What are you currently reading?

[MilesChristi]

That Hideous Strength

[Clare]

Brave New World

[Lynne]

Brave New World

I really need to read that, just so I'll know what's coming next...

[Carleendiane]

Confess ion of a Convert by Robert Hugh Benson

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

Peter Crawford, Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Anti-Christ. The title is a bit over the top, and the author is rather negative about St Athanasius, but it is a strong account of a a ruthless and very able Emperor (a dealer of death to family rivals and those who failed him, usurpers, rebels, one bishop, civil and military officials who couldn't play politics well enough, and Sassanid generals and Germanic warlords) who suffered a lose of repute due to the hostility of historian and Guard officer Ammianus Marcellinus and Church historians due to his harsh upholding of a semi-Arian position.

Once again, I appreciate your time to expound a bit.
I have this on a price watchlist.  Thank you!

thank you for the summary.

Welcome.

Similar enough thing now, covering what the author, John S Harrel calls Nisibis War, the defence of the Roman East Ad 337-363, which has roughly the same end point when Julian the Apostate recklessly and unwisely hazards the Roman East on almost a turn of the card, a full scale invasion of Sassanid Emperor. Not too far in, but Peter Crawford noted that Constantius husbanded Roman resources well enough in the East, but his successful and fairly economic defensive posture in three theatres of war had no glory to it. His austere, chaste, military existence gain the respect of his troops, but outside of that, limited respect from those who wrote history. Julian the bearded philosopher king hoped to be Trajan and Alexander, which didn't work out. I wonder how this author will reckon it. This author is more focussed on logistics, less so on other aspects, but they aren't neglected.

Once again, I appreciate your time to expound a bit.
I have this on a price watchlist.  Thank you!

[Clare]

Brave New World

I really need to read that, just so I'll know what's coming next...

It's good. This'll be the fourth or so time I've read it.

[ludimagister]

Brave New World

I've recently read that, and I kept on wondering what the economic system was. The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system. Also encouraging high consumer spending wouldn't seem to make sense in a socialist system.

A similar question about Fahrenheit 451. Maybe neither author was making a point about economics.

Any thoughts?

[red solo cup]

Brave New World

I've recently read that, and I kept on wondering what the economic system was. The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system. Also encouraging high consumer spending wouldn't seem to make sense in a socialist system.

A similar question about Fahrenheit 451. Maybe neither author was making a point about economics.

Any thoughts?

https://prezi.com/jnxbc9satmlu/brave-new-world/

[ludimagister]

Thanks, red solo cup. I'm not sure it fully answered my question, but had to view it on "prezi lite", so it wasn't fully navigable.

[Maximilian]

Brave New World

The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system.

The reference to Ford is to the creation of the production line. There can be production lines just as easily in both socialist and capitalist systems. Huxley's point it about the extension of the production line to human life. We become part of the production line, rather than it serving us. This happens equally in both socialist and capitalist systems.

[ludimagister]

Brave New World

The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system.

The reference to Ford is to the creation of the production line. There can be production lines just as easily in both socialist and capitalist systems. Huxley's point it about the extension of the production line to human life. We become part of the production line, rather than it serving us. This happens equally in both socialist and capitalist systems.

I suppose my question is about the motivation of the rulers of society in the novel. Encouraging consumption would make sense in a society where there were private corporations in which, perhaps, the rulers of society had a stake. But it wouldn't make sense in a socialist society where people's income came from the state; a socialist society might have reason to encourage greater productivity, but not greater consumption, as far as I can see.

[Gardener]

Brave New World

The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system.

The reference to Ford is to the creation of the production line. There can be production lines just as easily in both socialist and capitalist systems. Huxley's point it about the extension of the production line to human life. We become part of the production line, rather than it serving us. This happens equally in both socialist and capitalist systems.

I suppose my question is about the motivation of the rulers of society in the novel. Encouraging consumption would make sense in a society where there were private corporations in which, perhaps, the rulers of society had a stake. But it wouldn't make sense in a socialist society where people's income came from the state; a socialist society might have reason to encourage greater productivity, but not greater consumption, as far as I can see.

Producing without consuming is just as much a problem as consuming without producing.

Oleg Atbashian addresses the problem of this in his book "Shakedown Socialism" (https://www.amazon.com/Shakedown-Socialism-Pitchforks-Collective-Redistributive/dp/1882514912)

James03 addresses this problem of government trying (and failing) to be omniscient in social/market needs in his book. (https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Catholic-Subsidiarity-James-DePrisco/dp/1535109904)

The whole point of a free market is to allow the process of equilibrium. We don't see this in either so-called Capitalist markets these days(which are not Capitalist, properly speaking), nor in left wing fascist socialism. As Atbashian points out, overproduction of socks leads to sock factory workers getting paid in socks. Since they cannot exchange socks with the people (who would have bought them and consumed the production, via producing that which others consume), this government idea of producing has screwed the sock factory worker because it interrupts the market process and forces them into what is essentially indentured servitude with a useless fungible proxy for their time and labor: socks.

Ann Barnhardt, love her or hate her, touches on these concepts in this article:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/08/26/the-magi-didnt-bring-baby-jesus-gold-because-schlomo-gave-them-a-good-price/
and this one:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/08/24/monetary-theory-be-fruitful-and-multiply/

Her monetary/economic theory is the same as Atbashian's, DePrisco's, Denninger's...

[Clare]

Brave New World

The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system.

The reference to Ford is to the creation of the production line. There can be production lines just as easily in both socialist and capitalist systems. Huxley's point it about the extension of the production line to human life. We become part of the production line, rather than it serving us. This happens equally in both socialist and capitalist systems.

Basically totalitarian and utilitarian, I guess.

[ludimagister]

Brave New World

The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system.

The reference to Ford is to the creation of the production line. There can be production lines just as easily in both socialist and capitalist systems. Huxley's point it about the extension of the production line to human life. We become part of the production line, rather than it serving us. This happens equally in both socialist and capitalist systems.

Basically totalitarian and utilitarian, I guess.

Of the two, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four, which would you say has been more accurate in its predictions, in general terms?

[Gardener]

Brave New World

The totalitarian nature of the society would suggest socialism, but the allusions to Henry Ford would suggest a capitalist system.

The reference to Ford is to the creation of the production line. There can be production lines just as easily in both socialist and capitalist systems. Huxley's point it about the extension of the production line to human life. We become part of the production line, rather than it serving us. This happens equally in both socialist and capitalist systems.

Basically totalitarian and utilitarian, I guess.

Of the two, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four, which would you say has been more accurate in its predictions, in general terms?

Brave New World is more accurate for what we see in the West, imo... but moving towards 1984.

The East is more 1984, moving towards BNW.

This web comic does a good compare/contrast:
https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webcomic-2/