Molotov Remembers is the only book that allows the reader an inside look at Russia pre-1917, through the Bolshevik Revolution, and on through World War II and the Cold War. This is the first time a truly insider account has been written, and who better than Vyacheslav Molotov, the notorious Soviet foreign minister who preceded Stalin as premier. This book is not necessarily contradictory to the history we were taught in school, for never before have we had such an intimate account of the dealings inside the Soviet government.

What is also particularly fascinating is not the views Molotov held about the West but the views he held of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. The reader is introduced to what Molotov held as the true course for building socialism in the USSR, and one would be surprised to find out what he thought of Khrushchev and Brezhnev building "communism" in the Soviet Union.

All in all, this is an excellent buy.

V. M. Molotov was one of the most evil, ruthless human beings who ever lived, and if there's a Hell, he's in it. For forty years he helped make sure the Communist Party ruled the Soviet Union, whatever the price -- and that price came close to being his own life, and that of his wife.

In the eighties, Felix Chuev had a long series of interviews with Molotov, and they form a fascinating picture of life on the inside of the Soviet Empire. Molotov was a true believer in Communism right till the end, ready to justify anything if he thought it waould preserve the Party's power. He still loved Stalin, and said so, while admitting that he and his wife were nearly murdered by the paranoid old tyrant. 'It was necessary,' he says.

And in a weird way, he was right. Marx's grand vision was that capitalism would industrialize the world, but the workers would hate it and destroy it. Wrong! The workers were interested in better pay and better working conditions, not running the country. And Marx never had a plan for running the economy after the revolution -- somehow, the workers would solve all problems by unanimous agreement.

When the Bolsheviks seized power, they nearly destroyed Russia's economy. Facing collapse, Lenin re-instituted a form of capitalism (the New Economic Policy) to buy time to consolidate the Communist Party's rule. But by the late twenties, the NEP had done all it could. The CPUSA had to either give up power and go to full capitalism, give up growth and be conquered by Germany, or build industry on the bones of the masses. Stalin saw this, and chose to murder millions rather than admit that capitalism just works better. Molotov was his chief henchman in these policies, and he's dead right that without them, Soviet power couldn't have survived.

But even with them, it couldn't survive. The only way a Communist society can work is by one man rule and periodic bloodbaths. But in order to preserve that rule, the dictator has to slay all successors able and ruthless enough to take his place. So invariably, the Great Killer's successors are mediocrities, and the totalitarian system rots from within. It will happen in China before the 2020s are out, and in Cuba by the 2030s.

All students of Russia and the former Soviet Union (and I still LOVE to type 'former Soviet Union') should read this book and see what is necessary to hold the kind of power Lenin and Stalin did, to achieve what little they achieved, and why in the end it still had to fail.

This book gives us fascinating portraits of Lenin and Stalin, which refute all the vicious lies about them. It tells us much about international affairs, especially the Soviet Union's successful efforts to delay Hitler's treacherous attack in 1941, and on the period since Stalin's death in 1953. As he told Chuev, "I write about socialism - what it is and, as peasants say, 'what we need it for.'"

The book shows Stalin's great achievements: solving the nationalities question, industrialisation, the collectivisation of agriculture, the defeat of Hitler. Molotov points out that the Soviet Union created "industrialisation by our own means, by our own manpower. We could not rely on foreign loans." He sums up the successes of the 1920s and 1930s: "In essence we were largely ready for the war. The five-year plans, the industrial capacity we had created - that's what helped us to endure, otherwise we wouldn't have won out." As he said, "Many things have been done wonderfully, but that is not enough."

Molotov was "a fighter for communism, Lenin's longest surviving comrade-in-arms." He was born in 1890. In 1912 he helped to found Pravda. In 1917 he joined the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. In October 1917 he became a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee which prepared the armed uprising in Petrograd.

In 1926 he became a member of the Politburo, where he worked till 1952. From 1930, when he became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, he helped to lead the drives for industrialisation and for collectivisation. He took a leading role in the fight to defeat the Fifth column. In May 1939 he was appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

He was Deputy Chairman of the State Council of Defence throughout the Great Patriotic War (World War Two). In 1942 he signed the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance; he also secured Roosevelt and Churchill's agreement "To the urgent tasks of creating a second front in Europe in 1942." In 1943 he seconded Stalin at the Teheran Conference, and in 1945 he did the same at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. He represented the Soviet Union at the San Francisco Conference which founded the United Nations.

