Scan barcode
nick_latanick's review against another edition
2.0
I was expecting an irreverent, but generally fair exploration of the evolution of socialist philosophy and theory through the decades. This book is not that.
Instead, it is a scattershot survey of mostly contemporary policy issues in the united states at the time of publication, replete with name calling of the author's political interlocutors, strawman argumentation, and the assumption of maximum bad-faith on the part of anyone suggesting even the slightest use of government in solving social issues. I am a libertarian, and predisposed to agree with Williamson's conclusion, but even I can see that the arguments are ill-constructed, and found little of value in terms of understanding the history or progression of socialist thought.
As if that weren't bad enough, the amount of ink spilled on particular policy initiatives of Hugo Chavez, and Barack Obama, date the text horrendously.
Instead, it is a scattershot survey of mostly contemporary policy issues in the united states at the time of publication, replete with name calling of the author's political interlocutors, strawman argumentation, and the assumption of maximum bad-faith on the part of anyone suggesting even the slightest use of government in solving social issues. I am a libertarian, and predisposed to agree with Williamson's conclusion, but even I can see that the arguments are ill-constructed, and found little of value in terms of understanding the history or progression of socialist thought.
As if that weren't bad enough, the amount of ink spilled on particular policy initiatives of Hugo Chavez, and Barack Obama, date the text horrendously.
veranasi's review against another edition
1.0
Intellectually dishonest. Central planning isn't socialism. Central planning is a model of organization, which nearly every single group or enterprise uses. It's cute to run around quoting libertarian or Austrian economists, but taking snippets out of context is pretty dishonest and lazy.
More...