|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1250132924
| 9781250132925
| 1250132924
| 4.22
| 7,539
| Nov 15, 2016
| Nov 15, 2016
|
really liked it
|
An inspirational read. This book sets out the biography and ideas of Bernie Sanders. In the biography, we learn that Bernie Sanders comes from a strug
An inspirational read. This book sets out the biography and ideas of Bernie Sanders. In the biography, we learn that Bernie Sanders comes from a struggling Jewish family in New York. His father was a paint salesman and had no money. Sanders mother struggled bringing up the family with such low income; Sanders recounts a time where he went to the wrong store for groceries and his mother is furious with him because he accidentally spends too much money. Sanders talks about how he moved to Vermont and fixes up a house to live in. Sounds rather idyllic but I know it is of course rather problematic especially when you have really cold winters. He becomes a mayor of Burlington then recounts how he becomes a congressman and then a senator. The work his has done to get himself where he is makes him an inspiration. I for one do not have the patience and time for politics these days as with massive disappointments and failures on my own path, I couldn't work hard to end up campaigning to the extent of Sanders. But politics is a social game of many thousands of people, so I shouldn't get downbeat about it. Indeed I don't. Sanders looks at the components of how to create a good campaign. Learning over the years of what kind of components are part of a good campaign, Sanders argues that rallies, messaging, fund-raising, celebrity-endorsements are all important parts to a campaign. Sanders emphasises the important people's parts of politics. Sanders goes to Southern States that are not particularly useful in elections to campaign there as part of his ways of winning the presidential endorsement. In particular, he went to one place that never was seen as being important in elections because it was a Southern state to hold a rally. Sanders shows that he cares for many different people despite whether they are powerful or not. I remember that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn were once compared as politicians. This I always found to be problematic for myself because whilst I liked Bernie Sanders, I detested Jeremy Corbyn. Reading Our Revolution shows that the likeness between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn was superficial at best. For one, Bernie Sanders has dedicated a lot of political energy fighting for veterans rights. He was even endorsed by the veterans advocacy group The American Legion. This in the UK would have been unthinkable to have happened for Jeremy Corbyn, who has done very little for British veterans. The second half of the book was dedicated to politics and policies of Bernie Sanders. He doesn't hold back. The first chapter in this section is the about defeating the oligarchs. He mentions the Koch family as being particularly problematic. The Koch's run an oil company and are worth billions. Their political donations pollute American politics and Bernie Sanders seeks to reduce the power of the rich in the US. I think what is an interesting political designation is that we call the wealthy in the West "entrepreneurs" or "venture capitalists" but when describing them from Russia, we call them "oligarchs". Bernie Sanders understands that inequality is bad for democracy regardless of how the rich made their money. The largest part of his political agenda is dedicated to economics. Bernie Sanders wants to reduce the inequality in society and bring bring back strong middle class jobs. The Americans use the term middle class denoting economic position in which in sociological terminology would be called "embourgiousiement" or that working classes become more middle class in their economic status. Bernie Sanders wants stronger trade unions, tax reform and trade reform among other things. What is quite intriguing about Bernie Sanders is how his trade policy would be comparable with Donald Trump. Sanders, like Trumpism is opposed to NAFTA. Sanders would also prioritise American firms for Federal contracts, which is blatantly protectionist. That said, the reason why Trumpism is a catastrophe for humanity is its nationalist authoritarianism and total disregard for climate change, which would put us on course for human extinction. Healthcare and climate change action also gets mentioned as policies that need to be addressed. The USA of course must do more to fight climate change, so it is good to see American politicians commit to fighting climate change. My main problem, which becomes a running theme across many books is that the referencing does not exist in the book. I would have liked it more if there was proper referencing in the book. That said, I thought this was an inspirational book to read. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 11, 2024
|
Aug 17, 2024
|
Aug 11, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385511841
| 9780385511841
| 0385511841
| 3.95
| 5,918
| 2007
| Jan 08, 2008
|
did not like it
|
I remember reading this book as a teenager and remembering how it tried to equivocate the American Left as Fascist given that both the Fascists and Am
I remember reading this book as a teenager and remembering how it tried to equivocate the American Left as Fascist given that both the Fascists and American Left preferred Keynesian economic policies. This was written in the early 2000s which shows it's aged badly as it is Trump has turned the GOP into an authoritarian, nationalist party. On the other hand, the Democrats are attempting to defend democracy.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jul 18, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0713417749
| 9780713417746
| 0713417749
| 3.00
| 1
| Jan 01, 1972
| Jan 01, 1972
|
liked it
|
It seems I have the propensity to read books that are exceedingly rare on Goodreads. Political Parties is a book from the 1970s that maps political pa
It seems I have the propensity to read books that are exceedingly rare on Goodreads. Political Parties is a book from the 1970s that maps political parties from the English Civil War until the 1970s. This book identifies the key movements in UK democracy from the Exclusion Bill of 1678 to the voting tendencies of the 1970s, this book analyses key trends in the development of parliamentary democracy. The book is brief, with a superficial overview of key points in UK democracy, lacking detail. It is useful for a general reference book but quite dated because trends in elections have changed. The 1970s, class was the predictor of voting; now age and education are much better predictors of election results. The 19th century trends were interesting as the reforms by the Liberal party led to substantial changes, whilst the failures of the Liberals to seriously tackle the problems facing the working class led to their demise; the book quoted that 75% of voters voted the same way as their parents. The quotes of different people were also useful; for example Randolph Churchill, the father of Winston Churchill argued the working classes were instrumental for the Tories to gain power. It was also interesting that it was as late as the 1880s that voting wasn't secret. Overall, I would say it is a fast past read, from a dated book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 13, 2024
|
Jul 14, 2024
|
Jul 13, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 019280281X
| 9780192802811
| 019280281X
| 3.50
| 359
| Jun 26, 2003
| Dec 18, 2003
|
really liked it
|
Ideology: A Very Short Introduction is a good overview of the conception of ideology, which looks at the origin of ideology theory, ideology and theor
Ideology: A Very Short Introduction is a good overview of the conception of ideology, which looks at the origin of ideology theory, ideology and theory, political language and ideology, macro and micro ideologies, the psychology of ideology and post-modern thinking on ideology. This book outlines how influential Marxist thinking was on ideology. What is ironic from the outset is that Marx thought ideology was inherent to the ruling class in their need for control and coherent dominance but Marx created a deeply ideological way of viewing the world. I think Louis Althusser's State Apparatus plus Antonio Gramasci's ideas of Hegemony which are more useful than original Marxism in explaining ideology because it specifically focuses on ruling class doctrine rather than contradictory ideas that are wrong. Karl Mannheim's analysis of ideology is also significantly more useful than Marx's in that ideology is an intrinsic part of politics rather than being something inherent in capitalism and one which will end with communism.Ideology itself can be viewed as a symbol of culture, with Geertz arguing that ideology was "metaphor that carried social meaning". Michael Freeden argues that ideology has not declined in significance and has continued as a conception in society. That itself is a debate. I would say that ideology distinction has changed from being about economics to one being dominated on culture specifically internationalist versus nationalist. That said, Freeden gives a good understanding of the overview of ideologies with the four Ps of proximity, priority, permeability and proportionality. Each one of these representatives of the wider elements of an ideology. A post-modern approach to ideology looks at discourse where the ideology is understood through the language discourse that is represented in the text. This is both advantageous in not taking things for granted but lacks empiricism and lacks any sort of meaning. Ideology also is rooted in symbolism that holds psychological responses causing deep impacts on the person viewing the ideology. Religion is sort of mentioned as having ideology and using religion as part of ideology which is clearly part of American Nationalism. A quote from Rousseau would have been good, because the Social Contract emphasises the need for a civic religion which is highly ideological in nature. This book gives a useful overview of language, the only problem being that it represents Marx as being highly influential on ideology but ignores certain American theories on ideology. However the book gives a useful introduction to ideology. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 13, 2024
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
Jul 13, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0800614410
| 9780800614416
| 0800614410
| 4.62
| 3,973
| 1963
| Jan 01, 1981
|
really liked it
|
Martin Luther King's book strength to love is a book which challenges the reader to abandon prejudices and embrace a loving response to injustices. Th
Martin Luther King's book strength to love is a book which challenges the reader to abandon prejudices and embrace a loving response to injustices. This book reflects the eloquence of MLK's writing. The book highlights that he was well read and learned that MLK was as he cites many different writers including Hegel, Plato, Aristotle among others. There are a lot of ideas that are looked at including how evil is commited in part by ignorance, how to deal with shattered dreams and being a loving person. The only problem I have with the essays is there is a sense of idealism when dealing with international relations. Merely adopting a pacifist stance in the Cold War wouldn't have gone down well. I understand how the destruction of the entire world to stop evil is not justified at all. However in the cold logic of mutually assured destruction, the need to maintain deterrence increases the probability of peace because war is heavily disincentivised. The book is an idealist reflection on how love can be used to fight against injustice. In that regard, the book has a measure of timelessness. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 07, 2024
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
Jul 07, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1847924441
| 4.13
| 18,203
| 2013
| Oct 01, 2018
|
liked it
|
Talking to My Daughter about the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism, is an easy to read book about the development of capitalism through the lens
Talking to My Daughter about the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism, is an easy to read book about the development of capitalism through the lens of a Marxist economist. The book touches on multiple different subjects including the creation of surplus, market societies, the development of debt, financial sector, unemployment, machinery and capital, the intrinsic political nature of money and environmental damage. The book is structured and written in a way which makes it straightforward and easy to digest. There are lots of different theories looked through in the book. The creation of surplus requires militaries and theories (particularly religion) to defend the existence of inequality. Market societies are created when peasant farmers who have been denied their land are required to pay for their life. The creation of debt is an absolute necessity for a capitalist society as it allows investment into new equipment. Machinery is an inherent part of capitalism and it produces greater outputs. One of the really enjoyable aspects of the book is the heavy use of cultural analogies through plays and novels. Frankenstein and The Tragedy of Dr Faustus, which are classic literature icons have been used to explain industrialisation and debt control combined. Another likeable aspect of the book is the heavy use of thought experiment analogies, which makes it easier to understand things. What ruins the book for me is the frustrating lack of sources for his text. For example, in the chapter "Birth of the Market Society", Yaroufakis made the assertion that 70% of peasants were thrown off the land and out of their houses. The exasperating thing about this claim is that there isn't a source for it. Now, I got this book that was written for a 15 year old could not be too complex with the referencing system used. A simple footnote system with a bibliography would have been okay. The problem of writing a book without any referencing system used becomes academically disingenuous and in many ways teaches that plagiarism is acceptable. Because I have reviewed other books with poor referencing, I cannot be inconsistent with books I generally liked. Another problem is that the book didn't make clear that the writer was writing from the viewpoint of a Marxist economist from the outset. Maybe if Yaroufakis was generally writing directly to his daughter, he wouldn't have needed to, but I felt that the honesty of the viewpoint would have made the book more compelling. Overall, I find the book to be an excellently simple book of explaining the economy from a Marxist perspective that even a teenager could understand. A good book for laymen on the subject of economics. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
Jul 06, 2024
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1398522708
| 9781398522701
| unknown
| 4.20
| 56
| unknown
| May 04, 2023
|
really liked it
|
Having skim-read this book over the last two days. Finishing it a day before the general election, I have to say this is an intriguing look over the T
Having skim-read this book over the last two days. Finishing it a day before the general election, I have to say this is an intriguing look over the Tory party. Samuel Earle does not hold back. The book outlines how the Tory party has been successful over the past 200 years and why they have been in power for so long. From the introduction to the conclusion, Earle puts forward an argument that the Tories have dominated society by dominating both the institutions and elections. Unlike other political parties, emerging from revolutionary insurrections, the Tories have managed the emergence of democracy in the UK. The history that Samuel Earle goes back to to establish the second chapter looks over Lord Salisbury and looks over the intellectualism of the rising Toryism including David Hume, the Scottish empiricist intellect. Discipline and party loyalty were partial explanations for their success but Samuel Peale also mentions the electoral system as being one of the keys to their success. FPTP has allowed the Tories to dominate elections, never dropping below 25% in national elections. Of course, this might actually change if the polls are correct. Their success Samuel Earle argues is to do with a sense of superiority which is then contrasted with a sense of existential dread of extinction. It is also adaptability and quoting Gramsci the fact the Tories have created an ideological hegemony. What then do conservatives believe? This is where Samuel Earle highlights the innate contradictions of conservativism. On the one hand, the ideas of Thatcherism influenced by Friedrich Von Hayek are clearly front and centre of modern conservative ideology. On the other hand, there were many different conservative thinkers who disagreed with Hayek's belief. In fact, Earle argues that on a range of topics, you would find conservatives that would be for or against them. The key ideological tenets for Conservativism as set out by Samuel Earle would be "common sense" and a disdain for theoretical ideas, nationalism and patriotism, capitalism and hierarchy. These I don't really disagree with. Edmund Burke is considered to be the intellectual father of conservatism in the UK , which I would agree with. The thing with Burke is that unlike writers of the age such as Rousseau, Thomas Paine or David Hume, Burke I find to be a waffling writer who isn't concise in what he writes. What liberalism was in the 19th century became a heavy tenet of conservative ideology of the 20th. I think one of the success stories of the Tories is how they effectively merged the liberal middle classes who would have been Liberal voters in the 19th century into their voting base of the 20th century. In "Ruling Britainnia", there was a real show of how the Tories gained control of the UK, with the aristocrats marrying the industrial classes which is how the modern Conservatives. Earle cites Daniel Ziblett in how the Tories have ended up dominating the UK by introducing democratic reforms to protect their interests. But by dominating the ruling classes, the Tories have in fact controlled the UK despite having a democratic system. The most fascinating part of "Ruling Britainnia" was the mentioning of the coup plot against Harold Wilson which I hadn't heard of much before. The landowners end up dominating the UK. And the 1980s ended up with the elites empowered by the financial reforms enacted by Margaret Thatcher. "Conservative Nation" highlights the successful control of narrative over British life. It is in this regard that patriotism, the Conservative support of homeownership and how privilege is used to create a factional electorate in what political and social scientists would call "cleavages". It is particularly how patriotism has been used to create a veneration for parts of the state such as the monarchy and armed forces that the Tories have been able to rule over the narratives in society. This is particularly shown in the "Tory Press" where the history of the Tory media shows a consistent bias towards the Tories. Any opposition to patriotism makes the opponents be seen as foreign. An example would be how Brexit was used in segmenting the population between patriotic Leavers and foreign sympathising Remainers. The darker side of the Tories was also shown through the racism of the Conservatives. This book first looks at Enoch Powell but makes it clear that racism runs deep in the Tory party, including imperialist attitudes but also Anti-Semitism which ran deep in the 1930s Tory party. Enoch Powell, whose views on capitalism and racism put him at the extreme right of the Tories but it was his racism that made him famous. But even Stanley Baldwin has racist views. Tory Nation also argues that the racism of the Tories is a problem because they have to expand their support among ethnic minorities but this can't come at the cost of the racists who support the Tories. The last chapters of "Permanent Opposition" and "Leap into the Dark" highlight the difficulties Labour has had in trying to beat the Tories. Labour's inability to win power was looked at in both chapters, with the "Leap into the Dark" looking at the demise of Corbyn. I do think that Samuel Earle is too sympathetic to Corbyn for Anti-Semitism in the Labour party, given the ruling that Labour was an "institutionally racist" political party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission back in 2020. That said, what is emphasised in Leap into The Dark is the chaos that the Tories have created in Brexit. Labour though, is portrayed as being a "more competent Conservative party. Is that really fair? Well, I guess if you are like Samuel Earle in that the Tories have commanded such power over the UK, you would think that but even Earle lists the successes of Blair's government. The conclusion finally sums up the problems of the Tory party and says that perhaps Britain at some point could get rid of them. Despite Earle's views on Labour, he argues for various policies that would be positive at ending the injustices in Britain including VAT on private schools and greater funding for local government. Other policies I agree with include a written constitution and PR. The book is a good overview of how the Tories have had so much success over the UK for so long. Perhaps Searle doesn't focus on the concerns of Tory voters but he does show the successes of the Conservatives. A good book to read as a way to contemplate their rule over the last 14 years. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 02, 2024
|
Jul 03, 2024
|
Jul 02, 2024
|
Audiobook
| ||||||||||||||
| 1645036928
| 9781645036920
| 1645036928
| 4.29
| 826
| Feb 04, 2021
| Mar 02, 2021
|
it was ok
|
Before I begin, I will say that a lot of what Kehinde Andrews is saying I broadly agree with and have some sympathies for. I am not the most progressi
Before I begin, I will say that a lot of what Kehinde Andrews is saying I broadly agree with and have some sympathies for. I am not the most progressive person in the world. However, I do see the need to help rectify historical injustices. This includes increasing foreign aid as a form of reparation for historic injustices. What does Kehinde Andrews get right? The book gives a sober and depressing view of the impact of European imperialism and slavery has had on the world. The research is thorough and bluntly shows the level of evil that the West has committed due to the ideas of supremacy. Organisations such as the IMF have a direct link to undermining developing countries and how the West today actively undermines developing countries. It is a strong pause for reflection and makes you consider whether you should be blindly patriotic towards your country. And the other thing I think Kehinde Andrews gets right is that he doesn't entirely blame the West and at times, blames other civilisations for the problems of the world. So why a two star? Well, the tone and writing style is that of a totally angry academic with an axe to grind. This is an egregiously aggressively styled book and one that reads as a historic polemic. I understand that is exactly what it is meant to be written as. The problem with such a scathing tone is that Kehinde Andrews undermines his argument and commits multiple fallacies in the process. Let's start with the beginning as to why this book is a two star book. For starters, the first chapter "I Am White, Therefore I am", which is trying to reference Descartes ideas. With a title like this, the chapter is about racism and how it is deep in the culture of the West. Starting with the Enlightenment, Andrews argues that the Enlightenment is built of racism from the start. He goes after multiple different philosophers and scientists including John Locke, Voltaire, Hegel and Charles Darwin all had racist assumptions. The person he goes after the most though is Kant. Kant he argues laid down the ideologies that led to the Holocaust. What annoys me about what Andrews is saying? He comments on Kant as racist and says that criticising Kant's moral philosophy is the academic equivalent of criticising Jesus. I thought this comment was highly weak because whilst Kantian philosophy is highly influential to the point that philosophy is sometimes divided as being pre and post-Kant, Kant has been criticised. The problem and I think Kehinde Andrews might be aware of it, is that he boils down an entire philosopher's beliefs to whether they are a racist or not. This of course is an Ad Hominem fallacy. His entire attack on Enlightenment philosophy is basically "They are racist, they cause suffering therefore they are bad". This Ad Hominem is why when he critiqued Kant, he was so attacked. It is because it is a fallacious argument. The thing about Kantian ethics is that, I was aware when I was studying philosophy that one of its greatest flaws identified by certain people is that it could justify genoc*de including the Holocaust and doesn't stop racist attitudes. Kehinde Andrews doesn't consider that his arguments are not entirely original. One point this book does poorly with is making unsubstantiated claims about things that are ludicrous and at times offensive. The worst of these is when he claims that there were African calibration with Europeans, but this does not mitigate the European responsibility because "there were countless Jewish collaborators with the Nazis". This is deeply offensive and Anti-Semitic, for him to make the claim countless Jews worked with the Nazis with no references or research, to make such a comment is insulting. I am shocked that this was not removed by an editor. This isn't the only time though. The book is littered with claims and aggressive statements which have no references supporting them. Kehinde Andrews claims that Western civilisation was not finding anything new in the Enlightenment and was totally reliant on previous discoveries from other cultures. It is true that the West has relied upon developments from other civilisations such as China, India and the Arabs on many different inventions but it is plainly wrong to claim that Europe is totally dependent on other civilisations for advancement and science. Europe built off the advancements of previous developments and advanced theories and knowledge. Another point that undermines his argument that he glosses over quickly is why Asian countries such as Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan and China have been so successful despite being victims of colonisation. He argues that this is because they didn't follow the Western playbook of development, which leads to underdevelopment. This he quickly skips over, probably because it undermines his argument. After all, if South Korea, the victim of Japanese Imperialism could advance from being a country poorer than Bangladesh in 1955 to being a developed country today, is there something more holding back African and South American countries than just imperialism and racism? The most intriguing example of this has gone off the radar and is found in Africa in the country of Botswana. Botswana is one of the only sub-Saharan African countries to have gone from lesser developed countries to medium developed countries and has an advanced welfare system. This was because the nation's founder Seretse Kama was Oxford educated, married to a white woman and understood the importance of strong institutions for development. He understood the need for industrial development and sought investment from the West in diamond mining before nationalisation the mines by purchasing the mines from the mining companies. Now Botswana is worth mentioning because it is an example of an African country managing to develop despite the problems that Africa has faced. In fact, it is a landlocked country and bordered Apartheid South Africa for much of its history and yet achieved quiet success. Isn't it rather convenient that Kehinde Andrews never mentions Botswana in his entire book? This gets to a point that is a bigger question about the book; why is Western Imperialism so much more appalling than other empires? One comparison is the Mongol Empire. The imperial expansion of the Mongols is responsible for the de*ths of tens of millions of people. The sl*ughter by the Mongols to such an extent that it caused forests to grow and actually caused global cooling. The Mongols were destructive, burning cities down, destroying culture and intellectual advancement. Baghdad, the heart of Islamic civilisation and intellectual advancement was destroyed. The Mongols destruction to the Slavic peoples set them back centuries and the Mongols were responsible for spreading the Black Death to Europe and the Middle East. Is modern day Mongolia responsible for this imperialism that their ancestors committed under the leadership of Genghis Khan? The problem with Kehinde Andrews is that he seems to think that the West is uniquely awful with its level of destination in imperialism but looking over history, Europeans are not uniquely awful. Humanity is littered with countless examples of exploitation, slavery and imperialism. The wealthiest man in history, Mansa Musa of the Malian empire had his wealth built on the backs of slavery that allowed gold and salt mining to make him extraordinary wealthy. Is Mansa Musa morally equivalent to Western imperialists in that his wealth was built on slave extractive economics? China is mentioned as being a rising country but focuses on extracting resources from Africa. Kehinde Andrews argues that China uses the same racist structures to extract resources from Africa. This is where I think Kehinde Andrews argument is fallacious; Andrews eqivocates and mixes up ideas of racism, capitalism and imperialism and passes them as the same system. But they aren't the same. China isn't using the same channels as the Western imperialist powers. One thing that Kehinde Andrews glosses over is that imperialism wasn't entirely about extraction of resources from the colonies. Whilst some colonies such as South Africa and India for the British empire were rich in resources, many colonies such as the French colonies in Africa had few resources. So what was imperialism for? Well, according to books such as the Age of Empires and The Rise and Fall of the British Nation, colonisation was as much as finding markets to dump industrial products on as finding new resources to export. This puts colonies as consumers but ones indebted to the industrial imperialists. So, how does this leave the book? Kehinde Andrews climaxes the book by claiming that black people should completely break off from white civilisation in a "revolution". Afterall, as Kehinde Andrews argues, the left with its racist Green New Deal offers nothing to the world except imperialism. Kehinde Andrews attacks the Left and Right combined and sees no point agreeing with Leftists. Kehinde Andrews sees the left such as Karl Marx and the New Deal in the US as racist, just as racist as everyone else. But as I mentioned with Botswana, the benefits of sensible government policies and actually using western education has its benefits. But I guess Kehinde Andrews has no time for Seretse Kama's legacy of the development of an African country. When I finished this book, I felt disappointed to think there was no real solution. Kehinde Andrews doesn't have solutions. He deals with angry polemics that border on propaganda levels of rage. He does not seek to have sympathy from white people who might actually support an anti-racist cause. This book does nothing to end the Culture Wars and I could imagine its arguments would help divide people further into their political tribe. Does this book offer anything to the world? No, I really don't think it offers any useful dialogue. Just anger. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 22, 2024
|
Jun 23, 2024
|
Jun 22, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 9780241969601
| 0241969603
| 3.72
| 4,264
| 2005
| May 01, 2014
|
it was ok
|
2.5 stars. I am not a fan of Noam Chomsky. He has a love of authoritarians because they oppose the USA. So, I have tried to balance my dislike of Chom 2.5 stars. I am not a fan of Noam Chomsky. He has a love of authoritarians because they oppose the USA. So, I have tried to balance my dislike of Chomsky when reading this book. The book is made up of excerpts from other of Chomsky's writings, interviews and essays. Notes on Anarchism is an introduction to Anarchist thinking. It outlines the ideas of Anarchism and compares with more authoritarian socialist ideas such as Marxism-Leninism. There is discussion about the Paris Commune, which wasn't particularly Leftwing but due to history gets interpreted as the rising of the Left in Paris. Notes on Anarchism outlines the context behind Anarchism and argues that socialism can only happen with Anarchism. Excerpts from Understanding Power is an excerpt where there is a question and answers section. This section I remembered most when I read the book previously. It had a question and answers on what Anarchism is and how it is achievable. I never thought that his arguments are persuasive in this section. For example, the question about incentive structures in an Anarchist society, he argues that incentive structures shouldn't exist and that drive is unnaturally produced by capitalism. I guess Anarchism seeks stagnation? Part II of Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship looks over the CNT in Spain in the Spanish civil war. In this section, Chomsky seeks to defend the legacy of Spanish Anarchists by arguing that the foreign support of Franco and the acts of the Communist is what doomed the Anarchists in Spain. The interview with Harry Kreisler mentions the Spanish civil war in part but also mentions Chomsky's background and the misconceptions around Anarchism in the USA. The last chapter is called Language and Freedom and looks at the philosophical underpinnings of Anarchism. One great irony of this chapter is that Rousseau is quoted a lot but Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an authoritarian who wrote out considerably controlling and Draconian ideas in the Social Contract. Does this book give a convincing argument for Anarchism? No, not really. There are different flaws with the ideas of Anarchism as presented in this book. They can include the following: -If Anarchism was such an structure of society, why are they only a few examples of it in industrial society? -How does an Anarchist society defend itself against aggressive neighbours? The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War were looked at but their lack of effectiveness on the battlefield against Nationalist forces was not looked at by this book particularly. An Anarchist society would lack the means to fight off adversaries that threaten their existence. -With a centrally organised economy, could there be ways of stopping the rise of authoritarians and populists? Anarchists like to think they believe in freedom as their highest goal, but without constitutional safeguards, there wouldn't be the structures and mechanisms to stop the rise of populist authoritarians. Understandably Kaiserreich isn't a good standard for explaining how anarcho-syndicalism would devolve into authoritarianism. But without constitutional mechanisms and laws, there isn't anything to stop political violence which happened in Spanish Civil War Spain under the Anarchist areas of the country. -Wouldn't an Anarchist society have stagnation under a totally planned economy? Seizure of land from farmers could lead to agricultural shortages like in the USSR. How would a planned economy under syndicate control stop the country from becoming stagnant and without development? -How would an Anarchist society deal with crime? Without an effective legal system, there wouldn't be a way of dealing with criminal activity. What is stopping crime syndicates from being fully incorporated into other syndicates at large? -How would an Anarchist society guarantee freedom for all if society is a trade off for freedom? -How would international trade exist if shipping insurance would cease to exist under an Anarchist society? Wouldn't that lead to poverty There is a lot of research but I feel that the book doesn't do enough to address the problems of Anarchism. I also think that Chomsky's lack of explanation of how an Anarchist society would exist doesn't bode well for explaining his ideal political system. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 17, 2024
|
Jun 18, 2024
|
Jun 17, 2024
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0664232272
| 9780664232276
| 0664232272
| 4.00
| 5
| Oct 17, 2007
| Oct 31, 2007
|
really liked it
|
John Calvin and Martin Luther both had profound impacts on both theology and society. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheran theology put forward a th
John Calvin and Martin Luther both had profound impacts on both theology and society. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheran theology put forward a theology of salvation by grace alone, centering on Christ's love displayed on the cross and salvation can be gained only through this grace which is dispensed through holy sacraments. Martin Luther's legacy on politics is not positive in the slightest. Being an ardent supporter of authoritarianism and was a terrible Anti-Semite, Martin Luther laid the groundwork for German Nationalism, authoritarianism and Anti-Semitism which unfortunately climaxed with Nazism in Germany. John Calvin's legacy on society outlined in the book is all together different. Rather than the caricature of being the father of capitalism, the essays in this book argue in a more nuanced and even radical alternative. The essay "Calvin's Teaching on Social and Economic Issues" argues that Calvin's ideas in society are emphasised by the "rule of love", that we should put as a general principle the idea of loving people in a community. It is when you get to Calvin's views on property that who is quite at odds with the cliche of the father of capitalism. Calvin in fact believed in the need for economic justice, for workers not to be exploited and for charity to alleviate the suffering of the poor. Whilst I wouldn't say that Calvin was a socialist at all, he certainly reflected a Christian communitarian view of justice and empathised supporting people which is at odds with modern Christian conservatives. In Calvin's ideas of the environment, Christians clearly have a responsibility in protecting the environment from degradation and destruction. This was before the industrial revolution, but Calvin saw a need in moderating our use in the environment. Many people have been inspired by Calvin's politics and social views in different ways, each one having profound impacts on society around them. Ernst Troelstch argued Calvinism led to a form of Christian socialism whilst Abraham Kayper of the Netherlands saw Calvin's ideas as a moderating republican force, that would lead to peace between nations with a necessity to regulate the excesses of capitalism and industry. Social gospel Protestantism was found in South America whilst in Korea, Calvinist Presbyterian churches led to resistance against Japan and were highly egalitarian in their social views, promoting an egalitarian society. The last chapters are based on how mistranslations of Calvin's writings distort what he had said. What I like about these essays is they present John Calvin in a different light to the usual cut and paste predestination theology and TULIP acronym that dominates much of American evangelicalism. Rather this book highlights why the Reformation was so revolutionary in the ideals of some of its important thinkers. John Calvin Rediscovered offers a unique and radical rediscovery of Calvin's ideas. The referencing system of footnotes means further research is easy to complete and the writings are concise only being 149 pages long. The essay on Calvin's ideas in Korea lacks footnotes but the rest of the book offers useful research insights into Calvin. An interesting insight into Calvin's ideas and impacts in society. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 16, 2024
|
Jun 21, 2024
|
Jun 16, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1913368149
| 9781913368142
| 1913368149
| 3.64
| 39
| unknown
| Jul 15, 2021
|
really liked it
|
A nuanced look at how misconceptions surround London and people's views of London. Jack Brown's short book outlines various different points about Lon
A nuanced look at how misconceptions surround London and people's views of London. Jack Brown's short book outlines various different points about London and how people's views on London are wrong. The classic view that London is a cultural liberal capital is misleading according to Brown. London has more conservative social values compared with society at large and London is considerably more religious than the UK at large. This confounds the normal idea that rural areas are more conservative than cities and London contradicts this. London is not totally unpatriotic; there are positive views of the Union Flag which may explain why Labour has embraced the Union Flag. This misconception that London has a unique culture separate from the UK Jack Brown argues is harmful because not only is London closer to national views than many on the right would let on but London suffers from the social problems of society. For example, London suffers from significant poverty and the regional imbalances ignore that there is significant inequality within London. Another point is that London takes a lot of the infrastructure spending away from other areas. London is a massive net-contributor to government finances. London contributes to spending whilst other areas take net-recipients of UK spending. The view that London needs to be knocked down a notch is flatly challenged by Jack Brown as dangerous rhetoric, because London is critical for economic growth. I think this is a good book. The only thing I kind of would have wanted is an argument as to how London could benefit other cities. With better train connections, London could help facilitate much better economic growth for the whole society, as businesses would relocate outside of London for cheaper office space. Overall an interesting short read on London and how it is important in the UK. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 28, 2024
|
May 29, 2024
|
May 28, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 8178240734
| 9788178240732
| 8178240734
| 3.76
| 70
| Jan 01, 2003
| 2008
|
liked it
|
An interesting set of essays written from an Indian Marxist perspective, this book has different essays on various subjects including environmentalism
An interesting set of essays written from an Indian Marxist perspective, this book has different essays on various subjects including environmentalism and poverty, the Tamil rebellion, Stalinism and Marxism. The selection of essays offers an insight into the Indian perspective around politics.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 17, 2024
|
May 21, 2024
|
May 17, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0345816021
| 9780345816023
| 0345816021
| 3.92
| 234,335
| Jan 16, 2018
| Jan 23, 2018
|
did not like it
|
**spoiler alert** Overview Jordan Peterson- the man who made himself famous for attacking feminists and social justice warriors wrote this book back in **spoiler alert** Overview Jordan Peterson- the man who made himself famous for attacking feminists and social justice warriors wrote this book back in 2018. I will state before I share my review that I detest Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is the walking embodiment of the Appeal to Authority fallacy or being a authority in one thing makes you an expert on everything. Peterson is an expert in psychology but that does not make him an expert in politics, society, philosophy and more recently (though not in 12 Rules For Life) climate science. So, I went in reading 12 Rules For Life with a bias of Jordan Peterson. However, the reasons why I gave 12 Rules For Life two stars are solely in the text itself. Jordan Peterson does it again in his intellectual mastery of fallacious reasoning, intellectual dishonesty and dangerous ideologies. The book is absurd, poorly researched with few citations, ignorant with dangerous political assumptions and ideas. Let’s start off; why give it a 1 star review? Well, some of the points Peterson makes are okay. The book centres around 12 points that improve your life. Ten of them are okay advice but don’t require long chapters of diatribe. One of them (Rule 11) is intellectually dishonest and one-sided. One of them is totally toxic, fallacious and dangerous (Rule 6). What is the summary of the book? Jordan Peterson thinks the world is in two states of flux, a yin and yang of Taoism between order and disorder. The order (which he thinks is masculine) creates society and the world as we know it and chaos (the feminine) creates the anarchy and destruction in the world. This is flawed reasoning from the get go as I would argue chaos isn’t actually energy at all but rather a lack of order. My argument is this; darkness is a lack of light and not a thing in itself; silence is a lack of sound and not a thing in itself. It follows that chaos is the lack of order and not a thing in itself. Now this argument is fallacious; false attributing scientific attributes with a social attribute but overall, it stands to reason that chaos isn’t a thing in itself. It is a state of relation to order. By setting out a sort of Taoist world entity in which the feminine is bad and the masculine is good, Jordan Peterson follows through writing a political-philosophical polemic which is a defence of Right-wing reactionary-conservatism in the guise of a self-help book. The polemic argument throughout the 12 Rules For Life is largely along the lines of hierarchy is good, patriarchy is good. Religion is good, particularly Christianity which is the religion that Jordan Peterson seems most attracted to other than Taoism. His attachment to Christianity in this book is fuzzy. On the one hand, Peterson sees the genuine power of Christianity in its ways shaping society. Jordan Peterson has a sort of belief in Hell, although I don’t know whether this is literal or figurative as parts of the book give both. On the other hand, Jordan Peterson is quite happy to use Critical Theory in use of the Documentary Hypothesis which was developed by 19th Century German liberal theologians to understand the Bible. In all, to sum up what Christianity is closest to Jordan Peterson, I would say his views are High Anglican mixed with Liberal 19th century German Protestantism. This would make sense of course as both High Anglicanism and Liberal-German Protestantism are both hierarchical and socially conservative, with veneration towards an established political system. Christianity is a useful tool to control the masses and shape their ideas. Whether Jesus is true is another issue. What I do find to be typical of Jordan Peterson and other Conservatives in the public sphere is the heavy cherry-picking of Christian ideas. Peterson loves the authority of Christianity and its rules it gives. Jordan Peterson and other conservatives do not like or simply outright ignore the demands of social justice in the Bible or the criticism of money and wealth itself. 12 Rules for Life will happily quote Bible verses when it suits its agenda and then happily ignore the Bible when it doesn’t suit its conservative hierarchical politics. What are the main problems with 12 Rules For Life? There are I think multiple issues with 12 Rules For Life they include; misuse of data to defend and research to defend his position; a fixation on improving the individual over improving society (Rule 11 Contradicts this somewhat but I will get on to this); the fallacious reasoning littered throughout the book and the dangerous political agenda in his ideas to name just a few ideas. First Criticism: Poor Research The first criticism and one I regularly make is that the book has few citations, has misused data and poor scholarship. In 368 pages there are 220 citations meaning that there is one citation per 1.5 pages. As a reader of my reviews would be aware, I make a massive focus on research and sourcing. Sometimes I am unfair with this; I gave some books two stars before for lacking research. Why do I do it? I have been to university and was expecting to provide significant research in my essays and cite my sources well. If I had to do it as an undergraduate, then a Professor of Psychology should. Instead, we have lots of conjecture over multiple chapters, of poorly cited works, single quotation marks of what could just be a Google search with no cited books or sources cited. This isn’t the 18th century; this is the 21st century but Jordan Peterson doesn’t cite works in a way when referencing. As a professor of psychology of a major Canadian university, I thought Jordan Peterson should know better. Clearly, he doesn’t. Just as bad as this are his cherry-picked data which he conveniently cites whilst ignoring other pieces of research. An example is Rule 11; a full 42 citations are made in this chapter and comprise a full 19% of the entire citations in the book. This chapter by the way is the chapter he is trying to disprove feminism and say that men should be men. We shouldn’t play soft. The data used focuses on the biological differences between men and women; which men are men and women are women determined through biology alone. The data clearly selected for his conclusion. Data that contradicts or refutes his ideas are ignored; for example, that men wore pink and women wearing blue in the 18th century highlights the problems of fixed identities around men and women. Or the case made in the War Doctor that nurses in Arab countries are male professions. Societal expectations of men and women change based on context and circumstances. Whilst there are large sexual gender differences in part by biology, society has an impact in where women and men end up. The debate over nature versus nurture is complex and very difficult to unravel. It seems Peterson heavily favours nature but this isn’t entirely clear. Furthermore, his scholarship is poor in some of the points he makes... An example of this is page 12 where Peterson states that “It is a truism that evolution is conservative”. Now any philosophy graduate can see the problem with this. Of course, the Jordan Peterson, the walking Appeal to Authority fallacy doesn’t understand. It is of course a truism. A truism is a truth that is obvious, but is it obvious that evolution is conservative? After all, Charles Darwin stated in the Origin of Species that it was not the fittest in the species that survived but the ones most adaptable to change. An example of this are the tawny owls that in the 18th and 19th century were whiter in the colder climate of the mini Ice Age but became browner with warmer climates and more pollution. I wouldn’t necessarily attribute adaptability to conservatives; the status quo and tradition is hardly a testament to adaptation. Change is at odds with conservatism. Again, poor scholarship. Evolution is not his area of expertise and he needed to cite some research before making such laughable comments. Second Criticism: A fixation of the individual over society Throughout much of 12 Rules For Life, Jordan Peterson views that the individual self is improvable over society at large. This is evidenced in Chapters such as Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5 and particular Rule 6 are predicated on the idea that rather than improving society, we should improve ourselves. Rule 1’s comparison of lobster mating with economic inequality (I wish I was making this up) is an example of how the total sum of society’s processes and construction is boiled down to a fallacious misrepresentative zero-sum game of society. Rule 1’s obsessive belief that society is nothing more than mating lobsters, that outcomes in economics and politics are inevitable as nature itself is demonstrably false. Case in point, South Korea and North Korea. I guess Jordan Peterson or anyone for that matter would know that there is a difference between the countries. They have the same ethnic group but due to contexts of the Cold War, have developed completely different societies due to political ideology. Now what has South Korea and North Korea got in common with mating lobsters? Nothing really. The decisions made in the societies are more impactful on the lives of citizens than the lives of the citizens can really ever make over their own lives. I am not going to say that an individual has no responsibility over their own life; but it is false to think that someone can simply work harder to get themselves better. If a poor person’s life in North Korea is determined in part by the state of politics of the regime, it would follow that a poor person’s life is determined in part in a country like USA or UK; which is demonstrated with statistics such as parents’ economic status at a one year’s old birthday being a predictor of how educationally successful a person is. Economic inequality is not some pre-determined condition in society. Peterson cites Pareto’s Law in Rule 1 as evidence of hard-wired inequality in society. In Rule 11, Peterson does a flimsy criticism of focusing on economic equality. He argues on page 312 that the US and Sweden are different types of capitalism, that the US has followed free market capitalism, that both are born out of their own circumstances and we won’t know which is best for centuries. Not a single citation with these points made. That is because Peterson is flat out false. In every metric, living standards are better in Sweden over the US, whether it be life expectancy, crime, social mobility, education, happiness and welfare. This is because Sweden has voted for Social Democratic governments more often in the past 80 years and so has ended up with a demonstrable better country. But it isn’t just Sweden; as in the book The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrate the single largest predictor in a country’ s success is … inequality. Inequality isn’t a fact of life but the choices a society makes when it votes in Right wing politicians to screw up society as evidenced with the chaos (no irony lost) of the Conservatives in the UK. Conservatives love chaos it turns out. My most infuriating chapter where the individual is held up over society was Rule 6; make your life perfect before criticising the world. This chapter I detested the most because it is designed and crafted in a way to make progressives impossible by moving the goal posts on what is deemed acceptable. In order to be able to criticise society, you must be a perfect person. Given no one is perfect, no one has the case to criticise society; it follows that no one can criticise society. I could get emotional as to why this is such a horrible argument for those at the bottom of society or how Martin Luther King could never be a leader of the civil rights movement if Peterson’s chapter is born out in reality. But what about flawed leaders of the Right? Winston Churchill after all started as a Liberal before becoming a Tory overtime and led Britain throughout World War II. Winston Churchill was a flawed man; an alcoholic who led the UK to victory. Should he have been replaced with a more suitable person who wasn’t an alcoholic? It is itself an informal fallacy (getting onto that in the next criticism) to focus on the individual rather than the argument they are making. But Mr Appeal to Authority Peterson knows all too well about fallacies. Worse, by making it impossible to criticise society, you let psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists triumph in politics and that makes the world much worse. In the words of the founder of Conservativism Edmund Burke, “all it takes for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing” is as apt as any. You can criticise the world; after all, if you don’t, who will make a change? Third Criticism: fallacious reasoning from Mr Appeal to Authority Peterson I have always disliked Jordan Peterson’s success because he appeals to his own weight as a professor of psychology to make claims on all sorts of issues including politics, history, religion, philosophy and society (which I do think he distorts) to climate science (where he has no expertise). As a result, he oversteps his area of expertise. Now, 12 Rules for Life is riddled with fallacious reasoning. There are a lot of fallacies in the book but if you are going to have 12 Rules for Life, why not have 12 Informal Fallacies of Life? It doesn’t have a catchy title. I can list 12 fallacies in the Rules for Life. They include the following: false dichotomy, moving the goalposts, Texan sharpshooter fallacy, appeal to tradition, non-sequitur, strawman, false analogy, slippery slope, hasty generalisations, appeal to emotion and ad hominem to name 12. There are potentially more than this. These are ones that could be identified in the text. False dichotomies are common in 12 Rules for Life. This involves comparing the dichotomy of society of chaos versus order. Jordan Peterson likes to have easy comparisons between things. I would argue that Rule 6 is moving the goal posts fallacy as he attempts to attack Leftists into moving the parameters of the debate in which they cannot respond. In order to criticise society, you must be perfect. You are not perfect so you cannot criticise society. This is in case evidence of an ad hominem of the left; the left are bad people so their arguments are bad. The example of a non-sequitur is mentioned in the previous criticism, namely lobster mating does not prove that society will always be economically unequal. Texan sharpshooter fallacy is demonstrated with his use of data; hasty generalisations are common with his views on gender. His criticism of Jacques Derrida in Rule 11 is a horrendous strawman as he attempts to criticise postmodernism without giving an actual determination of what postmodernism is or what Jacques Derrida meant. I used to think postmodernism was the world being purely relative, but that is not what postmodernism is. Postmodernism is the belief that modernity defined by ideologies and absolute normative values can no longer explain the sum of humanity and that there is no object way to view humanity in its entirety. It has taken me a while to find out that I am myself partial to postmodernist thinking. Jordan Peterson further demonstrates in 12 Rules for Life he has absolutely no clue what postmodernism is about. His ridiculous criticisms of postmodernism in how destructive that “nothing exists outside the text” argues there is an objective fact in a normative value claim. But nothing exists outside the text presupposes that there is unchanging truth inside texts themselves but given that Peterson shows he values the Documentary Hypothesis view of the Bible shows this is not entirely correct. Overall, 12 Rules for Life is fallacious in its reasoning. Fourth Criticism: Right-wing Polemic I think much of what Jordan Peterson says in 12 Rules for Life is contradictory ideas. An example of this is his continual critique of the Left and on page 249 makes a refutation of certain arguments made people that: 1) denigrate their opponent (ad hominem), 2) use selective evidence (Texan sharpshooter) and 3) impress their listeners by the validity of their assertions. This made me laugh at the total lack of self-awareness; doesn’t Jordan Peterson do all these things? Worse than this, Jordan Peterson has a tendency to blame individuals for their own problems that they have made in 12 Rules for Life. Yet, in Rule 11, Peterson actually takes a different take as to the problems of society. The fact of men no longer being attractive to women and becoming less valuable in society he argues is to do with the decline of manufacturing. This is a contradictory take; capitalism is always good with its outcomes for Peterson, until of course according to Peterson, the structure of the economy has allowed women to overtake men in status which is bad. When he blames deindustrialisation for the plight of men and then say that only the rich get married now in Rule 11, I have the feel that maybe Peterson really does not get economics or politics. Other than potshots at vulnerable people, he does not really have macro-solution of how to solve societal issues. The decline of men in society isn’t simply because women have gone to university and going up in the world but a structural change in economics which have hurt men. However, rather than blaming economic structures and big business, men have fallen in love with people like Jordan Peterson and who have helped push them to the Right. 12 Rules for Life is a Right-wing polemic in the guise of a self-help book. This I feel to be the most dangerous part of the book. Sure, I am a leftist so it is only because I disagree. This is where I think that isn’t the case. The book as I pointed out previously is supposed to be a self-help book. But it drips an ideology of individualist conservatism that offers no solutions to 21st century problems. Any point towards the innate problems of having highly unequal societies, Peterson’s 12 Rules to Life attacks any hope to rectify these issues. The irony of course would be lost on Peterson and on many other conservatives in that greater social inequality leads to higher levels of political instability and high likelihood of chaos. In Field Museum, anthropologists have argued that inequality leads to higher levels of instability, which can be demonstrated with looking at politics in countries such as South Africa, Venezuela (yes it is very unequal) and Brazil. What does 12 Rules for Life offer? Nothing of anything useful to you. If you want a self-help book, there are plenty of better ones out there and there are much more useful political polemics that you could read. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 12, 2024
|
May 13, 2024
|
May 12, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0141984996
| 9780141984995
| 0141984996
| 3.98
| 449
| 2017
| Jun 01, 2017
|
it was amazing
|
A polemic with a passion for defending the social injustice of London's housing. Anna Minton puts forward the argument that London's housing policy is
A polemic with a passion for defending the social injustice of London's housing. Anna Minton puts forward the argument that London's housing policy is rigged towards the elite and that ordinary people have been systematically pushed out of the capital in favour of wealthy developments favouring rich investors. The first chapter looks over how super wealthy investors have been able to buy up significant amounts of housing in London and taken over streets. This has helped drive out people, making London unaffordable. These ultra-wealthy individuals have bought up significant amounts of housing stock and are in effect driving out people by gentrification. Unlike gentrification in many cities, this leads to entirely empty houses which are never used. These "alpha" people hence drive the housing crisis by never having homes which are occupied at all. The second chapter really sums up the problems of housing in the UK; ending council housing, selling off the old council houses and not replacing it. A clear chart demonstrates that between 1967 and 1985 house construction went down from 350,000 to 200,000. Anna Minton puts forward the argument that housing was not built for homeownership and that the UK had low amounts of homeownership. What I found fascinating is that my beloved land value tax or more specifically a land improvement tax was abolished under the 1980s Financial "Big Bang" which led to massive increases in the cost of home prices on London by about 500%. Anna Minton does not simply look at the data; she looks at personal stories affected by the clearing of social housing in London, where occupiers were given low amounts of money in compulsory purchase orders only for them not to afford new houses. This led to resentment among many different people as Blairite Labour Southwark council tore down lots of council housing and drove poor people out of London. Big Capital is a strong argument against gentrification in that gentrification doesn't lead to better housing policies but contributes to the housing crisis. The arguments about how to solve this seems reasonable such as a tax on foreign property investors, a land improvement tax. Of course, much of this problem would be solved by my beloved of all policies; a land value tax of 3% which would heavily disincentivise housing and land speculation that plights the capital of London. A fantastic and short polemic on London's housing problems. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 28, 2024
|
May 29, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1785900293
| 9781785900297
| 1785900293
| 3.77
| 157
| Jun 18, 1984
| Jan 01, 2012
|
liked it
|
Michael Crick's Militant is insightful information into an organisation which was detrimental to the Labour Party. The book presents itself as a first
Michael Crick's Militant is insightful information into an organisation which was detrimental to the Labour Party. The book presents itself as a first hand account of what Militant was like as a movement was like. Set in the present tense, it offered an insight into the movement including its ideology, what it did and the effects of the movement. The first part of the book involved looking at the Left in general. The Far-Left appeared to be ineffective in gathering support in the party although there were some high profile names in the Labour Far-Left. These include Denis Healey. On the whole, the Far-Left never really dominated the Labour Party. Likewise, Michael Crick presents that Liverpool as a Right-wing city which was dominated by Protestant sectarianism. The Liverpool Labour Party was a Right-wing party because of the Catholics in the city. The policies of Militant were surprisingly portrayed as quite similar to Labour. Militant wanted complete nationalisation of the economy, which was more radical than Labour and jobs for all. On policing, Militant wanted a democratically controlled policing which isn't that dissimilar to police and crime commissioner elections which were a Tory policy. They did support mandatory reselection. The most controversial policies was the pacifism and sort democratic control of media. They also supported a "socialist federation in Europe" . Militant was portrayed as religious in its pursuits. The organisation controlled its members in how they dressed, whether they could smoke or drink. Operations were launched to attempt to halt Militant including "Operation Icepick". Militant ran a careful operation in raising funds including publishing. I found the most interesting part of the book being about Militant's connection with overseas. Militant had contacts in South Africa, Chile, Spain, Sweden, Ireland and Sri Lanka of all places. In many ways, Militant had the tendencies of a cult focusing on winning new members and promoting obscure ideas over really improving the lives of people. The book looked at Militant in Merseyside where it caused immeasurable damage to the city. It even took religious leaders to get involved in saying that Militant undermined the council operations. Liverpool was not dominated by Labour but Militant caused damage there. The book overall gives an interesting view of Militant and how they impacted politics in Britain. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 22, 2024
|
May 27, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0743247469
| 9780743247467
| 0743247469
| 4.07
| 4,717
| 2003
| Mar 07, 2005
|
it was amazing
|
This is a fantastic short read. I originally bought this back in 2008. As a teenager, I was enthralled by this book. Rereading it 14 years later I can
This is a fantastic short read. I originally bought this back in 2008. As a teenager, I was enthralled by this book. Rereading it 14 years later I can see why. For a book that came out in 2005, it is a highly thought-provoking book. The central argument in the book is that corporations are highly destructive to society with systems designed for profit maximisation at all costs. There is nothing held back from Joel Bakan's argument. In the first chapter, there is a lot looked over at the development of the corporation. This includes the famous Southsea Bubble which was infamous when a company was created on phoney conditions, so that the company didn't actually exist. What was interesting was much of the early ideas of the corporation were focused on caring for society, especially Goodyear tires after World War I. The chapter looks over the development of corporations, which really developed first in the railways of the UK and US as the vast capital requirements meant public listings were essential. The interview with Milton Friedman was telling. Milton Friedman died two years after the publication of the book. He was as honest to his views as he always was. Believing that the only ethics a business should have is making profit for its shareholders. Everything else for Milton Friedman was seen as immoral. This is because shareholders have put money into the company and it is their money being sacrificed. This view was centralised by the US legal system with the case Dodge versus Ford, where the Dodge brothers took Henry Ford to court for not prioritising profit maximisation over other concerns. They won the case. The case about the Chevrolet Malibu is similar to a case I heard about Ford Pintos in which GM calculated the costs of legal litigation from death to be lower than actually designing better cars. This led to a major payout following a crash resulting in terrible injuries for certain people. These aren't the only morally dubious things that corporations do. It just scratches the surface. Joel Bakan lists different things such as paid corporate espionage and theft of pre-patented inventions, human rights violations in the textile industry, mass criminal negligence by GE plus the corporate assistance to Nazi Germany. Who knew IBM made calculating machines that assisted in the Holocaust? With every single point made, there is a clear position that corporations act purely for self-interest over any other concern. The most telling of this is the oil industry. The research by Joel Bakan into the oil industry makes me feel enraged to think that such an industry has done so much to inflict so much damage to the planet. The idea of Milton Friedman that a corporation's only interest is profit maximisation, is as Joel Bakan shows an existential threat given how much the oil industry has done in degradation to the planet. Interestingly though, there isn't any research into how the oil industry deliberately spent billions in lobbying to undermine climate change activism or how the oil industry lied about the effects of climate change to protect their interests. That would be an interesting conspiracy that a future book could look into. Talking about conspiracy, one criticism of this book is that it at one point backs the research of one scientist who claims that mercury additives to vaccines are linked with autism. This has been debunked many times and unfortunately, this book had the research quoted in the book. However, this may have been removed in later editions. Most disturbing is the research that democracy is threatened by corporations. The plot to overthrow FDR in the 1930s, instigated by corporations who hated FDR's programmes is a fascinating part of history that is ignored. General Butler was contacted to initiate a coup to replace FDR with a Fascist government. He declined it and later testified about this. The corporations roll back of democracy is a part of the book that is depressing in many ways as it shows the decline of democracy caused by corporate power. Privatisation and outsourcing services had been analysed by The Corporation and critiqued as being destructive to society. The last chapter before the appendices looks at how to improve society from the destructive power of corporations. Joel Bakan argues that a strong public sphere, powerful regulatory system and improvements to democracy are the ways of curtailing the power of corporations. The interesting thing is that his policy recommendations are not that radical. The policies such as stronger trade unions, electoral reform and better government regulations put him as a social democrat rather than trying to renationalise anything. The scepticism towards market fundamentalism of the WTO and World Bank is also an intriguing point, given the hostility people on the Right have towards these organisations, though much of that is probably to do with the opposition to globalisation over national identity and Anti-Semitism. Joel Bakan argues that supranational organisations should run on principles apart from market fundamentalism. The Corporation is a phenomenal book. The research is impeccable; I calculated there to be around 370 citations for 167 pages. That is approximately 2.2 citations per page compared with roughly 1 citation per 2 pages for Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, which under my view is basically a Right-wing polemic in the guise of a self-help book. The book is short, easily readable in three days or one sitting. The analysis is fantastic and its thesis is sharp and to the point. There is no waffle. This book is still relevant. In the age of AI and climate change, where tech companies and oil companies operate purely for self-interest, this book explains why companies do exceptionally terrible things. There is even an argument that wokeism is purely a branding exercise to drive sales and make money. Which is an irony that the Right hates about corporations now. Wokeism is there to make money as much as anything else. A highly recommended book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 22, 2024
|
May 24, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0857282514
| 9780857282514
| 0857282514
| 3.95
| 3,037
| 2011
| Jun 10, 2013
|
really liked it
|
Mariana Mazzucato provides an exceptional argument as to why the state is critical for economic development and for innovation. In the book The Entrep
Mariana Mazzucato provides an exceptional argument as to why the state is critical for economic development and for innovation. In the book The Entrepreneurial State, the central thesis is that rather than the private sector or venture capital as the main drivers of innovation and R & D, it is the state that drives innovation in the economy. The book is broken down into 11 chapters. The introduction puts forward the central thesis in how we as people should think again about how the state is essential to developing innovation in society. Chapter 1 outlines the problems that have been faced by a state supported innovation system. Chapter 2 puts forward how technology and its development has always been supported by government spending. Chapter 2 also puts forward myths that have been created around government spending on innovation including issues around European commercialisation, the knowledge economy which Mazzucato argues to do with using patents for being able to sue other companies rather than actually driving innovation. Chapter 3 and 4 deal how the state directly intervenes in the development and innovation particularly in the defence sector and with the pharmaceutical biotechnology industry. Chapter 5 is uniquely about how Apple was benefited by government spending. Chapter 6 and 7 are about how state innovation benefits the green industrial revolution and green industrial sectors. Chapter 8 and 9 deal with the risks and rewards of government innovation and how the government can benefit from these changes. Chapter 10 summarises the argument with government spending should be directed at R and D, the state should be engaged with risky/uncertain projects and by directly engaging with a "bumpy risk" environment. The book involves a strong amount of research. The bibliography is 24 pages long and has a significant number of citations throughout the book. There is a well argued position that government spending is directly correlated to improvements in innovation. The insightfulness of the book is striking; so many innovations such as the internet, touch screens, pharmaceuticals and Tesla have all been impacted by government spending. This of course I know about for years; most modern innovations since the 1900s have had government involvement in. The difference between my knowledge and this book, is that this book has set out with precision and clarity how the government has innovated improvements. Venture capital is rebuked by Mazzucato as being ineffective and inefficient at providing innovation in the economy. Contrary to popular beliefs, venture capital is non-risk taking and only wants easy technology to innovate and so doesn't provide the innovation required to solve problems in society. There is too much of a time gap between development and profit that means companies are unwilling to make the risks required for technological development and innovation. The focus on Apple is an interesting choice. Apple iPhones, which were seen as the technological edge when the book was written, provided an interesting case study into how the state innovation can be capitalised by private companies. The majority of the components found in iPhones have had some kind of government involvement in its development. The two chapters on the green sectors are probably the most consequential as climate change threatens the planet. Most interestingly though, both solar and wind today have a significant cost reduced factor and are cheaper than coal. Their only disadvantage is intermittent energy production. It is clear that the government is critical in developing a renewable energy sector and the book outlines the ways of doing this effectively. The Entrepreneurial State offers a strong rebuttal of typically Neo-Liberal and Right wing economic arguments that the government should step out of innovation and leave it to the private sector. The book offers a useful and well researched insight that promotes a different view of innovation that requires government spending and R & D to be at the centre of it. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 05, 2024
|
Jun 09, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| B07GL9Y5TC
| 3.66
| 487
| Oct 25, 2018
| Oct 25, 2018
|
liked it
|
A bit of a laugh, the Story of Brexit offers a light hearted take on Brexit. Given it has been five years since 2019, it offers an interesting comical
A bit of a laugh, the Story of Brexit offers a light hearted take on Brexit. Given it has been five years since 2019, it offers an interesting comical look over Britain's choice but I wouldn't say it is entirely insightful. Rather, like all adult Ladybird Books, the comical effect is from pictures being attached to text taken out of context. What is different is the majority of Goodread reviews of The Story of Brexit happened before 2020. Looking back, has it aged well? I don't know, given that Brexit as a project has become a damp squib, particularly in the fact that there aren't any real bonuses and a whole lot of costs. Perhaps my Remain supporting position taints my view of reading this book, but it is a rather comical book if slightly dated. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 05, 2024
|
May 06, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1928373887
| 9781928373889
| 1928373887
| 4.95
| 20
| unknown
| 2017
|
it was amazing
|
Thami Thami makes an excellent case for voting ANC. It is a well set out argument for the reasons why the ANC is the best political party for South Af
Thami Thami makes an excellent case for voting ANC. It is a well set out argument for the reasons why the ANC is the best political party for South Africa. At times, the book is funny and offers a carte blanche for the reader to write their own ideas into. I wrote about how the ANC were instrumental in liberating South Africa from Apartheid. Very few books give the reader such interactiveness with the text.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 28, 2024
|
Apr 29, 2024
|
Apr 28, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0735224218
| 9780735224216
| 3.97
| 708
| Feb 07, 2023
| Feb 07, 2023
|
really liked it
|
Martin Wolf's The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism is a book about the issues facing capitalism and democracy. This book is as much personal as politic
Martin Wolf's The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism is a book about the issues facing capitalism and democracy. This book is as much personal as political. Martin starts with the description of what democracy is. There is a description of human history before looking over why democracy married capitalism. The book looks over the development of economics including Keynesianism and the backlash of Thatcherism. In "It's The Economy, Stupid", analyses the interplay between capitalism and the rise of populism. This includes stagnation for the economy which led to people backing populists. This in itself linked nationalism and the decline in productivity. Rentiers Capitalism is a critique based on the premise that capitalism has become a rentier system. This argument is that the rents of the economy is where rather than productivity, wealth is extracted from Investments. This is evidenced with the financier economy based on the banking system. Such an economy does not improve the average people in society. The financialism of society ultimately does not increase growth. One of the more interesting ideas advocated by Martin Wolf is land value tax. This isn't the only time in the book which argues for a land value tax. Alongside criticising the changes in the economy, Wolf argues about the perils of populism which he believes in the failures of capitalism leads to a cycle of populism and economic decline. The final sections of the book are dedicated economic and political solutions. This included the New New Deal which argued for improved public services and looks at the UBI. The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism looks over the threats of democracy, which include renewing democracy and the future of democratic capitalism in the world. The book overall is good. There are lots of graphs and charts looking over data. The book's interplay between economics and democracy is highly interesting. A useful book which is useful to understanding the modern society and how capitalism needs to improve to save democracy. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 14, 2024
|
Apr 29, 2024
|
Apr 14, 2024
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.22
|
really liked it
|
Aug 17, 2024
|
Aug 11, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.95
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Jul 18, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.00
|
liked it
|
Jul 14, 2024
|
Jul 13, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.50
|
really liked it
|
Jul 16, 2024
|
Jul 13, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.62
|
really liked it
|
Jul 10, 2024
|
Jul 07, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.13
|
liked it
|
Jul 06, 2024
|
Jul 05, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.20
|
really liked it
|
Jul 03, 2024
|
Jul 02, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.29
|
it was ok
|
Jun 23, 2024
|
Jun 22, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.72
|
it was ok
|
Jun 18, 2024
|
Jun 17, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.00
|
really liked it
|
Jun 21, 2024
|
Jun 16, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.64
|
really liked it
|
May 29, 2024
|
May 28, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.76
|
liked it
|
May 21, 2024
|
May 17, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.92
|
did not like it
|
May 13, 2024
|
May 12, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.98
|
it was amazing
|
May 29, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.77
|
liked it
|
May 27, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.07
|
it was amazing
|
May 24, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.95
|
really liked it
|
Jun 09, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.66
|
liked it
|
May 06, 2024
|
May 05, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.95
|
it was amazing
|
Apr 29, 2024
|
Apr 28, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.97
|
really liked it
|
Apr 29, 2024
|
Apr 14, 2024
|
Loading...
