Book Description
A sweeping narrative history of the events leading to 9/11, a groundbreaking look at the people and ideas, the terrorist plans and the Western intelligence failures that culminated in the assault on America. Lawrence Wright’s remarkable book is based on five years of research and hundreds of interviews that he conducted in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, England, France, Germany, Spain, and the United States.
The Looming Tower achieves an unprecedented level of intimacy and insight by telling the story through the interweaving lives of four men: the two leaders of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri; the FBI’s counterterrorism chief, John O’Neill; and the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal.
As these lives unfold, we see revealed: the crosscurrents of modern Islam that helped to radicalize Zawahiri and bin Laden . . . the birth of al-Qaeda and its unsteady development into an organization capable of the American embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole . . . O’Neill’s heroic efforts to track al-Qaeda before 9/11, and his tragic death in the World Trade towers . . . Prince Turki’s transformation from bin Laden’s ally to his enemy . . . the failures of the FBI, CIA, and NSA to share intelligence that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
The Looming Tower broadens and deepens our knowledge of these signal events by taking us behind the scenes. Here is Sayyid Qutb, founder of the modern Islamist movement, lonely and despairing as he meets Western culture up close in 1940s America; the privileged childhoods of bin Laden and Zawahiri; family life in the al-Qaeda compounds of Sudan and Afghanistan; O’Neill’s high-wire act in balancing his all-consuming career with his equally entangling personal life—he was living with three women, each of them unaware of the others’ existence—and the nitty-gritty of turf battles among U.S. intelligence agencies.
Brilliantly conceived and written, The Looming Tower draws all elements of the story into a galvanizing narrative that adds immeasurably to our understanding of how we arrived at September 11, 2001. The richness of its new information, and the depth of its perceptions, can help us deal more wisely and effectively with the continuing terrorist threat.
Customer Reviews:
Compelling and Heart-stopping Account of the Rise of Al Qaeda.......2007-10-16
Lawrence Wright has written what will be arguable the best book on the subject of the Al Qaeda and their war against the West. The Looming Tower is a monumental work on a grand scale not unlike many of the epic works about World War II.
This contribution to a growing body of literature on the subject of 9/11 and the rise of Islamic extremist/terrorism is a thorough, comprehensive narrative account of one of the critical junctures of history. Wright weaves a colorful tapestry of characters, from the little known Sayyid Qutib, founder of the modern Islamic movement, circa 1940's, to Public Enemy Number One- Osama bin Laden.
Wright gives insight and background into these characters and humanizes them. We see their faults, their sophistry,their cynicysm and opportunism, but also their cunning and ruthlessness. On the American side there is the cynical Michael Scheurer (CIA), the insufferable John O'Neill--perfect charicature of an FBI/G-man, and the wily Richard Clark; bureaucractic infighters all; desparate to catch this elusive figure, this cave dweller intent on making mischief, taking innocent life.
The Looming Tower is an exhilerating, heart-stopping account of the events that led up to 9/11. After reading this book, you will have a better appreciation of what this country is facing in the War on Terror.
History that reads like a novel!.......2007-10-14
It's an enjoyable and informative read. Historians in the future will certainly cite Wright's book. Their is no need for me to say anymore as the Pulitzer says it all!
must read for every educated american.......2007-10-14
If you are an American wondering what happened to our country and why, you must read this book. It provides an unbiased perspective on what happened and why on 9/11 and who the people behind it were. I whole heartedly recommend this book
Muslims and al-Qaeda 101.......2007-10-10
The Looming Tower is a must read for anyone wanting to know why world events have brought us to today. Lawrence Wright also makes it clear how difficult it will be to negotiate any type of peace with certain Muslim sects. Very factual. Well-researched and documented.
Excellent.......2007-10-10
This book, The Looming Towers, is an excellent portrayal of the genesis of the Muslim feelings of denigration and disgrace at the hands of the leaders of Western world. This book is sobering and frightening. It is well written and extremely interesting with excellent references.
Amazon.com
"Learning the game of power requires a certain way of looking at the world, a shifting of perspective," writes Robert Greene. Mastery of one's emotions and the arts of deception and indirection are, he goes on to assert, essential. The 48 laws outlined in this book "have a simple premise: certain actions always increase one's power ... while others decrease it and even ruin us."
The laws cull their principles from many great schemers--and scheming instructors--throughout history, from Sun-Tzu to Talleyrand, from Casanova to con man Yellow Kid Weil. They are straightforward in their amoral simplicity: "Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit," or "Discover each man's thumbscrew." Each chapter provides examples of the consequences of observance or transgression of the law, along with "keys to power," potential "reversals" (where the converse of the law might also be useful), and a single paragraph cleverly laid out to suggest an image (such as the aforementioned thumbscrew); the margins are filled with illustrative quotations. Practitioners of one-upmanship have been given a new, comprehensive training manual, as up-to-date as it is timeless.
Book Description
Amoral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this piercing work distills three thousand years of the history of power in to forty-eight well explicated laws. As attention--grabbing in its design as it is in its content, this bold volume outlines the laws of power in their unvarnished essence, synthesizing the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun-tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers. Some laws teach the need for prudence ("Law 1: Never Outshine the Master"), the virtue of stealth ("Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions"), and many demand the total absence of mercy ("Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally"), but like it or not, all have applications in real life. Illustrated through the tactics of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry Kissinger, P. T. Barnum, and other famous figures who have wielded--or been victimized by--power, these laws will fascinate any reader interested in gaining, observing, or defending against ultimate control.
Customer Reviews:
Made up stories.......2007-10-12
The book is interesting but most of the stories sound made up to fit the author's point. He even admits in one of the last chapters that when something has happened in the past, you can reinterpret it and insert your own lines (p.397).
VERY USEFUL IF YOU ARE NEW TO A BIG CITY.......2007-10-08
The world as battle-field. It doesn't get any better than this if success is what you're looking for!
Disgusting! Don't buy this book!.......2007-10-06
If you want a guide on how to be manipulative, amoral and corrupt at everyone else's expense...this is for you. As for me, I was disgusted from page one....it goes completely against everything I believe in. "Never put too much trust in friends" ...must be awfully lonely in such a world where you can trust no one. Perhaps that's because you've stabbed everyone in the back. This "looking out for #1" at all costs is what is wrong with the world today. If any book EVER deserved to be burned...this is it!
Portrays a realistic view of the world while rising up in power........2007-09-16
When I first acquired this book, I delved into the text and was fascinated by what is never taught in school, hardly at work, even with people; as this book states wisely, many people would like to keep to themselves and therefore many who have power hardly share it, unless a deal is behind it. The book itself may be a paradox in parts, and the methods used may be controversial; yet it has the essential basic "training" in order to strive to the top.
Sometimes one wonders if this will work, or does this author fool us into purchasing this book. It may show a pessimistic world of beguile, secrecy, envy and greed; however this portrays a realistic view of the world while rising up in power.
Brilliantly written, with worthy examples of great thinkers, philosophers and military officials of history; this concise edition will keep you on the ground reading, whilst teaching you how to propel in the air and on top of the world.
USMC- Commandant's reading list.......2007-07-25
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm Army - 16yrs. From 2000 thru 2006 I was stationed in Okinawa and the best place for all service members to buy books so deployed (Amazon aside) was from the bookstore on Camp Foster (across from the movie theatre). For at least a good 6 months (in 2002) this book was prominently featured on the shelves with a tag identifying it as having made the USMC Commandant's Reading List (or, a book senior commisioned Marine Corps leadership consider beneficial to Marines (enlisted and commisioned) seeking guidance on professional development). Intrigued, I bought it. I won't go into a lengthy review here: in a nutshell; the book lists a series of TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) designed to maximize one's advantage when negotiating interpersonal realationships both professional and personal. Some of these TTPs involve elements of manipulation, subterfuge, and dishonesty that clearly cross the boundaries of unethical behavior. It bothered me not just a little that Marines or Soldiers (young and old) might consider using the advice in this book as means of advancing their careers or solidifying leadership positions within their respective units.
