Books

Follows you (block)

Requested to follow you (accept | block)

Blocked (unblock)

Allan_Greene

Allan_Greene

  • member since September 21, 2007

Reviews

  • Sort by:
 
1 2  | Next »
Displaying 1-10 of 14 reviews
  • God Is Not Great
    • Rated 0 stars

    03-06-2009: I don't care much personally for Christopher Hitchens. I think he was basically a flack and mouthpiece for the George Bush regime, and the occupation of Iraq it carried out I consider to have been, franklin, criminal.

    But despite this view, I highly recommend this book of Hitchens. While I don't like Hitchens, I think his book is an excellent polemic against the immorality and irrationality of religion, especially its monotheistic variants. For that reason, this book strongly deserves to be read.--Allan Greene, Email: tompaine1917@yahoo.com

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Friday, March 6, 2009. ( reply | permalink )
  • Letter to a Christian Nation
    0 of 1 members found this review helpful.
    • Rated 0 stars

    03-06-2009: I wish more Christian evangelicals, and Christian evangelical fundamentalists, would read this absolutely stunning, and smashing, little book by Sam Harris. It is clearly and lucidly written, and it is one of the best short defenses of perspectives based on reason I have ever read. Highly recommended -- especially to Christian evangelicals and Christian evangelical fundamentalists, and to those who do not consider themselves Christian liberals, but who, rather, consider themselves Christian conservatives.--Allan Greene, Email: tompaine1917@yahoo.com

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Friday, March 6, 2009. ( reply | permalink )
    • Rated 0 stars

    03-06-2009: Rosa Luxemburg was the long-time leader of the revolutionary left-wing in the main German labor party, the German Social-Democratic Party, especially in the pre-World War One (pre-1914) period of the first roughly decade and a half of the 20th Century. Previously, as a girl, she had been a political activist in the Polish revolutionary socialist movement. She fought from the far left-wing against both the "center" and "right" of the main German left party, the German Social-Democratic Party, attended all the major European congresses of the Second International of Social-Democratic (socialist) parties in that period, and when World War One broke out in 1914, and after her own party leadership and parliamentary delegation in the German Reichstag (parliament) voted on August 4, 1914 for war credits (funding) for the German imperialist government to carry out its side in the inter-imperialist First World War, she broke hard from them, making a statement that "Since August 4, 1914, the German Social-Democratic Party has been a stinking corpse." She spent most of the years of the War in and out of German prisons for her revolutionary Marxist internationalist opposition to the War. She was helped in smuggling out of German prisons diverse letters and also programmatic and theoretical statements she wrote up which were published publicly by the small left-wing Marxist nucleus of anti-war German socialists under the name, "Spartacus," taking the name from the ancient revolutionary insurrectionary gladiator and former slave who had led armed legions of formerly enslaved people in the Roman Empire against the Roman legions for 2 years in 73-71 B.C.E., smashing legion after legion after legion sent against this revolutionary insurrectionary peoples' armed force of former slaves. One of Rosa's pamphlets published during World War One against the War was published under the name of "Junius," an ancient publicist. The internationalist-minded, Russian, revolutionary socialist, V. I. Lenin, who had previously debated Luxemburg on various question at public international socialist congresses in the pre-World War One period, wrote after "The Junius Pamphlet" appeared during World War One that it was a "splendid Marxist work." The Russian Revolution of 1917, particularly the second of the two 1917 Revolutions, that led by the Bolsheviks of Lenin and Trotsky on the basis of the enormous mass movement of elected soviets (workers' councils) that sprang up all over Russia in the year 1917, inspired workers all over the world. In 1918, when Germany surrendered to the allies at the World War's end, mutinies of sailors, soldiers, workers, farm laborers, and peasants, exploded all over Germany, and the workers, soldiers, sailors, farm laborers, and peasants threw up their own elected workers' councils just as the workers of the former Russian empire had done a year previously in Russia. The workers' revolution in Germany in 1918 freed all political prisoners, including Rosa Luxemburg and her colleague and left-wing socialist comrade, Karl Liebknecht, from the German prisons. Rosa, Karl, and other militant leftist socialists, threw themselves into the uprising of the working people. They formed a group called the Spartacus League or Spartacus Bund of Germany. This organization of revolutionary-left-minded Marxists first collaborated with, then broke from, another leftist-minded workers party, the Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany, who had itself originated as a left-split from the German Social-Democratic Party over the issue of the War. In late 1918, Rosa and Karl's organization, the Spartacus League, in collaboration with working class militants from other militant labor organizations, came together in Berlin, Germany, and formed the Communist Party of Germany. At the start of 1919, explosive working class anger over the World War led to what has become known in history as the Spartacus Week in Berlin, in which armed revolutionary-minded workers tried, but failed, to take the power into their hands. Rosa and Karl, ironically, though they'd been elected to the central committee of their own party just prior to the formation of that party, the Communist Party of Germany, had advised against any rising they thought would be premature; they felt that there must first be a reaching out to rank-and-file workers in the main German left party, the Social-Democratic Party, to win them over to the Communist cause, and also to the German lower-petit-bourgeois or peasant classes of little self-employed people, before the effort at taking power had any chance of succeeding. But Rosa and Karl, though old revolutionary socialist veterans, were outvoted by the ranks of their party, who were mainly new and angry young working class militants. Rosa and Karl decided to stay in Berlin, although it was personally dangerous for them to do so, in hopes of minimizing the bloodiness of what they were sure was going to be a defeat for their class, the working class. They were right. It was a defeat for their class. But the result was, they were captured by the German authorities, who in turn turned them over to right-wing fanatics, who murdered both of them.

    Luxemburg was one of the most brilliant Marxist intellectuals of her time, as well as a passionate Marxist socialist leader. She delivered many lectures and "schools" to workers in the rank-and-file of the Social Democratic Party, and she wrote many introductory booklets and pamphlets for workers and potential recruits to the various socialist parties in which she participated. This pamphlet of hers is her effort to gently demolish the religious prejudices of working class people by pointing to the searing difference between the early Christian church of largely impoverished and poor and very exploited and oppressed working people of ancient times, and, on the other hand, the wealth and privileges of the churches in today's world. She also set about explaining the many prejudiced positions that harmed working people's interests which many leading church figures took. This little booklet-essay remains a favorite of mine by a great socialist and humanist.--Allan Greene, Email: tompaine1917@yahoo.com

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Friday, March 6, 2009. ( reply | permalink )
  • From Selma to Sorrow
    • Rated 0 stars

    March 6, 2009: I should have reviewed this book a long time ago, for it was and remains one of my favorite books. The late Viola Liuzzo was a courageous, and, yes, pretty, married woman, liberal in both her political, and religious, views (She as a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church in her community in Michigan). She had been a labor and union activist organizing a union among the waitresses with whom she was employed. Her husband was a leading labor activist, a leader of the Teamsters Union in Michigan. Liuzzo, though white, became passionately opposed to racism in her life. In 1965, she went to Alabama to both participate in, and help out, in the civil rights march led by Martin Luther King, Jr., of civil rights and racial equality marchers that went from Selma to Montgomery. While she was driving her car with a young black man in the front seat accompanying her back and forth to ferry food, water, and resources to marchers, she was murdered when she and her friend were stopped at a red light. In the years after, it came out that the people who murdered her were a carful of Ku Klux Klansmen. But even more significantly, in a major lawsuit that her husband and her family did against the United States government, in which an American Civil Liberties Union activist figured as helping them secure legal counsel, it emerged that the actual murderer was himself named Gary Thomas Rowe, and that Rowe, while in the carful of Klansmen, was an undercover paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and, furthermore that Rowe, though he was a paid FBI informant, he had a long history of violent, terroristic, white supremacist activity; he had, for instance, been one of the Klan terrorists who, in the early 1960s, had violently physically attacked a busload of racially integrated nonviolent civil rights protesters who integrated a bus that drove into an Alabama city, after which the bus had a bomb tossed into it by Ku Klux Klan terrorists, forcing the people on the bus to get off, at which point they were violently physically assaulted by these terrorists. Rowe was one of the Klansmen who attacked these racial equality and racial integration activists. And it turned out that, apparently, he was even then working for the FBI. This biography, however, also goes into some of the way in which the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover tried to make Liuzzo into a person of low moral character, essentially engaging in character assassination of Liuzzo after she was dead and, consequently, unable to defend herself. I read this book and it deeply moved me. In Alabama today, there is a memorial of hand-painted pictures of civil rights martyrs. On that memorial, the picture of Viola Liuzzo is prominently displayed. So even though the racist, bigoted, black people-hating, totalitarian paranoid right-wing crypto-fascist, J. Edgar Hoover, tried to make Mrs. Liuzzo into precisely the opposite of what she actually was (and what she actually was was a righteous human being of great courage and bravery who worked on behalf of one of the most centrally morally upright issues of American life, racial equality and decency), she is now rightly remembered as the decent and good human being she was. This book is a sad book, but it is also a book about a good human being who rightly deserves being remembered. I highly recommend it.

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Friday, March 6, 2009. ( reply | permalink )
  • 1984
    • Rated 0 stars

    March 21, 2008, Friday: I read Orwell's novel, "1984," years ago. Essentially, it was a political satire of Stalinist Russia. The figure of Big Brother in the novel was sort of a representation for Stalin. The figure of the arch-enemy of Big Brother, against whom huge hate campaigns are whipped up, Bronstein (I believe that was his name), is probably a representation of Stalin's mortal enemy, Leon Trotsky, who was the co-leader with Lenin of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and became probably in history the best known communist political oppositionist against the Stalin and Stalinist regime from 1923, when Trotsky first organized the Communist Left Opposition, through his murder in exile in Mexico at the hands of a Stalinist assassin. But Orwell sort of holds a view that is not so much anti-Stalinist as it is anti-communist. That is, he holds to a view that seems to see hopelessness in the human condition, and, he seems to think, there is no hope for the kind of classless, stateless, utterly egalitarian sort of society aspired for by communists before Stalin and the Stalinist gangsters destroyed the meaning of the word, "communism," in the minds of millions of people, and in a sense, Orwell seems to be urging on us a position of resignation. The late Harvard professor and socialist scholar, Isaac Deutscher, who himself authored one of the finest biographies of a great 20th Century revolutionary figure, his 3-volume biography of Leon Trotsky, wrote an essay on Orwell's novel published in a collection of Deutscher's essays. The essay was entitled, "The Mysticism of Cruelty," and that sort of approaches, I think, what Orwell is doing here. He looks at the cruelty of the Stalinist bureaucratic totalitarian regime, and seems to be so over-awed by it and its horrors that it would seem to him, Orwell, that there is no room for hope. So, in a sense, even though one would at first glance one might miss this, after a thorough and thoughtful reading of Orwell's "1984," one can come away with a feeling of resignation in the face of the enormous and bloody calamities and catastrophes of the past century and a half, particularly of the 20th Century, surely the bloodiest century in human history (although, sadly, in only the past 7 or 8 years of the start of the 21st, it would seem humankind is getting off to a genuinely bloody start and possibly trying to surpass the 20th in its bloodiness). The issue for Deutscher in his essay was, however, that revolutionary opposition to cruelty is not a hopeless endeavor, and one gives it up at risk of becoming a victim of the very same cynicism that is so prevalent in the empowered ruling classes and ruling elites and cliques of planet earth. But, of course, from the basic standpoint of whether or not this is a political satire worth reading, it is if only because it has been in the many decades since it was first written in the later 1940s so very influential in the thought of so many. Orwell was a talented writer. He claimed to remain a socialist, although, as said, he conflated or equated Stalinism with communism, with, that is, the communism of Marx and Engels, an equation I've felt for 43 years was unfair. However, some years ago, I became aware that Orwell was, himself, at least during part of his life in England, an undercover agent of some kind for the British secret political police. This considerably lowered him in my estimate, and made him, in some sense, seem to embody the values of invasion of rights of other human beings which his novel, "1984," so mercilessly satirizes and excoriates. Still, simply because of its influence, "1984" should be read. Then, if you've not yet read it, you will at least come to comprehend why it's so often been referred to by various sorts of people of many diverse political persuasions who, however, often claim to reference it in their defenses of freedom, civil liberties, individual liberties, rights, and such. Best for now, Allan Greene

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Thursday, March 20, 2008. ( reply | permalink )
    • Rated 0 stars

    March 20, 2008, Thursday: I read Gore Vidal's novel, "Kalki," years ago, but if you've never read a novel of what might conventionally be called, "black humor," I recommend this above all others. "Black humor" means, in essentials, humor that is so dark, so frightening, so scary, that it hits you right where you live. And that is what this novel does. "Kalki" is a novel about a Hindu religious fanatic who says he is going to destroy the entire human race. But you don't find out about what he is predicting he is going to do until you're considerably far into the novel. What makes the novel so simultaneously uproariously hilarious and also hair-raisingly terrifying is, Vidal's enormous insight into the cynicism of the press and the media. He depicts the press and media and popular capitalist propaganda machines of press and media here inside the U.S. as so consummately lacking in the slightest sense or element of a willingness to take at face value what others say about themselves as reflecting how these others might actually view themselves that it's not till you get to the end of the novel that you find out the terrifying conclusion. Once you do, you end up shaking your head at the consummate ignorance and cynicism of capitalist media in the U.S., who essentially in Vidal's novel dismiss Kalki as being a lunatic who will never amount to anything. As I read this novel, I thought most frighteningly of what I had read about the stories in the German newspapers of 1923 and 1924 right after the attempted, but failed, right-wing Nazi coup d'etat tried by a young ex-corporal in the German armed forces, Adolf Hitler. The German media of that time dismissed Hitler as having essentially "shot his wad," and having, in effect, destroyed himself. Most of the German media said he would never amount to anything, and that he was finished. This is what, in Vidal's magnificent novel about this invented, but thoroughly frightening, figure, Kalki, the media and press do about and with him. I will only add one last point here. Osama bin Laden was born into a multi-billionaire Saudi Arabian family, the bin Laden family. To a significant extent, he was largely ignored by the American media in the 1970s. However, he went to Afghanistan to fight with the Muslim counter-revolutionaries, the cut-throats of fanatical right-wing Wahabbist Islam in Afghanistan, the tribalists, who were fighting to drive out the Soviet armed forces and to insure their profits from the enslavement of women were maintained. Bin Laden, as Gore Vidal noted in another book of his, a nonfiction book entitled, "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated," made the correct point that bin Laden by the 1980s was already a legendary figure in the Muslim world, and deeply revered and admired. Why? Essentially because bin Laden gave up all his worldly wealth, and decided to fight the Soviets for his malign and viciously anti-Enlightenment and even anti-Renaissance vision of a 7th Century Islamic caliphate. This reverence for him among many in the Muslim world was only enhanced with the decision of the Soviets to capitulate to American pressure and finally withdraw in 1989. But in the West, again, by and large, he was ignored. To a significant degree, some saw him as the potential threat he was. But American imperialist policies were and are such as to insure oil (in the metaphorical sense) is literally poured on the fire of Near Eastern politics with its intermixture of religion, and for this imperialist system to be maintained, there is necessarily a need for the American media to either lie constantly about American relations with other countries to both our own (American), and other, peoples, or simply to ignore inconvenient facts. This was more or less the situation with bin Laden -- until, of course, 09-11-2001. I don't subscribe to the pet theory of some of the more conspiracy-minded theorists that 09-11 was not done by bin Laden or those influenced by him; that seems to me to be ludicrous. But, on the other hand, I do think it is eminently the case, as all the history and facts point out, that for a full thirteen years -- from 1976 through 1989 -- the U.S. did all in its power under both Democratic and Republican administrations, firmly supported by the American Christian right, to pour money, guns, personnel, into Afghanistan to defend the people around bin Laden the U.S. was then calling "freedom fighters" in their war for female enslavement and the profits derived therefrom against the Soviet Red Army. And when rulers build up a Frankenstein monster with, however, that monster's own agenda, sooner or later, it may come back to hit the home country. The late Malcolm X, speaking in another context (that of the assassination of president John F. Kennedy in 1963) said, as an old farm boy, he realized that chickens have a way of coming home to roost. The sad thing about 09-11 is, the result was that innocents got harmed and killed, not the guilty. In any case, in reading Gore Vidal's novel, "Kalki," I kept thinking over the comments of the German press in 1923 and 1924 about how this upstart corporal, Hitler, would never become anything and that, in fact, he was through, and I also kept thinking in light of my later knowledge of the reverence in which bin Laden was held by many Muslims in the Arab world for his utter and self-effacing devotion to the worst kind of religiously fanatical movement of the similar ignorance of the Western, and American, media and press. Read "Kalki." Read it thoughtfully. It's a great novel by a great American novelist. Best for now, Allan Greene

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Thursday, March 20, 2008. ( reply | permalink )
  • God: The Failed Hypothesis
    • Rated 0 stars

