Essential Political Reading

[Smokey D]

I heard the largest consumers of Mein Kampf were various Israeli Holocaust memorial groups that pretty much soak up demand to prevent its normal distribution.

This has nothing to do with the point. Carry on.

[Mr. Ron]

thats retarded.

[Cesar21]

Besides the books listed in the beggining of this thread, I found that literature like novels and stories are a great source of information about the world. Literature from the Illustration period both popular and sophisticated (sorry but missing a better word) give excellent views of the mind, ideas, cultural and social visions of the time. That is just one of the many examples.

[Smokey D]

Woah, I just noticed Immanuel Wallenstine wasn't on the list.

[Iskandar]

Whom?

[MagnusMaxwell]

I own and have read every book in that list. Most of them are crap.

[Iskandar]

Every single book? Including, for example, Paul Burkett - Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective?

[MagnusMaxwell]

Oh, I missed those sections. Correction, I own and have read everything in this list excluding the books listed under 'Feminism', 'Environmentalism' and 'Queer Theory'.

[Iskandar]

And the swastika flag?

[Mr. Ron]

did you enjoy Mein Kampf?

[MagnusMaxwell]

I made it in MS paint, what about it?

Mein Kampf is hardly legible, and makes Hitler sound like a pussy.

[Iskandar]

It's not usual to sport a swastika flag avatar 'round these parts.

[pedro durruti]

What the **** are you a nihilist

[MagnusMaxwell]

It's also not usual to sport an avatar that depicts Harrison Ford always looking at me like I'm hot stuff.

Nihilist? **** no, what makes you say that?

[Mr. Ron]

It's also not usual to sport an avatar that depicts Harrison Ford always looking at me like I'm hot stuff.

Nihilist? **** no, what makes you say that?

Nah I was just wondering if you were some sort of nazi or something? I don't give a **** if you are I'm just curious.

[pedro durruti]

You feel like one

[The Stig]

Gustave Le Bon - The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind should be added.

[MagnusMaxwell]

No, I'd describe myself as an asshole.

[pedro durruti]

Same thing.

[Mr. Ron]

oh well there's a few here, welcome

[The Stig]

I guess the topic is no longer political reading.

[MagnusMaxwell]

Same thing.

I specifically object to Nihilism. Being an asshole refers specifically to asking people's permission to act in opposition to their expectations on the basis of a particular contradictory idea of ethics, that's what I am, and also a drunken elitist, and that works for me. Nihilism on the other hand is completely retarded, because it assumes the same bullshit premise that Christianity does, that ethics come from a superhuman authority. While in reality, moral principles are specifically defined by the balancing of intelligent interests in any given situation. There is no natural law, the laws of ethics are incontrivertable, but not because a superhuman authority creates them. On the contrary, because human authority creates them.

[MagnusMaxwell]

I guess the topic is no longer political reading.

Uh, 'Economics' by Samuelson.

[pedro durruti]

Being an asshole refers specifically to asking people's permission to act in opposition to their expectations on the basis of a particular contradictory idea of ethics
Tehehe. It does?

[Smokey D]

Whom?

World systems guy. It'd be right up your alley I suspect. I'm writing an essay on dependence theory at the mo, so he comes up a bit.

I own and have read every book in that list. Most of them are crap.

I can't tell if your a troll or not.

[MagnusMaxwell]

I can't tell if your a troll or not.

No I really just have that opinion. Even the people who state ideas that are correct don't state them correctly. Milton Friedman for example who was a large proponent of Lasseiz-faire economics and was critical of Keynes, but still presented ideas that were technically part of Keynesian economics.

[MagnusMaxwell]

oh yeah, 'The Adams-Jefferson Letters', a compilation of correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

[Reaganista]

I specifically object to Nihilism. Being an asshole refers specifically to asking people's permission to act in opposition to their expectations on the basis of a particular contradictory idea of ethics, that's what I am, and also a drunken elitist, and that works for me. Nihilism on the other hand is completely retarded, because it assumes the same bullshit premise that Christianity does, that ethics come from a superhuman authority. While in reality, moral principles are specifically defined by the balancing of intelligent interests in any given situation. There is no natural law, the laws of ethics are incontrivertable, but not because a superhuman authority creates them. On the contrary, because human authority creates them.
No I really just have that opinion. Even the people who state ideas that are correct don't state them correctly. Milton Friedman for example who was a large proponent of Lasseiz-faire economics and was critical of Keynes, but still presented ideas that were technically part of Keynesian economics.
oh yeah, 'The Adams-Jefferson Letters', a compilation of correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

shut the **** up

[Mr. Ron]

<3333

[MagnusMaxwell]

Well that was clever. You should be a Nobel laureate in the subject of literature.

[Iskandar]

World systems guy. It'd be right up your alley I suspect. I'm writing an essay on dependence theory at the mo, so he comes up a bit.Ooh, dependency theory.

[croniun]

Nihilism assumes that ethics come from a superhuman authority.

.............what?

[Der Übermensch]

shut the **** up

I have never been more in agreement :)


By anyways, I wanna add Machiavelli's Discourses on Titus Livy.

[monkeysonmars.]

Woah, I just noticed Immanuel Wallenstine wasn't on the list.

yeah please sort out international relations, Kenneth Waltz for god's sake.

[totah]

I specifically object to Nihilism. Being an asshole refers specifically to asking people's permission to act in opposition to their expectations on the basis of a particular contradictory idea of ethics, that's what I am, and also a drunken elitist, and that works for me. Nihilism on the other hand is completely retarded, because it assumes the same bullshit premise that Christianity does, that ethics come from a superhuman authority. While in reality, moral principles are specifically defined by the balancing of intelligent interests in any given situation. There is no natural law, the laws of ethics are incontrivertable, but not because a superhuman authority creates them. On the contrary, because human authority creates them.

