top of page

NONTHEMATIC / Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer 1947)

American trade policy is guided by the principle of most-favored-nation treatment among all nations—a policy opposed by the Soviet Union, which terms it "capitalistic" and "imperialistic." The indictment is rather confusing, but whatever else it may mean, it indicates Soviet Russia’s belief that her concept of trade policy does not agree with the American concept. An attempt to explain this antagonism shows at first glance that the United States and Russia trade peacefully with each other, that no conflict exists in their reciprocal trade relations, and that none can be expected.

It is the intention of this study to prove that the prevailing assumptions that drive all business cycle theories must be modified if a realistic—rather than a purely speculative—theory of business cycle movements is to be developed. In order to show the consequences of what we think are the correct assumptions, we shall proceed with the same analytical method that Lord Keynes used in his General Theory. As a matter of fact, we shall consider the functional relationships as outlined by Keynes entirely correct. What we object to is not his theoretical concept. In the course of time, however, certain basic assumptions which had been introduced as valid 'in the general case' and 'as a rule' have been tacitly assumed to be present in every case, with the result that far-reaching theoretical and practical conclusions have been drawn unconditionally.

In any small enterprise or shop, management delegates its functions from above to below. In this process each delegated power has considerable influence on the delegation of functions to the next lower group. The large group at the bottom is subjected to authority but granted none. Does it then consist of an amorphous mass of workers? Not at all. It has its own self-developed social order, in which different positions enjoy different degrees of prestige, in which certain groups of workers or individual workers have higher rank than others. As the hierarchic pyramid broadens from individuals to groups, other vertical structures rise within the limits of each horizontal layer. The structures within the bottom layer are of the greatest significance for the hierarchy of the shop proper.

It is quite possible to trace the development of Max Weber’s ideas on race by studying his manifold utterances on specific race issues. In the following I shall outline what Weber’s writings reflected of his changing views on four particular problems. The first has to do with the conflict between German and Polish interests in the Bismarckian Reich. The second is the problem of the Negroes in the United States, about which Weber gathered some firsthand information during a visit to this country. The third is the importance of the race factor in the formation of the Indian caste system, and the fourth concerns the development of post-exilic Judaism. I shall then try to outline Weber’s objections to the assertions of modern race mystics, and finally, I shall attempt to summarize the most important results of Weber’s own thinking on the significance of race in the life of society.

[W]hen the citizens depend too much on the central power, when almost no field is outside of its jurisdiction, even the feeling and desire for individual liberty and independence, which are indispensable for the survival of a vigorous democracy, fade out. The political system of the Soviet Union, the country that has developed the most coherent collectivist regime, supplies a clear indication of the way in which such a society can be governed. In countries like Great Britain the presence of most vigorous liberal traditions can counterbalance this tendency toward totalitarianism. But historical capital, too, is subject to gradual consumption.

Review of book by F. S. C. Northrop. New York: Macmillan. 1946. 531 pp.

Review of book by Nicholas S. Timasheff. York: E. P. Dutton. 1946. 470 pp.

Review of book by James A. Maxwell. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1946. vii & 427 pp.

Review of book by Ervin Hexner. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1945. 391 pp., appendices 140 pp., index 24 pp.

Review of book by the Commission on Freedom of the Press. Chicago: University of Chigago Press. 1947. 106 pp.

Review of book by Bruce Lannes Smith, Harold D. Lasswell, and Ralph D. Casey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1946. 435 pp.

bottom of page