Gautney talks about the consistency of Sanders' political views over the decades; views that have been shaped since the early 60s by principled defensGautney talks about the consistency of Sanders' political views over the decades; views that have been shaped since the early 60s by principled defense of working-class interests. That consistency, and those principles, are what led me to support Sanders during the primaries in 2016. Whether he could have won the general election is debatable: given the level of hatred and hostility towards him by the media elite, it would have been an uphill battle. We'll never know.
Most of this book examines the Clinton and Sanders campaigns, looked at from the class-based Sanders campaign, and the identitarian focus of the Clinton campaign. As has been often pointed out, Clintonians would be quite happy with the present level of economic inequality and class oppression, as long as the oppressors were 50% female, 17% black, and 20% latino. That's social justice! A far cry from the social solutions to social problems proposed by Sanders and wildly popular with his supporters: free higher education, expansion of Social Security, Medicare for all, higher taxes on the rich. Programs that would be direct concrete benefits to all citizens, and which would provide the greatest benefit to those in lower economic strata.
Gautney concludes with some discussion of the distinctions between electoral campaigns and mass movements, and notes that none of the Sanders policies have a chance of being enacted without mass movements to force the issue.
I didm't find any great new insights in this book - but I have been reading Sanders-based post mortems on the election for 18 months. Even so, this is a concise and clear explanation of the Sanders phenomenon and its aftermath by a Sanders campaign insider....more
This collection covers ground familiar to regular readers of Chomsky: the role of intellectuals in defending the status quo; the history and role of pThis collection covers ground familiar to regular readers of Chomsky: the role of intellectuals in defending the status quo; the history and role of propaganda in the enlightened Western Democracies; the manufacturing of "consent"; the existential dangers of Real Existing Capitalism.
The 1996 essay "Consent Without Consent" was the most interesting of the lot, for me, because it was a reminder of just how far Bill Clinton and the New Democrats had already steered the Democratic Party away from anything resembling a party of the people. Already by then the Democratic Party, and Clinton in particular, understood that a party platform should be treated only as a public relations tool, and not as something that should have any influence on actual policy. This, of course, has been the practice of both major parties ever since, with the result that on most substantive issues there is very little difference between the two parties, aside from rhetoric and tactics. The financial elite must be served, and both parties understand that and act accordingly. ...more
1. His analysis of the 60s was interesting. Basically: the worldwide student revolt in the 60s was not rAn interesting life, to be sure. Three things:
1. His analysis of the 60s was interesting. Basically: the worldwide student revolt in the 60s was not really political in nature: it was a sort of personal and cultural revolt, nothing more, and nothing that posed any threat to the existing order.
2. His position during the disastrous rise of Thatcherism and the implosion of Labour. He favored "tactical voting", and saw the main goal as being the defeat of Thatcher, and had no patience with the sectarians on the left who wanted to maintain their ideological purity. I would undoubtedly have been among the sectarians, had I been British, but I see Hobsbawm's point.
3. His extensive travels in Latin America, and his seemingly effortless ability to meet and befriend the intelligentsia in all countries.
OK, more than three things: his apparent ease at learning languages; his nearly lifelong love of jazz; and his seemingly non-ideological Marxism.
Worth reading if you've read any of his work. ...more
This is a collection of 4 interviews with Gore Vidal, from 1986 through 2007. They mostly cover the same ground, and he tends to give roughly similar This is a collection of 4 interviews with Gore Vidal, from 1986 through 2007. They mostly cover the same ground, and he tends to give roughly similar answers to the same questions, with slight variations over time.
Vidal was an immensely intelligent man, and was among the first to recognize and portray the United States as an empire - a term that earned him scorn from the establishment press at the time (the 50s and 60s), but which is now a commonplace. He also coined the term "national security state" back in the early 80s - another term that is now generally recognized as descriptive of our government but which was, then, subjected to derision and contempt.
He was born into a wealthy and politically connected family, which only partly explains his early access to notable politicians and artists in the early postwar period. He wrote his first two books when he was 19 and 20 while in the US army, receiving favorable reviews from the New York Times. But when he published The City and the Pillar, about the life of a gay man, he was placed on the New York Times shitlist, and never again received a favorable review from them. Which tells us a great deal more about the Times than it does about Gore Vidal.
He became left-wing by degrees, after starting as an America Firster while at Exeter. By 1968 he had recognized the American empire for what it was, and his trajectory to the left by then was irreversible. He had access to all the main political players during the 60s, and knew that the trumped-up fears about the USSR were only for public consumption, a way to advance the interests of what he would eventually term the national security state. That sort of knowledge is bound to make anyone a bit cynical. And he early on recognized the criminality and utter pointlessness of the Vietnam war, before opposition to the war was popular. He maintained his principled ant-war stance to the end, even breaking off his friendship with Christopher Hitchens because of the latter's support for the invasion of Iraq.
For those of us who have been reading Glenn Greenwald for the past decade, Glennon provides an alternative theory to explain the continuity of the staFor those of us who have been reading Glenn Greenwald for the past decade, Glennon provides an alternative theory to explain the continuity of the state surveillance and security policies; policies that are largely independent of which party happens to be in power. Glennon makes a distinction between the "Madisonian" institutions that are the public face of our government - the executive, legislative, and judicial branches - and the "Trumanite" institutions - the network of surveillance and security departments. He makes the case that the public, Madisonian, government has little effective control over the operation of the Trumanite network; that it would be nearly impossible for a President to simply give an order that would cause that network to change course; that congress members do not have the time or the expertise (or the desire) to effectively oversee that network; and that members of the judiciary are pre-vetted as adherents of the aims and autonomy of the Trumanite network. He says that the Madisonian institutions occasionally are able to rein in on rare occasions - just often enough to maintain the appearance that they are in control, without actually being so.
The Trumanite network, consisting of the military, CIA, National Security Council, NSA, and dozens of other surveillance and security organizations, operate with secret budgets, secret missions, secret interpretations of the law, and secret, captive and separate judiciary. The heads of those organizations are basically above the law, and treat their would-be overseers with contempt and derision. The network is technocratic, bureaucratic, and tactical. Advancement within the network is predicated on agreeing with, and never challenging, the decisions of its leaders past or present. Thus even failed policies, such as the nearly permanent wars of aggression in the middle east, are continued and even enhanced over time - there is simply no incentive within the Trumanite network to admit failure, and strong motivation not to.
You might think that since Glennon has found a plausible and somewhat testable theory of operation of the "double government", that he would be able to offer a remedy. But he really has none. He sees no prospect that the Madisonian institutions will be able to reassert control. In part he blames this on the lack of "civil virtue" of the populace at large: the widespread ignorance and indifference of the citizenry. He points to articles in the Federalist papers that acknowledge that the finely-tuned balance of powers relies for its effectiveness on a citizenry that is informed and engaged. Our population is neither. But he also acknowledges that the situation has developed to a condition in which it is literally impossible to be informed: virtually everything done by the Trumanite network is classified, and there are "only a handful of investigative reporters" still working in the United States; and because of the high wall of secrecy, even they are unable to shed much light.
So this is a book that is both enlightening and depressing. It leaves me hoping that there are a hundred more Edward Snowdens willing to throw open the doors of secrecy and reveal the workings of the security apparatus - perhaps that would, finally, rouse the masses from their slumber. ...more
This is basically an application of Marxist dialectic to the present conditions of capitalism. The first part of the book, "Foundational ContradictionThis is basically an application of Marxist dialectic to the present conditions of capitalism. The first part of the book, "Foundational Contradictions", deals with the contradictions already identified 140 years ago in "Capital", updated for the present time. That time being one of another transitional period for capitalism, in which rent extraction from developed capitalist countries has (probably) surpassed resource extraction from the third world as the primary engine of capitalist development. "Rent extraction" refers mostly to the activities of the finance, insurance, and real estate sector, such as interest and fees and actual real estate rent.
Harvey's goal in this book seems to have been to use dialectic as a guide to action for the left: by identifying the crucial "contradictions" (a term of art in Marxist thought, to refer to tensions or opposing tendencies that arise from the logic of capital) he hopes to expose lever points where the left can make some headway. I don't know whether he succeeded in his goal, but I do think this is a book worth reading if for no other reason then that it shows a manner of analysis and argument more or less unique to Marxist thinkers....more
Seymour traces the detailed history of liberal and socialist support for war, colonialism, and imperialism, from the mid 19th century to the present dSeymour traces the detailed history of liberal and socialist support for war, colonialism, and imperialism, from the mid 19th century to the present day. I suspect that for most of us this history is too detailed. Many, if not most, of the liberals and socialists whose political trajectories are documented in this book were familiar to me in name only, if that. Nonetheless, I give high marks to Seymour for having researched and written such a specific and focused history.
The general theme of the book is that liberals can always be counted on to act as propagandists for colonialism, imperialism, and war, and this propensity is not something that has been left in the dustbin of history, but continues to the present. The justifications given are generally elitist, paternalistic, or racist in nature: some version of "the white man's burden." Seymour focuses entirely on the (previously) colonial powers in Europe, Great Britain, and the US, for obvious reasons. The similarities between liberal / progressive defense of war in the various countries are far more striking than their differences. In general, colonizing a third world country, or waging war on it, is done because the population there is too "barbaric" or "primitive" to be able to assimilate the many benefits of democracy and capitalism without the "assistance" of the colonizer or invader. It is our moral duty to aid and instruct the benighted populations so that they may advance politically, economically, and morally. If this instruction requires force, then that is merely an unfortunate side effect, and should not deter us from our laudable aims.
Though Seymour doesn't mention it, I think an excellent example of this was the attack on Libya initiated by Obama (without Congressional approval) in 2011. Libya was in the midst of a civil war - a purely internal affair - but US "interests" were at stake. Given that the US was already engaged in war on multiple other middle eastern countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia) one would naturally expect that there would be substantial liberal opposition to yet another "engagement". But in fact there was substantial support for Obama's Libya adventure among liberals. Some of that support was, no doubt, merely an expression of the unprincipled partisan loyalty that we have come to expect since 2009. But the reasons given for supporting the invasion were identically those that Seymour describes in his book: the imposition of "stability"; ensuring the rise of "democracy"; "humanitarian intervention"; "protection" of civilians.
These justifications for war are always advanced with a kind of ahistorical naivete, as though liberals have forgotten, or never knew, that even the most barbarous of wars (and they are all barbarous) are "justified" on the very same grounds. Whether it was the suppression of the Phillipine rebellion at the turn of the 20th century, or the annexation of Austria in the 1930s, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003: always the aggressor claims the high moral ground, asserting a moral obligation to wage war. Always.
Seymour really comes into his own when he describes, in excruciating detail, the evolution of the Left from the early 1930s to the late 70s. The general pattern was the disillusionment of leftists with the USSR because of its transformation into a brutal and bureaucratic "totalitarian" regime. This disillusionment resulted in a further fragmentation of an already fragmented Left, with disastrous consequences. Adherents of the anti-totalitarian Left soon enough joined forces with the anti-Communist right, going so far as to support the loyalty oaths and witch hunts that characterized the postwar period. The focus on anti-Communism provided a wedge by which radical labor action was suppressed, and the possibility of a genuine Left coalition was destroyed. The political situation in the US and Europe has never really recovered from this. Seymour traces these developments at a level of detail that I found difficult to follow; but the level of detail is important to an understanding of the many routes by which the general left-to-right transformation can take place.
If there is a single takeaway from this book, it is that principled opposition to imperialism and imperialist war is the single step that we can take to avoid being on the wrong side of history. Sadly, though, we know that the next time the US war machine swings into action, there will be a phalanx of liberals there to cheer it on. ...more
In the context of this book a "censored" story is one that has been ignored or distorted beyond all recognition by the US mainstream media. The 25 cenIn the context of this book a "censored" story is one that has been ignored or distorted beyond all recognition by the US mainstream media. The 25 censored stories are mostly about the current crisis of capitalism and the capitalist state: drone warfare, state secrecy, the increasingly corporate state, rising income inequality and the consequent shift of power to the very wealthy; and a few stories about how ordinary people have fought back.
For those paying attention to alternative media (wikileaks, Greenwald, Scahill, DemocracyNow, firedoglake, etc.) most of these stories are already familiar. Most others will respond to this book with skepticism and disbelief. After all, if the story wasn't featured on CNN, it didn't happen. Right?
The stories themselves are summarized briefly in about 25 pages. The remainder of the book is taken up with more in-depth analysis of some of the major themes: state secrecy, income inequality, civil liberties, etc. There are also brief chapters on the mainstream media's fondness for junk news, and on the valiant efforts by alternative media to fill in the gaps.
The hardest thing about reading this book is the sense of futility it induces: junk news and superficial he-said / she-said reporting simply wouldn't work if most people weren't so damned interested in it. The best reporting in the world will be just ignored by the majority of people in favor of the latest news about this or that celebrity, or the latest disappeared housewife, or whatever rubbish the mainstream media wants to give us. Sure - the corporate media has a vested interest in keeping us ill-informed, but we need to take some responsibility.
As for myself, I gave up on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox long ago. I listen to or watch DemocracyNow when I can; I read firedoglake.com and nakedcapitalism.com, anything by Jeremy Scahill or Matt Taibbi, anything by Barlett and Steele, and anything by Glenn Greenwald. So don't ask me about the Kardashians (I had to ask someone a while back who they were - and now I've forgotten the answer). I don't have any real idea what is "Duck Dynasty" or why anyone cares. But reading and watching the sources that I do, I've been able to stay pretty well up to date on the big issues talked about in Censored 2014. And that suits me fine. ...more
Loading...
