What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Reform Capitalism
A revolutionary, yet utterly practical blueprint for a wiser and better kind of capitalism. It is quite normal to feel frustrated and sorrowful about aspects of modern capitalism, but realistic hope of change can seem either Utopian or demented. In fact, the way that capitalism works is inherently open to alteration and improvement. This is because the problems of capitalism are, in their essence, not about money, law or politics, but about human psychology--the field of expertise of The School of Life.
As this hugely original essay argues, the path to a better sort of capitalism starts with a clear-eyed understanding of our emotional functioning and the workings of our psyches.
As this hugely original essay argues, the path to a better sort of capitalism starts with a clear-eyed understanding of our emotional functioning and the workings of our psyches.
112 pages, Hardcover
Published July 2, 2019
32 people are currently reading
544 people want to read
About the author
The School of Life
173 books3,126 followersThe School of Life is a global organisation helping people lead more fulfilled lives.
We believe that the journey to finding fulfilment begins with self-knowledge. It is only when we have a sense of who we really are that we can make reliable decisions, particularly around love and work.
Sadly, tools and techniques for developing self-knowledge and finding fulfilment are hard to find – they’re not taught in schools, in universities, or in workplaces. Too many of us go through life without ever really understanding what’s going on in the recesses of our minds.
That’s why we created The School of Life; a resource for helping us understand ourselves, for improving our relationships, our careers and our social lives - as well as for helping us find calm and get more out of our leisure hours. We do this through films, workshops, books and gifts - as well as through a warm and supportive community.
We believe that the journey to finding fulfilment begins with self-knowledge. It is only when we have a sense of who we really are that we can make reliable decisions, particularly around love and work.
Sadly, tools and techniques for developing self-knowledge and finding fulfilment are hard to find – they’re not taught in schools, in universities, or in workplaces. Too many of us go through life without ever really understanding what’s going on in the recesses of our minds.
That’s why we created The School of Life; a resource for helping us understand ourselves, for improving our relationships, our careers and our social lives - as well as for helping us find calm and get more out of our leisure hours. We do this through films, workshops, books and gifts - as well as through a warm and supportive community.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
June 21, 2019
Bought this when I wasn’t politically woke yet but I thought I’d give it a go anyway. It was even worse than I could have expected.
A total apology of consumer capitalism, extremely eurocentric and no historical awareness whatsoever concerning the rise of capitalism or its inherent contradictions and disastrous consequences. The conclusion: we need more capitalism. ?? But do we really ???
A total apology of consumer capitalism, extremely eurocentric and no historical awareness whatsoever concerning the rise of capitalism or its inherent contradictions and disastrous consequences. The conclusion: we need more capitalism. ?? But do we really ???
December 29, 2020
This book was a gift so I feel bad giving it one star but it was truly awful- despite the fact that it also gave me something amazing. Let me explain.
First, the book claims it will show us that the failings of capitalism can actually be solved by simply reforming capitalism yet the book only presents a single problem with capitalism and, gravely, it isn’t even the problem most people present. The book argues the true issue with capitalism is that it doesn’t provide to the top tier of Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs- ie our desires for art, spirituality, philosophy, etc. Meanwhile, most critics of capitalism are saying capitalism leaves many people struggling to obtain what’s in the bottom level of the pyramid- shelter, food, medical attention, etc. Afterall, the US is a capitalist powerhouse and yet many people have no insurance and diabetics die every year because they can’t afford insulin. So that’s strike one- the problem the book presents isn’t the problem most people bring up about capitalism.
Well, what does the book have to say about the problem that it does present? Well, the book claims that if companies are told to start producing for these “higher needs” that finally capitalism will make people happy instead of fostering materialism and emptiness. However, the book fails to realize that this has been done already and it has greatly failed. For profit art exists and is regularly found to be hollow compared with the unfortunate art created by starving artists or those that are not known until later in life or death. Mega-mall sized churches that turn a profit and have evangelical TV shows exist and are regularly producing homophobic church goers that are duped into thinking donating to a pastor on TV will cure their ailments. We already have capitalist solutions to the top tier of the pyramid and they’re all terrible.
Additionally, this book has no author listed whatsoever, not even at the very beginning or end of the book, nor could I find this information by searching online. This makes sense since the book gives the impression that it was written by a marketing team that wanted to create consumers who maintain a faith in capitalism and worship brands as symbols of a solution. What’s more is that no sources are given for any of the claims made nor any of the economists quoted. How did they legally print this without issue? If I presented writing like this to my professor, I’d be kicked out of graduate school for blatant plagiarism. The writing style is not academic in any sense- it does not provide examples of economic problems and only references art. This gives me the impression that there was likely a bored art historian on the marketing team that put this together. It doesn’t reference more than a single political ideologist and one economist and doesn’t address any writings by anti-capitalists like Marx or Kropotkin- probably because it couldn’t stand up against them but isn’t that the part of writing a political theory book? To address the opposite position? Instead, this book comes off hollow and Hallmark and corporate- not unlike Chicken Soup for the Soup or Coelho’s The Alchemist in that some people will love it but you get the sense these are casual readers of the subject at hand with little to no academic inclinations.
So what did this book do that was good? Well first it mentioned an artist I hadn’t heard of, Xu Zhen, and his supermarket installations. I looked him up on Google and now I’m completely obsessed with his art. For that, I’ll be eternally grateful.
First, the book claims it will show us that the failings of capitalism can actually be solved by simply reforming capitalism yet the book only presents a single problem with capitalism and, gravely, it isn’t even the problem most people present. The book argues the true issue with capitalism is that it doesn’t provide to the top tier of Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs- ie our desires for art, spirituality, philosophy, etc. Meanwhile, most critics of capitalism are saying capitalism leaves many people struggling to obtain what’s in the bottom level of the pyramid- shelter, food, medical attention, etc. Afterall, the US is a capitalist powerhouse and yet many people have no insurance and diabetics die every year because they can’t afford insulin. So that’s strike one- the problem the book presents isn’t the problem most people bring up about capitalism.
Well, what does the book have to say about the problem that it does present? Well, the book claims that if companies are told to start producing for these “higher needs” that finally capitalism will make people happy instead of fostering materialism and emptiness. However, the book fails to realize that this has been done already and it has greatly failed. For profit art exists and is regularly found to be hollow compared with the unfortunate art created by starving artists or those that are not known until later in life or death. Mega-mall sized churches that turn a profit and have evangelical TV shows exist and are regularly producing homophobic church goers that are duped into thinking donating to a pastor on TV will cure their ailments. We already have capitalist solutions to the top tier of the pyramid and they’re all terrible.
Additionally, this book has no author listed whatsoever, not even at the very beginning or end of the book, nor could I find this information by searching online. This makes sense since the book gives the impression that it was written by a marketing team that wanted to create consumers who maintain a faith in capitalism and worship brands as symbols of a solution. What’s more is that no sources are given for any of the claims made nor any of the economists quoted. How did they legally print this without issue? If I presented writing like this to my professor, I’d be kicked out of graduate school for blatant plagiarism. The writing style is not academic in any sense- it does not provide examples of economic problems and only references art. This gives me the impression that there was likely a bored art historian on the marketing team that put this together. It doesn’t reference more than a single political ideologist and one economist and doesn’t address any writings by anti-capitalists like Marx or Kropotkin- probably because it couldn’t stand up against them but isn’t that the part of writing a political theory book? To address the opposite position? Instead, this book comes off hollow and Hallmark and corporate- not unlike Chicken Soup for the Soup or Coelho’s The Alchemist in that some people will love it but you get the sense these are casual readers of the subject at hand with little to no academic inclinations.
So what did this book do that was good? Well first it mentioned an artist I hadn’t heard of, Xu Zhen, and his supermarket installations. I looked him up on Google and now I’m completely obsessed with his art. For that, I’ll be eternally grateful.
October 30, 2017
Short book written with good intentions. I think you'll see that this book is an example of what the reform it tries to suggest.
The book suggests that Capitalism is not inherently corrupt and what should be reformed are 6 presuppositions at the heart of it. The idea perhaps boils down to an underlying pessimissm in business that thinks money can be sought only by satisfying lower level of desires and needs and so the problem with capitalsim is its lack of depth.
It's all good and shiny to try and use capitalism for satisfaction of higher needs, but one thing the book doesn't address is that when it comes to lower desires, the book suggests, what thrived the businesses leading to economic growth was not just the satisfaction of needs, but also pursuit of superficial wants that were in no way actual needs. The book does a great job of mentioning examples of such wants, such as wigs so large one had to stand on a chair to reach the top of them. Now, how can the same happen for higher needs, are there higher unnecessary wants too?
Also, if it comes down to the competition between businesses selling lower desires and others selling higher needs, wouldn't human beings' laziness and incline towards lower desires be an advantage for the former who would use the advantage to crush the rival or worse hijack it for its agendas? (less)
The book suggests that Capitalism is not inherently corrupt and what should be reformed are 6 presuppositions at the heart of it. The idea perhaps boils down to an underlying pessimissm in business that thinks money can be sought only by satisfying lower level of desires and needs and so the problem with capitalsim is its lack of depth.
It's all good and shiny to try and use capitalism for satisfaction of higher needs, but one thing the book doesn't address is that when it comes to lower desires, the book suggests, what thrived the businesses leading to economic growth was not just the satisfaction of needs, but also pursuit of superficial wants that were in no way actual needs. The book does a great job of mentioning examples of such wants, such as wigs so large one had to stand on a chair to reach the top of them. Now, how can the same happen for higher needs, are there higher unnecessary wants too?
Also, if it comes down to the competition between businesses selling lower desires and others selling higher needs, wouldn't human beings' laziness and incline towards lower desires be an advantage for the former who would use the advantage to crush the rival or worse hijack it for its agendas? (less)
August 10, 2018
Although this book promises a lot more in its title than it delivers, I found it worth a midmorning quick read. The fatal flaw in the book is that it asks capitalism to serve the higher needs of humanity instead of simply catering to destructive whim, yet no significant suggestions for how to make that shift appear in the book. I am all for Thoreauvian theorizing and optimism that transcends details, but I remain on the fence as to whether the ideals that this book proposes are even possible through free markets. So far, our greatest accomplishments of humanitarianism and general uplift of humanity have been more despite market drivers rather than because of them.
December 30, 2020
short and sweet, but was more "in defense of capitalism" instead of "how to dismantle capitalism"
November 22, 2020
Grandiose nonsense. 100 pages of "Wouldn't it be great if we could build a better society" pretending to be a blueprint for building a better society.
July 12, 2022
a.k.a How To Apolitically Assimilated with Capitalism
- A failed, narrow-minded version of Capital Realism. and For your legacy, Mark. i'll rank this book wickedly !!!
- A failed, narrow-minded version of Capital Realism. and For your legacy, Mark. i'll rank this book wickedly !!!
August 10, 2021
I've read some "bad" reviews about this book complaining about being to shallow or forgiving with capitalism. Yes, it's short. Yes, it is not a comprehensive research on capitalism problems and it doesn't want to be. It's an essay, is a "what if". It is not proposing to dismantle capitalism, it is proposing to make it better.
I find this book realistic, we can't expect to replace a system that has been around for over 200 years in the blink of an eye. I see what is proposed in the book as a first step towards a better system where all humanity can be included.
I find this book realistic, we can't expect to replace a system that has been around for over 200 years in the blink of an eye. I see what is proposed in the book as a first step towards a better system where all humanity can be included.
