(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best political ideologies books

>> Do you want to cut environment laws to save a few bucks.

>The EPA and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) seem out of control. This was an interesting and enlightening read: https://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullies-Everyday-Americans-Imprisoned/dp/1455522775

You are right about zoning laws but that is the cause of not putting industrial or certain housing into other communities, and people trying to control their neighbourhoods, those rules start out that way and then end up catching other people leading to more complicated laws. Though I am less knowledgeable about the BLM. I also wonder though which exact rules.

The EPA is really hard to say, but it depends on what law, have not read into it the exact rules that people want struck down or regulation decreased. But they are the reason they exist is that you can't just build whatever you want whenever you want. Also making sure things run in for the best case of public health and the countries environment. The problem is two competing approaches, one is NIMBY who force regulations and second is gutting it in places that matter leading to issue like Flint etc. Their focus has been messed with needs organizational restructure not gutting. Also they are responsible of making sure that companies comply with air pollutant contents, water pollutant contents, waste etc. Also protecting certain habitats in America, that personally I would rather see live on than be bulldozed. There are some that are crazy that you can wonder why, but those are usually due to laws for one issue ending up expanding into something else.

>> Remove labour laws to allow corporations to have a stronger control over their employees.

>I don't subscribe to the need for extensive labor laws. As long as people are not compelled (slave labor) it's just another voluntary trade. With the information we now have at our fingertips, IMO, the risk of abuse is much lower than it may have been at one time. The ad-hoc economy that seems to be popping up (Uber/Lyft/AirBnB/Private Amazon Delivery) seems to be another indicator that there will be many opportunities to essentially work for yourself.

Those are horrible jobs. People who use Uber make less than an average taxi driver. It is a good secondary income, but should never be considered primary. And Airbnb is horrible, one crazy party and you are stuck with huge insurance claim. One death and good luck with even being able to rent it out in a year. An accident and you could be liable for huge damages. There is a reason why hotels have regulations. It's also takes away alot of bargaining power from employees. For example if an employee gets injured at work can he sue if he is forced to sign an agreement that the company is not liable for injuries. Another issue is trying to control worker hours to make sure you don't end up forcing people to work crazy hours. Most of these rules are created to help people working under big business but end up expanding to small business. Which to be honest are some of the worst offenders, by making people do work without the required equipment. Etc.

>> Honestly if benefits could be offloaded to the government in a universal sustem like universal healthcare based on the taxes on income and letting stares decide the way they want it to function, it removes another cost to businesses and simplifies the healthcare issue.

>I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Have you ever dealt with medicaid, medicare or social security? I think the answer is again with private industry not government. Where I do agree is decoupling health insurance from employment. I think a compelling argument can be made that private industry can provide catastrophic insurance (much less expensive than today's plans) and people can save and pay for their own health care or purchase a gap insurance. I'd like to see how a less molested market affects the pricing of care and drugs.

>Preexisting conditions is the nut I think no one has been able to crack as the safety net eliminates the need for paying anything until you are diagnosed. The state answer seems to be to force everyone to pay, even the young and healthy. I disagree with the government compelling action like this.

The issue is you have three bodies, that are not only dealing with themselves but with the private industry. Healthcare insurance is for profit. You remove profit you take away a huge chunk of spending. Healthcare insurance should not be as big of an industry. Germany has a public private hybrid but it is only the hospital's or medical facilities that can be private. Canada has a public system and their overall cost per patient is less than in America. The main reasoning can easily be attributed to early detection, which when people don't have to worry if they are covered or not or its cost can get done. For me it's maslow's triangle, take away a necessity and the person can focus on something else and better themselves.

>At a fundamental level I view government as mostly unnecessary in everyday affairs. For those that feel uncomfortable at the thought I can relate the this best via analogy. There are big differences between ebay and craigslist. Both have differing control and feedback mechanisms yet both can be used safely by taking different types of precautions. Users know the relative risks and consequences of craigslist (no reputation to rely on, potential shady characters, no refunds) and adapt to those risks for the opportunity and/or the savings. Ebay may make people feel more secure, but you're paying for that security and it is by no means required, nor is it inherently unsafe to use craigslist, just requires different behavior. The flaw in the analogy is that ebay's services are generally not priced ridiculously and they are held to a standard of profitability while the government has no such standard and waste and graft is everywhere.

Big government for me is different from many other ways, I believe in the constant updating of the laws, but needs to be focused on is less control on people's personal lives like surveillance and certain rules. Yes it has expanded in many ways but neither government will ever decrease it. They just have their own version of big government they shove on people.

Also eBay and Craigslist are not a good example of managing a country. As both have very different goals. One is for profit and one is management of a country. I mean if you want to see a profitable country look at Singapore and Dubai. They have giant governments yet are really profitable. So was UK and Switzerland. They have a bigger role on citizen lives than the US has.

For me smaller government is decreasing inconvenience but also removing as much of the issues about necessities or how to pay for everything by alleviating costs and letting people focus on taking risks like starting a business etc.


>Re: the prison industrial complex, I share your concern but can't suggest I know enough about the details to offer any value. Intuitively it seems there's massive potential for corruption. And the incarceration rate seems strangely high. Perhaps having less laws to break would be a good start.

Re: 2
First, You've made a claim (I.e., that individuals have more power without parties), but you've not provided any evidence for it. Until you muster compelling evidence for that claim, we (including you) need not take the claim seriously. But there is more.

Second, you will need to respond to an objection to your claim: your view (eliminating all parties) is conceptually impossible. Explanation:

Whoever is in power is, by definition, a political party. They might not have a name or explicit platform, but they are a group of people (so they are organized) with resources (like, ya know, being in power), and they they make decisions (so they exert power as a group). We can call that party the status quo party (because they are already in power).

A true no party system would require that no group of people be in charge.

And that would be a sort of direct democracy or anarchy (or something like those). But the thing about direct democracies and anarchies and the like is that majorities rule. So there ends up being a ruling party either way. The ruling party might not have a stable identity or set of preferences, but neither do current political parties — think about how Trump and Sanders changed the two major parties in just one election season or how Republicans and Democrats have drastically changed preferences during their existence. So even if we attempt to eliminate parties altogether, we end up with at least one party – again, by definition. We might end up with at least two parties: the one in power and whoever is critical of that group.

To be clear, this objection is not the "eliminating parties is hard" objection. Rather, it is the "eliminating parties is conceptually impossible" objection. This objection would pressure you to weaken your view to something like the following: we should eliminate all parties that can be eliminated (since eliminating all parties is not possible).

NB: that weaker view might be so weak that it is not fundamentally different than a two party system like the one we have (because there will always be a party in power and some party that opposed some set of actions of the party in power. In short, the only conceptually plausible version of a view like yours might what we already have.

Honestly, I was sitting a training by Indiana Democrats and the person next to me said he read a great book called Run for Something. I picked up a copy, read it, saw they were endorsing candidates and applied for it and got it. I could probably use the slack a bit more, but for me, they hooked me up with a mentor who was GREAT to talk to and really just encouraged me. They also have created a lot of resources like a Canva style guide that helped for fast graphic creation. They have been great and I love being a part of it and the work they are doing.

I have also been active in a program by Indiana Democrats called the Emerging Leaders which has been AMAZING in preparing me for being a candidate. They have equipped us a lot with basic skills, how to fundraise, use voterfiles, etc..

If people want to run, I'd recommend reading the Run for Something book.

For me, the biggest challenge is name recognition and getting in front of voters. People start out as republican here, but if i can get in front of them, tell them why i am running and the issues that concern me, then I can get them on my side. At the local level its less political party and who is the person who can get things done.

As far as savvy, I use weebly for the website, crowdpac to online raise $$$, and canva for everything else. You gotta have some tech sense if you want to kick butt, but you also have to have the personality to connect with strangers and meet people.

I think as a party we need to invest in more pipelines for future candidates and start up funds for local races that can cover some basics like yard signs, ads in papers, digital advertising.

I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

The United States is a nation state as, like most every other modern country, it has a national identity. The key however is in defining what American national identity is. Trump and many of his followers likely understand American national identity to be rooted in whiteness and Christianity while most other Americans understand American national identity as being rooted in a form of civic (not ethnic) nationalism which embodies a shared sense of republican (not the political party but the system of government) ideals and essential freedoms. This is bolstered by a shared national culture that manifests itself in things like Thanksgiving which is based on and celebrates a national myth and was established with the express purpose of fostering a common national culture. Celebrating Thanksgiving is literally participation in American national identity and therefore an expression of American nationalism.

Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols for example flags and national anthems. The concept of every nation (not only nation-states but stateless nations like the Ainu as well) having a flag is something something that emerged concurrently with the notion of nationalism because the newly emerging nations needed symbols to tie their identities to. Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict. That is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc. With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment. But don't take my word for it! Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way. In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state or government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one. Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

As far as patriotism goes it's a tricky question but while not every display of patriotism is nationalism the vast majority are as they acknowledge the existence of or loyalty to a nation or nation-state and more often than not incorporate national symbols such as flags. Remember that a nation is not solely the government but the amorphous political body of individuals who share some common identity so when professing to "love a nation" someone could just as easily be talking about the people as opposed to the government.

Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America is a good book. In summary he looks at the history of partisan politics and the roots of current political ideology in America and points out that traditionally parties were not ideologically based but typically determined by your social network and community-- simply a coalition to elect candidates. He shows that contemporary political ideology started to solidify in the 50s and 60s, which later shifted parties as people began to "sort" themselves into the two major parties based on ideology.

In the 50s American political scientists were actually complaining that the party platforms were too similar. Anthony Downs Economic Theory of Democracy stated that two-party systems would lead to nearly identical party platforms in their attempts to appeal to the largest number of voters. This thesis also tended to assume that the effect would skew the platforms to be more centrist, which national elections tend to do.

Also in Anthony Down's analysis though was a cost-benefit equation for voting. He argued the impact and thus benefit of voting was exceptionally low and the cost of voting--informing yourself about candidate's platforms and physically going to vote was high. Ideologically distinct parties help to address this paradox of voting by reducing the cost of voting as you have a pretty good idea of general policy stance based on party affiliation alone. Also, individual candidates then have more of an opportunity to point out the flaws/risks of their opponents, as well as highlighting the benefits of their own policies--helping the other side of the equation as well.

Also, while I'm not very knowledgeable about the UK government, your parliament is many times the size of our legislative branch while simultaneously representing a smaller populace. This could allow for more distinct parties and platforms to form and get enough backing to impact government.

Nobody is obligated to be tolerant of intolerance.

That said, I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating here:

On Nonviolence:

>"Nonviolence is fine as long as it works," Malcolm X once said. Recently, Columbia University Press published an extraordinary scholarly book that proves how nonviolence works far better as a method for social change than violence. This breakthrough book demonstrates that Gandhi was right, that the method of nonviolent resistance as a way to social change usually leads to a more lasting peace while violence usually fails.

>Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan uses graphs, charts, sociological research and statistical analysis to show how in the last century, nonviolent movements were far better at mobilizing supporters, resisting regime crackdowns, creating new initiatives, defeating repressive regimes and establishing lasting democracies. Their evidence points to the conclusion that nonviolent resistance is more effective than armed resistance in overturning oppressive and repressive regimes and in leading to more democratic societies.

>This report should cause the whole world to stop in its tracks and take up nonviolent conflict resolution and nonviolent resistance to injustice instead of the tired, old, obsolete methods of war and violence.

>Why Civil Resistance Works is the first systematic study of its kind and takes us well beyond the research of Gene Sharp and others to demonstrate once and for all the power of nonviolent civil resistance for positive social change. Anyone interested in the methodology of nonviolent conflict resolution should get this book and study it. Indeed, one wishes the State Department and the government would learn its lessons, renounce its violence and start supporting nonviolent, people-power movements.

>For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were "more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals," the authors conclude. By attracting widespread popular support through protests, boycotts, civil disobedience and other forms of nonviolent noncooperation, these campaigns broke repressive regimes and brought major new changes for justice and peace. Much of the book focuses on four case studies to explain their conclusions: the Iranian revolution of 1977-1979; the first Palestinian Intifada of 1987-92; the Philippines People Power revolution of 1983-1986; and the Burmese uprising of 1988-90.

>Through their statistical analysis, the authors found that nonviolent resistance presents "fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement and commitment, and that higher levels of participation contribute to enhanced resilience, greater opportunities for tactical innovation and civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for a regime to maintain its status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents' supporters, including members of the military establishment."

>Contrary to popular belief, "violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds," they write. "Nonviolent resistance ushers in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war."

>"We analyze 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns between 1990 and 2006," the authors explain in their introduction.

>Among them are over one hundred major nonviolent campaigns since 1900, whose frequency has increased over time. In addition to their growing frequency, the success rates of nonviolent campaigns have increased. How does this compare with violent insurgencies? One might assume that the success rates may have increased among both nonviolent and violent insurgencies. But in our data, we find the opposite: although they persist, the success rates of violent insurgencies have declined. The most striking finding is that between 1900 and 2006, nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly twice as likely to achieve full or partial success as their violent counterparts. Among the 323 campaigns in the case of anti-regime resistance campaigns, the use of a nonviolent strategy has greatly enhanced the likelihood of success… This book investigates the reasons why—in spite of conventional wisdom to the contrary—civil resistance campaigns have been so effective compared with their violent counterparts.

>While only one in four violent campaigns succeed, about three out of four nonviolent campaigns succeed, they report. "We argue that nonviolent campaigns fail to achieve their objectives when they are unable to overcome the challenge of participation, when they fail to recruit a robust, diverse, and broad-based membership that can erode the power base of the adversary and maintain resilience in the face of repression."

>The evidence of their research points to the superiority of nonviolent resistance at every level, including against genocidal regimes. "The claim that nonviolent resistance could never work against genocidal foes like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin is the classic straw man put forward to demonstrate the inherent limitations of this form of struggle," they note.

>While it is possible that nonviolent resistance could not be used effectively once genocide has broken out in full force, this claim is not backed by any strong empirical evidence. Collective nonviolent struggle was not used with any strategic forethought during World War II, nor was it ever contemplated as an overall strategy for resisting the Nazis. Violent resistance, which some groups attempted for ending Nazi occupation, was also an abject failure. However, scholars have found that certain forms of collective nonviolent resistance were, in fact, occasionally successful in resisting Hitler's occupation policies. The case of the Danish population's resistance to German occupation is an example of partially effective civil resistance in an extremely difficult environment.

>The famous case of the Rosenstrasse protests, when German women of Aryan descent stood for a week outside a detention center on the Rosenstrasse in Berlin demanding the release of their Jewish husbands, who were on the verge of being deported to concentration camps, is a further example of limited gains against a genocidal regime brought about by civil resistance. The German women, whose numbers increased as the protests continued and they attracted more attention, were sufficiently disruptive with their sustained nonviolent protests that the Nazi officials eventually released their Jewish husbands…The notion that nonviolent action can be successful only if the adversary does not use violent repression is neither theoretically nor historically substantiated.

>These studies "call for scholars to rethink power and its sources in any given society or polity," the authors suggest. "Our findings demonstrate that power actually depends on the consent of the civilian population, consent that can be withdrawn and reassigned to more legitimate or more compelling parties ... We hope that this book challenges the conventional wisdom concerning the effectiveness of nonviolent struggle and encourages scholars and policy makers to take seriously the role that civilians play in actively prosecuting conflict without resorting to violence."

>I have long believed that Gandhi -- and Jesus -- were right to insist on the method of nonviolent resistance for both moral and practical reasons, but now the facts are in. The evidence is all laid out in this scholarly report.

>The book went to press just as the revolutions of the Arab Spring were beginning. "If these last several months have taught us anything, it is that nonviolent resistance can be a near-unstoppable force for change in our world, even in the most unlikely circumstances." This book is a great resource for those of us who teach and advocate peace and nonviolence. More, it is a source of hope proving the ancient wisdom that mobilized nonviolent resistance is the best weapon for peaceful change. May it be taught far and wide and inspire many more to join the grassroots nonviolent movements for a new world of justice and peace.

Below is my usual list of introductory material. It is not really what you want. I like your idea of a reading list which starts from the fundamentals, but I don't know of any. In your case I would recommend the first volume of Marx's Capital which is surprisingly accessible and still a very good description of capitalism. If you are unfamiliar with Marxist terminology, reading something like David Harvey's Reading Marx's Capital along with it could be useful.

----

Online introductions:

• The Wikipedia entry for libertarian socialism actually gives a pretty good overview.
  
  
• An Anarchist FAQ is dense but has good material -- it is especially good at differentiating traditional anarchism from US-style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. You will find many references to other works in the FAQ.
  
  Books:
  
  
• The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin. It is old, a classic, but it provides examples rather than formal/philosophic arguments so it is still quite readable and relevant today. It will give you a good idea of where modern anarchist communists are coming from.
  
  
• A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. It is long and sometimes repetitive, but each chapter can be read independently so you don't need to read it cover-to-cover. It provides a view of American history from a working-class perspective including the many contributions of anarchist and other socialist movements.
  
  
• A book like Paul Eltzbacher's The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers which provides an overview of the various anarchist founding philosophers is a good idea.
  
  
• I think Peter Gelderloos writes clear introductory material. I've not read his latest (The Failure of Nonviolence), but you can read Anarchy Works online.
  
  
• John Holloway's Crack Capitalism [pdf] is an introduction to a libertarian Marxist approach to resisting capitalism and the state. It might be too "lifestyle" for some people's tastes (he suggests reading a book in a park instead of going to work as an anti-capitalist action, for example).
  
  
• It's a bit outside the main thrust of the anarchist tradition (which is often focused on class struggle), but one of my favorite books is Crispin Sartwell's Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory which provides counter arguments to several justifications for states, especially the various contract theories.
  
  Other reading guides:
  
  
• Phoenix Class War Council's Recommended Reading
  
  
• Libcom.org's reading guide

>Most these benefits have nothing to do with the government providing money or goods or services to the couple in question. If anything the biggest benefit is the tax break, which involve the government taking less money.

That's just not true. Marriage privileges afford a long list, and many of the items are how private institutions are forced to acknowledge the spouse, whether it's a hospital, insurance company, employers, etc. This is the bite, this is why it's such a big deal, not because of a tax break. BUT that tax break is still a benefit, it's a subsidization of a family unit. There's no way in hell you can say that you're for a shrinking government and then for an expanding one. I'm not against gay marriage, I'm just honest about what it entails.

>Even ignoring that, I've never seen a Libertarian candidate oppose gay marriage rights. They might preempt that by saying they think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all

This is code for being against gay marriage, in case you haven't picked up on that.

>BUT if its going to be, it needs to be involved equally for everyone.

Why? We have disparate treatment in tons of laws, why does this one have to be clean cut for everyone? I think it's the right thing to do, and I think the government should do it because it seems that there's a quorum supporting it. But I don't see why a government is required to do this. And that's sort of a big deal for libertarians, they only want government action that can be justified AND (this part is very important) falls within the proper scope of government.

>Libertarians aren't federalists. The two concepts often overlap as libertarians generally prefer that when government involvement is necessary, it be as small and local as possible. But when it comes to the restrictions of individual liberties libertarians don't suddenly approve of it if its a state or local government doing it.

Dude, you're gonna lose this battle 100% of the time. Federalism is the biggest point of contention for libertarian politicians at the federal level. It's the method by which we get a diverse and robust freedom. Honestly, it's like you don't even know what libertarianism is. We're all federalists, literally every single person in this country is a strong federalists, and it's not even a competing political position.

>But when it comes to the restrictions of individual liberties libertarians don't suddenly approve of it if its a state or local government doing it.

What is political liberty? It's the ability for a group to have a large degree of self-determination. The smaller and more localized you can make that group without infringing on the rights of others, the better. This happens in our government structure vis-a-vis federalism. Come on man, what the fuck are you talking about with this nonsense against federalism?

>No, they hold the core scope of proper government to be providing for common defense.

That is ONLY enabled through a monopoly of force. That's how one holds that position. I'm sorry you're uneducated on what this all is. You should go read a book on libertarianism.

>Allowing the government to have a monopoly of power is not the same thing

It's ABSOLUTELY required. And being a dominant protective agency very much hinges on having a monopoly of force.

> and very much clashes with the entire concept of libertarianism which holds that government shouldn't have a monopoly on anything.

I'm sorry, you're 100% wrong. This matter is well established, and uncontested.

>The Manchin-Toomey universal background check bill that stalled in the Senate last year.

You're bitching about a law that died on the floor. Got it.

>Libertarianism is a fundamentally liberal ideology.

Oh my god, are you serious?! They are opposing position on a political spectrum. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You need to go read a book BEFORE you start talking about this. I suggest you read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. But a lighter read, such as this Charles Murray's What It Means to Be a Libertarian would also work.

>And these things are just other examples of government overstepping its authority and encroaching on individual liberty.

See that part about overstepping its authority? That's a common libertarian sentiment and it couches a huge driving concept that is essential to the libertarian ideology: government has a proper role, and it is inherently limited. The proper scope is the extent to which a government can perform its natural function, tax people collectively to afford this function, without infringing on rights. Anything beyond that scope will, necessarily infringe on some natural rights. This is in direct opposition to a liberal conception of government, which holds that the government can be used to enforce equity wherever society fails to do so: justice as fairness demands.

Modern libertarianism was literally conceived of as a counter-argument to a Rawlsian liberal government. The fact that you don't know this means I'm wasting my time reading what you have to say on the matter.

I won't put too much in here because I have other stuff to do this morning, but you've got a lot more to cover if you want a well-rounded survey of anarchism. I tend to prefer economic/historical analyses myself so I'll leave a couple here:

AnCaps aren't anarchists but Market (aka Libertarian) Socialists are. Here's a good collection of essays available for free online from the publisher. It includes historical works by Proudhon and DeCleyre, moving forward with early 20th century thinkers like the American Benjamin Tucker, and culminates with some modern Market Anarchist essays on the origins of intellectual property, capitalism, and other modern forms of government enforced privilege.

Markets Not Capitalism

This next book is a meticulous and deeply methodological survey of a few classical anarchists according primarily to their economic philosophy. It's a great resource if you can handle the pedantic, almost-mathematical analysis it puts forth. It lays out some really semi-formal language at the beginning and proceeds to analyze the Anarchists in terms of this formality. In that regard it reminds me a bit of Marx's Capital, but we'll get back to him in a second.

The Great Anarchists

I'd suggest you take at least a couple of classes into analysis of figures and ideologies that are not traditionally thought of as anarchists but have a subversive and anti-authority message. There are TONS of these if you look around but the two I'd mention here are Karl Marx and Ted Kaczynski ("the UNABOMber"). I'll link the the Kaczynski overview here but his most famous publication was called "Industrial Society and its Future" (ostensibly written collaboratively with a whole group called FC or the Freedom Club).

Marx, theoretician of anarchism

What Marx Should Have Said To Kropotkin

Ted Kaczynski

Lastly you mentioned Catalonia, no reading on Anarchist Catalonia is complete without Sam Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution 1936-1939 which if I remember correctly contains at least one essay on the topic from the author Leval you cited.

The Anarchist Collectives

Cheers and have fun!

edit: ohgod where did my morning go

https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Politics-Jinping-Era-Reassessing/dp/0815726929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481368442&sr=8-1&keywords=cheng+li

Book.

Edit: Pretty good book. Level headed. Here's an excerpt.

>BROAD CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE XI LEADERSHIP
The tension between Xi’s concentration of individual power and China’s past practice of collective leadership has become especially significant at a time when the country is confronting many daunting challenges. Over the past several decades, China has been beset by growing wealth disparities, repeated industrial and environmental disasters, resource scarcity, public health and food safety crises, frequent instances of social unrest, and a manual labor shortage in some coastal cities, coinciding with high unemployment rates among college graduates. China’s economy faces serious and interrelated problems, including mounting local debt, the proliferation of shadow banking, overcapacity in certain industrial sectors, and a growing property bubble. The old development model, which relied on export-driven and cheap labor-oriented growth, has come to an end. Chinese labor costs have risen rapidly, and the country can no longer tolerate the previous growth model’s severe damage to the environment, including the pollution of air, water, and soil. But the new consumption-driven, innovation-led, and service sector–centric model has yet to fully take flight.

>Of course, Xi and his generation of leaders did not create these problems; they have largely inherited them from their predecessors. In fact, Xi’s bold economic reform agenda has sought to address many of these issues. Some argue that factional deadlock in collective leadership led to the Hu-Wen administration’s ineffectiveness during the so-called lost decade, when seemingly little could be done to counter rampant official corruption and the monopolization of SOEs. This rationale has apparently bolstered the case for Xi’s more forceful personal leadership.61 If a more balanced factional composition in the PSC leads to infighting, political fragmentation, and policy deadlock, why should China not organize leadership so that power is concentrated in the hands of Xi and his team? If collective leadership assigns each PSC member one functional area and thus leads to political fragmentation and poor coordination, why should more power not be given to the general secretary? If local governments have been the main source of resistance to reform initiatives, why should Zhongnanhai not establish the Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms at various levels of government to facilitate policy implementation? This line of thinking seems to explain the basis for the six-to-one split of the current PSC and Xi’s twelve top leadership posts.
But in consolidating power, Xi also runs a major political risk: If he cannot deliver what he has promised as part of his economic reform agenda, he will not have anyone else with whom to share the blame. The recent stock market crisis in China and the very strong government interference in order to “save the market” reflect Xi’s political vulnerability and his sense of urgency. Xi’s popularity among the general public, including the majority of the middle class, is always subject to change if China’s economic conditions deteriorate.

>Furthermore, Xi’s inclination for monopolizing power has alienated a large swath of China’s public intellectuals, especially liberal intellectuals. They were particularly dismayed in the early months of Xi’s tenure by orders instructing them not to speak about seven sensitive issues: universal values, freedom of the press, civil society, civil rights, past mistakes by the CCP, crony capitalism, and judicial independence.62 In public discourse, some of these topics remain very sensitive or even taboo. Media censorship has tightened under Xi’s leadership, as has the state monitoring and management of research institutes, universities, and NGOs.

>It should be noted that Xi’s politically conservative and economically liberal approach to governing mirrors the method preferred by his predecessors, who always seemed to take one step forward economically while taking a step backward politically. During his famous “Southern Tour” (南巡, nanxun) in 1992, Deng called for greater market reform and economic privatization, while continuing to crack down on political dissent. Jiang broadened the CCP’s power base by recruiting entrepreneurs and other new socioeconomic players, a formulation known as the “Three Represents” (三个代表, sange daibiao), while launching a harsh political campaign against the Falun Gong, an emerging religious group. Hu’s populist appeal for a “harmonious society” sought to reduce economic disparities and social tensions, all while tightening police control of society, especially in regions with a high proportion of ethnic minorities.

>And yet, Xi seems to face deeper and rougher political waters than any Chinese leader since Mao, with the very survival of the party-state resting in his hands. With the revolution in telecommunications and social media, the way China’s authorities manage domestic political issues—from human rights and religious freedom to ethnic tensions and media censorship—has increasingly caught the eye of the Chinese public and the international community. Xi’s decision to prioritize economic reforms may be strategically sound, but he may not be able to postpone much-needed political reform for too long. Xi must make bold, timely moves to implement political reforms—including increasing political openness and expanding the role of civil society—and address issues that are currently preventing China from blossoming into a true innovation-driven economy.
Likewise, Xi’s ambitious anticorruption campaign has not come without serious political risks. Though popular among the Chinese public, this ad hoc initiative may ultimately alienate the officialdom—the very group on which the system relies for steady governance. Ultimately, Xi’s limited crackdown on official corruption should not serve as a replacement for reinforcing the rule of law, adopting institutional mechanisms like official income disclosure and conflict of interest regulations, and, most important, taking concrete steps to establish an independent judicial system in China. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before a new wave of official corruption leaves the public cynical about Xi’s true intentions and the effectiveness of his signature campaign.
From an even broader standpoint, China’s history under Mao and Deng was one of arbitrary decisionmaking by one individual leader. This method is arguably unsuitable for governing a pluralistic society amid increasingly active interest group politics. Despite its deficiencies, collective leadership generally entails a more dynamic and pluralistic decisionmaking process through which political leaders can represent various socioeconomic and geographic constituencies. Bringing together leaders from contending political camps with different expertise, credentials, and experiences contributes to the development of more-effective governmental institutions. Common interests in domestic social stability and a shared aspiration to further China’s rise on the world stage may make collective leadership both feasible and sustainable. In this sense, Xi can modify and improve the system of collective leadership, which is still largely experimental. But it would be pretentious and detrimental to attempt to replace most of the rules and norms that have governed elite politics over the past two decades. One simply cannot turn the clock back to the old days of the Mao era, when China was far less pluralistic and far more isolated from the outside world.

>can you please clarify your ideological position

Sure.

I'm a paleoconservative deep ecologist. This means I adhere to the oldest values of American conservatism and pair them with an interest in environmentalism through a more wholesome design of society.

I moderate /r/new_right because the new right ideas are closest to paleoconservatism in some ways. I tried to write a description of new_right that encompassed all of the ideas that the movement has tossed around.

Beyond that, I think politics is a matter of strategies and not collectivist moral decisions, am fond of libertarian-style free market strategies, and take interest in many things, hence the wide diversity of stuff that I post.

I've learned that on Reddit it's important to ask for people to clarify definitions before ever addressing any question using those terms. If you want me to answer any specific questions, we need a clear definition first agreed on by all parties.

I recommend the following books for anyone interesting in post-1970s conservatism beyond the neoconservative sphere:

• Paul Woodruff, Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue
  
• Pat Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower
  
• Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies
  
• Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot
  
• Jared Diamond, Collapse
  
• Mark Steyn, America Alone
  
• Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
  
• Bruce Charlton, Thought Prison: The Fundamentalist Nature of Political Correctness
  
  Other than that, I'm pretty much a mainstream Republican. Not all links I post constitute endorsement, such as this fascinating article.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism/dp/1476763801

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X

These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.

The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#443b3c5b12ab

Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.

This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.

It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.

> I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

None of this is about how the word is used in a socio-political sense though. And there is a very good argument that the popular view is the current correct view of the word's meaning.

> The United States is a nation state as...

I agree with most of your 2nd paragraph, but I would argue that for most people it's an expression of American Patriotism.

> Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols ... ...Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

Or patriotic sentiment.

> With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict.

Agree.

> hat is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc.

Agree

> With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment.

Disagree. Most people who participate in and watch the Olympics are more than ready to acknowledge when their country isn't the best at something, and when other countries do well. That's Patriotism when they root for their team under those circumstances.

> Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

All three are opinion pieces. The Vox one is actually talking about patriotism, but has fallen into the Nationalism/patriotism 'synonym trap'. Communist countries officially reject nationalism, but in practice are just as nationalistic as every other country.

> Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way.

Not completely blind, but it does encourage unhealthy behaviors towards others. That behavior isn't implied in patriotism.

> In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state

Correct. Post WWI there was a lot of nationalism from ethnic and cultural groups that hadn't had their own country in centuries. However, gaining a country was their goal. A good example actually is post-colonial Africa.

> government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one.

Actually, they always do eventually.

> Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

One would argue that the factions not advocating for separate statehood were actually patriots.

​

I'm going to skip over a lot of the specific examples you've presented because a) in the American context I don't think they are an accurate representation and b) in the comparative context I'm woefully ignorant. But in general I think you should check out Stealth Democracy by Hibbing and Theiss-Morris. It's central finding is that Americans claim to be small-d democratic but they underestimate how difficult governing actually is. They think the fact that things don't magically get done to match their preferences must be due to the incompetence/corruption of the elected representatives and so tend to favor empowering technocrats and businessmen instead of "career politicians."

You also seem to be overestimating how ideological the average person is. To be frank, most people don't think much about concepts like "democracy" and couldn't give you a particularly precise definition. So they're happy to say that they support democracy while also not having a clear view of what that entails (or, as a friend of mine likes to say: "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.") On this point you may want to check out Neither Liberal nor Conservative by Kinder and Kalmoe. Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels is another good read.

Oh boy have I got some books for you:

• The Conservatarian Manifesto, Charlie C.W. Cooke --
  The editor of National Review Online argues the path to a better conservatism lies in a marriage with libertarianism.
  
  
• The End is Near and it's Going to be Awesome, Kevin D. Williamson --
  National Review's Roving Correspondent argues that the American government is collapsing under its own weight and that's a good thing.
  
  
• Hillbilly Elegy, J.D. Vance --
  A former marine and Yale-educated lawyer gives a powerful account of his upbringing in a Rust-belt town and his family's connection to Appalachia.
  
  
• The Evolution of Everything, Matt Ridley --
  The Fellow of the Royal Society and member of the House of Lords describes how spontaneous order is behind a great many advancements of the modern age and why centralized "design" is ineffective and prone to failure.
  
  
• The Vanishing American Adult, Ben Sasse --
  The popular freshman senator describes the crisis of America's youth, and how the solutions lay beyond the realm of politics.
  
  
• Our Republican Constitution, Randy E. Barnett --
  One of America's leading constitutional law scholars explains why Americans would benefit from a renewal of our Republican Constitution and how such a renewal can be achieved.
  
  
• A Torch Kept Lit, William F. Buckley, edited by James Rosen --
  A curated collection of Buckley's best eulogies, A Torch Kept Lit provides invaluable insight into both the eminent twentieth century conservative and an unrevised conservative account of the great lives of the twentieth century.
  
  
• Scalia Speaks, Antonin Scalia, edited by Christopher Scalia and Ed Whelan --
  This volume of Justice Scalia's finest speeches provides intimate insight on the justice's perspectives on law, faith, virtue, and private life.

Obviously not OP. But give Run For Something a read. Maybe you don't end up running for office. But it can help give you an appreciation of why it's important to engage with and help candidates even for smaller positions. Your school board, your city council members, your township trustees can have a huge impact. It can be the difference that gives you quality schools, roads that don't swallow your car, and maybe even forward thinking policies such as municipal internet access. Those things impact your life as much or more than national level elections.

Find out who's running for positions in your area and talk to them, find out what they want to achieve and decide if that's something you think would be good. Then help out in any way you can. Maybe it's volunteering or working for them. Maybe it's simply making sure your friend's and family are registered to vote and know when the elections are and their voting location and how they're going to get there.

For introductory purposes, it's best to read surveys of the literature and tradition, simply because there are many anarchist schools of thought and people often direct you to read books from the school to which they are sympathetic.

I recommend starting off with [Peter Kropotkin's 1909 essay for Encyclopedia Britannica on Anarchism] (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html).

Next, I'd recommend [Men Against the State] (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-State-Expositors-Individualist/dp/0879260068), a historical overview of the American Anarchist traditions, which were a kind of anarchist melting pot but admittedly skewed individualist (you could probably find a free pdf of this quickly).

These books should provide good introductions to various schools. After that, just pick up the books in whatever school suits your fancy and enjoy.

My biased recommendations are Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism and Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority. They are both works done by conteporary academic philosophers but written simply and without jargon.

edit: It would be wonderful if whoever downvoted my comment could explain why.

If your a 'recovering republican' I recommend this book:
What it means to be a Libertarian It really explains the core of what libertarianism is from the perspective of a former mainstream republican.

Then start reading some classical Libertarian works like:
The Road To Surfdom by FA Hayek, where you will be amazed to learn that Big Corporations are the best friend the far left socialists ever had and know that they are full of crap whenever they say bad things about big business. I really like Hayek's writings quite a bit. Hayek is my favourite libertarian economist. The things he predicted right after world war 2 have happened amazingly like his predictions. This book is so popular its even been made into a comic book version.


/And don't forget all the links on the right hand side of this reddit. Lots of good stuff in those links.

>
>
>But unlike independents, moderates are more likely to be Democrats. The average moderate in the Voter Study Group data is solidly center-left on both economic and immigration issues. This, I think, has mostly to do with linguistic history: Republicans have long embraced the “conservative” label, but for decades Democrats ran away from the “liberal” label, leaving “moderate” as the only self-identification refuge for many Democrats. (Only recently has “liberal” again become a fashionable identification for the left.)
>
>Consider the typical ideology survey question, which gives respondents three options: liberal, moderate or conservative. A voter who identifies as neither liberal nor conservative has only one other option: moderate. And moderate sounds like a good thing. Isn’t moderation a virtue?
>
>As the political scientists Donald Kinder and Nathan Kalmoe put it, after looking at five decades of public opinion research, “the moderate category seems less an ideological destination than a refuge for the innocent and the confused.”8 Similarly, political scientist David Broockman has also written about the meaninglessness of the “moderate” label, particularly as a predictor of centrism.
>
>The takeaway is simple: As they must with independents, any pundit who talks about “moderates” as a key voting bloc begs that second follow-up question: Which moderates?9

> He holds no concrete policy convictions

This meme is based on a false premise. Last election, the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" of the GOP nominated a habitual flip-flopper who ran as a progressive in Massachusetts before pretending to be a conservative, was for a path to citizenship before he was against it, for gun control before he was against it, created Romneycare before bashing Obamacare, etc., etc. Consistency and principles only matter now because the neocons have been overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box by their own party, and they're lashing out at Trump.

It's easy and popular to claim that Trump has no real policy convictions, but it just isn't true. If you're actually concerned, read through the detailed policy papers on his website and the books that he's written about his political views. There's plenty of information out there about where he stands, you just have to do your own homework instead of expecting Trump to do it for you.

Has Trump changed his opinions before? Sure - for instance, he changed his mind about gun control when he got a gun and a license and saw why people like having them, and he changed his views on abortion when a personal friend decided at the last minute not to have one. But on his bread-and-butter issues, his message has been consistent for decades. You can go back 28 years and hear him saying the same things about trade that he's saying now. You can go back 16 years and read him saying the same things about illegal immigration and national security and foreign policy that he's saying now.

> What is a Trump voter actually voting for?

We're voting for national security, border security, trade deals that actually benefit us (not just our trade partners), and a prosperous economy that works. More importantly, we're voting against a phony strain of "conservatism" that capitulates on every issue, hates its own voters, and has been an embarrassment to our party and our country.

No. The situation right now is something of a repeat of the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, yet for a lot of people paying attention to politics now they never lived through the Nixon scandals. This, along with a series of long-term trends, combine to make a 'new normal' that I don't think a lot of people understand.

I'm not sure how far back to go with this but I'll start with the ultra partisanship that exploded around Obama's time in office. Mann and Ornstein had been warning for years that political extremism was starting to harm good governance, and we saw quite a bit of evidence in that with the no holds barred, scorched earth policy of Newt Gingrich's new GOP in the '90s, which forswear any compromise. This by itself was not really an issue until the American electorate turned more and more partisan over the 2000s, and most especially during the Tea Party movement under Obama. The displacement of traditionally conservative or otherwise 'moderate' Republicans by Tea Partiers happened in a wave that unseated, most ironically, Eric Cantor...yet Cantor, Ryan, and Marco Rubio themselves emboldened the Tea Party out of the realization that this clearly partisan movement could get them votes. So Cantor then losing to a Tea Partier (David Brat) for being a 'RINO' probably should have been the first warning sign that things were getting out of control (Anybody listening to conservative AM radio around tea party time knows what I'm talking about).

Despite what excuses people may make for the government shutdown during Obama's term and certain obstructionist efforts, they still had a deleterious effect on Congressmen and Senators solely because they proved that a partisan position for the sake of appearing extreme could actually enhance one's standing with the electorate. The GOP waves during the Obama administration and into state-level elections was largely the result of simply radicalizing the base against Obama and the Democrats. In turn, Democrats turned more partisan as well. This would itself not have been an issue until Trump was elected, and has thoroughly ruined political discourse in the country by completely dividing Americans into 'loyalists' versus 'The Enemy.' The issue is getting exacerbated, not cured, mostly because the system has changed to favor extremist pandering and none of the political compromise that is actually necessary for good governance or confidence in political institutions. Consider the divide in media consumption based on one's political preference. Probably the most striking part of America society and its politics is how absolutely delusional each side is about one another. There's little to no understanding about how the other end feels. Coming out of a Democrat administration, the right-wing forces that propelled Trump (Breitbart, internet personalities, Bannon, Yiannopoulos) were especially bad (YET EFFECTIVE, can't deny that) about portraying a cartoonish idea about 'the Left' and perpetuating cultural grievances/race-baiting. The polarization has gotten so bad that the most radical, poisonous elements of the right-wing spectrum are not being sufficiently recognized by those who just consider themselves Trump supporters or typical Republicans. To illustrate this, consider the tragedy at Charlottesville, where the endless feedback loop of cultural grievance and moral relativism led to a murderer's mother not even being aware her son was in a white supremacist organization versus a regular Trump rally. The more extreme organizations are always seeking normalization, and there's pretty good evidence they're going to get somewhere under this administration if things don't change soon.

The shoe could well be on the other foot come next election. But this is the new normal. It's less likely Trump's man-child antics disappear and get replaced by someone more presidential, and more likely someone savvy to 'the game' like Senator Tom Cotton will step in to replace him. The Trump administration is a whole new level of incompetence compared to past administrations, but this itself is not really noteworthy if it wasn't coupled with the extreme polarization of the electorate, making endless excuses for it. The scandals of the Trump administration have been normalized by one side and absolutely outrage the other, even though under any other administration there would be far more diligence and scrutiny over such issues by the majority of Americans and the media, not just one side. My particular specialty is in foreign policy. I won't go into details but the near-comic bumbling of Trump officials when it comes to dealing with other countries and their envoys is already legendary. Virtually nobody else would make these mistakes. Yet the American public is divided on a sports-team-esque basis, and thus simple questions like 'Should someone like Tom Price have ever been approved for his job?' go ignored in favor of cheerleading.

So, no, this isn't normal. The politicization of the Special Counsel, by its nature Independent, out of fear it will cost one party votes or face should never be considered normal. But it's going to be. This is not some aberration in American history: this is just how it's going to be. For a while, at least. Likely through the next administration, too.

Hope this helps!

These are small books by Joseph Stalin on Marxist philosophy.

Dialectical and Historical Materialism

[Marxism and the National Question] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/149059065X/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_sims_2)

It's a popular argument on the internet that "communism has never been tried."

This is wrong. Communism has been attempted. Clearly, the largest attempt was not successful. Still, emerging governments all over the world attempt to create communist governments. In many cases, despite its failures, the theoretical outline of a communist government allows for the strongest case of independence from the largest ruling/imperial/colonial powers on earth (IE the united states). For this reason, people will continue to attempt to create communist influenced governments.

Edit: You don't seem to understand that I'm giving you an out here. I'm basically making every argument for you that you can still hold right political beliefs and not be default a nazi. I'm even fucking pointing out the history of anti-semitism in the communist party. I'm pointing out problems that communist governments have caused.

I'm not even trying to justify people like Chavez. I'm not bringing up that health care was universal under the soviets. I'm not talking about how Chavez oversaw the development of the best AIDS treatment program in the developing world. I'm not bringing up that his model was adopted practically all over the planet as the most affordable and effective plan for AIDS treatment.

All I'm trying to do is get you to understand that the Nazis were on the right. I'm not saying you're a Nazi. I've made the case for you to still hate progressives and communists and Marxists. All I'm trying to do is to get you to understand how the political compass is laid out. That's it.

Youtube Link

Speaker: Srdja Popovic's Facebook

Documentary about the Serbian Nonviolent movement (includes Speaker)

Description
>2011 was a year of extraordinary people-powered resistance, starting with Arab Spring and spreading across the world. How did this resistance work so well? At TEDxKrakow, Srdja Popovic (who led the nonviolent movement that took down Milosevic in Serbia in 2000) lays out the plans, skills and tools each movement needs -- from nonviolent tactics to a sense of humor.

Link to the book he mentions

Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict

Description
>For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals. By attracting impressive support from citizens, whose activism takes the form of protests, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other forms of nonviolent noncooperation, these efforts help separate regimes from their main sources of power and produce remarkable results, even in Iran, Burma, the Philippines, and the Palestinian Territories.

>Combining statistical analysis with case studies of specific countries and territories, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detail the factors enabling such campaigns to succeed and, sometimes, causing them to fail. They find that nonviolent resistance presents fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement and commitment, and that higher levels of participation contribute to enhanced resilience, greater opportunities for tactical innovation and civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for a regime to maintain its status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents' erstwhile supporters, including members of the military establishment.

>Chenoweth and Stephan conclude that successful nonviolent resistance ushers in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war. Presenting a rich, evidentiary argument, they originally and systematically compare violent and nonviolent outcomes in different historical periods and geographical contexts, debunking the myth that violence occurs because of structural and environmental factors and that it is necessary to achieve certain political goals. Instead, the authors discover, violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds.
>
>
.

>TL;DR nonviolent demonstrations, rather than violent ones, lead to better outcomes.

I would encourage you to consider the work of Sam Wang at Princeton. Also, nonpartisan experts like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote in 2012 about the issue of Republicans changing the rules to protect partisan Republican advantages in legislatures. This research is not conclusive, but there is ample evidence to support my contention that the benefits of incumbency and redrawing of district boundaries gave Republicans advantages in the 2012 Congressional election.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/02/03/slaying-the-gerrymander/

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Russians-History-Geoffrey-Hosking/dp/0674011147

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861749&sr=1-2

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861920&sr=1-1

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

http://www.amazon.com/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Experiments/dp/0452287448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300862132&sr=1-1

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

I agree that it is better than the current system of taxation and is more logical than income tax. However, I still see land as a commodity to be bought and sold, just like any other commodity, even if its supply is limited. Gold and Bitcoin, among other things, are also limited in supply yet they shouldn't be taxed as if you own some, it's yours. But once again yes, I would prefer a land value tax over income, sales, capital gains, etc. taxes. The concept is closer to libertarian ideals especially if it's the only tax that exists.

As per books that I'd recommend, it would be good to start with Choice
Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action
By Robert P. Murphy. http://www.independent.org/publications/books/summary.asp?id=116

If you want something a little bit more extreme but is still incredibly good philosophically, and exposes a lot of misconceptions and lies in American society, try Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto by Rockwell Jr. and Llewellyn H.: https://www.amazon.com/Against-State-Anarcho-Capitalist-Llewellyn-Rockwell/dp/0990463109 This is the equivalent of Karl Marx's communist manifesto, but for ancaps :)

If you look at the sort of "ancap reading list" it's a bit daunting at first, especially the economic tomes.

So to start off there's actually a GREAT book by Lew Rockwell(I say great because it's amazing at exposing you to the simplicity of these ideas without totally overwhelming you):
https://www.amazon.com/Against-State-Anarcho-Capitalist-Llewellyn-Rockwell/dp/0990463109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494264932&sr=8-1&keywords=against+the+state

> Do you want to cut environment laws to save a few bucks.

The EPA and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) seem out of control. This was an interesting and enlightening read: https://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullies-Everyday-Americans-Imprisoned/dp/1455522775

> Remove labour laws to allow corporations to have a stronger control over their employees.

I don't subscribe to the need for extensive labor laws. As long as people are not compelled (slave labor) it's just another voluntary trade. With the information we now have at our fingertips, IMO, the risk of abuse is much lower than it may have been at one time. The ad-hoc economy that seems to be popping up (Uber/Lyft/AirBnB/Private Amazon Delivery) seems to be another indicator that there will be many opportunities to essentially work for yourself.

> Honestly if benefits could be offloaded to the government in a universal sustem like universal healthcare based on the taxes on income and letting stares decide the way they want it to function, it removes another cost to businesses and simplifies the healthcare issue.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Have you ever dealt with medicaid, medicare or social security? I think the answer is again with private industry not government. Where I do agree is decoupling health insurance from employment. I think a compelling argument can be made that private industry can provide catastrophic insurance (much less expensive than today's plans) and people can save and pay for their own health care or purchase a gap insurance. I'd like to see how a less molested market affects the pricing of care and drugs.

Preexisting conditions is the nut I think no one has been able to crack as the safety net eliminates the need for paying anything until you are diagnosed. The state answer seems to be to force everyone to pay, even the young and healthy. I disagree with the government compelling action like this.

At a fundamental level I view government as mostly unnecessary in everyday affairs. For those that feel uncomfortable at the thought I can relate the this best via analogy. There are big differences between ebay and craigslist. Both have differing control and feedback mechanisms yet both can be used safely by taking different types of precautions. Users know the relative risks and consequences of craigslist (no reputation to rely on, potential shady characters, no refunds) and adapt to those risks for the opportunity and/or the savings. Ebay may make people feel more secure, but you're paying for that security and it is by no means required, nor is it inherently unsafe to use craigslist, just requires different behavior. The flaw in the analogy is that ebay's services are generally not priced ridiculously and they are held to a standard of profitability while the government has no such standard and waste and graft is everywhere.

Re: the prison industrial complex, I share your concern but can't suggest I know enough about the details to offer any value. Intuitively it seems there's massive potential for corruption. And the incarceration rate seems strangely high. Perhaps having less laws to break would be a good start.

Hello OP, I too am looking for a community that engaged in discussions revolving around Chinese politics. I don't think this one, or Sino are good at that. This one seems to be more complaining about living in China with the occasional politics topic, and Sino seems like it is run by Chinese bots praising everything China does. Anyways PM me if you find a community that discusses politics. In terms of getting a better understanding; I think you should read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Politics-Jinping-Era-Reassessing/dp/0815726929/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Honestly, Chomsky's endless publication of one book after another -- so many books, all of them (outside his linguistics work) monotonously harping on the same narrow range of subjects -- make me think that monetization is exactly what's going on. If you really care about an audience rather than making money, stick that shit online for free.

In high school I owned all four of the books in this omnibus volume (reissue, repackage, repackage) and I'm delighted by the sheer self-righteousness in some of the reviews on that page. "The comfortable lies spread by the media!"

The masses in Venezuela ARE smack in the middle of a revolution, which is exactly why the "international community" and capitalist press (not to mention the national bourgeoisie) have been so ruthless with them.

It's a little bit outdated but this is the best book I know on Venezuela. Also recommend following the news at www.venezuelanalysis.com

Maybe not vital, I think you could get by with this if you don't have the time or enthusiasm for theory to read Capital. But it's an important book, and if you have any interest in being a well read Marxist, you might as well read what is essentially his magnum opus because you're going to end up reading 1000 plus pages of Marx anyway.

I recommend Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism, 1827-1908. If you want to know how and why libertarianism was created by socialists.

I think your labels are pretty arbitrary, as labels tend to be and none of them would be self applied except your own. But I have to ask, if actual socialists want to take over the gov't and give the power back to the people - do you mean individual people, or some sort of government called
"the people"? You guys say the failed history of socialism shouldn't concern us, so I want to be clear: who do you mean by "the people". And what power specifically are you talking about?

And lastly, how do you stop capitalism without a state? How do you control the actions of individuals trading together for profit on a macro or micro scale without resorting to state coercion?

Value, Price, and Profit + Wage-Labor and Capital are a great introduction to Marx's critique of political economy. You can find both on marxists.org or in print for only 8$ US (both pieces in one book) https://www.amazon.ca/Wage-Labour-Capital-Value-Price-Profit/dp/0717804704

Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value, Price and Profit is a very short booklet which covers basic Marxist economics. Das Kapital is Marx's Magnum Opus, so if you want to really get into the weeds, that is what you should read.

Professor Wolffs books are all very good, Democracy at Work as well as Capitalism's Crisis Deepens are both good and straightforward to read.

Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent is necessary reading to understand how the media has crucified leftist theory and pushed an anti-communist, anti-socialist message for decades.

Stop believing the media bias. Here is a book he wrote that pretty clearly outlines his foreign policy vision. This vision informs his goals, and his presidential run has been largely driven by his proposed solutions; like the temporary immigration ban, the Wall, renegotiation of trade deals.

You dont get to where Trump is right now by being clueless. Honestly it sounds a little like projection to me.

>It always seemed like a purely emotional rather than logical anger toward the communists which annoyed me.

Of course it is entirely natural and understandable that innocents would be angry about the deportations, but that doesn't mean they weren't necessary

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Marxism-National-Question-Joseph-Stalin/dp/149059065X

This is the translation I have and it's pretty good

Suggested reading from greatandpowerfulOZ

The American Conservative

Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk (or anything by Kirk for that matter). Doesn't really delve too far economically speaking, but his philosophical and ideological underpinnings should glean light into how a conservative feels an economy should operate.

• Mentioned before, but the Road to Serfdom is a decent choice as well.
  
  
• I, personally am not a fan of Friedman as his neoliberal outlook seems to be coming apart at the seams. However, many will mention him and as many of his views tend to guide the economic policies of many Conservatives you should read up on him as well.
  
  
• I like Wilhelm Roepke.
  
  

The recommended section is just a treasure trove of amazing garbage:

Ben Shapiro

Mike Thernovich

Vox Day

This dumbass

The_Alinsky_fearer has logged on

Trump as a soviet worker

Sharia law is coming to your chipolte

The adventures of Hitler

Scott Adams: Failing is actually success

Are any of these claims...wrong?

For example, take:

> Anti-conservative sentence of the oped: " the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t." Hmm.


This isn't a hot take from Krugman. It's conventional wisdom in political science. See https://voteviewblog.com/2015/06/10/more-on-assymmetric-polarization-yes-the-republicans-did-it/ or https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Things aren't as bad in Venezuela as most news stories make out. The majority of the issues are with the upper classes of Venezuela.

• They are less able to exploit the poorer part of the society. Who since Hugo Chavez have found more independence in a commune-like system where villages tend to form local governments around a particular industry, farming, brick making, etc.
  
• The hiccup in the oil industry making their exchange rates less lucrative.
  
• The widespread exodus of many of the younger affluent people to other more modern nations. Further damaging the exchange rate as there are fewer specialist businesses to prop up the currency.
  
  While it might cost a months salary to buy a luxury import like olive oil. The local producers are still selling eggs for 10p a dozen, and kilos of veg for similar prices. It's not a life of luxury, but after several years of "food shortages" isn't it strange how there are no walking skeletons.
  
  It's propaganda put out by the wealthy class - that tend to be descended from the wealthy spanish colonials. They don't like that those who are descended from indigenous people don't respect the fences the colonials built.
  
  Now the colonials that left Caracas - known as the "city of goodbyes" due to the weekly farewell parties they would have as people left - are returning with Haliburton and Blackwater to take a shot at Venezuelas oil reserves.
  
  Though if this coup goes anything like the one that saw Chavez imprisoned, it will be over in 24 hours when the people come out to protest.
  
  Check out Building the Commune for a brief history of post-revolution Venezuela. I'm sure it has a slight bias, but I read it specifically for that reason. To try and counter balance the clear bias of western media trying to drum up support for another Latin American coup.

This "professor" also wrote a book expounding the virtues of Venezuelan socialism. I wonder how much debt in student loans have gone to support this nutbar.

Edit: found the book on Amazon, the reviews are hilarious: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238

This is a good start, though not all encompassing on this topic, obviously. Here is an interesting excerpt from his book Chomsky on Anarchism. I would really reccomend picking up a copy of How The World Works which is a short compilation of a broad range of his ideas and analysis. It's taken from interviews, so it's a quicker read then most of his stuff. If you need any more pointing, just ask!

Providing a Community Safe from TITrCJ's Sexual Advances Since October 2015.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238/ref=la_B00BMT5ULC_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491033413&sr=1-2#customerReviews "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBuilding-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela%2Fdp%2F1784782238%2Fref%3Dla_B00BMT5ULC_1_2%3Fs%3Dbooks%26ie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1491033413%26sr%3D1-2%23customerReviews "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

I really wish someone other than Vox day would, effectively, re-write this book. His name has so much baggage that you can't just hand a copy out to normies.

​

Looking at his related books... (Holy shit, linking these are a nightmare due to Amazon's tracking buillshit in the URLs)

https://smile.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-ebook/dp/B00L9B7IRC/

https://smile.amazon.com/How-Trump-SJWs-Alinskys-Radicals-ebook/dp/B01JFOM1LM/

https://smile.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Warrior-Handbook-Millennials-ebook/dp/B074N6968P/

https://smile.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans-ebook/dp/B008GULMDK/

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Church-Ladies-Extremely-Uptight-ebook/dp/B06VVHV1DX/

​

Nothing short and to the point, but some good stuff there for normies to read.

Federalist 39.

Also, Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett is a great commentary on the subject.

Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett is a fantastic discussion of the history of the Constitution and how it has evolved over time.

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Republican-Constitution-Securing-Sovereignty/dp/0062412280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497708785&sr=8-1&keywords=randy+barnett

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.

A book I just finished reading for my AP Gov & Pol class seems to be relevant here. It outlines some key congressional issues, especially the overuse of filibusters and failed old tactics we keep trying to reuse. It was a pretty good read, especially for something so critical. I'll put up a pdf of my summary i had to write for it if you guys want.
EDIT: Added a few words.

They are not about reasonable, work together, get a functioning government.

They are about "oppose anything the Democrats suggest, all the time."

(Except for trade deals, of course.)

This is a pretty good book about it. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Are you serious? I was of the idea that he is a lefty that was trying to work out the details of communism. The person who informed me about him was from the r/Anarchism101 subreddit. Can you link a source where he was transphobic? He mentioned in one of his videos that he is writing a book titled How the World Works which is the same title as this Chomsky book idk if they are even tangentially related, but I had a preconceived image of him that sounds like it’s not true based of your response.

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Brilliant book that takes a very serious look in to both sides over the last decade. It's written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein who have spend decades studying congress and pride them selves on being as non partisan as they can.

Edit: Didn't read the part about not being too wordy and this most likely falls in to that category. Excerpt Going to leave this here for others though.

I don't have any off the top of my head, but I own (have yet to do any substantial reading of) a book called Fight Club Politics that goes back to pre-Lewinsky era Gingrich and talks about how this poison has been seeping through Congress for a long time. There's also a similar book called It's Even Worse Than It Looks which I haven't read, but I'm lead to understand (by reviews and, among other things, the title) that despite the American electorate believing collectively that on some level all of this is just political theater, that this is actually really really bad partisanship.

Those might not be exactly what you're looking for, but they're surely in the right vein. The other thing when it comes to Obama to remember is that he's black. I'm not saying that everyone who opposes him is an old-fashioned, biological racist. Many are what's referred to sometimes in microaggression theory as "symbolic" racists (whereas when conservatives accuse liberals of being "the real racists" they're accusing them of being "aversive" racists. It's a different thing).

When Obama got elected, he ran on a platform of "hope and change". I think this scared a lot of white people, because for white people, they don't need much hope and they don't want change because things have been going pretty well for them. If you don't recall (I'm not sure how old you are), the rhetoric coming from the right was not far off the shaking in the boots that we're seeing Linsey Graham doing now over ISIS. Obama was going to come for your guns, and then give all your money to the (lazy) black people, and that's based on socialism. Etc. etc. etc... Worse, socialism takes away FREEDOM and, in modern practices has involved DICTATORS, which is likely how people came to a lot of these crazy conclusions.

I'm not sure exactly where in the last 25 or so years--I'm sure it talks about in the books that I mentioned--the word liberal became this weird pejorative. It's funny to me, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty so I'm proud to call myself liberal and progressive, but whenever someone starts saying "The liberals" or better yet "those libs", I know they're about to spout some baller-level ignorance. My point is, somehow liberals became un-American to the true patriots.

In fact, watch Jon Stewart's clip from last week ripping Fox News for the latte-salute while followed immediately by the awful boobs-on-the-ground joke. "Fuck your false patriotism" he says. It's pretty powerful, and he doesn't pull any punches.

So yeah, I'm sure someone has done better research on it than me, but combine all those toxic elements and you've got the people convinced that Obama is the Antchrist.

Archives for the links in comments:

• By Aurondarklord (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.fo/mIdlv
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/onw0b
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/ZMRBw
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/BcccR
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/cBwOc
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/N0Rpx
  
• By Kia-Ca-T_D-bot (123rf.com): http://archive.fo/sVvqT
  
• By interfader (campusreform.org): http://archive.fo/oCKSa
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I rate this link 3 out of 5 stars, "it was ok" ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

His commie books are taking a hit on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238

"In Venezuela, poor barrio residents arose in a mass rebellion against neoliberalism, ushering in a government that institutionalized the communes already forming organically. In Building the Commune, George Ciccariello-Maher travels through these radical experiments, speaking to a broad range of community members, workers, students and government officials. Assessing the projects’ successes and failures, Building the Commune provides lessons and inspiration for the radical movements of today."

While you're right that both parties have done some terrible things, technically, the Republicans are demonstrably MORE culpable in this bullshit. I highly recommend this book. It's pretty damning.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Whenever people make this false equivalency, it shows their lack of understanding of how Republicans have governed over the past 30 years.

If you're serious, I've heard good things about the book "Run for Something." I haven't read it myself, but it's a guide for getting involved and elected at a local level.

>It takes leadership and compromise to overcome differences in politics. Republicans are representing their constituents as well as the Democrat elected are doing the same.

>Get over it guys, this is normal. This is politics, this is the american way. Like it or leave it.

Actually, the filibuster has been used more during Obama's term than ever before. It is worse than it used to be.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Story-Skull-Press/dp/1593764278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368251410&sr=1-1&keywords=noam+chomsky+how+the+world+works

Facts are the Overton Window in the US has shifted far to the right.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right

For further reading:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/%7Ejcampbel/documents/LaymanCarseyReview2006.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Ideologies-Parties-Cambridge-Psychology/dp/110762052X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441497124&sr=8-1&keywords=hans+noel&pebp=1441497107719&perid=0VZBRMD97S0YE83XXXX6

https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-History-Political-Social-Science/dp/0486478505

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_O3gnDbK18SCMD

E as suas fontes quais são? Até agora você também só fez afirmações sem fontes, eu pelo menos posso apelar pra anedota, né? Mas já que a minha análise não é o suficiente pra você, segue uma fonte acadêmica:

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ideologies-Parties-Cambridge-Psychology/dp/110762052X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441497124&sr=8-1&keywords=hans+noel&pebp=1441497107719&perid=0VZBRMD97S0YE83XXXX6

I've been doing a lot of reading trying to figure out this election and why the heck we are so divided as a county:

https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Resentment-Consciousness-Wisconsin-American/dp/022634911X

https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250108691

https://www.amazon.com/Glass-House-Economy-Shattering-All-American/dp/1250085802

https://www.amazon.com/Colony-Nation-Chris-Hayes/dp/0393254224

https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

Against the State

From a bipartisan source (one expert from Brookings, another from the Heritage Foundation), actually it's true.

>When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

>“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

Research shows (book, book review) that

> For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were "more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals," the authors conclude.

It's even worse than it looks By Tomas Mann and Norman Ornstien is all about Republican obstructionism and how polarized our political system has become. There's plenty of evidence and specific examples in there, especially the first chapter.

And I'm telling you right now tthat you are completely wrong. This is exactly what I was talking about.

People with no actual experience or understanding of the subject using "both sides" arguments.

If you're actually interested in learning something here, I have a few books that will explain the real situation.

https://www.amazon.com/Uncivil-Agreement-Politics-Became-Identity/dp/022652454X

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

These are both very well written and not so partisan.

One simply has to look at voting records to dispel "both sides."

Also read Mann and Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism to understand why 'our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”'



https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

No, there isn't. The stated strategy of the house Republicans from the day Obama was elected was to not compromise and try to thwart the new administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

No amount of wineing and dining was going to get the House Republicans to deal.

Look at the book "Its even worse than it looks" by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Goes thru in detail how every negotiation was blown up by the younger house leaders for political gain, not for the good of the country.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

There's a great book by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that explains a lot of the problems we face today in terms of partisanship. There are a few factors that caused both parties, but especially the republicans, to move to the extremes starting in the 1970's. They include:

The "Reagan Revolution" which brought social and religious conservatives together with fiscal conservatives.

Newt Gingrich, who encouraged GOP Congress members to avoid talking with Democrats or face severe repercussions. He later led the 1994 Contract with America.

The election of Barack Obama, who the conservative movement hates for a variety of reasons. Politicians are feeding off that hate.

Money in politics has made Republicans at the whim of major corporations, which paralyzes progress.

That's my response for the moment. I'll upvote and mention anyone who has something better.

EDIT: formatting and grammar

I think that this question, and many other forms of it, has a faulty premise.

It is not necessary to resort to violence as a first response. One can, in fact, respond to threats and violent movements in many ways.

See also:

• "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" by Chenoweth and Stephan
  
• "Why I am a Pacifist" by Tim Gee

Perhaps, but the average person also the sort of idiot who watches reality TV. That's the problem.

And it's frankly ridiculous to cast Democrats and Republicans as equally crazy. False equivalence. California is run by competent people who live in the real world, even if you disagree with their specific policy priorities. States like Kansas are run by people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the way to stop teenage pregnancy is to not tell them how to avoid it.

Even if you think the deregulation of licensing organizations should be prioritized, for example, you can't possible see the Republicans as a rationally equivalent organization. They've gone off the deep end.

Don't take my word for it. Ask actual conservatives.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331