User Profile

it's a history of the uk from after the second world war to the present day and at the same time a history of the Beatles and the James Bond franchise. and it's filled to the brim with details and anecdotes about production and personnel of both pop cultural monuments.

a specality of higgs' concept of telling the story is the use of "death drive"' and "love"', borrowed in a vast sense from Freud's psychology. he applies these concepts as well on the personal lifes as on the society in whole. therefore he is able to connect the layers and to pin a certain quality to decisions and developments.

as long as the main characters with their background and careers are part of their peer, there is nothing wrong with it. although i'm not sure, how much use it is either. but as soon as they lose this connex, there are simply short biographies with an odd stressing on childhood and seperately there are events, which took place. but there are still a lot of interesting thoughts along the text.

i would say, it's an essay (or a couple of it), forced to be a book. but if you enjoy reading about the Beatles and James Bond --i do-- and a lot of pop culture...

Overall a good marxist approach to the climate crisis, in three parts, according to the three classes involved.

The first part focuses on the capitalist class and the realm of production, detailing how the climate crisis originates there and not as a problem of (individual) consumption. He goes into detail on the production of artificial fertiliser to show how intimately the environmental pollution, the capitalist thirst for growth and the workers' lives are entwined.

The second part is about the professional classes and their attempts to deal with the crisis based on their realm of power: knowledge. Huber discerns three groups. First, the science communicators who try to educate and explain, believing that those who know the science will act accordingly. Second, the policy makers (who I associate with my ambitious, successful eurocrat friends) who believe we can correct the market failures without giving up capitalism. These two groups make mistakes, on politics and economics.

A third group he calls the radicals. Those who recognize that the fundamental problem is capitalism (hence the slogan 'system change not climate change') but Huber's criticism, while not entirely unmerited, are shallow. True, the language tends to be too middle-class and they don't have the same power potential as the working classes, but most are keenly aware of this problem. (granted, I myself am in this group, so maybe I'm taking this a bit more personal than I should) Same with his criticism of degrowth: he never states a fundamental disagreement with it - on the contrary, his pinpointing of the problem in the realm of production and the drive for surplus value are similar to Hickel's critique of 'growthism'. In the end, he never really engages with this group, reaching out or proposing alliances and solidarity. I've noticed this trend within the Left at large, limiting themselves to critique and, in some cases, some superior posturing.

The third and last part focuses on the working classes. How the climate crisis can be framed as relevant to their interests and how they are impacted the most. But more importantly: how their place in the economy gives them the leverage to make a real, lasting transition. This he expands in a chapter on the electricity sector: how a centralised power grid is a great starting point, both for decarbonisation as for actual, political power because of their unique position in the chain of production.

All in all a worthwhile read, even though I may have felt a bit personally attacked at times. But who knows, maybe I needed that? Still, a more constructive approach towards allies couldn't hurt.