Scan barcode
tigerkin310's review against another edition
5.0
A reasoned overview of the complexity of classical liberal governance which encompasses not just political realities but also economic, geophysical, technological, and social realities as well. Democracy as we think we know it is a misnomer. The 1 percent has always been an underlying principle in American governing strategy accompanied by financial acquisitiveness, cloaked by the balancing act of the needs and powerlessness of the many versus the aims and poer of the few.
kris10reading's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
nerdybookguy's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
A bit had to get into head on, but a worthy read on the big question of "how do we do a democracy"
catherine888's review against another edition
4.0
A readable yet intellectually rich overview of democracy’s biggest tensions. Taylor has always been one of my go-to public intellectuals and this book provides a thorough synthesis of questions a lot of us have probably asked ourselves at one point or another. Taylor takes these classic issues on but gives them a leftist, tech-savvy twist, which is refreshing. She takes each chapter in a unique and original direction, which I wasn’t expecting, and brings new evidence and ideas to the table to explore these themes. Would recommend for ex-political science majors who still daydream about political philosophy.
jmbq_reads's review against another edition
3.0
An eye-opening, thought-provoking book that caused me to reassess my assumptions about democracy, our current political and social climate, and my own privilege. 3.5 stars.
k80uva's review against another edition
3.0
Has some really compelling portions, especially when she talks about present-day issues and projects into the future with the final chapter on climate change and climate lawsuits. But I think those pieces get kind of bogged down/undercut by long sections that review the history of political philosophy.
jakeyjake's review against another edition
Still lots of highlights and notes and thoughts to process, but overall this is really great. I loved the approach Astra Taylor took to tackling some of the tensions that exist when we think of democracy and how we'd like to push the direction of our political institutions and policies.
There are times when the tensions seem irresolvable, though I think Astra Taylor does an effective job of arguing that some of these tensions are false dichotomies. To her credit, Taylor maintains an elegant equipoise between assessing our dire situations (including climate disaster, inequality, white supremacy, ethno-nationalism, and neo-liberal capitalism's dark shadow over democracies the world over) and instilling some sense of hope that we can wrestle control over our fates back from unfettered capitalism through collective action. She's still bullish that if progressives organize and take real action (beyond just posting online) we might yet be able to create places of equality, with less disparity in wealth and care, with less private business incentives manipulating the rules, and with more everyday people having the power to affect their polities.
Note to self: You read this through Libby and that's where all your highlights are. -with love, your younger self
------------------------------
Some random unfinished notes:
Freedom / Equality
By 1989, with communism all but written off and free-market liberalism crowned king, Freedom became reduced to the right to be left alone... negative liberty, or "freedom as non-interference."
Contemporary freedom is, above all, the freedom to compete in the economy without intervention from meddling government... in other words, being free to be unequal.
"Freedom breeds inequality" - William F. Buckley in 1968
the French Revolution, like the end of the Cold War, was a democratic watershed... when the idea of political equality entered the popular imagination and when the word democracy was recued from the disrepute that had long stalked it.
Equality is rarely used for propaganda purposes... we visit the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Equality.
Athens system of government used a rotation by lottery as opposed to election for key public offices (on the grounds that elections were not democratic enough, as the well born and well spoken tended to win). Ancient Athens's signal breakthrough was that it gave real political power to poor people. See Solon's cancelling of debts legislation and freeing enslaved Athenians.
Taylor addresses two things that I'd not encountered before: 1. that the American Revolutionary War fought against the British was in part due to the British having intended to protecting territorial rights of native tribes with whom it had treaties (see Royal Proclamation of 1763) and 2. that the self-government of indigenous peoples in the Americas played an instrumental (though unacknowledged) role in informing the political philosophy of folks like Rousseau, folks who are often credited with influencing the American system profoundly. (note to self to read more about The League of Six Nations)
The 1772 Somerset decision declaring slavery odious and incompatible with English common law only added to the settler's sense of imperial persecution... Seen from this perspective, the American Revolution was arguably conservative, aimed as much at maintaining the status quo than ushering in a radically different, more democratic epoch.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the phoor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."-Anatole France
Women and enslaved people have throughout history led the call for freedom, as they have been the ones who have not had access to it.
