What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom and Culture
The 20th century has witnessed the blossoming of Western culture: new technology; communications & transportation systems; social, political, educational, agricultural & medical advances. But with these changes have come the strains & tensions of conflicting interests, desires & values within the community. John Dewey, one of America's most prolific writers of popular philosophy, believed that humankind could keep a firm hold on its destiny only if the critical intelligence of scientific method & its democratic counterpart were emphasized & promoted. Freedom of inquiry, tolerance of diverse ideas & opinions, cultural pluralism, free speech & a willingness to cooperate in pursuit of shared values & ideals would be the springboard for social development.
138 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1939
About the author
John Dewey
820 books636 followersJohn Dewey was an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, is recognized as one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism and of functional psychology. He was a major representative of the progressive and progressive populist philosophies of schooling during the first half of the 20th century in the USA.
In 1859, educator and philosopher John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont. He earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in 1884. After teaching philosophy at the University of Michigan, he joined the University of Chicago as head of a department in philosophy, psychology and education, influenced by Darwin, Freud and a scientific outlook. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1904. Dewey's special concern was reform of education. He promoted learning by doing rather than learning by rote. Dewey conducted international research on education, winning many academic honors worldwide. Of more than 40 books, many of his most influential concerned education, including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), Democracy and Education (1902) and Experience and Education (1938). He was one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. A humanitarian, he was a trustee of Jane Addams' Hull House, supported labor and racial equality, and was at one time active in campaigning for a third political party. He chaired a commission convened in Mexico City in 1937 inquiring into charges made against Leon Trotsky during the Moscow trials. Raised by an evangelical mother, Dewey had rejected faith by his 30s. Although he disavowed being a "militant" atheist, when his mother complained that he should be sending his children to Sunday school, he replied that he had gone to Sunday School enough to make up for any truancy by his children. As a pragmatist, he judged ideas by the results they produced. As a philosopher, he eschewed an allegiance to fixed and changeless dogma and superstition. He belonged to humanist societies, including the American Humanist Association. D. 1952.
In 1859, educator and philosopher John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont. He earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in 1884. After teaching philosophy at the University of Michigan, he joined the University of Chicago as head of a department in philosophy, psychology and education, influenced by Darwin, Freud and a scientific outlook. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1904. Dewey's special concern was reform of education. He promoted learning by doing rather than learning by rote. Dewey conducted international research on education, winning many academic honors worldwide. Of more than 40 books, many of his most influential concerned education, including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), Democracy and Education (1902) and Experience and Education (1938). He was one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. A humanitarian, he was a trustee of Jane Addams' Hull House, supported labor and racial equality, and was at one time active in campaigning for a third political party. He chaired a commission convened in Mexico City in 1937 inquiring into charges made against Leon Trotsky during the Moscow trials. Raised by an evangelical mother, Dewey had rejected faith by his 30s. Although he disavowed being a "militant" atheist, when his mother complained that he should be sending his children to Sunday school, he replied that he had gone to Sunday School enough to make up for any truancy by his children. As a pragmatist, he judged ideas by the results they produced. As a philosopher, he eschewed an allegiance to fixed and changeless dogma and superstition. He belonged to humanist societies, including the American Humanist Association. D. 1952.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 30, 2011
ديوي في هذا الكتاب متحمس للديمقراطية بشكل كبير، ولكن حماسه لا يمنعه من التأكيد على أهمية إعادة النظر المستمرة في الأحوال القائمة، لكي يكون دفاعنا عن الأفكار ذاتها لا عن المؤسسات التي اصطنعها جيل ما كوسيلة -كان يراها مثلى- لتحقيق هذه الأفكار. ديوي هنا قادر على التمييز بين جوهر الديمقراطية وأعراضها المتغيرة، وهو لا يخشى من تبني بعض العناصر من تجارب مختلفة عن التجربة الأمريكية، أو من الاستفادة من الانتقادات التي وجهت للتجربة الأمريكية وعدم الاكتفاء بالرد الأيدولوجي عليها كما يفعل البعض؛ وهو بهذا يدافع عن فكرة الديمقراطية أبلغ دفاع.
