with the unfortunate result that his Afterword is more theoretically dense than the other two undermining some of that empirical engagement.
I was more comfortable in Dörre and Rosa’s discussion, mainly because I have a greater level of engagement with notions of ‘primitive accumulation’ (Landnahme) and acceleration than I am with the body of work around activation. Part of that is a scepticism about many of the aspects of activation that feed into a ‘citizenship through volunteering’ kind of approach (in Britain, these ideas to a large extent underpinned the Tories’ ‘Big Society’ policies of the early 2010s, but also much wider discussions of and emphases on volunteering), and I admit a tendency to see acceleration and activation as aspects of the same dynamic (and no doubt many would say an unresolved Marxist economism in my outlooks). All of this meant that I had to work harder to get a handle on Lessenich’s part of this trialogue; I suspect I’m not alone in finding aspects of the discussions more accessible because of other engagements with the approaches.
Despite the extra demands of Lessenich’s contributions, or perhaps because of them, I found not only the open, discursive form of the debates rewarding and engaging but also the overall approach that allowed me to begin to integrate these three social dynamics in productive ways that in part took me back to some of the discussions in Boltanski and Chiapello’s superb The New Spirit of Capitalism to work out what is distinctive about not just finance capitalism but the social order since the GFC. I’m still thinking on that one….
This is an important contribution to contemporary social and political thought, and a demanding but rewarding set of analyses that should be used to launch further discussions and interpretations; take it slowly, it is well worth it.
There were two ways I considered into this review; the first was to explore, tease out and unpack the arguments the authors make: consider Dörre’s highlighting of the contemporary structural significance of Landnahme (very close to the ideas of primitive accumulation David Harvey has been accentuating in his discussions of Marx over the last 10-or-15 years), Rosa’s emphasis on the cultural significance of acceleration (implicitly but not explicitly drawing on ideas circulating around analyses by the Italian workerists and similar thinkers, most notably Paul Virillo) and Lessenech’s prioritisation of activation (activity, movement and so forth) as a social force. These are all powerful ideas that have had a major influence in critical social theory for the last 20 or more years, and deserve full and comprehensive treatment. The discussions are packed full of insight, of critique and extension of major trends in contemporary, left-ish, social analyses and BIG theory. Newcomers to these approaches need not worry; Dörre, Lessenich and Rosa do a good job of explaining them. This is not to say this is an easy read: it is demanding, requiring concentration, patience and focus: be prepared to stop, go back and re-read.
The second, and the more important approach, is to review, discuss and explore the structure of this/these analyses – because in many respects that is the more important knowledge for readers setting out on this adventure in recent critical social theory. In short, this is not a single coherent analysis where three learned thinkers have got together to work through a coherent, overarching analysis of the state of the post-GFC world (the original German edition was in 2009); this is a debate. Dörre, Rosa and Lessenich each make their case for Landnahme, acceleration and activation respectively as the best way into making sense of the current condition; each then responds to the other two; each then responds to those responses. After 240 pages of this trialogue there is a 7 page jointly authored conclusion where they remind us that amid all this debate, critique, jockeying for position and all there is more they agree about than disagree on, but at the heart of that agreement is the place and role of critical sociology as a tool of public debate, engagement and responsibility.
The effect of this three way discussion/conversation marked by a deep sense of collegiality (comradeship even) where it is clear that these authors show great respect for their co-authors’ views and analyses is a fabulously open debate that doesn’t close down scholarship and growth through the assertion of a single voice, but opens up options. That is not to say that each of the authors is anything other than forthright in the evaluations and critiques of the other two (there is a sense, a suspicion I have, that there is a bit of dramatic effect involved in the trialogue, which is not to say they are insincere in their positions): there are places where blows land hard but they are both made respectfully and responded to generously.
For this English language 2015 edition each author has added a 5-years-later review of developments, principally focussed on the GFC but not exclusively, as a self-critical review of the position they advocate for. Dörre and Rosa are sceptical both of themselves and their approaches – emphasising Landnahme and acceleration – to that extent that their more empirically grounded discussions disrupt but to a large degree uphold their earlier positions. Lessenich is not so certain of his approach, not that he rejects activation as a driving force in contemporary social practice, but he revisits some of his terminology and in doing so reframes elements of his position, with the unfortunate result that his Afterword is more theoretically dense than the other two undermining some of that empirical engagement.
I was more comfortable in Dörre and Rosa’s discussion, mainly because I have a greater level of engagement with notions of ‘primitive accumulation’ (Landnahme) and acceleration than I am with the body of work around activation. Part of that is a scepticism about many of the aspects of activation that feed into a ‘citizenship through volunteering’ kind of approach (in Britain, these ideas to a large extent underpinned the Tories’ ‘Big Society’ policies of the early 2010s, but also much wider discussions of and emphases on volunteering), and I admit a tendency to see acceleration and activation as aspects of the same dynamic (and no doubt many would say an unresolved Marxist economism in my outlooks). All of this meant that I had to work harder to get a handle on Lessenich’s part of this trialogue; I suspect I’m not alone in finding aspects of the discussions more accessible because of other engagements with the approaches.
Despite the extra demands of Lessenich’s contributions, or perhaps because of them, I found not only the open, discursive form of the debates rewarding and engaging but also the overall approach that allowed me to begin to integrate these three social dynamics in productive ways that in part took me back to some of the discussions in Boltanski and Chiapello’s superb The New Spirit of Capitalism to work out what is distinctive about not just finance capitalism but the social order since the GFC. I’m still thinking on that one….
This is an important contribution to contemporary social and political thought, and a demanding but rewarding set of analyses that should be used to launch further discussions and interpretations; take it slowly, it is well worth it.
November 11, 2022
Simply brilliant. I won't even attempt to summarize the vast scholarship undertaken in this book. I also won't critique the critiques, as that voids the spirit in which the work was created. I will merely say this book made me think. A lot. And any book that accomplishes that is surely worth all five stars from me.
An incredibly dense and academic roundtable that might leave you speechless, frustrated, angry, or quite sad. Whichever, or whichever other feelings it engenders, this is a fabulous study worth focused reading and contemplation.
An incredibly dense and academic roundtable that might leave you speechless, frustrated, angry, or quite sad. Whichever, or whichever other feelings it engenders, this is a fabulous study worth focused reading and contemplation.
May 18, 2020
Much needed discussion on the role of sociology in the process of Capitalism’s Critique. All authors contribute a lot of important insights on the individually perceived capitalist system “meltdown”. Even though they represent German scientific circles they speak of universal global processes tearing apart Capitalist countries of western hemisphere – and apparent urgent need to move away from the “Holy Grail” of neo-liberal “mantra” – GROWTH. They clearly explain that growth economy is in its agony
Good book for current COVID-19 times and what will come after ☺
Good book for current COVID-19 times and what will come after ☺
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews