I have 2. The People's Republic of Walmart is one. Maybe I feel this way because I work in the industry and I'm a little familiar with central planning techniques... but I just thought it was all fluff with little substance. I felt like more than one chapter was just "Walmart and Amazon do central planning so it's possible" without getting into a lot of the details. Very little about the nuts and bolts of central planning. Throw in a good dose of anti-Stalinism when the man oversaw successful central planning... I just didn't get anything out of it. Might be OK if you want a real basic introduction behind the ideas of planning but honestly I bet like 95% of you already know more about it than you realize.
And I love Graeber but jeez, I couldn't even finish Bullshit Jobs. It felt like a good article that was blown out into a book. Maybe my expectations were too high but I felt like he spent way too many pages getting into minutiae about what is/isn't a bullshit job without actually making a broader point.
i don't really like how parenti actually writes. mans a splendid lecturer but the books? less interesting versions of his lectures for the most part, with the chief difference being a bibliography properly crediting the news article he'd quote
deleted by creator
I agree, but that's because I'd already heard him speak when I first read him. His books aren't the best introduction to his work.
deleted by creator
Really? I read a university review from the 90s about Inventing Reality. The professor said he used the book in his class, and some of his students approached him and accused Parenti of either lying or misunderstanding some things because the source didn’t seem right. The professor told the kids to do further research and present him the evidence so he can reassess Parenti. They got back to him and concluded that Parenti wasn’t lying or misunderstanding anything and they were able to verify the vast majority of his citations and considered his commentary accurate.
Yeah Inventing Reality is actually properly cited. Most people who have read Parenti only read Blackshirts and Reds, which is kind of a joke scholarship-wise.
deleted by creator
i've seen it! i've seen it with my own two eyes! :bird-screm-2:
well not a proper proper bibliography just a chicago footnote [critical support :tito-laugh: ]
this is what i don't like about it. a book needs to have more substance than a lecture. it needs to treat things in depth, not simply prove it's a real new york times article that's been quoted
deleted by creator
I agree that the lack of citations is a big problem. Blackshirts and Reds would be a much stronger book if it had footnotes, endnotes, etc. At least the PDF that I read (and I think most everyone else here who read it digitally) did not have any citations whatsoever. I would feel better about recommending it to certain (read: college) lib types, at least.
sometimes