Politics Government Books

Robert Gilpin's work is the best-known and most influential within the Hegemonic Realist paradigm. Hegemonic Realism is a school of thought which views International Relations as organized hierarchically, with each state vying for the top position in order to gain the benefits of being the number one state. In Gilpins' words "Throughout history a principal objective of states has been the conquest of territory in order to advance economic, security, and other interests". War occurs when a rising state challenges the current hegemon, and seeks to overtake the priviliged postion. On the other hand, when one state is firmly in control, they institute a stable economic system which tends to keep the peace. There are serious problems with Hegemonic Realist theory, however, as well as Gilpin's own version of it. The first is the deductive logic behind the theory. Surely Gilpin is correct when he asserts that states have always sought conquest and territorial expansion. However, he is wrong about the motive. States seek security above all. Economic interests are not a main motive. Wars generally cost more than they could possibly gain in monetary terms. Major wars are especially costly, and no state would seek a major war with huge losses in order to gain a top position. Rather, states start wars to protect themselves from potential destruction. There are also major empirical problems with this theory, in that there really hasn't been a case of a rising power starting a war with the current hegemon. Part of this is due to the fact that Hegemonic theory only looks at the two strongest states, factoring out all the other Great Powers. But in a Multipolar system, the other states matter as well. Hegemonic Realism, for all its flaws, has made one major contribution to scholarship: The concept of state power as changing rather than fixed, as well as the concept of future expectations of power trends. This concept has been incorporated by Dale Copeland in "The Origins of Major War." Other than that however, Gilpin and his colleagues have little to offer.

For many years I have relied on War & Change in World Politics as a structural guide to examining international relations. Gilpin's classic work provides, both clear historical and theoretical support to augument his argument. His thoughts reside firmly in the realist tradition, but adds to the richness of that paradigm through focusing on transition. Gilpin correctly argued that,"Throughout history a principal objective of states has been the conquest of territory in order to advance economic, security, and other interests. Whether by means of imperialist subjugation of one people by another or by annexation of contiguous territory, states in all ages have sought to enlarge their control over territory and, by implication, their control over the international system. For this reason, a theory of international political change must of necessity also be a theory of imperialism and political integration.(23) The firm goal of Gilpin is to creat a theory of the transition of power relations. I believe that he has provided the initial steps through his courageous attempt to provide framework developing a theory of change. I first read War & Change while residing in Western and Central Europe, from 1989 to 1999. I was at the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, The Gulf War, and witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany. Gilpin's book provided structure to my studies and my personal search for understanding of the dynamics of these profound changes in societies. I evaluated theories of economism, based on American capitalism versus European and Japanese socialism and the belief in a new tri-polar order and found them theoretically broken down in War & Change. Gilpin argued that,"Although multipolar systems can become tripolar, the more usual occurrence is for bipolar systems to become tripolar, and as Waltz correctly observed, tripolar systems tend to be the most unstable os all....Thus the emergence of a powerful China, Japan, or united Europe would undoubtedly prove to be a destabilizing factor in contemporary world politics."(91) The explosion of the Internet changed for many the equation of power. However, the technological catch up tactics of Japan in the 1980s had many Americans worrying that it's comparative advantage was being lost. The Internet will decrease the curve and the trajectory of technological catchup policies. Take a read of pages 173-178 to fully appreciate Gilpin's analysis of pre-Internet military and technological trends. The ideas of democracy as the only legitimste form of government were dismayed by my real life experiences and I found support and faults in my analysis of this situation in Gilpin's work. In closing, I believe that Gilpin needed to concentrate his argument more on a particular structure of change. However, because of the wide range of issues that increase the factors of change and the trajectories of states an explanation of change that requires this drift was almost a necessity. For any student of international relations or history War & Change in World Politics is rich in references and advice for structuring an analysis. My belief is that this is a fundamental book in understanding the changes occurring now and that will be in the future.

Although somewhat dated, "War and Change" is one of the great books in International Relations Theory. Robert Gilpin puts forth the theory that would inspire Paul Kennedy to write his "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" years later. Gilpin's theory is basically this: powerful states in the international system tend to spend a lot to maintain its militar proeminance. But while it is wasting a lot of money to enforce the "rules" of the system, revisionist powers can compete with less costs. When there is a "de facto" balance between these powers, there's an hegemonic war that settles it straight. And then, there is a new cycle. "War and Change" is really worth reading and it shows a different position in the "neorealist" debate inaugurated by Kenneth Waltz in his "Theory of International Politics". A final advice: just read it if you're a bit aquainted with IR theory, or else it'll be pretty boring.

I just LOVED listening to Goldberg's choices ! ? Hearing the author read his own book helps YOU understand his choices.
Quite an INTERESTING, "uplifting", extremely INFORMATIVE piece of literature!
A MUST READ FOR EVERY LIBERAL !!!

This is my kind of book. A brief look at a few of the idiots that make life in the great USA burdensome. It will provide plenty of ammo for discussion with your liberal friends. You will need it because every time you provide them with the facts, if they are like my liberal friends, they will quickly change the point of reference and try to get you on something else, much like the person who finds Jesus and quickly becomes a religious know-it-all. Buy the book and savor the humor and insight. This is not what you would consider a scholarly work but it adds to the ongoing political discussion. Who knows, if you read it with an open mind, you may even become more conservative!

Another piece of rubbish generated by the huge conservative computer buried in an underground vault somewhere in the heart of the country. Totally predictable. Yawn.

...it fulfilled my expectations. I enjoyed what I perceived to be lots of "tongue-in-cheek" humor.

I think some of you dudes oughtta lighten up a bit. Political discussions, especially the ad hominum variety, seem a s/w petty concern to get into a big twist about.

This is one guy's (entertaining) opinions. Dig it for that alone.

I bought this book "sight unseen" based on the strength of seeing some of Bernie Goldberg's journalistic work on CBS, thinking that since he was a serious journalist this would probably be a serious piece. Boy was I ever wrong! If this is his idea of a joke, then it's a $26 joke on me and other readers like me who paid full price for this piece of literary embarrassment.

So far as I could tell, there is nothing remotely serious in the book. The summaries of even those people included must have been pulled from some airhead's brain, on the fly. This whole production is a pandering and groveling salute of the worse kind to Rush Limbaugh's brigade of ditto heads. I hope Bernie does not get the "guilties" as he laughs all the way to the bank, because this piece of trash is going to come back to haunt his career. He can count on it.

Since G.W. Bush, Dick Chaney and Condoleeza Rice are nowhere to be found on the author's list one must also assume that he has no idea of what it takes to either improve or screw up America. And given this production, he clearly does not even care.

Another possibility is that the America he is trying to keep from being screwed and the one I am trying to save are two entirely different places. In either case, there should be some overlap in what one considers dangerous to the nation. The only overlap I see is Al Sharpton, who since he is so high on Goldberg's otherwise embarrassing list, I suppose Sharpton cannot be as bad as my prejudices have led me to believe him to be. Based on his rank on Goldberg's list alone, means it is time to reassess my prejudices against the oily looking Reverend. Al? Get ready to be promoted!

[...]? One Star

Know this. The late Hunter Thompson, Doctor Gonzo, was something of a muse for me although our politics, in the final analysis, were light years apart. In the end he never found a Democratic Party presidential candidate that he, even if grudgingly, could not support. I have read everything of his that I could get my hands on. During many a troubled time when I got down on the seemingly hopeless struggle in the fight for socialism his savage humor aimed at the inanities of bourgeois politics and politicians carried me through. That said, the book under review Better Than Sex about the trials and tribulations of covering the ill-starred 1992 presidential campaign eventually `won' by Bill Clinton is not one of his better efforts and even with his vast journalistic skills must have been a chore rather than something to really dig into. I will tell you my take on the matter.

Hunter Thompson started making a name for himself as a political journalist in his first efforts at trying to understand presidential campaigns during the ill-fated Democratic campaign of George McGovern against one Richard M. Nixon in 1972. His Fear and Loathing on Campaign Trail 1972 stands as a classic of `alternative' journalism on the issue. He stated then that a political junkie, and by any definition he was one, could only really stand in the vortex of one such campaign before burning out. Nevertheless he pressed his luck. Unfortunately, Thompson found himself in the place where Teddy White found himself after his seminal `straight' reporting on the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign, The Making of President. White too, went on to write more such books and not to his benefit. In short, pigeon-holed. Take that lesson for what it is worth.

The problem with Better Than Sex is that Thompson had written it all before, and to better effect. The writing seems frantic and tired, very tired. It did not help that his cast of main characters- one President George H. W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton and the genuine dingo bat Ross Perot- would make even a political junkie get him or herself to the nearest rehabilitation center. The book reflects that hollowness in many ways not the least is the extraordinary amount of filler (literally with `draft' notes, letters, etc.) that clutters the book. If these reasons do not convince you then a three star rating on a genuine five star journalistic hero of mine tells the tale. Still, there is more than enough savagely funny analysis and humor for a real Thompson junkie to get by on during those lonely political nights. Enough said.

