3rd Quarter 2006 ~ NONFICTION Book Suggestions!

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: speaking of the media...

I've created a thread to discuss humanism. Any evidence to support the notion that humanism is or can be arrogant would be welcome.

Go there now!

Dissident Heart

I'm suggesting Michael Albert's Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism because I think it will challenge Booktalk to define the values and institutions that make the good society. Albert's book utilizes his economic theory Parecon (participatory economics) as the primary lens for envisioning how to better contruct our world. This book will give Booktalk folk a chance to debate our ideals concerning: education, kinship, polity, journalism and media, community, economics, ecosystems, crime, technology and science. It will challenge us to defend what about contemporary society is worth keeping, decide what needs changing, define what we want the future to look like, and what sorts of values and strategies will help us get there. The book is highly provocative, and will spark serious debate.

Quote:
"In many earlier studies, Michael Albert has carried out careful in-depth inquiries into systems of participatory economics (parecon), analyzing in detail how they can function justly, equitably, and efficiently, and how they can overcome many of the criminal features of current social and economic arrangements. This new and very ambitious study casts the net far more widely, extending to just about every major domain of human concern and mode of human interaction, and investigating with care and insight how, in these domains, parecon-like principles could lead to a far more desirable society than anything that exists, and also how these goals can be constructively approached. It is another very valuable and provocative contribution to the quest for a world of much greater freedom and justice." - Noam Chomsky

"Michael Albert is a very serious thinker. In Realizing Hope he not only presents an alternative to capitalism, he provides profound insights into how economics affects personalities and social relations and vice versa. The book opens many doors for social vision and strategy. At a moment when Africa needs an alternative to nationalist politics. Realizing Hope is amazingly timely. Pan-Africanists and Black Marxists alike will find much to enrich and expand our politics in this book." - Mandisi Majavu

"During the grim decades of “there is no alternative,” few did more than Michael Albert and his collaborators to promote discussion of alternatives to domination by either state or market. Now, when millions assert “another world is possible,” Michael Albert’s proposals for “participatory economics” provide an essential starting point for thinking about what that world might be and how we might get there. In REALIZING HOPE, he goes beyond the primarily economic framework of participatory economics to open the crucial but too-rarely posed questions of how to coordinate economic change with the changes we need in other spheres of life." - Jeremy Brecher

"Michael Albert has posed a breathtakingly simple question- what do left-libertarians want, exactly, 'beyond capitalism'?- and, in answering it, has produced a work of exhilarating scope. Albert captures the best of the spirit of the new global social movement. He consciously rejects all vanguardism, and demands a direct action in the realm of thought: he asks us to look at those who are creating viable alternatives, to try to figure out what might be the larger implications of what they are doing, and then to offer those ideas back, not as prescriptions, but as contributions, possibilities—as gifts. Albert combines close empirical insights with a magisterial conceptual grasp. We will be arguing about this work for years." - Andrej Grubacic, historian and anti-capitalist activist

"In 'Realizing Hope', Michael Albert mulls over the better society that we may create after capitalism, provoking much thought and offering a generous, hopeful vision of the future. His prescriptions for action in the present are modest and wise; his suggestions for building the future are ambitious and humane. There is a hunger for this kind of practical, visionary alternative. 'Realizing Hope' is an important part of the internal development of the global movements for peace and justice, helping us to recover lost insights." Milan Rai

"Millions across the world are coming together in hitherto unprecedented networks of solidarity to struggle against poverty, inequality, discrimination, and war. These fighters proclaim that a better world is possible. Realizing Hope challenges us to imagine how." - Sudhanva Deshpande

"Those of us who have been grappling with the question of the good society in limited domains of inquiry are indebted to Michael Albert for bringing together so much of this work into a coherent and exciting whole and expanding on it. Anyone disgusted with existing society -- which is to say, just about everyone -- who wants to know if there are any alternatives, will find Realizing Hope informative, provocative, creative, engaging, and, yes, full of hope." - Stephen R. Shalom, Editor of Socialist Visions and Professor of Political Science, William Paterson University

"This book is against all those who accuse the social movements of only being able to say "no". A better world is indeed possible and not just a Utopia. Michael Albert points the way towards a society based on participation and justice. Utopia is somewhere that does not exist yet. This book can really help turn a dream into reality." - Vittorio Agnoletto

"Michael Albert passionately argues for a different future where equity, diversity, justice, and self-management are more than just distant dreams. Realizing Hope does not shy away from the awesome complexity of human issues, nor does it reek of the stultifying dogmatism of so many left-wing tracts. One can disagree at places, but it forces the reader to think and be conscious of choices". - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistan

Mr. Pessimistic

From the blurbs, he also seems pretty balanced. I may just check this out and read it anyway.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 3/30/06 2:06 pm

Mr. Pessimistic

American Theocracy - by Kevin Phillips

Quote:
Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
The title of political analyst Phillips's latest book may overstate his case (in the text, he prefers the term "theocratic direction" , but his analysis likely will strike chords among those troubled by our current political moment. Phillips (American Dynasty) expounds upon historical parallels for each of his three subjects. In his section on "Oil and American Supremacy," for example, he points to Britain's post-WWI involvement in the Middle East as an analogy to Iraq, and in his section on radicalized religion, he warns of "the pitfalls of imperial Christian overreach from Rome to Britain." The five major measures of U.S. debt—from national to household—keep setting records, he observes in his section on "Borrowed Prosperity," and the real estate boom spurred by the Federal Reserve, he argues, cannot continue. Phillips identifies the escalating clout of the financial services industry and suggests that Americans should emulate policies in Asia that encourage savings and in Europe that encourage manufacturing. The lesson of the past, he warns, is that intractable national issues "generate weak and compromising politicians or zealous bumblers." A critic of the Bush family, Phillips sees little hope in Hillary Clinton. Expect him to make some provocative appearances on chat shows. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
This former Republican strategist has written several books on the relationship between wealth and politics in this country, including the New York Times best-sellers Politics of Rich and Poor (1990) and Wealth and Democracy (2002). Phillips' abiding theme is given a workout again in his new book, with his major thesis spelled out on the first page of the preface: three demons threaten the continued well-being of the U.S. These are our "reckless dependency on shrinking oil supplies," a "milieu of radicalized (and much too influential) religion," and a "reliance on borrowed money" (domestic and international debt, that is). His stiff--no harsh--words are aimed primarily at the Republican Party for allowing these three trends to have gotten out of control, but Democrats, without offering clear and tangible alternatives, are not let off the hook. The author's investigation into these three problems is set in a historical context as he posits the undeniable fact that all previous world economic powers have ultimately failed in continued strength (each one, however, believing "they were unique and that God was on their side" . Phillips is eloquent, absorbing, and frightening, and this book will follow its predecessors onto the best-seller lists. Brad Hooper
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Dissident Heart

I saw Kevin Phillips discuss American Theocracy on CSPAN's Afterwords. He's a very intelligent guy who understands Republican politics from the inside.

MadArchitect

Chris OConnor: Look over the tenets of humanism and show me the arrogance and then we can discuss how we're acting closed-minded.

That's just it -- it isn't my argument, so I can't.

Quote: GOD CREATED the world and all of its creatures in the year 4004 B.C. We have this on the assurance of...
We should read this book?

I guarantee you I could take a sentence and a half out of nearly any book we've read and make it sound absurd. Much depends on how he ends that second sentence. It might end with, "the Bible, which I believe to be infallible". Or it might end with, "the disgraced theologians of the past." I don't see any reason to assume that Ehrenfeld is going to end the way you seem to think he's going to end.

Personally, I would think that some of you would find this quote heartening: "In the first chapter I am especially hard on the JudeoChristian tradition, and this also requires explanation."

That said, I do see one point that is obviously objectionable to you. It does seem clear that Ehrenfeld believes in a divine creator. It also seems clear to me that he hasn't made that belief a central part of the book, to the extent that religious readers have criticized it in its originally published form.

So let's put that aside for the moment. I'm not going to try to convince you guys to read this particular book. I may read it myself, and when I do, I'll let you know what I thought. But while looking for a copy in the library stacks last night, I realized that there are several shelves full of books that review humanism in a critical light. Would anyone here be willing to read one of those, provided that we could find one that had fairly logical arguments? Or are critiques of humanism off-limits altogether?

riverc0il: thanks chris, those quotes say it all... not a freethinkers book.

