The central argument of Mike Grimshaw's contribution is that we made "too great a step" and are "too far along" in history. We can't but interpret this as a compliment. One of the last things we wanted Hermeneutic Communism to be is simply another description of the world. Even though innovative concepts such as "politics of description" or "framed democracy" sought to better understand the present, they also involved a call to change the status quo. This change, however, does not imply an "alternative" to the "politics of descriptions" and "framed democracies," but rather an "alteration", as metaphysics cannot be overcome (überwunden) once and for all. We still consider this to be one of the most significant contributions of our book, because it invites other political theories to prevent falling back into metaphysics. Although the New Zealander sociologist does not explicitly reproach us for falling back into metaphysics, he claims that we overlook the transition to "hermeneutic communism," which he refers to as "hermeneutic capitalism." But why is this transition important and what does it consist in?