/lit/ - Literature

Definitely worth reading. But do not read his book, read the article instead.

>>16122706
You mean the wiki article?

He's worth reading, but not the clash of civilisations. He's best known for his third wave theory, which i also don't like. But he wrote a great article on one party-states in pic related.

>>16122706
I fucking hope not. I don't need more books on my reading list. I'm almost done with Toynbee but I still have Sorokin and Tainter to go through.

>>16123352
Sounds interesting, can I get a qrd? Why do you not like the things he's more famous for? Are they shallow or misrepresented?

>>16123365
I think that democratization theorists (of which Huntington is a core proponent) put too much stock in apparent formal change in governmental systems and too little in the substantial underpinning of those systems. Most of the so-called democracies that emerged in the third wave were really just disguised dictatorships under the guise of a democratic system. In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu not only outlines the three forms of legitimate government, but also what is necessary for them to operate (monarchy-honour, aristocracy-restraint, republics-virtue). This is couched in 18th century verbiage, but the point to be drawn from it, a simple point really, is that political structure is nothing without the supporting political culture. But political scientists tend to be drawn towards quantifiable variables and statistical methods, which—while being power instruments in the right context—fail to capture important aspects of politics. A similar problem exists in sociology. There are of course Political Scientists that focus on Norms, but they're pushed out by the chicago-inspired method for various reasons (mostly to do with funding and the development of programs like SPSS). Huntington is far from the worst offender in this sense, but his waves of democracy failed to account for the difficulty in actually creating a successful democracy (especially in countries with a long history of autocracy). This is post-hoc explained later as "democratic backsliding" but the reality is that there was no democracy to begin with. The third wave was merely apparent. He, like other modernization theorists, thinks modern economies have a bias towards democratic political systems. This stems from a correct intuition that wealth and power are intimately intertwined, and as non-governmental wealth production increases so too will demands for power sharing from those groups (also known as representation). But the incorrect assumption was that autocratic systems were unable to integrate these elements into the government without ceding power. It's easier to see this with hindsight of course, but there the vestigial impact of this thinking is still kicking around in political science and has led to disastrous foreign policy decisions.
I guess i don't like his other works because i sit in a different camp in regards to political development and research methodology.

>>16123361
Just read the article and you get his idea. The book is literally just his one idea stretched out into hundreds of pages so he can make money off it

>>16122706

It's a fun read. Just don't take it too seriously.

>>16123883
thank you for saving me the trouble and expense.

>>16123361
Are doing some kind of macro civilizational approach reading?

>>16123903
This. It's kinda popsci but also pretty chill.

bumping for >>16123843's effortpost

>>16122706
He looks like an aged baby.

How ya like dem apples?

>>16125733
thanks anon

>>16122706
Yes, it's worth reading. Along with Fukuyama. People love to shit on them, but they are major contributors to political science.

His predictions with The Clash of civilizations didn't really seem to pan out.

People seem to trot out Said's response whenever it gets brought up, but seemed to completely misunderstand the argument being presented.

>>16124279
pretty much, I've been picking up books by people who ascribe certain underlying principles to the historic process. history in school bored the shit out of me because it was reduced to looking at specific historic events as isolated units, and mainly focused on assessing the validity of primary and secondary evidence. which is important sure, but I also find it myopic and meaningless in its failure to consider the broader context of historic movements, and to consider the vastly different frames of reference that people in the past have operated under when making decisions that affected history.
Aside from the authors I already mentioned, I also have 'Historical Dynamics' by Peter Turchin, who apparently took a more mathematical approach to history (I'm not looking forward to reading it). I've also read the likes of Guénon and Evola and their views on the interplay between history and tradition... Spengler of course whose insights are a bit more narrow in focus IMO. I also have 'Why We Fight' by Mike Martin (and I did mean to get Martin's book and not Guillaume Faye's book by the same title), because it also sounds as if it may have interesting implications in this regard.
I'm always open to suggestions.

>>16127808
So you're looking for stuff like Hegel's Dialectic and Carlyle's Great Man theory?

>>16123843
Based effort, anon. I enjoyed reading your post. One of the very few intelligent posts in a sea of idiocy.

>>16128020
I'm going to have to read Hegel's Dialectic at some point. I'm fuckin dreading it.
As for Carlyle's Great Man Theory, I'm not entirely sure how much it would add to my current understanding. Maybe I'm oversimplifying his theory through lack of knowledge of it, but it makes little sense to me to speak of the principal movers of history being great men, without defining what a great man is. If the GMT proposes the spontaneous arrival of charismatic and innovative men who simply impose their will on the world, then I don't rate it. But that might just be a plain misconception of his theory. In my opinion, great men need two things:
1) Have a perceptiveness and insight to be able to tell which direction the currents are going, to be able to read history as it is unfolding.
2) Have also, by accident of birth, the right nature and abilities with which to take the helm.
If you have the former but not the latter, you are nothing but an armchair theorist. If you have the latter but not the former, you won't be able to correctly determine the opportunities and limitations of the time you live in, and so will either be insignificant, or make a fatal error of judgement.
Ultimately, I only believe in a qualified great man theory. Nobody is so great as to sway the entire course of history in whichever diretion they will. They can only ever be so great as the times allow them, they are always hamstrung to such a degree that the only way they can create truly tectonic shifts is if their will, by chance, aligns with the direction history was already going in.

bump

>>16122706
Worth reading (the article not the book, similar to Fukuyama) if only to understand geopolitical decision-making by American brass for the last two decades or so

>>16127757
Said and missing the point name a more iconic duo

>>16122706
I haven't read him but I have read a bit of Kissinger who supports the theory. Broadly I agree with the line of thinking. I also read an article the other day about the rise of the civilization state - the national state no longer exists in the 21st century, we have instead supranational polities like China, Russia, Turkey etc that emphasize their cultural-historical distinction from Western civilization. An existential reaction against the consolidation of Western civilization by the US in the 20th century. Civilizationism has replaced nationalism.

>>16130578
"Civilization State" is intellectual junk mail from Chinese "academics".

Who's this guy? Wasn't this Alf's dad?

>>16127808
There are a few works from political and social philosophy i can think of that might fit that description. I wont say that all are of the same quality, but they do touch on this idea of teleological history. Economy and Society is difficult to recommend for this speciif purpose due to the nature of the work, but i think the content is there if you connect the dots (and it's an amazing work regardless). Also due to the time of writing some have obvious restraints on their historical purview, or may be of interest for highlighting specific ideological interpretations.
>The New Science - Vico
>An Essay on the History of Civil Society - Ferguson
>Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind - Condorcet (liberal philosophy of history)
>Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose - Kant (kinda)
>Lectures on the Philosophy of History - Hegel
>1844 Manuscripts + Part I of The German Ideology - Marx (Marxist philosophy of history)
>Economy and Society - Weber
>The Myth of the Twentieth Century - Rosenberg (Nazi philosophy of history)
>The End of History - Fukuyama (Neoliberal philosophy of history)

>>16131525
thanks for the recs.
I eventually plan on reading a bunch of stuff from across the political divide from me (ie all of the marxist and critical theory sort of stuff), everything from polemics and case studies to the underlying philosophy of their worldview.
in the latter respect I know I'm probably going to end up having to read Hegel and Marx, but I didn't actually know of any of their works aside from The Phenomenology of Spirit, Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.
so thanks in particular for pointing me toward
>Lectures on the Philosophy of History - Hegel
>1844 Manuscripts + Part I of The German Ideology - Marx

>>16127757
>didn't really seem to pan out
>yet

>>16130118
Kek

>>16131570
Not that guy but, read Kolakowski's Main currents (first volume) as intro to Marx, guarantee you won't regret it. First 80~ pages are a slog, stay strong and it gets very downhill from there and I guarantee by page 150 you will be eager to read Marx/Engels because of how interesting the problems they are tackling are. I don't even say that as a Marxist.

>>16131525
Interesting list, what do you think of Sorokin? I think someone mentioned him already

Some more interesting things, Mosca and Pareto on elite theory

>Leviathan and its Enemies - Samuel Francis
>Confronting the Crisis - Paul Piccone

>>16131577
It wasn't so much a yet. Just pointing out that the most famous piece of criticism against it was inadequate.

>>16132246
Sorry, I haven't read anything by Sorokin yet so I don't have any opinions on him. And the only elitist I've had the chance to read is Michels (outside of a few fragments from Pareto's Mind and Society).

>>16131570
No worries mate.

>>16123843
Please stay on lit.

bump

>>16122706
pop-polisci nonsense. read at your own peril.

>>16135904
Why is it pop-polisci? Please elaborate

>>16135917
It was written for consumption by the general public. To achieve that, it sacrificed academic rigor for accessibility.