At its current state of historical development, capital finds its contradictions tending towards an irresolvable character as manifested in multiple crises. The defense of life and the construction of renewed hope for a future require opposition to the domination of capital. This book contributes to that effort by setting out an analysis of the mechanisms on which capital is based.
I have a thing against complicated writing. I'm a firm believer of "eschew obfuscation" (thanks, Mrs Ahlmén) and "you only understand what you can explain simply", but not for the explainer's sake but for mine. After all, it is I who have to understand what you're trying to say. What I'm trying to get to is that this book is yet another example of academic writing syndrome: it is near impossible to fully understand what the text is saying without re-reading it at least three times.
That is not to say that this is a bad book. Except I found that the chapter I was particularly interested in (chapter 7 on the neoliberal state) didn't interact with the evidence in a way I found convincing. I admit that the book is not an attempt at empirical research but rather an attempt at describing the world from a post-Marxist perspective (right?). Even so, I would've liked a more nuanced debate – instead I felt like I was reading a rant.