What do you think?
Rate this book
Creating Freedom: Power, Control and the Fight for Our Future
The idea of freedom is at the heart of our political and economic systems. It is foundational to our democracy, our way of life - our very conception of what it is to be human. But are we free in the way that we think we are?
In Creating Freedom, Raoul Martinez compellingly dismantles the sacred myth of freedom, showing that our belief that our institutions are free, even our sense of ourselves as agents of free will, is all based on false understanding. From the lottery of our birth, to the coercive influence of our media, to the self-reinforcing, consent-manufacturing realities of power and money, this far-reaching manifesto fiercely demonstrates just how differently we would act if we accepted how the world really is.
It shows that freedom is not something we are given; it is not even something we can easily take. But with empathy, imagination, and determination - it is something we can create.
In Creating Freedom, Raoul Martinez compellingly dismantles the sacred myth of freedom, showing that our belief that our institutions are free, even our sense of ourselves as agents of free will, is all based on false understanding. From the lottery of our birth, to the coercive influence of our media, to the self-reinforcing, consent-manufacturing realities of power and money, this far-reaching manifesto fiercely demonstrates just how differently we would act if we accepted how the world really is.
It shows that freedom is not something we are given; it is not even something we can easily take. But with empathy, imagination, and determination - it is something we can create.
512 pages, Paperback
First published September 27, 2016
124 people are currently reading
1634 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
March 25, 2018
Here is an interesting example of a book that I agree wholeheartedly with the politics of, while having significant misgivings about its intellectual underpinnings. In fact, I initially found the sweeping generalisations disconcerting and off-putting. Conveniently, my critical response is in line with Raoul Martinez’s suggestion to always question what you read and your responses to it. He covers a very wide sweep of ideological, political, historical, and environmental material, which is both impressive and at times frustrating, because there often isn’t time for details. ‘Creating Freedom’ contains some extremely good synthesis, however it’s also stuffed with statements that invite essay-marking comments: ‘This is a major point and needs further unpacking!’ I must say, this made for a stimulating reading experience that challenged me to articulate my own beliefs; I commend Martinez for that. His chapter on climate change is also suitably devastating. Writing about climate change should be existentially terrifying, otherwise it isn’t taking the topic seriously. Moreover, I liked the emphasis on compassion and applying your principles across the entirety of your life.
Returning to the underlying philosophy that I had trouble with, Martinez states his case baldly on page four:
This statement is not qualified and is reiterated many times throughout the book. Martinez states that we make choices, yes, but aren’t responsible for them because we ‘made them with a brain we didn’t choose’. While I totally agree that the circumstances we’re born into are utter chance and we didn’t choose our brains, I can’t make a simple link from that to a total lack of responsibility for everything we do! It just seems like a jump too far, a too-convenient absolute. Quite possibly we are much less responsible for what we do, and responsible in different ways, to those commonly understood. As a control freak, though, I do not wish to totally abrogate responsibility for my actions, good and bad. Nor am I comfortable with the determinism that this implies, biological or environmental as it might be. Women are still dismissed on the basis on the basis of supposed inevitabilities of femininity, for example.
Totally denying personal responsibility leads to the intellectually unsatisfactory shift of blame for the world’s problems onto institutions, nations, culture, historical patterns of wealth, etc. What do all these abstractions have in common? People made and perpetuate them. If none of those people have any responsibility for their actions, how can we trace the emergence of current problems? At one point, Martinez tackles the troubling tendency of so-called ordinary people to do appalling things when ordered to by an authority. If those people aren’t responsible for their behaviour, though, what about the authority that issued the orders? He also discusses the gigantic energy multinationals destabilising the climate for grotesque profits. They might be forced to do so by the law of maximising shareholder returns, but are their employees and shareholders really devoid of responsibility for climate change? Placing responsibility on the company, an abstract concept, is pointless. Without people, the company would not exist.
I am simply not willing to let the world’s wealthiest people off the hook. Does being born into unbelievable privilege mean that you must be rapaciously greedy and therefore have no responsibility for it? Perhaps Martinez wants to get away entirely from the concept of blame, however I am not ready to. Social, political, and environmental problems cannot be tackled without understanding how they occur; the whole book is full of such explanations. Yet who can remain neutral and non-judgemental when faced with so much appalling, unnecessary suffering? Maybe I have no responsibility for my anger and wish to assign blame, because they’re an inevitable part of my neurochemistry! I smell tautology, though, and would love to get a philosopher’s angle on this.
Given this stance on responsibility, I likewise found Martinez’s stance on choice difficult to make sense of. I struggled with these comments:
Control is framed here as an external force exerted on ‘us’, so who exerts it? Are those with power also without responsibility because their actions are an equally inevitable consequence of who and where they are? Are we responsible for our own values? Denying personal responsibility seems to remove an important element of connective tissue between choices and their consequences, as well as dissolving any sense of collective responsibility. What particularly bothered me about this is the lack of need for it. Martinez’s arguments about the urgency of reducing inequality, revitalising democracy, regulating corporations, and protecting the environment do not require any such foundation. If anything it undermines them, or at least muddies the water. I simply cannot accept this statement on page 347:
Of course, I cannot know what I would have done if I’d been a different person in a different situation. Nonetheless, I do not think that individually and collectively humanity has no responsibility for its actions, nor do I find the idea a helpful one to promote progressive transformative change. It seems too simplistic and convenient, the kind of thinking that could be used to sweep aside genocides and other atrocities. Martinez gives some anecdotal examples of empathy and compassion overcoming blame through dialogue, which are moving without being sufficient to convince me of the underlying thesis. We bear no responsibility for our birth and we are fundamentally shaped by our environment, undoubtedly. How can we know, though, that identity and context make all our choices inevitable? How does removing responsibility help with the overwhelming challenge of making the world a better place? Does it really lead us out of the neoliberal quagmire?
Although these questions nagged at me throughout, I was very sympathetic to Martinez’s more specific and practical points and often admired how well he articulated them. For example, I loved this uncompromising comment on wealth:
And this succinct deconstruction of neoliberalism:
While a lot of ground Martinez covers was pretty familiar to me from other books, such as Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics in the Age of Crisis on the commons, No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need on solidarity between interest groups, The Establishment: And How They Get Away with It on think tanks, and Growth Fetish on GDP, he explains it well. One element that was new to me concerned the rise and fall of the UK radical press in the 19th century and its brief resurgence during WWII. The phrase, ‘The press write the first draft of history’ is a memorable one. Another point that I hadn't grasped before is that there has never been a famine in a genuinely democratic country. Amartya Sen is cited in support of this. On the other hand, the comment that, ‘Politics is applied morality’ deserves an entire book in itself, without even getting a paragraph. My overall impression of this book is deeply contradictory. It lucidly races through diagnoses of the major global problems of the 21st century (pre-Trump), proposing reasons for hope with panache. When it veers into philosophical abstraction, though, the momentum and coherence cannot be sustained. It’s unusual to agree with a book in the specific but not the general, yet here we are.
Returning to the underlying philosophy that I had trouble with, Martinez states his case baldly on page four:
If we don’t create ourselves, how can we be responsible for the way we are? And if we aren’t responsible for the way we are, how can we be responsible for what we do? The answer is: we cannot.
This statement is not qualified and is reiterated many times throughout the book. Martinez states that we make choices, yes, but aren’t responsible for them because we ‘made them with a brain we didn’t choose’. While I totally agree that the circumstances we’re born into are utter chance and we didn’t choose our brains, I can’t make a simple link from that to a total lack of responsibility for everything we do! It just seems like a jump too far, a too-convenient absolute. Quite possibly we are much less responsible for what we do, and responsible in different ways, to those commonly understood. As a control freak, though, I do not wish to totally abrogate responsibility for my actions, good and bad. Nor am I comfortable with the determinism that this implies, biological or environmental as it might be. Women are still dismissed on the basis on the basis of supposed inevitabilities of femininity, for example.
Totally denying personal responsibility leads to the intellectually unsatisfactory shift of blame for the world’s problems onto institutions, nations, culture, historical patterns of wealth, etc. What do all these abstractions have in common? People made and perpetuate them. If none of those people have any responsibility for their actions, how can we trace the emergence of current problems? At one point, Martinez tackles the troubling tendency of so-called ordinary people to do appalling things when ordered to by an authority. If those people aren’t responsible for their behaviour, though, what about the authority that issued the orders? He also discusses the gigantic energy multinationals destabilising the climate for grotesque profits. They might be forced to do so by the law of maximising shareholder returns, but are their employees and shareholders really devoid of responsibility for climate change? Placing responsibility on the company, an abstract concept, is pointless. Without people, the company would not exist.
I am simply not willing to let the world’s wealthiest people off the hook. Does being born into unbelievable privilege mean that you must be rapaciously greedy and therefore have no responsibility for it? Perhaps Martinez wants to get away entirely from the concept of blame, however I am not ready to. Social, political, and environmental problems cannot be tackled without understanding how they occur; the whole book is full of such explanations. Yet who can remain neutral and non-judgemental when faced with so much appalling, unnecessary suffering? Maybe I have no responsibility for my anger and wish to assign blame, because they’re an inevitable part of my neurochemistry! I smell tautology, though, and would love to get a philosopher’s angle on this.
Given this stance on responsibility, I likewise found Martinez’s stance on choice difficult to make sense of. I struggled with these comments:
Choices present an opportunity to those who control them and can pose a threat to those who do not. Unavoidably, they affect the balance of power in society and it is power that determines the future. [...] Every choice that is made consists of two aspects: the situation being faced (the way the world is) and the identity of the chooser (the way the chooser is). In other words, who we are, as well as what we are faced with, determines how we will act at a particular point in time. The decisions we make emerge from identity and context. [p.89]
[...]
Whether by manipulating identities or context, all forms of control undermine freedom by inhibiting our capacity to discover what we value and obstructing our pursuit of it - the concept of value is the starting point of freedom. What makes us free is not the power to choose, but the power to turn our choices into expressions of our own values. [...] We might not be ultimately responsible for who we are or what we do, but we still have choices to make. Our actions have consequences in the world and, not being neutral creatures, we favour some of these consequences over others. [p.216]
Control is framed here as an external force exerted on ‘us’, so who exerts it? Are those with power also without responsibility because their actions are an equally inevitable consequence of who and where they are? Are we responsible for our own values? Denying personal responsibility seems to remove an important element of connective tissue between choices and their consequences, as well as dissolving any sense of collective responsibility. What particularly bothered me about this is the lack of need for it. Martinez’s arguments about the urgency of reducing inequality, revitalising democracy, regulating corporations, and protecting the environment do not require any such foundation. If anything it undermines them, or at least muddies the water. I simply cannot accept this statement on page 347:
...in one important respect we are all the same. Without exception, none of us is ultimately responsible for who we are or what we do. This perspective creates a possibility for a deep solidarity between human beings, one built on the understanding that, had I truly been in your situation, I would have done as you did.
Of course, I cannot know what I would have done if I’d been a different person in a different situation. Nonetheless, I do not think that individually and collectively humanity has no responsibility for its actions, nor do I find the idea a helpful one to promote progressive transformative change. It seems too simplistic and convenient, the kind of thinking that could be used to sweep aside genocides and other atrocities. Martinez gives some anecdotal examples of empathy and compassion overcoming blame through dialogue, which are moving without being sufficient to convince me of the underlying thesis. We bear no responsibility for our birth and we are fundamentally shaped by our environment, undoubtedly. How can we know, though, that identity and context make all our choices inevitable? How does removing responsibility help with the overwhelming challenge of making the world a better place? Does it really lead us out of the neoliberal quagmire?
Although these questions nagged at me throughout, I was very sympathetic to Martinez’s more specific and practical points and often admired how well he articulated them. For example, I loved this uncompromising comment on wealth:
The hoarding of vast resources - resources that could save countless people and enrich numerous lives - has been normalised and celebrated in our society, but there is no moral justification for it. No path to extreme wealth entitles us to hold onto it - not in a world in which so many fundamental needs go unmet. The idea that we could ever be entitled to vast wealth - that a disproportionate amount of Earth’s riches could ever really belong to us - is a dangerous fiction, one that has been cultivated to mask naked greed.
And this succinct deconstruction of neoliberalism:
There are two ways to think about neoliberalism. In its theoretical form, it can be viewed as a utopian project in which a combination of strong private property rights, the rule of law, and free markets is judged to preserve and protect individual liberty most effectively. [...] In its political form, as actually practised, neoliberalism is a convenient means of rationalising and legitimising the advance of corporate interests, regardless of their effect on individual freedom.
While a lot of ground Martinez covers was pretty familiar to me from other books, such as Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics in the Age of Crisis on the commons, No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need on solidarity between interest groups, The Establishment: And How They Get Away with It on think tanks, and Growth Fetish on GDP, he explains it well. One element that was new to me concerned the rise and fall of the UK radical press in the 19th century and its brief resurgence during WWII. The phrase, ‘The press write the first draft of history’ is a memorable one. Another point that I hadn't grasped before is that there has never been a famine in a genuinely democratic country. Amartya Sen is cited in support of this. On the other hand, the comment that, ‘Politics is applied morality’ deserves an entire book in itself, without even getting a paragraph. My overall impression of this book is deeply contradictory. It lucidly races through diagnoses of the major global problems of the 21st century (pre-Trump), proposing reasons for hope with panache. When it veers into philosophical abstraction, though, the momentum and coherence cannot be sustained. It’s unusual to agree with a book in the specific but not the general, yet here we are.
January 18, 2017
This book is a colossal achievement. Martinez has pulled together so much great thinking and it's superbly researched. In fluid, clear prose he sets out the structural problems with modern society and how we might go about changing things for the better. The author argues eloquently for a more compassionate understanding society, by analyzing how imbalances of power, justice and wealth are maintained and questioning how we all contribute to them. I've never read something that managed to break down the thorny issue of priviledge and entitlement so well. Martinez argues that we are shaped by genetics, our place of birth and the political situation we find ourselves in. We are further influenced by our environment and the choices we make over the courses of our lifestyles. Only by distancing ourselves from these attachments can we truly understand the lives of others who live outside our moral circle. “We may be less free than we think, but only through understanding the freedom we lack can we enhance the freedom we possess”.
The take home message is that society needs to be urgently re-structured and re-imagined in more co-operative and inclusive ways. Hopefully this will be widely read by activists, radicals and beyond. It's a book you'll find yourself quoting widely from.
The take home message is that society needs to be urgently re-structured and re-imagined in more co-operative and inclusive ways. Hopefully this will be widely read by activists, radicals and beyond. It's a book you'll find yourself quoting widely from.
April 24, 2017
This is so misguided it's almost sad. But for quoting Dennett out of context you deserve a swift kick in the gonads. Another one for cherry picked examples and treating correlation as proof of causation.
It's like reading a stoner who just had this amazing epiphany that "dude, everything is made out of energy, like woah". And following along the same lines: "man, in this wholly deterministic (or not) world, none of us is responsible for anything, it's just atoms bouncing around, man, it's not us". Yes, this is as it may be but you see, the trick is to behave "as if we were responsible". Like we live our lives "as if we were immortal". It's for practical purposes. It's an abstraction. You can debate how useful it is or what form punishment should take but stop saying we are not responsible for our actions - it's a meaningless statement.
It's like reading a stoner who just had this amazing epiphany that "dude, everything is made out of energy, like woah". And following along the same lines: "man, in this wholly deterministic (or not) world, none of us is responsible for anything, it's just atoms bouncing around, man, it's not us". Yes, this is as it may be but you see, the trick is to behave "as if we were responsible". Like we live our lives "as if we were immortal". It's for practical purposes. It's an abstraction. You can debate how useful it is or what form punishment should take but stop saying we are not responsible for our actions - it's a meaningless statement.
March 16, 2017
While the book offered no new insight, it is brings together my understanding of the world. Raoul Martinez offers a coherent well articulated discourse on all that is wrong in our current society from the prison system to economics, climate change, the IMF and elections- from Obama's drones to Trudeau's arms trade! It is a book by a non-expert that draws from many books and authors, Daniel Kahneman to Naom Chomsky, and ends with a powerful note of hope, on why another way is possible. A must read.
February 8, 2017
The book is a must read for liberals but will prove to be challenging read for all right wingers, nationalists and capitalists. Chapters on banking and politics were very interesting indeed.
April 9, 2017
Brain droppings. A shallow understanding of popular science gathered from blogs and magazines. Amusing. In a sad way.
February 22, 2021
This is a great book all around. Every topic was well-researched and had just the right amount of abstract explanation and examples. The book is about how we are shaped by the environment around us and how that environment determines what degree of "freedom" we really have. It looks at the concepts of ultimate responsibility, punishment, and blame in the first section, then goes into how we are manipulated by media, money, and power, then goes into how we might seek to expand our freedoms in the last section. Martinez touches on our survival (pertaining to climate change) and our empathy for others towards the end. Every section was equally important and well-written. I would recommend this book to everyone because he lays out a lot of our society's problems and misconceptions and does a great job of pointing out how we can question the ingrained ideology around us. I also appreciated how Martinez didn't claim to espouse any ideology himself and didn't therefore try to recruit anyone to any one ideology or claim that there was one that was more truthful. I think that makes it a lot more appealing to the general public than a lot of political books I read which point out the issues inherent in capitalism but then try to make a case for their own ideology which may also be flawed.
I highly recommend this book to everyone.
I highly recommend this book to everyone.
December 17, 2017
I had my reservations buying this, mainly because of the praise lavished on the back cover by Susan Sarandon; I should have gone on my instinct.
His treatment of free will, was one of the worst I have read in a long while. Martinez starts out good, acknowledging the findings of neuroscience and psychology, he argues that we are not responsible for our actions, because we have a brain we didn't choose to have.
Fair enough, but the second he mentioned, and I'm paraphrasing, "We don't have free will, but we have choice's." What? If we don't have free will, what are these choice's that Martinez mentions? He actually contradicts himself and from there it's one intellectual muddle after another.
This book was blurbed as a hand book for the Left; I am politically far Left, but I'm not so blinded by my proclivities to leap praise upon a terribly construed book. Disappointed, was really wanting to enjoy and recommend this book.
His treatment of free will, was one of the worst I have read in a long while. Martinez starts out good, acknowledging the findings of neuroscience and psychology, he argues that we are not responsible for our actions, because we have a brain we didn't choose to have.
Fair enough, but the second he mentioned, and I'm paraphrasing, "We don't have free will, but we have choice's." What? If we don't have free will, what are these choice's that Martinez mentions? He actually contradicts himself and from there it's one intellectual muddle after another.
This book was blurbed as a hand book for the Left; I am politically far Left, but I'm not so blinded by my proclivities to leap praise upon a terribly construed book. Disappointed, was really wanting to enjoy and recommend this book.
June 4, 2017
This is a comprehensive and very well written book that had me thinking about so many aspects in our lives. The themes range from psychology to economics, politics and philosophy, suggesting a picture of society that has a lot of potential to be improved on, to say the least. It is not accusatory in tone though, leaving it to the different statistics, facts and background information to speak for themselves. 'Eyes can be opened to dimensions of value previously unseen' if only we took the courage to scrutinize and question our ready-made assumptions, our conditioning and habits more often. It's a great book with a strong underlying humanist theme that I highly recommend to everyone!
April 18, 2017
Perhaps if the author had spent time in the academy, he might have realized there is nothing particularly original or innovative in his thinking. This is "pop philosophy" and not likely to have any meaningful impact on the course of western thought.
August 4, 2020
It was raining heavily outside the other day. Me and my wife just opened the window widely so that we could look out and enjoy the view. Puddles were formed quickly here and there. All the trees were moving because of the heavy wind. It was crazy outside, but on the inside it felt so peaceful.
And out of nowhere a Deliveroo cyclist showed up with his order behind his back. We could just tell he was completely soaked from the rain and he was cycled through shortcuts ignoring all the road signs just to finish his work quickly.
I looked at him and I suddenly felt for the guy.
Did he have a choice before going into this business?
"Do you think they get a bonus if the weather is horrible?"
"I think it would be the same rate..."
But so what if they have a bonus though .. an extra two pounds for an order? Or even three pounds? What help does it do really?
The big buck goes to the employers. Never the employees.
I understand that people have the needs for these deliveries and that's why the cyclists exist.
But is there another way to solve the problem?
I am blessed with a job for which I can work from home everyday during this difficult time.
But I know how it feels when I didn't have a job or any income. It was painful.
Would you take that guy's place?
If not then why should the guy do it?
This book might not be a holy bible for solutions but I think it is definitely touching something.
A more equal society is good for everybody.
General Idea
Freedom is never inherent. We have not been free since the moment we were born. The impact is always from the outside, which guarantees the output. We are just the outcome of natural cause-and-effect.
If freedom is never in the conversation, the achievement and entitlement of some, the failure or incompetence of the others will never have the weight it is thought to have.
Punishment is overrated for correction as the situation made people do what they had to, reward is basically meaningless as some people are much more well geared to succeed.
For people who are living an extravagant life they should not feel entitled, and for people who suffer it is simply not fair.
“Some will argue that the poor are still making ‘free choices’ – after all, no one is holding a gun to their head. But not being able to pay bills, make rent or even eat is as good as a gun to the head for many people, coercing them into agreeing to arrangements of control and compliance: they do so in order to secure their children’s education, their parents’ health and the roof over their head.”
“Those who are very poor have the same freedom to buy a yacht as anyone else. They simply lack the capability to do so; in other words, it is not their freedom that is lacking, only their capacity to make use of it.” How can a person be free to do what they are unable to do? People need to sell their labour for access to basic goods and services.
We need to promote equality and make this place which we exist for a short amount of time a better place to be. We need a better system to put money in the right place and reconfigure wealth distribution.
Rather than using a large lump sum of money for national security (weapons), we could use a portion of that for environmental protection and global community development.
We need to create freedom, to break free from all the social conditioning, framework, symbols, ideologies, ownership, corporate, consumerism, and chains which enrich a small number of people while exploiting the other majority.
“The rise of electoral democracy opened up radical possibilities; it was a chance for the disadvantaged majority to take back control of government, and for the vast productive powers of humanity and the wealth created by them to be freed from the grasp of monarchs, emperors, merchants and industrialists, and placed in the hands of ‘the People’.”
Quotes
November 24, 2018
'Hurt people hurt people."
Some policies are targeted at poor people, like banning to share food with homeless. When trying to defy this law, you're arrested.
2008 year crisis was accepted to be the pure fraud consequence, but Obama helped fraudsters to walk free with 700 billion dollars, and people were forced to cover their losses. (Not including widespread and false propaganda that blamed the poor, taking those fraudulent loans).
"Slaves do not write laws that enslave them."
If a person comes to labor market owning only his labor power, and another comes with money, earning interest, their relationship is coercive.
Markets didn't exist for the most of the history of the human race.
The idea that "free market" creates freedom is false.
Austerity. If you cut down economy by 50 percent, after recovery to previous point you can claim 100% growth rate, when in reality - none. And the reliable way to make believe in such falsehoods is repetitions.
Etc.
Some policies are targeted at poor people, like banning to share food with homeless. When trying to defy this law, you're arrested.
2008 year crisis was accepted to be the pure fraud consequence, but Obama helped fraudsters to walk free with 700 billion dollars, and people were forced to cover their losses. (Not including widespread and false propaganda that blamed the poor, taking those fraudulent loans).
"Slaves do not write laws that enslave them."
If a person comes to labor market owning only his labor power, and another comes with money, earning interest, their relationship is coercive.
Markets didn't exist for the most of the history of the human race.
The idea that "free market" creates freedom is false.
Austerity. If you cut down economy by 50 percent, after recovery to previous point you can claim 100% growth rate, when in reality - none. And the reliable way to make believe in such falsehoods is repetitions.
Etc.
February 18, 2018
Loved it. For me it was educational in so many areas - and not necessarily because of the direct content in the book... but because I side researched a massive number of references and examples he cited to ensure it was fairly described and presented.. along the way I learned a lot more about the world we operate and live in.
I don’t whole-heartedly agree with some of the opening philosophies - but that in no way diminished the book for me and it led me to begin to examine some of my internal beliefs and frameworks more deeply.
I think it’s a great book to inspire critical thinking, for thinking about our (perhaps unrecognised) privileges, to think more deeply about how society (on average) is not ‘equal for all’ and that really appreciating other people’s situations in life is a great tool for developing compassion... and greater compassion will affect how we all approach and interact with the world..
I recommend it - and use it as a means for self analysis as much as perhaps education.
Nice work Raoul!
I don’t whole-heartedly agree with some of the opening philosophies - but that in no way diminished the book for me and it led me to begin to examine some of my internal beliefs and frameworks more deeply.
I think it’s a great book to inspire critical thinking, for thinking about our (perhaps unrecognised) privileges, to think more deeply about how society (on average) is not ‘equal for all’ and that really appreciating other people’s situations in life is a great tool for developing compassion... and greater compassion will affect how we all approach and interact with the world..
I recommend it - and use it as a means for self analysis as much as perhaps education.
Nice work Raoul!
December 21, 2020
It is amazing how many different topics are covered in these 500 pages!
April 3, 2021
I think this is one of the best books I have read in a long time. Its flow is great over an arc of really complex interlocking ideas about how people are and how society is. Even though I am a philosophy person, several of the ideas were new to me. Martinez explains them very well and even threads them into a coherent train. It's not just a pedantic exercise in asking philosophical question; it's a practically focused book. The ideas and "philosophies" that appear in the book are definitely about life today and death today.
First, he introduces the concept that no one is really responsible for anything because all basic, primal determining factors were not of their choosing. I don't think this is new to him, but it is really the first time I have encountered it asserted so completely boldly and unapologetically. That one I'm still working on a little bit, but I do find it extremely freeing and equalizing. It also helps release us from the burden of blaming people for their situations. We are then free to simply react or not. I think one reason people struggle with that one so much, at least I'll speak for myself here, is that we are so programmed to believe in the personal responsibility myth. It's a complicated myth and it definitely serves capitalist and oppressive societal structures. It has a strong appeal, especially for people closer to the top- it feels great to think that everything I have is because of my own hard work and smart choices. But Martinez reminds. us that, in exactly the same situation, with exactly the same equipment, there is no particular reason to think people would do any different. And history bears it out, when we see the same situations recycling themselves over time and populations. There seem to be always people who get not he bandwagons, people who don't, people on the top, and people on the bottom. People who resist the system, and lots who don't question it. But In other words, we see the same cast of characters playing out over and over again, so once we understand which character we are, we have no reason to think we would play out circumstances any different than our character predecessors. But the personal responsibility story is a nice way to be able to blame people for things that they didn't ask for and have no control over, while taking credit for things that, you guess it, we didn't ask for and have no control over. "By casting off the defunct ideology of credit and blame, we can get to work on understanding the deeper roots of behaviour: familial, genetic, economic, and political. This is a necessary antidote to the lazy belief that the buck of responsibility stops with the mystical 'free agency' of the individual. Such thinking is reminiscent of primitive attempts to construct theories of the natural world....Such wordplay only serves to conceal our ignorance. Just as falling for falling apples and rising steam, there are reasons why people behave the way they do, reasons that take us far beyond the will of the individual." pg 20
Where I still have to understand a little bit better is the interface between choice and this lack of responsibility. I definitely understand that Martinez is not saying people can do whatever they want because they lack any responsibiliy. But I need to reread the section where he talks about how we, as beings without personal responsibility, are to understand the source and power of our choices. He references Viktor Frankl in the context of choice- how even the most desperate inmates of the concentration camps, who had no reason at all to think there was any kind of future ahead of them, still had the power to exercise choice, and how those choices had a profound impact on others, even though they were tiny little seemingly insignificant choices. [The one concept from Frankl's book that I didn't't see Martinez address, and would like to, is the division Frankl makes along the line of decent and indecent: Frankl asserts that that is the true and important line along which humans are divided, not race, ethnicity, economics or anything else- just that: decent or indecent. I have to say my life experience has borne that out.) (I didn't see where Creating Freedom addresses the problem of the indecent people. But maybe it is not possible to really address it, except through laws, and just hope that the decent side of humanity will be the side that makes the laws. Of course, we've seen recently and in other times what happens when the indecent people gain control.)
Another idea from the book, which is definitely not new, but was new to me, is the concept if the steady state economy. This rejects the fundamental premise of our economy, that GDP growth is the only measure of a healthy economy. By now it has become obvious to many that this type of growth is not sustainable. It requires constant use of resources, some renewable and some not. The constant use of resources produces a constant stream of waste that is much more than the Earth has the ability to safely absorb. And finally, all of this is predicated on constant consumption, which is neither healthy for the earth nor for people, so the powers behind the economy have to apply an enormous amount of creativity and effort to create this constant drive to consume. And the result is an economy that, yes, keeps growing by GDP, but also an increasingly unhappy populace and an alarmingly polluted and damaged ecosystem that is groaning precariously under the weight of this constant growth.
And here is where the concept of a steady state economy comes in. It's an economy with no more outward growth in terms of GDP or material consumption. No increase of numbers of people, no new buildings or bridges (except as needed to replace), basically no new things. But that of course doesn't mean no growth. It's just that the growth now occurs within the overall footprint of the existent economy. So it would be things like freedom, innovation, knowledge, connection, etc. Basically, the growth would be in humanity. It's not a new idea, Martinez references a couple of instances of people talking about this as far back as John Stuart Mill, and probably it was out there before that. But interestingly, we very seldom hear mention of this. I'm 50 and I've never heard about this, even though I've read a lot of good books and have a degree on philosophy. (Mind you, I wasn't always the best student and I do forget a lot of things, so maybe I was introduced to it and it just didn't register or it was a reading I skipped or whatever.)
Of course there's a lot more to this book. It's almost 400 pages. But these were some of the really personally earth shattering things I took away from it.
First, he introduces the concept that no one is really responsible for anything because all basic, primal determining factors were not of their choosing. I don't think this is new to him, but it is really the first time I have encountered it asserted so completely boldly and unapologetically. That one I'm still working on a little bit, but I do find it extremely freeing and equalizing. It also helps release us from the burden of blaming people for their situations. We are then free to simply react or not. I think one reason people struggle with that one so much, at least I'll speak for myself here, is that we are so programmed to believe in the personal responsibility myth. It's a complicated myth and it definitely serves capitalist and oppressive societal structures. It has a strong appeal, especially for people closer to the top- it feels great to think that everything I have is because of my own hard work and smart choices. But Martinez reminds. us that, in exactly the same situation, with exactly the same equipment, there is no particular reason to think people would do any different. And history bears it out, when we see the same situations recycling themselves over time and populations. There seem to be always people who get not he bandwagons, people who don't, people on the top, and people on the bottom. People who resist the system, and lots who don't question it. But In other words, we see the same cast of characters playing out over and over again, so once we understand which character we are, we have no reason to think we would play out circumstances any different than our character predecessors. But the personal responsibility story is a nice way to be able to blame people for things that they didn't ask for and have no control over, while taking credit for things that, you guess it, we didn't ask for and have no control over. "By casting off the defunct ideology of credit and blame, we can get to work on understanding the deeper roots of behaviour: familial, genetic, economic, and political. This is a necessary antidote to the lazy belief that the buck of responsibility stops with the mystical 'free agency' of the individual. Such thinking is reminiscent of primitive attempts to construct theories of the natural world....Such wordplay only serves to conceal our ignorance. Just as falling for falling apples and rising steam, there are reasons why people behave the way they do, reasons that take us far beyond the will of the individual." pg 20
Where I still have to understand a little bit better is the interface between choice and this lack of responsibility. I definitely understand that Martinez is not saying people can do whatever they want because they lack any responsibiliy. But I need to reread the section where he talks about how we, as beings without personal responsibility, are to understand the source and power of our choices. He references Viktor Frankl in the context of choice- how even the most desperate inmates of the concentration camps, who had no reason at all to think there was any kind of future ahead of them, still had the power to exercise choice, and how those choices had a profound impact on others, even though they were tiny little seemingly insignificant choices. [The one concept from Frankl's book that I didn't't see Martinez address, and would like to, is the division Frankl makes along the line of decent and indecent: Frankl asserts that that is the true and important line along which humans are divided, not race, ethnicity, economics or anything else- just that: decent or indecent. I have to say my life experience has borne that out.) (I didn't see where Creating Freedom addresses the problem of the indecent people. But maybe it is not possible to really address it, except through laws, and just hope that the decent side of humanity will be the side that makes the laws. Of course, we've seen recently and in other times what happens when the indecent people gain control.)
Another idea from the book, which is definitely not new, but was new to me, is the concept if the steady state economy. This rejects the fundamental premise of our economy, that GDP growth is the only measure of a healthy economy. By now it has become obvious to many that this type of growth is not sustainable. It requires constant use of resources, some renewable and some not. The constant use of resources produces a constant stream of waste that is much more than the Earth has the ability to safely absorb. And finally, all of this is predicated on constant consumption, which is neither healthy for the earth nor for people, so the powers behind the economy have to apply an enormous amount of creativity and effort to create this constant drive to consume. And the result is an economy that, yes, keeps growing by GDP, but also an increasingly unhappy populace and an alarmingly polluted and damaged ecosystem that is groaning precariously under the weight of this constant growth.
And here is where the concept of a steady state economy comes in. It's an economy with no more outward growth in terms of GDP or material consumption. No increase of numbers of people, no new buildings or bridges (except as needed to replace), basically no new things. But that of course doesn't mean no growth. It's just that the growth now occurs within the overall footprint of the existent economy. So it would be things like freedom, innovation, knowledge, connection, etc. Basically, the growth would be in humanity. It's not a new idea, Martinez references a couple of instances of people talking about this as far back as John Stuart Mill, and probably it was out there before that. But interestingly, we very seldom hear mention of this. I'm 50 and I've never heard about this, even though I've read a lot of good books and have a degree on philosophy. (Mind you, I wasn't always the best student and I do forget a lot of things, so maybe I was introduced to it and it just didn't register or it was a reading I skipped or whatever.)
Of course there's a lot more to this book. It's almost 400 pages. But these were some of the really personally earth shattering things I took away from it.
October 21, 2019
Possibly the dumbest book I've ever read. To draw a science parallel - this book is a bit like listening to some bloke in the pub, who can't actually do the maths, holding forth on relativity and quantum mechanics.
The thing about it that's most mind-blowing, is that Mr Martinez has written a book on socio-economics seemingly completely unaware that the issues he discusses are the bread and butter of philosophical, social economic and political academia. So with total disregard for (and apparent ignorance of) the fact that EVERYTHING he raises in this book has been debated to death, and has well-established arguments and counter-arguments, he ploughs into his solution for the world ills armed only with a fairly random collection of anecdotes almost all of which any reasonably well-read person will understand and analyse better than he does.
To save you the time and the mental agony, what you have here is effectively John Rawls without any of the clever stuff. Martinez's main argument is that we should all act more responsibly (his version of responsibly, obviously), premised on the basis that, for deterministic reasons, none of us are ultimately responsible for our own actions. Brilliant. And the way in which we thinks we should act more responsibly is by hanging out together, and being groovy and creative, and less materialistic and corporation-y. Apparently this is a staggering insight.
Based on the average rating this book has received, all I can conclude is that the sort of people who buy this book must really love their confirmation biases.
The thing about it that's most mind-blowing, is that Mr Martinez has written a book on socio-economics seemingly completely unaware that the issues he discusses are the bread and butter of philosophical, social economic and political academia. So with total disregard for (and apparent ignorance of) the fact that EVERYTHING he raises in this book has been debated to death, and has well-established arguments and counter-arguments, he ploughs into his solution for the world ills armed only with a fairly random collection of anecdotes almost all of which any reasonably well-read person will understand and analyse better than he does.
To save you the time and the mental agony, what you have here is effectively John Rawls without any of the clever stuff. Martinez's main argument is that we should all act more responsibly (his version of responsibly, obviously), premised on the basis that, for deterministic reasons, none of us are ultimately responsible for our own actions. Brilliant. And the way in which we thinks we should act more responsibly is by hanging out together, and being groovy and creative, and less materialistic and corporation-y. Apparently this is a staggering insight.
Based on the average rating this book has received, all I can conclude is that the sort of people who buy this book must really love their confirmation biases.
June 20, 2017
With the promise of insight and intelligence, the book presents itself as a modern philosophical work for a new age, however it reads as a jumbled mess of ideologies and ideas that have been beaten to their death over the past 200 years, rather reminiscent of the God Delusion for its complete failure to bring modern arguments into focus. With little evidence of understanding the big names in philosophy, Martinez consistently makes assumptions without rigor to come to conclusions that are as vapid as they are poetical.
"no one creates their own brain" he confidently proclaims, without reference to Sartre or any modern ideas of brain plasticity. It is simply placed as a self-evident truth (again without so much as an attempt to justify such a thing) in order to get to the conclusion that everyone is a victim, including criminals, and punishment itself is immoral (though obviously not punishable). No need to read much farther than this (page 2) it doesn't get better.
"no one creates their own brain" he confidently proclaims, without reference to Sartre or any modern ideas of brain plasticity. It is simply placed as a self-evident truth (again without so much as an attempt to justify such a thing) in order to get to the conclusion that everyone is a victim, including criminals, and punishment itself is immoral (though obviously not punishable). No need to read much farther than this (page 2) it doesn't get better.
May 26, 2017
***1/2 The project is admirable but seemingly too lengthy and far-ranging to hold the gifted, very intelligent author's focus; by the end, the book starts to read like a fairly random series of undigested quotes, citations, and repetitive points (often made better, and more clearly, earlier on). ***** for part 1; **** for part 2; *** for part 3.
December 11, 2018
This book really made me think about the society we live in. It really challenged my perception of how we think we are free, when really we’re not.
A really great read if you’re looking to see the world from a different lens.
A really great read if you’re looking to see the world from a different lens.
August 9, 2017
This feels like an important book. Let's put aside the fundamental philosophical (and, to me, uncontroversial) issue that none of us is free: there is no free will. Instead, let's focus on the rest of the book, which shows that neo-liberal capitalism has failed us in this century as badly as soviet-style communism failed in the last.
Society is organised for short-term profit benefiting, for the most part, the already wealthy. Inequality grows; the environment we share with each other and other species will, in a few short years, become uninhabitable. We are powerless: due to the concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few, our media is not free, our elections are not free (outcomes are bought), markets are not truly free (whether they should be or not), and so on. All is geared to the interests of the wealthy elite: for example, as seen with the bank bailouts, profit is private but risk is nationalised; so-called handouts to the so-called undeserving poor are demonised, while handouts to corporations and elites go largely unremarked.
All of this, Martinez argues passionately and persuasively. And he sketches a better way of organizing society, a more equal way, a more sustainable way: not communism, just something built on greater empathy. But, sadly, there are no roadmaps here: while Martinez is optimistic, I am not. As resources get scarcer, as less of the planet becomes habitable, existing interests will ensure that our response is a return to violent nationhood of the past, not a more cooperative future.
Society is organised for short-term profit benefiting, for the most part, the already wealthy. Inequality grows; the environment we share with each other and other species will, in a few short years, become uninhabitable. We are powerless: due to the concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few, our media is not free, our elections are not free (outcomes are bought), markets are not truly free (whether they should be or not), and so on. All is geared to the interests of the wealthy elite: for example, as seen with the bank bailouts, profit is private but risk is nationalised; so-called handouts to the so-called undeserving poor are demonised, while handouts to corporations and elites go largely unremarked.
All of this, Martinez argues passionately and persuasively. And he sketches a better way of organizing society, a more equal way, a more sustainable way: not communism, just something built on greater empathy. But, sadly, there are no roadmaps here: while Martinez is optimistic, I am not. As resources get scarcer, as less of the planet becomes habitable, existing interests will ensure that our response is a return to violent nationhood of the past, not a more cooperative future.
April 8, 2018
A good attempt to bring together economics, politics, environmentalism, behavourism and social policy in a coherent whole. It doesn't quite come off, which is unsurprising given the scope, but has many important sections. It was certainly the most convincing argument for Steady State Economics that I've seen. You will also see clearly why rewarding people for "their success" is not as obvious as you may think. It also pulls no punches about the seriousness of the environmental crisis and the tiny and largely ineffective steps so far taken.
The negatives here are the passages which don't convince, because Martinez is overreaching. The suggestions for greater democracy are somewhat light on content and wooly in what is presented. Similarly, although great on macroeconomics, he confuses classical economics with neoliberalism when it adds to his argument. This is a mistake as it weakens his points and is an obvious point of attack for critics. The simplistic theory regarding wages is indeed so but there are lots of people, such as behavioural economists, who have dealt with this more fully.
So, all-in-all quite an achievement but not flawless. Probably another example where a team of authors would've been preferable to a single author.
The negatives here are the passages which don't convince, because Martinez is overreaching. The suggestions for greater democracy are somewhat light on content and wooly in what is presented. Similarly, although great on macroeconomics, he confuses classical economics with neoliberalism when it adds to his argument. This is a mistake as it weakens his points and is an obvious point of attack for critics. The simplistic theory regarding wages is indeed so but there are lots of people, such as behavioural economists, who have dealt with this more fully.
So, all-in-all quite an achievement but not flawless. Probably another example where a team of authors would've been preferable to a single author.
August 29, 2023
There is a time-tested way to read such a book. Whenever someone who denies human responsibility (in terms of praise or blameworthiness) is writing a book with moral and political implications, smile, save your energy, and skip to the final section. There, magically, the author will begin to make statements that presuppose the existence of the responsibility he is denying. He will, for example, insinuate that certain people (let's say religious fundamentalists or misogynists) are worthy of moral judgment. He will tell you that people like MLK and Gandhi are morally better than the racists and the imperialists they opposed. He will tell you to choose empathy and knowledge and community and all such things which you can only CHOOSE if you are a morally responsible agent.
You don't need to waste your energy arguing about how society needs the concept of moral responsibility. Such authors do not even believe a word they are writing.
You don't need to waste your energy arguing about how society needs the concept of moral responsibility. Such authors do not even believe a word they are writing.
June 14, 2019
It is imperative that in today's time you connect with the society in a different level. As humans that co-exist in a society we sometimes turn our eyes away on how our community functions and how sometimes it can be quite poisonous for its own integrants.
The power, the decisions, the shadow curtains, the deceit, the oppression, how we see our actions and how much the goverment and the powerful have a say in how opportunities are distributed. the book helps you see through the lies and secrets the powerful use against the not so privileged. It helps you see how you can be free in a society that urgently tries to influence the majority of people as they possibly can.
Only through knowledge people can detect where they lack freedom and only through giving power to your values and your creative freedom, one can be truly free.
The power, the decisions, the shadow curtains, the deceit, the oppression, how we see our actions and how much the goverment and the powerful have a say in how opportunities are distributed. the book helps you see through the lies and secrets the powerful use against the not so privileged. It helps you see how you can be free in a society that urgently tries to influence the majority of people as they possibly can.
Only through knowledge people can detect where they lack freedom and only through giving power to your values and your creative freedom, one can be truly free.
August 13, 2019
Creating Freedom was a highly introspective book. Placing together ideas we have had from birth and melting down our ideologies for what they typically are, our rose tinted glasses on every believe we carry and even though a vast majority of people would disagree with our conclusion both sides would wholeheartedly think they are right. Take for example the idea that America is the greatest country in the world or your religion is the one that is "real." Both of these statements the vast majority of the world would argue that you are completely wrong and be willing to say so with 100% certainty from their side. Our ability to understand that individuals have such different ideas and being able to process why is extremely important.
September 27, 2020
There’s a few strange examples but the overall message is great. Probably could’ve done with a fact check on the shock treatment experiment but I thoroughly enjoyed the way Martinez presented his arguments and information. This is a must read to further understand the challenges around gaining greater freedom for all in society and not just markets or capital. He challenges and slices through free market arguments and short comings of current economic systems in great detail. I recommend reading humankind alongside this as it picks up a few parts where Martinez was a little off the mark when it comes to human behaviour.
June 29, 2018
This is an inspiring, depressing and hopeful book. It's easy to read the first part as a slightly naive dip into the concept of determinism, but this is used as an effective framing for the rest of the topics. Martinez provides some signposts for how to change the world, whilst emphasising empathy and compassion.
The main problem with this book is the dust jacket, which is plastered with quotes from those who edge towards the lunatic fringe - Susan Sarandon, Paul Mason, Russell Brand. Fortunately you can just throw this in the bin.
The main problem with this book is the dust jacket, which is plastered with quotes from those who edge towards the lunatic fringe - Susan Sarandon, Paul Mason, Russell Brand. Fortunately you can just throw this in the bin.
March 10, 2017
Aquí estoy, enfrascada en temas como el arte contemporáneo y la libertad. Porque sobre el mundo que se hunde, por ejemplo, no tengo nada nuevo que contar.
El mundo se está yendo, si no se ha ido ya, a pique. Está en pleno proceso de desintegración minuciosa, que parece lenta y a la vez rápida. Lo saben Piniowsky, Vila-Matas, yo y mucha más gente. Y estoy cansada de lanzar y escuchar las mismas opiniones de siempre sobre un tema tan poco interesante.
Aunque, claro, mirándolo así esto también es una opinión. "Tan poco interesante". Así que ese afán de opinar sobre todo, esa vieja costumbre que no me ha llevado muy lejos, o según como se mire, me ha llevado tan lejos que ya nadie siquiera me oye, sigue conmigo. Bueno, lo podría nombrar de otra manera para sentirme mejor. Un acto de reflexión, por ejemplo.
Como el ensayo "Creando libertad" de Raoul Martínez que leo ahora y que me tiene todavía con una ceja levantada por las serias dudas sobre si me aportará algo nuevo o no. Por ahora solo me está confirmando lo que ya sabía. Por ejemplo, la frase que subrayé hoy, aunque al parecer es un sacrilegio, eso sí, necesario, dice: "El mundo deja huella en nosotros antes de que nosotros tengamos oportunidad de dejar huella en él". Solo siendo conscientes de esto podemos mirar más allá y ampliar, si queremos, nuestra libertad. Cuestionando todas nuestras creencias y valores, así como también las fuerzas e intereses que los han originado.
Por lo tanto, todo lo que opinamos del mundo viene ya condicionado por él, ya existe. De esto habló Foucault aquí y no lo entendí mucho la primera vez.
Sí, la libertad exige un trabajo intelectual arduo y aun así nos equivocaremos. Lo que acabo de escribir es un macguffin.
La equivocación está sobrevalorada y lo aprendí con Enrique Vila-Matas. Y fue su "Kassel no invita a la lógica" el que me hizo reconocer que ya no tengo nada nuevo que decir sobre el mundo. Su viaje novelado a Documenta, una de las exposiciones de arte contemporáneo más importantes del mundo, me está divirtiendo de lo lindo. De hecho me hace reír mucho. No a carcajadas, es verdad, pero sí por dentro como a una intelectual más.
La frase de la novela para alegrar la fiesta que estoy teniendo hoy en este post dice: "...me acordé de un dicho popular que dice que en el origen de los tiempos hubo un malentendido y éste será nuestra perdición". El mundo mismo se sustentaba en un malentendido inicial así que todo lo que hemos opinado, opinemos u opinaremos sobre él será irremediablemente un error. Porque a fin de cuentas, quien nos dice que hay algo, cuando podría no haber nada.
Originalmente publicado en: http://www.librodelabrujaenelescaraba...
El mundo se está yendo, si no se ha ido ya, a pique. Está en pleno proceso de desintegración minuciosa, que parece lenta y a la vez rápida. Lo saben Piniowsky, Vila-Matas, yo y mucha más gente. Y estoy cansada de lanzar y escuchar las mismas opiniones de siempre sobre un tema tan poco interesante.
Aunque, claro, mirándolo así esto también es una opinión. "Tan poco interesante". Así que ese afán de opinar sobre todo, esa vieja costumbre que no me ha llevado muy lejos, o según como se mire, me ha llevado tan lejos que ya nadie siquiera me oye, sigue conmigo. Bueno, lo podría nombrar de otra manera para sentirme mejor. Un acto de reflexión, por ejemplo.
Como el ensayo "Creando libertad" de Raoul Martínez que leo ahora y que me tiene todavía con una ceja levantada por las serias dudas sobre si me aportará algo nuevo o no. Por ahora solo me está confirmando lo que ya sabía. Por ejemplo, la frase que subrayé hoy, aunque al parecer es un sacrilegio, eso sí, necesario, dice: "El mundo deja huella en nosotros antes de que nosotros tengamos oportunidad de dejar huella en él". Solo siendo conscientes de esto podemos mirar más allá y ampliar, si queremos, nuestra libertad. Cuestionando todas nuestras creencias y valores, así como también las fuerzas e intereses que los han originado.
Por lo tanto, todo lo que opinamos del mundo viene ya condicionado por él, ya existe. De esto habló Foucault aquí y no lo entendí mucho la primera vez.
Sí, la libertad exige un trabajo intelectual arduo y aun así nos equivocaremos. Lo que acabo de escribir es un macguffin.
La equivocación está sobrevalorada y lo aprendí con Enrique Vila-Matas. Y fue su "Kassel no invita a la lógica" el que me hizo reconocer que ya no tengo nada nuevo que decir sobre el mundo. Su viaje novelado a Documenta, una de las exposiciones de arte contemporáneo más importantes del mundo, me está divirtiendo de lo lindo. De hecho me hace reír mucho. No a carcajadas, es verdad, pero sí por dentro como a una intelectual más.
La frase de la novela para alegrar la fiesta que estoy teniendo hoy en este post dice: "...me acordé de un dicho popular que dice que en el origen de los tiempos hubo un malentendido y éste será nuestra perdición". El mundo mismo se sustentaba en un malentendido inicial así que todo lo que hemos opinado, opinemos u opinaremos sobre él será irremediablemente un error. Porque a fin de cuentas, quien nos dice que hay algo, cuando podría no haber nada.
Originalmente publicado en: http://www.librodelabrujaenelescaraba...
May 7, 2017
This is a remarkable achievement, comprehensive enough to cover philosophy, politics, media, environment, society and a host of other topics that converge on a single, critically important thesis.
Martinez's prose is clear and unencumbered, and his ideas are all well-supported with statistics, research citations and expert testimony.
It was a true joy to read this.
Martinez's prose is clear and unencumbered, and his ideas are all well-supported with statistics, research citations and expert testimony.
It was a true joy to read this.
June 9, 2017
Fantastic. Clearly lays out the problems facing the world and the people, corporations, and governments that are constricting our freedoms. While there is much in this book that will outrage the reader, the author does conclude the latter part of the book with a clear sense of compassion, and presents some very doable positive ways to increase our freedoms.
September 5, 2017
My opinion is that this book explains the powerful forces at work in our society to keep us powerless so the rich can profit. The ideology of the liberal party is reflected in this book (again my opinion). Capitalism and pure greed are horrible, and have led us to self-destruction.
A compelling book for change and points to how we can make change happen.
A compelling book for change and points to how we can make change happen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews