notellawilliams's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
really useful book for getting to know my politics better. could have been a little more accessible? however LOVED the earlier sections about significant socialists in history, and looking at ideologies.
afreema3's review against another edition
Read for my Socialism Class
Don't Rate books read for school
Don't Rate books read for school
colin_cox's review against another edition
4.0
Michael Newman's entry in the A Very Short Introduction series on socialism begins by defining what he describes as the "essence" or "fundamental characteristic" of socialism: "In my view, the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is its commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society" (2). He offers additional context by suggesting that a principled socialist would not "defend the current inequalities of wealth and power" and that socialism aspires to "constructing an alternative egalitarian system based on the values of solidarity and cooperation" (3). While simplicity is often derided as lacking nuance and complexity, Newman's simple definition of socialism works because it decontextualizes socialism from particular movements, governments, and countries that fly the socialist banner.
Newman is clear, however, that the 20th century, in particular, was not kind to socialist sympathizers, but he reminds his reader that countries like Cuba may not exercise the level of socialist fervor its detractors ascribe to it. The collapse of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s forced countries like Cuba to reevaluate its commitment to and conceptual understanding of socialism and the socialist state. Most think of Sweden, for example, as a socialist state, but Newman argues that by embracing austerity measures and curbing wealth redistribution over the past three decades, it is perhaps unfair to characterize it as a truly socialist state. Newman's overarching point is that socialism is a "fragmented" ideology infused with other, non-socialist modalities such as neo-conservative austerity.
Chapter 3 is easily the most engaging chapter in the book. Newman writes about feminism and the green movement as profoundly inspired by socialism. Like the chapter on Sweden and Cuba, Newman wants to illustrate the fragmented nature of socialism as seen through these two distinctly leftist movements. The following quote succinctly encapsulates his point: "The New Left was never a coherent movement, but rather a shorthand for a whole range of ideas and tendencies that feel outside the dominant traditions" (85). In its brevity, this statement allows the reader to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the socialist movement. Moving forward, Newman seems to intimate that socialist movements must close this gap, and perhaps that is what figures like Bernie Sanders can represent, even if he like so many others hedge when developing socialist policies.
Newman is clear, however, that the 20th century, in particular, was not kind to socialist sympathizers, but he reminds his reader that countries like Cuba may not exercise the level of socialist fervor its detractors ascribe to it. The collapse of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s forced countries like Cuba to reevaluate its commitment to and conceptual understanding of socialism and the socialist state. Most think of Sweden, for example, as a socialist state, but Newman argues that by embracing austerity measures and curbing wealth redistribution over the past three decades, it is perhaps unfair to characterize it as a truly socialist state. Newman's overarching point is that socialism is a "fragmented" ideology infused with other, non-socialist modalities such as neo-conservative austerity.
Chapter 3 is easily the most engaging chapter in the book. Newman writes about feminism and the green movement as profoundly inspired by socialism. Like the chapter on Sweden and Cuba, Newman wants to illustrate the fragmented nature of socialism as seen through these two distinctly leftist movements. The following quote succinctly encapsulates his point: "The New Left was never a coherent movement, but rather a shorthand for a whole range of ideas and tendencies that feel outside the dominant traditions" (85). In its brevity, this statement allows the reader to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the socialist movement. Moving forward, Newman seems to intimate that socialist movements must close this gap, and perhaps that is what figures like Bernie Sanders can represent, even if he like so many others hedge when developing socialist policies.
mx_remy's review against another edition
3.0
This is a pretty decent introduction. It should probably be called "History of Socialism" though. I have a much better idea of the timelines involved now, with respect to pre-Marxist Utopianism, Soviet style Communism, Maoism, Third Way, etc. However, while the book outlines the main differences between approaches, it doesn't really get into what socialism actually entails. I don't really feel like I understand the actual concepts any more than I did before. Also, the book discusses Social Democracy at length, but literally never once mentions Democratic Socialism. Finally, the writing style is a little repetitive and lacks flair. I can't in good conscience give this book more than 3 stars, but for lack of any alternative brief introductions, I still recommend it.
sapphicpenguin's review
4.0
Very satisfying in terms of looking at historical socialist theories and governments, less so regarding the conclusions the author makes and the direction he ends the book with. Overall very worth reading, especially if one knows bits and pieces of socialist history/theory but wants it to come together in one cohesive narrative.