The Case for Socialism by Alan Maass

Local elections on Nov 8th, 2017 yielded 15 candidates endorsed by or direct members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Many of these candidates unseated Republicans in territory rarely ceded to Democrats. Organizations like the DSA and PSL have seen a staggering rise in involvement. If you find yourself increasingly curious about socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc you are evidently not alone. That makes it a good time to read up on the subject. I’ve been reading a number of soft introductions to Democratic Socialism since Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign really put it on my radar. The Case for Socialism by Alan Maass is probably the least of which I would recommend.

Bernie Sanders may have endeared me - as well as a large swath of young people - to Democratic Socialism and he might identify as a Democratic Socialist (along with people like Howard Zinn, Hellen Keller, and Martin Luther King Jr.), but he isn’t necessarily so. As Noam Chomsky said, “Bernie Sanders is a good man, and I supported him, but his views were closer to a new deal democrat; they would be very familiar to someone like, say, Eisenhower”. This is exactly why colloquial, accessible, and introductory texts are needed. Otherwise, we have a bunch of millennials out there thinking FDR was a Marxist.

This isn’t to say Alan Maass doesn’t address misconceptions about Socialism (the idea that Denmark or Finland or China represent shining examples when none of these states are run by the people/laborers was a particularly well-written section). It’s just that a lot has been written on this subject and if you want to bring people into the fold of your ideology there are a number of things you need to do that Maass doesn’t.

The most important thing is coherence. When someone comes looking for a text to introduce them to a subject they want to be immediately enthralled by a compelling and straightforward argument. I should know, as someone who has gone to a number of texts portending to introduce socialism to the masses I am often astounded by the lack of organization in some of these pieces. Maass suffers from overtly passionate and tangential political writing; the rate at which he switches topics from the Russian Revolution, to Obama, to the nature of war, to the ‘08 recession can be measured in sentences. He ends up talking a little bit about a lot of things while lacking in substantial discussion of any one subject.

The Case for Socialism bills itself as, well, as a “case”. For doing so, it doesn’t imagine a world in which socialism has fully replaced capitalism. I don’t understand this. Anyone is capable of criticizing the state of the world while drawing express connections to capitalism as the primary reason. Liberals and Social Democrats do this extensively, it is, in fact, part of the very fabric of their political philosophy. Socialists are not seeking to mitigate the effects of capitalism, they are trying to replace it. For newcomers, it is difficult to imagine what socialism would look like (Scandinavia? Cuba?). Maass is particularly remiss in his scant covering of the role democracy will play in socialism. While his critiques of capitalism and its effects are biting they largely overshadow his solutions. His explanations on labor’s ability to get us to a socialist utopia are sporadic and focus on how terrible our current system is. The question of practicality plaguing socialism as it does, it is a shame Maass doesn’t take more time to address it.

Finally, an introductory text should not try to stand on its own, it should...well...introduce you to other works! The Haymarket Books edition puts an addendum to the book titled “What Else to Read” (which is a testament to Haymarket Books, not Maass). In it, Maass freely admits that the book is devoid of sources and that he isn’t remotely interested in citing them. While this end section has some more to read on certain subjects, in-text citations help the reader build a crucial relationship with other texts in the context of your arguments. Not only that, but if your reader doubts your numbers, statistics, or historical accounts for a second you could potentially drive them to sources explicitly seeking to discredit your ideas!

Ultimately, Maass does craft some good arguments. He has very convincing sections on what Socialism is or isn’t and some fairly imaginative sections on what Socialism could look like. I wouldn’t recommend this book to someone curious about Socialism, but who hasn’t quite bought into the idea. I’d rather push the ABC’s of Socialism put out by Jacobin Magazine or Danny Katch’s Socialism Seriously. If you’re sold on Socialism and you're already trying to satiate your endless hunger for better arguments, you should consume the whole of The Case for Socialism if only for the few morsels to be found there.

The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin

On the hundredth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation James Baldwin sits down to write two letters; one is to his nephew and the other to no one in particular. These two searing essays are combined into one brief collection titled the Fire Next Time. In it, Baldwin ruminates on the nature of freedom and the imperative task of confronting white supremacy, suggesting there can be no true former without the latter.

“My Dungeon Shook”, Baldwin’s letter to his nephew, could read as a shorthand form of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me. Aside from the brevity, the major difference is Baldwin sees white supremacy something to combat with constant struggle, Coates sees it as immutable. While there is certainly plenty of foreboding language, Baldwin ultimately entreats his nephew to “make America what America must become” (which is a great counter phrase to MAGA). And what America must become is free; no longer dependent on oppression. His tone is hopeful and his candid yet elegant conversation with his nephew is nothing short of heartwarming.

