Events Books

This writer has a unique style that keeps you up late at night wanting to read more. Good points were made and I appreciated the references to back the information provided.

If you have wondered where this administration came from, Marc Umile does a great job of answering that question. He makes it abundantly clear--with compelling arguments and persuasive evidence--that George W. Bush is neither compassionate nor conservative. It brings to mind the witticism about the meaning of "compassionate conservative": they still won't help you, but they feel really bad about it! Except this guy doesn't feel a thing. Not a thing.

As you read this book, think about the principles that have defined traditional Republicanism: a commitment to balanced budgets, Constitutional government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and keeping the government out of our personal lives. This administration--with its massive federal deficits, its promotion of the Patriot Act, its aggressive wars abroad, and its intrusion into the most intimate aspects of our privacy-- violates all four of those principles.

Mussolini observed that "fascism" could be defined as corporatism, since it represents the merger of big business with big government, a coalition characterized by rampant nationalism and aggressive militarism. The leader is identified with the state, which makes criticism of the leader unpatriotic or even treasonous. Ask yourself where we find ourselves at the beginning of this new millenium. As you will discover here, the situation is more than a little frightening.

My Democrat friend begged me to read one chapter, 'just this one chapter' she said. I was bitten by the information, by Mr. Umile's straight-forward writing style and read the entire book.
His voice is fresh, he's a political independent who tracked down incredible information on Mr. Bush, his family and regime; how can I ignore the facts. Just the facts.
Read this and weep my fellow Republicans.

The remarkable thing about Marc Umile's Bush Unplugged is that it accessible to people from all parts of the political spectrum. Umile's style is conversational, the information easily absorbed. I had fun reading this book even as I shuddered at the implications of the myriad undemocratic, self serving, and downright immoral activities of the folks currently administering The People's affairs. We should ALL read Bush Unplugged - NOW - BEFORE NOVEMBER 2nd!

I'm an avid reader but I tend to focus my attention on the likes of John Grisham and James Patterson. I've never read a political book in my life because I have no interest in,or clue about politics. For this very reason a friend of mine insisted that I read Bush Unplugged and I am so glad I finally took the literary political plunge. I was riveted from the first page,and throughout the book I could not believe what I was reading.I was blown away by what I did not know about the president and his cronies and how these stories are not reported on the evening news.Thanks to MR. Umile's book I feel like my eyes are open and I should spend more time reading about the money and power issues that drive our political figures.I had no clue and always put my trust in our leaders.What a fool I've been. Umile calls himself a "research junkie."I call him a brilliant public servant who opened my eyes.


Lisa Nelson
Montgomery County Pa

David Barsamian asks good questions (he's had years of practice) but it's Arundhati Roy's answers that make this book so rewarding. She combines an impressive knowledge of facts with real commitment and passion.

She doesn't let the interview format get the best of her, turning her responses into lectures. Instead, she is a smart-alec sometimes and just plain smart at other times. Her dedication to making the world a better place is personal, with roots in her childhood in India. As she describes US imperialism, corporate power, and corruption in the Indian government, she ties it all to her own political development. This is an important book, easy to read but very informative and inspiring.

This book is wonderful for those who are already familiar with Roy's work, providing an opportunity for her to reflect on prior work and speak her mind openly. Along with discussion of contemporary issues, such as 9-11, US imperial hegemony, and the Narmada Dam project in India, The Checkbook and the Cruise Missle fleshes out the context of Roy's upbringing in Kerala, India, as well as the deeper motivations behind The God of Small Things, Power Politics and War Talk. David Barsamian, veteran underground media guru, asks fresh, penetrating questions that will keep you interested throughout. A wonderful addition to Roy literature.

Here is everything you've come to know and love of Arundhati Roy - and David Barsamian. Roy's political observations are of an exceptionally acute and pithy intelligence. Her wisdom has a way of turning a phrase completely unique to Roy, yet without losing the common touch. It lashes out in fury at injustice everywhere, yet with compassion as vital and common as sodden sand squishing through barefoot toes on a riverbank.

Despite her success, Roy is quite content to live away from celebrity, in India, which she says maintains a measure of the wildness that has long been put under the bulldozer of Western "progress":

"In India we are fighting to retain a wilderness that we have. Whereas in the West, it's gone. Every person that's walking down the street is a walking bar code. You can tell where their clothes are from, how much they cost, which designer made which shoe, which shop you bought each item from. Everything is civilized and tagged and valued and numbered and put in its place. Whereas in India, the wilderness still exists - the unindocrinated wilderness of the mind, full of untold secrets and wild imaginings. It's threatened, but we're fighting to retain it. We don't have to reconjure it. It's there. It's with us. It's not got signposts all the way. There is that space that hasn't been completely mapped and taken over and tagged and trademarked. I think that's important. And it's important that in India, we understand that it's there and we value it.

Roy expresses a remarkably matter-of-fact courage and an unbiased reason in the face of the rabid nationalism and religious fundamentalism and fanaticism that engenders, among other dark clouds, the nuclear brinkmanship between India and Pakistan.

There is something almost otherwordly about the honesty and modesty of Roy's political discourse, something in her expression so humane and plain-spoken you had despaired ever hearing it again. It is othwordly precisely because it's so obvious, so expected, and yet almost always lacking.

After the smash success of her first novel The God of Small Things, Roy says rather than any of the large publishing houses from which she could have had her pick she chose South End Press to publish her next two books of essays:

"People really imagine that most people are in search of fame or fortune or success. But I don't think that's true. I think there are lots of people who are more imaginative than that. When people describe me as famous and rich and successful, it makes me feel queasy. Each of those words falls on my soul like an insult. They seem tinny and boring and shiny and uninteresting to me. It makes me feel unsuccessful because I never set out to be those things. And they make me uneasy. To be famous, rich, and successful in this world is not an admirable thing. I'm suspicious of it all."

Quintessential Roy, and such a beautiful thought. In its own right, but especially in contrast to the seething, insatiable appetites of capitalist greed. Whatever happened to beautiful thoughts in beautiful minds?

Who else but Roy will say piercing truths we all feel, but cannot quite enunciate such as the fact that all the attention to terrorism today "completely ignores the economic terrorism unleashed by neoliberalism, which devastates the lives of millions of people, depriving them of water, food, electricity. Denying them medicine. Denying them education. Terrorism is the logical extension of this business of the free market. Terrorism is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketeers of war - people who believe that it isn't only the state that can wage war, but private parties as well."

Elsewhere, Roy gives a psychology of terror in which U.S. and U.K. resorts to war in reaction to terrorist strikes actually empower terrorists, because before the terrorist were only weak, wretched and anonymous. Now they can start wars. Now they have their finger on the nuclear button.

This too, vintage Roy:

"In a country like the United States where books like Chomsky's 9-11 are starting to reach wider audiences, aren't people going to feel a bit pissed off that they had no idea about what was going on, and what was being done in their name? If the corporate media continues to be as outrageous in its suppression of facts as it is, it might just lift off like a scab. It might become something that's totally irrelevant, that people just don't believe. Because ultimately, people are interested in their own safety.

"The policies the U.S. government is following are dangerous for its citizens. It's true that you can bomb or buy out anybody that you want to, but you can't control the rage that's building in the world. You just can't. And that rage will express itself in some way or the other. Condemning violence is not going to be enough. How can you condemn violence when a section of your economy is based on selling weapons and making bombs and piling up chemical and biological weapons? When the soul of your culture worships violence? On what grounds are you going to condemn terrorism, unless you change your attitude toward violence?"

