But I am also disappointed because, as described, it is not, or only with great difficulty, possible to achieve success "solely" through individual performance in a generation. Moreover, to criticise these processes is a risky undertaking at the very least.

I have highlighted a few thoughts that sum up the message of the book:

"Researchers of abstract economics, divorced from everything, can easily believe that the success of firms depends on market competition, i.e. that it is meritocratic. In reality, unfortunately, this abstract economics has very little to say about actual economic processes, because the substantive issues are decided in the political and sociological arena.

But it's the same with political science. The study of ideologies and party systems will not lead to results if we want to understand the actual political processes, if we do not take into account the incredible influence of money on political processes. This is exactly what the ordinary voter understands when he resignedly acknowledges that politics is the sandbox of the rich.

The super-rich buy influence and politicians exchange their political influence for capital.
Understanding the real world, therefore, requires political economy, an interdisciplinary approach that is willing to take note of these real interconnections and analyse them in the light of them.

[…]
The antidote to a state held captive by oligarchs is a society whose members are educated broadly enough to understand why the diversion of resources by a narrow elite is a huge problem. And a broad middle class that has the income and savings to dare to speak its mind, not to be forced into paternalistic livelihood networks.

But this requires a welfare state, a good education system funded by redistribution. A poor society cannot finance all this from its own wealth."