Best political science books according to redditors

We found 507 Reddit comments discussing the best political science books. We ranked the 215 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

Constitutions books
History & theory of politics books
Political reference books
Comparative politics books

Top Reddit comments about Political Science:

u/ChickenDelight · 496 pointsr/todayilearned

If you can read a 1,000+ page book on a political campaign, What It Takes goes into Bob Dole's early life in detail. The book is about everyone running in the 1988 Presidential election, and almost certainly the best book you will ever read about what makes people become successful politicians and what a major election campaign is really like.

Anyway, back to Dole. It wasn't just his hand that was injured in WWII, his whole body was mangled. There were several years where he was bedridden and likely suicidal afterwards, and he was generally expected to stay that way and die within five, maybe ten years. The surgery on his shoulder that turned his arm into a pen cup was an extremely risky, experimental procedure when he had it done, and it was basically as a last ditch effort.

Then he spent a few more years relearning how to do every basic task you take for granted, and went to law school, where he learned everything by memory because he had no way to take notes. Then he was a small-town lawyer who got into politics.

I'm not a fan of his politics or his weird third-person self-reference affectation, but he has an incredible backstory.

u/Thorium233 · 188 pointsr/politics

"Military spending doesn’t redistribute wealth, it’s not democratizing, it doesn’t create popular constituencies or encourage people to get involved in decision-making. It’s just a straight gift to the corporate manager, period."

...

"They understood that social spending could play the same stimulative role, but it is not a direct subsidy to the corporate sector, it has democratizing effects, and it is redistributive. Military spending has none of these defects."
link

u/StochasticLife · 51 pointsr/Whatisthis

It's The History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal

​

https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

u/numbbbb · 44 pointsr/Documentaries

If you really want to open your eyes, read Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky.

u/christiangreyisdraco · 44 pointsr/technology

The Guardian reports it as a Gore Vidal book on the Security State.

Probably this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

u/mirroredfate · 41 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

From an economics perspective:

u/B0N37ESS · 38 pointsr/CringeAnarchy

He wrote a 'book' as well, this is a scary man....

Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks: A Short Essay from a Pro Se Litigant who is Challenging the Utah Brothel Bans https://www.amazon.com/dp/1520441509/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_Uz2lzb95W508N

u/JusticeForScalia · 37 pointsr/The_Donald

We need to get the Marxist propaganda pushers out of our media and education system.

Free speech is good, propaganda of murderous ideology is not ok.

u/DrunkHacker · 32 pointsr/AskAnAmerican

Cool to see the 500 warhead scenario focused on countervalue targets while more warheads increases the targeting of counterforce targets. Basically, if you have only a few warheads, they need to be big and focus on deterrence. If you have many, they can be smaller and more targeted towards crippling your opponent's military.

People under-appreciate how much game theory was derived from the cold war with great books like The Strategy of Conflict.

u/olund94 · 26 pointsr/Whatisthis

I found it!

Gore Vidal History of The National Security State: Includes Vidal on America https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1494887991/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_okZRCbFG8NG2R


Interesting choice of arrest book, I have a follow up for anyone reading, what was Assange shouting as he was arrested?

Sky News are reporting he’s telling the U.K. to refuse the Trump Administration with large portions of what he is saying labels as “inaudible”.

Wouldn’t that statement go against the whole point of Wikileaks who leaked Hillary’s emails?

u/Peen_Envy · 25 pointsr/Ask_Politics

Alright, well the first thing to remember is to disregard most of what you hear from your acquaintances on social media- they are almost always wrong. The second thing to remember is that everything is always more complex than sound bites let on. This is meant as a starting point- if you are interested in politics there is a mountain to read and learn.

You have a lot of questions, and I will try to answer them in order.

> How exactly does the US election process work?

The US has a single-member plurality representative democracy in a presidential system of government.

The US Constitution denotes the separation of powers of the three branches of the federal government, and also lays out indirectly how federalism works.

Because of Duverger's Law, this results in the primacy of two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Most major candidates at all levels of government are traditionally from these two parties.

Each of these parties select their candidates through a primary election process, where candidates of the same party compete to represent that party in the actual election.

> What are super PACs?

Super PACs are a type of Political Action Committee that grew out of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling which established that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects political giving as a form of free speech, even for corporations. A lot of people confuse Super PACS (PACs that have unlimited contributions but cannot give to or coordinate with a candidate) with Dark Money that sometimes gives to Super PACs.

> Also, what exactly are lobbyists? In my understanding, politicians are being bribed and it's legal? Politicians are basically openly buyable?

No, this is patently false. It is a very common misconception (especially on social media like Reddit) that is perpetuated by people with little knowledge or background in politics. Bribery (exchanging money for votes) has been illegal for hundreds of years, and yes politicians have gone to jail for it.

Lobbying is an industry that grew out of the First Amendment's right to petition the government. Basically, it is every citizen's right to go up to Congress or the Administration and talk to them. Over time, people realized that going in groups of like-minded people is better than going alone; so they formed advocacy organizations (lobbying groups) and they lobbied Congress on behalf of their members. Obviously, corporations do this too on behalf of their owners/shareholders. Lobbying performs some very important functions.

Now, an area where reformers are looking is how donating money to a candidate year after year (remember that money for votes is illegal) to develop relationships with lawmakers gives them influence. This is undeniably true. A politician is much more likely to take a long discussion meeting with someone who gave to their election bid than someone who didn't. This is a problem. However most laypeople assume that lawmakers make up their platforms to please lobbyists in order to get money- this is demonstrably false- it's actually the other way around. Advocacy groups largely give money to people who already agree with them, to support them and to get or keep them in office. (The one area where this doesn't hold true is on non-salient issues; small tweaks in the tax code, minor regulation changes, etc. In these cases, lobbyists do exercise undue influence because the issues are so remote, lawmakers don't already have an opinion.) -But these problems are not unique to American politics- lobbying in some form happens in every country in the world.

In terms of all candidates but Sanders being utter jokes, you are entitled to your opinion. But please don't assume that other rational voters are any less astute than yourself- there are always reasons to support a different candidate, and the only way to test if your reasons stack up against theirs is through vigorous public debate.

If I missed anything, or you have follow up questions, let me know. It is a big topic, worthy of many books, so obviously things are paraphrased or left out.

EDIT: Thanks for the gold!

u/jaiwithani · 25 pointsr/HPMOR

Your scenario assumes there is only one ransomer and one ransomee in the world. This can make for a good toy problem, but we should be clear that we're diverging from the real world here.

This is one of many scenarios where it is to your advantage for your opponent to believe that there are circumstances in which you will act against your own (apparent) self-interest. The best thing you can do to prevent kidnapping (in this scenario) is to credibly and publicly assert that you will never pay a random.

If you're a kidnapper and you anticipate people attempting this strategy, you can publicly and credibly delcare that you'll kidnap people regardless. (This might be tricky, as kidnappers historically aren't super credible people).

The key is to be (1) credible and (2) first. Whoever makes the first credible precommitment wins.

Similarly: there is a game called "Chicken", where two drivers careen towards each other at high speed; whoever swerves first loses. The dominant strategy...

(think about it for at least 30 seconds)

(it hasn't been 30 seconds yet)

(keep thinking)

(do you have an answer?)

(take a second to write it down or say it out loud)

[solution](#s "...is to throw your steering wheel out the window before the game starts, such that your opponent knows for a fact that you can't swerve.")

Another, similar demonstration of the power of precommitment is demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8. If you want to skip the game show fluff: It's a prisoners dilemma and things get fun around 2:40.

tldr: You can use your opponent's model of you as a weapon against them.

Recommended reading: http://www.amazon.com/The-Strategy-Conflict-Thomas-Schelling/dp/0674840313

u/Jugglnaught · 25 pointsr/Anarchism

Ex-army here. I did six years in the Army Reserve and a one year deployment to Iraq in 09.

The military is the most extreme example of hierarchy I can think of. There are literally dozens of layers of it, in the rank system and the chain of command, and you wear it on your chest in the form of your personal rank.

The purpose of the military is to destroy and conquer human beings, so it isn't surprising that those in the military experience what we dish out. It's why we have higher rates of suicide, mental illness, crime, etc. Everybody's experience is different of course, but I would call mine a "socially acceptable abusive relationship". Those on the top would engage in verbal abuse and physical abuse (in the form of corrective action through physical exercise, as well as sending us on pointless mission that put our lives at risk).

The military is about power, just as corporations and other big businesses are about power. Power is how you take more than you create. It's how a CEO can pay himself a million bucks a year but give his employees minimum wage. The military is how capitalists and states maintain their power at home and overseas. When foreign nations refuse to part with their natural resources or labor for a pittance, that's when those in power have to take action. I'd suggest reading Understanding Power to get the specifics here.

I could always feel there was something wrong with this system, but it took experimenting with a number of different philosophies before I came to anarchism. Abolishing all hierarchies and tools of oppressions...that's what really got me.


u/Plopdopdoop · 24 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

Seems to be. One aspect it doesn't cover, however, is that the Rubio and Trump views come from primary campaigning versions of themselves. Even with Trump, it's reasonable to assume their true views aren't quite as stringent as the rhetorically simple messages they put out for primary voters. And I say that being personally as far from a Rubio/Trump/Cruz supporter as you might find.

The revealing part is that about Bush—he really did couch the argument that starkly, at least publicly. The author writes:
> Bush called al-Qaeda “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century … they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism.” Many Republicans still see the “war on terror” in these epic terms.

In my opinion that's rare for a president, aside from instances of actual threats of world domination, like that of the Nazis and USSR; and it's an unwise thing to do...but that's also my opinion. That un-nuanced, all/nothing choice was successful at the time. But I've since seen even conservatives criticize this, saying it ended up weakening the U.S. position. Yet most of the republican candidates are now back where Bush/Cheney left off.

The portion about Obama subscribing to the Robert Pape argument is interesting.
> ...that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but occupation

I've not seen this argument made about Obama before. It does seem correct. I'm looking forward to reading the essay cited... which is actually a book, here on Amazon. (As I was writing this I assumed it was shorter form, online content. Good as the book maybe, if anyone can point me to online content discussing Pope's argument, I'd love to see it.)

u/MrCartmenes · 24 pointsr/todayilearned

There's a great book by a British Member of Parliament, Norman Baker, that contends that the Americans knew Curveball was lying and that Dr David Kelly (a UN weapons inspector) was assassinated by thugs working for Ayad Allawi (A.K.A Saddam Lite by U.S officials), because Kelly had publicly said evidence of WMDs was false. Baker Claims Curvball was controlled by Allawi, that the Americans knew this too. Coincidentally, (cough) Allawi became Iraqi prime minister after the invasion. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Strange-Death-David-Kelly/dp/1842752170

u/BaldBombshell · 21 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

He's written and published an essay!

u/AndTheEgyptianSmiled · 19 pointsr/islam

On a related note, something I got off another redditor:

> Robert Pape Uni. of Chicago, studied every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 attacks in all:

>"The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" - Source

u/gospelwut · 15 pointsr/technology

It's a simple extension of an analysis of power. I'd encourage you to look at this book (also available in audiobook).

If you are truly interested and can't afford it, PM me.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1522694358

u/Lumyai · 14 pointsr/conspiracy

SS:

u/worldgoes · 14 pointsr/politics

> Understanding Power is just as relevant too.

Understanding Power is the best overall book on modern politics i have ever read. Really challenged/changed a lot of my preconceived opinions about politics

u/kekspernikai · 13 pointsr/TrueReddit

If you want a broad view of Chomsky, I suggest The Essential Chomsky. It's a collection of some of his most influential writings. If you want to skip the linguistic stuff and focus on political writing, Understanding Power has been suggested. I haven't read that one, though. The linguistic stuff, in my opinion, is interesting but very hard to follow if you're not into linguistics already. The opening piece from Essential Chomsky is a 50+ page essay which is a critical examination of a linguistics writing. It took a long time to read and I retained little.

Here is more info on the first book I recommended. Here is the second.

u/ziej · 12 pointsr/FULLCOMMUNISM
u/h4qq · 11 pointsr/islam

It's not really a paper, so to speak, he organized it really well in a book. Simple read, very straight forward, authentic sources and well cited.

You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373188706&sr=8-1&keywords=logic+of+suicide

u/ploddingpolisciguy · 11 pointsr/Ask_Politics

I ran for an at large city council seat in a town of 50K people. My wife would have murdered me if I'd corrected her posture or behavior.

My advice for your significant other - spend more time reading literature on effective campaign strategies and less time correcting his "first lady" (which is an odd term since a councilmember's spouse isn't considered a first lady/man).

Unless he has billboards up all over town and commercials running at all hours, few people will recognize a city council candidate.

GOTV Green and Gerber

The Campaign Manager

u/Chi_Rho88 · 11 pointsr/Catholicism

'The Gulag Archipelago' by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

u/knowledgeispower13 · 10 pointsr/EnoughPaulSpam

>I agree. I figure there is no difference between Obama and Romney, and I'd be voting for Ron Paul as VP.

what gets me about this statement is its so fundamentally wrong. The concept of a political ideology completely smashes this statement into the ground, but just even looking past that for a second we come to this. They perceive the two parties to be the same because they base their comparisons on the end result coming from our government. Since our government is naturally a pull-push battle between two sides the final product, or legislation, is something both people support. So they overgeneralize this factor and state "well since republicans and democrats both supported it they're the same". its absolutely breath taking the lack of knowledge these people have in terms of understanding the way our government works. I'd love to put one book in all their hands and tell them to read up.

Congress: The Electoral Connection
http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Connection-Professor-David-Mayhew/dp/0300105878/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342584855&sr=1-4&keywords=Congress

serenity now!

u/butwhykevin · 10 pointsr/conspiracy

Have you read Gore Vidal History of The National Security State: Includes Vidal on America ? (This is the book Julian Assange was holding when he was carried out of the embassy.)

It is a very short book but VERY easy to read and super interesting. Your time will not be wasted. It addresses the incestual relationship between Washington and the media as well.

u/Enibas · 10 pointsr/SubredditDrama
u/PeripateticPothead · 10 pointsr/philosophy

Chomsky's views on postmodernism aren't at all new. He dismisses pomo in Understanding Power (2002); I don't have my copy handy to give a page number, but I'm pretty sure it's in the index. He said things to the effect that he can hardly read pomo literature and that it's hardly amenable to serious analysis because its claims are so obscure or indeterminate. His latest remarks are a quite-consistent extension of his earlier ones.

u/supremecommand · 10 pointsr/ColorizedHistory

Why do you attribute hostility towards Soviet union as American propaganda? Is that some pathetic way to try and argue or do you believe that Europeans view Soviet union more favorably? Soviet union was murderous corrupted dictatorship what took over entire Easter Europe and fucked them for 50 years, why would anyone like Soviet union?

https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851 Have some reading

u/insanemetal187 · 10 pointsr/Libertarian

...not that bad? Here's a quora post?!

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

For about what it was actually like during that time.

Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick


About what it looked like around the fall of USSR.

Eastern Border Podcast

If you want something more casual, less dense and a podcast

If you weren't a party member there was no "pretty good win" for anyone. I would have happily been homeless in any other first world country than "middle class" in a socialist country during the 20th century.

u/narrenburg · 9 pointsr/ShitAmericansSay

> Rich people aren't being represented obviously!

This book, outlined in this article and summarized in this video says otherwise. It is an inevitability of liberal democracy.

^^I'm ^^agreeing ^^with ^^you, ^^btw.

u/khafra · 9 pointsr/DebateReligion

Justice is a way to avoid the tragic equilibrium in the prisoner's dilemmas we all face every day. A college sophomore would say that if someone wrongs you, it is irrational to seek revenge, because even if it hurts the one who wronged you it costs you something as well. However, if someone thinking about wronging you knows you will "irrationally" seek revenge, they're less likely to wrong you.

Being known as someone with a strong commitment to justice is a good way to accomplish this.

The above is a very short overview; Thomas Schelling got a Nobel Prize for related theory, and authored a very readable book on the subject; The Strategy of Conflict.

u/BlueSignRedLight · 9 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

Feast your eyes on this: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509

And then you can google-fu from there if you're not dead of laughter.

u/IllustriousApricot · 9 pointsr/politics

Dude, it's in almost any book written about Bush's time in office. He read them, but he also got an in-person briefing by a CIA officer. Normally the VP and other people sat in on the brief. It's not up for dispute whether or not he read them. The question is why he didn't take them seriously, which is a different question.

Edit:
Here's a surprisingly topical book. link

u/Spider__Jerusalem · 9 pointsr/ConspiracyII

"The Soviets developed a long-range strategy to defeat the West back in the late 1950s based on a Leninist strategy of strategic deception and subterfuge, replete with a planned collapse — including potentially tearing down the Berlin Wall (which Golitsyn first detailed in a 1978 memorandum embedded at the end of this post) — in combination with perestroika and glasnost, words whose true definitions were far different than those the West ascribed to them."

Golitsyn's The Perestroika Deception

u/crayfisher · 8 pointsr/chomsky

Absolutely without question, Understanding Power. Super-accessible, covers the widest range of topics, all transcribed from Q&As he gave in person, all from memory. The footnotes alone are 449 pages, I believe they're on understandingpower.com. I've bought & given away multiple copies https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/0099466066

The big ones:

  • Manufacturing Consent (obviously)
  • Necessary Illusions
  • Political Economy of Human Rights Vol. 1 and 2 (I wouldn't start here, this is the Cambodia apologism thing)
  • Hegemony or Survival

    The first 3 are kind of huge original projects. A lot of his work is filler, repeat content, etc. so it's a good question to ask

    It will actually change your life. Just remember to keep reading after Chomsky, I think he's wrong about more than a few things.
u/Enopoletus · 8 pointsr/TheMotte

It's Detroit, there was no Republican running, she ran as more moderate than she presents herself now, and only won the primary by a narrow plurality. Prior to her, the district had Conyers for more than half a century, and he was similarly leftwing and prone to controversy.

u/MDSupreme · 8 pointsr/hilariouscringe

This guy is insane. He'll probably wait for them outside an event an stab them or something.

He has a book too

u/zen_artists · 8 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

he wrote a book. its on amazon. this fucking guy has a book for sale in the real world...

https://www.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509

his title game is fire though

u/ElectricAccordian · 8 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

You can also buy a book by him, if for some reason you want to dive into his mind (Mildly NSFW cover on it).

u/Ollides · 7 pointsr/changemyview

It's not as bad as you might think, research tells us the kind of people who vote are more educated, more wealthy, and in middle to upper socioeconomic classes. The two parties are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, and a majority of Americans reasonably align with one of the two. If you don't, then you can simply deny party affiliation and vote for whomever you want.

I feel as though it's a popular sentiment to hate the U.S. government and believe it to be inefficient, but as far as representative government goes, that's exactly what Congress is right now -- each individual district represents the constituents of their district pretty well, and most Americans approve of their Congressperson because, contrary to what people might think, members of Congress are really efficient at doing things that benefit their district, which they can then gloat about, get re-elected, and continue.

Congress as a whole is divided because we as a country are divided -- so ideologically, it actually represents us pretty well. Having a system that removes parties will only cause ideological confusion, representation issues, and a majority of other issues.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, I suggest reading Mayhew's Congress: The Electoral Connection which sums up a lot of these issues very nicely. My degree was in political science, so I'm biased, but a fascinating read nonetheless.

u/grantimatter · 7 pointsr/AskHistorians

Until relatively recently, the foremost practitioners of suicide bombing were the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who are... well, nominally non-religious, though probably majority Buddhist Hindu, trying to oust a majority-Hindu Buddhist population (the Sinhalese).

At the time Robert Pape's book on suicide bombing, Dying to Win, came out, the Tamil Tigers were still top of the game.

That's getting inside the 20-year limit this sub likes to impose, though.

Longer ago, you might get something out of reading up on the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, carried out by the Christian Falange in Lebanon and the ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War (including Srebrenica massacre), carried out by units of the (nominally Christian) Serbian army.

In both cases, there's a Christian force on one hand carrying out atrocities against a Muslim population on the other... but the Christian forces are state sponsored, and the Muslims are just kinda... there.

---
EDIT: fixing who's likely to be worshipping who in Sri Lanka; thanks /u/TheOneFreeEngineer.

u/130EE · 7 pointsr/SandersForPresident

Election fraud is possible. See an Ohio state congressional report on fraud in the 2004 presidential election: https://www.amazon.com/What-Went-Wrong-Ohio-Presidential/dp/089733535X

u/StiffyAllDay · 7 pointsr/unitedkingdom

I love (read as 'hate and it makes me furious') reading about Dr. Kelly. The book, The Strange Death of David Kelly by Norman Baker is really good at setting things out and making a very long and arduous story bite sized. The ending is pathetic however so take it all with a pinch of salt if you are reading of course.

Whether or not the medical information is declassified, it seems that what we were told by those in charge was bollocks. The paramedics have come out and said what they think. As have multiple respected surgeons and doctors etc. Of course, there might be other things we do not know about which are classified and changes things as you state, but I doubt that.

u/Murrabbit · 6 pointsr/worldnews

He appears to be holding a book as they drag him out of the Embassy, but I don't recognize the face of the man on the cover. Anyone recognize the book that's such a page turner he can't put it down to be man-handled by a bunch of cops?

EDIT: found someone else in the comments had already pegged it: https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991 Good ol' Gore Vidal. Worth a read.

u/bennysuperfly · 6 pointsr/Anarchism

It's from Understanding Power, A collection of talks he's done over the years. This one's from talks he gave at Rowe, Massachusetts.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1522694358

u/aginorfled · 6 pointsr/books

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this one:

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

It's pretty comprehensive in terms of covering the essentials of his positions on most major issues, but the editors did a fantastic job of presenting all of it as a question/answer type of format. Another cool thing, the footnotes/citations were so voluminous they made it a .pdf online because it would've probably doubled the size of the book:

The Footnotes to Understanding Power

u/libfascists · 5 pointsr/politics

"No longer"?

Do you libs still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too?

The US was never Democratic. This is why liberalism is not a real, serious ideology. More like propaganda, mythology, fairy tales to shape how the sheeple feel about and relate to their political overlords. A sheeple control mechanism.

And liberal myths about progressive heroes like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc, are nothing more than mythology and hagiography, fulfilling much the same role as, e.g. myths about old Teutonic heroes like Armenius were intended to fill in Nazi Germany.

u/IAmNotAPerson6 · 5 pointsr/chomsky

I'd like to suggest Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule."

u/davidjricardo · 5 pointsr/badeconomics

The Strategy of Conflict by Tom Schelling - very little math. It's a collection of essays rather than a unified tome.

A Course in Game Theory by Osborne and Rubenstein. Much more rigorous (so more Math). It might be too much for you - "I'm good at math" can mean many things.

Neither is purely economics

u/ObsessiveMuso · 5 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

Define "news", because his name and face have been out there for a while, in addition to some choice writing.

u/Go_Todash · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Noam Chomsky has been talking about this since before most of us were even born.

u/tayssir · 5 pointsr/philosophy

Depends. What topic interests you, and at what level? He's written on philosophy, politics and of course lingustics.

For an overview of his political beliefs, I like Understanding Power, whose footnotes are web-only, because otherwise they would've more than doubled the book. (It's also very readable, since it's taken from question & answer sessions, where he's looser with language than in prepared talks or in print. And even Chomsky uses the book to look up stuff, praising the duo who assembled the book.)

Language and Politics is also interesting, and touches more on philosophy and lingustics.

There's much on the web. He also used to participate on ZNet's old message forums; however his years of posts (probably in the thousands) answering people's political questions may be lost.

u/SadisticPottedPlant · 5 pointsr/politics

>Former Central Intelligence Agency briefer David Priess, the author of a book about PDBs, said that traditionally, Trump and Pence's predecessors sat for "daily or near-daily intelligence briefings" between their elections and their inaugurations.

>He said Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan did not start receiving their daily briefings until later in November, while the delayed election result in 2000 meant that George W. Bush did not start receiving his until December.

If you want the number of days each sat for a briefing before inauguration you will need to read Priess' book. Here ya go. Have a ball!



u/Chungking-Expresso · 5 pointsr/indieheads


Probably do some more (any) research instead of continuing to advocate for economic illiteracy and abject human suffering.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1843430851/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_cfBxCbTMN25WV

u/checkdemdigits · 4 pointsr/books

what it takes: the way to the white house

just the most incredible, enjoyable study of politics and what makes a person great.

If you enjoy talking about politics, or find elections interesting, your world view will be made so much wider by this book.

I'm sure no-one else will have heard of it, so here are links to:

the rather short wiki

the amazon page with excellent reviews

the goodreads page with more reviews

the author discussing the book on cspan

u/WT_Dore · 4 pointsr/CredibleDefense

Robert Pape is a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and the auth of Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - original paper as a pdf. He's written and been interviewed about terrorism, especially Daesh. In this interview, he argues against What ISIS Really Wants, and makes the case that they are primarily a nationalist group:
>Wanting territory means there’s a community that wants a state. ISIS, and most suicide groups, are driven by an ideal of nationalism; they want to control their destiny with a state. ISIS is composed of a leadership of about 25 people, which is one-third very heavily religious, for sure; one-third former Saddam [Hussein] military officers who are Baathists, who are secular; and one-third who are Sunni militia, Sunni tribal leaders. That just conveniently is lost in the Wood piece.
It’s definitely the case that ISIS wants to kill people who are not part of its community. But this is normal in nationalist groups. (Hutu wanted to kill Tutsi; they also wanted to kill moderate Hutu who didn’t want to kill Tutsi.)

u/WillieWuff · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

Gore Vidal's History of the National Security State.

https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

u/bluecalx2 · 4 pointsr/LibertarianSocialism

The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.

But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.

If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.

If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.

Enjoy!

u/AlrightToBeRight · 4 pointsr/ukpolitics

> Source?

sauce

u/Stardate_94262-92 · 4 pointsr/australia

> Authoritarianism has literally nothing to do with revolutionary politics.

[Some reading for you and others who think they can do the revolitionary politics without the authoritarianism] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Harvill-Editions/dp/1843430851/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496820937&sr=1-1&keywords=the+gulag+archipelago)

u/Moronicmongol · 3 pointsr/ukpolitics
u/VladTemplar · 3 pointsr/socialism

If anyone wants to understand this academically try reading Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Politics, but it is an academic read that might be difficult to parse for those not trained in political science methodology. You can view a documentary regarding the book here.

u/murphysclaw1 · 3 pointsr/neoliberal

if you're not excited by Biden, go dig out What It Takes: The Way To The White House and read his chapters. Also it's the best book ever written.

warning: may result in write-in votes for Gary Hart

u/soxy · 3 pointsr/books

A) You should wallow in pity about how nothing has changed since 1972.

B) If you want more HST I recommend The Rum Diary or Hell's Angels.

C) If you want more politics I recommend Game Change which was about the 2008 election and was pretty great if not overly shocking or if you really want to get deep into something try the 1,000 page opus about the 1980 election What It Takes

u/smacfarl · 3 pointsr/reddit.com

You really want to argue this do you?

You can start with this book by Richard Clarke, outlining how completely he was prevented from doing his job when the Team Bush/Cheney took over.

We can do more if you like, but I'm betting you haven't read it or done any research whatsoever on this at all.

Of course I'm more than willing to chat if you have any details at all to back up your thesis, but please don't start quoting from the thoroughly discredited ABC 9-11 docudrama of 2004.

u/CalvinLawson · 3 pointsr/islam

No sir, there is no honor in it; it's a terrible, terrible tragedy. Those boys should be home taking care of their families and getting an education, instead they are embroiled in a war masterminded by our political and economic elite.

http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244


Glorifying warfare simply plays into their hands; they can convince naive young people that they are doing a great thing for their country, when in fact the greatest thing we could have done was stay out of Iraq in the first place.

Warfare should be for defense, and only as a measure of last resort. There is no honor in it; in fact the reverse; if you are forced to engage in it it means you've failed.

u/blackstar9000 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

I looked around but didn't see anything. Robert Pape worked on a similar database for the University of Chicago, and a lot of the data from that project was published in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism -- which, incidentally, came to conclusions very similar to those in the linked-to article.

u/schwab002 · 3 pointsr/news

That looks like Roger Stone to me but that would be ridiculous.

I'm def wrong: https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

u/Aurolak · 3 pointsr/samharris

>But I've not yet found a good discussion on power.

Noam Chomsky is your huckleberry if you lack the stomach for French verbosity.

Power & Ideology

Understanding Power

u/matts2 · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

Like this?

u/j3utton · 3 pointsr/POLITIC

> murdered that man

Yea, that was kind of the point of posting the quote.

And somehow you morons don't understand that as soon as the socialists take power here the same thing is going to happen to all you other useful idiots, as has happened every single other time this little experiment has been tried.

Here's some recommended reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851/

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

I thought I'd jump in here to recommend some literature:

"Chaos Theory" by Robert P. Murphy deals with defense and law in an AnCap society. (http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf)

"The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf)

A great lecture series by a left-libertarian anarchist named Roderick T. Long (http://www.kat.ph/foundations-of-libertarian-ethics-t1120728.html)

Our Enemy The State by Albert Jay Nock (one of my personal favorites) Link: http://www.amazon.com/Our-Enemy-State-Albert-Nock/dp/B001E28SUM/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314343946&sr=1-1

u/caferrell · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

"Our Enemy, The State" by Albert Jay Nock

u/dontgoatsemebro · 2 pointsr/books

Without a doubt Understanding Power.

It's a collection of transcripts of talks and interviews he's given covering an unbelievebly broad range of topics. What's even better is it's accompanied by about 450 pages of footnotes which can be found here.

u/Dissentologist · 2 pointsr/chomsky

Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems SPOILER

Amazon

Google Books

B&N

If there is anyone who wants to read this and legitimately can't afford it.... reply to this... and I'm sure we can find a way.

The Golden Rule Documentary feat Noam Chomsky


Can you add some info about the book(official title, author) for those just arriving to the party? I was searching Amazon... but I don't know the author and there are a few "The Golden Rule".

u/poli_ticks · 2 pointsr/politics
u/macdoogles · 2 pointsr/SocialDemocracy

I thought the documentary was great but it's very long and I think a lot of people don't catch the details. I also thought it was good to revive the video since I think it's informative and more people should check it out. This particular excerpt seemed relevant to social democracy.

The rest of the documentary is largely focused on Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems and features quotes from Ferguson and Noam Chomsky quite heavily. Ferguson believes that you can predict government policy by following the financial backing of the various politicians. For example, it is argued that health care entered the US national debate in 2008 not necessarily because people wanted it but because various manufacturing industries were seeing their costs of labor go up and were feeling the pinch during the financial crisis and they in turn lobbied the politicians. At the end the documentary tries to make the case for both socialism and democracy.

u/TubePanic · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

I think you are more talking about resource/time management; for this, I cannot offer much help.

But if you are interested in strategy, I can recommend two books:

The Art of Strategy - it is a 'pop science' introduction to strategy. Not that deep, but very easy to read.

Then, if you feel you need to learn from the Masters, go for the big guns:
The strategy of Conflict - it is not an easy read, but some of Thomas Schelling's insights will blow your mind. Use with cautions, though; some of the strategies described backfired horribly during the Vietnam war (Schelling was one of the advisors at the RAND corporation at the time). Just thought I should warn you, before you blow up your life/relationships in an exercise of strategic brinkmanship: it is indeed a dangerous book.

u/AmesCG · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

There is!

Specifically, and Wikipedia will back me up on this, von Moltke insisted that Germany's Schlieffen Plan, which called for simultaneous war against France and Russia, would have to proceed unaltered, despite last-minute attempts by England to guarantee French neutrality. The notion was that troops were already on the move with pre-set orders, and with the speed of communication and transport abilities, no last-minute alteration could be managed.

(It strikes me that unalterable mobilization in that fashion is an interesting example of pre-committal and its ramifications: consider Thomas Schelling's book for more on game theory in conflict.)

Also, if you want a whimsical and sort of weird take on Kaiser Wilhelm II, Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August -- haha, just kidding, though that book is great -- The Zimmerman Telegram, and specifically its second chapter (I think), details some of Wilhelm's quirks and odd theories on how the war would or could be won. They're pretty interesting. But the book is hard to come by anywhere except online or in a vintage bookstore.

u/asker43 · 2 pointsr/thewestwing

For Enjoyable Political Science stuff, I would suggest A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabbato.
For the best election reading, go for [What It Takes] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371747306&sr=1-1&keywords=what+it+takes) by Richard Ben Kramer.

u/DarthContinent · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Maybe.

I suggest reading "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" by Richard Clarke, who served through three administrations (Bush 1, Clinton, Bush number 2) and gives a very candid picture of the motivation behind the Iraq invasion and related issues.

u/NoFeetSmell · 2 pointsr/AnythingGoesNews

Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror is pretty awesome, and he lays out exactly how much they knew, and it certainly seems like the Bush administration could have done way more to prevent an attack. The first few chapters alone cover how ridiculously overlooked his suggestions were. He narrates the audiobook version too, and it's prettty riveting stuff, to say the least.

u/hamlet9000 · 2 pointsr/politics

Well, it was Bush's administration that essentially manufactured the evidence that Kerry and the other senators were shown. There were doubts in the administration about the reliability of that intelligence (including from people like Colin Powell); those doubts were not shared with the senators. And the information was cherry-picked.

Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies is not a perfect book, but it's a decent starting place if you want more info on this topic.

u/mavnorman · 2 pointsr/atheism

Indeed. When Harris writes:

> Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations.

any skeptic should wonder how it's possible that only Harris manages to see the Truth while all others fail. Are they really biased by wishful thinking? Do they have no evidence to support their conclusions?

Atheists often claim to follow a rational and scientific method, willing to follow the evidence whereever it may lead.

Well, then. What sort of evidence does Harris provide? All I have ever seen is anecdotes, counter-factuals, and an appeal to intution. This is hardly good evidence. He never managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about the topic, as far as I know.

What about the so called "pseudo-scholars" in the humanities and social science departments? What sort of evidence do they have? It seems they do take terrorists by their word. They do in-depth interviews with former terrorists. They do statistical analysis where terrorists come from. They do a careful comparison of the available data.

What's more: Their explanation is consistent with what we know about motivations for violence, in general, and what we know about the relative impotence of religious doctrines for getting people to do good.

There's hardly any doubt who's closer to the truth, here.

u/tehfunnymans · 2 pointsr/politics

The people arguing that terrorism doesn't work assume that terrorists' stated goals are their actual ones. That's a problematic assumption. Terrorists have all sorts of reasons to misrepresent their goals; recruitment and fundraising, for instance, would probably fall off if they started saying that their followers were suicide bombing for a slightly improved bargaining position.

This article presents one side of an ongoing academic debate as if it were concluded. If you'd like the other side of the argument, Robert Pape's study of suicide terrorism is fairly accessible and makes the case for effectiveness in certain areas.

u/Jawbracer · 2 pointsr/SelfAwarewolves

To be fair this is Based Russell, he is physically disabled and quite possibly developmentally stunted. Under no circumstances should you try to make contact with this man despite the fact that his name is public record and it is very very easy to find his contact info.

He has attempted to sue Taylor Swift, among others, into associating with him so that he can achieve his dream to have a career in entertainment as well as have prostitution legalized in the state of Utah.

Again I urge you not to contact him, not only because he's funny in his own right and contacting him will just get him to nuke his accounts again, but also because he's a very litigious man and if you fuck with him too much he might do the same to you.

u/asteriskthat · 2 pointsr/niceguys

I stumbled on this link on another thread in this subreddit and from there found his Facebook - it's public so you can see most of his rants.

u/justinmchase · 2 pointsr/OurPresident

Without pressure from the left they will continue to slide right. They will continue to accept money from corporations and they will continue to support their causes, they will fail to represent us and continue to rig elections.

They organize wedge issues specifically designed to split us up into groups, squabbling over issues that do not fundamentally alter society or power structures, while silently passing legislation which consolidates power for the wealthy. Many wedge issues we deal with today would essentially be trivially solved in a world where our government was run by and worked for the people rather than the wealthiest 1%.

I highly recommend reading this book: Understanding Power: The indispensable Chomsky

u/jackprune · 2 pointsr/chomsky

"Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" is outstanding. It's based on speaking engagements and the the footnotes are an actual website, so they're exceptionally thorough and even include some official documents. It covers many, many topics, so best of all, you can jump around and read sections you're interested in. An Amazing book. For the table of contents check it out on Amazon, but buy the book from The New Press link given above.

u/Fragilityx · 2 pointsr/BlackWolfFeed

Salvador Allende is a good example to see the effect America has on other countries.

Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky wonderfully links the domestic struggle with American Imperialism.

Violence by our boy Slavoj Zizek, refracts outbursts of violence into his own unique way of looking at events. Really eye opening.

America has historically exported some of the worst, murderous violence overseas for the pettiest of reasons, its own gain regardless of the consequences to liberators struggle.

I'm glad to hear of someone interested in learning, hope I've helped!

u/FacelessBureaucrat · 2 pointsr/PoliticalPhilosophy

Chomsky's Understanding Power is a long, organized Q&A and has sections where he discusses libertarian socialism directly, but the entire book is about the same general philosophy.

u/Tim_Buk2 · 2 pointsr/ukbike

great write up, thanks for posting. And well done feeding back to your MP. As you say, more people should do it. I emailed my (Tory) MP once, saying how disgusted I was with his behaviour, after the expenses fiasco; didn't get a reply and he certainly didn't get my vote!

Norman Baker also wrote an important book about Dr David Kelly which I recommend if you're interested in this sort of thing.

u/BrackOBoyO · 2 pointsr/news

The politically correct crowd are basically neomarxists in disguise.

Marxism: society is a collection of groups of economic power. Some groups control others and this should be reversed (Leninism).

PC: society is a collection of groups of social (and therefore) economic power. The patriarchy controls others and this should be reversed.


Marxism: dialogue is a mode of control. Speech between different groups can only be for the purpose of maintaining control and supremacy.

PC: dialogue is a mode of control. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are in essence the attempt to remove yourself from the negative effect of another groups dialogue. Because it is, by definition, controlling. Do you wonder why gender studies intellectuals avoid debate like the plague?


Marxism: If we can destroy the hierarchy of groups, eutopia will follow.

PC: Destroy the patriarchy! Equitable eutopia will follow!


Marxism: success and status are, in a classed system, stolen by the higher class from the other. If you are more successful at what you do you MUST have oppressed someone. That was the justification for exporting millions of skilled agriculturalists to Siberia to die (and they did) in the USSR. These rich farmers are rich because they have oppressed you, come and kick their door in with me! (I'm literally paraphrasing Lenin here). Guess what happened when you punish the productive farmers for being productive? You stop producing food! Ask the 6 million Ukrainians how that turned out.

PC: Success and status are, in a patriarchal system, stolen by rich white men from everyone else.
If you are a successful member of a majority class, you are successful because of 'privilege'. White privilege is just a retooling of class guilt. If you are a kulak, you should feel guilty for stealing your success from the working class; if you are a white male, you should feel guilty stealing success from the multiplicity of suppressed minority classes.


100,000,000 people died as a direct result of internal suppression in Marxist systems in the 20th century. Why are we putting up with the same immoral arguments again? Why have we let it almost completely usurp our academic institutions?

Anyone who feels like these words might be resonating with them should read this book. Have a good week everyone, listen to and be good to each other.

u/gabagool69 · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It may not turn you into a Trump supporter, but it will definitely turn you away from current left wing ideologies that tout any form of socialism.

u/BlueSatoshi · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Is this the book in question? Heard it's a very effective redpill if you wanna completely eviscerate the credibility of Marxism and related stuffs.

u/blobbyblobbyblobby · 2 pointsr/pics

Check out this book if you are interested in communism - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Harvill-Editions/dp/1843430851 it has changed my life.

u/StoneJewel · 2 pointsr/worldnews

> We have the resources to life everyone out if poverty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

> and rebuild it.

https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851

> We choose not to

Probably because every time this kind of horseshit has been tried it has led to totalitarian dictatorships? I get you want to play woke and pat yourself on the back, but this kind of shit is braindead retarded and only a child would have the capacity to utter such an ignorant and generalized statement.

Go do something actually worth a damn and donate to a charity, bitching on Reddit will get nothing done.

u/thaldia_civex · 1 pointr/italy

Quoto "Armi, acciaio, e malattie" che ho appena finito di leggere, mentre ho appena acquistato "Perche' le nazioni falliscono".

Aggiungo (che ho anche appena letto) "Understanding Power" di Noam Chomsky, e di cui costituisce un po' il primer del suo pensiero (politico, non linguistico).

u/TravellingJourneyman · 1 pointr/labor

Definitely get Tom Ferguson's book then. Sadly, I haven't found a pdf of it online but your library or Amazon should have it. He has a number of articles that should be interesting. In short, he explores how the opportunity cost of voting causes political systems to be dominated by moneyed interests. As labor organizes, it becomes a moneyed interest and is able to get into the political system, which affects the composition of the parties. I should be able to snag his scholarly articles if you can't get them through your university or wherever. He spends some time talking about Europe too, so you should be able to get some useful info for making comparisons.

I'm afraid I don't have much on China, probably because unions are illegal and thus quite small and powerless.

u/prances_w_sheeple · 1 pointr/politics

> It's a big government that has been purchased and is currently being run by big corporations.

The corporate form is relatively recent (4, 5 centuries?) so let's generalize it to "the rich."

The problem is, if you study history, governments have pretty much always been associated with the rich. It is an institution that is either created by, or controlled by the rich, or in cases where the government is imposed by those who control military force, the guys who control it in very short order become "the rich" and use their control of government to make that state of affairs permanent.

As far as corporations are concerned - don't forget how corporations are created. By a State Charter. I.e. corporations are entities created when the government bends the rules and exempts some rich people from liability laws for some of their investment/business activities.

So there is a case to be made that government supporters are ultimately responsible for the problem of corporations.

> Big corporations that Ron Paul wants to further remove regulations from.

How did those corporations get so big? Who controlled the government when it enacted those regulations? So what purpose do those regulations really serve?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176

> Just as thinking the problem is only democrat or only republican caused

I don't think that. The vast majority of you liberals or Democrats think that. That is a big part of the reason why I yell at you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1i6ac5/wounded_soldier_writes_letter_about_being_forced/cb1mwdd?context=3

> thinking Ron Paul the deregulatory is the solution shows that you just aren't paying attention.

Of course he's not "the solution." But his campaign in 2008 and 2012 were probably the best efforts to back, to make things better.

Because corporate/Wall Street scam #1 is imperialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

And a guy who is speaking out against that, in front of Republican audiences, is pure fucking gold.

> Why do you think Ron Paul is the only "crazy" the media allows to have even a small voice?

The media has to maintain the illusion we're a free country with a free media. So they can't simply ignore a movement of a couple million people. It's the same sort of stuff they do with #OWS or anti-war rallies. They can't completely bury it, so they either play down the numbers (i.e. anti-war rallies with hundreds of thousands of people made to look like it was "only" 50 thousand) or portray them like crazy kooks (Ron Paul, #OWS).

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-ron-paul-media-video-2011-8

u/I_Am_TheMachine · 1 pointr/POLITIC

I humbly suggest you read Winner Take All Politics, or if you're a voracious reader: Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. These will free you of some fetters.

u/Skilving · 1 pointr/news

I cannot put in strong enough terms how much I disagree with your thoughtful decision to not vote. As such, I think it useful that I present my opinion below; I apologize in advance for potential pay-walls below. Note that a lot of the earlier research (aka not Avery or Gilen's papers) can be found in summary form on wikisum if you cannot bypass the pay-walls and yet are interested in following along.

As far as I understand, the main reason that you decide not to vote is because you believe that the voting public has virtually no influence on policy decisions. Since you are one of the voting public, your voting is effectively a waste of your valuable time. For evidence of this belief, you present Gilens' recent paper.

I personally have two major problems with this paper, but only one is relevant to this discussion on the utility of voting: the professed interchangeability of the beliefs of the elite and the beliefs of the median voter (R^2 = 0.78, pretty good for social science). This high level of interchangeability means that their model's imposition of independence between the two is highly suspect. I believe that this model could easily shunt all correlative power from the elite to the majority voting public and lose very little predictive power. Said another way, this model could just as easily demonstrate that the American system is a democracy as an oligarchy.

Regardless of my opinion, this paper will also take a while for other political scientists to adequately respond for/against/otherwise to this very exciting and divisive work. Note that this is not at all a point for or against the paper.

Avery's recent paper instead posits instead that no matter how you slice the data, systematic economic inequalities in voter turnout are represented in economic policy decisions in the near-long term (3 or so years after election). Obviously this result may just arise from confounding factors (ie elite people vote more and also have a disproportionate influence on policy). However, there is a large body of evidence that individual representatives view re-election as at least a proximate goal (see Mayhew and Fenno for the basics). To me, this provides at least soft evidence that this reflection of voter turnout on policy is a causal one. Miller and Stokes put this idea to the test and found that representatives vote pretty well along the constituency preferences on the salient issues of civil rights and social welfare and less well on the less salient issue of foreign policy.

Look, there is no doubt that the system has flaws. There is no doubt that a lot of victim blaming in the form of shunting shame on the American people for not informing themselves. But your beliefs on salient issues do matter (such as civil rights and social welfare; I am very confident that economic issues can also be added to this list) and one effective way to leverage these votes means making sure to help avoid systematic under-representation/inequality in voting. That means, if you are someone who has the thought not to vote, you are one of the most influential voters (a paradox, I know). However, if you don't vote, your influence drops to 0. So please, please vote. Vote for the implementation of deliberative democracy if you think that will help. Vote uninformed. Vote selfishly. Vote so that, overall, the votes are representative of the population. Once we start working towards that problem, then we can start working toward related issues (such as informed voters).

Thank you for providing me an opinion to which I could respond. I look forward to responding further!

u/stuckinabarrel · 1 pointr/books

I'll have you know that What it Takes is a brilliant book!

And if it's on sale in a used bookstore, so be it, internet sir!

u/Cowicide · 1 pointr/worldnews

>private sector jobs is not necessarily an important metric to pick

Tell that to the people that need jobs to survive. Not everyone can live off of family, etc.

>It really tells us nothing about the prosperity of the people.

Once again, tell that to the people who need employment to pay for their housing, food, clothing, health care insurance, etc.

Having a job versus not having a job tells you very much about the state of average Americans' prosperity especially when you consider that many Americans are only a couple of paychecks away from bankruptcy, losing their home, etc.

Job reports are considered one of the most major economic indicators. Did you not know this?

It's a key economic indicator that's one of the most likely to affect average Americans instead of just Wall Street fat cats. Inflation is another factor for average Americans, but that's been somewhat steady since the mid-1980's. Income disparity and lack of mobility is important and also goes up during Republican rule. I guess I could add that to the chart as well, but I tried to keep it simple in that regard.

To me, focusing on jobs that most affects average Americans keeps it more effective. If you disagree, I suggest you make your own chart. I mean that, by the way. All the time you've spent bickering about my chart, you could have made your own superior chart by now. I hope you make one and present it. If it's accurate and effective, I'll be the first in line to put it out there.

>Third, it's unsourced. I'd be really surprised if this data was actually from somewhere. ... For all we know, the high dem numbers are just from Clinton, and the "positions" of each entry on the graph is simply made up.

Are you kidding? The only source anyone with any credibility uses is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There's nothing controversial about the numbers on private sector job growth. All anyone has to do is look it up. It's not controversial at all.

http://bls.gov/home.htm

>rather than relating it to the population or factoring in the number of public sector jobs

With public sector jobs it follows the same pattern.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine/the-gops-big-lie-on-job-c_b_1827627.html

The reason I focused on private sector jobs is because many on the conservative right errantly claim that Democrats kill private sector jobs and only increase government jobs, when that's completely untrue.

>What you end up getting from this is literally something meaningless.

Well, you may have family that can front you money when you don't have a job, but for the rest of Americans that rely on gainful employment to survive, those numbers are anything but "meaningless".

>THEN it points at the two (made up) trend lines and basically just goes "evil" and "less evil". Like evil had anything to do with it.

First of all, the data wasn't "made up". If you're going to argue that Republicans create more jobs than Democrats do, then cough up some fake numbers. Secondly, if I need to explain the concept of greater evil versus lesser evil to you, then I think we're done here.

>It even fills in the alternate history shit, as though it knows how that would go down.

You obviously are having a catastrophic problem comprehending the chart and feel the need to take out your frustration on me. If the chart "knows how it would go down" (as you say) it wouldn't have a large, green, bolded, question mark there, would it?

ಠ_ಠ

>Finally, WHAT THE FUCK is with that 9/11 shit?! It's irrelevant to the graph, it's irrelevant to the conversation, it's unsourced, it's very assuming of both Gore's "woulda" reaction and ofthe way it went down with Bush in '01, oh and also ITS MEANINGLESS SCAREMONGERING.

Once again, it's common knowledge. All anyone has to do is hit the books. I didn't make that chart for people who lack critical thinking skills and have an innate inability to perform a modicum of research. People like that are lost already and I'm not going to bother to pander to them.

If it prods people to read Richard Clarke's books on how his warnings were ignored by the Bush administration, then great.

http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244

The kind of people that won't bother to get the facts straight aren't going to bother themselves with anything I say anyway.

Once again, if you dispute the facts I present, then hit me up. Otherwise, I think you're missing the point of the chart and certainly the forest for the trees. It has nothing to do with scaremongering and everything to do with showing the vital differences between lesser evil and greater evil in presidential elections.

Also, the main point of it is that it shows that we have never consecutively voted in Democrats into executive office in modern history. We just keep flip-flopping (and worse, we've consecutively voted in greater evil Republicans). So to those who claim we've already tried consistently voting in lesser evil and it's failed, I've proved them completely wrong. We haven't done that.

>ITS MEANINGLESS SCAREMONGERING.

Please stop SCREAMING, hyperventilating and use your brain and critical thinking instead. The point is that the Bush administration was catastrophically inept and I succinctly explained how and why. If you have evidence to the contrary that Gore would have ignored Richard Clarke's dire warnings and sat on his hands, then please dig it up and show me.

I only have to point to Richard Clarke's own words to back myself up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke#Early_warnings_about_Al-Qaeda_threat

>that 9/11 shit is just straight up foolish.

I apologize that I'm not going to take your word on it.

But... if you've got more credentials than Richard Clarke who worked for the State Department for Ronald Reagan, then George H.W. Bush for the Counter-terrorism Security Group and had a seat on the United States National Security Council. Then for Bill Clinton who promoted him to the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism and the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Then under George W. Bush he continued in the same position...

If you've got those kind of credentials, then have at it..........................

>Look, the thing is that I agree with the conclusions, essentially. This false equivalence bullshit IS causing a bunch of problems

Agreed! :)

u/Space_Dandy_57 · 1 pointr/islam

It isn't about Islam. Before 2003 the Tamil Tigers were responsible for the most suicide bombings. Good book on suicide terrorism

u/kaiser79 · 1 pointr/politics

You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence for anything you have stated. I cannot go through all your points as they are assertions rather than supported statements. Let's try a few and then call it a day. What I am going to do is offer a citation EVERY SINGLE TIME. If you do not reply in kind, I will use this as evidence that you are talking shite.

  1. "Something that works due to equal or superior forces, does not work with tiny inferior forces. The belief that it can work with tiny inferior forces, is an ideological belief not based on logic."
    Absolute shit. Total and utter. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. Please read "How the Weak Win Wars".

  2. "This is a silly thing to say. It's like saying "who cares what they think. They're crazy anyway."
    nationalist (this is the majority of terrorist movements);
    No it is not. You're wrong. Flat out wrong."
    No, I didn't say "who cares what they think" You are the one offering a one-size-fits-all explanation that refuses to take their claims seriously. I am the one saying that different groups have different goals. On trends in the movement, while it is true that nationalist and ethnic goals are declining, they still account for most terrorist movements in the world. See this RAND report's conclusions. Or are RAND not as wise as you? (also note, note that ideology is treated as a political motivator, not inherently terroristic - i.e. used the way I define it; not you).

    3."No it is false, naive, and dangerous to glorify them by claiming their ideals are complex and motivations are all different. They do these things because they want to kill people, people that they emotionally hate. They are irrational. They are motivated by various ideologies but they all have one common ideology: That destroying property and killing innocent random people within the area of your enemy, will result in social change."
    You really seem to be struggling with the differences between means and ends. Just because a group targets civilians it does not mean the group's goals are to target civilians. It might mean that they do this because they think it will meet other goals. By your logic, the US army only goes to war because it likes to blow stuff up; not because blowing some stuff up might have political effects. Read Clausewitz. On terrorists and extreme violence read Pape


  3. "I don't think you have read any literature at all. You're an ignorant person who wants to oversimplify terrorists to "oh they have all sorts of reasons" and "oh they don't have beliefs or anything, they can be just anyone." you don't make any rational or coherent logical sense. You're just blurting out things that don't follow logically."
    How is saying that terrorist groups have various goals and various beliefs "oversimplify" the issue. It adds complexity. You are the one offering a monocausal explanation. I never said they didn't have beliefs. I am saying they have different beliefs. Oh, and by the way, saying "it's complex" does not mean "it's random" or "we can't understand." It simply means simple answers may not work. On the various goals of terrorists, see Hoffman.

  4. "As they should. Duh. Why are you even mentioning this? Except to act like a little prick who wants to insult people? Grow up you little child. This is no way to talk to someone especially when you clearly show how ignorant you are on the subject."
    I was referring to things that you said political scientists ignored. I was telling you they didn't. So don't get your nose out of bent when I contradict you. Admittedly my tone is not nice. But then neither is yours.

  5. "Yes analysts. And those analysts agree with me, not you."
    You haven't mentioned a single person by name. Everyone I have mentioned is a peer-reviewed political scientist. Show me your sources. I hope you are smart enough to know that some sources are less credible than others.

  6. "(which incidentally, is rarely necessary to be able to form a coherent analysis).
    And how does that make any logical sense? Absolutely it is necessary to make accurate analysis which you clearly failed to do."
    You said that you cannot study terrorism without clearance. I said you can as (a) there are tons of cases one can study that are now declassified, (b) many viable methods don't require clearance (e.g. interviews), and (c) unless you are trying to explain a specific operation or attack you do not necessarily need every single bit of fine-grained information. Your question determines your method. On designing research please see KKV or Brady & Collier

  7. "But learning begins with admitting you are wrong and/or ignorant
    Yeah so admit that you are wrong and ignorant."
    I have been wrong on many things, many times. It took me some time to become smart enough to figure out when to let go of ideas. It is not easy for most people. But buddy, don't fucking fool yourself, you are not winning this argument.

  8. "You're the one trying to justify terrorism here and oversimplifying the issue into "oh we cannot claim they are motivated by any ideology. they are just motivated by what they are motivated by." Kind of insane bullshit that I don't know what blog you read it from but it's clearly incoherent."
    I am not trying to justify anything. I am trying to explain it. Studying lung cancer doesn't mean you are in favor of cancer, or against cigarette companies for that matter. It simply means trying to explain it. I'm not the one with blinkers on here.
    "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu.

    If you don't respond with proper citations don't expect a reply. But, whatever you do don't chalk it up as an intellectual win.

    EDIT: for formatting, before I gave up.

u/rasheemo · 1 pointr/islam

>As an example I bet that the majority in the U.S. would accept serious restrictions on Muslims, something I oppose.

How merciful of you, but I don't think the majority of the US would do such a thing.

>I also think you are well aware that the Brotherhood did so well because of organization not simply popularity.

Regardless of what actually happened, your tidbit is irrelevant because I'm talking about democracy, which is determined by popularity (ideally).

>Do you want a history of wars based on religion? On the horrors in Europe and the Islamic world because of fights over religion? There is a saying that has lots of truth: good people can do good things and bad people can do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Always a go to argument among atheists while completely disregarding ulterior motives for many of the past wars and also ignoring the thousands of wars that had nothing to do with religion at all. The fact is mankind loves to go to war whether there are religious reasons or not, having an excuse just makes it that much easier. There are a lot of books on these things.

Also, I am of the opinion that if you don't agree with the ideals set by your country, you are more than welcome to leave. No one will be completely ok with everything every country does. Don't like Islam's view on public adultery? Don't live in an Islamic state. Simple.

>Why should I care what a semi-mythic first state was like?

Because that is what this religion is (or rather should be) basing it's ideals on, whether you think it's mythic or not.

>Do you think the Islamic parties in Egypt are going to try for something like that first state or more like Saudi?

Probably like the first Islamic state. The majority of the Muslim world sees the ridiculousness of Saudia Arabia's government.

u/tocano · 1 pointr/antiwar

I haven't heard much from Dr. Pape since youtube videos of several of his presentations starting proliferating around 2010. I've been wanting to hear, 5 years later, if the conclusions from his - books regarding the motivations of suicide terrorists still hold true with ISIS as they did al Qaeda years earlier.

I am also curious about his views on Libya now. He was interviewed weeks after the multi-national intervention in Libya had begun and he listed it as an example, a precedent, of "healthy" intervention. There's a comment on that video that asks several important questions:

> So my question(s) for Dr. Pape -

  • Do you still see the Libyan intervention as a successful "healthy" intervention precedent or do you wish to recant or change your view of the interventions in Libya expressed in this video?
  • And if not "healthy", then do you, in retrospect, believe that the intervention itself was ill-advised?
  • Or do you simply believe that certain (unforeseeable) events occurred after the intervention that led to the current mess?

  • And if [it was unforeseeable events], what events and how would you have tried to avoid them?

u/APairofDocks · 1 pointr/worldnews

Again, writing them off for taking a position you don't like is YOUR bias, not theirs.

For one, the wall annexes large tracts of land and doesn't even wall off all Palestinian communities, seriously questioning the "security" rationale. Further, most studies, such as this one and especially this one suggest that suicide bombing is caused by military occupation, and doesn't occur randomly or because of religion or culture. So assuming that suicide bombings are some kind inherently Palestinian problem that can only be solved by walling them off is pretty loaded. But in any case the wall doesn't wall them off, it goes THROUGH many of their communities in order to annex land.

What were we talking about again?

u/ForHumans · 1 pointr/politics

Yes there is a way to reason; pull out and apologize. Stop funding pro-western dictators like in Saudi Arabia (aka MECCA) and let them run their own lives. Eventually they'll come around and emulate us voluntarily... only difference is our corporations won't have access to their sweet, sweet oil.

A huge issue is Israel. If we took a more hands off approach Israel would be forced to compromise, and the "terrorists" would lose one more reason to hate the US.

Check out Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win"

There are plenty of people who have proposed alternative solutions to violence, such as Michael Scheuer look into it.

u/Lard_Baron · 1 pointr/politics

Hoffman's book represents the orthodox western security agencies view of terrorism, it's superficial, partisan in its approach, and there are far better books out there. Its good for describing the media/Terror relationship but not much else.]

This is well worth a read, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

and this: Understanding Terror Networks



u/Quixotism13 · 1 pointr/labor

Also, http://gotv.research.yale.edu/?q=node/10

Political mobilization, but you might find something useful. It looks like most of this comes from Green and Gerber's Get Out The Vote which is a bit out of date. More recent work is being done by The Analyst Institute.

u/the_beer-baron · 1 pointr/changemyview

Having done opponent research and fundraising for state democrats in Chicago, I can tell you that without a doubt, the smaller the election, the better it is for the majority party. In non presidential elections or any local elections, people that do vote will vote the party line or according to the name they recognize. Chicago is a very segregated city. If the district/ward is primarily Polish or German, having a Polish or German name is very necessary to be elected as a judge or alderman. In the Irish wards, Flanagan, O'Malley, etc. are just as powerful. Because people often only go to vote for one position, they will often go with whatever feels comfortable or good for the others they don't recognize.

As to your contention that abstention is a good thing, it really is not unless there is a consequence for abstention such as no candidates being elected. During a modern campaign, the goal is to get the people who have voted before to show up at the polls and then try to swing the undecideds to your side. The other goal is to lower the turnout for your opponent. While most people think it is about motivating people to vote in general, such a strategy is almost guaranteed to lose unless you have unlimited funds. A good book to read is The Race to 270. It covers the 2000 and 2004 campaigns and demonstrates the change from macro campaigns to micro or targeted campaigns. (I spent my whole undergrad studying campaigns). By pinpointing specific areas with higher concentrations of voter turnout, a campaign can spend their money effectively. Imagine sabermetrics in baseball, but for political campaigns. It's why Bush could win 2000 elections by choosing very specific Florida counties that were Red in past elections to recount (Gore failed to realize the strategy until it was too late) and winning the 2004 election without carrying the national vote. I have already gone on too much, but essentially Karl Rove figured out that certain issues and targeting certain groups was much more effective than trying to rally people to vote.

What this all means is that there are always going to be a certain number of people who vote for each side and then a certain number of voters that are undecideds. It is much cheaper to focus on your base and those voting undecided than to galvanize new people to take time to vote and vote for you. Therefore the incentive is not to come up with good ideas, but to pander to the known voters. Its why the Tea Party had such a strong presence in 2010 despite being so small. They were loud and they voted.

So abstaining without consequence is a bad thing because it only reinforces the campaign strategies that are the most successful and cost effective.

If you are interested in campaign and voting politics check out these books:

Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. They do a great breakdown of cost/benefits of specific campaign strategies like mailers, meet and greets, TV spots, etc.

The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. They do a good job of defining and tracking wedge issues (e.g. abortion, guns, etc.) and how modern campaigns use them to split the opponents base or unify their base. One of the key arguments is that it is often in one or both sides' best interest to not solve a wedge issue. It's fascinating in light of Obamacare and the way that has become a wedge issue.

tl;dr It is cheaper and more effective to target areas with large concentrations of voters than to try to persuade non-voters to vote in the first place. I also recommend PS 411 for any current or future Illini undergrads.

u/jhanley · 1 pointr/politics

Yeah, to be honest I've not looked into Detroit in detail but Greg tends to have his finger on the pulse. If you go back to 2000 he was one of the first to understand what happened in Ohio and wrote about it in his book. Also worth checking this out, written by former congressman Conyers and forwarded by Gore Vidal.
Pretty much explains republican electorial strategy.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Went-Wrong-Ohio-Presidential/dp/089733535X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485357398&sr=8-1&keywords=what+went+wrong+in+ohio

u/westernmail · 1 pointr/news

This is the book he's holding. History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal.

u/notinferno · 1 pointr/conspiracy

He was carrying the Gore Vidal book "History of the National Security State" as he was carried out of the Embassy.

u/SnapshillBot · 1 pointr/Drama
u/tkr2099 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Understanding Power gives a pretty broad overview of his ideas.

u/make_fascists_afraid · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.

As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.

The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.

I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)

So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.

To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"

Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).

As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).

Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.

Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)

I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).

u/elemenohpee · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Understanding Power is a collection of lectures and Q&A sessions, and as such it is in a conversational style that is much easier to digest than his more scholarly works. I would definitely recommend this over books like Manufacturing Consent as an introduction to Chomsky's ideas. Manufacturing Consent was made into a documentary which does a good job of outlining his critique of the mass media.

u/pseudonym1066 · 1 pointr/atheism

No, this is false. Have a read of Stephen Pinker's Better Angel's of our Nature. It shows clearly, in many graphs detailing information about many different types of violence; that all types of violence have been in steady decline over the last thousand years.

This trend of a steady decline also continues over the last 100 and last fifty years and he documents this.

Further, US military strength has been in steady decline over the same period.

Your argument is not backed by data if your argument is that greater military strength produces greater peace. The inverse is true. Also if you want some political discussion about why this is the case have a read of this book.

u/Bman0921 · 1 pointr/worldpolitics

[Understanding Power] (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-The-Indispensible-Chomsky/dp/1565847032#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1450851636683) USA good one. I linked to it in Amazon just so you can read the description. Just a heads up, Chomsky is widely considered to be one of the greatest modern thinkers, but because of that, he can be pretty formidable and at times difficult to follow, but if you can you will definitely be smarter because of it.

u/UltimatePhilosopher · 1 pointr/politics

>>So having a political leaning makes one biased as to what facts to focus on and report?

>It very well can. More importantly why suggest a left wing pundit when there's going to be hundreds of other reports on the documents from other sources that aren't biased?

I don't see an answer to my question here. That it "very well can" doesn't show that Maddow in particular is biased just because she has obvious political leanings. (It's actually the obviousness of the political leanings that would incentivize her to be as unbiased as she can - you know, for credibility's sake, which you preemptively deny to her for no good reason.) As to "why Maddow," it's because she notably spends a lot of her shows being on Mitt Romney's case, trapping him with facts and his own statements, that's why.

>And why the mention of chompskey? Do you even understand his views? He spoke out against mainstream media regularly so I don't think he would be suggesting we listen to a cable news reporter either. More importantly chompskey holds very different views from a modern liberal like Maddow. Chompskey is heavily influenced by classicaly liberal philosophy which is completely different from modern liberalism. If anything chompskey would be a sort of neo libertarian. Do you know who noam chompskey is?

First off, it's spelled Chomsky. I've read his book Understanding Power and numerous columns of his at tomdispatch.com. So yeah, I know a thing or two about the guy. Even had a short e-mail exchange with him a couple weeks back. And I know how he's influenced by classical liberal philosophy and calls himself a libertarian socialist, the socialism (and, e.g., his stated support for the OWS movement) being what places him quite prominently on today's political left. And he's very clued into factors that generate bias in the media, and he inspires his more adept readers to identify and combat any biases in their own cognitive endeavors. Which brings me to my original question which you really haven't answered.

u/georgewashingtonblog · 1 pointr/science

One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems themselves.

For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.

And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."

(page 388).

Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?

Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.

u/plathsummer · 1 pointr/todayilearned

if anyone else is interested in this then Norman Baker wrote a pretty good book about it, it cuts through the medical jargon about suicide and whether Dr Kelly did commit suicide

u/Icanus · 1 pointr/ConspiracyMemes

In WW2 we fought national socialism.
Then came Korea and Vietnam, communism.

Please read this lovely little bit of communist paradise
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851

u/GingerJack76 · 1 pointr/AskLibertarians

Oh, this video, it's been a while since I've touched on this one. I've already touched on this video a few times before since it came out, it's missing many things and makes broad accusations against, and using simplifications of systems that are more complex than the weather to justify it.

Look, this conversation is going to be pointless, I know it, and I suspect you know it given your name. You have bought into ideas and shaped your identity around them, asking you to let go of those ideas is like asking you to jump your ship in the open ocean during a hurricane, hoping that someone else will pick you up rather than just staying with the boat you have. I can't change your mind, even if we knew each other as best friends and you trusted me implicitly, it would take me months and months of talking to you, showing you evidence, and even then it might not work.

The best thing I can do for you is to give you a list of books to read, and hope you read them, which I'll do while I explain where each of them fit in Badmouse's video.

>Black Book's Estimations

This estimation is an average between other estimations. It's difficult to really understand this number until you start looking at the error bars. Democide under communism has been estimated by many different people, but the range of these numbers is from 40 Million, which is accounting basically for the minimum Stalin killed, and the minimum that Mao killed, which is 28 and 5 million respectively, and then adding bits and pieces from the other regimes. Adding other events, like the Cambodia Killing Fields, North Korea, and many African countries, can put this number well above 100 million, and if we take the highest estimations and assume they're correct, the total number comes out to be just under 260 million. This number could be further inflated, as if killing anywhere between 40-260 million people needed an inflation, to something much higher given that communistic regimes often start wars and turn their countries into meat grinders for the conflict.

>That's not real socialism

At this point if you think that your ideas have nothing to do with theirs then there's no saving this conversation. That would be like a young fascist, wanting to bring about the perfect form of government, claiming that Hitler was really a socialist, or a capitalist, and had nothing to do with fascism. Sometimes people go so far off the reservation that you just can't reason with them because their morality is orange (as in the fruit) and blue. instead of right and wrong. All I can say is read The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn spends three books explaining why the USSR, one of the two big serious offenders, was socialist, and why it went down the way it did. If it's too much for you, listen to the audio book.

Peterson isn't wrong when he says the thinking is that the person apologizing for socialism and it's regimes assumes they could have done it better, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were in the right place and did the worst thing possible and so it's blamed on them, that's why is wasn't socialist. But that assumes that there could be a person who could do it right, and given that there isn't a ready example given, it's assumed the person apologizing is making that claim.

>Deaths

This assumes these problems could have been stopped, which Badmouse does not know that, and neither do you. You don't know how to run an economy, and the people who have tried killed millions of their own people trying.

Getting a burger in your house on a plate is much harder than you think. Multiple people are needed and multiple steps have to go correctly: The beef farmer has to have a good stock of cows, the wheat farmer has to have a good crop, the lettuce and tomato farmers need to have a good crop, the wine maker needs to have good vinegar for things like mustard, the baker needs to be on time, needs to have sleep, needs to eat, and needs to make good bread on time, then the butcher needs to not waste the meat by making bad cuts, or know when the meat is spoiled, then needs to make a good grind for the burger, keep the grinder clean and so on. Then the cook needs to know how to cook, needs his sleep, his own food, and the spices to make the burger right, a grill to cook it on, oil to make sure he doesn't make a mess. Then the manager of the restaurant needs to make sure he watches out for people lagging on safety, ensure orders are correct, disputes with customers are resolved, fills in for the cooks when the cook is sick or needs help, order the buns and meat and condiments for the burger so that the cook has the things he needs to make the burger. Then the driver need to know where to take the burger, need to know how to drive in any conditions, need to have insurance, need to have food, sleep, and so on, and lastly, they need to know how to treat the customer.

And that's not even half the steps, and accounting for most of the usual scenarios, and that's just one burger, the steps for more complicated things that make that process possible, like Mack Trucks, are even more complex.

Anyone who claims that they have the answer on how to distribute wealth has no idea what they're talking about. These systems are incredibly complex and is the equivalent of a retarded child wanting to drive the helicopter. I'm sorry little Timmy but Collins here spent 5 years just getting his license and has been flying since '72, you barely know how to tie your shoes, let alone how to fly this thing.

Taking on Crusades like this is historically bound to end in failure. Yes, horrible things happen, I know you think you can save them but you really can't. The best thing we can do is to keep what little patch of street we have clean. The moral pleading is there to manipulate people into dismissing those who have looked at the process and come out of it saying "we're literally doing all we can, things have gotten amazingly better, what are you complaining about?"

When the doctor says "you have cancer, and with any luck you'll have a few more years to live with little to no pain if we work on it." you don't stand up and scream "You're just dismissing the problem! you're benefiting off my suffering! You're wrong! I could be a better doctor!" You sit there and accept that even if this person is wrong, he's probably not that far off from the truth, and at the very least you got back what little time you could.

I'm not going to go into a comment chain with you, I might answer a few questions, but I've done that too many times with people to want to really get into one right now. It's a waste of time, and you're better off reading the books that I provided and having an open mind instead of this reactionary, socialist insistence that there must be a better way.

u/yeahnokidding · 1 pointr/rva

The crucial difference is compelling businesses to do this, rather than them making the decision freely. I've worked in employee-owned businesses and it was not particularly different than publicly traded employers. Privately traded securities can be easily manipulated in price as well because there is no market. It's also very bad asset allocation to have any significant amount of your net worth attached to your employer. If (and when) they go belly up, you're out of a job and out of a huge chunk of your net worth.

Anyone can freely invest in companies right now for free. Vanguard's index ETFs have zero commission and exceptionally low expenses. These things can all be easily automated with very low investment minimums.

Soviet socialism has indeed destroyed numerous countries and has been responsible for the deaths of millions. Very good first-hand account of what it's like to live under such a totalitarian regime.

Additionally, employees have no ethical claim or entitlement to ownership of the organizations they work for. Entrepreneurs take all the risk in starting businesses and can rightfully reap the reward. Most of them fail and lose everything. Employees take zero risk because they are paid for their time and can walk any time they like.

If you want to start a co-op, that's great. You have every right to do so. This is a free country. And if it's actually better, as the socialists claim, then you won't fail.

If you want to force others to turn over their business, that's where we have a problem.

As a business owner myself, I have taken all of the risk. All of my employees and contractors have been fairly compensated for their time. They were not compelled to work for me and made the decision of their own free will. I invested years and tens of thousands of dollars to build this business, taking all the risk along the way. None of my employees took a lick of risk because they were all compensated for their time. Now the DSA wants me and other entrepreneurs to take all the risk and then give away the reward when we succeed.

u/future-porkchop · 1 pointr/CringeAnarchy

>read a book about socialism

Yes, please do! How about Gulag Archipelago? Also Inside the Soviet Army is pretty cool, too - the Amazon description makes it sound dry and boring, but it offers really good insight into the absolute clusterfuck that was the Soviet Union from an army officer's perspective.

u/TessaBissolli · 1 pointr/TheBlackList

> Here's the problem with Katarina being alive today: her spymaster days are way too long behind her to have any relevance in the geopolitical structure that exists now.

I do not think this is a about a threat on that sphere. I think this is personal, and this is about the cabal.

I do see both sides, and a perusing on my blog will give you that idea too. Red is a multitasker and he has blind areas. I think he loves Liz, but he also tends to be a bit full of himself. And he loves the game, as we saw in the last episodes of season 5. He was relishing the chase of the bones.

so, the one thing that Katarina may not know is that her third target is dead. But that still leaves us the mythic battle. The cabal is still there, weakened like Voldermort in Harry Potter. And someone is behind that too. More powerful than Peter and Fitch.

Or it could be a take on the Perestroika Deception,
\
https://www.amazon.com/Perestroika-Deception-Memoranda-Central-Intelligence/dp/189979803X

u/sh0t · 1 pointr/Conservative
u/Unironic_Monarchist · 1 pointr/Absolutistneoreaction

I thought this author sounded familiar! Turns out he wrote this book which I quite enjoyed.

u/Wealhmar · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

There is also in America at least the possibility of it happening in a similar way as Mr. Coulombe lays out in Star Spangled Crown. In Europe all that needs to happen is for enough of the population of any country to lose faith in democracy to give back control of the nation to its rightful ruler.

u/tgjj123 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1936594315

Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0517548232

That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1453857508

Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001E28SUM

How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400083311

New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416592377

Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550880

For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610162641

What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146997178X

America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146793481X

Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550171

Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985879

The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463

The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226320553

Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226264211

Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586485725

Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0979987717

Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452011876

The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0691138737

Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452273331&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452281253&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!

u/KaliYugaz · 0 pointsr/DebateReligion

>You have been racist

No, as I said, that was your misunderstanding. Facts about someone else's racist propaganda, and facts about how your attitudes fit into a particular Eurocentric and culturally condescending ideological tradition that is obscuring your objectivity, aren't themselves racist.

>you have lied

No I haven't, rather, you are in denial.

>So when I asked, I was thinking of the French invasion of Algeria that happened in 1830, which was 185 years ago, But that's why I asked, rather than simply asserting

This reflects even worse on your level of knowledge and understanding. What demon could possibly have possessed you into believing that colonial tensions somehow disappear after the colonized have officially become a subject people? Forget academic standards, this is just an absence of common sense.

You know what, I can't stand much more of this. If at some point in time you do feel like learning rather than spewing nonsense that you pull out of your ass, you can get started by reading these:

-Here is a pdf book I am currently reading on the psychology of terrorism. Know thy enemy.

-Here is an Amazon link to Robert Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. It only deals with suicide terror, though, but it's good to provide an orienting paradigm and is a solid introduction to this field of political science/anthropology. Funny that I always thought atheists were supposed to be big on science, but I guess ethnic conflicts are a universal mind-killer.

-[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book) is a Wikipedia page on Edward Said's Orientalism, a huge and dry tome that is nevertheless a seminal work in postcolonial studies and one for which its core thesis is generally regarded to be true for the time period studied.

edit: The Orientalism article mentioned Bernard Lewis as a critic of Said, and he is actually a good read too. His book (in pdf here) What Went Wrong chronicles history from the Muslim side, and discusses how certain shortcomings and attitudes in Middle Eastern culture contribute to the violence and backwardness we see today.

u/portugalthephilosoph · 0 pointsr/IAmA

It doesn't matter, your point is mute.

The thing which these people are supposedly fighting against is undue influence of money in political campaigns. So either that money is used to persuade voters, or to turn out voters.

I would assume that no one would think it's a bad thing to do whatever possible to get voters to the polls, right? So I guess they would have a problem with money being used to persuade voters. To which one must ask: how much money does it take to change an opinion?

All you said was "it doesn't, it just gets more people to the polls". Well, fine. You're wrong (see all of the research on campaign tactics meant to persuade voters: I prefer Green and Gerber's "Get Out the Vote"), but fine. So yes, I redirected based on your response.

Why is it a bad thing to try to turn out voters? How in hell is it "undemocratic" for someone to spend money to increase political participation??

u/OdilePrydwen · 0 pointsr/TheBlackList

The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Gulag Archipelago is Solzhenitsyn's masterwork, a vast canvas of camps, prisons, transit centres and secret police, of informers and spies and interrogators and also of heroism, a Stalinist anti-world at the heart of the Soviet Union where the key to survival lay not in hope but in despair.

https://www.amazon.de/Gulag-Archipelago-Harvill-Press-Editions/dp/1843430851

Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Please don't forget, the Nazis were also Socialists, National Socialists. They were left, not right.

u/bewarethedinosaurs · 0 pointsr/worldpolitics

>Crack a book instead of clicking a Facebook link

No, you crack a book.

u/ObieConsSheeple · -1 pointsr/politics

Note that there is this vast MSM apparatus pushing an alternative narrative? A different description of what is going on? One that fits much better with your mental image of how the world works?

That's right. That is why it is there. It is there precisely to induce that false narrative, theories of how the political system works.

It is indeed true that folks who do not adhere to "mainstream" ideas of how the political system works might be... insane, and wrong. But it is virtually certain that those who do adhere to the mainstream view are... brainwashed cretins.

Because political systems never work the way the internal propaganda tells the sheeple it works.

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176

u/bookforyou · -1 pointsr/politics
u/notacrackheadofficer · -1 pointsr/AmIFreeToGo

You contradict yourself, and seem to be in a trance where words mean different things. Antifa attacks people for filming, and for free speech.
You are deluded. All your debate points will be laughed at by me. Feel free to wall of text your nonsense that will be jeered at.
Anyone asking for anti hate speech regulations is asking to be told not to criticize the government or cops. That's how that works. ''I want the government to decide what speech is hate speech. WCGW?''
Fucking retarded. Read a history book.
Edit:
''I hate bad cops'' is a sentence you want to be illegal. You want people sent to concentration camps for saying ''I hate the government''. That's how this works. You are literally asking Trump to regulate your speech. Holy disconnect Batman.
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851
Fuck your desire for strict government regulations with violent ''or else'' punishments for those who say the ''wrong things''.

u/bytelines · -2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Suicide terrorism first gained traction in the 80s with Hezbollah. The bombers were not overwhelmingly religious, nor muslim. The Tamil Tigers learned from this and conducted a number of suicide campaigns. They are a Hindu group.

The PKK also started suicide bombing campaign against the Turks.

Muslims absolutely do not have a monopoly on suicide bombings and to argue it is to argue from a position of ignorance.

If you want to know what suicide bombers do have in common, I suggest you read 'Dying to Win'. They include:

  1. A occupied community fighting against a foreign, militarily superior, liberal democratic government
  2. A difference in religion

    http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380
u/TheBerkeleyBear · -4 pointsr/IAmA

>an entire country wants to stay at war
I never said that; I was referring to the state of Israel, not the public of Israel. But thanks strawman-ing my argument, sardonically prove reductio ad absurdum, and then make fun of me. I appreciate it.

You didn't specify which point you wanted proof for, but I'll give you my favorites. Here's the evidence:
Byman-Do Targeted Killings Work?
Noam Chomsky-Sheer Criminal Aggression. with no Credible Pre-text
B'Tselem-Fatalities
Noam Chomsky-Understanding Power

u/Black_Gay_Man · -6 pointsr/worldnews

No it hasn't been debunked at all. What happened in Nice is a tragedy (I lived there for 6 months and had to message several friends to make sure they weren't dead), but we cannot simply ignore the other side of the dynamic, specificially the racist and imperialist policies of the West.

I am reading a book on the topic currently, and the common myths about religion being the primary cause are fallacious and perpetuate the problem. Suicide attackers sometimes frame their violence in religious terms, but the goals are almost always nationalistic and unfortunately more effective after the use of such violence.

Let's stop with the tribalistic, ethnocentric blabbering.

u/cruachanmor · -10 pointsr/Scotland
u/DemNutters · -17 pointsr/politics

Speaking of political science, I'd like to recommend a couple of books to my liberal friends here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176

That should drive a stake through the heart of the fraudulent scam and marketing/propaganda lie that is modern American liberalism.

u/libfascists_2 · -19 pointsr/politics