Search

This article comments on several articles about the phenomena of war and peace in relation to sociology. Several authors recognize the threat posed to Marxism by the phenomenon of war. Weaker sociologists will take refuge in useful phrases, such as relative autonomy, uneven development and determination in the last instance. One of the legacies of Marxism is the division between base and superstructure, and its idea that political decisions are the effects, but not the causes of economic change. Class analysis comes to the fore only in two papers, one by John Mattausch, the other by Graham Day. Mattauch's unconcealed nostalgia for mass working class support sits unhappily with the fact that the majority of activists are state class radicals. Other papers are more interested in peace movements than in peace. They make no reference to the actual effect of such movements, for example, in contributing to the pre-war strategy of Adolph Hitler. Only one paper offers a definition of war. This occurs as a prelude to David Riches' discussion of the peaceful Eskimos. War, according to Riches, is the authorized employment of physical force against other persons, as means by which groups competing for control of public resources and benefits attempt to influence the outcome of the competition in their favor.

This paper argues that Piketty's book should not simply be seen as that of an economist, but that it contains significant resources for sociologists to draw upon. These are firstly, this approach to social science and his use of visualizations which chime closely with recent claims about the power of description. Secondly I consider his conceptualization of time and history - which in rebutting epochal arguments about the speed of contemporary change allows for a much better appreciation of the 'long durée'; and finally his conceptualization of social classes and privilege through his elaboration of a sociology of accumulation and inheritance. In all these ways, Piketty's work assists in developing an account of elites and wealth which should be highly productive for future sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century is remarkable for moving inequality from the margins to mainstream debate through detailed analysis of longitudinal statistics and, for an economist, by advocating an interdisciplinary perspective and writing in a witty and accessible style. With reference to the post 1970 period, when wage increases are largely responsible for the increase in inequality, Piketty shows how patrimonial capitalists (elite managers) in the top decile and centile of the distribution appropriate a growing share of social wealth as a consequence of their 'power to set their own remuneration' in the context of tolerant social norms rather than through their productive contributions. Piketty raises but defers the question of where these social norms come from to other disciplines. A Feminist Economics perspective indicates that these questions are central to a more inclusive form of economic analysis and such an approach would enrich Piketty's analysis in two main ways. First, by paying greater attention to the processes and social norms through which inequalities are produced and justified and second by highlighting the ways in which inequality is experienced differently depending not only on class, but also on other aspects of identity including gender. This approach also suggests that it is necessary to supplement the ex-post redistributive policies recommended by Piketty: a global wealth tax and more steeply progressive income tax, with ex-ante measures to stop the rise in wage inequality in the first place, especially by bridging the huge gulf that exists between those who care for people and those who manage money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reviews the book "The Myth of the Hidden Economy," by Philip Harding and Richard Jenkins.

The article reviews the book "Contemporary Economic Strategy: Globalization, Production, Inequality," by F. Tonkiss.

Reviews the book "City, State and Market: The Political Economy of Urban Society," by Michael P. Smith.