Reviews for Future 21

The average rating for Future 21 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-10-19 00:00:00 Zachary Lutz I would've loved this when I was at university. Now, however, it comes across as a bit too speculative, somewhat less rigorous than necessary, substituting inference for analysis of actual statutes and history. It advances a general thesis similar to Understanding the F-Word--that the US is ripe for fascist domination under the cover of democratic veneer. Whereas McGowan regards the US as presently fascistic, Gross considers fascism to be a possible future. The text is broadly leftwing, though it engages in sectarian bickering with "dogmatic marxists" on numerous occasions. Cites often to London's The Iron Heel, Huxley's Brave New World, Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, and, of course, Orwell's 1984. These texts are mentioned for comparative or speculative purposes--which makes for lively writing, but not convincing historical or economic argument. Some inconsistent oddities, such as the call to "true patriotism" in the conclusion (383 ff) and the admission that the author is "afraid of blind anti-fascism" in the introduction (4). Both are WTF moments for me. Begins with a schematic account of "classical fascism" (11-31), followed by a discussion of corporate power and the ultrarich in the US. Sure, these are summaries, but one might get a better appreciation of classical fascist doctrine from any number of other places; and something like Wealth and Democracy is far superior at tracking the US upper-upper class. Reveals its age in considering how the capitalist world, at the time of composition, was shrinking (119 ff), which might've been true then, but is manifestly dated now. Not a large problem, as the relative success of communist geopolitics at the time is presented as a factor in the conduct of the US and its ultrarich beneficiaries. Thereafter follows a number of chapters that rehearse, in somewhat speculative form, the now-standard critiques of trilateralism, corporate media, CIA thuggery, workplace exploitation techniques, sexual repression, and other elements of domination that the leftwing has been challenging for decades. Perhaps at the time this text brought it all together in a new synthesis, but 30 years later, it's not wrong, just not news. I suggest Manufacturing Consent as to media politics, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II as to CIA thuggery, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, and so on. Text excels at organizing its ideas in handy charts--there are many of them, and they kick ass. Author is quick to note at many instances that "fascism" should not be equated, as it is colloquially, with mere violence or caprice. That fails to distinguish it from most historical regimes. Fascism proper is defined: "Unlike the communists, the fascists were not out to destroy the old power structure or to create an entirely new one. Rather, they were heretics seeking to revive the old faith by concentating on the fundamentals of imperial expansion, militarism, repression, and racism" (17). I suppose that's alright, as far as it goes. Friendly fascism, by contrast, ultimately involves an integrated business-government complex used to maintain a world empire, which is militarist, technocratic, with extended stagflation, democratic form without democratic substance, low violence internally, and so on (344). Thinking through it, it's almost as though the main distinction is that there is no fuhrerprinzip as the actual political leaders are mostly irrelevant in friendly fascism--so the electorate mignt vote all they want on politicians who aren't in control of anything important. The levels of violence externally are basically the same in the world empire, though, when compared to classical fascism; there'd just be no holocausts--just bombings, police actions, and whatnot. He paraphrases these ideas by suggesting that "neofascism will have arrived in America whenever most white people are subjected to the kind of treatment to which most black people have long become accustomed" (342). None of this is to say that I disagree with the conclusions, but rather that this is not the best argument to get there.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-08-30 00:00:00 Johnny Miller Kamara You won't learn anything about fascism if you read this book, but you will learn about a very popular analysis of emerging neoliberalism from 1979. What the author is really explaining is the reduction of democracy as a result of corporate-friendly govt. policies and increasing economic inequality at the end of the 70s. The process he's describing also fits what some political scientists in later years aptly describe as a "hollowing out" of democratic institutions. The general drive of the book is toward increased democracy, and many of the predictions he makes about things like surveillance and media seem prescient when read in retrospect. However, the book also redefines both fascism and corporatism in ways that are not helpful for anyone who seriously wants to understand what either of these things mean. "Corporatism" in the sense that Mussolini meant is not simply corporate friendly govt. friendly policy, which is how it is often colloquially used by Americans today. It means the actual replacement of existing govt. bodies, independent labor unions and political parties, with industrial councils. In other words, corporatism in the fascist sense is a kind of ultra-nationalist syndicalism. This matters because fascism is a form of right wing populism, and while this book argues that this "classic' version of fascism will never return, we can see around the world today that fascist movements can indeed spring up to oppose what they call "corporatism" by which they often mean 'big business"which they perceive in conspiratorial terms. In libertarian lingo today "corporatism" often means "govt. regulation of business, and in this case, they are simply repeating incorrect arguments associating welfare-state policies and social democracy with fascism in the way that many right-wing activists did in the 1930s during the New Deal. In order to effectively combat fascism it is important to be able to address how and why right wing ultra-nationalists are able to effectively win people over with what often seem like left wing and anti-establishment sentiments against capitalism, that simultaneously turn these arguments toward authoritarian, radically anti-regulatory capitalism, and/or even genocidal remedies.