I'd also add: "On Socialisim," by Ludwig von Mises.
Like Friedrich Hayek, L. von Mises was one of the famous Austrian economists of his times. And his book critiques socialism.
Liberty Fund Press has a print edition of the English version, as well as a free electronic edition of that same version that one can get from Liberty Fund's own Online Library Of Liberty (it is easily accessible; no account or password or any information at all is needed to create or to give to them).
Always love a good reading list. I wasn’t surprised that Adam Smith didn’t make the cut. If you put one of his books on the list you have to put both of them. Though I might have joined the books together as though they are one book, which in fact they are.
There are many things one can write about you list. Most important, it rejects the sterile miseducation you received at Columbia. Nevertheless, you mistake socialism for authoritarianism – the anti-socialists you cite: Milosz, Koestler, Havel, and Popper do not. So go back and read Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism and continue with Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation. You also may be interested in the works of John Lukacs, especially The Hitler of History as well as a paper you may appreciate, “The Universality of National Socialism (The Mistaken Category of ‘Fascism’), Totalitarian Movements and Political Religion 3.1 (Summer 2002): 107-121. Try to understand the links between populism and totalitarianism. On a personal note, I think Donald Trump’s vulgar populism represent an accelerating decline of the US – a view I find congruent with that of the PRC’s political leadership. Perhaps the “America First” follies of this Pied Piper of Populism are leading America toward a nationalism reminiscent of Huey Long.
Oh Milton Friedman? The guy responsible for the coup in chile and installation of Neo liberalism under Pinochet? That guy? Neo liberalism failed, did you get the Memo?
Milton Friedman served as an economic advisor to Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. Under Pinochet's government tens of thousands of people were disappeared, murdered or tortured for supporting Allende, the overthrown democratically elected socialist leader of Chile. The opening the open society says nothing about jews. Awful article
The pillars of neoliberalism are here. I have not read any of these. I prefer outcomes of the policies pursued by Reagan, Thatcher and both US democrats and republicans based on Uncle Milton, Hayek et al, rather than using what little time I have left reading these guys (and Rand) to assess neoliberalism's merits. As the author would know from her liberal arts training, just because an argument is logical and well presented, it does not necessarily hold up in practice. The problem with the worship of free markets is that they are not free. Thus the drift, make that the drive, towards vast inequality, polarization and the mess we presently find ourselves in.
This is a good list though I haven’t read Friedman. Von Mises' "Socialism" is a good follow up suggestion and his "Bureaucracy" and "Omnipotent Government" are equally important reads. But two additional books you should absolutely read are less well known nowadays: “The Socialist Phenomenon” by Igor Shafarevich and “Oriental Despotism” by Karl Wittfogel. Shafarevich's "socialism" is probably more commonly thought of as collectivism but this is semantics; the thing he describes is clear and unmistakable. His historical analysis of socialistic societies and the common features that characterize them is priceless, and you won't find it put in so stark a form anywhere else. The book was written in Russia during Soviet times. Shafarevich was a dissident and subsequently a Russian Nationalist with convictions similar to Solzhenitsyn. Like Solzhenitsyn he became controversial in and out of Russia, and among other things was accused of antisemitism. My own own feeling based on much reading is that such charges were false but not baseless. Some questions of antisemitism can get very complicated; for instance, I'm sure the early work of the Hebrew scholar Jacob Katz, cited by Hannah Arendt in "The Origins of Totalitarianism," could sound antisemitic, though this is preposterous. But all this aside, "The Socialist Phenomenon" is a must read.
Wittfogel's book is not about socialism per se. Rather it began with the question of why the Soviet Union so closely resembled the long standing, utterly despotic régimes of historical China and India, and proceeded with a study of how these "oriental despotisms" acquired and maintained absolute power in a very stable yet despotic form over centuries and millennia in a manner virtually unknown in the west. Wittfogel's observations, along with related observations found in James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" and Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society," can conceivably give us a glimpse of how despotic collectivist regimes might function in a stable form in our future once they become global in scope.
The Soviet Union was not *socialist* but Communist with a capital 'C'. Socialism is not about planned economies other than some sensible industrial policy. It is mostly about an emphasis on taxes supporting government services to the tax payer and not solely the elite. Yes universities have gone too extreme left, but capitalism is no panacea or do you like that Bezos et al pay less tax than you?
I will agree, socialism has had quite a tumultuous ride through the 20th century, particularly amongst self-avowed “socialists”. I must point out though, what you describe as “no government at all” is closer to anarchism, at least theoretically, which was where Marxists disagreed with anarchists, at the theoretical level. Ends haven’t been disputed as much as means to the end.
What they teach you especially at universities and in the western hemisphere is internationalism aka Marxism which his kind coined capitalism as well thus why we have Israel initiating wars and spreading their propaganda thru history and media cause who ever wins dictates history. Their message is placing no value on the individual, effort, and efficiency specifically on European culture. Understanding that it’s a lot to take in and hope you can be open minded to philosophers like Hegel and Giovanni Gentile, true socialism in not internationalism its one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or their efficiency to the nation. Marxism and capitalism are the same end result which materialism is the driven factor.
I go back further. One of my heroes, Samuel Johnson, summed it perfectly well before the tags 'communist' or 'socialist' existed. But the ideas were floting around in Adam Smith's day. A lady of wealth had him to dinner and was expostulating her views of utopian equality. He replied: 'I have only one objection to levellers, they always level down'.
I read the book, and do not recall Popper “blaming the Jews.” Indeed, opposition to intolerance, including antisemitism, is the very essence of his open society. He was also of Jewish heritage.
Well thought-out commentary. I've read several of these books. What I found exemplary in Milosz's collection of essays is the concept of either--or in terms of the creation and perpetuation of authoritarian mentalities. "Either you're in our in-group--or you're THE ENEMY." Not workable in the world where I choose to live. We see the either--or concept at play in terms of ideology: an us versus them mentality, the departure of which results in ostracism and sometimes worse. Not a fan of political ideologies here. No room for compromise or even discursive interplay. At least it serves as "solid ground" for people who don't know what to think.
I'd also add: "On Socialisim," by Ludwig von Mises.
Like Friedrich Hayek, L. von Mises was one of the famous Austrian economists of his times. And his book critiques socialism.
Liberty Fund Press has a print edition of the English version, as well as a free electronic edition of that same version that one can get from Liberty Fund's own Online Library Of Liberty (it is easily accessible; no account or password or any information at all is needed to create or to give to them).
Yes! On my to-read list!
Always love a good reading list. I wasn’t surprised that Adam Smith didn’t make the cut. If you put one of his books on the list you have to put both of them. Though I might have joined the books together as though they are one book, which in fact they are.
There are many things one can write about you list. Most important, it rejects the sterile miseducation you received at Columbia. Nevertheless, you mistake socialism for authoritarianism – the anti-socialists you cite: Milosz, Koestler, Havel, and Popper do not. So go back and read Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism and continue with Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation. You also may be interested in the works of John Lukacs, especially The Hitler of History as well as a paper you may appreciate, “The Universality of National Socialism (The Mistaken Category of ‘Fascism’), Totalitarian Movements and Political Religion 3.1 (Summer 2002): 107-121. Try to understand the links between populism and totalitarianism. On a personal note, I think Donald Trump’s vulgar populism represent an accelerating decline of the US – a view I find congruent with that of the PRC’s political leadership. Perhaps the “America First” follies of this Pied Piper of Populism are leading America toward a nationalism reminiscent of Huey Long.
Oh Milton Friedman? The guy responsible for the coup in chile and installation of Neo liberalism under Pinochet? That guy? Neo liberalism failed, did you get the Memo?
Milton Friedman served as an economic advisor to Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. Under Pinochet's government tens of thousands of people were disappeared, murdered or tortured for supporting Allende, the overthrown democratically elected socialist leader of Chile. The opening the open society says nothing about jews. Awful article
I'm going to start The Road to Serfdom. And may I recommend Basic Economics, by Sowell? It's a great read.
The pillars of neoliberalism are here. I have not read any of these. I prefer outcomes of the policies pursued by Reagan, Thatcher and both US democrats and republicans based on Uncle Milton, Hayek et al, rather than using what little time I have left reading these guys (and Rand) to assess neoliberalism's merits. As the author would know from her liberal arts training, just because an argument is logical and well presented, it does not necessarily hold up in practice. The problem with the worship of free markets is that they are not free. Thus the drift, make that the drive, towards vast inequality, polarization and the mess we presently find ourselves in.
This is a good list though I haven’t read Friedman. Von Mises' "Socialism" is a good follow up suggestion and his "Bureaucracy" and "Omnipotent Government" are equally important reads. But two additional books you should absolutely read are less well known nowadays: “The Socialist Phenomenon” by Igor Shafarevich and “Oriental Despotism” by Karl Wittfogel. Shafarevich's "socialism" is probably more commonly thought of as collectivism but this is semantics; the thing he describes is clear and unmistakable. His historical analysis of socialistic societies and the common features that characterize them is priceless, and you won't find it put in so stark a form anywhere else. The book was written in Russia during Soviet times. Shafarevich was a dissident and subsequently a Russian Nationalist with convictions similar to Solzhenitsyn. Like Solzhenitsyn he became controversial in and out of Russia, and among other things was accused of antisemitism. My own own feeling based on much reading is that such charges were false but not baseless. Some questions of antisemitism can get very complicated; for instance, I'm sure the early work of the Hebrew scholar Jacob Katz, cited by Hannah Arendt in "The Origins of Totalitarianism," could sound antisemitic, though this is preposterous. But all this aside, "The Socialist Phenomenon" is a must read.
Wittfogel's book is not about socialism per se. Rather it began with the question of why the Soviet Union so closely resembled the long standing, utterly despotic régimes of historical China and India, and proceeded with a study of how these "oriental despotisms" acquired and maintained absolute power in a very stable yet despotic form over centuries and millennia in a manner virtually unknown in the west. Wittfogel's observations, along with related observations found in James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" and Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society," can conceivably give us a glimpse of how despotic collectivist regimes might function in a stable form in our future once they become global in scope.
The Soviet Union was not *socialist* but Communist with a capital 'C'. Socialism is not about planned economies other than some sensible industrial policy. It is mostly about an emphasis on taxes supporting government services to the tax payer and not solely the elite. Yes universities have gone too extreme left, but capitalism is no panacea or do you like that Bezos et al pay less tax than you?
Taxes supporting government services is Socialism? Really?!!
Not traditionally, but then traditionally there was supposed to be no government at all. So in practical terms that's what it comes down to.
I will agree, socialism has had quite a tumultuous ride through the 20th century, particularly amongst self-avowed “socialists”. I must point out though, what you describe as “no government at all” is closer to anarchism, at least theoretically, which was where Marxists disagreed with anarchists, at the theoretical level. Ends haven’t been disputed as much as means to the end.
You are right. The topic demands more nuance than a few quick reply sentences can provide.
What they teach you especially at universities and in the western hemisphere is internationalism aka Marxism which his kind coined capitalism as well thus why we have Israel initiating wars and spreading their propaganda thru history and media cause who ever wins dictates history. Their message is placing no value on the individual, effort, and efficiency specifically on European culture. Understanding that it’s a lot to take in and hope you can be open minded to philosophers like Hegel and Giovanni Gentile, true socialism in not internationalism its one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or their efficiency to the nation. Marxism and capitalism are the same end result which materialism is the driven factor.
I go back further. One of my heroes, Samuel Johnson, summed it perfectly well before the tags 'communist' or 'socialist' existed. But the ideas were floting around in Adam Smith's day. A lady of wealth had him to dinner and was expostulating her views of utopian equality. He replied: 'I have only one objection to levellers, they always level down'.
Ayn Rand <33
I read the book, and do not recall Popper “blaming the Jews.” Indeed, opposition to intolerance, including antisemitism, is the very essence of his open society. He was also of Jewish heritage.
Well thought-out commentary. I've read several of these books. What I found exemplary in Milosz's collection of essays is the concept of either--or in terms of the creation and perpetuation of authoritarian mentalities. "Either you're in our in-group--or you're THE ENEMY." Not workable in the world where I choose to live. We see the either--or concept at play in terms of ideology: an us versus them mentality, the departure of which results in ostracism and sometimes worse. Not a fan of political ideologies here. No room for compromise or even discursive interplay. At least it serves as "solid ground" for people who don't know what to think.
All you’ve done here is to trade in one ideology for another, nothing else.
I will need to read those books, some I have read but there are some that I am not familiar with. Never to old to learn. Thank you.