In this book, a self-titled quintet of sociologists, revolving around the "world systems" thinker Immanuel Wallerstein, analyses the current crises ofIn this book, a self-titled quintet of sociologists, revolving around the "world systems" thinker Immanuel Wallerstein, analyses the current crises of capitalism and its future prospects.
Is capitalism coming to an end? Nobody seems to know. But everybody pretends to have an answer - or at least used to, not that long ago. It used to be commonplace to hold the socialist (dialectical) view that capitalism was a historical epoch waiting to be undone by the forces of historical necessity. Wallerstein and Collins present a more sophisticated but no less anachronistic Marxian view of this thesis. The three other authors in the work complement their approach - sometimes to the point of superfluity - but also occasionally (although a bit timidly to my taste!) challenge the historical determinism of Wallerstein and company, embedded in their grand systems theorizing. The book thus offers a range of views: it oscillates between coldly analytical pessimism, on one hand, and a slightly more optimistic vision of capitalism's near future, on the other hand.
The end result is a mixed bag. There is verbosity that hides empirical shallowness, and there is a veneer of analytical jargon that barely masks an ideological commitment. The Marxian framework, even in its attenuated and updated form, is largely discredited, and for a good reason - and, reading its desperate attempts at relevance, the results continue to disappoint in a predictable way. As an attempt at a complex systems theoretical view of history, Wallerstein's paper is certainly interesting, but Michael Mann's more centrist (and economically literate) paper is more convincing. (If the book did not include the more balanced views of Mann and Calhoun, this would get 2 stars.)
There is no massive range of views on display, here, despite the presence of five authors. The discussion is between Marx and Piketty - or, at most, Keynes. All the authors, agree, for example, that "neoliberalism" is a terrible thing. That the authors (especially the Marxists among them) are unable to distinguish "neoliberalism" from conservatism, or even the mere class interest of the ruling class, is not surprising, considering the pedigree of this view; but it is still lamentable, since it distorts the analysis. A fairer account of neoliberalism, as an engine of humanitarian progress(ive politics), would have made the analysis more interesting. Where are all the dissenters? (Hopefully not in the Gulag...)
The authors have done their homework, and they often have a pretty good ("B-" level) grasp of the general trends of economic, social and ecological development. They pass for academics; which is good, because that's what they are. But, at the same time, the unoriginal predictions about climate change scenarios and editorial musings about the scourge of "neoliberalism" are quite boring and bland. A systems level theorist can apparently get away with knowing a little about a lot; and with showing off this knowledge like a proud peacock with embarrassingly ordinary charms. Such "second-handedness", combined with the heard-it-all-before leftist framework, makes some of the essays read like "best of" entries of uninspired Guardian editorials and The Nation diatribes.
What's worse, the question of capitalism's future is not answered. The open-ended nature of predictions is disappointing if unsurprising. Very little is predicted that is not vague and/or trivial.
Vagueness is understandable, considering the complexity of the forces at play in the world. But it begs the question, does "capitalism" even denote a coherent "system" that can be analysed? If we forgo the notion of historical determinism, is anything left of the notion of "THE" capitalism? Perhaps the sociologists are simply grasping at straws at trying to define the undefinable? However, there is one big prediction. Committing to a specific prediction of a major crisis of capitalism around the years 2030-2050 (as Wallerstein and Collins do) is, at least, one clear falsifiable hypothesis. We shall see, I guess - or not; will we be able to know "the end of capitalism" when we see it?
While the "end is nigh" prophecies have proven to be quite premature, the self-evident (but oft forgotten) notion that world history goes through phases of radical transformation remains a fruitful one. All the assumptions that people hold dear are liable to be overturned in the future. History is change. It remains important to analyse the push and pull of the various forces that hold societies together - and inevitably pull them apart. The Marxian lens is a distorted and semi-falsified one, but the "world system" sociological perspective, due to its synoptic and systems-building character, has lasting merit. Their combination is necessarily cloudy - and, at the same time, unnecessarily cloudy, since there are better frameworks out there for people to seek out.
Nonetheless, there is enough substance here to be worth dipping into, even as an adversary, if you care about the "big picture" view of economic and social changes. As a quintet that plays the same tune, the book is bloated and self-congratulatory, so there is no particular reason to read the WHOLE collection. I would recommend just reading Mann's and Wallerstein's contributions; and perhaps the more synoptic, embattled conclusion, where the five authors combine their voices. Despite its ideological blindness and occasional drops in quality - but no compensating drops in quantity - the book can provide some decent reading material, next to some better texts, for grad students learning the meaning of the words "juxtaposition", "stuffy academia" and "ideology."
Merged review:
In this book, a self-titled quintet of sociologists, revolving around the "world systems" thinker Immanuel Wallerstein, analyses the current crises of capitalism and its future prospects.
Is capitalism coming to an end? Nobody seems to know. But everybody pretends to have an answer - or at least used to, not that long ago. It used to be commonplace to hold the socialist (dialectical) view that capitalism was a historical epoch waiting to be undone by the forces of historical necessity. Wallerstein and Collins present a more sophisticated but no less anachronistic Marxian view of this thesis. The three other authors in the work complement their approach - sometimes to the point of superfluity - but also occasionally (although a bit timidly to my taste!) challenge the historical determinism of Wallerstein and company, embedded in their grand systems theorizing. The book thus offers a range of views: it oscillates between coldly analytical pessimism, on one hand, and a slightly more optimistic vision of capitalism's near future, on the other hand.
The end result is a mixed bag. There is verbosity that hides empirical shallowness, and there is a veneer of analytical jargon that barely masks an ideological commitment. The Marxian framework, even in its attenuated and updated form, is largely discredited, and for a good reason - and, reading its desperate attempts at relevance, the results continue to disappoint in a predictable way. As an attempt at a complex systems theoretical view of history, Wallerstein's paper is certainly interesting, but Michael Mann's more centrist (and economically literate) paper is more convincing. (If the book did not include the more balanced views of Mann and Calhoun, this would get 2 stars.)
There is no massive range of views on display, here, despite the presence of five authors. The discussion is between Marx and Piketty - or, at most, Keynes. All the authors, agree, for example, that "neoliberalism" is a terrible thing. That the authors (especially the Marxists among them) are unable to distinguish "neoliberalism" from conservatism, or even the mere class interest of the ruling class, is not surprising, considering the pedigree of this view; but it is still lamentable, since it distorts the analysis. A fairer account of neoliberalism, as an engine of humanitarian progress(ive politics), would have made the analysis more interesting. Where are all the dissenters? (Hopefully not in the Gulag...)
The authors have done their homework, and they often have a pretty good ("B-" level) grasp of the general trends of economic, social and ecological development. They pass for academics; which is good, because that's what they are. But, at the same time, the unoriginal predictions about climate change scenarios and editorial musings about the scourge of "neoliberalism" are quite boring and bland. A systems level theorist can apparently get away with knowing a little about a lot; and with showing off this knowledge like a proud peacock with embarrassingly ordinary charms. Such "second-handedness", combined with the heard-it-all-before leftist framework, makes some of the essays read like "best of" entries of uninspired Guardian editorials and The Nation diatribes.
What's worse, the question of capitalism's future is not answered. The open-ended nature of predictions is disappointing if unsurprising. Very little is predicted that is not vague and/or trivial.
Vagueness is understandable, considering the complexity of the forces at play in the world. But it begs the question, does "capitalism" even denote a coherent "system" that can be analysed? If we forgo the notion of historical determinism, is anything left of the notion of "THE" capitalism? Perhaps the sociologists are simply grasping at straws at trying to define the undefinable? However, there is one big prediction. Committing to a specific prediction of a major crisis of capitalism around the years 2030-2050 (as Wallerstein and Collins do) is, at least, one clear falsifiable hypothesis. We shall see, I guess - or not; will we be able to know "the end of capitalism" when we see it?
While the "end is nigh" prophecies have proven to be quite premature, the self-evident (but oft forgotten) notion that world history goes through phases of radical transformation remains a fruitful one. All the assumptions that people hold dear are liable to be overturned in the future. History is change. It remains important to analyse the push and pull of the various forces that hold societies together - and inevitably pull them apart. The Marxian lens is a distorted and semi-falsified one, but the "world system" sociological perspective, due to its synoptic and systems-building character, has lasting merit. Their combination is necessarily cloudy - and, at the same time, unnecessarily cloudy, since there are better frameworks out there for people to seek out.
Nonetheless, there is enough substance here to be worth dipping into, even as an adversary, if you care about the "big picture" view of economic and social changes. As a quintet that plays the same tune, the book is bloated and self-congratulatory, so there is no particular reason to read the WHOLE collection. I would recommend just reading Mann's and Wallerstein's contributions; and perhaps the more synoptic, embattled conclusion, where the five authors combine their voices. Despite its ideological blindness and occasional drops in quality - but no compensating drops in quantity - the book can provide some decent reading material, next to some better texts, for grad students learning the meaning of the words "juxtaposition", "stuffy academia" and "ideology."...more
It's been more than a decade since I read it, so I don't remember much. But I recall really liking it. Laing was scandalous, radical, and most of all It's been more than a decade since I read it, so I don't remember much. But I recall really liking it. Laing was scandalous, radical, and most of all humanistic....more
Loading...
