Review of Bruno Amable (2017), Structural Crisis and Institutional Change in Modern Capitalism: French Capitalism in Transition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appeared in ILR Review 71 (2), 2018, 550-552.
This book is historical-institutionalist political economy at its best. Obviously it is on industrial relations, but it is also, as it should be, on capitalism and the state, on politics and markets, and most important, on their dynamic over time. One thing that we learn (unless we have learned it previously) is that industrial relations cannot be understood outside of its capitalist-political context, and it must be conceived as a story, a movie, not a still, embedded in the long history of modern capitalist society. That history, quite appropriately, can be recounted as one of “modernization,” but not in the 1950s and 1960s American sense in which it stands for quiet, steady, universal, and basically self-driven development toward ever-higher levels of prosperity, democracy, and general happiness. Rather, what Bruno Amable identifies as modernization is a political project of a state under capitalism trying to design a regime that overcomes the dysfunctions of liberalism while avoiding the lure of socialism or communism—a perennial political search for a “Third Way” and for a political coalition capable of sustaining it that goes back to the beginning of capitalist industrialization in the 19th century. […]
Review of Jürgen Habermas, The Lure of Technocracy, Polity: Cambridge, 2015
European Political Science, Vol. 16 (2017), No. 2, 246-253. Manuscript finished January 18, 2016.
The book to be reviewed here – The Lure of Technocracy – is Jürgen Habermas’ latest statement on Europe, its crisis, its politics and its prospects. It is the English translation – a remarkably good one – of Im Sog der Technokratie (Habermas 2013). The German original came out as Volume XII of Kleine politische Schriften, a series that dates back to 1980 and which, according to Habermas (2013, 10), it is to conclude. The twelve volumes, all of them collections of occasional papers, interviews and public lectures produced alongside Habermas’ main works, have long become an object of wide admiration, in Germany and beyond, for their unique combination of political activism, profound scholarship and, not least, brilliant essayistic prose, and they can already now claim a prominent place in the political and cultural history of postwar Germany. The Lure of Technocracy consists of ten pieces from the last three or four years, seven of them more or less directly concerned with European integration and its crisis since 2008. (…)
Review of two books by Perry Anderson
London Review of Books, Vol. 39, No. 24, December 2017, pp. 25-26
What is the relationship between coercion and consent? Under what circumstances does power turn into authority, brute force into legitimate leadership? Can coercion work without consent? Can consent be secured without coercion? Does political power depend on voluntary agreement and values shared in common, or does it grow out of the barrel of a gun? When ideas rule, how is that rule maintained? Can associations of equals – built on common interests, ideas and identities – endure, or must they degenerate into empires kept together by force? Such questions go to the foundations of political theory and practice. There is no better way to explore them than by tracing the complex career of the concept of hegemony, from the Greeks to today’s ‘international relations’. That is the task undertaken by Perry Anderson in The H-Word and The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci. (Continue on lrb.co.uk – Paywall)
Whose side are we on? Liberalism and socialism are not the same. In: David Coates (Ed.), Reflections on the Future of the Left. Agenda Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne 2017, 137-158.
In: Ash Amin/Philip Lewis (Eds.), European Union and Disunion: Reflections on European Identity, London: The British Academy, 2017, pp. 14-22.
Chapter [Download PDF]
Full publication [Download PDF]
Review of three recent books on Germany
London Review of Books, Vol. 39, No. 9, May 2017, pp. 26-28
How could Germany of all countries have become a paragon, politically stable and economically successful, of democratic capitalism in the 1970s – ‘Modell Deutschland’ – and later, in the 2000s, Europe’s uncontested economic and political superpower? Any explanation must have recourse to a Braudelian longue durée, in which destruction can be progress – utter devastation turned into a lasting blessing – because capitalist progress is destruction, of a more or less creative sort. In 1945 unconditional surrender forced Germany, or what was left of its western part, into what Perry Anderson has called a ‘second round of capitalist transformation’ of the sort no other European country has ever had to undergo. Germany’s bout was a violent – sharp and short – push forward into social and economic ‘modernity’, driving it for ever from the halfway house of Weimar, in a painful dismantling of structures of political domination and social solidarity, feudal fetters which had held back the country’s capitalist progress and which, in locally different manifestations, continue to block capitalist rationalisation in many other European countries. (Continue on lrb.co.uk)
In: Heinrich Geiselberger (Hrsg.): Die große Regression – Eine internationale Debatte über die geistige Situation der Zeit. Suhrkamp, Berlin 2017, S. 253-274.
„Der Weg in die Zukunft, in eine neue Expansion, wie sie jedem Kapital Herzensanliegen ist, führte nach draußen: in die noch erfreulich unregierte Welt einer grenzenlosen globalen Ökonomie, in der Märkte nicht mehr in Staaten, sondern Staaten in Märkte eingeschlossen sind.“
For more information
The Return of the Repressed
New Left Review, Vol. 104, March-April 2017, pp. 5-18.
Read the full article here
Besprechung von: Johannes Becker / Clemens Fuest: Der Odysseuskomplex. Ein pragmatischer Vorschlag zur Lösung der Eurokrise. Hanser Verlag, München 2017
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27. März 2017, S. 13.
Was tun, wenn man stecken geblieben ist – wenn es weder vorwärtsgeht noch zurück? Johannes Becker, Direktor am Institut für Finanzwissenschaft der Universität Münster, und Clemens Fuest, Präsident des Münchner Ifo-Instituts, versuchen es seitwärts. Die Währungsunion ist ein Desaster, aber die politische Union, die das heilen könnte, wird es nicht geben, und eine Rückkehr zu nationalen Währungen darf man nicht wollen. Der „pragmatische Vorschlag“: mehr nationale Autonomie durch weniger internationale Abhängigkeit; mehr nationale Demokratie bei mehr nationaler Verantwortung; weniger Politik und mehr Technokratie auf europäischer, dafür weniger Technokratie und mehr Politik auf nationaler Ebene. (Weiterlesen auf süddeutsche.de)
Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. Second Edition, With a New Preface. Verso Books, London and New York 2017.
A New Regime: The Consolidation State. In: King, Desmond and Patrick Le Galès (Eds.), Reconfiguring European States in Crisis. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017, 139-157.
Oxford University Press