Suggested book list

[Agent Zero]

was thinking about the books that I want to read eventually, and I have a few, but I want to get some suggestions.

My ideas so far:

Mein Kampf
Comunist Manifesto
Federalist Papers
Common Sense
FDR bio (there must be many, suggestions welcome)
JFK bio (same as above)
stuff on WWII
stuff on Roman Empire

Any other suggestions?

[Zarquon]

Marxism, Freedom, and the State (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=iNTcUsu1KbkC&dq=marxism+freedom+and+the+state&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=D5BFS9LnKJD40wTL3KHnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false) by Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin)

[Evangeline]

Confessions of an Economic Hitman (http://www.economichitman.com/)

and

See No Evil (http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=100339)

[Michael]

was thinking about the books that I want to read eventually, and I have a few, but I want to get some suggestions.

My ideas so far:

Mein Kampf
Comunist Manifesto
Federalist Papers
Common Sense
FDR bio (there must be many, suggestions welcome)
JFK bio (same as above)
tuff on WWII
stuff on Roman Empire

Any other suggestions?
I'll start by commenting upon your list. :D

Don't waste your time with Mein Kampf - it isn't worth reading. It is just a long whiny and emotional rant without logic or coherence. Rather pathetic actually.

As for the Communist Manifesto, I suppose that's worth reading just to be familiar with it, but again, it is little more than an emotional rant without any pretense of supporting arguments or logic. If one is interested in learning about Marx, this book is a piece of crap, though a very famous piece of crap. I'd recommend a good scholarly book on "Early Marx" especially if it contains essays/elements from the "New Hegalians", "1844 Manuscripts" and the "Gotha Program". In these works you will encounter the 'real' Marx - complete with supporting arguments.

The Federalist Papers are highly recommended. It is an important part of US consititutional history.

Common Sense by Thomas Paine is also highly recommended. It is an important part of American heritage.

As for bios of FDR and JFK, be careful here to avoid 'hagliographies' - there more of those than good biographies since these figures are icons of the Democratic party. FDR and JFK both have lots of ugly business about them and too many worshipping bios will gloss over this. You will NEVER hear a kind word about JFK from me (until GW Bush came along, JFK was my most hated post-ww2 President).

As for WW2, there are no good books that cover the whole war. The war is divided into three parts and most good books only cover one of those parts: Pacific War (US vs Japan), Western Europe (Allies vs Germany) and the Eastern Front (Germany vs USSR). Most books are as good as any other on this topic.

As for Roman history, you can't go wrong with Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is the definitive masterpiece in this genre. It is a bit dated (published in 1776) for its period writing, but overall, it is a magnificent piece of work upon which all subsequent Roman historical scholarship is anchored. In other words, every book on Roman history is going to make reference to Gibbon, so you might as well read Gibbon. A one or two volume abridgement should be fine (Viking has a good one-volume abridgement) - you don't need to read the original long form (I do have a full six-volume set on my bookshelf!).

As for other recommendations, I will post a listing later of what I consider to be the 'western canon'. :D

In the meanwhile, I'd certainly add Machiavelli's The Prince and Alex de Tocqueville's Democracy in America to the list of essential reading.

[drgoodtrips]

Don't waste your time with Mein Kampf - it isn't worth reading. It is just a long whiny and emotional rant without logic or coherence. Rather pathetic actually.

+1

It's hard to get through and not the kind of "hard to get through" that's rewarding.

As for suggestions:

Art of War is an interesting read.
Catch 22 is something I would recommend to anyone at any time for any reason (and sort of fits with your WWII theme)
The Elegant Universe is one of the more approachable works on a largely inapproachable subject for most.
Age of Spiritual Machines (Ray Kurzweil) isn't at all historical in nature, but rather makes some interesting predictions about technology and the future over the course of the next 100 years or so.

[Michael]

Art of War is an interesting read.
That book receives my single highest recommendation of any book.

One ought to ignore all commentaries and read only the words of Sun Tzu only.

The book is a rather short one (especially if you ignore the longwinded commentaries).

[Americano]

If ww2 is a strong interest don't forget the other major players. Military actions (and their stars) by themselves offer only brief glimpses of an immense picture. Incidentally, many US general accounts of history (especially at the K12 level) have a strong tendency to glamorize US roles while downplaying other participants. I'd start with these:

Stalin
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SERSTA.html?show=reviews

Churchill
There are a ton out there, I preferred William Manchester's 3-volume effort:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Last-Lion/William-Manchester/e/9780385313315/

Hirohito
http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-Hirohito-Showa-Japan-Political/dp/0415032032/ref=tmm_hrd_title_sr

Hitler
Another subject with a plethora of efforts, Ian Kershaw's 2-volumes does the job:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

[Margot]

Don't waste your time with Mein Kampf - it isn't worth reading. It is just a long whiny and emotional rant without logic or coherence. Rather pathetic actually.


I was going to say the exact same thing.

[Margot]

American Prometheus (http://www.americanprometheus.org/)

American Prometheus is the bio of J. Robert Oppenheimer (my avatar). The narrative quality of the book pisses me off (OK, you're obviously filling in here. Please stop.), but otherwise I think it is fascinating. It isn't really about WWII, but it does fill in the cultural blanks. Usually when people read about wars they get the political, or the social, or the war-front THIS IS SPARTA aspect. Because this focuses on one (pivotal) life you can see all of those aspects converge.

Then again, I'm an Oppie fangirl. Most biographies are like that.

Also, FDR was a tool. Why waste your time?

[wphelan]

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience is definitely worth reading. It's short, so you could knock it out pretty quickly. Walden is worth getting around to eventually as well. I'd recommend any number of his essays actually.

Emerson's Self-Reliance is good too.

[Donkey]

In the meanwhile, I'd certainly add Machiavelli's The Prince and Alex de Tocqueville's Democracy in America to the list of essential reading.
I think The Prince should be read in conjunction with The Discourses. A rather different face of Machiavelli. It is interesting to me, because the conclusions reached are different, but clearly from the same cynical calculating mind. To me, the Prince almost reads as if Machiavelli doesn't even really believe what he is saying. It could be my own bias prevailing, but the Discourses seem altogether more sincere.

[Lily]

Confessions of an Economic Hitman (http://www.economichitman.com/)



You're the only other person I've come across who's read that book. Fascinating read.

I'm going to add An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke.

[The Drunk Guy]

Utopia - Thomas More
The Gospel of Thomas - Unknown (Nag Hamadi Library)
Thus Spake Zarathustra - Friedrich Nietzsche
Watchmen - Alan Moore
We The Living - Ayn Rand
1984 - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Song of Ice and Fire series - George R. R. Martin
World War Z - Max Brooks
Choke - Chuck Palahniuk

[Donkey]

Aw yeah, if we're getting into fiction, this is my jam. :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Aw yeah, if we're getting into fiction, this is my jam. :)
Well, I chose the novels I've read that reflect heavily on society and ideologies.

The Song of Ice and Fire is fantasy, but it's a fantastic view of the mindset of royalty in a simpler, darker time. Choke displays perfectly the levels of depravity that are all too common in our modern world. World War Z and Watchmen both show how positions of power can flip and what that does to a person's belief system. The others are pretty self-evident.

[Agent Zero]

I don't know how I forgot The Prince.

And I assumed that Mein Kampf wouldn't be the best work in the world but it's one of the most influential works ever, as Hitler followed it (or intended to) to a T in many cases.

[Americano]

I don't know how I forgot The Prince.

And I assumed that Mein Kampf wouldn't be the best work in the world but it's one of the most influential works ever, as Hitler followed it (or intended to) to a T in many cases.

It's garbage at best. I struggled to get through it and I'm a book whore.

[Margot]

Utopia - Thomas More
The Gospel of Thomas - Unknown (Nag Hamadi Library)
Thus Spake Zarathustra - Friedrich Nietzsche
Watchmen - Alan Moore
We The Living - Ayn Rand
1984 - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Song of Ice and Fire series - George R. R. Martin
World War Z - Max Brooks
Choke - Chuck Palahniuk

Now that, sir, is a very fine list!

[Evangeline]

You're the only other person I've come across who's read that book. Fascinating read.

I'm going to add An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke.

Me too Lily. I couldn't put it down.

[Michael]

Me too Lily. I couldn't put it down.

I had a hard time putting down Locke too! 17th century philosophy books leave me hanging on every page with all those 'plot-teasers' and cliffhangers! :lol:

[Lily]

I had a hard time putting down Locke too! 17th century philosophy books leave me hanging on every page with all those 'plot-teasers' and cliffhangers! :lol:


Ha ha, Mr. Sarcasm. Better a snoozefest with Locke than the self-aggrandizing drivel Ms. Rand served up (not suggesting that you like Ayn Rand's work. Do you?)

[Americano]

Ha ha, Mr. Sarcasm. Better a snoozefest with Locke than the self-aggrandizing drivel Ms. Rand served up (not suggesting that you like Ayn Rand's work. Do you?)

I read Rand so long ago it's still difficult to believe her work attracted a contemporary cult following.

[Zarquon]

I read Rand so long ago it's still difficult to believe her work attracted a contemporary cult following.
Who wouldn't want to believe that the world revolved around them and that it was in fact moral for them to do whatever they felt like/be selfish and disregard all sense of community, collective responsibility or even empathy?

[Margot]

I read Rand so long ago it's still difficult to believe her work attracted a contemporary cult following.

Bizarrely, I never hear anything good about her. Except that people always tell me that The Fountainhead reminds them of me. I guess that could go either way.:shrug:

[Americano]

Bizarrely, I never hear anything good about her. Except that people always tell me that The Fountainhead reminds them of me. I guess that could go either way.:shrug:

Go to any public political forum with a strong libertarian presence. You'll find posters using screen names taken from her writings.

[Americano]

Who wouldn't want to believe that the world revolved around them and that it was in fact moral for them to do whatever they felt like/be selfish and disregard all sense of community, collective responsibility or even empathy?

You just described the libertarian model. As I've stated, I consider libertarians to be naive republicans.

[Michael]

Ha ha, Mr. Sarcasm. Better a snoozefest with Locke than the self-aggrandizing drivel Ms. Rand served up (not suggesting that you like Ayn Rand's work. Do you?)
No, I'm not a fan of Rand. :lol:

I'm rather well known for being a rather nasty critic of Rand's pseudo-philosophy.

I read Rand so long ago it's still difficult to believe her work attracted a contemporary cult following.

Really? Money for nothing and your chicks for free? They all like that.

Who wouldn't want to believe that the world revolved around them and that it was in fact moral for them to do whatever they felt like/be selfish and disregard all sense of community, collective responsibility or even empathy?
As long as the police, courts and governments create their paradise and protect it for them of course. But real libertarians like to overlook that.

Bizarrely, I never hear anything good about her. Except that people always tell me that The Fountainhead reminds them of me. I guess that could go either way.:shrug:

No. That's an insult no matter how you try to look at it. Rand's female characters are uni-dimensional and totally un-liberated. They need men to make them whole and give their lives meaning.

Go to any public political forum with a strong libertarian presence. You'll find posters using screen names taken from her writings.
And in such places, I do tend to make baited trolling arguments about how Rand is nothing more than a game of cherry picking the pieces of JS Mill and Nietzsche that you like best and mashing them together.

The argument usually goes over their heads, but it sure can be fun! :D

(until they start the violence threats that is - that always follows)

[The Drunk Guy]

No. That's an insult no matter how you try to look at it. Rand's female characters are uni-dimensional and totally un-liberated. They need men to make them whole and give their lives meaning.



You did read her rant yesterday, right? Just because they know how to read doesn't mean they know how to interpret. They probably say that to her because "she talks smart-like and, like, stuff, you know?"

And women do need men to make them whole. It's in the Bible. Jesus, Michael, get with it. :angel:

[drgoodtrips]

No. That's an insult no matter how you try to look at it. Rand's female characters are uni-dimensional and totally un-liberated. They need men to make them whole and give their lives meaning.

They also seem to enjoy being raped, from what I recall of her extremely awkward sex scenes. It makes them feel 'free' for a man to pin them down and say nasty things while and after he has is way with them. Or something... :ummm:

[Margot]

No. That's an insult no matter how you try to look at it. Rand's female characters are uni-dimensional and totally un-liberated. They need men to make them whole and give their lives meaning.


Howard Roark was a chick?

[Margot]

You did read her rant yesterday, right? Just because they know how to read doesn't mean they know how to interpret. They probably say that to her because "she talks smart-like and, like, stuff, you know?"

And women do need men to make them whole. It's in the Bible. Jesus, Michael, get with it. :angel:

I can definitely believe that explanation.

[Michael]

Howard Roark was a chick?
No. Dominique was.

In Atlas Shrugged, the same character's name is Dagny Taggart. Howard Roark's character's name is Hank Reardon. The two books are essentially identical in all important respects (same plot, same characters, same theme).