We rarely call the March on Washington by its official name: the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Under immense pressure from activists at home and Communists abroad (whose propagandists made hay of America's failure to live up to the basic democratic tenet of equality by condoning segregation), Lyndon B. Johnson adopted the cause of civil rights as his own. "Freedom is not enough.... We seek...not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Winners and losers are therefore the natural outcome of a fully marketized democracy. - Wendy Brown
"Freedom for private enterprise" facing off with "an equitably shared abundance"
FDR and Frances Perkins, the nation's first female cabinet member and principal engineer of the New Deal, attempted to push more egalitarian policy, but couldn't overcome Dixiecrats and northern industrialists. Later Truman would pass the Taft-Hartley Act, breaking the power of trade unions and handing power back to employers.
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek as thought leaders and antagonists of equality. "Millions have benefitted from nature's unfairness." Then, with equality decanted from liberty, a dash of social Darwinism was added to the mix. "economic eugenics", Nancy MacLean has dubbed it. Hardcore capitalists simply maintain that those who can't afford necessities such as food and shelter don't have any right to them... Survival of the fittest has mutated into survival of the richest.
Even liberals have responded to the marketization of everything with a privatization spree: subsidies to private insurers instead of expansion of public health care programs; school vouchers for private charter schools, not defending public education; modest carbon taxes in place of green infra.
Marx was as much a theorist of leisure as he was of work... Real communism, then, would. not be a crude leveling, but rather full equality, a way to liberate every individual to experiment and develop their true capacities.
But there are still challenges and questions in the tension between freedom and equality in a communist or socialist system.
Should capitalism as we know it cease to be, the conflict between freedom and equality will linger on.
Conflict / Consensus
This chapter started talking about the Occupy movement, specifically how it tried for a consensus model and ultimately couldn't overcome some of the challenges that come from really trying to run everything with unanimity. "Arguably more unstable and a good measure more ridiculous than [the ills of mainstream democracy]." "the reckless exercise of the veto is also the model's fatal flaw.
There is something—and Astra Taylor does a good job of addressing it—good and egalitarian in their commitment to consensus. But the point of this chapter is to talk about the tension between reaching unanimity vs other models that leave room for moving forward without some people on board.
The joke, 'freedom is an endless meeting.'
Two types of democracy discussed: 'adversary democracy' (people have conflicting interests and majority rules) and 'unitary democracy' (assumes common interests and there is face-to-face deliberation attempting to reach unanimity).
There's a part of this chapter that discusses the US founders's disdain for political parties. But it's not out of especially good-will for others—'We rarely comment non the irony that the initial overwhelming concern for the rights of minorities stemmed from the fact that a small group of wealthy, pale-skinned, land-hungry, slave-holding aristocrats were jealous of their fortunes... The primary goal of government, Madison said, is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."' Eeek!
Then we're reminded that the two-party system of the US are actually in many ways standing together to keep themselves in power.
There's a super cool part of this chapter about pirates!! and their governing practices to ensure a baseline of economic and social equality. She refs [b:Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age|541876|Villains of All Nations Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age|Marcus Rediker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1175644228l/541876._SY75_.jpg|529220]
Antonio Gramsci describes hegemony as the 'everyday ideas and cultural habits that make power structures and pecking orders appear natural and immutable.'
This chapter ends by reminding us that economic inequalities continue to be justified by those in power, but they are not—as history has shown with the righting of other injustices—how it has to be. 'Those who declare these disputes and disparities eternal, hard-wired into humankind's selfish nature, are probably invested in one side of the status quo. A new democratic consensus... will come about only through conflict—through the very sort of struggle the powerful would prefer to see suppressed.
Inclusion / Exclusion
This chapter starts with the story of Bhutan's monarch transitioning power to a democracy and the people kind of saying, 'Awww, but it was good with the monarch leading!' But there's a catch. Decades before there was an ethnic/religious minority (Lhotshampas) calling for changes and branded as terrorists. Oppressed and ousted from Bhutan, the fairy tale of Bhutan's transition to a united democracy has an underbelly.
Premise: We can't practically include everyone in a world-wide democracy... Decisions must be made by and accountable to a specific people and community. No need for me to weigh in on Nordic library budgets or priorities of worker-run factories in South America...
But there's a resurgence of exclusionary ethnonationalism around the globe.
'The history of self-rule is a catalog of the struggle to define the collective.'
Astra Taylor dives into some including in our democracies more than just humans: Animals, rivers, trees, robots, AIs. We already afford businesses tons of legal rights. Extending rights to these sorts of things and having humans arbitrate on their behalf would simply be a balance against some effects of neo-liberal capitalism. See her references to Leland Stanford's Southern Pacific Railroad Company case.. Ecuador included the rights of nature in their constitution and it has been cited to halt two industrial projects. But what about invasive species? Where does a watershed end if ecosystems are interconnected?
'A more democratic world is not one where the extremely rich are more diverse but one where the pyramid levels and no one has to struggle to survive.' ***
'Democracy, in my view, cannot be reduced to majoritarian preferences and popularity contests, but requires a more robust framework that protects minority rights from intolerant illiberal prejudices, however widespread those prejudices may be.'
Again, Astra Taylor reminds us that there are ways to make exclusion less cutting. 'Creating conditions of general economic equality- domestically and internationally—would blunt the harshest edge of exclusion at home and abroad.'
Coercion / Choice
When is coercion legitimate? There's a lot that we as citizens don't even see or know about, let alone consent to explicitly. That's OK—ideal really—when it comes to potholes or providing electricity. I don't want to spend my time on that. That's the benefit of choosing representatives..
Story of the anarchist crossing the street. The anarchist doesn't jaywalk and someone asks him why he doesn't if he's so opposed to government. "Because a small child might see us and get the idea that it's okay to run out into the road."
'The distinctions between incentive, persuasion, influence, manipulation, and coercion constantly blur... our choices rarely qualify as free."
Reading chapter 7 - New World Order (local vs global) this week and it might be the most interesting chapter yet.
Supranational, regulations-exempt, finance rules the day. Cold War + Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman + big finance/big tech lobbying in politics = a system where governments are at the beck and call of bankers. The "golden straightjacket" certainly makes some winners, but it chafes the rest, democracy included.
There are times when the tensions seem irresolvable, though I think Astra Taylor does an effective job of arguing that some of these tensions are false dichotomies. To her credit, Taylor maintains an elegant equipoise between assessing our dire situations (including climate disaster, inequality, white supremacy, ethno-nationalism, and neo-liberal capitalism's dark shadow over democracies the world over) and instilling some sense of hope that we can wrestle control over our fates back from unfettered capitalism through collective action. She's still bullish that if progressives organize and take real action (beyond just posting online) we might yet be able to create places of equality, with less disparity in wealth and care, with less private business incentives manipulating the rules, and with more everyday people having the power to affect their polities.
Note to self: You read this through Libby and that's where all your highlights are. -with love, your younger self
------------------------------
Some random unfinished notes:
Freedom / Equality
By 1989, with communism all but written off and free-market liberalism crowned king, Freedom became reduced to the right to be left alone... negative liberty, or "freedom as non-interference."
Contemporary freedom is, above all, the freedom to compete in the economy without intervention from meddling government... in other words, being free to be unequal.
"Freedom breeds inequality" - William F. Buckley in 1968
the French Revolution, like the end of the Cold War, was a democratic watershed... when the idea of political equality entered the popular imagination and when the word democracy was recued from the disrepute that had long stalked it.
Equality is rarely used for propaganda purposes... we visit the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Equality.
Athens system of government used a rotation by lottery as opposed to election for key public offices (on the grounds that elections were not democratic enough, as the well born and well spoken tended to win). Ancient Athens's signal breakthrough was that it gave real political power to poor people. See Solon's cancelling of debts legislation and freeing enslaved Athenians.
Taylor addresses two things that I'd not encountered before: 1. that the American Revolutionary War fought against the British was in part due to the British having intended to protecting territorial rights of native tribes with whom it had treaties (see Royal Proclamation of 1763) and 2. that the self-government of indigenous peoples in the Americas played an instrumental (though unacknowledged) role in informing the political philosophy of folks like Rousseau, folks who are often credited with influencing the American system profoundly. (note to self to read more about The League of Six Nations)
The 1772 Somerset decision declaring slavery odious and incompatible with English common law only added to the settler's sense of imperial persecution... Seen from this perspective, the American Revolution was arguably conservative, aimed as much at maintaining the status quo than ushering in a radically different, more democratic epoch.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the phoor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."-Anatole France
Women and enslaved people have throughout history led the call for freedom, as they have been the ones who have not had access to it.
We rarely call the March on Washington by its official name: the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Under immense pressure from activists at home and Communists abroad (whose propagandists made hay of America's failure to live up to the basic democratic tenet of equality by condoning segregation), Lyndon B. Johnson adopted the cause of civil rights as his own. "Freedom is not enough.... We seek...not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Winners and losers are therefore the natural outcome of a fully marketized democracy. - Wendy Brown
"Freedom for private enterprise" facing off with "an equitably shared abundance"
FDR and Frances Perkins, the nation's first female cabinet member and principal engineer of the New Deal, attempted to push more egalitarian policy, but couldn't overcome Dixiecrats and northern industrialists. Later Truman would pass the Taft-Hartley Act, breaking the power of trade unions and handing power back to employers.
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek as thought leaders and antagonists of equality. "Millions have benefitted from nature's unfairness." Then, with equality decanted from liberty, a dash of social Darwinism was added to the mix. "economic eugenics", Nancy MacLean has dubbed it. Hardcore capitalists simply maintain that those who can't afford necessities such as food and shelter don't have any right to them... Survival of the fittest has mutated into survival of the richest.
Even liberals have responded to the marketization of everything with a privatization spree: subsidies to private insurers instead of expansion of public health care programs; school vouchers for private charter schools, not defending public education; modest carbon taxes in place of green infra.
Marx was as much a theorist of leisure as he was of work... Real communism, then, would. not be a crude leveling, but rather full equality, a way to liberate every individual to experiment and develop their true capacities.
But there are still challenges and questions in the tension between freedom and equality in a communist or socialist system.
Should capitalism as we know it cease to be, the conflict between freedom and equality will linger on.
Conflict / Consensus
This chapter started talking about the Occupy movement, specifically how it tried for a consensus model and ultimately couldn't overcome some of the challenges that come from really trying to run everything with unanimity. "Arguably more unstable and a good measure more ridiculous than [the ills of mainstream democracy]." "the reckless exercise of the veto is also the model's fatal flaw.
There is something—and Astra Taylor does a good job of addressing it—good and egalitarian in their commitment to consensus. But the point of this chapter is to talk about the tension between reaching unanimity vs other models that leave room for moving forward without some people on board.
The joke, 'freedom is an endless meeting.'
Two types of democracy discussed: 'adversary democracy' (people have conflicting interests and majority rules) and 'unitary democracy' (assumes common interests and there is face-to-face deliberation attempting to reach unanimity).
There's a part of this chapter that discusses the US founders's disdain for political parties. But it's not out of especially good-will for others—'We rarely comment non the irony that the initial overwhelming concern for the rights of minorities stemmed from the fact that a small group of wealthy, pale-skinned, land-hungry, slave-holding aristocrats were jealous of their fortunes... The primary goal of government, Madison said, is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."' Eeek!
Then we're reminded that the two-party system of the US are actually in many ways standing together to keep themselves in power.
There's a super cool part of this chapter about pirates!! and their governing practices to ensure a baseline of economic and social equality. She refs [b:Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age|541876|Villains of All Nations Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age|Marcus Rediker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1175644228l/541876._SY75_.jpg|529220]
Antonio Gramsci describes hegemony as the 'everyday ideas and cultural habits that make power structures and pecking orders appear natural and immutable.'
This chapter ends by reminding us that economic inequalities continue to be justified by those in power, but they are not—as history has shown with the righting of other injustices—how it has to be. 'Those who declare these disputes and disparities eternal, hard-wired into humankind's selfish nature, are probably invested in one side of the status quo. A new democratic consensus... will come about only through conflict—through the very sort of struggle the powerful would prefer to see suppressed.
Inclusion / Exclusion
This chapter starts with the story of Bhutan's monarch transitioning power to a democracy and the people kind of saying, 'Awww, but it was good with the monarch leading!' But there's a catch. Decades before there was an ethnic/religious minority (Lhotshampas) calling for changes and branded as terrorists. Oppressed and ousted from Bhutan, the fairy tale of Bhutan's transition to a united democracy has an underbelly.
Premise: We can't practically include everyone in a world-wide democracy... Decisions must be made by and accountable to a specific people and community. No need for me to weigh in on Nordic library budgets or priorities of worker-run factories in South America...
But there's a resurgence of exclusionary ethnonationalism around the globe.
'The history of self-rule is a catalog of the struggle to define the collective.'
Astra Taylor dives into some including in our democracies more than just humans: Animals, rivers, trees, robots, AIs. We already afford businesses tons of legal rights. Extending rights to these sorts of things and having humans arbitrate on their behalf would simply be a balance against some effects of neo-liberal capitalism. See her references to Leland Stanford's Southern Pacific Railroad Company case.. Ecuador included the rights of nature in their constitution and it has been cited to halt two industrial projects. But what about invasive species? Where does a watershed end if ecosystems are interconnected?
'A more democratic world is not one where the extremely rich are more diverse but one where the pyramid levels and no one has to struggle to survive.' ***
'Democracy, in my view, cannot be reduced to majoritarian preferences and popularity contests, but requires a more robust framework that protects minority rights from intolerant illiberal prejudices, however widespread those prejudices may be.'
Again, Astra Taylor reminds us that there are ways to make exclusion less cutting. 'Creating conditions of general economic equality- domestically and internationally—would blunt the harshest edge of exclusion at home and abroad.'
Coercion / Choice
When is coercion legitimate? There's a lot that we as citizens don't even see or know about, let alone consent to explicitly. That's OK—ideal really—when it comes to potholes or providing electricity. I don't want to spend my time on that. That's the benefit of choosing representatives..
Story of the anarchist crossing the street. The anarchist doesn't jaywalk and someone asks him why he doesn't if he's so opposed to government. "Because a small child might see us and get the idea that it's okay to run out into the road."
'The distinctions between incentive, persuasion, influence, manipulation, and coercion constantly blur... our choices rarely qualify as free."
Reading chapter 7 - New World Order (local vs global) this week and it might be the most interesting chapter yet.
Supranational, regulations-exempt, finance rules the day. Cold War + Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman + big finance/big tech lobbying in politics = a system where governments are at the beck and call of bankers. The "golden straightjacket" certainly makes some winners, but it chafes the rest, democracy included.
brandon_melcher's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.5
amlecher's review against another edition
5.0
I do enjoy books like this, that tackle complex topics and do so while not simplifying it. Astra Taylor discusses aspects of democracy and shows us that there are trade-offs, there are positive aspects to things we would often see as negative ideas (coercion). There are no easy solutions, but a book like this opens us to having the conversations that are needed as we face the likely future issues with American democracy.