What do you think?
Rate this book
Už je zítra? Aneb jak pandemie mění Evropu
Jak bude vypadat svět po koronavirové pandemii? A nežijeme v něm již nějakou dobu? Neučinila pandemie jen zřejmějšími dlouhodobé trendy? Jak by se měly na ekonomickou krizi v době deglobalizace připravit národní státy a jak Evropská unie?
Ivan Krastev vyvolal na vrcholu koronavirové krize celosvětový zájem svým článkem o vlivu pandemie na budoucí společenské změny. Nyní navazuje esejí, ve které zkoumá politické a kulturní důsledky Covidu-19 jako laboratorního sociálního experimentu. Brilantně a provokativně analyzuje sociální dopady karanténní dystopie, návrat vládních intervencí, uzavírání hranic národních států, roli odborníků a krizového řízení v demokratických a autoritářských státech (big data government), etické otázky zdravotnických a ekonomických opatření, mezigenerační a mezinárodní solidaritu. Politologické analýzy a data z výzkumů historických pandemií kombinuje s příklady literárních zpracování či filozofických pojednání a ukazuje paradoxy proměněného světa, pro jehož obyvatele je pandemie základní společnou zkušeností.
Ivan Krastev vyvolal na vrcholu koronavirové krize celosvětový zájem svým článkem o vlivu pandemie na budoucí společenské změny. Nyní navazuje esejí, ve které zkoumá politické a kulturní důsledky Covidu-19 jako laboratorního sociálního experimentu. Brilantně a provokativně analyzuje sociální dopady karanténní dystopie, návrat vládních intervencí, uzavírání hranic národních států, roli odborníků a krizového řízení v demokratických a autoritářských státech (big data government), etické otázky zdravotnických a ekonomických opatření, mezigenerační a mezinárodní solidaritu. Politologické analýzy a data z výzkumů historických pandemií kombinuje s příklady literárních zpracování či filozofických pojednání a ukazuje paradoxy proměněného světa, pro jehož obyvatele je pandemie základní společnou zkušeností.
58 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2020
About the author
Ivan Krastev
45 books178 followersIvan Krastev (Bulgarian: Иван Кръстев, born 1965 in Lukovit, Bulgaria), is a political scientist, the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, permanent fellow at the IWM (Institute of Human Sciences) in Vienna, and 2013-14-17 Richard von Weizsäcker fellow at the Robert Bosch Stiftung in Berlin.
He is a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group and is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.
From 2004 to 2006 Krastev was executive director of the International Commission on the Balkans chaired by the former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Bulgarian Edition of Foreign Policy and was a member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (2005-2011).
His books in English include "After Europe" (UPenn Press, 2017), "Democracy Disrupted. The Global Politics on Protest" (UPenn Press, May 2014), "In Mistrust We Trust: Can Democracy Survive When We Don't Trust Our Leaders", (TED Books, 2013); "The Anti-American Century", co-edited with Alan McPherson, (CEU Press, 2007) and "Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anticorruption" (CEU Press, 2004). He is a co-author with Stephen Holmes of a forthcoming book on Russian politics.
He is a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group and is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.
From 2004 to 2006 Krastev was executive director of the International Commission on the Balkans chaired by the former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Bulgarian Edition of Foreign Policy and was a member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (2005-2011).
His books in English include "After Europe" (UPenn Press, 2017), "Democracy Disrupted. The Global Politics on Protest" (UPenn Press, May 2014), "In Mistrust We Trust: Can Democracy Survive When We Don't Trust Our Leaders", (TED Books, 2013); "The Anti-American Century", co-edited with Alan McPherson, (CEU Press, 2007) and "Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anticorruption" (CEU Press, 2004). He is a co-author with Stephen Holmes of a forthcoming book on Russian politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
August 21, 2020
Una profunda reflexión de las implicaciones de los cambios. que provocará la pandemia. Llena de ideas inquietantes y certeras sobre esta nueva realidad tan próxima.
August 22, 2020
Niby nie ma w tej cieniutkiej książeczce niczego odkrywczego, ale w tym tkwi jej siła, w uniwersalności tych obserwacji, bo pandemia jest doświadczeniem w jakiejś mierze wspólnotowym. Dodatkowo autor poczynił bardzo ciekawe obserwacje dotyczące reakcji nie tylko ludzi, ale i rządzących oraz samej UE. Co przyniesie jutro, zobaczymy, jednakże: "Świat nabierze nowych kształtów, ale nie dlatego, że nasze społeczeństwa zapragną zmiany, ani dlatego, że zapanuje zgoda co do jej kierunku - ale dlatego, że nie ma powrotu do tego, co było".
October 23, 2020
Una pandemia es una crisis que permite que la humanidad experimente su interdependencia y unión. Las esperanzas de la humanidad se apoyan en la ciencia y la razón.
Más que la pandemia en sí misma, lo que más me inclina al pesimismo con respecto al futuro es el fracaso de los líderes políticos mundiales para orquestar una respuesta colectiva a la crisis.
Más que la pandemia en sí misma, lo que más me inclina al pesimismo con respecto al futuro es el fracaso de los líderes políticos mundiales para orquestar una respuesta colectiva a la crisis.
August 18, 2020
Tak nejak som sa celý čas čítajúc pýtal, na čo je toto vlastne dobré? Pár zväčša banálnych pozorovaní, trochu predčasných záverov, zopár literárnych odvolávok pre zdanie hĺbky, trochu všeobecne známych zhrnutí - táto esej je pre tých, čo zažili pandémiu, ale nemali čas o nej ani čítať ani uvažovať.
(Aspoň že český preklad bol o 3€ lacnejší než ten slovenský.)
(Aspoň že český preklad bol o 3€ lacnejší než ten slovenský.)
November 17, 2020
In his latest book, Is It Tomorrow Yet?, Ivan Krastev looks at the geopolitical stakes of the pandemic and ponders how the post-coronavirus world will look like. Overall, he sees the virus more as an amplifier than a disruptor and argues that it is going to accelerate and strengthen existing trends like inequality and global fragmentation. He strongly echoes José Saramago’s viewpoint that epidemics don’t so much transform society as reveal latent issues and deeper truths that have structured our society all along.
The essay also shines a light on the curious fact that COVID-19 has put populists like Donald Trump and authoritarians like Vladimir Putin on the back foot. This development is somewhat surprising, not least because strongmen tend to thrive on crises and are fluent in the politics of fear. As it turns out, pandemics are not very amenable to authoritarian solutions. It’s impossible to deny the virus, let alone ‘solve’ the crisis by conjuring up another. Flashy stunts and ad hoc maneuvering remain ineffective. And worst of all, a pandemic compels leaders to share the political limelight with epidemiologists and the very experts that populists despise. To quote the author:
“The crises that authoritarians most enjoy are those that they have manufactured themselves, or that at least permit them to showcase their imagined strengths. COVID-19 deprives authoritarians and authoritarian-minded leaders of the chance to manufacture a ‘better crisis’. There is just this one crisis, here and now: the pandemic. And governments are being judged by how they manage it.”
There is, of course, one caveat to this assessment and that is the changing nature of the crisis. As the pandemic turns from a brief affair into a way of life, there’s ample opportunity for populists to fuel anxieties with lies and provoke a backlash. Only the future will tell how this pans out. Another shortcoming is that Krastev’s prediction about the future of the European Union remains comically vague (“If things go wrong, COVID-19 could trigger the disintegration of the European Union; if they go right, it could consolidate the Union.”) He does, however, provide the reader with a loose framework for thinking through some of the issues that lay ahead.
All in all, I found this to be a very thought-provoking essay. What I value most about Krastev’s books is the quality and economy of his prose. He’s one of those rare authors who truly respect the reader’s time and refrain from turning 75 pages worth of ideas into a 300-page slog. I hope he has many more New Yorker-style essays in the pipeline!
The essay also shines a light on the curious fact that COVID-19 has put populists like Donald Trump and authoritarians like Vladimir Putin on the back foot. This development is somewhat surprising, not least because strongmen tend to thrive on crises and are fluent in the politics of fear. As it turns out, pandemics are not very amenable to authoritarian solutions. It’s impossible to deny the virus, let alone ‘solve’ the crisis by conjuring up another. Flashy stunts and ad hoc maneuvering remain ineffective. And worst of all, a pandemic compels leaders to share the political limelight with epidemiologists and the very experts that populists despise. To quote the author:
“The crises that authoritarians most enjoy are those that they have manufactured themselves, or that at least permit them to showcase their imagined strengths. COVID-19 deprives authoritarians and authoritarian-minded leaders of the chance to manufacture a ‘better crisis’. There is just this one crisis, here and now: the pandemic. And governments are being judged by how they manage it.”
There is, of course, one caveat to this assessment and that is the changing nature of the crisis. As the pandemic turns from a brief affair into a way of life, there’s ample opportunity for populists to fuel anxieties with lies and provoke a backlash. Only the future will tell how this pans out. Another shortcoming is that Krastev’s prediction about the future of the European Union remains comically vague (“If things go wrong, COVID-19 could trigger the disintegration of the European Union; if they go right, it could consolidate the Union.”) He does, however, provide the reader with a loose framework for thinking through some of the issues that lay ahead.
All in all, I found this to be a very thought-provoking essay. What I value most about Krastev’s books is the quality and economy of his prose. He’s one of those rare authors who truly respect the reader’s time and refrain from turning 75 pages worth of ideas into a 300-page slog. I hope he has many more New Yorker-style essays in the pipeline!
April 25, 2021
"Όπως λέγεται συχνά, η δημοκρατία πρέπει να τρέφεται από την παρουσία μας στους δρόμους."
Ευλογοι και εύστοχοι προβληματισμοί και σκέψεις για τις ενδεχόμενες επιπτώσεις της πανδημίας σε πολιτικό, οικονομικό και κοινωνικό επίπεδο.
Ευλογοι και εύστοχοι προβληματισμοί και σκέψεις για τις ενδεχόμενες επιπτώσεις της πανδημίας σε πολιτικό, οικονομικό και κοινωνικό επίπεδο.
June 19, 2020
Думи като пандемия, коронавирус и COVID-19 вече тотално са ни втръснали, така че отчасти ще ви разбера, ако решите да не дочетете това ревю. От друга страна, ви провокирам да го направите, защото, когато някой има с какво смислено да допринесе към така или иначе пренаситения обществен дебат по важна тема, е по-добре да го чуем. В случая, при цялата ми нескромност, даже не говоря за себе си, а за световнопризнатия политолог Иван Кръстев.
„Утре ли е вече?“ (изд. „Обсидиан“) се появи към края на пика на пандемията, разглежда моменталните последици от COVID-19 и също така дава прогнози за света след вируса. Ако повдигнете скептично вежда и се запитате: „Не е ли рано за подобна книга?“, бих ви отговорила, че тъкмо сега ѝ е времето – ще разберете защо, след като я прочетете. Тя представя анализ, към който ще бъде интересно да се върнем и в бъдеще, но е особено нужна сега, понеже обществото ни е разделено. Все още сме обхванати от страх, а въпросите, които си задаваме, са много повече от научно обоснованите отговори, които получаваме.
Със своите стотина страници „Утре ли е вече?“ прилича по-скоро на дълго есе, което грабна вниманието ми с погледа към настоящата кризисна ситуация през философска, политическа и психологическа призма. Неслучайно авторът е носител на престижната награда за европейска есеистика „Жан Амери“ за 2020 година, а книгата му се превежда на 19 езика.
Според него пандемията е христоматиен пример за явлението „сив лебед“. Историята ни познава подобни ситуации и сме наясно, че е напълно възможно – дори сигурно – те да се повторят в даден момент. Въпреки това, щом се случат, се оказваме неподготвени и напълно изненадани. Кръстев дава за пример испанския грип, който само допреди три месеца беше потънал в забрава, независимо от чудовищно големия брой на загиналите (между 50 и 100 милиона души). Освен това от него ни дели няма и век – нищожен период, що се отнася за променящо света събитие. Защо обаче за двете световни войни, взели заедно по-малко жертви, има десетки филми, изписана е в пъти повече литература и се изучават в училище, а за испанския грип почти не се говори?
Иван Кръстев изрежда няколко причини, сред които е „стойността“, придавана на смъртта при едната и другата ситуация. Гибелта във военна битка се възприема за героична и дори логична, докато епидемиите убиват без ясна логика и структура. Ето защо и не намират своето място в колективната ни памет:
"Неспособността ни, или може би нежеланието ни, да помним епидемиите вероятно се дължи и на това, че отказваме да приемем неоправданата смърт и страдание. Безсмислието на произволната болка се понася трудно."
Авторът прави друг интересен психологически анализ с избора да решим къде е нашето „у дома“. В познатия ни свят на глобализация мнозина наричат повече от едно място „вкъщи“ и все пак трябваше да изберат кое усещат най-близко до дефиницията за дом. Семейството на самия Кръстев избира да се прибере в България за периода на изолацията, макар от години да живее във Виена. Именно по време на криза можем да намерим еднозначен отговор на въпросите какво значат корените ни за нас и какво е принадлежност, както и да отсеем истински важното за битието ни дори на инстинктивно ниво.
По-голямата част от книгата е посветена на прогнозите на прочутия политолог за бъдещето след пика на пандемията. Кръстев изтъква, че няма как да сме сигурни дали всичко ще приключи с отмяната на най-строгите мерки за социална изолация, нито дали пикът на заболели няма да се повтори. Според него обаче е факт, че светът ни се е променил трайно и старото „нормално“ няма да се завърне. Той е убеден, че на индивидуално ниво ни очаква „пандемия от носталгия“ по всичко, което доскоро сме приемали за даденост. В глобален план пък ще се сблъскаме с преосмисляне на концепцията за демокрация, за ползата от обединения като Европейския съюз и метода им на опериране.
Сред седемте парадокса на COVID-19, които Иван Кръстев споменава в книгата си, е, че вирусът срина бляскавата страна на глобализацията, но едновременно беше и неин агент:
"Затварянето на границите между държавите от ЕС и затварянето ни у дома ни направиха по-космополитни от всякога. Може би за пръв път в историята хората по цял свят говорят за едно и също и изпитват еднакви страхове."
Предстои да открием дали действително ще станем свидетели на мащабни политически пренареждания, за които COVID-19 ще се яви катализатор, и дали науката ще вземе превес над конспиративните теории и ще обедини хората. Едно е ясно – при наличието на технологиите в ежедневието ни няма как да отстъпим от глобализацията. Въпросът е дали сме готови за тъмните ѝ страни, неизбежно придружаващи ползите от нея за развитието на човечеството.
Силно препоръчвам „Утре ли е вече?“ на всеки, който предпочита да се информира от разнообразни източници, преди да си изгради мнение по конкретна тема. Като всеки друг, и този следва да се чете критично. В книгата ще откриете някои отговори и още повече неизвестни, но със сигурност ще разбирате малко по-добре социалния експеримент, в който се озовахме.
Ревюто е публикувано първо в сайта "Аз чета": https://azcheta.com/utre-li-e-veche-i...
„Утре ли е вече?“ (изд. „Обсидиан“) се появи към края на пика на пандемията, разглежда моменталните последици от COVID-19 и също така дава прогнози за света след вируса. Ако повдигнете скептично вежда и се запитате: „Не е ли рано за подобна книга?“, бих ви отговорила, че тъкмо сега ѝ е времето – ще разберете защо, след като я прочетете. Тя представя анализ, към който ще бъде интересно да се върнем и в бъдеще, но е особено нужна сега, понеже обществото ни е разделено. Все още сме обхванати от страх, а въпросите, които си задаваме, са много повече от научно обоснованите отговори, които получаваме.
Със своите стотина страници „Утре ли е вече?“ прилича по-скоро на дълго есе, което грабна вниманието ми с погледа към настоящата кризисна ситуация през философска, политическа и психологическа призма. Неслучайно авторът е носител на престижната награда за европейска есеистика „Жан Амери“ за 2020 година, а книгата му се превежда на 19 езика.
Според него пандемията е христоматиен пример за явлението „сив лебед“. Историята ни познава подобни ситуации и сме наясно, че е напълно възможно – дори сигурно – те да се повторят в даден момент. Въпреки това, щом се случат, се оказваме неподготвени и напълно изненадани. Кръстев дава за пример испанския грип, който само допреди три месеца беше потънал в забрава, независимо от чудовищно големия брой на загиналите (между 50 и 100 милиона души). Освен това от него ни дели няма и век – нищожен период, що се отнася за променящо света събитие. Защо обаче за двете световни войни, взели заедно по-малко жертви, има десетки филми, изписана е в пъти повече литература и се изучават в училище, а за испанския грип почти не се говори?
Иван Кръстев изрежда няколко причини, сред които е „стойността“, придавана на смъртта при едната и другата ситуация. Гибелта във военна битка се възприема за героична и дори логична, докато епидемиите убиват без ясна логика и структура. Ето защо и не намират своето място в колективната ни памет:
"Неспособността ни, или може би нежеланието ни, да помним епидемиите вероятно се дължи и на това, че отказваме да приемем неоправданата смърт и страдание. Безсмислието на произволната болка се понася трудно."
Авторът прави друг интересен психологически анализ с избора да решим къде е нашето „у дома“. В познатия ни свят на глобализация мнозина наричат повече от едно място „вкъщи“ и все пак трябваше да изберат кое усещат най-близко до дефиницията за дом. Семейството на самия Кръстев избира да се прибере в България за периода на изолацията, макар от години да живее във Виена. Именно по време на криза можем да намерим еднозначен отговор на въпросите какво значат корените ни за нас и какво е принадлежност, както и да отсеем истински важното за битието ни дори на инстинктивно ниво.
По-голямата част от книгата е посветена на прогнозите на прочутия политолог за бъдещето след пика на пандемията. Кръстев изтъква, че няма как да сме сигурни дали всичко ще приключи с отмяната на най-строгите мерки за социална изолация, нито дали пикът на заболели няма да се повтори. Според него обаче е факт, че светът ни се е променил трайно и старото „нормално“ няма да се завърне. Той е убеден, че на индивидуално ниво ни очаква „пандемия от носталгия“ по всичко, което доскоро сме приемали за даденост. В глобален план пък ще се сблъскаме с преосмисляне на концепцията за демокрация, за ползата от обединения като Европейския съюз и метода им на опериране.
Сред седемте парадокса на COVID-19, които Иван Кръстев споменава в книгата си, е, че вирусът срина бляскавата страна на глобализацията, но едновременно беше и неин агент:
"Затварянето на границите между държавите от ЕС и затварянето ни у дома ни направиха по-космополитни от всякога. Може би за пръв път в историята хората по цял свят говорят за едно и също и изпитват еднакви страхове."
Предстои да открием дали действително ще станем свидетели на мащабни политически пренареждания, за които COVID-19 ще се яви катализатор, и дали науката ще вземе превес над конспиративните теории и ще обедини хората. Едно е ясно – при наличието на технологиите в ежедневието ни няма как да отстъпим от глобализацията. Въпросът е дали сме готови за тъмните ѝ страни, неизбежно придружаващи ползите от нея за развитието на човечеството.
Силно препоръчвам „Утре ли е вече?“ на всеки, който предпочита да се информира от разнообразни източници, преди да си изгради мнение по конкретна тема. Като всеки друг, и този следва да се чете критично. В книгата ще откриете някои отговори и още повече неизвестни, но със сигурност ще разбирате малко по-добре социалния експеримент, в който се озовахме.
Ревюто е публикувано първо в сайта "Аз чета": https://azcheta.com/utre-li-e-veche-i...
December 3, 2021
Interessant lesing, men merka at enkelte ord og begreper krevde at man hadde mykje forkunnskap, og dermed mista eg fort følelsen av å virkelig forstå kva forfatteren meinte eller prøvde å formidle
December 16, 2020
Autor zwięźle analizuje dotychczasowy przebieg pandemii koronawirusa w Europie. Porównuje zastosowane środki i mechanizmy z "wojną z terroryzmem", załamaniem globalnych rynków i kryzysem uchodźczym.
Niestety przemyślenia nie są zbyt głębokie, a chaos wywodu nie pomaga. Czytajac miałam wrażenie, że książka pisana była na prędce i z zamiarem nadrobienia powierzchowności rozważań wielością odniesień. No bo serio, wychodzenie od tego jak pewna zakładniczka uniknęła śmierci z rąk ekstremistów, by zaraz porównać jej sytuację do sytuacji rządów europejskich? Iks de.
Przynajmniej przypisy się zgadzają i wiem co czytać o pandemii hiszpanki.......
Niestety przemyślenia nie są zbyt głębokie, a chaos wywodu nie pomaga. Czytajac miałam wrażenie, że książka pisana była na prędce i z zamiarem nadrobienia powierzchowności rozważań wielością odniesień. No bo serio, wychodzenie od tego jak pewna zakładniczka uniknęła śmierci z rąk ekstremistów, by zaraz porównać jej sytuację do sytuacji rządów europejskich? Iks de.
Przynajmniej przypisy się zgadzają i wiem co czytać o pandemii hiszpanki.......
February 9, 2021
An eye-opening essay on how COVID might influence the political system in Europe (but also globally). The overarching thesis is built around the parallel that health-hazards of uniquely large magnitudes (epidemics, pandemics) have had an enormous impact on political changes, examples being Black Death (XIV-th cenury) and influenza (XX-th century). The author looks at the very fresh impact of COVID on how democracy (Europe, US) performed and compares to some of the authoritarian countries. It is refreshingly insightful and super relevant!
7 interesting remarks conclude the analysis:
- COVID exposes internal flaw of globalization - interconnectivity of main city hubs, constant flow of people puts most developed societies at inherent risk
- COVID on one hand accelerated the trend of deglobalization (induced after the financial crisis, especially in Europe where the need to restructure debts of one countries pushed others away), but at the same time shown weakenesses of renationalization (only the biggest countries can think about self-sustainability, all the rest are and will be dependent on global / regional supply chains)
- COVID induced at first the feeling of national solidarity, but in the longer term it will be promoting divides, especially strongly if the consequences of COVID were limited (then the decisions to impose restrictions will be strongly challenged)
- COVID did allow governments to limit personal freedoms but in the long term (once health-related fear passes) citizens will be very challenging regarding any limitations when it comes to economic initiatives that governments will need to undergo (e.g. tax increases to finance the subsidies)
- COVID made EU look irrelevant - countries dealt with the problems independently which will act as an important gateway for questions about the reason for EU (also since the foundation of EU has been modified, i.e. internal borders were closed)
- COVID will push for a reform of function of EU, e.g. the health policies that were always tackled internally in Member States need to be somehow managed centrally to allow for readiness for future health hazards
- COVID made us all more cosmopolitan, since despite being stuck at homes during lockdown problems of citizens of different countries have been all put to the same denominator - we started to understand each other more probably ever in the modern history
7 interesting remarks conclude the analysis:
- COVID exposes internal flaw of globalization - interconnectivity of main city hubs, constant flow of people puts most developed societies at inherent risk
- COVID on one hand accelerated the trend of deglobalization (induced after the financial crisis, especially in Europe where the need to restructure debts of one countries pushed others away), but at the same time shown weakenesses of renationalization (only the biggest countries can think about self-sustainability, all the rest are and will be dependent on global / regional supply chains)
- COVID induced at first the feeling of national solidarity, but in the longer term it will be promoting divides, especially strongly if the consequences of COVID were limited (then the decisions to impose restrictions will be strongly challenged)
- COVID did allow governments to limit personal freedoms but in the long term (once health-related fear passes) citizens will be very challenging regarding any limitations when it comes to economic initiatives that governments will need to undergo (e.g. tax increases to finance the subsidies)
- COVID made EU look irrelevant - countries dealt with the problems independently which will act as an important gateway for questions about the reason for EU (also since the foundation of EU has been modified, i.e. internal borders were closed)
- COVID will push for a reform of function of EU, e.g. the health policies that were always tackled internally in Member States need to be somehow managed centrally to allow for readiness for future health hazards
- COVID made us all more cosmopolitan, since despite being stuck at homes during lockdown problems of citizens of different countries have been all put to the same denominator - we started to understand each other more probably ever in the modern history
October 4, 2020
O Futuro por contar
Todos temos lido e ouvido milhares de opiniões sobre a pandemia, o medo, a gravidade da doença, as medidas e contradições ditadas pela OMS e papagueadas diariamente pela DGS .
Cada um vai filtrando na medida do que pode o que vai lendo e ouvindo e vai formando a sua própria opinião ou (que é o meu caso) ficando cada dia mais confuso .
Se um dia acho que devo cumprir as regras ditadas, no seguinte acho que isto é uma pantomina com intenções pouco claras para nos fazer obedecer quais ovelhas num redil.
E por isso vou lendo tudo o que me aparece sobre o assunto .
Este livro não adianta muito mais do que vamos lendo e ouvindo nas notícias e nas redes sociais .
Tenta fazer uma previsão das mudanças que irão ocorrer como consequência da pandemia e o rumo que a Europa irá tomar.
Os velhos são os que mais sofrem com a doença mas vão ser os jovens os que mais vão sentir os efeitos devastadores das medidas que foi necessário tomar .
Todos temos lido e ouvido milhares de opiniões sobre a pandemia, o medo, a gravidade da doença, as medidas e contradições ditadas pela OMS e papagueadas diariamente pela DGS .
Cada um vai filtrando na medida do que pode o que vai lendo e ouvindo e vai formando a sua própria opinião ou (que é o meu caso) ficando cada dia mais confuso .
Se um dia acho que devo cumprir as regras ditadas, no seguinte acho que isto é uma pantomina com intenções pouco claras para nos fazer obedecer quais ovelhas num redil.
E por isso vou lendo tudo o que me aparece sobre o assunto .
Este livro não adianta muito mais do que vamos lendo e ouvindo nas notícias e nas redes sociais .
Tenta fazer uma previsão das mudanças que irão ocorrer como consequência da pandemia e o rumo que a Europa irá tomar.
Os velhos são os que mais sofrem com a doença mas vão ser os jovens os que mais vão sentir os efeitos devastadores das medidas que foi necessário tomar .
April 25, 2026
This was a fun read that I got through beside Naomi Klein's early writing on the anti-globalization movement, and the two weirdly go together quite well. I also found reflections on the political system and economy from within the pandemic (Ivan published this early on) to be weird and science fiction like, from the other side.
The book reminded me how wild the pandemic really was, and how we have simply kept building on this shotty foundation, without even acknowledging (yet alone addressing) the sand the foundation is built on.
The book reminded me how wild the pandemic really was, and how we have simply kept building on this shotty foundation, without even acknowledging (yet alone addressing) the sand the foundation is built on.
February 24, 2021
Un ensayo largo con formato de libro que peca de incontinente al querer extraer consecuencias de un fenómeno aún caliente. A pesar de esta postura tan ambiciosa la obra esconde ideas muy valiosas, pero que deberán ser contrastadas y probablemente modificadas a la luz de los hechos ocurridos desde su publicación.
August 28, 2020
Un ensayo fácil de leer y corto (pero conciso).
March 22, 2022
Sehr interessante Ausführungen, obwohl das Essay sehr kurz ist, hat Krastev sehr viel reingepackt.
Kann ich eigentlich jedem empfehlen.
Kann ich eigentlich jedem empfehlen.
Read
September 7, 2023Qué buenas ideas, pero qué rápido puede llegar a caducar un libro…
November 13, 2020
God sammanfattning, men lite kort
December 14, 2020
Interesting read about how the Corona pandemic is shaping our future. Ivan Krastev is a political scientist from Bulgaria. He is a fellow of IWN BIO. In this books he formulates 7 paradoxes. 1) it shows the dark side of globalization, but it's also a tool for globalization. We have been brought together as we live in a common world. 2) de-globalization is accelerating, but the pandemic also shows the limit of the nations. 3) the pandemic brought us closer as a nation, but as it goes own it will intensify political, financial and social differences. 4) Democracy has been put at pause, but long term people will be less likely to accept authoritarian rulers. 5) EU was absent during the breakout, but in the end the pandemic might affect EU more than anything else. 6) The pandemic has awaken the memories of three previous crisis the financial crisis, the fight against terror and the migration crisis, but at the same time we now act differently boarders are possible to close even between countries in EU, we are willing to exchange personal integrity if we are safe, we share the responsibility and we are willing to spend our way out of the pandemic. 7) EU is considered as the last outpost for freedom, at the same time the pandemic might result in more common politics and might delegate more to Brussels.
June 25, 2020
Short and brilliant
May 15, 2021
Bare et par måneder efter første lockdown i coronakrisen sætter den bulgarske politolog Ivan Krastevs sig for at analysere coronakatastrofen som fænomen. Krastevs ærinde er ikke at forudse, hvad det hele ender med efter coronatiden, men i stedet forstå hvad der er på spil for os i alt det, som coronakatastrofen får os til at forholde os til.
Bogen er et langt essay - eller en kort bog - som Krastev selv skriver. Det er ikke målet at komme med en overordnet hypotese og forklaring vedrørende corona, men derimod at dykke ned i konkrete analyser og ofte fremvise nogle paradokser (eller man kan sige modbevægelser), som corona har været med til at synliggøre om vores tid. Altså en tanke om, at coronakatastrofen er en slags fremkaldervæske for at forstå vores forskellige samfund. Krastev har især fokus på, hvad der sker i Europa og hvad der sker for forståelsen af Europa og det europæiske. Til sidst i bogen fremlæser Krastev 7 forskellige paradokser (s. 88-92). Se nederst i denne tekst for et gennemskriv af disse syv paradokser.
For Krastev har corona afsløret, at der er et helt andet spillerum for det politiske, og at det politiske ikke er underlagt økonomi og markedet. Det er en erkendelse, som nogle vil kunne tage med videre ift. håndteringen af klimaudfordringerne.
Krastev siger, at det, vi oplever som hjem, blev synligt for os under lockdown. Hvor vi søgte hen for at tilbringe lockdown var det sted, hvor vi følte os mest trygge og kunne holde ud at være i længere tid.
Krastev kommer ind på at coronakatastrofen fik verden til at blive én verden for en tid (en synkroniseret verden) - forstået på den måde, at vi alle blev ramt af det samme på nogenlunde samme tid, og derfor måtte forholde os til dette; men at samfundene og lagene i samfundene selvfølgelig var forskellige, og derfor blev vilkårene og udkommet også forskelligt. Så selv om vi alle pludselig levede i én verden ramt af noget bestemt, så var der ikke tale om at corona blev en equalizer.
Coronakatastrofen gør, at verden på den ene side bliver mere global - fordi den viser, at vi er nødt til at arbejde sammen for at finde løsninger på katastrofen, men samtidig har coronakatastrofen også skabt modbevægelsen at man gerne vil undgå afhængigheder fra hele verden i forsyningskæderne og derfor i højere grad søger mod nationale eller regionale forsyningskæder fremover. Her har Krastev især fokus på de mindre nationer i Europa (først og fremmest Bulgarien og andre østeuropæiske lande, men selvfølgelig også særligt relevant for Danmark), idet han mener, at de mindre nationer i
Europa især vil komme til at sande, at de ikke kan stå alene som nation ift. f.eks. forsyningskæder, og at de heller ikke længere kan være fuldt afhængige af det globale, og derfor vil det europæiske som EU stå stærkere som et regionalt sted at løse problemer og skabe nye forsyningskæder på.
Krastev har en sjov analyse af turisten og flygtninge. Turisten er velkommen i den enkelte nation, fordi han lægger penge og er på besøg midlertidigt. Flygtningen er upopulær og ønskes bare ud af den enkelte nation, fordi han koster penge og gerne vil være der i lang tid eller permanent.
Krastev kalder det for "demokrati som sammenligningsdikatur" at vi under corona har sammenlignet de enkelte nationers måde at håndtere corona på. Det har bl.a. også gjort det ekstra hårdt for sejlivede diktatorer, fordi de ikke som normalt har kunnet vælge de kriser, som de ville synliggøre og være en heroisk skikkelse i forhold til - men at diktatorerne i stedet har været eksponeret ift. om de har formået at levere en god pandemihåndtering for deres befolkning (Brasilien, Rusland, måske USA hvis man kan kalde Trump diktator...)
De 7 paradokser, som Krastev beskriver sidst i bogen, er:
1) COVID udstiller globaliseringens mørke side (at den rammer hårdest de steder, hvor globaliseringen er tættest forbundet (turisme, flyforbindelser mv.), og samtidig fungerer COVID globaliserende (fordi vi alle på planeten er blevet synkroniseret ved at vi alle er blevet ramt af det samme)
2) COVID har acceleret udviklingen mod afglobaliseringen (modstanden mod globaliseringen, som allerede blev igangsat af finanskrisen), men samtidig udstiller COVID begrænsningen ved gen-nationaliseringen - en pandemi gør det muligt for menneskeheden at mærke vores gensidige afhængighed og fællesskab
3) COVID vækkede i første omgang til sammenhold, men vil/kan på sigt forværre allerede eksisterende social og politisk splittelse. Og et ekstra paradoks er her, at de lande, der har været mest effektive med at inddæmme virus, vil være steder hvor offentligheden rettet hårdest kritik mod regeringen for nedlukningen (ud fra logikken: var det nu nødvendigt at lukke så hårdt - se det gik jo ret godt alligevel)
4) COVID har sat demokratiet på pause med undtagelsestilstande i Europa, men det har samtidig begrænset folks ønske om mere totalitært styre
5) EU brillerede ved sit fravær i pandemiens tidlige stadier, men pandemien kan blive afgørende for EUs fremtid - enten falder unionen helt sammen, eller også bliver der mere union, fordi mange har fornemmet behovet for større samarbejde
6) COVID får os i Europa til at genoverveje den måde vi har håndteret de tre forrige kriser på:
a) ift. terrorkrisen som følge af 9/11 har vi i Europa været tilbageholdende med at gå på kompromis med privatlivets fred (imodsætning til i USA), men som følge af corona er vi i Europa blevet mere villige til at gå på kompromis nu med overvågning af smitte mv.
b) ift. flygtningekrisen blev vi i Europa efterhånden enige om, at det var umuligt at lukke vores interne grænser mellem de europæiske lande; men med corona har vi besluttet netop at lukke vores interne grænser
c) ift. finanskrisen var vi i Europa modstandere af fælles gældsforpligtelse jf. Grækenland vs. Tyskland; men med corona har vi i Europa accepteret fælles gæld
7) EU betragtede sig før coronakrisen som bannerfører for åbenhed og gensidig afhængighed (og opretholdelse af, at de enkelte nationer har frihed til selv at beslutte hvad de gør); med corona kan det betyde, at vi uddelegererer flere nødretsbeføjelser til Bruxelles
(Krastev har siden han skrev denne bog også præciseret, at EU kun er så stærk, som vi europæiske lande beslutter at gøre EU til. Sålænge vi har besluttet at EU ikke har et fælles sundhedssystem, så kan vi ikke klantre EU for, at EU ikke kan håndtere sundhed ordentligt)
Bogen er et langt essay - eller en kort bog - som Krastev selv skriver. Det er ikke målet at komme med en overordnet hypotese og forklaring vedrørende corona, men derimod at dykke ned i konkrete analyser og ofte fremvise nogle paradokser (eller man kan sige modbevægelser), som corona har været med til at synliggøre om vores tid. Altså en tanke om, at coronakatastrofen er en slags fremkaldervæske for at forstå vores forskellige samfund. Krastev har især fokus på, hvad der sker i Europa og hvad der sker for forståelsen af Europa og det europæiske. Til sidst i bogen fremlæser Krastev 7 forskellige paradokser (s. 88-92). Se nederst i denne tekst for et gennemskriv af disse syv paradokser.
For Krastev har corona afsløret, at der er et helt andet spillerum for det politiske, og at det politiske ikke er underlagt økonomi og markedet. Det er en erkendelse, som nogle vil kunne tage med videre ift. håndteringen af klimaudfordringerne.
Krastev siger, at det, vi oplever som hjem, blev synligt for os under lockdown. Hvor vi søgte hen for at tilbringe lockdown var det sted, hvor vi følte os mest trygge og kunne holde ud at være i længere tid.
Krastev kommer ind på at coronakatastrofen fik verden til at blive én verden for en tid (en synkroniseret verden) - forstået på den måde, at vi alle blev ramt af det samme på nogenlunde samme tid, og derfor måtte forholde os til dette; men at samfundene og lagene i samfundene selvfølgelig var forskellige, og derfor blev vilkårene og udkommet også forskelligt. Så selv om vi alle pludselig levede i én verden ramt af noget bestemt, så var der ikke tale om at corona blev en equalizer.
Coronakatastrofen gør, at verden på den ene side bliver mere global - fordi den viser, at vi er nødt til at arbejde sammen for at finde løsninger på katastrofen, men samtidig har coronakatastrofen også skabt modbevægelsen at man gerne vil undgå afhængigheder fra hele verden i forsyningskæderne og derfor i højere grad søger mod nationale eller regionale forsyningskæder fremover. Her har Krastev især fokus på de mindre nationer i Europa (først og fremmest Bulgarien og andre østeuropæiske lande, men selvfølgelig også særligt relevant for Danmark), idet han mener, at de mindre nationer i
Europa især vil komme til at sande, at de ikke kan stå alene som nation ift. f.eks. forsyningskæder, og at de heller ikke længere kan være fuldt afhængige af det globale, og derfor vil det europæiske som EU stå stærkere som et regionalt sted at løse problemer og skabe nye forsyningskæder på.
Krastev har en sjov analyse af turisten og flygtninge. Turisten er velkommen i den enkelte nation, fordi han lægger penge og er på besøg midlertidigt. Flygtningen er upopulær og ønskes bare ud af den enkelte nation, fordi han koster penge og gerne vil være der i lang tid eller permanent.
Krastev kalder det for "demokrati som sammenligningsdikatur" at vi under corona har sammenlignet de enkelte nationers måde at håndtere corona på. Det har bl.a. også gjort det ekstra hårdt for sejlivede diktatorer, fordi de ikke som normalt har kunnet vælge de kriser, som de ville synliggøre og være en heroisk skikkelse i forhold til - men at diktatorerne i stedet har været eksponeret ift. om de har formået at levere en god pandemihåndtering for deres befolkning (Brasilien, Rusland, måske USA hvis man kan kalde Trump diktator...)
De 7 paradokser, som Krastev beskriver sidst i bogen, er:
1) COVID udstiller globaliseringens mørke side (at den rammer hårdest de steder, hvor globaliseringen er tættest forbundet (turisme, flyforbindelser mv.), og samtidig fungerer COVID globaliserende (fordi vi alle på planeten er blevet synkroniseret ved at vi alle er blevet ramt af det samme)
2) COVID har acceleret udviklingen mod afglobaliseringen (modstanden mod globaliseringen, som allerede blev igangsat af finanskrisen), men samtidig udstiller COVID begrænsningen ved gen-nationaliseringen - en pandemi gør det muligt for menneskeheden at mærke vores gensidige afhængighed og fællesskab
3) COVID vækkede i første omgang til sammenhold, men vil/kan på sigt forværre allerede eksisterende social og politisk splittelse. Og et ekstra paradoks er her, at de lande, der har været mest effektive med at inddæmme virus, vil være steder hvor offentligheden rettet hårdest kritik mod regeringen for nedlukningen (ud fra logikken: var det nu nødvendigt at lukke så hårdt - se det gik jo ret godt alligevel)
4) COVID har sat demokratiet på pause med undtagelsestilstande i Europa, men det har samtidig begrænset folks ønske om mere totalitært styre
5) EU brillerede ved sit fravær i pandemiens tidlige stadier, men pandemien kan blive afgørende for EUs fremtid - enten falder unionen helt sammen, eller også bliver der mere union, fordi mange har fornemmet behovet for større samarbejde
6) COVID får os i Europa til at genoverveje den måde vi har håndteret de tre forrige kriser på:
a) ift. terrorkrisen som følge af 9/11 har vi i Europa været tilbageholdende med at gå på kompromis med privatlivets fred (imodsætning til i USA), men som følge af corona er vi i Europa blevet mere villige til at gå på kompromis nu med overvågning af smitte mv.
b) ift. flygtningekrisen blev vi i Europa efterhånden enige om, at det var umuligt at lukke vores interne grænser mellem de europæiske lande; men med corona har vi besluttet netop at lukke vores interne grænser
c) ift. finanskrisen var vi i Europa modstandere af fælles gældsforpligtelse jf. Grækenland vs. Tyskland; men med corona har vi i Europa accepteret fælles gæld
7) EU betragtede sig før coronakrisen som bannerfører for åbenhed og gensidig afhængighed (og opretholdelse af, at de enkelte nationer har frihed til selv at beslutte hvad de gør); med corona kan det betyde, at vi uddelegererer flere nødretsbeføjelser til Bruxelles
(Krastev har siden han skrev denne bog også præciseret, at EU kun er så stærk, som vi europæiske lande beslutter at gøre EU til. Sålænge vi har besluttet at EU ikke har et fælles sundhedssystem, så kan vi ikke klantre EU for, at EU ikke kan håndtere sundhed ordentligt)
May 4, 2021
I'm not quite sure what I read, here. Stating it to be an essay of which the objective is NOT to make predictions about what Europe will look like post-corona, the remainder of the essay seems to do just that. Also, following author Jose Saramago, Krastev states that epidemics don't transform societies, they just help us understand how they really work. Then he goes on with a list of seven paradoxes of how our society will be transformed. All in all, the essay was too incoherent for my taste. Furthermore, the substantiation for the predictions he makes seems to be lacking. I realize it is not a work of science, but an essay, but I had the feeling that as a reader, I wasn't sufficiently taken along.
Unavoidably in the fast-changing pandemic world, the essay is ageing quickly, along with some of the arguments in it. The statement that the pandemic makes people look towards science and rationality seems to be totally amiss, at least in the Netherlands. However, 'Is it tomorrow yet' it definitely has enough interesting observations, analyses and references that make it worth reading.
Unavoidably in the fast-changing pandemic world, the essay is ageing quickly, along with some of the arguments in it. The statement that the pandemic makes people look towards science and rationality seems to be totally amiss, at least in the Netherlands. However, 'Is it tomorrow yet' it definitely has enough interesting observations, analyses and references that make it worth reading.
July 27, 2020
Esperava um pouco mais de profundidade na reflexão mas tendo em conta o timing do livro talvez não fosse possível. Uma leitura agradável
December 17, 2021
Kniha, prípadne jej vydavatelia, majú nárok na bonusovú polhviezdičku za rýchle vydanie titulu na aktuálnu a urgentnú tému. Dávam jej teda 3 hviezdičky namiesto 2 a pól.
Najprv k mojim bežným očakávaniam od ktorých sa odvíja hodnotenie: v dobrej non-fiction knihe podľa mojej pomyselnej šablóny nájdeme zaujímavé úvahy, užitočné fakty a spôsob hľadenia na vybranú tému, ktorý je v niečom nový.
Najlepší autori sú tí, ktorí si sú vedomí čiar, pri ktorých sa končí opis faktov a začína sa ich interpretácia. A títo autori nemajú strach čitateľovi povedať: “môj názor je, že z týchto faktov vyplýva nasledovné...”. V článkoch, z ktorých pozostáva táto kniha, Krastev v tomto smere zlyháva a vlastné úvahy prezentuje ako samozrejmosť. Subjektívne pohľady sú samozrejme vítané, ale ak sa budú tváriť ako jasné a očividné fakty, tak aspoň jedna hviezdička sa strháva.