    March 20, 2008, Thursday: I read Victor Stenger's book awhile ago. Stenger's book is part of the new crop of books defending atheism here in the U.S. that have been coming out in the past 3 or 4 years. They tend to defend a certain philosophical "school" of atheism that, loosely, I would call, reductionist materialist atheism, or radical reductionist empiricist materialist atheism. This philosophical "school" of atheism is not particularly new. The eminent Russian 19th and 20th Century Marxist philosopher, Georgi Plekhanov, in his fine book listed elsewhere in my Shelfari shelf, "Development of the Monist View of History," went considerably deeply into the history of diverse Enlightenment era "schools" of freethinking, both atheist and non-atheist, and "schools" of materialism, again both atheist and non-atheist, in nature. Plekhanov, as with other eminent and important Marxists, critiqued the older schools of atheistic materialism from the standpoint of the Marxist dialectical materialist "school" of atheism that perceives all reality as constantly and continually in flux and transition, and also perceives all reality as one interconnected matrix in which the number of components is infinite, but all components are mutually and reciprocally related one to another. In the radical reductionist empiricist "model" of atheism, in contradistinction to the Marxist dialectical materialist "model" of atheism, every component of reality is simply part of a sum total of parts, the total sum of the parts equalling the whole. This runs in contradiction to the Marxist concept in which every component is indivisibly interconnected and mutually impacting on other components. Additionally, the radical reductionist empiricist materialist model sees each component of reality as "fixed," in essence, although many radical empiricist reductionists probably won't own up to or acknowledge this way of thinking. But it is implicit in many of their arguments. Having said these critical words about this "model" of atheism of Stenger's, I do find myself in agreement with Stenger in, at least, his key point that when one looks at a theory in science, one has to approach that word, "theory," as akin to the word, "model," a point Stenger makes in another book he wrote which is listed on www.prometheusbooks.com. A constant problem all atheists -- whether older-school reductionists like Stenger, empiricists, or more recent Marxist types of atheists -- encounter from, for instance, those bent on making claims that cannot be independently corroborated and independently confirmed by independent observers, is that said claimants tend, by and large, to argue against the claims of science and scientists by saying said claims of scientists and science are "just" "theories." For instance, they do that most notoriously with the theory of evolution, and, to a lesser, but still, notorious, extent, with the theory in astronomy and astrophysics of the Big Bang. What Stenger rightly points out, however, is that in science, what is called a "theory" is quite different from what a theory is in popular discussion and popular parlance. Stenger in another book he wrote listed on the site, www.prometheusbooks.com notes his disagreement with the concept of models and theories in science of the distingished theoretical physicist, Kip Thorne, whose fine book, "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy," I read years ago, and which I've listed here on my Shefari site. Stenger said he read that book and has no disagreements with any of the facts or history gone into in it by Thorne, but does disagree with Thorne's philosophical concept of a theory. Again, Stenger calls it more akin to a "model," but even the "model" in science and among scientists is quite different than the so-called "model" of so-called "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science," neither of which are "theories" in the proper scientific sense at all, or, for that matter, "models," either. Neither of these is a scientific theory or model, because what distinguishes a scientific theory from some kind of claim thrown out there by the religious right about and against evolution is, a scientific theory is testable, while the claim of the sort of "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" is completely non-testable. The same goes for such scientific theories as Einstein's relativity, the cell theory of life in biology, the theory of plate tectonics, continental drift, and sea-floor spreading in geology, the Newtonian theory of gravity. All these theories are theories, but they are also facts. People who throw out claims of belief in ghosts, gods, devils, "Intelligent Design," a spirit world, can throw them out all they want, but again, there is no way of testing such claims, and without a way of testing them, they remain organically non-scientific claims or models in essence. Stenger seems to me to hold the view that god belief is, at least, given contemporary science's knowledge, a testable claim subject to the tests which Stenger puts out there to test it. I am not sure he is right in this, for I think the late Steve Gould probably did a fairly decent job in his own books popularizing science showing that god belief is innately non-testable. I seem to recall that Gould's view is probably closer to that of Thorne's. But irrespective, testability is a key aspect of any kind of model or theory that claims to be "scientific," and by that criterion, neither "Intelligent Design," nor "Creationism," fill the bill. Stenger, accepting the notion that belief in god is in principle a testable claim, and based on his own knowledge deriving from his over 40 years of work as a distinguished theoretical and experimental physicist, approaches the question, and basically demolishes the claims or allegations of belief in god as being so improbable as to imply the impossibility of the existence of some kind of supreme being. Whether or not you agree with Stenger, if you read his book, you'll learn a lot, including about modern science and physics, and how scientists tend to think about these issues. Well worth reading, irrespective of whatever my caveats and qualifiers are about it. Best for now, Allan Greene

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Thursday, March 20, 2008. ( reply | permalink )
  • Thomas Paine and the Promise of America
    • Rated 0 stars

    February 21, 2008: I have several favorite American revolutionaries. One was Thomas Paine, and my own email address, tompaine1917@yahoo.com, is taken from the admiration I have for Paine. This nice book by Harvey Kaye is not only biographical, but it extends beyond biography to investigate the philosophical, political, social, and economic influence of ideas Paine had in his life beyond the end of his life. It turns out his influence was considerable. Paine's influence extended into the 19th Century anti-slavery movement. It extended to embrace freethinking movements for not only freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience in areas of religion, but in favor of maintaining and hanging onto separation of religion and government, and separation of church and state, which Paine in his life firmly supported. Paine's influence also extended into the formation in the 19th Century of labor organizations and embryonic labor unions to raise the wages and salaries of working people and improve their working conditions. He himself had, in fact, originally organized one of the earliest efforts on behalf of labor when, as a younger British person, he had, while employed as a British tax collector inside England organized a petition drive to the British parliament to improve the salaries and working conditions of British tax collectors -- excise men -- whose conditions of labor were miserable. To some significant extent, Paine's interest in English economic, political, philosophical, and socially radical ideas, not to mention his efforts on behalf of English working class folk (of whom he himself always was a working class person), got him into considerable trouble with the British authorities, and he was more or less put into a position of having to flee England and come to the New World. He got to the American colonies at one of the most significant moments in our history, in 1774, right at the time when radical and revolutionary ferment regarding the imposition of British taxes onto the American colonies was causing great uproar here in the American colonies. Paine was fortunate in having previously met the American diplomat to England, Benjamin Franklin, who had written a letter of recommendation for Paine, so when Paine got to the American colonies, his letter of recommendation from Franklin, respected in the colonies, stood Paine in good stead. Paine looked around and did several kinds of work, but when he got into the printing trades here, that became his "take-off" point -- for Paine did not simply become a good printer, but he used his abilities as a writer of fiery propaganda, in addition to his printing abilities, to become within a relatively short period of time the most well-known revolutionary propagandist against the government and against the political domination of his former country, Britain, in the American colonies. When the armed confrontation with England first broke out in 1775, where in Massachusetts armed Massachusetts farmers confronted British red-coated troops, with some of the Massachusetts peasant farmers dying in those two confrontations at Lexington and Concord, for roughly the period from April of 1775 up to January of 1776, the war aims of the American side were as yet undefined. Indeed, the most privileged upper class elements of the American colonies, up through and including men like Thomas Jefferson, for instance (whose names would become synonymous with radicalism, something not quite nearly as well deserved as people conventionally think), were not yet firmly in favor of a hardcore separation of the American colonies from the British Empire. Thomas Paine changed all that with a little booklet he came out with in January-February 1776 named, Common Sense. This booklet became the argument of, particularly, the urban working people and the rural peasant farm people -- that is, the working classes of the American colonies of that day and that time -- for an unconditional separation of the American colonies from the British empire. Paine's arguments in Common Sense were anti-monarchy, and supportive of the principle of equality of nations (national equality) and of national self-determination (that is, the right of nations to form their own independent states) long before Jefferson and other men of property met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, America's first capital in the period of the Revolution, in July of 1776, and before Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Paine argued for a Declaration of Independence six months before the July 1776 Declaration finally was written. He codified principles of natural rights, including the right of nations to form their own states, and the right of peoples to form republics and get rid of monarchies, early on. His position became the position of the masses of ordinary people, who met in pubs and bars in the colonies, which were often centers of popular political debate and discussion in the 1770s, and shared Paine's ideas with each other, passing his booklet from hand to hand. There was this enormous groundswell of popular plebeian urban and rural working class public opinion that formed the context pushing to the left the political debate over what the war aims of the American war against the British empire should be. And even those like John Adams, who did not like Paine, said that the age had become an age of Paine. Paine, however, did not stop there. He wrote in the 1777 period The American Crisis, often simply called The Crisis, at a time when the fortunes of Revolutionary America were at their lowest ebb and it looked like the American Revolution might lose to the British empire. The Crisis was read by George Washington to his miserably hungry, tired, and freezing troops at Valley Forge, and inspired them to a military victory in the days after this. Paine later on came out with one of the most economically and socially progressive and radical little pamphlets ever written, entitled Agrarian Justice, which could be said to be a kind of forerunner of modern-day calls for government-sponsored social welfare programs helping impoverished and poor people. He also visited England after the American Revolution, siding with and toasting in English pubs English radicals involved in supporting English reforms of British society, and found himself again hounded by the British police and having to escape to France -- which was just around that time having its own Revolution. Paine was welcomed with open arms into French Revolutionary society, and was elected by the French people as an honorary member of the first French national assembly or congress, the French Constituent Assembly, because of the fact his name was known to the revolutionary people of France as having been instrumental in helping the fortunes of the revolutionary people of America. Paine authored additionally a book favoring complete freedom of religion entitled, The Age of Reason, for which he was incorrectly and inaccurately called an atheist by many. Paine was not an atheist. He held a Deist viewpoint, and Deism was a quite popular view among educated men and women of the period of the later 18th Century on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It was secular and freethinking, but did not reject belief in a god. Rather, its conception of a god was of an impersonal god who had created a cosmos, then essentially walked away from that god's creation, never again to get personally involved in human affairs. But Paine, like Jefferson, advocated complete equality for not only all believers of all religions, but for nonbelievers and atheists as well, even though he was, as said before, not an atheist. In the 19th Century, the great revolutionary and anti-slavery printer and abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, himself also of working class background, essentially operated in a kind of Paine-like tradition forming his great Liberator journal that published every single week without interruption from January 1831 through December 1865 and favored the immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery, equal rights for women (including voting rights for women), and racial equality for blacks. Garrison began pretty firmly as a Christian, but later in his life became more all-seeing and enlightened and far-seeing after discovering the writings and works of Paine from the 18th Century. Kaye's book goes into the many enlightened kinds of movements and influences which Paine had beyond his life, and they extend even into the 20th Century, into the labor movement and into the socialist movement in the 20th Century. Paine favored equality pretty much for all. He opposed slavery long before and often against the wishes of others in the American Revolution of his own time. He was sympathetic to women's rights and the concept of women's equality. He was one of the most progressive and enlightend men of his time, and Kaye has written a lovely book about this great American. --Allan Greene a/k/a tompaine1917@yahoo.com

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Thursday, February 21, 2008. ( reply | permalink )
  • The Russian Communist Left 1918-30

    The Russian Communist Left 1918-30

    by International Communist Current
    • Rated 0 stars

    February 21, 2008: The International Communist Current is a small, international, Marxist political current that, while opposed to Stalinism, social-democracy, liberalism, capitalism, all the governments on the planet earth, also is opposed to the most well-known of the Marxist currents that opposed Stalinism, the Trotskyist current. They hark back to little-known documents and programmatic writings of elements within the early communist movement of the period from 1917 through 1923, and in some instances, documents and programmatic statements of dissenting communist currents of the 1920s and even early 1930s which were not part of the Trotskyist opponents of the Stalinist totalitarian bureaucracy who ascended to power inside the former USSR, Soviet Union, in the 1920s. The Trotskyists are the best known of the political oppositions to Stalinism. But there were other Marxist opponents of Stalinism as well, among them the Russian socialist and Marxist and long-time Bolshevik and communist, Timothy Sapronov, and his Democratic Centralist political opposition, and Gabriel Miasnikov, an even lesser-known Marxist opponent of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The International Communist Current has, in my view, done a public service by bringing together into this fascinating book some of the up-to-now political documents of these lesser-known Marxist oppositions and Marxist oppositionists to Stalin and Stalinism. Those who want to find out more about books published by this interesting group of left-wing socialists, the International Communist Current, should go to their website, www.internationalism.org, check out their political analyses and writings, and also carefully peruse their site for the books and pamphlets they have published. They have published this book and a series of other interesting historical books on early Marxist opposition to Stalinism, including a book entitled, The British Communist Left. If you are a political leftist or even interested simply from a scholarly viewpoint in such sorts of political history, check it out. You will enjoy the reading. Best, Allan Greene a/k/a tompaine1917Wyahoo.com

