-
A Commentary (Oct 1931)
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- document
- Additional Information
Being willing to improve my scant knowledge of the theory of politics, I welcomed the appearance lately of two small books, both of which, to judge from their titles, were elementary enough for my needs. One was
Professor Laski begins with comfortable words. “The state, so to say,” he says, “is the crowning-point of the modern social edifice” [15]; and this is reassuring; the phrase “social edifice” has a pleasant sound to the timid-hearted. “Its subjects desire, for instance, security for their persons and property” [19]. Indeed we do. It is true that we may be a little disconcerted, a page or two further on, by a sentence in Mr. Laski’s best style:
Yet it may be taken as a general rule that the character of any particular state will be, broadly speaking, a function of the economic system which obtains in the society it controls. [21]
This was a little puzzling. For one was encouraged by the author’s prefatory statement that he intended to set out the
So if the business of “institutions” of the state is merely to keep pace with economic changes, not to control them, the detached enquirer must begin to lose heart about politics, and to reflect that a more important subject of study might be these economic changes, and how to control
Finally, however, I began to suspect that Mr. Laski’s “introduction to politics” was perhaps only an introduction to one kind of politics; and that kind simply a development of the old-fashioned American conception of Democracy. This view is assumed, not defended. For he says straight out:
. . . no state will realise the end for which it exists unless it is a democracy based upon universal suffrage in which there are not only freedom of speech and association, but also a recognition that neither race nor creed, birth nor property, shall be a barrier against the exercise of civic rights. [38]
Such a sentence merely provokes a fresh explosion of questions. For what end