What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

Pants, 13 Oct 2008
What utter nonsense. A 9 year old German in 1944 that hasn't heard of the Hitler Youth? In 45 8 year olds were fighting. What is that rubbish with 'The Fury' and 'Out With'? By the way there is no 'Out With' in German. And a Jew in Auschwitz that can go every day for over a year to a bit of fence which you can lift up so that a boy can move under it? With no watch towers? No guards? And no parents asking where a 9 year old goes every single afternoon for a year. I mean in winter it's dark at 4p.m.

And then there is another problem: the style. It's far too sophisticated for a 'little boy'. For anyone who wants to read a good book that's written about that time, I recommend the book thief by Markus Zusak.

Anyway, stay clear of this book. Not good. I mean, how can the son of the Commander of Auschwitz end up in a gas chamber? Please ....

A modern fable for an uncertain audience, 12 Oct 2008
This is a very difficult book to review, for several reasons.

Firstly, the blurb of this book simply invites you to go on a journey with Bruno, a nine year old boy. The publishers make it clear that having advance knowledge of any detail of Bruno's journey `would spoil the reading of the book'. This is the way I read the story and I have to agree with the publishers. I think that prior knowledge of the plot would have activated my critical faculties and spoilt my reading of the book. I would have read as a critic, rather than a reader. So, if you really want to experience the power of this tale then you should not seek to know any more details about the plot. In fact, you probably shouldn't read this review any further! Be reassured, though: read this way the tale is engaging and very likely to hook you. For those who would like to know the plot, please see the spoilers at the bottom.

The whole tale of Bruno's discoveries raises a second issue that will affect different readers in different ways. As a nine year old boy, Bruno is startlingly, indeed unbelievably, ignorant of his situation and his family's position. Yes, nine year old boys are self-involved to an extent, and may be ignorant of the significance of certain events or actions, but Bruno is blissfully ignorant to a truly astonishing degree. More mature readers may cringe at some of his comments and thoughts. This obliviousness, intended to be read as both ignorance and innocence, is essential for the narrative and allows us to follow his journey and Boyne to develop the moral messages of this fable.

During reading this ignorance is sometimes frustrating, but the real issues arise after reading when it becomes clear that Bruno's ignorance is impossible within the supposed context of the novel. This is actually one of several key features of plot and character that, in retrospect, is impossible. It is best to be clear here: this text is not historically accurate and was never intended to be. It is stated on the title page that this is a `fable'. No one would expect Aesop's Fables to be realistic; we expect them to send clear moral messages, and that is what this story does beautifully. Those messages are at once simple and profound, so if you are not too frustrated by the devices, the ideas, expressed so simply, should move you.

Finally, the blurb inside the jacket cover raises the issue of intended readership. This `isn't a book for nine-year-olds', but it isn't at all clear who it is `for'. Boyne himself told his publishers that he had written something different, something that he thought might be a children's story but hoped would appeal to adults as well. This is a more important issue than it might first appear, due to the content and historical slant. Some reviewers have suggested that if this is children's first contact with the subject matter, then they could be gaining an inaccurate and slightly romanticized view of certain events in history, or, even more crucially, they could simply not understand what is happening. I disagree; firstly because I think that real children are unlikely to be that uninformed, and secondly because the book makes each step of the journey very clear. In that sense, it could be read by (mature) nine-year-olds.

Reviewers have suggested that this is an unsuitable story for children due to its inaccuracies, but I disagree. This is a starting point, and if children continue in their own discoveries and `go exploring', as Bruno might say, then this could well be an appropriate way to introduce them to a challenging topic.

Overall, this is an engaging tale IF you read it without too much prior knowledge and skepticism. The first few pages are slow, but the tale soon gathers pace. It is intended to be a fable and should not be read as a historical text. I will certainly be rereading, now that I have had a chance to reflect on the ideas it presents, and I hope to see the film soon. Who would enjoy this story? Anyone who is prepared to suspend disbelief and discover Bruno's story alongside him.


SPOILERS ALERT!

Bruno is the son of a Nazi commandant who takes charge of the notorious Auschwitz death camp. Increasingly lonely after being removed from Berlin and his friends to the isolated area in Poland, Bruno starts to explore along the wire fence and finds a boy who is very similar to himself, except that he lives on the other side of the fence. As the novel develops, the boys exchange histories and compare their lives, reaching the conclusion that they are very similar really, or would be if only Schmuel weren't so thin and grey skinned...

A tale like this cannot have a happy ending and it doesn't, so be prepared for a sad and thoughtful ending, written as innocently as the rest of the fable.


disappointing, 09 Oct 2008
lent this book to my daughter before I read it by which time I had seen the film. The film was moving and believeable - up to a point. Why his parents took so little interest in Bruno's coming and goings and why the maid takes little interest in his whereabouts is a plot device. Obviously the subject matter is harrowing and I cried at the film but not when reading the book which I found a bit of a letdown. Very simply written and perhaps more suitable for younger readers.

Inaccurate and misleading account of the holocaust. , 08 Oct 2008
I was intrigued about this book and bought it with the intention of giving it to my children, but thought I'd better read it first. I can remember reading "I am David" at the age of about 9 or 10 and being profoundly moved by it. I had hoped that this book would provoke a similar response, but was very disappointed.

Where to start? Apart from the style and writing itself, which I thought very poor, the book is highly inaccurate. We are expected to believe that the son of a high-ranking Nazi official has never heard of Hitler and doesn't know what "Jew" means. Worse than this, the author has taken complete liberty with the experience of children in Auschwitz. The idea that a 9-year-old child could survive in those conditions, and could spend every afternoon wandering off, consorting with the Commandant's son, sitting by an unguarded fence that people can crawl under beggars belief. These and countless other inaccuracies made me very angry.

I think what upset me most about this book is that it is being promoted as a "must-read" book about the holocaust, and for many children may be their first experince of holocaust writings. This "prettified" account of what life was like for a child in a death-camp may be taken as accurate by younger readers with little other experience/knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't let my children read this. I'll let them read "I am David" and, when they are older, Anne Frank's Diary and Primo Levi's "If This is a Man". "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" shouldn't be on anyone's reading list, let alone a child's.

Spend your money on Primo Levi not this., 03 Oct 2008
What place does such a book have? John Boyne has written on one of the greatest tragedies of the last century without bothering to inform himself about the conditions in which children existed at Auschwitz. As such, this book does a grave disservice to those children who suffered and died. Its charm is a deceit that depends on an offensive suspense of reality and the known facts. No children were healthy at Auschwitz. They were dying; all of them - and it showed.
Don't spend money on this - spend it instead on Primo Levi and others like him who deliver the bolt to the heart and mind that is the reality of their suffering at Auschwitz and other similar camps.

Written in a narrative style that captures both the scope and detail of the Russian revolution, Orlando Figes' history is certain to become one of the most important contemporary studies of Russia as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. With an almost cinematic eye, Figes captures the broad movements of war and revolution, never losing sight of the individuals whose lives make up his subject. He makes use of personal papers and personal histories to illustrate the effects the revolution wrought on a human scale, while providing a convincing and detailed understanding of the role of workers, peasants, and soldiers in the revolution. He moves deftly from topics such as the grand social forces and mass movements that made up the revolution to profiles of key personalities and representative characters.

Figes' themes of the Russian revolution as a tragedy for the Russian people as a whole and for the millions of individuals who lost their lives to the brutal forces it unleashed make sense of events for a new generation of students of Russian history. Sympathy for the charismatic leaders and ideological theorising regarding Hegelian dialectics and Marxist economics--two hallmarks of much earlier writing on the Russian revolution--are banished from these clear-eyed, fair-minded pages of A People's Tragedy. The author's sympathy is squarely with the Russian people. That commitment, together with the benefit of historical hindsight, provides a standpoint Figes can take full advantage of in this masterful history.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

Pants, 13 Oct 2008
What utter nonsense. A 9 year old German in 1944 that hasn't heard of the Hitler Youth? In 45 8 year olds were fighting. What is that rubbish with 'The Fury' and 'Out With'? By the way there is no 'Out With' in German. And a Jew in Auschwitz that can go every day for over a year to a bit of fence which you can lift up so that a boy can move under it? With no watch towers? No guards? And no parents asking where a 9 year old goes every single afternoon for a year. I mean in winter it's dark at 4p.m.

And then there is another problem: the style. It's far too sophisticated for a 'little boy'. For anyone who wants to read a good book that's written about that time, I recommend the book thief by Markus Zusak.

