Buku kecil ini merupakan pamplet yang pertama kalinya diterbitkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Paterson Anarchist Collective, ia dialih bahasa ke dalam BahasaBuku kecil ini merupakan pamplet yang pertama kalinya diterbitkan pada tahun 1993 oleh Paterson Anarchist Collective, ia dialih bahasa ke dalam Bahasa Indonesia pada tahun 2019 dan boleh didapati di anarkis.org. Naskah yang saya terima merupakan bentuk cetakan yang dihadiahkan oleh komrad Benz Ali ketika saya membeli bukunya. Makalah ini cuba untuk membela pemikiran seorang tokoh anarkis tersohor, Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin yang pemikirannya banyak diperolok dan dipermain-mainkan. Saya secara peribadi merasakan ia tidaklah begitu berjaya untuk menyampaikan objektif tersebut, sekurang-kurangnya pada pandangan peribadi saya, ada perkara yang saya setuju, dan ada juga perkara yang akan saya persoalkan dan kritikkan. Mungkin ada komrad dan teman anarkis yang tidak bersetuju dengan kritikan dan tafsiran saya, maka terpulanglah ia untuk dikritik balas, dijawab, dan dipanjangkan perdebatan.
Saya banyak mendapat pendedahan idea-idea anarkis melalui pembacaan dan syarahan Chomsky dan Zinn, namun setiap kali saya memikirkan perihal ideologi kiri, sama ada dalam bentuk anarkis, sosialis, atau komunis, saya sering terpanggil semula ke perbincangan saya bersama Francis di tepi Sungai Gombak pada tahun 2019. Ideologi dan pemikiran lahir pada zamannya, pada keadaan politik dan sosialnya, kita boleh menerima sesuatu ideologi pada peringkat teori, namun apabila sampai kepada peringkat praktis dan praxis ia perlu disesuaikan dengan keadaan dan zaman terkini. Perkara ini dipersetujui oleh sarjana Marxis tersohor seperti Prof. Richard Wolff, pada beliau sosialis perlu berkembang, belajar dari eksperimen sosialis yang gagal, tidak mengulanginya, dan berubah kepada sosialis-sosialis baru yang sesuai dengan norma masyarakat kini.
Pada awal kajian, bacaan, dan penelitian saya, saya mempunyai perspektif yang khilaf, saya cuba untuk mendapatkan satu definisi kepada terma-terma seperti komunis, sosialis, dan anarkis, namun apabila saya bertemu syarahan-syarahan Prof. Richard Wolff baru saya sedar ia tidak mempunyai definisi yang statik, ia punya banyak tafsiran dan banyak bentuk. Idea-idea Bakunin mungkin tidak sama dengan idea anarkis Chomsky, ia tidak bermaksud bahawa Chomsky kurang anarkis dari Bakunin, tidak. Ia bermaksud bahawa idologi anarkis berubah secara dialektik seiring perubahan keadaan dan zaman. Mungkin ini bacaan asli anarkis kedua yang saya baca selepas membaca Zine Dari Johor yang diterbitkan oleh Kolektif Naratif, sebuah kolektif tempatan.
Daoud is not like his other sibling, whilst his sibling remained as villagers, Daoud attended school and has a command in English which later help himDaoud is not like his other sibling, whilst his sibling remained as villagers, Daoud attended school and has a command in English which later help him. He went out of Sudan to search for a better job in Egypt, and tried to enter Israel. But he was later deported and flied back to his home country during the war.
This is the first book I read about the genocide that took place in Darfur, I cannot help but find that what Daoud described in his memoir draw a parallel line with what Israel does to Palestinian, drive people out from their homeland with unspeakable brutality, depopulated villages, so they can control the land without having to think about the people. The tragedies he described were horrific, vivid, you can't stop thinking whether human can really turn into something like that, a war machine, killing what in sight without mercy. But despite all this horrors, Daoud wrote passionately with love and tenderness, navigating readers back to goodness after witnessing so much evil, he help explain the situation without sacrificing the goodness nature in human being. He wrote with a soft and loving language so that readers can see through the human side of the conflict....more
The key take-away from this book is democracy does not necessarily the same as liberalism. Fareed Zakaria brilliantly draw a line between democracy anThe key take-away from this book is democracy does not necessarily the same as liberalism. Fareed Zakaria brilliantly draw a line between democracy and liberalism (which in politic take a shape of liberal constitutionalism). What does this mean? It means that democracy still can exist in non-liberal framework or in other word you can have an illiberal democracy.
The book described very briefly the history of liberty which Zakaria claimed, started when Constantine move his capital from Rome to Byzantium, creating a strong church in Rome which prevent the emperor to consolidate power unchecked. But of course its a little bit funny to start a history from there, as if there is no liberty before Constantine.
He also pointed out how democratization does not only impacting our political system but was spread into cultural realm, economic system, and even professional jobs like lawyers, accountant etc. It has become a new way of life.
But democratization is not without negative effect, it corrodes authority, and open-up the institution to public pressure including from lobbying group. It makes the institution harder to pass a policy for the future as the policy-maker trying to gain public support which often short-termed. Failing which, will make them lose office and voted out.
Citing a well respected non-democratic institution such as the court and federal reserve, Zakaria offer less-democracy as a solution to the democratic problems. He advocated for delegated democracy instead of direct democracy.
The book was praised by Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis, and Henry Kissinger - which gave you an idea on what's the book's ideology is about - American Exceptionalism. Although the intellectual argument is well presented, the ideological narrative is hard to swallow. I nearly puked when in the last chapter he wrote "My favorite story about the war in Iraq..". How can there be a favorite story of a war that killed over a million people? (some estimate put over a million - exact figure almost impossible to get)....more
In this book, Bremmer put forward his thesis that the world is moving toward a leaderless world, a world where no single nation or group of nations caIn this book, Bremmer put forward his thesis that the world is moving toward a leaderless world, a world where no single nation or group of nations can impose anything to other states to coordinate international response and solve global problems. He termed this new world G-Zero, as opposed to the grouping of established power which created a club of G7- a club of 7 powerful nation.
The G7 has diminishing power as the U.S. power slowly wane off and the EU disintegrates, while a much larger club like the G20 produces nothing of substance. On contrary, we have a number of emerging nations assuming greater economic and political power on the global arena, but none of them was capable or willing to assume global leadership.
The book also is dense with ‘American exceptionalism’ which made it non-objective and highly political. Some of it was not based on fact but on assumption. For example, in discussing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Bremmer wrote that “Iran join the club but cheat”. No evidence cited for this accusation, instead, in the following line he said Iran “generally assumes” to be hiding its nuclear weapons program. So, this accusation is not based on fact but an assumption.
Closing the book, Bremmer comes out with what the future might look like. The future according to Bremmer depends on the U.S., China, and the other countries. This book was written in 2012, whilst this review was written in 2019. So, we already in the future and can look back at Bremmer proposed image of the future.
Bremmer suggested 4 possibilities, judging from the current world affairs the most suitable candidate will be the “Wold of Regions” where the emerging countries become stronger whilst the U.S. and China relationship becoming more hostile. We can see the trade war currently brewing between these two superpowers, with tariff been imposed on each other and the growing tension on Huawei expanding their technological reach. While other countries climbing the global political ladder. Even the U.S. sanction on Venezuela is not working as India continue to buy Venezuelan oil. Whilst Turkey ignored U.S. threat and continue purchasing Russian missiles system.
Bremmer concludes the book on looking at the U.S. fate in the G-Zero world. He ends the book with his last touch of American exceptionalism saying that the U.S. always has a second act and can rise again. To do this they need to accept the world as it is and innovate to adapt.
His analysis is very shallow, he touched a point and quickly move to the next one. And because of his commitment to free-market and American-exceptionalism doctrine, I can only give 3 stars....more
As Howard Zinn brilliantly puts it “you cannot be neutral on a moving train”. This book was written from the perspective of American’s interest on whyAs Howard Zinn brilliantly puts it “you cannot be neutral on a moving train”. This book was written from the perspective of American’s interest on why they are losing their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The short answer is that America don’t have a clear quantifiable objective. Now, let’s deplore the long answer as Michael Scheuer puts it.
Scheuer was part of American intelligence community in the CIA specializing in Osama bin Laden, he uses his insight and specialty to argue the reason for the American failure and the options it had to move forward. The central thesis of his book is that the animosity the Muslim world had with America and its allies is not because of the values they hold dear, such as democracy, representative government, feminism, women empowerment, gender intermingling etc. While Islam may disapprove these values, they are not the reason why people are blowing up themselves. The real reason Scheuer argues, were specific policies such as attacks on their brethren, occupying Muslim lands, support given to corrupt tyrannies, and unconditional support towards Israeli brutal aggression on Palestinians.
Since the demolition of Ottoman Caliphate by the British in 1924, there is no central authority to wage offensive Jihad. But defensive Jihad is an individual responsibility that does not need authorization from anyone, once the religion is under attack it becomes an individual responsibility for each Muslims to defend the religion using whatever power he had.
Commenting on Afghanistan, Scheuer attributed the failure to the failing of America to learn from history. In what he called ‘the checkable’ which America should do before they enter Afghanistan. The vast amount of resources was not utilized, America failed to learn from history even though America has a vast knowledge to be tap with its 13-years program of supporting the mujahideen pushing back the Soviet. The biggest mistake was the American initiative to install secular democracy, a foreign idea to Afghanistan’s tribal tradition.
His thesis, that Muslim is not a mindless terrorist, but a human being that responds to specific aggression by America and the west echo the same conclusion that have been drawn by legendary journalist, Robert Fisk.
At the end of the book, Scheuer concludes that American left with only two choices. The first, it changes its foreign policies towards the Muslim world, by withdrawal from their current aggression, stop supporting tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world, and do justice to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The second option, retain the status quo policies and prepared to shed more American blood and drain national treasures....more
Its a good book I would say, which touched on how modern British Establishment came about. Jones gave a fair criticism to both Tories and Labour, in wIts a good book I would say, which touched on how modern British Establishment came about. Jones gave a fair criticism to both Tories and Labour, in what he called 'a shared mindset'. Starting with the outriders formulating a free market ideology as a framework, which then picked up by the media for mass proliferation, free market ideology Jones argued have become the new normal. But its a sham, as the financial crisis in 2007-2008 have shown, deregulation ruined the economy. And at the end, public money is been used to save the banks - the new capitalism as said by Jones, is indeed socialism for the rich.
In conclusion, as opposed to binary thinking, he argued that rejecting this new normal is not statism, but a new democratic revolution, which gave a fair voice to all, including workers, and an end to corporation intervention and lobbying in politics. The book ends with a quote from Frederick Douglass, which is a brilliant way to end a book. Bravo!...more
This book is cleverly written. If you have read Freakonomics, this book follows similar method but applied it onto politics. It gave reader practical This book is cleverly written. If you have read Freakonomics, this book follows similar method but applied it onto politics. It gave reader practical understanding using simple argument which make sense and does not elaborate much on theory. It debunked the conventional wisdom and presents the problem in a much simpler way. I think this is the quality of good books, they talk about complex topic in a simple way which make sense.
The book offer different perspective to understand politics, instead of using moral, ideology, and national interest, the book takes us on different road. To look into politic in the sense of power struggle, by which leader behave to make sure that they have the power and stay in power. The idea is very much like what Machiavelli proposed, looking at politics simply as the game of political survival.
Some people might argue that its an inhumane way on looking into politics. But in the end, politics played by its rule, not by what we want it to be, and if we fail to accept it, we will most probably fail....more
The central thesis of this book is that Liberal Democracy constitutes the last political system of a very long human history, this according to FukuyaThe central thesis of this book is that Liberal Democracy constitutes the last political system of a very long human history, this according to Fukuyama marked the end of history. He clarified that this does not mean the end of events that will happen in history. The thesis, for me at least, sound plausible but yet to be seen. Recent events shows that, while democracy remains, the liberal aspect might turn out to be decaying, and given rise to populism and illiberal democracy.
I do like how Fukuyama explain his thesis, especially when he dive deep down to the philosophical question such as "the nature of man" tapping the rich mind of previous philosophers such as Hegel, Hobbes, Rousseau and the like. What I don't like however is the kind of American Exceptionalism views that he seems to hold, although this is not so explicit.
The book also have many contradictions. The most serious, I think, was the cyclical nature of history. In the early part of the book he relentlessly try to discredit the theory of cyclical nature of history, especially the one held by ancient Greek philosopher, but at the end of the book he said that after man has been successful in "the bloody battle for pure prestige" and has gotten their rational recognition, they might become complacent with the boring and un-challenging and convenient modern life and re-start the battle of pure prestige. By accepting this line of possibility, he had himself demolished his own thesis. ...more
“it is much safer to be feared than loved” – Nicollo Machiavelli.
A very dark book. A black book for political guidance. Although much of Machiavelli r“it is much safer to be feared than loved” – Nicollo Machiavelli.
A very dark book. A black book for political guidance. Although much of Machiavelli reasoning sounds evil, yet one cannot, but tend to feel that it is practical. The world in the eyes of Machiavelli is not perfect, thus evil doings is always expected especially for a person who aspire to gain and retain power. He avoid lengthy elaboration, his word is precise, easy to understand. No wonder, people find it very powerful, and translated his work into a vast majority of other sector apart from politics.
This book discussed mainly on the American Imperialism in the world. His alternative view on the issue will provoked readers mind and made them questiThis book discussed mainly on the American Imperialism in the world. His alternative view on the issue will provoked readers mind and made them questions the mainstream media.
One of his powerful point is on the consistency of any mass movement to exert change. He noted that the absence of continuity will hamper any change, be it political,economical, social or environmental changes. We should not expect quick victories, and should not fall into despair. In his words:
"Maybe you win something, maybe you don’t, but then you lay the basis for something else, you go on to the next thing”
I think this book is a powerful tool for people, especially for one who devoted their life to promote changes in this worlds. It will also gave readers understanding on the global political power, and in which way the direction is being dictated, and most importantly why. A small, easy-to-read book, yet powerful and thought provoking....more
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguist at MIT, but he was widely popular for his works in the political sphere. Where he along with Howard Zinn were Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguist at MIT, but he was widely popular for his works in the political sphere. Where he along with Howard Zinn were a fierce critics of the US foreign policy. The book discussed in depth the role that the US has played in the international stage, rampaging small countries and using force to dominate the oil reserved.
Chomsky is a bit witty in his remarks, he mark Israel as thug operated by their master, the mafia don, which refers to the US. In his words “when the master speaks, the servant obeys”. This is in light of the optimism that people had when they see that the US now seems to have some consideration for the Palestinian cause. In fact it wasn’t, argued Chomsky. What happen was that the tanks in Palestinian soil seems to interrupt Dick Cheney’s mission. That is why the US politely asked Sharon to withdraw them.
Israel is the American base in the middle east, it supported the US policy and help them to be accomplished. This reason alone, made it valuable to US. For example in 1967 Israel crushed Arab Nationalist, this service is done to ensure that the US influence in the region remain firm, an independent and democratic society in the middle east will undermine US strategic interest. Chomsky also elaborate on how the US consistently blocking the peace settlement, by vetoing the UN resolution. The Geneva Convention also can be seen as a perfect example on how the US is alone in international views. The forth Geneva Convention makes what US and Israel did to the occupied territory a war crime. In 2000 the UN security council voted that the Geneva Convention applies to Israeli Occupation, the vote was 14 to 0, but the US choose to abstained.
What the US used as a pretext to invade other countries seems paradoxical to Chomsky’s thought. They said that it is the ‘war on terror’. Saddam Hussein is a maniac which kills his own people with poison gas, that is why the US need to come and free the Iraqi from this brutal tyrant. The only missing fact is that the tyrant atrocities was done using military equipment supplied by the US. To end terror, Chomsky note “everyone’s worried about stoping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it”. ...more
A very insightful read on post-war Europe and how a continent choose a path of peace and progress by forging a union. EU is far from perfect, with BriA very insightful read on post-war Europe and how a continent choose a path of peace and progress by forging a union. EU is far from perfect, with Britain holding a referendum next month for their Brexit, but at least EU have shown to the world that nationalism breed hatred and war. By forging unity, accept differences and try to find ways working together, EU have done a job which is unthinkable before. Other nation must look closely to their model and try to overcome their national boundaries, creating more than just a trading bloc. But rather a free world, where people can travel, trade, study, work in harmonious way at the same time preserving their local identities. ...more
The biggest social experiment in world was jihua shengyu, which means “planned birth program”, which in turn was a euphemism for a more direct term – The biggest social experiment in world was jihua shengyu, which means “planned birth program”, which in turn was a euphemism for a more direct term – yitai zhengce, “the one child policy”. How on earth this policy was come about? From Mei Fong’s analysis the policy was a result from the failure of policies such as The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution which put a question to the legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party. The solution was to find legitimacy from the economy, so China planned to modernized its economy.
Economy relied largely to production of material goods and consumption of goods, it is hard to increase production drastically, but consumption can be limited by limiting the population. In China, the famous saying is ren tai duo, “too many people”. In theory, when you increase production and decrease consumption, you can achieve higher per capita income. Only society with moral bankruptcy can accept controlling human population in the same way you control other commodities such as coal and grain. According to Mei Fong, only a totalitarian regime can implement such policy, it will be opposed vehemently if it was to applied to a democratic and open society.
Unfortunately, China at the time does not have a strong social science foundation to study the impact and viability of such policy. Demography along with other social science discipline has been abolished after the Cultural Revolution, it was only revived a year after the policy has been started. The biggest social experiment, thus, was made based on a shaky foundation. Because of the lack of social scientist, China turn to their rocket scientist to study the policy. One of them was Song Jian, ballistic missile specialist trained in Russia and protege of Qian Xuesen, the co-founder of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. It turns out that rocket scientist will determine “how many babies women in China could have”.
Predicting population is not an easy business, forecast are based on three factors: birth, death, and migration. Migration and fertility (birth) is hard to predict, the forecast are fairly accurate for 20-30 years, more than that it is as best as guess work, predicting population growth for next 100 years will be in the realm of science fiction.
Mei Fong was born in Malaysia, a descendant of southern Chinese, she was grateful to be born in Malaysia, as Malaysia already modernized when she was born and the practice of abandoning unwanted girls dis not prevalent. But early on she realized how her father prized son over daughters, he long for a son he never had. She works as a journalist for Wall Street Journal and was sent to China as correspondent.
The strongest point of the book from my point of view, is the issues raised by the author on the human effect of the policy, the human cost that needed to be paid for the economic miracle to take place. Mei Fong brought this topic early on with the earth quake which happened at Sichuan, which killed many “only child” of the Chinese family there, the parent become shidu, which means “lost only”. The loss not only a personal lost, with its emotional toll, their social status in society also degenerate as they will have a hard time buying burial plot or entering nursing home at old age. Mei Fong also re-tell the horrifying story on how the policy was enforced, the most devastating story was how Feng Jianmei, a factory worker, was forced to undergo late-term abortion when she was 7-months pregnant, her depressing photo with dead baby by her side shocked the world.
What are the effects of this policy?
One of the effects of this policy is gender imbalance, with family has to have only one child, many opted for a son. There are various ways of achieving this, among them are killing female baby at birth and aborting female foetuses, these measures are called infanticide and gendercide. The shortage of women increased the commodification on women and increase sex trafficking and prostitution. The shortage of women also created a sex doll industry in China, where large human-size doll were manufactured.
The policy also has speed-up China into an aging society, with fewer young working people that need to support growing numbers of old people. As the saying goes “China will grow old before it grows rich”. Although the policy coupled with economic reforms has lifted 500 people above the poverty line, nearly 185 million of its retirees lived with less than a dollar a day. Living as an old people in China is not an easy tasked, with family and clannish values were erased during Cultural Revolution to produces population valuing the state above family, add to this the problem of having only one child to take care of both parent, many old people are left on their own. The policy also re-shaped how people view family structure, some argue that siblings are important as the parent grew old and died, the only child will not have any immediate family relationship left.
The policy also was not monolithic, many rich families can have more kids by paying fines, the one who suffer the most by the brutal enforcement were rural and poor families. The rich also can use birth tourism to have more progeny, they can go to different country to give birth and runs away from paying fines. They also can pay fertility services to have twin and triplets that will be counted as a single birth. Other cruel and bizarre product of the policy is the baby confiscation and child trafficking. China became the largest supplier of babies for adoption to western and American families. The most common cases were babies born without permission was taken by authority, then given to orphanage, before sold to western and international client for adoption.
Although I personally think that the book made a great job especially in elaborating the human impact of the policy, I realized that Mei Fong sees the whole ordeal from western perspective and judge the policy based on western values, she obviously has her bias, but its a good start for people who want to understand the policy, before they embarked into the more detailed academic and scholarly analysis of the policy. ...more
As oppose to many mainstream media - many regards Kissinger as a war criminal. The architect of many US-backed coup and war around the world especiallAs oppose to many mainstream media - many regards Kissinger as a war criminal. The architect of many US-backed coup and war around the world especially during his tenure as national security advisor during Nixon's presidency. The most memorable and shameful of all was the US war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, which minimum estimate put the death toll at at least 4 million people.
Having this fact in mind, it is a hypocrite at a maximum level when in the book, Kissinger mark US role in the global order as "acting for all mankind", he talked about how US would go into war to spread democracy, freedom and its value, while in reality it supported various coup and suppressive regimes for their national interest. But one thing I admire him most, is his effort to justify all wars no matter how shameful it was, even if it was popularly oppose domestically.
The book also show case Kissinger's strong belief in the American Exceptionalism, phrases like "US was not simply a country but an engine of God's plan and epitome of world order", "international society was like a frontier settlement without an effective police force", "America would emerge as the decisive guardian of the global balance and international peace", "American idealism and exceptionalism were the driving forces behind the building of a new international order" was everywhere in the book.
Having said all these, it does not mean that the book lack some good quality in term of knowledge and thought. His explanation on how Europe overcome their war torn countries and resolving to eventually develop Wesphalian system was helpful and easy to understand. His analysis on Japan, China and India will help reader to understand why nations treat their foreign policy differently. Lastly, his conclusion on the rising power of social media also will guide readers on the question why we tend to diverge on the definition of truth....more
It is very interesting to read about Huntington point of view regarding the world politic post cold war. While others such as Thomas Friedman suggest It is very interesting to read about Huntington point of view regarding the world politic post cold war. While others such as Thomas Friedman suggest that increase interaction between cultures as the transportation and communication improves would lead to a more open and universal cultures, Huntington's classic analysis argue that there is no evidence to prove such assumption, in fact it will only catalyze more conflicts. I find this analysis rather pessimist.
Huntington in the book defines identity brilliantly in the book, emphasized the role of religion that shape most of peoples identity and direction in life.In regard of the westernization and modernization, I find a rather fair and plausible argument. Huntington made clear distinction between the two, I do believe the latter one can be achieve even without the former. Embracing Islam is not a statement that reject modernity, people can be modern and civilized without having to embrace western values in totality....more
I loved almost all the arguments made by Fuller in this book. He made an honest, unbiased and critical argument on the role of Islam in war and confliI loved almost all the arguments made by Fuller in this book. He made an honest, unbiased and critical argument on the role of Islam in war and conflict. The book advocates unprejudiced mindset on how we view religion today. I recommend this book to all people with islamophobic mindset, it surely will made you rethink your position. Great work by Graham E. Fuller!...more
Loading...