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Thursday, February 21, 2008. ( reply | permalink )
  • Lincoln

    Lincoln

    by
    • Rated 0 stars

    February 21, 2008: David Herbert Donald is one of the most distinguished and eminent of American historians, and one of the really great contemporary historians on the American Civil War, on Lincoln, and on other major figures in the era leading up to the Civil War in America. He has authored many fine books. This biography of Lincoln is one of the best I ever read. While I am on the topic, I will mention probably the finest novel -- that is, fictional account -- on Lincoln, itself praised by Donald, the novel, Lincoln, by Gore Vidal. Be aware that the difference between a biography, and a novel, is that the writer of a novel has the right as a fiction writer to move around people and events and not necessarily strictly abide by all facts as they happened, and in a couple of instances, Vidal did that; but as an honest novelist, he tells you where he moved around some people and events. A biographer, however, as a writer of non-fiction and history, does not have the right to do that, and Donald's biography is real biography. What is significant, however, is that Donald provides the sense of exactly how ordinary Lincoln was as a man throughout most of his life, and the very realization of this ordinariness combines with a sense of how very politically ambitious a man he was. Lincoln was not, unlike his contemporary anti-slavery figures, John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and other brave and courageous figures in the radical left wing of the abolitionist movement of his, Lincoln's time, a revolutionary. He was a bourgeois politician. But he was a bourgeois politician in a time in American history when the American ruling bourgeois class still possessed objectively the capacity to make another revolution, a social revolution, to sweep out of the way any system that stood in their way. As a consequence, Lincoln could, and eventually did, come to reflect and represent the revolutionary wing of the American bourgeoisie in the Second American Revolution, the Civil War of 1861-1865, which temporarily effected a political and social alliance of armed black people with radical-minded white and black abolitionists (anti-slavery fighters) and the Northeastern and Midwestern American revolutionary-minded elements of the bourgeois owning class of the big enterprises to fight to first unite the country, then, when it became clear the Southern traitors and Confederate States of America traitors would not submit in the bloody Civil War, to undermine and subvert them by wiping out the 250 years-old system of class exploitation and racial oppression of slavery, out of which the ruling Southern slaveholding class derived their profits, and out of which the war-fighting capacity of the Southern Confederate States of America continued deriving their ability to dis-unite the United States of America and perpetuate the Civil War. This, however, sadly, did not end the oppression of black people, and after a relatively brief period of radical equality and racial equality in Reconstruction from about 1866 through 1874 in the Southern states, the federal occupying troops were withdrawn in 1877 after a rotten deal made between Wall Street capitalist Republicans in the North and the Southern pro-slavery Ku Klux Klan Democratic Party in the South that led to Republican Hayes getting the presidency in the 1876 election, and as a result, freed and formerly enslaved black people in the South were left to the racist terrorist mercies of the Ku Klux Klan killers and the Southern Democratic Party of slavery and racism for the next hundred years. It took the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s to finally smash legal "Jim Crow" racial segregation in the Southern states, although even up through today, real de facto "Jim Crow" racial segregation is as strong as ever here in the U.S.A. The brief moment of the later 1960s and early 1970s of ending of "Jim Crow" in the public schools has only led today to an era in which the public schools in America are even more firmly racially segregated, as the great liberal writer and public educator, Jonathan Kozol, has written eloquently about in his great books on the decay and decline and re-segregation of America's schools. It will take a third American revolution, a racially integrated workers revolution and takeover of state power and expropriation of the capitalist boureoisie and its industries, banksm, mines, mills, factories by elected workers' councils, to finally end once and for all racial segregation in this country. This is the Marxist perspective of what Marx called the "revolution in permanence" and what Marx's later follower, Leon Trotsky, called the "permanent revolution," for the U.S.A. -- the meshing of the fight for democratic rights of the most oppressed sector of the American population with the fight for the power of the working people here inside the belly of the racist, sexist, theocratic, bigoted, colonialist, imperialist, capitalist beast.--Allan Greene a/k/a tompaine1917@yahoo.com

    Allan_Greene wrote this review Thursday, February 21, 2008. ( reply | permalink )
1 2  | Next »
Displaying 1-10 of 14 reviews