Abstract
Historian Michael Sonenscher is correct in noting that “capitalism” in the twenty-first century has taken on a politically charged meaning divorced from its intellectual origins, and his goal of situating the term in historical context is a worthy undertaking. Unfortunately, the purpose of Sonenscher's book appears to be something other than understanding the historical meaning of “capitalism.” Rather, he seeks to impress upon his readers that “capitalism” and “the division of labor” are distinct concepts—and, as he so bluntly puts it, “that the division of labor is worse.”
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have