{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018964633521271142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006150691952844695, 'mean_word_length': 5.138364779874214, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mundane Prometheus. How the Renewal of the Everyday Public Sphere can Feed a 21st Century Anticapitalism

Reviewing How to Be an Anticapitalist in the 21st Century is a demanding task. Erik Olin Wright, one of the greatest Marxist sociologists of our times, completed the book shortly before dying of acute myeloid leukaemia on 23 January 2019. Prima facie, this is a straightforward book: the style of writing is fluid and full of implications for social analysis; the explicit intention is to address anticapitalismmilitants with sound scholarship; the declared approach is not to resort to bibliographic references, quoting only a few authors and selectedworks. Above all, it is a difficult book to review because it adopts a definite moral posture, implicitly requiring that the reader adheres unconditionally to the very title of the book:How to Be an Anticapitalist in the 21st Century. Why should a social scientist care about this topic? ErikOlinWright is very clear from the first chapter: today, being an anticapitalist is as much an ideological choice as not being an anticapitalist. The choice of the scholar, in other words, is not between axiological neutrality and critical posture, but between the different types of moral gaze that today’s capitalism necessarily solicits or implies. In its historical development, capitalism has placed us before such wicked problems that even axiological neutrality is de facto an ethical choice. For the law, the omission to provide assistance is a crime, as is the sin of omission in theology. To avoid misunderstanding, Erik Olin Wright is not concerned with the crisis of capitalism in itself; rather, his focus is on theworld that hosts it— and the species that inhabits this world—that suffer such consequences as to require a critical-moral posture. To substantiate this thesis, the author recalls three serious and pervasive wicked problems that qualify axiological neutrality as an omission