|
Browse categories
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended.
Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this]
Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended.
Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this]
Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide.
Open University A200 Set Book, 07 Dec 2008
If you're studying the Open University course A200 1400-1900 (From Medieval to Modern) then this book is a set book and you'll need it to complete the course. You'll rely heavily on the book throughout the earlier modules of the course, and an understanding of Wallace's views on the reformation(s) will hold you in good stead for the course final examination.
If you're not studying the course, then I'd suggest that you've got to be very interested in the period in question for this to be a must-have purchase. Wallace is clearly an expert on the period in question, however it's not an easy read for anyone other than a historian.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended. Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this] Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide. Open University A200 Set Book, 07 Dec 2008
If you're studying the Open University course A200 1400-1900 (From Medieval to Modern) then this book is a set book and you'll need it to complete the course. You'll rely heavily on the book throughout the earlier modules of the course, and an understanding of Wallace's views on the reformation(s) will hold you in good stead for the course final examination.
If you're not studying the course, then I'd suggest that you've got to be very interested in the period in question for this to be a must-have purchase. Wallace is clearly an expert on the period in question, however it's not an easy read for anyone other than a historian. A useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, 22 Sep 2008
I can only describe this particular edition of Wealth of Nations as a useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, mindful of the fact that there were five editions of this historically significant work. But then that's the beauty of this condensed compendium.
Most editions available in the market draw on Smith's Wealth of Nation Volume I (Of the causes of improvement), Volume II (Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock) and Volume III (Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations) at the most. However, this edition contains healthy inclusions from Book IV (Of Systems of political Economy) and Book V (Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth). For this alone, the editor Kathryn Sutherland deserves credit.
It is not a mouthful but a practical handy book on Wealth of Nations. Those who have never studied economics would enjoy reading it too if they are so inclined, especially students of history and philosophy. Since this is a complex work authored over two hundred years ago, the editor's footnotes and references enhance comprehension.
Yet the wonderful details of Smith's key thoughts have not been stifled in any way - working of the markets, division of labour, general prosperity, government and taxation are all there. In essence, Wealth of Nations remains a true classic and I found this edition of it to be an easy and enjoyable read. Overall, its a handy reference book to have on your bookshelf. where many things began, 16 May 2003
I loved this book, not for it's economic content but for it's wonderfully overarching principles and view of history, philosophy and economics. I have never studied economics in any way and read this book purely on it's historical importants, and yet I found it facinating. I would not say this is the book for anyone wanting to understand the complexeties of the modern ecomemy, interest rates, futures markets or whatever, but for those who whant a very complete and well thought out examination of how the human world is put together this work cannot be faulted. Though it was writeen over 2 centuries ago this edition makes perfect sence of the text without changing it, it's almost 200 pages of footnotes provide innumerate refrences to interesting asspects of history and sociaology meaning that that you never have to go and look things up anywhere else, whilst the decision to mix smits own spellings and spellings and inconsistancies with a more modern english gives the book an atmosphere when reading it of what the authour really meant. It's use today is primerilly one of historical importance, his analesis of tax collection for example bares hardly any relation to modern tax systems, or at least those in the weastern world, but wht it does do is represent a model of the world on which it is very easy to hang modern principles and situations, havingt read this book you realise just how integrated things can be, and how things have evolved. Smith explains all this in wonderful deatail with many examples and explanations which mean that though his ideas may seem confusing the dedicated reader should not get to confused, and at the end I was very much left with the impression that it had all been worth it. a real gem
Money comes second:Smith was a enlightened moral philosopher, 05 Aug 2000
Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow) had previously written 'The Moral Theory of Sentiments' and had probably intended to write a third (spiritual) overarching work. He died. The accute analyses he finished have flaws as well as much merit. His works are in the first division of merit. To consider him only as an economist (he was the first) is to think of life partially. Wealth of Nations (hasn't Porter essentially copied the economics) is a broader attempt to understand the relationships between money and people. I come here by accident, but don't many Angus
Oh, How much we owe Smith!, 20 Jul 1999
I must take exception to the Amazon review: saying that Smith viewed Capitalism suspiciously is utterly untenable. From the very first chapter, Smith makes clear the genius of markets, the benefits of the division of labor, and how government intrusion upon "perfect liberty" creates economic inefficiencies. As the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy, Smith keenly perceived the theoretical framework for its future development: property rights, markets, free trade, and government non-intervention. These institutions allowed for unprecedented economic growth (there was more economic growth in the 19th century than in the preceeding 4000 years) and thus the sustainability of modern life. We cannot express enough gratitude to Dr. Smith.
