Exorbitant Privilege: Haiku Review

Though Eichengreen is

A first rate historian

The book still feels long

False Starts: "The Mechanical" by Ian Tregillis

I’ve been reading a bit of more steampunk stuff, and this fit right in.

Overall, it was good, readable, and had interesting characters.

A couple of issues though; The narrative flits back and forth so some characters are central to a chapter and then they are gone for others. That makes this uneven, because there are a couple of characters that are not the most compelling. One of these is because there is a voice issue. The tech is advanced, but in the book, it was about 1920 by my estimation. There’s a character whose voice is off for the tech that was supposed to change things and the time, as we know it. It is a minor issue but sets you off from the narrative. The other thing is that it is steam-punky but there’s a compelling force behind the consciousness of these androids that are at the center of the book that feels unexplained in the narrative. Though it is hinted at, it feels like a hand-wave and overly reliant on magic and not some sort of tech. It didn’t work for me.

Ultimately, the issue for me is that there are more books out there in this sequence, and I’m not sure if I am interested in reading them. I haven’t bought the next one yet – it is at that point, where it feels the author could have closed the narrative, but instead left things open. I’m not sure if that is always the best move. It is better to establish yourself, for me, with a one off successful book than to leave things open-ended.

A Pessimistic Book as a Source for Hope: Spufford's "Red Plenty"

Years ago now, when this first came out, the blog “Crooked Timber” ran a symposium on the book that I read avidly. I remember at the time thinking that I should actually check the book out. When it came to it though, I had read enough around the book that I had felt like I had read the thing itself – the same way like I felt I was under no obligation to finish Piketty’s “Capital,” I think, because I had read so many blogs about it.

Come to think of it, that may be why I’ve never finished the namesake of that book, Marx’s Capital.

Alas, I digress. The good folks were running a symposium on another book and that reminded me that I wanted to read this book. I think it was worth it.

First of all, something must be said of the structure. It’s basically a look at the Soviet Union in the post-Stalin era where there was still some belief that the Soviet system might work. It is done in vignettes looking at different people as they lived and dealt with the economic and political systems of what is the American Eisenhower and Kennedy era. But there are a couple of weird things – It’s kind of like a Dos Passos or that other writer that stole his style and won prizes for it. The thing is that some of it is made up and the writer cannot speak or read Russian, so even the things that weren’t made up are a bit filtered through official records.

That said, the book was enjoyable for someone like me who is sympathetic to the Soviet Union in broad strokes even if having to condemn it in particulars. For the most part the tale is one of resigned acceptance of what must have been an optimism at some point – like most 30-year-olds today, you know. What it tells is the tale of trying to harness the rise of the computer but not being the innovator, and they technology always being the copy of the more inefficient but more entrepreneurial west. It is a shaded truth, and it actually opens one for optimism of what could be accomplished in central planning in terms of the computer we have and will have in the near future. Redundancy can be eliminated, leisure can be spread far and wide – plenty will be upon us. We just need to use the best of the systems that are available to us in terms of politics and economics and not let ideological rigidities preclude any possible strengths that are to be gleaned – because that is what the ultimate failure is that we really see both in Spufford’s book and the real world, a blindness induced by an idea of right that does not include all our rights.

Don't Hurt Me: Ansari's "Modern Love"

For the most part, Ansari’s book can pass as a contemporary social science book.

It is so conventional, in fact, it cites both Iyengar’s “Jam Study” and the Aron / Dutton “Bridge Study”. It does not invoke Philip Zimbardo, Milgram, or the Marshmallow study, as far as I know. For what it is, it is an interesting look into the dating scene for the contemporary lonely-hearts in terms of modern courtship. It is, at its heart, a larger explication of the book “Dataclysm” by Christian Rudder (who the author cites).

What makes the book stand out is the credited author is the famous comedian Ansari (His coauthor makes the inside flap copy, but not the cover). Ansari’s voice is very noticeable throughout the text – but I had the feeling that on reading that the authorial intrusions would be relatable to people who know the speech cadences of the comedian, but perhaps off-putting to those who were unfamiliar. Aside from the fact that the argument could be made that the book’s look at modern love is one that is highly privileged to the urban and straight first world, the book works for what it is.  Fans of both the comedian and contemporary social science books should find something that is interesting and entertaining stories to pass on.

The Future We Want: A Review of the Essay Collection Edited by Dirty Commies Sunkara and Leonard

I think I have a legitimate question here.

If Sunkara is editing (with Leonard) a collection of essays about how we need to build socialism, how is this book different from a Jacobin issue? Is it that they didn’t get the art team out?

But seriously, this is a fine addition to the series of Sunkara-edited and contributed collections. It is a collection of several essays united by the common thread of the common, on how we make the world better for everyone. My main issue with it was that the essays were siloed – here’s women’s issues, here’s race issues, and the thread isn’t really pulled together until the final essay, a coda by Sunkara and Peter Frase. Not to say that this isn’t important – but I wanted to see a more organic whole.

What was interesting was the common thread between the siloed topics that might not have been intentional. Several of the authors argued for the necessity of a universal basic income. This seems to be the struggle of our time under the context of capitalism that may have some legs as the robots rise and the millennials who feel the Bern start coming into more power and the olds start dying off. The real question is if this is a reformist move, or will take us to the promised land of worker control of the means of production and the gradual withering away of the state, or if it is an end point that if accomplished will foreclose other discussions on reform.

Two important essays close the book before the coda. Tim Barker makes a clear argument against the too common celebration of the small business, which is important because it shows that the capitalistic system is the problem no matter how large the scale. I hadn’t thought of the subject much at all, and it nicely disturbed some preconceived notions of mine. Then the last essay is Seth Ackerman prodding on the idea that the socialist future is not the end, but a beginning, an important reminder that we are not reaching for the end of history on our terms, but instead a new beginning.

On Weinstein's "Complete Guide to Fundraising Management"

 This book was the textbook for my class in Development of Nonprofits. Prior to this class, I have not had much exposure to the development side of things in the nonprofit world. This is in spite of five years at a nonprofit and the introductory class to all nonprofit issues (Used the heavy and deep Jossey Bass Handbook for that class). Basically, this means that this book is my touchstone for Development. Overall it is good for someone who is a basic beginner, with a nice step-by-step look and lots of charts and graphs that could be used as template were I ever needed to fill a development role (though I hope that I will never be in charge of it, the goal is to be an Executive Director at some point so it will be on my plate). 

The only real criticism is that it feels a bit dated. There’s not much consciousness of the connected world in terms of fund raising – though that may because of the very limited returns that come of it (when development is all about relationship building, you have to maintain your network somehow, right?). Basically, if this is for your class, it won’t be your least favorite textbook ever, and it might have some utility after the fact, so it’s hard to go wrong here.