Sebastien's Reviews > Disassembly Required: A Field Guide to Actually Existing Capitalism

Disassembly Required by Geoff Mann
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
259402
's review

it was amazing
bookshelves: all-time-favorites, political-science

“Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.” Mantra of the neoliberal era.

First off, excellent excellent book. It does an impeccable job in explaining contemporary financialized and globalized capitalism - the analysis is measured, lucid, incisive, smart, exhibits strong fundamentals and understanding of systems and their historical evolutions. I learned a lot, Mann is very adept in his presentation and makes complex issues accessible and understandable (explanation of subprime implosion is topnotch). I def recommend this one even if you disagree with certain political economic viewpoints in this text because Mann has great analytical ability and knowledge base when it comes to economics.

One thing that must be understood about Mann, and this may turn some people off: he comes at things from an anti-capitalist perspective. He doesn’t smother the text with this (although he does allude to it), but he does explain his position at the end of the book. In spite of his positioning, I do respect that regardless of how he feels about capitalism, he makes efforts to give credit to its power, its ability to innovate and inherent vitality allowing it to ascend as a hegemonic power throughout the globe. He also explains it is not monolithic, it has various iterations, and like any system it has strengths and weaknesses and he is pretty fair in this overall assessment I think.

Personally I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm more a believer in reformed and properly regulated capitalism (some will argue this is impossible), coupled with a certain level of redistribution and socialized aspects like education, healthcare, safety net with a vision of spreading out opportunity to empower the citizenry. I also think there will have to be an exploration and experimentation with the concept of universal basic income - which may be critical depending on how the nature of labor shifts due to the evolution of technology. Many of these things I think are necessary in order to counteract capitalism’s most pernicious tendencies which naturally creates and stokes vast inequalities. I also think we need to find ways to strike balance between labor and capital, things are totally out of whack with financiers and mega-wealthy and mega-corporations dominating power, hijacking policy, dictating and manipulating the rules of the game.

At the end of the book Mann makes the pitch for anticapitalism, and potential visions for what this might entail. This part? Huh, wha? He kind of demands a sort of magical thinking, leaping of logic that defies my abilities. I respect the reasons he feels we need to transcend capitalism, the hegemony of money and markets in our lives, hyperconsumerism, privatizing every last atom to kingdom come, commodification of every aspect of our lives, these things are problematic and erode us spiritually and culturally (not to mention economic aspects this all entails!). And in fact I agree if capitalism keeps being practiced in the current incarnation it might very well implode by destroying earth systems it relies upon to generate wealth and buttress economies. That is a prospect I have a deep fear of. And capitalism is inherently very volatile, and now that it has pursued and developed financialization of the economy to such extraordinary levels - which I think is incredibly risky to system stability - we face a much more amplified (and dangerous) volatility.

Capitalism naturally lends itself to vast inequalities and without guardrails cannibalizes resources and earth systems if they can be monetized in any way. That’s why we need guardrails, otherwise capitalism will destroy itself, imho. But I have an inability to buy into the anticapitalist vision, maybe it is a lack of imagination on my part, or maybe I’m too enmeshed in the current system and status quo worldviews, and maybe I have too much personal stake in this current system. All legit questions which I can’t adequately answer, but I think the inherent problem is that no coherent vision is being offered (at least in this book)! I also think a transition to any other system involves the potential for great suffering, and this is not really touched upon too much, or only at a glance.

Far as I can tell capitalism is the least ugly dog in the line-up. Mann’s knowledge and critique are impressive, but as he stretches his vision he loses me. In my thinking you always have to be careful to not trade tyranny of one system for tyranny of another haha (or plain anarchy)! And you know, to be fair, he cites as warning some of the catastrophic failures of other modes of production and ideological systems that were not capitalist. I do hold hope for a form, and reformed form, of capitalism surviving, just not the current form suffocating humanity and cannibalizing the environment. Capitalism is not monolithic, and if it is to survive it will need to morph into various iterations that find greater harmony with the world and we will need to counterbalance the inherent excesses of this mode with smart policy.

Ultimately, my view is that the great existential test for late capitalism will be the environmental crisis and inequality crisis we are facing (not necessarily completely separate problems). Both of these things could turbocharge instability leading to implosion. I have to say, in regards to inequality, I have a worry we may keep seeing the top 20% (full disclosure I'm part of this class, or at least it is my background and this critique can fully apply to me) walling themselves off, further consolidating resources, opportunities, and power, further distancing themselves from collective problems humanity faces (even though they are better resourced and positioned to tackle some of the major issues). This prospect, of elites purposefully walling themselves off, is a great fear I have (and a theme consistently explored in various dystopias, I’m a bit of a moth to flame with that stuff haha). It would represent a great abdication in my mind. Hopefully those in power will assume some responsibility and agency, but as things stand I am not confident the turn can be made before it is too late, if it's not already too late (which isn't an excuse for all of us to give up or do nothing of course!). When you are rich, you can buffer yourself from problems and avoid, ignore, deny them (people can be incredibly creative with the mental somersaults they do to maintain illusions!) for longer than the rest of people who are more exposed, but eventually they catch up to you and by this moment the opportunity for effective action may have passed.

