Book Reviews and Notices : Main Currents in Modern Political Thought. By JOHN H. HALLOWELL. (New York: Henry Holt and Company. 1950. Pp. xiv, 759. $4.10.)
| Author | C.B. Macpherson |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591295100400125 |
| Date | 01 March 1951 |
| Published date | 01 March 1951 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
145
Professor
Sabine
brings
out
distinctly
the
differences
between
Marx’s
theory
and
Lenin’s,
but
his
conclusion
that
State
and
Revolution
&dquo;was
on
the
whole
a
distortion&dquo;
as
an
exposition
of
Marx
(p.
834)
is
not
ade-
quately
supported,
because
not
enough
attention
is
paid
to
changes
in
the
world
economy.
The
same
may
be
said
of
his
judgment
that
Stalin’s
formulation
&dquo;severs
the
last
link
of
logic
that
connected
politics
and
ideol-
ogy
with
international
economic
evolution&dquo;
(p.
844).
Hume’s
critical
approach
is
dangerous:
it
can
yield
such
an
impressive
logical
critique
of
systems
and
methods
of
thought
which
disregard
its
canons
that
the
canons
come
to
be
overvalued.
The
philosopher
who
dismisses
all
talk
of
the
logic
of
events
is
tempted
to
go
farther
and
allow
logic
too
few
events
on
which
to
operate.
Yet,
if
the
illegitimacy
of
the
later
Marxian
doctrines
were
not
assumed,
no
greater
subtlety
would
be
needed
to
see
them
as
extensions
of
the
original
doctrine
to
a
changed
world
than
to
show
them
as
distortions.
The
ideological
atmosphere
in
America
is
making
increasingly
difficult
the
understanding
of
Marxism
and
of
liberalism.
University
of
Toronto.
C.
B.
MACPHERSON.
Main
Currents
in
Modern
Political
Thought.
By JOHN
H.
HALLOWELL.
(New
York:
Henry
Holt
and
Company.
1950.
Pp.
xiv,
759.
$4.10.)
This
textbook
on
modern
ideologies
has
the
unusual
purpose
of
arguing
the
inadequacy-indeed,
the
danger-of
any
but
a
Christian
understanding
of
men
and
society.
The
author
is
most
interested
in
the
philosophical
and
theological
premises
of
modern
political
theory;
his
neglect
of
other
aspects,
particularly
of
social
and
economic
conditioning,
is
to
be
excused
because
they
&dquo;are
better
known
and
have
been
considered
elsewhere
both
in
detail
and
with
competence&dquo;
(p.
vii).
Unfortunately,
the
philosophical
and
theological
premises
are
themselves
regarded
as
autonomous,
and
their
relation
to
social
and
economic
change
is
not
examined.
The
weighting
is
somewhat
unusual.
Jefferson
gets
one
page,
and
the
whole
Jeffersonian
tradition
goes
unexamined.
In
the
chapter
on
the
rise
of
liberalism
in
the
seventeenth
century,
there
is
nothing
on
Milton
or
the
Puritan
liberal
democrats;
Grotius
and
Locke
only
are
considered
and,
astonishingly,
Locke’s
theory
of
toleration
is
not
examined
at
all.
The
omission
of
important
parts
of
the
liberal
tradition
in
a
text-
book
whose
length
entitles
the
student
to
assume
that
it
is
comprehensive
is
of
some
consequence.
,
Professor
Hallowell
is
at
his
best
when
arguing
the
philosophical
and
theological
weakness
of
modern
liberalism.
His
thesis
is
that
liberalism
contained
contradictory
principles-the
autonomy
of
the
individual
will,
To continue reading
Request your trial