Books NOT to read.

[Red Flag]

There are many threads here with suggestions of books to read, but I haven't seen anything recommending books to steer clear of. I'll start off by mentioning a few books I wish I'd never wasted the time reading:

"Caribbean Revolutions and Revolutionary Theory" by Brian Meeks
"Marxism and Socialist Theory" M. Albert and Robin Hahnel

[Hegemonicretribution]

The concept of this thread seems to be largely destructive. I am sure over at Adamsmith.org or something they would include the manifesto and others in a similar thread. I realise this may not of been your initial intention, but chances are people will include things they simply didn't agree with.

[Red Flag]

Well that surely wasn't my aim, so I hope it doesn't degenerate into that. I meant books that you think just aren't worth reading for reasons like they are factually incorrect, right-wing propaganda, etc.


I am sure over at Adamsmith.org or something they would include the manifesto and others in a similar thread.

I think capitalists study Marxist economics, probably not the extent they used to, but never the less.

[rioters bloc]

i think it's good to read right wing propaganda so we know what we're up against. like, i read the books of this guy called keith windschuttle[ who's this revisionist who is trying to say that the slaughter of indigenous australians by british settlers didn't take place :rolleyes:] so that i'm aware of his arguments and can fight against them if anyone tries to use any of that shit on me.

if i had all the time in the world, i'd read every book i could, just because there's such a wealth of information out there [whether its right or not is another thing altogether] and i wanna know what ideas are floating around. even though so much of it makes me angry and frustrated and makes me wanna smash stuff.

[Black Dagger]

The black book of communism! Urgh, i had to read sections of it for a course i took last year, it's soooooooooooooo horribly written. The authors distort source evidence, it's presentist and subjective to its core- the most frustrating reading experience i've ever had. Don't bother!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2005, 05:56 AM
I think capitalists study Marxist economics, probably not the extent they used to, but never the less.
More is the pitty. I do not agree with what I read, but I can't think of major right wing economic works I would suggest avoiding. I read Smith, Hayeck, von Mises and many others because I found them beneficial to my understanding of both my position and theirs.

Even horribly written books in my oppinion are of worth in the sense that you can see how people's perception differs. I am probably not the best person to post here, but I a massive advocater of written ideas, even counte-revolutionary or unMarxist ones because I have not found anything I have come accross entirely useless.

[More Fire for the People]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince -- the author really butched this book. ;)

[Guerrilla22]

Any and all books you were given in high school.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:08 PM
Any and all books you were given in high school.
ahem, beowulf.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:13 PM
Any and all books you were given in high school.
I got a lot of decent books to study in high school: 1984, To Kil Amockinbird, Shakespeare, Keats...my politics teacher turned me on to Mill (not a real fan but worth reading). Did you get no good books at school?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Nov 14 2005, 07:36 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Nov 14 2005, 07:36 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 10:13 PM
Any and all books you were given in high school.
I got a lot of decent books to study in high school: 1984, To Kil Amockinbird, Shakespeare, Keats...my politics teacher turned me on to Mill (not a real fan but worth reading). Did you get no good books at school? [/b]
We just started reading "To Kill A Mockingbird". I'm not really into it as of page 22. Is it good?

[which doctor]

We just started reading "To Kill A Mockingbird". I'm not really into it as of page 22. Is it good?

I thought it was good when I read it last year.

I read many good books in school.

[Pawn Power]

the Bible

never read it in full; some amusing fairy tales, but nothing useful. Except some lines here and there for discrediting.

[FatFreeMilk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:36 PM
Did you get no good books at school?
Hmm most of em are good if you take the advanced classes. But The Cantebury Tales and Macbeth are shit.

There are no books, not even the bible, that are worth not reading. None.

[Guerrilla22]

I was talking about the text boks they give you and even the ones in the so called advanced classes are capitalist bullshit put out by the government.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:09 AM
I was talking about the text boks they give you and even the ones in the so called advanced classes are capitalist bullshit put out by the government.
I took the highest level possible in everything I did at school, so perhaps I can't comment otherwise, but I didn't find it that full of shit. When I did politics and economics A-Levels however I eventually dropped both after As year because they were bullshit.

The books were poorly weighted, but had value in that aspect alone, as an example of how prejudiced the school system is. Fuck the prescription nonesense in that sense, but that has more to do with examining boards and government.

My advice at school is not to ever take politics or economics, sociology or philosophy or less inherently biased options. If you want absolute agreement on texts then perhaps math is better.

What I was presented with at school was shit, but often teachers will point you towards texts they studied during their degree if you ask them. You may not like it but at least Hayeck is better than "Billy the bullshitter's presentation of the infallible mixed economy"

[Guerrilla22]

Math and other subject s are pretty straight forward, but in subjects like government, history and economics the text they give you are pure propaganda bullshit. Plus I went to high school in an ultra conservative area, so my teachers were all full of shit. Also "advanced classes" really aren't all that more advanced than what everyone else is taking. Schools like to create heirarchies or caste systems to help better control the students. OIf course you probaly won't realize this untill you are well out of high school, which many on this board are not.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:27 PM
Schools like to create heirarchies or caste systems to help better control the students. OIf course you probaly won't realize this untill you are well out of high school, which many on this board are not.
I partially agree with most of this. However there were the exceptions to the rule, myself included. The hierarchies generally were behaviourly motivated, and class division was clear, but despite mine and other's difference to rest of the class we were maintained there against the will of the teacher. The headmaster used to veto teacher's attemtpts to remove us because test scores were too high.

It is like our current system a few can break through, but no where near enough. Not many working class will be a millionaire and not many will get straight A's.

I do agree that I realised much of this with hindsight, I had been out for well over a year before what I had went through struck a chord.

[Pawn Power]

There are no books, not even the bible, that are worth not reading. None.

However one cannot possibly read ever book out there, so some books are more beneficial to read then others. Some books you just shouldn'y spend the time reading when there are much more worthwhile books available. So I wouldn't mind if commarads told me what books not read in order to save myself the trouble.

[Led Zeppelin]

There are no books, not even the bible, that are worth not reading. None.

How about Mein Kampf?

[Reds]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 27 2005, 01:20 PM

There are no books, not even the bible, that are worth not reading. None.

How about Mein Kampf?
What do you have aginst childrens books? :lol:

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 15 2005, 03:00 AM
the Bible

never read it in full; some amusing fairy tales, but nothing useful. Except some lines here and there for discrediting.
What a shame, it was Marxs favorite book, he took alot of our manifesto from that book...

[Led Zeppelin]

Do you have a source for that?

I doubt it.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Anything by Ayn Rand unless you want a headache and to be pissed off.

[Delirium]

Ayn Rand is bullshit but can be interesting. I'm reading 'For The New Intellectual' at the moment but i doubt i'll be able to finish it, she is incredibly hard to follow. All her crap about atilla and the witch doctor,it makes me laugh.

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 27 2005, 06:06 PM
Do you have a source for that?

I doubt it.
Any biography on Marx, and the Communist Manifesto.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a quote directly from the bible you know....

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:41 PM
...Macbeth [is] shit.
I do not understand why in high school we are forced to read plays by William Shakespeare. They are perhaps the most demoralising of texts that students come across, what with their obscure language and stories that I have never found much relevance in. The content harks to centuries before and I find them very alienating.

In all seriousness, if anyone can give me a compelling reason to study Shakespeare I would certainly like to hear it. Perhaps I really am wrong and there is plenty to take out of the Shakespearean experience.

I guess that means that I recommend you do not read anything by William Shakespeare, to answer the thread creator's question.

[Pawn Power]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a quote directly from the bible you know....

It is not a direct quote from the bible. Yes, one can draw loose parallels between some of the statements from the manifesto and statements in the bible, however the manifesto was not fashioned from the bible.

[Hegemonicretribution]

To the guys criticising Ayn Rand: The best way (short of removing their tongue) of silencing one of her supporters is to know their shit better than them, along with an improved approach. That way they have nothing to hide behind, everything they have read, you have read.

On Shakespeare: As with most books in school, they aren't bad but school kills it for you. I came to appreciate some of it indeendently, although his comedy is often a little lame nowadays, and his mixed genre later plays sucked.

On Marx and the bible: Likening the irreligious ideology of Marxism to religion is nothing new. Even if liturgical references were drawn knowingly, Marx did not intend his work to be viewd like this. You can give it whatever meaning you want, but it has been explained that what was intended, by the writer, is the adverse of what you appear to be imlying here?

Actually what the fuck are you imlying KGB?

[Purple]

We are tought about Old, Middle, and Early(Shakespear) because it shows the foundation of the language, and gives better understanding! Beowulf is a pretty good book though, lots of gore and killing! Othello is the best drama Ive ever read, a book/play modern writers should take influence by! I read Catcher In The Rye in high school and it is by far my favorite book! Holden Caulfield being the anti-authoriterian resisting the expectations of the mature society, and he ends up being institutionalized! Yey!! Have only read the class 11 & 12 books as I moved to an English speaking country just a few months ago!

back to subject; steer away from "Serious Creativity", by Edward De Bono, a book that explains a formula to higher creativity! Its freakin' frustrating! The Six Hats is a good adversary for it though!

[FatFreeMilk]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 27 2005, 06:26 AM

There are no books, not even the bible, that are worth not reading. None.

How about Mein Kampf?
I'd read that just to know first hand what that nut was spreading around. So yeah, even that book is worthy of a read. I didn't say that people should read crazy ass books and take in and believe every word that is said. Hell no.



In all seriousness, if anyone can give me a compelling reason to study Shakespeare I would certainly like to hear it. Perhaps I really am wrong and there is plenty to take out of the Shakespearean experience.
Maybe they make us read him because he influenced later authors or some shit. But reading Romeo and Juliet was enough (actually I got the translated version and only read (partly anyways) from the left page) so the reason for making us read MacBeth was for their own sick pleasure.

[gewehr_3]

I have read parts of mein kampf in one on my political ideologies books and i could NOT sit through the whole thing
I almost barfed. the whole part of "bowlegged jewish bastards seducing our women"
its just a bunch of shit

[Led Zeppelin]

Any biography on Marx, and the Communist Manifesto.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a quote directly from the bible you know....

No it isn't.

And I agree with Hegemonicretribution, what are you trying to imply?

[Wiesty]

The way i see it is, read books that are "Pro" Capitalist, and if you finish them with an even deeper hate for capitalism/fascism/etc, then you are a true leftist.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I bought Das Kapital with The Wealth of Nations ,
I'm done with Das Kapital, however I never touched The wealth of Nations because I get the feeling it's archaic , and Marx already explained capitalist economics in his book.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 30 2005, 01:55 AM
I bought Das Kapital with ,
I'm done with [i] Das Kapital, however I never touched The wealth of Nations because I get the feeling it's archaic , and Marx already explained capitalist economics in his book.
I am sure some caitalists have explained Marxist economics ;). The Wealth of Nations is quite easy going, easier to read than the Manifesto even, albeit longer. I really benifited from reading that book, and as well as reinforces my economic views it presented me with a few new weaknesses in the text I have never seen a right winger take up.

Even reading one book of it a week is worth it, it doesn't take long.

[Lamanov]

Not to read? There are no books which could be put in such a cathegory. When it comes to those that have put a mark (or they themselves represent a mark) on a certain era - such books are highly reccomendable.

I've read the Bible, I've read the Kur'an -- it was not such a waste of time.


I can't imagine what would have become of me if that 10 second gaze at the Lenin's State and Revolution* up on my mom's shelf almost 4 years ago was followed by the words: "that's probably a waste of time and a book not-to-read". :lol:


I agree with FatFreeMilk.

:cool:

(* note that it was a first leftist book I've read)