Review of "Good-for-Nothing Entrepreneurs: Capitalism and Democratic Decline in the West" - Erosion of Democratic Institutions
- Steffen Konrath
- 4 days ago
- 3 min read
In Good-for-Nothing Entrepreneurs: Capitalism and Democratic Decline in the West, Wim Naudé examines the connection between the development of Western capitalism and the gradual erosion of democratic institutions since the early 2000s.
Based on international democracy data (V-Dem, Freedom House) and inequality indicators (World Inequality Database), the study formulates a clear, provocative thesis: The rise of a primarily digitally driven billionaire oligarchy not only correlates with democratic decline but also represents a central driver of this development.
The crisis of democracy, inequality, and the transformation of capitalism do not appear here as parallel phenomena, but as closely intertwined processes.
Key contributions and strengths - Erosion of democratic institutions
The work's greatest strength lies in its consistent reversal of a familiar narrative. While much of the entrepreneurship and growth literature views democracy as conducive to entrepreneurship, Naudé argues that a specific form of entrepreneurship, embodied by billionaire tech entrepreneurs, systematically undermines democratic institutions. This shift in perspective is significant both theoretically and normatively, compelling a reassessment of the relationship between innovation, power, and political order.
Analytically, the study is compelling due to its breadth and synthesis. Naudé combines approaches from the debate on oligarchy, techno-feudalism, surveillance, and war economics into a coherent overall picture. Particularly original is the link between the digital platform economy and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC): The argued " pivot " of Silicon Valley toward arms and security markets is interpreted as a logical consequence of stagnating civilian markets—drawing on Rosa Luxemburg's thesis of imperialism. In doing so, the work expands existing diagnoses, such as that of techno-feudalism, by adding a geopolitical-economic dimension.
The depiction of the mechanisms of democratic erosion is also convincing. Lobbying, revolving doors , media concentration, digital surveillance, and the loss of a shared understanding of meaning and reality are not treated in isolation, but rather as mutually reinforcing processes. It is also worth highlighting that Naudé considers both top-down mechanisms (elite power) and bottom-up dynamics (populist backlash), thereby avoiding simplistic explanations.
Critical appraisal and weaknesses
Despite its analytical strength, the study on the causes of the erosion of democratic institutions remains vulnerable in some respects. Empirically, the core of the argument rests on correlations; causal evidence remains limited. While the author is aware of this limitation, alternative explanations—such as institutional weaknesses in party systems, cultural polarization, or exogenous geopolitical shocks—could have been systematically weighed against each other.
Furthermore, the term "entrepreneur" is deliberately formulated polemically. Equating "entrepreneurship " with oligarchic rent extraction is likely to irritate representatives of innovation and start-up research, particularly. Herein lies the risk of normatively conflating analytically distinct phenomena. Finally, while the political conclusion—the dismantling of the oligarchy and the demolition of the permanent war economy—is clearly formulated, its practical feasibility remains insufficiently defined.
Classification within the research field and implications
Compared to related works (such as those on techno-feudalism, plutocracy, or democratic backsliding), Naudé's study is distinguished by its integrative perspective. While many analyses focus on either technology, inequality, or populism, this work insists on a comprehensive structural view of Western capitalism. This is precisely where its significance for political economy, democracy research, and critical entrepreneurship studies lies.
The further implication is uncomfortable: Democratic reforms limited to platform regulation or electoral law fall short as long as economic power structures remain untouched. This diagnosis will not find universal acceptance, but it provides a significant impetus for a more fundamental debate.
Conclusion
Good-for-Nothing Entrepreneurs is a contentious, analytically dense, and deliberately pointed study. It convinces less through definitive answers than through its ability to challenge familiar assumptions and bring together disparate debates. Anyone willing to engage with a radical critique of contemporary capitalism will gain considerable insight from reading it.
⭐⭐⭐⭐☆ Rating: 4/5
Advantages: Sharp conceptual synthesis, clear line of argumentation, strong connection of debates on technology, inequality, and democracy.
Disadvantages: Partly deterministic, limited causal evidence, political conclusions remain programmatic.
Recommended for: Political economists, democracy researchers, critical entrepreneurship studies scholars, technology and security policy analysts, and politically interested readers who are interested in structural explanations of democratic crises.
