What do you think?
Rate this book
Catalyst: A Journal of Theory & Strategy
176 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2018
16 people want to read
About the author
Vivek Chibber
36 books143 followersVivek Chibber is Professor of Sociology at New York University and the author of Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital and Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India, which won the Barrington Moore, Jr. Prize. He has contributed to, among others, the Socialist Register, American Journal of Sociology, Boston Review and New Left Review.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 15, 2019
My favourite issue yet.
Sam Gindin highlights the utopian possibilities of socialism and delves into the weeds of what systems could be necessary to manage production in a way that is democratic and equitable without sacrificing too much efficiency.
Aaron Major criticises theorists of neoliberalism who emphasise the power of ideas while neglecting the material forces that helped those ideas develop as well as gain traction. He sketches out some of the history of neoliberalism (going beyond the usual story of the Mont Pelerin Society) and calls for a more materialist understanding of how its ideas permeated the world's institutions.
Chris Howell sheds light on the uniquely French road to neoliberalism, with a special emphasis on the forces that led to the protests of May 1968. He suggests that France followed a different path than most other Western nations, where class compromise was led primarily by the state rather than by strong trade unions - union density was always low, but coverage was high due to interventions from the state. As a result, neoliberal law labour "reforms" in France haven't really been accompanied by attacks on trade unions the way they have in the US/UK, but are instead about enhancing the discretionary power of employers. I don't know much about French labour or political history, so I didn't get a lot out of this, but it was kind of interesting.
Jane McAlevey shares her favourite lessons from John Steuben's 1950 book Strike Strategy. The gist is: strikes are good, and they should have widespread worker participation to be effective.
David Calnitsky continues the (fascinating) debate on basic income that he began in Vol 1 No 3 ("Debating Basic Income") and which received an insightful response from Alex Gourevitch and Lucas Stanczyk in Vol 1 No 4. I thought this latest contribution was really excellent, and even though I'm personally not a huge fan of UBI myself, I found Calnitsky's arguments defending UBI's fairly convincing. The article talks about the role of policy in building power (both as an end goal to mobilise around, and as a baseline with a ratchet effect once in place) and suggests how capital flight and other possible consequences could be countered (essentially: we could use capital flight as an excuse to nationalise, which is admirable in its audacity even if it may not be practical). I wish he delved more into techniques for countering the inflationary effects of UBI, but maybe he did that in his first article and I don't remember anymore, idk.
Lea Ypi writes a thoughtful and sympathetic critique of Rawlsian liberalism from a socialist perspective. I don't have much background in political theory, and I've only ever encountered Rawls in like one media studies lecture (and never especially liked him), so most of it didn't really resonate with me. Worth reading if you have more of a background in Rawls.
Sam Gindin highlights the utopian possibilities of socialism and delves into the weeds of what systems could be necessary to manage production in a way that is democratic and equitable without sacrificing too much efficiency.
Aaron Major criticises theorists of neoliberalism who emphasise the power of ideas while neglecting the material forces that helped those ideas develop as well as gain traction. He sketches out some of the history of neoliberalism (going beyond the usual story of the Mont Pelerin Society) and calls for a more materialist understanding of how its ideas permeated the world's institutions.
Chris Howell sheds light on the uniquely French road to neoliberalism, with a special emphasis on the forces that led to the protests of May 1968. He suggests that France followed a different path than most other Western nations, where class compromise was led primarily by the state rather than by strong trade unions - union density was always low, but coverage was high due to interventions from the state. As a result, neoliberal law labour "reforms" in France haven't really been accompanied by attacks on trade unions the way they have in the US/UK, but are instead about enhancing the discretionary power of employers. I don't know much about French labour or political history, so I didn't get a lot out of this, but it was kind of interesting.
Jane McAlevey shares her favourite lessons from John Steuben's 1950 book Strike Strategy. The gist is: strikes are good, and they should have widespread worker participation to be effective.
David Calnitsky continues the (fascinating) debate on basic income that he began in Vol 1 No 3 ("Debating Basic Income") and which received an insightful response from Alex Gourevitch and Lucas Stanczyk in Vol 1 No 4. I thought this latest contribution was really excellent, and even though I'm personally not a huge fan of UBI myself, I found Calnitsky's arguments defending UBI's fairly convincing. The article talks about the role of policy in building power (both as an end goal to mobilise around, and as a baseline with a ratchet effect once in place) and suggests how capital flight and other possible consequences could be countered (essentially: we could use capital flight as an excuse to nationalise, which is admirable in its audacity even if it may not be practical). I wish he delved more into techniques for countering the inflationary effects of UBI, but maybe he did that in his first article and I don't remember anymore, idk.
Lea Ypi writes a thoughtful and sympathetic critique of Rawlsian liberalism from a socialist perspective. I don't have much background in political theory, and I've only ever encountered Rawls in like one media studies lecture (and never especially liked him), so most of it didn't really resonate with me. Worth reading if you have more of a background in Rawls.
Displaying 1 of 1 review