What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Ambition: The Radical Potential of Giving Up
Explores the effect that capitalist ambition has on our psyches and societies, and what a world without ambition might look like.
Since the 1980s, ambition has become the driving logic of our world. We’re told that everyone has always wanted to ascend to the heights of their societies. We’re told that we can achieve anything we set our minds to and overcome any obstacle to live out our fantasies. And we’re told that if we fail, we have nothing to blame but ourselves.
In Against Ambition, Bill Peel explores how capitalism created this cult of ambition and turned our lives into nothing more than goal-oriented investments. He shows how the ambitious life of hard work and self-sacrifice reinforces neoliberalism and turns all of us into little more than failed versions of the selves we dream of becoming. Rather than political actors capable of creating a better world, capitalist ambition turns all of us into individual climbers on the social ladder, foreclosing the possibility of collective action.
Where capitalist ambition turns life into an investment strategy, driven by the "rise and grind" mentality, passive income side hustles and ruthless corporate backstabbing, Against Ambition makes the case for the radical potential of giving up, arguing instead that we should be able to waste our time however we see fit.
Since the 1980s, ambition has become the driving logic of our world. We’re told that everyone has always wanted to ascend to the heights of their societies. We’re told that we can achieve anything we set our minds to and overcome any obstacle to live out our fantasies. And we’re told that if we fail, we have nothing to blame but ourselves.
In Against Ambition, Bill Peel explores how capitalism created this cult of ambition and turned our lives into nothing more than goal-oriented investments. He shows how the ambitious life of hard work and self-sacrifice reinforces neoliberalism and turns all of us into little more than failed versions of the selves we dream of becoming. Rather than political actors capable of creating a better world, capitalist ambition turns all of us into individual climbers on the social ladder, foreclosing the possibility of collective action.
Where capitalist ambition turns life into an investment strategy, driven by the "rise and grind" mentality, passive income side hustles and ruthless corporate backstabbing, Against Ambition makes the case for the radical potential of giving up, arguing instead that we should be able to waste our time however we see fit.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
208 pages, Paperback
First published May 13, 2025
10 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
About the author
Bill Peel
2 books4 followersMusic journalist Bill Peel has published in Kill Your Stereo and Overland on the topics of black metal, socialism, literature, and philosophy. He currently works at a local high school in regional New South Wales, Australia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Read
August 1, 2025More books like this need to get written. Degrowth manifestos are all good (note I am all for degrowing!) for what sprawling institutions could do, in a democratic alternate reality, but as far as I go, they tend to fail to describe one of the stickier reasons bad shit sticks around, and that is - we’re stuck. Individually. On this whole status-meaning-directionality wheel thing.
This book may or may not be up your street. It was sporadically up my street, in terms of form - I admit, I’m simply not quite this academic! - but I kept reading for the moments where he draws back the curtain and speaks plainly of his own experience. Of night shifts at the grocery store, of cleaning toilets, and sure, the contrast between these things and heavy references to international philosophers probably helped me like them even more. Since I too am a blue collar toilet cleaning reading person, and representation matters!
But even if I lost passion for reading this sometimes, it’s 100% where I’m coming from in terms of its basic polemics. We overproduce, we overconsume, despite the teleology inherent in the insistence on utility and productivity, there is no actual achieving any blissful telos, hell even capitalists are just passages for the reinvestment of capital. Nobody wins their own real sovereignty, everyone is merely pushed along by the forces of capital - some people die of sepsis in a tent, some starve to death; some post repetitive Instagram photos of their vacations while mulling over how much they actually like their partner; some strong-arm smaller nations with threats of nuclear warfare, and dine well. It’s a mix. But virtually no one in the thick of it does what they want.
Which is why a strange result of breaking up with ambition is a gradual, and then perhaps sudden, recognition that you are happy because you are here. Maybe a little bit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtJzr...
This book may or may not be up your street. It was sporadically up my street, in terms of form - I admit, I’m simply not quite this academic! - but I kept reading for the moments where he draws back the curtain and speaks plainly of his own experience. Of night shifts at the grocery store, of cleaning toilets, and sure, the contrast between these things and heavy references to international philosophers probably helped me like them even more. Since I too am a blue collar toilet cleaning reading person, and representation matters!
But even if I lost passion for reading this sometimes, it’s 100% where I’m coming from in terms of its basic polemics. We overproduce, we overconsume, despite the teleology inherent in the insistence on utility and productivity, there is no actual achieving any blissful telos, hell even capitalists are just passages for the reinvestment of capital. Nobody wins their own real sovereignty, everyone is merely pushed along by the forces of capital - some people die of sepsis in a tent, some starve to death; some post repetitive Instagram photos of their vacations while mulling over how much they actually like their partner; some strong-arm smaller nations with threats of nuclear warfare, and dine well. It’s a mix. But virtually no one in the thick of it does what they want.
Which is why a strange result of breaking up with ambition is a gradual, and then perhaps sudden, recognition that you are happy because you are here. Maybe a little bit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtJzr...
August 16, 2025
Someone recommended this book to me and I’m afraid I don’t remember who now. It fits within a range of books I’ve read – in fact, it quotes quite a few books I’ve reviewed here – but also books that take a word people generally think is totally positive (merit, empathy, talent) and show the dark side of these ideas. This is a sort of leftwing take down of ambition.
The point being that in a pre-capitalist society, where social position was mostly fixed at birth (although the author does call that into question as being totally true) and so, where ambition was more or less impossible, it could hardly have become the ideal social good it today appears to be. But capitalism is based – at least on the promise, if not the reality – of social mobility. Your success is in your hands and if you are not successful, then that’s your fault. You either didn’t work hard enough or didn’t have the talent to succeed.
Ambition is about developing your own stores of human capital so that you become successful. You are best placed to be able to tell which forms of human capital you should be acquiring – you are a brand, you need to decide what is on-brand and helps you succeed. You know the drill.
This book is against all that – but I worry that it might go too far. I am also not in favour of the new, neoliberal forms of self-surveillance designed to make us our own prison keepers. But I’m not sure all ambition can be tarred with the neoliberal brush. I book I would probably recommend here on a similar theme, but with more shades of grey, is Capitalism and Desire. I’m not saying desire and ambition are perfect synonyms, but they are similar. Desire is what keeps capitalism going – in much the same way that the false promise of ambition does too – but I’m not sure anyone therefore says that all desire is bad and should be avoided. Like ambition, desire is about a lack, and what you will do to fill that lack. But desire also provides us with the momentum to keep going and to change our lives – so, while there are lots of negative things you can say about it, this really isn’t just black and white.
I kept expecting the author here to say that ambition was about ‘false consciousness’ – he speaks a lot about Marx. But he doesn’t do this outright as far as I can remember. I like Bourdieu’s version of false consciousness – misrecognition. That is, it is not that there is no underlying problem that confronts us – but rather that we are encouraged to misrecognise the reason for that problem. So, you don’t have a house, that’s because the government gives free housing to single mothers – single mothers are to blame – you don’t have a job – that’s because of all the refugees in this country – you’re a female who likes playing sport but haven’t won an Olympic gold medal – that’s because of all of those trans women taking over women’s sports. Like I said, there are real housing problems, employment problems, and problems with women’s sport – but single mothers, refugees or trans women are hardly the cause of them. That encouraging people to misrecognise the causes of these things serves the interests of certain groups in society is hardly surprising. What is interesting about the misrecognition that goes on with ambition is that it is a bit like the lottery – I’ve only sort of known one person in my life who won the lottery, the chances of it happening are vanishingly small, but that doesn’t exactly stop people from buying tickets every week. Ambition too – social mobility in the US, for example, is remarkably low. But even there it is possible to point to someone who started off a shit-kicker and is now worth truckloads of money. So, the American dream is still real – just like the lottery dream is still real. And you’ve got to be in it to win it. As such, I don’t see ambition disappearing any time soon. Rather, the benefit of the Capitalism and Desire book is that it helps us see why we go on desiring, even when our desire has been thwarted so many times before. I’ve always been a bit concerned when a book suggests basically dropping out – I’m not sure it has ever worked in the past.
The point being that in a pre-capitalist society, where social position was mostly fixed at birth (although the author does call that into question as being totally true) and so, where ambition was more or less impossible, it could hardly have become the ideal social good it today appears to be. But capitalism is based – at least on the promise, if not the reality – of social mobility. Your success is in your hands and if you are not successful, then that’s your fault. You either didn’t work hard enough or didn’t have the talent to succeed.
Ambition is about developing your own stores of human capital so that you become successful. You are best placed to be able to tell which forms of human capital you should be acquiring – you are a brand, you need to decide what is on-brand and helps you succeed. You know the drill.
This book is against all that – but I worry that it might go too far. I am also not in favour of the new, neoliberal forms of self-surveillance designed to make us our own prison keepers. But I’m not sure all ambition can be tarred with the neoliberal brush. I book I would probably recommend here on a similar theme, but with more shades of grey, is Capitalism and Desire. I’m not saying desire and ambition are perfect synonyms, but they are similar. Desire is what keeps capitalism going – in much the same way that the false promise of ambition does too – but I’m not sure anyone therefore says that all desire is bad and should be avoided. Like ambition, desire is about a lack, and what you will do to fill that lack. But desire also provides us with the momentum to keep going and to change our lives – so, while there are lots of negative things you can say about it, this really isn’t just black and white.
I kept expecting the author here to say that ambition was about ‘false consciousness’ – he speaks a lot about Marx. But he doesn’t do this outright as far as I can remember. I like Bourdieu’s version of false consciousness – misrecognition. That is, it is not that there is no underlying problem that confronts us – but rather that we are encouraged to misrecognise the reason for that problem. So, you don’t have a house, that’s because the government gives free housing to single mothers – single mothers are to blame – you don’t have a job – that’s because of all the refugees in this country – you’re a female who likes playing sport but haven’t won an Olympic gold medal – that’s because of all of those trans women taking over women’s sports. Like I said, there are real housing problems, employment problems, and problems with women’s sport – but single mothers, refugees or trans women are hardly the cause of them. That encouraging people to misrecognise the causes of these things serves the interests of certain groups in society is hardly surprising. What is interesting about the misrecognition that goes on with ambition is that it is a bit like the lottery – I’ve only sort of known one person in my life who won the lottery, the chances of it happening are vanishingly small, but that doesn’t exactly stop people from buying tickets every week. Ambition too – social mobility in the US, for example, is remarkably low. But even there it is possible to point to someone who started off a shit-kicker and is now worth truckloads of money. So, the American dream is still real – just like the lottery dream is still real. And you’ve got to be in it to win it. As such, I don’t see ambition disappearing any time soon. Rather, the benefit of the Capitalism and Desire book is that it helps us see why we go on desiring, even when our desire has been thwarted so many times before. I’ve always been a bit concerned when a book suggests basically dropping out – I’m not sure it has ever worked in the past.
December 19, 2025
To write a book against ambition is, ironically, an ambitious project. Peel clearly knows this, and devotes his entire fifth chapter (in a book that contains only seven chapters plus a three-page non-conclusion) to explaining that his ambition to write the book—and to persuade the reader to be less ambitious—isn’t really ambition because he doesn’t want to change anything.
The whole thing (the first half especially) is unnecessarily verbose. It reads like one of those undergraduate essays where the student thinks using big words and complex sentences will make them look smarter than they are. Given Peel is open about barely finishing his degree and having since “done nothing of note,” it may be an accurate criticism. And yet, writing this book at all (plus his previous book) is a noteworthy—dare I say ambitious—achievement.
Which is why I feel bad giving a bad review. It feels like giving a low grade to a student who has genuinely tried their best and will eventually learn that verbosity is anything but impressive. It’s disappointing because Peel clearly has ability. His sustained discussion of two books—Barracuda by Christos Tsiolkas and Moby-Dick—is some of the strongest material here: the former as a reflection on his own life; the latter used to argue that aimlessness isn’t necessarily a tragedy in the grand scheme of things (the ocean remains vast longn before and after you’ve been killed by the white whale). These sections were genuinely engrossing.
There is one other point I genuinely liked. Chapter 4 argues that when we fail, we are too often held back because our identity has become tied to the thing we failed at. That failed ambition becomes such a core part of who we are that we can’t move on. I agree with this, and the final two sentences of the chapter were by far the most insightful of the book:
"But we should...not fight to be possessed by our fixed ideas of who we're supposed to be. It's only by throwing away these fixed ideas, our ambitious, that we can truly be free."
There is also a surprising amount of feminism for a book arguing against ambition. Peel’s core argument is that what he calls “reproductive” work—domestic, unpaid labour—deserves much greater recognition and value, which is a fair point, although by now it has been done to death. But he moves from there to suggesting that the solution is for everyone to become less ambitious: don’t break the glass ceiling, just convince everyone to stop caring about the ceiling at all. I his utopia, the ambitious person would be viewed with suspicion.
I’m not sure how he squares that with the reality that the computer he wrote on, the internet he used to email his publisher, and the printer that produced the copy I bought were all inventions of ambitious people.
But this is proudly a fringe book, from a proudly fringe publisher, so I’ll leave his conclusions alone.
What I will criticise is the style: unnecessarily verbose writing, arguments that are present but barely coherent thanks to endless tangents, and very shaky evidence. The endnotes read like the reference list of a rushed undergraduate paper—about half news articles and blogs, 20–30% Marxism, very little published after 1900, and maybe five actual peer-reviewed papers, with no confidence they were read beyond the abstract.
Overall, it was a disappointing read. That said, I would still pick up his next book, because I hope he keeps writing—and I genuinely believe there’s a good writer in there once he gets his head out of his ass.
The whole thing (the first half especially) is unnecessarily verbose. It reads like one of those undergraduate essays where the student thinks using big words and complex sentences will make them look smarter than they are. Given Peel is open about barely finishing his degree and having since “done nothing of note,” it may be an accurate criticism. And yet, writing this book at all (plus his previous book) is a noteworthy—dare I say ambitious—achievement.
Which is why I feel bad giving a bad review. It feels like giving a low grade to a student who has genuinely tried their best and will eventually learn that verbosity is anything but impressive. It’s disappointing because Peel clearly has ability. His sustained discussion of two books—Barracuda by Christos Tsiolkas and Moby-Dick—is some of the strongest material here: the former as a reflection on his own life; the latter used to argue that aimlessness isn’t necessarily a tragedy in the grand scheme of things (the ocean remains vast longn before and after you’ve been killed by the white whale). These sections were genuinely engrossing.
There is one other point I genuinely liked. Chapter 4 argues that when we fail, we are too often held back because our identity has become tied to the thing we failed at. That failed ambition becomes such a core part of who we are that we can’t move on. I agree with this, and the final two sentences of the chapter were by far the most insightful of the book:
"But we should...not fight to be possessed by our fixed ideas of who we're supposed to be. It's only by throwing away these fixed ideas, our ambitious, that we can truly be free."
There is also a surprising amount of feminism for a book arguing against ambition. Peel’s core argument is that what he calls “reproductive” work—domestic, unpaid labour—deserves much greater recognition and value, which is a fair point, although by now it has been done to death. But he moves from there to suggesting that the solution is for everyone to become less ambitious: don’t break the glass ceiling, just convince everyone to stop caring about the ceiling at all. I his utopia, the ambitious person would be viewed with suspicion.
I’m not sure how he squares that with the reality that the computer he wrote on, the internet he used to email his publisher, and the printer that produced the copy I bought were all inventions of ambitious people.
But this is proudly a fringe book, from a proudly fringe publisher, so I’ll leave his conclusions alone.
What I will criticise is the style: unnecessarily verbose writing, arguments that are present but barely coherent thanks to endless tangents, and very shaky evidence. The endnotes read like the reference list of a rushed undergraduate paper—about half news articles and blogs, 20–30% Marxism, very little published after 1900, and maybe five actual peer-reviewed papers, with no confidence they were read beyond the abstract.
Overall, it was a disappointing read. That said, I would still pick up his next book, because I hope he keeps writing—and I genuinely believe there’s a good writer in there once he gets his head out of his ass.
May 5, 2025
I am someone who’s very keen on goal setting and personal development, but at the same time, I also like to learn opposing views, which is what drew me to this title. I thought it might run along similar lines to the bestselling book “F**k It: The Ultimate Spiritual Way”, however, Peel’s book is an actual critique of needless ambition, rather than just a load of rambling like the F**k It book.
Peel provides several arguments against ambition, drawing on various areas, including intrapersonal and interpersonal psychology, politics, sociology, feminism, social mobility, and economics. I would describe the book as anti-capitalist, and I would say that it’s quite disempowering in many respects, as you might expect from the title.
His arguments can be summarised as follows. Our desires for a life purpose and social mobility encourage us to be governed by external forces, and this can restrict our autonomy, even when we choose our own purposes. Living under imposed micro-management. Upward social mobility won’t disrupt the sanctity of the class system upon which the class hierarchies are based. Our hobbies and interests become little more than investment strategies. Failure is inevitable, and a source of psychological disinvestment.
There was one thing he mentioned which I do agree with, which is that some of the most valuable “work” has no broader goal besides the maintenance and reproduction of everyday life, and that the things we enjoy most are often the least economically useful, if not wasteful.
In lieu of a conclusion, Peel writes: “A non-ambitious life of aimlessness and economic wastefulness should no longer be limited to those who can afford it.”
This is a good book for anyone wanting to test out their critical thinking ability, or it might be a good read for someone who is looking for an excuse or two to give up on a career path or project.
However, it is not inspirational, and could leave you in a bad mood about having any direction in life other than your grave. That’s why I simply cannot give the book a 4 or 5 star review, but I will give it 3 stars for the sheer audacity of the publishers. I hope my review gets people talking about the ideas in the book, even though the book doesn’t serve as a guide to breaking free of ambition, doesn’t answer whether ambition is natural, and doesn’t propose a suitable way out of capitalist or social mobility culture. An interesting tome indeed, but perhaps save reading it for your retirement. The book did not work on me.
Peel provides several arguments against ambition, drawing on various areas, including intrapersonal and interpersonal psychology, politics, sociology, feminism, social mobility, and economics. I would describe the book as anti-capitalist, and I would say that it’s quite disempowering in many respects, as you might expect from the title.
His arguments can be summarised as follows. Our desires for a life purpose and social mobility encourage us to be governed by external forces, and this can restrict our autonomy, even when we choose our own purposes. Living under imposed micro-management. Upward social mobility won’t disrupt the sanctity of the class system upon which the class hierarchies are based. Our hobbies and interests become little more than investment strategies. Failure is inevitable, and a source of psychological disinvestment.
There was one thing he mentioned which I do agree with, which is that some of the most valuable “work” has no broader goal besides the maintenance and reproduction of everyday life, and that the things we enjoy most are often the least economically useful, if not wasteful.
In lieu of a conclusion, Peel writes: “A non-ambitious life of aimlessness and economic wastefulness should no longer be limited to those who can afford it.”
This is a good book for anyone wanting to test out their critical thinking ability, or it might be a good read for someone who is looking for an excuse or two to give up on a career path or project.
However, it is not inspirational, and could leave you in a bad mood about having any direction in life other than your grave. That’s why I simply cannot give the book a 4 or 5 star review, but I will give it 3 stars for the sheer audacity of the publishers. I hope my review gets people talking about the ideas in the book, even though the book doesn’t serve as a guide to breaking free of ambition, doesn’t answer whether ambition is natural, and doesn’t propose a suitable way out of capitalist or social mobility culture. An interesting tome indeed, but perhaps save reading it for your retirement. The book did not work on me.
July 28, 2025
I think I whole heartedly agree with the point of this book: that ambition is a toxic thing that causes us to live our lives with focus on the future, sacrificing the present moment (perhaps that’s an over simplification).
And I am so down for a society where any person can be a “sovereign slacker.”
I just felt a lot of this book was making a common argument against capitalism in a roundabout way. A sort of interesting, but unnecessary detour to the same conclusion: that capitalism has us selling our time, energy, and well being for unachievable material dreams. I guess it makes sense because slackers are all about interesting but unnecessary detours. But, nonetheless, the call to rally against ambition feels like treating the symptom not the cause.
Overall, there is a lot of thought provoking material in this book. I think the most value is found in its researched and creative arguments against hustle culture and self optimization rather than in the final message.
And I am so down for a society where any person can be a “sovereign slacker.”
I just felt a lot of this book was making a common argument against capitalism in a roundabout way. A sort of interesting, but unnecessary detour to the same conclusion: that capitalism has us selling our time, energy, and well being for unachievable material dreams. I guess it makes sense because slackers are all about interesting but unnecessary detours. But, nonetheless, the call to rally against ambition feels like treating the symptom not the cause.
Overall, there is a lot of thought provoking material in this book. I think the most value is found in its researched and creative arguments against hustle culture and self optimization rather than in the final message.
January 7, 2026
I find this book intriguing. It turned out to be a really thought-provoking read that criticize the system that established long time ago. As I read the book, I had to process several contrarian views that differed from my existing understanding, which I found interesting. This book gave me various perspectives on “ambition,” and on how it is, at its core, an act or effort shaped to fulfill capitalism.
As I finished and close this book, I still wonder about the topic itself. It is a book worth to discuss.
As I finished and close this book, I still wonder about the topic itself. It is a book worth to discuss.
December 15, 2025
Intriguing exploration of the role of ambition in the maintenance of the capitalist system, and some suggestions about what an alternative might be.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews