This book provides an excellent synopsis of the major topics in theoretical ecology. After making a strong case for the value of theory in ecology, th...moreThis book provides an excellent synopsis of the major topics in theoretical ecology. After making a strong case for the value of theory in ecology, the text reviews many of the classical and contemporary models used to examine single-species dynamics, metapopulations, predator-prey interactions, population dynamics (esp. plants), species compositions, the relationships between diversity and stability and community-level patterns. The text then devotes several chapters to the human dimensions of ecology, discussing topics such as food production, fisheries, conservation and climate change. The authors of these later chapters discuss ways in which the models presented in the first section can be used to address some of these conservation issues. May then concludes the volume with a brief synopsis and a series of interesting philosophical questions. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and would recommend it highly to anyone in ecology.(less)
Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is by no means an easy read, as it challenges many of the assumptions that we take for granted in the U.S....moreHerman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is by no means an easy read, as it challenges many of the assumptions that we take for granted in the U.S. and presents us with a disturbing portrait of our nation's foreign policies and the people who shape them. The preponderance of evidence backing Herman and Chomsky's analysis of the mainstream media lead to the inescapable conclusion that the "free press" protected by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution differs dramatically from the corporate propaganda machine we're constantly subjected to today. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about democracy in the U.S. and around the globe.(less)
Professor Farina is probably one of the most intelligent yet humble scientists I've had the privilege of knowing. His excellent text on Landscape Ecol...moreProfessor Farina is probably one of the most intelligent yet humble scientists I've had the privilege of knowing. His excellent text on Landscape Ecology is considered required reading for many students of the discipline, and for good reason. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology covers both the theoretical foundations and practical implementation of research on the biophysical interactions that characterize landscapes and the techniques researcher use to study them.(less)
Trotsky's analysis of the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy offers a great deal of insight into the class conflicts under capitalism responsible fo...moreTrotsky's analysis of the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy offers a great deal of insight into the class conflicts under capitalism responsible for the genesis of fascism and its rise to power in Western Europe. According to Trotsky's analysis, fascism arose among the petite bourgeoisie in response to what they perceived as the crushing economic oppression of the big bourgeoisie and the apparent impotence of the proletariat. The former was a result of the natural progression of capitalism, albeit compounded by the post-war conditions in Germany at the time, while the latter was the result of the Social Democracy's suppression of struggle by the proletariat on the one hand, and the ultra-leftism emanating from the bureaucratized leadership of the Communist Party on the other. In both cases, the opportunism of the leadership of the proletariat undermined their credibility as a credible force for revolutionary change, causing the petite bourgeoisie to first dismiss the workers organizations and eventually turn on them and obliterate them.
Both the betrayal of the workers by the Social Democracy and the ultra-left policies of the Communist Party, which depicted the former as "social fascists" no better than the National Socialists themselves, were carefully analyzed and critiqued by Trotsky. The former he attributed to the rise of the "labor aristocracy" and its betrayal of the proletarian revolution in 1918. The latter he attributed to the Stalinist bureaucracy and its German counterpart under Thälmann, which had opportunistically veered sharply left then right in virtually exact contradiction to the objective conditions that should have guided its orientation.
To overcome the lethargy of the Social Democracy's leadership and win the majority of the proletariat over to the revolutionary principles of the Communist Party, Trotsky proposed a 'United Front' between the two parties. This front would comprise a strategic agreement between the parties to work together to combat National Socialism with the understanding that the Communist Party would not compromise its revolutionary position, nor would it relinquish the right to criticize the Social Democracy. Trotsky contended that this approach would force the leaders of the Social Democrats to mobilize against the fascists or risk revealing their weakness and complacency to the workers that supported them. Unfortunately for Germany and the rest of the world, Trotsky's strategy was ignored by the German Communist Party and the Nazis succeeded in seizing power and crushing the workers' movements. As capitalism continues through yet another major crisis today, both the strategies Trotsky proposed and the dangers he foresaw have much to say to contemporary revolutionaries.(less)
I'm not going to bother reviewing this book in depth, given the volumes of books already written on Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of producti...moreI'm not going to bother reviewing this book in depth, given the volumes of books already written on Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production. I will, however, note a couple points that don't seem to be mentioned as frequently. The first is Marx's sense of humor. Marx enlivens a number of otherwise dry passages with humorous or witty comments, and engages the reader as an intellectual equal. The second observation is the overall readability of the book. Despite its imposing length, the content is relatively accessible. I started the book knowing virtually nothing about economics, but thanks to Marx's careful progression from the individual commodity to the entire system of exchange, I did not have much difficulty following most of Marx's main points. On the other hand, I believe that I gained a great deal of insight into the operation of our economic system from this text, and would recommend it to anyone interested in understanding more about how the world works. I also found that a central point became increasingly obvious as I progressed through the text: under capitalism, the worker puts more value into a commodity than she is compensated for. This is the ultimate source of profit, and why capitalism can accurately be described as a system of exploitation. I also found that Marx's analysis of value offers considerable insight into why it is so difficult (or perhaps impossible) to assign meaningful monetary values to ecosystem services, and why merely assigning such values is not likely to be sufficient for their conservation.(less)
In contrast to the conventional image of an intellectual as an bookish, slightly eccentric academician, Said portrays the intellectual as a powerful o...moreIn contrast to the conventional image of an intellectual as an bookish, slightly eccentric academician, Said portrays the intellectual as a powerful oppositional figure in society. Most mainstream "intellectuals" fail to meet Said's criteria, and are dismissed as little more than apologists for the present authoritarian hierarchy. The true intellectual, Said argues, lives in a perpetual exile (either literal or subjective), as she is unable to subordinate her mind to any particular dogma or ideology. Moreover, the intellectual must resist the temptations of what Said calls "professionalism," whereby the intellectual adopts a particular vocabulary and venue that limits her audience to a particular group of specialists or ruling elites. Instead, Said proposes the habit of amateurism, where the intellectual steadfastly refuses to allow access to her work to be restricted, and where she is driven by her passion and concern for humanity, as opposed to by profits and the esteem of achieving exclusive specialization in a narrow discipline. Said provides abundant historical and contemporary examples of intellectuals, and discusses the historical conditions that gave rise to them. He also describes the conditions in which the modern intellectual finds herself, and the unique challenges they present. The most important role of the modern intellectual, Said contends, is as a challenge to the ruling powers and as an uncompromising defender of freedom of opinion and of expression.(less)
Gore Vidal was a brilliant writer and political analyst. His insights into the ways in which powerful corporations dictate the spectrum of dialog in t...moreGore Vidal was a brilliant writer and political analyst. His insights into the ways in which powerful corporations dictate the spectrum of dialog in the United States remain pertinent, as do his many indictments of the failure of the Democrats to live up to their unmerited reputation as the "progressive party." His biting critique of the racism and imperialism inherent in religious fundamentalism still describes much of the American church as it leads the fight against women, Muslims, and homosexuals in the United States. Vidal considered himself a radical and an "anti-'anti-Communist,'" and he was willing to step well outside the boundaries of the mainstream "liberal" consensus on important issues and propose measures such as a people's constitutional convention and the abolition of the CIA. Throughout the essays collected in this short volume, he repeatedly emphasized the militarism that has dominated the political establishment since the end of World War 2 as a critical issue that would eventually unravel the threads holding the American Empire together. Thus far history seems to be confirming his conclusions, as the Empire persists in expending the bulk of its wealth and lives on a series of unwanted military occupations, "regime changes," and corporate welfare programs, while deteriorating conditions at home continue to subject vast segments of the population to abject poverty and the sense of powerlessness fostered by the media and disinterested politicians continues to foster the growth of racism, paranoia, religious fundamentalism, and violence.(less)
Sharon Smith's "Subterranean Fire" reviews the history of the labor movement from the late 1800s to the second Bush's administration. Smith's work off...moreSharon Smith's "Subterranean Fire" reviews the history of the labor movement from the late 1800s to the second Bush's administration. Smith's work offers valuable insight into the trends that shaped the rise of unions near the beginning of the twentieth century and the factors that contributed to their ongoing decline. She also presents a more complete picture of the working class' struggles, and points out the persistence of rank-and-file activists even during periods of apparent retreat by large unions like the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters. The picture that results is one of a recurring cycle of repression and rebellion, where the ruling class increasingly exploits and intimidates the working class until it eventually pushes to far, and the workers begin to organize and fight back. Smith also reviews the various tactics that the ruling class has used to contain these rebellions, such as the anti-Communist hysteria that followed the second world war, the efforts by the Democratic Party to capture and contain the momentum driving popular progressive movements, and contemporary efforts to use fearmongering and the threat of terrorism to further expand repression and distrust and curtail the right to organize and resist further exploitation. She concludes by describing the crisis that workers in the US, and around the world, now face: either working people in the US continue to allow the ruling class to divide them against each other by nationality, gender, sexuality, and race until their living standards fall to those of a "third-world" nation, or they reverse the balance of class forces by uniting in solidarity in the fight to raise the living standards of the poorest workers at home and around the world.(less)
The title of Norman Finklestein's latest book on the Israeli occupation of Palestine is a direct quote from a column written by Haaretz's Gideon Levy...moreThe title of Norman Finklestein's latest book on the Israeli occupation of Palestine is a direct quote from a column written by Haaretz's Gideon Levy regarding the international community's response to Israel's brutal assault on Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. The implicit argument in Levy's column is also the central theme of Finkelstein's book: the worldwide public response to Israel's massacre of 1,400 Palestinians, 800 of whom were civilians and 400 of whom were women and children, in “Operation Cast Lead” marks a turning point away from unconditional approbation of Israel's occupation of Palestine. Prior to the massacre in Gaza, politicians and media spokespersons had been largely successful at silencing or marginalizing any criticism of Israel's militarism and of US backing for it. While the political and media establishments were still quick to rush to Israel's defense this time, they were unable to keep all criticisms out of the mainstream debate, particularly when the United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned Justice Richard Goldstone, a liberal Zionist, and a team of investigators to determine whether the laws of war were violated in Israel's assault. In “'This Time We Went Too Far,'” Professor Finkelstein examines what prompted Israel to subject a defenseless population to “22 days of death and destruction” (to quote the title of Amnesty International's first report on the assault) and how Israel's failure to silence the international outcry raises the possibility of reaching a viable solution that allows everyone to enjoy peace, security, and human dignity.
Anyone remotely familiar with the recent history of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories knows better than to accept Israel's claim that “Operation Cast Lead” was undertaken in self defense in response to Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel. Still, the incredible disparity between Hamas' homemade rockets and Israel's sophisticated air and ground forces aside, even impartial human rights agencies frequently present these attacks as though they take place in a political vacuum. To remedy this, Finkelstein devotes the beginning of his book to the recent history of Israel's occupation of Gaza, and maintains that “Operation Cast Lead” was only a defensive conflict from the point of view of Hamas and the residents of Gaza. In addition to the slow strangulation of Gazan society with a crippling blockade, Israeli forces have repeatedly launched attacks on Gaza even after pulling out their illegal settlements in 2005. Moreover, it was Israel who first broke the ceasefire in November 2008 when it launched a bloody border raid—prior to this Hamas had refrained from launching rockets into Israel since Egypt had brokered a ceasefire in June.
If the assault on Gaza was not, as Israel's apologists in the mainstream press still maintain, a defensive operation, then that leaves us with the question of what Israel's real reasons for the operation were. This is the question that Finkelstein devotes the next section of his book to, and based on statements by Israeli officials and arguments advanced by its apologists, he proposes two complementary motives behind the attacks. The first should sound familiar to those who have sought an explanation for the United States' occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan: Israel was seeking to restore its regional hegemony by demonstrating its willingness and its ability to visit terror on a militarily weaker opponent. After its humiliating defeat by Hezbollah in 2000 and again in 2006, Israeli officials began to fear that their ability to intimidate the Arab world into submitting to its whims had been compromised. Just as a neighborhood bully will try to “make an example” out of one of their weakest victims, Israel deliberately rained down fire on a defenseless population in an effort to convince its neighbors that it is still willing and able to respond to the slightest “provocation” with “disproportionate force” (a political euphemism for the “lunatic doctrine” that Bush and his cohorts were so fond of, and that Obama has yet to challenge).
The second reason that Finkelstein proposes to explain Israel's willingness to attack the people of Gaza was an effort to head off a “peace offensive” by Hamas. The phrase “peace offensive” should also be familiar to those who are familiar with the history of the Israeli occupation, as it is frequently used by Israeli officials when they fear that Palestinian leaders may be willing to settle for the peace mandates supported by the international community, including the more unreasonable clauses that Israel has managed to introduce into the proposals (i.e. a two-state settlement with full recognition of Israel's “right to exist” as a “Jewish state”). Whenever Israel fears that support for such a settlement is growing among the Palestinian leadership or the Arab community, it attempts to undermine this support by instigating (or, failing that, initiating) armed violence in the Occupied Territories or on one of its other borders. In the past, this has allowed Israel to refuse to pursue peace negotiations while still claiming to be merely defending itself.
As Finkelstein points out, Israel met with limited success in its efforts to demonstrate its military prowess and regional superiority. On the one hand, its decision to attack a population that it knew was incapable of inflicting any serious casualties among its own forces merely highlighted the nation's decline as a military power. On the other hand, the international community strengthened its calls for a peaceful termination of the military occupation, and the Palestinian leadership has thus far continued to cooperate with the United Nations. As a result, Israel has actually weakened its position and isolated itself from many of its former supporters.
After reviewing the rationales behind Israel's devastating attack on Gaza, Finkelstein discusses what could be considered the “second phase” of the Israeli operation—i.e. the battle for public support. By counterpoising reports by multiple human rights organizations, impartial observers, and even statements made by Israeli officials against Israeli's claims that it adhered carefully to the laws of war and that its forces made every effort to avoid civilian casualties, Finkelstein demonstrates the near total failure of the Israeli government to conceal the reality of the massacre. In addition to intentionally targeting civilians, Finkelstein points out that Israeli forces attacked several critical elements of Gaza's already weakened infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, factories, water and sewage facilities, and numerous homes, all in the absence of any evidence that these buildings were housing armed combatants or posed any strategic threat to Israeli soldiers. This leads to the conclusion that, if the weapons and training used by the Israel Defense Force (IDF) allow anything near the level of precision claimed by Israel itself, then it must have been targeting these nonmilitary targets deliberately.
The fundamental problem with Israel's propaganda efforts was not a lack of resources, Finkelstein contends, but that the scale of the massacre was too incredible to hide behind a public relations campaign. When it realized that its traditional assertions, such as claims that Hamas was using “human shields” and that the IDF is the “most moral army in the world” would not silence or marginalize its growing numbers of critics, Israel immediately began resorting to intimidation and minimization. Similar to the way the Bush administration responded to the revelation that US forces had been torturing prisoners in its prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba, Israeli officials attempted to portray their more egregious crimes as “isolated incidents” brought on by a few “rotten apples.” Additionally, officials continued to bar human rights investigators from organizations like Amnesty International and B'Tselem from entering Gaza. When the Israeli organization of IDF veterans Breaking the Silence published a report containing the testimonies of roughly thirty soldiers who participated in “Operation Cast Lead,” the Israeli foreign ministry responded by calling on the European governments who supported the organization to terminate their funding. As Finkelstein documents, neither the intimidation nor the scapegoating succeeded in stifling the criticisms of Israel's conduct. In addition to the investigation commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council, perhaps one of the most significant reports to come out of investigations into Israel's attack on Gaza was Amnesty International's description of foreign arms suppliers to Israel and Palestine that ended with an unprecedented call for a “comprehensive UN Security Council arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups .”
After describing his personal experiences in Gaza after the massacre, where he found that the brutality of the attack had still failed to deter the people's determination to demand security and human dignity or Hamas' willingness to work with the international community to reach a peaceful settlement, Finkelstein describes the dramatic effects of the attack on worldwide public opinion. While various political leaders continued to voice their unconditional support for Israel's militarism, the public everywhere responded with an unprecedented level of outrage. Even in the United States, where both the political establishment and the mainstream media continue to serve the interests of their “Junior Partner” in the Middle East unwaveringly, Finkelstein cites a survey indicating that voters who considered themselves supporters of Israel dropped from 69 to 49 percent, while those who felt that the US should back Israel dropped from 69 to 44 percent. Finkelstein also points out important changes in the demographics of those who have begun to question Israel's claims. He notes that the organizations calling for a peaceful resolution to Israel's conflict with the Palestinian people have begun to demonstrate a great deal of racial, gender, and age diversity, including large numbers of Jewish individuals. This growing number of both Jewish and mainstream supporters of a peaceful settlement has slowly begun to undermine claims made by the likes of Alan Dershowitz and Abraham Foxman that concern for the Palestinian people is somehow linked to a “new anti-Semitism.” Even a small number of liberal Zionists have begun to oppose the “Israel lobby,” in some cases defending others who do so against charges of racism and anti-Semitism.
Finkelstein sees the widespread outrage over “Operation Cast Lead” and the growing willingness among mainstream commentators to question the claims made by Israel's apologists as symptoms of a major shift in worldwide public opinion. As the once unanimous support for Israel's military adventures continues to encounter larger pockets of resistance, the possibility of bringing peace and justice to Palestine becomes more real and plausible. Although the struggle to convince Israel to accept the international consensus and atone for its crimes against the Palestinian people will by no means be a minor one, the possibility of seeing both Palestinians and Jews living together in peace and fellowship is closer now than ever before.(less)
This book is a great resource for anyone attempting to generate their own models. Be careful, though, because while the text provides the tools to bui...moreThis book is a great resource for anyone attempting to generate their own models. Be careful, though, because while the text provides the tools to build a model, it doesn't necessarily provide as much information about the model's epistemological foundations. The book also comes with a CD containing code for the models in MatLab, C and even Octave (which makes life much easier for open-source users like me who haven't gotten around to learning C yet).(less)
The United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "[k:]illing members of the group; Causing...moreThe United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "[k:]illing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [d:]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [i:]mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [f:]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group" with intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." According to Herman and Peterson, a more honest rendition of the Convention would include the qualifier "provided the party responsible for said actions is not acting on behalf or under the direction of the United States, its NATO allies, or a client state." In other words, the label "genocide" is frequently employed by politicians, the media, intellectuals, and human rights NGOs in reference to crimes committed by official enemies of the United States and rarely---if ever---in reference to massacres perpetrated by the US or its clients and allies. The authors maintain that this is as true now as it was when the Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951.
To support their conclusion, Herman and Peterson review fourteen of the most recent slaughters perpetrated by a state or major political body and classify them as "Constructive Genocides," "Nefarious Genocides," "Benign Bloodbaths," or "Mythical Bloodbaths" based on whether the responsible parties' were respectively the US elites themselves, their enemies, their allies or clients, or---again---their enemies. In the category of "Constructive Genocides," the authors list the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003, which killed an estimated 800,000 civilians with a ratio of 10,000 deaths for every one time the word "genocide" appeared in print, and the US-UK invasion and occupation, which killed an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis with a ratio of 76,923 deaths for every time the word genocide appeared in print. Under "Nefarious Genocides," on the other hand, they list---with 300,000 dead and a death/genocide ratio in the press of 256 to 1--- the Darfur wars and killings, the killings of Bosnian Muslims---33,000 deaths and 69 to 1 deaths per instances of "genocide"---Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Albanians---4,000 reported deaths and a ratio of 12 to 1--- in Kosovo, reports of a Hutu massacre of 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda---in reality, according to the authors, the Hutu were the victims of a violent coup perpetrated by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front which orchestrated several massacres throughout the country---while numerous massacres---5,400,000 deaths and a ratio of deaths to "genocide" in the press of 317,647 to 1---by US clients in the Democratic Republic of Congo were largely ignored by politicians and the media. The number of "unworthy victims" killed in so-called "Benign Bloodbaths," which include Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, Croatia's Operation Storm, Dasht-e-Leili in Afghanistan, Turkey's vs. Iraq's treatment of their Kurdish populations, Indonesia's massacre of East Timorese, and widespread state terror and mass killings in Guatemala and El Salvador. Finally, the authors argue that the massacre at Račak is entirely unsubstantiated, and therefore place it in the "Mthical Bloodbaths" category.
One of the most disturbing trend is the frequency with which various alternative media and Non-Governmental Organizations like Amnesty International apply the same official standard of one-way applicability as mainstreams intellectuals, the commercial media, and the United Nations when determining whether violence qualifies as genocide. Apparently even NGOs can sometimes be seduced by economic or other factors into adopting the same stance as the traditional segments of the official establishment, to the detriment of countless victims of genocide and other crimes against humanity who will probably never find justice. Anyone who is concerned about the injustice and violence that seems to dominate much of the world today should take the time to read this short book. It underscores the pressing need for people to hold the political and media institutions accountable for what they say and demand that they stop distorting the truth by hiding their actions behind misleading language and twisted rhetoric.(less)
A brief collection of some of Trotsky's important letters and articles regarding fascism, this pamphlet offers a brief introduction to the nature of f...moreA brief collection of some of Trotsky's important letters and articles regarding fascism, this pamphlet offers a brief introduction to the nature of fascism, the conditions that give rise to it, and the strategy of resisting it through a "united front." Based on his observations of the growth of National Socialism (i.e. fascism) in Italy, Germany, Spain, and France, Trotsky concludes that fascism is a mass movement based primarily in petite bourgeoisie and backed by the big capitalist powers. Trotsky identifies a twofold set of conditions that allowed fascism to take hold in Europe: 1) the disorientation and desperation (primarily among the petite bourgeoisie) brought on by the abrupt end of capitalism's growth phase and 2) the absence or failure of a genuinely revolutionary workers' party that offers both the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie the hope of escape from the grasp of the bourgeoisie. Accordingly, Trotsky assigns a fair proportion of the blame for the rise of fascism in Europe to the leaders of the Communist parties, the Comintern, and the leaders of the social democratic parties who betrayed the workers' revolutions in Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. Trotsky links fascism to the reactionary backlash that followed these aborted revolutions, and counterpoises against the notion of the Communist Party as a form of revolutionary hope the notion of fascism, as a mass movement, as a form of revolutionary despair.
In light of the social foundation upon which fascism rests, Trotsky emphasizes the need for a united front led by a revolutionary proletarian party (as the vanguard of the proletarian class) against fascism. In order for the proletariat to inspire confidence among the petite bourgeoisie, however, the revolutionary movement must first possess confidence in itself. This means that the party must be lead by genuine revolutionaries from the working class who possess the commitment and the strategic capacity to build on and encourage the workers' revolutionary initiative. Trotsky also points up the need for solidarity and for the workers to defend themselves against violence from the fascist. Given the level of violence that workers face, he proposes the development of workers' militias and then systematically dismantles the most common oppositions offered to such a proposal. The final sections of the pamphlet discuss the situation in the United States at the time, and Trotsky warns that the same conditions that gave rise to fascism in Europe have already appeared in nascent form in the US. While his prediction of the length of time that the "war economy" could be used to forestall the radicalization of the working classes proved overly optimistic (Trotsky predicted that this delay could not be of "long duration," whereas the capitalist powers in the US have managed to maintain the military economy since the build-up to World War 2), the severe crisis which capitalism has recently entered into, coupled with the rise of the "Tea Party Patriots," the mainstream media's glorification of "Minutemen" vigilante mobs along the US-Mexican border, the vitriolic backlash against even the slightest measures to alleviate the poverty of the working class, the growth of Christian fundamentalism and the demonization of Muslims, and the absence of an independent workers' party, let alone a revolutionary party, all combine to create conditions similar to those described by Trotsky as the grounds from which a fascist movement grows. As Trotsky observes, the most effective way to counter these trends is to build the revolutionary party.(less)