Political Theory Books

When I heard the author speak, he admitted that his hatred for Bush colored his writing. While I also can't stand the man, his writing was so biased that I was not certain it was objective reporting.

I know so many books are out there critiquing the administration on Iraq, but Bugliosi just obliterates the arguments the administration presented in justifying the Iraq war...from its dogmatic neocon certitude, to its being duped by Chalabi, to its establishing rogue intel services within the Pentagon and Cheney's office to spin the intel to its liking(when CIA, State Dep't intel refused to toe the administration line), to a discussion on the administration's reliance upon totally discredited "Curveball" second-hand testimony, to the bogus and forged Niger documents purporting to show Saddam intended to purchase uranium, to how the administration released an "unclassified" version of the classified NIE intel assessment on Iraq that EXCLUDED THE NUMEROUS DISSENTS to its conclusions(and which caused Senator Bob Graham, one of the few senators to read the ENTIRE classified report(not just the administration's disingenuous unclassified version)to conclude he could not vote to authorize military force on Iraq.

I was more impressed with Bugliosi's refutation of the arguments the administration utilized in ginning up this war, than with his arguments calling for Bush to be prosecuted for murder, altho it would be a horrible blight on our nation if Bush and company are not held accountable for this disaster.

As an independent, it is apparent Bugliosi comes at this from a liberal democrat perspective.

But even so, any American who cares for his nation cannot read Bugliosi's masterful dismantling of the arguments posed by the administration to justify this war without being totally enraged.

Last week I hear Rep John Conyers, Chair of House Judiciary Committee, give a speech about working with the Department of Justice to raise charges against the Bush Administration. He indicated a willingness to work with Mr. Bugliosi in actually following through with a domestic criminal prosecution of all the GOP officials who manufactured lies that lead to so many deaths.

Incidentally, many GOP officials (including Karl Rove, Rice, etc) may be prosecuted in the International Court of Human Rights, and the International War Crimes Court. After they become private citizens in January, they may be subject to arrest if they step foot outside US soil.

We need to stop pussy-footing around the cold hard fact that this party, and these individuals, are war criminals.

Mr Bugliosi, please actually help in the raising of charges and the prosecution of these people. We do not want our American history to be tarnished with the legacy of mass murdering war criminals. And you're the guy to do it! So much depends on this...

In spite of the author's outstanding achievements and great evidentiary credibility, I am afraid the "Walking Dead" will stay dead.

This is the SINGLE BEST BOOK I have read in the last 10 years (the other contender is "Was The 2004 Election Stolen?" by Professor Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss), and every thinking, caring American owes it to themselves to read it. Vincent Bugliosi is a patriot of the highest order, and this book is a first-rate work of logic, reason, and integrity. Pay no attention to those reviewers who are panning this book--it's interesting to note that they never take on any of Bugliosi's arguments head-on (because they can't), but rather resort to name-calling and slander. Please do not miss reading this masterpiece.

A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma
Conspiracies everywhere! Jim Marrs' The Rise of the Fourth Reich is a compendium of the fascinating, weird, strange, and outright bizarre facts concerning the esoteric world of conspiracies. Mr. Marrs touches all the conspiracy bases from the Kennedy assassination, the Jesus mysteries, the occult, UFOs, secret WW2 weapons and science, secret societies, to escaped Nazis who formed the basis of today's American space program, business and finance . Using National Socialism and the cult of Nazism as his reference point, Mr. Marrs pretty well covers every modern day conspiracy and history mystery. It is truly amazing how much conspiratorial information Mr. Marrs was able to jam into 376 pages.
Whether you believe all, some, or any of this stuff doesn't really matter as this is simply a fun and interesting read. Think of it as the ultimate conspiracy encyclopedia and then sit back and have some reading fun.
It is interesting to note how many of these conspiracies have found their way into today's contemporary novels. If nothing else reading Mr. Marrs work will give you a better understanding of many of the provocative books of today. And yes, he even touches on Mr. Brown's The Da Vinci Code mystery.

The Rise Of the Fourth Reich. This book sets out in detail (dates,names,places) the history of the rise of the Globalists (Illumunati) power during the last several centuries, particularly since the end of WW11. The information in this book corraborates with that of other investigative writers, such as David Icke, which in my view lends credence to Jim Marrs writings.
John A. Carlstrom

This book clearly and convincingly presents a case for Nazi influences in everyday American life.

I am glad to see another great book authored by Jim Marrs. This book is well researched, as are all of his previous books. If you liked his earlier works, then you will like this. Don't pay attention to the negative reviews on here. None of them address any of the actual material in the book. Starchild22's review is ridiculous. He obviously is not familiar with Jim Marrs' books. Marrs provides an extensive list of sources for each chapter. You can check up on his work if you so wish.

Jim Marrs has made a fine career out of repackaging the "revelations" of Milton William Cooper's 1991 conspiracy classic "Behold a Pale Horse."

In "Fourth Reich," much of the alien agenda-UFO storyline found in "Pale Horse" and later in several of Mr Marrs' books is reprised in the context of the Nazis (who were plenty spooky enough without dragging in extraterrestrials).

Mr Marrs, like many another conspiracy author, conflates hearsay evidence and speculation, salted with historical fact ("Operation Paperclip" for example) to advance the thesis that an elite group of wealthy and powerful internationalists is working toward a brave new world of global enslavement. Their plot necessarily requires the destruction of America.

In order to sell this idea, one must ascribe near-superhuman powers and ironclad discipline to the evil plotters. It doesn't hurt, either, to claim that the plotters have access to supernatural mental states, alien technology, and, what the hell, near omniscience.

But you don't need a conspiracy to explain this stuff. Hey, Jim, ever heard of Adam Smith's "invisible hand?" People are greedy for power, for control, for genetic hegemony. The result is "history": chaotic when viewed up close, not centrally planned, yet oddly serendipitous and somehow patterned.

Sure, the Nazis and/or their ideological heirs are with us today. We know that for the Nazi leadership, losing the combat phase of the struggle was a setback but not the end. They had a plan. Martin Bormann, and possibly Heinrich Himmler, both escaped, with plenty of money, technical expertise, and an underground organization intact. We know that industrialists in America, Britain and elsewhere favored National Socialism (it was neither truly socialist nor entirely nationalist) before the war --- and after --- because it harnessed the power of the state to further their commercial goals. After the war, these industrialists used Nazi scientists and spies in the fight against communism. The marriage or remarriage of these groups led ultimately to a silent coup against the US government by the so-called neoconservatives (again, they are neither new nor conservative).

Unfortunately, Mr Marrs' digressions into UFOs and the rest undermines, for the conventional reader, his credibility. And that is a pity, because the danger to American democracy is very real.

Only two types of people have been and will be attracted to reading this book: those who hope it's about one thing and those who know it's about the other. The former belong to the timid, powerless, low-self esteem majority who are simply looking for the ultimate guide to gaining respect and admiration from their peers. The latter belong to the unscrupulous, dare I say sociopathic ever-growing minority whose end goal is to win at everything against everyone by any means. Once the book has been read and fully digested, one of two conclusions will be reached. The first is a sudden awareness of what a perfectly outstanding tool they hold in their hands and the limitless rewards it can afford them. The second is an absolute disgust and horror at what a dangerous volume this is and the malicious behavior it outright encourages. Interestingly, the timid are no always the ones repulsed and the ruthless are not always the ones aroused. The wave can break either way.

Shortly after this book was published, I happened upon it in a bookstore and knew I had to have it. A blaze of energy electrified my body and pounded through the deepest recesses of my mind. I was on fire, I couldn't put it down and yet I knew I could never share it with anyone, the way a child might hide away their favorite toy. In truth I became obsessed. I had to learn and then master every element of every law and take supreme authority over every aspect of my life. Indeed, this book, The 48 Laws of Power, became my bible, the most passionate conquest I had ever sought to undertake.

Within its pages I met with the reflection of every gruesome bully and every merry manipulator I had ever known. Their power was uncanny and yet so mysterious, mostly because I could never fathom how such apparently absent minds could lay so cool yet strike with such venom. It was awe-inspiring, and I had to come to terms with their secrets. The secrets that earned them respect from their enemies and fear from their admirers. The secrets that won them the most buxom women, who always appeared so entranced by even their rudest and most audacious displays. "How could they get away with everything so smoothly?!" I had wondered. "How could they be so desirable?!" I had thought. "HOW?!"

Well...here is how. It is simple.

Some people are given to a heredity and/or an upbringing that nourishes what is commonly considered 'bad' behavior. Certain genes as well as certain parenting styles perpetuate an attitude of unruliness which leads in its purest variety to utter contempt for anyone else's thoughts, feelings, or needs. Their minds develop without a balanced set of experiences, leading them to logically conclude that the information that they did receive must indeed be correct. This is also applicable to those who suffer violence in their youth, even if that violence is not carried out physically. The fact remains that whatever world with which one is presented is accepted as unmitigated truth. 'Bad' behavior is usually viewed by such a person as normal. Thus selfishness, cruelty, and manipulation are seen as strengths, while compassion, kindness and humility are seen as weaknesses.

Surely there are a bevy of other factors that cannot go without mention. High intelligence, a pleasing appearance, a particular talent, et cetra can all act as lauchpads for immorality if similar virtues in others go unrecognized as being equal. This sense of equality is what it all comes down to, in fact. The very idea of power assumes that another cannot or should not be in a position to where the perspectives of both can be viewed as equally valid. On the one end is the person who is possessed by their own image, on the other is the person who believes that they have no intrinsic worth at all. The two feed off of each other in a sadistic/masochistic symbiotic relationship. The point then comes to bear that a person who believes himself powerful only remains so long as the other believes the same thing. Put two people who both see power as the ultimate attainment and you have the setting for the average business affair. From here, only two things can happen. One will cave, allowing the other to dominate, or neither party will cave, effectively precipitating resentment and rage within both. The former leads to a continuation of the cycle, the latter leads to war.

This book is extremely well-researched and exquisitely written, which is why I still give it three stars. But you must beware of your intentions. Buy this book if you don't care about anyone but yourself, and it pleases you to see another man crumble. Do not buy this book if you have even the slightest interest in saving yourself from years of unnecessary struggle. Remember that the wave does break both ways, and you do not know who you may become if you toss your ethics in the wastebasket. Needless to say, I was the timid one who was sick of being overlooked, but in the end, it was this book that I tossed into the wastebasket. Your call.

I'm pretty into morality but I quite like this book. But If you're not weary of someone who recommends deception (as the author does) you deserve to get suckered. Some of the rhetorical techniques he employs include writing in the style of that wise blind guy who knew everything in Kung fu, it doesn't work at all once you've seen an interview with him. Also putting a number (48) in the title makes it sound very scientific, I'd bet he has no idea if there really are exactly 48 laws of power.

Still I would not say all the laws are immoral or even amoral as the blurb claims. Some, such as not hanging around with people who drag you down and "assuming formlessness" are about self defence not predation. You can pick and choose according to your code of ethics or lack thereof.

It probably should have come with a warning. The philosopher Alfred Whitehead said Machiavellian techniques work well for about 15 years. One of the practical problems with deception is reality does actually exist and cannot be kept at bay forever. When it is revealed it could ruin you or an entire economy (as when vast numbers of people lie to get loans).

Still an interesting book not only for the unscrupulous.

Why do you need this power in the first place? Here is a quote from 7 Habits, "Standing near the graves of famous people, we understand all the silly wars in which they fought."

I will not be surprised if this book is used as a required reading in terrorist camps to show the "real Americans". Clearly, it is against democracy, Christianity, and all other values.

Read 7 Habits by Covey instead.

this book is absolutely ridiculous, it was written for the idiot's notion of what they believe power is, and just affirms what the dim witted already suspect; "Use a person until they are no longer valuable to you......" AH HA! says the ignoramus who has just been convinced of the vercity of this childrens book.

Very smart book. Has some very unique and useful tools. I don't agree with everything but I like the book and I will use some parts. I try to treat people as I would have them treat me....The Golden Rule. But with trouble makers or bad people this book can be very helpful.

This particular version of Nicccolo Machievelli's "The Prince" was incredibly easy to read. There was no rubbing my noggin wondering what he was saying. Nope it was as clear as day and the way that he described retaining power is still the same today as it was in his day. Albeit a little less bloody.

Without a doubt, Nicolo Machiavelli has to be the most dissembling, evil man I've ever read. Though he covers it well in his constantly changing subjects and demeanor I would have not wanted to be around him in the 16th century. I would have never trusted him not to ensnare me in one of his plots!

Heard THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, one of those books
that I've always meant to read . . . but just never got around to do so.

Now I finally had the opportunity (as a result of being able to listen to it
while driving) and am glad I did--particularly because of its relevance
to what's currently happening in politics . . . also, as a result, I now
have a better understanding of the term Machievellianism . . . or
that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used
in achieving political power.

Though originally written in the 16th century, THE PRINCE is still
remarkably up to date . . . the examples used by Machiavelli
feel like they come from today's headlines . . . also, they pertain
to many situations wherein power is utilized--both in business
and in the political arena.

There were many quotes that got me thinking; among them:
* Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know
how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

* We have not seen great things done in our time except by those
who have been considered mean; the rest have failed.

And this final one:
* If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because
they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound
to observe it with them. Nor will thee ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance.

I found it interesting to learn that Machievelli wrote this book
after he was fired as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the
Signoria . . . methinks that had he been around now, Tim Russert
and/or other political commentators could well be out of job.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a guide of morality-void techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power and ultimately, political fortune. Written nearly 500 years ago, this blueprint for tyranny is just as relevant today. As his compass, Machiavelli uses history, both ancient and contemporary. In 500 years, no one has proven him wrong. Here's a flavor for you innocents out there: "For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destoyed by it". War is Machiavelli's wet dream: "A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules". Espousing the virtues of the noble lie, Machiavelli follows up with, "men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes". And with this quote, I now challenge anyone to dispute the Machiavellian nature of the American Corporate State as written about in Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). All the parallels are brought to light, always through the eyes of George Orwell. Get informed. Your city (country) is being destroyed...

A young colleague of mine recently said `management is easy'. I smiled enigmatically and considered buying him a copy of `The Prince' but I fear it would be wasted. I am now on my third copy of this book which, alas, I can only read in English. The George Bull translation (as reprinted in 1995) is the version I currently refer to.

I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli's advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I've always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.

So why is `The Prince' still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?

Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

Nothing special about economic indicators, or how to observe the hitmens behavior in economics, but more so a life history of the authers growth in this craft. The book was entertaining, but I wanted information, about the imf, C-banks and so on. So if your looking for an informative educational book one star, if you want entertainment, and to learn about the author 5 stars. Good reading.

The author gives us a rare insight into how the US conducts "foreign policy" that primarily benefits US corporate/conglomerate profit interests. Similar to the US "military-industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, the author sounds a warning about how narrow monied interests guide the conduct of foreign "assistance" and "relations" so that the public interests, in both the US and the "target" country are ill-served. This is a MUST READ for American voters and the new generation of elected decision-makers.

there are many great, kind and charitable americans. the presidents and the government represented american....

for years, as now everyone knows that there was no nuclear weapon found in iraq, haliburton is still making great money. people like bush family, dick cheney have a lot to do with this company. they made great money. they were the one declaring war. and they were the ones making friends with the dictators of the world. look where it has got america and the world. i hope McCain will not win. and obviously the lady running mate of his. with all due respect, someone who has little education, and pro-live and pro-gun. imagine the future of america and the world in the hands of these duo.

this book is an eye opener. the view it presented has tied in with the facts i have previously known.

american should care more about the rest of the world and the action of their leaders. indifference can otherwise be very costly

Mr. Perkins has a great thesis and great angst about his role in the world. His thesis is simple - American engineering and oil companies go to third world countries and give hugely inflated estimates of growth potential. Using those inflated numbers, they induce the countries to get loans so they can hire the American companies to do the work. The country then is unable to repay the loan. The theory implicates American companies, the many politicians with ties to them and the World Bank, IMF and other financial institutions.

Unfortunately, Mr. Perkins fails to come up with the proofs. His outline appears feasible, but he never gives any instances of the loan and default portion of the thesis. There is nary a number or statistic to back him up. He does not cite a single defaulted loan.

Further, Mr. Perkins often draws parellels to the American Founders and our Revolution. His grasp of American history is sophomoric at best. He uses a cartoonish image of 1776 that one would expect from an elementary school student, not someone indicting corporations, international banks and presidential administrations.

Mr. Perkins does have some sources and they are noted. Again, they occasionally show his sloppiness with the facts. In one instance, he states with firmness that the Reagan and Bush administrations had been proven to have dirtied their hands in this corporatocracy (his term) scheme. The text said this was proven by testimony. When one checks the note, the testimony was by John Dean in 1973 and 1974 - six and seven years before the Reagan and Bush administrations. Such errors in fact and use of bad history undermine the reader's confidence in the basic theory of the book.

That all having been said, the book does show how America's corporations have gone into Third World countries focused only on their own bottom line. Their is no altruism in the corporate world. This pure greed is aided and abetted by connected politicians.

Most interesting are his accounts of the American-Saudi relationship where the corporate scheme worked with oil money rather than World Bank funds. Although Perkins seemed to criticize the plan, it worked well for both sides. It was a true win-win. Somehow, the author tried to tie in the Saudis' support of terrorism with its modernization and westernization. The parallel did not work - especially since he had given Saudi Arabia's history of being founded by fundamentalist Islamists long before the corporations came in. Mr. Perkins then tried to draw another parallel to Iraq. Unfortunately, he could never explain why the system that worked so well for Saudi Arabia did not work for Iraq.

There are some alarming aspects of this book and it really does read, in parts, like a novel. Alarm is what Mr. Perkins expects to raise with his "Confession". There is a lot to look at behind his accounts. Sadly, Mr. Perkins just did not deliver the goods to prove his points.

I started reading this with some skepticism but it all seemed to add up to me - - believe it or not - up to you, but I think an interesting read and for me, it was credible..

One of my favorite college texts. I was assigned this book for a course on National Security. My only issue with this book is that it seems to have been written in pieces. The first two chapters were very academic and I had to look up a LOT of words in the dictionary! The rest of the book (6 chapters, I think) was much easier. I liked the chapters on how Evangelicals and Hollywood effected militarization. Also, politicians are always saying they support the troops but don't enlist or let their children enlist.

Unfortunately, Bacevich's son died in combat recently.

The author is a Vietnam vet and admits to be a conservative and on the right and he fairly critisizes past Presidential offices and describes why America is on the warpath from past trends and decisions.

Andrew J. Bacevich's New American Militarism is an informative, insightful, methodical analysis of key influences that have created American militarism, of how it came to be as it is. It is careful delineation of the parts influencing how G. W. Bush and the current administration arrived at their current policy, and why they regard the use of force and the deployment of American military forces throughout the world as paramount components of our foreign policy, despite warnings to the contrary from the nation's Founders. From his description of Woodrow Wilson's original interventionist intent (a moral vision shared with both Carter and Reagan, manifesting itself in vastly different ways in their respective presidencies, and one that GW Bush would adopt after 9/11), to the impact on the public's psyche of the mass media and Hollywood, the long term investment in particular world views of the evangelical right, neo-cons and the officers' corps under decades of Cold War influence--he meticulously traces how the parts fit together, and who played what role. This writer found his narration of the on-going influence of Albert Wohlstetter, the RAND Corporation and Robert McNamara, and their subsequent impact on Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush (II) to be particularly interesting. Simultaneously informative and frustrating was his description of evangelicals; it brought home the point that a thorough reading of Mark Twain's War Prayer would probably leave little impression on many of them.
His tying together of such seemingly disparate leaders as Carter and Hoover, Reagan and Roosevelt, Wilson and Bush, show recurring trends in how the government approaches the leviathan that is our armed forces. Bacevich describes a juggernaut used for global power projection, where all the principal policy players (presidents and presidential candidates, Congress, etc.) know that bigger is essential--as Carter discovered to his electoral dismay after delivering his Crisis of Conscience speech. (pgs. 100-102) Without falling into diatribe or invective against any of those he describes, it is quite clear who stands out as Bacevich's exemplars and who comes up short. We see the myriad influences that have lead to President Bush's Orwellian injunction that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense, and simultaneously understand that is not a new concept with GW, as we see from C. Wright Mills' 1956 commentary on the subject, that "the only accepted `plan' for peace is the loaded pistol."
The author's description of the convictions of second generation neo-cons (heirs to the ideological likes of Podhoretz and Kagan), is instructive in that it is a mirror reflection of the current administration's SOP (American global dominion is benign and other nations necessarily see it as such, failure on the part of the US to sustain its imperium would inevitable result in global disorder, nothing works like force, commitment to sustaining and enhancing American military supremacy is essential and, a political realism is viewed with hostility, whether manifesting itself as a deficit of ideals or an excess of caution).
Bacevich sees that culpability for the current situation is cumulative, and while one or another of the players may share more responsibility for our current predicament, laying blame accomplishes nothing and does not address the issues and challenges our militarism confronts us with. The author makes it clear that (as Madison puts it) "...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." With these points in mind, Bacevich offers in his final chapter, Common Defense, a plan of action--ten fundamental principles to abate present militaristic tendencies (heed the intentions of the Founders, revitalize the concept of separation of powers, view force as a last resort, enhance US strategic self-sufficiency, organize US forces explicitly for national defense, devise an appropriate gauge for determining the level of US defense spending, enhance alternative instruments of statecraft, revive the moribund concept of the citizen-soldier, re-examine the role of the National Guard and reserve components, and reconcile the American military profession to American society). (pgs. 208-221) I would include a final essential point in Bacevich's ten principles to avert expanding militarism--unceasing engagement, for it is only through consistent contact that we can hope to engage both our allies and foes. The indelible conclusion one draws from New American Militarism is that there are a multitude of issues that must be simultaneously addressed in order to curtain our reliance on overt militarism as a tool of foreign policy, but Bacevich also makes it clear that such a process of redress is possible. An excellent read for anyone in the armed forces, who has a family member in the military, or who has an interest in the symbiotic relationship between American society and its military.

The best books are those that challenge conventional thinking and have the intellectual weight to back up that challenge. This book is one of those. The author, a Vietnam vet and West Pointer, has the credentials and knows the military from the inside, which gives his argument particular strength and provides the reader with information not otherwise easily available. Is it really necessary that the United States have a military machine as large as it does? In these troubled times, that's a view that wins easy assent. But this book will make you think twice.

Judging by his track record, Bacevich might appear as a true-blue conservative, a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and soldier for 23 years. He currently teaches at Boston University and has contributed to conservative magazines such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review. He was a former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. Nevertheless, his analysis of evolving military doctrines shows no bias for any party.

This book is something of a classic of sociology but not a light read. Very briefly, the thesis of "Imagined Communities" is that political nations are the creation of modern communication networks (definition of modern: post-Gutenberg). When one stops to think about it, this insight seems intuitive. After all, how can people relate to other people unless there is first communication among them? In a world in which most people are illiterate and never travel beyond their villages, of course they would not think of themselves as belonging to a great nation of people since they would most likely be unable to imagine such a concept. With widespread literacy, the possibility exists of having communities of people who are not in direct contact with one another. Benedict Anderson takes this insight about nationhood and discusses how these imagined communities of people not directly in contact with one another may be formed. It is not surprising that the nations of Europe have formed around linguistic communities since having a common language facilitates communication. However, a sense of alienation from a ruling class may also facilitate a sense of nationhood, as it did in the Americas in the late 18th century when our founding fathers (and those of Latin America)felt themselves excluded from the political lives of their mother countries. Having the means to communicate throughout their colonies made possible the recognition of common feelings among these colonials. Futhermore, a sense of nationhood may be fostered by a state that creates through its educational system and its media a sense of shared experiences (eg, national holidays, national heroes, and national myths). Prof Anderson also describes how the predecessors of today's European nations "created" their national languages as well as their myths. This is a very sketchy overview of what I believe to be the major points of this book. "Imagined Communities" is not a book which flows easily. I believe that Prof Anderson might have made life a bit easier for his readers had he been able to express himself a bit more clearly. For example, he is describing how a sense of history is essential for the concept of nationhood. In order to think of oneself as belonging to a nation, one must think of oneself as being related to others who share only the circumstance of living at the same time. Furthermore, it is necessary to imagine a different relationship with those who have gone before. Here is a passage describing this idea: "What has come to take the place of the medieval conception of simultaneity-along-time is, to borrow again from Benjamin, an idea of 'homogeneous, empty time,' in which simultaneity is, as it were, transverse, cross-time, marked not be prefiguring and fulfillment, but by temporal coincidence and measured by clock and calendar." I think that this should give some idea of the flavor of Prof Anderson's prose. Is it all worth the effort? I think that anyone who is trying to understand the problems created by 20th (and 21st) century nationalism will not find much help here. A better book for understanding the lunatic-type nationalism which causes so much trouble would be Eric Hoffer's classic book, "The True Believer." However, as a primer for understanding how the modern nation came to exist in the first place, this book does offer some thought-provoking ideas.

Though some interesting and provocative ideas are presented shedding some light on the idea of the rise of nationalism, this was largely a poorly written book that will not add an iota of understanding to what motivates human behavior.

If you want a scholarly introduction to nationalism and its history, this is an excellent book to start with. Anderson begins with a discussion of how the concept of the nation first came into being, with emphasis on the factors that enabled people to imagine communities beyond their immediate surroundings. He then brings in more abstract concepts such as spatial/temporal relations and its relation to maps and museums... well, you'll have to read the book, since he explains it much better than me.

My only complaint is that he did focus much more on Western nationalism than on Eastern- two very different topics. Nonetheless, this is a wonderful introductory text.

Great book! I am using it for academic research and have found it great from a theoretical perspective. That said, it is a bloody brillant read for anyone who is just simply interested in understanding what the big deal is about nations or wanting to just have a more general understanding behind the more everyday realities of what nation and national identity, like pretty much any other kind of social grouping mean.

This short book/long essay offers some interesting insights on nationalism, but is limited by its Marxist-materialist perspective. Anderson obviously knows his history and his typology of three essential nationalisms (the new republics of the Americas in the late 18th-early 19th centuries, popular national revival movements in 19th-century Europe, and suffocating official nationalisms such as the British and Russian empires) is based on the history of capitalism, the development of printing, mass communication, class conflicts, and world trade. Anderson argues that these models were adapted in one form or another in the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia after World War II.
Psychology is the unmentioned elephant in the drawing room. There is no consideration of group/crowd psychology or built-in human aggressiveness and territoriality, the human need to define oneself in a group in opposition to others, or the way that nations are felt by many people to be a kind of family, with rulers as parent figures. The absence of psychology causes Anderson's argument to run out of steam toward the end, when he offers only a few pages about patriotism and racism, and here becomes shallow and unconvincing.
Some nation-states are no doubt very artificial (as Anderson's "imagined" title suggests), and borders between countries are often artificial. But cultural and linguistic differences between groups are very real. Anderson recognizes the importance of language differences. At one point he quotes a distinguished Indonesian author, leaving the quote untranslated. (Are we supposed to be impressed because Anderson reads Indonesian and we, presumably, don't?) However, Anderson does not give much consideration to cultural (including religious) differences, other than some mention of this issue in his discussion of Japan and Indonesia.
There are other curious omissions. Anderson does not note that people often have multiple and conflicting loyalties (allegiance to a nation, but also to a region, or to a religion). He never mentions the Roman Empire, says little or nothing about the Arab world, diaspora populations or stateless peoples.
Anderson is an academic writing for other academics. He wants to be quoted and to be considered clever, hence the catchy title. Readers outside academia may become irritated with his gassy, excessively precious and self-indulgent style (phrases like "discontinuity-in-connectedness"). Anderson's references to trendy authors (Foucault, Bakhtin) do not really contribute to his argument and the authors in question are no longer as trendy now as they were in the early 1980s.
This book can certainly stimulate your thinking on this important topic, but will leave many questions unanswered.

We last saw Brigitte Gabriel emerging from her childhood, escaping Palestinian jihadis trying to kill her and her family for no better reason than that she was Christian, in her aptly-titled first book, Because They Hate. She has been very busy since then. Gabriel shows us that Islam is not a religion in the sense we understand the word. It is a doctrine, and the central tenet of that doctrine is the forced submission of all humanity. Gabriel gives us a concise yet satisfactory summary of Islam's evolution through the ages into the implacable doctrine of hate that it is today. She describes Islam's rise (its occupation of the Holy Land and The Ottoman Empire) and its fall, which so perplexes muslims. Gabriel shows that it was the Industrial Revolution, which wholly bypassed the Islamic world, which ultimately defeated it. To this day muslims cannot fathom their humiliating status in the world, and they supplicate Allah to return their dignity and power.

They Must Be Stopped is a wake-up call for the West which "wallows in a state of denial and ignorance, bullied by political correctness and refusing to listen to our enemies who have an understanding of peace and tolerance different from ours." She shows that democratization is not an end in itself. Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance, are democratically elected terrorist organizations. More elections in the Islamic world would only create more radical Islamic regimes opposed to and threatening Western values. The unfortunate truth is that the repressive regimes in Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and Jordan are our natural allies in that they keep the cork in the bottle of Islamic terrorism. For readers unfamiliar with the global extend of Islamic terrorism since 9/11, Gabriel provides a summary. Conclusion: they have been very busy, not as subdued as you might have thought.

And if you think Gabriel is being bombastic or is exaggerating the threat which she knows so intimately, listen to Ayatollah Khomeini, "The Almighty himself taught us how to kill." Or read the Koran for yourself: "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them." (Koran 47:4), or "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes." (Koran 8:12). "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." (Koran 8:39) "Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy." (Koran 8:59)

Brigitte Gabriel is a crystal clear thinker and a compelling writer. She suggests, for instance, that if you think you know a "moderate" muslim, just ask him or her to condemn the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, and you will learn just how thin that veneer of moderation actually is. She shows us how modern muslims veil terrorism by referring to it as "fourth generation warfare." She shows us that Islam is an adversary which will not reason, will not rest, will not compromise; it is inspired by both victory and by defeat, and its goal is your elimination. They Must Be Stopped.

Gabriel concludes her vitally important book with commonsense prescriptions for meeting the threat from Islam. The fact is that you are actually going to have to do something. Waking up isn't going to be enough. Gabriel provides a thoughtful list of actions you can take. She finishes with a note of emotional gratitude to American men and women in uniform. "Words tremble on my lips and emotions swell in my heart for in gratitude for your service and your sacrifice...for protecting America and the world...Let my grateful tears thank you..."

This is a most fabulous book. Mrs. Gabriel convincingly shows that purist Islam is a real threat to Western civilization and that it must be stopped. She explains Islamic identity, how Islam sees the West, and what the problem is. She shows that we do not face a fringe of "evil doers" who have hijacked a peaceful religion -- rather we face purists who have 'cleansed' their religion the outside environment and are trying to do what the Koran says-- "purists who drink their Islam straight". She points out that the claim "Islam is a religion of peace" ... well, Nazism and Communism were ideologies that said they wanted world peace. Islam could be called a religion of peace, but so because muslims have a different understanding of the word peace from Western secularists. The book shows that Islam is a religion of conquest, i.e., it is political in ways other religions are not. The book shows how many 'moderate' muslims want to take over the West and the World through non-violent means if possible (education, propaganda, receiving concessions, etc.) and want to reestablish the caliphate (empire) under shariah [Islamic law]-- think about Western Europe as a new huge Saudi arabia (in laws, customs, etc.)The book then shows how women and minorities are treated in ways they may not like under Islam, and how muslims use multiculturalism, diversity, and sensitivity to make the West become islamicized. She has a chapter about how Europe is being islamified, and points out that the West had better wake up before it is too late. Mrs. Gabriel correctly points out the the Political correctness is a real threat to the West's survival, and explains how we can stop the cultural jihad waged against us.

This book is a must read, for many seem to believe that we as a civilization are invincible, since the West has been dominant for over 500 years (since 1492). This is not the case. For futher reading, I recommend America Alone, by Mark Steyn; Londonistan, by Melanie Philips, and While Europe Slept, by Bruce Bawer.

This book is one of the best on this most timely subject.

'The Return of History' is virtually an afterdinner monologue where the dinner and wine must be terrific. The point of the book is that with political realism the liberal political order collapses. 'The Return of History' lacks arguements and fails to deliver a broad presentation of facts. Basically the books sums to zip.

The author, Robert Kagan, is a brilliant writer, historian and political scientist, much too bright to be a part of the Dick Cheney staff, yet he conceals those prejudices in his writing. He has become one of my favorite authors, and this book is a wonderful study of the history of America's expansionist foreigh policy.

In this book, Kagan offers a brief and concise overview of contemporary geopolitics in an increasingly multi-polar world. The hope at the end of the Cold War was that liberal values of democracy and capitalism would spread internationally. The resulting economic interdependence and shared prosperity would result in an end to historic conflicts rooted in differences in ideology, competition for resources or pursuit of power. However, over the course of the past 10-20 years US global hegemonic power has diminished as other powers have arisen whose national characteristics are not shaped chiefly by liberal values. Nations that are happily autocratic instead of democratic wield increasing power and have economic interests that do not always harmonize perfectly with the rest. Geopolitical alliances among many different actors become increasingly complex as support is sought to develop or maintain regional influence, protect ideology, pursue economic interests or maintain sovereignty. These diplomatic relations reflect more the many competing identities present in the geopolitical landscape of the 19th century than a contemporary vision of a world with one shared identity and one common pursuit. Happily, the book is not as moralizing and despairing as the title suggests. However, clearly the new global scenario revealed does present its own challenges that will need to be addressed by present and future leaders. The author does occasionally attribute current developments in the modern geopolitical landscape to his pessimistic fundamental beliefs about human nature, however these remarks are few and far between and the author does not overtly seek to make this the crux of the story. Overall, I found this a quick and useful read to bring one up to speed on current geopolitical happenings and would recommend it.

This short book reads more like a long essay than a book and focuses on the post-Cold War world. Like many recent books, this book is also concerned with the United States' current position in the world given the rise of China, the EU, Russia and Iran. The underlying thesis is that in the years to come states will align themselves not based on region or culture, but rather by form of government and foreign policy. In other words, the world's democracies will strengthen ties amongst themselves by way of economic and political ties while the world's autocracies (namely China, Russia and Iran) will further strengthen its bonds, thereby creating a counterbalance to western democracies. In many respects, such an alignment is already underway and there are no signs of letting up. Kagan suggests that liberal democracy has survived the most deadly century of mankind and it is stronger than it ever has been globally. He doesn't argue that democracy is the superior form of government, but he clearly recognizes that if the world is ever to succeed in its quest for worldwide peace and prosperity, it will be up to the United States and the rest of the world's democracies to get us there. But for the time being, post-Cold War dreams of global unity and cooperation have failed and history as we knew it has returned.

Reading Kagan after Zakaria's The Post-American World is refreshing. It feels as though I'm returning to the real world. This is partly because Kagan is an Historical Realist. It is also because Zakaria is an idealist. He may deny that classification, but he has faith in his statistics, trends and economic forecasts. He looks toward the future confident in what his numbers tell him. He has tasted European idealism and declared it good. The EU followed by a host if idealistic followers has been dreaming. Not only that, they have been operating as though their dreams were a reality. Marx dreamed similar dreams long ago. First he dreamed them and then someone made a reality of them. But things can go wrong when the rest of the world isn't dreaming with you.

Kagan, unlike Zakaria, looks at the present in terms of the past. He sees the return of 19th century power politics - something Fukuyama scoffed at. For Kagan, the EU experiment isn't working very well.

On page 20 Kagan writes, "So what happens when a twenty-first-century entity like the EU faces the challenge of a traditional power like Russia? The answer will play itself out in coming years, but the contours of the conflict are already emerging - in diplomatic standoffs over Kosovo, Ukraine, Georgia, and Estonia; in conflicts over gas and oil pipelines; in nasty diplomatic exchanges between Russian and Great Britain; and in a return of Russian military exercises of a kind not seen since the Cold war.

"Europeans are apprehensive and have reason to be. The nations of the European Union placed a mammoth bet in the 1990s. They bet on the new world order, on the primacy of geo-economics over geopolitics, in which a huge and productive European economy would compete as an equal with the United States and China. . . They cut back on their defense budgets and slowed the modernization of their militaries, calculating that soft power was in and hard power was out. They believed Europe would be a model for the world, and in a world modeled after the European Union, Europe would be strong.

"For a while this seemed a good bet. . . [but] with Russia back on its feet and seeking to restore its great power status, including predominance in its traditional spheres of influence, Europe finds itself in a most unexpected and unwanted position of geopolitical competition. This great twenty-first-century entity has, through enlargement, embroiled itself in a very nineteenth-century confrontation.

"Europe may be ill-equipped to respond to a problem that it never anticipated having to face. . . Many western Europeans already regret having brought the eastern European countries into the Union and are unlikely to seek even more confrontations with Russia by admitting such states as Georgia and Ukraine."

Kagan wrote his book before Russia invaded Georgia, but he saw that coming. He writes on page 24, "What would Europe and the United States do if Russia played hardball in either Ukraine or Georgia? They might well do nothing. Post-modern Europe can scarcely bring itself to contemplate a return of conflict involving a great power and will go to great lengths to avoid it. Nor is the United States eager to take on Russia when it is so absorbed in the Middle East. Nevertheless, a Russian confrontation with Ukraine or Georgia would usher in a brand-new world - or rather a very old world. As one Swedish analyst has noted, `We're in a new era of geopolitics. You can't pretend otherwise.'"

Will Kane threw his badge in the dirt and rode out of town, and the town didn't care. Frank Miller was dead. Who needs Will Kane? But then a few years later Frank Miller, wearing a ski mask, rises from his grave. He isn't dead after all. Quick, send for Will Kane. Does anyone know where Will Kane is?

Lawrence Helm
www.lawrencehelm.com

This edition presents the standard translation of the Communist Manifesto, in use for 120 years, introduced by a long essay exploring the European intellectual ferment that produced the work in 1848. Given the importance of the Manifesto in history, I would have appreciated a different introductory essay, one written with the general reader in mind. By the time I finally reached the text, I still felt ill equipped to understand its unique language and message. I needed a better basic commentary and perhaps a more contemporary translation of the work itself.

The idea of this book is simple enough: it's Marx's and Engels' concept and plan for a totally fair society where everything is shared and everyone is (supposedly) equal.

The problem is, "...absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when authoritarian dictators implement these ideas it always results in two percent of the people having everything and the remaining ninety-eight percent having nothing.

The core focus of this political persuasion is on "the worker". It evolved from a prior eternity of monarchs dominating the poor and a response to the scourge of serfdom. Ultimately, Lenin used "The Communist Manifesto" as a means of promoting the Russian Revolution which ultimately became the cultural horror which the rest of us came to know as The Soviet Union. In other words, it provided the basis for a ploy on the part of the Bolsheviks (Communist Party).

During the years of Communism, the Soviet workers used to convey a covertly-spoken credo: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us". That pretty much sums up how Marx's and Engels' plan played out in actual practice.

Strangely, few people ever make the observation that the ideas of Marx and Engels were not at all original. Thomas More (1478-1535) conveyed almost the same concept when he scribed his famous work: Thomas More's Utopia. In fact, people who have obviously never read "Utopia" would clearly not cite it as "the ideal society" if they were even slightly apprised of the numerous horrors of that fictional society. And so goes "The Communist Manifesto" in actual practice.

Still, this is an incredible, eye-opening read and we SHOULD read it if for no other reason than to see how mans' best-laid plans can easily go awry. Highly recommended.

Communism is dead as a doornail. Those who think otherwise are simply brainwashed by propaganda and completely ignorant of world history. The Soviet Union collapsed after decades of backwardness and Marxism, not that its economic failure was ever in doubt. Their pseudo-"industrialization" caused huge famines that killed tens of millions, and did not reduce the technological lag that persisted for decades - they were in the stone ages technologically. They were only saved in World War II by American lend-lease shipments, and then donations of grain and wheat. The Soviet Union was a failure, and was lagging behind the West in industrial production, agriculture, military strength, applied science, everything. Their physical indices and statistics (along with the alleged achievements of the military and space program) were proven to be bungled lies and propaganda. Their Marxist economists were incompetent, and failed to solve any planning problems. Those who deny these historical facts are just as pathetic and ignorant as Holocaust deniers or flat-Earthers. Cuba hardly fared any better - it was ruled by a brutal dictatorship, and it is lost to history how many millions were also killed by famines and harebrained government schemes. Those who still doubt this need to WAKE UP, get some sunlight and stop reading pseudo-intellectual tracts like this.

Kinda a pointless book now that communism has been proven ineffective. I guess if you still want to live in this type of society you can move to Russa, China, Cuba etc. Lucky for them they have the US to give them foreign aid. Communism would be dead within a few decades without a capitolistic nation to support it.

...and PLEASE read beyond the Manifesto! Ignore the anti-Marx ideologues who do not actually read him, and give him a shot. Forget, for a minute, all preconceived notions of communism, and take his writings as though they are fresh and brand new. Only then should you proceed on to reading criticism of him, history of Marxism, etc. The reader who is willing to undertake an actual study of Marx will find him infinitely valuable, and very astute on many things.

First, I'd like to (try to) clear up a few misconceptions about Marx that linger implacably in the minds of almost all Americans.

1) The Soviet Union, China, etc. were not Communist societies.
They were brutal dictatorships under the guise of communism, using it as an ideological blanket to mask their terrible atrocities. Moreover, Marx intended for Communism to evolve out of Capitalist societies (i.e., Britain and America during his time), not out of the feudalistic Russia/China. The argument that Communism killed 100 million is just wrong--dictators corrupting the ideas of communism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) did so. So yes, Marx caused the deaths of 100 million in the same way Adam Smith caused the deaths of the Chinese and Irish immigrants who toiled on the railroad--in other words, not at all.

2.) Marxism =/= violence.
In certain places, especially the Manifesto, Marx does permit violence, and, indeed, advocate it. But Marx does not think it NECESSARY--that's the key point. Good Marxist thinkers, and I believe Marx himself, would say that communistic reforms could come just as easily and likely more efficiently from peaceful processes, as we have seen them for the most part in the United States.

3.) Communism is not welfare statism.
In fact, in a, actually realized communist society (unlikely to ever happen, I'll admit) there would be no government. Marx advocated the PEOPLE owning the means of production, not the state. This is a HUGE error that many make when reading Marx. I suspect he was just as distrusting of the state as your average libertarian, he just thought it necessary to rectify some of the wrongs of capitalism and a necessary step toward communism. Note the use of step there: Marx, taking from his predecessor Hegel, believes everything must proceed in steps!!

4.) The Communist Manifesto is not the end-all of communism.
Honestly, the Manifesto is a rather juvenile work compared to many of Marx's other writings, like DAS KAPITAL or GRUNDRISSE. It was intended as a sort of primer to communism, accessible to the common, sparsely-educated worker of Marx's time, and is a better demonstration of Marx/Engel's (everyone forgets about poor Engels!) rhetorical ability than of their thought proper.

I also believe that the Manifesto isn't really the best place to start. It breeds far too many misconceptions about communist thought, partly due to its theatricality, partly due to the way it has been misconstrued throughout the decades. If you do start with the Manifesto, as most people do, PLEASE continue on and read more about Marx! Trust me, it's worth it, and you learn the extreme depth of his theory.

One need only look at their time to understand why Marx and Engels were so infuriated at the capitalist system. Those years of the Industrial Revolution were an exciting and terrifying time. New wealth and new commodities were springing up constantly, but they tended to be concentrated in the hands of very few, while created at the expense of millions of common, downtrodden labourers. Those who attack government regulation of corporations should study the Gilded Age of America, and the Industrial Revolution in England. Child labourer, no safety laws whatsoever, no minimum wage, no work-week, no fair bargaining between workers and employees, government subsidizing of wealthy corporations, union-busters, etc. Is there any wonder Marx and Engels, who were essentially exiled to England during this time, were filled with such anger at the system that caused so much human suffering?

Marx's critique of capitalism is in my estimate the strongest part of his theory, and it is likely that his witnessing the above exploitations of workers is why it is so strong, and why the Manifesto seems so... angry. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in Marxist theory pick up a copy of the Marx-Engels Reader (also available on Amazon) and read through the "Critique of Capitalism" section, which offers selections from his writings under this topic.

How right Marx was is for the reader to decide. Again, I find his critique of capitalism VERY accurate, and believe the only reason his predictions haven't come to fruition to be because we implemented some of his recommended policies (we now live in a blended economy, somewhere on the spectrum between pure capitalism and communism). Communism itself is a bit silly, but not so much as the anti-Marxists make it out to be. The real take-away point here is that you should study (not read, STUDY) Marx for yourself, and not accept what I, or the anti-Marxists, tell you.