STATE THEORY AND PRACTICE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 94, 15 January 1936, Page 13

STATE THEORY AND PRACTICE

Professor Laski’s Book

SUPERFICIAL REALISM IN POLITICS

(By

POLITICUS.)

The State in Theory mid Practice, by Harold .1. Laski. Professor of Political Science tn the University of London. (London: Allen and Unwin.) Political theory, it lias been said, has bad through all its mutations from ancient Greek times to the present a fundamental unity. Its problem in the end is that of the relations of man to the State in which he lives. That granted, however, it is very popular now to go on and say that there are two very different approaches to this problem. The Greek t n orists, generally speaking, began from the right of the State to a self-sufficing existence bo the realisation of which man is a means. The modern writer, more often than not, commences with the rights of the individual which he conceives the State as existing to secure. This latter approach is that of Professor Laski in this book.

But such a readily assumed distinction between ends ami means constitutes the main weakness in the theories that are built on it. It cannot be too strongly affirmed, as Professor Ernest Barker once said, that this is not the whole story. "Whatever may be said of the ‘sacrifice’ of the individual to the State in Greek polities or Greek political theory, the fact remains that in Greece as contrasted with the rest of the ancient world, man was less sacrificed to the whole to which he belonged than he was elsewhere.” The Greek citizen did not need to emphasise his own rights, just because of the influence he felt be had in the life of the State. "Debunking” a Theory. So it is Professor Laski’s task to “debunk” the philosophic conception of the State, the views of men like Hegel, Bernard Bosanquet and T. 11. Green, who represent the Greek tradition in modern political theory. It is a brilliantly argued case—as brilliant jis any that has been made out for pragmatism in recent times. The philosophic theory is an ideal theory, and Professor Laski's complaint is that this idea has not been, and is not being, realised. Worse than that, lie says the philosophic theory has become the means of justifying file States we know. Grand realist thnt ho is, then, he would away with the philosophic theory. Granted his assumption his ease i.s conclusive. But it is just this assumption that cannot be granted. There can be no such hard and fast distinction between tile ideal and the real, the past and the present. History does not work like that. So it was that

when Hegel came to Aristotle’s criticism of tile ideal communism of Plato, he very tellingly said that in comparison with Aristotle, Plato is not ideal enough "if idealism is the power of seeing the ideal elements in the actual in preference to destroying the actual in the hope of finding the ideal elsewhere.” Professor Laski says:—

The Greek city-state was biased against Hie slave. The Roman Empire was biased against the slave and the poor. Stales in the mediaeval world were biased in favour of the owners of landed property. Since the Industrial Revolution that Slate has been biased in favour of the owners of the instruments of production as against those who have nothing but their labour to sell.

He accepts the economic interpretation of history and the inevitability of the class war. lie itlay be said to reflect in this the view of the Sir Stafford Crippian Socialists in England with their growing belief that Labour can no longer hope to achieve anything by merely taking Parliamentary control of a capitalistic State. The full Socialist programme, (hey say, must be the aim. Since the controllers of the means of production are never likely voluntarily to abdicate their position, the class war is inevitable. But Professor Laski i.s cautious. That war may be inevitable. but it is not inevitable that it will .succeed. He advocates the employment of constitutional means to the very limit. He is obviously not blinded by the ease of Russia. Economics and Politics. But Professor Laski's view, ultimately, is just that accepted in much loose thinking at tlie present time—that political changes are caused by changes in social relationships, which, in thejr turn, are caused by changes- in the material forces of production. This is not merely Marxian materialism. Many Conservatives to-day are talking about the economic sphere being more important than the political. With Professor Laski, again, the economic factor is- the bedrock upon which the social superstructure is built. The State is merely the tool in the hands of the dominant party in the class struggle. And so revolution is inevitable as (he midwife of social change. It can be conceded that a strong claim can be made for economic organisations, but in tlie words of W. 1). Ros-’, the Aristotelian authority, it will be unfortunate for mankind if societies which aim at “mere life” over take precedence over those which appeal to something higher in man. The State and the World.

Professor Laski is on much sounder ground when he comes to consider the State and tlie international community. His words are a good counterblast to the blatant and exaggerated nationalism of the present. No State can hope to make possible for its citizens tlie best life without considering the world community of which it in turn is a member. The only trouble is that Professor Laski will not admit that there is. in tlie philosophic theory of tlie State qua State, nothing incompatible with the interests of this higher community. That, in fact, the more nearly the ideal is realised in the State the more nearly possible will be a lasting world order. 'rhe outlook for our generation. Professor Laski concludes, is not a bright one. About all he says of the future is that there is going to be a buttle for the State power. But that is a prediction that inis been made before; a» I, anyway, most people assume there will be big changes.