In 1957 the attempt to remove Krushchev was defeated and Molotov and the other Communists were expelled from the Central Committee. In 1962 he was expelled from the Party. In 1984 he was reinstated. He died in 1986.

Perhaps his epitaph should be what he said in 1976, "Properly speaking, what was Hitler's aggression? Wasn't it class struggle? It was. And the fact that atomic war may break out, isn't that class struggle? There is no alternative to class struggle. This is a very serious question. The be-all and end-all is not peaceful coexistence. After all, we have been holding on for some time, and under Stalin we held on to the point where the imperialists felt able to demand point-blank: either surrender such and such positions, or it means war. So far the imperialists haven't renounced that."

Omega - 3 is an essential food & essential edditive to most of us which need it for every day activities. Our body & our mind can't stay for long without the Omega - 3 and because of short of this product in the westeren diet we are suffering many kind of new ilness which weren't known in the past. The book which lighted one of the Omega - 3 qaulities, based on a small grup and that why it couldn't be more than another article of Omega - 3.

This book is essentially the published results of a study Donald O. Rudin did in the early 1980s. In this study, Rudin gave a group of forty-four patients high doses of flax oil and vitamin supplements for two years. His results: Most patients in the study showed health improvements in a variety of areas, including cardiovascular health, emotional disorders, immune disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, joint and muscle problems, skin problems, and urinary tract problems. I recently read this book along with Andrew Stoll's The Omega-3 Condition in my ongoing search for better health and relief from persistant, nagging feelings of anxiety and depression. While Rudin's words and the results of his study give me great hope, my own experience with flax oil has not been as dramatic as the participants in his study. After a two months of taking a daily dose of flax oil (and fish oil, I might add), I have noticed that the dry skin in my eyebrows and ears has dissipated, but I have not noticed any anti-depressant, anti-anxiety effects while taking flax oil. Rudin's "modernization disease theory"--that most of the ailments plaguing us today, (i.e. cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and depression) are the result of dietary modifications in the last century, appeals to me on an emotional level. Also appealing to me is the idea that our modern healthcare system is totally monopolistic and based on dealing with problems that are not medical, but are more related to nutrition and lifestyle. However, I suppose that even if all of this is emotionally appealing to me, the science of Rudin's flax oil/omega-3 theory is probably not very valid. Overall, I think this book is interesting and well worth a read for anyone interested in nutrition.

Want to live to age 100? Read this book and emphasize the GOOD fats in your diet and you may well get there - or beyond. Don't be taken in by the naysayers or negative feedback. The allopathic medical people are well aware of the TREMENDOUS healing abilities of Omega 3 fats in the diet and have been for many years, but they'd rather ignore it. Read this and learn how to be a survivor. Don't fall into the allopathic trap.

This book, which runs to 250 pages scarcely burdened by a coherently expressed thought, is in line for the prestigious prize, the Golden Merde de Taureau. It contains, along with much else, the authors' mature lucubrations on the foundations of calculus, which have greatly impressed readers who flunked high-school math; others maintain that these passages are not about mathematics at all, just as the passages about science are not about science, and they may be right. What, if anything, it is about is anyone's guess, and many have speculated, some to their own satisfaction. This work should not be tackled by those in whom unfortunate defects of education have left a residual respect for language and joined-up thought.

For a grad class "Recent French Philosophy" I am reading Deleuze and Guattari's "What is Philosophy?". I certainly don't have a review ready for it. Nor can I claim to have concrete and clear thoughts about it yet. But I do have questions and rough ideas which I will endeavor to set down simply for the practice of articulating these thoughts.

Regarding style: Many have and will complain that Deleuze obfuscates what he ought to want to make clear. The meaning of a sentence or paragraph, I will admit, is not always clear if only because Deleuze refers often to ideas outside philosophy without providing clear meaning. He alludes or make explicit reference to art works, history, his previous work, film, and political concerns without pausing to describe more completely each of these.

Deleuze however is completely serious in his task; I would deny anyone who wished to claim Deleuze was trying to evoke a mind-fudge which would somehow disrupt the knowledge-seeking mind the same way knowledge-seeking has been disrupted by poststructuralist insights. He may do this in Mille Plateau but so far in "What is Philosophy?" he is not being artful with his style. His style is dictated not by a desire to have commensurability between "gist" and mode of expression. His style is dense and difficult because he has a lot to say, is at the end of a career with much ground work done; and feels he must talk to his schoolmates (to use a phrase of Spivak's concerning Derrida). The issues dealt with in "What is Philosophy?" exist at a high level of abstraction which Deleuze has arrived at the end of his career. Let his earlier work, a familiarity with art and culture, and a close dedicated slow reading fill in the gaps in his style.

Deleuze begins with an introduction in which he suggests that the question of what is philosophy, is a question proper for old age. Indeed, this book was written not long before Guattari died and after many of their great collaborative works. Deleuze wrote at the beginning of his career detailed histories of particular individual philosophers that he felt to be in line with his and his generations project to do without Hegelian dialectics (this according to Hardt's reading). Deleuze wrote on Hume, Bergson, Nietzsche and Spinoza in this fashion. Deleuze then partnered with Guattari, a psychoanalyst and activist, to write "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" as well as the sequel, "Thousand Plateaus."

"What is Philosophy?" is very much a work in which Deleuze and Gauttari step back to survey as only an older person can do what it is they've been doing all along. The book does actually provide definitions of what philosophy is and is rigorous in explaining what the definitions mean.

Philosophy is the creation of concepts. It is not an extension of logic, nor an inquiry into the textual nature of everything. Nor is philosophy reflection, contemplation or communication although philosophy creates concepts of each of those three eventually.

So, what is it to create concepts? It seems to me that the easiest way to understand what Deleuze says about concepts is to think about it all with the aid of a 3D Cartesian graph like in a CAD program.

There is no simple or originary concept as every concept consists in more than two components and every concept is situated in relation to a philosophical problem (such as free will or perception) and is situated in relation to other concepts on the same plane and on other planes.

"For, according to the Nietzsching verdict, you will know nothing through concepts unless you have first created them -- that is, constructed them in an intuition specific to them: a field, a plane, and a ground that must not be confused with them but that shelters their seeds..."

What the concept is named, who is it's creator, and the components involved in its relation to its philosophical problem are all the idiosyncratic components of a concept each existing in our Cartesian 3D space...the concept being the "Fragmentary whole" connecting all the components.

In light of their definition of a concept, Deleuze and Guattari are able to say something to those who are often found arguing about subjectivity and objectivity or relativism and absolutes. A concept belies this dichotomy as a concept is both relative and absolute. In that a concept consists roughly speaking of relations between its components and other concepts, then a concept is relative. But to attack a concept as not-absolute is only to bring another component into our range and thereby change the concept we are dealing with.

"The concept is therefore both absolute and relative: it is relative to its own components, to other concepts, to the plane on which it is defined, and to the problems it is supposed to resolve; but it is absolute through the condensation it carries out, the site it occupies on the plane, and the conditions it assigns to the problem" [p.21].

D and G explain themselves in concrete examples which is wonderfully helpful. The examples include "the Other" and the Cartesian Ego which includes a drawing.

I am still trying to figure out if neighborhood zones, bridges, planes, and history of a concept, refer to the concepts endoconsistency and endorelations or its exorelations. I think zone is endo and plane is endo.

More later.

The book is what one could call the image-thought of Deleuze himself. What is explained in chapter two is the book itself. If one wants the answer to the question: "¿what is then the image of thought of Deleuze and Guattari?" then this book is the answer. Now, one cannot simply answer: "Creation". After reading the book and some other parts of their philosophy, one understands that that is just the external form of the answer, not worng, but not whole. A new system of philosophy "is finished" with this book. Not a hegelian system, but as Hegel did.

This book shows anyone all aspects of things that kids can know with out knowing too much that sad things happen all the time and people are brought up to be protected from that now we must let them know

In response to the person who wrote the review titled, "Senseless Acts of Violence Against Deer Provoke Anger", you are crazy. Yes, there is some violence that the youngest of children should not see. However, even my 3 year old was able to grasp that bad things happen, and that we must learn to move on. The story of Bambi is a true to life story, and is not some exploiting of 'poor, innocent' animals at all. There are also lessons to be learned about 'Hunter-oriented values' - which are not necissarily evil. Some people hunt to eat, and to live. When hunting is done in the right spirit, and not simply for sport, it can be a very good thing. I was able to teach my daughter all of this, and she is better for it, because of it.

WHAT A GREAT BOOK !, MY 4 YEAROLD ATTENDED PRESCHOOL THIS YEAR AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE BOOKS IN THE ROOM, EVERYDAY WHEN I CAME TO PICK HER UP SHE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE BOOK, NOT THINKING SHE MIGHT REALLY BEABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE BOOK I RENTED THE MOVIE, UPOND HER WATCHING THE MOVIE SHE NOW WANTED THE BOOK, I ASKED A FREIND TO LOAN ME THE BOOK FOR A FEW DAYS TO SEE IF SHE WOULD STILL WANT IT AT HOME AND NEEDLESS TO SSAY SHE DID, SHE WOULD BRING THE BOOK TO ME AND WELL WE ALL KNOW SHE COULDNT READ THE WORDS, BUT SHE DID TELL ME THE STORY AS SHE KNEW THE BOOK WHEN SHE WAS IN SCHOOL. I WOULD ENCOURGE EVERY PARENT TO BUY THE BOOK AND READ IT TO THE ONES THAT CANNT READ AND LET THE ONES THAT CAN READ IT FOR THEMSELFS. I'M VEERY PLEASED TO SEE THIS BOOK HERE AT AMAZON.COM. I RATE THIS BOOK WITH 5 + STARS. BELIVE ME LIFE WASNT THE SAME AFTER THE BOOK WAS GIVEN BACK TO MY FREIND, TILL I WENT TO GET MY DAUGHTER HER VERY OWN... NINA

Zandman's historical part of this book is great. It gives you a great perspective of his life during the Holocust. More background would have been great. Got the feeling that his business associates have been less than desirable chaps.

An ageless and inspiring story of determination, survival, and ultimately triumph. Zandman's story brings home minute details about being Jewish during this horrific period of time--right down to the mindset of most Jewish families in Poland. This book clearly illustrates how subtle, calculating, and conniving Hitler was as he, not all at once, but gradually moved the Jews from their homes, to the ghetto and finally the death camps.
After I read this, the first time, I wanted nothing more than to meet Felix Zandman personally. Even the title inspired me to always push forward and to never give up.

As a stock analyst, I've seen many CEO's and heard many success stories. This is a heartwarming story of dedication and triumph unlike that of any other business executive. Despite spending his youth in hiding from Nazis, Dr. Zandman manages to get a PhD., move to America and found a small engineering company that ends up being one of the world's largest suppliers of electronics components.

Some valuable information. As expected, uneven quality among articles. Some authors are stars; others are willingly lost in intergalactic dust clouds of jargon. Editors take a sink-or-swim approach to authors. For the non-specialist, the incomplete index (short on listings for particular items) and absence of a badly needed glossary impair the book's usefulness. All the same, I read it and took notes.

"Psychodrama with Trauma Survivors: Acting Out Your Pain" is a good overview of the current ways that the method of psychodrama is being used to treat survivors of trauma.

Some clinicians shy away from using experiential methods with survivors, particularly because the power of the method and its potential to produce regression. Yet many clinicians know that talk therapy, while providing symptomatic relief, often does not get to the deep healing that many survivors are seeking. When used responsibly and safely, experiential methods like psychodrama are better able to address experiences which are stored in the unconscious cubbyholes of our being that can hardly be accessed with verbal methods.

The book documents the impact of a variety of kinds of trauma -- war, physical and sexual abuse, significant loss, torture, addiction and traffic accidents among others -- and shows the various approaches of psychodramatists from around the world.

Of special interest are the chapters by French psychologist Anne Ancelin Schutzenberger, who has researched hidden transmission of trauma from generation to generation, and by co-editor Kate Hudgins, an American psychologist, who has developed the Therapeutic Spiral Model that identifies a number of inner roles that solidify within survivors as a result of the trauma.

Innovative work with juvenile and adult sexual offenders is also documented, as well as treatment with secondary victims of trauma, like family members of combat veterans and psychotherapists themselves.

Psychodrama is not a simple method so this information is less of a manual for clinicians who are not versed in this field. However, it offers a great window of possibilities for clinicians and others seeking new options for treatment.

This book was touching and adventure filled. It was very touching to see how the Tristan & Isolde fouhgt for their love and had to part. But found ways to still keep their love. The adventures involved Tristan and his many battles to win glory and peace. I thought that the book was well written to the point where I found myself crying in the end with grief for the two lovers. But to not give any thing away i can not tell you why, read the book and find out!

Tristan und Isolde is quite possibly Wagner's finest achievement. In fact, it holds a unique place in operatic history; it has inspired the thinking of philosophers, even scientists, just as works such as Oedipus Rex, Hamlet and Don Giovanni had done before. No opera lover's book shelf is complete without a copy of this score. Dover's edition is a reprint of the reliable C.F. Peters edition from the early twentieth century. The scholarship is highly reliable as is generally true with Peters, especially with Peters' German scores. There is an English translation of all German frontismatter, but no glossary of German musical terms. The cover art for this edition is Der Kuss in Gustav Klimt, an art work as erotic and disturbing as this Opera is. The score is too big, and the book too small for podium use, but it is perfect for at home. Many of the innovations of twentieth century music and drama, indeed all twentieth century culture, may never have occurred if this opera had not been written. If that sounds far-fetched, buy this score, and a good recording, and see why I make that assertion.

Mann's work offers beginning students and general readers a sense of orderliness to the discussion and portrayal of acpuncture that is, for many, vital to its initial acceptance.

James Schouler's work is an original study of life and manners, social, industrial and political for the revolutionary period. Newspapers, magazines and diaries were his primary resources for this study. Presenting a broad spectrum of information on daily life, Schouler overviews dress, pastimes, fashion, family homes, homelife, literature, the colonial press, religion, music, theater, etiquette, medicine, storms and other hazards to life in the colonies. A great introductory work on this period.

If you're into sociology, and you're curious about Deleuze, then read this one first. Skim some of the bits on psychoanalysis. But read the opening and the sections on representation closely. This is the book that gives birth to Empire, currently a hot one in the anti-globalism movement. It's in this one that D/G show how any social order requires a means by which to articluate desire. They argue that desire is fundamentally productive, creative. But that it must be harnessed if a society is going to survive it's chaotic impulses and forces.
Anti Oedipus is really a book of anthropology. It shows how "primitive," "despotic," and finally "capitalist" regimes differ in their organization of production, recording (inscription, representation), and consumption. It's also a history insofar as it covers the process by which capitalism ultimately commands all the flows and chains of production, submitting them to a form of organization that is abstract (money is abstract) rather than local and physical.
The oedipal part of it is a critique of the Oedipal complex insofar as the complex articulates a model of society based on the family triangle. They want to show that the family is a kind of organization that must colonize its members, repress their desires, and give them complexes if it is to function as an organizing principle of contemporary society.
Their alternative, to be taken literally, is schizoid: subvertive, resistance, and always escaping capture by slipping in between the categories that organize capitalist society and its way of thinking.

This is, in my opinion, the most important work of theory/philosophy for the latter half of the twentieth century. Although D&G's jargon tends to be weighty at times, it is ultimately playful. there is the tendency, amongst numerous D&G fans, to reduce their philosophy to a text merely about postmodern criticism. i believe this is a mistake. ultimately, Anti-Oedipus (and its companion volume) are about politics--radical politics at best--written by two Marxists who are looking for a new revolutionary theory. indeed, Guattari once said in an interview that postmodernism is "the very paradigm of every sort of submission, every sort of compromise with the existing status quo".

Anti-Oedipus is important for political activists, otherwise it becomes just another piece of "knowledge-capital"...

Deleuze (and Felix Guattari)are fasinating, but their prose appeals to only the sophisticated and open-minded. These men test and subsequently abolish the hierarchies on which elitism, superiority, and exclusion are built and return the world to a "horizontality" that has not existed since humans came out of the trees. They begin be striking at the heart of modern psychology, the Oedipus Complex, seeking to destroy what they believe to be the source of dominance and difference. They supplement this radical notion by equating individual desire with social desire and have no use for repression. Superegos and overactive egos have no place in their society of unbridled and unexcused desire. Because desire takes as many forms as there are persons to implement it, its is a constantly changing thoroughly innovative idea seeking new channels and different combinations to realize itself, or as they term it, a "body without organs," the changing social body of desire. This is wild stuff and worth the time it takes decifer it.