I believe Keynesianism saved capitalism from its worst tailspin (a tailspin caused by its worst qualities), and it will take deep and various experimentation to figure out how to make capitalism work if it is to survive. Various ideas will need to be explored, maybe need to inbuild mechanisms that counteract capitalism’s very nature which is to create inequality and consolidation of economic power in the hands of the few, and find ways to counteract the sometimes extreme volatility of its cycles. Maybe this involves inbuilding adjustable tax rates, higher tax rates when economy heats up and lower tax rates as economy cools down, pegging tax rates to the economic cycle and including tailored progressive tax policies to recapture some of the wealth that consolidates at the top.

Hegemony of markets, corporations, oligarchs, and financiers will have to be tackled. Is that doable who knows, but Teddy Roosevelt provided a blueprint that some form of curtailment was possible via government power. As it stands the power of mega-corporations and oligopolies is still waxing, fully captured gov, and is gaining greater and greater control over our lives in the process (highly recommend this read: https://cryptome.org/2015/07/big-othe...). I also think missions of corporations will need to broadened with a dedication to multiple stakeholders, expanding beyond the domination of the shareholder to include community, workers, management, consumer, environment.

As I said, in my eyes the big tests for capitalism will be how it confronts the environmental and inequality crises, the seeds of its destruction or salvation are planted in those things. If there is implosion, who knows what comes after, it might just be a more fragmented and fractionalized form of current systems or it could be something different (the black box, who knows what you’re going to get, devil you know vs devil you don’t). But we will be left to pick up the pieces, and clean up the mess, which could be beyond our capacity, depending on what the outcome is for environment and its systems.

Random note: Mann’s comparison between Chicago school and Austrian school was interesting and insightful for me, there is important variance in their view of the free market (I mistakenly lumped them together). He has a lot of wonderful analysis of economic history, economists, various economic schools of thought. This was a real highlight of the book for me.

Regardless of how I feel about anticapitalism and Mann’s position on this, I feel he treated the material with an even-handedness that I really respect. He has a humility and honesty about his own views and analysis that I found refreshing, in spite of the subject matter he wasn't moralizing, preaching, self-congratulating. The text helped me think about economic issues and systems more deeply, it helped broaden my thinking but also helped me bone up on some economic and historical fundamentals.

I’d be interested to hear what others think on this one.
16 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Disassembly Required.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

June 4, 2017 – Shelved
June 4, 2017 – Shelved as: to-read
June 10, 2017 – Started Reading
June 12, 2017 – Shelved as: all-time-favorites
June 12, 2017 – Finished Reading
May 14, 2020 – Shelved as: political-science

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Darlene (new)

Darlene Wow Sebastien! What a summary! :) You provided a lot to chew on. I'll have to think about this. I'm not a big fan of capitalism.. for all of the reasons you discussed. I think the United States is the perfect example of why capitalism, in its current form, does not work. I understand what you mean when you refer to the author's magical thinking. It does appear to be just that. Unfortunately, when you consider economic systems and what works.. and doesn't work.. you need to factor human beings into the equation. And to me, there is the problem. That is a HUGE imperfect factor! Our economy is driven by this hyperconsumerism. I don't really see any way to put that geenie back into the bottle. I suppose if people eventually grow weary of the craving for more and more 'stuff', it COULD happen but I don't see it. I share your concern about the growing inequality and the cannibalization of resources but honestly, I feel bewildered over how it can be changed.. especially if you start from the position that you need to work within the current system and make changes. I am reluctant to say this but to me, it seems it is too late to change what we currently have. The whole system perhaps needs to collapse or be destroyed. But what do we replace it with? I have no idea... but I'm open to suggestions! :) This was a fantastic, concise review, Sebastien!


Sebastien Darlene wrote: "Wow Sebastien! What a summary! :) You provided a lot to chew on. I'll have to think about this. I'm not a big fan of capitalism.. for all of the reasons you discussed. I think the United States is ..."

Hi Darlene! thanks so much! In many respects I align with your views, is there putting the genie back in the bottle? I do think there might be more trends against hyperconsumerism, but with what we are doing to the earth and its systems the change is not enough or fast enough, plus I do think this hyperconsumerism may be an integral and inevitable part of capitalism itself so it may be very hard to tamp that down with this mode of production (although there is a trend to the immaterial with music, books, movies, could this seep into other material arenas? I think if such a thing were to happen it would take a lot of conscious deliberate efforts). Anyhow, far as I can tell the earth cannot support more and more people living with such intensified consumption models...

When I'm honest with myself I really don't see how things don't implode at some point in the coming 50 years. I always hope to be magnificently wrong. Whether it is a gradual downslope or hitting a wall is hard to say, but given capitalism's crises and deep interconnectedness I wouldn't be surprised if meltdown/hitting the wall is the way things would manifest in such a scenario with shocks reverberating throughout the system. But in the end I don't really know I just have grave worries.

