Customer Reviews

Democracy for the Few

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

In response to the two reviewers below...

The fact that Spiro Agnew resigned in exchange for the dropping of charges of bribery, extortion and income tax evasion is not discredited by evasive angles. The fact that such facts are not discussed in most school textbooks is very much a political issue.

In regard to "credible sources," the first chapter alone of 'Democracy for the Few' refers to mainstream publications such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post 36 times and judiciously utilizes 14 references from alternative publications such as Multinational Monitor and The Nation whose bias is merely the undoing of the blatant anti-labor, pro-plutocracy bias of the mainstream corporate owned media. This same ratio applies relatively throughout the remaining chapters.

One of the central facts discussed in the book comes right out of the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin, 1999-2000:

"Who Owns America?
The top 10 percent of American households own 98 percent of the tax-exempt state and local bonds, 94 percent of business assets, and 95 percent of the value of all trusts. The richest 1 percent own 60 percent of all corporate stock and all business assets. True, some 40 percent of families own some stocks or bonds, but almost all of these have total holdings of less than $2,000. Taking into account their debts and mortgages, 90 percent of American families have little or no net assets." (page 9)

Parenti then goes into how our political system is very much run by and for this tiny owning class and how the rest of us are affected by it.

The book is refreshingly clear, well written, entirely scholarly yet very engaging. None of the partial complaints "Timothy Kidd" cites below apply whatsoever.

A mindless, knee-jerk negative reaction to a rare political science book such as this by some is expected given the extent to which so many unconsciously buy into the business class's pervasive status-quo-protecting viewpoints.

(I give this book 4-1/2 stars)
It's important to be factual here. My copy of this extraordinarily well researched book is the 5th edition, published in 1988. I see a lot of nonsense being put out against this book and would like to touch on 4 of them:

1. Texan Kevin K Gorman (Nov 12, 2002) says in his review that "McCarthyism is a commi word." Nonsense, unless Kevin is from another planet or has stepped from being a humble patriot to being a nationalist, McCarthy is a recognized shameful smudge on this great country. Nothing to do with Commie anything and the word is known the world over to be synonymus with arrogance and repression of individuals. And then "Plutocracy" is not a "commie word" either, it is an acceptable term in Political Science, used for when money controls a society. Comes from Greek ploutos which means wealth, so to explain: Rather than one vote, one man, a Plutocracy would be one dollar, one vote, one thousand dollars one thousand votes. Nothing commi[e] here either but has to do with explaining corruption in a Democracy. Also I checked in my copy on page 82 and see nothing about "electromagnetic mind control from satalites [sic] (p. 82)!". So some people shouldn't write reviews if they are unable to comprehend the meaning in the books they are reading or unable to understand basic facts. Sticking to facts is important.

2. Then Michael Gordon claims that Parenti doesn't want Americans to have cars. Come on! That is ridiculous. That is not a book review. Sticking to facts is important.

3. Matt Nuenke says it is just filled with venom and hate. Very superficial critique of Matt and inability to accept that all countries have some shortcomings to work out, starting by talking about the issues. This is a Political Science book and must be read as such. It certainly is a relief from the unstopping $$$ brainwashing going on in most of our TV's. Sticking to facts is important.

4. Tim Kidd claims that most of the quotes are from People's weekly, The Nation etc. In fact as I am looking at the list of the incredible number of Parenti's quotes, I see most of them are from these newspapers: The New York Times, Washington Post and The Guardian [all VERY reputable] along with a host of books written by various scholars on the numerous societal issues that are important to all of us in the USA. Also, Tim says "most of his citations are from 1985 or earlier." Well, my copy of the book is 5th edition, published in 1988, so it is perfectly normal for Parenti to use sources 1986 and older. Check your facts, Tim, before writing a silly review, Oh yes, and the book is NOT written with a single quote from the Z Magazine. Check this on www.zmag.org that Z Magazine was founded in 1988! that is AFTER Parenti's book is written. Sticking to facts is important, Tim! And yes, I did find ONE quote from the Nation Magazine, in the hundreds of quotes throughout the book maybe there is another one somewhere, but I did find dozens after dozens just from New York Times alone. Almost one on every page.

I do agree that quoting ones own book is not a great way to write based on research, but that I see in a couple of places.

So here we have right-wing reviewers who disagree with an authors politics. These "reviewers" keep refering to "leftist" or "commie" or "hate america" type of name calling. The same reviewers have to resort to lies or hateful wording to "review" the book. One wants the author to die in a horrible accident. This says a lot about these individuals who wrote that stuff and I think Amazon should remove their reviews.
Not very objective I must say. One can disagree with people's politics, but the basic is to at least try and write accurate reviews. At least factual. Stick to facts. Buy the book and find out for yourself. I personally found it a great read and very insightful into the issues of our great country.

