It is always refreshing to read a book that wants to move beyond the critique of capitalism. Wright's is not the only one around, and not the most engaging, but makes solid points about the obstacles to creating an alternative to rampant neoliberalism. As an expert in class analysis, he shows how the old Marxist idea of class consciousness is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in the proliferation of identities in the 21st century. That's why we need shared values--something that mechanistic Marxist theory has dismissed. At the moment, the dynamics Wright discusses make sense, but (as he also notes), they are being employed by the far right to a far greater efficiency than any kind of socialism. But, therein of course lies the hope for left movements as well. Interestingly, from an European perspective, it looks like mass movement on the left will be an import from the US this time around.

This is a short and very readable book which cogently sets out a clear statement of why you might want to oppose capitalism, what strategies might be effective in trying to move beyond it, and what alliances might bring together the people who could make it happen. And yet somehow I still found it unpersuasive.

The arguments presented in favour of being an anti-capitalist are rational and make sense, but are founded on the goal of creating the conditions for every individual to "flourish" and therefore fundamentally on a liberal and moralistic outlook. Similarly Wright eschews revolutionary action that seeks to overthrow capitalism in favour of a blended "eroding" of capitalism through a combination of state-driven "top down" and community driven "bottom up" action. I think Wright underestimates the ability of capitalism and it's influence over the state to either eliminate or co-opt it's challengers and in particular that the modern state could be used for the "top down" part of the strategy without triggering significant resistance.

These earlier sections are missing any sense of agency - who might be persuaded by the arguments presented to oppose capitalism, and which actors might pursue the gradualist strategy that Wright recommends. Wright addresses this in the final section which looks at how the sort of alliances required to make change happen might be constructed. Wright adopts a three part schema assessing "identity", "interests", and "values" as the pivots upon which such alliances might be built, drawing together different groups into some sort of progressive alliance. In a sense this feels like it is built on an essentially postmodern view of individuals in society, each filling a range of "subject positions" which may change depending on the circumstance. Wright therefore builds a similar picture to that created by Laclau and Mouffe in "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy", albeit in easier language. This provides the missing agent, but seems unconvincing. Initially plausible, I think recent history has shown that stable alliances are difficult to construct, and all too easily dismantled by capitalism in favour of alternate alliances that support the status quo.

So in summary this short readable book carefully sets out why and how to oppose capitalism setting out potential strategies and alliances that might be used to bring change about, and why we should pursue change in the first place. I have some reservations about both the strategies and the alliances but this is a valuable read for all that.

This review is also on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2021/06/21/review-how-to-be-an-anticapitalist-in-the-21st-century/

Together with my notes on postmodernism: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2021/03/28/some-notes-on-postmodernism/

And my review from a couple of years ago of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/review-hegemony-and-socialist-strategy/

And some other thoughts based on "identity": https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2021/08/04/reinforcing-identity/

This is a book that I would recommend to people both inside and outside of academia. It is succinct and straightforward enough for non academics to get a lot out of it; and it is grounded, hopeful, and real enough that academics also have a lot to learn from it. One of the first social theory book that I have ever read that posits a theory not only of change, but of what the world could look like after change.

I do think that one could implement all of Wright's suggestions perfectly and still end up with a non-capitalist state that is nationalistic or otherwise not totally humanistic -- for example, would this fictional future state give universal basic income to non-nationals? However, he never claims to be trying to solve the problem of statism, just of capitalism, and that is a task that is already huge for this tiny book.

Another theorist gone too soon. Rest in peace Erik Olin Wright.

I have mixed feelings here. I wanted to like this book so badly but the complete lack of analysis of the interactions between forms of oppression in capitalism and how to address them was very disappointing. Discussing a path to anticapitalism without meaningfully mentioning how racial and gender differences are used to perpetuate capitalism seems entirely unhelpful. I appreciate the optimism and clarity the ideas discussed, but it left much to be desired.

The clunky title aside, this is a to-the-point and very clearly worded strategic guide to resisting capitalist power in the current age.

This book is a great read and worth it, the Guardian review on the front of it sums it up well with “The rate book that can speak to both the faithful and the unconverted.” It highlights key points and digestible steps towards guiding society to a place where it aligns with our moral/value compass to actual make the “pursuit of happiness” accessible. It can definitely be argued by leftists that this book still allows capitalist ideologies to come through but to me that’s what makes it a good read for people on all ends of favoring capitalism or not.

Not a ‘bad book’ necessarily, but not one that I enjoyed or got a whole lot out of reading. It lacked flow and didn’t engage me, which became an accumulative drag; it was an effort to get through with no feeling of payoff, sadly. The author was clearly vastly knowledgable, and his analysis and ideas seemed more than sound - but I don’t think they have stuck in my brain at all.