Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

does anyone else think that mein kampf was far more harmful than the communist manifesto.

this article wants to place blame for the soviet union with marx and engels, but i think that they would have been horrified with stalin's version of communism. i think even lenin would have been horrified w/ stalin's version of communism.

even if you are going to blame marx and engels for the u.s.s.r., i dont think it would be accurate to say that their book is more harmful than mein kampf, which called for the outright destruction of an entire group of people.

 

I'd like to read teh first 3

 

Really? I doubt it. Anyway, the key difference is that you probably wouldn't find a list like this in the Nation.

 

Having read both (well not all of Mein Kampf, that book is terrible), I can try to answer this.

First, I think it most important to note that the "experts" that made this list obviously view communism as the worst evil ever - that alone is the primary influence for this ranking, IMO.

Secondly, Mein Kampf, while certainly full of hatred and prejudice, is so terribly written that it is hard to garner any "message" or "philosophy" from it. It is a rambling and quasi-nonsensical rant. The manifesto, on the other hand is very well written with very clear goals.

It is very accurate to state that Marx and Engels would be horrified with USSR "communism". Communism per Marx and Engels was much more utopian - to the point of being virtually impossible.

EDIT: Let me add, that were it up to me, yes Mein Kampf would be worse. The above is really more trying to justify it from the "experts" viewpoint. Of course, were it up to me, this list would not exist to begin with.

 

Conservatives and conservatives aren't even the same thing anymore.

 

I've read many chapters of The Communist Manifesto in my History degree and philosophy classes--certainly there are millions of dead Russian and Chinese peasants to say it was harmful, but is also one of the most IMPORTANT books ever written in the last 2 centuries. If you don't understand that, you have no grasp on Modern History.

This quote right here though....WOW...what a classic, right along the lines of the double speak that brought you such hits as "We had to destroy the village to save it":

After Ronnie's DISASTROUS fiscal policy that plunged the country into recession with the first record national debt and the W admin's tab growing faster than the brush on his Crawford ranch, I don't know how any conservative that wants to be take seriously would parrot the tripe I quoted above.

Yes conservatives, FDR is responsible for the fiscal mess we are in today...

 

Concur. I always thought that Das Kapital and the Manifesto were incredibly insightful observations of the weaknesses and exploitation inherent in capitalist society. If a society reduces everything to +/- on the profit ledger then logically the poor will suffer. What's more interesting is how this exploitation can be hidden within a worldwide economy - for example, the diamond industry.

 

Knew that.

My comment was rhetorical, saying that reacting to the opinions of 15 people because of the word 'conservative', does not somehow remove the link between the books, the authors, their ideas, from the suffering of millions of people because of those same ideas. (conservative and liberal as labels have very little meaning anymore for me)

I wasn't accusing anyone here of anything (although the book burning picture speaks) I don't remember considering myself the combined affect, especially the toll of human suffurage that resulted from just a few of those ideas fostered in these works.

Interesting poll.

I once took a literature class at U of H called' Literature of the Revolution' - I thought is was all about the Revolutionary War in America. Instead the professor got up at the start of the first class and wrote on the marker board- "There is no God" (at the time we were kindred spirits) The course asctually was a study of global anarchy and the plaudits of destroying all government at all costs.

What I learned from that is they borrowed from alot of the same authors listed. Now how a dictatorship survives anarchy was never explained to me. But what I was taught in that course would have been very harmful if the ideas were ever acted upon.

These ideas have been acted upon with great human suffering resulting.

 

Well I've read a few of those books and have a few in my personal library. I'm also been working through Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which I notice didn't make the list even though according to Gene Roddenbury will be responsible for far greater suffering across the galaxy.

Some books I think should've been added are Gone with the Wind and Christine which are responsible for spawning whole genres of crappy fiction and sappy movies.

 

I'm disappointed also, Sishir Chang, Rand's Objectivist philosophy was never better championed than by Hitler, Lenin, Mao, et al- they may have proported collectivism but in objectivist reality they all pursued the aim of their own personal glorification.

After all Objectivists simply reason that one's highest authority is oneself. Ahh ultimate power is bliss.

Thanks for pointing out the omission.

 

haha this is too funny

According to these guys, these books are harmful and responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the world, but yet they put hotlinks to the books on Amazon.com where they get money if anyone buys the book through the use of their links!!!

 

Rhester;

I was joking there about Rand but I agree that Objectivism is potentially very dangerous and among followers has some very cultish aspects. Fortunately though while Ayn Rand has been read widely I don't think there has ever been a serious political movement based off of her ideas.

I've had some raging debates with followers of Objectivism on the side of faith and religion just to let you know its not only Christians like you, MadMax and Grizzled I give a hard time too.

 

The insatiable craving of the illusion of self is the root cause of all suffering.

 

The KKK and Aryan Nation types feel that they use the Bible as their source book. Does that mean Christianity is responsible? The relationship is about the same, Christianity is to the KKK/Aryan Nation as Marxism is to Stalinism/Maoism (although I would say that the racist types believe it whereas Stalin knew he was twisting Marxism...Lenin less so, maybe).

Also, as someone said, Marxism is crucial to the creation of the modern world...even the US continues to be influenced by parts of it.

I am not a Marxist, by the way, I would have been on the other side of the aisle during the First International power struggle.

I still can't stop laughing about Mill and Simone being honorable mentions.

 

rimbaud, I understand- my post had to do with the ideas themselves not any mis-application.

Marx and Engels dialectic is one of the most harmful world views ever used to enslave men and women. The dialectic process is a dictator's most effective means of crushing a population under the heal of corruption and power. The dialectic replaces individual virtue with collective slavery. Read Orwell's 1984, better yet just watch our congress wrangle back and forth in the grip of the dialectic. (I think there is signigicant historical evidence to nail the fruits of dialectic revolution)

I realize that the Bible is used by many hate groups, but not because of the ideas of the Bible.

So many things I don't understand, but the ideas of the Bible aren't some of them. I think if you would just read one book on the life of Jesus, say St. John, and you will easily see through those Aryan groups.

The KKK may carry crosses and Bibles, but that is like the preachers who hold them up to rob widows of money- the light they see in the tunnel is an oncoming train- a righteous and just God who vindicates Himself and the persecuted.

 

I don't think you know what the dialectic is, quite honestly. It has been around since Plato. You might mean dialectical materialism, which was coined after Marx's death and Marx never really promoted (he was more of a materialist...the modern understanding of the dialectic comes out of Hegel and Feuerbach). Also, it should be noted that the dialectic is a philosophy of history and does not "replace individual virtue with collective slavery." Further, the CM states that the proletariat revolution would be the end of the dialectic.

So many things I don't understand, but the ideas of the Bible aren't some of them. I think if you would just read one book on the life of Jesus, say St. John, and you will easily see through those Aryan groups.

I think it would be safe to say that I know more of the bible and Christianity than you do of 19th century political theory and, more specifically, Marxism. And you missed the point, leading to:

The KKK may carry crosses and Bibles, but that is like the preachers who hold them up to rob widows of money- the light they see in the tunnel is an oncoming train- a righteous and just God who vindicates Himself and the persecuted.

And Napoleon called himself a republican before and while crowning himself emperor. And Stalin called himself a Marxist before and while creating an authoritarian state. So, yeah, you missed my point with the whole Bible comparison.

 

Henry Ford's racist writings were left out. His articles in the Dearborn Independent and that book he published were world known. It's said to have deeply influenced Hitler.

 

Well that explains a lot about current Republicans.

 

Damn darwin in in honerable mentions. That is the most importent writer in my field.

i could agree on some of these books, but it al depent from which point of vieuw you look at it. From a communistic person the books of marx are not harmful.

 

Turner Diaries? Satanic Verses?