Customer Reviews

Afflicted Powers: Capital and Spectacle in a New Age of War

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book, by the collective Retort, seeks to develop a Marxian theory adequate to 9-11 and events since, notably the war in Iraq. Really the product of four different authors, it is uneven but generally fascinating. The theory that 9-11 was a defeat for the US above all at the level of the spectacle is quite stimulating. I loved their critique of the peak-oil paranoia of the US left, but the explanation they offer for the war in Iraq--that capital again needs primitive accumulation--founders on the central question any explanation of that war should answer--why did Germany and France fail to support it, particularly given that the US had made clear that this was an important action to greenlight? The chapter on support for Israel is useful in avoiding Jewish-lobby hysteria, but is ultimately too optimistic in its conviction that Israel's status as the 'democracy of the Middle East' has faded. It hasn't all that much (at least in the US), and furthermore, Israel now has a status as a sort of Rambo heroically fighting 'terrorists'. Their comment that political Islam seems to epitomize the politics of Hardt and Negri's 'multitude' better than anything else is well-taken, although their claim that the global justice movement (which they of course champion) does not, like the Islamists, use the internet much is bizarre and wrongheaded. But ultimately, they fail to follow Marx in seeking to descend into the hidden abode of production. These days, that would be China. Understanding the recentering of the world economy in East Asia transforms our understanding of US empire-building, in ways that would require a book to clarify. But if Marxian theorists aren't going to clarify the significance of shifts in the world economy, who will? Nevertheless, don't let this deter you from grappling with the ideas here, which operate on a much higher level than most of the discussion on the American left.

Modest effort at situating leftist thinking in wake of 9/11 and Soviet collapse. Work appears aimed at select audience familiar with postmodern concepts such as "spectacle" and "doubling". Readers unfamiliar with such esoterica should be wary since book makes little effort to clarify these and other key analytic ideas. Individual chapters range from excellent neo-accumulationist "Blood for Oil" to dubiously psychoanalytic "Future of an Illusion" concerning Israel-USA dependency. A key claim: that spectacle such as the symbolically loaded 9/11 has exposed empire's Achilles heel is an arguable claim at best, given wave of jingoism ay home and widespread sympathy abroad. Even so, the idea is worthy and deserves follow-up.

There's some good background here, particularly to Islamic fundamentalism, while the accumulationist argument is both timely and provocative. Nonetheless, the work leaves too many points either obscure or underdeveloped, particularly those on Islam, modernity and terror. My impression is that the slender volume doen't quite succeed as either lengthy pamphlet or abbreviated book. Thus overall results are in basic accord with the authors' modest aims.

An intensely thought provoking, well researched analysis that boldly highlights the imperial elements of the U.S.A.

Usually cornucopianism (ie, there is no real imminent danger of "peak oil," there is no energy crisis, etc.) is housed on the right; Peter Huber, Daniel Yergin, etc.: "free market" economists and engineers who are afraid that a coherent energy policy will mean government intervention, regulation, rationing. Now in this book we have it on the left, and to a certain extent it makes sense: if your position is that the foundation of value is human labor, and not energy inputs from fossil (or other) fuels, you will hold that the future of mankind is infinitely bright (literally and figuratively), so long as we have some form of Marxist revolution. Revolution, in other words, trumps the necessity of downsizing, powerdown, sustainability culture, etc., options that are dismissed here as "Malthusian." Oil is just another commodity, like peanuts or hog bellies.

Well, let's just keep hoping that. If you can accept that thesis, then the rest of the arguments in this book are coherent and well argued. If not, look elsewhere.

Usually cornucopianism (ie, there is no real imminent danger of "peak oil," there is no energy crisis, etc.) is housed on the right; Peter Huber, Daniel Yergin, etc.: "free market" economists and engineers who are afraid that a coherent energy policy will mean government intervention, regulation, rationing. Now in this book we have it on the left, and to a certain extent it makes sense: if your position is that the foundation of value is human labor, and not energy inputs from fossil (or other) fuels, you will hold that the future of mankind is infinitely bright (literally and figuratively), so long as we have some form of Marxist revolution. Revolution, in other words, trumps the necessity of downsizing, powerdown, sustainability culture, etc., options that are dismissed here as "Malthusian." Oil is just another commodity, like peanuts or hog bellies.

Well, let's just keep hoping that. If you can accept that thesis, then the rest of the arguments in this book are coherent and well argued. If not, look elsewhere.

Al Gore has maintained that "Global Warming is not a political issue, it is a moral one." The same could be said of "peak oil." And...last but not least... it's a scientific one.

Nitzan and Bichler, authors of the groundbraking book, "The Global Political Economy of Israel", wrote a detailed article showing how "Retort" massively and repeatedly plagiarized their original work and presented it as their own. (go google Nitzan, Bichler, "The Scientist and the Church").

Nitzan and Bichler predicted that the Iraq War would lead to inflation and rising oil prices when everyone was predicitng the opposite. Now Retort endorses this view after the fact while pretending to be original thinkers.

Nitzan and Bichler also show how the authors of Retort had troubles understanding the material they were plagiarizing.

To sum up, read the source.

Words can be used to make strong points. And whether they are used in this way or not, those who use them ought to be aware of their meanings.

This book does not make any strong points. And it also tosses words around a little too freely.

There is plenty that could be written about Western society. Obviously, like all societies, ours has some problems. And one ought to ask questions about whether we are too worshipful of consumer goods. As well as whether our existence and happiness are too dependent on the overuse of non-renewable resources. If that were true, it could be a serious flaw in the way we live. After all, in the long run, which humans will dominate this planet? Almost surely, it will be folks who will be relatively happy living on far fewer resources than we Westerners do now.

On the other hand, the world of the far future is very unlikely to be dominated by those with the attitudes of some present critics of the West who favor nihilism, destruction, and arbitrary and reactionary opposition to human rights. One of this book's big failings is that it does not dwell on these problems with the revolutionary Islamic opposition to Western society.

The authors say that Israel has a "grotesque legally enshrined apartheid." That's a good example of just tossing words around without regard to their meanings. Arabs live in Israel. Israel is practically a bantustan in the middle of a vast Arab Empire. Inverting the situation by calling Israel an apartheid state is simply a perverse misuse of words. Of course, the authors do not stop there. They dismiss Israeli self-defence out of hand, calling it "state violence." And they refer to "an increasingly extreme version of the Zionist project." That's a preposterous choice of words. Zionism is simply Jewish nationalism. It is based on universal human rights, and on the fact that if all humans are to have human rights, Jews (by virtue of being humans) must have human rights. That is not extreme. Of course, if Jews were greedy and laid claim to far more land than the share they could purchase if the entire planet were up for sale, one would indeed be able to refer to that as "extreme." And my point is that the Jews have not been greedy at all. The argument about land is whether the more than 5 million Jews of Israel are to be permitted to live on 8000, 9000, 10,000 or 11,000 square miles. Israel is land-poor. The Arabs are the ones with 5,500,000 square miles, not the Jews.

I think that getting rid of Israel would help no one. I think it would be an error to do as the authors suggest and have the United States join the fight against human rights in the Levant. And I think the authors' total mischaracterization of Israel casts further doubt on the scholarship of their entire work.