
don't really have an opinion, not really qualified - it was more a vibe thing. i got the sense that mullin wasn't really reviewing the book as much as he was taking a political opportunity in the current climate. but then the same could be said of welsh or even the timing of the release of the book under review itself, i dunno. i just thought there was an interesting contrast in the two takes. the 'truth' is somewhere in the muddle (sic) perhaps.
( , Tue 4 Aug 2015, 0:25, Reply)

I doubt he's being tactically in reviewing for political benefit.There's always the possibility that's the case however, I think, frankly though it's a matter of disagreement. I personally thought Mullin had a tone of grudging cynicism in his writing, especially when he mentioned a politician raised in the 40s who thought we'd be past it all by now.
Yes, the review's succinct, but I don't think that's a major flaw of Mullin's review, rather it's a major flaw that the guardian wouldn't be arsed publishing an astonishingly lengthy review in the same vein as Welsh.
There's also a tone in his language as well that seems casual, but Orwell was usually casual in how he wrote.
And there's an inclusion of the word 'jargon' there that I always detest as being an indication of laziness, but in the case of a worldwide academic review of capitalism I'd say it might be warranted.
Critically though in his review he finds flaws in what the guy uses as sources and says he missed some stuff out, that Welsh says was in the book, so I dunno..it's more than likely not only reading the book but also taking a course on economic wave theory to touch a fraction of certainty that either position is correct.
The truth probably does lie somewhere in the middle, or perhaps whilst they're debating about this, capitalism will win out because it's well easy and I need to buy my weekly shop soon.
( , Tue 4 Aug 2015, 2:09, Reply)