Il potere dei giganti: Perché la crisi non ha sconfitto il neoliberismo

by Colin Crouch, Marco Cupellaro (Translator)

La crisi devastante delle economie occidentali avrebbe dovuto portare con sé la dottrina economica egemone del neoliberismo. Non è stato così. Perché? La risposta di Crouch, densa e polemica, è che le teorie neoliberiste sono funzionali al potere di un'entità che pesa sempre più: l'impresa gigante. I partiti di sinistra e i movimenti della società civile dovrebbero fare argine contro lo strapotere delle megaimprese. L'opera non è affatto semplice, ma la diagnosi esatta di Crouch può essere un buon inizio. Leopoldo Fabiani, "la Repubblica"

Quali interessi rappresenta il neoliberismo? Qui sta l'originalità di Crouch: le gigantesche imprese transnazionali, che antepongono le proprie regole private a quelle dei governi, sono i soggetti che ripropongono le politiche neoliberiste. È così che si spiega la strana ‘non morte del neoliberismo'. Gian Luigi Vaccarino, "L'Indice"

«Il mercato non esiste» verrebbe da dire oggi leggendo Il potere dei giganti, dove si mostra che per larghi settori dell'economia, la libera concorrenza è schiacciata dai grandi conglomerati industriali e finanziari, che dello Stato e dei governi non sono gli antagonisti, bensì i ‘poderosi alleati'. "l'Espresso"

Genres: Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Sociology

214 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 8, 2011

Reviews

[Mario the lone bookwolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

ENGLISH

A hypocritical, bigoted economic system that dresses in the body parts of democracy.

As evident as around the various financial crises, bank bailouts, rescue packages, etc. of recent years, the dysfunctionality of wholly deregulated financial markets has never been shown. Trillions of dollars were pumped into the financial sector before the eyes of all citizens, even though this had caused the crisis itself. TINA came in the form of "too big to fail."

The rabid chain dogs that Thatcher and Reagan had freed were not captured, or brought to justice by their owners. In neither of them, castration was even mentioned. Because, despite obvious design flaws, the same scheme will continue. No three-strikes law. On the contrary, fiscal immunity and total freedom of choice. The citizens and the planet are the whipping boys. Also, no new rules have been issued, or control bodies equipped with powers or preventive measures taken. Nothing happened. As in many other similar contexts where the state plays for time and mimics the ostrich and rivals the three monkeys. Kindergarten. "I do not hear you, lalala."

The civilian population looks on passively as all social achievements and characteristics of a functioning democracy go down the drain. It is well known that public funds cover the financing of the settlement of claims Accordingly, the state lacks money in essential areas that ensure social security and stability.

The harassment against the working mass has increased more and more over the decades. There is a system behind it, trying again and again something new, progressive and creative in the dismantling of workers' rights. The reaction to it is carefully monitored and analyzed.
If too much resistance forms, the issue is drawn back, reformulated, defused or secretly decided overnight. Particularly in the sensitive areas of education, the job market and health, many styles of this practice can be found. Often one reads of proposals that represent entirely untenable, barely concealed exploitation. They disappear quickly when they fail as test balloons. But they come back the other way. According to this scheme, social policy has been practiced in recent decades. When the right dose of chicane was found, the repetitive singsong came with superlatives and doom scenarios:

Unless the pension is introduced at age 70, pregnancy protection is reduced to 3 months, health care savings are at least reduced by 5 billion, the arms budget is not increased by $ 20 billion, etc. collapse. The corporatokalypse, fitting to the corporatocracy

Wait! All these measures, aimed at the impoverishment of the population for the diversification of wealth, have been implemented for almost two generations, and yet there are always crises? Moreover, when another collapse of the financial market occurs, more of the little money left to the welfare state is being pumped into the causing corporations?
Thus, the mantra of competitiveness, the free market, deregulation, free trade, and so forth that has been prayed down all the time is obsolete and utterly inconsistent. Not even the basis of its raison d'être has been confirmed, but it has failed in its entirety in every respect.

Neoliberalism, like a violent adolescent and later extortionist, has squeezed the last out of the people. He was coddled anti-authoritarian without an introduction of boundaries and rules by his deluded parents. Because he was no longer tolerable with his parents, the state, he became a parasite. Due to his irresponsibility, he screwed things up and had to crawl back to mum and dad because of the consequences of his evil, childlike actions.
As parents, they were in the meantime quite battered financially from his escapades. However, instead of spanking him this time, they broke up another bankbook. That was meant for the university education of other their children, but well. They were too good-natured and also a bit dizzy and thus were defenseless against his manipulation attempts.
And with freshly filled bags, the malicious, a little bald and slightly overweight neoliberalism can again do what he wants. He has become even more crafty and greedy over the years. Worst of all, the victims have become accustomed to his presence. When he comes, they take it, without even thinking of resistance. Then they instead rant about minorities, immigrants, a hostile power, the neighbors and the opposing sports team or wallow in consumption. The parents, on the other hand, are getting older and weaker, while their rotten brat waits for their final death. So that he can inherit everything.

So yet people are going to vote. This either leads to the conclusion that they are finally succumbed to the lies of the system media and believe that their voice would do something right. Alternatively, they are disinterested and go to the ballot boxes out of habit and conditioning. Even after a short consideration, people should realize that there must be a connection. Between their increasingly deteriorating living conditions, which are shaped by politics and their voting decision. Nevertheless, for decades they have been voting for the parties that have broken all electoral promises so naturally and so often.

Is the system or the adult but immature citizen to blame? Also, does the situation always have to become so precarious before the authorities or the civilian population rise to the commitment and willingness to change? It is tough to differentiate who is to blame. The greed of less, very powerful people or the lack of action and initiative of the citizens.

All of the rebellions in human history began only at the point when conditions became utterly unsustainable for humans, and they were threatened with their bare survival. The corporatocracy will never let that happen. No matter which turns to the good or the lousy society will take, the funders in the background will be involved in every development.
Whether in a post-growth economy in a post-capitalist democracy with unconditional basic income, no diseases, and whole nature. Or, alternatively, in one of the many, many dystopias. A gray eminence in the background will be involved in both developments and benefit from it. If a border between two such countries is marked with a demarcation line and defined as a death strip, only the uniforms of the soldiers are different. The model that funds both sides is the same. The many shades and gradations between these extremes will shape the future cultures of the world.
Traders and bankers have shaped the destiny of humanity for millennia. It was only a matter of time before they buried themselves so deeply in the centers of power and assimilated the entire social system to make themselves irreplaceable. With them, the system stands and falls, and their omnipotence cannot be opposed.

The end of history has not come, as postulated by Fukuyama, in the form of democratic liberalism. However, in the way of a neoliberal corporatocracy. Whether that is good or bad depends solely on chance, in which of the controlled social models one finds oneself again.

GERMAN

Ein scheinheiliges, bigottes Wirtschaftssystem, das sich in die Leichenteile der Demokratie kleidet.

So offensichtlich wie rund um die diversen Finanzkrisen, Bankenrettungen, Rettungsschirme usw der letzten Jahre hat sich die Dysfunktionalität vollkommen deregulierter Finanzmärkte noch nie gezeigt. Vor den Augen aller Bürger wurden Billionen in den Finanzsektor gepumpt, obwohl dieser die Krise selbst verursacht hatte. TINA kam in Form von "too big to fail."

Die tollwütigen Kettenhunde, die Thatcher und Reagan endgültig von den Leinen gelassen haben, wurden nicht eingefangen oder ihre Besitzer zur Rechenschaft gezogen. Bei keinem von beiden wurde Kastration auch nur in Erwähnung gezogen. Weil trotz offensichtlicher Konstruktionsfehler weiter nach demselben Schema verfahren wird. Kein Three-Strikes law. Im Gegenteil fiskalpolitische Immunität und absolute Narrenfreiheit. Die Prügelknaben sind die Bürger und der Planet. Auch keine eine neuen Regeln wurden erlassen, Kontrollinstanzen mit Vollmächten ausgestattet oder Präventionsmaßnahmen in Augenschein genommen. Gar nichts ist passiert. Wie in vielen anderen, ähnlichen Zusammenhängen, bei denen der Staat einfach auf Zeit spielt, den Vogel Strauß imitiert und den drei Affen Konkurrenz macht. Kindergarten. "Ich hör dich nicht lala".

Die Zivilbevölkerung sieht tatenlos dabei zu, wie sämtliche sozialen Errungenschaften und Eigenschaften einer funktionierenden Demokratie vor die Hunde gehen. Es ist bekannt, dass die Finanzierung der Schadensregulierung mit der Allgemeinheit gehörenden Mitteln bestritten wird. Entsprechend fehlt dem Staat in wichtigen, die soziale Sicherheit und Stabilität gewährleistenden Bereichen, das Geld.

Die Schikanen gegen die arbeitende Masse haben sich über die Jahrzehnte immer mehr gesteigert. Es liegt ein System dahinter, immer wieder etwas neues, progressives bei der Demontage der Arbeitnehmerrechte auszuprobieren. Die Reaktion darauf wird genau beobachtet und analysiert.
Formt sich zu viel Widerstand, wird das Anliegen wieder zurück gezogen, neu formuliert, entschärft oder heimlich über Nacht beschlossen. Besonders in den sensiblen Bereichen Bildung, Arbeitsmarkt und Gesundheit finden sich viele Stilblüten dieser Praxis. Häufig liest man von Vorschlägen, die vollkommen unhaltbare, kaum mehr kaschierte Ausbeutung darstellen. Sie verschwinden schnell wieder, wenn sie als Testballons scheitern. Aber sie kommen auf die andere Art und Weise wieder. Nach diesem Schema wurde in den letzten Jahrzehnten Sozialpolitik betrieben. Wenn die richtig dosierte Schikane gefunden wurde, kam der repetitive Singsang mit Superlativen und Untergangsszenarien.

Moment…. Diese ganzen, auf die Verarmung der Bevölkerung zur Umschlichtung des Reichtums abzielenden Maßnahmen werden seit bald 2 Generationen umgesetzt und trotzdem gibt es dauernd Krisen? Und wenn dann schon wieder ein Finanzmarktkollaps eintritt, wird noch mehr von dem wenigen, dem Sozialstaat verbliebenen Geld in die verursachenden Konzerne gepumpt?
Damit ist das seit Jahrzehnten herunter gebetete Mantra von wegen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, freier Markt, Deregulierung, Freihandel, usw obsolet und in sich vollkommen inkonsistent. Nicht einmal die Grundlage seiner Existenzberechtigung wurde bestätigt, sondern er hat auf voller Länge in jeglicher Hinsicht versagt.

Wie ein gewaltbereiter Pubertierender und später Schutzgelderpresser hat der Neoliberalismus das Letzte aus den Menschen gepresst. Er wurde antiautoritär ohne Aufzeigen von Grenzen und Regeln von seinen verblendeten Erziehungsberechtigten verhätschelt. Weil er sich mit seinen Eltern, dem Staat, dann nicht mehr vertragen hatte, wurde er zu einem Parasiten. Durch seine Unverantwortlichkeit baute er mächtig Mist und musste wegen den Konsequenzen
des unverantwortlichen, kindlichen Denkens zu Mami und Papi zurück kriechen lassen. Als Eltern waren sie in der Zwischenzeit von seinen Eskapaden finanziell und nervlich ziemlich mitgenommen. Aber, anstatt ihn diesmal richtig den Hintern zu versohlen, haben sie ein weiteres Sparbuch aufgelöst. Das war eigentlich für die Universitätsausbildung der anderen Kinder gedacht, aber tja. Sie waren zu gutmütig und auch ein bisschen vertrottelt und waren dadurch seinen Manipulationsversuchen gegenüber wehrlos.
Und mit frisch gefüllten Taschen darf der bösartige, mittlerweile glatzköpfige, mit Erektionsproblemen geschlagene und leicht übergewichtige Neoliberalismus weiter machen, was er will. Er ist über die Jahre noch verschlagener und gieriger geworden. Was das Schlimmste ist, die Opfer haben sich an seine Gegenwart gewöhnt. Wenn er kommt, nehmen sie es einfach hin, ohne überhaupt an Gegenwehr zu denken. Dann schimpfen sie doch lieber über Minderheiten, Immigranten, eine feindliche Macht, die Nachbarn und die gegnerische Sportmannschaft oder suhlen sich in Konsum.
Die Eltern hingegen werden immer älter und schwächer, während ihre missratene Göre darauf wartet, dass sie endgültig sterben. Damit er alles erben kann.

Und trotzdem gehen die Leute wählen. Das lässt entweder die Schlussfolgerung zu, dass sie den Lügen der Systemmedien endgültig aufgesessen sind und glauben, ihre Stimme würde etwas bringen. Oder sie sind desinteressiert und gehen aus Gewohnheit und Konditionierung zu den Wahlurnen. Selbst nach kurzer Überlegung müsste den Menschen eigentlich klar werden, dass da ein Zusammenhang bestehen muss. Zwischen ihren sich immer mehr verschlechternden Lebensumständen, die von der Politik geprägt werden und ihrer Wahlentscheidung. Nichts desto trotz wählen sie seit Jahrzehnten die Parteien, die so offensichtlich und so oft alle Wahlversprechen gebrochen haben.

Ist dem System oder den volljährigen, aber unmündigen Bürgern die Schuld zu geben? Und muss die Lage immer erst so prekär werden, bevor sich Obrigkeit oder die Zivilbevölkerung zu Engagement und Änderungsbereitschaft aufraffen? Es fällt wirklich schwer zu differenzieren, wem man einen größeren Vorwurf machen soll. Der Gier weniger Mächtiger oder der mangelnden Handlungsbereitschaft und Initiative der Menschen.

Sämtliche Rebellionen der Menschheitsgeschichte wurden erst an dem Punkt begonnen, als die Zustände für die Menschen vollkommen unhaltbar wurden und sie in ihrem blanken Überleben bedroht waren. So weit wird es die Korporokratie niemals kommen lassen. Egal, welche Wende zum guten oder zum schlechten die Gesellschaft nehmen wird, die Geldgeber im Hintergrund werden an jeder Entwicklung mitschneiden.
Ob in einer Postwachstumsökonomie in einer postkapitalistischen Demokratie mit bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen, keinen Krankheiten und intakter Natur. Oder in einer der vielen, vielen Dystopien. Eine graue Eminenz im Hintergrund wird an beiden Entwicklungen beteiligt sein und davon profitieren. Wenn eine Grenze zwischen 2 solchen Ländern mit einer Demarkationslinie samt Todesstreifen versehen ist, sind nur die Uniformen der Soldaten unterschiedlich. Das Modell, das beide Seiten finanziert, ist ein und dasselbe. In den vielen Schattierungen und Abstufungen zwischen diesen Extremen werden die zukünftigen Kulturen der Welt geformt werden.
Händler und Bankiers haben die Geschicke der Menschheit seit Jahrtausenden mitbestimmt. Es war nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis sie sich so tief in die Zentren der Macht eingraben und das gesamte Gesellschaftssystem assimilieren, um sich unersetzlich zu machen. Mit ihnen steht und fällt das System und ihrer Allmacht kann nichts entgegen gesetzt werden.

Das Ende der Geschichte ist nicht, wie von Fukuyama postuliert, in Form von demokratischem Liberalismus eingetreten. Sondern in Form einer neoliberalen Korporokratie. Ob das gut oder schlecht ist, hängt alleine vom Zufall ab, in welchem von ihr kontrollierten Gesellschaftsmodell man sich wieder findet.

[Markus · Rating 4 out of 5]

With a style somewhere between academic research and political pamphlet, Crouch offers an interesting analysis of the current state of neoliberalism. Much of the political economic analysis in the book takes the form of a kind of "immanent critique" in which the assumptions and assertions of neoliberal policy doctrine and neoclassical economic theory are taken seriously and assessed against the real-world developments and examples, thus demonstrating the false, misleading and insincere nature of those doctrines. The exercise leads Crouch to argue that, while touting the virtues of the market against the inefficencies of the state, neoliberalism is not about the market at all but about the domination of markets by "the giant firm", whose interests the ideology effectively serves. In addition, over the course of the past three decades, neoliberalism has helped the transnational companies rise to a position not just of great economic dominance but also of political power. As a result, big business now has and ability to greatly influence government policies and make important decisions over them, while rendering much of the remaining democratic politics effectively meaningless. As a result, Crouch sees little purpose in looking for the nation-state to provide an effective counterweight against the global corporation.

In the end, against such a critical and downright gloomy analysis of how corporations rule the world, Crouch voices a surprisingly moderate and muted call for action. To counter the economic and political power of the giant firm, the book, explicitly directed at a "centre left" reader and discarding all notions of a radical change to the system, envisions a transnational civil society that represents the power of values in the regulation of social relations. In a post-democratic and post-national condition, it is thus the task of the infinitely plural civil society, with its movements, campaign organisations, religous groups, political parties and professionals, to struggle against the utilitarist and egoistic logics of both transnational companies and governments and to pressure them to provide the public goods called for by the multitudes.

Clearly, then, the merits of the book lie more in the actual political economic analysis than in its final conclusions. All in all, Crouch has provided a valuable addition to the literature on neoliberalism.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

While Colin Crouch's analysis of neoliberalism is persuasive, it is also very generous and leads to the pessimistic conclusion that we can do little to control the power of its most important manifestation, the transnational corporation. He does see a role for civil society in controlling the excesses of TNCs, but this is limited, despite the excesses being very large. He sees only a limited role for government, rather dismissively assuming that any alternative would be very statist.

This seems to me to ignore or at least underplay what is fundamentally wrong about neoliberalism in its present form. For example, he sees the return of the market with renewed strength after its massive and near cataclysmic failure in 2008 as an indication of its invincibility. Well he may be right, but what a terrible world we will end up inhabiting, or rather not inhabiting, since on their current trajectory the transnationals will surely destroy the planet as a viable environment for humans as they have already done for other species?

Colin helps us understand many aspects of the problem, but he gives us a solution which is far too tame to have much real effect. For example, do those (such as say the Occupy movement) who are now part of civil society, really believe that in their current marginal role they will achieve their aims? Surely they would see their present protests and occupations as a potential jumping-off point to a much bigger confrontation with the power of the market, even if perhaps they don't know where this will lead? Unfortunately if they look to this book for inspiration or guidance on what the next steps might be, they won't find it.

[Bryan Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

A wide-ranging assessment of neoliberalism, this book offers a useful overview of how that force came to dominate civilization. Additionally, Crouch describes how neoliberalism is likely to emerge from the 2008 crisis in fine shape.
One major strength: analyzing neoliberalism in market terms, drawing out its bad behavior in terms of information transmission and the organization of competition.
The conclusion is, alas, a bit desperate and flailing.

[Nancy-Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little heavy on the jargon, boasting occasional attempts to speak like a human to humans.

Dull in delivery and passion, with some insights and arguments that add intrigue and keep one from falling asleep while reading.

Examples given are well framed. This book gives great context about the development of economic theory and how it has actually been applied and rolled out in society in recent decades - including many miscalculations that are fleshed out in the book to a satisfactory degree.

Misses the point a bit by trying to engage with what can be done with the current system, and avoids discussing one rather large critique of neoliberalism - that endless growth cannot be supported on a planet with finite resources.

In attempting to engage with the reality of our world and not get too far away from the current mindset, the author somehow manages to completely ignore the blatant reality that we are hurtling towards and makes this text a rather pointless one for those interested in how we can develop an economic system that can work and that can be sustained.

[Tobias · Rating 4 out of 5]

It look me some time before I saw what Crouch was trying to do - at times he seemed to go off on tangents that didn't seem particularly relevant. But by the end, I came to see this book as hugely important. Crouch starts by saying that he is seeking a way to cope with the world we live in - dominated by large corporations and the wealthy, who are able to manipulate the state in their favor - rather than wishing it were not so. Not unlike others, he comes to see civil society as the best hope for tempering the amorality of business and state, not because civil society actors are free from base motives but because civil society's pluralism offers the best chance of finding actors who seek to induce moral behavior in others. In the process, he lays out a fairly novel way of thinking about the interaction between state, market, and civil society.

[L'lerrét Jazelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I did not turn to this book for a pathway towards a just society. I did not turn to this book to align myself with a set of values. I feel like I very much disagree with many of the sentiments offered in those arenas.

However, this is a brilliant book for those who have little to no understanding of the insidiousness of our global economy. I wanted to truly understand the political and economic motivations of neoliberal ideologies and what I got was not only a definition and a historical roadmap but also a really in depth understanding of the messiness of markets, loaded language, interconnected was between corporations and politics, and just a really informed guide to motivations and incentives for governmental action.

I feel so much more prepared to develop more sharpened critique of our economy and develop more comprehensive solutions.

[Ma Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός κατά τον καθηγητή - συγγραφέα, δεν πολυζορίστηκε με την κρίση διότι ως γνωστόν, οι μεγαλοεταιρείες θεωρούν ότι τα κέρδη είναι μόνο δικά τους, αλλά στη χασούρα βάλε πλάτη λαέ και μόκο, διότι οι εταιρείες και οι πολιτικοί τα'χουν βρει - από παλιά. Στο βιβλίο αναφέρονται οι μέθοδοι που διευκολύνουν αυτή τη διάδραση, από κάτι "απλό" όπως οι χορηγίες σε κάτι πιο σκοτεινό όπως η νομοθεσία.

[Jorge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este libro es una extraña mezcla entre un análisis economico dinamico y la literatura de masas. En el mero plano de la escritura, es un desagrado total que el autor asuma que el lector es algo tarado al recordar y señalar lo que se leyó, y lo que se leerá, respectivamente. Y es más, el mismo autor, define su libro no como un estudio académico, si no, un trabajo simple para que el común de los mortales podamos comprenderlo (Y, apuntando a ese objetivo, crea un híbrido, un trabajo con poca fundamentación Bibliografica, pero con un lenguaje que no es de uso cotidiano)

En el plano más importante -si, recuerdo que esto no es literatura, pero un editor debiera corregir esos errores antes de publicar un libro-, el que se refiere a la tesis planteada por el autor se encuentra una refrescante forma de hablar sobre la "derrota Socialdemócrata" frente al Neoliberalismo, desde como la sociedad que tanto desprecia el individualismo -una sociedad, teoricamente, regida bajo los valores cristianos-, pero que lo practica a diario, y en la cual -señalado como el máximo triunfo neoliberal- todas las instituciones, los comportamientos y acciones del diario vivir, están sometidas a una logica de mercado.

Durante el análisis hecho sobre la crisis de 2008-2009, Colin Crouch no destroza el neoliberalismo en teoria, busca ortodoxia, ya sea, anti-neoliberal, o de los mismo teóricos de la Universidad de Chicago. Acusa en los primeros capítulos del escrito, la idea neoliberal que dice "alejar al estado de la economía", pero recuerda también como aquellos más insistentes promotores del neoliberalismo y la desregulación financiera -Los Bancos- lloraban por un rescate de aquel monstruo ineficiente, burocrata y supresor de las libertades individuales que es el estado ¿Paradójico no?

Otras aristas muy interesantes de la argumentación se entregan desde el plano empirico de la economía, por ejemplo, la critica neoliberal suele argumentar que el Estado es ineficiente en la entrega de servicios, ya que suele crear monopolios, y si está en competencia directa con los actores privados el Estado suele mantener su ineficiencia, ya que, el Estado no esta enfocado meramente a un plano de entregar herramientas para el normal desenvolvimiento de los actores económicos privados y el estado -al alejarse del lucro- olvidará la eficiencia y puede entrar en deficit, ya sea para los privados (Que, supuestamente, no podrían competir con quien hace las leyes) o para los contribuyentes (Con la subvención de los precios), Colin Crouch entrega una vision bastante certera sobre esto, ¿Acaso no está demostrada la ineficiencia de los privados en muchas areas de la economía? Los Monopolios naturales existen, y más aun, las barreras de entrada a la competencia privada son en algunos casos tan altas, que los mismos privados se abstienen de competir, generando monopolios -ergo, concentración economica-. ¿Es solo el Estado ineficiente? ¿O es que acaso ciertos sectores, que se precian de defender nuestras libertades individuales a traves de este modelo economico, lo llaman así para privatizar algunos de los sectores más lucrativos de las economías nacionales, como los servicios básicos, o los recursos naturales?

También una variante presentada es aquella que plantea, muy convincentemente, la creación y modificación de políticas publicas por parte de corporaciones, ¿Por que los contratos del Estado, el cual no tiene fines de lucro, deben someterse a una logica mercantil, impuesta por los privados? ¿Aquello nos beneficia, o simplemente, entrega mejores condiciones a una minoria que cada dia acapara más recursos económicos? La preocupante intromisión de los privados en materias estatales es nociva para la democracia actual, y no es solo la clásica imagen de una corporación gigantesca sobornando a politicos corruptos, si no, una dependencia absoluta de los privados hacia el estado, pero abteniendose de las responsabilidades que este trata de imponer.

Para finalizar, a mi parecer, la reflexión más importante -y preocupante- que se deja:

"¿Cómo se gestionará ahora el enorme riesgo moral establecido a partir de que los gobiernos reconocieron la irresponsabilidad financiera como un bien social? -Refiriendose a los rescates de bancos hechos por algunos gobiernos en el marco de la crisis financiera de 2008-2009- Al abordar esta cuestión es necesario partir de la aceptación de que las elites políticas y económicas van a hacer todo lo que puedan para sostener el neoliberalismo en general y, en particular, su linea orientada por el sector financiero. Se han beneficiado enormemente con las desigualdades de riqueza y poder que el sistema ha producido, en comparación con la experiencia de fiscalidad fuertemente redistributiva, sindicatos fuertes y regulación estatal que caracterizó al llamado periodo socialdemócrata- Se había tolerado estos rasgos porque parecían necesarios para sostener el consumo de masas y para evitar que los trabajadores industriales se convirtieran en comunistas. Ahora, afortunadamente, el comunismo ha desaparecido para siempre, y sucede que la posibilidad de basar el consumo masivo en un sistema masivo de deuda privada a traves de los mercados financieros pasó a hacer que cierta gente se enriqueciera verdaderamente mucho. Ellos se aferraran a este modelo tenazmente."

[Bicho · Rating 2 out of 5]

Esperaba más. No me disgustó, pero tampoco me resultó demasiado revelador. No sé si es culpa del libro o mía, ya que quizás se me escaparon algunas cosas.
De cualquier modo, bien vale la pena leerlo.

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing for a number of reasons, not least because the title probably raises unreasonable expectations.
Although the rise of "neoliberalism" is adequately explained it's little more than a précis of David Harvey's "A Brief History Of Neoliberalism". Where it particularly falls short is in the inability to articulate any realistic challenge.

[André · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crouch describes in this book the interactions and interrelations between state, market, enterprises and civil society before and in-between the current economic and financial crisis. I liked especially chapter 5 in which Crouch make me understand the causal chain of the economic and financial crisis. Thank you Colin Crouch!

[Dev Scott Flores · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros - easy to digest analysis of all the dirty fiscal bits; thinks civil society is the solution (should be required reading for all Occupy Wall Street-ers)
Cons - not enough focus on global inequalities (hard to be civil when one is starving) and could have done without the derision for organized religion

[Randy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had some hope that would be a very good book, but it turns out that it's not. It does have a lot of nuanced analysis, but I do feel it's somewhat naive, or more accurately, places too much hope in certain areas. This might be because of the time the book was written. I'm wondering if he feels the same today.

[Gernot · Rating 5 out of 5]

So far (first 1/3) a very interessting about the interrelations of market and politics.

[Norman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cogent (and depressing) analysis of how those responsible for the GFC have come out on top - at our expense.

[Greyson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but ultimately unsatisfying.

[Désirée · Rating 4 out of 5]

Must-read to understand how this stage of capitalism works, expecially regarding the power of multinational corporations.