What do you think?
Rate this book
The Entropy of Capitalism
The project of applying general systems theory to social sciences is crucial in today’s crisis when social and ecological systems clash. This book concretely demonstrates the necessity of a Marxist approach to this challenge, notably in asserting agency (struggle) as against determinism. It similarly shows how Marxism
can be reinvigorated from a systems perspective.
Drawing on his experience in both international systems and low-input agriculture, Biel explores the interaction of social and physical systems, using the conceptual tools of thermodynamics and information. He reveals the early twenty-first century as a period when capitalism starts parasitizing on the chaos it itself creates, notably in the link between the two sides of militarism (the ‘war on terror’) and speculative finance capital.
can be reinvigorated from a systems perspective.
Drawing on his experience in both international systems and low-input agriculture, Biel explores the interaction of social and physical systems, using the conceptual tools of thermodynamics and information. He reveals the early twenty-first century as a period when capitalism starts parasitizing on the chaos it itself creates, notably in the link between the two sides of militarism (the ‘war on terror’) and speculative finance capital.
391 pages, Paperback
First published October 14, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 14, 2015
Unbelievable. Currently the best book I've read on political ecology/economy, linking the crisis in the environment to the financial and social crises located at the limits of capital. Also one of the best radical texts I've read in a very, very long time: it has the distinction of being both concrete and creative… It doesn't sacrifice the need to be speculatively theoretical to being grounded in material processes (i.e. inventing a whole bunch of jargon and making ungrounded leaps of logic, as do a lot of popular books in, say, the Semiotext[e] interventions series), but still is able to contribute fresh theoretical language/concepts that are exciting but not obscurantist.
I reviewed it for *The Red Flag* here:
http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/archives/1594
I reviewed it for *The Red Flag* here:
http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/archives/1594
May 1, 2019
A very novel and fascinating analysis of capitalism via a Marxist interpretation of systems theory, that brings together issues of ecology, society, and economics in a very elegant manner. This is one of those "big picture" theory books that try to give a sweeping analysis of the world, and its history and future, and does a pretty damn good job considering its done in only ~350 pages. The overall picture is poetic and rather bleak, and in general its predictions (especially regarding a global imperial system that becomes increasingly irrational and violent) appear to be getting borne out since its publication, with the rise of Trump and other hard-right regimes across the world. However, the book is rather abstract, and it would helped a lot if there was more empirical evidence, especially given that toward the end the theoretical musings start to feel a little repetitive.
July 16, 2017
Falsely intimidating it is in fact a quite compelling read. Done with my first reading via the copy at scribd.com. Must read again to absorb its arguments.
May 16, 2024
The Entropy of Capitalism
17/2024.
Does capitalism have to end? No, according to the Systems Theory academics behind this one. But they affirm the current trajectory isn’t sustai
nable, for both organizational and environmental reasons. It could run out of steam as it flails and tries futilely to respond to the climate crisis it’s created. “The entropy of capitalism, while fundamentally thermodynamic, is manifested more immediately as an exhaustion of ideas.” (P231)
This work was cited extensively in some of the Tech Ethics books I read last year, so it seemed worth coming to the source. Also: Marxist thermodynamics! Sadly, it also has some fairly weak arguments, a few conspiracy theories, and a lot of inventive language that weakens the whole. Like a lot of critics of capitalism, Biel goes too far in praising truly awful regimes like those in Libya under Qaddafi and Venezuela under Chavez, where the promises to the people were hollow from the start.
Chapter 4 is particularly worthwhile here, with a good overview of ecological and energy linkages. One takeaway is that food and energy production are linked in ways I haven’t really contemplated.
Chapter 5 though is a wreck, with allusions to secret cabals between Al Qaeda and Yale Skull and Bones members, using Seymour Hersh as a source, etc.
At the end of the day, Biel makes a binary issue out of a grayscale one. He says “sustainable development” is invalid because it was developed by capitalism and therefore only exists to accentuate poverty. This is clearly not true, as the robust middle class in countries that get it right (like Brazil) show. It is possible that capitalism doesn’t provide the most impactful or efficient mechanism on its own, but that’s not where Biel lands in his total rejection of capitalism.
The author picks up on several factors we describe today as “late stage capitalism”: homogeneity which reduces comparative benefits amongst operations, regions, and workers, heavy handed law enforcement and militarism to ensure the “core” remains in power, and environmental degradation, beyond the carrying capacity of the ecological system. It also rightly asserts that normal, rational responses to these issues are overridden in the system by detached financial activities that seek to profit from the mess, which is capitalism at its most cynical.
Other arguments (like the idea of military contracting/outsourcinf being a dissolution of an oppressive structure instead of the outsourcing of the structure’s needs) are harder to buy. Maybe an extra decade and the end of the war on terror give us some perspective here.
Dr Biel brings an old-school Marxist (self-avowedly Leninist) view to International Relations and Political Economy. Those are deep roots but the fruit hasn’t always been sweet.
He makes the case that “the masses” are becoming “gatekeepers of the natural world.” In this, he seems to make a Marxist critique of Malthusian arguments, that would suggest declining birth rates are in fact an act of resistance against consumerist forces. Nevertheless, his praise of Cuba for creating a “low throughput” economy as a model for the rest of us is junk: Cuba is perhaps the best example of poor production decisions and long lasting environmental degradation (why Cuban rum and cigars aren’t what they used to be, even as Cubans themselves go hungry).
The supposed advantages of “network capitalism” seem to have amounted to the gig economy and not much else in the last decade. So I think this portion of the argument around capitalism fostering new emergent versions of itself seems a bit flat.
Biel suggests (p 103) that the core would become stagnant prior to the periphery. I think this is questionable. In Latam, productivity per capita has stagnated long ago, while the US (his “core of the core”) continues to grow productivity.
He provides more evidence in his arguments about environmental depletion and the historic North-South relationships that make the South pay twice for the North’s energy consumption. This is embedded in our paradigm such that it goes unnoticed. As he puts it, “Denial of the past inevitably makes it difficult to get to grips with the present.”
17/2024.
Does capitalism have to end? No, according to the Systems Theory academics behind this one. But they affirm the current trajectory isn’t sustai
nable, for both organizational and environmental reasons. It could run out of steam as it flails and tries futilely to respond to the climate crisis it’s created. “The entropy of capitalism, while fundamentally thermodynamic, is manifested more immediately as an exhaustion of ideas.” (P231)
This work was cited extensively in some of the Tech Ethics books I read last year, so it seemed worth coming to the source. Also: Marxist thermodynamics! Sadly, it also has some fairly weak arguments, a few conspiracy theories, and a lot of inventive language that weakens the whole. Like a lot of critics of capitalism, Biel goes too far in praising truly awful regimes like those in Libya under Qaddafi and Venezuela under Chavez, where the promises to the people were hollow from the start.
Chapter 4 is particularly worthwhile here, with a good overview of ecological and energy linkages. One takeaway is that food and energy production are linked in ways I haven’t really contemplated.
Chapter 5 though is a wreck, with allusions to secret cabals between Al Qaeda and Yale Skull and Bones members, using Seymour Hersh as a source, etc.
At the end of the day, Biel makes a binary issue out of a grayscale one. He says “sustainable development” is invalid because it was developed by capitalism and therefore only exists to accentuate poverty. This is clearly not true, as the robust middle class in countries that get it right (like Brazil) show. It is possible that capitalism doesn’t provide the most impactful or efficient mechanism on its own, but that’s not where Biel lands in his total rejection of capitalism.
The author picks up on several factors we describe today as “late stage capitalism”: homogeneity which reduces comparative benefits amongst operations, regions, and workers, heavy handed law enforcement and militarism to ensure the “core” remains in power, and environmental degradation, beyond the carrying capacity of the ecological system. It also rightly asserts that normal, rational responses to these issues are overridden in the system by detached financial activities that seek to profit from the mess, which is capitalism at its most cynical.
Other arguments (like the idea of military contracting/outsourcinf being a dissolution of an oppressive structure instead of the outsourcing of the structure’s needs) are harder to buy. Maybe an extra decade and the end of the war on terror give us some perspective here.
Dr Biel brings an old-school Marxist (self-avowedly Leninist) view to International Relations and Political Economy. Those are deep roots but the fruit hasn’t always been sweet.
He makes the case that “the masses” are becoming “gatekeepers of the natural world.” In this, he seems to make a Marxist critique of Malthusian arguments, that would suggest declining birth rates are in fact an act of resistance against consumerist forces. Nevertheless, his praise of Cuba for creating a “low throughput” economy as a model for the rest of us is junk: Cuba is perhaps the best example of poor production decisions and long lasting environmental degradation (why Cuban rum and cigars aren’t what they used to be, even as Cubans themselves go hungry).
The supposed advantages of “network capitalism” seem to have amounted to the gig economy and not much else in the last decade. So I think this portion of the argument around capitalism fostering new emergent versions of itself seems a bit flat.
Biel suggests (p 103) that the core would become stagnant prior to the periphery. I think this is questionable. In Latam, productivity per capita has stagnated long ago, while the US (his “core of the core”) continues to grow productivity.
He provides more evidence in his arguments about environmental depletion and the historic North-South relationships that make the South pay twice for the North’s energy consumption. This is embedded in our paradigm such that it goes unnoticed. As he puts it, “Denial of the past inevitably makes it difficult to get to grips with the present.”
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews