On Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century, by Michael A. Lebowitz

The title of this thin book is misleading. Only truly in the last chapter, which was written solely for this volume, does the author come anywhere close to discussing what a 21st century socialism would look like. And when he gets around to it, the blueprint is entirely involved with the formation of the Chavez-lead state in Venezuela.

While the left can and will take away many valuable lessons from the struggle in Venezuela, I am curious on looking for theory driving an idea behind revolution of the post-industrial service economy like the one we suffer under in the United States. Venezuela's economy was more agrarian and resource driven than the one in which we live under. While it is interesting in seeing the transition and the flux encountered by that nation, I feel that the revolution of our brothers in South American can at any time fall apart. Chavez risks becoming another Castro instead of the impetus for the creation of a democratic, socialist state.

Where my own expectation were not met may be the the failings of my own expectations. The book , however, lacks in its structure. There is no coherent whole bringing it together except for the common author and the individual chapters reflecting on the author's talking points. The six individual chapters stand alone because they were written as speeches, papers or book chapters for other sources. Putting these together with an introduction and conclusion does not a book make. There are several instances in which the essays were not edited for internal consistency. This strikes one reader as pure laziness, but I don't know at whom to point the finger. One final critique is that Lebowitz's writing style can be detached and professorial. Even though I'm sympathetic to the cause described here, and I do want to "Build It Now!", I found this book hard to get through, in spite of its brevity.

On Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, by Bertrand Russell

I like Russell because he frames his morality structure from a null point. His work, especially on religion as is the focus here, is incredibly even-handed. If you compare this work to one of the more modern 'evangelical atheists' such as Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens, what you will see is that Russell is not as antagonistic towards the received dogma that he is writing against. I don't know if this is a structure of the intellectual environment that he wrote in, or just part of Russell's own temperament and style. However, I feel that his dissent was somehow "braver" than the more modern contrarian freethinkers because of that same intellectual environment. Russell's writing is clear and considered and thoughtful. Even if you don't agree with his positions, he writes as the most reasonable person in the room. If you are an atheist or a doubter, I would recommend this book. If you are religious, I would recommend this book even more strongly. If you don't know the counter-arguments, your faith is not as like the little children, it is childish.

On Bleeding London , by Geoff Nicholson

I really liked this book. It is a shame that it is out of print and that I had never heard of the author before. Now I have to check out the further writings of the man. This is a love letter to the city of London, from several points of view. I normally don't like the books and movies that shift between several people, as one story usually is stronger than the others. (See my intense dislike of _Infinite Jest_ in spite of liking Foster Wallace's nonfiction.) However, here the main character is the city, not its inhabitants. The characters are just transients on the surface of the dynamic city. Nicholson has a character say it better than I just did, but when I wanted to make a not to myself about the central theme of the work, I had no pencil close. It was worth while, but remember my views are idiosyncratic and subjective. Read it and we might have something to to talk about.