Better Than Sex is a book for those who like to read sarcastic, humorous, and often-cynical writing. Thompson creates a world of politics that is not the "norm" in the United States. It is something ugly, COMPETETIVE (even capitalizing it makes it understated), and downright dirty. He compares getting into politics like an addiction, a very serious addiction. It can mold people into a horrible beast that would run over their own mother as long as they got elected.
This is a book about politics. Yet, there are stories contained with James Carville, the ragin' cajun, stealing Hunter's money and jacket. Also, Thompson describes the, both good and bad, possibilities of a fax-machine, press pass, and telephone. Thompson basically shows his interest in politics in a very uninterested way. He almost makes it seem like he doesn't, in actuality, care about politics through his blatant sarcasm and, at times, downright rudeness. However, while reading, that does not deter from that he is obviously obsessed with politics. I think he's simply trying to state his opinion in a broad, un-censored way. All in all a very good and fun read, for those of you who are cynical and critical of the world around you.

Lots of politic stuff.Kind of boring theme but Hunters words makes it fun and intersting.It is a good book if you are a Hunter fan.If you are not dont start go with this one.Pick up "Fear and Lothing in Las Vagas" or "Hells Angels".After you read those book this book will be lot better.

This book is better than sex. His best since Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He's not your average acid casualty. This book is an amazing blend of outrageous, mind bending accusations, libelous paranoid ranting, and just good old fashion fun. Hunter is a national treasure and this book is a great read.

I find that, no matter what book I read by the good Dr. Thompson, I can never write an appropriate review or make any sort of intelligent, logical comment on the subject. To date, I've read Hell's Angels, The Rum Diary, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas twice, along with a few of the articles in Hey Rube. Picking up Better Than Sex, I hoped to finish the book and be able to, finally, write some sort of response to the book, putting to rest this impotence of critique that seems to hang like a strange, twisted shadow over his writing.

Like most people faced with the inability to perform a task, mine is psychological, rooted in a sort of awe factor, that phosphorous phantom known as envy that usually takes the form of imitation or fear and inability. I mean, essentially, you read Thompson and when you put the book down, you say "I want to write like that." Then, you open up Word or, if you're a bit old-fashioned, you pull out a pen and paper, and sit there, staring at the blankness, the perfect emptiness that you know you're only going to muck up because no human being can write like that.

No living human being, anyway.

What Thompson did - not only in writing but in life - was to infuse everything he touched with a sort of rough humanity. Whatever the subject, from the loss of idealism in the sixties hippy culture to why Bill Clinton was a weird one, but the only thing we had going in 1992, he could explain and expound upon it with the word of a poet and the common sense of your best childhood friend. The man knew how to craft a sentence and a story, something that was both informational and interesting, and by the time you reach the end of the story, you realize you're walking away not only entertained but educated. He had the power to do that.

Better Than Sex is a bit different from his earlier work, mostly in that it relies heavily on deviant, manic faxes sent to everyone from Clinton's campaign manager to Jan Wenner at Rolling Stone while Thompson was covering the campaign trail in 1992. While you're shuttled from one strange jaunt to the next, entertained at Hunter's various bizarre suggestions, you're also learning, picking up things you never realized were going on in that oh-so-important election year. He's pointing out mistakes that Bush Sr. made in 92, mistakes that were remembered not only by Hunter, but as becomes apparent as the book comes to a close, by the Bush II campaign. It's like a hard, fast look at the 2004 election trail, seeing the same plays from the same teams, except this time the away team learned from their mistakes twelve years ago, and they're not about to lose this championship again.

Reading it, however, isn't just an entertaining story or a guide to how to win a Presidential election. It's also a window into the mind of a man who was fed up with the Republicans twelve years ago, ready to take drastic action if Bush Sr. was re-elected. Reading it now, in light of Thompson's suicide in February, one can almost begin to comprehend the incomprehensible, as in his weirdest, most outrageous moments, Hunter revealed more of himself than he did when straight-laced and serious. In his coverage of the 92 campaign is the story of a man who could not live under the fascist iron fist of the more moderate Bush Republicans of the past, who reviled everything they stood for, and who threatened to flee the country should they take control for another four years. He shows himself as a man who is reinvigorated by the victory of sensibility over the zealous, Big Brother of a Republican party that was half the strength and only a forth as fanatical as the one that recently enthroned itself for another four years. He is revived by the masses throwing out the trash and choosing to change the ways of the country by making a choice for improvement and change. Twelve years later his rallying cry in Rolling Stone went unanswered, America chose fascism over freedom, and freak power as a force to be reckoned with is dead in the United States-how could he survive in that world?

