Reviews and Comments

For some reason, I've found myself reading a lot of radlib books this summer. This book, despite claiming to be leftist, certainly earns its spot with the other radlib books I've read. As my title says it is terminally capitalist realist in that even when it acknowledges the failures of postwar social democracy and correctly articulates that it failed because it gave the bourgeoise time to fight back against it, this book argues that a return to such a system, albeit with a lower consumption rate, is the best that we can hope for. Furthermore, although it correctly notes that degrowth is antithetical to capitalism, it still advocates for social democracy as a means for degrowth because then the capitalism will be "regulated". Finally, it advocates for class collaboration because "the bourgeoise will be affected by climate change too" and seems outright hostile to the idea of an organic working-class movement for ecological sustainability. The previous points aside, were I a professor marking this book as a monograph, I would have to say that it failed. This is not because it is poorly written, but because it fails at every opportunity to prove or even defend its thesis. The central thesis of the book is that we can argue for degrowth on hedonist grounds because consumer society makes people unhappy. All well and good. However, the book does not give a single example of how a society based on degrowth would make people happier, and just assumes that the reader will agree that it would. This sucks because I do agree that a society based on degrowth would be both more fulfilling and more hedonically desireable. However, I can't reccommend this book to someone on the fence about these issues because there is no argument regarding this claim. Do yourself a favour and give this book a pass in favour of a better book on degrowth.

I always love reading indie fiction because there's always the chance that I could stumble onto something amazing that could never be published in today's publishing industry. Winter Herald, and the earlier book in the series, Shadow Herald, are one such occasion. These books really have everything that I'm looking for in a fantasy novel. Relatable characters, compelling plot, a conlang, revolution against the oppresive social order, and a great queer romance. Also, regarding that, the romance is excellent. As a caveat, I'm ace, so I don't really go in for romance, but the dynamic between Navaeli and Chrislie is so wholesome and supportive that I really can't find a single thing wrong with it. There's no contrived drama that makes me think that the characters would be better off on their own, just two ladies genuinely loving and supporting each other. I reccommend these books to just about everyone and I am eagerly anticipating the next book in the series. Plus, the books are just $5 on the author's itch.io page (gailywriting.itch.io). It's hard to beat that price!

Firstly, this book is really good at what it sets out to do, mainly explain when and why property destruction can be adopted as a tactic for environmental preservation, and avoiding climate despair. For the most part, I agree with other criticisms of it listed here, namely that the title is misleading as it gives no instructions on practically how to blow up a pipeline, and does neglect care work and support infrastructure in doing revolution. However, I don't think that these are massive strikes against it, as it's not trying to be the What is to be Done of the 21st century. It's merely trying to advocate that property destruction is a legitimate tactic at this point in the climate crisis, and I think it does that well. While it is certainly preferable to abolish the state rather than pressure it into passing anemic climate legislation, these tactics, as Malm notes can also be used as tools of liberation against the state itself, and not just the parts of state that are destroying the planet.

When you read a book published many years ago, you have to be prepared for some of the prejudices of the past. However, this book is bad even for the time. When I call it the most middle-class activism story that I've read, that is not a compliment. Working-class people are portrayed as either lazy and thus deserving of their poverty, or as too stupid to understand basic concepts. Intellectuals are treated as either mouthpieces for evil commies or too inexperienced with the real ways of the world. Only the upright middle-class of labor aristocracy and petit-bourgeoise, who want to assimilate to white upper-class society are worthy of praise according to this book. Critiquing that society or wanting to make a new and better one that doesn't have segregation just means that you're an evil commie who wants to monopolize any mass movement. Further, this book is for one thing, and one thing only; helping Ethiopia survive against the Italian invasion. This in itself is an admirable goal, but the book is so ardently against any and all forms of intersectionality that it ends up being self-sabotaging. Fascism, the ideology that empowers racism and imperialist militarism is treated as a wholly separate issue from that of the military conflicts brought on by fascism. There are other examples of this, but I don't care to re read this book to find the specifics. And yet, this book isn't wholly devoid of good content. Under the mountains of bad takes, one can find some lessons to learn or reaffirm. Specifically they are:

Don't monopolize race-based liberation discourse for the purposes of intersectionality Black people aren't a monolith, so you can't limit your activism to just listening to black voices, because those voices will eventually and inevitably disagree. Although certain issues might be emblematic or a result of other struggles, don't lose sight of the specific issue at hand. You're a part of "The Masses". Don't separate yourself from them in your praxis.

Overall, I like books published posthumously because they often contain content too radical or countercultural for the publishing sensibilities of the time. This book was not published during the author's lifetime because it's just bad.