Myrhaf
I’m reading The Collected Short Stories of Maxim Gorky and The Lower Depths and Other Plays by Maxim Gorky. Gorky was a communist in Russia and an avid supporter of the revolution. He was also a great writer—quite fascinating, though a naturalist who focused on “the lower depths” of society.
Gorky wrote, “For me, I have no other than ‘Man.’ Man and Man alone, I believe, is the creator of all things and all ideas; it is he who accomplishes miracles, and in in the future, will become master of all the forces of nature. That which is most beautiful in nature has been created by the labor of Man, and his intelligent hand. The history of art, of the sciences, of technology teaches us that all out thoughts, our ideas emanate from the process of Labor. I bow down to Man.”
Other than the Marxism in the “process of Labor” line, I admire this statement. It would be reviled today by both the environmentalist left and the religious right; that’s good enough for me!
Gorky was poisoned by Stalin’s secret police in 1936.
I’m also reading Elizabeth and Essex by Lytton Strachey, an entertaining history of two drama queens. There was no internet or TV then, so Elizabeth and her court entertained themselves by creating drama in their lives. Elizabeth’s father, King Henry VIII, cut off her mother Anne Boleyn’s head when Elizabeth was three years old. “Daddy, where’s mommy?” That might explain why she never married—she knew what kings were capable of doing to a wife.
I read history always looking for play ideas. Elizabeth and Essex have been dramatized before, but the period might serve as a backdrop to a romantic drama.
Mike N
I just got 3 non-fiction books as gifts and am currently reading It’s the Sun, Not Your SUV By John Zyrkowski with subtitle “CO2 Won’t Destroy the Earth” with a forward by Peter Dietze who was an IPCC Reviewer. I’m finishing chapter one right now which looks at the so-called alternative, green energy sources, solar, wind, etc. The 2nd chapter asks “Why Buy This Book?” and intends to answer three questions:
- What will I learn?
- How will I learn it?
- What does it mean?
I’m intrigued because these questions are both metaphysical and epistemological in nature, contexts that need to be addressed. I look forward to the rest of this short, essentialized book—98 pages of text followed by references and two appendixes.
Bill Brown
State of Fear by Michael Crichton: people have recommended this book to me for years but I just couldn’t imagine a decent plot around debunking global warming theory. It’s been much better (read much more compelling) than I expected and the graphs and refutations aren’t distracting. I can’t imagine anyone reading it and being convinced about the global warming hype machine, but it’s nice to think that a major author got this published.
The Art of Non-Fiction by Ayn Rand and On Writing Well by William Zinsser: these seemed due for a re-read now that I’m doing more serious (and rigorous) blogging.
The Mystery of Capital by Hernando de Soto: I just got back from Ethiopia two weeks ago—I was adopting a baby boy from there—and I couldn’t understand why the country was so poor. Everywhere I looked people were working hard, small businesses seemed to be flourishing, and my agency contacts there assured me that government wasn’t oppressive. I’ve mulled all of this over ever since and I think de Soto’s book (subtitled “Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else”) might hold the key to unraveling the mystery. We shall see.
Authentic Happiness by Martin E.P. Seligman: I’m re-reading this after seeing it cited by Jean Moroney in a newsletter. I’m just looking for other practical tips to bolster my level of happiness.
Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan: this is available free online and I’m looking for a good primer on Austrian economics before I take the plunge and read Ludwig von Mises’ seminal works. I’ve tried to read Human Action several times before but always failed for lack of motivation. Perhaps after reading Callahan’s breezy introduction, I will feel like I want to read the deeper tomes.
For an intro to Austrian economics, I don’t think you can do better than the fountainhead of that school, Carl Menger’s book, Principles of Economics. He starts from the most basic level possible, and methodically, and very logically, builds up to a full theory of economics.
Bill: “. . . before I take the plunge and read Ludwig von Mises’ seminal works. I’ve tried to read Human Action several times before but always failed for lack of motivation.”
You have the virtue of ambition. My personal experience is that unless one’s central purpose in life is tied to its study, Mises’s Human Action, as a whole, may not be worth the enormous investment of time.
I did manage to get through it, Socialism, Bureaucracy, and a few other pieces–decades ago–but only by prescribing a small, set number of pages to read every day, day after day, month after month. There are gems in HA, but there is also a lot of material of little value to non-economists, in my experience (as a student of history).
Another possibility to consider: hire a tutor who knows such works and ask him to develop a simple reading program that will hit the main points. One such possibility, if he is still available for phone or email tutoring is Dr. Robert Garmong (PhD in philosophy, with a speciality in political economy).
The great thing about working with a tutor is that you can go where you want to go, not where a whole classroom of people are supposed to go.
I agree about Human Action. I’d probably start with some of the other books you’ve mentioned. He is very dry and I’m about five years out of grad school right now so it’s quite a context switch to read that style. However, reading Callahan’s book, I have seen some of those gems you refer to and I’m intrigued to know more.
I also mean to be better versed in the Austrian school generally, so Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, et al. are on the agenda.
I couldn’t get through Human Action. I read isolated chapters from it. The section on praxeology makes no sense to me. I would suggest people start with Mises’s shorter books for a general audience, such as collections of essays or speeches he wrote or delivered for the Foundation for Economic Education. Bureaucracy, Planned Chaos, and Omnipotent Government are all easier than his big books. Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson is the best place to start. Bastiat is an entertaining economist; he is the one who first wrote about “the seen and the unseen.”
Apparently, I have a copy of Principles of Economics that I didn’t know about. (I really need to catalog my library one of these years.)
Also, I never understood praxeology until I read Callahan’s explanation of it. I’ll find the relevant citation later, if you don’t mind.
“I’ve mulled all of this over ever since and I think de Soto’s book (subtitled “Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Elseâ€) might hold the key to unraveling the mystery.”
Your trip to Ethiopia sounds interesting. I’ve always wondered why some free market elements never penetrated Black Africa the way they did in the Orient. There has been no phenomenon of the “Asian Tigers” in Black Africa.
I know what the racialists and the “race realists” will say. They will say this is because of lower IQ and intellectual and cultural abilities for blacks. But I don’t buy that. So let us know if De Soto’s book adds anything to your understanding.
My guess is that Africa is just too steeped in mysticism (animism, Christianity, Islam), tribal collectivism and altruism. And it doesn’t help that liberal elites (mostly white) love treating Black Africans as a bunch of invalids with all their Angelina Jolie style “humanitarian” programs. I’ve read that all this “liberal guilt” style charity is working to prevent the foundations of self-responsibility from taking hold in Africa. There’s that whole unintended consequences thing again…
Bill Brown: In what respect does On Writing Well differ from Ayn Rand’s The Art of Non-fiction? How do they complement each other? (I have read Rand’s book.) I am always thinking of how to improve my writing in different ways. That is why I am asking. Thanks in beforehand!
Carl: I’ve just started both again. Offhand from my recollection of the last time I read them, they complement each other well in that OWW covers types of non-fiction that Ayn Rand does not. I’ll let you know when I’m a little further into them.
madmax: please contact me. Or check your spam/bulk mail/junk folder for emails from bill/at\bREMOVEbrown(dot)info please.
Bugger. I’m reading The Theory Of Money & Credit now – and I gave copies of it to my friends for Christmas!
If they’re anything like you, Bill Brown, they’ll not be best pleased…
But you know what? I for one am not actually finding it as difficult to follow as the book’s reputation might suggest.
“I also mean to be better versed in the Austrian school generally, so Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, et al. are on the agenda.”
Anyone who has found “Human Action” difficult is advised to stay away from Böhm-Bawerk.
“There are gems in HA, but there is also a lot of material of little value to non-economists, in my experience (as a student of history).”
I don’t understand that at all. Look: an enormous aspect of the problem with economics today is its laboratory isolation from real life. Economists generally think that we’re all ants who live in their little jars for us to experiment upon. A great deal of the value of “Human Action” is how it puts economics *back in its place*, and this requires a great deal of integration. Just for one example: his discussion of polylogism is probably total bloody anathema to almost all economists today, but the layman is seriously urged to grasp what it means. Once you understand it, there is a very low probability that you will hear popular media, for example, the same way ever again.
“Human Action” is for everyone. It is the philosophical counter-weight to “Das Kapital”, and I would remind everyone that it had enormous impact among “non-economists”.
>”‘Human Action’ is for everyone. It is the philosophical counter-weight to ‘Das Kapital’, and I would remind everyone that it had enormous impact among ‘non-economists’.”
Is that “impact” because “everyone” read Das Kapital–or because a relatively few people (intellectuals) read it and disseminated its key ideas?