Greed Is Dead

by Paul Collier, John Kay

Two of the UK's leading economists call time on selfishness as the engine of prosperity.The idea that people are basically driven by individualism and economic incentives, and that prosperity and good societies come from top-down leadership, has dominated politics for the last thirty years (from some perspectives, much longer). This book shows that the age of homo economicus and centralisation is coming to an end. Instead, Collier and Kay argue that community and mutuality will be the drivers of successful societies in the future - as they are already in some parts of the world. They show how politics can reverse the move to extremes of right and left in recent years, that the centre can hold, and that if we think differently we can find common ground to the benefit of all.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, Audiobook, Business, Sustainability

208 pages, Hardcover

Published July 30, 2020

About the author

Paul Collier, CBE is a Professor of Economics, Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College. He is the author of The Plundered Planet; Wars, Guns, and Votes; and The Bottom Billion, winner of Estoril Distinguished Book Prize, the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Lionel Gelber Prize.

Reviews

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am starting to acquire a taste for the books written by these authors. I have known the work of John Kay for some years - he is quite visible as a columnist - but Paul Collier's work is relatively new to me. It has acted as a breath of fresh air in a very stale world. I quite liked the book which I found to be well argued and easy to read.

The basic premise of the book is that we are suffering from an excess of individualism, both from the right and from the left. The excessive individualism of the right has become hardwired into the structure of economics, a discipline that no longer describes the real world. If economics is to progress, it needs to resolve that flaw. The excessive individualism of the left has become hardwired into the rights based identity politics that we currently experience. If society is to flourish, then we have to allow for responsibilities and obligations as well as rights. If we don't, we will spin around in ever decreasing circles of selfishness.

This analysis gives a clue to the antidote for excessive individualism - communitarianism. I am quite inclined in that direction. It is based upon mutual respect as the basis of trust rather than some form of contractual obligation. It is a way to comb out the extremes. To find a way of reconciling differences rather than some form of adversarial combat. If we are a mature society, the we do need to act in a mature way. I think that is where the authors draw inspiration. Many business leaders and politicians act like spoiled children.

There are many dimensions to a revived form of communitarianism. One such dimension is place. That is important in the UK, which is a highly centralised nation. Politics is done in London. Finance is done in London. Business is done in London. The rest of the country is a bit fed up with this. The authors rightly point to the way in which the response of the British Establishment to any crisis is to centralise it. We are now starting to see that assumption questioned in the regions, a process that has a long way to go.

I feel that the authors have hit upon a long trend that is starting to gain pace and which has a long way to go. As a provincial, I rather support that. Moves to decentralise and distribute power, whether political or economic, have my approval. I f you doubt this, read the book. It is well written and well argued. Despite the authors being academic economists, it is a surprisingly easy and enjoyable read.

[Rhys · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seemed to me to be a meandering discourse on the merits of pablum: no 'self-righteous narcissism of expressive individualism' or 'morally superior frets about the NHS [National Health Services], refugees and climate'. No 'woke' or hand-wringing about identity or advancing 'declaratory legislation' in which political aspirations are translated into 'rights'. Just leave it to the self-satisfied traditional (yes, old, white, cis-gendered male dominated) middle class to tweak capitalism and maintain the yummy status quo. All will be best in the best of all systems.

[Igor Zurimendi · Rating 1 out of 5]

While there are some redeemable sections, Collier and Kay fail their stated mission - they are nostalgic for an idealised version of the postwar era, and shallow in how they proposes to return us to it. Instead of having the confidence to critique the strongest proponents of individualism, they strawman. This is mostly clearly illustrated when they misquote Friedman on the social responsibility of business and fail to engage with his arguments. Collier and Kay's own answer - "the social responsibility of business is to conduct business is a socially responsible way" - is comically banal.

Many other of their proposals are similarly trivial: "encouraging young people to get training and encouraging firms to bring in productive jobs are interdependent. The answer is not to 'do neither', but to 'do both'". And most damningly for a book that espouses a communitarian approach to politics, it seems to be anchored nowhere specific - it is hard to take a statements like"the regions need clusters of productive jobs" seriously.

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Timely and thought provoking. Perhaps not the lightest read and as with many socio-economic books a little brief on practical steps. However, the authors’ identification of the growth of greed and self-interest combined with excessive state centralisation and control leading to individuals expecting too much from institutions and not enough from themselves is interesting. Maybe the current pandemic will lead to more community action rather than self-motivated activism. Time will tell.

[Priyanka Kanse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick and easy read for context on individualism from an economic perspective. Four stars bc it's so quick to read.

[Andrew Prendergast]

An extremely disappointing book that marries a relatively thoughtful critique of cut throat capitalism with an attack on activism which veers from being poorly researched to positively nefarious. Many of the attacks on government institutions omit key arguments (for example acknowledging the impact of crippling bureaucracy in social service departments designed to safeguard children without ever considering why such rules may be in place) in favour of a black and white approach to complicated problems that ignores the important role the state continues to play, especially in conjunction with the more local institutions that the authors rightfully praise.

Also, in light of recent events, you have to seriously question the judgement of anyone who would describe Boris Johnson as ‘an intelligent (man) with aspirations to help (his) society’

The Americanised spelling is also mildly irritating in a book written by British academics for the domestic market.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of wishful thinking and no clear message. I don't really disagree with anything the authors said it's just the book stops short of reaching any conclusions from all the observations and analysis. It's a very recent book and yet it speaks of the shift of working class support from Labour to Conservatives as something that is somehow controversial. This is representative of other ideas in the book.

[Rwabigwi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very sobering book. Makes an important read for those who seek to understand the roots of extreme individualism and possible solutions out of the current mess in our polarised politics and globalised society. Loved the chapter on community.

[Maximilian · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m sympathetic to the general premise that community is paramount and that hyper-individualism, along with spending most of our waking hours in top-down power structures, is detrimental to both health and spirit. Also, no one succeeds without standing on the work of others, whether that’s infrastructure, education, or collective knowledge. But beyond that, the book doesn’t really offer anything new or practical, and it’s pretty UK-centric.

[James Uscroft · Rating 1 out of 5]

I should have stopped listening to this rambling, meandering ''Drunken Grandpa Rant' of a book the moment that I heard the authors use the term 'Woke' without irony. I should have stopped when they condemned the entire concept of Human Rights as selfish and self-serving individualism. And I *Definitely* should have stopped when the authors went out of their way to claim that Trans Activism is as bad as Trumpism and to condemn the charity Mermaids on three separate occasions.

Instead though, I carried on listening to this bizarre, 'Drunken Grampa Rant' of a book in case it actually had a point to make. But while there are some interesting and insightful sections here and there, the reason why I condemn it as a 'Drunken Grandpa Rant' is that whenever it seems to make a point, it shifts gears and then either witters on endlessly about something else which the authors insist is also a symptom of 'Individualism,' or about how ''Communities Are Good Actually,' as if the fact that humans are social creatures is some earth shattering revelation. And like all self-proclaimed 'Moderate' old, white, cis-gendered men who claim to be 'Neither Left Nor Right,' the authors' tepid and reformist criticism of 'Free Market Capitalism' pales in comparison to the seething hatred and contempt that they express for #Woke 'Leftist' Activism.

Indeed, it's bitterly ironic that the vague, half-remembered aim of this book is to advocate for a return to 'Communitarianism,' including 'Community Activism,' 'Community Organising' and communities taking control of things such a local energy production, transport and what have you. All of which are being pursued, championed and achieved by the supposedly evil #Woke 'LEFTIST ACTIVISTS' who are apparently only motivated by self-serving attention seeking and egotism. But of course, these aging, white, male economists apparently only know about #Woke 'Leftist Activists' through what they've read in the Daily Heil or heard on the Faux News propaganda network, which amounts to little more than yelling at kids to get off their lawn. Because God Forbid that authors actually 'LEARN' something about the people they're condemning before writing a book about them!

Even if you leave all of that aside though or even eagerly embrace the condemnation and vilification of #Woke Activism and Human Rights, this book still has nothing to offer beyond some intriguing but ultimately useless analysis of past events. And even then, the authors were merely cherry picking anything which they could strawman as examples for their overarching thesis that everything bad is caused by the bogeyman of ''Individualism.' For example, mentioning the high rates of depression and suicide amongst young people without any mention of how the Hyper Capitalist Gig Economy has utterly destroyed all financial security; something which the #Woke Left is fighting to rectify while the grumpy old white men who condemn them do nothing but blame the #Woke Left.

As a matter of fact, the #Woke 'Leftist' book by a Black Lesbian that I read before this one was far more useful and informative on these issues, both practically and academically. So unless you want to hear two grumpy old white men ramble endlessly about how everything bad is caused by 'Individualism' and marvel at their mental gymnastics as they struggle to fit everything they hate under that umbrella, then I'd strongly recommend giving this book a miss. And yes, I do mean ramble endlessly, because although this book is quite short, every time that I 'Thought' they were wrapping up, they just moved on to the next topic; once again, like a 'Drunken Grandpa Rant.'

Rule Number One Of The Holiday Season: Keep Grandpa Away From The Sherry!

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

The authors, both senior economists, acknowledge at the outset that the title of their book is misleading: ‘What we mean is that the extreme individualism embraced by many prominent and successful people in recent decades, and which sought justification in terms of merit or celebrity, is no longer intellectually tenable’ (p. 1). Likewise, the subtitle does not describe the present situation but their hope for the future.

The authors identify two types of individualist thought: possessive individualism, which is manifested in market fundamentalism, and expressive individualism, with its emphasis on personal rights. They are closer to the former than the latter in that they identify as both communitarians and economists: ‘We see no inherent tension between community and market: markets can function effectively only when embedded in a network of social relations’ (p. 8). While admitting the defects of market capitalism, they have nothing but scorn for most proponents of rights: ‘the new activist causes are more abstract and their demands framed only in the most general of terms. At their worst, they are no more than performative opportunities to display the emoting self’ (p. 44). They speak approvingly of organizations that provide charity to individuals but not those advocating structural reforms to address the root causes of economic injustice.

Individualism has corrupted politics as well as economics. The British ‘working class’ (the authors’ term) has been the main victim, as both the Conservative and Labour parties embraced centralization and market freedom policies that neglected disadvantaged rural communities and individuals without higher education. Politics after individualism must be communitarian. For the authors this does not mean direct democracy by referenda, ‘excessive’ representative democracy where members pursue the interests of their electors rather than the common good, or election of leaders by party members. It should be inclusive of all citizen groups, decentralized according to the principle of subsidiarity, and participatory. Economics must also be communitarian; businesses should accept their responsibility to contribute to the good of society rather than simply maximizing profits. Industries should be spread throughout the country rather than concentrated in the London area.

There has been no shortage of books on economic and political individualism in recent years. The principal contribution of this one is the authors’ attempt to find a middle way between the defenders and critics of market capitalism. While they may have succeeded in identifying the components of such an approach, they have offered no suggestions for implementing their vision. As a result, their purpose in writing the book – ‘The combination of individual selfishness and overconfident top-down management has damaged our societies. But you can change it: we have written this book to help you do so’ (p. xv) – has not been fulfilled.

[YHC]

一个顺性别的白男的精神解剖 https://book.douban.com/review/14658629/

看完本来只是想写个短评的，结果短评超过字数限制了，就写长吐槽吧，

1、作者对1945年战后的欧洲左右党派没有如今般的撕裂，也没有各种各样的身份政治，可能是那时候是作者童年到青春期的美好记忆变成了一个“玫瑰色的梦”。但是稍微有常识的人都应该知道，45年后的欧洲，正是意思形态对垒最严重的时候，而大多数劳工阶层对共产主义具有吸引力，为了防止欧洲进一步倒向共产注意阵营才有后来的““马歇尔计划”对西德德援助。

2、作者对“占领华尔街”嘲讽道““当他试图弄清这些人在愤怒的表达之外有何具体诉求和建议时，却毫无收获。”这个熟悉的味道就像某国反对民主时候的话术“这个国家人民不行，他们根本不懂民主，你要他们参与民主，可能会变成民粹，让他们提出切实的建设和意见时候他们不行的”我想人们可能确实对具体问题做不出具体的建议和诉求，即使代议制的议员也不可能对他投票的议题都有深入的了解，他们也需要助手协助帮他们梳理，但是普通的人有被剥夺感，华尔街的人高枕无忧与他们自己却无家可归形成强烈的对比，得出结论是““占领运动”是表演性的，抗议的目的只是抗议。”

3、作者书中还有阴谋论的表述，比如对德国绿党攻击，声称气候环境问题成了“绿党的激进主义减轻了一种它想象出来的并无限夸大了的风险“，作者对日本311归咎于““了一个选址愚蠢的核电站”，而对德国核能设施却又蜜汁自信，写到““核电站也以典型的德国式的精细缜密维护着”，熟悉历史的都知道，20世界德国犯的错误并不比日本少，他们曾经还是盟国。核电站的不仅仅是“精细缜密维护”的问题，结合到最近战争波及扎波罗热核电站的问题，就会知道情况多复杂。作者自己并表示“德国额外排放的二氧化碳将给非洲造成严重后果”。但是要是进步派关注非洲问题的话，作者就会说“选择支持哪项公益事业，取决于它是否能够提高他们在年轻观众心目中的地位，而非取决于社会的真实需求，”按照作者的逻辑，一个关心动物保护的人，作者肯定会说这么多人的问题还没有解决咋关心动物呢，好吧，你要是关注非洲的贫困低于2美元/天生活的人，他就会说““望远镜式慈善”并提醒“药物成瘾、酒精性肝病和自杀死亡的人数在美国各地的激增”。

4、作者从一开始对唯利益驱动的和唯能的精英个人主义的批判，却处处给精英式样的领导来开后门“动物王国中的许多物种都进化出了首领，但它们的领导风格从来都是统治。人类是动物王国中的一分子，我们继承了靠统治来领导的动物本能。”强调多元，有突出对“丘吉尔”权威式的服从。

5、书中写“相互冲突的权力主张”中天真的问道“为什么那对同性新人就不能从另一个面包师那里买蛋糕呢？我们多么希望生活在同一个社会中的人们能够认同他们共同的公民身份”。我就好奇了为什么这个问题不去问蛋糕师傅呢，为什么不能问白人男性呢，为什么从美国独立宣言声称每个公民生而平等，而解决黑人身份问题是通过南北战争而不是通过让白人男性认同彼此的共同的公民身份呢？当顺直白人男性是社会默认设定时候，从来不觉得自己的身分有什么问题，当有人揭开残酷面纱凸显社会阴暗面的时候，却反而责怪少数群体“身份政治化”激化矛盾，而且对跨性别的那个评论很不妥帖，作者暗示跨性别的人可能有某种精神疾病，需要心理医生的评估，姑且不论跨性别的自我认同和性别矫正完全是两回事，跨性别的人也不是每个人都是需要做矫正手术，可能这些不平等还得指望“其他有公益精神的人们凝心聚力，支持推动那些切实可行的政策。”比如作者写到“威廉·威尔伯福斯（William Wilberforce）和他的同事们就是这样在1807年废除了奴隶贸易。在接下来的50年里，沙夫茨伯里伯爵（Earl of Shaftesbury）成功推动了一系列改革，彻底废除了奴隶制，改善了精神病患者的治疗，并限制了童工的使用。20世纪60年代，一群国会议员在内政大臣罗伊·詹金斯（Roy Jenkins）的支持下，启动了一系列社会改革，最终还实现了堕胎和同性恋的非罪化。””肯定没有马丁·路德·金什么事情。

6、在写到为什么传统的产业工人阶级倒向了共和党和川普的时候作者认为现在的工党和民主党缺乏“足够的务实精神”并表示“这些人对推行实施能够落地的政策并不感兴趣，其首要任务是抗议，”一个显而易见的事实是在全球经济化浪潮下，资本家为了获取更多的回报，很多传统工人阶级从事的工作已经从底特律的汽车产业转移到了墨西哥、更多的基础制造产业转移到了东亚。原来的地区入造成产业的空性化。显而易见的是80年代里根撒切尔推新新自由主义，宽松了对跨国企业和资本的监管的结果。作者把进步派刻画成自我道德意识优越，却又缺乏行动，并对于“因为放弃了获取更高收入的机会，又不得不眼睁睁看着抓住了机会的逐利者高调炫耀高收入而产生的怨恨”的群体，

7、讲到直接民主的时候觉得英国的公投是有问题的，但是作者却忘记了让作者艳羡的瑞士确实世界上公投频率最高的国家，却没有缠上像英国这样撕裂的问题，我想问题不在于公投本身，然后讲到代议制时候优越时候，却忘记了美国是代议制的“完美楷模”了，不然怎么是灯塔国呢，毕竟，希拉里和戈尔在普票大幅领先的情况下输掉了总统选举。可是美国现在是政治最激化的国家之一了，可能又要归咎于伯尼·桑德斯以及好高骛远的白左青年。

8、作者以英国为例把英国铁路的失败归咎于国家的中央集权，可是同样的情况在中国和日本却得到了更好有效的发展和利用。就拿作者举例的面包为例，我并不觉得国家为吃不上面包的人提供面包和作者所说的社群可以解决面包问题有什么冲突，我想之间可以是相互补充。国家的责任在于兜底，而社群可以有效协调资源。如果说欧洲从两次世界大战中学到了什么的话，就是让最贫困的人也有相对维持生存的条件。

9、我想人可能是复杂的动物既可以是自私的也可以为了集体利益牺牲自己的，作者认为社群具有亲疏有别， 那么涉及到气候问题这样全世界的都应该关注的问题的时候时候，是不是各国可以优先为了自身发展牺牲他国的利益呢，太平洋上的岛国那一天或许就消失，。我就想到了彼得·辛格《饥饿、富裕与道德》中认为的道德的同一性。和罗尔斯的“无知之幕”先承认人的自私性为前提推导可能是更好的解决方法。也许右派根本否认有气候问题，毕竟地球是圆的还是平的还没有达成共识。

10、作者鼓吹社群，但是有常识的知道，社群在人数较小的范围内是可以有积极的作用的，就像上海特殊时期那样，但是社群的规模足够大，并可以有效的管理和运行，必然是科层化、制度化，决策也是“代议制”那和作者反对国家有啥区别。

[Jason Blean · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent objective analysis, from an economist's view, of the rise of individualism and strident rights-based activist politics in western society and particular in Britain, over recent decades, and its effect on society and the economy. It is argued coherently and persuasively, that since we have moved from "economic man" (who seeks primarily only his own wealth and well-being and sees success only in ability to consume) through market fundamentalism with its associated damaging bonus culture to a fractured economy, that individualism eventually leads to loneliness and a lack of social cohesion. What is needed is a more equal spread of productivity through the less well-off and disaffected communities of Britain outside of London, not simply higher consumption to match that in London. Also, the failed ideas of statism need to be replaced by meaningful devolution that enables autonomous regions to address issues from different perspectives, sharing these to learn from and cooperate with other regions when tackling major social issues instead of favouring centralised control. Interestingly, it disects the idea that the only responsibility of private companies is to increase its shareprice for its shareholders; rather, the argument is made that businesses should aim at a definition of success that includes providing a wanted service effectively and reasonably meeting needs of all its stakeholders affected by their operations: employers, employees, suppliers, customers and the community in which it operates.

[Alejandro Vicente · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book. I hadn't read anything from John Kay until 'Greed is dead', but Collier's "The future of Capitalism" was a really productive reading, and this is a worth one, too.

Nevertheless, there are some ideas that should be nuanced: first of all, in a similar way as "The future of Capitalism", the book is impregnated in an annoying nostalgia. Beside that, it's surprising that Collier and Kay, veteran economists, are unable to understand the basis of modern economic analysis: I'm thinking about the critics to Becker's aproach, which is no more than a formal analysis for explaining economic and resources' assingment behavior, with no implications about conscient maximization or "robotic" actions.

Despite my critics, I consider "Greed is dead" a valuable book, showing unpopular but clever observations. Thus, I would have no doubts in recommending its reading.

[Amelia Caldwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book articulates so perfectly the current state of modern society in a breathtakingly simple manner. I will always remember how the bread is supplied in New York.

I would have loved to see more pages dedicated to the antidote to individualism and what it looks like for those who occupy the market fundamentalist and insistent and expressive activists of individual rights camps. While a comprehensive description of what that looks like would defeat the point of communitarianism, in that communities are unique to the place and individuals that occupy it, more examples would provide me a sense that righting the dinghy is indeed possible!

An excellent read and one that I will recommend most thoroughly in my own communities.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book offers a powerful critique of the hyper-individualistic mindset that has dominated modern economics and politics. The authors argue that this focus on self-interest has led to social fragmentation and rising inequality. They propose a return to a more cooperative, community-driven approach — one that balances personal ambition with collective responsibility. It’s a thoughtful, optimistic take on how society can rebuild trust and create a more sustainable, inclusive future. If you’re interested in economics, politics, or the future of social cohesion, this book is worth a read.

[Ed · Rating 3 out of 5]

The authors seem to be concerned primarily with signaling their virtue through frequent references to esoteric readings rather than coming up with any concrete proposals.
Lots of "as xyz says" and "we should have more of this and less of that", with very little how.
An interesting book, but one that seems to have been written more to raise the authors dinner part and academic profiles than to actually provide a roadmap for change.

[Barbara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Also by John Kay, both authors a tour de force, and to have them together is even better. A book I would like to give more stars too. Paul Collier always uses a lot of research, has wide experience and is a voice of wisdom. Like Exodus and Refugee, this book is too intelligent for those who wish to churn out the usual mantras.

[N · Rating 3 out of 5]

Storbritanniafiksert analyse med særlig fokus hvordan rettighetstenkning og individfokus fra både høyre- og venstresiden svekker samfunnets samhold og utvikling. Særlig første del er interessant, men boka blir litt utflytende, preget av at man presser inn for mange tema.

[Roberto · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very concise and with a plethora of ideais that can shift the world for the best to all sapiens. I do believe it will never be implemented. Perhaps if there is a social unrest or the continuing of this pandemic:Covid...

[Dobrosława · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worst Collier's book that I have read but since it's Collier's, it's still pretty good

[Germán · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic blueprint for both left and right, serves as a summary and identifier of best practices from Kay's Radical Uncertainty and Collier's The Future of Capitalism.

A worthwhile read.

[Xiang Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

虽然很同意作者的观点，但并没有解决什么问题……贪婪从没有死 只是作者很善良的祈祷他死罢了。或许，从贪婪死亡之重生出来的，仍然是贪婪。

[Olan McEvoy · Rating 1 out of 5]

A simple book which starts from the question of why Britain has become so polarised in terms of its politics, economy and culture over the past several decades in its first two parts and outlines communitarian solutions in its third part.

The authors, both professors of economics at Oxford, were the main attraction of this book for me. In spite of their expertise in certain areas (Collier wrote the book The Bottom Billion on development policy and poverty, while Kay wrote Other People’s Money about the global financial crisis), they rarely bring this into the book. Instead the book is more of a political pamphlet backed up by a wide range of theories and anecdotes from the social sciences and their personal experiences.

That’s all fine and the bibliography makes for a good reading list of recent social science and philosophy writing, but sometimes I found their political and social analyses to be pretty basic, certainly compared to what sociologists or political scientists have written on the topics of polarisation, social capital and belonging in recent years. This is amplified by the narrow focus on the U.K. - the authors do make the point of focusing on one’s own community rather than global concerns, but this means that it feels like they downplay global constraints on communitarian governance in a globalised world. Another issue I found is the authors’ over-reliance on their own supposed ‘reasonableness’. It really gives off strong centrist dad vibes and leads them to write off any view they disagree with as being unreasonable, self-interested or simply narcissistic.

In short, this is perhaps worth a read for anybody looking for a communitarian, small-c conservative or centrist view of modern British politics. I found it quite disappointing that the book is more of an encapsulation of the authors’ political views, no matter how well thought out or interesting, rather than coming from the angle of their specialised knowledge on any subject.

[Jukka Aakula · Rating 4 out of 5]

My review in Finnish https://sarastuslehti.com/2023/03/23/...

[FOCUSOT💡 · Rating 3 out of 5]

书本身并不新颖，社群主义的观点是有启发性的，对经济学的辩护也有理有据，但大多批判和倡议似乎都由来已久而不是出自作者本人的研究。

除了总结观点，剩下的只是把各种零散例子和说法一一陈列，读完前半本对个人主义者和集权乱象的批判以后，如果期待着作者更有力地诠释社群主义概念就会非常失望，作者们并没对他们捍卫的概念做更多具体研究，好像一篇有心无力的学生论文。