Adam Przeworski was born in Poland and has become one of the US's most famous political scientists - here he was interviewed in 2003 by Gerardo Munck
The Insatiable Machine – how capitalism conquered the world Trevor Jackson
(2026) reviewed in Jacobin hereThis book is a history of the economic system that we call capitalism.Artificial Intelligence, Politics and Political Science ed Tucker and
It explains the origins, spread, and internal dynamics of this system, with the
intention of explaining to nonexperts how the world we live in got to be the way it is.
The book’s scope is the subset of the world economy that can reasonably be
termed “capitalist,” beginning in dispersed and sporadic parts of the Atlantic world
in the 16th century and continuing until the global dominance of capitalism
at the onset of the 20th. In other words, it begins roughly during the life of
Martin Luther and ends during the life of Vladimir Lenin, and it will use each of them
(Luther in 1517, Lenin in 1917, and with Isaac Newton in the middle in 1717)
as an illustrative example of how the global economy changed over the course
of centuries. This is a book about where capitalism came from,
how it spread around the world, and how it came to be the dominant way of
organizing human life. There are good reasons to tell this history again,
and in a new way. The first is the simple fact that capitalism is the economic
system we live in today: It spans more of the globe and encompasses more
aspects of human life than any economic system ever has before.
Since at least the 2008 crisis, there has been an increasing sense that it may
have gotten out of control and might now threaten democracy, society,
the environment, and the habitability of the planet.
But unlike countries, people, or events, capitalism is an abstraction with
no agreed-upon definition and no physical location. There is no single place
to find it, or single person in charge of it, and no single way to understand or
study it. So how do we tell the story of capitalism?
The place to start is to think about capital, and capitalists, which is a form of
power and group of people distinctive to capitalism.
Over the past half millennium, capitalists have been among the most
important agents of change in human history, and capital has been the central
tool they have used to transform the world.
Historians care a great deal about agency, by which they mean the ability
of people to effect change in the world. Agency is closely related to power:
In order to change something, someone must have the power to do so.
Persily (2026)
At the time that I launched the Task Force, my untested hypothesis was that political scientists had sorted into three “cultures” on AI. The first being a culture of embrace among those early andeager adopters who took to AI models and tools like a five-year old to their first Lego set. The second being a culture of denial among the Never AI-ers, who would just as eagerly teletransport to an alternate universe where AI did not exist and where its future discovery would be unimaginable. And the third, probably biggest, being a bloated middle culture of those who are infelicitously torn on alternate days between being AI-curious and AI-skeptical, who have dipped their toes into its potential but are not ready to fully reckon with the scope of change that AI portends.
In his essay, C.P. Snow entreated a closing of the gap between cultures so that the pressing problem of his time – global inequality – might be tackled together. In the interceding decades since his essay, global inequality has only deepened. To that wicked problem we now add newer menacing threats from polarized polities and backsliding democracies to the fragmentation of shared facts and the existential threats from climate change, all in a changing political environment of diminishing public investments in knowledge and research. AI may ameliorate these threats, or it may aggravate and accelerate them. What is clear in any scenario is that AI is upon us and that AI will impact our ability to teach, research, and learn about any of these pressing problems.
My aspirations for the Task Force were thus to agenda-set for a reckoning between cultures in political science on AI. Concretely, I hoped to extract from the collective wisdom of Task Force members an empirical foundation and a set of apposite tools and theories to meet AI’s challenges and opportunities. This volume far exceeds my highest expectations. Readers will of course judge for themselves. What should nonetheless be clear by any generous reading is that Persily and Tucker have masterfully orchestrated a remarkably broad and insightful set of contributions that will inform all of us on how AI may alter how we study politics, how we teach about politics, and what politics itself will look like.
Then a change of mood – with a youtube interlude - Berlin in 1933 –
through the eyes of diplomats
Carbon Democracy – political power in the age of oil Timothy Mitchell (2011)
reviewed in 3 journals here, here and here Beyond the Wall – East Germany 1949-90 Katja Hoyer (2022)
Katja is an East German historian who has made her mark in both Britain
and Germany with her writing An Education – my life might have turned out differently if I had just said no
Lynn Barber (2009) A celebrity journalist now in here 70s tells all Jobs for the Boys – patronage and the state Merilee Grindle (2018)
Methods of appointments to public office seem a dull focus for a book about the politics of change. Yet how public servants are recruited, how their careers unfold, and how they think about their jobs are central to the historical evolution of countries around the globe and to the conflicts that punctuate and shape that evolution. Kings and parliaments, politicians and their parties, reformers and moralists, demo crats and authoritarians have, throughout history, struggled to control how public offi ce was acquired and used. Their conflicts shaped institutions of governance in widely divergent circumstances and help explain the differences among them. Far from dull, these struggles are intriguing; they are also consequential for states.
This book is about these struggles. It considers how patronage, as a mechanism for staffing the public service, was important in the histories of a variety of countries but also how these systems were challenged and, at times, replaced by those who sought to institutionalize Weberian civil ser vice systems. Research and reflection about these issues address a number of themes that have been of interest to me in prior work— patronage and its uses in government, the role of institutions in shaping the way po liti cal decisions are made and the content of those decisions, and the pro cesses that account for institutional creation or innovation.
Long ago, I studied how a finely constructed patronage system in Mexico was an essential factor in promoting policy change and accomplishing some of the modern activities of government, even while it buoyed an unjust political system and encouraged corrupt behavior (see Grindle 1977). Over the years, I have seen how patronage systems in other Latin American countries are critically important in electoral dynamics, policy change initiatives, regime stability and failure, organi zational trajectories, and concerns about corruption and mismanagement. In writing this book, I have had the opportunity to study a series of initiatives to replace such institutions with merit- based civil service systems. Manichean rhetoric often accompanies these efforts at reform, making them seem essential and even inevitable, yet patronage systems resist change with remarkable consistency.
I have tried to understand such struggles against the background of countries that were— eventually—successful in altering the institutions that manage recruitment to the public sector. In doing so, similarities across countries in terms of how change happens became as evident as the differences among them in how legacies of the past colored what was possible in introducing reform. This work suggests some ideas about why institutional change often does not happen, why and when it sometimes does, and how winners and losers grapple over the shape of change long after major policy decisions have been made.
Jobs for the Boys considers the ubiquity and flexibility of patronage systems in the public ser vice of a signifi cant number of countries, explores the historical process through which they have been replaced by meritbased civil ser vice systems, and attests to ongoing struggles over how the public ser vice is or ga nized and managed. It takes a historical and processoriented perspective on how systems work and how they change. It makes a claim for the primacy of politics in the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of systems of appointment to public office.
Thus, in contrast to what is often discussed in technical and administrative language— the language of job descriptions, pay scales, criteria for promotion, conditions for dismissal and retirement, rights to pensions and benefi ts, mechanisms of control and delegation, bud get constraints— I focus attention on larger themes of the persis tence, change, and consequences of institutions of governance and on the struggles between advocates of change and those who seek to undermine reform initiatives. My purpose is to explore what we can learn from history and how that knowledge might help in understanding contemporary efforts to alter institutional parameters in government.