I read and very much enjoyed Ms. Roy's book, The God of Small Things. A short time ago I was driving home after having participated in a candle light vigil in support of Cindy Sheehan and our troops in Iraq when I heard a broadcast of a speech she made in Australia. I was so impressed that I immediately ordered the book which contains that speech and other NPR interviews. While I've not had time yet to read the book, the teaser I got from listening to her, tells me that this will be a "5" experience!

Originally titled "The Globalization of Dissent", "The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile" is a series of four interviews with author Arundhati Roy. The interviews, guided conversations, really, are conducted by radio producer David Barsaman. Roy is perhaps best known as the author of the Booker Prize winning novel "The God of Small Things", but she has also written three collections of essays dealing with such various subjects as the corruption of the Indian government, American Imperialism, and nuclear arms proliferation. This book touches on many of these same themes, but also deals with Roy's personal life in a level her essays have not.

The first interview "Knowledge and Power" was conducted in February 2001. As the title suggests, the focus of this interview is on knowledge and power and what both mean to Arundhati Roy. Roy discusses, as she does in her essays, the abuse of power by the Indian government and the arrogance of controlling knowledge. Roy mentions how knowledge can (and has) caused arrogance and corruption in the intellectual elites. Specific instances mentioned include the government letting Enron control and own so much of India's power structure, and the irresponsible destruction caused by the Big Dam projects. This interview paints, in broad strokes, a picture of the overall worldview of Arundhati Roy. This is fantastic stuff. In Roy we discover an intelligent, accomplished, passionate woman who has taken the very human responsibility of trying to make a difference in the world.

The second interview, taken in September 2002, is a much shorter essay. Titled "Terror and the Maddened King", the essay begins with David Barsaman questioning Roy about the charges brought against her because of the novel "The God of Small Things". This interview deals more with Roy's reaction to, and experience with, government bullying. This interview feels as if it is setting up a future discussion, that there is a reason why Roy and others must speak up to the injustices caused by governments and Empires of the world.

In the longest interview, "Privitization and Polarization", Arundhati Roy makes some bold, inflammatory statements. She writes "terrorism is the privitization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war - people who believe that it isn't only the state that can wage war, but private parties as well." (92) She then goes on to say that "Osama Bin Laden and George Bush are both terrorists". To the American reader this is a shocking and even inconceivable. Taken from a different perspective and reading how Roy explains her viewpoint, it is not as unbelievable as it seems. From the viewpoint of one who is against globalization and the bullying of the government of the American Empire, the connections in Roy's logic are understandable. She does make a point, however, to distinguish the American people with the political power machine. This interview was conducted in November 2002.

The final interview was conducted on May 26, 2003. The title here, "Globalizing Dissent", is particularly apt. While it is never stated directly, the primary theme running through this interview is the idea that the globalization of a "world economy", which Roy feels is the globalization of the American economy, is necessarily also globalizing a dissent against that same globalization. This, Roy contends, is why the world is seeing a higher amount of and more intense form of terrorism against the forms of globalization. It is seen against America in Iraq and Roy sees it firsthand in India. In this interview Roy talks about how the terrorism of George Bush in Iraq is doing nothing more than causing more and more of this dissent.

There is very much a strong tone of anti-globalization running through "The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile". Arundhati Roy is against the broad application of power which is wielded by the world's most powerful nation. She feels strongly about looking after all of humanity, not just those with power. Ultimately, that is what Roy is trying to accomplish.

The voice of Arundhati Roy is vitally important, no matter what one's opinion of her message. At the very least it is a point of view which should be seriously considered as an alternative. She makes very good points and argues them passionately and with intelligence. She suffers no fools and has no patience with an argument made from simple nationalism. This is an important voice, but perhaps one that many in the world will find uncomfortable as she argues against many of the foundations of Western Society.

The bottom line is that this book expands and explains Roy's essays and gives a deeper personal look inside the life and mind of an important writer.

-Joe Sherry

This book contains four basic elements that despite the name of the book do not all deal directly with the Chinese Communist Party in power. The first element of the book deals with the political history of P'eng Shu'tse and his wife. The second deals with the theoretical differences between Stalin and Trotsky, P'eng Shu'tse and Mao Tse-tung. A third element deals with the Chinese Communist Party's rise to power. The third element then finally deals with P'eng Shu'tse's analysis of the Chinese Communist Party in power. All of these elements are important to the message of the book so I will try to cover them all briefly here.

Background, The Political History of P'eng Shu'tse

In 1911 the feudal Qing dynasty fell. It had been destroyed by years of humiliating imperialist subjugation as well as having been destroyed by its own feudal backwardness and a yearning of the people for a better society. Included in this subjugation were unfair trade policies and the British militarily enforced selling of opium to the population.

The new capitalist government, however, failed to stand up to imperialism in any meaningful way and left the feudal relations of the countryside intact. As a result, the new government also collapsed and authority disintegrated into the hands of regional warlords under the sway of competing imperialist interests.

It was during this time of chaos, in 1920, that P'eng Shu'tse joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He joined the party at a time when the total failure of capitalism in China was self-evident as was the need to end imperialist subjugation. Communism held a strong appeal in its advocacy for anti-imperialist revolution as well as for worker's power, the smashing of feudal land relations, and for the end of the subjugation of women and youth to the old patriarchal system.

In 1921 P'eng Shu'tse moved to Moscow where he attended the Communist University of the Toilers of the East until 1924. There he was elected and served as secretary of the Moscow branch of the CCP for the time he was there.

At the time of P'eng Shu'tse's attendance at the university the revolutionary government of the Soviet Union was young and had only been born four years earlier of the October 1917 revolution. The revolutionary leadership in power was the Communist Party under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. Joseph Stalin was part of that communist party as well, and he held some power, but he had not yet risen to the position of absolute power that he would later enjoy.

Upon P'eng Shu'tse's return to China in 1924 he published two articles in the CCP's theoretical magazine, New Youth, and the CCP's official organ, New Guide, both of which he became editor of. One was a defense of the Boxer movement of 1900 as an anti-imperialist and not an anti-foreigner movement. Another was on the nature of the coming revolution in China, where he argued that the wealthy classes of China were timid and weak and utterly incapable of leading the bourgeois anti-imperialist revolution. He pointed out that the only hope for revolution would be one led by the working class that was socialist in nature.

A year earlier Mao Tse-tung had published an article in New Guide advocating the opposite position of P'eng Shu'tse on the nature of the coming revolution. In it Mao advocated a bourgeois capitalist government and called on the unity of the merchants to help bring it about.




The Theory Of Permanent Revolution, The Koumintang, And The Interference Of Moscow

The debate between Mao Tse-tung and P'eng Shu'tse was not a new one for the socialist movement. The same debate had taken place in Russia before the 1917 revolutions. The ideas of P'eng Shu'tse dealing with the conditions of China coincided heavily with Leon Trotsky's analysis of Russian conditions written in what later became called the Theory of Permanent Revolution.

Trotsky wrote the Theory of Permanent Revolution in a Czarist jail after his experiences in the failed 1905 revolution. He saw through his experiences in the revolution that not only was the working class the only class interested and capable of carrying out the revolution; he also saw that the Russian revolution would have to be socialist to succeed.

The reasons given by Trotsky were several, but the most important being that the capitalist class would sabotage production if the workers took power. He correctly saw that the only way to have a working economy was to nationalize industry and to implement a socialist economy.

Lenin later adopted these fundamental tenants of the theory of Permanent Revolution in his famous April thesis of 1917. As a result Lenin and Trotsky's parties merged at that time to lead the socialist revolution against the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries who since taking power in February were restarting the war with Germany on behalf of the bourgeoisie and refusing land reform and a socialist revolution.

Trotsky also explained that not only was there no need for Russia to go through a bourgeois capitalist revolution, but that the bourgeoisie was utterly incapable of leading such a revolution in Russia. He explained that the working class had developed to a point that the bourgeoisie feared revolution more than anything else because they saw that a revolution, no matter how small in its original leadership's goals, would potentially unleash the power of the working class to carry out a full socialist revolution. Thus the bourgeoisie sided with the old feudal system instead of trying to bring about their own power.

Trotsky explained this phenomenon as compared to the developments in the west, such as the the bourgeois revolution in the United States, through his theory for Russia of Combined and Uneven Development. Simply put, the technological advances of the capitalist west had become part of Russian society and had created a working class capable of overstepping the bounds of the bourgeois revolution against Czarism, making the bourgeoisie uninterested in any kind of revolution.

In Russia the Menshevik's ridiculous attempts at establishing a bourgeois government confirmed this with the bourgeois representatives they appointed trying to impose military dictatorship and hand power back to the old feudal system. Later Stalin repeated this same sort of mistake carried out by the Mensheviks in his support for the corrupt and murderous bourgeois Kuomintang in China. In fact, in Russia, Stalin had been negotiating the unity of the Menshevik and Bolshevik Parties before Lenin's arrival from exile in April.

As Stalin took the reigns of power in the Soviet Union he also exerted his influence within the Chinese Communist Party to remove P'eng Shu'tse and other like minded leaders that opposed Moscow's position of dissolving much of the CCP's work into the corrupt and brutal Kuomintang. Despite the Koumintang carrying out numerous massacres of the CCP and their worker peasant supporters, the CCP maintained this position of subjegation to the leadership of the Kuomintang from for much of the time from the late 1920's up until not long before the 1949 revolution when Chaing Kai-sheck's attacks finally forced Mao onto the road of leading the struggle for power.

Due to P'eng Shu'tse's opposition to any kind of support for the Koumintang and his defense of Trotsky and Permanent Revolution he was first stripped of his leadership position in the CCP and later completely purged with other fellow travelers. They set up their own political organization and publications. These positions in light of Chaing Kai-sheck's massacres, including his butchering of the workers of Shanghai in 1927, and Chaing Kai-sheck's failure to fight the Japanese, attracted recruits to their Trotskyist organization, but also attracted the oppression of the Kuomintang themselves.

Many of P'eng Shu'tse's comrades were jailed or executed by Chaing Kai-sheck. P'eng Shu'tse spent a number of years in prison under Chaing Kai-sheck himself and was only released after a Japanese bomber destroyed the prison he was in.

Yet while Mao and the CCP had the luxery of Soviet aid to bolster their movement by paying their full time party cadre and writers for much of the time from the 1920s to the 1949 revolution, the Trotskyist movement always stayed a lesser party despite their superior program, because they never had foreign aid. Mao was even able to make gains during the Japanese occupation while he was capitulating to the hated leadership of Chaing Kai-sheck, while at the same time the Trotskyist movement that had been mostly jailed before the Japanese invasion was paralyzed by their small size and Japanese oppression during the occupation.

After the defeat of Japan the Chinese Trotskyist group once again grew in size and was about 350 people at the time that Mao was on the verge of seizing power. Knowing they were not large enough to do much in the coming revolution, and knowing what kind of oppression other Stalinist regimes had carried out against Trotskyists in eastern Europe, the party's last meeting before the 1949 revolution made a decision that all prominent Trotskyists should leave the country and that those that the CCP members did not know should join the CCP.

P'eng Shu'tse and Ch'en Pi-lan moved to Hong Kong where the Trotskyist movement was also being hunted and persecuted by the British. The oppression they faced there forced them to then immigrate to Vietnam. In Vietnam comrades of theirs were under attack from the Vietnamese communists so P'eng Shu'tse and Ch'en Pi-lan were then forced to immigrate to Europe where they continued to be active around the issues of China in the Trotskyist Fourth International.

Some members who stayed behind in China were rounded up in the night by the PRC government with their entire families. Many were never seen again. Others were released from prison in 1976.

The Chinese Communist Party in Power

From exile P'eng Shu'tse continued to speak and organize on the issue of China. He held the position that an undemocratic Stalinist government had taken power in China with the 1949 revolution, and while he saw many improvements for the Chinese people come from that regime, he was highly critical of the leadership of Mao Tse-tung.

In the early years, among other things, P'eng Shu'tse criticized Mao for not holding real elections, for suppressing the freedom unleashed by his earlier slogan of "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom", for the horrible and predictable failure of the "Great Leap Forward" and its attempts modernize China by producing useless steel in backyard furnaces, for the forced collectivizations that he saw as copying the methods of Stalin's same project with both causing unecessary hardship amongst the peasants as well as having a horrible impact on food production.

In his analysis of these events P'eng Shu'tse saw an opposition open up within the CCP to Mao's ultra-left adventurist failures that forced Mao's resignation in 1958. The leadership Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Peng Zhen, Bo Yibo were then forced to deal with correcting Mao's mistakes. They ended the production of backyard steel, restored private plots of land in the countryside, personal ownership of livestock, and the free market in the countryside. Even where collective farming can be more efficient, it will never be unless it done on terms that the peasants enjoy. The peasants greeted these reforms with enthusiasm and production increased. By 1963 food production had risen to levels that ended the famine caused by Mao's policies.

In the international arena P'eng Shu'tse also felt that Mao was also discredited in 1965 with a U.S. backed coup d'etat in Indonesia that left half a million Communists dead. The Communists were close allies of Mao and P'eng Shu'tse saw this as a repeat on a larger scale of Mao's policy of subordinating the national, worker, and peasants struggle to the bourgeoisie just as Mao had done with the Koumintang. Some party members also blamed this defeat on the CCP's influence, with P'eng Chen stating, "Everyone is equal before the truth, and if Chairman Mao has made some mistakes he should be criticized."

After this further setback for the prestige of Mao, Mao proceeded to organize the so-called "Cultural Revolution" to regain power. Mao used sections of the military as well as highschool aged youth organized as "Red Guards" to launch a civil war against intellectuals that had criticized Mao as well as large sections of the leadership of the CCP that were fed-up with the leadership of Mao. This was a coup d'etat carried out by Mao against the collective leadership of the CCP that was supposed to be the proper channel of discussion. Mao did not feel he could get his way through the CCP.

In response to Mao's coup, many local leaders organized their own youth groups to fight back against the Red Guards, as well as turning to military units loyal to them, and even mobilizing workers on their behalf. Ultimately, however, Mao was successful in his power grab through violence that ushered in the reign of terror of the gang of four. In 1976 Mao died and the Gang of Four went on trial. Like his mentor Stalin, Mao had managed to silence his opposition and get rid of all of the leaders that had fought beside him to make the 1949 Revolution.

The 1949 revolution, among other things, made major advances in women's rights, healthcare, and education for the people of China. Yet the legacy of the gains made by the Chinese people through the 1949 revolution must always be tempered by a knowledge of the crimes of Mao.

