miguelf's review
3.0
It seems that Lind has captured some interesting points of view in this work, although I would also admit that other arguments fall a bit flat and sometimes he just comes across as somewhat of a, well, kook.
zoeholman's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting analysis of the rise of reactionary populism, the "managerial elites" and geographic implications with relation to class and industry. However, a few sections I took issue with; mainly with relation to unions and the assessment of islamophobia/xenophobia/homophobia as a conflation to mental illness. There was nothing mentioned of the role of identity politics/gender in the distribution of wealth and power, a nuance surely worth giving some heed to.
scylla87's review against another edition
2.0
Interesting and thought provoking, but I didn’t really feel like the author did much to prove his point. He seemed to say the same thing over and over again without ever further expanding on what he was trying to say, making the whole book feel a bit like being lost in the woods. The whole time I kept thinking I had read that paragraph before earlier in the book, and sure enough I had…more than once. And in the end, there just wasn’t much effort done to explain himself or his thoughts. All in all, only a so so book.
theconorhilton's review against another edition
3.0
A decent book that grapples with some important ideas about class dynamics in the United States. Lind is polemical and blunt and I think overstates a variety of things and understates others. The book feels a bit like it was driven by Lind's conclusions rather than the evidence leading to the conclusions.
I couldn't help but feel like his analysis was off and missing some pieces (perhaps because I wanted to fully buy into Lind's arguments and I try to be more skeptical when I feel myself ideologically or emotionally identifying with an argument to combat my natural inclination to engage less critically with things I agree with).
Anyway. A quick read that's worth your while if you are interested in class politics, populism, and are desiring a pluralist future. Just take the book with a grain or two of salt.
I couldn't help but feel like his analysis was off and missing some pieces (perhaps because I wanted to fully buy into Lind's arguments and I try to be more skeptical when I feel myself ideologically or emotionally identifying with an argument to combat my natural inclination to engage less critically with things I agree with).
Anyway. A quick read that's worth your while if you are interested in class politics, populism, and are desiring a pluralist future. Just take the book with a grain or two of salt.
therealesioan's review against another edition
3.0
This, along with Graeber's Debt and Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed, is a perfect introduction to my ideology. It's just a shame Lind cucks at every pivotal point. It's like he gets 80% perfect and then right at the end he pulls the rug from underneath you. His 'democratic pluralism' is ultimately following in the tradition of FDR's new deal. It's great on the surface, and seemingly addressing all the right issues (deficit spending, national work projects, workers protections, etc).
Yet the unfortunate truth is that the Marxist critique of FDR is far the most accurate. One must remember; FDR was ultimately an elite WASP. He was not a friend of the working class. There's a decent chance he had a real populist like Huey Long killed, and obviously banned Fr Coughlin. He certainly conceded a few victories to workers, but only to save his ass, to maintain capitalism. He and his Keynesian social democratic states are a far better example of 'Capitalism in Decay' than Fascism ever was.
And this is all the same for Lind's 'democratic pluralism'. While his description of his system is mostly great (stronger workers and union bargaining power, worker negotiated culture, etc) - and gas striking similarities to corporatism - it's ultimately not realistic. As Putnam notes, community has been destroyed all across Western democracies. We can't just rebuild civic institutions and form strong unions again after 60 years of systematic deconstruction of society (both on an economic and cultural level).
These appeals to localism and community organizer are not only gay; they're cowardly. Of course the populists are corrupt so far, but the best chance is to use the populist energy for good. Lind ends his book saying we need his subtle reforms to maintain the system from the 'demagogic rabble', I say we need the masses to end the system itself. We're in an age of radicalism, not communitarian democracy.
Things are falling apart, and the center cannot hold. If you really care about workers you should embrace that fact and seize on that opportunity. And force a new future in the process.
Yet the unfortunate truth is that the Marxist critique of FDR is far the most accurate. One must remember; FDR was ultimately an elite WASP. He was not a friend of the working class. There's a decent chance he had a real populist like Huey Long killed, and obviously banned Fr Coughlin. He certainly conceded a few victories to workers, but only to save his ass, to maintain capitalism. He and his Keynesian social democratic states are a far better example of 'Capitalism in Decay' than Fascism ever was.
And this is all the same for Lind's 'democratic pluralism'. While his description of his system is mostly great (stronger workers and union bargaining power, worker negotiated culture, etc) - and gas striking similarities to corporatism - it's ultimately not realistic. As Putnam notes, community has been destroyed all across Western democracies. We can't just rebuild civic institutions and form strong unions again after 60 years of systematic deconstruction of society (both on an economic and cultural level).
These appeals to localism and community organizer are not only gay; they're cowardly. Of course the populists are corrupt so far, but the best chance is to use the populist energy for good. Lind ends his book saying we need his subtle reforms to maintain the system from the 'demagogic rabble', I say we need the masses to end the system itself. We're in an age of radicalism, not communitarian democracy.
Things are falling apart, and the center cannot hold. If you really care about workers you should embrace that fact and seize on that opportunity. And force a new future in the process.
bradley1997's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed this book very much, however I found that he categorizes too much under the term neoliberal such as the far left Vox (which has in the past supported Bernie Sanders). But overall this book instead of just criticising offers an alternative democratic pluralism, which we saw in Britain from 1940s-1970s. This was great as so often books will come in and say here is x reason but will not offer a solution. Lind pulls no punches and is likely to make you question and think through these issues. Want to know where we are and how we may get out of this? I recommend this book as a way of starting to think about the answer to that question.
I gave it 4 stars and not five due to as I say it's overcategorisation of neoliberalism, this is not a reflection at all on the book which, apart from that small thing was excellent!
I gave it 4 stars and not five due to as I say it's overcategorisation of neoliberalism, this is not a reflection at all on the book which, apart from that small thing was excellent!
nacarat's review against another edition
3.0
My initial instinct: It's not a bad first or second draft, but it could really do with some expansion and/or editing on a lot of the author's points. It's a nice (re)introduction to Burnham and associated writers of the mid-century. The book is best when describing the roots of populist backlash in America and Western Europe, or when he talks the economic overclass, but he really fails on prescriptions, which is basically "Why did we end the New Deal, again? It worked so well!"
Well, obviously it didn't, because otherwise it would have kept on. Lind mostly blames this on a so-called "libertarian cabal". I think Friedman would be pretty tickled to see himself described as such. As a person who has read Friedman's popular books and seen a lot of his videos, it was a bit discombobulating to see some of his funnier jokes interpreted in the exact opposite way. But Lind uses "libertarian" the way some Republican pundits use "socialist", ie "people and ideas I don't like". So because he doesn't really address the failures of American unions from 1970 onward, it falls a bit flat. It wasn't an external failure, at least not entirely!
I think the most telling bit was a part where he talks about the need for compulsory unionism, and I wish he had talked more about what he meant by that. We did, for a long time, have compulsory unionism, and state-by-state the people have dismantled it, which immediately allows people to stop paying dues if they so choose. If he had addressed this even a little in the final chapter dedicated to arguments against his thesis, the books probably would have gotten to a 4-star rating, but it's otherwise average.
Well, obviously it didn't, because otherwise it would have kept on. Lind mostly blames this on a so-called "libertarian cabal". I think Friedman would be pretty tickled to see himself described as such. As a person who has read Friedman's popular books and seen a lot of his videos, it was a bit discombobulating to see some of his funnier jokes interpreted in the exact opposite way. But Lind uses "libertarian" the way some Republican pundits use "socialist", ie "people and ideas I don't like". So because he doesn't really address the failures of American unions from 1970 onward, it falls a bit flat. It wasn't an external failure, at least not entirely!
I think the most telling bit was a part where he talks about the need for compulsory unionism, and I wish he had talked more about what he meant by that. We did, for a long time, have compulsory unionism, and state-by-state the people have dismantled it, which immediately allows people to stop paying dues if they so choose. If he had addressed this even a little in the final chapter dedicated to arguments against his thesis, the books probably would have gotten to a 4-star rating, but it's otherwise average.
teatreegiant's review against another edition
4.0
Lind essentially believes that in order for the class war to be resolved, we have to transition from the technocratic neoliberalism, where managerial elites owns power over working class, into democratic pluralism, where both the overclass and working class share the power to negotiate and keep each other in check. He outlined a utopian like social structure, yet the question of “how” remained unanswered. It will have to leave up to the overlords to share power willingly, which is unrealistic.
Besides that, the analysis on immigration and the account of the rise of populism were quite interesting.
Besides that, the analysis on immigration and the account of the rise of populism were quite interesting.
matttrevithick's review
5.0
4.5 stars - would normally be 4, but the clarity of writing about complex topics and the simplicity (and I believe accuracy) of his diagnosis of the fundamental problem of the US and the EU is excellent. A powerful idea, simply yet effectively communicated. Left wing and right wing folks should see a lot of food for thought in this little book.