I don't see that at all. In fact, if the basis of freethinking is thinking apart from institutional doctrine, then it looks to me as though Ehrenfeld has taken it a step further than most people. Not only is he critical of JudeoChristian religion, he's also critical of the philosophy that replaced it. The question that remains is that of how logical his argument is, and that's not something we can really estimate based on the quotes Chris provided.

Chris OConnor: but anyone that tries to argue that humanism is arrogant obviously doesn't understand a thing about it.

Wow. I'd be careful Chris. That sounds like an opinion that's ready to ossify.

At any rate, forget this particular book. What do you think of the possibility of reading another book which attempts a criticism of humanism?

Mr. Pessimistic

Mad:

The main thing is, ANY doctrine that has at it's base an entity (pick one) that is most likely fake is not a doctrine that most of us here are willing to take seriously...and books on debunking that topic appeal more to a traditional freethinker (and I know theists like to think they are freethinkers, so I stress the traditional freethinker) than a book knocking a system that bases it's premises on people...reality...nature. Things we can pretty much study and work with.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

riverc0il

Quote:
But while looking for a copy in the library stacks last night, I realized that there are several shelves full of books that review humanism in a critical light. Would anyone here be willing to read one of those, provided that we could find one that had fairly logical arguments? Or are critiques of humanism off-limits altogether?

as i have already stated, i would be willing to read a balanced book that critically examines the humanistic position but one that does not rely on the existance of god and juxtoposition of belief vs unbelief to prove a point. i suspect the previous book you recommended did that which is why i said it isn't much of a freethinkers book. you don't need to be an athiest to be a freethinker (susan jacoby's book makes the case for this VERY eloquently) but you do need a healthy dose of skepticism. a freethinker would not agrue against humanism by bringing up god. a core of humanism is using reason and logic, not appealing to something that can not be proven to exist. humanism has nothing to do with faith any ways! humanism is free of faith from what i understand which means it is open to any one as a platform. using a god attack against humanism is like using a sword to cut the air.

perhaps i am not explaining the thought behind my statement very well, but i stand behind the stentiment that based on the quotes provided, the book proposed doesn't fit well into a freethinker mode.

my biggest point here: just because this is a freethinker community does not mean we should entertain every book under the sun with an open mind. we all have limited time here and limited choices on what we read. if something doesn't look like it holds water, why bother? should we read something with the sole intetion of critiquing and critisizing every word, just to prove someone else wrong and our belief correct? i have no problem doing this with a book that makes valid points, that only stregnthens my arguements and allows me to develop my opinion better. but disputing hogwash is a waste of time. the lack of critical reviews substantiating that this book has merit is most alarming and is the main reason behind this belief. if the book had reviews from both thiests and athiests alike, humanists and its critics alike, then cool, let's take a look. and i will read a book that meets that criteria.

putting this another way: if we are interested in politics but are really leaning on the left, should we read Ann Coulter for another perspective and to defend our arguements? or maybe watch some oreily factor to get a better sense of weakness in our arguements. this is the spirit in which i mean that last statement.

riverc0il

DH's suggestion of "Realizing Hope" looks interesting. though after having read so so many political books proposing an ideal solution to society's problems, i sometimes grow weary of books suggesting alternatives that are nearly impossible to see happen and ideas that about big picture re-alignment instead of grass roots (which i doubt any system could be changed from at this point in this country). however, this would be an interesting idea to create discussion and look at different view points. from a practical point of view, i have no use for utopian ideals as i have already accepted the fact that there are so so so many ways for governments and economic systems to be run that most people won't consider, why read yet another idealist vision that shall never come to pass. but on the discussion issue, this book has real potential of drawing in everyone about topics relevent to us all regardless of whether such systems change.

Dissident Heart

rivercoil: though after having read so so many political books proposing an ideal solution to society's problems, i sometimes grow weary of books suggesting alternatives that are nearly impossible to see happen and ideas that about big picture re-alignment instead of grass roots (which i doubt any system could be changed from at this point in this country).

This is interesting, considering I've found scores and scores of books providing scathing critiques of the contemporary world (what's wrong with everything), and a tiny few that actually consider what to replace it with. Especially on the Left, where there is no lack for critical analysis of global capitalism and American hegemony. Albert's book offers a harsh critique, but it's real meat involves the kinds of values and institutions that will replace our current malaise with the kind of world we actually want. In other words, it's not too difficult to say what is wrong; it is far more challenging to say what an alternative could be. Albert's book is the latter.

Of course, there are more than enough who see the current political and economic system as working well enough, and that there is no alternative: even to suggest as much is to be seen as a utopic loon, anti-American commie, or even terrorist sympathizers. Albert's book will never be read by these folk.

MadArchitect

riverc0il: as i have already stated, i would be willing to read a balanced book that critically examines the humanistic position but one that does not rely on the existance of god and juxtoposition of belief vs unbelief to prove a point.

I'm not convinced that it argues from that point of view. His preface seemed to me to indicate that, whatever his belief in regards to religion, he's argued from a largely naturalistic standpoint, and has met criticism from religious readers for precisely that reason.

At any rate, I'm dropping my suggestion. But the part of me that loves an underdog will be seeking out this book. I intend to read it as quickly as possible and post a brief synopsis, along with a thumbs up or thumbs down, in the "Secular Humanism" thread that Chris posted. That way we can at least have an answer to the question he posed.

humanism has nothing to do with faith any ways!

That's a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say, I think there's likely a very large element of faith in humanism. I also think we would do well to trace the history and development of humanism. The "Humanist Manifesto" that Chris has posted once or twice on BookTalk seems to me like a rather late manifestation of a philosophical stance that has had the better part of four centuries to develop -- it also seems to concentrate a great deal more on humanism's aspirations that on its methods. There's more to know about humanism, and I don't think we can reasonably entertain criticisms of humanism until we know a bit more about its premises and its conclusions.

my biggest point here: just because this is a freethinker community does not mean we should entertain every book under the sun with an open mind. we all have limited time here and limited choices on what we read. if something doesn't look like it holds water, why bother?

I agree. But I disagree that we've given this particular book sufficient consideration to determine whether or not its arguments are rational. All we know of its arguments so far are that they're levelled against some aspect of humanism.

the lack of critical reviews substantiating that this book has merit is most alarming and is the main reason behind this belief.

There is an equal lack of reviews undermining its validity. All I feel justified in concluding from this is that it isn't a very frequently reviewed book. And given how easily you guys have dismissed it, I suspect that I know why.

But I'll make more suggestions later on, and I'll steer clear of this topic until I've actually had a chance to read and evaluate the book. You guys may be right; it might be crap. I just don't feel like I've seen enough evidence to pronounce that verdict yet -- and I'm a picky guy when it comes to what I read. I'm not trying to be a burr in anybody's side. I wouldn't have resuggested the book had I remembered that it got disqualified from consideration last time; I simply forgot.

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: Comments

This Crimes Against Humanity Amazon link lets you by the book new.

Mad, it may be advantageous to select a book which one of us had read before and can vouch for. We can avoid books like Value and Virtue, which none of us cared for.

If you want to learn about Middle East history, I'd recommend William Cleveland's . It presents more perspective, while A Peace to End All Peace focuses on a few years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They're both very good books.

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: Moral Politics

river: "Crimes Against Humanity" may not be the best choice simply because it comes across as something of a text book. The topic sparked my interest -- the origin of the concepts and laws concerning human rights is something that has interested me ever since I read Hannah Arrendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem". Before that, it hadn't really occurred to me how recently we've begun to think of genocide as belonging to a category like that of "a crime against humanity". All sorts of complex problems arise therefrom. I stumbled on "Crimes Against Humanity" just looking through the Borders web site, but it looks like a fairly comprehensive study, and it's really the only one of its kind that I've seen.

Julian: You're right that it will usually be helpful to read books on the strength of trusted recommendations. But as it is, we don't have that many people participating in the discussions. We may be better off looking for trusted recommendations outside the pool of probably discussion participants.

Look at it this way: assuming that you just finished reading "Moral Politics", it will still be three months before we even vote on whether or not it's our quarterly reading. Maybe you have better recall than I do, or maybe you took careful notes, but I know that I wouldn't be able to make the same sort of contributions to a discussion that I had read three months prior that I would if I were currently reading the book. Given that you were one of the three or four people really involved in last quarter's discussion, I wouldn't want to see you only half involved in an upcoming discussion. Would you be willing to read the book again, three months from now? If so, then I have no objection. But if you'd be reluctant to do so, then I'd rather pick a book you haven't read, in hopes that you'd be willing to contribute to the discussion as you read.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT