3 ms·

While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it th

While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it three times. So, I’d read Pipes, then read Antony Beevor, then read China Mieville, then triangulate. Pick any three authors. Pipes was definitely conservative, but there is no such thing as completely objective history, especially on a topic like the Russian Revolution (arguably the most political event since the French Revolution)

johngossman 2y ago
You can also take Parfit’s advice and just read Sidgwick over and over.
0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
I actually read Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution first. Her view was a lot different from that of Pipes, and I didn't feel well-positioned to adjudicate. That's where my issue comes from. I don't think reading a 3rd book would solve it. Pipes' account resonated better with my view of human nature, but maybe that's just my bias creeping in ;-) Maybe the trick is to initially focus on well-studied areas of history where there is very little controversy, to calibrate your BS detector. Then once you're calibrated, you can be more judicious learning about the controversial stuff. Thoughts on that strategy? If it seems good, I'd love to get some recs on specific "authoritative" history books which could be good for calibration purposes :-)
- johngossman 2y ago
  That's basically my strategy: try to start with more factual accounts. Sometimes, I start with the shorter accounts. Then move to the more opinionated or specific histories. It all depends on how closely you want to study a particular topic. I'm just saying I don't feel like I know even the basic facts until I've seen them at least three times. I don't have any other specific "authoritative" books to recommend. Maybe one of the Lenin or Stalin biographies? And Dr. Zhivago, of course...
0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
BTW, Pipes was so hard on Lenin that he made me start thinking perhaps communism might've actually worked* if it wasn't for that Lenin guy. * by "worked", I mean evolved into something more functional, benevolent, and incentives-aligned, perhaps akin to Nordic social democracy, or perhaps something novel
- johngossman 2y ago
  You're on to one of the biggest controversies of all: were all the big things that happened (an almost infinite list of almost infinite badness) due to Stalin, or was it Lenin, or did it all go bad starting with Marx? Or the French Revolution? Much ink and much blood spilled over those questions. Animal Farm touches on it (Orwell was a socialist but hated Stalin). Solzhenitsyn came to the opposite conclusion: that the Gulag and the purges started with Lenin. I don't think it will ever be settled.

johngossman 2y ago

You can also take Parfit’s advice and just read Sidgwick over and over.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

I actually read Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution first. Her view was a lot different from that of Pipes, and I didn't feel well-positioned to adjudicate. That's where my issue comes from. I don't think reading a 3rd book would solve it. Pipes' account resonated better with my view of human nature, but maybe that's just my bias creeping in ;-) Maybe the trick is to initially focus on well-studied areas of history where there is very little controversy, to calibrate your BS detector. Then once you're calibrated, you can be more judicious learning about the controversial stuff. Thoughts on that strategy? If it seems good, I'd love to get some recs on specific "authoritative" history books which could be good for calibration purposes :-)

johngossman 2y ago
That's basically my strategy: try to start with more factual accounts. Sometimes, I start with the shorter accounts. Then move to the more opinionated or specific histories. It all depends on how closely you want to study a particular topic. I'm just saying I don't feel like I know even the basic facts until I've seen them at least three times. I don't have any other specific "authoritative" books to recommend. Maybe one of the Lenin or Stalin biographies? And Dr. Zhivago, of course...

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

BTW, Pipes was so hard on Lenin that he made me start thinking perhaps communism might've actually worked* if it wasn't for that Lenin guy. * by "worked", I mean evolved into something more functional, benevolent, and incentives-aligned, perhaps akin to Nordic social democracy, or perhaps something novel

johngossman 2y ago
You're on to one of the biggest controversies of all: were all the big things that happened (an almost infinite list of almost infinite badness) due to Stalin, or was it Lenin, or did it all go bad starting with Marx? Or the French Revolution? Much ink and much blood spilled over those questions. Animal Farm touches on it (Orwell was a socialist but hated Stalin). Solzhenitsyn came to the opposite conclusion: that the Gulag and the purges started with Lenin. I don't think it will ever be settled.