Scan barcode
radomu's review against another edition
5.0
An excellent defence of 'solidarity' in politics against the threat of 'neoliberal individualism' by one of the greatest historians of recent memory, written in the context of the 2008 financial crisis. Makes a strong case based on the history of the rise and fall of social democracy in the 20th century.
indigo78180's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.75
I don't agree with everything Judt says or assumes about the ego-centered quality of individualistic identity politics or the effectiveness of capitalism, but I do think this book has shifted my thinking about politics in America a little.
aront's review against another edition
3.0
I wanted to be more sympathetic to this book. I admire Judt as an historian (his Postwar is a phenomenal book). I have had occasion to hear him speak before his illness and he has always struck me as insightful and clear thinking.
I agree with the main points of the book, and I highly recommend everyone read it. It's quite short and won't take much time. However, Judt is ultimately way too conservative, pessimistic and even a tad bitter in this book. It's always tempting to blame personal circumstances on a person's outlook, and it is hard not to imagine that his fatal illness which led to his untimely death might likely be the source of these. However, you can find traces of those elements in Postwar so it's likely they are integral to his worldview.
Essentially Judt argues that a counter revolution against social democracy took place starting in the eighties. Precisely the success of social democracy undermined the urgency of the project, which, as Judt points out, was a response to 100 years of war and devastation in 19th-20th century Europe. Thatcher and Reagan led a radical attempt to dismantle the achievements of social democracy in the name of economic "efficiency."
The result of this counter revolution was the rise again of economic inequality and the return of social problems. Moreover, the radical right waged a successful propaganda war and totally changed the terms of debate. So a counter-counter revolution is difficult as young people don't have a language or historical perspective to fight back.
As an historian of the left and a strong critic of communism and the thrall in which it held leftist intellectuals, Judt is torn between his urge to call the young to wage a counter-counter revolution and his fear of the destabilization revolutions of all sorts cause. So the book's aim is a call for young people to get angry about financial capitalism and it's devastations, just not TOO angry. Ultimately the young should be fighting to preserve social democracy, just in a civil way.
Judt passed away before the youth revolts took off in the Arab world, Europe, Israel and now the US itself. I am sure he would have been pleased, as it would have confirmed his hopes and prayers that the young are not a lost cause. However, I would argue both his critique and analysis are too timid to be inspiring.
First, while he is correct a new language is necessary to attack financial capitalism, such a language can only be provided by a radical analysis of the same. David Graeber's excellent book "Debt" provides such analysis and thereby a new language, precisely because it up ends conventional wisdom. Economists such as Professors Keen and Hudson are also making similar attempts from different perspectives. Only such radical intellectual endeavors can give the revolutionaries tools to fight.
Second, Judt would have been more honest and clear, if he was forthright in saying that the values we should be fighting for are those of the Enlightenment which were encapsulated in the French Revolution: liberty, equality and fraternity. Judt is wise to point out that these values are often contradictory and need to be constantly measured and balanced in specific contexts. Judt also wisely points out that the failure of all revolutions, including the French, is that they forget a fourth equally important value: stability. Trying to change the existing system too fast and too completely leads to the collapse of revolutions and the rise of violent, authoritarian alternatives.
So if the new revolutionaries are looking for an easy to remember goal then "liberty, equality, fraternity and stability", while it may not be catchy, certainly serves the purpose. Moreover, a constitution for social democracy was created right after WWII and was endorsed by all the nations of the world: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By adopting this as the constitution by which to measure all governments, and a universally agreed upon constitution, the new revolutionaries have a handy yard stick by which to measure any and all governments around the world. This constitution does not mandate a specific form of government nor a way to organize the economy leaving room for all the variants one might like of these. But a government that does not provide both freedom of speech and social security will fail to match this universal measure.
This goal and this measure provide the general platform which is both more specific and less limiting than Judt's "social democracy." However, every revolution needs some radical new ideas to galvanize people. The "debt jubilee" idea pushed by Graeber, Keen, Hudson and others provides exactly such a new idea, a radical platform for action that fits well with all four goals and will appeal to a wide and varied audience. I am sure others will come. Ultimately the intellectual ferment on the left and these radical new action platforms, are a source of hope and comfort for the future that, sadly, Judt seemed to despair of in the end.
I agree with the main points of the book, and I highly recommend everyone read it. It's quite short and won't take much time. However, Judt is ultimately way too conservative, pessimistic and even a tad bitter in this book. It's always tempting to blame personal circumstances on a person's outlook, and it is hard not to imagine that his fatal illness which led to his untimely death might likely be the source of these. However, you can find traces of those elements in Postwar so it's likely they are integral to his worldview.
Essentially Judt argues that a counter revolution against social democracy took place starting in the eighties. Precisely the success of social democracy undermined the urgency of the project, which, as Judt points out, was a response to 100 years of war and devastation in 19th-20th century Europe. Thatcher and Reagan led a radical attempt to dismantle the achievements of social democracy in the name of economic "efficiency."
The result of this counter revolution was the rise again of economic inequality and the return of social problems. Moreover, the radical right waged a successful propaganda war and totally changed the terms of debate. So a counter-counter revolution is difficult as young people don't have a language or historical perspective to fight back.
As an historian of the left and a strong critic of communism and the thrall in which it held leftist intellectuals, Judt is torn between his urge to call the young to wage a counter-counter revolution and his fear of the destabilization revolutions of all sorts cause. So the book's aim is a call for young people to get angry about financial capitalism and it's devastations, just not TOO angry. Ultimately the young should be fighting to preserve social democracy, just in a civil way.
Judt passed away before the youth revolts took off in the Arab world, Europe, Israel and now the US itself. I am sure he would have been pleased, as it would have confirmed his hopes and prayers that the young are not a lost cause. However, I would argue both his critique and analysis are too timid to be inspiring.
First, while he is correct a new language is necessary to attack financial capitalism, such a language can only be provided by a radical analysis of the same. David Graeber's excellent book "Debt" provides such analysis and thereby a new language, precisely because it up ends conventional wisdom. Economists such as Professors Keen and Hudson are also making similar attempts from different perspectives. Only such radical intellectual endeavors can give the revolutionaries tools to fight.
Second, Judt would have been more honest and clear, if he was forthright in saying that the values we should be fighting for are those of the Enlightenment which were encapsulated in the French Revolution: liberty, equality and fraternity. Judt is wise to point out that these values are often contradictory and need to be constantly measured and balanced in specific contexts. Judt also wisely points out that the failure of all revolutions, including the French, is that they forget a fourth equally important value: stability. Trying to change the existing system too fast and too completely leads to the collapse of revolutions and the rise of violent, authoritarian alternatives.
So if the new revolutionaries are looking for an easy to remember goal then "liberty, equality, fraternity and stability", while it may not be catchy, certainly serves the purpose. Moreover, a constitution for social democracy was created right after WWII and was endorsed by all the nations of the world: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By adopting this as the constitution by which to measure all governments, and a universally agreed upon constitution, the new revolutionaries have a handy yard stick by which to measure any and all governments around the world. This constitution does not mandate a specific form of government nor a way to organize the economy leaving room for all the variants one might like of these. But a government that does not provide both freedom of speech and social security will fail to match this universal measure.
This goal and this measure provide the general platform which is both more specific and less limiting than Judt's "social democracy." However, every revolution needs some radical new ideas to galvanize people. The "debt jubilee" idea pushed by Graeber, Keen, Hudson and others provides exactly such a new idea, a radical platform for action that fits well with all four goals and will appeal to a wide and varied audience. I am sure others will come. Ultimately the intellectual ferment on the left and these radical new action platforms, are a source of hope and comfort for the future that, sadly, Judt seemed to despair of in the end.
scotsedley's review against another edition
4.0
Without knowing it, I think I have found a book I have been searching for for much of the past 10 years. Written in 2010 after the economic collapse, and as Judt's final book he looks around him and obviously does not like what he sees. He feels let down by liberals and obviously conservatives alike. He lays out how up through the ages after the Great Depression and the Second World War it was generally accepted that their was a role for the state. This role was to provide security, social services and ensure greater equality. Judt argues that a combination of identity politics of the 60's from the left, and a drastic turn towards individualism from the right combined to deteriorate social democracies in Europe and the United States. There is a little bit of old man screaming at cloud in his analysis, but it's generally hard to disagree with.
Judt makes the case for the State and for Social Democracy. The case for collective action for the collective good. There will be the more conservative readers who will bristle at this and discuss how the State can't be trusted to provide this collective good and that perhaps it's up to individuals. Judt anticipates this argument and using historical context, rebuts it quite easily. He also anticipates the screams of socialism and plainly articulates the difference between a Social Democracy and socialism. It's not a full on leftist screed by any means, as he's very hard on the left and their failings to take collective action for collective good and urges new ways forward in language and tactics and desired outcomes. When I say it's a book I've been searching for the past 10 years, I say this recognizing that I was a registered Republican for over 20 years. And during that time I became more and more disenchanted with the anticipated and desired outcomes of the conservative movement. I believed that the State should be a force for good. Judt's book, while imperfect, showed a past where societies had this trust in the State, explains how we've gone astray, and works towards prescribing a path forward. I'm not sure we'll get their, especially in the USA our body politic seems to corroded, but the book convinced me it's worth the fight.
Judt makes the case for the State and for Social Democracy. The case for collective action for the collective good. There will be the more conservative readers who will bristle at this and discuss how the State can't be trusted to provide this collective good and that perhaps it's up to individuals. Judt anticipates this argument and using historical context, rebuts it quite easily. He also anticipates the screams of socialism and plainly articulates the difference between a Social Democracy and socialism. It's not a full on leftist screed by any means, as he's very hard on the left and their failings to take collective action for collective good and urges new ways forward in language and tactics and desired outcomes. When I say it's a book I've been searching for the past 10 years, I say this recognizing that I was a registered Republican for over 20 years. And during that time I became more and more disenchanted with the anticipated and desired outcomes of the conservative movement. I believed that the State should be a force for good. Judt's book, while imperfect, showed a past where societies had this trust in the State, explains how we've gone astray, and works towards prescribing a path forward. I'm not sure we'll get their, especially in the USA our body politic seems to corroded, but the book convinced me it's worth the fight.
noahbw's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this. It's a great exploration of how we got to where we are in terms of politics/welfare/social services/the underground state. It's accessible and full of information. Especially cool because it talks about both the US and the UK, which Judt sees as fairly similar, compared to the rest of Europe.
jpowerj's review against another edition
5.0
This book pretty much puts into succinct and powerful terms what I've been struggling to wrap my head around my whole life: what led to the destruction of the social safety net in the US+UK, and how can we stop this destruction or at least minimize its extent? This book, along with Neil Postman's "Technopoly" that I read concurrently, makes an incredibly strong case for the idea that technological and economic progress in and of itself is insufficient for true human progress, and can in fact be antithetical to human progress without some actual worthwhile social/moral goals guiding its direction. All in all, it's probably the clearest book I've read giving historical context to why we cannot allow free market ideology to guide our decisions as a polity.
weetziebot's review against another edition
4.0
At this moment I am trying to make really difficult decisions. One of them is, what do I want to do with my life?! Despite the fact that I have been saying for the last five years that I want to be a librarian, I think I somehow got distracted. I think I'm back on track. I have after all said that I believe in the library as a powerful tool for social change, building communities and personal development. It is totally true.
I'm fairly certain Tony Judt loves public libraries almost as much as he loves trains.
I'm fairly certain Tony Judt loves public libraries almost as much as he loves trains.