Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
informative
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
While there are some great facts in here, the author draws nothing but wrong conclusions in her narrative, which, far from taking a longer view of capitalism, seems to place it right at its origin point around the time of Columbus. Far from being a leftist, progressive, or anarchist account of history, it's firmly couched in the politics of Liberal Democrats (which is to say that it's just as far right wing as Republicans)
She clearly suffered the myopia of her class and privilege, unable to recognize that markets were not opportunity for the vast majority, but a compulsion to slave labor, and refuses to trace a direct line back to Babylon, where it is very clear that tiny elites were stockpiling and controlling all resources in a fascist--which is to say capitalistic--fashion. Any delays in this sort of 'progress' was the work of outsiders, barbarians and Muslims directly named by her in racist fashion. She denies that her own bougie class equals capitalism, yet ludicrously states that you could have a capitalist establishment without the white collar class! Sorry honey, the professional, the intellectual, and (especially) the office holder in the modern age are just as evil as the merchants she decries from earlier periods. Capitalism does NOT have to be industrialized (though she could recognize that industrialized grain production did occur in the Fertile Crescent and settled society is the true origin of our capitalist 'instincts'). Excess grain was traded in the same way money is for luxuries that less than a percent of society could enjoy, protected by a military elite and small clerical class (which only differs in scale now).
Her narrow and myopic viewpoint allows her to ludicrously laud the virtue signaling bougie revolutions that have never served to help the masses, and accepts that markets are natural with the zeal of morons like Robert Reich, truly believing that markets are competitive and fair (rather than racist and constructed). The book is often obscure, not lucid, and makes crazy leaps of logic. She believes that technology is neutral and fails to recognize that the mercantile system codified by the bible is the true evil unleashed upon the world almost 2000 years before she suggests that our capitalistic system took hold. Yes, doll, commercial profit taking and capitalist accumulation are the exact same sort of evil. She even lauds this with the false concept of 'circulation', since the owners of small businesses did not take any active part in production. And that money ONLY circulated amongst their own class.
I could probably go on for days about her errors, but suffice it to say that she was a statist, an intellectual fraud, and certainly no forbear to any anarchist or progressive thinking (much less socialist, which she claimed to be). It's a dull drag to read as well, blurbed by a famous author with no talent who thought the prose was remarkably clear, as well as the arguments. Perhaps, but only to morons....
She clearly suffered the myopia of her class and privilege, unable to recognize that markets were not opportunity for the vast majority, but a compulsion to slave labor, and refuses to trace a direct line back to Babylon, where it is very clear that tiny elites were stockpiling and controlling all resources in a fascist--which is to say capitalistic--fashion. Any delays in this sort of 'progress' was the work of outsiders, barbarians and Muslims directly named by her in racist fashion. She denies that her own bougie class equals capitalism, yet ludicrously states that you could have a capitalist establishment without the white collar class! Sorry honey, the professional, the intellectual, and (especially) the office holder in the modern age are just as evil as the merchants she decries from earlier periods. Capitalism does NOT have to be industrialized (though she could recognize that industrialized grain production did occur in the Fertile Crescent and settled society is the true origin of our capitalist 'instincts'). Excess grain was traded in the same way money is for luxuries that less than a percent of society could enjoy, protected by a military elite and small clerical class (which only differs in scale now).
Her narrow and myopic viewpoint allows her to ludicrously laud the virtue signaling bougie revolutions that have never served to help the masses, and accepts that markets are natural with the zeal of morons like Robert Reich, truly believing that markets are competitive and fair (rather than racist and constructed). The book is often obscure, not lucid, and makes crazy leaps of logic. She believes that technology is neutral and fails to recognize that the mercantile system codified by the bible is the true evil unleashed upon the world almost 2000 years before she suggests that our capitalistic system took hold. Yes, doll, commercial profit taking and capitalist accumulation are the exact same sort of evil. She even lauds this with the false concept of 'circulation', since the owners of small businesses did not take any active part in production. And that money ONLY circulated amongst their own class.
I could probably go on for days about her errors, but suffice it to say that she was a statist, an intellectual fraud, and certainly no forbear to any anarchist or progressive thinking (much less socialist, which she claimed to be). It's a dull drag to read as well, blurbed by a famous author with no talent who thought the prose was remarkably clear, as well as the arguments. Perhaps, but only to morons....
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Impenetrable. The author doesn’t describe any of the terms she uses.
A typical sentence: “The old models of capital development were a paradoxical blend of trans-historical determinism and free-market volunteerism.”
Nor does she provide many concrete examples when supporting or refuting an existing argument.
There are good ideas here, and I like that the author is challenging existing perspectives. I love learning new ways of thinking. But I can’t say I really _understand_.
A typical sentence: “The old models of capital development were a paradoxical blend of trans-historical determinism and free-market volunteerism.”
Nor does she provide many concrete examples when supporting or refuting an existing argument.
There are good ideas here, and I like that the author is challenging existing perspectives. I love learning new ways of thinking. But I can’t say I really _understand_.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Slow, slow, slow, but with such detailed and specific insights. A bit repetitive, especially in the beginning, generally trending more interesting towards the end of the book. I feel more equipped to have in depth conversations about capitalism, and knowing where it came from means I can better see where it is going.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
If you want to understand what capitalism really is and how it really developed, this is the book to read.