“Down at the Cross” reads like Marx’s brief critiques of religion, except where Marx sees religion and nationalism as a way to cope with the atrocities of capitalism, Baldwin sees them as a way of coping with white supremacy. The piece has two focal points; Baldwin’s own religious upbringing and his brief run-in with the Nation of Islam. Early in his life, Baldwin would come to choose between falling in with the church or with the streets, since these were the only choices America gave him. Baldwin loved the church, but ultimately its insistence on living for the afterlife and perseverance was too passive an approach and did not deal with reality. Baldwin was also unable to rationalize the existence of a higher being in the face of such stark inequality. The Nation of Islam seemingly juxtaposes the church with its fiery rhetoric and call to action (the segregation of an all-black society), but Baldwin effortlessly argues that civilization itself cannot accommodate even the most utopian of segregated societies because the toxicity of white supremacy demands the destruction or subjugation of the inferior. As the title implies, America cannot continue to survive while white supremacy still courses through its most sacred institutions and there is no true freedom until the decadence of America is no longer built on the backs of others. If we (Baldwin demands action from both whites and blacks, men and women) continue to fall into organizations that do nothing but distract from the painful realities of white supremacy or if we continue to do nothing but live our daily lives, then America will forever be a place that depends on suffering.

I recently read a Facebook exchange between two high school classmates. Evidently, someone they went to school with is currently an active member in an unabashed white supremacist group. This individual is a fourth-grade teacher. One classmate was of the opinion that this person needed to be outed, preferably fired, but certainly exposed for their beliefs. The other classmate felt this was bullying, that it would only drive the individual further into their hateful views and that we shouldn’t take action until we know their views are causing real harm. It is important to note that many Americans likely agree with what they imagine is the level-headed response of the classmate advocating the cautious approach to the white supremacist teacher. It is also important to note that these Americans are trying, perhaps (and even most likely) unknowingly, to preserve a country built on racism. To them, a rational society must tolerate viewpoints, even intolerance itself. The Fire Next Time serves as a warning should we decide not to confront this very thinking. If we ever want the abolition of racism, we can never allow it a moment's comfort.

Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann

“We have a few old mouth-to-mouth tales, we exhume from old trunks and boxes and drawers letters without salutation or signature, in which men and women who once lived and breathed are now merely initials or nicknames out of some now incomprehensible affection which sound to us like Sanskrit or Chocktaw; we see dimly people, the people in whose living blood and seed we ourselves lay dormant and waiting, in this shadowy attenuation of time possessing now heroic proportions, performing their acts of simple passion and simple violence, impervious to time and inexplicable” – William Faulkner

The atrocities committed by the United States against its indigenous people is not an unfamiliar story. Only the scariest of blind patriots would deny that this nation has done wrong by the native populations and are likely denying something in themselves by doing so. Given the depravity of the systematic removal, war, and genocide carried out, reading about the Reign of Terror – committed against the Osage tribe in the early nineteen hundreds – shouldn’t be more affecting than any other historical account. From this context leaps Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann.

In his meticulous and riveting retelling of the Osage County Murders, Grann is both poetic and informative. His descriptions of the Osage County countryside show a true knack for writing that can be sorely missed in historical recounts and his carefully crafted research manifests itself in into a landscape of storytelling, each piece is woven into the larger picture, as opposed to a bullet for bullet recitation of sources. Grann is cautious in telling the Osage story to avoid portrayal of a mere documentation of butchery, what sets this story apart is that it is deeply personal. This makes Killers of the Flower Moon a uniquely unsettling book.  

The Osage tribe was essentially forced from their land by western expansion, moving to a virtual wasteland. When oil is discovered on the infertile lands, the approaching industrial revolution turns the reservation into a boomtown. The Osage Indian Tribe becomes impeccably wealthy with every oil operation having to pay handsome dividends to members of the tribe. Had this land been owned by white people, we’d know their family name today like we know the Bush family name or other old money oil families. In the case of the Osage, they were met with a murderous plot, the size and scope of which is truly astounding. Stretching across every branch of government, industry fat cats, law enforcement, medical professionals, pastors, and renown criminals it seems every sect of America could be indicted as a key player in the plot to terrorize, murder, and rob the Osage Tribe out of its headright.

Eventually, the FBI is born and takes the Osage as its first case. These sections show Grann at his worst. The Bureau seems too lionized (Hoover’s own human rights violations are relegated to a single sentence, referring to them as “scandals”) and the agents on the case archetypically cartoonish. When you learn the murders themselves were carried out by people who spent nearly their entire lives getting close to the Osage, treating them like humans in a nation that thought them uncivilized dogs, your stomach will literally turn. Which is far from a spoiler, the real suspense doesn’t come from the mystery of who might be killing the Osage tribe, but how a human being can be capable of doing so. Grann documents, even further than the newborn FBI did at the time of the case, the vast conspiracy to systematically destroy a group of people for simply living on land they were forced to own through oppressive western expansion. It should be taught in every school.

The Political Economy of Racism by Melvin Leiman

“The scholar who accepts no harsh judgment because it does not do justice to the entire complex truth can really accept no judgments about society because all are simplifications of the complex. The result is scholarly detachment from the profound ethical conflicts of society and from that human concern without which scholarship becomes a pretentious game” - Howard Zinn

Having taken me a thoroughly long time to read, I finished The Political Economy of Racism the same day I went to the Macomb Juvenile Justice Detention Center to workshop some poetry with the students attending the facility’s subcontracted school. These were young men whom the system had failed at every level of their lives, regardless of the scope of their “crimes”. Some of these students were going to go straight to prison to serve 20 years, 30 years, or life and they were 14 -16 years old. There is not a society on earth that can deem itself a success while condemning children to lifetimes in prison. What can a book as dense and academic (not to mention a terrible “summer read”) as Melvin Leiman’s offer in the face of utter societal failure?

A lot.

Leiman’s is a challenging read, making this a hard book to recommend, but what he has to offer is critical. He works out two distinct lines of discourse; 1) a hard look at the economy of discrimination ranging from slavery to redlining (the book was written in the 70s so mass incarceration was really only starting to ramp up) and 2) an absolutely savage Marxist takedown of any school of thought that avoids branding capitalism as public enemy number one.

In his first line, Leiman makes it very clear his interest does not lie with the petty racism of individuals. While he feels any degree of racism is grotesque, it is obvious he places the emphasis on systems designed to hold African Americans down for any number of reasons. Slavery was, after all, an institution of value that was justified by evoking the perceived inferiority of black people. The argument is that racism maintains the underclass necessary for capitalism. It is a smart line to take, some Marxists receive criticism because they feel that racism would disappear if capitalism was toppled. Leiman makes no such guarantee, but he is very adamant that racism can never be abolished under capitalism as it is far too necessary; we need to justify exploitation by labeling those at the bottom as deserving of their place in society, the best way to do this is fostering the idea of race based inferiority. While this underlying premise seems obvious, Leiman’s scope is complicated (and arduous). He covers monopolistic economies where companies rely on disadvantaged communities - ones that may be ravaged by over policing and redlining - for cheap labor (think of Wal-Mart or McDonald's) and competitive economies where discrimination and racism help keep wages low across the labor market. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Every dissection is thorough and complete with hard numbers and analysis. Have I mentioned this book was dense?

The second half of the book examines radical critiques of racism, Orthodox critiques of racism, and hybrid positions such as Black Nationalism or Black Capitalism. To many, taking on the conservative school of thought is the easiest to swallow. Libertarian and conservative ideologies often pay lip service to a certainly palatable repulsion to discrimination and racism, but will not endorse government intervention to prevent it. The idea is that discrimination does not benefit the participants of a market system in the form of profits, stock prices, and/or publicity, in fact, it may harm them. Even where that is true, libertarians and conservatives fail to address the larger political economy that benefits more generally from the existence of an underclass perpetuated by systemic discrimination and racism. These were among some of the most buoyant and fun sections to read, Leiman’s take on liberalism and class-centric leftism are more complicated but no less crucial. The orthodox liberal ideology - say, of your Clinton variety - warrants criticism because it is a full endorsement of a class based system with a welfare state to mitigate the condition of the lowest classes. It attracts well-meaning people who don’t believe suffering should be so prolific but doesn’t truly offer them an answer for eliminating its necessity for America to maintain its decadence. Every examination of critical theory on racism that Leiman explores is vital for understanding the limitations of our system as a whole.

It is important to understand the persistence of racism in America, why the students I taught poetry in Juvenile Detention live in an entirely different world than the students I teach in the suburbs. This divide is entirely manufactured. Leiman’s solution to toppling capitalism is black and white labor unity, something he feels racism is also employed to stop. There isn’t a single element of racism that Leiman cannot prove the absolute utility of in his book. It’s worth stating again; the decline or abolition of capitalism will not guarantee the the decline or abolition of racism, but there will be no such thing under capitalism. Reading The Political Economy of Racism can help elevate the conversation against racism to much needed heights.

The ABC's of Socialism

The ABC’s of Socialism is a tight little book written by a collection of very intuitive intellectuals who lack the academic penchant for pretentiousness. If I had the means to buy one and place it in every hotel room across the country next to the holy bible, I would. But I don’t! So the best thing I can do is tell every person I know to read the ABC’s of Socialism.

