what you get here

This is not a blog which opines on current events. It rather uses incidents, books (old and new), links and papers to muse about our social endeavours.
So old posts are as good as new! And lots of useful links!

The Bucegi mountains - the range I see from the front balcony of my mountain house - are almost 120 kms from Bucharest and cannot normally be seen from the capital but some extraordinary weather conditions allowed this pic to be taken from the top of the Intercontinental Hotel in late Feb 2020

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

RECENT READING

I have to confess to some ennui – as will be obvious to the long delays in recent posts. These are the recent book downloadings

and Geronimo de la Torre (2024)

The fall of the Soviet Union was hailed as the end of history. The onset of globalisation was hailed as the end of geography. The growth of artificial intelligence is being hailed as the end of human labour. The identification of the Anthropocene has become a warning for the end of humanity itself. When epochs are labelled and called into being, even if arbitrarily or retrospectively, it is always followed by claims of a crisis or death of something. Why, then, does the state seem to endure all these crises and deaths, sometimes coming out of them even stronger and more assured than before? The same state whose actions and inactions are at the very centre of so many crises and deaths, both literal and figurative? We live in a present era marked by a seemingly endless stream of crises that should, in principle, be solvable by states, but which are not; crises caused by economic crashes, environmental catastrophes, wars, famines, as well as everyday crises of culture, health or quality of life. The state is not singularly to blame for most of such crises, but it plays a central role in causing, exacerbating, or responding to them (often a combination of these roles).

That the state, with its vast resources and coercive power, seems unable or unwilling to substantially address the systemic problems that beset present society, yet still remains at the centre of our political imaginations, is evidence of its remarkable endurance and resilience. The many leftwing and decolonial projects that have attempted to reform the state across the globe in recent years are testament to the enchantment of the state as a space of political action, as well as its ability to quash radical change within its framework of ordering our worlds. This is not to say that they have not made positive material changes, but that those changes invariably fall far short of their intentions and very quickly become enveloped within its logics.

This is a book about how the idea of the state survives and maintains its ubiquity as the pivot of territorial organisation and order. However, it is also about how other stories of our world exist, and persist, in spite of it.

As anarchists have said for at least the last 150 years, we need a different imagination of how society could be governed if we are to save humanity and make our lives truly liveable, and the so-called ‘disaster anarchy’ of mutual aid and spontaneous self-organisation that erupts at times of crisis is testament to how this can feel so tantalisingly close. Even those who wish to reform the state, rather than overthrowing it, are already looking to new forms of governance that move beyond its limits. We therefore look to ‘other’ accounts of life that highlight ways of being and organising – forms of order amidst the disorder of state power – that can be used to decentre the state from our political and geographical imaginations and envision much wider future horizons that may include the state as one option but also vastly exceed it. We draw from otherwise very different disciplines – geography, archaeology, anthropology, cultural studies, philosophy and more – as well as multiple different cosmovisions and worldviews, some of which might even conflict or contrast with each other, to highlight the endurance and inventive resourcefulness of orders despite the state. The academic quest for perfect theoretical unity is rarely reflected in the messy realities of life.

Therefore, this book begins by asking: what if the state had never existed?


10
Christian Adam (2021) 
Y Jisheng (2020)
(2020)
9 
With every degree of temperature increase, roughly a billion people will be 
pushed outside the zone in which humans have lived for thousands of years. 
We are running out of time to manage the coming upheaval before it becomes 
overwhelming and deadly. Migration is not the problem; it is the solution. 

8
Yet, even then, at the height of its power, with the world seemingly at its feet, 
the ability of the US to achieve clearly stated goals at the end of the war, 
in countries that it thought were of vital interest, such as China, was shown to be 
shockingly weaker than expected. So, there was certainly no one standard of 
great power in World War II that might help us understand the power relationship 
between the states involved, and nor could the greatest of the   so-  called great 
powers in many   centuries –  the United   States –  achieve many of its goals.

6
Richard Finlay (2022)
Geoff Mulgan (2022)

This book is about the art and science of words that work. Examining the strategic and tactical use of language in politics, business, and everyday life, it shows how you can achieve better results by narrowing the gap between what you intend to convey and what your audiences actually interpret. The critical task, as I’ve suggested, is to go beyond your own understanding and to look at the world from your listener’s point of view. In essence, it is listener-centered; their perceptions trump whatever “objective” reality a given word or phrase you use might be presumed to have. Again, what matters isn’t what you say, it’s what people hear.

Dan Davies (2018)
the world lost its mind Dan Davies (2024)
Hans Ostrom and William Haltom (2019)

In our book as in this chapter we enter that meeting place to converse precisely, clearly, and honestly about “Politics and the English Language.”

To be honest, clear, and precise, we contend that the essay is a muddle—something its status and that of its author often obscure. In this chapter we show that most of the famed parts of the essay do not suit the whole as tightly as they might and that many parts entertain more than enlighten. The essay’s most momentous major claim is served poorly when it is served at all by such features as Orwell’s five “specimens,” by his catalogue of four “swindles and perversions,” by his six “rules,” and by his unnumbered gibes and gripes.

Labour Chris Baker et al (2009)
progressive politics Richard Carr (2019)
H Landemore (2020)
Thomas Merton and William Shannon (2000) 

No comments:

Post a Comment