Back in 1972, German political sociologist Claus Offe published a book on the Structural Problems of Late Capitalism which, for almost two decades, inspired and stimulated an international and transdisciplinary debate on the role of the state in contemporary capitalism. An academic debate which, paradoxically, began to wane as the issues about which Offe had been writing became even more prominent: the "Contradictions of the Welfare State" (the title of a collection of Offe's main contributions to the debate published in English in 1984) and democratic capitalism's reality of the permanent "crises of crisis management". Since 2008, it has again become a widely shared diagnosis that advanced capitalism is in crisis. However, there is either scholarly disagreement or (more often so) mere perplexity when it comes to understanding this crisis and to explaining the prevalent patterns in dealing with it. In this volume, Jens Borchert and Stephan Lessenich critically combine a reconstruction Claus Offe's approach to state theory with an analysis of the current constellation of democratic capitalism based on that same theory. In doing so, they expertly argue that his relational approach to state theory is much better equipped analytically to grasp the contradictory dynamics of the financial crisis and its political regulation than competing contributions. This is why systematically revisiting the theory of "late capitalism" is not only of a historical concern, but constitutes an essential contribution to a political sociology of our time.

Back in 1972, German political sociologist Claus Offe published a book on the Structural Problems of Late Capitalism which, for almost two decades, inspired and stimulated an international and transdisciplinary debate on the role of the state in contemporary capitalism. An academic debate which, paradoxically, began to wane as the issues about which Offe had been writing became even more prominent: the "Contradictions of the Welfare State" (the title of a collection of Offe's main contributions to the debate published in English in 1984) and democratic capitalism's reality of the permanent "crises of crisis management". Since 2008, it has again become a widely shared diagnosis that advanced capitalism is in crisis. However, there is either scholarly disagreement or (more often so) mere perplexity when it comes to understanding this crisis and to explaining the prevalent patterns in dealing with it. In this volume, Jens Borchert and Stephan Lessenich critically combine a reconstruction Claus Offe's approach to state theory with an analysis of the current constellation of democratic capitalism based on that same theory. In doing so, they expertly argue that his relational approach to state theory is much better equipped analytically to grasp the contradictory dynamics of the financial crisis and its political regulation than competing contributions. This is why systematically revisiting the theory of "late capitalism" is not only of a historical concern, but constitutes an essential contribution to a political sociology of our time.

Dieses Buch ist die stark iiberarbeitete Fassung meiner Dissertation, die ich in der Zeit von Oktober 1990 bis Juli 1993 an der Universitat Bremen im Rahmen des Graduiertenkollegs "Lebenslauf und Sozialpolitik" verfaBt babe. Ich m6chte an dieser Stelle einer Reihe von Personen und Institutionen danken, ohne deren Unterstiitzung ich mein Promotionsvorl: taben weder harte beginnen, durchfiihren noch vollenden konnen. Ich danke zunachst Herm Theo Schiller, der mir wahrend meines Studiums an der Philipps-Universitat Malburg ein iiberaus einfluBreicherund stets einfiihlsamer Lehrer war und mit einem h6chst schmeichelha: ften Fmp- fehlungsschreiben meinen Weg in das Bremer Graduiertenkolleg ebnete. So- dann der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) sowie der Universitat bzw. dem Land Bremen fur die melujahrige finanzielle und materielle Unter- stiitzung meines Projekts. Femer den beiden Trngerinstitutionen des Kollegs, dem Zentrum fur Sozialpolitik (ZeS) und dem SondeIforschungsbereich 186 ("Statuspassagen und Risikolagen im Lebensverlauf'), insbesondere den VerwaltungsmitaIbeiterinnen beider Hauser. Mein besonderer Dmk. gilt selbstverstiindlich allen StipendiatInnen und KollegiatInnen sowie der Verwaltung des Graduiertenkollegs, die drei Jahre lang nicht nur meine wissenschaftliche Albeit begleitet, sondem auch meinen Lebensalltag mitgepriigt baben. Peter Bleses und Olaf Struck danke ich fur ihre Kommentierung meiner Albeit insbesondere in der schwierigen AnlaufPhase; Rieke Hafuer-Wemet danke ich, verbunden mit einer pauscha- len Bitte urn Verzeihung, einfach nur so. Dmk. gebiihrt auch Karl Schumann, 13 der in seiner Zeit als Sprecher des Kollegs viel fur dessen (und darnit mei- nen) Erfolg getan hat.

Was sind die Bedingungen der Moeglichkeit, was sind die Grenzen der erfolgreichen Etablierung sozialpolitischer Innovationen in der sozialen Welt? Dieser Frage geht die Arbeit nach durch Analyse von Wissensstrukturen. Die Analytik des "Konflikts von Strukturen und Deutungsmustern" nutzt die Spannung zwischen Bourdieu und Oevermann. Als exemplarische Innovationen kommen die Idee eines Grundeinkommens und Evaluation als Instrument in der Sozialen Arbeit in den Forschungsfokus.

For years, the critique of capitalism was lost from public discourse; the very word "capitalism" sounded like a throwback to another era. Nothing could be further from the truth today. In this new intellectual atmosphere, Sociology, Capitalism, Critique is a contribution to the renewal of critical sociology, founded on an empirically grounded diagnosis of society's ills. The authors, Germany's leading critical sociologists-Klaus Doerre, Stephan Lessenich, and Hartmut Rosa-share a conviction that ours is a pivotal period of renewal, in which the collective endeavour of academics can amount to an act of intellectual resistance, working to prevent any regressive development that might return us to neoliberal domination. The authors discuss key issues, such as questions of accumulation and expropriation; discipline and freedom; and the powerful new concepts of activation and acceleration. Their politically committed sociology, which takes the side of the losers in the current crisis, places society's future well-being at the centre of their research. Their collective approach to this project is a conscious effort to avoid co-optation in the institutional practices of the academy. These three differing but complementary perspectives serve as an insightful introduction to the contemporary themes of radical sociology in capitalism's post-crisis phase.