Page images
PDF
EPUB

The authors have done their work well, and the book certainly makes in the direction which they intended. It takes its place with that growing body of literature which everyone must read who has a real part of any sort in the making of social life. It is not merely of local interest. Of course, a book about Boston, and especially about the oldest part of Boston, is attractive to thousands who care nothing about social problems. On the other hand, few whose chief interest is in civic amelioration, though they be in Minneapolis or San Francisco, will resist the temptation to indulge in the dissipation of a look into the old town of Boston as pictured in the opening chapters. Not a line of the book is dull to one who has the rudiments of civic consciousness. Every chapter, with the possible exception of the first two, would help citizens in nearly every large town in the United States to understand their immediate situation and the problems that it presents. They could not assume that details are mixed in just the same way in their own city, but this book would show them factors that are everywhere in some form and proportion.

The book as a whole is a panorama of the process of racial admixture and assimilation which is taking place under varying circumstances throughout our country. My first thought on reading the title was that credit must be due to Mr. Riis for having suggested it in his phrase “the making of an American.” If one chapter may be named as more instructive than another, it is the sixth, on “Traffic in Citizenship.” Amateur political reformers would know better what sort of campaigning they must prepare for if they would read this chapter attentively. Every American who wants to understand his surroundings, and especially everyone who wants to do some of the public work that our situation demands, would find it profitable to read the book from beginning to end.

A. W. S.

Our Benevolent Feudalism. By W. J. GHENT. New York: The

Macmillan Co., 1902. Pp. 202.

The general view presented by Mr. Ghent has already been developed in Professor Veblin's Theory of the Leisure Class and in the writings of socialists. The familiar story of combinations, trusts, and centralization of industry and commerce is retold, and a very dark prospect is presented. We are drifting, he believes, toward a social state in which a few magnates will practically control the nation, dictate legislation, own the judges, time the sermons, crack the lash over editors, and not only govern us all, but make us actually think it is all right, the best possible world. Feudalism has come again, tempered with benevolence and somewhat by fear of assassination and mobs.

Perhaps it is a fair inference that the author hopes to make us so disgusted with all the candidates in sight that we shall be ready to accept the “dark horse” which seems to be concealed just around the corner, whose name is socialism. And if, contrary to Lincoln's belief, we are all so stupid, morally corrupt, and besotted as we are here represented, and can all of us be fooled all the time by a clique of Wall street speculators, we should certainly be ready for almost any experiment which promised escape. President Roosevelt thinks we shall try "publicity" for a time, and keep our other surgical instruments in their case until this blade has tried its edge.

The book is a trenchant pamphlet; many of the illustrations of corruption and oppression seem to be based on knowledge; and, if this were the whole case of our American democracy, and the whole truth of our condition, some of us would prefer to see the nation wiped out of existence rather than realize his dream of its future.

It is rather suggestive of further inquiry, however, that these venomous accusations against a society which is said to be suppressing radicalism should find one of the greatest publishing firms to push its circulation. If our comfortable people are “ tired of hearing about the poor," weary of being goaded, then this rather one-sided, but incisive and stimulating, appeal may again stir the sleepy social conscience and quicken compunction.

C. R. HENDERSON.

NOTES AND ABSTRACTS.

The Race Problem in International Industry.-Prominent thinkers have expressed their belief that the condition of international economic activity and the result of industrial competition between nations are due largely to race peculiarities. With the growth of a world-market the economic superiority or inferiority of nations has been made more prominent, and the problems arising therefrom are among the most important subjects of investigation for the economist and sociologist.

Are there inferior and superior races, or are the supposed inferiorities and superiorities equilibrated when all circumstances are considered ? In the time of early Christianity and by the preceding schools of philosophy, the moral and ethical equality of men was proclaimed. In Greece a distinction was made between Greeks and bárbarians until the Sophists and Stoics came forward and taught equality. In the modern period, with Rousseau at the head, philosophy declared the equality of races, and in still more modern times Darwin asserted that the backward peoples possess the capacity in time for reaching the achievements of the higher races.

Nothing is more false than this. In economic activity the difference between races and peoples in productive capacity is enormous. Bagehot has said that in productive ability twenty normal Englishmen would be incomparably greater than a thousand Australian black fellows. This is true of all kinds of work. Where mixed and pure races exist in the same state, the leading rôles fall to the mixed, especially if they have white blood in them. With the removal of slavery in the United States the pure negroes have come into a most lamentable situation and have shown themselves incapable of any large undertakings and of anything more than a very low level of economic activity:

In the extraordinary meagerness of wants and the untiring industry of the Mongolian race there exists a certain kind of economic superiority, but the final determining factor here also is race endowment. The Chinese seem to be a people without nerves. They can work continuously from early morning till late at night with little food or rest. They lack inventiveness, are very imitative, and work with machine-like routine. The Japanese laborer is similar to the Chinese, though a little more inventive and less imitative. The so called danger of industrial competition from the yellow race is limited by race characteristics, and a sound industry has little to fear from the competition of eastern Asia. These people lack bodily strength and endurance, one Englishman being able to do the work of three or four Japanese.

Coming to the European peoples, it is clearly seen that the position of the nations in the world-market is determined chiefly, not by natural resources, geographical situation, or political power, but by endowment due to race characteristics. LeroyBeaulieu ascribes the lack of originality and creative power of the Russian principally to the barrenness and monotony of the land. But he has overestimated the iniluence of natural environment. The difficulty rather arises from the mixture of Mongolian blood. Their industrial workers who are leaders in the factories are imported from western Europe. For the same work it requires more laborers than in England or Germany, and the cost of supervision is also much greater.

While there are several factors that are important in determining the place a nation will occupy in competition for the international market, race or blood is the decisive one. This is also shown clearly by commercial history from the ancient Phænicians to the modern British.

When the race historian glances back over written history, he will be astonished at the changes in political and economic dominance from one people to another. First was the period ruled by the Semitic people; second, the Græco-Italian period; then the so-called Romance peoples, but with the aid of a mixture of Germanic blood; and, finally, the Dutch, British, Germans, and North Americans, belonging in larger

[ocr errors]

measure to the Teutonic peoples. In the face of these changes in control from one race to another the objection may be raised that it is not a race endowment that accounts for the superiority. In answer it may be said that the loss of influence has been due in part to mixture with inferior races and in part to certain phenomena of degeneration which can be observed also in the animal and plant kingdoms.

The modern world is controlled by the Teutonic peoples. Which will be the most successful ? Great Britain has declined somewhat, Germany is becoming a greater rival, but all the industrial nations are being threatened by the competition of North America. England won the title of “mistress of the seas” from the Netherlands, and owes her commercial and industrial supremacy to certain personal characteristics of race. The Englishman is a realist and an individualist. It is for this reason that socialism has never played an important rôle in Great Britain. These characteristics have made her also a great colonial power. But the Englishman's lack of accommodation to the demands of the consumer is one of his weaknesses in the international market in comparison with the more accommodating and Alexible German.

More rapid than the ascendancy of England has been that of Germany, and still more rapid than either has been that of North America. Very astonishing, however, has been the economic growth of Germany, for it is apparently as is by a revolution, and not as the result of national characteristics. The change in Germany from idealism to a more practicable activity as the first condition of effectiveness in industry is connected with the name of Bismarck and the events of 1870-71. The two characteristics which have led to this competitive ability on the part of Germany are the feeling of duty and the faithfulness to a purpose once undertaken. That Germany is on the point of winning, in many ways, advantages over England is certain, but we do not agree with those who claim that England has already been surpassed by Germany.

It was out of English and German elements that the ability of the United States was born. The rise there from industrial inferiority to industrial superiority has been rapid. Ten or twenty years ago the cost of production of American manufactures was usually considerably higher than the German and English, but now in the most important departments it is lower. American progress is due largely to enormous race energy, tenacity, courage, and initiative. These race peculiarities manifest themselves in that most dangerous form of American competition — the trusts. It is estimated that three-fourths of American exports are the products of trust organizations. The trusts are the creation in general of great undertakers, and business enterprises of such extent are little known outside of America. Doubtless the political and social freedom in America and the great natural resources have made the opportunities for the business initiative; but without this initiative, which is rooted in blood, America would never have become what it is.

The industrial position won by England and Germany is endangered by the strength of the l'nited States, and one of the problems of Europe in the near future will be to find some means of defense against that state whose greatness has grown out of a mixture of English and German blood.—DR. JULIUS WOLF, “ Das Rassenproblem in der Weltwirthschaft," in Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft, January, 1903.

E. M. The Three Primary Laws of Social Evolution. — In accepting Darwin's theory of “the survival of the fittest” as a good and self-sufficient explanation of the phenomena of social progress, the historical school has been betrayed into the very same error as that of which they have convicted the orthodox economist. Like the latter, the historical school has assumed that a theory of progress which is true only for certain stages in social development is necessarily true for all stages, or has universal validity. The historical school has seemed to content itself with the theory of evolution proposed by Jr. Darwin. Now, in the introduction to his Origin of Species, p. 3, Mr. Darwin says that “the struggle for existence among all organic beings throughout the world, which invariably follows from the high geometric ratio of their

increase is the doctrine of Matthus applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom." It is strange, to say the least, that economists should have accepted a theory of progress which is confessedly based upon a long-since discarded economic doctrine. And again, on p. 60, Mr. Darwin says: “It is the doctrine of Matthus applied with mani

corre

fold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom, for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food and no prudential restraints upon marriages." We have here Darwin's tacit recognition of the fact that, while this theory fits in so well with biological phenomena, it may be largely offset, so far as human society is concerned, by the intelligent volitions of mankind. And yet, not a few economists have continued to insist upon the theory of “the survival of the fittest as a good and sufficient explanation of all social progress; and this despite its signal failure to explain the more complex phenomena of a modern society.

As a matter of fact, progress depends as much upon pressure from below as upon pressure from above. Instead, for example, of the upper industrial classes crowding the lower down and out, it quite as frequently happens that the lower crowd the upper up. Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution does not attempt to account for such a complex social situation, while Lamarck's theory of a more or less conscious adjustment of the organism to the environment finds its fullest application in such a society. The historical school is convicted of assuming universal validity for the Darwinian theory, which is only true in any complete sense for the earlier stages of social evolution.

Social progress must take place, if at all, under the law of decreasing returns, under the law of increasing returns, or under the law of constant returns. In a society progressing under the law of diminishing returns, population presses hard upon subsistence, and those below are apt to be pressed down and out by those above. Such progress as takes place in such a society is probably due to "the survival of the fittest.” In a society progressing under the law of increasing returns, the struggle for existence is not so severe, population no longer presses so hard upon subsistence, and the lower classes here crowd the others up. The explanation of progress is no longer found in Darwin's theory, but in Larmarck's conscious adjustment of the individual to his environment. In a society progressing under the law of constant returns every increase in the productive power of society results in a sponding advance in the standard of life of the whole society. Production and consumption here tend to keep pace with each other. There is a tendeney to uniform improvements in method and technique throughout the entire field of industry; this tends to eliminate monopoly advantage and to effect a more equitable distribution. This brings about a progressing equilibrium between production and consumption, and so substitutes a constant rate of increase for the alternating periods of boom and depression. Under the “law of decreasing returns” the welfare of others is completely ignored; under the law of increasing returns a pseudo-altruism is forced upon the entrepreneur; while under the law of constant returns further progress is made toward altruism. The welfare of society becomes a condition precedent to the success of those who would exploit that society.

Society seems to have progressed from the domination of a landed aristocracy to the domination of the bourgeoisie, and the further evolution of society will probably see the fourth estate coming into its own. These forms correspond quite closely with societies progressing under the laws of decreasing, increasing, and constant returns, respectively. While a modern society may be dominated by any one of the three laws of progress, according to the stage of its development, it is not probable that it will ever be entirely free from the action of the other two laws. This means that in any modern society all three forms of evolution are in operation at one and the same time, and it is this that must always render the study of social evolution such a difficult problem. A recognition of these three forms of progress and their mutual interaction will be found necessary to any hopeful investigation in the field of social evolution.CHARLES W. MACFARLANE, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September, 1902.

T. J. R. The Prophylaxis and Treatment of the Recidivist Criminal. — At the last two congresses of criminal anthropology, two distinguished jurists gave opinions that criminal recidivists should be excluded from society for an indefinite term, according to the nature and repetition of the crime, or according to the psychic disturbance or degeneracy which necessitates their sequestration. Psychiaters upheld the validity of these opinions. The question of the delinquent recidivist will in the future fall entirely into the hands of the alienist.

« PreviousContinue »