Vincent Tijms > Recent Status Updates

I feel terrible sharing this online.

Napoleoni is taking an interesting perspective here, considering Islamic State first and foremost as a nation-building project in the 21st century. This fits with my own 'arrested history' view, but Napoleoni nuances the radicalism of this proposal through comparisons with PLO, Israel and Iran. Food for thought for now. Her description of Muslim longing for the Caliphate also struck with me, and makes sense.

In the third essay, Graeber attempts to explain the appeal of bureaucracy and he follows the road less traveled to do so. It's not just the ideal of impersonal meritocracy, it's that we like the predictability that rules offer and can fear the chaotic nature of play. This way, Graeber manages to connect the anarchist theme of homo ludens with his draft of a critique on bureaucracy.

The second essay in this collection is the worst I've read by Graeber. The question is interesting enough (Why did so much promised technology never materialize?) and Graeber's answer looks to an often ignored aspect (scientific enquiry is determined by social structures and processes). However, the piece isn't grounded with convincing examples and the link with bureaucratic control needed more exploration.

The first essay links bureaucracy and violence. The argument is complex --bureaucracy manages asymmetries in empathy, that are themselves the consequence of power relations, which in turn are justified by violence -- but clear enough. I especially enjoyed Graeber's attempt to connect his analysis to the insurrectionary nature of imagination.

Haptic tattoos, genetically manipulated cannibals, diplomatic performance art and talking Red Bull stickers. And it's dead serious.

Fukuyama argues that the United States outsourced its administration to the judicial system, turning it into exactly the bureaucratic mess that minarchists try to avoid. This heavy dependence on courts is a source of US political decay, he argues.

I looked forward to the comparison between the European and Arab Spring and so was disappointed by how short it was. The idea that political Islam is akin to 19th century nationalism is a good one. I should check out this Ernest Gellner.

After (loosely) discussing Latin America and part of Africa, Fukuyama proceeds to nation building by the contemporary United States. This should be lovely, as he once claimed he was no longer a neoconservative given the leninist tendencies of the Bush administration when it came to "shaping the Middle East". The chapters on South-America and Africa were way too superficial: this one should be more sophisticated.

The explanation for weak institutions in Latin America is not that convincing: while I'm sure the "plantation complex" and consolidated racism matter, the lack of good institutes in the 20th century needs a different explanation (say, the Cold War). Also, why was the US-Mexican war skipped?

Everyone should read at least the chapter on the foundation of US institutions and clientelism. Or at least everyone who wants to make any comment whatsoever on US politics.

The idea of clientelism not being corruption but an early form of accountability makes sense, as does the grounding in reciprocal altruism. However, Fukuyama's case for kin altruism in tribes is weak. Tribal relatedness must have been way too low for this process to be significant.

I've been looking forward to reading this. The setup is already exciting. Quick thoughts:

* Political decay might nuance the End of History hypothesis
* Not addressing the tide of Third Wave democracies is a shame: repatrimonialisation there shapes the global future
* I hope he will discuss the tension between accountability and bureaucracy, e.g. the recent technocratic overtake of Greek democracy

Wow, this is something else. I just finished the first story and it's a rapid fire empathy trip.