The Great Work of a Great Mind., 10 Jun 1999
Although this book is hailed as one of the greatest works in Economics ever and set the foundations for contemporary Economic thought, the Wealth of Nations is not a good read. It is extremely difficult to digest and requires extreme concentration. Few would read the book unless required in an Economics course or the like. Smith was undoubtedly a genius - way ahead of his time. However, the reader must have as great an intellect to fully comprehend what Smith is writing. Perhaps "user-friendly" books were not the fashion of the times.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended. Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this] Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide. Open University A200 Set Book, 07 Dec 2008
If you're studying the Open University course A200 1400-1900 (From Medieval to Modern) then this book is a set book and you'll need it to complete the course. You'll rely heavily on the book throughout the earlier modules of the course, and an understanding of Wallace's views on the reformation(s) will hold you in good stead for the course final examination.
If you're not studying the course, then I'd suggest that you've got to be very interested in the period in question for this to be a must-have purchase. Wallace is clearly an expert on the period in question, however it's not an easy read for anyone other than a historian. A useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, 22 Sep 2008
I can only describe this particular edition of Wealth of Nations as a useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, mindful of the fact that there were five editions of this historically significant work. But then that's the beauty of this condensed compendium.
Most editions available in the market draw on Smith's Wealth of Nation Volume I (Of the causes of improvement), Volume II (Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock) and Volume III (Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations) at the most. However, this edition contains healthy inclusions from Book IV (Of Systems of political Economy) and Book V (Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth). For this alone, the editor Kathryn Sutherland deserves credit.
It is not a mouthful but a practical handy book on Wealth of Nations. Those who have never studied economics would enjoy reading it too if they are so inclined, especially students of history and philosophy. Since this is a complex work authored over two hundred years ago, the editor's footnotes and references enhance comprehension.
Yet the wonderful details of Smith's key thoughts have not been stifled in any way - working of the markets, division of labour, general prosperity, government and taxation are all there. In essence, Wealth of Nations remains a true classic and I found this edition of it to be an easy and enjoyable read. Overall, its a handy reference book to have on your bookshelf. where many things began, 16 May 2003
I loved this book, not for it's economic content but for it's wonderfully overarching principles and view of history, philosophy and economics. I have never studied economics in any way and read this book purely on it's historical importants, and yet I found it facinating. I would not say this is the book for anyone wanting to understand the complexeties of the modern ecomemy, interest rates, futures markets or whatever, but for those who whant a very complete and well thought out examination of how the human world is put together this work cannot be faulted. Though it was writeen over 2 centuries ago this edition makes perfect sence of the text without changing it, it's almost 200 pages of footnotes provide innumerate refrences to interesting asspects of history and sociaology meaning that that you never have to go and look things up anywhere else, whilst the decision to mix smits own spellings and spellings and inconsistancies with a more modern english gives the book an atmosphere when reading it of what the authour really meant. It's use today is primerilly one of historical importance, his analesis of tax collection for example bares hardly any relation to modern tax systems, or at least those in the weastern world, but wht it does do is represent a model of the world on which it is very easy to hang modern principles and situations, havingt read this book you realise just how integrated things can be, and how things have evolved. Smith explains all this in wonderful deatail with many examples and explanations which mean that though his ideas may seem confusing the dedicated reader should not get to confused, and at the end I was very much left with the impression that it had all been worth it. a real gem
Money comes second:Smith was a enlightened moral philosopher, 05 Aug 2000
Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow) had previously written 'The Moral Theory of Sentiments' and had probably intended to write a third (spiritual) overarching work. He died. The accute analyses he finished have flaws as well as much merit. His works are in the first division of merit. To consider him only as an economist (he was the first) is to think of life partially. Wealth of Nations (hasn't Porter essentially copied the economics) is a broader attempt to understand the relationships between money and people. I come here by accident, but don't many Angus
Oh, How much we owe Smith!, 20 Jul 1999
I must take exception to the Amazon review: saying that Smith viewed Capitalism suspiciously is utterly untenable. From the very first chapter, Smith makes clear the genius of markets, the benefits of the division of labor, and how government intrusion upon "perfect liberty" creates economic inefficiencies. As the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy, Smith keenly perceived the theoretical framework for its future development: property rights, markets, free trade, and government non-intervention. These institutions allowed for unprecedented economic growth (there was more economic growth in the 19th century than in the preceeding 4000 years) and thus the sustainability of modern life. We cannot express enough gratitude to Dr. Smith.
The Great Work of a Great Mind., 10 Jun 1999
Although this book is hailed as one of the greatest works in Economics ever and set the foundations for contemporary Economic thought, the Wealth of Nations is not a good read. It is extremely difficult to digest and requires extreme concentration. Few would read the book unless required in an Economics course or the like. Smith was undoubtedly a genius - way ahead of his time. However, the reader must have as great an intellect to fully comprehend what Smith is writing. Perhaps "user-friendly" books were not the fashion of the times.
a cheap and accessible alternative to the oxford classical dictionary, 30 Mar 2007
Admittedly there's no beating the OCD but this is a brilliant alternative. The entries come from the OCD itself but it excludes the bibliographies per subject - which frankly are out of date anyway. As the other reviewer here has mentioned, the entries are wide ranging and eclectic, but always informative, readable and stimulating. I have the hardback version (necessary for the amount of referencing it gets!) and the book itself is nicely produced with good weight paper and excellent illustrations. Whether you're a serious student or an interested amateur, this is a brilliant buy.
an excellent review of the classical world, 30 Mar 2001
This dictionary is a must have for any classics student, or teachers for that matter! It covers a wide variety of topics from Roman empire to magic, and from literature to cookery in antiquity. It has an easy to read format, contains over two dozen maps and colour plates and many more black and white plates. It is suitable for anyone studying this subject, and I would recommend it especially to those of you who are studying at A-Level and degree (ie, 16+). The 'Companion' takes the most important entries, in full, from its sister book, the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed) to create a cheaper and less weighty version, great for those who are on a budget. Topics that require a little more explainaiton are given longer articles so that this extra detail can be added. The excellent editing means that only the best information is supplied by the best authors in the business. This truely is a vital companion for anyone who about to venture classical civilization.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended. Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this] Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide. Open University A200 Set Book, 07 Dec 2008
If you're studying the Open University course A200 1400-1900 (From Medieval to Modern) then this book is a set book and you'll need it to complete the course. You'll rely heavily on the book throughout the earlier modules of the course, and an understanding of Wallace's views on the reformation(s) will hold you in good stead for the course final examination.
If you're not studying the course, then I'd suggest that you've got to be very interested in the period in question for this to be a must-have purchase. Wallace is clearly an expert on the period in question, however it's not an easy read for anyone other than a historian. A useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, 22 Sep 2008
I can only describe this particular edition of Wealth of Nations as a useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, mindful of the fact that there were five editions of this historically significant work. But then that's the beauty of this condensed compendium.
Most editions available in the market draw on Smith's Wealth of Nation Volume I (Of the causes of improvement), Volume II (Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock) and Volume III (Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations) at the most. However, this edition contains healthy inclusions from Book IV (Of Systems of political Economy) and Book V (Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth). For this alone, the editor Kathryn Sutherland deserves credit.
It is not a mouthful but a practical handy book on Wealth of Nations. Those who have never studied economics would enjoy reading it too if they are so inclined, especially students of history and philosophy. Since this is a complex work authored over two hundred years ago, the editor's footnotes and references enhance comprehension.
Yet the wonderful details of Smith's key thoughts have not been stifled in any way - working of the markets, division of labour, general prosperity, government and taxation are all there. In essence, Wealth of Nations remains a true classic and I found this edition of it to be an easy and enjoyable read. Overall, its a handy reference book to have on your bookshelf. where many things began, 16 May 2003
I loved this book, not for it's economic content but for it's wonderfully overarching principles and view of history, philosophy and economics. I have never studied economics in any way and read this book purely on it's historical importants, and yet I found it facinating. I would not say this is the book for anyone wanting to understand the complexeties of the modern ecomemy, interest rates, futures markets or whatever, but for those who whant a very complete and well thought out examination of how the human world is put together this work cannot be faulted. Though it was writeen over 2 centuries ago this edition makes perfect sence of the text without changing it, it's almost 200 pages of footnotes provide innumerate refrences to interesting asspects of history and sociaology meaning that that you never have to go and look things up anywhere else, whilst the decision to mix smits own spellings and spellings and inconsistancies with a more modern english gives the book an atmosphere when reading it of what the authour really meant. It's use today is primerilly one of historical importance, his analesis of tax collection for example bares hardly any relation to modern tax systems, or at least those in the weastern world, but wht it does do is represent a model of the world on which it is very easy to hang modern principles and situations, havingt read this book you realise just how integrated things can be, and how things have evolved. Smith explains all this in wonderful deatail with many examples and explanations which mean that though his ideas may seem confusing the dedicated reader should not get to confused, and at the end I was very much left with the impression that it had all been worth it. a real gem
Money comes second:Smith was a enlightened moral philosopher, 05 Aug 2000
Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow) had previously written 'The Moral Theory of Sentiments' and had probably intended to write a third (spiritual) overarching work. He died. The accute analyses he finished have flaws as well as much merit. His works are in the first division of merit. To consider him only as an economist (he was the first) is to think of life partially. Wealth of Nations (hasn't Porter essentially copied the economics) is a broader attempt to understand the relationships between money and people. I come here by accident, but don't many Angus
Oh, How much we owe Smith!, 20 Jul 1999
I must take exception to the Amazon review: saying that Smith viewed Capitalism suspiciously is utterly untenable. From the very first chapter, Smith makes clear the genius of markets, the benefits of the division of labor, and how government intrusion upon "perfect liberty" creates economic inefficiencies. As the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy, Smith keenly perceived the theoretical framework for its future development: property rights, markets, free trade, and government non-intervention. These institutions allowed for unprecedented economic growth (there was more economic growth in the 19th century than in the preceeding 4000 years) and thus the sustainability of modern life. We cannot express enough gratitude to Dr. Smith.
The Great Work of a Great Mind., 10 Jun 1999
Although this book is hailed as one of the greatest works in Economics ever and set the foundations for contemporary Economic thought, the Wealth of Nations is not a good read. It is extremely difficult to digest and requires extreme concentration. Few would read the book unless required in an Economics course or the like. Smith was undoubtedly a genius - way ahead of his time. However, the reader must have as great an intellect to fully comprehend what Smith is writing. Perhaps "user-friendly" books were not the fashion of the times.
a cheap and accessible alternative to the oxford classical dictionary, 30 Mar 2007
Admittedly there's no beating the OCD but this is a brilliant alternative. The entries come from the OCD itself but it excludes the bibliographies per subject - which frankly are out of date anyway. As the other reviewer here has mentioned, the entries are wide ranging and eclectic, but always informative, readable and stimulating. I have the hardback version (necessary for the amount of referencing it gets!) and the book itself is nicely produced with good weight paper and excellent illustrations. Whether you're a serious student or an interested amateur, this is a brilliant buy.
an excellent review of the classical world, 30 Mar 2001
This dictionary is a must have for any classics student, or teachers for that matter! It covers a wide variety of topics from Roman empire to magic, and from literature to cookery in antiquity. It has an easy to read format, contains over two dozen maps and colour plates and many more black and white plates. It is suitable for anyone studying this subject, and I would recommend it especially to those of you who are studying at A-Level and degree (ie, 16+). The 'Companion' takes the most important entries, in full, from its sister book, the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed) to create a cheaper and less weighty version, great for those who are on a budget. Topics that require a little more explainaiton are given longer articles so that this extra detail can be added. The excellent editing means that only the best information is supplied by the best authors in the business. This truely is a vital companion for anyone who about to venture classical civilization.
Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.
It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.
So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.
Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.
The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.
After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.
Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).
Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).
Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.
Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).
But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.
We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.
It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.
As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...
(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).
A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.
An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.
The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.
He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.
Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.
The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.
That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.
A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.
The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.
He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.
Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.
Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!
Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?
Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.
Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.
However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.
It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.
However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended. Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this] Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide. Open University A200 Set Book, 07 Dec 2008
If you're studying the Open University course A200 1400-1900 (From Medieval to Modern) then this book is a set book and you'll need it to complete the course. You'll rely heavily on the book throughout the earlier modules of the course, and an understanding of Wallace's views on the reformation(s) will hold you in good stead for the course final examination.
If you're not studying the course, then I'd suggest that you've got to be very interested in the period in question for this to be a must-have purchase. Wallace is clearly an expert on the period in question, however it's not an easy read for anyone other than a historian. A useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, 22 Sep 2008
I can only describe this particular edition of Wealth of Nations as a useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, mindful of the fact that there were five editions of this historically significant work. But then that's the beauty of this condensed compendium.
Most editions available in the market draw on Smith's Wealth of Nation Volume I (Of the causes of improvement), Volume II (Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock) and Volume III (Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations) at the most. However, this edition contains healthy inclusions from Book IV (Of Systems of political Economy) and Book V (Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth). For this alone, the editor Kathryn Sutherland deserves credit.
It is not a mouthful but a practical handy book on Wealth of Nations. Those who have never studied economics would enjoy reading it too if they are so inclined, especially students of history and philosophy. Since this is a complex work authored over two hundred years ago, the editor's footnotes and references enhance comprehension.
Yet the wonderful details of Smith's key thoughts have not been stifled in any way - working of the markets, division of labour, general prosperity, government and taxation are all there. In essence, Wealth of Nations remains a true classic and I found this edition of it to be an easy and enjoyable read. Overall, its a handy reference book to have on your bookshelf. where many things began, 16 May 2003
I loved this book, not for it's economic content but for it's wonderfully overarching principles and view of history, philosophy and economics. I have never studied economics in any way and read this book purely on it's historical importants, and yet I found it facinating. I would not say this is the book for anyone wanting to understand the complexeties of the modern ecomemy, interest rates, futures markets or whatever, but for those who whant a very complete and well thought out examination of how the human world is put together this work cannot be faulted. Though it was writeen over 2 centuries ago this edition makes perfect sence of the text without changing it, it's almost 200 pages of footnotes provide innumerate refrences to interesting asspects of history and sociaology meaning that that you never have to go and look things up anywhere else, whilst the decision to mix smits own spellings and spellings and inconsistancies with a more modern english gives the book an atmosphere when reading it of what the authour really meant. It's use today is primerilly one of historical importance, his analesis of tax collection for example bares hardly any relation to modern tax systems, or at least those in the weastern world, but wht it does do is represent a model of the world on which it is very easy to hang modern principles and situations, havingt read this book you realise just how integrated things can be, and how things have evolved. Smith explains all this in wonderful deatail with many examples and explanations which mean that though his ideas may seem confusing the dedicated reader should not get to confused, and at the end I was very much left with the impression that it had all been worth it. a real gem
Money comes second:Smith was a enlightened moral philosopher, 05 Aug 2000
Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow) had previously written 'The Moral Theory of Sentiments' and had probably intended to write a third (spiritual) overarching work. He died. The accute analyses he finished have flaws as well as much merit. His works are in the first division of merit. To consider him only as an economist (he was the first) is to think of life partially. Wealth of Nations (hasn't Porter essentially copied the economics) is a broader attempt to understand the relationships between money and people. I come here by accident, but don't many Angus
Oh, How much we owe Smith!, 20 Jul 1999
I must take exception to the Amazon review: saying that Smith viewed Capitalism suspiciously is utterly untenable. From the very first chapter, Smith makes clear the genius of markets, the benefits of the division of labor, and how government intrusion upon "perfect liberty" creates economic inefficiencies. As the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy, Smith keenly perceived the theoretical framework for its future development: property rights, markets, free trade, and government non-intervention. These institutions allowed for unprecedented economic growth (there was more economic growth in the 19th century than in the preceeding 4000 years) and thus the sustainability of modern life. We cannot express enough gratitude to Dr. Smith.
The Great Work of a Great Mind., 10 Jun 1999
Although this book is hailed as one of the greatest works in Economics ever and set the foundations for contemporary Economic thought, the Wealth of Nations is not a good read. It is extremely difficult to digest and requires extreme concentration. Few would read the book unless required in an Economics course or the like. Smith was undoubtedly a genius - way ahead of his time. However, the reader must have as great an intellect to fully comprehend what Smith is writing. Perhaps "user-friendly" books were not the fashion of the times.
a cheap and accessible alternative to the oxford classical dictionary, 30 Mar 2007
Admittedly there's no beating the OCD but this is a brilliant alternative. The entries come from the OCD itself but it excludes the bibliographies per subject - which frankly are out of date anyway. As the other reviewer here has mentioned, the entries are wide ranging and eclectic, but always informative, readable and stimulating. I have the hardback version (necessary for the amount of referencing it gets!) and the book itself is nicely produced with good weight paper and excellent illustrations. Whether you're a serious student or an interested amateur, this is a brilliant buy.
an excellent review of the classical world, 30 Mar 2001
This dictionary is a must have for any classics student, or teachers for that matter! It covers a wide variety of topics from Roman empire to magic, and from literature to cookery in antiquity. It has an easy to read format, contains over two dozen maps and colour plates and many more black and white plates. It is suitable for anyone studying this subject, and I would recommend it especially to those of you who are studying at A-Level and degree (ie, 16+). The 'Companion' takes the most important entries, in full, from its sister book, the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed) to create a cheaper and less weighty version, great for those who are on a budget. Topics that require a little more explainaiton are given longer articles so that this extra detail can be added. The excellent editing means that only the best information is supplied by the best authors in the business. This truely is a vital companion for anyone who about to venture classical civilization.
Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.
It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.
So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.
Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.
The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.
After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.
Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).
Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).
Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.
Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).
But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.
We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.
It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.
As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...
(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).
A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.
An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.
The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.
He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.
Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.
The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.
That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.
A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.
The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.
He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.
Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.
Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!
Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?
Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.
Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.
However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.
It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.
However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.
Do not mistake this as a reference book, 06 Jan 2009
I repeat, this is not to be used as a reference book; particularly if you are an academic studying philosophy. The title can be misleading as there is very little "history" here. Russell is undoubtedly a highly influential and important philosopher of the 20th century, but this is a very poor and distorted account of the history of western philosophy. In many cases the material is simply out of date and/or inaccurate, important philosophers are overlooked or given brief summaries, and favouritism is found to fit Russell's own views. For example, sections on Nietzsche and Rousseau are cringe worthy and almost criminal with the complete lack of fundamental understanding of their ideas and almost venomous prejudice against them.
Good Introduction to the Subject, 18 Dec 2007
Being an engineering student, the closest brush I had with the formal study of philosophy was a few university courses, which I barely passed. Therefore, I decided to buy Bertrand Russell's classic work in order to refresh my knowledge. I wish I had done it earlier.
Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, enlivens philosophy-from ancient Greece to today. His account is lengthy, as any account of such a subject should, but well worth it. How else does one condense 3000 years of Western intellectual history in one volume?
I liked the pace of the book. He begins with a definition of philosophy and its roots in the Ancient world. It is not so much a list of facts as it is a discussion of the ideas of the Ancients. Absurd though it seems to us today, the leap from religious explanations to material for nature was ground-breaking. He then follows philosophy as it slithers through the Middle Ages, into the Renaissance and into the Modern Period. I particularly like the way he treated the medieval philosophers, like Aquinas and Ockam. I wish my philosophy professor at Univerity could have explained nominalism that way.
The work is an introduction to the subject. By definition, it is superficial in a few areas. I would have liked to see more about how contemporary (to Russell) issues like the Worlds Wars were connected to eighteenth century European thinkers such as Hegel.
In conclusion, it is a great read. One I recommend for any reflective 16-year old, who is thinking about studying an applied science like engineering. Russell's work is a great introduction to the subject. It will enable one to see where our currently rational, scientific tradition springs from.
A classic and a delight to read, 01 Nov 2007
What Bertrand Russell brings to the history of western philosophy is a clear, readable style and a delightfully opinionated stance. Unlike some writers on western philosophy, Russell is quick to give his opinion on the rigor and the agreeability of not only the philosophies presented, but of the philosophers themselves. He speaks with authority of course since he is considered one of the great minds of the twentieth century. He reaches a wide readership because of his great celebrity, and he is accessible to that readership because of his elegant, straightforward, and concrete (especially for a philosopher!) style. I understand that Russell wrote one draft, edited it and that was it. This is in contrast to some other writers (James Thurber comes to mind) who wrote twenty drafts and still were not satisfied.
He had the gift of a great memory, combined with an ease of composition that allowed him to be a most prolific writer over a long lifetime that began in 1872 and ended almost a hundred years later in 1970. He has something of the English Don and the 19th century naturalist about him as well as the 20th century progressive. He was intensely engaged in various political projects throughout his long life, most notably as an anti-war and later as an anti-nuclear activist while writing academic philosophy and mathematics as well as many volumes directed toward the general public. He was infamous (in some circles) for his free-love advocacy and his public rejection of Christianity. He was thrown into prison for his pacifism during WWI. He won the Noble Prize for Literature (not peace) in 1950.
Here he takes delight in surveying the entire spectrum of western philosophy beginning with the pre-Socratics and ending with his own philosophy of logical analysis. Curiously (or not so curiously) he does not mention Wittgenstein. His critique of the Greeks, especially Plato, is most edifying and fun to read. He sees modern philosophy as reaching its zenith with David Hume's empiricism. He finds Nietzsche disagreeable and is dismissive of Kant.
I am reading this for the second time, having first read it as a young man. It delights me anew. As I read I am unsure as to whether I find his opinions so congenial because they are so similar to mine or because in fact I acquired many of my early opinions through reading Russell! He had quite an influence on several generations before I came of age, although perhaps he reached the epitome of his fame (at least) during the fifties before I presumed to read philosophy.
Anyone interested in philosophy of any kind, especially of course western philosophy, should read this book. It is one of those books that cannot be ignored. First published in 1945, it is still in print today and will be for many decades to come. I only regret that Russell did not take the time to study eastern philosophies as well and to include them in this volume. How interesting it would be to read Russell on say, Buddhism, Taoism and Vedanta.
Magnificent, 26 Oct 2007
This book is perhaps one of the greatest works of 20th century in itself. Russell somehow manages to write for the layman while being comprehensive in his coverage and fiercely critical in his analysis. In this this book is in a class of its own, and will likely never be surpassed.
Of the supposed limitations of Russells effort (that he doesnt pay enough attention to Kant, Hegel or Marx - even though they recieve about the same and equal treatment as everyone else; that he is biased - even though he always stresses his views and critiques are his own; and that he fails to mention Wittgenstein - even though this book was published before Wittgenstein wrote anything!) there is very little to say other than that they are misguided. Perhaps the only justified criticism is the unbalanced way Russell savages Nietzsche... but then, in my opinion, Nietzsche deserves to be savaged.
Yes, its an introduction, and you will always need to do more independent reading to get a real feel for each philosopher. But, even conceding this, there is simply no excuse for not having this book within easy reach at all times
Descartes? Kant? Hegel? ...., 02 Aug 2007
Russell's book is essentially an Introduction to Philosophy for the common reader, for he (or she) who is genuinly interested in philosophy but has no, or very little, experience with the subject.
Many of the previous reviewers have already stressed what are some of the major faults of Russell's "History" and in particular his dismissive attitude towards some of the major philosophers from Descartes onwards.
I must say I felt quite surprised: I have read some history of philosophies by both Italian and French authors not as popular or "authorative" as Russell, yet I must confirm the objective superiority of the former (tough it is true that Russell comprised the entire history of philosophy, or at least SOME PART OF IT, in one single volume, an effort that as far as I know, has not been made by any other author).
The fact that Russell, like someone has already stated, is "judgemental" in his exposing style, is actually a mental fault which inevitably intacts his objective reasoning: the result?
He cut off 3/4 of the history of philosophy.
Where are the long, detailed and coincise chapters on Descartes ("father" of modern philosophy), Spinoza (such a loved thinker, 6-7 pages?), Kant (founder of German Idealism, 9-10 pages), Hegel (practically nothing), Nietzsche (an intellectual murder), Schopenhauer (shallow philosophy? according to Mr Russell, maybe), Karl Marx (he is only the founder of probably the most influential political philosophy)?
And where are Husserl? Freud (tough he is really not a philosopher, his psychoanalitic discoveries where clearly influenced by his philosophical stances, in particular nineteenth-century materialism)? Wittgenstein (his contemporary)?
I frankly cannot believe that the English speaking world, has accepted this book as "the MAJOR introduction to the history of philosophy".
Certainly, he had to comprise something; writing the whole history of philosophical tought in one volume is no easy task and requires the ability to be proportional in the extension of the chapters which deal with the single philosophers.
But it is unecceptable to sacrifice some of the most important thinkers, simply because they did not fit into Russell's retrospective historical analysis or into his likability criteria: if he does not appreciate Hegel, Kant, Marx, Rousseau and so on, simply because he does not agree with them, why bother to write a history of philosophy which must necessarly degress on their lives, on their social context, on their ideas, etc.?
If we all eliminated each other, just because we did not agree, what would be the purpose of any form of dialogue? There is an inherent contradiction in Russell's book.
Still, after all this criticism I must give credit to Mr Russell for:
a)writing in an ACCESSIBLE style, by no means technical
b)like I have already said, for having comprised MOST of the philosophical tought in one volume
c)having produced a work fully commerciable and readable by those who do not necessairly no much about philosophy and are interested in learning the very general lines concerning some of the major philosophers
If the reader will keep this in mind, and will also remeber not to take as final Russell's judgements, then on a whole, History of Western Philosophy will result a pleasent read for the common fellow.
NOTE: NOT FOR ACCADEMICS
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Customer Reviews
A fascinating read, 17 Dec 2008
What have "women and sticks" to do with "cats and dogs" ? What do "which" and "want" have in common? What is a corpus, and why does it matter ? The answers to these - and many more - questions are all to be found in this gem of a book.
Jeremy Butterfield writes with wit, style and authority on the elusive mysteries of the English language - a subject to which he has dedicated the bulk of his working life. The book is a fascinating and highly informative analysis of how our language is used and how it is evolving.
Highly recommended. Un-put-down-able, 22 Feb 2008
What an amazing book this is. It covers British history from 55 B.C. (Caesar's first raid) to 1986, with a few lines to 2000; and it covers this period with about 15,000 entries; a bit like a dictionary. This sounds boring. In fact every time I look up something I get sidetracked and look up completely different subjects; ones eye gets seduced by entries such as Mercia, Vikings, or Surcouf... or Dogger Bank, Choiseul or Marlborough... the entry will often lead on to other entries, and before you know it you've forgotten what your original purpose was. A delight. I almost gave it four stars only because of the paperback version, as I would much prefer a hardback - but this book has given me, a non-historian, so much pleasure already after only a year's use that four would be too few. Five stars it is (but I will keep looking for a hardback version) [Later - found it, and ordered it. Now, who can I give the paperback version to? a brilliant present, this] Excellent guide, 20 Jan 2007
Does everything it claims to, stunningly comprehensive, and giving an excellent introduction to almost any topic from British history. For history students - and I am one - it is essential as a handy reference guide. Open University A200 Set Book, 07 Dec 2008
If you're studying the Open University course A200 1400-1900 (From Medieval to Modern) then this book is a set book and you'll need it to complete the course. You'll rely heavily on the book throughout the earlier modules of the course, and an understanding of Wallace's views on the reformation(s) will hold you in good stead for the course final examination.
If you're not studying the course, then I'd suggest that you've got to be very interested in the period in question for this to be a must-have purchase. Wallace is clearly an expert on the period in question, however it's not an easy read for anyone other than a historian. A useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, 22 Sep 2008
I can only describe this particular edition of Wealth of Nations as a useful crash course on Adam Smith's discourse, mindful of the fact that there were five editions of this historically significant work. But then that's the beauty of this condensed compendium.
Most editions available in the market draw on Smith's Wealth of Nation Volume I (Of the causes of improvement), Volume II (Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock) and Volume III (Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations) at the most. However, this edition contains healthy inclusions from Book IV (Of Systems of political Economy) and Book V (Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth). For this alone, the editor Kathryn Sutherland deserves credit.
It is not a mouthful but a practical handy book on Wealth of Nations. Those who have never studied economics would enjoy reading it too if they are so inclined, especially students of history and philosophy. Since this is a complex work authored over two hundred years ago, the editor's footnotes and references enhance comprehension.
Yet the wonderful details of Smith's key thoughts have not been stifled in any way - working of the markets, division of labour, general prosperity, government and taxation are all there. In essence, Wealth of Nations remains a true classic and I found this edition of it to be an easy and enjoyable read. Overall, its a handy reference book to have on your bookshelf. where many things began, 16 May 2003
I loved this book, not for it's economic content but for it's wonderfully overarching principles and view of history, philosophy and economics. I have never studied economics in any way and read this book purely on it's historical importants, and yet I found it facinating. I would not say this is the book for anyone wanting to understand the complexeties of the modern ecomemy, interest rates, futures markets or whatever, but for those who whant a very complete and well thought out examination of how the human world is put together this work cannot be faulted. Though it was writeen over 2 centuries ago this edition makes perfect sence of the text without changing it, it's almost 200 pages of footnotes provide innumerate refrences to interesting asspects of history and sociaology meaning that that you never have to go and look things up anywhere else, whilst the decision to mix smits own spellings and spellings and inconsistancies with a more modern english gives the book an atmosphere when reading it of what the authour really meant. It's use today is primerilly one of historical importance, his analesis of tax collection for example bares hardly any relation to modern tax systems, or at least those in the weastern world, but wht it does do is represent a model of the world on which it is very easy to hang modern principles and situations, havingt read this book you realise just how integrated things can be, and how things have evolved. Smith explains all this in wonderful deatail with many examples and explanations which mean that though his ideas may seem confusing the dedicated reader should not get to confused, and at the end I was very much left with the impression that it had all been worth it. a real gem
Money comes second:Smith was a enlightened moral philosopher, 05 Aug 2000
Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow) had previously written 'The Moral Theory of Sentiments' and had probably intended to write a third (spiritual) overarching work. He died. The accute analyses he finished have flaws as well as much merit. His works are in the first division of merit. To consider him only as an economist (he was the first) is to think of life partially. Wealth of Nations (hasn't Porter essentially copied the economics) is a broader attempt to understand the relationships between money and people. I come here by accident, but don't many Angus
Oh, How much we owe Smith!, 20 Jul 1999
I must take exception to the Amazon review: saying that Smith viewed Capitalism suspiciously is utterly untenable. From the very first chapter, Smith makes clear the genius of markets, the benefits of the division of labor, and how government intrusion upon "perfect liberty" creates economic inefficiencies. As the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy, Smith keenly perceived the theoretical framework for its future development: property rights, markets, free trade, and government non-intervention. These institutions allowed for unprecedented economic growth (there was more economic growth in the 19th century than in the preceeding 4000 years) and thus the sustainability of modern life. We cannot express enough gratitude to Dr. Smith.
The Great Work of a Great Mind., 10 Jun 1999
Although this book is hailed as one of the greatest works in Economics ever and set the foundations for contemporary Economic thought, the Wealth of Nations is not a good read. It is extremely difficult to digest and requires extreme concentration. Few would read the book unless required in an Economics course or the like. Smith was undoubtedly a genius - way ahead of his time. However, the reader must have as great an intellect to fully comprehend what Smith is writing. Perhaps "user-friendly" books were not the fashion of the times.
a cheap and accessible alternative to the oxford classical dictionary, 30 Mar 2007
Admittedly there's no beating the OCD but this is a brilliant alternative. The entries come from the OCD itself but it excludes the bibliographies per subject - which frankly are out of date anyway. As the other reviewer here has mentioned, the entries are wide ranging and eclectic, but always informative, readable and stimulating. I have the hardback version (necessary for the amount of referencing it gets!) and the book itself is nicely produced with good weight paper and excellent illustrations. Whether you're a serious student or an interested amateur, this is a brilliant buy.
an excellent review of the classical world, 30 Mar 2001
This dictionary is a must have for any classics student, or teachers for that matter! It covers a wide variety of topics from Roman empire to magic, and from literature to cookery in antiquity. It has an easy to read format, contains over two dozen maps and colour plates and many more black and white plates. It is suitable for anyone studying this subject, and I would recommend it especially to those of you who are studying at A-Level and degree (ie, 16+). The 'Companion' takes the most important entries, in full, from its sister book, the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed) to create a cheaper and less weighty version, great for those who are on a budget. Topics that require a little more explainaiton are given longer articles so that this extra detail can be added. The excellent editing means that only the best information is supplied by the best authors in the business. This truely is a vital companion for anyone who about to venture classical civilization.
Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.
It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.
So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.
Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.
The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.
After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.
Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).
Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).
Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.
Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).
< | | |