The worst prospect to me is capitalism imploding because it has destroyed the environment. Because then our opportunity to rebuild will be greatly hampered (not to mention all the suffering, loss of life, economic, political, social turmoil we would face, we have problems now, but wowee I do think they'd explode even worse). We will face the challenge of developing new systems but be crushed by whatever environmental fallout we are dealing with which could likely greatly diminish our prospects. Rebuilding in a environmental postapocalyptic scenario is never very promising, and honestly I have no idea how deep or severe the environmental crisis would be, but my hunch is it could be incredibly bad.

I read this book in the hope to better understand the system and how it came to be. But at the end of the day I'm a person looking for answers. I have a lot of questions, but I'm not sure I have any answers even though I desperately want them (I think there are many like me)! I'm worried for sure, which has been part of my drive in reading books like this and the desire to gain insight and maybe new visions and understanding for how to work beyond this cul de sac we are in.

Is it too late? We are certainly very far into the game, and have unleashed a lot of things that cannot be put back, as I see it it is all about minimizing continuing damage and preventing a deep and irrevocable earth system implosion that will have long term implications for life on earth.


message 3: by Darlene (new)

Darlene Sebastien, You raise so many great questions.. ones that, I think, many people are grappling with. You are a bit more optimistic than I am.. and that's good!! :) I hope you are right in holding onto your optimism. What your review and other articles and books I've been reading tell me is that we have procrastinated in even acknowledging the problems for so long... it seems inevitable there will be a crash. In the years following the 2008 collapse, I was reading books, hoping for an understanding of what had gone wrong and it seemed to me that the measures taken perhaps only bought us a little more time. It seems it is too late to 'tinker around the edges'.. the phrase politicians love to use. The system is near collapse.. only a complete overhaul can fix it.

I agree with you... I have no idea what an actual environmental catastrophic event would look like. And like you, I also believe the suffering and social chaos and disorder would probably be like nothing that has ever been seen. But if all politicians do is sit around and discuss this as if it is a hypothetical event which may or may not occur sometime in the unknown future.... I don't see how collapse can be avoided. To be fair, most of the world agree that there IS in fact a huge problem but in this country, almost half of the people can't even agree on whether or not there is a problem. The concern environmentally.. if there IS such a concern.. seems to be on how much any environmental action would disrupt the economy. Seriously? If there IS a catastrophic meltdown, it seems to me there will be no economy to even consider... and that leads to your point about not having the resources to reconstruct after such an event. You know Sebastien, in thinking about this, you find yourself going round and round in your mind. :)

I wish I had the answers (not that anyone would listen if I did!:) but like you, the more I read, the less I feel I know and solutions evade me. I agree with you about the lessening of the hyperconsumerism but I wonder if the explanation for that is simply that people do not possess the purchasing power.. so that consumerism is inhibited by necessity and lack of resources rather than a change in cultural values. Of course, if that mindless consumerism is lessening.. regardless of the reasons, that is probably a positive trend! :) Keep reading and writing about your thoughts, Sebastien. Maybe someone will come up with some solutions!


message 4: by Jill (new)

Jill Hutchinson Fantastic review, Sebastien!!!


message 5: by David (new)

David Rubenstein Excellent review, Sebastien!


Sebastien Thanks so much you guys! I can't wait to read more on these subjects, I have a lot of questions, not many answers, and I'd like to keep trying to learn what the potential solutions or policy ideas are in this realm of things. What are the various visions and how much could crises or catastrophes limit our options or potentially open up new pathways? it's hard to say but I envision a lot of volatility and problems, but I try my best though it is very hard to not be consumed by politics of despair and resignation and try to hold onto hope which for me involves efforts as to understanding what are potential positive visions, policy ideas, solutions? and with this I can maintain a hope that even in the greatest crises we may open up new pathways. Maybe this is naive to a degree but we all have to find our coping mechanisms in this life haha!


message 7: by Kevin (new) - added it

Kevin Very interesting reflections. I have not yet read this book, so I'm curious how sharp the author is at defining real-world capitalism (i.e. its scope) and its irrationalities.

I'd like to highlight your reflection on the lack of social imagination to think of alternatives. I think a key strength of capitalism is here, in its abstraction of how surplus is produced and distributed (Yanis Varoufakis and Vijay Prashad talk much on this). On this, I would dive right into it and ask what the necessity of "capitalists" (i.e. shareholders) would be if structurally we *promoted* worker ownership?

"But workers need bosses to direct them and get things done...". The operational role of managers are often hired as wage labor already. The capitalist-wage labor relationship is from labor not being part of ownership, where decisions are made by the Board of Directors representing shareholders.

To me, capitalism in this view of social organization is antiquated, holding onto the "middle-man", "rentier" class of inherited wealth. Production has been drastically socialized since the 2nd Industrial Revolution, with much of innovation being done in long-term anti-capitalist manners (i.e. university research teams, military research). Your thoughts?

Once the social imagination fog is cleared up a bit, the technicalities of anti-capitalism seem ripe with possibilities. The greater challenge to me is the monopoly of violence under capitalism. The 20th century has been a continuous hot war by capitalism against alternatives, you look at the histories of any alternative which the West now point to as examples of socialism's authoritarianism. Any honest view of such crippling capitalist violence on already-vulnerable societies would marvel at how they even survived so long...


back to top