Z tejto knihy sa dá len ťažko vydedukovať, čo si autor vlastne o budúcnosti myslí. Na strane 95 napíše, že vážnym rizikom je územný rozpad EÚ a o pár strán neskôr čitateľovi povie, že možno v post-pandemickej EÚ bude viac právomocí delegovaných na Brusel. Tvrdenie, že “jedna vec je však istá už dnes...” a to tá, že EÚ sa po kríze zmení, mi vadí aj vecne, aj štylisticky. Vecný problém je, že autor nevysvetlil, prečo by sa fungovanie rôznych inštitúcií nemohlo vrátiť do starých koľají. A spôsob úvažovania, akoby sa práve táto konktrétna predpoveď mala s istotou naplniť, ma prekvapuje. Prečo by sme mali autorovi veriť, že čokoľvek je neodvrátiteľné?
Na strane 68 a na iných miestach autor predpovedá, že po pandémii sa svet bude deglobalizavať. Všeobecné konštatovanie, že pandémia u ľudí prebudí prianie silnejšej národnej autonómie, ma nepresvedčilo.
Tento typ predpovede sa podobá na “zaručené správy” o tom, že kvôli Covidu narastie vplyv nacionalistov. Aký nárast nacionalizmu? Naprieč Európou sa teraz (december 2021) opäť výrazne zvyšujú počty hospitalizácií a na hraniciach, ak sa pozrieme na Schengen, sa ani len nemeria ľuďom teplota. Už vôbec sa nemyslí na možnosť kontrolovať pasy (cestovné, ani vakcinačné), či iné opatrenia.
V kapitole *Keď dav zmizne* Krastev argumentuje, že čaro demokracie vyprchá, ak ľudia budú iba voliť (možno poštou) a nebudú mať možnosť vyjadriť intenzitu svojho presvedčenia prostredníctvom masových protestov. Tu Krastev artikuluje niektoré myšlienky, ktoré stoja za zamyslenie, ale naozaj bude vzpruhu pre demokraciu to, že strop pre zhromaždenia s zvýši z 50 ľudí na 500, alebo 5000, alebo sa strop zruší? Aj keď boli zoskupovania zakázané, protipandemické protesty sa aj tak zorganizovali. Doteraz prebieha debata o tom, či sa “nelegálne” protesty tolerovať mail, ale je ich konanie samé o sebe dôkazom, že dynamická demokracia práve tento typ komunikácie občana zo štátom potrebuje?
Najprv k mojim bežným očakávaniam od ktorých sa odvíja hodnotenie: v dobrej non-fiction knihe podľa mojej pomyselnej šablóny nájdeme zaujímavé úvahy, užitočné fakty a spôsob hľadenia na vybranú tému, ktorý je v niečom nový.
Najlepší autori sú tí, ktorí si sú vedomí čiar, pri ktorých sa končí opis faktov a začína sa ich interpretácia. A títo autori nemajú strach čitateľovi povedať: “môj názor je, že z týchto faktov vyplýva nasledovné...”. V článkoch, z ktorých pozostáva táto kniha, Krastev v tomto smere zlyháva a vlastné úvahy prezentuje ako samozrejmosť. Subjektívne pohľady sú samozrejme vítané, ale ak sa budú tváriť ako jasné a očividné fakty, tak aspoň jedna hviezdička sa strháva.
Z tejto knihy sa dá len ťažko vydedukovať, čo si autor vlastne o budúcnosti myslí. Na strane 95 napíše, že vážnym rizikom je územný rozpad EÚ a o pár strán neskôr čitateľovi povie, že možno v post-pandemickej EÚ bude viac právomocí delegovaných na Brusel. Tvrdenie, že “jedna vec je však istá už dnes...” a to tá, že EÚ sa po kríze zmení, mi vadí aj vecne, aj štylisticky. Vecný problém je, že autor nevysvetlil, prečo by sa fungovanie rôznych inštitúcií nemohlo vrátiť do starých koľají. A spôsob úvažovania, akoby sa práve táto konktrétna predpoveď mala s istotou naplniť, ma prekvapuje. Prečo by sme mali autorovi veriť, že čokoľvek je neodvrátiteľné?
Na strane 68 a na iných miestach autor predpovedá, že po pandémii sa svet bude deglobalizavať. Všeobecné konštatovanie, že pandémia u ľudí prebudí prianie silnejšej národnej autonómie, ma nepresvedčilo.
Tento typ predpovede sa podobá na “zaručené správy” o tom, že kvôli Covidu narastie vplyv nacionalistov. Aký nárast nacionalizmu? Naprieč Európou sa teraz (december 2021) opäť výrazne zvyšujú počty hospitalizácií a na hraniciach, ak sa pozrieme na Schengen, sa ani len nemeria ľuďom teplota. Už vôbec sa nemyslí na možnosť kontrolovať pasy (cestovné, ani vakcinačné), či iné opatrenia.
V kapitole *Keď dav zmizne* Krastev argumentuje, že čaro demokracie vyprchá, ak ľudia budú iba voliť (možno poštou) a nebudú mať možnosť vyjadriť intenzitu svojho presvedčenia prostredníctvom masových protestov. Tu Krastev artikuluje niektoré myšlienky, ktoré stoja za zamyslenie, ale naozaj bude vzpruhu pre demokraciu to, že strop pre zhromaždenia s zvýši z 50 ľudí na 500, alebo 5000, alebo sa strop zruší? Aj keď boli zoskupovania zakázané, protipandemické protesty sa aj tak zorganizovali. Doteraz prebieha debata o tom, či sa “nelegálne” protesty tolerovať mail, ale je ich konanie samé o sebe dôkazom, že dynamická demokracia práve tento typ komunikácie občana zo štátom potrebuje?
July 31, 2023
Although written in 2020 at the beginning of the COVID pandemic this is a thoughtful discussion about the effects global issues affect politics and social behaviour. Many of the things Krastev postulates have come to fruition. He looks at the decline of China's power because of the coverup there, the fact that the world no longer looks to America to fix things as it is now a broken country and especially the effect on the EU. The pandemic made countries look inward not outward so there was initially no sharing of medical resources ie masks. We saw this repeated in 2021, 2022, when vaccines were available but countries had to buy them and some expired vaccines were even sent to African countries. He looks at the ideas of democracy, why populist govts have become more prevalent and what happens (and is now in 2023 happening) when covid restrictions are lessened and economic issues take over. Another issues he discusses is how the 1919-1920 pandemic killed young people up to 40 years old more than older people but how Covid killed older people and young people were often indifferent to this (after all old people have got to die of something). I found this an depressingly honest and generally correct look at how covid did not bring people together, it did kill the minority groups based on race, social class and social standing, and how quickly govts wanted to move on.
March 6, 2022
Ivan Krastev's "Is It Yomorrow Yet" is an essay compiling Krastev's interdisciplinary observations about the nature of the Coronavirus pandemic and its short-and-long-term affects on our globalised world. The essay is generally coherent, investigated the pandemic through a framework of 7 "paradoxes" it invokes.
The essay's content is interesting but fails to engage effectively with the reader at the front end of the text, relying on them to make it through a dozen pages or so to begin delving deeper. I also felt like there were parts that needed either less or more depth to them.
It was particularly interesting to read it from a 2022 perspective, as some things have aged well, such as the "proliferation of contested elections coukd be one more outcome of the crisis" (pg.63) that we saw in the US and Eastern Europe, and some haven't, such as China's declining position as a global economic and political superpower.
All this being said, I enjoyed the essay and will definitely explore more of Krastev's work, but the lack of front-end engagement and unequal distribution of the investigation hinder (in my opinion) the full potential of the work
3.5/5 stars
The essay's content is interesting but fails to engage effectively with the reader at the front end of the text, relying on them to make it through a dozen pages or so to begin delving deeper. I also felt like there were parts that needed either less or more depth to them.
It was particularly interesting to read it from a 2022 perspective, as some things have aged well, such as the "proliferation of contested elections coukd be one more outcome of the crisis" (pg.63) that we saw in the US and Eastern Europe, and some haven't, such as China's declining position as a global economic and political superpower.
All this being said, I enjoyed the essay and will definitely explore more of Krastev's work, but the lack of front-end engagement and unequal distribution of the investigation hinder (in my opinion) the full potential of the work
3.5/5 stars
September 3, 2020
Keď píšete knihu o udalosti, ktorá ešte len prebieha, ľahko sa Vám môže stat, že nebudete mat dostatočný nadhľad a neskoršia realita vaše názory zvalcuje. Samozrejme, je pár géniov alebo šťastlivcov, ktorým sa môže podariť spraviť vzácny skutočne nadčasový náhľad na situáciu. To sa však v tomto prípade nepodarilo... kniha je kombináciou rôznych úvah, ktoré sme každý deň čítali v novinách, a pár krátkozrakých predpovedi založených na nesprávnych informáciách. Chýbali mi nové vhlady do témy, nový svieži uhol alebo niečo, čo pretrvalo až do druhej vlny, keď už o korone vieme viac a mnohé predpovede sa (zatiaľ, našťastie) nenaplnili.
Počkať si na odstup môže byt niekedy naozaj lepšie riešenie, aj keď človek príde o možnosť vyjadrit sa k aktuálnej téme, ktorá zrejme čitateľov priláka viac... v tomto mi prišiel Simeckov prístup v Obnovení poriadku lepší (aj keď sám priznával, že povodne bol jeho zamer napísať to ešte čerstvo po 68om).
Počkať si na odstup môže byt niekedy naozaj lepšie riešenie, aj keď človek príde o možnosť vyjadrit sa k aktuálnej téme, ktorá zrejme čitateľov priláka viac... v tomto mi prišiel Simeckov prístup v Obnovení poriadku lepší (aj keď sám priznával, že povodne bol jeho zamer napísať to ešte čerstvo po 68om).
Read
January 21, 2022The essay was written in March-April 2020, and thus it was strange to read it in 2022, with the pandemic still very much ongoing. It brought a surreal feeling of digging into ancient history and, naturally, it has aged in a - sometimes - sad way. However, various other insights, observations and curious tidbits of information included in the book do hold their position well.
(It particularly stung to stumble upon the reference to the exceptionally low cases of infections in Bulgaria during the first COVID-19 wave on the same day the country was mentioned in the Guardian due to the record level of new infections it just recorded.)
One quote of a quote that stuck with me:
Contemplating the possible changes that COVID-19 might inspire, I was reminded of a line from Stephen Leacock's Nonsense Novels: 'Lord Ronald said nothing; he flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.'
(It particularly stung to stumble upon the reference to the exceptionally low cases of infections in Bulgaria during the first COVID-19 wave on the same day the country was mentioned in the Guardian due to the record level of new infections it just recorded.)
One quote of a quote that stuck with me:
Contemplating the possible changes that COVID-19 might inspire, I was reminded of a line from Stephen Leacock's Nonsense Novels: 'Lord Ronald said nothing; he flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.'
March 27, 2023
Is It Tomorrow Yet - Paradoxes of the Pandemic
by
Ivan Krastev
In writing this book during the beginning of the pandemic, Krastev asks himself, and by extension the reader, in what direction the world might be heading. He wonders how the world would differ after its emergence from the pandemic.
Covid-19 disrupted many aspects of life that many of us may had previously taken for granted, like supply chains, our right to privacy and the freedom of movement.
The pandemic is now over, but future pandemics are heading our way, as experts predict. Covid-19 has created uncomfortable precedents in our lifetime that may facilitate a slow but steady move from a surveillance state into a full blown authoritarian regime. Alternatively, this collective experience may lead the public to be more skeptical and wary of overreaching policies that are legitimized by a state of emergency.
What a thought provoking piece. Definitely interesting to read a prospective analysis in hindsight.
by
Ivan Krastev
In writing this book during the beginning of the pandemic, Krastev asks himself, and by extension the reader, in what direction the world might be heading. He wonders how the world would differ after its emergence from the pandemic.
Covid-19 disrupted many aspects of life that many of us may had previously taken for granted, like supply chains, our right to privacy and the freedom of movement.
The pandemic is now over, but future pandemics are heading our way, as experts predict. Covid-19 has created uncomfortable precedents in our lifetime that may facilitate a slow but steady move from a surveillance state into a full blown authoritarian regime. Alternatively, this collective experience may lead the public to be more skeptical and wary of overreaching policies that are legitimized by a state of emergency.
What a thought provoking piece. Definitely interesting to read a prospective analysis in hindsight.
February 21, 2021
It's hard to say this a full year into the mess of this pandemic... but this book feels premature. Krastev asks good questions about the world's reactions to COVID-19 and the possibilities for change in the future, but they're all essentially unanswerable now, never mind whenever it was in the fall that he wrote this essay.
Krastev does bring up a thought that was new to me at least: for all the concern that COVID would be a bonanza of power for the authoritarians around the world, it has been far more harmful than helpful to them. Krastev wisely speculates that authoritarians do well with trumped-up crises that they can declare victory over with impunity, and that a real crisis exposes them as the frauds they are. Looking at the events that have followed his writing... it looks like he had an excellent point.
Krastev does bring up a thought that was new to me at least: for all the concern that COVID would be a bonanza of power for the authoritarians around the world, it has been far more harmful than helpful to them. Krastev wisely speculates that authoritarians do well with trumped-up crises that they can declare victory over with impunity, and that a real crisis exposes them as the frauds they are. Looking at the events that have followed his writing... it looks like he had an excellent point.
July 9, 2021
EUROPEAN UNION DEMOCRACY REACTION TO COVID-19
Personally I have purchased this book to see if there are
and new relevant information.
Because we stay up to date with cutting-edge information
in real time we symbiotic look for new data.
The usual rant here about the European Union will fall apart.
But it won’t it’s the largest most diverse economic region in
the World with 27 countries and 24 languages and the most
democratic large trading block.
Resources War we know our competitors against our Euro
currency USA, dollar, China, yuan, Russia , Rouble. India, Rupee
But despite our differences and being democratic we
will unite together to when outsiders attack our borders
economically and physically.
Personally I have purchased this book to see if there are
and new relevant information.
Because we stay up to date with cutting-edge information
in real time we symbiotic look for new data.
The usual rant here about the European Union will fall apart.
But it won’t it’s the largest most diverse economic region in
the World with 27 countries and 24 languages and the most
democratic large trading block.
Resources War we know our competitors against our Euro
currency USA, dollar, China, yuan, Russia , Rouble. India, Rupee
But despite our differences and being democratic we
will unite together to when outsiders attack our borders
economically and physically.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews