Rebel

by Douglas Carswell

Politics has never been more unpredictable. Radical populists and insurgents have turned politics-as-usual on its head. Rebel explores how we got here, where we are heading and what we can do about it. Douglas Carswell argues that these insurgencies are a reaction against the emergence of a political and economic oligarchy that has subverted our democracy and stifled our market system. "Politics," he writes, "is a cartel. Like the economy, it is rigged in the interests of an emerging oligarchy." This leaves our liberal, democratic order – the mechanism that has allowed a historically unprecedented proportion of humanity to flourish – facing a twin assault: oligarchs on the one hand, radical populists on the other. Reassessing history and politics, Rebel puts forward a bold new thesis: we are not the first to face such a threat. Oligarchic cartels have clogged the arteries of nations and economies throughout history, triggering radical insurgencies in protest. But all too often the radicals have strengthened the hand of the oligarchs: the Roman, Venetian and Dutch republics all succumbed to cartels. "Anti-oligarch radicals," the author notes, "have often made the oligarchs seem the more attractive option." So, too, today, he suggests. In the face of these twin threats, Carswell mounts a robust defence of the liberal, democratic order. Drawing on his first-hand experience in taking on – and beating – the established political parties, he proposes a profound reform of politics and capitalism to free us from the cartels, listing the practical steps needed to make this revolutionary change happen.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Activism

384 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2018

Reviews

[Kyle Marvin]

Interesting read. I found myself violently agreeing with him on some points but just as strongly disagreeing on others. I agree with the fact that our governments are largely controlled at this point by vested interests I just disagree large his prescriptions for a solution. Bottom up government where individuals are free to make their own choices sounds good on paper but I find most people seem interested in politics only to the degree that it has a personal impact on them. The response in America to the pandemic also hasn't left me with a great deal of faith that people will choose larger good over their own self interests and desires. He beats the drum against popular media but doesn't say where people can find reliable information and making up your own truths certainly isn't the answer either. While Carswell as the first member of English parliament to represent UKIP, he largely denounces populists like Farage and Trump.

[Rachel Welton]

This started off well identifying problems within historical societies that caused the inequality of wealth distribution, such as greedy monarchs or churches. As the book continued, it became clear that the author was cherry picking data and information to back his opinions. He is exclusively concerned with progress as defined by monetary changes, and ignores other measures such as happiness indicators or work life balance changes. He has no understanding of environmental issues, dismissing them as radical environmentalism. A better understanding might have been to bring up the Travesty of the Commons, or the overfishing of our oceans, or other pertinent examples of how things go wrong when everybody's self interest is allowed free rein. He is under the impression that an acre of grazed, degraded grassy monoculture is the same as an acre of primary thriving rainforest.
He praises the economic leaps during the industrial revolution as due to free trade eg in the cotton industry, whilst failing to mention the poverty and hardship imposed on Indians as their livelihoods were stripped away.
He dismisses historical exploitation and unfairness as pessimism - throwing everything from slavery, mysogeny and racism into that category.
Finally, and unsurprisingly, his views on the EU have major gaps in understanding. He criticises EU standards as crushing innovation rather than providing a level playing field. Why, he asks, can we not allow every country to set their own standards for product approval? Um, really, Douglas? Two seconds thought would show you why this is a bad idea. Multiple standards mean poor quality goods would be sold alongside safer products. Which section of society would buy the less safe goods, which would naturally cost less? Hmm?
This book is generally disappointing because it slips from history into propaganda, and lacks the rigor of a convincing argument.

[Craig Cooley]

Interesting take on current political situation. Helped me understand how people could vote for brexit and Donald Trump. Suggested interesting remedies for our current problems but I found them draconian and in my opinion not workable. He did provide an interesting way of looking at what made societies thrive and what makes them shrivel. I believe in this regard he has made worthwhile contributions. Also invoked interesting and varied history to substantiate his points. He is obviously well versed in economic and political history. I would say worth the read. For me it was educational but not always persuasive.

[Christian Oltra]

Obra divulgativa no académica sobre las causas del progreso social y el desarrollo económico en las sociedades. Al estilo de "Por qué fracasan los países", el autor explica cómo la presencia de elites e instituciones extractivas, soportadas por ideas anti-libertad y anti-comercio impiden el desarrollo del comercio, la especialización y la división del trabajo. El autor recalca la importancia de las ideas en la forma de las instituciones. A veces simplista, pero los ejemplos de Venecia y Los Países Bajos son muy ilustrativos. Una lectura bastante recomendable.

[Ben Garrett]

It was interesting in places, especially the discussion of the past systems and how empires rose and fell, but beyond that it was mainly an attempt at downplaying poverty and the impoverished in today’s society as “oH bUt ThEy HaD iT mUcH wOrSe In ThE pAsT”. No shocks from a Tory MP. There were some interesting points about the rise of populism but in the end it was a lot of drivel

[Rupert Matthews]

Douglas Carswell has an axe to grind - which makes thsi book far more enjoyable and interesting than most of the political books that I plough my way through. I flew through the well-written pages ennjoying every single insult, gibe and sarcastic thrust that Carswell hurled at those he blames for the miseries of mankind.

Carswell's main point - admirably made with numerous historical exampales - is that the people in power have a tendency to feather their own nests not only at the expense of others, but even if that means ultimately reducing the amount of prosperity in the society they rule and thus making themselves poorer. That tendency can be halted, but only if power is diffused through society so that the elites do not have the power to rush headlong into economic suicide.

He then shows how there are chilling indications that our Western society is starting on the road to disaster.

Well-written, well-argued, well-thought out. Doesn't mean he's correct of course, but make your own mind up.

[Mr. AJ Curtis]

Assertive, well researched and interesting.

There are few, I suspect, who would be able to claim to believe in all of Douglas Carswell's ideas, but the mere fact that these ideas exist can be seen as proof that his central point about knowledge being cumulative, and emerging from a self governing society, as some what true.

So whether you agree with these ideas or not, I imply you to read them, because they are new, fresh and may hold the only key we have to actually improving politics.

[Chris Bowley]

Much of this book will not be a surprise to those that follow Douglas Carswell. The things that piqued my interest were primarily historical - insights into the end of the Roman empire, Dutch and Venetian history and why UK politics is organised around parties. Much of the current situation has happened before and will happen again.

[Brook Dixon]

Was really excited to read this book. Indeed, it presents revolutionary thinking most welcome. But this novelty was undermined by manifold weaknesses and eccentricities. Dubious logic, egregious economic analysis, irrelevant/interminable historical detours, and maddening condescension. Did anyone edit this manuscript? I’m not convinced.

[Grim-Anal King]

I found myself largely agreeing with the author, but this book badly needed editing. There was far too much repetition amid a host of typographical errors. "American's" came in for particular butchering.

[Mr. Ronald]

Think and do for yourself

DC is the brains behind Dan Hannan. His analysis is well done and he does not JSU away from presenting ideas to resolve the problems.

[Trinity]

Insane capitalistic free-market hawk propagandising with no introspection of own (very apparent) biases.