Have you read "The Dictator's Handbook" by Smith and Bueno de Mesquita? It's a fun and engaging look at how leaders seize and maintain power.
I'd say it's biggest weakness is the assumption that politicians are always rational actors (no person is *always* rational, sometimes we're impulsive and emotional).
Fantastic recommendations, overall. I'm not familiar with Hanfeizi but I look forward to reading it now.
Yes! Its a good one. Very great introduction, and yes that rational assumption pervades that book. Commenting on dictators is tricky - they can often change the narrative. Not to mention the survivorship bias involved.
Its far more compelling to assume that they were all rationally conniving. Rather than in the cases of Stalin or Hitler - being good at seizing the moment. Or in Stalin's case, being skilled at appealing and working with the bureaucracy to side with him. Narratives are less compelling for both the dictator and history if its less chance and more craftiness.
I'll throw in more books next round. Planning to add manga and graphic novels next round.
Loved Prisoners of Geography. Regarding Hanfeizi, it appears to be a Machiavellian type text based on your description. Is this in an overly simplistic way, Asia’s The Prince?
Thanks for the reply. This is a common comment I get about Chinese or East Asian texts like Sunzi's Art of War or even Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings.
Asian strategic texts aren’t vague or simplistic - they’re layered. We tend to assume that the reader has other knowledge or will look up references. Western strategy seeks direct answers to specific problems. Asian strategy manages conditions or while going for relative advantage. Nothing wrong with either, just a different complimentary focus.
The Prince was written in the shadow of a collapsing church authority and a fractured Italy. It is a guide for individual rulers navigating a world where religious authority had fractured. Also where personal cunning became a substitute for inherited legitimacy. So it assumes chaos and instructs how to manipulate it.
Hanfeizi emerged from a China riven by warring states but aiming for unification, not fragmentation. Its logic is not individual but systemic. It is not about the personality of the prince-it is about the machinery of the state. The Prince tells a man how to seize power; Hanfeizi tells a system how to survive over centuries.
I'd go more along the lines that they're two wings of a bird. One compliments the other.
Thank you for the informative response! I did not consider or know about the dynamics about the Prince, especially compared to Han Feizi. I will be adding to my read list. Keep up the great work!
Have you read "The Dictator's Handbook" by Smith and Bueno de Mesquita? It's a fun and engaging look at how leaders seize and maintain power.
I'd say it's biggest weakness is the assumption that politicians are always rational actors (no person is *always* rational, sometimes we're impulsive and emotional).
Fantastic recommendations, overall. I'm not familiar with Hanfeizi but I look forward to reading it now.
Yes! Its a good one. Very great introduction, and yes that rational assumption pervades that book. Commenting on dictators is tricky - they can often change the narrative. Not to mention the survivorship bias involved.
Its far more compelling to assume that they were all rationally conniving. Rather than in the cases of Stalin or Hitler - being good at seizing the moment. Or in Stalin's case, being skilled at appealing and working with the bureaucracy to side with him. Narratives are less compelling for both the dictator and history if its less chance and more craftiness.
I'll throw in more books next round. Planning to add manga and graphic novels next round.
I read “Dark Money” a few years ago and it was the scariest book I had ever read…
The one by Jane Mayer or something else?
Yes, Jane Mayer, Dark Money
Thanks for the recommendations and insight. I will start with prisoners of geography and American diplomacy.
Loved Prisoners of Geography. Regarding Hanfeizi, it appears to be a Machiavellian type text based on your description. Is this in an overly simplistic way, Asia’s The Prince?
Thanks for the reply. This is a common comment I get about Chinese or East Asian texts like Sunzi's Art of War or even Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings.
Asian strategic texts aren’t vague or simplistic - they’re layered. We tend to assume that the reader has other knowledge or will look up references. Western strategy seeks direct answers to specific problems. Asian strategy manages conditions or while going for relative advantage. Nothing wrong with either, just a different complimentary focus.
The Prince was written in the shadow of a collapsing church authority and a fractured Italy. It is a guide for individual rulers navigating a world where religious authority had fractured. Also where personal cunning became a substitute for inherited legitimacy. So it assumes chaos and instructs how to manipulate it.
Hanfeizi emerged from a China riven by warring states but aiming for unification, not fragmentation. Its logic is not individual but systemic. It is not about the personality of the prince-it is about the machinery of the state. The Prince tells a man how to seize power; Hanfeizi tells a system how to survive over centuries.
I'd go more along the lines that they're two wings of a bird. One compliments the other.
Thank you for the informative response! I did not consider or know about the dynamics about the Prince, especially compared to Han Feizi. I will be adding to my read list. Keep up the great work!
Woo! Glad to see Tragedy made the list! I'll have to check out some of the others. Thanks for writing!