the nations have drifted toward bankruptcy. Germany is generally looked upon as having been disarmed in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, Russia is no longer regarded so fearfully, now that the world thinks Bolshevism crumbling in economic disintegration.

The curtain, then, rose at Washington with the peoples and their governments looking on with determination and a buoyant optimism. The League, on the other hand, began its armament studies and deliberations with the civilized world engrossed in the desperate struggle to emerge out of the wreckage of war, or absorbed in the exigencies of party politics. Moreover, the setting-up of the League machinery diverted attention from the League's functioning.

In scope and methods there has been a contrast. The League was conceived with the idea of helping to establish a new world order, and its work has been enormously varied and complicated and difficult. The Washington Conference has had a more modest program and its results will doubtless be in some respects more definite, although its discussions have given renewed evidence of the extraordinary difficulty of adjusting international relationships on the basis of peace and good will. The League's armament activities have been world-wide in their bearing, though with some special emphasis upon Europe, and the whole field of armaments has come within its purview. The diplomats at Washington have looked more towards the Far East, though necessarily they have had regard to European and to world-wide implications. Military, naval and air budgets, taken as a basis by the League, do not seem a satisfactory starting point to France; and the head of the American delegation proposes capital ships as the proper basis. Great Britain replies to a definite proposal by halting capital ship construction until the close of the Conference shall bring ratification of its agreements and action in fulfilment of their provisions. And yet the League's work has not been futile; for, aside from the more definite undertakings which may presently eventuate, its discussions and their influence upon those of its leaders who are at Washington have helped along the whole movement. Such would seem to be in part the significance of the recent

award of the Nobel peace prize to Messrs. Branting and Lange.

As to the extent to which the League of Nations has influenced the Washington Conference opinions will differ, and no accurate measurement can be made. Naturally the present Administration in the United States would hardly give credit to the League, and so Mr. Hughes's omission, in his statesmanlike opening address, of all mention of the League's disarmament activities is not surprising, even though he reviewed at some length the less significant attempts of the Hague Conferences. Nevertheless, both he and Messrs. Underwood and Root, all of whom favored the League, could hardly have failed to note the League's deliberations on the armaments question. Indeed, Mr. Root once said of the Covenant provisions on armament: "The success of these provisions is vital. If they are not effective, the whole effort to secure future peace goes for nothing. There must be a permanent commission to inspect the carrying out of disarmament.""

Before Secretary Hughes sat delegates from countries all of which are members of the League of Nations. Of their number those who presumably have been most influenced by the League's discussion of the arms question are those who have been leading participants. Among them M. Viviani, who was president of the Permanent Mixed Commission on disarmament, is reported to have said that the League's work would be of great use at Washington. The League has certainly shown a generous attitude of sympathy and of willingness to cooperate with the Washington Conference; and the supporters and wellwishers of the League have been among the strongest supporters of what is sometimes conceived of as a rival conference.

There can be no reasonable doubt that whatever success the Washington Conference has in limiting and reducing armaments will be due in some measure to the more extensive but less intensive labors of the League of Nations. Will the Washington Conference supplant or supplement the League of Nations disarmament activities?

'Quoted by A. Ten Eyck in Outlook, Nov. 16, 1921, p. 430. 'Literary Digest, Nov. 12, 1921.

Sir Eric Drummond, the Secretary-General and probably the most influential man in the League organization, says: "It is clear the Conference cannot and must not be regarded by the League's supporters as a rival."

I

But the main interest in this connection lies in the fourpower Pacific treaty, in future conferences to continue the work begun at Washington, and in the "Association of Nations."

The quadruple agreement, by lessening the danger of war, helps to make reduction possible in the Pacific area. Despite official denials, many see in Article 2, as in Article 10 of the Covenant, an implied use of force such as is expressly contemplated in Article 16 of the Treaty of Versailles. At any rate, here is a sanction which, though weaker, resembles the sanctions contained within the constitution of the League; both are designed to obviate the use of force by nations. The Washington Conference, however, does not look to anything guaranteeing France against an attack on land. The League of Nations plans for such guarantees and may in the future be able to give effective ones.

There have been many prophecies that out of the Washington Conference will come future conferences of some sort, to continue the work there begun. Or there may be an "Association of Nations," which President Harding evidently thinks will not rival the League. Whatever may be the actual outcome, such an organization would be doing the work for which the League was designed; and it apparently would be, in form at least, an attenuated league of nations and in some particulars a shadowy likeness of the existing League. In other respects it would not resemble the League, whose functions might not be interfered with and whose work for disarmament might be helped. It may be that Senator Schanzer had the League of Nations in mind when he said on December 23 that the Italian delegation felt that the problem should "be examined substantially in a wider conference before any action toward abolishment of underwater craft could be undertaken". It may be that the logical thing for the United States government to do will be to re

1 Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 13, 1921.

verse its decision on the League; for the League has the organization for a complete and continuing discussion of armaments, and it already includes nearly all the powers, whose consent seems essential on submarine agreements and desirable on all others respecting armaments.

Whatever may result, the United States has already abandoned somewhat her policy of isolation. Whether this will lead her into periodic conferences or some "association of nations' or the present League of Nations, perhaps modified to suit the American taste, only the future can tell.

All agitation for disarmament, when accompanied by a determination and an effort to bring about the more fundamental "moral disarmament," will help to bring about the outlawing of war. In one way, various agencies will supplement and assist each other. But there is danger of a dissipation of force in a multiplicity of agencies and organizations. The splendid enthusiasm to get rid of the intolerable burden and the menacing danger of vast armaments has risen higher and spread farther, and it rests upon a more democratic basis, than ever before. This enthusiasm must be harnessed, capitalized-regardless of means or agency-to help save civilization from the impending peril of a fatal war.

COLLEGE OF THE PACIFIC, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.

ALDEN H. ABBOTT.

THE POLITICAL THEORY OF SYNDICALISM

T

Philosophic Basis of Syndicalism

HE past century has witnessed severe criticism of monistic thought in almost every field of human inquiry.

In biology the theory of the origin of species by natural selection has been attacked by the advocates of the mutation hypothesis, notably de Vries. In economics the "dismal " tenets of the Classical Economists have been subjected to unmitigated attacks, some of which are distinctly pluralistic, e. g., those of the Austrian Subjective school. In religion both the rapid growth of agnosticism and the extension of religious activity into social and economic fields show the pluralistic tendency. In philosophy the reaction against monism has culminated in the development of the pragmatic method.

The tardiness with which this movement developed in political science may in a measure account for the great diversity of its points of view. The central point of attack of one group, represented by Duguit and Laski, has been the Austinian theory of sovereignty. The Guild Socialists have put forth a dualistic interpretation of the state which includes the economic as well as the political activity of society. In the soviet system in Russia, on the other hand, we find pluralism practically applied so as to include, in theory at least, nominal local autonomy. From one point of view syndicalism presents a combination of these various tendencies. Both theory and practice are represented in the syndicalist system, because of the philosophic grasp of certain of its leaders on the one hand, and because of the nature of French trade-union organization on the other. The movement has produced a scorching criticism of the current conceptions of state authority and organization, together with an insistence on the importance of economic groups in state life; and one has only to look to the Confédération Générale du Travail to find the federalist principle in operation. One may accordingly expect to find much in common between syndical