Reddit mentions: The best history & theory of politics books

>You didn’t prove anything.

I already listed the facts for you:

1. All those parties are deeply rooted in socialism (are you denying this?)
   
2. The majority of those parties officially subscribes to socialism and is part of the Socialist International (are you denying this?)
   
3. The only parties who don't do this anymore usually do it for advertising reasons, due to anti-socialist propaganda poisoning the term (are you denying this?)
   
4. The majority of politicians within those parties self-identify as socialist (are you denying this?)
   
5. The parties literally sing socialist songs during their gatherings (are you denying this?)
   
6. All of those parties are promoting socialist reform (are you denying this?)
   
7. All positive political change since the end of the cold war were socialist in nature and designed to regulate and restrict free market capitalism (are you denying this?)
   
   >Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.
   
   >Social democracy is a political movement and ideology of the left that sees itself as reformative democratic socialism. Social democracy is using democratic and socialist means to achieve a socially just society. [...] The original revolutionary-socialist Social Democracy increasingly differentiated itself from communism by abandoning the idea of a revolution of the working class to solve social problems but instead chose to solve them through democratic reform. [...] According to its basic program, [German] Social Democracy is based on the premise of humanism. On a fundamental level, it seeks to achieve a societal change towards a solidaric, socialist and pluralist society where all humans have equal opportunity and an equal amount of political freedom and welfare.
   
   As for:
   >Bonus points if you can give me the definition of democratic socialism.
   
   Democratic socialism is an umbrella term for the ideology that social democrats support.
   
   It is an ideology also shared by other socialist and communist groups.
   
   Originally coined by Lenin, the term was eventually used by the entire international workers' movement to differentiate between revolutionary socialists such as Marxists-Leninists (who supported a Socialist Dictatorship) and the reformative socialists (Socialist Democrats).
   
   Again: You trying to ascribe the successes of socialism to capitalism is beyond insulting to socialists worldwide. You need to stop. You are literally promoting capitalist propaganda.
   
   The German SPD, the largest social democratic party of Germany, for example, defines democratic Socialism as a social market theory with a socially just distribution of profits that is suppsosed to enable equal opportunities in life.
   
   In general, social democratic theories worldwide promote an egalitarian idea of justice, support constitutional democracy, seek to achieve the security of the welfare state for all citizens, seek to limit private property to levels that are socially endurable and seek to balance economic interests with social interests and therefore regulate it politically in accordance with social needs.
   
   I recommend this Schumpeter book to better understand the term:
   https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitalismus,_Sozialismus_und_Demokratie
   
   I can also recommend this book, which is basic academic reading on political theory:
   https://www.amazon.com/Sozialismus-Elemente-Politik-German-Thomas/dp/3531154451

Well...I agree History is key...but...

You really need to read Political Theory first for a foundation. Every modern day political ideology is based off of these books in one way or another.

• John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
  
• Kant - Political Writings
  
  -Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Basic Political Writings
  
  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Introduction to the Philosophy of History
  
  And....
  
  Bentham and Mill - The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill
  
  Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels -The Marx-Engels Reader -Second Edition Don't worry, it still contains the Communist Manifesto.
  
  Machiavelli couldn't hurt to know either.
  
  For some basis on International Organizations - whether it be trade theory, regimes, etc.... this book is top of its class.
  
  Friedrich Kratochwil, Edward D Mansfield - International Organization and Global Governance: A Reader
  
  You also should really read into and understand the Treaty of Westphalia
  
  Then from there
  
  You can look into History, Economic Theory, and/or whatever specific part of the political spectrum you have interest in.
  
  If you are a student try to take advantage of JSTOR...if you aren't a student...you can always purchase access if you are genuinely interested in this stuff.
  
  AFTER you atleast have a foundation under your belt.
  
  You can then use Think Tanks most of what I will link are Internationally known and used and are unbiased, non partisaned.
  
  

• Atlantic Community (This is a german think tank *In english)
  
  
• DIW Berlin - A Economic Think Tank
  
  *Think tank for Action on Social Change - Based out of Ireland
  
  
• Ecologic Foundation - NZ Based, it focuses on Environmental Policy, used world wide.
  
  All of these are widely used, widely respected. Whether you agree with their stances or not. Each of them have had their fair share of Criticism.
  
  I firmly believe that Think Tanks provide the best source of political information, and that they allow one to mold their own political views on grounds of academia and not propaganda and misinformation. (I'm looking at you MSN and Fox news)
  
  Conservative
  
  Acton Institute
  
  American Civil Rights Union
  
  American Enterprise Institute
  
  Bradley Foundation
  
  Center for Security Policy
  
  Claremont Institute
  
  Employment Policies Institute (Fiscal)
  
  Goldwater Institute
  
  The Heritage Foundation
  
  Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
  
  National Center for Policy Analysis
  
  Libertarian
  
  Ludwig von Mises Institute
  
  Cascade Policy Institute
  
  Cato Institute
  
  Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
  Foundation for Economic Education
  
  The Heartland Institute
  
  The Independent Institute
  
  Reason Foundation
  
  Progressive
  
  Center for American Progress
  
  Center for Economic and Policy Research
  
  The Century Foundation
  
  Drum Major Institute
  
  Institute for Policy Studies
  
  New Democrat Network
  
  Third Way (Independent - Dem leaning)
  
  World Policy Institute
  
  
  Liberal
  
  Economic Policy Institute
  
  Economic
  
  American Institute for Economic Research
  
  Analysis Group
  
  Committee for Economic Development
  
  Global Financial Integrity
  
  James Madison Institute (Free Market)
  
  Milken Institute
  
  National Bureau of Economic Research
  
  Peterson Institute for International Economics
  
  Political and Economic Research Council
  
  Tax Foundation
  
  National
  
  Center for a New American Security
  
  Center for Defense Information
  
  Discovery Institute This one has a religious agenda. It's a good use...but beware they are attacking Religion
  
  
  International
  
  American Foreign Policy Council
  
  Aspen Institute
  
  Atlantic Council
  
  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  
  Center for Global Development
  
  Council on Foreign Relations
  
  EastWest Institute
  
  Foreign Policy Research Institute
  
  Inter-American Dialogue
  
  Migration Policy Institute
  
  RAND Corporation VERY good Think-Tank
  
  Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  
  Non-Partison Public Policy
  
  Brookings Institution
  
  Center for Ethical Solutions
  
  Center for Governmental Studies
  
  Center for Immigration Studies
  
  Center for International Policy
  
  Center for Media and Democracy
  
  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
  Foundation for Excellence in Education
  
  Global Development and Environment Institute
  
  Hoover Institution
  
  Hudson Institute
  
  Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
  
  James Baker Institute
  
  New America Foundation
  
  Pew Research Center (I love Pew)
  
  Urban Institute
  
  
  
  Bi-Partison
  
  Center for Strategic and International Studies
  
  Constitution Project
  
  
  Most Universities around the World have think tanks also
  
  The only one I care about and rely on is the Think Tank at the University of Virginia.
  
  The University of Virginia's Miller Center
  
  Think Tank Directory
  
  Elections, Candidates
  
  Vote Smart
  
  On The Issues
  
  
  Sorry in advance if the Format is shit

From the book's Amazon description:

> In the first detailed, chapter-by-chapter reading of the Prince in any language, Erica Benner shows that the book is a masterpiece of ironic writing. Machiavelli's style is deliberately ambiguous: he often seems to say one thing, but gives readers clues that point toward a very different message. Beyond its 'Machiavellian' surface, the Prince has a surprisingly moral purpose. It teaches readers how to recognize hidden dangers in political conduct that merely appears great or praiseworthy - and to mistrust promises of easy solutions to political problems.

> This highly engaging new interpretation helps readers to see beyond the Prince's deceptive first appearances. Benner sets out Machiavelli's main ironic techniques at the outset, especially his coded use of words to signal praise or blame. Once readers become familiar with these codes, they will find it easier to grasp the Prince's surreptitiously pro-republican message - and its powerful critique of charismatic one-man rule and imperial politics.

More posts about Machiavelli.

Death bed quotes. I think most of these are correct, can't be positive. Take them for what they're worth.

I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis. ~ Humphrey Bogart

Too late for fruit, too soon for flowers. ~ Walter De La Mare

I wonder why he shot me. ~ Huey P. Long Jr.

Is this dying? Is this all? Is this what I feared when I prayed against a hard death? Oh, I can bear this! I can bear this! ~ Cotton Mather

Give me eighty men and I'll ride through the whole Sioux nation. ~ William J. Fetterman

Lord help my poor soul. ~ Edgar Allan Poe

It is finished. ~ Jesus of Nazareth, John 19:30

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!? ~ Jesus of Nazareth, Mark 15:34-5, Matthew 27:46

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. ~ Jesus of Nazareth, Luke 23:46

Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something. ~ Francisco ‘Poncho’ Villa

God damn the whole friggin' world and everyone in it but you, Carlotta. ~ W. C. Fields

God bless ... God damn. ~ James Thurber

KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you, but cannot see you. Gas is running low. ~ Amelia Earhart

Go on, get out! Last words are for fools who haven't said enough. ~ Karl Marx

How were the circus receipts in Madison Square Gardens? ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum

Now comes the mystery. ~ Henry Ward Beecher

Friends applaud, the comedy is over. ~ Ludwig van Beethoven

Strike the tent. ~ Robert E. Lee

Dying is easy. Comedy is difficult. ~ Edmund Gwenn

I have offended God and mankind because my work did not reach the quality it should have. ~ Leonardo da Vinci

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ... ~ General John Sedgwick

Curtain! Fast music! Lights! Ready for the last finale! Great! The show looks good. The show looks good. ~ Ziegfeld Florenz

Tell mother; tell mother, I died for my country … Useless ... useless ... ~ John Wilkes Booth

I've had eighteen straight whiskies; I think that's the record. ~ Dylan Thomas

Who is it? ~ Billy the Kid

Leave the shower curtain on the inside of the tub. ~ Conrad N. Hilton

I owe much; I have nothing; the rest I leave to the poor. ~ François Rabelais

Do you know where I can get any shit? ~ Lenny Bruce

Is it the Fourth? ~ Thomas Jefferson

Let's cool it brothers. ~ Malcolm X

I feel nothing, apart from a certain difficulty in continuing to exist. ~ Bernard de Fontenelle

I knew it. I knew it; born in a hotel room, and God damn it, died in a hotel room. ~ Eugene O'Neill

You too, Brutus? ~ Julius Caesar

Hold the cross high so I may see it through the flames! ~ Saint Joan of Arc

Turn me. I am roasted on one side. ~ Saint Lawrence

Why not? Yeah. ~ Timothy Leary

I see black light. ~ Victor Hugo

God will pardon me, that's his line of work. ~ Heinrich Heine

I do not have to forgive my enemies. I have had them all shot.~ Ramon Maria Narvaez

That was a great game of golf, fellers. ~ Bing Crosby

It is very beautiful over there. ~ Thomas Edison

Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here.~ Nostradamus

Has God forgotten everything I've done for him? ~ Louis XIV

I've had a hell of a lot of fun and I've enjoyed every minute of it. ~ Errol Flynn

A dying man can do nothing easy. ~ Ben Franklin

I am about to, or I am going to, die: either expression is correct. ~ Dominique Bouhours, French grammarian

Here am I, dying of a hundred good symptoms. ~ Alexander Pope

Capital punishment: Them without the capital get the punishment. ~ John Spenkelink

How about this for a headline? French Fries. ~ James French, electric chair

Why yes, a bullet proof vest. ~ James Roges, facing firing squad

Well, gentlemen, you are about to see a baked apple. ~ George Appel, electric chair

I'm bored with it all. ~ Winston Churchill

I want to live because there are a few things I still want to do. ~ Aneurin Bevan

I am about to take my last voyage, a great leap in the dark. ~ René Descartes

There are no more other worlds to conquer! ~ Alexander the Great

Damn it ... Don't you dare ask God to help me. ~ Joan Crawford

Thomas Jefferson still survives. ~ John Adams

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies it is the first law of nature. ~ Voltaire

I did not know that we had ever quarreled. ~ Henry David Thoreau, when asked to make peace with God

Doctor, I die hard, but I am not afraid to go. ~ George Washington

Ah, Luisa, you always arrive just as I am leaving.~ Massimo Taparelli Azeglio

Either this wallpaper goes, or I do! ~ Oscar Wilde

That was the best ice-cream soda I ever tasted. ~ Lou Costello

I'll bet in Heaven they have one single word that means ‘back when I was alive’. You know, to save time in meetings and stuff. ~ Derek Littlefield

Goodnight my darlings, I'll see you tomorrow. ~ Noel Coward

From "Burn This Book"

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!

Ok first things first we need to define our field a bit. The Anglo-Saxons were not by any strict definition 'feudal'. "Feudalism' as an economic/political system only properly appears in England under the Normans after the conquest in 1066. So I'm going to give you sources that point towards that.

• Joseph Strayer's Feudalism is a nifty little (47 pages of analysis) book with a great selection of primary documents at the end. The caveat, it is nearly 60 years old and so it is rather simplistic and out of date. That being said the documents are still very much primary and may be of help.
  
  
• Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings is a very not small book. It is, however, exaustive and up-to-date and so might prove helpful. It has chapters on everything from the actual political landscape to Lordship and Government, Warfare and even Faeiries.
  
  
• English Historical Documents is a series of works which combine numerous primary sources. Volume 2 is probably the best place to look.
  
  
• The Internet Medieval Sourcebook also has a wide variety of primary documents worth looking at which don't even require a trip to the library!
  
  I hope that is helpful. One last thing to remember about 'feudalism'. It is not a clean system and it is not a neat pyramid. It is a constant struggle for privilege and power. Kings want to get as much as they can from their vassals (service, payments, etc.) while giving up as few privileges/rights (land, support, protection) as they can. The same is true for the Vassals.
  
  

>But if you'd rather search for your sinless candidate, feel free. You might be looking for a while.

Never said they had to be perfect. They just have to have good character. As a former speechwriter for Reagan and H.W. put it

>“In a president, character is everything. A president doesn’t have to be brilliant … he doesn’t have to be clever; you can hire clever …. You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in policy wonks. But you cannot buy courage and decency; you can’t rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him.”

Character is the most important aspect in deciding a president. James Barber did as found that character was one of the key indicators in how well a president would perform in office.

There's two problems your trying to tackle and they have very different reading material.

If you want to understand the political situation I'd recommend political science textbooks on the party system. I had Life of the Party I believe for my undergrad class on US elections and parties, it was pretty good, but there are many others, and that may be outdated now. My focus was not on campaigns though.

That won't help you determine a policy or what's really right though, just give you an idea of why the parties do the things they do, and how politics works to a degree.


Policy is a whole different animal and if you want policies that's harder, and possibly not really all that realistic depending how detailed you want to get. You can get ever more detailed in any policy. What should US foreign policy be, what should ME FP be, what should Iranian FP be, what's hte balance between SA and Iran. How does this interact with non-proliferation, ballistic missile technology, Pakistan's role.

Ok well by the time you finish all that and more you now have to go back up. How do we deal with Europe, NATO expansion, Russian expansion, EU and its issues, the Baltic states.

And repeat again and again. You've got Health Care policy, which I have basically no idea on really besides comparative politics of it to a small degree.

as u/jmo10 noted Economics is going to important to many of those issues as well. And reading material both academic articles and books needs to be vetted since pop poli sci (Say something like 'Physics for Future Presidents') and econ aren't helpful.

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

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).

>You are of course basing your 'moving to the left comment' on this because it has no place in reality.

So you really don't believe that America vacillates, on a pendulum, leaning to the left and to the right as it flows through time? It's kind of an obvious movement.

And its not like its some abrupt shift, it happens slowly and is very much a movement around the center...not the extremes as I can guess you are imagining.

If you want to read more about how it works I like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_%28book%29

http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Leadership-Political-Time-Reappraisal/dp/070061575X

There's a couple of more that study this tendency but I can't find them right now.

This isn't some liberal conspiracy, it's just how American patterns work. Look at how regularly our generations take on the same personalities over 80 year periods...it's uncanny and amazing how regularly we repeat the same generational personalities over and over (see "Generations" - great book.)

Oh well, not trying to bag on conservatives, just add information about the patterns we ALWAYS follow.

>>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/thisfunnieguy 's answer covers the main point, but also: "approval ratings" don't mean much. Presidential approval ratings are essentially a random walk around some "true" value that only weakly correlates with vote outcomes. About the only reason other candidates, even at this point in the cycle, have higher approval ratings is because they've had no exposure and hence voters have had no reason to form much of an opinion about this. The Timeline of Presidential Elections' chapters 1 and 2 do a great review on this literature.

I would recommend a good textbook or two to start with- but absent the time or inclination to parse through all that, here is a good introductory list to party and voting behavior in the US Congress:

A Unified Theory of Voting by Merrill and Grofman

Congress: The Electoral Connection by Mayhew

Disjointed Pluralism by Schickler

Unorthodox Lawmaking by Sinclair

Diverging Parties by Stonecash, Brewer and Mariani

Party Polarization in Congress by Theriault

[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.

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

This isn't a "must read list", but going off your list, I think you would enjoy:

• Patrick Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind
  
• Greg Mortenson's Three cups of tea
  
• Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner
  
• Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita
  
• Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time
  
• Richard Adams's Watership Down
  
  If you are looking for books to expand your literary chops on, I think blackstar9000 made a very good list.
  
  For my recommendations on getting out of your element try these:
  
  
• Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince
  
• Naomi Klien's Shock Doctrine
  
• Brian K. Vaughan & Pia Guerra's Y: The Last Man
  
• Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  

What's your point? I was just citing some statistics on the military presence of the US in other countries... not boasting about the amount of land under our control. However, can you name another country that is compatibly widespread? (Not being a smart-ass, just asking.) Did you read the sentence after the estimate of land owned by the US? Can you refute the fact that the Pentagon is one of the largest landowners worldwide? Who else controls over 700 bases abroad? Who else has a quarter million troops station abroad? China and Russia might have millions more hectares within their borders, but I was trying to point out how much the US controls, outside of her own.

Trust me, I'm not an Imperialistic patriot by any means, I'm merely touching on the ugly truth of the American military machine. If WWIII became a reality, the US is set to pop. We could deploy tens of thousands of soldiers almost anywhere on the globe within a matter of hours. Want to invade our borders? Please remember that over 200 million Americans own guns, and of those, 30% have five or more guns. Love it or hate it, this country is armed to the teeth and has a finger in every continent.

EDIT: Having a hard time finding a number rather than a percentage, but it seems like 70 million Americans own a total of about 192 million firearms.

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.

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.

>coming up with a coherent political theory

For what it's worth, my personal impression is that intellectuals on the far right are more coherent in their politics than intellectuals on the far left. Intellectuals on the far right can often point to specific things they think work well, such as Singapore, or European monarchies. Sometimes they even have radical new proposals... but at least they are concrete. I less often here of concrete ideas coming from the far left. My general impression is that the far left has strong ideals about radical egalitarianism, but no plan for how to achieve it that's more sophisticated than "destroy everyone who disagrees with us".

Of course, most of the people on both sides who show up for events like this one are not intellectuals and don't have coherent views.

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

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

A bit of a different book from me.

The Politics Book - Paul Kelly

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1409364453/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_VvB1xbAZFK029

It is a good, fairly unbiased, summary of politics and philosophy from history and is great for beginners who want to grasp political ideas and understand political history at a basic level.

The layout is modern and easy to understand so I highly recommend it.

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.

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

"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

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.

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.

>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!

"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.

The art style? Well it's kinda like a deliberately simple sort of thing, couldn't find any pictures of the inside but the cover should give you an idea of what it's like: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Book-Paul-Kelly/dp/1409364453

Could definitely go that way at this point. Glad my weak starter was enough to interest you though. The main text on Patchwork was published by Moldbug, here are the 4 chapters:

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Moldbug has an interesting style, he writes like he's just shooting the shit but the guy understands insane amounts of political and economic theory.

There are a lot of blogs on Patchwork as well, which go at it from various perspectives that aren't as far-right as Moldbug. The blogger Xenogoth in particular compiled a "patchwork reader" of all the writings on it, but that's escaping my googling right now.

>My plan this time around is to base a collection of ten threads each based on a chapter of 'The Politics Book' published by Dorling Kindersley.

I bought that yesterday! Asdas for £8, cheaper than Amazon, I thought it was a bargain considering how clear and yet how jam packed it was.

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!

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.

> 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

If you don't like Joe Biden, read What It Takes: The Way To The White House and get back to me.

Also it's literally the greatest book ever. Start reading now and you'll have it read in time for his re-election bid in 2024!

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

This has essentially been Noam Chomsky's point for decades now. If learning more about this interests you I recommend Media Control , Manufacturing Consent, How the World Works, and most especially Understanding Power. I have read them all and they helped me understand a lot about the world that didn't make sense.

Understanding Power gives a pretty broad overview of his ideas.

I think it may be 'The President's Book of Secrets: The Untold Story of Intelligence Briefings'

https://www.amazon.ca/Leviathan-Thomas-Hobbes/dp/0199537283/ref=sr_1_1/154-5195785-5062237?ie=UTF8&qid=1481467964&sr=8-1&keywords=leviathan+hobbes

https://www.amazon.ca/Social-Contract-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau/dp/0140442014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481468107&sr=8-1&keywords=rousseau+the+social+contract

https://www.amazon.ca/Second-Treatise-Government-John-Locke-ebook/dp/B004UJCSBG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481468187&sr=8-1&keywords=locke+second+treatise

Otherwise, I don't think what you're looking for exists. I know the Supreme Court has written some flowery words about where the government derives its powers whenever it feels the need, but it's not in any one document, and I wouldn't know where to find it. We don't reinvent the wheel every time we build a car, and we don't rejustify the existence of the state every time we form a new one.

Amazon says 64 pages

http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/161382288X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1411579391&sr=8-3&keywords=art+of+war+sun+tzu

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.

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.

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

Same here. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

https://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498

Here are two more of Chomsky's recommendations gleamed from Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
(which I highly recommend):

• 
  Rajani Kannepalli Kanth, Political Economy and Laissez-Faire: Economics and Ideology in the Ricardan Era
  
• 
  Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
  

Understanding Power

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

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.

>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

Political works by Chomsky:

The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967),
At War With Asia: Essays on Indochina (1969),
Government in the Future (1970),
The Fateful Triangle (1983, 2015),
The Chomsky Reader (1987, 2010),
Manufacturing Consent (1988, 2002),
Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1992, 2015),
Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky (2002),
Hegemony or Survival (2003),
Failed States (2006).

Works on Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky: A personal bibliography, 1951-1986 (1986),
Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent (1998),
Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals ( 1999, 2002, 2016),
The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky (2005, 2017),
The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky (2000, 2002, 2004),
The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower (2007), Noam Chomsky (2015)


Also this, this, this and this.

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!

>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

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.