Ya Allah, that's moronic.

Surely the point of being an arsehole is that you don't ask for permission but simply act. And if people are expecting you to take opposition then you are not an arsehole? Does that mean the only way you can be an arsehole to someone who expects you to be an arsehole is by agreeing with her? This should go down in some comic novel. It's a funny idea.

As for Nihilism: Nihilism is the logical conclusion to scientific practice. Nihilism states that nothing is true unless it is constantly tested. A nihilist is one who takes no principle as granted truth. A nihilist is a model scientist.

For reading, see Ivan Turgenev's Fathers And Sons.

[Vessel of Abaddon]

The Necronomicon
Black Magic by Waite
The keys of Solomon

[classwar]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/platform/index.htm

[cobert]

Somebody fix the links in the first post.

Also, add both The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin and The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.

[totah]

Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology: http://rapidshare.com/files/104372520/Robert_Anton_Wilson_-_Quantum_Psychology.pdf.html

I haven't read it yet, but the introduction is quite promising.

[pooble]

how about 'Walden: Or Life in the Woods' by Henry David Thoreau

[pedro durruti]

Why? I haven't read that but isn't it like creative non fiction, poetry and philosophy?

[pooble]

its got aspects of political philosophy, social commentary, history, economy, and much more.. its definitely political, and i think its by all standards essential.

[Der Übermensch]

If your going to do Thoreau, Civil Disobedience would be the choice for political reading. Walden is just proto-environmentalism.

[pooble]

woah man, walden is definitly not just proto-environmentalism. he talks about a whole slew of social topics, ranging from how one should live, how to get along with other people, social problems, promoting individualism and other things. you've read it right?

i have not read civil disobedience yet which is why i didnt put it up, although i actually bought it today.

[alseeger]

hey guys just want to introduce myself. don't know all that much about politics but here to learn.

[Volumnius Flush]

Don't forget Compassionate Conservatism by Marvin Olasky.

[goergiajukebox]

I think Atlas Shrugged should be including in any reading list. I think it would compliment what you guys are talking about

[pedro durruti]

that book is like seven HUNDRED PAges

anyone know the best book by freud.. or on freud? perhaps something with up to date psychological views, none of that oedipal complex

[1338 h4x0r]

Ayn Rand was a terrible author who lived at the expense of a number of people over the course of her life—a hypocrite and a terrible author

[Invicta_Veritas]

Does anyone know of a publication that has a good collection of Sophist philosophy, or is about the Sophists?

[Reaganista]

i read the republic and the sophists lose

[invertchrist]

Ayn Rand was a terrible author who lived at the expense of a number of people over the course of her life—a hypocrite and a terrible author

Not to mention an inferior thinker. The little "Ayn Rand" supporters like to feel superior to those around them, but they usually scatter when you mention Hitler. ;)

[totah]

Essential political writers are Ben Elton and the guy who right Fight Club who has a funny name. But especially Ben Elton.

[StreetlightRock]

Chuck Pulhanick or something or rather is the guy who wrote Fight Club. He writes really... abrasively, hes got this aggressive style which i really don't like. Hes very good though, I just don't like it =/

[siva_chair]

*Chuck Palahniuk

I think he is great. He has very good literary ideas. Obviously his "facts" within his books are exaggerated or made up, but it makes for good clean twisted fiction.

[totah]

I only read this one book by him about this sex addict who works in one of those weird American museums where they reenact life in the 1600 of the pioneer settlers. It was good, all about how reality isn't a fact but a collection of different takes on what it is, so in actuality it doesn't exist at all. Good stuff, very true.

[siva_chair]

I only read this one book by him about this sex addict who works in one of those weird American museums where they reenact life in the 1600 of the pioneer settlers. It was good, all about how reality isn't a fact but a collection of different takes on what it is, so in actuality it doesn't exist at all. Good stuff, very true.

Choke.

They made it into a movie that is coming out soon with Sam Rockwell.

Just got done reading Rant. Another excellent one.

[Der Übermensch]

If we are getting into fiction now, I say Frederick Forsyth. He is like Tom Clancy if Tom Clancy actually had literary ability! He goes to exhaustive lengths to research his books, and it shows. For Dogs of War he supposedly went as far as actually planning and arranging logistical support for a mercenary group to overthrow a government...

[siva_chair]

If we are getting into fiction now, I say Frederick Forsyth. He is like Tom Clancy if Tom Clancy actually had literary ability! He goes to exhaustive lengths to research his books, and it shows. For Dogs of War he supposedly went as far as actually planning and arranging logistical support for a mercenary group to overthrow a government...

:thumb:

And of course there is his The Day of the Jackal.

[1338 h4x0r]

Aristophanes - The Wasps

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html

and commentary:

http://chss.montclair.edu/classics/WASPSNTS.HTML

A much easier read than the excruciatingly boring tragedies

[Der Übermensch]

:thumb:

And of course there is his The Day of the Jackal.

By far his best, and one of the best books ever.

[siva_chair]

By far his best, and one of the best books ever.

Yup, couldn't put the book down. Haven't read much of his other stuff, though.

[Mr. Ron]

I hear good things about said book. I'll see if I can find it in my next stop at borders.

[Der Übermensch]

Yup, couldn't put the book down. Haven't read much of his other stuff, though.

His short story collection, No Comebacks, was good too, although not all were his 'usual' theme.

ODESSA File was great. Also read Icon, which was just kinda 'meh', but it is more recent, so what do ya expect...

[siva_chair]

His short story collection, No Comebacks, was good too, although not all were his 'usual' theme.

ODESSA File was great. Also read Icon, which was just kinda 'meh', but it is more recent, so what do ya expect...

My problem is not that I don't want to read them, it's just I have a huge freakin list of books to read as it is....

[Der Übermensch]

yeah. I have a whole box of books in storage at school i plan on reading, plus shelves here at home.

[siva_chair]

yeah. I have a whole box of books in storage at school i plan on reading, plus shelves here at home.

Same. It is a seemingly never ending battle to keep up.

[Der Übermensch]

The backlog inevitably grows exponentially to the output I find :p

[siva_chair]

The backlog inevitably grows exponentially to the output I find :p

I know Borders and Barns and Noble is the debil! :evil:

To my wallet anyway...

[peeted]

If anyones intrested in getting a lot of the books listed in this thread in one volume try "classics of moral and political philosophy" edited by Michael l. Morgan. Far cheeper than buying them all individualy. here are the texts it includes:

Sophecles: Antigone
Plato: Euthyphro; Apology; Crito; Pheado death scene; republic.
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics; extracts from 'Politics'
Epicurus: Letter to Menoeceus; Principle Doctrines
Epictetus: Encheiridion
Augustine: extracts from 'City of God'
Aquinas: Extracts from 'On Kingship'; Extracts from Summa Theologica
Machiaveli: Letter to Francesco Vettori; The Prince; extracts from 'Discourses'
Hobbes: Leviathan (dedicatory, intro, pt 1-2, Review and conclusion)
Locke: Second treatise of govenment
Hume: Treatsie of human Nature
Rousseau: Discourse on the Origin of Inequality; On the Social Contract
Kant: Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals
Mill: On Liberty; Utilitarianism; The Subjection of Women
Marx: Alienated Labor; On the Jewish Question; Communist manifesto; Critique of the Gotha program
Nietzsche: On teh Genealogy of Morality
Weber: Politics as a Vocation

[jaredong]

Hello guys,

I would like to ask you guys if you could recommend me any books on the middle east, specifically dealing with the Israel and Palestine conflict. I do not have much knowledge of the issues surrounding it and would love to read more about it.

Something that introduces the whole thing and gives an account on how/when/why its happened. Maybe a history/political book?

Thanks in advance!

--- Jared

[Dave de Sylvia]

Thomas Friedman - From Beirut To Jerusalem

[jaredong]

Thank You very much. =)

Looks like a great book, gonna go borrow it sometime this week.

[Det_Nosnip]

Anyone who ever even pretends to know anything about Islam and the Middle East should read "No God But God" by Reza Aslan. Aslan delivers a very clear, accurate, and complete picture of Islamic history from a very non-biased, scholarly perspective.

[StreetlightRock]

Wicked cool, i'm doing one of my course on Islam this year, I've got like a 10 page recommended reading list, lol.

[MAthiAS]

Danish do you still have the same e-mail as in your profile? I just sent you an e-mail, hopefully you get it or this message, so let me know.

[okay]

Hello guys,

I would like to ask you guys if you could recommend me any books on the middle east, specifically dealing with the Israel and Palestine conflict. I do not have much knowledge of the issues surrounding it and would love to read more about it.

Something that introduces the whole thing and gives an account on how/when/why its happened. Maybe a history/political book?

Thanks in advance!

--- Jared


A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent Resistance
by Mary Elizabeth King
http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Revolution-Palestinian-Nonviolent-Resistance/dp/1560258020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220824675&sr=8-1
I just stumbled across this the other night, I don't really remember how, but it caught my eye. I haven't heard anything about it, so I'm not sure if it's good, but as soon as I finish this Zinn book I'm reading, I'm running out to the library to get this one.

[tyrocks00]

thank you for this! i majored in political science in college so im always looking for places to read up on political views

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Ayn Rand, nuff said.

[Iskandar]

Oh god. Not another Randroid.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Randroid?

I'm not totally crazy about her, but it's what I'm currently working on.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Ann Coulter ~ Godless

[Reductio]

Julius Evola for fascism.

[siva_chair]

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David Levine.

[mph4ever]

the war for civilisation - robert fisk

[siva_chair]

Saw that in the bookstore just yesterday.

[Iskandar]

If you guys want me to add these to the list, you'll have to provide the category they are most appropriate for. I'd be glad to do it but I haven't read all these books.

[siva_chair]

The one I mentioned would probably best go under political economy, I think.

I would also like to see Mises' Human Action under that category as well (gotta balance out Keynes).

Also, can you put Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty under Anarchism?

[mph4ever]

Saw that in the bookstore just yesterday.


from afghanistan all the way through to present day more or less it. the only reason he is not dead yet is the unbiased nature of his writings. the meetings with bin laden are pure gold

[Iskandar]

The one I mentioned would probably best go under political economy, I think.You mean Against Intellectual Monopoly? It sounds more specific than that.

[StreetlightRock]

i Would Also Like To See Mises' Human Action Under That Category As Well (gotta Balance Out Keynes).

This.

[Iskandar]

K, I added that, as well as Capitalism and Freedom. Just for you.

If no one objects I'm just going to remove the links because a) none of them work and b) anyone who's that interested can just search for them with Google.

[mph4ever]

K, I added that, as well as Capitalism and Freedom. Just for you.

If no one objects I'm just going to remove the links because a) none of them work and b) anyone who's that interested can just search for them with Google.

is it not the job of the moderator to maintain the links?

[siva_chair]

You mean Against Intellectual Monopoly? It sounds more specific than that.

Well it deals with patents and copyrights and how they effect the economy. Unless you have a better suggestion, that is where I think it categorically fits best. :confused:

K, I added that, as well as Capitalism and Freedom. Just for you.

If no one objects I'm just going to remove the links because a) none of them work and b) anyone who's that interested can just search for them with Google.

No objections. The links make it look disorganized and unsightly anyhow.

[Iskandar]

Well it deals with patents and copyrights and how they effect the economy. Unless you have a better suggestion, that is where I think it categorically fits best. :confused:Do you absolutely need to have it included? I want to give all viewpoints a fair representation but the list is very long already and it's just supposed to be preliminary reading.
is it not the job of the moderator to maintain the links?If they don't work it's not my fault. Like I said, we don't really need them.

[mph4ever]

If they don't work it's not my fault. Like I said, we don't really need them.
k, k, keep your hair on. just thought if you had a bit of spare time then a bit of admin wouldn't go astray, give you something to do, know what i mean?

[Iskandar]

k, k, keep your hair on. just thought if you had a bit of spare time then a bit of admin wouldn't go astray, give you something to do, know what i mean?Well, too late now.

I waste enough time on here as it is.

[mph4ever]

I waste enough time on here as it is.

truth

[Iskandar]

Don't we all?

[siva_chair]

Do you absolutely need to have it included? I want to give all viewpoints a fair representation but the list is very long already and it's just supposed to be preliminary reading.

Well I think the issue of patents and copyrights are very important to economics and politics.

It serves as great preliminary reading on that particular subject, but I didn't figure you wanted to make a whole new category for it. But whatever you want you are the king or whatever.

[mph4ever]

Don't we all?

i'd like to think we are giving a lesson on how not to post to all those lurkers out there getting ready to make the plunge and confuse things further

[StreetlightRock]

That Post-Modernism section is rubbish btw.

Seriously.

WAyyy better suggestions:

Michael Foucault - The Archaeology of Knowledge
Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation
Jacques Derrida - Of Grammatology
Hayden White - Metahistory
Frederic Jameson - Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic Of Late Capitalism

Also list is in desperate need of Sarte's Being and Nothingness, it's only like THE existentialist bible.

[siva_chair]

I dunno existentialism is pretty multifaceted. That is a pretty bold claim (though not necessarily incorrect).

In terms of existentialism, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Kafka also need to have a place for sure.

Also, David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom to the Anarchist section, please.

[Iskandar]

Much as I like Dostoyevsky and Kafka, fiction doesn't really have a place on this list unless it's explicitly political. We don't include philosophy or religious works either for that reason.

[siva_chair]

Umm but there is a category for Post-modernism....

Dostoyevsky's work, for example, contains valuable social commentary. Just as valuable as many of those in the Feminism/Environmental/etc categories....

[Iskandar]

Oh, you hate feminism and environmentalism now as well as the state?

[siva_chair]

Oh, you hate feminism and environmentalism now as well as the state?

Umm no. What? :confused:

I was just pointing out that the social commentary in Dostoyevsky's work is just as valuable from a social perspective...

[StreetlightRock]

Camus is heaps more fun to read for fiction.

[Iskandar]

Umm no. What? :confused:

I was just pointing out that the social commentary in Dostoyevsky's work is just as valuable from a social perspective...I was joking.

[siva_chair]

I was joking.

Well it confused the crap out of me because it was probably one of the largest non sequiturs mine eyes have ever witnessed....

Good one though.

[Iskandar]

That was the point.

[StreetlightRock]

I think the forum is still geting used to a mod with a sense of humor. It's oddly intimidating.

[mph4ever]

more like a sense of humour with mod powers

[siva_chair]

Moar like a mod of humor with a sense of powers.

[mph4ever]

yup

[DJ Karl Marx]

Umm no. What? :confused:

I was just pointing out that the social commentary in Dostoyevsky's work is just as valuable from a social perspective...
which books would you say?

[Chu]

Just wondering if anyone here has any experience with some of Popper's work?

A recommended reading text for a Philosophy course I'm doing, is "The Myth of the Framework", by Karl Popper, my dad lent me his "Conjectures and Refutations", which is more based on the Philosophy of Science, but from what I can tell, the man had a somewhat large impact in Political Philosophy.

My dad has order another Popper book, though the name escapes me at the moment.

Just looking for a review of his work (if anyone here has read anything by him), and just what to expect.

[Iskandar]

The Open Society and its Enemies is probably his most famous work.

In it, he offers a defense of liberal democracy against radical ideologies like Marxist-Leninism.

[siva_chair]

which books would you say?

The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment are obviously great.

His Notes From Underground is really good existentialist piece. It influenced lots of later writers in that realm of philosophy.

[MAthiAS]

Should add Imperialism: A Study by John A. Hobson to the International Relations section for sure, its a little lacking.

[christsimpson]

wait where is Kropotkin?

[Iskandar]

Good question. I thought there were some by him under Anarchism. I added a few so let me know if there are more you think should be included.

We definitely need more on conservatism and international relations.

[christsimpson]

you should probably add An Anarchist FAQ, even though many hate it. it's actually a pretty good anarchy 101.

[Smokey D]

If we were gonna do that we should resurrect Das's Guide to Anarchism but then we might confuse people into thinking we take anarchism seriously.

[Iskandar]

I dunno about the Anarchist FAQ. It's written by anonymous contributors, right? We're aiming for academic publications.

Also no to resurrecting really old threads.

I pulled up a list of works in the field of IR on Wikipedia and I'm going to add a selection of them because nobody seems to know any good books on the subject. I'll probably do conservatism later.

[Smokey D]

I call shenanigans on using Wiki as a source.

IR's a bit funny. You got some authors who try to write theories of IR, like World Systems or what have you but most of the time it's about specific countries/examples and the theory is embedded in the argument. It's usually pretty hard to extrapolate unless you read a lot of IR stuff, which is why most introductions use textbooks rather than treatises.

[Iskandar]

Why not? It's just a list of books, not material from the article. I checked the authors and picked the ones who seem to be respected authorities in the field.

[Smokey D]

It's usually pretty hard to extrapolate unless you read a lot of IR stuff, which is why most introductions use textbooks rather than treatises.

Check Edit.

But go ahead. It can't hurt.

But you really should put in Wallerstein if you're gonna do that.

[Iskandar]

Yeah I find that too (about IR publications). But this is the best we have to go on and it's probably as good of a source as what random people here suggest.

Now some other concerns:

- Conservatism. We have one book and that's pathetic. Do you or anyone else have some ideas about what to add? I thought William F. Buckley, maybe.
- I noticed the vast majority of authors on the list are male. Now since the majority of political science scholars are in fact male(or were historically at least) this is unavoidable in a way but it's still something to think about.
- I wanted to add some titles on social psychology like The Origins of Totalitarianism and The True Believer but I wasn't sure whether to put them under fascism or start a new category.

Anyway this will have to wait till tomorrow because I have to leave soon. But I want this list to be updated.

[Smokey D]

Conservatism will be iffy because a) lots of is non-theoretical b) the bits that are theoretical tend to get called other things. I would call Friedrich Hayek's work conservative but there are plenty of people who would call it liberal, neo-liberal, or neo-conservative. While we're at it, I'm not very happy with the conflation of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism into the same category.

[Iskandar]

That's because Hayek's influential in both neo-liberalism and conseravatism.

But I'm not really happy with conflating them either. I take it was Danish's idea since they're both two sides of the global capitalist coin or something. If you want you can sort out which goes into either category and I'll try to find some conservative books when I get back later.

[mph4ever]

anyone who takes anarchy seriously is obviously an serious anarchist

me included

[StreetlightRock]

Yea but Wallerstein is full of rubbish

[Smokey D]

I reckon Wallerstein is a little more believable than Lenin and we have him there.

[StreetlightRock]

So you can imagine what I think of Lenin. Besides, no one buys into World Systems theory anymore even the Marxists think its wrong, It's all about Gramsci's Hegemony now. List needs E.P. Thompson more than anything else, or if not at least his introduction to the Making Of the English Working class. And get rid of Dicipline and Punish and Madness and Civilization, Foucault wrote them even before he knew what he was talking about.

[Iskandar]

So you can imagine what I think of Lenin. Besides, no one buys into World Systems theory anymore even the Marxists think its wrong, It's all about Gramsci's Hegemony now.Dependency theory has had a profound impact on the anti-globalization movement at least. It's not useless.

Also are we talking just about what Marxists think because Gramsci is a Marxist too.

[Herunar]

"The Art of War" is an interesting book, but it really has little to do with political theory. For ancient Chinese political theory, the most representative two books would be "The Book of Lord Shang" and "The Analects", which represent legalism and Confucianism respectively.

I thought some works by Stalin or Mao should be included along with works by Trotsky. Reading "The Revolution Betrayed" wouldn't make sense if rival Marxist factions aren't included. But then Stalin did not contribute much to political theory anyway. I'd suggest some works by Mao (most conveniently, "Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong"), whose influence in third world Marxism is probably much greater than either Trotsky or Stalin. And as for "Guerilla Warfare", its focus is on military tactics rather than political reading, and its contributions to Marxism is minimal, so I'd suggest either moving or removing it.

[pooble]

if bernie madoff writes something it will probably be essential

[Linkinbassist]

anyone who takes anarchy seriously is obviously an serious anarchist

me included

I take it seriously, but only as a key element in political transition.

There is always a very short phase of anarchy during revolution; a brief moment where rules do not apply, there is no governance and somehow there is still operatum.

As a history student, i read a lot of fascinating texts. I recommend:-

Turner & Challener - National Security in the Nuclear Age
Knorr - On the Uses of Military Power in the Nuclear Age
R.J. Leiber - No Common Power: Understanding Global Relations

And in relation to my dissertation:-

A. Guttmann - The Olympics: a History of the Modern Games
C.R. Hill - Olympic Politics

But yeah, i need to get through some of the key reading on here. It's all stuff i have abstracts to but haven't interrogated thoroughly.

[StreetlightRock]

Dependency theory has had a profound impact on the anti-globalization movement at least. It's not useless.

Also are we talking just about what Marxists think because Gramsci is a Marxist too.

Yes but anti-globalization is stupid. I know very well that Gramsci is a Marxist I wouldn't have brought him up otherwise. Even then its conceptually flawed and reeks of paranoia, at least on a global scale. Foucault's concept of power is infinatley more useful if you want to describe relationships and doesn't have a deterministic Marxist basis.

[Iskandar]

Our aim is to make a comprehensive list of works by political ideology and our personal opinions don't factor into that. I think lots of the people and books on there are ideologically stupid but worthy of conclusion nonetheless.

[StreetlightRock]

Oh definitely.

[Iskandar]

Just curious are you a rabid neoliberal or something because I don't think world systems is necessarily dumb or even Marxist in nature. Also anti-globalization and altermondalism aren't really the same thing so I try not to conflate them.

[Smokey D]

World systems is definitely in the Marxist tradition even if technically speaking it isn't Marxism. I wouldn't go as far to say it's so flawed it can't teach us anything important but there are some serious conceptual problems.

[StreetlightRock]

No, I'm not a neoliberal, even if I think they're mostly on the right track. I hate the term, but If i have to put myself in a box I'd call myself post-strucutralist.

[MAthiAS]

IMO The German Ideology Pt 1 and the 1844 Manuscripts should probably replace the Grundrisse under Marxism.

Also maybe Tolstoy and Dickens for Political Fiction?

[Smokey D]

I love how this morphed from essential political reading to comprehensive collection of every political treatise ever written.

[MAthiAS]

Well yeah everyone has read all the essentials since the start of the thread :p

[ilikemusic]

Political Fiction: Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness

One of the most influential pieces of fiction in the last 150 years, rooted heavily in Colonial themes. I'd say it's almost as essential you can get in that genre.

[Metal_head]

Add "The Stranger" by Albert Camus as a political fiction.

[Aaron]

Political Fiction:
Elizabeth Gaskell's North & South
The Futurist Manifesto

[Radiobass81]

On Colonialism: Portrait of a colonized - Alber Memmi

Came out before Fanon's big works, VERY good book. And I know it sounds cliched at these times, but you could add some Galeano in there. Not to many Latinamerican writers in there, besides Che and Fanon.

[rockitmarty]

Nothing even compares to The Prince in this category!

[Radiobass81]

On Colonialism:

Portrait of a colonized - Alber Memmi.

Bump.

Really, this is essential.

[StreetlightRock]

Have decided that William Connolly is the greatest political theorist to have ever lived and all his books should be on here.

[Ralphie Rivera]

Atlas Shrugged should be under fiction. It is one of the greatest things I've ever read.

[Danish]

No, I'm not a neoliberal, even if I think they're mostly on the right track.

Yikes! Really?

[Iskandar]

Atlas Shrugged should be under fiction. It is one of the greatest things I've ever read.Done.
Yikes! Really?Lots of people do.

Also yikes! You're back?

[StreetlightRock]

Yikes! Really?

Really. I'm a big fan of the emphasis on the individual as a site of sovereignty and the championing of the market as a mechanism for economic distribution. They're about a thousand caveats that go in between, but like I said, on the right track.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Silveri's crossed over to the darkside B-)

[Iskandar]

Who?

[StreetlightRock]

Dude im ****in sith.

[guitarded_chuck]

related to environmentalism:

"A Short History of Progress" - Ronald Wright

"Ronald Wright argues that our modern predicament is as old as civilization itself: a 10,000 year old experiment we have participated in but seldom controlled. He examines the meaning of progress and its implications for civilizations — past and present — arguing that the twentieth century was a time of runaway growth in human population, consumption, and technology that has now placed an unsustainable burden on all natural systems. For Wright the twenty first century represents our last opportunity to succeed where our forefathers almost without exception have not." (wiki)

Highly recommended if you can find it. If anything it is an very interesting read about how past civilizations have failed and why. Puts current events into perspective with discussion of past human history and all of geological time.

[Iskandar]

kk.

[Danish]

Lots of people do.

Also yikes! You're back?

Usually people who understand what "neoliberalism" is are critical of it.

Um, nah, just kinda bored I guess. This forum kinda depresses me lol

[Iskandar]

I think lots of neoliberals understand what it is. They just see it differently from you.

[Smokey D]

sually people who understand what "neoliberalism" is are critical of it.

A) I think that's a pretty arrogant attitude
B) Neoliberalism is a funny word. I'm almost inclined to think it doesn't have a settled and uncontroversial meaning.

[Danish]

Well, we would probably agree on what it entails in terms of public policy initiatives and such, but I think it's pretty clear who has benefited and who hasn't.

[Smokey D]

I don't know if we would agree about what neoliberalism's policies directives are. That's part of why it's pretty useless as a descriptor.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Neoliberalism is like the boogey man. It doesn't really exist, but it's blamed for just everything that goes wrong.

[Iskandar]

Yeah it does you just don't realize it because you are one.

[Smokey D]

You don't seem to get the useless as a descriptor bit

[Iskandar]

Because it's not. Its definition may be controversial but that doesn't mean it doesn't refer to certain ideas and policies which are known and can be critiqued.

[Smokey D]

I can think of at least three partially mutually exclusive meanings of neoliberalism.

[Iskandar]

I dunno what they are besides a revival of economic liberalism.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It refers to whatever the person speaking wants it to refer to. There's no common understanding of the term, other than it's bad and it needs to be stopped.

[Smokey D]

Well, for example, if libertarianism is a revival of classical economics, what are Tony Blair and Bill Clinton?

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/neoliberalism-and-higher-education/

The first half of the article is pretty relevant

[Iskandar]

It refers to whatever the person speaking wants it to refer to. There's no common understanding of the term, other than it's bad and it needs to be stopped.I just told you what it meant.
Well, for example, if libertarianism is a revival of classical economics, what are Tony Blair and Bill Clinton?Third Way idk.

They don't go so far with their reforms as neoliberalism does but they're still very much influenced by that paradigm.

[Smokey D]

Read the article

[Iskandar]

I did what about it.

[Smokey D]

He gives a pretty good explanation as to why neoliberalism is more of a pejorative than a useful descriptive term.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I just told you what it meant.
No, you told me what you think it means. (I can do this all day.)

Example (and I know that one case does not make a rule): I recently read a very well-argued Letter to the Editor about proposed cuts to teachers' salaries that signed off with the words "failed neo-liberal vision." It's very hard to take seriously a word that is used so frivolously.

[Iskandar]

Budget cuts could perfectly well be attributed to neo-liberalism what's your point.

This is stupid because the word still has meaning even if it's a relatively broad spectrum of ideas. It's no different than conservatism or socialism or anything else people tend to use a term of approbation. I think you fine gentlemen are merely offended as closet neoliberals yourselves.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No, budget cuts could be attributed to neoliberalism if they were to be replaced by a market solution, which clearly isn't the case here.

The problem isn't that neoliberalism is a broad spectrum of ideas - it's that it's an erratic spectrum of conflicting ideas.

[Iskandar]

No, budget cuts could be attributed to neoliberalism if they were to be replaced by a market solution, which clearly isn't the case here.Reducing state spending is part of neoliberalism too.
The problem isn't that neoliberalism is a broad spectrum of ideas - it's that it's an erratic spectrum of conflicting ideas.No more than any other ideology. Its core goals of streamlining government and expanding the private sector are pretty clear.

[Smokey D]

No more than any other ideology. Its core goals of streamlining government and expanding the private sector are pretty clear.

That's dumb. You might as well say that the goal of liberating the workers is the object of communism and then say all communist regimes policies and ideologies were/are the same.

[StreetlightRock]

Lol, in the context of this argument and thread y'all should read The Terms Of Political Discourse by Connolly. The basic argument is that terms like 'neoliberalism' and even 'politics' are themselves politically contestable and situated within discursive practice. This is an argument none of you will ever win.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Oh God, I've had enough postmodernism to last me for the rest of my life.

[StreetlightRock]

why do you hate progress?

[Dave de Sylvia]

cos im a damn neoliberal

[Iskandar]

Neoliberalism is progress. Smash the state.
That's dumb. You might as well say that the goal of liberating the workers is the object of communism and then say all communist regimes policies and ideologies were/are the same.Well they didn't actually do this whereas neoliberalism has been very successful at reducing government.

But it doesn't imply they're all the same just that they have some common goals that define them.

[Danish]

Reducing state spending is part of neoliberalism too.

Definitely, and there is a significant push to privatize (aka marketize) education in the US. Another element of neoliberalism is the attack on organized labour.

No more than any other ideology. Its core goals of streamlining government and expanding the private sector are pretty clear.

Agreed. The examples of this are endless. They're even contracting out military services now!

[Dave de Sylvia]

neoliberalism has been very successful at reducing government
Government has shrunk in some aspects and expanded in others - greater prosperity brought about by "neoliberalism" has allowed governments to rely on greater revenues to expand social programs. Those damn neoliberals.

[Iskandar]

Stop using scare quotes like you're pretending this ideology doesn't exist.

[Danish]

Government has shrunk in some aspects and expanded in others - greater prosperity brought about by "neoliberalism" has allowed governments to rely on greater revenues to expand social programs. Those damn neoliberals.

Social programs and spending have not improved in over 20 years, nor is there "greater prosperity". And the most significant increases in US government spending during the era in question have been to military spending.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I suppose you could cal it an ideology the way "liberalism" or "conservatism" are, but you're always going to have problems associating specific actions to non-specific belief systems.

It is a term that is used in a broadly contemptuous sense - there is no real attempt by users to understand the nuances of the "ideology." Even the prefix "neo-" is designed to portray it as some sort of secret society that meets underground and plots armageddon.

[Iskandar]

Stop using scare quotes
I suppose you could cal it an ideology the way "liberalism" or "conservatism" areMore specifically a kind of liberalism.
It is a term that is used in a broadly contemptuous sense - there is no real attempt by users to understand the nuances of the "ideology." Even the prefix "neo-" is designed to portray it as some sort of secret society that meets underground and plots armageddon.So are "fascism" and "socialism" and "liberalism" but those terms have specific meanings too.

[Danish]

I suppose you could cal it an ideology the way "liberalism" or "conservatism" are, but you're always going to have problems associating specific actions to non-specific belief systems.

It is a term that is used in a broadly contemptuous sense - there is no real attempt by users to understand the nuances of the "ideology." Even the prefix "neo-" is designed to portray it as some sort of secret society that meets underground and plots armageddon.

There is no attempt by users on here to understand anything. That's really why I stopped posting here. No one listens, they all just talk like they know what they're talking about. Do you think anyone here has really taken the the time to understand Marx, for example?

"Neo" is not designed to insinuate something sinister. Rather, it's attached to differentiate neoliberalism from liberalism. They are distinctive.

[Iskandar]

I think Dave just has a problem with some people not liking his pet ideology.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I don't care if anybody calls me a neoliberal - I'm completely fine with it. I just don't think it's a particularly useful term.

Do you think anyone here has really taken the the time to understand Marx, for example?
Nope.

So are "fascism" and "socialism" and "liberalism" but those terms have specific meanings too.
Well socialism and liberalism are also incredibly broad, but they also have lots of people who self-identify as such. Fascism has a manifesto, which obviously provides an objective definition.

More specifically a kind of liberalism.
Yeah but how do you reconcile Democratic Party liberalism with European liberalism with "neo-liberalism"?

Social programs and spending have not improved in over 20 years, nor is there "greater prosperity".
Err, there's obviously greater prosperity. It's objectively demonstratable. I didn't claiim there had been an improvement in social programs - merely that more money was being spent.

[Iskandar]

I don't care if anybody calls me a neoliberal - I'm completely fine with it. I just don't think it's a particularly useful term.Yes it is it describes an important contemporary ideological trend.
Nope.Well I'm not about to read Das Kapital in its entirety but I get the gist of it.
Well socialism and liberalism are also incredibly broad, but they also have lots of people who self-identify as such. Fascism has a manifesto, which obviously provides an objective definition.Lots of liberals call themselves progressives because their opponents use it as a term of abuse. Doesn't mean they're not liberals.
Yeah but how do you reconcile Democratic Party liberalism with European liberalism with "neo-liberalism"?European liberalism is pretty much the same thing.

[Smokey D]

When Danish says there hasn't been great prosperity, he's really only talking about the white, western worker aristorcracy. Whatever prosperity neoliberalism has brought for places like China apparently doesn't count.

[Iskandar]

People are still poor in places like India you know.

It's possible to overstate the benefits.

[Smokey D]

Yah most def. But to say that htere has been no great prosperity creaed is plainly false.

[Iskandar]

Well you are right that there hasn't been for the white labour aristocracy but in other places yeah, relative to the absolute poverty they had before.

But it's sorta misleading to just say that without these qualifiers is all.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yes it is it describes an important contemporary ideological trend.
A very broad one with much internal diversity.

Lots of liberals call themselves progressives because their opponents use it as a term of abuse. Doesn't mean they're not liberals.
Very few people use "progressive" as a term of abuse. It's a term of self-aggrandisement for most people who use it.

European liberalism is pretty much the same thing.
As neoliberalism? I'm not sure it fits with your understanding.

[Iskandar]

A very broad one with much internal diversity.It's not that broad. If someone says they're a socialist that could mean anything from New Labour to Austro-Marxism probably. Neoliberal is more specific than that.
Very few people use "progressive" as a term of abuse. It's a term of self-aggrandisement for most people who use it.No '"liberal" is to some people.
As neoliberalism? I'm not sure it fits with your understanding.Aren't both characterized by an embracing of free markets and lessening reliance on the state.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's not that broad. If someone says they're a socialist that could mean anything from New Labour to Austro-Marxism probably. Neoliberal is more specific than that.
Yeah but nobody says "I'm a neoliberlal", which is sort of the problem.

Aren't both characterized by an embracing of free markets and lessening reliance on the state.
European liberals are almost uniformly supportive of the welfare state and universal, state-run healthcare.

[Iskandar]

Yeah but nobody says "I'm a neoliberlal", which is sort of the problem.So your problem is with the nomenclature not the idea that neoliberalism exists and influences things.

What nicer name would you like us to call it by.
European liberals are almost uniformly supportive of the welfare state and universal, state-run healthcare.So are neoliberals - they just want to scale it back so it doesn't get in the way of free movement of capital and labour and stuff.

[Dave de Sylvia]

So your problem is with the nomenclature not the idea that neoliberalism exists and influences things.

What nicer name would you like us to call it by.
Not a nicer name, just something that is commonly understood. If you want to use "free marketer" or whatever, it's fine, but just make sure it's descriptive of function.

So are neoliberals - they just want to scale it back so it doesn't get in the way of free movement of capital and labour and stuff.
So neoliberals aren't in favour of privatisation of healthcare and the downgrading of the welfare state?

[Iskandar]

Not a nicer name, just something that is commonly understood. If you want to use "free marketer" or whatever, it's fine, but just make sure it's descriptive of function.Well they're not the only free marketeers out there.

Their name is perfectly descriptive. Neoliberalism is a revival of economic liberalism. Neo+liberalism.
So neoliberals aren't in favour of privatisation of healthcare and the downgrading of the welfare state?To some extent but they're not rawr anarchy or anything.

This is typical of the right.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Their name is perfectly descriptive. Neoliberalism is a revival of economic liberalism. Neo+liberalism.
Why not call em old-liberalism?

To some extent but they're not rawr anarchy or anything.
So they're not as bad as libertarians?

[Iskandar]

Why not call em old-liberalism?Cause they're reviving ideas that fell out of favour.
So they're not as bad as libertarians?Not as radical yeah. Calling it bad is a value judgment.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Cause they're reviving ideas that fell out of favour.
They were never really in favour. International trade has never been as open as it is now.

Not as radical yeah. Calling it bad is a value judgment.
A value judgement you agree with?

[Iskandar]

They were never really in favour.People believed in them at their inception or else they wouldn't provide the theoretical framework for reviving them now. If you mean they faced substantial opposition at the time well they still do.
A value judgement you agree with?Not that it matters but I'm pretty sure you know what I think by now. Or wait, maybe you don't.

[fafafa]

There is no attempt by users on here to understand anything. That's really why I stopped posting here. No one listens, they all just talk like they know what they're talking about. Do you think anyone here has really taken the the time to understand Marx, for example?

high levels of irony in this post

nobody understands the world but me

[1338 h4x0r's alt]

Jonathon Baron - Thinking and Deciding

this is a psychology text essentially but, since it's about decision making, applies also to political issues, ex:

Sometimes people act as though the very commitment they have made requires them to keep going. This is like "throwing good money after bad." Another name for it is the sunk-cost effect: Once funds have been "sunk" into a plan, the only way not to waste them, it seems, is to sink still more. We see this sort of rationale operating in public policy as well as in our personal lives. It figured, many now think, in such possible misadventures as the Vietnam War and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project.

[Danish]

high levels of irony in this post

nobody understands the world but me

See? Folks can't even have a conversation when other folks are so eager to attack them. Like, I'm a hypocrite? C'mon. You know it's true what I say in this instance. I've been as guilty of it as anyone. I just got sick of it. The level of debate in such an environment such at this is pretty low overall.

[Mr. Ron]

Idk, we do have some interesting talk.

[DBoons Ghost]

This place was never about debate. It was always about the pwn and always will be.

Hope all is well with you though, dude. Always nice of you to check in.

The moderating is at an all time low.

[fafafa]

See? Folks can't even have a conversation when other folks are so eager to attack them. Like, I'm a hypocrite? C'mon. You know it's true what I say in this instance. I've been as guilty of it as anyone. I just got sick of it. The level of debate in such an environment such at this is pretty low overall.

theres no real debate anywhere you're expecting too much

you cant even get people to stop using fallacies in their argumentation what makes you think they'd read about the things you want them to read about

[Iskandar]

The moderating is at an all time low.You're going to have to explain how. No matter what we do people complain that we're either too lenient or too strict, and sometimes both at the same time.

[Danish]

Nice to see you too, Dboon. I guess I don't care about pwning much anymore. Like, burn some anonymous kid on the intranets? Not so appealing anymore.