Scan barcode
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.
More...