Customer Reviews:
 The chips are down October 22, 2007
calmly
An outstanding introduction and a meaty one too. Now that I've read three books in the "very short introduction" series, it has been a pleasant surprise to see how formidable these book are.
References, suggestions for further reading and a 9 page index are included.
Newman does not hide the problems that socialists have had but neither does he fail to recognize the ways in which they might help.
The analyses of Cuban communism and Swedish social democracy were illuminating. Socialism may not have dominated, but it has not always been the failure that it is made out to be.
Newman claims "What can be maintained with confidence is that capitalism will not be able to resolve the problems and injustices that it causes...and that socialist arguments remain relevant". He notes the challenge, beyond whatever problems socialists themselves have in running an economy, that "At present, Washington is opposed to any international regimes that might limit its autonomy and is willing to use its power to thwart their development."
Unlike the literature I've read of many socialist parties, which tend to be simplistic and shallow in analysis, Newman does manage in this "very short introduction" multi-dimensional explorations of the challenges facing socialism. He continues to value the role of trade unions, the greens and feminists. The socialist effort is fragmented and it is not clear in what ways it can be effective. Like many socialists, Newman's moral concerns seem clear but Newman's openness and flexibility seems all the more valuable at a time when many socialist groups seem dogmatic and rigid.
Newman's "very short introduction" seems one of the best statements on what Socialism today has to offer.
 Useful overview, with interesting points raised May 21, 2007
M. McManus
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
The book covers a useful analysis of the roots of socialism, and then chronicles how it diverged into communism on the one hand and more moderate social democratic parties on the other hand. To illustrate this, there is an interesting comparison between communists and social democrats in action, with a chapter dedicated to how Cuba and Sweden used the respective systems in their public policy, often allowing it to cross fertilise with cultural mores (especially true of Sweden), and a discussion of how the Cuban system may not survive Castro's death, being as it is largely based on Castro's personal charisma. By contrast, the Swedish system has much better prospects for long term survival, although it did struggle during the neo-liberal 1980s.
There is also an interesting look at how "green" policies have influenced recent socialist thinking, explaining how this was a significant challenge to traditional socialism and communism, both of which took unlimited growth and industrial activity for granted. By contrast, the greens argued that the emphasis should be on managed growth, and that if this growth threatened the planet, growth should be stopped. Interestingly the greens believed that this was simply an extension of the socialist belief that whilst traditional socialists should care for society's members now, they also had a duty to look after the planet and thus take care of society's future members.
The author also examines how socialism has fragmented, with increasing attention being paid to gender and ethnicity, and less to class amongst more recent writers, a considerable break with tradition. One refreshing feature of the book is the author's honesty, and far from being a partisan rant, the author freely admits that his/her ideology has its flaws and that amending them is not going to be easy. All in all, a good introduction to the semi-interested reader, but more interested readers in the subject of socialism may need to read a more "deep" text.
 A rather biased account November 17, 2008
PhilosopherKing (London)
When I was a young man training as an accountant (after previously completing an engineering degree), I began to get interested in philosophical, political and religious ideas.
Particularly after completing my accountancy examination, I began reading books on politics, philosophy, Christian theology, comparative religion and so on.
Having come from a mainly mathematical and scientific background, I naively thought at first that one only had to read up on each political and religious 'system' e.g. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and so on and Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism and then by subjecting them to rigorous logical analysis determine which one was the best. As anyone who has ever embarked on a study of these subjects soon realizes, however, many of the arguments involved are highly complex and some of the greatest minds that the human race has ever produced have held opposing positions.
As a sensitive and intelligent young man, I was revolted with some of the greed that I saw as an accountant and I was attracted to both Christianity and socialism (even though some branches of socialism can be anti-Christian). I read e.g. George Orwell's essays and novels and I remember reading novels such as 'Love on the Dole' and the 'Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'.
I was just completing my accountancy examinations around the time of the miners strike. I was always against Communism (as opposed to democratic socialism) and I have since read about the horrors of Stalinism. I was against Marxism because of its anti-religious stance at first.
As I began to read more about British history I began to realize that most Labour governments have always messed up the economy and the Brown government is no exception. I used to think that although most Labour governments had been useless that Attlee's government had been a good one but I have since read some economic arguments suggesting that even Attlee's government made huge mistakes that hindered our post war recovery.
I am broadminded enough to follow all aspects of an argument and we subscribe to a wide range of magazines and journals including the Economist, New Statesman, Prospect Magazine and the Spectator.
I would like to believe that there is a viable alternative to the dog eat dog world of capitalism. Unfortunatly, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that capitalism isn't anywhere near as bad as socialism. I have become attracted to Conservative thought in recent years and I also believe that many ideas propounded by socialists such as mass immigration and multiculturalism are misguided too. I think that Edmund Burke had some useful things to say about tradition and I don't like the way that the left always wish to denigrate everything British or Christian or both.
I found this book rather biased and some of the ideas about e.g. about Sweden's economy and welfare system no longer seem up to date with the reality on the ground.
|
