I didn't purchase this merely for the title, although, let's face it, what a captivating title it is.

I bought it primarily for the index, which spans an impressive four pages and is filled to the brim with fascinating and engaging content.

Moreover, it holds a special significance as it was the very first book in the renowned Pelican imprint.

There's an added allure in the fact that it's precisely the kind of book I渴望 to be seen reading while on a train.

It gives off an air of intellectualism and a certain je ne sais quoi that I find truly appealing.

It's not just a book; it's a statement, a conversation starter, and a source of inspiration all rolled into one.

Whether I'm commuting to work or embarking on a weekend getaway, having this book in my hands makes the journey all the more enjoyable and fulfilling.

How to describe this book without a lecture on Shaw?

Absolutely, it is the wittiest and most engaging discussion of economic systems and their real effects ever.

Does that sound too dry? Perhaps, but the book is far from it.

And as always, Shaw's real agenda is like that of Dolly Levy: 'money is like manure [and should be] spread around, helping young things grow'.

Bless GBS!

This book offers a unique perspective on economic systems. It presents complex ideas in a light-hearted and accessible way, making it enjoyable to read.

Shaw's wit and charm shine through on every page, as he explores the various aspects of economics and their impact on society.

Whether you are an economist or simply interested in understanding how the world works, this book is a must-read.

It will make you think, laugh, and perhaps even change your perspective on money and its role in our lives.

So, don't be put off by the seemingly dry topic. Pick up this book and discover the hidden gems within.

You won't be disappointed!

I read this book with the intention of enhancing my knowledge of communism. I thought that reading a communist's work would be a great way to achieve this. The study turned out to be very interesting. However, the author never really arrives at any concrete points. Repeatedly, he makes a statement and then, in the next few chapters, says almost the exact opposite. Nevertheless, I will always be glad that I read this book. I know that I will refer back to it numerous times in the years ahead when I need to gain insights into the mind of a communist. It is always beneficial to understand those who think differently from us. By doing so, we can notice more and be better prepared to make intelligent comments.

Very dated of course, but there are lots of things to think about and other things to read. Shaw was my kind of person. It took me years to read this book. I would pick it up over and over again when I was in between other activities and was always glad that I had.

This book, although perhaps a bit old-fashioned, offers a wealth of ideas and perspectives that are still relevant today. Shaw's writing style is engaging and thought-provoking, making it a pleasure to read. Despite the time it took me to complete, I never regretted spending the effort.

Each time I picked up the book, I discovered something new or gained a deeper understanding of a particular concept. It was like uncovering a hidden treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in exploring different ideas and expanding their intellectual horizons.

The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism was written by Shaw as a detailed response to his sister-in-law regarding his ideas on socialism. He found that most works on socialism were either inaccessible to readers or did not present what he considered to be true socialism.

Shaw discovered socialism in the 1880s. It was the work of American writer Henry George, who popularized socialist ideas in Britain with his work Progress and Poverty in 1879, although George himself was a classical liberal. George argued that private ownership of natural resources like land was unjust because a landowner could collect rents simply by owning the land without improving it through labor. He proposed a single tax on the unearned value of the land. Socialists extended George's critique of rent, which can be traced back to David Ricardo, to capital and profit itself and advocated for social ownership of the means of production, including land, labor, and capital.

Shaw was one of the few in 19th century Britain to read and appreciate the work of Karl Marx, but he revised Marx's view of capital as exploited surplus labor to capital being spare money, based on a comment by economist Stanley Jevons. He believed that capital itself was not evil, only exclusive private ownership. Shaw realized that only those in the middle class, like himself, would read and appreciate Marx's ideas. He became an important member of the Fabian Society, which supported a gradual democratic form of socialism that appealed to the middle and upper classes rather than working class revolutionary socialism. Shaw and the Fabians also saw the state as necessary for the implementation of socialism, rather than as a temporary weapon of class revolutionaries.

Shaw's own motivation for socialism was aristocratic: to lift up the poor so they could live comfortably by dividing wealth into equal shares of income. He believed that wealth was meant to be enjoyed and that freedom was leisure. Poverty, he said, was no virtue, and a comfortable life was no sin. Lack of money was the root of evil, as another socialist, Mark Twain, had said. Poverty should not be used for punishment, and charity was mercy, not justice. Shaw recognized that in most societies, one part of the population lived on the labor of others, allowing for a higher standard of living and leisure for some over others. In his psychology, excessive wealth was excessive worry and was dependent on the work of others. He defined liberty as leisure, in terms of the socially necessary labor time one must spend to earn a living. Technology replaced and lowered labor costs, which should mean more leisure. But with capitalism, private profit was the goal, which kept capital in constant motion, continually utilizing labor. The accumulation of capital led to great increases in wealth but also great inequality towards labor, who had to be kept at subsistence and was replaced by technology.

For Shaw, it was not possible to determine the total share of wealth people should have based on merit. Even though people differed in abilities, nobody was best at everything. Personal merit in specific matters should prevail over arbitrary economic merit. So why give some people a greater or lesser share of the wealth?

Shaw's socialism was simply to divide wealth into equal shares, as proposed in Edward Bellamy's utopian novel Looking Backward. Anything else was not truly socialism but either communism or a form of capitalism. Communism was from each according to ability to each according to need. Socialism was from each according to ability to each according to labor. Income would only be distributed to those who worked, rather than to those who needed. Most economic systems were not pure communism, socialism, or capitalism but had aspects of all. Shaw claimed that lighthouses and the police were communist in nature, as citizens were guaranteed the service regardless of their individual contribution to taxes in society.

The way socialism would work, according to Shaw, was that the state would plan industry and eventually own the means of production directly. Everybody who worked, ideally everybody, would receive the same income for various types of work. With an even distribution of wealth and sharing of the work, the standard of living would be higher on average for everybody, with no extreme poverty or wealth, and it would rise with technological advance, allowing everyone to work less and earn more. It was not possible to give enough for everybody's wants, but it was mathematically possible to give everybody the same. There was already some equality of incomes within classes and for the same occupations, but not between classes, Shaw pointed out. The reason some occupations earned more was due to exploiting the scarcity of ability or to repay the high cost of learning skills. This income would be in money, which could be used to buy what one wanted. People would work to buy different things, but with the same amount of money because money was a medium of exchange. This would be the answer to the incentive question of whether people would work for the same things and how goods would be allocated.

The most controversial part of the book was Shaw's proposal that those who refused to work or consumed more than they produced should be put to death painlessly with gas. If this was not dark humor or a jest, it was certainly macabre, as even the poorest society managed to care for the sick, elderly, and poor. This was only a problem for Shaw because he expected everybody to deserve equal incomes.

Shaw's major claim seemed to be that it was not possible or just to determine the share of wealth an individual deserved. It was mathematically possible to evenly divide up wealth into incomes of money. Shaw would agree that people differed in their abilities and productivity at a given task, but no person was best at everything. Why give one person more than another? The equal division of income meant that everybody had to do an equal amount of work to earn that income. Shaw had proposed that harder work should have fewer hours or more time off, while easier jobs should have more hours and less time off. There was still a need to calculate the value of labor, but Shaw did not want to do it by income. The common understanding of socialism was from according to ability to according to labor. Some people worked more and contributed more to the national wealth and received a larger share of the income. Even under communism, goods and services were distributed according to need and were not exactly the same. The equality was an equal consideration of different needs, not equal treatment. Really, the equality achieved under Shaw's socialism only applied to the consumption side, not to the management of the means of production, and I think Shaw was overly optimistic about democracy to prevent abuses of state authority.

Shaw's scheme only worked if the means of production, resources, labor, and capital were all owned by the state. If there was private ownership, unless there was some law, some individuals might pay their workers and themselves more or less to increase productivity or profits or decrease costs. State regulation of business would need both incentives and disincentives, so the state would be involved in subsidizing business and eventually have to nationalize them. Socialists assumed that profit would necessarily decrease over time and that industry would consolidate itself, but this did not include rent, which was independent of productivity, and consumerism kept the capitalist system going. State planned economies were able to manage heavy industries but had trouble producing consumer goods. A fully automated economy could solve some of these difficulties when there was no need for mass labor but would allow for different kinds of distribution.

However, I do believe that a kind of consumption side equality is achievable within a capitalist market system through the social safety net. It would not be redistributionist if equally applied at least at the margin and would be egalitarian in the narrower sense of providing the same floor but not taking down the top. Shaw's scheme in practice would be like a universal basic income with a job guarantee implemented through existing social security and income information, financed preferably by a land value tax or a debt-free currency.

No intelligent lady could fall to deeply in love with Fabianism.

Fabianism is a political ideology that emphasizes gradual social reform rather than revolutionary change. While it may have some appealing aspects, such as its focus on social justice and equality, it also has its limitations.

An intelligent lady would likely see these limitations and recognize that Fabianism may not be the best approach to achieving a truly just and equal society. She would understand that revolutionary change is sometimes necessary to break free from the constraints of the status quo and create a new and better world.

Furthermore, an intelligent lady would be attracted to a man who shares her values and beliefs, and who is committed to working towards a better future. She would not be swayed by a political ideology that may not align with her own vision of the world.

In conclusion, while Fabianism may have its merits, it is not likely to inspire deep love in an intelligent lady. She would look beyond political ideology and seek a partner who is truly committed to making a positive difference in the world.

A good book indeed.

Perhaps it is a little dated, and it might require some hard work to read. However, when it comes to a thorough and well-explained insight into modern politics and economics, I have yet to come across a better one.

It is dense precisely because it is so comprehensive. Although I may not concur with some of the author's arguments, they are straightforward to follow, and he employs some excellent (albeit dated) examples.

In the introduction by Polly Toynbee in my edition, she strongly implies that every household should possess a copy. I firmly believe that every teenage girl should be presented with a copy and compelled to read it. She would undoubtedly find it enlightening.

This book has the potential to expand one's understanding and perspective on the complex world of politics and economics, and it is a valuable resource that should not be overlooked.

One big boring mansplain.

It's a common phenomenon that we often encounter in our daily lives. A man, usually with an air of superiority, feels the need to explain something to a woman as if she is incapable of understanding it on her own.

This mansplaining can range from simple topics like how to fix a gadget to more complex issues such as politics or science. The man may speak in a condescending tone, using overly technical language or dismissing the woman's观点 or experiences.

Not only is mansplaining annoying and disrespectful, but it can also be harmful. It can make the woman feel inferior and less confident in her own abilities. It can also prevent meaningful communication and collaboration between the two genders.

We need to be aware of this behavior and call it out when we see it. Men should learn to listen to women and respect their opinions and experiences. Women, on the other hand, should not be afraid to speak up and assert themselves.

Only by working together can we break down the barriers of mansplaining and create a more equal and respectful society.