February 5, 2021
Not really what I was imagining or seeking it to be. Spoiler alert - it begins by repeating content from Emotional Education. And then loses me further because I’m falling asleep, letting my mind slip to memories from high school, creating false narratives, thinking about getting a glass of water and a handful of walnuts, excited for Cardi B’s new single, etc. So not entirely the book’s fault that it didn’t stick to my bones... or is it? Because it lost me at the start and didn’t engage me further *eyes emoji*. Anyway, I was looking for a deeper dive but I do have one takeaway 1) optimism is the enemy of capitalism! So I plan to practice this.
April 2, 2021
This was written by someone's literal toes. Most myopic, bull shit piece of critique. Completely failed to remove itself at any point from a capitalist lens or prescriptive. No addressing of race, horrible contextual use of history and really felt like a piece of capitalist propaganda. I'm pissed I even sat down to read this.
June 15, 2021
It's not just bad, it's empty. It is a book devoid of content. There's nothing to review. Even my apolitical father could have slammed back a few Bud Lights and written a book of this caliber in one night, easily.
January 26, 2018
Perfect for the disillusioned idealist. Short and uplifting read, to consume on a Sunday afternoon or during a long train ride.
April 10, 2021
Pseudo-intellectual essay attempting to be both philosophical, self-help and solution oriented. Third School of Life book I’ve read, and have concluded to not touch the series/publisher again unless there is some change/reason to.
In the end, both this book and the wider family are like philosophy lite meets self-help - using major thinkers mostly for photos and window dressing; doesn’t provide much self-help (School of Life as a publisher/writer is obsessed with a Winnicottian “good enough” and the false self/true self interplay)
Thesis of this book: That we don’t actually stop selling, and use capitalism to engage and fulfil needs higher on Maslow’s hierarchy.
That's ok; and alongside the chapter on "Depression of Businessmen" which provides a set of six bad assumptions and six possible solutions (none of which are particularly original, nor which have not been tried before); these two things comprise the entire "good bit" of the book.
The bad: Does not deliver on the grandiose title at all.
Ignored other core critiques: concentration of wealth; the fallacy of trickle down economics; environmental destruction, Marx, Kropotkin, cultural and economic imperialism, monopolies, race, man, the list goes on about what this book missed.
- No real solutions, just vague wistful pointing to “more real” longings.
- Thinking is surface level only (e.g. a short section at the end compares Times Square billboards = bad; Chartres Cathedral = good).
- Not that well read - astounding that anti-capitalists aren’t discussed. Even ones mentioned are misunderstood, e.g. Rosseau “preferred virtue to wealth”, which is a real misunderstanding of his ideas in Discourses on Inequality (1754) about a new and more equitable social contract, centered on amour de soi (a positive self-love), instead of into amour-propre (pride).
- Eurocentric.
- Seems in major parts to be the work of one person (Alain Bolton); since so many weird statements wouldn’t pass committee (or an editor) “traditionally, the most common size for a work of art was between three and six feet across” (p26), ignoring architecture, sculpture, frescoes, gardens, the endless list of many, many art forms way larger than that.
- Regularly makes sweeping, false and substantiated and unsourced statements. “We simply accept that we will live in consumer economies with unfortunate side effects in exchange for high economic growth and high employment.” (p 37) - who is “we”? Readers of this book titled “How to Reform Capitalism?”. The millions that have fought it in the labour movements of the past centuries?
Thankfully it was short.
In the end, both this book and the wider family are like philosophy lite meets self-help - using major thinkers mostly for photos and window dressing; doesn’t provide much self-help (School of Life as a publisher/writer is obsessed with a Winnicottian “good enough” and the false self/true self interplay)
Thesis of this book: That we don’t actually stop selling, and use capitalism to engage and fulfil needs higher on Maslow’s hierarchy.
That's ok; and alongside the chapter on "Depression of Businessmen" which provides a set of six bad assumptions and six possible solutions (none of which are particularly original, nor which have not been tried before); these two things comprise the entire "good bit" of the book.
The bad: Does not deliver on the grandiose title at all.
Ignored other core critiques: concentration of wealth; the fallacy of trickle down economics; environmental destruction, Marx, Kropotkin, cultural and economic imperialism, monopolies, race, man, the list goes on about what this book missed.
- No real solutions, just vague wistful pointing to “more real” longings.
- Thinking is surface level only (e.g. a short section at the end compares Times Square billboards = bad; Chartres Cathedral = good).
- Not that well read - astounding that anti-capitalists aren’t discussed. Even ones mentioned are misunderstood, e.g. Rosseau “preferred virtue to wealth”, which is a real misunderstanding of his ideas in Discourses on Inequality (1754) about a new and more equitable social contract, centered on amour de soi (a positive self-love), instead of into amour-propre (pride).
- Eurocentric.
- Seems in major parts to be the work of one person (Alain Bolton); since so many weird statements wouldn’t pass committee (or an editor) “traditionally, the most common size for a work of art was between three and six feet across” (p26), ignoring architecture, sculpture, frescoes, gardens, the endless list of many, many art forms way larger than that.
- Regularly makes sweeping, false and substantiated and unsourced statements. “We simply accept that we will live in consumer economies with unfortunate side effects in exchange for high economic growth and high employment.” (p 37) - who is “we”? Readers of this book titled “How to Reform Capitalism?”. The millions that have fought it in the labour movements of the past centuries?
Thankfully it was short.
May 19, 2022
Read it more as a thought-provoker rather than a policy treatise. Then you'll be less disappointed by the shallowness of the writing.
____
Changes in society and business seldom begin with actual inventions; they begin with acts of the imagination.
In Mandeville's dichotomy - a nation could either be very high-minded, spiritually elevated, intellectually refined, and dirt poor, or a slave to luxury and idle consumption, and very rich.
A good future may depend not on minimising consumer capitalism but on radically extending its reach and depth to reach our unattended needs (suspicious point). We need the drive of commerce to get behind filling the world - and our lives - with goods that can really help us to thrive, flourish, find contentment and manage our relationships well.
To trace the future shape of capitalism, we only have to think of all the needs we have that currently lie outside of commerce. We need help forming cohesive, interesting, benevolent communities. We need help in bringing up children. We need help calming down at key moments (cost of anxiety and rage is appalling).
The very techniques used to sell bullshit can be deployed to sell wisdom and self-understanding. *squints*
Brands rescue good things from the cult of individualism, which, though flattering, sets us up with a big collective problem, for it denies the good the chance to be active in a widespread way.
____
Changes in society and business seldom begin with actual inventions; they begin with acts of the imagination.
In Mandeville's dichotomy - a nation could either be very high-minded, spiritually elevated, intellectually refined, and dirt poor, or a slave to luxury and idle consumption, and very rich.
A good future may depend not on minimising consumer capitalism but on radically extending its reach and depth to reach our unattended needs (suspicious point). We need the drive of commerce to get behind filling the world - and our lives - with goods that can really help us to thrive, flourish, find contentment and manage our relationships well.
To trace the future shape of capitalism, we only have to think of all the needs we have that currently lie outside of commerce. We need help forming cohesive, interesting, benevolent communities. We need help in bringing up children. We need help calming down at key moments (cost of anxiety and rage is appalling).
The very techniques used to sell bullshit can be deployed to sell wisdom and self-understanding. *squints*
Brands rescue good things from the cult of individualism, which, though flattering, sets us up with a big collective problem, for it denies the good the chance to be active in a widespread way.
Read
January 19, 2022I think what is essentially wrong with Capitalism is CORRUPTION and the lack of government to eradicate it or deal with it in a way that it is not harmful to society or in other words by maintaining an equilibrium in the distribution of wealth. Will Capitalism prevail in America? My feeling is NO. Why? The Government is corrupted as much as those wealthy corrupted persons whom many know how to operate in that environment. TRUMP is a good specimen. Much of the population is side tracked in believing the SHOW Masters. Is it a question of Culture? YES it is. Can it be remedied? YES by Mass Specialized Education and an in depth participation of the people giving away the ME MYSELF and I attitude. TAIWAN has adopted an all people Capitalist model where transparency is the 1st commandment. The US should learn from this model.
July 8, 2025
I remember when I used to carry this book around religiously with me in Year 9 for ambiguous (but admittedly mainly aesthetic) reasons, never reading it... decided to actually read it now and can conclude that it is appallingly shit. Has the vile thesis statement that we can fix our currently unfulfilled need for self-actualisation under capitalism by, in fact, simply further expanding the remit of capitalism and the culture industry. Last line is 'We don't have to stop selling: we need to learn to engage commercially with our highest needs'. Please!! Have you ever read more egregious bullshit? There *is* no commercial engagement with our highest needs because not everything can be solved with commerce, try as we may! Would not advise wasting your time with this. Pretty pictures can be found elsewhere. It's also just seriously philosophically and sociologically boring.
April 4, 2020
I bought this one a whim some while back and picked it up recently. An easy and thought provoking ring in some ways. A sort of conscious capitalism in book form. It basically argues that rather than abandon or oppose capitalism or consumerism we should use its power to elevate business to focus on higher needs and desires. I think it is useful as a way to think about business but short on details and at very high level. A lot of businesses are already implementing these ideas. It also begs the question of whether business should look to culture of if culture needs to be reformed and it will be its nature begin to influence business.
February 25, 2022
I rarely review books on here but I can’t help myself - this is a steaming hot pile of crap. It starts off with a somewhat interesting (although not outstanding) analysis of work by artist Xu Zhen, and then it’s downhill from there. An absolutely tone deaf book that illustrates no research into actual critical analysis of capitalism - it’s just the author making some vague points about how the world can be a bit shallow and somehow capitalism can work it out.
Left me feeling aggravated and I’m glad it only took me a few days to suffer through it.
Left me feeling aggravated and I’m glad it only took me a few days to suffer through it.
September 18, 2020
A quick smart look at capitalism reminding us that well currently they shoot for the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy pyramid, we could just as well easily shoot for the top and actually provide people with experiences and things that they want rather than-based things disguised as experiences and things that they want. similar to other School of life books delivered in a beautiful light style with excellent photos and a surprisingly deep argument for a short book.
September 12, 2021
The problem with soothsayers is they have no skin in the game. If Society ends up in a gulag, like every other Socialist experiment, than it is your problem. If it ends up good, than it's ”I told you so.”
The other problem with the soothsayers is they lack the understanding and usually they even lack the qualifications to solve the problem at hand.
The other problem with the soothsayers is they lack the understanding and usually they even lack the qualifications to solve the problem at hand.
July 18, 2022
Có một vài ý khá hay.
1. Các cty thoả mãn những tầng dưới của Maslow thì đúng là muôn đời thịnh.
2. Theo đuổi tiền thì bị mang tiếng xấu xa, tham lam mà không theo đuổi tiền bạc thì nghèo, sống khổ sở. Vậy thì nên làm gì? Ừ thì vẫn nên theo đuổi tiền và để tiền phục vụ những nhu cầu cao hơn của bản thân, những tầng trên cùng của Maslow.
1. Các cty thoả mãn những tầng dưới của Maslow thì đúng là muôn đời thịnh.
2. Theo đuổi tiền thì bị mang tiếng xấu xa, tham lam mà không theo đuổi tiền bạc thì nghèo, sống khổ sở. Vậy thì nên làm gì? Ừ thì vẫn nên theo đuổi tiền và để tiền phục vụ những nhu cầu cao hơn của bản thân, những tầng trên cùng của Maslow.
September 25, 2023
This reads as if a novel view of the relationship between art and business was strenuously and hollowly rephrased to fill a desired word count. The premise of the essay was well formed, but the essay grossly over simplifies the larger topic of capitalism and spends an unnecessary significant time romanticizing the paradoxical relationship of the artist to modern capitalism.
August 9, 2019
So... I think I missed how to reform capitalism with more capitalism...
WHAT DOING
WHAT DOING
February 26, 2020
This is the first negative book review I've ever written online.
This essay's basic premise is that capitalism has met our basic needs, but the biggest problem is that we're still unhappy. So in order to be happy, companies should 1) "use culture" with integrity and 2) be more optimistic. It was so clearly written by upper class ad agency guys who think ethical marketing is all we need. The writer(s) have no recognition or interest in the group of people for whom the system is failing.
Beyond the fact that no tangible or pragmatic solutions are presented, there's absolutely no mention of the 40 million people in America who don't have their basic needs met, nor billions in poverty world wide. No mention of income inequality and that the middle class is shrinking at alarming rates. No mention of growing homelessness or medical debt. There's a brief mention capitalism's disregard for limited planetary resources (with no solution), yet no mention of carbon output or climate change. It makes the briefest mention of child labor and race to the bottom production, but says if companies are simply optimistic that people will pay more, that'll go away. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What's more, it's poorly written, un-researched, and badly argued. It refers to Maslow's hierarchy of needs more than a freshman undergrad trying to adding word count to a midterm. It states, with no case studies or examples, that the world will be better with brands just doing better. I'll leave perhaps the most confusing and egregiously written paragraph here. You can be the judge. It's under a section bewilderingly titled "Important sensations can be commodified":
"Impressionism - one of the most commercially successful ventures of all time (if it was a stock, it would be near the very top of most exchanges) - began when a group of painters living and working around Paris in the 1860s became entranced by the play of light on the top of clouds, the delicate tones of shadows in city streets, and the shimmering reflection of sunshine on water. They had really lovely experiences walking by rivers, strolling through gardens and picnicking in woodland."
TL;DR - This book is a big ol' NOPE.
This essay's basic premise is that capitalism has met our basic needs, but the biggest problem is that we're still unhappy. So in order to be happy, companies should 1) "use culture" with integrity and 2) be more optimistic. It was so clearly written by upper class ad agency guys who think ethical marketing is all we need. The writer(s) have no recognition or interest in the group of people for whom the system is failing.
Beyond the fact that no tangible or pragmatic solutions are presented, there's absolutely no mention of the 40 million people in America who don't have their basic needs met, nor billions in poverty world wide. No mention of income inequality and that the middle class is shrinking at alarming rates. No mention of growing homelessness or medical debt. There's a brief mention capitalism's disregard for limited planetary resources (with no solution), yet no mention of carbon output or climate change. It makes the briefest mention of child labor and race to the bottom production, but says if companies are simply optimistic that people will pay more, that'll go away. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What's more, it's poorly written, un-researched, and badly argued. It refers to Maslow's hierarchy of needs more than a freshman undergrad trying to adding word count to a midterm. It states, with no case studies or examples, that the world will be better with brands just doing better. I'll leave perhaps the most confusing and egregiously written paragraph here. You can be the judge. It's under a section bewilderingly titled "Important sensations can be commodified":
"Impressionism - one of the most commercially successful ventures of all time (if it was a stock, it would be near the very top of most exchanges) - began when a group of painters living and working around Paris in the 1860s became entranced by the play of light on the top of clouds, the delicate tones of shadows in city streets, and the shimmering reflection of sunshine on water. They had really lovely experiences walking by rivers, strolling through gardens and picnicking in woodland."
TL;DR - This book is a big ol' NOPE.
May 17, 2020
Shallow but accessible attempt to bring art/culture to rescue/reform the undesirable byproducts of capitalism. Found it thought provoking.
October 10, 2020
Enjoyable read..to take in one scoop
October 23, 2020
Can't tell if it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo or a decent art history essay. It's a little bit of both but it does NOT deliver on it's title. 2.5
January 31, 2022
How to Reform Capitalism (for the WASP soul).
October 30, 2022
Aside from a few interesting & informative chapters, it doesn’t offer anything revolutionary.
February 17, 2023
Not sure about this one
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews