[...] Market fundamentalism is self-evidently false. Contra Karl Polanyi’s classic account, he says, capitalism does not homeopathically reform itself. Pure capitalism may be impossible, as Polanyi insisted; but in Mann’s view it needs actively to be tamed, regulated and modified and for that to happen there has to be struggle and countervailing forces, above all a vigorous lib-lab and union presence. The golden age was the product of just such a regulated capitalism put to good uses in the context of authoritative nation-states and powerful socio-political movements. Conversely, the Great Recession was a graphic example of what happens in the absence of such countervailing forces. Yet Mann also seems to say that the crisis of the time was real and that the golden age was over no matter who was in charge. If so, there were no progressive solutions to it, only bad ones, of which the neoliberal was the worst. At the same time, he suggests that causation also worked in the opposite direction. The question then becomes how far the crisis, once underway, was ultimately an ideological product of irrational neoliberalism and the obverse fatigue of the neo-Keynesians. It is hard to tell. Moreover, it is not apparent what could have been put forth instead, except defensive action and hoping for the best. Mann is perfectly aware that the essentials of ‘the golden age’ were no longer present and could not be recreated.