Seven Stories Press

I thought some of you might be interested in Seven Stories Press. They are an independant publisher and have books by Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, and Naomi Klein among others.

librarylapin,

I found them at www.sevenstories.com

I see there`s also a Seven Stories Institute - are the two connected ?

I don't know if they're connected or not, but I highly endorse the Seven Stories Press works...

I *strongly* recommend 9-11 by Noam Chomsky. To my knowledge, it was the first published work to question the reasons behind the event. It doesn't "offer therapy" to the terrorists; it rationally explains why many around the world hate us so, and with good cause. To be honest, I hadn't read much Chomsky until this book, and it changed the types of books I have read since then.

They quickly followed up this title with Terrorism and War by noted American historian Howard Zinn which brought some additional credence to these questions around accountability.

Another Seven Stories book I'd recommend is Israel/Palestine by Tanya Reinhart. Unfortunately, it is becoming more of a historical tract like From Beirut to Jerusalem, but it has an equal amount of historical and mind-provoking insights.

And I also recommend them for their books on the media - just like the Disinformation publishers, they strike out at those manning the loudspeakers: Silencing Political Dissent, Our Media, Not Theirs, and Media Control are but just a few examples of these books.

I had almost forgotten - Seven Stories Press also published some smaller books under the aegis 'The Open Media Pamphlet Series' in the late 1990's. I have a couple of these, and recommend them as well.

Haven't read all that much of Chomsky in the past. I have read his 9-11 book. I have seen him on tv quite often through the years--almost always on C-span--in fact he was on today--an archival clip from 2004. It seems like I'm mostly in agreement with the direction he takes. Unfortunately he seems to be a lonely voice in the wilderness--not so much that he doesn't get attention it's just that voices like his tend to get marginalized by the glut of political and media spin and the biases of the majority of the population who don't want to be discomfitted by ideas that would make them question those biases.

Iriley, I totally agree with your last sentence. The majority of Americans DON'T want to know what their government is up to. During the run up to the Iraq war I angered a lot of people by pointing out that it is nothing new for the U.S. government to lie to its people as motivation for war or for any number of other reasons. I was in the military, and I couldn't find any comrade who believed or cared that the DoD sprayed its own troops with nerve gas during naval experiments in the late sixties. But everyone sure was fired up about Saddam using gas on his own people way back in 1988. On the other hand, no one believed or cared that the U.S. was complicit in covering it up when it happened, by joining Hussein in blaming the Iranians for it. There is a willfull, stubborn blindness that comes into play whenever the discussion turns to the collective consciousness and I find that sort of blind patriotism truly frightening. I remember the far right championing the cause of parental "tough love" a few years back. It really does work for parenting and it would do wonders for the U.S. psyche if more Americans would apply it to the U.S. political process, by voting all the rascals out. But I'm certainly not holding my breath.

It`s similar in the UK. For over 10 years I was a typical grass roots activist - doing a `normal` day job and campaigning on various issues in my spare time, also acting as trade union rep for a time.

Doing a day job at the same time as being involved in that sort of activity does bring it home to you that most people block out anything that`s inconvenient or makes them question their assumptions.

The difference that I seem to see between the UK and the US is that in the UK, few people trust politicians - presented with cases of political wrongdoing, most people would be unsurprised if somewhat indifferent.

The impression I have, perhaps wrongly, is that in the US, people either don`t know or don`t want know that politicians are venal half-wits. In the UK, people take that for granted !

A lot of progressive types in the UK wring their hands over this attitude of the electorate. Personally, I don`t share their concern. People shouldn`t trust politicians. Why would they ?

For a time it seemed as if progressives had moved away from the party allegiances favoured by their predecessors and moved more towards single-issue pressure groups which were considered more trustworthy.

How things will develop is uncertain. As regards orgnisations involved with Third World issues, there does seem to have been a loss of `trust factor`. I am not sure whether this would apply in the same way to , eg, environmental groups who may well still have credibility in the public eye.

nickhoonaloon,

Recent polling suggests most americans don't trust any politicians except their own. That's an extension of the umbrella effect that I think is also behind the refusal to see the evil the government sometimes does (e.g., I am a decent person and I am an american ; therefore, my government must also be decent). It is a very strange mix of beliefs. Most politicians are bad, but the government is generally good.

On the other hand, maybe the american populace is not the best arbiter of right and wrong. 53% believe it is okay to have secret prisons where we "render" and torture people snatched off the streets of other countries (a policy first approved by Bill Clinton, I might add, albeit taken to breathtaking excess under the current administration).

Well before the invasion a certain bloodlust came into being in the psyches of a lot of people who should know better. Often these would be your normal everyday very likeable individual. After Powell's speech to the United Nations it cranked up another notch. To listen to Colonel Wilkerson (I believe I've got that right) an aide to Powell--Colin was somewhat skeptical about the final product delivered to him by the CIA who were being pressured by Bush and the neo-cons in the administration to fix everything up. Colin according to Wilkerson told George Tenet that he wanted him right there behind him in full public view for this UN speech and if you look at the speech there he is sitting right behind him. In any case yes the public always needs to keep track of what these people are doing but the Cheney-Bush team have done everything possible to obscure the public from the truth about this and the truth about that---supposedly for our own good. They would increase executive power at the expense of judicial power but even more so of the people's power through their elected officials particularly in the House and the Senate. They've been intent these several years on building some kind of aristocracy which goes against the grain of american public life and if recent congressional polls are any indicator they are about to pay a political price for that--so there may be reasons for some hope. A democratic controlled house or senate could investigate all kinds of administration shenanigans--just how much willingness they will have would be another question. The track record of the democrats vis-a-vis corruption is not all that good either. Ultimately and I believe Chomsky would agree with this we need more than a two party political system.

lriley, I totally ageree with you but I am afraid the deck is stacked. Between gerrymandering, the inertia of incumbency, and the corrupting influence of special interest money, it will take a herculean effort to effect any meaningful change. Things are bad and a lot of folks are disaffected, but I think most folks are still going to vote party lines in the upcoming election. I hope the dems can take control of the house but what I'd really like to see is an electorate willing to forget party affiliations and vote integrity first. There are good folks from both parties out there and some of them are endangered because of their integrity. It would have been easy for Joe Lieberman to have backed off his support of the war but he didn't and he knew he was going to pay for it. I don't like his position, but I admire his integrity. Walter Jones is the congressman from the red meat and gunpowder state of South Carolina who coined the term "freedom fries" to protest French opposition to the invasion and later became a strong critic of the war, at his own peril. I'd love to see a national "integrity counts" campaign built around the promise to vote out any representative who won't support meaningful lobbyist reforms and a balanced budget. (and when pigs fly, we'll all want umbrellas, too)

I don't really care for what Lieberman's done and I'm not so sure his motivation is good either.

A particular problem of some proponents of either party is their blind hatred for each other. The pendulum is swinging back the other way and there are people who would love to see the GOP absolutely destroyed--which is great but would we then have only one party--what would we call that? So it is good that you bring up Jones--and for that matter he has not been the only one to critique his administration over Iraq. But more or less this is a product of their own making. Was not a fan of Clinton at all--it is almost unbelievable these Bush II years makes me almost nostalgic for the Clinton years and I would think at the very least we would have had some sane budgetary control of spending from the GOP. I mean what do they stand for if not that?

An angry electorate may throw the bums out but an angry electorate has in the past got fired up over the polemics of the Limbaugh's, Hannity's and O'Reilly's. Lots of charlatans out there. Lots of people being spoon fed their points of view. Anyway as far as hope and voting goes--it's best to main hope. In presidential elections I tend towards 3rd parties--I feel better voting for someone I actually like and can at least partially agree with. I don't want to take responsiblity for putting in a lesser evil. I'm not choosing someone who I think is bad but less bad. That is not a difficult choice though to make coming from here in NYS where the Dem is almost assured the electoral votes.

Our situation in the UK is broadly similar in certain respects - we have two major parties, the Conservatives (equiv to the Republicans) and Labour (originally formed as the political voice of the Trade Union movement, but now basically the equiv of the Democrats. Our third party, the Liberal Democrats, is I think stronger than any third party in the US, but is not about to form a government. The other parties of any note would be the Greens and the Liberal Party,( a breakaway group from the Lib Dems, which I understand has supplanted the Lib Dems in particular areas, but not nationally). No offence to anyone, but I`ll disregard the various left parties and fringe types for the moment.

I personally think that both the UK and US would benefit from a genuinely progressive third party (or simply new party), but the question is, what form should it take. I recall when an area of Nottingham returned a Communist to Nottingham City Council, numerous left organisations the stood candidates in that area at the next few elections. Not one had put down any roots in the area beforehand, and not one made any headway. Simply fielding a candidate is a pretty pointless activity, and is unlikely to produce any dividends.

I`d have to say, the pictures of the British left painted by George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier and Walter Rodney in Walter Rodney Speaks is painfully accurate!

...it will take a herculean effort to effect any meaningful change.

I'm willing to make an effort, though I think the smartest thing to do is figure out what is both possible and potentially effective. I recently read and reviewed Steven Hill's new book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy, which gives some ideas. The touchstone isn't working for some reason, but the catalog entry is over here.

If anyone`s looking at daschaich`s review of the book by Hill, I recommend you also have a look at his review of a book called True Mission by Eric Chester, which also touches on a number of issues discussed in this thread.

lriley and nickhonnaloon,

I totally agree that it should not be about party politics. What we have here are two powerful entities that want to control congress as the means to control spending. If you can't deliver legislation, you will not have corporate money flowing into your war chest. That is the lesson of the K Street project. Where I disagree with you, lriley, is in the belief that it is not possible to choose a lesser evil. The centerpiece of my opposition is the way the two parties have peformed on one of the topics you mentioned: the budget. Although the Repubs are the party of "fiscal responsibility", they are responsible for 7/8 of the U.S. national debt. Reagan made a big deal of the fact that the national debt hit 1 trillion during Carter's administration. After the 1 - 2 punch of Reagan and Bush 41, the debt stood at 4 trillion. Clinton inherited deficit spending but was delivering surpluses when he left eight years later. Under Bush 43, the debt has nearly doubled. I think the debt is the #1 threat to U.S. national security. If we don't reduce that debt, the Euro will one day provide an attractive alternative to the U.S. dollar as world currency and that will be the end of American hegemony. Repubs are ideologically opposed to the tax increases we need if we are to begin paying as we go, and therefore my vote goes to the only party to have delivered a surplus in my lifetime. In a perfect world, the budget would matter far more than abortion, gun control, flag amendments, same-sex marriages, and all the other emotional issues the dems and repubs use to keep us from becoming united behind integrity and reform. daschaich's Steven Hill is on the right track. Meaningful reform must start with lobbyists and pork barrel politics. A simple way to attack both while ensuring a balanced budget would be to outlaw pork barrel and special interest legislation attached to other bills unless the budget was in surplus, and then limit the expenditure to a percentage of the overall spending bill. As for corruption, take a page from Iraq and embed a couple of journalists on the ethics committee. Then institute mandatory sentencing for those convicted of offering or taking bribes. Alas, nickhoonaloon, a major third party in the U.S. isn't likely, given that the dems and repubs are united in at least that one goal of freezing them out of debates and corporate honey pots.

I didn't say it was not possible to choose a lesser evil--it's that I choose not to. That is why my vote went to Nader the last 2 times. To me choosing a lesser evil still means choosing evil--and expect to get what you ask for. I did not like Gore. I liked Kerry a lot better--however if I had to choose 2 issues--like you I would choose budgetary--including trade which to me should be on a quid pro quo basis, and should move to protect american vital industries when necessary. The other would be Iraq--which is monies being spent from the next administration which rightfully should be added to the debt Bush has been irresponsible with.

Back to debt--there are two things to do to fix it. Raise taxes and cut spending. Putting it off for someone else's rainy day is wrong. Running a war on borrowed money is wrong. Being non-transparent about everything and anything is what we've got from them--and all these hidden agendas lead to corruption. It was inevitable. Really though although I hope the Dems will come in and start fixing things and I do like for instance the look of some of the new senators who should win--Sherrod Brown, John Tester and Bernie Sanders for instance--we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch as the past practice of the party in power is to stay on top through fraud.

Anyway I might like to add a little more but I've run out of time and have to be off to work.

Just to clarify my point, I wasn`t thinking of a party whose prime objective was to eventually join in the silly game of music chairs favoured by the two main parties (UK and US).

I would favour a party along the lines of SPUSA, hence my reference to daschaich`s review of True Mission.

We have a vaguely similar, but unrelated party here, Socialist Party of Great Britain. They have some thought-provoking ideas, but when it comes the three P`s (the right policy, the right people, the right practise) I am not myself convinced. They have published a book, selected articles from their paper The Socialist Standard since it`s inception in 1904. I`ll find the details and post it when I get round to it.

Interesting debate, by the way, I`m enjoying it.

Anyways in regards to legislation it should always be single subject items to be voted up or down--the language of which should be easily enough understandable. Legislation should be made very easily available for public scrutiny. Time should be given to legislators to read, understand and debate. For instance the Alaskan bridge to nowhere should stand on its own as a bill--to pass through committee--to be recommended there or not to be voted on later after the time needed is alloted for everyone else outside the committee to think it over--have a debate and then decide whether it's worthy or not. It's not rocket science. Members of congress and the senate like to hide things behind obscure language--to sneak things in at the last minute--to not give time to the opposite side to read or to coherently debate and this has been a hallmark of the present administration and the majority congress that serves it. Lobbyists, industry hacks should not be allowed to write up bills either whether they're former congressmen, senators or not. Everything needs to be in the open and transparent.

Re : My message of Oct 20, the book is called Socialism or Your Money Back : Articles From the Socialist Standard 1904 - 2004. It was published to commemorate 100 years of the Socialist Standard, which I understand is still going strong at 102 years old !

If anyone`s tempted by the book mentioned in #19 (22/10/06), but strapped for cash, I gather there is a June 2004 Special Issue of Socialist Standard still available which covers much the same ground but obviously there`s less of it and it`ll be cheaper.