Authority in the Modern State. By HAROLD J. LASKI. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1919.-398 pp.

We stand on the threshold of one of those critical periods in the history of mankind when the most fundamental notions present themselves for analysis. . . it is already possible vaguely to discern the character of that dissatisfaction from which a new synthesis is ultimately born.

Since time began how many thoughtful men in their late twenties have stood on that old familiar threshold and detected the vague symptoms of a new synthesis! And what appalling bulk the literature of political science would present if all those millions of eager spirits had been endowed with Laski's industry and literary facility in promulgating the content of their visions!

In the present volume we have some little mangling of the corpse of pseudo-Austinism, which the author slew in his Problem of Sovereignty (cf. POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, volume xxxii, page 503); but the significant feature of the later work is the revelation and formal justification of the positive theory that is to supplant the superstition. of the effete past. The essence of this theory is in substance this:

There is in human society no authority that is absolute or ultimate or paramount. The state in particular is none of these; for the state is really but the government, and the government is merely an association for the promotion of the social good in a limited sphere by a particular means. Many other kinds of association contribute to the social purpose, but the state" is not necessarily more in harmony with the end of society than a church or a trade union or a freemasons' lodge". In structure as in function society is federalistic. Authority therein is not hierarchical but coordinate. One association may be more important than another for the social purpose, but it is not likely to remain so. As conditions ceaselessly change the church may be at one time the most important, the trade union at another and then the freemasons' lodge. What seems particularly clear from Mr. Laski's work is that the state is the one form of association that must never be recognized as the most important. He admits that the state does in fact absorb the vital part of social power (page 81), but he finds in this a deplorable situation, to be ended as soon as possible.

The way out that appeals to him is not that of the anarchist, denying the need of any authority, or that of the syndicalist, limiting authority to the producers of wealth. Feeling that the most serious problem of the day is that touching the production of wealth, Laski thinks a solution will be reached somewhat as follows: The state will

represent, as at present, the interest of consumption and will continue to act through an organ like the national legislature. By the side of this body will be set up a similar one to represent the interest of production and to be controlled by labor. Each will legislate in its appropriate sphere. Neither will be "uniquely sovereign". Disputes between the two will be decided by a specially dignified tribunal like the Supreme Court of the United States (page 88). To anyone who recalls how smoothly such a system as is here suggested operated in the Middle Age, when spiritual and secular interests were somewhat similarly organized, and in the middle 1800's, when the interests of North and South in the United States were in conflict, the promise of peace and order in Mr. Laski's proposal will make a peculiarly winning appeal.

It should be mentioned at once, however, that the author will not recognize that order is necessarily the primary end of law. “There are times", he says, "when the business of the law is not the maintenance of an old equilibrium but the creation of a new one " (page 379). And again," We cannot wander on blindly with self-shut eyes, merely because order is convenient and rebellion attended by the gravest dangers" (page 375).

The last two quotations are both taken from the concluding essay of the volume. Here the author's thought takes a more radical trend than elsewhere in the book. His essay, "Administrative Syndicalism in France", is a thorough and sympathetic description of the movement of the officeholders (fonctionnaires) to organize in trade unions and to employ against their superiors in the service the same methods for raising wages, reducing labor etc. that are in vogue in private industry, including the strike. Mr. Laski greets this movement as a promising step toward the democratizing of administration, analogous to the democratizing of industry that he foresees in private enterprise. His essay is in every way highly illuminating.

The other three essays in the volume deal with three distinguished French thinkers of the post-revolutionary decades: Bonald, Lamennais and Royer-Collard. These men are used by Mr. Laski to furnish, not always very obviously, texts for the illustration of his particular doctrines; but the great usefulness of his full and scholarly treatment of their thought is in affording to American readers the chance to know about men who figure nowhere else in accessible English literature.

It must be said with regret that the proof-reading in this, as in the author's preceding volume, is scandalously bad. Indeed there is war

rant for the suspicion that Laski has taken over from his master Figgis the slovenliness that marred that admirable scholar's literary style. Certainly something more than oversight in proof-reading must account for the grotesque designation, on page 236, of the work in which Lamennais found happiness.

WILLIAM A. DUNNING.

Industry and Humanity: A Study in the Principles Underlying Industrial Reconstruction. By W. L. MACKENZIE KING. Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1918.-xx, 567 pp.

Among the incidental benefits of the World War, causing its calamitous consequences to stand out only the more sharply, is the demonstration it has afforded that vast productive powers lie latent in every modern industrial community. It showed that when employers and employees put aside their differences and unite with singleness of purpose in the effort to turn out a maximum volume of munitions or other needed products, the results are truly astounding. Students of the labor problem, like Dr. Mackenzie King, knew that the wastes resulting from the present unsatisfactory organization of industry were great, but the war's proof that immense gains would result from a better organization has strengthened the faith that was in them and encouraged the publication of idealistic plans like that unfolded in the book under review.

Industry and Humanity is one of the best discussions of the labor problem that has yet appeared. The many important positions, including that of Canadian Minister of Labor, which the author has held, made it certain that any work from his pen would show full knowledge of the details of the problem and of the attempts that have been made to solve it. But the book is more than a well-ordered and wellinformed discussion. It displays constructive insight of a high order and literary skill in the presentation of the argument that must go far to convince even the sceptical.

Believing that "the crux of the labor problem" lies in the disappearance of the personal relationships between the parties to Industry" (page 57), the author outlines his remedy as follows:

A solution of the problems of Industry is not to be looked for in forms; something more vital than forms is needed. A new spirit alone will suffice. This spirit must substitute Faith for Fear. It must breathe mutual confidence and constructive goodwill. It must be founded on a belief in an underlying order which presupposes between individuals, not conflict, but

community of interest in all that pertains to human well-being. Once such a spirit is imparted to the parties to Industry, once it is accepted with all that it presages of individual gain and public service, Industry itself will win a new position and a new vitality, and prosperity will follow in the wake of industrial enterprise [page 148].

In the absence of this "mutual confidence and constructive goodwill", we have the situation that is only too familiar.

Denied opportunity to co-operate with Capital, Labor competes with Capital. Industrial life, instead of being in the nature of a partnership, becomes a sort of guerrilla warfare in which Capital seeks to increase profits at the expense of Labor, and Labor seeks to increase wages at the expense of Capital. On the one side is a misunderstanding of producing costs; on the other side, a misunderstanding of the workers' needs and aspirations. Strikes and lockouts are the crude expression of the resentment which this misunderstanding begets [pages 378-379].

But how develop the "new spirit" now so conspicuously absent? In brief, through an organization which shall realize in the industrial field Pym's formula for good political government: "That form of Government is best which doth actuate and dispose every part and member to the common good" (page 423). A first step in this direction is an accurate analysis of the factors which contribute to production. In addition to those commonly recognized in current discussion, viz., labor, capital (including land) and management, the author emphasizes the importance of the "community".

It is the Community which provides the natural resources and powers that underlie all production. Individuals may acquire title by one means or another, but it is from the Community, and with the consent of the Community, that titles are held. It is the Community, organized in various ways, which maintains government and foreign relations, secures law and order, fosters the arts and inventions, aids education, breeds opinion and promotes, through concession or otherwise, the agencies of transportation, communication, credit, banking, and the like, without which any production save the most primitive, would be impossible. It is the Community which creates the demand for commodities and services, through which Labor is provided with remunerative employment, and Capital with a return upon its investment. Apart from the Community, inventive genius, organizing capacity, managerial or other ability would be of little value. Turn where one may, it is the Community that makes possible all of the activities of Industry, and helps to determine their value and scope [pages 133-136].

Given the four factors in production enumerated, a partnership organization requires not only that these should receive each its fair share of the products of industry but that each should have a reasonable voice in deciding both what these shares shall be and how industry shall be organized and carried on for the common benefit. King thus describes the prevailing organization:

Dr.

Instead of a united control expressive of a harmony of interests among partners, it is a struggle for supremacy of control. . . . A militant Tradeunionism claims exclusive right to speak in the name of Labor and to enforce its newly acquired control by the weapon of the strike, regardless altogether of the interest and well-being of Capital, Management and Community. An autocratic management seeks the maintenance of its accustomed control by exercising arbitrary powers . . . while denying to Labor the right of membership in associations for its self-protection. A defiant Capitalism asserts its privileged control by thwarting the principle of Collective Bargaining. . . . Finally, a State, becoming more and more socialistic, proclaims the Community's long neglected authority by a control which Capital and Management feel is indifferent to their functions [pages 380-381].

Instead of this struggle for autocratic control by one of the factors we must have an organization that insures joint control. Management should continue to be exercised by those best qualified for this function, but above management should be a directorate in which, along with it, labor, capital and the community are equally represented. In developing and defending this proposal, constant reference is made to parallels in the political field. Industrial democracy, or responsible self-government in industry, must be sought along the same path that has led to responsible self-government in politics. In his concluding chapter Dr. King further strengthens his argument by describing at some length the plan for labor representation introduced by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company and the joint councils recommended by the Whitely Committee in England and already introduced in several important British trades. In the development of joint control he advocates the fullest use of existing organizations both on the side of labor and on that of the employers and insists that one of the essential provisions in the statement of principles, Labor's Magna Charta, that must precede the adoption of a plan of joint control is recognition of labor's right to membership in labor organizations of its own choosing.

Dr. King does not contend that there is some discoverable economic law that decrees precisely what share of the product each of the four