Brevity can’t be undervalued here, you could read the ABC’s on one or two sittings on a toilet. Of course, it would be better to fully engage with the text as there are some real gems in each section. For example, here is a little excerpt from a section entitled “Don’t the rich deserve to keep their money?”;

“The socialist view of redistribution within a capitalist society must reject an important premise at play in almost all tax policy debates: the pre-tax income is earned solely on individual effort and owned privately before the state intervenes...the first preconditions for firms to earn profit is state-enforced property rights

Each section is a concise answer sandwiched in-between a simple question we’ve all heard a million times (I.E. Socialism sounds good in theory, but doesn’t human nature make it impossible?) and a shorthand answer (like “our shared nature actually helps us build and define the values of a just society”). Complete with fun little drawings. The questions themselves range from simple and abstract (“doesn’t socialism always end up in a dictatorship?”) to a fairly complex analysis of society as it currently stands (see “isn’t America already kind of socialist” or “will socialists take my Kenny Loggins records?”).

I feel like a lot of really great people in my life are unwilling to give up on capitalism because of the supposed luxury and stability they perceive it has given them and their families. I can hardly blame them for feeling this way. ABC’s editor Bhaskar Sunkara doesn’t claim to present all the answers in this volume either. At the same time, I can think of no better place to start introducing your friends or family or even yourself to socialism. The opinions are well argued and philosophical enough to convince someone on the fence, but could also serve as an introductory rebuke to those who are almost violently against the idea.

Then, of course, there is the question of why you might read a book on socialism at all. It may seem like an extreme option in a country that already seems so opposed down party lines. Maybe you’re a diehard Democrat that believes in the power of capitalism for good (like Robert Reich! He’s a cool guy!). While I’d love to see this book and many other books convert you, I can assure you that the left has a lot to learn from Marxism as a critical theory. Donald Trump’s firebrand, “more jobs” nationalism (which seems interested in bringing the bottom, heavily exploited classes necessary for capitalism back to America for some inexplicable reason) could perhaps find a formidable opponent in the idea that workers deserve to take home a far greater piece of the pie, even long after they are done physically working (think construction worker, truck driver, coal miner) or in the idea that all people deserve to live a happy and equitable life simply because they are humans.

If you want to read this book, shoot me an email and I will personally buy it for you.

The Washington Connection by Noam Chomsky

Sometimes at work, I will listen to the Democracy Now! headlines. The show is about an hour long and the news is a straightforward, unabridged version of key events. If we compare them to the daily headlines I read in the NYT or NPR Morning Edition’s, there are some...er...differences. It isn’t that Democracy Now! is too partisan - NYT and NPR can hardly be denied a partisan standing - rather Democracy Now! is not gunning to entertain with the news. The charge that it is radical is as much from form as it is content. It is devoid of any band profiles or stories about cupcake stores and at the same time, it doesn’t spare any details when describing death and destruction taking place across the globe. It should surprise no one that Noam Chomsky gives regular interviews almost exclusively to Democracy Now.

Reading Part One of the Washington Connection it is easy to see that Noam Chomsky is not out to entertain. Like Democracy Now, he and his co-author are in the business of speaking truth to power, often contradicting the official government and mainstream media’s version of events with specialists and primary sources. This is truly important work and it comes with a great risk of being wrong (any right-winger worth their salt will remind you that Chomsky denied Cambodian genocide for fourteen years). It is also very difficult to read, and I’m not just talking about density. Chomsky takes on the mainstream media, the United States Military, and public officials of all kinds, breaking US involvement with 3rd world fascism down into benign and constructive terror. Since World War II, our foreign policy of intervention has either been benign, where we allow tyrannical regimes to carry out atrocity because we get 80% of our coffee supply from them (like in Burundi) or it is constructive, in which case we supply anything from weapons (like in Indonesia) to ground troops and bombing campaigns (like in Vietnam) to protect our business interests/investment opportunities and those of our allies.

I certainly don’t believe that history, politics, or current events have to be packaged in a fun and entertaining way, but the depth of cover up and propaganda that Chomsky claims is staggering. Many of the reports he refutes - outside of maybe Vietnam - are still officially on the record, it is way easier to believe these accounts than it is to acknowledge the conspiracy that Chomsky is trying to demonstrate. Many would love for Chomsky to be wrong both factually and morally, even those who would likely be sympathetic to his leftist message, simply because it would allow us to continue living in a world where our elected officials aren’t partnering with major corporations to perpetuate the conditions of a necessary (for capitalism) underclass around the word.These people especially should be reading the Washington Connection if only to ask the pivotal question: “what if he’s right?”

