What are you reading now - and then

[sukumvit boy]

Some of you may have read the brief exchange I had with RedVex on Solidarity in the thread on the Las Vegas massacre. I did not respond to one post because I felt the thread had lost its way and did not want to push it further away from the event in Las Vegas. It does, however, raise interesting questions about Solidarity (to give it its English name) and the transition in Poland, not least because RedVex has a radically different view from most, and one that I think is both mistaken and confusing.

The sources I have used for my initial comments are worth reading in their own right, and are Archie Brown: The Rise and Fall of Communism (2009), and Tony Judt: Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 (2005). Both historians attribute the collapse of communism to a combination of factors, with the economic incompetence of central planning at its core, combined with Gorbachev's internal reforms and foreign policy (Afghanistan being a disater for the Soviet military). Nevertheless, this does not lessen the importance, in Poland of the Solidarity movement and the role it played in breaking the back of the Polish United Workers Party and seeing it off in the elections of September 1988.

This is what RedVex wrote (I have edited out irrelevant passages):
1. You wrote "Solidarity" rather than solidarity, so no, you were indeed referring to the party rather than solidarity or empathy.
2. Originally, Solidarity, was called PPS (Partia Pracownicza Solidarnosc) and itwas indeed a communist labour party of comrades. There isn't much resources in about that one so that people don't have many opportunities to know it even existed. The Solidarity that was formed in 1980, NSZZ Solidarnosc (Niezalezny Samorzadowy Zwiazek Zawodowy Solidarnosc), after PPS had been dissolved, was merely a medium for transferring power from the state to someone the state could easily control, e.g. by blackmail, so to agents of the Secret Police, SB (Sluzby Bezpieczenstwa), and petty snitches like Lech Walesa. Such operation was necessary as people had enough of "the system" and would not trust anyone related to it (such as gen. Jaruzelski). They would however trust an simple electrician from the shipyard.
General Wojciech Jaruzelski's decision about overthrowing the communist regime by introducing martial law was a partially successful attempt to liberate Poland. Otherwise, NSZZ Solidarnosc, which consisted of gen. Czeslaw Kiszczak's agents, would have taken over. Unfortunately no reforms took place under Jaruzelski's reign until 1988.

-I concede I had not heard of the PPS and cannot find much on the internet in either Polish or English, and it could either be the early attempts at an independent trade union that flourished briefly in 1978-79, or the first grouping in the Lenin Shipyard in 1980 prior to the formal creation of Solidarity that year.
-What I find odd is the designation of Solidarity as merely a medium for transferring power from the state to someone the state could easily control, when the reality is that what Solidarity exposed was the weakness of the Polish United Workers Party and the fact that it was not controlled by the party at all. It is just as odd to claim that Jaruzelski's decision about overthrowing the communist regime by introducing martial law was a partially successful attempt to liberate Poland when he successfully rounded up and imprisoned those leaders whom we were earlier told were stooges of the government, and delayed the transition in Poland rather than hastening it.

-A signal problem that I find with the language of RedVex's interpretation is the inability to distinguish between Communists and whoever else lives in Poland. The point may relate to the 'problem' for her, that as with Gorbachev in Russia, many if not most of Solidarity's members wanted to reform the system rather than to replace it. If many were themselves members of the PUWP but defected to Solidarity or worked for the state, then in a sense they were 'communists' by employment and affiliation. But what RedVex does not mention, is that most of Solidarity's members, whatever they job or party affiliation before 1980, would have claimed to be Roman Catholics. Indeed, a passionate fidelity to Catholicism was one of the key components of the transition in Poland which undermines the attempt to smear Solidarity as, in effect, just a tool of the Communists. The role played in all this by the Polish Pope hardly needs a reference.

-Where it becomes intriguing is in the relationship the church had with the State, from the (Stalinist) attempt to crush the church after the war, to the accommodation that was eventually reached in 1956 which became crucial in creating a space between the Party and the People in which Poles were free to express their faith, to the extent that one can see how this space (also found in a vibrant arts scene, notably in film and theatre) became vital for the anti-party protests in the 1970s and 1980s -mostly caused by price rises for basic commodities- which led in time to the eclipse of the party itself, while the Roman Catholic Church went from strength to strength. There is a brief overview of this here-
https://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/exhibits/r...h/introduction

-In other words, I am confused, because a Communist cannot also be a Catholic, so why has RedVex dismissed the Solidarity movement as a Communist outfit when if anything, it could be re-designated a Catholic one? And all this without discussing the conspiracy theorists who see a conduit of CIA money via the Catholic Church to Solidarity members and other dissidents as also playing a role in the 1980s.

Very interesting overview of Solidarity and the history of post war Europe and Communism , Stavros , thanks.

[ILuvGurls]

"Paradise Valley" by CJ Box

[Stavros]

Very interesting overview of Solidarity and the history of post war Europe and Communism , Stavros , thanks.

If you are aware of the critical view of my version by RedVex, you may also be aware that there are ferocious debates taking place on Polish history both within Poland and without. In fact I would go as far as to say that in recent years the rage and bitterness that has taken place resembles the Historikerstreit that convulsed Germany in the 1980s where the key issue was the 'correct' location of the Holocaust in German history, and whether or not it and the Third Reich was unique or a 'logical' development of the processes of modernization that followed the industrial revolution, or some aberration which has dislodged the practice of history by making it so exceptional much of what is written about the Third Reich attains the status of myth rather than verifiable history, and in doing so has created such a 'national guilt' that Germans were unable to appreciate and celebrate the fact they are German. The wikipedia article is here, followed by a more difficult interview with Nolte.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p15_warren.html

Just as the primary architect of this view, Ernst Nolte was attacked for being a 'revisionist' who in effect downgraded the importance of the Holocaust (but he did not deny it), so a ferocious debate has followed the publications in English of the historian Norman Davies. Davies, a protege of AJP Taylor, made his name with a study of Polish history, God's Playground (1979, updated in subsequent editions) and his since published a vast 1,000 pages plus book Europe: A History (1996), Europe at War, 1939-1945: No Simple Victory (2006) and Vanished Kingdoms (2010).

Davies sued Stanford on the grounds of discrimination when the university rejected his application for tenure (this took place between 1984-8, the heart of the dispute then and since being a plea by Davies (whose wife is Polish) to re-assess the history of Poland in a Polish context in which the suffering of the Poles in the period between 1939-45 is worthy of comparison to the Holocaust, thus again appearing to 'relativize' two strands of history and to some downgrading the Holocaust. Davies was attacked by the eminent historian of the Holocaust, Lucy Dawidowicz, and others weighed in to attack what they claim is Davies' sloppy scholarship, factual errors in terms of dates and events, the falsification of history and in particular his treatment of Polish history and its most difficult period in the modern age. A flavour of these attacks can be gained from the articles below:
https://newrepublic.com/article/1021...-nation-states
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v19/n04/neal-a...-the-cannibals
http://www.countercurrents.org/riggins271107.htm

What is intriguing for an outsider is how, at the heart of these arguments, a different perspective emerges on the fate of European Jewry than one used to get in standard studies of the period from the end of the war in 1918 to the 1945. Far from being passive Jews led like sheep to the slaughter, believing what they were told about re-location, disbelieving news of the death camps as impossible, the Jews in Poland offer a narrative of robust defenders of their communities but also communities divided amongst themselves.

Poland had at the time the largest and most diverse number of Jews in Europe - Orthodox, Liberal, Assimilated- and had established themselves in a variety of professions across the country. In addition to the anti-semitism embedded in Polish society, what convulsed the Jews of Poland were the arguments over the merits of Zionism, whether it was a Nationalist cause or a Socialist cause, with the influence of the Russians and the impact of the Bolshevik Revolution stirring the pot even further. This robust approach to politics led to allegations that even before the German invasion Polish Jews were organized into gangs that attacked Poles, or used violence to defend Jewish communities against anti-Jewish attacks by Poles, with the Warsaw Uprising being the most celebrated if ultimate example of this trend. In this mix, you find Vladimir Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin of the Betar movement, two men who eventually left Poland for Palestine where they carried on fighting, this time the British -as well as other Palestinian Jews.

The core problems revolved around Polish anti-semitism and Jewish resistance, and whether or not left-wing Jews welcomed the Red Army into Poland and thus demonstrated a lack of loyalty to Poland. A good example of the bitterness generated by Norman Davies in relation to his treatment of the Jews in Poland before the Holocaust can be found in this exchange with Abraham Brumberg, though I doubt it settles the matter.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1987...s-an-exchange/

Given the scale of the destruction of Poland's Jews, 90% of them setting aside those who managed to escape, the sorry tale is alleged to have continued after the war when, in 1946 Poles murdered 42 survivors of the Holocaust in Kielce.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...orldwar.poland

The ferocity of the arguments continues to rage in Poland with the latest target the Museum of the Second World War, which Davies (on the Museum Board) and others have said is a project being hi-jacked by the government for its own purposes:
A spectacular new museum of the second world war is at the centre of an extraordinary row between international academics and Poland’s political leadership, amid claims that the country’s ruling Law and Justice party is putting history at the service of politics.

And, to bring it back to Solidarity you get a sense of the distress with Davies attacking the leader of the Law and Justice Party:
“He is behaving like a Bolshevik and a paranoid troublemaker. Law and Justice are the most vindictive gang in Europe. Gdańsk is a particular target because of the association with Wałęsa and Solidarity, and Tusk, who is Gdańsk-born, is a history graduate and laid the foundation stone of the museum. Kaczyński was in Solidarity and managed Wałęsa’s election campaign before he became president of Poland [in 1990]. Wałęsa sidelined him, and Kaczyński has been planning his revenge ever since.’’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-says-academic

What strikes me about a lot of this history, is that I do not understand how anyone can not recognize the Holocaust as a unique event, it would be like ignoring the presence of a turd in a glass of water. The roots of its anti-semitism are undeniable, but the organization, the management, the operations that led to mass slaughter (labour camps, medical experiments, forced marches, starvation, untreated disease) -documented in print, photography and film- are of an order so unusual that it cannot just be slotted in to the history of the 20th century along with everything else. This does not mean the suffering inflicted by totalitarian regimes should be sidelined, it just calls for a nuanced treatment without losing the overall context.

But also because it is part of that whole debate about politics and society, the conflct between the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists which some now want to collapse into one narrative in which there is no difference between them because they represented an extreme example of the State replacing the citizen, with the chilling rider that some do not feel the 'liberal democratic' states that survived are these days that much better than the regimes they have marshalled off the world stage.

[Post Op Preferred]

Currently I’m doing a little light reading: Legacy of Spies by John Le Carre’. Although it’s set in the current day, the story harkens back to an operation that took place during the ‘Cold War.’ The good guys aren’t so good and neither are the bad guys. I’m not a Le Carre’ reader: the only other book of his I ever read was The Delicate Truth.

I just finished Legacy. It's a bit of a throwback to the epistolary novels of the 18th century, incorporating archival memos to supply backstory, but does a great job of tying up loose ends from its predecessors, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and the Karla Trilogy (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Honorable Schoolboy and Small Town in Germany). If you binge watch rather than read TSWCIFTC was an early Richard Burton movie classic, and the others were televised on BBC/PBS starring Alec Guinness as Smiley. I thought Legacy was a great read on its own but it helped to have read and watched the predecessors, even if that was decades back. Writing must keep Le Carre's mind sharp. He hasn't lost a bit in 60 years of writing.

[BlüeKarma]

I just started the first book of the "Saga of Recluse" series. Its called The Magic of Recluse and follows Lerris, a young, innately powerful Order Mage who has to leave his home and find out exactly what he needs to do with his life...or else.

[slave2u]

dan brown's origin. not so art based puzzley as his previous books - but interesting romp.

[Stavros]

Steven Livitsky & Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. What History Reveals About Our Future (Penguin Random House twenty eighteen).

This is an easy to read primer on the threats to US democracy that the authors believe has entered a dangerous new phase following the 2016 Election Campaign and the election of a man the authors claim has the potential to be a demagogue. They do not hide their concern for the 45th President but in the chapter on his first year, while highlighting the themes of the book concede that in reality he has not yet gone as far as he can and has threatened, but that it is just the first year.

The strength of the book is its theoretical premise, derived from the classic 1978 study by Juan Linz The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. The authors use his template of decline and fall, noting that democracy as an open system contains within it the opportunity for political leaders to destroy it from within, but that this often happens because a lenient class of people who could prevent it, enable the ambitious politician -often a maverick figure not connected to existing political elites- to enter high office and then subvert the democratic system -often triggered by a crisis, be it economic, a security or war scenario-, creating in effect a one-party state or dictatorship that causes even more damage than it is claimed the democracy had which preceded it. They cite examples from Fascist Italy, Germany under the Third Reich, Peru under Alberto Fujimori and Venezuela under Huge Chavez, the last being a notably chilling example given that Venezuela was and should still be a petroleum rich democracy. Key indicators that the authors use are
1) a rejection of the rules of the game that has maintained the political system the leader is opposed to and blames for decay;
2) denies the legitimacy of opponents in the democratic system;
3) tolerates or encourages violence;
4) expresses a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, often the media.

Of particular interest is the way in which they trace the breakdown of the bi-partisan consensus in Congress as a precursor to the election of 2016, and argue that the 1867 Reconstruction Act that enfranchised Black voters led to such huge victories for the Republican Party in the South that throughout the period from the 1870s to 1912 southern States a white elite that felt it had lost control of its own states, then enacted numerous laws to disenfranchise Black voters to the extent that Black voter turn out went from 61% in 1880 to barely 2% in 1912 to the benefit of the Democrat Party. Thus the stability of the US political system between the 1880s and 1965 was based on a compromise whereby the Northern 'victors' of the Civil War, in effect stood by while the southern 'losers' re-shaped their states to deny Black Americans the equal rights that they had been granted as a result of that war and the end of slavery. Moreover, it was the civil rights reforms of the 1960s that not only restored these rights, but in doing so broke the consensus, transformed a south of 'Dixiecrats' into almost solid Republican territory but brought with a fierce intensity that became expressed in the kind of aggressive language that demonizes fellow Americas as no longer partners in democracy, but opponents in a war. And over the succeeding years, the Democrats became a party of diverse Americans while the Republican Party became a party of White Evangelical Christians and political conservatives.

One such prescursor who denied the legitimacy of the opponent, was provided by the young Newton Gingrich when he ran for Congress in 1978 using language that was aggressive, arguing he was in a 'war' for power that could not be fought with 'boy scout words'. By the 1990s he was recommending that in their campaign literature and statements Republicans should describe Democrats with words such as 'pathetic, sick, bizarre, betray, antiflag, antifamly and traitors' (p14.

Thus the authors argue that the US was in 2016 and remains today vulnerable because the 'gatekeepers' who could have prevented the candidate with the least practical experience of public office from becoming President thought they could nevertheless control him; that they bear a responsibility for his outrageous behaviour and lies, and, ominously while they concede the worst excesses have been curtailed by Congress wonder how long that can hold. The attacks on the media and state institutions, the vulgar and aggressive language used by the President, his refusal to adhere to norms on the hiring of staff and the blurring of lines between his business interests and his responsibility as President present the US with potentially its most severe crisis since the Civil War.

A bracing read, and one that is recommended, even to those who think that the President is legitimate because he was elected to break the stranglehold of two now rigidly opposed parties even if, in destroying a two party system it is not clear what will replace it.

[trish]

Stephen Greenblatt’s The Rise And Fall Of Adam And Eve. Greenblatt is interested in the evolution of the story, its elaborations and interpretations in art and literature through time as well as its impact on our understanding of morality and the relation between men and women (or their impact on tellings of the story). Interesting read. Takes you through Babylon, introduces you to St. Augustine, the Renaissance, Milton, Mark Twain and Darwin. One of Greenblatt’s thesis is that from Augustine, through the Renaissance painters and sculptors to Milton, Adam and Eve became more and more real, moving beyond the two-dimensional cutouts they were in Moses’ telling of the garden story. But by becoming real, they became mortal. The cracks and flaws in the story became obvious to those who thought about it and the myth was opened up to the ridicule of humorists (like Bayle and Twain) as well as to criticism from science. It’s a nice way to think of it, but I’m not sure it explains why it’s still taken literally by so many people on my side of the Atlantic.

[sukumvit boy]

Hey stavros , I see that your reading list parallels mine with regard to concern about the the future of our economic /political systems since we both read Joseph Stieglitz's " The Cost of Inequality".
My thoughts revolve around issues such as : Is the Trump election a symptom of the deep dissatisfaction with a political and economic system where real wages for the average citizen have not increased since the 1970's , while 1% of the populace controls 99% of the wealth and in America , any third ( or more )political party is doomed to failure in our" winner takes all" political system instead of true proportional representation as in European democracys . The failure of Capitalism and the failure of nations is made of such stuff...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequali...oseph+stiglitz
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-W...1596510&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/178...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[broncofan]

Sukumvit Boy, have you read all of those or are you working through some of them now?