[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 72 KB, 833x1024, 1519816468562m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10791948 No.10791948 [Reply] [Original]

The next book on my list is Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville and I want to know the best translations/useful editions of for this work.

My uncle has the George Lawrence edition though I read reviews saying the foot notes are problematic.

Is this edition still fine regardless? Is there a much better version I should buy?

>> No.10792105

>>10791948
>I read reviews saying the foot notes are problematic.
>caring about footnotes
>caring about other peoples reviews
OP you are smarter than this.

>> No.10792118

what does "problematic" mean?

>> No.10792120

>>10791948
why don't you learn french and read the original, OP?

>> No.10792221
File: 101 KB, 2028x751, democracy in america.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10792221

Alas, i can't help you with your question. However, there is a fundamental flaw you should know about the book

>> No.10792315

>>10792221
uh retardbro, de Tocqueville toured America several decades before the civil war. states had ratified the constitution and agreed to join a union, but it was not at all then like the oligarchy we have now. the former provinces/colonies were much more like independent countries that had agreed not to make war than subordinate members of a federal government. their democracy was more representative than what we have now.

>> No.10792362
File: 48 KB, 700x700, C-irLWPUAAQQKa8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10792362

>>10792315
>but it was not at all then like the oligarchy we have now.
> their democracy was more representative than what we have now.

>implying that not all political systems don't eventualy lead for a small minority of individuals holding majority of political/economical power
It's only nature I guess: aristocracy/oligarchy and autocracy/tirany are simply the way of nature. That's onen of the reasons I turned into a monarchist.

>> No.10792410

>>10792362
>implying that not all political systems don't eventualy lead for a small minority
I actually implied the opposite, brainlet. The civil war, the emancipation proclamation, and reconstruction changed the US from a set of former colonies into one nation with a homogeneous culture dependent on industralization. The federal government came into its own then, and set the model for accumulating power into friends of Congress' hands we saw throughout the 20th century and today: WPA's shovel-ready jobs, highways, subsidized everything, unlimited war spending. Even now people want to expand it to free healthcare and free college, because they cannot understand a world where the federal government is not a bottomless well of money. Now we're off the gold standard, currency is valued by fiat, and it's all just numbers in computers anyway. The civil war set us up to become an economic superpower, and that same addiction for irresponsible spending will doom us to collapse.

Read a book instead of going to /pol/ and deciding you are a monarchist because of the mean democracy men. More likely than not you'll get your ethnostate, brainlet, and then you'll wish you had democracy back.