Opposing Ideology Books

[The Young Pioneer]

This could go in Opposing Ideologies, too, sorry I wasn't sure whether to put it here or there.

What are some books you've read by authors of opposing ideologies (ie, not leftists/commies) that you:

A) Enjoyed (did you find anything you could agree with?)

or

B) Found nauseating (this one should be easy)

I feel like I don't read enough from authors I'd most likely disagree with- give me some recs! :)

[Ostrinski]

If you're looking for recs then this would definitely go better under OI

But I dunno. I've read a bit of Friedman and Hayek, they're kind of assholes though.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The Black Book of Communism is really bad. It's made by a bunch of liars.

[Caj]

Read the classical economists: Smith, Ricardo, Say, Turgot, etc. I'd also recommend reading Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, et al. Don't bother with Friedman, though. He's an overrated, pretentious sack of shit.

Also, I highly recommend Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own. Some might consider it contrary to collectivism, but that I think is a simplistic understanding of the text.

[Bronco]

Read most of Capitalism and Freedom, also have Hayek's the Road to Serfdom but I've only read the introduction in which he talks about how Socialism will inevitably lead to Fascism which hasn't exactly inspired me to read the rest of it

[Os Cangaceiros]

"The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko is one that I really liked. It posits itself (partially) as a critique of Marxism, but the author is pretty close to the left himself, although not a communist. In the last section of the book there's an extended critique of Marx/Engels that's pretty good.

[Deicide]

Mein Kampf. The entire book is essentially a delusional rant. You can't get more ''opposing ideology'' than Hitler.

[lombas]

I have actually liked some chapters of Mises' Bureaucracy. I also enjoyed some writings of Bastiat, and his dialogue with Proudhon. Turgot I think of as an important contributer to a line of thought Marx critiqued, and is a nice read (most of all: quite short, how I like my economics). I could also "recommend" Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

From Ayn Rand I only liked "Anthem" for its obscure meaning (only in the last chapter where she doesn't seem to be able to contain her objectivist drewling), the rest of her books I find utterly boring.

Somewhat closer to what set me thinking more leftist are the writings of Samuel Konkin (New Libertarian Manifesto) and Robert Lefevre (Nature of Man and His Government) who tickled my interest in starting to read Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Guérin, &c.

[lombas]

Mein Kampf. The entire book is essentially a delusional rant. You can't get more ''opposing ideology'' than Hitler.

It doesn't even make any sense. I got a copy at the university library once because we had to use it for a dissertation, and I had to buy Werner Maser's study of MK to get an idea of what Hitler actually means.

What importance such ambiguous, inflated, philosophically nonsensual load of contentless phrases might have on (neo)-nazists I really don't understand.

[l'Enfermé]

I read Bakunin's Das Kapital, but he didn't write, just translated it so does that count?

:laugh:

[Anarpest]

I read Bakunin's Das Kapital, but he didn't write, just translated it so does that count? Did Bakunin support capitalism?

[x359594]

Did Bakunin support capitalism?

No. He actually deferred to Marx as on economic questions and acknowledged Marx's explanation of capitalism as surpassing all previous accounts.

[MarxSchmarx]

What are some books you've read by authors of opposing ideologies (ie, not leftists/commies) that you:

A) Enjoyed (did you find anything you could agree with?)

or

B) Found nauseating (this one should be easy)

I feel like I don't read enough from authors I'd most likely disagree with- give me some recs! :)

anarchy state and utopia is both excellent and nauseating. You will be hard pressed to find a more cogent, earnest and sincere defense of capitalism in all its flaws in that heap of rubbish.

As to anything I agreed with - apart from the no brainer banalities on the desirability of mutual beneficiality, there wasn't much I agreed with in reading teh book. However, in looking back I have come to share Nozick's unease with the interaction between democracy and individual liberty, and I think that book provided a framework to really see the moral and not simply socioeconomic problems with modern liberal democracy.

[l'Enfermé]

No. He actually deferred to Marx as on economic questions and acknowledged Marx's explanation of capitalism as surpassing all previous accounts.
Aye. He also claimed that Marx's view on the State were the exact opposite of what Marx wrote in his main account of his views on the State, The Civil War in France.

Though you could say Bakunin did his share to support capitalism, as his disciples did much to insure that capitalism is preserved(not their intentions, of course, but a fact is a fact)

[Caj]

Though you could say Bakunin did his share to support capitalism, as his disciples did much to insure that capitalism is preserved(not their intentions, of course, but a fact is a fact)

And how did they do that exactly?