Search

This article discusses theories of the nature and causes of war. The socialist view of war regards war as the outcome generally of economic factors and interprets modern wars as a necessary element in a particular stage of economic development, namely, imperialism. Another view, which is held mainly be liberal and free-trade economists, denies that there is any necessary connection between capitalism and war and asserts, on the contrary, that whatever may have been the case in the past, they are now incompatible. One this view, war is an ativism, a survival of tendencies rooted in earlier social conditions and of dynastic conceptions of the state impregnated with the ideas of power and glory. The third view is most clearly represented in psycho-analytic writings. According to this, the fundamental, as distinguished from the precipitating causes of war are to be found in the inherent aggressiveness of human nature and the failure of the repressive mechanisms whereby these aggressive tendencies are normally checked or held in balance. This being so, no changes in political, educational, or economic institutions will go to the root of the trouble, until efforts are made to eliminate the unconscious tensions and to dry up the sources of anxiety and hate.

The article presents information on the charting of human life. For the doctrine of the survival of theologians, of mathematicians and philosophers, of dreamers, poets, artists, as variant forms successfully adapting themselves to the struggle for existence. The author says that it is time now to stand back from this long controversy of mechanists and vitalists, and to be considering whether we cannot somehow mate a fresh start. And though at first both combatants may resent this attitude, as a defection from their cause. In the familiar everyday world, place and work essentially control the folk, constrain them to their everyday economic life, their common experience and feeling accordingly. The too familiar attitudes of militancy and imperialism, of mechanical production, and of the pecuniary culture with which it is associated, are thus not the culminating forms of our society which they have claimed to be, much less the goal of its progress. The mechanical, physical and chemical researches of the physiologists have for the past interpretations of the functional understanding of complex machines with chemical digestion and physical combustion of food as fuel.

In order to grasp correctly the situation in India, especially for people in England, there must be a proper realization of what India has been, and is at present. The average man on street does not know that India possessed a very ancient civilization, rich in philosophy and religion, and at one time a highly developed social organization, long before many of the present European nations got the first glimmerings of civilization. India is a vast country inhabited by peoples of different religions and creeds. The Bengali is very different from the Punjabi, and both are very different from the Madrasi and the Bombay Brahman. They are mixed in the population of every Presidency in varying proportions, people following the Hindu and Mohammedan religions, not to mention smaller groups like Parsees, Jews and Christians. When the British came to India they found the Mughal Empire in disintegration, and the country in a state of perpetual warfare between various ruling dynasties. When British rule was firmly established in India it was the first time for many years that the country came under one organized system of Government.

Considers the effects of British tutelage of alien races elsewhere than in India. Course followed towards the colored races of South Africa by colonists; Ways in which the most dramatic illustration of the effect of foreign rule on subject races on the side of culture is supplied by Egypt; Anglicisation of the Egyptian civil service; Cases in which imperial tutelage of a backward race may relatively avail for good as against mere exploitation by a frontier colony.

The article presents an abstract of the research by L. Ottlik which examined the sociological characteristics of the British Empire. The British Empire of today is a complex of three different systems. Taken literally, only the first of these should be called an `empire,' as it consists of colonies dependent on the overwhelming power of Great Britain; the second is the "Imperial Federation" of Great Britain and the British Dominions; and the third is something between the other two and tying together a group of protected communities. The recently published report, of the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations to the Imperial Conference establishes a Dominion Status on the principle of full and unlimited sovereignty. No doubt this act of repealing constitutional bonds, which have become obsolete, will do much to strengthen the real unity of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Moreover, sovereign independence is not a question of legislation, but an ideal the realization of which requires complete self-suffisance. Turning from the past to the future, the two prominent problems of British policy seem to be China and the European Continent.