I think that P'eng Shu'tse would have given up a long time ago if he didn't have a strong love for the truth and for the people combined with an overwhelming optimism. As a revolutionary socialist he did not feel that the Stalinist system was an inevitable product of socialist revolution, but that the money and popular influence of Stalinism at a certain point in history caused China and Eastern Europe to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union. There is no reason for future revolutions to repeat those same mistakes.

Today P'eng Shu'tse would also oppose the headlong jump of China into capitalism under the continued brutal rule of the CCP and instead advocate the road to democratic socialism in China and around the world.

Liberation News
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

This remarkable collection of essays and reports comes from the pen of Chen Shu-tse, the central leader of the revolutionary Marxists in China from the 1920s through the 1960s. As a young rebel Chen worked together with Mao Tse-tung to develop a revolutionary party of the working people beginning in 1919. This comradely relationship lasted until the Stalinist degeneration that overtook the Russian soviet leadership in the 1925-29 period overwhelmed the Chinese Communist Party. Chen and his followers were expelled from the party in 1929 and subsequently became known as Trotskyists. As such they continued the battle to build a revolutionary workers party in China.

In the 1925-27 revolutionary upheaval, the Communist Party achieved a decisive leadership position among the masses of urban workers in China. But the party, under Mao's leadership, and working along the lines of Comintern policy, attempted to build an alliance with Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang. The Kuomintang was a nationalist party increasingly coming under the control of China's tyrannical landlords. This mistaken policy resulted in a massacre of the Communist-led workers in Shanghai carried out by Chiang's troops. Chen and his followers opposed this disastrous course.

A large portion of this 580-page book deals with the explanation of how the Stalinized Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949. In the post-WWII chaos the peasant masses surged forward repeatedly demanding control of the land and its resources and an end to landlord parasitism. The weakened Kuomintang was like a rotting wooden raft in this stormy revolutionary sea which served as the only hope of salvation for the wealthy and privileged elements in China, and they found themselves desparately clinging to it.

The Communist Party, having retreated to Yenan in 1934 after a series of defeats, found itself bolstered by the massive influx of worker and peasant fighters who saw this party as the starting point of opposition to the decaying Kuomintang regime. In the years leading to the insurrection of 1949, Chen explains, the CCP (a non-revolutionary, Stalinist party) repeatedly sought to dampen the rising struggles of the oppressed masses, to limit their gains, and to come to terms with Chiang in the formation of a coalition government. The Kuomintang was too weak, however, and the outcome of the struggle was determined by its own inner logic, not the aims of the CCP.

Forced to flee to Hong Kong in 1948 Chen continued to guide the Chinese Trotskyist movement as well as to participate in discussion and debates among revolutionary Marxist leaders worldwide. He supported the 1949 victory of the Chinese revolution, which was a giant gain for the masses of workers and peasants in spite of the Stalinist leadership. A workers state was formed. But he stressed that the accession to power of Mao's party did not change its essentially counterrevolutionary character. In order for the masses of Chinese people to achieve their liberation from all forms of exploitation they would need to effect a political revolution to bring to power a genuine Marxist party. This party would then serve as the vehicle for bringing the weight of the Chinese masses to bear in the worldwide struggle for socialism.

The Chinese revolution that triumphed in 1949 was a mighty event, which shook the world. The Chinese workers and farmers, in spite of their misleadership, tore one-fourth of the world's population out of the hands of U.S. British, German, French, and Japanese capitalists (all had investments and huge holdings in China at one time or another), out of the hands of what Malcolm X called the "Western or American system of imperialism." Read this book and "The Third Chinese Revolution And Its Development" and " Maoism Vs. Bolshevism", and learn what Malcolm found so admirable about the Chinese Revolution. Also here you will find the history of betrayals by the wish-they-were-capitalists-themselves Maoist-Stalinist bureaucrats who still rule today.All this in the testimony of two veteran communist fighters, Peng Shu-tse and Chen Pi-lan, who opposed imperialism and its puppets in action, as well as the monstrosities of Maoism. The resistance of the Chinese working class to the pro-capitalist "reforms" and to the attempted selling of the nation, its wealth, and its people by the bureaucracy to the same imperialists kicked out in 1949 has barely begun (3,000 illegal strikes in one year alone in the midnineties). That resistance will shake the whole world again.For the story of China today you need "Capitalism's World Disorder" by Jack Barnes.

I had the honor of knowing and working with ST Peng a little in the 1960s and 1970s. This was a man who had worked with Lenin and Trotsky in the Comintern who had stood up the Chiang Kai Shek, and to Maoism. This was a serious revolutionary Marxist who became a focus for former Red Guards escaping Mao who went all the way to Paris to learn from him. These articles and documents explain the nature of the Chinese revolution, its strength and its betrayal by Stalinism, as well as the capacities of Chinese workers and peasants to change the world. In his writing, Peng had the gift to be both theoretically clear as a revolutionist, and to be concrete as a writer showing how what he was talking about affected the real lives of the Chinese people. Of great interest is his depiction of how the "higher officials" actually lived their lives of privilege and luxury in the supposed days of "Maoist austerity.: As new battles are simmering in China-- strikes, demonstrations, protests--the new generation of fighters must find this wonderful book by one of China's first generation of real communists.

I was fascinated reading this unique and important collection of writings -- a detailed analysis of the Chinese revolution and the Maoist leadership. The articles cover the 1949-53 revolution and the overthrow of capitalism in China as well as major turns in Maoist domestic and foreign policy and political struggles within the ruling bureaucracy. Very useful discussion of the People's Communes and forced collectivization in the 1950s, the so-called Great Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, and the Tien An Men protests in 1976.

P'eng Shu-tse's was an early member and central leader of the Chinese Communist Party-- one of the many young rebels won to revolutionary struggle inspired and educated by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the leadership led Lenin and Trotsky. Although imprisoned by the U.S.-backed Chiang Kai-shek dictatorship and later forced into exile by the Maoist regime, P'eng remained true to the course of working class struggle, leading small revolutionary forces in China, Vietnam and later in exile in Europe. H writes to explain and to encourage others to join the struggle.

I also found very useful the lively article and interview by Ch'en Pi-lan, P'eng's companion and fellow revolutionary, on the course of the workers movement in China and on the "Cultural Revolution."

Just finished reading the book by Bill Mandelaris ("Greg") entitled 'A CLASH OF VALUES' and have to admire his sense of values and his wide knowledge of the media and its negative affect on the average person. The chapters on the electronic media, trash talk, and a broken moral compass were much to the point. I thought that the chapter captioned 'empowered to fight back' was especially inshghtful. Also, I was very pleased to see the dedication page showing the picture of Jerry, who was like an older brother to me in my youth. As a former teacher of junior high school kids in the inner City (1992-1997), I can related to what Bill says about the media and other outside influences undermining our family principles.

I have a two-and-a-half year old son, and this book really hit home on the importance of taking control of teaching our families the values we want and not defaulting the responsibility to the media. It should be used as a text book for families on things we need to do in order to take control back from the media in raising our families and teaching them correct principles. It is written by someone who has worked within the media circle who clearly understands the negative influence that must be proactively overcome and the author gives a clear way of doing so. I think every parent needs to be aware of the constant battle that is being waged every day for our families moral values. "A Clash OF Values" has not only made me aware that there is a war being waged but has given me the knowledge and insight to win the every day battles and long-term fight for my families moral well being. I also appreciated the authors candid and honest belief in God. He is a true Christian and is not afraid to admit that this is the true way to our families happiness.

Completed Bill Mandelaris' book "A Clash of Values" and have to admire his sense of values and wide knowledge of the media and it's negative effect on the average person. The Chapters on "The Elctronic Media", "Trash Talk", and "A Broken Moral Compass" were much to the point. I also thought that the Chapter captioned "Empowered to Fight Back" was especially insightful. As a former teacher of junior high school kids in the inner City of Detroit for five years, I can relate to what Bill says about the media and other outside influences undermining our family principles.

We are living in a day where absolute moral values have been reduced to "relative guidelines" cleverly manipulated by the media. In A Clash Of Values, William Mandelaris succinctly outlines what every parent needs to know to minimize the risk of children being exposed to an unbridled culture of smut, gratuitous violence and ungodly conduct operating under the guise of entertainment. This book is right on target. It is honest, evocative and passionate. Chapter 5 regarding the incremental breakdown of the family and Chapter 11 revealing how we are empowered to fight back were particularly profound. Read this book and you will become convinced as I was, that only a purposeful approach to parenting will do. William Mandelaris cares deeply about what kind of world our children will inherit. I highly recommend this book to everyone with the same heart for our kids and their moral destiny.

Bill Mandelaris is a man you can count on to speak from the heart, with long experience in the college of hard knocks, 25 years of puplic speaking, working as a radio commentator of over 25 years in the media dominated world, he knows the heart and gutts of what makes the media do some of the unfamily things they do. My perception as a reader of his book is it's simple to understand why the media has become the Cyclops it has become...Greed, and NOT family values. He also gives us a guide as to how to fight to bring some sanity for ones family and ones country when viewing the daily media hype which many families have given up and given into when viewing TV, movies, ect. Most American have given their children to the media without firing one shot against those who care not one wit for Americas past values. It's a book from Bills sizable loving heart, which you can sense on each and every page. I have read the book over several times because I have a grandaughter I love and cherish. You should have one on your coffee table before turning on your TV set.

I have had the pleasure of actually working with Bob Gilbreath at a very difficult client, and let me be direct: He is the real deal. Bob can dissect, diffuse, and elevate in the most difficult situations. This book conveys perfectly Bob's proven strategies for moving people from where they are to where they need to be. The only way his next book will be better is if it shows us how to figure out what he has discovered before he actually discovers it.

I am typically disappointed by business books that present a theory and some related anecdotes about the theory in 'action'. But, Bob Gilbreath's book provides real world application advice about how to 'compel' others to follow your lead. This book is geared toward people who are faced with the daily challenge of getting people to move in a desired direction, and if you are at all tasked to lead people (large groups or small) - this book is for you.

--Tim Galpin

I think there's something wrong with the Cover Jacket Design, and probably with the Title! This book deserve more that the few review and (probably) sales! The writer is a very successful speaker, but most probably the not a good marketers? i m not sure, but i think this is a GREAT BOOK with GOOD CONTENT.

I came across when opening several books and i was still unsure about this one, but there are no other books i can pick, so i bough this one, and it turn out to be a great book that i like very much.

There are only 201 pages with large fonts and not cramfull of printed letters but the insight and ideas are great. The book is about how to get others to act differently to affect a much better outcomes.

I like the MESSAGE, about how we should use the message in a communication to make other do the way we want them to.

Some biased in how people like to be persuaded, like: Simple over complex, powerful over weak, direct over subtle, predictable over possible, necessary over optimal, scare over abundant, want over need etc will make you a better communicator.

There are 4 chapters: MESSAGE, REACTION, GROUPTHINK and WITNESSING. I found golds scatter around that i can use, even that the whole book is not really that well narrated into one flow. But all in all this is a great book that will help you compel others.

With a title like 'Compel' and a man leading a donkey on the cover I guess I thought I was in for a manual on how to bludgeon my staff into submission or possibly how to hoodwink others into doing my will.

What I got was a rather eccletic but readable and insightful set of how to steps on leading, inspiring, and guiding others to change themselves. How many business books these days can cite the Talmud, Kahil Gibran, Thoreau, Picasso, Camus, Quintus Aurelium Symmanchus, and Dante -- all without seeming pretentious, strained, or misplaced?

Bob's recommendations on how to move others in your direction is both folksy and far-sighted; he interweaves many vignettes from professional experience and historical happenstance to elucidate his points.

I particularly like the analogy of the long distance runner and the effect of personal timepieces - that is one of those interesting factoids that, once learned, seems almost common sense but helps those of us searching for effective means of continuous feedback to search for better metrics.

If you are looking for a primer on how to motivate and lead others in a new direction, this is a must read prior to launching the effort.

One note of quibbling - I am not sure I agree with Bob's discussion of the 'Dark side of simplification' as I think he reduces the argument ad absurdum.

Compel attempts to teach you how to overcome opposition, in the author's own words, through "clarity over complexity, the direct over the subtle." This is an admirable goal and, I must say, this book is among the best that I've read that attempts to teach influence, persuasion or the answer to opposition in a simple way.

The book focuses in on four mechanisms of change:

-Message
-Reaction
-GroupThink
-Witnessing

Each chapter begins by defining the term on which the chapter is focused.

For example the first mechanism chapter, Chapter 1: Message, begins with this definition, "A usually short communication transmitted by words, signals or other means from one person, station or group to another." Certainly a simple definition, but the author's point is to teach you to shape your message so that it becomes a machanism for change. He provides a five step plan for doing this that is easy to remember and implement.


In order to influence reactions, the author suggests shaping the environment and setting or expressing expectations. This appears to be based on the well-known psychological principle that people tend to do what you expect them to do if the enviroment allows for it. This is sound management advice and is well-suited to the author's intentions.

I felt the GroupThink chapter was the least structured and beneficial in the book. I left the chapter feeling like I still wouldn't know how to implement the concepts, if it weren't for other books I had read such as Wikinomics and the The Starfish and the Spider. But then again, my reference to these two books may indicate that I did not fully understand the author's intent. He can certainly correct me, if I'm wrong.

Finally, the chapter on Witnessing - though short - was a nice wrap-up to the book. You leave the chapter feeling that you can indeed start to make a difference in the situations you're involved in and you also come away with some ideas of how to both create your own "witnesses" and apply other ideas in the book.

Overall, it is a good book on shaping people's thoughts and actions and will likely benefit any manager or leader.

The only book on the subject availible, and long overdue. Elaine DePrince writes from the heart, with a sharp eye for contradictions. Though it is a personal story of pain and loss, anyone who reads it can not come away without a sense of outrage. It is a story that should have been writen ten years ago about a forgotten group forced into the battle against HIV?AIDS unarmed and unprepared, but continues to fight back to the last man and woman if necessary. Every health care worker, doctor, and politician should read this, and if it doesn't scare them silly, they are not paying attention

The only book on the subject availible, and long overdue. Elaine DePrince writes from the heart, with a sharp eye for contradictions. Though it is a personal story of pain and loss, anyone who reads it can not come away without a sense of outrage. It is a story that should have been writen ten years ago about a forgotten group forced into the battle against HIV?AIDS unarmed and unprepared, but continues to fight back to the last man and woman if necessary. Every health care worker, doctor, and politician should read this, and if it doesn't scare them silly, they are not paying attention

The only book on the subject availible, and long overdue. Elaine DePrince writes from the heart, with a sharp eye for contradictions. Though it is a personal story of pain and loss, anyone who reads it can not come away without a sense of outrage. It is a story that should have been writen ten years ago about a forgotten group forced into the battle against HIV?AIDS unarmed and unprepared, but continues to fight back to the last man and woman if necessary. Every health care worker, doctor, and politician should read this, and if it doesn't scare them silly, they are not paying attention

The only book on the subject availible, and long overdue. Elaine DePrince writes from the heart, with a sharp eye for contradictions. Though it is a personal story of pain and loss, anyone who reads it can not come away without a sense of outrage. It is a story that should have been writen ten years ago about a forgotten group forced into the battle against HIV?AIDS unarmed and unprepared, but continues to fight back to the last man and woman if necessary. Every health care worker, doctor, and politician should read this, and if it doesn't scare them silly, they are not paying attention.

This book serves well as both the intimate story of a family whose lives have been profoundly altered by AIDS, and an expose of the events that allowed this deadly disease to invade them.

While the average American probably believes, as I did until recently, that the infection of thousands of hemophiliacs with the AIDS virus was an unavoidable tragedy, DePrince uncovers the awful truth that for many, if not most, hemophiliacs, infection with AIDS and the deadly hepatitis C virus was not only avoidable, but that the government and hemophilia profiteers (like Bayer "The Aspirin People") chose not to act to produce a safer product in favor of bigger profits.

DePrince also reminds us that the tragedy experienced by the hemophilia community isn't an isolated incident. Many millions of Americans are exposed to blood products each year, sometimes unknowingly, which means anyone at anytime could find themselves facing infection with HIV, HCV, or perhaps some unknown virus making its way into the blood supply today. Blood safety is an important issue to everyone - not just those who rely on blood products regularly. DePrince also advocates for the passage of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act which provides compassionate payments to victims of this disaster along with important improvements to blood safety.

Read this book as if your life depended on it.

This book provides a great overview of simple DT moves and how to employ them. I found it to be easy to read and follow along with the instructions. The pictures in the text were clear and understandable and matched the descriptions given in the text. I enjoyed the text very much and thought it was a good book.

Highly recommended manual not just for law enforcement officers but also for martial artist too!

Kane really provides an outstanding review here, so I am in a sense writing to "pile on" the accolades hoping to increase sales for this book. It is, without a doubt, the epitome in the Defensive Tactics milieu. Loren Christensen's body of work really speaks for itself, but to those who are unfamiliar, he is one of the foremost experts in the world, providing street experience with analytical study to provide a text that is comprehensive as a text can possibly be while still providing the basic information without losing the targeted audience.

I remember when I started out as a DT instructor in the early 90s. Essentially, my unit knew I was a black belt and said "you can teach this stuff, why hire someone or send officers to an expensive seminar." Cocky as I was, I said, "Sure." Soon, I found myself going to seminar after seminar to prepare myself to teach because I discovered after my first DT class I was inadequacy prepared to teach DT. This led me to become an expert in the field myself (although it has been awhile since I taught a course). I wish this book had been around back then, it would have saved me some seminar fees. I must also say that my sensei is also one of the foremost experts in the field and I also was able to "pick his brain."

This book will help first time instructors as well as police officers preparing to enter a course or refresher course. Further, to any police (or possible) recruit - get the book and prepare yourself before entering the academy. Further, those entering security force career fields with the military should also get this fine text.

The book covers everything from controlling breathing, fear, adrenaline, to employing restraint and beyond. If you are a DT instructor or a police officer, get the book now - don't delay.

In the hustle and bustle of day to day life how often do we get to train? For most of us time is a scarce commodity, with little to spare. With such little time left over for training and the lack of frequency to keep our razor edge sharp, the majority of us walk around dulled, maybe even rusty. Don't be fooled by confidence or pride, it is that razor sharp edge that can make all the difference.

So with such little time to spare, Defensive Tactics fits the bill. The book itself was an easy read, enjoyable and well laid out, and explained things very clearly. Two things about this book really stood out at me. First, the surprising number of photos; I can't remember another book at this value having so many pictures. It was like having a step by step guide to each technique. The second was Loren's voice, as I read the book it was as if I could here Loren speaking to me. Each chapter was laid out clearly, and was simple and to the point. Long-winded explanations were saved for another day or book quite possibly.

This is a book that I have recommended to my own friends and colleagues, and would suggest for anyone who wants to improve their skills. There is something new for every level of skill and can be used as great aid in training. I see this book as another great effort by Loren to keep all his readers sharp and ready for action.

Dave

I don't throw that claim around lightly. I've been an police academy DT instructor, have a second degree black belt in karate and have been doing BJJ for several years now. Loren dosen't present anything new in this book, instead he takes all the things were taught in the academy and teaches it the right way. I like most cops have little faith in joint locks and come alongs and the like because they never seemed to work. Loren shows all the fine details that we were never taught, Easy details that were missed because most academy DT instructors are nothing but 40 hour wonders.

The way Loren shows the techniques are very easy to translate into your own practice but make no mistake about it you still have to practice these moves and Loren constantly reinforces that. That actually is the best part of this book is that Loren's delivery is very common sense oriented and often humorous. Psrt of my own teaching style I have developed by emulating Loren's techniques in his other books.

My only contribution is that the ground fighting section is a great section but as someone who does it weekly I can say with the utmost confidence that you really need professional instruction in that to do it right. The author of that section for instance demonstrates the "hip away" or shrimping as it is known. That is a great technique but I can't stress enough the need to put your duty rig on including your radio and then try the hip away on concrete or the grass. The common hip slide on the mat will not work as your gun and radio act as anchors. You have to learn to modify the technique.

In closing this book offers simple, effective and task specific techniques that one can use to supplement their own martial arts training. The book is briskly paced and laid out in a simple logicial manner that makes it fit great in my training bag so that I can have it on hand to reference it.

Tragic book, very well written. I suspect all of it is true. If 10% is true, people who care about America need to tell our leaders that things must change now. We must respect the rights of people we have in custody, whether they are Americans, Iraqis, or people without a country. Our leaders have embarrassed our country by doing the things outlined here. Respect for human rights should be our starting point.

In vivid, engaging prose uncommon among attorney authors, Clive Stafford Smith offers a startling first-hand account of America's most well-known gulag: the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay. Smith's volume places the U.S. Government's hypocrisy in the Bush II era on full display, with the prisoners there -- very few of whom, it appears, guilty of any crime at all (let alone legitimate involvement in Islamist terrorism) -- tragic protagonists in a prolonged tour through hell. Despite assiduous compliance with strict military classification and censorship requirements, Smith gives a stark account of torture, rendition, legal tricks, and a relentless war on due process -- by the same folks supposedly spreading "democracy" to the Middle East. With new precision details and personal prisoner histories, Smith's book is shocking even to those who never believed the news coverage. Read it with anger; the outrage is still going on.

If you haven't read Robert Conquest's seminal work The Great Terror about the purges, the show trials, law, and justice under Stalin, you might want to consider reading that first. Perhaps visit the Amazon site which has a quote from Harrison Salisbury saying the book is "an odyssey of madness, tragedy, and sadism". Then read Smith's eloquent book. Much is different, of course, but there is a lot that seems eerily similar. In Russia it was a crime to be suspected of anti-Soviet activities. This did not mean that you were actually guilty of such activities--it just meant that someone thought you might possibly be guilty, and being thought possibly guilty was a crime in itself, worthy of torture, a one-way trip to the cellars, or death in the labor camps. Evidence of guilt seemed to take a back seat to suspicion of guilt. Then read Smith's book.

The Russian show trials were carefully scripted, and designed to give the mostly leftist press in attendance and the rest of the world through media coverage the impression that the rules of law were being followed and that justice was indeed being carried out. Much of the world wanted to believe that the deviationist wreckers were truly guilty and deserved the ultimate punishment for trying to sabotage the workers' paradise. Reading Smith's book will show that the Stalinists were not the only ones who loved carefully scripted show trials before handpicked judges.

There is, as I've said, much that is different. In Russia, a popular sentence was "exile, without right of communication", a hypocritical euphemism for being shot in the cellars. In Guantanamo, as you'll see in the book, "detention, without right of communication", is not a sentence from a judge at a two-minute hearing, as in Russia. The criminal isn't taken to the cellars and shot, at least not at Guantanamo. Prior to some Supreme Court decisions, a prisoner could be held without right of communication for the duration of the war on terror, and since terrorism has been going on for thousands of years, there is no reason to think that many of the prisoners would have ever had a hearing or seen a lawyer for the rest of their life.

In Russia, family members could wait in long lines outside the Butyrka and other prisons with packages of food and clothing for their loved ones: if the package was accepted, it meant the spouse, brother, etc, was still alive there. If refused, they had been taken to the cellars or sent to a labor camp. No such bleeding-heart tenderness at Guantanamo.

Smith's book shows that there are some truly dangerous prisoners at Guantanamo--but there are too many who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. 11-year-old boys, 93-year-old men, goatherders (how do you prove that while herding goats you didn't meet with Bin Laden?),etc. Pakistan was happy to show it was doing its part in the war on terror by turning in Arabs and collecting nice bounties no questions asked. Kafka's novel The Trial is appropriate reading here. In Russia, the populace, as a whole, heartily endorsed Stalin's war on the wrecker saboteurs: someone, after all, must be to blame for all the problems, and an alternative obvious source to blame was not conducive to good health and long life. The people were not concerned about the rights of the accused, or legal niceties. In America, there is not widespread concern about legal niceties for a bunch of Moslems in Guantanamo and other places of detention. So if you read Smith's book, you'll find it quite depressing, especially if you've read The Great Terror. There's too much in Smith's book that most of us would prefer not to hear about or think about: we'd rather turn on the TV and see Happy News or a nice patriotic CSI TV show or something. It's a fine book, but not a fun one.

Imagine that you have been swept away to a prison, kept in solitary confinement and when taken out for questioning you are continually asked about the tomatoes you were carrying ( the translators don't always have a full command of dialects )and you have no idea what your interrogators want or if they are totally insane. Because this book is written from a lawyer's point of view and lays out only the facts ( only what he has been able to ascertain and what he is allowed to make known ) it takes some reflection and imagination to put yourself in the place of the detainees and savour the experience that they have had and continue to have.
In other words this isn't "Midnight Express", but a look at guantanamo, its rules, the U.S. military, the stories of a few of the detainees and the constitutional and humanitarian issues involved.

From various newspaper articles, I had heard that many of the people in Guantanamo Bay were innocent and that torture happens there. But all of that seemed very abstract until I read this book. I was frequently upset by the things I read in this book. It is difficult to read about torture, as well as your own goverment's ability to waste time, tax-payer money and other people's lives for information that bears no fruit, or worse, fruit that meets their pre-conceived notions. I think that is the saddest aspect of reading this book. Why is the government still detaining people for which there is hard evidence of their innocence? How can we be spending bllions of $$ on the war on terror, yet not get the detainees' ages and names correct?

Highlights of the book:

- How politically-charged the words 'terror' and 'torture' are.
- The account of Binyam Mohamed's 18-month torture abroad and his military trial.
- The discussion of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, which is often used to justify torture, and why the detention and torture of people held longer than a day, let alone 3+ years, will likely give obsolete or false information.
- The discussion of how the US has given far more dangerous enemies of the past the benefit of a public trial, and our part in ensuring fair trials for Nazi war crime criminals.
- Portraits of people in Guantanamo, both detainess and Americans stationed there.
- Arguments for fair trials and open society versus the current policy of secrecy, torture and secret prisons, even for the baddest of the bad.

The last chapter, where Mr. Smith talks about the effect of the US's decisions on terrorism recruitment, reads more like political rant. I am sympathetic to the argument, but it is speculation. And frankly, not needed. The preceding chapters are powerful on their own. I would encourage people to read this book.

This book, especially the last 3 chapters, may just possibly be one of the most important non-fiction works every written. When claptrap like Marx's "Das Kapital" and Keyne's "The General Theory" eventually find their way into the dustbin of history, Benson's brilliant, understated work will give freedom-loving individuals much to dwell upon concerning the uselessness of the forced monopoly of force we euphemistically call "govern"ment. Goes way beyond even Murray Rothbard's outstanding "Power and Market."

Every one with an interest in toppling this socialist status quo, from laissez-faire economists and philosophers to activists in the liberatian political and militia movement should study this outstanding work. Mr. Benson lays down the framework for a true capitalist system as Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and Milon Friedman envisioned. I support radical reform but when it happens, what do we replace it with? This book is a good start.

Despite the impression one might draw from the other reviews here, this is not an overtly political tract. But some background on the author would be in order.

Benson is an economics professor at Florida State. Generally, his research interests involve law enforcement, the drug war, private security alternatives, arbitration, and the history of arbitration and privately-produced commercial law (the law merchant). I have never seen a writing by him in which he explains all of his personal views and opinions, but he's obviously a pretty serious libertarian and he's had some involvement with the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Amazon discourages linking websites in reviews, but those interested could easily find his academic webpage by doing a google search for "Dr. Bruce L. Benson."

Benson is probably every bit the political extremist that I am, but this book doesn't really argue politics (mostly). It has a very fascinating history of the evolution of law in England, which forms the basis of modern American law, also. The presentation is mostly dry and academic, but the subject matter is completely fascinating, and Benson does a better job than any other writer in tying it all together to show the reader a picture of the historical origins of law, and the relationship between law and the state.

We have all been taught that the administration of law and justice is one of the purposes of government. Benson shows that this bit of conventional wisdom just doesn't fit the history. Courts and laws originated from communities and their customs, not from any governmental body. Benson shows that, historically, legal institutions precede the state, but monarchs eventually usurped most of the functions of privately-created law in order to raise revenue and concentrate power in the crown. Eventually, law becomes a government monopoly, and all throughout the process, the government has a strong tendency to corrupt the law into something other than a tool of justice.

There are a couple of different forms of private legal institutions that are important in this book. The earliest Benson explains are the customary English legal practices and the community institutions that made them work. These early legal institutions originated concepts and practices that are still echoed in today's modern courts, about 1000 years later. But this early approach to justice didn't really survive the constant encroachment by kings. Another source of private law has been the law merchant (lex mercatoria), a set of medieval laws that developed among purely private, profit-oriented traders. Like community-based law, the law merchant was a phenomenon that lacked a central authority or lawmaking body, and developed to protect people, in contrast to the king's courts which were created to concentrate power. The law merchant system developed as a private alternative to state law, and was successful because in comparison to state courts, it was fairer, faster, and better able to cope with the transnational nature of some of the disputes. Ultimately English common law courts ended up having to adopt most of the key features of the law merchant, because they risked being superseded and deprived of revenue and influence. An echo of the medieval law merchant lives on in the modern arbitration industry, which is actually extremely popular in America today, especially in the commercial world.

Not all of Benson's history focuses on England - the most entertaining part of the book concerns incidents in America in which citizens had to overthrow crooked lawmen and take justice into their own hands. (Most of these stories come from the old West.) This includes a very fascinating episode in San Francisco in which the entire law enforcement body was supplanted by vigilante justice. The result was a dramatic sustained drop in the murder rate, and an end to the corruption and abuse of the authorities. The reader will be surprised to find that, contrary to Hollywood, the "vigilante" groups were often moderate, judicious, and almost eager to relinquish power, in order to restore peace.

The book is not just about history. Benson makes a careful and convincing defense of the benefits of privately produced law and justice. He engages the arguments of some of the most important legal thinkers of our time, and picks their arguments apart. The decentralized, private justice of the past is not just a curiosity of history; it's a human achievement that lives on in some form today, and is considerably more fair and effective than the government monopoly we're subjected to.

If think today's legal system system is slow, inaccessible, expensive to work with, and unfair, read this book to find out why, and what the alternatives are.

I don't give 5 stars lightly. Yes, this book really is that good, and that important.

Do we need the State to produce law?

There are libertarians aplenty who believe we do. Some of them have actually thought carefully about the issue, and some of them are merely Objectivists who have accepted Ayn Rand's oracular dismissal of anarchocapitalism in her (thoroughly statist) essay on "The Nature of Government." Both of these groups will benefit from a reading of Bruce Benson's fine volume.

Benson picks up the argument where Murray Rothbard and David Friedman left it, and carries it forward by several miles. Here he provides a short history of market-based law, from its rise to its near-demise at the hands of "authoritarian" law; a public-choice analysis of the political market for law; an overview of recent trends toward reliance on private sources of law and justice; rebuttals of common arguments for the necessity of State law; and a short summary of what a private, non-State system of law might look like.

There are treats throughout. Some of my favorites are Benson's replies to Landes and Posner -- e.g. their argument that "private" law is parasitic on legal standards developed in the public sector, and their claim that such "private" law would be less efficient than public law. (In general I am of the opinion that Richard Posner is one of the most overrated legal thinkers of the past century or two.)

Benson is also exceptional among libertarian writers in his familiarity with the relevant legal literature. One of the other exceptions -- the altogether brilliant Randy Barnett (whose book _The Structure of Liberty_ belongs on your shelf next to this one) -- is credited by Benson for drawing the latter's attention to such literature and making some specific recommendations. The result, however achieved, is something all but unheard of in the libertarian world: a volume on liberty that actually acknowledges the existence of such legal theorists as Lon Fuller.

That's a nice feature in a book on law. I would like to see Benson's book (and its excellent sequel, _To Serve and Protect_) read by both libertarians and lawyers, and I'm happy he's written a book that the latter group won't toss away in disgust at the childish ignorance of the author. We have enough of those books already (and I think Rand wrote or influenced most of them).

In general, the more people that read this book, the better. If nothing else, this book will shake an assumption that badly needs shaking: that there must be a State in order for there to be law.

(By the way, you'll find Benson referring occasionally to George H. Smith's fine essay, "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." Originally published in the _Journal of Libertarian Studies_, that essay is reprinted in _Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies_.)

At one stage in my education as a libertarian I had come to believe that most human needs (including for instance streets, education, and even fire protection) could be satisfied best by private companies. But I still thought that probably law must be provided by the government. It was hard for me to imagine how justice could be provided without the state.

Then I read this book. With compelling historical evidence it shatters the myth that government must have a monopoly in administering law.

Well written. Clear. Thorough.

The author of `The First Liberal says, put "Love thy Neighbor" on the money.
The First Liberal starts with the intriguing sentence, "Jesus invented Liberalism on the day he said, `Love thy neighbor.'" The book traces how Jesus' teachings have come down to us not only in Biblical texts, but also as the ideals and standards of Liberal politics.
The book is not about religion; it's about politics. It discusses what Jesus said about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and all that, without any reference to prayer or other religious observances.
It's a fascinating idea! This book is Jesus without religion, although it's certainly not anti-religious. It just leaves the question of religion to each individual. The author says that a "secular" approach to Christianity gives us a clearer view of its ideals.
"Detachment from reverence gives us the sharpest focus on Jesus' ideals, just as an astronomer's telescope does when it's positioned away from the glow of atmosphere. Without the religious aspect, these ideas can be most easily appreciated, and can have the greatest appeal to a world-wide, often non-Christian, audience", he says.
In God we Trust, or Love Thy Neighbor?
In a chapter called, "What Liberals want for America", Altman suggest that we put "Love Thy Neighbor" on U.S. currency. He notes that for years, some people have felt that the present slogan, "In God We Trust", is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is the amendment that guarantees our freedoms of speech, the press, and religion. Altman says that Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers were careful not endorse any religion, in order to insure that everyone could have free choice and none would feel left out.
Because of that, some Liberals have always felt that we should seriously consider taking "In God We Trust" off the money. Others have argued that IGWT is neutral, because it speaks of God in a generic sense. The rebuke those people get is that the constitution should not even endorse the idea of religion to begin with. And so it goes, and has been going on for years.
No Liberal wishes to offend the religious sensibility of anyone, but since no group has ever expressed disapproval of Love Thy Neighbor, Dennis Martin Altman suggests that it would pass the First Amendment test, because it doesn't endorse a religion.
It wouldn't offend Shintos, Lutherans, Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Jews, Zoroastrians, Muslims, or atheists. In the history of humanity, Altman maintains, no one ever uttered a more benevolent and profound thought in fewer syllables.
"If we all lived by LTN, this world would be a far kinder and healthier place, and people all over the world would have more positive thoughts about the United States of America."

I feel compelled to express my admiration and thanks for your having written this book. It was an incredible undertaking and serves as a solid platform from which to define the liberal mindset.

As an aside, I have a friend who is the prototypical Conservative with whom I have agreed to no longer "debate" our differences. Today, I have sent him the book so he may understand WHY we liberals are not swayed by the rationalizations of the conservatives.

Altman writes about liberalism and the history of both our country and the world in a lively and engaging manner. "The First Liberal" is a timely accompaniment to the heated election battles currently under way. A fascinating book.

The First Liberal gave me a new concept of and appreciation for the term Liberal. So many of the things I now take for granted and value were once new and exciting ideas ridiculed by the fearful of their day. This book gives an inkling of how the world could look if people actually practiced what they claim Jesus preached... If acceptance, compassion and forgiveness were taken seriously. After reading this, I refer to myself as a Liberal and do so with pride.

Personally, I don't think anyone should vote this year until they read this book. The information -- enlightening to both liberals and conservatives -- is too important to overlook. And, surprisingly, this fact-packed narrative is fun to read!

Altman has written this in a way that gives the reader the feeling that he/she is discovering something at the same time the author did. Quite a coup, really, and probably unintentional. In fact, as a writer, I think that if anyone who starts out trying to achieve such a result will fail.

Another coup -- and this one I believe was part of the reason he conceived the book -- was to give the word, "liberal," its rightful interpretation, connotations and nuances. For the past 40 or so years, "liberal" has been a dirty word in politics. And ironically, as Altman makes abundantly clear, the right-wingers and arch-conservatives most set against liberal policies are those who suffer the most by voting against them!

I happen to be one who rarely reads non-fiction. My favorite genre is the espionage novel or courtroom thriller. However, this is one book I could not put down. And it's certainly one that everyone should pick up.
The history is fascinating, the point of view convincing, and the insights eye-opening.

Wendell Abern