الكتاب في مجمله يؤكد على ضرورة فهم وتفعيل دور الثقافة بعناصرها المختلفة في تشكيل مجتمع ديمقراطي سليم، وفي هذا السياق أنهي العرض باقتباس من الكتاب نفسه يقول فيه ديوي: إن " إحلال صناديق الانتخاب، والاقتراع محل استعمال الرصاص؛ وإحلال حقوق التصويت محل الضرب بالسياط، ليعبران عن الإرادة التي تدفعنا إلى إحلال المناقشة والإقناع محل القسر والإكراه. وعلى الرغم مما في هذه العيوب من عيوب ونقائص، ومن ضروب التحزب والعصبية في تحديد القرارات السياسية، فلا شك أنها أدت إلى حصر النزاع الطائفي في دائرة محدودة واستبقته فيها لا يتعداها إلى درجة لم يكن يتصورها أحد" (ص128)
http://ahmed-elhadary.blogspot.com/20...
الكتاب في مجمله يؤكد على ضرورة فهم وتفعيل دور الثقافة بعناصرها المختلفة في تشكيل مجتمع ديمقراطي سليم، وفي هذا السياق أنهي العرض باقتباس من الكتاب نفسه يقول فيه ديوي: إن " إحلال صناديق الانتخاب، والاقتراع محل استعمال الرصاص؛ وإحلال حقوق التصويت محل الضرب بالسياط، ليعبران عن الإرادة التي تدفعنا إلى إحلال المناقشة والإقناع محل القسر والإكراه. وعلى الرغم مما في هذه العيوب من عيوب ونقائص، ومن ضروب التحزب والعصبية في تحديد القرارات السياسية، فلا شك أنها أدت إلى حصر النزاع الطائفي في دائرة محدودة واستبقته فيها لا يتعداها إلى درجة لم يكن يتصورها أحد" (ص128)
http://ahmed-elhadary.blogspot.com/20...
October 19, 2008
great philosophical musings about how easily we can get trapped in grand theorizing, overlooking the contextual importance of events.
December 31, 2016
معلقش معايا .... تقريبا مش فاكر منه حاجة ... غير ان ترجمة المصطلحات كانت محتاجة تدقيق اكبر و ان لغة الكتاب صعبة ...
October 1, 2015
Freedom and Culture is a very strong presentation of the political philosophy of John Dewey and in particular his understanding of democracy. Like most of Dewey's writings, the starting point for Dewey's analysis is the human agent, how they interact with their enviornment and how this gives rise to different cultural forms. Dewey is actually quite good here, in giving an account of how the human creature reacts to, interacts with, and transforms their environment given their native endowments. Likewise, his critical treatment of those authors who take the isolated or privileged features of a particular social form and hypostatize them into the dominant aspect of human being is excellent. Writing in the late 1930s, Dewey also treats fascism and communism as competing ideals of society and defends democracy against both. His treatment of Marx is actually more a treatment of Soviet Marxism, and his criticisms of 'totalitarian economics' as he calls it in this text could be more nuanced. However, his overarching point regarding the interaction of a variety of causal forces in the formation of different social events and types of society is excellent. He then backs up this pluralist notion of historical and social change with a vision of democracy as experimental and scientifically driven. However, Dewey is quite aware of the dangers of ideological fetishism that go along with visions of scientific societies, and so he goes some measure to analyze the interaction of facts and values in the process of science and democratic practice generally. Really quite nuanced in this regard. However, as I was reading this, my umpteenth text of Dewey's I was struck by how little a fundamental causal stream of American democracy was discussed, namely race and the legacy slavery. This is the books great weakness, and while he does excellent work with respect to relating the above insights into human nature, scientific practice , and social action to democracy as a moral ideal, this text sorely lacks a nuanced discussion of this feature of the rise of parliamentary democracy.
April 23, 2015
إعادة قراءة... في أبريل 2015
حاولت أن أعيد قراءة الكتاب مرة أخرى...شعرت أنني كنت مقصرا في عدم منحه الفرصة الكافية في المرة الأولي..
للأسف نفس النتيجة السابقة خرجت بها مرة أخرى.. حتى بعد إنهائي للكتاب كاملا..
جون ديوي يقول أنه هناك علاقة بين الحرية و بين الثقافة السائدة.. بين الاقتصاد و بين الحرية.. بين التعليم و بين الحرية.. لكن الكلام بأكمله غير واضح أو مفهوم..
إما أن الترجمة كانت سيئة .. أو أن ديوي كان يميل إلى الإطناب بشدة.. إطناب يجعل القارئ ينسى ما نقطة الحديث بمجرد الانتقال من فقرة إلى أخرى .. و ليس من فصل إلى آخر!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
مراجعتي الأولي... في يناير 2015
عندما أصل إلى منتصف الكتاب و لا أستطيع أن أعرف ماهية موضوع الكتاب أصلا فلابد من وجود شئ ما خاطئ!
ما الذي يتحدث عنه ديوي؟؟ هل تأثير الثقافة على فكرة الحرية؟ أم تأثير الح��ية على فكرة الثقافة؟؟
ما هو أصلا تعريف الثقافة و تعريف الحرية؟؟
ما علاقة الحرية بالديمقراطية؟؟؟
لم اعرف أبدا!
الكتاب مجموعة من المقالات التي ذكرتني بأيام دراستي عندما كان الهدف من موضوع التعبير تغطية عدد معين من الكلمات و لا يسمح للطالب أن يقل عنه.. فليس الهدف ماذا تقول.. لكن الهدف كم تقول؟! هذا تماما شعوري تجاه الكتاب.. العديد و العديد من الجمل التي تكررت بحذافيرها في العديد من الصفحات.. فلم أعد أدري ما الفكرة التي يتحدث عنها الكاتب أصلا وما الفارق بين كل فصل و الآخر.. بل أحيانا كنت أفقد الصلة بين الجملة الواحدة وما قبلها!!
كل ما استطعت أن اخرج به .. أو كل ما "أظنني" فهمته.. هو أن الكاتب يتحدث عن علاقة ما بين الثقافة و بين الحريات.. لكن ماهية العلاقة.. ماهية الثقافة.. ماهية الحريات.. كل هذا لم أفهمه..
جذبني اسم الكتاب و اسم المؤلف.. لكن للأسف خيبة أمل كبرى فيه..
حاولت أن أعيد قراءة الكتاب مرة أخرى...شعرت أنني كنت مقصرا في عدم منحه الفرصة الكافية في المرة الأولي..
للأسف نفس النتيجة السابقة خرجت بها مرة أخرى.. حتى بعد إنهائي للكتاب كاملا..
جون ديوي يقول أنه هناك علاقة بين الحرية و بين الثقافة السائدة.. بين الاقتصاد و بين الحرية.. بين التعليم و بين الحرية.. لكن الكلام بأكمله غير واضح أو مفهوم..
إما أن الترجمة كانت سيئة .. أو أن ديوي كان يميل إلى الإطناب بشدة.. إطناب يجعل القارئ ينسى ما نقطة الحديث بمجرد الانتقال من فقرة إلى أخرى .. و ليس من فصل إلى آخر!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
مراجعتي الأولي... في يناير 2015
عندما أصل إلى منتصف الكتاب و لا أستطيع أن أعرف ماهية موضوع الكتاب أصلا فلابد من وجود شئ ما خاطئ!
ما الذي يتحدث عنه ديوي؟؟ هل تأثير الثقافة على فكرة الحرية؟ أم تأثير الح��ية على فكرة الثقافة؟؟
ما هو أصلا تعريف الثقافة و تعريف الحرية؟؟
ما علاقة الحرية بالديمقراطية؟؟؟
لم اعرف أبدا!
الكتاب مجموعة من المقالات التي ذكرتني بأيام دراستي عندما كان الهدف من موضوع التعبير تغطية عدد معين من الكلمات و لا يسمح للطالب أن يقل عنه.. فليس الهدف ماذا تقول.. لكن الهدف كم تقول؟! هذا تماما شعوري تجاه الكتاب.. العديد و العديد من الجمل التي تكررت بحذافيرها في العديد من الصفحات.. فلم أعد أدري ما الفكرة التي يتحدث عنها الكاتب أصلا وما الفارق بين كل فصل و الآخر.. بل أحيانا كنت أفقد الصلة بين الجملة الواحدة وما قبلها!!
كل ما استطعت أن اخرج به .. أو كل ما "أظنني" فهمته.. هو أن الكاتب يتحدث عن علاقة ما بين الثقافة و بين الحريات.. لكن ماهية العلاقة.. ماهية الثقافة.. ماهية الحريات.. كل هذا لم أفهمه..
جذبني اسم الكتاب و اسم المؤلف.. لكن للأسف خيبة أمل كبرى فيه..
July 16, 2012
I thought its a philosophical book but purely its a political one.
One chapter is dedicated for attacking Marxism and another two chapters describe initial Democracy in US. Forth chapter argues if Science is a tool used by human to serve their interests or its an external power controls mankind desires.
The book also discuss topics like the relation between Culture and Human Nature, and the problem of Freedom .. however all topics are covered mainly from political point of view.
One chapter is dedicated for attacking Marxism and another two chapters describe initial Democracy in US. Forth chapter argues if Science is a tool used by human to serve their interests or its an external power controls mankind desires.
The book also discuss topics like the relation between Culture and Human Nature, and the problem of Freedom .. however all topics are covered mainly from political point of view.
November 8, 2014
بغض النظر عن حماسة ديوي الشديدة للديموقراطية هنا، أجمل ما في الكتاب ربطه لمفاهيم التربية والثقافة والحرية معًا..بل وتساؤلاته الرائقة عن سبب تخلي الناس عن حريتهم مقابل الحصول على حياة مستقرة..هل
حريتك فعلا أهم من حياتك الروتينية المستقرة؟؟
هل حريتك تؤثر على تربيتك ومبادئك وثقافتك عمومًا؟؟
الكتاب مهم..أحب هذه الكتب التي تثير تساؤلات كثيرة في عقلي..وهذا منهم.
حريتك فعلا أهم من حياتك الروتينية المستقرة؟؟
هل حريتك تؤثر على تربيتك ومبادئك وثقافتك عمومًا؟؟
الكتاب مهم..أحب هذه الكتب التي تثير تساؤلات كثيرة في عقلي..وهذا منهم.
December 16, 2015
This arresting quote should suffice to explain and entice.
"In brief, economic developments which could not possibly have been anticipated when our political forms took shape have created confusion and uncertainty in the working of the agencies of popular government, and thereby have subjected the idea of democracy to basic strain."
"In brief, economic developments which could not possibly have been anticipated when our political forms took shape have created confusion and uncertainty in the working of the agencies of popular government, and thereby have subjected the idea of democracy to basic strain."
September 11, 2017
This book is definitely a mixed bag, though it has a lot of shining moments that make it a worthwhile read.
The pros: Dewey's entire goal in this book is to analyze the relationship between - surprise - freedom and culture. I'm doing so, though, he tackles various ideological currents that associate freedom with some kind of vision of an inherent 'human nature'. Dewey asserts that expressions of human nature - outside of obvious things like the need for food, water, and shelter - is more a reflection of the desires of the culture that makes those expressions. This is true obviously in the era of rampant capitalist development, where human nature is seen to just happen to accord with capitalist values (funny how that works). The view of the atomized individual, the celebration of competition, the fear of state restrictions on a free market being equated with a restriction on human flourishing - all of these are attributed to various features of human nature, and all have less to do with essence than with culture.
Dewey uses this analysis of human nature as a jumping off point to critique various political orientations that take an absolute view towards what human nature actually is. In this critique, he calls for a strong fight for democratic ideals, and a society based on pluralism and tolerance, against all then-current political encroachment. Much of this positive aspect of Dewey's work (where he's putting for propositions directed towards action and moral cultivation) produces the best material in the book, and are chiefly the reason for reading it.
The cons: If the positive aspects of Dewey's argument are what make it worthwhile, his negative arguments (that is, his arguments about what contests democratic politics) are his weakest moments. This is most apparent in his various 'critiques' of Marxism - material that makes up the majority of the book. Marxism, according to Dewey, asserts that economics is the sole determiner of all human meaning and action when all is said and done. This 'absolutist' view squashes human flourishing and denies all that lies outside of economics (a note here: even if this were an adequate representation of Marxist beliefs - it's not - Dewey fails to show how these other factors exist totally independently of the economic base, and thus fails to knock down even his straw-man Marxist). Thus Marxism becomes an enemy of democracy.
The problem is that Dewey totally mischaracterizes what is 'materialist' about Marxist dialectics, and is wrong in how he frames the economic priority of Marxism. He acts as though Marxists were saying that backroom business deals and stock market trades were the reason that love exists and that flowers bloom - obviously an absurd assertion and one that no one has ever held. Instead, the reason that Marxists lay such an emphasis on economics is because of the emphasis on materialism. And this materialism is, at base, the fact that humans aren't first "rational creatures" or "self-interested actants" or whatever, but are creatures in need of food, water, shelter, and other necessities. And the means by which one is able to procure those things - the economic system they live in - has a fundamental impact on everything they do.
In treating Marxism as a view soiled by a poor notion of economic determination, Dewey is able to characterize Marxism as an 'absolutist' orientation that is an enemy of democracy. But the way Marxism actually characterizes materialism and economic determination is far more fluid that Dewey recognizes - and in the end, it's far closer to the pluralistic and democratic society that he is arguing for. Marxism is more Dewey's ally than an enemy to be critiqued, and in failing to recognize this, Dewey makes would have been a fanatic defense of democratic ideals into a book full of insightful, but not particularly impactful, statements about democracy that lack any grounding in the material everydayness of actual democratic citizens. This severely hinders the potential uses of this book.
The pros: Dewey's entire goal in this book is to analyze the relationship between - surprise - freedom and culture. I'm doing so, though, he tackles various ideological currents that associate freedom with some kind of vision of an inherent 'human nature'. Dewey asserts that expressions of human nature - outside of obvious things like the need for food, water, and shelter - is more a reflection of the desires of the culture that makes those expressions. This is true obviously in the era of rampant capitalist development, where human nature is seen to just happen to accord with capitalist values (funny how that works). The view of the atomized individual, the celebration of competition, the fear of state restrictions on a free market being equated with a restriction on human flourishing - all of these are attributed to various features of human nature, and all have less to do with essence than with culture.
Dewey uses this analysis of human nature as a jumping off point to critique various political orientations that take an absolute view towards what human nature actually is. In this critique, he calls for a strong fight for democratic ideals, and a society based on pluralism and tolerance, against all then-current political encroachment. Much of this positive aspect of Dewey's work (where he's putting for propositions directed towards action and moral cultivation) produces the best material in the book, and are chiefly the reason for reading it.
The cons: If the positive aspects of Dewey's argument are what make it worthwhile, his negative arguments (that is, his arguments about what contests democratic politics) are his weakest moments. This is most apparent in his various 'critiques' of Marxism - material that makes up the majority of the book. Marxism, according to Dewey, asserts that economics is the sole determiner of all human meaning and action when all is said and done. This 'absolutist' view squashes human flourishing and denies all that lies outside of economics (a note here: even if this were an adequate representation of Marxist beliefs - it's not - Dewey fails to show how these other factors exist totally independently of the economic base, and thus fails to knock down even his straw-man Marxist). Thus Marxism becomes an enemy of democracy.
The problem is that Dewey totally mischaracterizes what is 'materialist' about Marxist dialectics, and is wrong in how he frames the economic priority of Marxism. He acts as though Marxists were saying that backroom business deals and stock market trades were the reason that love exists and that flowers bloom - obviously an absurd assertion and one that no one has ever held. Instead, the reason that Marxists lay such an emphasis on economics is because of the emphasis on materialism. And this materialism is, at base, the fact that humans aren't first "rational creatures" or "self-interested actants" or whatever, but are creatures in need of food, water, shelter, and other necessities. And the means by which one is able to procure those things - the economic system they live in - has a fundamental impact on everything they do.
In treating Marxism as a view soiled by a poor notion of economic determination, Dewey is able to characterize Marxism as an 'absolutist' orientation that is an enemy of democracy. But the way Marxism actually characterizes materialism and economic determination is far more fluid that Dewey recognizes - and in the end, it's far closer to the pluralistic and democratic society that he is arguing for. Marxism is more Dewey's ally than an enemy to be critiqued, and in failing to recognize this, Dewey makes would have been a fanatic defense of democratic ideals into a book full of insightful, but not particularly impactful, statements about democracy that lack any grounding in the material everydayness of actual democratic citizens. This severely hinders the potential uses of this book.
September 26, 2019
I regret to inform that I finished this book a few months ago at the point of me writing this. With that being the case I remember little about the book itself except the feeling of excitement I had while reading it. I haven’t been reading much for a couple years now and I do believe I have suffered for it, and its taken time to get me back for either a multitude of reasons, or perhaps a singular one. With all that being said I took extensive notes on the book while reading it, and even started to read it again to remember the beginning of the book in contrast to its ending. I might have given it 5 stars back after finishing it, but at this point while I can say it had an effect on me, it did not swallow me whole. I purchased another one of Dewey’s books after reading this title because I found value in his thoughts, and I think anyone else steered in the direction of Dewey would as well.
July 1, 2018
While some of the critiques of Marxism and fascism are helpful, the book is, in large part, a repristination and expansion on the nascent atheism of Thomas Jefferson.
Dewey sees all theological thought as dogmatic opinion that cannot be rationally examined an should thus be eradicated. He sees art (and the humanities as a whole) as little more than the unwitting told of theologians and other irrational folk.
He believes the purpose and moral imperative of democracy is to promote humanism (of a completely atheistic sort).
This is the man who created the current public education system in our nation. I'm a bit terrified.
Dewey sees all theological thought as dogmatic opinion that cannot be rationally examined an should thus be eradicated. He sees art (and the humanities as a whole) as little more than the unwitting told of theologians and other irrational folk.
He believes the purpose and moral imperative of democracy is to promote humanism (of a completely atheistic sort).
This is the man who created the current public education system in our nation. I'm a bit terrified.
April 13, 2023
للأسف، لا يوجد ترابط موضوعي في الكتاب بل أفكار متناثرة بلا وحدة موضوعية، ولكن الكتاب لا يخلو من الأفكار الثاقبة كذلك ولكنها لا تشفع لتشتته إطلاقا وبكل تأكيد أنصح بصرف الوقت على كتاب غير هذا.
August 28, 2015
Baru sampe Bab 4 awal dari 7 Bab (kayaknya). Udah diperpanjang dua kali tetep aja nggak beres. mungkin lain kali pinjem lagi. Saya suka sama satu paragraf pembuka yang isinya pertanyaan semua tentang kebebasan. Ternyata hal yang saya pikir bawaan dari lahir (kebebasan), kaitannya cukup kompleks terkait politik, ekonomi, dan budaya. 4 Bab dan saya cukup tercerahkan. Makasih buat Eyang Dewey dan penerjemah, bahasanya nggak rumit. Saya cukup mikir isinya aja. Karena biasanya, beberapa buku berat, bahasanya ikut diberat-beratin azzzttt
July 21, 2015
وأخيراً. كتاب على الرغم من حجمه المتوسط، استغرق مني قراءة 3 أسابيع، وقت طويل فعلاً.
الكتاب به أفكار قيمة كثيرة، يسترها للأسف كثرة الإطناب والتكرار والمط عديم الجدوى. العيب ليس عيب ترجمة فيما يبدو فالترجمة جيدة فعلاً رغم عراقة لغتها، لكن واضح أن المؤلف نفسه لسبب ما متردد وغير واثق فيما يريد إيصاله. بشكلٍ عام الكتاب لا بأس به.
الكتاب به أفكار قيمة كثيرة، يسترها للأسف كثرة الإطناب والتكرار والمط عديم الجدوى. العيب ليس عيب ترجمة فيما يبدو فالترجمة جيدة فعلاً رغم عراقة لغتها، لكن واضح أن المؤلف نفسه لسبب ما متردد وغير واثق فيما يريد إيصاله. بشكلٍ عام الكتاب لا بأس به.
August 8, 2015
جون ديوي من أهم أباء الفكر الأمريكي .
يبدأ الكتاب بالحرية و مشكلتها و الثقافة و الطبيعة البشريةو الأساس الأمريكي ثم الحديث عن اقتصاديات النظام الاستبدادي الجماعي و الديمقراطية و الطبيعة البشريةو ينهي الكتاب بالعلم و الثقافة الحرة و أمريكا و الديمقراطية كون الكتاب عن أمريكا.
الكتاب غير مترابط نوعًا ما لكنه يعتمد علي الجدلية والمشكلات الفلسفية المتعلقة بالحرية
December 23, 2014
روعة الكتاب فى استخدام الكاتب لمصطلحات بسيطة للوصول للديمقراطية
Read
October 27, 2019Very nice book!
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews