The capitalist achievement does not consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort. . . . 1. In pre-capitalist times, no sheer economic achievement, by itself, could advance anyone into the ruling class. 2. When capitalism began to develop, persons of supernormal ability and ambition became upwardly mobile provided they would turn to business. 3. It was hard to succeed in business, yet success remained inglorious: no flourishing of swords about it, not much physical prowess, no chance to gallop the armored horse into the enemy. . . . The stock exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail. 4. There can be no assurance that people are happier or better off under industrialism than in the medieval manor or village. Efficiency is only one of many human desiderata, and perhaps not the most important one. 5. So the future of capitalism cant be assured purely because of its economic superiority. I am not going to argue, on the strength of that performance, that the capitalist intermezzo is likely to be prolonged. 6. Capitalism destroyed most secular underpinnings of civilized society--the manor, village, and craft guild. It replaced these institutions with nothing: no idealism, no sense of organic life, no essential ability for social organization of a non-economic nature. PIE root *ghend- to seize, take Latin prae- before (see pre-) + -hendere. hendere is related to hedera ivy, via notion of clinging. prehensile (adj.) Latin prehensus, past participle of prehendere to grasp, seize, get hold of Old French enterprise an undertaking, noun use of fem. past participle of entreprendre undertake, take in hand (12c.), from entre- between (see entre-) + prendre to take, contraction of prehendere early 15c., an undertaking, formerly also enterprize entrepreneur (n.) Look up entrepreneur at Dictionary The word first crossed the Channel late 15c. (Middle English entreprenour) but did not stay. In the early 1600 the word entreprendre in French meant Frenchmen who organized military expeditions’ The meaning of this word as used in 1700 meant architects and contractors of public works. In 1828 the word was reborowed from the french entrepreneur one (agent) who undertakes or manages from Old French entreprendre undertake and meant meant manager or promoter of a theatrical production The meaning business manager is from 1852. In economics, entrepreneurship combined land, labor, and capital to produce profit. In its economic sense the term entrepreneur was first introduced in the early 18th century by French economists Richard cantillion. In his earlier writings he formally defines the entrepreneur as the agent who buys means of production at a certain price in order to combine them into a new product. The word entrepreneur was later defined by J.B.Say as had been defined earlier by cantillion but added the aspect of leadership. According to “say” an entrepreneur will bring other people together in order to build a single productive organism. Over the next century the word entrepreneur evolved with several writers coming up with different definitions. Some added the aspects of uncertainty to the earlier meaning of the traditional economists. Some economists will add the concept of innovation. And others the provision of resources. From all this we can come with the definition of the word entrepreneurs as a person who brings in change through innovation for the maximum social good. In the case of a developing economy an entrepreneur is the one who starts an industry either old or new and chooses to undertake risks, uncertainties while performing managerial functions. There are some terms that are used to mean the same as the word entrepreneur but have different meanings an example is the word Intrepreneur.The word intreprenuer is used to describe a person who creates something new from an existing company as opposed to a new venture. There are some specific behaviors associated with the entrepreneur commonly referred to as the entrepreneur’s behavior. The behaviors are based on the four theories that defined the process of entrepreneurship. The four theories are the neo classical theory, Schumpeterian theory, Neo Austrian theory, and the eclectic theory. The first three theories are based on the economics progress theory and the last theory is based on market equilibrium. There are a set of rules that different entrepreneurs follow to achieve their goals. This process is called the entrepreneur process model. The entrepreneur process involves the following stages: Recognition of an opportunity. Here the entrepreneur will look into the market and try to identify a gap that exists. The second stage will be deciding to proceed and then assembling of resources. This stage is followed by the entrepreneur launching his idea in the market by either creating a test product or a full product. The entrepreneur will then build a success venture that will yield profits later in its growth sages to compensate the entrepreneur for his actions. The most popular type of the entrepreneur process model is the carol Moore’s model. whatiseconomics.org/microeconomics/entrepreneur Schumpeter led a melodramatic life (1883-1950), moving from Austria to England to Egypt to Germany before coming to Harvard for good in 1932. He was a phenomenally productive scholar. His output included fifteen books (several of immense length), six pamphlets, about one hundred book reviews, and 148 articles, comments, and occasional pieces. Just how great was Schumpeter? Tibor Scitovsky places him at the very top: Americas most brilliant economist. The intellectual historian Martin Kessler agrees, arguing that Schumpeter was, apart from Keynes, the only truly great economist the twentieth century has produced. Oskar Morgenstern sensibly comments that at this level rankings become pointless, that all will agree that [Schumpeter] belongs to that small top group where a further ranking becomes almost impossible. Many scholars of business history have looked to Schumpeter as the economist who best understood the rise of big business and the central roles of innovation and entrepreneurship. In the study of business strategy, a term probably coined by Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Michael Porter places a distinctly Schumpeterian emphasis on relentless innovation as the essence of competitive strategy. Within economics, Schumpeters influence in America is perhaps best exemplified by the work of F. M. Scherer and Richard R. Nelson. Scherer the author of a standard textbook in industrial organization, acknowledges his intellectual debts in a book entitled Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives . Nelsons Schumpeterian proclivities are on display in An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Most mainstream economists have been frustrated by the difficulty of operationalizing Schumpeters models. His aversion to equilibrium as a realistic picture of capitalist economies restricts the mathematicization of his system. Then, too, because he insisted on fusing economics with history, sociology, and psychology, the number of variables becomes almost impossible for the analyst to control. Schumpeter never advanced a program of economic reform. He believed that doing so compromised scientific work. He criticized Keynes and other English economists for leaping into policy debates with abstract models as general prescriptions for change. Schumpeters core argument in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is reducible to three major tenets: 1. The essence of capitalism is innovation (creative destruction) in particular sectors. Certain standard tools of economics, such as static equilibrium and macroeconomic analysis, can therefore disguise reality and mislead scholars and students. 2. The virtues of capitalism--in particular its steady but gradual pattern of growth--are long-run and hard to see; its defects, such as inequality and apparent monopoly, are short-run and conspicuously visible. 3. It is dangerous for economists to prescribe general recipes, because political and social circumstances are always changing. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy was Schumpeters most popular but the author often compared it unfavorably with his more scholarly books. Similar to Smith considering Moral Sentiment more seminal than wealth. Three years before the appearance of this great work, Schumpeter had brought out another book he thought would be his magnum opus: the 1100-page Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. The virtues of the second book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, can be fully understood only against the shortcomings of this prior work. The first problem with Business Cycles was its extraordinary and wholly unnecessary length. A second characteristic was the authors misguided attempt to turn business cycle patterns into predictive scientific wave theories borrowed from physics. As Schumpeter wrote, Barring very few cases in which difficulties arise, it is possible to count off, historically as well as statistically, six Juglars [8-10-year business cycles] to a Kondratieff [50-60 years] and three Kitchins [40 months] to a Juglar--not as an average but in every individual case. Why this was so, he admitted, is indeed difficult to see. As his former student Paul Samuelson wrote thirty-five years later, the whole exercise began to smack of Pythagorean moonshine. The third noteworthy aspect of Business Cycles was its remarkable richness of historical detail and understanding. Though the explanation of cycles remained problematical, the historical vision was squarely on point: that capitalism--not all economic activity, just capitalism--is fundamentally an unstable, disequilibrating process. Simon Kuznets, a macroeconomist and future Nobel laureate, wrote the most thorough and important of the reviews, kindhearted in tone but still devastating. Kuznets conceded that Schumpeter had written a monumental treatise that raised all the right questions and did relate short-term business cycles to long-run economic movements. Still, Kuznets wrote, business cycles are essentially quantitative phenomena. Instead of robust statistical argument, Schumpeter had presented the reader with an intellectual diary, an account of his own journey through the realm of business cycles and capitalist evolution, a journal of his encounters there with numerous hypotheses, diverse historical facts, and statistical experiments. These efforts could not substitute for robust quantitative analysis. Two other reviewers noticed Schumpeters implicit distaste for macroeconomics, referring to his vigorous stand against the curse of aggregative thinking. Given the harsh reception of Business Cycles the content and also the detached and ironic tone of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy appear in a different light. It is as though Schumpeter, now deeply pessimistic about the state of the world, decided to unburden himself not only on economics but on a broad array of other subjects as well. A capitalist economy, he now wrote in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, is not and cannot be stationary. Nor is it merely expanding in a steady manner. . . . Every situation is being upset before it has had time to work itself out. Economic progress, in capitalist society, means turmoil. In a 54-page analysis of Karl Marx at the beginning of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter considers Marx as Prophet, Sociologist, Economist, and Teacher. Now Marx saw this process of industrial change more clearly and he realized its pivotal importance more fully than any other economist of his time. He accomplished a fusion of history and theory whose result represented something different from either one alone. Marx was the first economist of top rank to see and to teach systematically how economic theory may be turned into historical analysis and how the historical narrative may be turned into histoire raisonée. Nevertheless, Schumpeters final verdict is negative, because of the failure of [Marxs] prediction of increasing misery, which in turn derived from wrong vision and faulty analysis. Although Marx the economist and sociologist was mostly correct, Marx the prophet and teacher proved to be disastrously wrong. On page 61 of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy Schumpeter asks, Can capitalism survive?, then replies, No. I do not think it can. His purpose was to lay bare the core nature of capitalism--to show how it works, to demonstrate why, on balance, it is a good thing; and then to highlight its fragility. In response to the standard charge that capitalism distributes its fruits inequitably, Schumpeter points out that Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort. . . . the capitalist process, not by coincidence but by virtue of its mechanism, progressively raises the standard of life of the masses. A by-product of capitalism is the dominance of all life by an economic calculus, which Schumpeter calls rationality. He shows how powerfully the economic way of thinking bestows rewards and penalties: Prizes and penalties are measured in pecuniary terms. Going up and going down means making and losing money. . . . The promises of wealth and the threats of destitution that [this arrangement] holds out, it redeems with ruthless promptitude. Constant, relentless change is the hallmark of capitalism. It may seem strange that anyone can fail to see so obvious a fact which moreover was long ago emphasized by Karl Marx. Underscoring the deficiencies of any conceptual system that proceeds from static assumptions, Schumpeter compares the universe of Adam Smith and other classical economists with the reality of modern industry. The classicists recognized cases of monopoly, and Smith himself carefully noticed the prevalence of devices to restrict competition. Yet neither Smith nor most other classical and neoclassical economists saw that perfect competition is the exception and that even if it were the rule there would be much less reason for congratulation than one might think. If we look more closely at the conditions . . . that must be fulfilled in order to produce perfect competition, we realize immediately that outside of agricultural mass production there cannot be many instances of it. Schumpeter contrasts this situation with modern business which involves constantly evolving oligopolies. These new situations do not easily lend themselves to mathematical modeling. In oligopolies, there is in fact no determinate equilibrium at all and the possibility presents itself that there may be an endless sequence of moves and countermoves, an indefinite state of warfare between firms. The contemporary structure of business is best understood as having evolved from long organizational development. It reflects a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. In sum, the process is one of creative destruction--the sweeping out of old products, old enterprises, and old organizational forms by new ones. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in. This necessitates a lengthy time frame for analysis: Every piece of business strategy acquires its true significance only against the background of that process and within the situation created by it. It must be seen in its role in the perennial gale of creative destruction; it cannot be understood irrespective of it or, in fact, on the hypothesis that there is a perennial lull. . . . As long as this is not recognized, the investigator does a meaningless job. One result of this approach should be a sharper focus on product quality and on marketing, and a reduced emphasis on price. [I]n capitalist reality as distinguished from its textbook picture, it is not [price] competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization (the largest-scale unit of control for instance)--competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives. A theoretical analysis that neglects this essential element of the case . . . even if correct in logic as well as in fact, is like Hamlet without the Danish prince. Schumpeter then mounts a devastating attack on popular American attitudes toward monopoly, which, in his judgment, spills over onto big business in general. He argues that the very nature of giant, capital-intensive enterprise requires strategic behavior not contemplated by orthodox economic theory except to the extent that the theory holds such behavior monopolistic. As a matter of historical record, Schumpeter insists, long-run price rigidities are practically unknown. The same is true of long-run cases of monopoly, which are rarer than instances of perfect competition. Organizational innovation, not monopolistic profits, accounted for the prosperity of most great companies. They should be viewed with pride and awe, not with detestation and fear. These units not only arise in the process of creative destruction and function in a way entirely different from the static scheme, but in many cases of decisive importance they provide the necessary form for the achievement. They largely create what they exploit. Monopoly rents might flow for awhile, but they are inevitably temporary, the prizes offered by capitalist society to the successful innovator. Under capitalism, the idea of a permanent monopoly is ludicrous, especially in manufacturing. Schumpeter next mounts a savage assault on perfect competition which has evolved from an analytical tool of theoretical economics into an ideal toward which theory should guide public policy. This is catastrophic: If we try to visualize how perfect competition would work in the process of creative destruction, we arrive at a more discouraging result. . . . Cases approaching perfect competition, such as American agriculture, English coal mining, and the English textile industry are costing consumers much more and are affecting total output much more injuriously than they would if controlled by a dozen good brains. Schumpeter then begins to lay the foundations for his famous argument that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction--not for economic reasons but for sociological ones. His reasoning proceeds as follows: 1. In pre-capitalist times, no sheer economic achievement, by itself, could advance anyone into the ruling class. 2. When capitalism began to develop, persons of supernormal ability and ambition became upwardly mobile provided they would turn to business. 3. It was hard to succeed in business, yet success remained inglorious: no flourishing of swords about it, not much physical prowess, no chance to gallop the armored horse into the enemy. . . . The stock exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail. 4. There can be no assurance that people are happier or better off under industrialism than in the medieval manor or village. Efficiency is only one of many human desiderata, and perhaps not the most important one. 5. So the future of capitalism cant be assured purely because of its economic superiority. I am not going to argue, on the strength of that performance, that the capitalist intermezzo is likely to be prolonged. 6. Capitalism destroyed most secular underpinnings of civilized society--the manor, village, and craft guild. It replaced these institutions with nothing: no idealism, no sense of organic life, no essential ability for social organization of a non-economic nature. 7. In particular, the talents necessary for economic success dont translate well into other realms of life. A genius in the business office may be, and often is, utterly unable outside of it to say boo to a goose--both in the drawing room and on the platform. 8. So, without protection from some other source, the bourgeoisie is politically helpless and unable not only to lead its nation but even to take care of its particular class interest. 9. Because capitalist evolution, and particularly the rise of big business, attacks masses of small producers and merchants, it alienates its natural allies, indirectly giving reinforcements to the enemy. 10. The substitution of a share of stock for tangible goods takes the life out of the idea of property. If this process goes on long enough and thoroughly enough, there will be nobody left who really cares to stand for [property]. 11. Capitalism works gradual changes within the psyches of individuals. By reducing everything to an economic calculus, it rationalizes thinking. It creates a critical frame of mind which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many other institutions, in the end turns against its own. 12. The philosophical case for capitalism is beyond the intellectual capacity of most persons, even most economists. Why, practically every nonsense that has ever been said about capitalism has been championed by some professed economist. 13. Most important, the case for capitalism must rest on long-run considerations. In the short run, it is impossible for most people, even intellectuals, to ignore exasperating profits and inefficiencies and focus instead on long-range trends. 14. Uniquely among types of societies, capitalism is so successful economically that it creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest. It underwrites a class of hostile intellectuals who have no direct responsibility for practical affairs and little experience in managing anything. 15. The rise of mass media makes this situation more dangerous by multiplying the access of demagogues to short-run human instincts and desires. In the process, public policy grows more and more hostile to capitalist interests. 16. Bureaucracies in Europe antedate the capitalist epoch and owe no allegiance to bourgeois values. Bureaucracies in America, however, with no real civil service tradition, hold onto their antipathy toward capitalism because they dont grasp the vast stakes at issue. Given the legislative, administrative and judicial practice born of that hostility, entrepreneurs and capitalists--in fact the whole stratum that accepts the bourgeois scheme of life--will eventually cease to function. 17. Most alarming of all, the bourgeois family may disintegrate. As soon as men and women introduce into their private life a sort of inarticulate system of cost accounting, they will become aware that children cease to be economic assets. When this happens, the last pillar of bourgeois society will fall. Much of Schumpeters argument here might be interpreted as a cry from the heart of a brilliant but unlucky European elitist, who had witnessed one catastrophe after another during the bloody first half of the twentieth century. Even in contemporary America, a unique opportunity for the development of an advanced capitalist society stood on the edge of disaster. It was happening in the United States because of the Great Depression, the ascendance of fascism and communism in Europe, and the onset of World War II. It had not happened earlier because The scheme of values that arose from the national task of developing the economic possibilities of the country drew nearly all the brains into business and impressed the businessmans attitudes upon the soul of the nation.32 Schumpeter professed to see not only the decline of capitalism but also the ultimate triumph of socialism. Can socialism work? he asks. Of course it can. In large part, it can work because it inspires people to noble ends, to something larger than themselves. Socialism implies a new cultural world whose psychic rewards may be worth the price of optimal economic efficiency. For true believers, Socialist bread may well taste sweeter to them than capitalist bread simply because it is socialist bread, and it would do so even if they found mice in it.33 Despite memorable aphorisms such as this one, Schumpeters analysis of socialism and democracy is a good deal less compelling than his dissection of capitalism. He says of democracy that it is best understood not as a system but merely a method--an institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the peoples vote. Of course there is much more to democracy than this, but Schumpeters real interests lie elsewhere.34 At the very end of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter delivers a philippic about the intrusion of modern government, and specifically the New Deal state, into economic life. He mentions counter-cyclical policies, redistributive taxation, antitrust, price controls, monetary policy, the regulation of labor, securities legislation, and the indefinite extension of the sphere of wants to be supplied by public enterprise. Yet, ever the scientist reluctant to succumb to the Ricardian Vice, Schumpeter closes with this remarkable statement: It would spell complete misunderstanding of my argument if you thought that I disapprove or wish to criticize any of these policies. Nor am I one of those who label all or some of them socialist.35 The Books Reception Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy received a modicum of attention in 1942, when it was first published. A second edition, which appeared in 1946, attracted wider notice, and the third, in 1950, became an international best-seller. Reviewing the first edition, the Cambridge economist Joan Robinson found that Schumpeter has little love for socialism, and none at all for socialists. His natural sympathy is all with the heroic age of expanding capitalism. Herself a leading theorist of imperfect competition, Robinson found Schumpeters analysis of that subject the most brilliant part of the book: his argument blows like a gale through the dreary pedantry of static analysis. Although Schumpeter had little to say about contrary evidence, especially in his argument about the fadeout of capitalism and its replacement by socialism, The reader is swept along by the freshness, the dash, the impetuosity of Professor Schumpeters stream of argument. Whether or not the reader was totally convinced, this book is worth the whole parrot-house of contemporary orthodoxies, right, left, or centre.36 Reviewing the 1946 edition of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote that the book burst into the generally sterile atmosphere of political discussion like a collection of firecrackers and skyrockets. Schumpeters analysis made it pointless to keep repeating mindless slogans about the evils of monopoly. Even if he were wrong, there is no percentage in dodging the uncomfortable points he raises. The intellectual rigor of his analysis sets a standard that liberal writers should try to meet. The book is the performance of an intellectual virtuoso, brilliant, complex, perfectly controlled.37 In 1981, a retrospective analysis of the book appeared, entitled Schumpeters Vision: Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy After 40 Years.38 Here several of Schumpeters former students and associates joined with some European scholars in evaluating the books legacy. Paul Samuelson led off, conceding that the subject under discussion was a great book. He added that from a game theoretic viewpoint Schumpeter might have taken account of the propensity of democratic groups to change the nature of capitalism and to bend it to their own self-interest. Schumpeters praise of Marx for being learned, bold to speculate, and broad in his dynamic vision describes Schumpeter himself, Marx thereby being a veritable chip off the new block. Yet Schumpeter was of all my teachers the one whose economics was essentially farthest from Marxs.39 The sociologist Tom Bottomore, a man of the Left, lamented Schumpeters disinclination to cast his analysis in terms of economic and social class. Thus, he had overlooked some important changes that now (in the 1980s) were clearer: A very large part of the middle class, in spite of variations. . . has maintained a political orientation which is much more favourable to parties of the right and the centre than to those of the left. . . . [Schumpeter] thought that the march into socialism was well-nigh irresistible, and deplored the fact. I, on the contrary, think that this march has come to an untimely halt, and regret the eclipse of the highest ideal that has emerged in modern Western culture.40 In a third essay, Schumpeters fellow Austrian and longtime Harvard colleague Gottfried Haberler wrote that although Schumpeter never said so in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, it was clear that his real feeling was that capitalism or the bourgeois society is very much worth fighting for. Schumpeters forecast of capitalisms downfall has shocked and puzzled many people. If all qualifications, reservations, and elucidations are given their proper attention, however, the forecast of capitalisms early doom becomes less apodictic and the demise of capitalism loses much of its inevitability. Then, too, Schumpeters emphasis on rising resentment of taxation anticipated the American tax revolt that began in the 1970s, a movement of extraordinary importance.41 The economist Robert L. Heilbroner, a first-rate stylist himself, judged Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy partly on artistic terms: There is [in the book] a great deal of attitudinizing. . . an open delight in epater le bourgeois and tweaking the noses of radicals. There is also pomposity and pedantry, mixed with an arrogance that teeters on the edge of a dangerous elitism. Yet the book remains full of perceptive insights, such as Schumpeters remark that The evolution of the capitalist lifestyle is best described in terms of the genesis of the modern lounge suit, a remark worthy of Thorstein Veblen.42 Arthur Smithies, Schumpeters former student and colleague, saw Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy in part as a reaction against Keynesianism. Schumpeter had openly derided the stagnation thesis introduced in Keyness General Theory. This thesis holds that as a country grows richer investment opportunities shrink but the propensity to save increases; therefore savings and investment balance only at high unemployment. If valid, wrote Smithies, the long-run Keynesian argument provided an impregnable case for socialism. Yet Schumpeter saw that the underpinnings of the stagnation thesis were the atypical conditions of the Great Depression. He maintained his sanity and insisted that such problems were not permanent but cyclical. As for Schumpeters concern with inflation, in the 1940s Anglo-American economists thought it obsessive, but in fact Schumpeter proved remarkably prescient.43 Herbert K. Zassenhaus, another economist from the generation just behind Schumpeter, detected a certain mysticism in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. In the shape of the entrepreneur, Schumpeter introduces a social miracle in the precise sense of the word: an event beyond the laws of nature and society.44 In perhaps the most telling of all the retrospective comments, the Dutch scholar Henrik Wilm Lambers recalled Schumpeters influence on him as a youth and the continued appeal of his book. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Lambers wrote, Schumpeter accomplished the feat of moving five layers of thought--the firm, the markets, the institutions, the cultural values, the leaders of society--as one interwoven dynamic process. With incomparable skill he made history go through time as one stream. Lambers own students were invariably taken with the book: After many an oral graduate examination, I have often heard remarks like: to be honest, the one stimulating book was Schumpeter. Radical and conservative students alike say, each in their own way, he keeps me puzzled: is it my fault or did he intend to?45 Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy continues to puzzle and provoke readers--to make them think, to question their own perceptions measured against their own ideologies and to wonder about the authors intentions. Only the very greatest books do this, and age so well.
Posted on: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:58:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015