User Profile

Wow. Never before did I read radical literature that's so modestly phrased. As Skidelsky & Skidelsky seek out what makes for 'the good life', they trace the evolution of economic thought, and show how ethical considerations in ancient times morphed into a framework that is superficially scientific, but rich in 'moral fragments' nonetheless. Economic newspeak turned avarice into self-interest, happiness into utility and virtue into purposiveness, and thereby muddled all discussion on the good society.

How Much is Enough? shines when tracing the origins and evolution of ideas, but is only worthwhile for those who get excited about such things. Structurally, the authors drop the ball on several occasions -- it's not always clear why they take a sudden, detailed detour into Aristotelian thought, for example. Content-wise, they are too dismissive of the accusation that their view of the good society is 'dictatorial' or at least paternalistic. State power takes a central role in their proposals for creating a just society, without any consideration on the possible, and historically recurring corruption of the State. Also, one might argue that a strong appeal to move towards pre-Smithean values would also lead to more imaginative proposals than basic income, progressive taxation and stronger regulation of advertising.

That being said, if you're interested in a persuasive, historically enlightening account of how and why there is more to economics than GDP, there's no book I could recommend more strongly.

While the arguments aren't presented as coherently as they should have been, Graeber makes some excellent points about the shape that contemporary politics is taking, as well as about the rich history from which democratic movements can draw their inspiration. Democracy, argues Graeber, is not a singular concept that was at one point invented -- or even rediscovered -- by French, British and American intellectuals. Instead, peoples across both world and time have experimented with collective decision-making by consensus and have found many different ways to do so. According to Graeber, the so-called democratic revolution mostly consisted of selecting those ways that were compatible with existing power structures, while disposing of those that challenged established hierarchies. To do so, both the New World and Old World projects were molded into a Roman, essentially aristocratic form. In fact, Graeber shows, up until the 1800s, admitting to being a 'democrat' was tantamount to claiming to be a radical crackpot -- the democratic project was considered to be an aristocratic enterprise by its own architects.

This admittedly revisionist account is one that fits well with [a:Bakunin|5447290|Bakunin|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-a7c55399ea455530473b9f9e4da94c40.png]'s view of social structure being built around a managerial class or, in the words of [a:Michael Albert|112947|Michael Albert|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1346936675p2/112947.jpg], the coordinators. Graeber fully subscribes to this view and argues that our current political dynamics is, at least at its fringes, dominated by resistance against different kinds of coordinators. While left-wingers (e.g. Occupy) take aim at CEOs, hedge funds and other capitalists who constrain the lives of others, Graeber believes right-wingers (e.g. the Tea Party) take aim at technocrats, media personalities and academics for similar reasons.

Both the historical account and the analyses of current events are argued for convincingly. Graeber seems to share my personal belief that the direction of current politics is not immediately towards liberty, nor towards equality or brotherhood, but towards the autonomy that is a necessary condition for the former triad to flourish. As this is basically an anti-ideological stance, he isn't able to formulate what a free society looks like, or how it should be run.

But he tries anyway.

And that is where the greatest weakness of the book lies. It's impossible to be specific about tomorrow's society and Graber realizes this, so his view of the future is clouded with abstractions and slogans. He is right not to draw a blueprint, but should have also refrained from sketching a vague outline in flowery prose that even Barack Obama would find insubstantial.

Yet, even despite these and other misgivings, The Democracy Project is an inspiring read for anyone who is willing to entertain the possiblity of genuine democracy in a free, horizontalist society.

I guess this book is interesting if you've never given our changing economy much thought or if you haven't been paying attention to technological progress since the eighties. If you have been, this book offers very little.

An excellent novel that crosses the border with poetry, but never strays too far. While the frequent zapping across time, space and perspective is reminiscent of much contemporary fiction, Ledgard's writing stands out among a generation of writers who hurry to move their plots forward. Clever use of motifs encourage the reader to seek out parallels among the different storylines, but the parallels remain elusive, ambiguous beginnings of thoughts. As a consequence, reading Submergence is as demanding as it is rewarding. Despite some minor issues -- Ledgard is a journalist, and it shows on those few occasions when the prose turns encyclopedic -- this book promises to be as timeless as it is timely.

While this book offers interesting tidbits about anarchist history and the daily affairs of Occupy Wall Street, it tries too many different things at the same time to succeed. It tries to be a sociological exploration of OWS, but reduces all interviews to soundbites that illustrate the writer's thoughts. It tries to review the history and varying forms of anarchism, but leaves enormous gaps and dismisses the types of anarchism that Bray isn't comfortable with. It proposes that anarchism can offer an inclusive, pragmatic and liberating framework for the left, but at the same time it deals bitter jabs to liberals, communists and other leftists, whom Bray ultimately wants to have aboard.

This all detracts from the book's coherency and, more importantly, from its ultimate message. In the final segment of the book, Bray addresses the build-up of parallel institutions that should be attractive to a broad segment of society while staying true to anarchist praxis. He talks about the tension between alternative culture, revolutionary change and mass appeal. If Bray's goal was to address the translation of anarchist thought into practice and into society, these are the topics he should have elaborated on.