Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
A decidedly academic text that is not as accessible as I'd hope for proletarian such as myself. Helpful in understanding how capitalism developed from specific historial and regional circumstances and influenced British colonialism.
This book does what it sets out to do, which is interrogate the common sense history of capitalism (which tends to present it as progressive or inevitable) and shows how the rise of capitalism was dependant on historical context and events in England in particular. She shows how capitalism has been used first to shore up the advantage of those who were already privileged and then how it has become a set of market imperatives rather than opportunities, driving its own growth.
Capitalism seems this way looks sort of cancerous, but the advantage to this view is Wood carefully shows how it is impossible for capitalism to be equitable or sustainable because it of the imperatives built into it, however it is possible for people to resist capitalism and find weak spots in it, which would seem to be the most sensible course.
The book was somewhat hard to read so that not everyone would get a lot out of it. It had many shorter, more easy to understand quotable snippets, was well structured and built its case carefully (with much attention to relevant writers in the field) but it was a heavy and hard text to read. I'd recommend it for people who read academic things mainly...there needs to be an easy version for most people I think.
I found it convincing and interesting.
Capitalism seems this way looks sort of cancerous, but the advantage to this view is Wood carefully shows how it is impossible for capitalism to be equitable or sustainable because it of the imperatives built into it, however it is possible for people to resist capitalism and find weak spots in it, which would seem to be the most sensible course.
The book was somewhat hard to read so that not everyone would get a lot out of it. It had many shorter, more easy to understand quotable snippets, was well structured and built its case carefully (with much attention to relevant writers in the field) but it was a heavy and hard text to read. I'd recommend it for people who read academic things mainly...there needs to be an easy version for most people I think.
I found it convincing and interesting.
England has killed us all, and the worst part about it is that this book convinced me that I can't even particularly blame them for it. It just... happened.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
sad
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Among the best historical works I've read. A compelling rebuttal to both the idea that capitalism was a natural step in the progression of history and the idea that capitalism arose from an intensified commercialism. Easy to follow along (at least for someone with Marxist jargon down). Especially found the section lengths to be perfect: not too long where it feels like a real time investment if I want to be able to stop at the end of a section/chapter, but not too short where it feels meaningless to even have section headings.
Wood argues that capitalism's roots required specific legal, ideological, and institutional support within a particular historic setting in feudal England to extend and ultimately globalize: a narrow but ultimately-compelling premise. I found her passages about the inherent market-based compulsions to exploitation upon capitalists, renters, and laborers especially interesting and applicable to thin soup of modern reformist policies which do not meaningfully address the difficulties faced by modern attempts to opt out of competition and alienation.
I did find some passages a bit dry and repetitive, if relatively brief.
I did find some passages a bit dry and repetitive, if relatively brief.
This is a short, dense and rewarding book. Although highly analytical I do wish the book somehow was even more clear in its arguments. To give but one example: "capitalist exploitation is characterised by a division of labour between the 'economic' moment of appropriation and the 'extra-economic' or 'political' moment of coercion." In this case, since this is a book about capitalism, the use of "division of labour" in the abstract sense is misleading. Here, Wood is not talking about labour at all, but about the means of capitalist control, or about the institutional structure of capitalism. Why not just write "...a division between..."? This lack of sharpness and clarity piles on, so that stretches of genius are intersperesed with unexpectedly bewildering paragraphs that require re-reading. One has very few points of disagreement with the author of this fantastic text - but one does wish that she might have had a more activist editor.
informative
medium-paced