BTW, I think every REAL american should read this book.

Parenti's work, including this one, are indeed controversial...but that's exactly what I love about Parenti...his work provokes critical thinking on the reader's part...he offers an different view in viewing our political, societal system and history...and no, it's not poorly researched like some of these reviewers has claimed(please look at the history events and news from not just CNN)...and yes, it's opinionated, just as often times different history books all written in their own little biased views...therefore I encourage every reader to read this book, because of the angel that it offers...I think it's a great book that can shatter some people's realty in America, and creat many new critical thinkers of our time!

Parenti tells it like it is, and his well-documented book may shock the majority of us spoon-fed propaganda by the mainstream media. He addresses issues that the powers-that-be are afraid to, like the maldistribution of wealth, the regressive nature of the tax system, the enormous subsidies granted to the rich using our tax dollars, the anti-poor and racist nature of our criminal justice system, the class motivations underlying the US government's myriad interventions overseas, and the conservative media bias. He writes very well, and his logic is compelling and impeccable. While Dr. Parenti is very critical of the current "politico-economic system," that does not make him a communist, though that is what many embarassed elites will call him. He is a progressive, a compassionate man thoroughly concerned with the well-being of working people, and this is apparent from his writing. Writing with such conviction about the ugly realities of American life will never get him on one of those sunday-afternoon political talk shows, because the elites that run the media are frankly terrified of him telling the ordinary people the facts about class and political power in America. I have read many books on politics and economics in my life, and of many excellent ones, this is probably the best and most comprehensive. This is a phenomenal and eye-opening book. I am currently reading anothr one of his books, Blackshirts and Reds, and that one appears to be just as good as Democracy for the Few.

I am using this book for my political science class and Michael Parenti's viewpoints are concise and accurate. He does an excellent job of using endnotes at the end of each chapter to allow for further research into some of the subjects he touches on. This book is definately an alternative viewpoint to what "the liberal media" deems fit to tell us.

A firend who is a political science grad student advised I read this. I was impressed by the thorough analysis of The American version of Realpolitik presented in Mr. Parenti's book. His writing style is clear and direct as this book was intended to be a polital science textbook. He presents facts about the realities of class and the efforts of the existing ruling "elite" to maitain their grip on power here and abroad. Unlike other reviewers here, I didn't feel Mr.Parenti was "America bashing" or that he "hates buisness". On the contrary, I think his intent here (and in other writings I've since read)is to inform people and encourage them to use this knowledge to get more involved with democracy. He is shows that democracy and capitalism need not automatically go hand in hand.
Also, other reviews here question the sources in this book. Apparently they discount ALL the sources here because of the use of some left-wing texts. Obviously we're expected to believe only right-wing journalism... Hope you enjoy this book!

I am surprised at the lack of refutation of Mr. Sanchez's Oct. 30, 1998, comment to the effect that citation of one's own prior works is a sign of poor academic work. (One reviewer, OT "delirium_tremens", did an excellent job refuting many specious criticisms, but confessed he was not comfortable with the practice of citing one's own past work.) I would like to clear up this one point.

There is nothing wrong with the citation of one's own past works, and criticism of such citation alone constitutes a poor ground to impugn an author's work. Such citation is quite often used in very respected scholarly works, especially where the author is a pioneer in a certain field or highly-specialized area, has been oft-published, and/or seeks merely to reference a point he has made more fully in a previous work. In law textbook writing, for example, it is extremely commonplace; in fact, law textbook authors often quote selections from their previous works at length (often even referring to themselves as "the author"!).

Thus, citing one's own prior work is neither negative nor positive in itself. Like all citations, such a citation's value and its representativeness of the author's academic skills must be judged in reference to its own particular facts. For example, it *would* be negative where an author cites his own past writings as if they were conclusive authority to prove a certain allegation, or if an author did it too much. But where the author intends merely to indicate a fuller source of information on the point at hand which he has previously-written, for example, the value of the citation is in that very reference. No more, no less.

CE

Parenti's analysis of the basically undemocratic nature of American capitalism is right on the mark. I highly recommend it.

This is the history they don't want you to know. You live in a capitalist state, and that has severe implications for democracy, race relations, the jobless/homless rate, the environment, and just about every social ill you can think of. Read it and pass it on

Parenti clearly exposes the indignities and injustices of the U.S. political-economic system and sets the affected reader on a path of further inquiry and activism.