Yeah he is. Although i'm not the biggest reader, i really enjoy this book. Might read the rest of his books as well.Dan Brown is a great writer, enjoyed all his books and LOTR is a classic too although I rate Harry Potter higher
Mate. Ulysses is shocking. If you want any pointers though, I did a literary analysis for a unit this year so I'll try dig the **** out and remember some points. Easy enough when you get into it.It is messed up. I can't understand half of it, and I've done an A-Level designed specifically to analyse this ****.
I thought Ulysses was regarded as Joyce's greatest ever work, and one of the best pieces of literature?Mate. Ulysses is shocking. If you want any pointers though, I did a literary analysis for a unit this year so I'll try dig the **** out and remember some points. Easy enough when you get into it.
great read.I'm currently reading 'How to save a football club' by Ian Ridley. Its a true story, based on from when he brought financially striken Weymouth FC, and it shows a real insight into a how a lower-league football club is ran. Even stuff like getting 2 big men to un-block turnstyles is mentioned, and having Steve Claridge as manager.
Great book in my opinion.
yeh i had to get it for history and in my local libary they said that jews, gays, gipsies etc steal them so it doesn't spread ideas. i bought it on ebay
i'm not fascist, i'm far from it but his ideas are actally quite interesting. yeh he wrote it when in jail in 1923ish i think.Yeah I just ordered it from ebay, should arrive soon and cant wait to read it... apparently Hitler wrote it when he was in jail
Yes Joel, Ulysses is widely considered to be the magnum opus of Joyce's literary career, however I am of the opinion that "A Portrait of The Artist as A Young Man" in all its fine modernist glory is much better.I thought Ulysses was regarded as Joyce's greatest ever work, and one of the best pieces of literature?
I've heard it's virtually impossible to understand...I want to give it a go because it's so important but I don't think I could understand it reading it on my own.Ulysses by James Joyce.
What the fuuuuuuuuuuuuu-
Did you like it? I read a few stories in it in high school I think and remember thinking it was really good, but it's been a while. I'm thinking of getting it for my kindle, it's only a few bucks.My English teacher used to rave on and on about that book. Only read Dubliners by him, which was odd enough.
I'm sorry but that's a load of rubbish. You may hate the forms socialism took in history but there's nothing that's morally reprehensible in his writing; at worst it's simply utopian idealism that shouldn't have been taken too literally. Not to mention along with Darwin and Freud he's one of the three pillars of modernism. How you can say it's worse than the deranged writings of a dictator who wanted to racially purify German society is absolutely beyond me. Sounds like you're taking the work of Ayn Rand way too seriously, which is arguably more devoid of morality than Mein Kampf (at least Hitler has concern for his society as a whole and wants to do what is good in his eyes). Anyway, here are the ten measures to implement socialism in The Communist Manifesto:Can't say I have, but they're making Atlas Shrugged into a film. Wonder how they're gonna do that!
It's illegal in a few countries, and imho is almost as bad as the Communist Manifesto.
Wiki on Mein Kampf.
Turkey: It was widely available and growing in popularity, even to the point where it became a bestseller, selling up to 100,000 copies in just two months in 2005.
How is it? I've heard good things. I read Hegemony or Survival back in high school, thought it was pretty good although he rants at times and there wasn't anything too original in there, mostly a long list of facts demonstrating how imperialistic America's foreign policy is without enough analysis of the reasons behind it or the difference in the foreign policy of the different administrations. No differentiation is made between the realism of the Kissinger years, Reaganism, the neoliberalism of the Clinton presidency, and the neoconservatism of the Bush era: it's all empire for him and motivated by the same reasons, whatever they are (aggressive realism that is somehow motivated by big business, when I saw him speak it seemed like that's what his stance was). He's surprisingly not that radical and much more moderate than you'd think, at the lecture I went to he more or less said all that should happen is the decision-making process in regards to foreign policy should be more in the hands of the American people.Failed States - Noam Chomsky
I'm sorry but that's a load of rubbish. You may hate the forms socialism took in history but there's nothing that's morally reprehensible in his writing; at worst it's simply utopian idealism that shouldn't have been taken too literally. Not to mention along with Darwin and Freud he's one of the three pillars of modernism. How you can say it's worse than the deranged writings of a dictator who wanted to racially purify German society is absolutely beyond me. Sounds like you're taking the work of Ayn Rand way too seriously, which is arguably more devoid of morality than Mein Kampf (at least Hitler has concern for his society as a whole and wants to do what is good in his eyes). Anyway, here are the ten measures to implement socialism in The Communist Manifesto:
Which in my opinion is what we call theft, in addition to being ******* dumb. An example were the communal grazing areas of the middle ages. Because it belonged to the village, the profits were private and the damage was public when it was overgrazed. It doesn't work with industry. Property rights is something I hold very dear.1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
While we never went this far, property taxes are now standard.
50% of America's tax payers pay 97% of the federal tax. I hardly see how it's fair that half the tax payers should prop up the rest. Additionally, in Norway it's quite common that people don't work Fridays in well paid jobs as they'd end up with a lower average hourly wage due to the tax brackets.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Modern first world countries have this.
Which is morally bankrupt in any case. It's my money; I earned it and I decide what to spend it on. I simply disagree with this on all levels.3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
In many places inheritance is heavily taxed.
That isn't really purely socialists.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Assuming this happened after a revolution, this would be pretty obvious, especially for the emigrants. Even in the American revolution most of the loyalists' property was confiscated.
Yeah, how's the inflation going? Not necessarily that much against this.5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
We basically have this too.
Which is a ******* dumb idea. Granted, roads are fine to be paid by taxes - but even as far back as Ancient Rome this was done. However, examples include Norway's railways which are a shambles (aside from the privately owned airport trains). Oslo especially had trouble this year as they were run so badly. The difference I've noted is that public transport tends to be quite shoddy and unreliable, whereas private transportation is more expensive.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
In many first world countries transportation is publically owned.
Not quite understanding what you're saying here.7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
This happened in history as the modern state is much larger than the state that existed back then, and of course today we do have some concern for the environment.
Which doesn't work if you can't profit from being better.8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We have a similar idea only a different system, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
Didn't quite get your point here.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
He didn't foresee the eventually disappearance of the countryside population for obvious reasons, but this is a good ideal.
Free doesn't exist - it's still paid for through taxes. And education for all goes as far back as Sparta (also, Scotland had it in the dark ages). It was definitely not an original idea. And abolishing child labour wasn't originally his idea either.10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
We have this too.
But what if I don't agree with the suckling of the government's teat? Teaching people it's okay to take stuff from someone who has something you feel you need?Really wasn't as radical as people think it was and a lot of modern social welfare programs came directly from him (social security, for example, was his idea) and if you take the time period into context you understand where he's coming from. And because of the invaluable contributions he made to the social sciences he should be required reading, not banned as you implied.