PrincessBulldog
New Member
Or for that matter, what book changed or challenged your belief system so that it was never quite the same again?
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
What Book Changed Your Political Thinking?
- Thread starter PrincessBulldog
- Start date
PrincessBulldog
New Member
What New Way?
What new way did it make you think about it?
What new way did it make you think about it?
PrincessBulldog
New Member
So
Is my topic suggestion boring or do people only read book political books that already agree with their perceptions and leanings?
Does no one dip their toe in unknown waters?
Is my topic suggestion boring or do people only read book political books that already agree with their perceptions and leanings?
Does no one dip their toe in unknown waters?
I think for lots of us it's probably more of a case of no one particular book changing political thinking -for instance I read Memoires of a Dutiful Daughter by Simone de Beauvoir when I was 16, I can't say that it converted me to feminism but it did lead me to go onto to read other feminist tracts.
PrincessBulldog
New Member
Okay, Rephrase the Question
What political books got you started down a different line of political books if you hadn't read that one political book to begin with?
What political books got you started down a different line of political books if you hadn't read that one political book to begin with?
Peronel
New Member
It was just a whole new perspective on issues that were given very little time in my high school classes. Particularly marxism and the theory behind communism. At high school it was all "communism is evil blah blah blah", but higher education (including this textbook) taught me to read deeper into issues.
I had already learned not to take commercial media at face value, I think I started to hate them in first year uni though.
PrincessBulldog
New Member
Anarchy
CrimeThinc's "Fighting for Our Lives" magazine issue turned me on to Emma Goldman. Someone left it out at my workplace, I picked it up out of curiosity and need of reading material. I had no idea that it was anarchy literature. Anarchism is the most misunderstood political and social concept of our times.
Even the movie "SLC Punk" had a kindergarten understanding of anarchism, but so do most "anarchist" punks out there. The whole "decisive" argument they have of chaos and order is completely irrelevant to anarchy. Even dictionaries put chaos with anarchy despite that anarchistic societies that have existed were/are not chaotic and usually are more peaceful to boot.
Hell, even Communism is made to look like a bed of roses in comparison to the evils of anarchism. ;-)
CrimeThinc's "Fighting for Our Lives" magazine issue turned me on to Emma Goldman. Someone left it out at my workplace, I picked it up out of curiosity and need of reading material. I had no idea that it was anarchy literature. Anarchism is the most misunderstood political and social concept of our times.
Even the movie "SLC Punk" had a kindergarten understanding of anarchism, but so do most "anarchist" punks out there. The whole "decisive" argument they have of chaos and order is completely irrelevant to anarchy. Even dictionaries put chaos with anarchy despite that anarchistic societies that have existed were/are not chaotic and usually are more peaceful to boot.
Hell, even Communism is made to look like a bed of roses in comparison to the evils of anarchism. ;-)
PrincessBulldog
New Member
.
Amen to that. When I moved out of my parents' home many years ago, I made a conscious decision to never buy a television. If it wasn't for the Internet, I would have never learned and began following independent media like I have been. Its been only little more than a year that I have done so, but my world view has completely been expanded and changed.
Its funny, in political speeches and campaign ads, islamofascism and terrorism has replaced communism. You can find out old quotes about the evils and threat of communism by politicians, plug in islamofascism or terrorism and it fits perfectly.
Heh.
SFG75
Well-Known Member
Excellent topic-kudos to you for starting it.
The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels-Really gave a succinct historical outline of class differences and how the structure remains the same, though the names of the respective rungs of the class ladder are changed.
Year 501 by Noam Chomsky-This one highlighted how U.S. foreign policy affects others,most specifically, those in the western world. While exploration has ended, conquering has not, and that is Chomsky's main thesis in this book. U.S. efforts to undermine democratic student groups and labor unions under the guise of "fighting communism" was clearly laid out.
I'm O.K., You're O.K. by Thomas Anthony Harris-I grew up in a religious home and this one completely demolished the idea that everything is black and white and that all actions are done out of motives of good and evil. This one demonstrated how a person's past and influences from others effects behavior. In short, behavior isn't simplistic. This is more psychology than politics, though the two are intertwined in more than a few contemporary issues.
The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels-Really gave a succinct historical outline of class differences and how the structure remains the same, though the names of the respective rungs of the class ladder are changed.
Year 501 by Noam Chomsky-This one highlighted how U.S. foreign policy affects others,most specifically, those in the western world. While exploration has ended, conquering has not, and that is Chomsky's main thesis in this book. U.S. efforts to undermine democratic student groups and labor unions under the guise of "fighting communism" was clearly laid out.
I'm O.K., You're O.K. by Thomas Anthony Harris-I grew up in a religious home and this one completely demolished the idea that everything is black and white and that all actions are done out of motives of good and evil. This one demonstrated how a person's past and influences from others effects behavior. In short, behavior isn't simplistic. This is more psychology than politics, though the two are intertwined in more than a few contemporary issues.
claybugg
New Member
Just today in U.S. History class, I noticed a brief reference to Anarchism and the McKinely assassination. It basically just said that Anarchists were violent radicals. That's all it said, even though I believe Anarchism was quite a large movement during that time.
And CrimethInc does have some neat pamphlets.
PrincessBulldog
New Member
I remember when I was assigned to read it shortly after graduating high school and I was at my parents' for the winter book, my mom saw me reading it and made a huge deal about it. The Red Scare didn't end with McCarthy to her it seems. Not much has changed since the Manifesto, in fact, in America, I see the middle class shrinking rapidly. If anything conditions are becoming more and more like Karl Marx depicted it in his time.
I should read this. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?
PrincessBulldog
New Member
Anarchy
Anarchists had their passion and guts pushing direct action for women rights, labor rights, and civil rights. Emma Goldman was arrested numerous times just for giving lectures about women health and birth control. Anarchism had a massive movement back then. And I dare say that without the anarchists, our modern society would be a lot more backward.
You won't learn about that from school textbooks of course because to even mention anarchists in even context besides a violent one might make people rethink anarchism.
And school textbooks are Grade A propaganda when it comes to teaching historical facts.
After the ethnic cleansing, for example, in World War II, one of the "good guys", the British Empire, encouraged the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands in one of their colonies. The picture that every textbook paints after World War II is that the good guy Allies realized how wrong their colonies were and relinquished control out of the goodness of their hearts. Heh.
Back to anarchy: framed with the Haymarket Affair, the other movements began to disassociate themselves from anarchists. World War I and the Red Revolution gave the President Wilson an excuse to come down even heavier with anti-anarchist propaganda and persecution.
A lot of the then "liberals" acted like they never held hands with the anarchists also after they got enough compromises in their favor.
The same thing happened in the black and women right movements which in the 19th century were once linked and supportive of each other.
Anarchists had their passion and guts pushing direct action for women rights, labor rights, and civil rights. Emma Goldman was arrested numerous times just for giving lectures about women health and birth control. Anarchism had a massive movement back then. And I dare say that without the anarchists, our modern society would be a lot more backward.
You won't learn about that from school textbooks of course because to even mention anarchists in even context besides a violent one might make people rethink anarchism.
And school textbooks are Grade A propaganda when it comes to teaching historical facts.
After the ethnic cleansing, for example, in World War II, one of the "good guys", the British Empire, encouraged the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands in one of their colonies. The picture that every textbook paints after World War II is that the good guy Allies realized how wrong their colonies were and relinquished control out of the goodness of their hearts. Heh.
Back to anarchy: framed with the Haymarket Affair, the other movements began to disassociate themselves from anarchists. World War I and the Red Revolution gave the President Wilson an excuse to come down even heavier with anti-anarchist propaganda and persecution.
A lot of the then "liberals" acted like they never held hands with the anarchists also after they got enough compromises in their favor.
The same thing happened in the black and women right movements which in the 19th century were once linked and supportive of each other.
SFG75
Well-Known Member
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that "most" Americans were anarchists or had anarchist sympathies. McKinley earned 65% of the American vote and the only third party to gain a percentage of the electoral vote was the prohibition party. It is true that they were wildly popular with Eastern European immigrants-especially Russian Jews. You guys may also be aware that UC-Berkeley operates a very interesting online treasure trove of Goldman material at their Emma Goldman Papers Projectwebsite. My students always enjoyed it and that era of American history is a personal favorite of mine.
unKeMPt
New Member
Karl Marx: Selected Writings edited by David McLellan is the best Marx anthology possible -- period. The Communist Manifesto -- slim and arresting as it is -- fails to capture the attention as his more philosophical works do.
It's difficult -- a lot of philosophical and sociological works not overtly political have ramifications in the field. W.I. Thomas -- A situation defined as real is real in its consequences -- can be applied to almost anything. Lots of moral and religious thinkers continue to contribute to the current discourse around abortion, euthanasia, etc.
I'm continued to be interested by liberal and historical structuralist thinking in economics, just because I think both sides have valid points. Yes, a free market economy creates optimum conditions for efficiency (with the prisoner's dilemma and collective action problem posing severe dilemmas). On the other hand, the developed world seems to be severely inhibiting growth unfairly. (Compare America's shrugging off millions of dollars of German debt to the strict policies of the IMF.)
It's difficult -- a lot of philosophical and sociological works not overtly political have ramifications in the field. W.I. Thomas -- A situation defined as real is real in its consequences -- can be applied to almost anything. Lots of moral and religious thinkers continue to contribute to the current discourse around abortion, euthanasia, etc.
I'm continued to be interested by liberal and historical structuralist thinking in economics, just because I think both sides have valid points. Yes, a free market economy creates optimum conditions for efficiency (with the prisoner's dilemma and collective action problem posing severe dilemmas). On the other hand, the developed world seems to be severely inhibiting growth unfairly. (Compare America's shrugging off millions of dollars of German debt to the strict policies of the IMF.)
novella
Active Member
First, what is politics? Political theory is mostly intellectual masturbation.
I think the most interesting and true political insight does not come from political treatises, which have almost no relationship to reality, but from history, particularly the true dealings of individuals, not the ‘history of nations’ as written by the victors.
Dominick Dunne and 740 Park Ave really show how deeply entrenched, clandestine, and incestuous the Western monied class is. European cultures understand this, but in America we always pretend—in public discourse and in political rhetoric—that the uberclass with their great wads of inherited wealth doesn’t exist, doesn’t actually run the country, and doesn’t strive, above all, to keep things that way. Why, for instance, wasn’t there ever any talk about Prescott Bush and his Nazi profiteering during either Bush’s presidential campaign? Isn’t it relevant that the most horrific events of the 20th century were financed and armed by the President’s grandfather?
I used to dismiss my older sister’s fascination with ‘society’ as some anti-intellectual infotainment, but in fact it is those types of books (People Like Us, 740 Park, Livingston family history) that show the reality behind the lies in American politics. Why does everyone who’s anyone bank at Chase? Why was a huge portion of upstate NY still literally feudal (with a Lord of the manor and tenant farmers who paid tithes over hundreds of acres) until nearly 1900? Don’t even get me started on the Kennedys. All their money is from bootlegging, insider trading, and peddling political influence, pretty much in that order.
All the political theory in the world won’t change the reality of who really runs world affairs. At least Marx, Hume, Descartes, and Locke, etc., haven’t had any discernible effect yet. On a positive note, the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is a great testament to the importance of controlling the media and forcefully disseminating ideas, to personal generosity and moral righteousness, and to pragmatism and intellectual curiosity.
I think the most interesting and true political insight does not come from political treatises, which have almost no relationship to reality, but from history, particularly the true dealings of individuals, not the ‘history of nations’ as written by the victors.
Dominick Dunne and 740 Park Ave really show how deeply entrenched, clandestine, and incestuous the Western monied class is. European cultures understand this, but in America we always pretend—in public discourse and in political rhetoric—that the uberclass with their great wads of inherited wealth doesn’t exist, doesn’t actually run the country, and doesn’t strive, above all, to keep things that way. Why, for instance, wasn’t there ever any talk about Prescott Bush and his Nazi profiteering during either Bush’s presidential campaign? Isn’t it relevant that the most horrific events of the 20th century were financed and armed by the President’s grandfather?
I used to dismiss my older sister’s fascination with ‘society’ as some anti-intellectual infotainment, but in fact it is those types of books (People Like Us, 740 Park, Livingston family history) that show the reality behind the lies in American politics. Why does everyone who’s anyone bank at Chase? Why was a huge portion of upstate NY still literally feudal (with a Lord of the manor and tenant farmers who paid tithes over hundreds of acres) until nearly 1900? Don’t even get me started on the Kennedys. All their money is from bootlegging, insider trading, and peddling political influence, pretty much in that order.
All the political theory in the world won’t change the reality of who really runs world affairs. At least Marx, Hume, Descartes, and Locke, etc., haven’t had any discernible effect yet. On a positive note, the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is a great testament to the importance of controlling the media and forcefully disseminating ideas, to personal generosity and moral righteousness, and to pragmatism and intellectual curiosity.
I do agree with you Novella that political theory is a load of navel-gazing. Do you think that these thinkers aren't really influencing future behaviour and that instead, they're observing and describing what is already happening? In the UK, it is generally held that Tony Blair was influenced by Anthony Giddens. I don't know if that's true but if it was, it would suggest there is room for theorists to exert influence over political leaders.
novella
Active Member
You point to what I think is a strong sphere of influence in politics--current economic theorists. I think they are the most politically influential group of writers. They are read by all the pundits, and of course the strength and flow of currency is what it's all about. One guy writing about how the Chinese home-mortgage market is going to collapse is way more influential on national policy than all the committed socialists rolled together.