top of page

NONTHEMATIC / Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1955)

Since at least 1918, when it adopted the constitution that had been penned for it by Sidney Webb, the British Labor Party has considered nationalization to be an integral part of its policy. Yet neither members of the Labour movement nor academic students of British politics are prone to ask the very simple--and very fundamental--question 'why nationalize?'

Shil’s implication seems to be that American sociologists have engaged in restriction of output--that it would have been less wasteful to consult [Charles Horton] Cooley directly and thereby increase production while eliminating unnecessary expenditures of money and energy. It follows that Cooley’s influence is intrinsically salutary.

In the League of Nations era the policies and proposals of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland were often designated simply as "Scandinavian." These countries were thought to have 'a similarity of outlook.' which justified this characterization. Their similarity of outlook arose mainly, of course, from their geographic proximity and their similar conditions, but it was not purely a result of these circumstances.

In the beginning theology emerged as a problem of political theory. The term itself, "theology," occurs for the first time in a dialogue between Adeimantus and Socrates discussing the place of poetry and literature in the state.

As I see it, only on this scale [community] and in these perspectives can the relations to each other of medical free enterprise and 'socialized medicine' be objectively appraised, and the status of the doctor as citizen justly defined. As I see it, the critical point in the responsibility of the government of a free people for the health of a free people is in the management of these relations, which the politicians of the American Medical Association seem to treat in the spirit of McCarthyism.

That which is rather vaguely called the loyalty oath has made men's fortunes and hurt their lives, brought fame and shame, comfort and resentment. To discuss a political affirmation at once so new, so shattering to the liberal tradition, and so fraught with pride and sorrow to so many people, a man must seek precision and require of himself a certain modesty.

Review of book by T. Haavelmo. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1954. 114 pp.

Review of book by Clarence B. Randall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1954. 83 pp.

Review of book by Arnold M. Rose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1954. 351 pp.

Review of book by Joseph H. Fichter S.J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1954. vii & 264

Review of book edited by Robin M. Williams Jr. and Margaret W. Ryan. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1954. xiii & 272 pp.

Review of book by Milton L. Barron. New York: Knopf. 1954. xix & 349 pp.

bottom of page