I was looking at my shelf of books that I have read over the past three years, and I noticed a couple in particular that I had not seen or thought about in quite a while. These are two books that helped stimulate the early growth stages of my political awareness.

The first one is a book by Lawrence Eubank called The Case Against Capital. What I like about this book is that it completely refutes Marxist economic theory (and what is not to like about that?). While the fall of the Soviet Union pretty much collapsed all serious consideration of his political theory, the challenges against capitalism have largely been accepted as truths that have converted many a university student to the Left. This is the best serious work I have read that has thrown Marxist economic thinking to the trash heap of history. Lawrence Eubank, by far, commited me to my own disgust with communism.

The second book is one that I read in the summer of 2003, after randomly picking it up at Borders. It is Fareed Zakaria’s The Future of Freedom, a study of how democracy can become illiberal and consequently dangerous. Here is the review:

From Publishers Weekly
Democracy is not inherently good, Zakaria (From Wealth to Power) tells us in his thought-provoking and timely second book. It works in some situations and not others, and needs strong limits to function properly. The editor of Newsweek International and former managing editor of Foreign Affairs takes us on a tour of democracy’s deficiencies, beginning with the reminder that in 1933 Germans elected the Nazis. While most Western governments are both democratic and liberal-i.e., characterized by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic rights-the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Zakaria praises countries like Singapore, Chile and Mexico for liberalizing their economies first and then their political systems, and compares them to other Third World countries “that proclaimed themselves democracies immediately after their independence, while they were poor and unstable, ÄbutÅ became dictatorships within a decade.” But Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in America, which has descended into “a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness.” The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are effective precisely because they are insulated from political pressures. Zakaria provides a much-needed intellectual framework for many current foreign policy dilemmas, arguing that the United States should support a liberalizing dictator like Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf, be wary of an elected “thug” like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and take care to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into societies that are not merely democratic but free.

While I may disagree with some of his conclusions, specifically the need more appointed bodies, does make many that I do agree with. Having lived in Chile, I can testify that they have an incredibly free society, where you as an individual have the liberty to do much more than you generally can here. This is because Pinochet’s government set forth economic reform that propelled Chile to a functioning democratic society. I especially agree with his point on an “elected thug” like Hugo Chavez, and the need for economic reform to ensure moderation in democracy. Overall, a great book and a careful analysis. Even if you don’t agree with him, the arguments are compelling and pragmatic. I guarantee that it will make you rethink your position on some things.

In fact, it would be a great supplement to Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy.

UPDATE: Luda reminded be about Gene Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy which has been used as a reference manual by pro-democracy movements like PORA. If you click the link, it goes to a free download. Also, apparently he has a new book out called Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential. So many books, so little time!