Samir AminRezensionen

Kind of a mixed bag. It talks about a lot of stuff that's important and every so often mentions something useful and interesting but I feel that on the whole it doesn't really come across as coherent. For example, I don't really have a clear definition of his idea of Eurocentrism. Every time he seemed about to talk about it explicitly, he went on to something else. It's almost certain it's, to a large degree, down to me being a bad reader, but it was definitely frustrating. I feel some of it might be down to translation but it still leaves a lot of times when he starts talking about something and I'm confused as to what he's referring to or don't see the link. One thing that's unusual is that he talks about religion a *lot* - it's a major part of the book. Again though, it wasn't clear in what ways he thought religion relates to Eurocentrism etc - what he talks about is very interesting on its own but it doesn't mesh together well. Near the end, he starts talking about global value which is a fascinating and important topic but he says it's not relevant here and doesn't go into it. Yet the conclusion of the book as a whole is just a page saying that worldwide value is the key to everything.

Ultimately, it said a lot of valuable stuff that I think could do with being talked about more and is generally kept out of view, but didn't say it coherently enough or in enough detail to make it a valuable guide for those looking to challenge Eurocentrism by itself. I appreciated it and what I learned from it, but not enough to make it a strong recommendation.

Maybe not anything particularly new, but a well-written summary - if obviously condensed - of the problems of liberalism and American political thought. Made me think more about how USA-centric a lot of discourse is. The last quarter is his geopolitical ideas to combat the USA, which are interesting and not focused on Marxist ideas, although I can't make much informed comment about them. Overall I really appreciate his style, which is a lot clearer than a lot of writers and doesn't do a load of equivocation - it focuses on the issues at hand and I wish others would take note. An enjoyable read.

HB-4

A book about liberalism that speaks neither of Grotius nor Locke? This book is really about imperial capitalism, a kind of critique against the policies of war and Washington Consensus - not against liberal ideology. Amin belongs to the French post-colonial sphere and wrote the book in French before it was translated, which may be why “liberal,” gets lost in translation. Although he does, in the fourth chapter of the book, formally seem to want to speak of ideology, he is so engulfed in his positionality of critic that at no point does he take time to define what he is criticising - liberalism - as it understands itself on its own terms. One would hope this would be a departure point, if not necessarily the departure point. Unfortunately, he doesn’t say much that is new to me, and what he does say isn't structured to be explicit enough to make this a primary text of reference. While The Liberal Virus is largely good, neomarxist fare, I wouldn't recommend it over, say, E.M. Wood's The Origin of Capitalism or, if your interest was actually liberalism as an ideological system, say, Domenico Losurdo’s work on that topic.

Se ha escrito ya mucho sobre la Revolución de Octubre y sobre la naturaleza del sistema soviético. Pero no todos está dichoEs más, hay quien hoy sale al paso de las interpretaciones dominantes, tanto desde la derecha como desde la izquierda, y aloja nuevas luces sobre uno de los procesos sociales más relevantes del siglo XX. Este es el caso de Samir Amin, que lejos de proyectar una mirada nostálgica hacia el pasado, Amin identifica los errores y flaquezas de aquella construcción y proporciona las claves que permiten comprender la evolución de los hechos. Así, sin esconder las sombras, señala también las luces que acompañaron a aquel gran primer proyecto socialista.

Dit boekje lezen is alsof je met een ruimteraket 24 uur in een baan om de aarde wordt geplaatst: de Egyptische economist Samir Amin jongleert met geografisch-culturele regio’s en tijdperken van 20 tot 3 eeuwen alsof het kinderspel is; hij is een echte exponent van de wereldsysteemtheorie. Toch vind je zijn naam niet zo dikwijls in de overzichten van die stroming. Misschien is dat omdat Amin er in de loop van de jaren in geslaagd is met zowat alle zwaargewichten uit de brede stroming van de wereldsysteemtheorie en de Global of World History in de clinch te gaan, en dan vooral met de marxistisch geïnspireerde vertegenwoordigers ervan, zoals Immanuel Wallerstein en Andre Gunder Frank. Amin is nochtans zelf een marxist, en dat is ook aan het erg theoretische gehalte van dit boekje te merken: zoals in elke geloofstraditie worden de medestanders nog het meest verketterd en bestreden. Begrijp me niet verkeerd: wat Amin te zeggen heeft is best wel de moeite, vooral zijn “hoogte-kijk” op de wereldgeschiedenis, en dan bijzonder de rudimentaire verhoudingen tussen regio’s in een bepaald tijdperk is zeer interessant, én tegelijk uitdagend. Want je blijft je als historicus toch altijd wel afvragen waar zijn boude beweringen precies op gebaseerd zijn. Overigens is het een toch een opvallende vaststelling: zowat alle uitgesproken exponenten van de wereldsysteemtheorieën zijn géén historici, Amin is dus een economist, Wallerstein een socioloog, Frank een economist en socioloog, enz. Wellicht is teveel zin voor nuance en verhouding dodelijk voor grote theorievorming.½

e0054