User Profile

A fascinating if repetitive account of Islamic State, in which Napoleoni emphasizes how it should be considered an attempt at nation-building in a world that has otherwise regressed into premodern warfare. She discusses some of the economic and political aspects of that peculiar territorial terrorism that is IS, while pointing out how its use of propaganda and divide et impera eluded the apparatuses of highly developed states.

The analysis is plausible, but not very grounded. The work is light on (useful) citations and doesn't examine any of the dimensions of IS - economical, political, theological or ideological - in depth enough to provide good understanding.

The main thesis though, that globalisation has left a multipolar world in which space has appeared to move from terrorism into nation-building, is interesting enough to justify this read.

The brilliance of this book is its complete nothingness. There's only existence, some people claim, and existence isn't that much either.

Some people find Rontel really funny. I didn't. But I appreciate the characters in this absurd novella. They just... are.

Stuff like this is why I try to keep an eye on American fiction.

I am a bit on the fence about this bundle. First of all, I hadn't expected it to be a bundle -- I figured that Graeber would provide an integrated critique of bureaucracy, since he seems to have been working on the topic for a while. Of course, essays can be perfect vehicles for the development of new ideas, and The Utopia of Rules certainly delivers in terms of exploration, but it falls a little short when it comes to substance.

That is not to say there's nothing of interest here: Graeber's style is intact and he explores some very interesting ideas. He argues that bureaucracy is predicated on violence and the power gradients that stem from it and introduces a concept he calls interpretive labor, which is roughly the same as the psychological theory of mind, but is contextualized within class society. The logic that takes him there -- through the anthropological observation that bureaucratic forms are uninteresting and the feminist critique of one-sided empathy -- is fascinating in its complexity.

Another promising idea is that bureaucracy appeals not because it leads to a fair, meritocratic society (it doesn't), but because predictable rules appeal to a society that is suspicious of play. Here Graeber makes use of the distinction between games and play, something that couldn't be pulled off in my native language, but nonetheless makes all the sense in the world to me. He explores the promise that play has to change the world, in an argument that is explicity based on the Situationists and other ludic, anarchist movements. For Graeber, the dichotomy that is at the core of the left-right divide is that of play versus (violent) order --which is a refreshing thought in an era that is stuck in the Cold War logic of states versus markets -- and clarifies that this is exactly why the Left should resist being tempted by bureaucracy.

It doesn't make sense to summarize the book, so let me stop there. If you are interested in seeing a solid first step towards a critique of bureaucracy that is deeper, more coherent and more productive than the common right-wing one, Graeber's collection is where you should be.

It was a pleasure to join the clear mind of Francis Fukuyama in this second volume of his work on political order. Whilehis first volume ([b:The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution|9704856|The Origins of Political Order From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution|Francis Fukuyama|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1317064084s/9704856.jpg|14593088]) argued in favor of a triad of rule of law, effective statehood and accountability, he used this second volume to show how different balances between these three elements have led to wildly varying political outcomes in the modern age.

Given the exhaustive nature of the political order project, I am pretty sure both books offer something for everyone. Personally, I found it quite interesting to read a strong defense of bureaucracy or, to be more precise, autonomous bureaucracy. Fukuyama's arguments in favor of a strong state should be taken to heart by minarchists and anarchists alike, especially since he argues that some of the popular alternatives to state power (e.g. decentralized judicial systems) lead to capture of the political process by interest groups or to other forms of political decay. It will be interesting to read [b:The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy|22245334|The Utopia of Rules On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy|David Graeber|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1417415465s/22245334.jpg|41620170] with Fukuyama's arguments in mind.

One problem of Political Order and Political Decay is that is it poorly edited. A work of this scope can only be written with a good team overseeing structure, and that clearly didn't happen. Key insights were repeated over and over again, while some discussions were so short they could just as well have been skipped (the section on the Arab Spring was particularly superficial and disappointing). However, these shortcomings shouldn't deter anyone: both this book and The Origins of Political Order are fascinating reads for the politically and historically inclined.

Probably the most important book of the year. Climate change challenges anyone's pet ideology: it makes Marxists doubt their utopian materialism, forces laissez-faire capitalists to consider the peculiarities of externalities and makes anarchists wonder whether mutualist instincts are strong enough to deal with invisible, delayed forms of exploitation.

Klein argues for a planned economy, but like most contemporary socialists she subscribes to a rather anarchic, decentralized system to uphold norms like carbon emissions and tax fossil fuel burners. The details are sketchy - Klein unfortunately prefers a sophomoric discussion of Baconian thought to an in-depth look at how you can empower the State without reinforcing clientelism - but the general idea makes sense.

If anything, Klein conveys the urgency of the climate challenge. Right-wing populism has ensured that we are already too late and that environmental disasters are much worse than they could have been. If your political flavor of choice does not prevent worsening of the current situation, you might just as well throw it out of the window.

Finally got around to finishing this. It's a good example of medical doctors doing science. It's a bad example of science.