LIPSET, S. M. Agrarian Socialism, The Coöperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan: A Study in Political Sociology. Pp. xvii, 315. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1950. $4.50
| Published date | 01 March 1951 |
| Author | John D. Hicks |
| Date | 01 March 1951 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625127400197 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
261
chronological
and
topical
methods,
Mr.
Lipson
tells
his
story
well
and
interestingly.
Occasionally
he
warns
against
placing
much
reliance
on
abstract
economic
doctrines
as
causal
factors
in
English
economic
history;
and
he
is
generally
cautious
in
his
generali-
zations.
But
now
and
then
he
nods.
The
distinction
made
(p.
158)
between
power
and
welfare
economy’does
not
fit
the
eco-
nomic
policies
of
Henry
VII
and
Lord
Burghley.
And
when
he
blames
the
em-
ployment
of
children
underground
in
mines
on
the
piecemeal
factory
legislation
(p.
277),
he
ignores
the
fact
that
in
these
in-
stances
not
only
do
we
find
different
sets
of
parents
but
also
different
regions
of
England.
Mr.
Lipson
evidently
supports
the
policies.
of
the
British
Labor
govern-
ment,
but
his
views
concerning
present
problems
do
not
greatly
color
his
treatment
of
the
past.
PAUL
KNAPLUND
University
of
Wisconsin
LIPSET,
S.
M.
Agrarian
Socialism,
The
Coöperative
Commonwealth
Federation
in
Saskatchewan:
A
Study
in
Political
Sociology.
Pp.
xvii,
315.
Berkeley
and
Los
Angeles:
University
of
California
Press,
1950.
$4.50.
This
serious
and
commendable
study
will
serve
to
remind
students
of
American
His-
tory
that
Populism,
at
least
north
of the
forty-ninth
parallel,
is
by
no
means
dead.
The
Saskatchewan
Co6perative
Common-
wealth
Federation
springs
from
just
such
soil
as
produced
the
Farmers’
Alliance
and
the
People’s
Party
some
sixty
years
ago.
Pioneer
wheat
growers
then,
like
their
twentieth
century
successors
in
Canada,
suffered
first
of
all
and
most
of
all
from
the
hazards
of
an
uneconomic
one-crop
sys-
tem,
a
system
that
socialism,
even
in
its
purest
form,
might
have
found
very
per-
plexing ;
but
they
suffered
also
from
East-
ern
control
of
the
economic
machine
to
which
they
were
geared
and
from
the
in-
temperate
exactions
of
the
railroads,
the
middlemen,
and
the
bankers
who
immedi-
ately
served
them.
In
their
hour
of
need
they
turned
first
to
co-operative
business
enterprise,
and
then,
without
giving
up
their
economic
activities,
to
direct
politi-
cal
action.
They
scored
some
notable
vic-
tories,
but
their
successes
were
modest
in
comparison
with
those
of
the
Saskatchewan
farmers,
who
for
six
years,
from
1944
to
1950,
maintained
complete
control
over
the
government
of
a
whole
province
and
en-
acted
an
effective
program
of
agrarian
re-
form.
Convinced
socialists
played
a
much
greater
part
in
the
leadership
of
the
CCF
than
was
the
case
with
the
Populists,
whose
principles
were
mainly
home-made
and
rough-hewn.
But
it
is
interesting
t6
note
that
the
CCF
had
only
indifferent
success
while
it
adhered
tenaciously
to
doctrinaire
socialism.
Only
when
it
began
&dquo;to
appeal
to
the
farmer
in
terms
of ’his
basic
desire
to
become
or
to
remain
a
property
holder&dquo;
did
it
really
catch
on.
The
anguish
of
the
true
believer
who
had
to
play
down
or
throw
over
his
principles
in
order
to
win
votes
is
constantly
apparent.
The
Sas-
katchewan
farmer
defined
socialism
&dquo;to
mean
the
protection
of
his
property
by
control
of the
rest
of
the
economy,
and
especially
big
business.&dquo;
That,
as
was
also
true
of
the
Kansas
farmer
before
him,
was
as
far
as
he
would
go.
In
fact,
he
much
preferred
not
even
to
use
the
term
so-
cialism.
The
distress
of
the
theoretical
socialists
who
had
been
obliged
to
compromise
with
their
convictions
in
order
to
achieve
re-
sults
in
Saskatchewan
is
shared
somewhat
by
the
author
of
this
book,
and
by
his
sponsor,
Robert
S.
Lynd,
who
writes the
introduction.
To
them
the
great
unsolved
problem
of
our
society
is
apparently
how
to
achieve
by
democratic
means
the
re-
forms-or
perchance
the
revolution-they
deem
desirable.
They
may
even
ask
them-
selves
if
the
end
is
not
sufficiently
im-
portant
to
justify
other
than
democratic
means.
Not
only
the
land-hungry
farmers,
but
even
the
city
workers,
hesitate
at
tak-
ing
the
full
plunge
into
socialism.
If
through
their
unions
they
can
get
a
fair
cut
of
the
profits
of
capitalism,
why
should
they
seek
to
share
the
headaches
of
man-
agement ?
Both
Mr.
Lipset
and Mr.
Lynd,
beset
by
this
dilemma,
end
on
a
note
of
considerable
discouragement,
but
anyone
who
really
doesn’t
mind
being
denounced
as
a
reformer
without
doctrine
might
think
To continue reading
Request your trial