I do know some of the book's reccomendations are in direct conflict with The Army Values, and according to at least two USMC Staff NCOs (both good friends) this is also the case regarding their own code of professional conduct. One of the Marines in question wrote a letter (to whom -I don't know) expressing his concern. A few months later the book assumed a less prominent residence on the shelves. Nonetheless; I never failed to see it lodged in the odd bookshelf in someone's (usually an officer) professional space - from time to time. I consider its presence an indicator for stepping up one's vigilance when dealing with the books's owner.
Book Description
On Wall Street, in the culture of high tech, in American government: Libertarianism-the simple but radical idea that the only purpose of government is to protect its citizens and their property against direct violence and threat-has become an extremely influential strain of thought. But while many books talk about libertarian ideas, none until now has explored the history of this uniquely American movement-where and who it came from, how it evolved, and what impact it has had on our country.
In this revelatory book, based on original research and interviews with more than 100 key sources, Brian Doherty traces the evolution of the movement through the unconventional life stories of its most influential leaders-Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman-and through the personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. And by doing so, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history-from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1960s to today's most divisive political issues. Neither an exposi nor a political polemic, this entertaining historical narrative will enlighten anyone interested in American politics.
Customer Reviews:
Thorough History Of The Libertarian Movement.......2007-07-18
I am not a libertarian. But I do support their stance on certain issues such as being pro-immigration, against military imperialism and for civil liberties, including the legalization of prostitution and drugs. This book is a very thorough and well researched history of the movement. But, at over 600 pages, it is not really for those seeking a brief introduction.
Doherty begins the movement's history with the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and proceeds, more or less, chronologically describing key libertarian figures such as F.A. Hayek, Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman. Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and thus obviously a libertarian himself. But I found his overall approach to be balanced and he certainly wasn't afraid to describe the personal faults of important libertarian figures. For instance, Ayn Rand comes across as an insufferable egomaniac who turned her Objectivist philosophy movement into something resembling a religious cult (based on the worship of her) before eventually driving away nearly everyone associated with her. On the other hand, I found Murray Rothbard to be a more likable character, at least during his Circle Bastiat days.
Rothbard is also the person who was most involved in bringing libertarian ideas to the radicals of the 1960's. As someone who came of age in the counter-culture, I have always recognized that there was a link between the bohemian's and the libertarian's emphasis on individual freedom. However, the truth is that most politically minded counter-cultural types tend to lean towards a sort of leftist communal anarchism and would probably identify as "radicals against capitalism" instead of "radicals for capitalism". Still I do see some similarties there and will be interested to read another of Doherty's books - "This Is Burning Man: The Rise Of A New American Underground".
In any case, I agree with the previous reviewer that every significant political philosophy deserves it's own written history and this one is very well written, detailed and worthy of being read.
Uninspiring history.......2007-07-17
This is a beefy book that needs a strong dose of willpower to finish. It reads more like a brain dump than something that's had some thought devoted to its structure (hence presumably requiring the "freewheeling" qualifier in the title), or some editorial pruning to its frequent repetition. It is useful, though, as a single source to look up the names that crop up in any discussion with _American_ libertarians (libertarians/anarchists in the rest of the world are dogmatically anti-capitalist).
The book confirms that the American libertarian philosophy is the economic-determinist twin of the Marxist one, with the premise that a simple economic formula will free everyone. For the libertarians, its "private property and free markets"; for the Marxist, it is "state-owned production and central planning". With the libertarians, you just hand over your freedom to the property owner. That is, if you can even afford to participate in their free market.
One logical corollary of the formula shows up in the book in the person of Andrew Galambos, the guru of Harry Browne, twice Presidential candidate of the American Libertarian Party. Galambos taught courses on capitalism, but attendees could not talk to anyone about the content, since the ideas were owned by Galambos. (However, there are apparently a few American libertarians who oppose intellectual property.)
A really good analysis of the absurdities underlying what passes for the political philosophy underlying "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism", even assuming their central proposition of the State being an inherently evil institution, is a document available on the web called "An Anarchist FAQ", written by left-libertarians and anarchists, who are obviously sceptical of any government. Since this book is a history, there understandably aren't any pages devoted to a _decent_ defence of the ideology from its critics.
As the other reviews describe, the central flow of the narrative is woven around Mises, Hayek, Rand, Friedman and Rothbard, with the other libertarians and institutions discussed in major digressions. Of all the people mentioned in this hagiography, one person who stood out was Robert Anton Wilson, a recently deceased libertarian science fiction author, who seemed to have a genuine interest in seeing the whether the professed aims of libertarianism would help those who needed it the most.
The material on Austrian economics is interesting, since it's perhaps not well known that it's quite sceptical of the ideas underlying the dominant neo-classical school, which seems to the uninitiated to be all about market-driven solutions. There is some discussion of Hayek's screed against central planning, but too little about how it applies to the central planning that takes place inside any corporation. It was striking that Mises, the founding Austrian economist, rejected, _on principle_, any empirical verification of Austrian theory against real-world data. Quite a "rational " position, that, perhaps explaining why Austrian economics was not (and perhaps still is not) taken seriously.
An Excellent and Fun History.......2007-06-29
This book is the first comprehensive history of the American libertarian movement, from its roots in the American Revolution, to Ron Paul, Cato and beyond. Along the way, the author looks at 19th Century philosophers whose anarchism was based in a strong belief in individual liberty to the nadir of American individual in the crisis of the Great Depression and the patriotic collectivism of World War Two. In 1943, it seemed that individualism was dead, so much so that the last "classic" individual anarchist, Albert Jay Nock, entitled his autobiography "The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man."
It is at that point that the story really picks up. For also in 1943, three remarkable women, Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand each published works that would rally believers in individual liberty. The following year, Frederick Hayek would publish "The Road to Serfdom" and the battle against government control would begin. Doherty makes many stops along the way, addressing the many disparate strands that are American libertarianism. From the respectable businessmen who joined the Foundation for Economic Education, to the students at the Freedom School, to the anarchism of Murray Rothbard, the radicalism of Karl Hess and the back to the land movement, Doherty shows the characters, the freewheeling, and the backstabbing.
While the term libertarian is still somewhat loaded, thanks to the sometimes strange people that inhibit the Libertarian Party, Doherty also shows how libertarianism has gone mainstream. While early Austrian economists Mises and Hayek had trouble finding academic berths in the United States, the "Chicago School" has built a network of academics. Milton Freidman advised presidents and one of his disciples now sits as head of the Federal Reserve (ironic as Friedman wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve). Whereas in the early 1960s, libertarian ideas were often passed around in mimeographed newsletters, today, it is discussed in libertarian think tanks and in glossy magazines.
Doherty really did his homework. Much of the book contains personal remembrances gleaned from an incredible number of interviews conducted over about 10 years. And as the book comes to present day, Doherty, an editor at Reason Magazine and connected with many modern libertarian organizations, takes on a very conversational tone.
In short, the book is well researched, easy to read and fun. I highly recommend it.
The Story of an Awakening.......2007-06-25
What a great read! Doherty researched his subject (and subjects) almost exhaustively and gave a sometimes breezy, sometimes dense, all the time entertaining portrait of Libertarianism and its founders. Libertarians (and I count myself as one) who boast that their "time has come" are as deluded as the conspiracy nuts who KNOW that Bush is in cohoots with Osama, Saddam, Jews, Saudis, Nazis, aliens - take your pick. I've always contended that Libertarianism will never be a political force because of the very nature of the philosophy - an anti-collectivist attitude that rejecting the sublimation of the individual to the group that is the hallmark of modern politics. In this Brave New World, everything from bathroom flushes to the size of holes in Swiss cheese is politicized. Incredibly, there are those who argue these issues with the passion of the newly converted - I mark it down to the substitution of ideology for religion.
Libertarians are critical thinkers, intelligent and questioning. Even a casual perusal of this work makes that evident. They somehow found the intellectual fortitude to reject the overwhelming majority belief in a nanny State. The movement has the highest percentage of atheists of any political group and yet, for all their smarts, they are constantly battling one another. They can only agree on the broadest and vaguest concepts - non-coercion, limited government, individual and property rights. Maybe it's the absence of the ubiquitious "Vote for me and I'll start a program" politics that voters need. The personalities in the book are heavy hitters - Von Mises, Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Freidman and then there are all the others - Ron Paul, Popper, Brown, etc. Rand is mainly discussed through her fiction although her non-fiction is almost highlighted. Hayek's advocacy of freedom along with the brilliant but turgid von Mises is contrasted with the almost sunny, public Friedman.
Libertarianism arose in the GOP and it remains almost exclusively in that realm. (Paul says that Republicans were the original Libertarians.) The only "leftist" thread in Libertarianism is the anarchist leaning of some. The Democrat embrace of group rights, the nanny state, high taxes and (until recently) foreign intervention has prevented the rise of any movement from that side. The common thread, the glue that holds the book together is Rothbard. His decades-long search to find his philosophical base was both repelling and fascinating as he switched allegiances, picked fights, protested this or that perceived slight and yet remained in the spotlight. One is suspicious that this was his real goal at times. His claim never to have changed views is absurd and yet his machinations give the book a well-needed "spine" that allows the action to flow chronologically. As in most books about Libertarianism, the subjects of economic and human rights arise since there is a direct correlation between the two.
Doherty strikes a fine balance between theory, biography, gossip and commentary. In many books like this, either the ideology or the personalities receive short shrift. I found the reading incredibly interesting but for others it will be a chore. In the end one is both awed at the human effort that has been expended toward the idea of freedom and saddened that so few seem to grasp those ideas.
Push Back the State.......2007-06-24
Every movement deserves its 700 page history and Brian Doherty has written an outstanding one for the libertarian movement. He focuses on five seminal libertarian thinkers, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman, but certainly doesn't ignore the other people who have made the movement so colorful. The book is consistently enlightening and provides biographical details of its major players that I didn't know. And, contrary to those who would rewrite history, Doherty makes it clear that Rand's "Objectivist" movement left a trail of broken lives in its wake, not the least of which was Rand's.
As other reviewers have noted, perhaps a few too many mistakes crept into this book and there are certainly some questionable judgments, but this is "our history" and all libertarians should be grateful to Mr. Doherty.
Book Description
Since it appeared in 1971, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has become a classic. The author has now revised the original edition to clear up a number of difficulties he and others have found in the original book.
Rawls aims to express an essential part of the common core of the democratic tradition--justice as fairness--and to provide an alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought since the nineteenth century. Rawls substitutes the ideal of the social contract as a more satisfactory account of the basic rights and liberties of citizens as free and equal persons. "Each person," writes Rawls, "possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override." Advancing the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, Emerson, and Lincoln, Rawls's theory is as powerful today as it was when first published.
Customer Reviews:
very fine about justice in no justice world ...........2007-01-11
This is not for me (also I'm lawyer), is for my daughter who study philosophy at University of Buenos Aires and will learn the book when we arrive home next Jan 22.
Accessible and important development in liberal thought.......2006-10-14
A Theory of Justice is surprisingly accessible, even to those of us without extensive training in philosophy. Rawls briefly examines two of the most influential Western liberal philosophers (Locke and Mill), and then proceeds to construct his own Theory which builds on Locke and Mill while solving for some of the deficiences in each.
As Rawls admitted, the gist of his Theory can be gleaned from the first part of the book, though the book reads easily enough that one should be able to get through the whole thing fairly quickly.
I highly recommend this book to those who think of philosophy as convoluted jargon written long ago by men in powdered wigs and robes, as well as to those who are unsure of the philosophical basis for much modern liberal political thought. A remarkably accessible and important development in liberal thought.
The Impossible Attempt of Reconciling the Ideal with the Realistic.......2006-09-07
The amount of praise given to this work does not surprise me given that there is a widespread, yet subtle, socialist movement in America as well as in Europe. Despite this, the book is a failed attempt at reconciling the ideal with reality. Rawls commits one of the many age-old flaws of collectivism, attempting to force morality on immoral beings. Rawls' entire work is fundamentally flawed in that the hypothetical situation from which the entire theory relies, selectively allows certain knowledge, assumptions, etc. while conveniently eliminating others. For instance, empirical evidence that shows capitalism outperforms other economic systems cannot be known in the original position. This is profound when one considers that we live in a hostile world that requires nations to invest in security of which economic power is imperative. Thus, capitalism may be a necessary injustice in order to safeguard liberal democracy. If we compare the human condition prior to capitalism, one can see that perhaps a collectivist system that may contribute to capitalism's downfall is immoral, if it leads us back in this direction. Consequentalism perhaps? Despite this, the people in the original position cannot have this knowledge. Therefore, information that is direly relevant to the construction of a social system in a hostile world cannot be used in determining its structure. Somehow though, the people do understand the important of the right to vote, equality, etc. This is absurd and impractical. Rationale beings need to analyze as much information as is available and pertinent to any decisions they make. Rawls continuously attempts to explain his "tweaks" as rationale but it is obvious that they are all implemented in order to discount human nature and proceed in theoretical terms. On a side note, Rawls' first principle calls for the right to vote, what would his state do if citizens began to vote for a more capitalistic system that defied his "justice"? Iron fist? Nevertheless, it is quite obvious what Rawls is attempting here. In a hypothetical situation where we all have to fear being born without intelligence, strength, status etc. we will take the safe route and ensure ourselves the highest index of goods. This may be true, or it may not (human nature seems to embrace risk taking) however this situation is irrelevant because of its exclusion of relevant information. Hobbes for instance accepted human nature and the potential for a wide array of circumstances in his hypothetical Natural Condition. While Rawls may have some strong arguments in declaring that his two principles are the epitome absolute justice, this does not mean they are practical in a hostile world. Essentially, what Rawls is saying is that none of us deserved to be born intelligent, responsible, hard working, but that we were simply lucky in the natural lottery. Because of this arbitrary distribution, he believes that we all must compensate for those unfortunate souls that were born unintelligent, lazy, and perhaps even immoral! I'd admonish Rawls not to attempt applying his insane reasoning to the criminal justice system (Poor, unfortunate murderer). If Rawls believes that the laziest, dumbest, and most immoral person still deserves a living wage despite not working, he has contradicted himself in that this justifies slavery, forcing individuals to work for other individuals without compensation. This simply cannot be justice as "fairness". Nevertheless, I'd recommend it to all free market advocates simply to strengthen their positions. As a warning however, be prepared for a work that lacks brevity, organization, coherence, and most importantly, reality.
Comic reviews.......2006-03-27
I suppose one of the great attributes of the internet is that it allows the juxtaposition of the good, the bad and the ugly. Where else could one find reviews of one of the twentieth century's towering works that variously describe it as a recipe for a police state, an incitement to theft, or as written by someone with no understanding of philosophy (my personal favourite - thanks Adrian!)
Essential.......2006-03-21
Rawls clearly sucks in great chunks of political thought - Kantianism, Utilitarianism, free market capitalism, utopian socialism, the Enlightenment idea of human progress in this capacious work. At the crux of his thought is the difference principle - the notion that inequalities can only be justified if they benefit the least well off.
Whatever you make of his theory, it can't be ignored. Anyone even remotely interested in 20th Century Liberal thought must consult A Theory of Justice, as it is the precursor to so much that has been written in the last 35 years. Check out any political journal and there will still be several articles anually which assess some part of Rawls' legacy.
In the 1970s, when Rawls' book came out, many people thought he had cracked liberal thought. Since then OPEC crises, divisions over the welfare state, the problem of benefit traps, pension funding shortfalls and a whole menangerie of other problems have beset contemporary liberalism. But to go back to a brave, well throught out articulation of one great thinker's view of liberal equality, seek out Rawls.
Amazon.com
Julia Kristeva's Hannah Arendt brings together two of the best minds in 20th-century philosophy; two who are especially noteworthy because they are visionary women in a field long dominated by men. Appropriately, the book is, in part, a tribute to Arendt, one of a series of looks at female genius. Kristeva brings her considerable scholarly arsenal, which includes linguistics, literary criticism, philosophy, feminism, aesthetics, cultural studies, and psychoanalysis. In particular, her psychoanalytic bent makes for an incisive look at Arendt because she was "gripped from the start by that unique passion in which life and thought are one.... [She] consistently put life--both life itself and life as a concept to be analyzed--at the center of her work."
Arendt is certainly one of the 20th century's brightest intellectual luminaries. Penning The Human Condition and Eichmann in Jerusalem, she wove her accounts of philosophy with a unique penchant for narrative and personal reflection, vivified by her extraordinary life. Throughout this biography, Kristeva plies Arendt's trade, using Arendt's life to illuminate her thought. By turns she examines Arendt's use of narrative, her ratiocinations on Jewish-ness and anti-Semitism, and her political philosophy. Kristeva's insightfulness in this volume will help ensure her a place in the canon alongside Arendt. --Eric de Place
Book Description
Twenty-five years after her death, we are still coming to terms with the controversial figure of Hannah Arendt. Interlacing the life and work of this seminal twentieth-century philosopher, Julia Kristeva provides us with an elegant, sophisticated biography brimming with historical and philosophical insight.
Centering on the theme of female genius, Hannah Arendt emphasizes three features of the philosopher's work. First, by exploring Arendt's critique of Saint Augustine and her biographical essay on Rahel Varnhagen, Kristeva accentuates Arendt's commitment to recounting lives and narration. Second, Kristeva reflects on Arendt's perspective on
Judaism, anti-Semitism, and the "banality of evil." Finally, the biography assesses Arendt's intellectual journey, placing her enthusiasm for observing both social phenomena and political events in the context of her personal life.
Drawing on fragments of Arendt's most intimate correspondence with her longtime lover Martin Heidegger and her husband Heinrich Blucher, excerpts from her mother's "Unser Kind" (a diary tracking Hannah's formative years), and passages from Arendt's philosophical writings, Kristeva presents a luminous story. With a thorough thematic index and bibliographical references, Hannah Arendt is a major breakthrough in the understanding of an essential thinker.
Customer Reviews:
The intellectual overview of a political science genius.......2003-11-07
It has been a long time since I went to a baseball game, but trying to keep track of the intellectual action in the biography of Hannah Arendt by Julia Kristeva reminded me of the game. Eventually, I even thought of a song, "Catfish" by Bob Dylan (Words by Bob Dylan and Jacques Levy) recorded on July 28, 1975, an outtake from the album "Desire" that was finally released in a three-CD package called "The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 [rare and unreleased] 1961-1991." There was once a pitcher called Catfish Hunter, million dollar man, and Dylan's chorus said, "Nobody can throw the ball Like Catfish can." I have had the words since "The Songs of Bob Dylan" was released in 1976, but I didn't hear the song until 1991. Having an English translation from 2001 of a feminist biography of a political scientist of the mid-twentieth century captures the intellection activity that interests me about as well as "Catfish" captures the action of a baseball game.
Lazy stadium night, Catfish on the mound,
"Strike three" the umpire said,
Batter have to go back and sit down.
There are three chapters in HANNAH ARENDT, and the third has 219 notes. Basic statistics on how much Julia Kristeva is merely educating herself in public by providing a reading from Arendt's books might be obtained by counting the Ibid.s. Counting backwards, I found 133 Ibid.s in the notes for Chapter 3, including my favorite note:
"99. "Letter to the Romans 7:21, drafted between 54 and 58 a.d., cited in ibid., p. 64." (p. 268).
A lot of the books I read lately keep trying to tell me when the Bible was written, but I never noticed it in a note before. Usually my favorite notes are about Nietzsche, like:
"123. Ibid., p. 165, citing Nietzsche, THE GAY SCIENCE, no. 310"
"126. Concerning the `forgetting' that Nietzsche revives see p. 237; and Paul Ricoeur, paper presented at the Hannah Arendt Conference at the Grande Bibliotheque de France, December 6, 1997."
"128. Ibid., pp. 169-70, citing Nietzsche, THE WILL TO POWER, no. 585 A, pp. 316-19."
`131. LM, "Willing," p. 172, citing Nietzsche, THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, pt. 3, "Before Sunrise." '
`187. Ibid., citing Nietzsche, "The Use and Abuse of History," pp. 6, 7.'
"189. Ibid., citing Nietzsche, THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS, p. 61"
`192. Ibid., pp. 63, 72-73 ("even in old Kant: the categorical imperative reeks of cruelty").'
Nietzsche wrote such things about Kant, and it is a bit difficult to imagine that Kristeva and Arendt would associate such ideas with the great weight of the past if Nietzsche hadn't made this connection first. Understanding philosophy is a process that can be compared to intellectually building a rehash of old, familiar plays, as if it is about something like a baseball game, which has an umpire who gets to decide when an easy pop fly is an infield fly rule call that makes the batter out, but the umpire does not have time to say anything until after it is all over when a triple play picks off the runners before they have a chance to tag up if the pitcher ducks under a line drive that gets caught right on second base before anyone has time to react, but a quick shortstop snagged the ball out of the air and flipped it to first in the only instant in which that could happen. Kristeva is capable of interpreting political science as an activity best understood in terms of the philosophy of Nietzsche:
"To the `identical will' that forges the solidarity of a group, Arendt contrasts the way men who are connected to one another through a mutual promise `act in concert.' These men dispose of the future as though it were the present, and they live together in the miraculous enlargement of what Nietzsche called the `memory of the Will,' which is what distinguishes human life from animal life. As Arendt evokes Nietzsche's concept, she hears only the joyful touches of the superman and denotes not a trace of Nietzsche's disdainful tone." (p. 236).
Still counting backward, I find 102 Ibid.s in the notes for Chapter 2 and only 52 Ibid.s in the notes for Chapter 1. The Introduction only had two notes, on a wide variety of topics, but both related to the nature of "genius." When political opinion surveys offer a few sample views to encompass the political orientation of the great mass of the population, only a genius could be expected to have a ready answer to questions like "Will mothers become our only safeguard against the wholesale automation of human beings?" (p. xiii). The Introduction actually seems more suited for a triple biography, as "The three women who are the subject of this work" on page xv includes two women who are hardly mentioned in the three main chapters of HANNAH ARENDT. It does not add much to understanding this book to also learn "that Melanie Klein devoted herself to studying decompensation." (p. xvii). But in considering who else has been brilliant, it pays to have some comic relief. Among the French, who must understand comedy as well as any people anywhere, it might even be popular to declare:
"Colette's only real rival would prove to be Proust, whose narrative search has a social and metaphysical complexity that goes well beyond the adventures of Claudine and her counterparts. And yet Colette far surpasses Proust in the art of capturing pleasures that have never been lost." (pp. xviii-xix).
Book Description
"A brilliant and humane philosophy for our confused age."—Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell
Kwame Anthony Appiah's landmark new work, featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine, challenges the separatist doctrines espoused in books like Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations. Reviving the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism," a school of thought that dates to the Cynics of the fourth century BC, Appiah traces its influence on the ethical legacies of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Raised in Ghana, educated in England, and now a distinguished professor in the United States, Appiah promises to create a new era in which warring factions will finally put aside their supposed ideological differences and will recognize that the fundamental values held by all human beings will usher in a new era of global understanding.
Customer Reviews:
Essays by Appiah.......2007-06-27
This book is a collection of essays around a common theme; each is extremely well written, reflective and accessible to the non-specialist.
Anthony Appiah is surely one of our most important thinkers about ethical issues that arise in common life. He brings unusual color and verve to
his subjects, reflecting a childhood in Ghana and an adult life spent as a true citizen of the world in one of the world's great universities.
An importance exploration of what it means to be a responsible part of today's world.......2007-02-10
There are few individuals more qualified to write a book on the idea of cosmopolitanism than Kwame Anthony Appiah. Biracial, raised in both Ghana and England, multicultural, multilingual, educated at Cambridge but teaching at Princeton, Appiah has an inside familiarity with larger world that few can rival. It is tremendously encouraging to me, a WASP who has been unable to engage in any real travel, that we both seem to share precisely the same ideals. My experience of the world counts for little; his a great deal. Yet it shows that people with extremely different backgrounds can embrace the same ideals.
Appiah is a philosopher, but though he has clearly been raised in the Anglo-American linguistic philosophical tradition, he has not found himself restricted by it. From the various philosophers he quotes, I'm sure that he and had had similar philosophical training. I envy the way that he can make what I learned as logical positivism (Appiah lops off the "logical") and make it relevant in a discussion of wider cultural issues. Though he obviously was trained in the tradition honed by Russell, Carnap, Frege, Ryle, Austin, Anscombe, Dummett, and the large contingent of American and British logicians and philosophers of language, none of them have informed his literary style. In fact, the two writers Appiah reminds me of most are Herodotus and Montaigne. Like them, he feels a license to bring into his discussion almost anything. If he is cosmopolitan on a moral and social level, he is also as a multidisciplinarian. Nor does he hesitate at mixing cultures. Many of the most compelling passages in the book detail incidents from his experience in Ghana.
The point of the book is to discuss many of the problems that arise if one attempts to embrace--as Appiah clearly feels we all should--cosmopolitan ideals. He deals interestingly with a host of issues, from the idea of who owns the products of a culture to the incommensurability of values from one culture to another (or their possible commensurability) to whether it is problematic when there are conflicts on fundamental issues. As a person he seems to have been deeply molded by all of the cultural influences in which he grew up, but as a philosopher he is exceptionally British. Over the decades there have been a number of British thinkers who have been able to cut through a thick wad of nonsense and discuss issues in a balanced, commonsensical manner. Gilbert Ryle had this capacity, as did (sometimes) G. E. Moore, and so also Mary Midgley. While his views are unquestionably progressive, Appiah always seems to avoid extremes to arrive at conclusions that are, above all else, balanced and reasonable. He is a master at making sense. So when philosopher Peter Unger argues that we all have a moral obligation to give every penny that we do not need for our own sustenance to organizations like UNICEF and OXFAM so that food and medicine can be purchased for the desperately poor in the Third World. Appiah, on the other hand, believes that a world in which no one bought a ticket to the opera would be flat and uninteresting. Besides, what really matters is reforming local governments in order to provide long-term transformation of the socioeconomic structures in the areas most afflicted by poverty, something that giving exclusively to UNICEF and OXFAM will not accomplish (though for the record, Appiah thinks both organizations are very important and he does not discourage contributing to them). Though he does not state it as a principle, he constantly employs something akin to Aristotle's golden mean.
I especially enjoyed his chapter on The Counter-Cosmopolitans. He places many of today's Islamic extremists in this category, though he also very correctly places many Christian fundamentalists here as well. I have long fantasized about writing a book about contemporary proponents of Counter-Enlightenment ideas (a book I will never write because I haven't mastered the range of disciplines such a project would require). Isaiah Berlin wrote frequently about various Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as Hamaan, but I believe it can be extended into the present for such mass movements as various religious fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, as well as Jewish), the New Age movement, contemporary astrology, right wing political movements, and free market capitalism. Obviously I can't make my claim here, but I found Appiah's discussion of the counter-cosmopolitans to overlap entirely with counter-enlightenment ideals.
I value this book not only for its ideals and the intelligent discussion of a host of thorny issues, but for Appiah's warm humanity and wonderful literary style. It is not merely an intelligent book but a well-written one as well.
Becoming Cosmopolitan.......2007-02-05
One of the most pernicious ideas has spung from the myth that we are necessarily separated and segregated into groups that are defined by criteria like gender, language, race, religion or some other kind of boundary. And it is easy to see that these boundaries are a major cause of conflict.
The author of this enthralling book - Kwame Anthony Appiah - challenges this kind of separative thinking by resurrecting the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism." This school of thought that dates back almost 2500 years to the Cynics of Ancient Greece. They first articulated the cosmopolitan ideal that all human beings were citizens of the world. Later on, these ideas were elaborated by another group of philosophers: the Stoics.
According to Appiah, the influence of cosmopolitanism has stretched down the ages and through to the Enlightenment. He takes Immanuel Kant's notion of a League of Nations and the Declaration of the Rights of Man to be two manifestations of this ancient idea.
Appiah sees cosmopolitanism as a dynamic concept based on two fundamental ideas. First is the idea that we have responsibilities to others that are beyond those based on kinship or citizenship. Second is something often forgotten: just because other people have different customs and beliefs from ours, they will likely still have meaning and value. We may not agree with someone else, but mutual understanding should be a first goal.
The book is full of personal experiences. I doubt that anyone else could have written it: His mother was an English author and daughter of the statesman Sir Stafford Cripps, and his father a Ghanaian barrister and politician, who reminded his children to remember that they were "citizens of the world."
Appiah was educated in Ghana and England and has taught in both countries. He now holds a chair of Philosophy at Princeton. He is no starry eyed idealist, and he knows that differences between groups and nations cannot be wished away or ignored. But he contends, rightly, I think, that differences can be accepted without being allowed to become barriers.
As he says, "Cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their vocabulary of values to begin a conversation. But they don't suppose, like some Universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary." The reason is simply this: most of us arrive at our values not on the basis of careful reasoning, but by lifelong conditioning and subjective beliefs and attitudes.
In parts of Europe, there have recently been misgivings about the growing diversity and multiculturalism of countries like the United Kingdom, with people asking whether it is doing no more than fracturing society. Appiah tackles this question head on. He has this to say, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference that they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members."
Cosmopolitanism, balances our "obligations to others" with the "value not just of human life but of particular human lives," what Appiah calls "universality plus difference." He remains skeptical about simple maxims for ethical behavior such as the Golden Rule. He swiftly demonstrates its failings as a moral precept. He argues that cosmopolitanism is the name not "of the solution but of the challenge."
This is an important book that will inevitably be controversial. In a world that is becoming more interconnected and shrinking by the day, and where the "clash of cultures" threatens our existence, Appiah has many new perspectives as he articulates a precise yet flexible ethical manifesto. He does not claim to have all the answers, but this book should be of interest to all of us as we try to make sense of the turmoil, challenges and opportunities of our globalizing world.
Current and relevant.......2007-01-05
Very insightful. Draws on past scholarship to apply to our world today.
Brilliant.......2006-08-31
Excellent, Brilliant and full of wisdom. This is from a philosopher who has the ability to see things from more perspectives than black and white. His book is concise and not too academic. He makes philosophy trendy. He is a new generation of thinkers that will reshape our thoughts. He tackles sensitive issues with respect for all parties. One cannot tell his sentiments due to his fairness and objectivity. The first book I will read a second time.
Book Description
“War no longer exists,” writes General Sir Rupert Smith, powerfully reminding us that the clash of mass national armies—the system of war since Napoleon—will never occur again. Instead, he argues in this timely book, we must be prepared to adapt tactics to each conflict, or lose the ability to protect ourselves and our way of life.
General Smith draws on his vast experience as a commander in the 1991 Gulf War, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland, to give us a probing analysis of modern war and to call for radically new military thinking. Why, he asks, do we use armed force to solve our political problems? And how is it that our armies can win battles but fail to solve the problems?
From Iraq to the Balkans, and from Afghanistan to Chechnya, Smith charts a stream of armed interventions that have failed to deliver on promises of resolution. He demonstrates why today’s conflicts must be understood as intertwined political and military events. He makes clear why the current one-size-fits-all model of total war, fought out on battlefields, that politicians still cling to must be abandoned in favor of new strategies that take into account the fact that wars are now fought among civilian populations. And he offers a compelling new model for how to fight these battles—and secure our world.
Clear, incisive and provocative, The Utility of Force will fundamentally change the way we understand war.
Customer Reviews:
An essential perspective on the use of force around the world.......2007-10-08
General Rupert Smith has written an essential introduction here to the problems and paradoxes of modern warfare. I recommend it very highly. I especially liked Smith's analysis that in today's wars information is much more important than firepower.
The book does have a few omissions. Most important, I felt it had too little to say on the role of natural resources, overpopulation, and environmental degradation in causing war and civil unrest around the world. There is a substantial argument to be made that the U.S. military has become little more than a global oil-protection service. Changing the American lifestyle from fossil-fuel to renewable energy sources could make a substantial contriubution to the peace and security of the world. Such a transition might well reduce U.S. economic growth; however, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Economic growth sounds great--a rising tide lifts all boats--but it is necessary to keep in mind how it is calculated. Economic growth is generally measured by GDP, which as a measure of well-being is so inaccurate as to be almost laughable. GDP is measured by counting up what is spent on various items. This works more or less OK if you're counting food bought by hungry people, but very poorly indeed if you're counting money spent on bombs or automatic rifles, or on parking garages for rich people's cars. GDP is not corrected for increasing population, pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, or declining quality of life. More accurate measures of economic growth, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or Genuine Progress Indicator, tend to show that there has been little or no genuine economic growth in the U.S. since the 1970s. For more on this, see McKibben's book "Deep Economy," Daly's "Beyond Growth," Brian Czech's "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train," or Jared Diamond's "Collapse."
In Agreement with the Five Star Reviewers.......2007-10-05
And not much to add to some excellent reviews that are already posted.
This guy knows his stuff and has done some excellent analysis providing us a chronological exposition of "industrial war" from its Naploeanic birth in mass and operational mobility. Sidelighting the defeat at Jena which gave birth to Clausewitz as French POW and his thinking on war along with the development of the Prussian General Staff that developed into the best modern field army of World War Two. I agree some editing would help the book, but it stands on its own without need of apology. Another title to add to the new military academy curriculum and foreign policy wonks reading list. Bravo.
A "Next Generation War" Concept That Makes Sense.......2007-07-20
Rupert Smith reviews the last 200 years of military history and clearly defines the nature of interstate, industrial war. He correctly identifies the end of the utility of such war as August 5th, 1945 - the day before the Enola Gay dropped her atomic bomb - and goes on to describe the dissonance between defense planning and actual conflicts in the ensuing 60-odd years. He uses the concept of War Among the People as an umbrella concept to describe the actions of guerrillas, revolutionaries, terrorists and other non-state actors; and identifies the people as the key objective in post-industrial war.
He believes that failure to understand the change in the nature and purpose of conflict - on the part of both policy makers and the military - has been at the root of the failure of nations, alliances and coalitions to effectively employ force over the past half-century.
Smith goes on to identify a model for political/military interaction in fighting War Among the People. The model itself is revolutionary, in that it departs from the concept of handing diplomatically insoluble problems over to the military and calls for the employment of diplomacy, force, aid and assistance as an integrated effort. In effect, he calls for 'force structuring' which would include elements of several cabinet departments - not just the military services - under a single theater commander (who probably would not be an officer of any service).
Smith's work is a useful antidote to some of the less disciplined and more technologically oriented discussions of "Fourth Generation Warfare" and "Transformation" that have appeared over the past few years. It is an important work - one that should be required reading for all of the 2008 Presidential candidates.
The book is, as others have noted, not an 'easy' read. It certainly could have been improved by better/more editing; but the content is more than worth the 'slog'.
To Be Fair I Only Made It Through 50 Pages.......2007-07-11
I heard about this book when Jon Stewart did an interview with Rupert Smith, who is a former high-ranking general in the British army and NATO Commander. I was intrigued by what the general had to say about the future of warfare. Namely peace being ushered in through policy and diplomatic relationships. And how those two factored into "force". Essentially, how and when to apply "force" in a situation. I also decided that if I'm going to explore pacifism in any detail, I should probably be well-rounded in my reading and research. Which is why I decided to pick this book up (as well as Generation Kill and Empire's Workshop). Anyway . . . all of that to say . . . that I got about 50 pages into the book before I had to put it down. The overall writing style was way to heavy on details instead of big picture philosophy of war. I also think it may have had something to do with it being written by an intelligent English man. I don't mean that in a disparaging way. He was certainly a warm and engaging person in his interview. I just think that when you intelligent people write books . . . there is a strong tendency for it to feel cold, boring, and detached. That's what I got in the first 50 pages which is why I put it down.
Coming from a seasoned general.......2007-05-08
"War no longer exists" states author/general Rupert Smith, who spent some forty years in the British Army and retired in 2002. Indeed, confrontations between mass national armies are unlikely to occur, replaced by diplomatic efforts that hold more promise than military force. Modern examples from armed interventions that have failed to deliver resolution show why modern conflicts need a different kind of analytical focus -one that blends political and military events - rather than a traditional model of warfare fought on battlefields. Coming from a seasoned general, THE UTILITY OF FORCE: THE ART OF WAR IN THE MODERN WORLD holds much hope for the modern world and is a pick not just for military libraries but for general-interest lending collections and college-level holdings strong in social issues, as well.
Average customer rating:
- The Hobo Philosopher
- Must have for any wannabe idealist
- Political Classic...read for historical insight
- A Must Read
- A Misleading Edition
|
The Communist Manifesto (Signet Classics)
Karl Marx ,
Friedrich Engels , and
Martin Malia
Manufacturer: Signet Classics
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Economic Conditions
| Economics
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
Classics
| General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
German
| Foreign Language Fiction
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Political
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Communism & Socialism
| Ideologies
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Radical Thought
| Ideologies
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Socialism
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
German
| Foreign Language Nonfiction
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Nonfiction
| German
| Foreign Language Books
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Professional & Technical
| German
| Foreign Language Books
| Specialty Stores
| Books
All German Books
| German
| Foreign Language Books
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Economic Conditions
| Economics
| Business & Investing
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Foreign Language Fiction
| Literature & Fiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
| French
| Spanish
Classics
| General
| Literature & Fiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
German
| Foreign Language Nonfiction
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Political
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Communism & Socialism
| Ideologies
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Radical Thought
| Ideologies
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
General
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Socialism
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
All 4-for-3 Deals
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
The Prince (Bantam Classics)
-
The Wealth of Nations (Bantam Classics)
-
The Republic (Penguin Classics)
-
The Art of War (Shambhala Classics)
-
Civilization and Its Discontents
ASIN: 0451527100 |
Amazon.com
"A spectre is haunting Europe," Karl Marx and Frederic Engels wrote in 1848, "the spectre of Communism." This new edition of The Communist Manifesto, commemorating the 150th anniversary of its publication, includes an introduction by renowned historian Eric Hobsbawm which reminds us of the document's continued relevance. Marx and Engels's critique of capitalism and its deleterious effect on all aspects of life, from the increasing rift between the classes to the destruction of the nuclear family, has proven remarkably prescient. Their spectre, manifested in the Manifesto's vivid prose, continues to haunt the capitalist world, lingering as a ghostly apparition even after the collapse of those governments which claimed to be enacting its principles.
Book Description
Critically and textually up-to-date, this new edition of the classic translation (Samuel Moore, 1888) features an introduction and notes by the eminent Marx scholar David McLellan, prefaces written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels subsequent to the original 1848 publication, and corrections
of errors made in earlier versions. Regarded as one of the most influential political tracts ever written, The Communist Manifesto serves as the foundation document of the Marxist movement. This summary of the Marxist vision is an incisive account of the world-view Marx and Engels had evolved during
their hectic intellectual and political collaboration of the previous few years.
Download Description
Still relevant today both as a historical document and as a stirring call for social democracy, this New Albion edition includes Engel's extensive footnotes from the various editions, plus the changing Prefaces written first by Marx and Engels, and later by Engels alone, plus notes on the Manifesto and the various translations of it.
Customer Reviews:
The Hobo Philosopher.......2007-09-14
Well, if you are a student of Philosophy or economics you must make this a part of your reading whether you want to or not. It is not long. It is not difficult. It is quite explicit. And after you read it you should have a better understanding of where you personally stand politically. I am not going to comment on what it says or advocates. Read it and find out for yourself. You won't need an interpreter.
Must have for any wannabe idealist.......2007-09-10
Well, obviously I havent read this fascinating piece of litrerature, but thats because a read book just looks so scruffy on my beautiful capitalist shelves.
This book makes me look a lot more sympathetic to all those wannabe commies, so why not dish out on a copy too?
Nah just joking, just read it and decide for yourself.
Political Classic...read for historical insight.......2007-06-27
My son required a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" for a philosophy class. After he was done with it, I decided to read it since this was one of the founding documents for Communism.
I found it difficult to decide how to rate this book. The presentation of Manifesto by Penguin in this book is excellent. The central ideas of the Manifesto itself are disturbing.
Should you read the Communist Manifesto? Yes. Is this a good presentation? Yes. Was Communism envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels a good idea? No. So I have compromised between the excellent presentation and the ideas espoused by the Manifesto in selecting an average rating.
Some reviewers feel that the Manifesto's critique of capitalism is right on; I have grave doubts. Marx and Engels were critiquing capitalism from an ivory tower. Their remedies for capitalism show that they had no real experience or contact with the workers in the trenches.
Some reviewers have mentioned the changing of labor laws due to the Manifesto, such as child labor laws (a generally agreed good thing). I believe those laws would have changed if the Manifesto had never been written. I believe those reviewers are seeing cause and effect relationships where there is none. I believe labor leaders in non-Communist states, pushing for change in labor laws, did not need belief in Communism behind them to push for change. Even without Communism, they would have done what they did anyways because the labor leaders came up from the laboring trenches. They knew first hand the abuses going on. The writers of the Manifesto did not; their ideas were theoretical. I know my ideas, in this area, are conjectures of what would have happened without the Manifesto, without Communism; there is no way they can be proven, history cannot be rewritten.
The remedy proposed by Marx and Engels is frightening. It foreshadows exactly how Communism gave birth to totalitarian states, to Communist dictatorships. Their remedy for capitalism requires a select group of leaders (Communist elitists) to force Communism onto the populace for the good of the people. We should all be suspicious of anyone who professes an idea that is for the good of the people because it invariably is not good for the people. To paraphase Lord Acton, "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely," and the states envisioned by the writers of the Manifesto set up perfect conditions of absolute power (for the good of the people) which in practice led to absolutely corrupt power. History has shown there has been extreme abuse by Communist leaders, who became power meglomanics, of the masses of workers in their states.
Indeed, history has repeatedly shown that the concentration of power in the hands of a select few led to abuse of power. The smaller the select, the greater the abuse. This has been true regardless of the political theories espoused by the leaders. Let this be a cautionary tale to all of us.
A Must Read.......2007-06-23
It amazes me that the effects of cold war propaganda drivel still permeates the minds of most Americans. This is easily one of the most influential works since it's publication in the 19th century. To say something along the lines that the pages should be torn out and used as paper airplanes is like saying the literary masterpieces Dickens should be used as toilet paper. Disagree with it all you want but at least acknowledge it's influence and respect it, as several reviewers have. Don't simply pigeonhole a great work due to the ignorance or American cold war dogma. If you are going to rant about this work at least get your facts straight. Hitler is not a communist..never was. As a matter of fact he hated communism just as much as most Americans do. Second, recognize communism is an ideal, just a capitalism is may I add, and there never has been a purely communistic state. If you are going to give this work a bad rating at least pretend you have read it. Most of the bad reviews are complete drivel and it is obvious the work has not been read. Give a reason why you do not like the book. Simply saying it sucks is not very insightful. Finally, do not give this a bad review simply because you cannot understand what is being said. If the merit of literary works were based upon how something is being said rather than what is being said Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Milton would not be considered literary geniuses.
A Misleading Edition.......2007-06-14
The following is the composure of the book:
pg. 1-170 Introduction by Translator
pg. 170-240 Various Prefaces of Other Editions by the Authors
pg. 240-280 The Manifesto
For those not familiar with Marx, who want to read the introduction and gain new insights--this is a brilliant setup.
For those who would rather just pay $2 for the Manifesto itself--this is disappointing.
Recommended for the student of philosophy, not the professor.
Book Description
Controversies in politics arise from many sources, but the conflicts that endure for generations or centuries show a remarkably consistent pattern. In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power: the "constrained" vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the "unconstrained" vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. He describes how these two radically opposed views have manifested themselves in the political controversies of the past two centuries, including such contemporary issues as welfare reform, social justice, and crime. Updated to include sweeping political changes since its first publication in 1987, this revised edition of A Conflict of Visions offers a convincing case that ethical and policy disputes circle around the disparity between both outlooks.
Customer Reviews:
The Results and the Means.......2007-09-24
For those who will read little more - Great Book! Read it.
Thomas Sowell writes newspaper columns that are often characterized as "conservative" although he would probably characterize himself as a "pragmatist". This book cannot be characterized as being conservative or liberal. Dr. Sowell goes out of his way to not disclose his personal views. The book is an analysis of Western thought over the last 250 years regarding the proper roll of society, expressed principally through government, in achieving a successful society. I have read several of Dr. Sowell's books and have purchased several more to read. Here he truly achieves an objective restatement of the thoughts of prominent minds over the centuries and not his personal opinions on the same subject.
He writes clearly and in a manner that is easy to read and yet he documents his work with so many footnotes that it is like reading a legal brief. The first thirty or forty pages were a slight struggle because he uses terms that were not familiar to me in their context. In particular it takes a while to understand what he means by the "constrained vision" and the "unconstrained vision". That is really what the book is about.
He quotes Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Stewart Mill, William Blackstone, Edmund Burke, Condorcet, Charles Darwin, Ronald Dworkin, Milton Friedman, John Kenneth Galbraith, William Godwin, Karl Marks, Friedrich Hayek, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Richard Posner and many other legal, economic and philosophical scholars all in an attempt to dissect their thinking. He explains how they often reach opposite conclusions from many undisputed premises.
The philosophical, legal and political answer to the question of when "the end justifies the means" is a difficult one. It is easy to dogmatically answer the question but a few scenarios will quickly convince most sane people that there is really no universal answer. In describing the "constrained vision" Dr. Sowell quotes the writers who have emphasized the strict rule of law in achieving social stability. They tend to believe that the same rules should apply equally to all regardless of the outcome.
Others have followed "an unconstrained vision" which he describes with their own words as being that the end result is more important than the route society takes to get there. They believe it is necessary to bend or modify rules to achieve what they view as a desirable outcome.
This dichotomy in English and American common law resulted in both "Law Courts" and "Equity Courts" which administered law following the "constrained" vision in "Law" and "unconstrained" vision in "Equity" operating in parallel for hundreds of years although Dr. Sowell does not discuss this portion of our legal history.
Although he uses the words of radicals like Karl Marks who clearly believed any means justified the end he sought for the world, Dr. Sowell tries to dwell more with prominent thinkers who were closer to the middle of political and economic thought and why they thought as they did.
This book helped me better understand my own ambivalence about certain actions of our government, but it also convinced me that there are no universal answers to all of the problems that face society.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Sowell's reputation as a conservative will probably keep many people who consider themselves liberals from reading this book. They would profit by understanding the perspective of those people with whom they are in an eternal debate. Similarly some conservatives will assume that they have little to learn from a book from someone they think they know and who could not surprise them. They might be quite surprised to find that Dr. Sowell is very non-judgmental in this book and does not side with either vision.
I read this book after sending an email to Dr. Sowell to complement him on a newspaper article he had written about illegal immigration. His reply was that I had misunderstood his reasoning and that population was not the problem generating the migration of the poor from undeveloped areas. He suggested that I read portions of several of his books where he had elaborated on the issue. I have done so and still disagree with him on the population issue, but have found the writings on political philosophy of a writer whose work is woefully under appreciated. If you read "A conflict of Visions" or his book on the Economics and Politics of Race you will find it impossible to finish them without your opinions being forever altered in many respects.
Jim Fuqua
Well thought out, but nothing amazingly compelling........2007-08-15
It's hit or miss with Mr. Sowell, but that is the nature with most things. That aside, I think some of his books (such as Black Rednecks...) are compelling and useful debate-fuel, this one falls flat. Like anyone adhering to a specific political mindset (and he does - his brilliance is that he can conceal it well, though I would question his objectivity) he believes himself to be right - it's indicated in word usage whenever he touches on the "traditional" left/right debate, etc. The basic premise is, astoundingly, a reiteration of the title. Ideological Origins of Political Struggles? It sounds like a desperately pretentious college paper written by an undergrad looking for Political Science recognition. Imagine that politics - which, if you believe Hanna Arendt's thesis on the subject as outlined in On Revolution, is the process of human interaction and debate - has ideological origins? Astounding, truly. I could have never put that sort of logic together on my own. You'll have to pardon my sarcasm - the book is well written and thoughtful - but it told me something I already knew. I've seen a lot of Sowell's work in lists that are "vital" to every US citizen, but after reading this, my opinion of him is lessened somewhat.
Fantastic read, simple and thought-provoking.......2007-07-29
Some others have already commented on the basic premise of the book: the dichotomy between a constrained and unconstrained view of human nature and the logical conclusions and "visions" that arise based on that difference, so I will leave that summary aside.
This book is a fantastic read for many reasons: the writing style is incredibly clear and simple, and Sowell is adept at conveying his ideas in a manner that should be easily understandable to any reader. Sowell appears to show a commendable level of detachment in that there does not seem to be much of a personal value judgement placed on either of the two schools of vision (i.e. without reading other texts, the reader may not be able to distinguish whether Sowell places himself within the "constrained" or "unconstrained" vision).
Another reviewer commented that this dichotomy was rather simplistic, and I tend to agree. However, I see this as a strength rather than a weakness. Sowell gives a more general view of the derivation of certain viewpoints and the logical implications of a certain conception without getting distracted by every specific application. He does not explain every thought or viewpoint, but he provides an exceptionally clear framework through which you can view these thoughts and viewpoints on your own.
I found the quotes he used to be very illuminating, but I agree that they should be viewed in the proper light. The quotes are interesting as articulations of the "constrained" or "unconstrained" views in the particular context in which they are used, and should probably not be carried beyond that. For example, characterizing a particular decision of Holmes as arising from the constrained view is instructive and illustrative, though it could lead to the erroneous assumption that Holmes was a consitent examplar of the constrained vision. That said, the quotes were certainly not misleading if the reader confines them to their context and they tended to clarify and enhance illustrations of the application of these views.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has ever heard someone espouse a certain viewpoint and thought "How can they possibly believe that?" It provides a good basis for understanding how these differences arise.
This book should be required reading in any Western country.......2007-07-27
Why? Because it provides the clearest explanation I've ever read of the primal undercurrent that has driven Western thought along its binary path (collective vs individual) over the past 500 years.
My Book Review ..........2006-10-01
1. AUTHOR BACKGROUND & PROFILE
Before giving my personal perception and opinion about this book, I would like to start with get to know the profile and personality of Thomas Sowell. The reason being is to screen whether the author's use of language and evidence is more tend to reflect his individual's personal background OR is more tend to the fact than personal opinion that consists of no benefit of interpretation, inference, or value judgment (though I am aware that to some degree, bias or personal interpretations could not be avoided). Below is the information about Thomas Sowell's background and activity that taken from Wikipedia.
"Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina on 30 June 1930, he is a prominent American economist, political writer, and conservative commentator. He is presently a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
In North Carolina, where he was born, his encounters with white people were so limited that he didn't believe that "yellow" was a possible color for human hair (A Personal Odyssey), and later moved with his mother and siblings (his father died before he was born) to Harlem, New York City. There he attended the highly selective Stuyvesant High School, but dropped out when he moved out on his own at the age of 17 because of money problems and a deteriorating home environment. He soon after served in the US Marine Corps as a photographer and pistol instructor.
After his service, he earned an A.B. in Economics from Harvard College, an A.M. in Economics from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago, known for its Chicago school of economics.
Sowell is both a popular columnist and an academic economist. Sowell primarily writes on economic subjects, in which he generally advocates a free market approach tocapitalism. In addition to this Sowell opposes Marxism providing a critique that Marx never had a labor theory of value. Sowell also writes on racial topics and is a critic of affirmative action or positive discrimination" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell)
From the information given above (see underline), he is more likely dominant on the side of constrained vision. For more detail about constrained and unconstrained vision will be discussed below.
2. ISSUES PRESENTED & OVERALL THESIS OF THE BOOK.
In overall, Sowell, as a deep thinker, is trying to represent his observations, study, research, and analysis regarding the deeper root cause of why two different big groups with its political opinions happen too often to be coincidence and it is too uncontrolled to be a plot. Explicitly, I would guess that he is talking abo
Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq
State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future
The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11