This is not to say that a single presidential election could determine the life or death of one man; when it comes to politics, mortality rates are usually in the thousands. What Better Than Sex does say, however, is that like it or not, Thompson was a political junkie, that while his reputation was built on drugs, his perfect drug is a good political match, and that as a catalyst, it held major sway with a man whom drugs alone could not touch.

I bought several copies of Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor earlier. I think this 9/11 book, which I bought used through an Amazon seller, would have been great. But while reading it, I found that chapter 2 only had 1 page, there was no Chapter 3, 4 or 5 and Chapters 6, 7 and 8 were printed twice. I am contacting the seller for a refund/replacement, and will try again. I expect it to be as great as New Pearl Harbor.

David Ray Griffin objectively reveals the joke that was the 911 Commission.
Anyone with an open mind should study this courageous work to be "up to speed" on the unanswered questions surrounding this tragedy. The mainstream media has swallowed a lot of "stupid" pills peddling an "official conspiracy theory" with gaping holes of credibility.

this is by far the most interesting book i've ever opened. get ready to be sick to your stomach. its very disturbing but so true. thank you David Ray Griffin. The U.S. isn't the "good guy" of the world as the media wants us to believe. can you say operation Northwoods? the real terrorists live in D.C. spread the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I won't repeat all the well deserved praises of this book that other reviewer presented earlier. I would like to add a comment. 9/11 is a crime seen. If you want to know the criminal, you can examine the fact leading to the events and go through the evidence, or you can simply see who has benighted the most, and you probably have your prime suspect.

7-8 years after this tragic event and the sole benefactor from September 11 is the US government. The amount of power this president and this government had, is unparalleled in US history. The wire tapping, the Patriotic act, the unquestionable authority that this administration had, is some of these fruits and benefits of September 11. The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the military basis in Kuwait, Qatar and other gulf states are some other of benefits.

The financial gains and spoils of this event are mind boggling. The insider trading, the 2 trillion dollars which are missing from the war efforts. The contracts awarded to people and governments officials such as Halliburton are huge. The miss-appropriation of money is well documented. The Iraqi oil is probably being stolen by people in this administration. Not to mention the arm sales and the kick backs from the military industry.

The new security deal with Iraq is being negotiated, it will give the American unrestricted access and power. This is one more evidence that is pointing towards the entity that benefited and committed the September 11 attacks.

If you add what happened over the last 8 years since September 11 to the cover ups of the September 11, the incompetence in preventing the attacks, you'll have to demand a new investigation. It if very clear that the US government had the means, the motivation and and the ability to commit such crime. It is no wonder that NO US government employee or official were penalized for the total collapse of every possible defence line against the September 11 attacks.

Having read many books on the 9/11, including the Commission Report and this one, I find this one particularly lacking in a few basic logical premises and also in many basic scientific principles.

First- regard the whole "Free Fall" thing. If you watch the tape of the towers falling, you can see large chunks of debri falling faster as pieces break off of the towers during fall. The accusation that the tower was free falling and thus as purposefully demolished fails by ease of visual inspection. For those citizens without basic science knowledge, an object will fall at the same rate regardless of its weight. The fact that the towers are falling at a slower rate than a piece that has broken off implies that it is not free falling. Dr. Griffin's conclusions regarding this single phenomena can thus be rightly questioned. I must also take this and weigh it against Dr. Griffin's credibility. If he can make such conclusions without really trying to verify them, then perhaps he is of the sort that believes that the "theory" of evolution has yet to be proven, or perhaps he is a member of the Flat Earth Society (unfortunately there are educated folks there too...).

While I could easily make a point-by-point refutation of many conclusions Dr. Griffin makes in this book, I realize that for most conspiracy die-hards, no amount of evidence is enough so I will save myself the time. If you are a critical thinker, then realize this book for what it is: conjecture and conspiracy with no basis in science or logic, masquerading as an impartial "tell all". While the 9/11 Commission Report itself purposefully goes out of its way to avoid pointing the finger (it was written by politicians after all), this book is an extreme and not the answer to what really happened. I recommend Richard Clarke's "Against all Enemies". Mr. Clarke served the presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. He was the Terrorism "Czar" on 9/11 (despite having a zero budget) and while he is only one perspective and not necessarily impartial, he is certainly more factual than a PhD who knows nothing of basic physics or logical rhetoric.

Think on this: "[The 9/11] Conpiracy theorists simultaneously hold two contrary beliefs: a) that the U.S. government is so incompetent that it can miss explanations that the theorists can uncover, and b) that the U.S. government can keep a big and juicy secret. This first belief has some validity. The second idea is pure fantasy. (Clarke 2004)"

-jpl

To say it exudes wit, humour, intelligence and charm is a big understatement.
He was 56 at the time he wrote it... so, we have the benefit of experience too...
A MUST READ.

ADB

PS: The film done about it (using the book as the script) is also very good if a bit slow in parts (specially political speeches).

If you want to know about Winston Churchill's early life and just how well he was able to write well then look no further. The prose is rich, his vocabulary is extensive and the phrasing is pure Churchill. This is a great introduction into his life and writing ability and many sayings and phrases Churchill is known for are given in this volume. Few, if any, are willing to risk potential embarrassment by stating as one of their life's accomplishments any book that they have read. However, if one is able to add having read this book among those achievements then at least that part of their life will not have been wasted.

I got this for my grandfather for Christmas. He was POW during WWII, and was wanting to read about Churchill's POW experiences. A big hit!! My grandfather couldn't put the book down.

His writing is great; his stories are told in a refreshing, whimsical tone; and one gets the sense that he loves his life. Even though I was very familiar with the event of his life before reading this, I found it thoroughly engaging and would recommend it to anyone with an interest in this extraordinary man.

This 372 page long book would be good, but no more, if it wasn't for the first 40-or-so pages, which are a gem. The book covers the first 30 years of Churchill's life and the first forty pages cover his childhood. Although Churchill had a miserable childhood - his father was distant, his mother more interested in lovers than in her son, and he was bullied at boarding school - Churchill narrates his story with unsurpassed wit and without any hard feelings for the ones that failed him. Some passages, like the description of how he was grappling with the beast called maths, are just hilarious. The first forty pages alone make this book a must read. In the rest of the book, the most interesting part is the story of Churchill's capture by the Boers and escape. You don't need to be interested in Churchill, the statesman, to like this book. Here he is at his most human and disarming.

Being an International Relations student about to embark on a years study on this subject I was looking for a solid grounding on which to begin my study and this provided a perfect answer. Singer uses simple dialogue and logical progression in his publication to provide information on the recruting of child soldiers, what they are subjected to in the field, the difficulty of soldiers facing children, the worst culprits, reintegration of soldiers and proposed methods of ending this aspect of modern warfare.

An important aspect of this book that isn't mentioned so much is its discussions on how military forces should approach fighting child soldiers. As a potential officer of the future I felt this was particularly important, Singer mentions that the US Army supplied early drafts of this book to its officers as guidelines for potential situations so clearly they believe his suggestions hold merit also.

It should be noted that any reader should of course expect some horrific details from this book, I had expected these but was sickened by some of the stories. There are particularly brutal aspects that you could not imagine, just a word of warning as one of the accounts has left me particularly troubled by hummanity.

In conclusion I believe this book to be a perfect introductory reading to anyone studying, or simply interested, in the subject. I would also state that those more advanced in the topic should look at this book as, if the information and proposals are not new to you, the research is excellent and so the references can provide you with more resources that you may potentially have not yet accessed.

Altogether a superb book, ideal for anyone wishing to gain further knowledge in the subject area.

Reading through the other reviews here it struck me that they seemed to share a lack of prior knowledge about the subject. Had anyone read more widely they would have discovered that 'Children at War' is a piece of pseudo-scholarship. This book is based upon a completely misguided assumption - that the involvement of children in warfare is a new phenomenon. In making such an assertion the author reveals either lack of any proper engagement with the literature or simply bad faith. The sad fact is that children have been involved as solidiers in many, if not most, of the wars recorded in history. In spite of Singer's erroneous claims to the contrary, the US Civil War involved large numbers of boy soldiers. Similarly the First World War. Children fought and died with the partisans in Nazi-occupied Europe, and so on. Towards the end of the book, Singer reveals a disturbing political agenda. It seems that his real concern is less with child soldiers and more with the challenges for US troops faced with children in places like Afghanistan and Iraq where killing them is bad for morale and also looks so bad to the folks back home watching CNN.
In terms of sources, Singer relies overwhelmingly on journalistic accounts that are simply intended to offer shock value to their readers and, like his own book, lack any deeper engagement with the history and context within which child recruitment takes place. Aside from one quote, none of the copious quotes from child soldiers seems to have come from Singer's one fieldwork. Indeed, the reader is left wondering if Singer has ever actually visited a setting where child recruitment takes place.
This is a work of truly poor scholarship. It is a mystery how it ever got published and why so many people have been apparently taken in by it. Perhaps it is a case of telling people what they want to hear?
If anyone is looking for a proper discussion of this subject they would do far better to read David Rosen's 'Armies of the Young'.

Back in the mid-1990s I spent many months reporting on child soldiers in places including Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I wrote from the immediacy of a journalist's perspective, but was unable to examine the cause-and-effect realities of this disturbing phenomenon. In "Children at War" P. W. Singer has produced a truly important study of the socio-cultural, economic and historic causes behind the militarization of children in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Singer's work is an incredibly valuable contribution to further the study and understanding of armed conflict in the post Cold War-era. This book is a must read for anyone interested in the welfare of children and the state of our world in often-neglected locations such as sub-Saharan Africa. It is also an insightful look at how "warlordism" and the greed driving so-called commodity wars is changing the face of modern armed conflict.

No one should think themselves well-informed about contemporary international conflict unless they are aware of the child soldier problem. I commend Singer for Children at War; it seems to cover most of the material that one might hope it would, and it does so with clarity and precision. The book is not marred by opinion or bias (I believe some decry this approach, but this is a work of academic non-fiction); it simply presents the facts on topics that range from recruitment of child soldiers to strategies that should be utilized by conventional militaries when they must engage belligerent groups that incorporate child soldiers.

Despite my three-star rating, I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for an informed and well-rounded look at child warfare. Singer's writing style is easy to read in that it uses simple language and is clearly meant to be accessible; however, (and this is the reason for the three stars) he can be quite repetitive. Although one could argue that the information in this book should be drilled into everyone's heads, reading the same sentence many times over, only with slightly different wording, can be cumbersome.

As one might expect, some of the visualizations that Singer inspires can be terribly gruesome (if you can think of a description that carries more force than "terribly gruesome," then consider yours to be a more accurate one). Assuming that the reader is both a human being and of sound mind, they will undoubtedly find that this book will leave them at times speechless, pained, or simply unable to read on.

As far as I know, Singer is the first to point out that child warriors are making possible a new kind of war, a war without ideology or purpose other than taking something someone else has. Adults fight better with a cause and a purpose--children are more easily drugged, brainwashed, and cut off from other support. They can also be far crueler in battle and harder to rehabilitate. Singer points to responses to lessen the problem, but she is far from optimistic.

Turkle's research findings are mind-boggling, exciting, terrifying, and (whether we like what we see or not) revealing. We see, here, glimpses of the future as a place where the real and virtual collide. Where who we are and how we think will differ markedly from all we've taken for granted in the old familiar pre-Info-Age. Anyone who works with children or adolescents of the Info-Age should read this book! I recommend it, along with the more up-to-date work by Don Tapscott.

This book isn't for the newbie, but if you're already familiar with computers and what's possible on the Internet but haven't yet explored the world of MUDS and the like, this is one of the most informative and fascinating looks at the virtual world that you'll come across. Even more interesting are the questions that Turkle poses regarding self-identity and what the "self" is given the new "non"-environment we call cyberspace. Though offering few answers, the author introduces us to a future world of seemingly infinite possibilities for self-exploration and challenges us to ponder its implications for who we are, how we define ourselves, and how we interact with one another.

If reading postmodernist types of things turns you on, you'll like this book. The author talks a lot about how computers have moved from "modernist calculation" to "postmodernist simulation." Why there is a need to attach the modernist-postmodernist modifiers to calculation and simulation is never explained, and I suspect it is just done to give the book a tres chic intellectual veneer. As with nearly all authors who use the term, the author does not define "postmodernism" or explain what it has to do with anything in her book. Also a lot of vague talk about how "people didn't used to like to do" such and so a thing with computers but now "people like to do" such and so something other thing with computers a lot more. No data of course, that would offend the postmodernists reading the book. An important - VERY important - topic treated in a shabby manner.

Turkle does a magnificant job in illustrating the human persona while online. As our culture becomes more and more internet dependent, and it becomes easier to be a "globalized" person, psychological changes are sure to take effect. "Life On the Screen" is illustrated with some wry humor, as well as vivid examples.

Sometimes doing someonething online makes it seem less "real." For instance, carding something-aka using a fake credit card number-is less 'real' if you do it online, to order something, than it is to waltz into say, BestBuy and using a fake credit card there. Just because you do it in a non-physical area (what is Cyberspace made up of, anyway?) does not mean that it is still not a crime, and that it is still not capable of having reprecussions.

Shirley Turkle captures precisely what someone, as a user and interacter with the internet, thinks, and does while online. She acknowledges the existance of the internet being a place where people are able to forge "cyber-identities"...or get more comfortable being who they are. She also outlines something that is perhaps one of the most secure things about the internet in this day and age-that on the internet, you are anonymous. Therefore, you can do what you wish (good or bad) and you can interact with others via MUDs or the like...or you can decide exactly how people will think of you as.

The internet is a secure medium for an insecure person. It is where many people who feel unaccepted in life go as refuge, to seek friends and partners who are like them, and who understand. This is also recognized in this book.

I highly recommend anyone, either the hacker, or the suit, or the working mother, or the teenager, to pick up this book and just to start reading. It is disturbing, almost, to find that there are so many people who interact with the internet, and so many different things that they do. The globalization that comes along with the net provokes you to start rethinking many things, and questioning many others....The internet, as portrayed in this book, also helps the reader to truly examine themselves as a whole.

Turkle's book is one of the first ethnographies published on virtual communities and how we construct and reconstruct our senses of identity through the internet. It is therefore an important starting point for anyone with a general interest in this area research. Since this book was originally published however there has been a significant amount of work done on virtual communities and self-identity on the WWW that differs somewhat from Turkle's. Therefore although I highly recommend the book I also suggest that you take the time to explore this subject area more broadly before drawing any conclusions.

Dr. Michael Hudson is the greatest economist alive. This is coming from someone who has studied many-including many of the lesser known economists in history.

This is a must read for anyone wanting to understand how the global economy has operated for the last century.

In this history of the creation of the current system of global trade and finance, Hudson offers some crucial insights for dissipating the obscurantist fog that wafts out of mainstream economics departments to provide cover for neoliberal imperialism.

He details how the US emerged with its economy unscathed from the World Wars, and seized this opportunity to unseat Britain as the dominant force in global finance, leveraging control over war debt and reconstruction funds into dominance of the World Bank and IMF. He describes the way these nominally multilateral institutions were shaped by the US to perpetuate and extend its hegemony over the particulars of world trade and finance, opening foreign markets to US producers while protecting domestic industries with tariffs, ensuring ample flows of raw materials to US manufaturers and stunting the development of 3rd world nations.

In his most penetrating analysis, Hudson describes the way the US managed to turn its chronic trade deficits from the Vietnam War era onward into a mechanism of "Super-Imperialism": by unmooring the dollar from the gold standard, the US established a 'debtor imperialism' whereby nations with trade surpluses against the US were forced to buy US treasury bills in lieu of gold. The rest of the world is thus forced to finance the growing US trade deficit (and thus US military interventions) in perpetuity, or face a meltdown of the current world economic order and a collapse in the value of their own immense dollar holdings.

Hudson's presentation of the intricacies of the events and negotiations that gave rise to the present order are somewhat belabored and presume a familiarity with macro-economics. For the layperson, his basic thesis is clearly presented in the preface and introduction, and those without a special interest in economic history are advised to pass over the body of the book.

Super-Imperialism is better viewed as a radical alternative to common undergraduate textbooks such as Joan Edelman Spero's, "The Politics of International Economic Relations" than as an update to the theories of Lenin or Hobson. (His background and prose style are similar to Spero's and his book covers similar ground.)

It has three sections, each which could have been a separate book.

Chapters 1-6 are a history of U.S. international economic relations from World War I through Bretton Woods.

Chapters 7-10 are a critique of the "The Institutions of the American Empire" (GATT, the World Bank, the IMF and U.S. foreign aid mechanisms). If you have ever wondered what all of the huge protests of the World Bank and IMF were all about these chapters are for you.

Chapters 11-15 are about the U.S. economic transition in the late 1960s and early 1970s from running consistent balance of payments surpluses to running consistent deficits. (We used to export more than we imported; Now we import more than we export.) At the same time the U.S. stopped backing dollars with gold, which forced other countries to lend the surplus dollars created by our trade deficit back to the U.S. government (i.e. to buy treasury notes), thereby also subsidizing our chronic budget deficits. This is the "super-imperialism" of the book's title. This situation was still new and strange when the first edition was published in 1972, and the book's reputation rests on the light Hudson was able to shed on it.

The 2003 Edition has a new introduction and two new chapters at the end. The rest of the book has occasional new material, but does not appear to have been extensively re-written.

It's a difficult and rewarding book. The difficulty lies partly in the subject matter itself, partly in Hudson's convoluted prose and partly in the numerous typographical errors that mar the 2003 Pluto Press edition.

The book is rewarding because it's honest. Readers educated in the U.S. will initially regard Hudson's account with some skepticism. We can't help it; We've been systematically miseducated by pro-U.S. polemics presented in an "objective" tone.

In contrast Hudson is a strident critic of the U.S. management of the global economy. But so is any reasonably objective person who is apprized of the facts. I much prefer an author who honestly tells you the real story as he understands it to one who conceals the awful truth behind an ostensibly impartial facade. But a "revisionist" has to work twice as hard to make his case, and that is why the book contains the detailed explication of what reviewer Myers calls the "intricacies of events and negotiations that gave rise to the present order."

I think an open-minded reader will be won over by Hudson's thoughtful use of contemporaneous sources (e.g. government publications and articles in the business press) and also biographical sources to illuminate how key decision makers understood the alternatives, and their motives for pursuing the policies that they did when forging the post-war economic order. As he places these choices in context it quickly becomes evident that the motives on the U.S. side have been consistently aggressive and that U.S. policy makers have all along viewed multilateral economic institutions as instruments of national policy--to the world's detriment.

Hudson also has a keen sense of the painfully narrow horizon of human foresight. The historical sections sometimes read like a conspiracy theory in which the conspirators are not very smart. E.g., Franklin Roosevelt's stubborn insistence that World War I debts be repaid prolonged the Great Depression; When J. M. Keynes was negotiating Bretton Woods for the newly elected Labour government, he got them a terrible deal; The U.S. transition to "super-imperialism" which is the main story of the book (chapters 11 through 14) was originally an unintended consequence of the huge budget and trade deficits caused by the Vietnam War.

If you are interested in "globalization" this book is an important piece of the puzzle, but it really only covers up through 1973, and it spends more time on the relationship between the U.S. and Europe than on "North-South" relations. Having said that, Ch. 8 "The Imperialism of U.S. Foreign Aid" is very good, esp. how foreign aid benefits the U.S. balance of payments and the harmful effects of U.S. agricultural exports. China is hardly mentioned.

If you are an economics student and you sense that they aren't telling you the whole story, or just a thoughtful citizen who wants to sharpen your conceptual tools for understanding and resisting the strategies of U.S. imperialism, this book is for you.

A remarkable work. It functions as both a novel theory of imperialism and a 20th century history of international finance. The two converge as Hudson shows how the former evolves from the latter, thereby elevating the US to a position economically and militarily astride the rest of the globe. Anyone who senses that behind the comforting rhetoric of Free World and Democracy, an aggressive empire lurks with contours and mechanisms unlike previous ones, should pick up the book.

This second edition updates developments through 2002 and includes a fresh Introduction and Preface. It may be helpful to note that at the rather basic text-book level Hudson doesn't fill in the blanks. A familiarity with the rudimentary mechanics of international finance is assumed from the outset. Nonetheless, the prose remains accessible and the train of thought clearly stated, no minor accomplishments for a work of this sort. Moreover, I'm glad this new updated edition dispensed with Mc Carthy's Introduction to the previous edition, which needlessly entangled Super Imperialism in the tangential Marxian tradition. (Unfortunately reviewer Saltillo has responded to the older edition which may cause unnecessary confusion to review readers.) Also, the Preface and Introduction to the new edition effectively summarize the text, such that those wishing to absorb the main points without the details can stick with these prefatory sections.

One note of caution. Super imperialism treats international financial policy as a purely governmental affair apart from private individuals, organizations, or special interests. This exclusive focus produces an impression of the state as an independent and autonomous entity, acting separately from the private interests surrounding it. Whether or not this is an accurate portrayal remains an open question. I don't fault the book for not addressing this basically Marxian issue; Hudson's correct in keeping a tight focus on governmental agency such that the contours of his theory can emerge. Nonetheless, a follow-up might profitably examine what connections there are. Be that as it may, the new edition stands as a welcome update to the older, seminal edition, and given recent dollar developments, is now timelier than ever.

There are much better longer reviews on the book. This is just a quick take on the book after quickly looking over the updated version and having read the earlier version.

1. Doesn't deal with imperialism in its most fundamental conceptions.
2. Is not in the Marxist-Leninist traditions.
3. Doesn't deal with militaristic imperialism.
4. Doesn't even deal with the more recent manifestations of the US's bubble-driven hyperactivity, such as private equity, which has been around long enough, surely, to integrate it into a book of meta-financial analysis (which is what this book is).

If you want to deal with real imperialism, try Lenin and then follow it up with Blum's 'Rogue State'. If you think Stiglitz is interesting, here is a great read, as the author is a bit left of Stiglitz. He is not, though, in the Marxist tradition (if that is what you are looking for).

If you are looking for material dealing with the US's abrogation of Bretton Woods and the establishment of a unilateral exchange system, see
'The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Domination' by Peter Gowan. It is much better written than this book.