Anyway, stay clear of this book. Not good. I mean, how can the son of the Commander of Auschwitz end up in a gas chamber? Please ....

A modern fable for an uncertain audience, 12 Oct 2008
This is a very difficult book to review, for several reasons.

Firstly, the blurb of this book simply invites you to go on a journey with Bruno, a nine year old boy. The publishers make it clear that having advance knowledge of any detail of Bruno's journey `would spoil the reading of the book'. This is the way I read the story and I have to agree with the publishers. I think that prior knowledge of the plot would have activated my critical faculties and spoilt my reading of the book. I would have read as a critic, rather than a reader. So, if you really want to experience the power of this tale then you should not seek to know any more details about the plot. In fact, you probably shouldn't read this review any further! Be reassured, though: read this way the tale is engaging and very likely to hook you. For those who would like to know the plot, please see the spoilers at the bottom.

The whole tale of Bruno's discoveries raises a second issue that will affect different readers in different ways. As a nine year old boy, Bruno is startlingly, indeed unbelievably, ignorant of his situation and his family's position. Yes, nine year old boys are self-involved to an extent, and may be ignorant of the significance of certain events or actions, but Bruno is blissfully ignorant to a truly astonishing degree. More mature readers may cringe at some of his comments and thoughts. This obliviousness, intended to be read as both ignorance and innocence, is essential for the narrative and allows us to follow his journey and Boyne to develop the moral messages of this fable.

During reading this ignorance is sometimes frustrating, but the real issues arise after reading when it becomes clear that Bruno's ignorance is impossible within the supposed context of the novel. This is actually one of several key features of plot and character that, in retrospect, is impossible. It is best to be clear here: this text is not historically accurate and was never intended to be. It is stated on the title page that this is a `fable'. No one would expect Aesop's Fables to be realistic; we expect them to send clear moral messages, and that is what this story does beautifully. Those messages are at once simple and profound, so if you are not too frustrated by the devices, the ideas, expressed so simply, should move you.

Finally, the blurb inside the jacket cover raises the issue of intended readership. This `isn't a book for nine-year-olds', but it isn't at all clear who it is `for'. Boyne himself told his publishers that he had written something different, something that he thought might be a children's story but hoped would appeal to adults as well. This is a more important issue than it might first appear, due to the content and historical slant. Some reviewers have suggested that if this is children's first contact with the subject matter, then they could be gaining an inaccurate and slightly romanticized view of certain events in history, or, even more crucially, they could simply not understand what is happening. I disagree; firstly because I think that real children are unlikely to be that uninformed, and secondly because the book makes each step of the journey very clear. In that sense, it could be read by (mature) nine-year-olds.

Reviewers have suggested that this is an unsuitable story for children due to its inaccuracies, but I disagree. This is a starting point, and if children continue in their own discoveries and `go exploring', as Bruno might say, then this could well be an appropriate way to introduce them to a challenging topic.

Overall, this is an engaging tale IF you read it without too much prior knowledge and skepticism. The first few pages are slow, but the tale soon gathers pace. It is intended to be a fable and should not be read as a historical text. I will certainly be rereading, now that I have had a chance to reflect on the ideas it presents, and I hope to see the film soon. Who would enjoy this story? Anyone who is prepared to suspend disbelief and discover Bruno's story alongside him.


SPOILERS ALERT!

Bruno is the son of a Nazi commandant who takes charge of the notorious Auschwitz death camp. Increasingly lonely after being removed from Berlin and his friends to the isolated area in Poland, Bruno starts to explore along the wire fence and finds a boy who is very similar to himself, except that he lives on the other side of the fence. As the novel develops, the boys exchange histories and compare their lives, reaching the conclusion that they are very similar really, or would be if only Schmuel weren't so thin and grey skinned...

A tale like this cannot have a happy ending and it doesn't, so be prepared for a sad and thoughtful ending, written as innocently as the rest of the fable.


disappointing, 09 Oct 2008
lent this book to my daughter before I read it by which time I had seen the film. The film was moving and believeable - up to a point. Why his parents took so little interest in Bruno's coming and goings and why the maid takes little interest in his whereabouts is a plot device. Obviously the subject matter is harrowing and I cried at the film but not when reading the book which I found a bit of a letdown. Very simply written and perhaps more suitable for younger readers.

Inaccurate and misleading account of the holocaust. , 08 Oct 2008
I was intrigued about this book and bought it with the intention of giving it to my children, but thought I'd better read it first. I can remember reading "I am David" at the age of about 9 or 10 and being profoundly moved by it. I had hoped that this book would provoke a similar response, but was very disappointed.

Where to start? Apart from the style and writing itself, which I thought very poor, the book is highly inaccurate. We are expected to believe that the son of a high-ranking Nazi official has never heard of Hitler and doesn't know what "Jew" means. Worse than this, the author has taken complete liberty with the experience of children in Auschwitz. The idea that a 9-year-old child could survive in those conditions, and could spend every afternoon wandering off, consorting with the Commandant's son, sitting by an unguarded fence that people can crawl under beggars belief. These and countless other inaccuracies made me very angry.

I think what upset me most about this book is that it is being promoted as a "must-read" book about the holocaust, and for many children may be their first experince of holocaust writings. This "prettified" account of what life was like for a child in a death-camp may be taken as accurate by younger readers with little other experience/knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't let my children read this. I'll let them read "I am David" and, when they are older, Anne Frank's Diary and Primo Levi's "If This is a Man". "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" shouldn't be on anyone's reading list, let alone a child's.

Spend your money on Primo Levi not this., 03 Oct 2008
What place does such a book have? John Boyne has written on one of the greatest tragedies of the last century without bothering to inform himself about the conditions in which children existed at Auschwitz. As such, this book does a grave disservice to those children who suffered and died. Its charm is a deceit that depends on an offensive suspense of reality and the known facts. No children were healthy at Auschwitz. They were dying; all of them - and it showed.
Don't spend money on this - spend it instead on Primo Levi and others like him who deliver the bolt to the heart and mind that is the reality of their suffering at Auschwitz and other similar camps.




moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

Pants, 13 Oct 2008
What utter nonsense. A 9 year old German in 1944 that hasn't heard of the Hitler Youth? In 45 8 year olds were fighting. What is that rubbish with 'The Fury' and 'Out With'? By the way there is no 'Out With' in German. And a Jew in Auschwitz that can go every day for over a year to a bit of fence which you can lift up so that a boy can move under it? With no watch towers? No guards? And no parents asking where a 9 year old goes every single afternoon for a year. I mean in winter it's dark at 4p.m.

And then there is another problem: the style. It's far too sophisticated for a 'little boy'. For anyone who wants to read a good book that's written about that time, I recommend the book thief by Markus Zusak.

Anyway, stay clear of this book. Not good. I mean, how can the son of the Commander of Auschwitz end up in a gas chamber? Please ....

A modern fable for an uncertain audience, 12 Oct 2008
This is a very difficult book to review, for several reasons.

Firstly, the blurb of this book simply invites you to go on a journey with Bruno, a nine year old boy. The publishers make it clear that having advance knowledge of any detail of Bruno's journey `would spoil the reading of the book'. This is the way I read the story and I have to agree with the publishers. I think that prior knowledge of the plot would have activated my critical faculties and spoilt my reading of the book. I would have read as a critic, rather than a reader. So, if you really want to experience the power of this tale then you should not seek to know any more details about the plot. In fact, you probably shouldn't read this review any further! Be reassured, though: read this way the tale is engaging and very likely to hook you. For those who would like to know the plot, please see the spoilers at the bottom.

The whole tale of Bruno's discoveries raises a second issue that will affect different readers in different ways. As a nine year old boy, Bruno is startlingly, indeed unbelievably, ignorant of his situation and his family's position. Yes, nine year old boys are self-involved to an extent, and may be ignorant of the significance of certain events or actions, but Bruno is blissfully ignorant to a truly astonishing degree. More mature readers may cringe at some of his comments and thoughts. This obliviousness, intended to be read as both ignorance and innocence, is essential for the narrative and allows us to follow his journey and Boyne to develop the moral messages of this fable.

During reading this ignorance is sometimes frustrating, but the real issues arise after reading when it becomes clear that Bruno's ignorance is impossible within the supposed context of the novel. This is actually one of several key features of plot and character that, in retrospect, is impossible. It is best to be clear here: this text is not historically accurate and was never intended to be. It is stated on the title page that this is a `fable'. No one would expect Aesop's Fables to be realistic; we expect them to send clear moral messages, and that is what this story does beautifully. Those messages are at once simple and profound, so if you are not too frustrated by the devices, the ideas, expressed so simply, should move you.

Finally, the blurb inside the jacket cover raises the issue of intended readership. This `isn't a book for nine-year-olds', but it isn't at all clear who it is `for'. Boyne himself told his publishers that he had written something different, something that he thought might be a children's story but hoped would appeal to adults as well. This is a more important issue than it might first appear, due to the content and historical slant. Some reviewers have suggested that if this is children's first contact with the subject matter, then they could be gaining an inaccurate and slightly romanticized view of certain events in history, or, even more crucially, they could simply not understand what is happening. I disagree; firstly because I think that real children are unlikely to be that uninformed, and secondly because the book makes each step of the journey very clear. In that sense, it could be read by (mature) nine-year-olds.

Reviewers have suggested that this is an unsuitable story for children due to its inaccuracies, but I disagree. This is a starting point, and if children continue in their own discoveries and `go exploring', as Bruno might say, then this could well be an appropriate way to introduce them to a challenging topic.

Overall, this is an engaging tale IF you read it without too much prior knowledge and skepticism. The first few pages are slow, but the tale soon gathers pace. It is intended to be a fable and should not be read as a historical text. I will certainly be rereading, now that I have had a chance to reflect on the ideas it presents, and I hope to see the film soon. Who would enjoy this story? Anyone who is prepared to suspend disbelief and discover Bruno's story alongside him.


SPOILERS ALERT!

Bruno is the son of a Nazi commandant who takes charge of the notorious Auschwitz death camp. Increasingly lonely after being removed from Berlin and his friends to the isolated area in Poland, Bruno starts to explore along the wire fence and finds a boy who is very similar to himself, except that he lives on the other side of the fence. As the novel develops, the boys exchange histories and compare their lives, reaching the conclusion that they are very similar really, or would be if only Schmuel weren't so thin and grey skinned...

A tale like this cannot have a happy ending and it doesn't, so be prepared for a sad and thoughtful ending, written as innocently as the rest of the fable.


disappointing, 09 Oct 2008
lent this book to my daughter before I read it by which time I had seen the film. The film was moving and believeable - up to a point. Why his parents took so little interest in Bruno's coming and goings and why the maid takes little interest in his whereabouts is a plot device. Obviously the subject matter is harrowing and I cried at the film but not when reading the book which I found a bit of a letdown. Very simply written and perhaps more suitable for younger readers.

Inaccurate and misleading account of the holocaust. , 08 Oct 2008
I was intrigued about this book and bought it with the intention of giving it to my children, but thought I'd better read it first. I can remember reading "I am David" at the age of about 9 or 10 and being profoundly moved by it. I had hoped that this book would provoke a similar response, but was very disappointed.

Where to start? Apart from the style and writing itself, which I thought very poor, the book is highly inaccurate. We are expected to believe that the son of a high-ranking Nazi official has never heard of Hitler and doesn't know what "Jew" means. Worse than this, the author has taken complete liberty with the experience of children in Auschwitz. The idea that a 9-year-old child could survive in those conditions, and could spend every afternoon wandering off, consorting with the Commandant's son, sitting by an unguarded fence that people can crawl under beggars belief. These and countless other inaccuracies made me very angry.

I think what upset me most about this book is that it is being promoted as a "must-read" book about the holocaust, and for many children may be their first experince of holocaust writings. This "prettified" account of what life was like for a child in a death-camp may be taken as accurate by younger readers with little other experience/knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't let my children read this. I'll let them read "I am David" and, when they are older, Anne Frank's Diary and Primo Levi's "If This is a Man". "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" shouldn't be on anyone's reading list, let alone a child's.

Spend your money on Primo Levi not this., 03 Oct 2008
What place does such a book have? John Boyne has written on one of the greatest tragedies of the last century without bothering to inform himself about the conditions in which children existed at Auschwitz. As such, this book does a grave disservice to those children who suffered and died. Its charm is a deceit that depends on an offensive suspense of reality and the known facts. No children were healthy at Auschwitz. They were dying; all of them - and it showed.
Don't spend money on this - spend it instead on Primo Levi and others like him who deliver the bolt to the heart and mind that is the reality of their suffering at Auschwitz and other similar camps.




moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.


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.

Good defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s, 05 Jul 2007
First published in 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalism in the face of totalitarianisms of both right- and left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism and the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state and the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheaval in the capitalist economy in the 1930s, was in fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' and `Workers' in the title only to attract working class votes, and not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book and its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad and precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the impersonal discipline of the market or that directed by the will of a few individuals...' (p. 205). This argument is disingenuous. While Hayek recognizes that there are degrees of classical liberalism - he eschews what he calls the `dogmatic laissez-faire attitude' (p. 37) - he fails to concede that there are likewise degrees of collectivism. As a work of prediction, 'Serfdom' proved very wide of the mark, for although various postwar European governments instituted what Hayek would refer to as `collectivism' and `planning', they operated within the framework of liberal democracy, private property, and individual political liberty.
In spite of such objections, given all I had read about it, I was expecting Serfdom to be worse than it was. Given the atmosphere it was written in, the book's thesis is actually quite progressive. Maybe that's why such progressives as John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell and George Orwell either gave it favorable reviews or were sympathetic to its argument. As a defence of liberal democracy, Hayek's polemic is indispensable.

What makes people love and die for nations, as well as hate and kill in their name? In this important work, Benedict Anderson focuses a much-needed clear eye on nationalism as cultural artefact, created and transformed through historical processes--a fated and thus pure attachment experienced every day through the connections language forges with a living and dead community.

In selecting the genealogy of "thinking" the nation, Anderson chooses his trajectory well--thankfully reading not only from the social history of Europe, but also from the experiences of its colonies and other states across the globe (the armed conflicts of 1978--79 Indochina provided the immediate impetus for the original 1983 text). It is especially these states which Anderson's later revisions address, with his wise realisation that so-called "official nationalism" in colonised Asia and Africa was not transplanted without intervention from that of the dynastic states of 19th-century Europe. When dealing with such an emotive subject, Anderson thankfully avoids favouring rhetoric over grounded analysis. He thoroughly explains the role of print language in imagining community, particularly with the development of the novel set in a society to which the reader may or may not belong, but can recognise, and the newspaper, which, perhaps replacing morning prayers, is read every day by people who have a sense of their fellow readers' existence.

The power of Imagined Communities ultimately lies in its applied resonances. The force of the argument of an "imagined community" is not only invaluable to sociologists or political economists, but it implicates each of us in compelling notions of identity and belonging whether our imagined community is with a nation or with others who buy, listen to and watch the same cultural products as ourselves. Essential reading for anyone interested in a history of the present. --Fiona Buckland

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

Pants, 13 Oct 2008
What utter nonsense. A 9 year old German in 1944 that hasn't heard of the Hitler Youth? In 45 8 year olds were fighting. What is that rubbish with 'The Fury' and 'Out With'? By the way there is no 'Out With' in German. And a Jew in Auschwitz that can go every day for over a year to a bit of fence which you can lift up so that a boy can move under it? With no watch towers? No guards? And no parents asking where a 9 year old goes every single afternoon for a year. I mean in winter it's dark at 4p.m.

And then there is another problem: the style. It's far too sophisticated for a 'little boy'. For anyone who wants to read a good book that's written about that time, I recommend the book thief by Markus Zusak.

Anyway, stay clear of this book. Not good. I mean, how can the son of the Commander of Auschwitz end up in a gas chamber? Please ....

A modern fable for an uncertain audience, 12 Oct 2008
This is a very difficult book to review, for several reasons.

Firstly, the blurb of this book simply invites you to go on a journey with Bruno, a nine year old boy. The publishers make it clear that having advance knowledge of any detail of Bruno's journey `would spoil the reading of the book'. This is the way I read the story and I have to agree with the publishers. I think that prior knowledge of the plot would have activated my critical faculties and spoilt my reading of the book. I would have read as a critic, rather than a reader. So, if you really want to experience the power of this tale then you should not seek to know any more details about the plot. In fact, you probably shouldn't read this review any further! Be reassured, though: read this way the tale is engaging and very likely to hook you. For those who would like to know the plot, please see the spoilers at the bottom.

The whole tale of Bruno's discoveries raises a second issue that will affect different readers in different ways. As a nine year old boy, Bruno is startlingly, indeed unbelievably, ignorant of his situation and his family's position. Yes, nine year old boys are self-involved to an extent, and may be ignorant of the significance of certain events or actions, but Bruno is blissfully ignorant to a truly astonishing degree. More mature readers may cringe at some of his comments and thoughts. This obliviousness, intended to be read as both ignorance and innocence, is essential for the narrative and allows us to follow his journey and Boyne to develop the moral messages of this fable.

During reading this ignorance is sometimes frustrating, but the real issues arise after reading when it becomes clear that Bruno's ignorance is impossible within the supposed context of the novel. This is actually one of several key features of plot and character that, in retrospect, is impossible. It is best to be clear here: this text is not historically accurate and was never intended to be. It is stated on the title page that this is a `fable'. No one would expect Aesop's Fables to be realistic; we expect them to send clear moral messages, and that is what this story does beautifully. Those messages are at once simple and profound, so if you are not too frustrated by the devices, the ideas, expressed so simply, should move you.

Finally, the blurb inside the jacket cover raises the issue of intended readership. This `isn't a book for nine-year-olds', but it isn't at all clear who it is `for'. Boyne himself told his publishers that he had written something different, something that he thought might be a children's story but hoped would appeal to adults as well. This is a more important issue than it might first appear, due to the content and historical slant. Some reviewers have suggested that if this is children's first contact with the subject matter, then they could be gaining an inaccurate and slightly romanticized view of certain events in history, or, even more crucially, they could simply not understand what is happening. I disagree; firstly because I think that real children are unlikely to be that uninformed, and secondly because the book makes each step of the journey very clear. In that sense, it could be read by (mature) nine-year-olds.

Reviewers have suggested that this is an unsuitable story for children due to its inaccuracies, but I disagree. This is a starting point, and if children continue in their own discoveries and `go exploring', as Bruno might say, then this could well be an appropriate way to introduce them to a challenging topic.

Overall, this is an engaging tale IF you read it without too much prior knowledge and skepticism. The first few pages are slow, but the tale soon gathers pace. It is intended to be a fable and should not be read as a historical text. I will certainly be rereading, now that I have had a chance to reflect on the ideas it presents, and I hope to see the film soon. Who would enjoy this story? Anyone who is prepared to suspend disbelief and discover Bruno's story alongside him.


SPOILERS ALERT!

Bruno is the son of a Nazi commandant who takes charge of the notorious Auschwitz death camp. Increasingly lonely after being removed from Berlin and his friends to the isolated area in Poland, Bruno starts to explore along the wire fence and finds a boy who is very similar to himself, except that he lives on the other side of the fence. As the novel develops, the boys exchange histories and compare their lives, reaching the conclusion that they are very similar really, or would be if only Schmuel weren't so thin and grey skinned...

A tale like this cannot have a happy ending and it doesn't, so be prepared for a sad and thoughtful ending, written as innocently as the rest of the fable.


disappointing, 09 Oct 2008
lent this book to my daughter before I read it by which time I had seen the film. The film was moving and believeable - up to a point. Why his parents took so little interest in Bruno's coming and goings and why the maid takes little interest in his whereabouts is a plot device. Obviously the subject matter is harrowing and I cried at the film but not when reading the book which I found a bit of a letdown. Very simply written and perhaps more suitable for younger readers.

Inaccurate and misleading account of the holocaust. , 08 Oct 2008
I was intrigued about this book and bought it with the intention of giving it to my children, but thought I'd better read it first. I can remember reading "I am David" at the age of about 9 or 10 and being profoundly moved by it. I had hoped that this book would provoke a similar response, but was very disappointed.

Where to start? Apart from the style and writing itself, which I thought very poor, the book is highly inaccurate. We are expected to believe that the son of a high-ranking Nazi official has never heard of Hitler and doesn't know what "Jew" means. Worse than this, the author has taken complete liberty with the experience of children in Auschwitz. The idea that a 9-year-old child could survive in those conditions, and could spend every afternoon wandering off, consorting with the Commandant's son, sitting by an unguarded fence that people can crawl under beggars belief. These and countless other inaccuracies made me very angry.

I think what upset me most about this book is that it is being promoted as a "must-read" book about the holocaust, and for many children may be their first experince of holocaust writings. This "prettified" account of what life was like for a child in a death-camp may be taken as accurate by younger readers with little other experience/knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't let my children read this. I'll let them read "I am David" and, when they are older, Anne Frank's Diary and Primo Levi's "If This is a Man". "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" shouldn't be on anyone's reading list, let alone a child's.

Spend your money on Primo Levi not this., 03 Oct 2008
What place does such a book have? John Boyne has written on one of the greatest tragedies of the last century without bothering to inform himself about the conditions in which children existed at Auschwitz. As such, this book does a grave disservice to those children who suffered and died. Its charm is a deceit that depends on an offensive suspense of reality and the known facts. No children were healthy at Auschwitz. They were dying; all of them - and it showed.
Don't spend money on this - spend it instead on Primo Levi and others like him who deliver the bolt to the heart and mind that is the reality of their suffering at Auschwitz and other similar camps.




moving, 19 Sep 2008
An amazing book, i always wanted to know about the Russian revolution and its cause and effects, Mr Figes not only delivers but makes all the key people involved come alive, i really felt for the peasant farmer trying to reform the agriculture of his village for the greater good.
The title is the most accurate and precise i have known for a book.

An unscrupulous depiction of bolsheviks as cold-blooded despots., 10 Oct 2007
One small example of the problems with Figes' book, small but typical : on pages 631-632 we are treated with the horrendous shooting of Bim-Bom, the clown who dared mock the bolsheviks, at the hands of the Cheka bursting onto the circus in the middle of the comedian's act.

Except that a small amount of research would have made Figes aware that Bim-Bom was not a single clown but a duet, and that no such assassination took place : on the contrary the founder of this famous duet ("Bim" real name Ivan Semenovich Radunskim) died in 1955 after a long career.

But hey ! Why let facts get in the way of a good scene ?


Comprehensive and engaging, 27 Jul 2007
Orlando Figes has produced the definitive account of the events that facilitated the October Revolution of 1917, with significant emphasis placed on the characters who brought it about. He writes with a storytelling style that invites both seasoned historians and novices to the field to truly grasp the scope of this immensely significant and compelling period of history. The emphasis placed on the individual in history is, I think, necessary when it comes to this subject. Without the cunning designs of Lenin, propped up by the rhetoric of Trotsky and with the inability of Kerensky and the Socialist Revolutionaries to recognise the turn of the tide in favour of the Bolsheviks, they were totally incapable of stemming the tide of Socialist Revolution. The post-revisionist concept of the influence of the people in bringing about their own tragedy is brilliantly stated by the master historian, without ever losing sight of the significance of key figures in stimulating revolution.

Detailed and Thorough, Though Annecdotal, 15 Jul 2007
Firstly, I would like to say that this book is an incredible book. It is unlike any book I have read on this or any other historical subject. Figes' prose flows through the book smoothly and enjoyably.

However, this does create some problems within the book. I found that at points throughout the book Figes' prose became too anecdotal; reducing rather horrific actions and events into little more than footnotes within the story. This is not to say that Figes does not tackle the violence and often unspeakable brutality of this period without tact and sensitivity. I think Figes deals with the Russian Revolution and all of the problems it created socially rather well. I believe he captures the essence of the revolution that say, Robert Service could not. Many historians produce accounts of the revolution that paint the revolution as an "Inevitability". This however creates the illusion that the Bolsheviks "Steamrollered" Russia without much hassle. Figes is able to transcend this rather simplified view, painting a very human picture of the leaders of this "People's Revolution" and their roles within this tragedy.

Figes' use of characters within the book creates a drama of epic proportions-hitting home the social uphealval of the time. His particular use of Semenov's story with his battles with the Village hierachy and the meteoric rise of peasant commisars like Os'Kin as well as the linchpin-like Gorky and his role within every aspect of the revolution and his eventual disillusionment with the revolution he had a hand in creating, makes for a tragic and typically desperate Russian Epic.

I will agree with other reviews in that the period after the Civil War is rather rushed compared to the detail in the rest of the book. This rather disappoints and leaves a rather sour taste after such a fantastic book. I think that this as well as Figes' rather flippant style sometimes is the one thing keeping this book from five stars.

This book is an amazing book. Of that that there is no doubt. A must-read for those interested in the Russian Revolution. It succeeds where other books fail; in its concentration of social issues rather than focusing purely on the policital issues/stories.

Masterful and detailed, 18 Dec 2006
Surely this must be the definitive account of the Russian Revolution's origins and course of events. A deserved prize-winner.


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 lo