@Observer Thank you for posting the link to this essay. Yet read the final paragraph of the review, and the final sentence, which I have italicized, expressed in the subjunctive mood, leaves the reader shaking her head, at the faith of the reviewer or just her/his ideological myopia :
One resides in, as he writes, “the difference between an order imposed by treaties and an order built in sustained reflection about appropriate policy—and the gains to be derived from it.” In the 1920s internationalism was imposed; after the 1960s it developed, in the main, spontaneously, “as a result of calculations about advantage”. That seems right, though today’s anti-globalists would deny it. In their view, the Washington consensus is also imposed, selfishly and undemocratically, on unwilling victims. If that were true, the portents really would be bleak.
We live, in the 2016, in the collapse of that ‘Washington Consensus’ as economic/existential fact, in sum those portents of bleakness have realized themselves historically, pace Hegel!
For a more contemporary evaluation read Adam Tooze’s review of ‘How Will Capitalism End? by Wolfgang Streeck, from the January 5,2017 edition of The London Review of Books titled ‘A General Logic of Crisis'(Behind a pay wall)
Also read an interview with Mr. Streeck posted at the Verso Books web site:
Wolfgang Streeck, author of the just-published How Will Capitalism End?, was interviewed by Wolfgang Storz. They discuss a possible way out of the euro crisis, the importance of the nation state, a disingenous refugee policy, and his ‘denunciation as a social nationalist’.
This interview was originally published on OXI and translated by Flossie Draper.