31 March 2008

Kekerasan? Keras-Kerasan? Kerasan?

Kekerasan itu bisa ditafsir terlalu keras. Iya kah? Tapi ia sudah menjadi idiom umum aktivis masyarakat sipil di Indonesia sebagai padanan kata dari Bahasa Inggeris, violence. Tapi jadi berbeda ketika mendengar, "Eh, suaraku kekerasan ya?" Coba... Rumit juga.

Sering saya berpikir, apakah kekerasan versi para aktivis itu adalah sebuah kata tersendiri, atau ia kata berimbuhan dan berakhiran? Jika ia adalah sebuah kata dengan makna violence (Bahasa Inggeris), jelas ia tidak dibentuk oleh kata dasar keras. Tetapi jika ia adalah yang kedua, maka kedudukannya lebih kurang sama dengan kemalaman atau kelaparan dan sebagainya.

"Tindak kekerasan yang dilakukan aparat kepolisian..." Begitu saya baca kepala berita di sebuah koran harian Jakarta. Hmm, apakah itu bermakna bahwa aparat bertindak terlalu keras, atau aparat kepolisian telah melakukan tindak kekerasan (act of violence)? Bisa jadi kedua-duanya adalah tafsir kalimat tersebut. Hehehe...

Bagaimana dengan keras-kerasan? Ah itu jelas hal berbeda. Keras-kerasan bolehjadi setara dengan kuat-kuatan atau lapar-laparan, yang menggambarkan situasi persaingan. Eh, mana ada orang bersaing adu lapar? Bolehjadi ada. Namanya juga Indonesia. Negeri serba mungkin...

"Pasangan muda di apartemen no 1807 itu bertengkar hebat. Juga pasangan tak menikah di sebelahnya. Kedua pasangan itu keras-kerasan bertengkar. Heboh betul...."

Intinya kekerasan (untuk makna yang mana pun) dan keras-kerasan menggambarkan sesuatu yang keras.

Namun, bagaimana dengan kerasan? Ia bisa punya dua tafsir. Kerasan sebagai serapan kata asal Bahasa Jawa, yang artinya betah (halaah ini juga serapan dari Bahasa Jawa, gimana nih?), dan yang kedua sebagai ungkapan dari Bahasa Betawi atau bahasa pergaulan di kota-kota Jabodetabek (the Greater Jakarta), yang kerap digunakan untuk meminta supaya lebih keras lagi.

"Kerasan dong pukulannya.... Capek nih mungut bola di depan net terus-terusan...." Keluh Lim Swi Kee, pemain tangkis bulu, kepada Tauke Hidayat.

Tapi ia jadi berbeda kalau memperhatikan, "Bagaimana, kerasan tinggal di gubuk kami yang AC-nya cuma 1/2 PK ini?"

Hebatnya, saya jarang mendapati orang salah paham. Hebat juga ya. Atau saya saja yang kurang kerjaan memikirkan hal-hal yang seharusnya tidak perlu dipikirkan (taken for granted)?

30 Maret 2008

28 March 2008

Riots, Terrorism etc

John Lanchester

Book Reviewed: Flat Earth News by Nick Davies

Original URL

‘Important’ is a cant word in book reviewing: it usually means something like ‘slightly above average’, or ‘I was at university with her,’ or ‘I couldn’t be bothered to read it so I’m giving a quote instead.’ Very occasionally it might be stretched to mean ‘a book likely to be referred to in the future by other people who write about the same subject’. Nick Davies’s Flat Earth News, however, is a genuinely important book, one which is likely to change, permanently, the way anyone who reads it looks at the British newspaper industry. Davies’s book explains something easy to notice and complain about but hard to understand: the sense of the increasing thinness and attenuation of the British press. It’s not literal thinness: the papers, physically, are bigger than ever. There just seems to be less in them than there once was: less news, less thought (as opposed to opinion), less density of engagement, less time spent finding things out. Davies looks into all those questions, confirms that the impression of thinness is correct, explains how this came about, and offers no hope that things will improve.