The Death of Adam by Marilynne Robinson

In the midst of reading 100% non-fiction in 2017, I decided to read Marilynne Robinson’s the Death of Adam after Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. The idea was simple enough; read a book that supposes there is no place for religion in the modern world and then read a book that supposes there is! This is constantly a stance I wobble back and forth on and I was seeking opposing views. The Death of Adam was a foolish book choice for this purpose, but on the other hand, I don’t believe I’ve read anything that has inspired me quite like it has.

The temptation here is to treat “inspire” as a platitude, as though the Death of Adam made me feel good or reaffirmed beliefs I’d been mulling over. While it did those things, I’m more interested in taking action. As a set of essays self-proclaimed to take on all of modern thought, Robinson has taken to processing the topic as a way of challenging her readers to do the same. And her case for doing so is absolutely air tight.

We should be considering modern thought at all times. Any set of beliefs, progressive or orthodox, liberal or conservative, are rooted in history. Deriving the genealogy of these ideas is important. In Robinson’s first essay she discusses the influence that Darwinism has had on our economics, politics, and psychology. The effects have ranged from genocide to laissez-faire capitalism, all predicated on the immutability of evolution - the truth of which is very different than Darwinism. The essay is wildly educational, brilliantly written, and forces readers to think about the sorts of truths humanity has tried to pull moral codes from. Every essay takes on the subject of influence and history in ways that make one want to question the origin of everything.

I’m also very intrigued that Robinson refuses to take any opinion second hand. She goes right to the primary source to draw her own conclusions. There is no doubt that the immense amount of work this requires is masked by her effortless and gorgeous writing style. When discussing the merits of John Calvin, or Charles Darwin, or Marx, or Jefferson, or Freud, or anyone for that matter, Robinson does so with the authority of having read and studied their actual works. Her only citation of historians and academics comes as rebuke or demonstration of modern thinking gone astray. To the modern reader, no matter how well-read, one has to come to the realization that there are so many primary works, the worth of which we’ve only been assuming. I’ve never felt so pressed to read more.

The last bit of inspiration comes entirely from Robinson’s final essay titled the Tyranny of Petty Coercion (great title). Some of the most prolific and powerful writing I’ve ever encountered, Robinson dwells on the point that we’ve allowed our ideas to be censored because they are thought to have fallen out of fashion or to be uncool, dated, “delusional”, something it is cool to show irreverence toward. In it, she admits to being a liberal and a Christian, if I say she does so boldly do not take it to be melodramatic. You’re smart and passionate enough to believe the things you do, collective modern thought has nothing to lose and everything to gain from your categorical declaration of belief. Don’t be afraid to admit you’re a socialist because it will offend your girlfriend’s parents, or say you’re an atheist because it will break your mother's heart, or that you’re a liberal because your boss is a hot blooded conservative, or any of the opposite because the opposite is true! All we can do is go around inspiring each other. Robinson’s book is a necessary first step.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

“That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religions - to religious hatred, religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scarce resources - is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity. Unfortunately, expression such criticism places the nonbeliever at the margins of society. By merely being in touch with reality, he appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors” pg. 57

Let’s be real, Letter to a Christian Nation is not a letter truly addressed to Christians, but we shouldn’t be harboring any illusions that it is either. For one, author Sam Harris admits that he doesn’t expect any hardline Christians to read it. Two, the distinction is in the title itself. Harris is writing to the nation of these United States, a nation which allows a considerable amount of influence derived from religious texts/beliefs into public life, policy, and societal endeavors. So while Harris’ book may be written in a way that addresses fanatical Christians, his true appeal is to moderates and secularists.

Harris is imploring the people of the United States to discover the difference between how we treat people and how we treat their beliefs. Consider how we allow Christian parents to abstain from immunizing their children or how we allow Jehovah's Witnesses to abstain from life saving blood transfusions. Do we do this because our nation is allowing religious freedom or are we simply exercising religious tolerance? It seems religious freedom would be allowing these groups to practice their religion free of persecution from the law, but the burden of justifying harmful practices should fall squarely on the believer, not the nation as a whole. Harris outlines countless more examples in this concise argument and one has to believe there are countless more. This is not an offensive riff against religious people, it is a treatise for intellectually honest conversation.

And one does not have to accept Harris’ assertions that there is no God or that the world would be better if everyone stopped believing in one in order to participate in his general premise. Granted, they do need to read between quite a few condescending passages to fully engage, but what simmers underneath is a really important and substantial argument about the way we should structure society. We should want to see society structured in such a way that does not tolerate self-harm or the harming of others or perpetual opposition to legislation, scientific research, and humanitarian effort designed to reduce suffering all on the grounds that it is considered religious freedom and tolerance to so.

There is tremendous benefit to reading Harris’ arguments with this in mind. If you are avoiding his works because you feel he is too offensive or condescending or hot-button, then you are part of the problem Harris feels this nation has. The greatest human and societal achievements haven’t been attained without making swaths of everyday people very uncomfortable, in some cases even murderously angry. It is time we begin to discuss how to be intolerant without cruelty, start with this book.

Evicted by Mattew Desmond

When talking about the housing crises and subsequent recession of ‘08, I used to blame it almost entirely for my parent’s divorce. I’d usually posit that had the market not crashed, employment not taken a nosedive, then my mom and stepdad could have made things work. This was largely an effort to couple a personal affront with a larger criticism of the system. The problem with what I was doing was not relative to the truth of the matter, but more of a problem with using the power of narrative to contextualize flaws in the system. After all, my parent’s divorce was not proof of predatory lending or high stakes debt investments, the only credibility it lent my argument (assuming it is true) was that my life was adversely affected by the housing market crash. This is an example of a strong rhetorical tool overtaking the argument it was meant only to bolster.

I’ll be clear, this is far from what Matthew Desmond does in his book Evicted. Desmond meticulously documents poverty in Milwaukee inner cities and rural trailer parks as only a professional journalist could. While first focusing on two landlords and some tenants, he then magnifies these stories, tracking them into some increasingly dark places. Evicted is an exceptionally important book because of the way in which it documents our country’s failure in dealing with our most vulnerable citizens. These are not sob stories, they are gritty realities meant to frustrate the reader.

Each tenant, or character as you might mistakenly be apt to call them, is extorted by their landlord in the most sickening ways. They are thrown increasingly into drug addiction and poverty as eviction after eviction piles up. The stories are heartbreaking, unfair, and gut wrenching. Every American should read them so they can get a glimpse of the way this country is designed to profit off suffering. The idea is that, unlike regular, middle-class tenants, in order to make a profit off our poorest citizens, the landlord must milk a high number of them for everything they are worth. This makes the eviction a pivotal tool. It allows landlords to remove a tenant at the moment they become unprofitable. The result is a terrifyingly fast carousel of poverty and profit.

Despite the fact that Desmond litters Eviction with hard numbers and detailed passages on flawed housing policy, it could still be entirely possible for readers to walk away from it thinking greedy landlords are the problem, or the government, or ineffectual social programs. This is because the main focus is on the way the narrative of downtrodden people like Arleen makes us feel, not what systemic policy most likely put her there. While the descriptions of poverty and the cyclical brutality of the inner-city may make us physically wince, they detract and overshadow the brief passages on causation. At the same time, the descriptions are necessary for any reader concerned with living in and creating a just society.

For this reason, Desmond's book is worth reading, but cautiously. It is an excellent ancillary text that lends itself to a worldview already privy to the flaws of capitalism and America's perpetual reliance on poverty for profit. As a conversation starter it runs the risks inherent in narrative style non-fiction, so resist the urge to recommend it to your mother-in-law's book club.

The New Prophets of Capital by Nicole Aschoff

When Whole Foods came to Detroit I remember Kai Ryssdal of NPR’s Marketplace doing an interview with Walter Robb, the CEO of the company at the time. Admittedly, I was on the bandwagon; I thought a Whole Foods in Detroit was a good thing, was part of the revitalization effort happening across the city. Ryssdal, though, posed some difficult questions to a clearly annoyed Robb (who at one point says something along the lines of “that’s why I’m an entrepreneur and you’re just a journalist”). The skepticism Ryssdal expressed was rooted in gentrification and because of Robb’s continued counter to the concerns over high prices always boiling down to “just doing it right” Ryssdal ended up asking him what his plans were to teach the residents of Detroit how to shop at the store.  

This interview profoundly affected me. I began to see the urban revitalization led by Dan Gilbert and his ilk (whom I worked for at the time) as flawed, despite their intentions. At the same time, I had difficulties expressing this skepticism, I wasn’t sure why dumping private capital into economically disadvantaged areas seemed to result in more inequality when the intention and efficiency were in the right places. It was also difficult to explain to fellow suburbanites why I had my doubts about Detroit being labeled as a “comeback city” when they saw the city generating profit in ways it hadn’t for some time.

This was until, very recently, I read The New Profits of Capital by Nicole Aschoff. The New Profits basically breaks down the stories of successful, well-intentioned, entrepreneurs that seek to make the world a better place through capitalist markets. Aschoff focuses on four big players: Sheryl Sandburg of Facebook, John Mackey of Whole Foods, Oprah, and Bill/Melinda Gates.

Each section follows a pattern. The first part generally discusses the subject in a positive light; Sheryl Sandberg breaking barriers as a woman CEO, John Mackey hasn’t taken a paycheck in years and pays his employees profit share, Oprah’s unfettered benevolence, the Gateses wild success in reducing disease worldwide. This is important, Aschoff isn’t a snooty leftist whose aim is to defecate all over the capitalist class for being evil or greedy. She recognizes the importance of understanding each of these individuals as essentially good. For Aschoff, the flaw is in the philosophy.

The next part of each section usually delves into the limitations of capitalist markets to accomplish the endgame of each subject. The ideas here are enlightening and, in many ways, a total game changer. Some key points used against the subjects are that capital - unlike human needs - can’t be satiated, that markets require inequality, and that private capital is undemocratic. There are more about the limits of the individual vs the system (you can’t bootstrap your way out of poverty)  and conscious consumerism as well. Each was backed up by an abundance of sources demonstrating that capitalism necessitates inequality and a certain amount of people left behind.

The final part of each section talks about ways in which society could be constructed, democratically and socialistically, that would serve the needs of people over the needs of capital. Whether or not you believe this is the answer, The New Profits of Capital is certainly worth reading. If only to poke holes in the success stories capitalists are telling in the wake of immense suffering and poverty. I can’t recommend this book enough, I almost wish it were a documentary for fear that too few people will read it.

And just FYI, I emailed Aschoff at editor@jacobinmag.org to request a Part II featuring Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Dan Gilbert, and Sarah Koenig from the podcast Serial. So...fingers crossed.

Disobedience and Democracy by Howard Zinn

Disobedience and Democracy is a short essay Howard Zinn wrote in response to a short essay about Law and Order written by a Supreme Court Justice. Zinn outlines nine fallacies in the original essay, quoting extensively enough so that reading it is unnecessary. Each fallacy deals with a more fundamental question on law and order; when, if ever, it is morally permissible to break the law through protest? According to Judge Fortas, the justice who wrote the piece Zinn is eviscerating, the answer is never. Zinn disagrees.

It’s hard not to look at Zinn’s argument as a relic. The moral peril the nation was in at the time of his essay seemed greater than that of today. We’re talking about the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, redlining, and remnants of Jim Crow. So when Zinn states the scope of the civil disobedience in question did not outweigh the immorality of the things they protested, this seems, somehow, truer than today. When Zinn argues that burning your draft card or blocking the road to a chemical weapons manufacturer doesn’t compare to the atrocities of an illegal war, the benefit of hindsight means there are few of us who would disagree as modern readers.

That said, it is important for the modern reader to understand that Zinn’s arguments, at the time, were not widely accepted. That which he advocated the protest of is more comparable to what is happening today than we may be willing to admit while reading argumentative essays of the past. The Vietnam war and the conquests of Indo-Asia/Latin America can strike parallels to the relentless wars in the Middle East today. Surely we can use the same fallacies of law and order when assessing the moral decision demanded of the nation in the case of Edward Snowden, or Standing Rock, or Flint Michigan.

In this regard, Zinn’s words are more relevant than ever. Providing a moral justification and guidebook for disobedience against the state, Disobedience, and Democracy becomes essential reading at a time when democracy is most threatened. While we like to believe we exercise control over our lives by merely participating in democracy, the reality is that we don’t have a say in far too many ways. Americans don’t vote on foreign policy or wars, they don’t decide how much of their taxes go to schools vs corporate subsidies, and with so much corporate spending in elections, they don’t really even elect the leaders that make these decisions. Zinn makes the compelling argument that when democracy becomes an obsolete tool of change, disobedience becomes increasingly necessary.

Whether you’re protesting the state at Standing Rock or the Bundy Ranch, Zinn’s line of questioning will prove invaluable. What do we owe the sanctity of law and what does it owe us? Why must civil disobedience necessarily be non-violent? What are the limits of our government and how do we keep it in check?

If you’re planning to get organized, don’t leave home without your copy.

Socialism...Seriously by Danny Katch

Being from the Midwest, I think the ascendancy and eventual victory of Donald Trump came as less of a surprise to me than many people on the coasts. Michigan was an absolutely essential victory for the Donald and he carried it exactly the way I predicted he would; losing the wealthiest/most diverse counties and sweeping everything else.

I called this victory in Michigan, not from luck, but because this is exactly how Sanders took the win from Clinton in the primaries. Almost county by county. Clinton’s loss in the Mitten speaks volumes about the limitations of Democrats, but this is a book review on a short book, so I’ll keep it short.

So many who consider themselves left leaning value the world the Democratic Party claims it fights for. We care about the environment, economic empowerment, minimum wage increases, ending poverty and war. There is a lot of speculation why the rest of the nation isn’t on board with the Democrats despite their supposed dedication to the causes listed above. These explanations range from racism to stupidity, to brainwashing and corruption. While these could all be a little right, they don’t explain the limitations of the Democratic Party.

Think about the inadequate responses environmentalists have when talking about the jobs that are lost when coal plants are shut down, or of labor activists when advocating the minimum wage, or of democrats advancing agendas of Global Trade when auto jobs are shipped to Mexico.

Even Bernie Sanders, considered the furthest left of the party, gives some wildly inadequate answers to perfectly understandable questions. Just the other day when he was debating Ted Cruz (of all people) about health care on CNN; he was posed with questions from a business owner about their inability to afford the ACA provisions enforced on their business. Sanders’ answer pretty much amounted to “sorry, but you have to offer insurance, if you can’t, go out of business”. That is a nightmare answer for small business owners and probably the reason why so many of them hate the government.

So, why can’t the Democrats answer these questions? Because they are all operating under the assumption that their ideal world - the one devoid of war and poverty and injustice - can be achieved under capitalism. But capitalism doesn’t account for the jobs of coal miners when plants are shut down, or of minimum wage employees, or the sustainability of a salon in Texas that offers health care.

Enter Socialism...Seriously by Danny Katch. A short introduction to Trotsky inspired Socialism via humor and laymen terms. There are a lot of working parts in the book, Katch is asking his readers to imagine a world that isn’t structured by capital or profit, driven by a purer democracy than we have today, and all while debunking some of the major criticisms hurled at the ideology.

At times it seems like Katch has the answers Democrats lack. For example, in a world that doesn’t conform to the rules of “profit first”, full employment and environmentalism seem more compatible. When you really consider that we have to sell our labor to survive (something Katch goes into in perhaps his strongest section of the book; Freedom isn’t Free) suddenly it makes sense that coal miners and auto-workers and displaced lumber workers banded together in Michigan to elect Donald Trump. They see Clinton and the left as job cutters, destroyers of livelihood. There isn’t much indication that they are wrong either, Obama himself admitted that coal refinery workers might hate him for legitimate reasons. When Donald Trump enters that scene promising to bring back lost jobs and protect future ones he makes sense to people who have no choice but to work for a living. Katch is offering a vision of a world in which you don’t lack basic needs or a job just because society decided to automate truck driving.

This short, airtight book is a great one to share. Even if those you give it to aren’t going to run out and buy a copy of the Communist Manifesto, it still offers succinct and radical criticisms of capitalism and government, essential for anyone who is interested in answers beyond the standard liberal talking points.

Where Socialism...Seriously deludes itself is not in the ideology or implementation, but rather its perceived accessibility. I don’t find Katch very funny, his humor parades as edgy but is actual banal and overly safe. One wonders if he favored a poppy, referential humor over a more biting one for fear of isolating readers or if that is just his sense of humor. Either way, it is easy to imagine this sense of humor pissing off actual laborers. Then there are some passages about religion toward the end that seem rushed and incoherent, after a few sections of savage capitalism take-downs the section titled “Is Socialism a Religion?” seems like it’s attempting to win over an abundance of people who associate Socialism with Atheism, which isn’t to say those people exist, but rather that they would never read this book.

Which really speaks to another limitation on the left. This book is great to share with liberal friends and family, or maybe people who don’t consider themselves very political but voice concerns about social justice and human decency. Yet even after all the imagining of a socialist America, this book got me to do, it still couldn’t get me to imagine a Trump voting machinist in Up-North Michigan reading it, let alone being convinced of anything it has to offer.

Both Flesh and Not by David Foster Wallace

This collection could probably more accurately be called “David Foster Wallace Writes About Things”. It is truly for the die-hard fan who can’t read enough DFW and has resorted to looking at pictures of old books he took notes in and restaurant napkins with scribbles on them. They may have even sunk to watching/reading “Though of Course You End Up Finding Yourself”. The desperation in Wallace’s readers that make publishing this collection so lucrative is a testament to DFW as a writer, but none of the pieces here are Wallace’s best. In fact, they are far from. Which is to say, they are still good. Many are fun, some are arduous and academic, one is absolutely terrible, and they all cover a range of topics that keep the casual non-fiction reader on their toes. If you’re at the point in your career as a David Foster Wallace reader when you find you absolutely need to read something new, pick up “Both Flesh and Not”. If you’ve yet to read his entire collection, save this one for later.

Also, as a sort of side note, I could not have read the last essay of this collection at a better time (“Just Asking” pub. The Atlantic). Trump recently made the truly unAmerican decision to ban immigrants/refugees from certain countries with predominantly Muslim faith. The essay is very short and worth quoting in its entirety at such a time:

“Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”? (Lincoln) In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?

In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, PATRIOT Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?”