His book starts at the point at which he got interested in the story of what he calls ‘flat earth news’: ‘A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true – even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda.’ That’s flat earth news, and Davies became interested in the phenomenon, via the story of the millennium bug. How on earth did so many papers get sucked into producing so many millions of words of, it turns out, total nonsense about the impending implosion of all government, all commerce, all human activity, by the catastrophe which was going to be caused by the bug? ‘National Health Service patients could die’ (Telegraph); ‘Banks could collapse’ (Guardian); ‘Riots, terrorism and a health crisis’ (Sunday Mirror); ‘Pensions contributions could be wiped out’ (Independent); ‘Nato alert over Russian missile millennium bug’ (Times). The British government spent a figure variously reported as £396 million, £430 million and £788 million. And then, on the big night, a tide gauge failed in Portsmouth harbour. That was pretty much it. Countries which had spent next to nothing – Russia, for instance, whose government of 140 million citizens spent less on the bug than British Airways – had no problems.

There are several ways of looking at this story, which has some of the aspects of a panic and some of those of a hoax or job-creation scheme.[*] Davies chooses to focus on the fact that of the millions of words written about the bug, all of them were written by journalists who had no idea whether what they were writing was true. They simply didn’t know. Flat Earth News makes a great deal of this. The most basic function of journalism, in Davies’s view, is to check facts. Journalists don’t just pass on what they’re told without making an effort to check it first. At least, in theory they don’t. In practice, contemporary journalism has been corrupted by an endemic failure to verify facts and stories in a manner so fundamental that it almost defies belief. The consequences of that are pervasive and systemic.

Nick Davies is an unusual figure in British journalism, mainly because he has persisted in holding the admirable belief that reporting is the central task of the trade. Journalists report much less than they used to, and much less than they should, as the papers have switched over to a reliance on columnists and opinion. Back in the day, an ambitious young toad going into journalism would have seen All the President’s Men once too often, and would dream of bringing down governments with a single scoop. Good luck to them. Davies was like that. Today the equivalent ambitious young toad would dream of having a column with their picture at the top, as a precursor to a well-timed move to TV or politics or some other form of showbiz.

Davies, however, is still a believer in legwork and in getting the story first-hand. This led him to recruit researchers at Cardiff University’s school of journalism to quantify what was happening in the British press. The result is illuminating and grim. The team looked at a fortnight’s production from the posh papers and the Daily Mail, and analysed in the process 2207 UK news pieces. They focused on two things: the number of stories that were derived directly from press releases; and the number that were taken straight from the main British news agency, the Press Association. The results were amazing, and not in a good way.

They found that a massive 60 per cent of these quality-print stories consisted wholly or mainly of wire copy and/or PR material, and a further 20 per cent contained clear elements of wire copy and/or PR to which more or less other material had been added. With 8 per cent of the stories, they were unable to be sure about their source. That left only 12 per cent of stories where the researchers could say that all the material was generated by the reporters themselves. The highest quota proved to be in the Times, where 69 per cent of news stories were wholly or mainly wire copy and/or PR . . . The researchers went on to look at those stories which relied on a specific statement of fact and found that with a staggering 70 per cent of them, the claimed fact passed into print without any corroboration at all. Only 12 per cent of these stories showed evidence that the central statement had been thoroughly checked.

So only 12 per cent of what is in the papers consists of a story that a reporter has found out and pursued on her own initiative; and only 12 per cent of key facts are checked. The rest is all rewritten wire copy and PR. This remaining 88 per cent is, in Davies’s stinging coinage, ‘churnalism’. No wonder the papers feel a bit thin.

As for the wire copy, most of it comes from the Press Association:

When the queen wants to talk to the world, she gives a statement to the Press Association. When the poet laureate wants to publish a poem, he files it to the Press Association. Every government department, every major corporation, every police service and health trust and education authority delivers its official announcements to the Press Association. It is the primary conveyor belt along which information reaches national media in Britain.

The boffins in Cardiff found that 30 per cent of home news stories are direct rewrites of PA and other news agency copy; another 19 per cent are ‘largely reproduced’ from this copy; another 21 per cent ‘contained elements’ of it. That’s 70 per cent of news stories wholly or in part from wire copy. The general rule in journalism, increasingly honoured more in the breach than the observance, is that a story has to have two sources to be confirmed, but according to BBC guidelines, ‘the Press Association can be treated as a confirmed, single source.’ That practice is widespread.

As a result, it matters deeply what the PA actually does – and here Davies has more grimness to impart. The agency’s network of reporters is stretched increasingly thin, with, for instance, four reporters (including trainees) to cover the whole of Cardiff, South Wales and the Welsh Assembly. The staffers, according to one of them, write an average of ten stories in a single shift: ‘I don’t usually spend more than an hour on a story.’ The emphasis is on catching what people say accurately. As its editor, Jonathan Grun, puts it, ‘our role is attributable journalism – what someone has got to say. What is important is in quote marks.’ If the government says Saddam has WMD, that’s what the PA will report. Because the PA is the basis for such a huge proportion of what’s in the papers, and because its stories tend not to be checked, it is a highly effective way for PRs to plant stories across all the national media simultaneously. ‘It is infinitely preferable logistically to send it to the PA than to try and contact 150 journalists,’ one of Davies’s sources, a PR who works for one of the political parties, told him. ‘And we are rarely subjected to the sort of cross-examination that, say, the Sun or the Times would give us. PA does not do as much of the probing and difficult questions. They are journalists but to some extent they are an information service.’

So we have arrived at a place where ‘the heart of modern journalism’ has become ‘the rapid repackaging of largely unchecked second-hand material, much of it designed to service the political or commercial interests of those who provide it’. In the old days, at this point in the story, it would be time to Name the Guilty Men. They would once have been the evil proprietors, top-hatted cigar-smoking manipulators of public opinion. I don’t agree with the conspiracy theory of the proprietor press, nor does Davies: he thinks that it’s sheer commercial pressure that is to blame. It’s the pressure on costs – to produce more, cheaper copy – that is the ultimate culprit for the state of the modern press.

Flat Earth News breaks down the specific ways in which pressure is exerted on the practice of journalism, on a daily basis. Stories need to be cheap, meaning ‘quick to cover’, ‘safe to publish’; they need to ‘select safe facts’ preferably from official sources; they need to ‘avoid the electric fence’, sources of guaranteed trouble such as the libel laws and the Israel lobby; to be based on ‘safe ideas’ and contradict no loved prevailing wisdoms; to avoid complicated or context-rich problems; and always to ‘give both sides of the story’ (‘balance means never having to say you’re sorry – because you haven’t said anything’). And conversely, there are active pressures to pursue stories that tell people what they want to hear, to give them lots of celebrity and TV-based coverage, and to subscribe to every moral panic. That’s the effect on the texture of journalism, the culture of the newsroom. Of course, the pressure on costs has other, simpler effects too. There is more space to fill – in the British papers, three times as much – but no equivalent expansion of the resources to do the work. Elsewhere, the pressure on resources is just as bad. In 1970, CBS had three full-time correspondents in Rome alone: by 2006, the entire US media, print and broadcast, was supporting only 141 foreign correspondents to cover the whole world.

As the pressures on journalism have increased, so the PR industry has come along with what appears to be a solution. Want news? We’ll give it to you. Britain now has 47,800 PR people to 45,000 journalists. It isn’t the case that PRs just beg for coverage for their clients: they’re much more cunning than that. Once one grows alert to the question, you can see PR influence almost everywhere in the press. The greatly missed Auberon Waugh used to say that behind any claim in any way interesting, striking or surprising in the news, there was either someone demanding more government money or a press release. That is truer than ever, only these days the press release will announce the result of a survey (a favourite PR tactic) or a ‘release’ statement from a phoney pressure group, such as one of the many set up to create uncertainty over the question of climate change. These pressure groups are known as ‘astroturf’ in the PR industry, because their grass-roots are fake, but that doesn’t stop their statements and surveys from getting on the news.

PR is not exactly the villain of the piece, but Davies is persuasive about its all-pervading nature in modern journalism, and also about the increasing sophistication of its techniques. He cites the way the ‘NatWest Three’, the British bankers involved in the Enron frauds, managed to have themselves depicted as victims of the American legal system, with businessmen, civil rights pressure groups and MPs all campaigning on their behalf, when, in truth, they were total crooks. There are plenty of other examples in Flat Earth News. Davies, informed by his knowledge of PR, even has a fresh angle on Alastair Campbell and the Kelly affair. In his account, ‘Campbell used it as a decoy to distract attention from a highly embarrassing story, which was emerging slowly in May and June 2003, that the long-debated Iraqi weapons of mass destruction did not exist.’ Four weeks after the broadcast of Andrew Gilligan’s Today story, Campbell had not asked for an apology for it specifically, had not referred it to the BBC complaints department, and had not mentioned it at lunch with Gilligan’s boss, Richard Sambrook. But he then made ‘three key moves’: on 25 June he denounced Gilligan’s story to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs (‘Until the BBC acknowledges that is a lie, I will keep banging on’); on 26 June he wrote to Sambrook demanding a reply that same day, and released his own letter to the press; on 27 June he more or less invited himself onto Channel Four News to attack the BBC, live. Davies observes: ‘This move finally established the decoy story as the main media line. The original questions about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were shunted into the sidings. Several political reporters wrote at the time that this looked like a diversionary tactic. Nonetheless, all of them agreed to be diverted. PR works.’ This explains what Campbell meant, as recorded in his diary for 25 June: ‘Flank opened on the BBC.’

Davies adds a few chapters of detail on the ways in which the papers have gone astray: the industry-wide use of bent private detectives, the culture of error at the Daily Mail, the ease with which the government co-opted the Observer to make the case for war in Iraq. These chapters aren’t really necessary for the central thrust of the book, even though Davies’s specifics are uncheering. For instance, in Britain only the rich can sue for libel; everyone else has to seek remedy via the Press Complaints Commission, set up by the industry to regulate itself. But the PCC rejects 90.2 per cent of all complaints on technical grounds without investigation. Of the 28,227 complaints received by the commission over ten years, 197 were upheld by a PCC adjudication: 0.69 per cent. The one or two points at which Davies disses fellow investigative journalists have a strangely ad hominem feel; there are moments when it seems old grudges are playing a role. This has in turn led to something of a backlash in early reviews of Flat Earth News, including a bizarrely hostile (as opposed to merely negative) review by Peter Preston, editor of the Guardian, Davies’s paper, from 1975 to 1995. Preston had a number of harsh things to say about ‘Saint Nick’, one of which had some traction: that he exaggerates the extent to which there was once a golden age of the British press. True. But all these details are less shocking than the more general data about the broad trend towards churnalism.

So this is Davies’s ultra-bleak portrait. The British news media are crushed by commercial pressure, squeezed by the need for speed, corrupted by PR, indifferent to their own best traditions of independence, recklessly indifferent to the central functions of reporting and checking facts, systematically lied to by commercial interests and governments, and in far too many respects, simply indifferent to the truth. There is a growing, industry-wide failure to be sufficiently interested in reality. I would add a couple of details to the indictment, to do with the way in which the papers have succumbed to their own internal celebrity culture of columnists, most of whom make no attempt to report on the world, in favour of sermonising about it. I would also add – borrowing a point from a journalist I spoke to, who was in depressed and reluctant agreement with Flat Earth News – that the collapse in news leads to a huge knock-on in the rest of the papers. Most columns and features are hung on a news-related peg, so if the news isn’t fulfilling its basic function to report and to check, then nor is anything else. Davies doesn’t mention that, but it doesn’t matter much, since his portrait of the British media could scarcely be any darker, or more convincing. His conclusion is in the same key as the rest of the book. ‘I’m afraid that I think the truth is that, in trying to expose the weakness of the media, I am taking a snapshot of a cancer. Maybe it helps a little to be able to see the illness. At least that way we might know in theory what the cure might be. But I fear the illness is terminal.’

Note

*As a nerd, I feel a duty to point out that computers do sometimes have these problems. Nasa has never had a space shuttle in the air at the end of a year, over the transition from 31 December to 1 January, precisely because it’s not confident about the onboard software coping with the switch. (Nasa’s annual budget is $16 billion.) The truth, according to Davies, seems to be that the bug, while theoretically a problem, would only occur in computers which fitted all the following conditions: they a. had internal clocks (most big, ‘embedded’ systems don’t), b. had clocks which calculated time using an internal calendar, rather than just by measuring the gap between dates, c. used two rather than four digits to calculate the date and d. were in use by programmes which were calculating dates across that boundary. The number of computers that ticked all those boxes turned out to be vanishingly small.

John Lanchester is a contributing editor at the LRB. His latest book is Family Romance, a memoir.

27 March 2008

Housmans - Radical booksellers since 1945

Housmans specialises in books and periodicals of radical interest and progressive politics.

Our stock includes:

  • Wide coverage of politics, political theory, peace studies, and world current affairs.
  • Material about - and in support of - campaigns for peace, the environment, human rights, sexual freedom, equitable and sustainable development, and a great deal more.
  • General fiction and non-fiction.
  • Many hard-to-find radical publications - and we can obtain most books to order within a few days.

For more details of our range of stock, and of the services we offer, please see the Books and Booklists sections of this website, particularly the Special Offers. And please note that most sections of our radical book stock are supplemented by a large assortment of pamphlets.

Housmans publishes an annual Peace Diary, including a unique World Peace Directory. Copies sent direct from Housmans will be supplied post free to any address in the world.

The World Peace Directory, included in the Housmans Peace Diary each year, includes contact details of almost 2000 national and international peace, green, and human rights organisations around the world. (For more details of the full World Peace Database, from which the directory in the Peace Diary is taken, please contact the Housmans Peace Resource Project - e-mail worldpeace@gn.apc.org.)

And we have the largest range of radical newsletters, newspapers and magazines of any shop in Britain - with editions of well over 200 different titles regularly in stock (and many others irregularly). These publications represent a vast diversity of (and within!) peace campaigns, left movements and parties, civil rights groups, environmental organisations, sexual freedom campaigns, secularist groups, anarchist networks, third world campaigns, alternative lifestyle movements, anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist groups, solidarity campaigns ... and much else.

We produce a monthly Newsletter, if you would like it e-mailed to you please contact andy@housmans.com.

Our basement is home to Porcupine second-hand books - specialists in Philosophy, Politics, History and Psychology.

Besides housing London's oldest independent political bookshop, our historic building in Caledonian Road is also home to our sibling company, the pacifist monthly Peace News, along with War Resisters' International and other peace and radical organisations.

We have regular events in the shop - see the events page. For details of Anne Aylor's creative writing course please see www.anneaylor.co.uk

Orders can be placed on this website via paypal (if you have a credit, debit, or charge card). Also, if you can't come into the shop in person, we are happy to accept orders by post, phone, fax, or e-mail (orders@housmans.com). See the Books page for details.

Volunteers: Housmans welcomes intelligent, reliable and enthusiastic volunteers with relevant skills, to help in its work. Which skills are "relevant" changes over time, but we can often use fairly routine help in and around the shop itself, or on bookstalls at events; we sometimes need technical computer skills, or help with the production of publications. In return there are occasional perks, and the chance to improve your own skills and experience - not to mention the satisfaction of supporting the last major non-sectarian radical bookshop in London.

We are open Monday to Friday 10am to 6.30pm, Saturday 10am to 6pm, and closed on Sunday. We sometimes have extra opening hours for special events - or just because we are able to - so ring us to check if you ever want to visit after our "official" closing time.

Please note that we welcome donations to support the work of Housmans. Trying to promote and supply peace movement and other varieties of radical literature is not the most commercially viable activity - and that's even without taking into account the notoriously unfair competition that all small independent shops face from the major high street bookshop chains. To support our work, you can click below and use your credit/debit/charge card, or you can send us a cheque made payable to Housmans. We also welcome donations of any of your unwanted books - we can often find them a home with a new generation of activists (and raise a little money for the shop at the same time).


 

Please visit us if you can - we're at 5 Caledonian Road, Kings Cross, London N1 (tel 020-7837 4473). The shop is within one block of 6 of the 12 London Underground lines (Kings Cross / St Pancras station).

26 March 2008

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories and Motivations by David E. Lowes
Zed Books, London, 2006
Pages: X+310. £16.99

Reviewed By: Yves Laberge

People and groups that oppose capitalism often contest other issues and principles like deregulation, the military-industrial complex, consumerism and corporate-lobby groups. These terms and almost 200 others are all commented upon and defined here. This Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is an original and rigorous reference book, containing useful definitions and accurate cross-references on alternative movements ('New Left', 'Non-Governmental Organizations', 'Students') and political and philosophical concepts ('Ideology', 'Utopia', 'Value'). Each entry is about two pages long and the focus is more about debates and issues than persons. Therefore there is no specific entry for director Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, for example, although they are mentioned in the appropriate places.

The main strength of the volume is that it always gives the arguments from both sides of a debate, and explains why some people protest about issues that, for many, should not be challenged. For instance: why do some critics oppose the strict protection of intellectual property? (p. 126); what are the real consequences of the cancellation of debt for poor countries? (p. 129); or who critiques the United Nations and for which reasons? (p. 264).

Another useful dimension is the inclusion of concepts that cannot always be found in common reference books (e.g. 'biopiracy'; 'genetic engineering'); and we are given a straightforward definition of 'Neo-Liberalism', that 'is promoted as orthodoxy by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization' (p. 170). Most definitions give the origins of an idea. For instance, the entry on 'Hegemony' reminds us that the term was first used about Bolsheviks by Georgi Plekhanov in 1905, and some twenty years later by Antonio Gramsci (p. 117). Not surprisingly, dozens of entries are related to environmental issues: 'Biodiversity' (p. 20), 'Deep Ecology' (p. 61), 'Global Warming' (p. 106), 'Kyoto Protocol' (p. 140), 'Sustainable Development' (p. 236), etc.

I would have liked an entry on anti-Americanism, movies and documentaries (the entry on media focuses on newspapers, conglomerates and the power of networks), but as with all good dictionaries, one does not seem to get enough! There is no mention of advocacy, but that topic is covered in the entry on 'Direct Action' (p. 73). Lowes' Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is the perfect complement (or prerequisite reading) to the Encyclopedia of Capitalism edited by Syed Hussein (NewYork, Facts on File, 2004), and both are essential for libraries. Both undergraduates and scholars will benefit from this excellent book - one always needs to get accurate definitions and clear arguments for every current issue.

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories and Motivations

By Yves Laberge

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories and Motivations by David E. Lowes
Zed Books, London, 2006
Pages: X+310. £16.99

People and groups that oppose capitalism often contest other issues and principles like deregulation, the military-industrial complex, consumerism and corporate-lobby groups. These terms and almost 200 others are all commented upon and defined here. This Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is an original and rigorous reference book, containing useful definitions and accurate cross-references on alternative movements ('New Left', 'Non-Governmental Organizations', 'Students') and political and philosophical concepts ('Ideology', 'Utopia', 'Value'). Each entry is about two pages long and the focus is more about debates and issues than persons. Therefore there is no specific entry for director Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, for example, although they are mentioned in the appropriate places.

The main strength of the volume is that it always gives the arguments from both sides of a debate, and explains why some people protest about issues that, for many, should not be challenged. For instance: why do some critics oppose the strict protection of intellectual property? (p. 126); what are the real consequences of the cancellation of debt for poor countries? (p. 129); or who critiques the United Nations and for which reasons? (p. 264).

Another useful dimension is the inclusion of concepts that cannot always be found in common reference books (e.g. 'biopiracy'; 'genetic engineering'); and we are given a straightforward definition of 'Neo-Liberalism', that 'is promoted as orthodoxy by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization' (p. 170). Most definitions give the origins of an idea. For instance, the entry on 'Hegemony' reminds us that the term was first used about Bolsheviks by Georgi Plekhanov in 1905, and some twenty years later by Antonio Gramsci (p. 117). Not surprisingly, dozens of entries are related to environmental issues: 'Biodiversity' (p. 20), 'Deep Ecology' (p. 61), 'Global Warming' (p. 106), 'Kyoto Protocol' (p. 140), 'Sustainable Development' (p. 236), etc.

I would have liked an entry on anti-Americanism, movies and documentaries (the entry on media focuses on newspapers, conglomerates and the power of networks), but as with all good dictionaries, one does not seem to get enough! There is no mention of advocacy, but that topic is covered in the entry on 'Direct Action' (p. 73). Lowes' Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is the perfect complement (or prerequisite reading) to the Encyclopedia of Capitalism edited by Syed Hussein (NewYork, Facts on File, 2004), and both are essential for libraries. Both undergraduates and scholars will benefit from this excellent book - one always needs to get accurate definitions and clear arguments for every current issue.