of Philadelphia. He says they are making Bolshevists, meaning by that that they are turning out every year thousands of children doomed to poverty because of the inefficiency and, therefore, good material for radical propaganda. Immediately he is called a Bolshevist. Advocates of women's suffrage are called Bolshevist. Everybody who does not agree with you is a Bolshevist. It is the same with Anarchy and Socialism. Anarchy means no government. Its advocates favor the police state in which the government does as little as possible, where everyone is free to pursue his own ends so long as he respects the rights of his neighbors. Anarchy recognizes private property, private control of industry, collective bargaining, all business and social arangements which are the result of free choice of individuals and which are supported by the commonsense of the whole people, enforced by laws, administered by courts, and sheriffs. The anarchist profoundly disbelieves in government. He wants as little of it as possible, sometimes in extreme cases he wants no government at all, but these are exceptional variations from the common run.

The socialist, on the other hand, is a communist. He favors the abolition of private property, the administration of all industries by the state, the abolition of marriage and the family, the nationalization of children, the subordination of every individual utterly and absolutely to the state, whether the state is the majority or the effective minority.

To the anarchist, government is a necessary evil. To the socialist, it is the supreme good.

Now, since government is good, in the mind of the socialist, we cannot have too much of it, and especially when industrial efficiency is at stake, government tends to grow ever stronger. For a time the majority seems to rule, but the power of the official class steadily increases, whether elective or appointive, and if the matters intrusted to them are satisfactorily conducted, even passably conducted, if, as the saying goes, they "get by" without disaster, the people are prone to acquiesce in this assumption of authority. Authority once granted is hard to take away and the appetite for power is insatiable. Given a

multiplication of governmental functions, of an industrial character, especially those which closely touch the well-being of the people, and absolutism, no matter how disguised in the garments of democracy, is the result. Mexico, under Porfirio Diaz, was a democracy, but the third term tradition did not prevail.

I have no remedy to offer for the situation which I have outlined, no solution to propose for the problems which are now forcing themselves forward.

It is possible that the minority who own property and control industry may preserve their control by inaugurating some general system of profit sharing and joint administration of industry with the workmen. It is also possible that the people who pay the taxes may awaken before it is too late to the necessity of reform in popular education so that public schools may turn out efficient workers; and every one who loves liberty should strive to this end, trained in habits of industry and thrift, adherents of the institution of private property because they have a substantial share in its benefits, instead of the product of the present day. A prolonged period of industrial depression, while the world is recovering from the ordeal of the last four years may exert, contrary to expectation, a quieting influence upon the growing agitation for socialism.

EAST AND WEST1-AN ANALYSIS OF EASTERN AND

WESTERN CIVILIZATIONS

Abstract

BY MORRIS JASTROW, JR.

Professor of Semitic Languages

The history of civilization for the past two milleniums is largely a record of a constant meeting of East and West. The West has always acted as a magnet to which the East has been attracted, and if today the trend of Western civilization is towards forcing its way to the East, there have been many periods in the past when the current ran in the other direction and the world moved under the sign of the "Trend Towards the West."

Beginning with the attempt of Persia, in the fifth century before this era, to conquer Greece, which at that time represented the West, down to the pan-Germanic scheme of our own days for the control of the East, there has been alternately a Western Question for the East and an Eastern Question for the West. Nor must we be misled by the hostile form that the historic rivalry between East and West frequently took on, to conclude that ambition of conquest and political control were the sole motives underlying the alternate attempts of the East to stretch to the West and of the West to clutch the East in its hold. Behind the armies of Darius and Xerxes, we detect the world movement to extend Eastern civilization beyond the confines in which it arises. When at the close of the following century, Alexander the Great turns the tide, and his triumphant armies swept across Asia Minor into the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris on the one side and through Syria, Palestine and Egypt on the other, it is Greek culture that also accompanied

1 Address in full will form the first chapter of a work on "East and West" which Professor Jastrow has in preparation.

the marching hosts. Both the Persian and Greek movements failed in their ultimate purpose, but the permanent results of these encounters between East and West are to be seen in the commingling of ideas that are fraught with the most significant results. Among these results the rise of Christianity occupies the first place. In Christianity we have precisely that mixture of Greek and Oriental thought which could only have come as a result of the West coming to the East. Jesus is a product of the East, the successor of the Hebrew Prophets of the ninth and succeeding centuries who struck a new note in religion; but St. Paul, the founder of Christian theology, who creates the formulas for the ideas promulgated by Jesus, is soaked in Greek thought. He represents the combination of the Oriental and Occidental attitude towards life, for while Greek in spirit he was at the same time, as he calls himself, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews."

Rome takes up the mission of Greece to promote the further spread of Western civilization throughout the East, while in return the spread of Christianity in the West carries many elements of Eastern civilization along with it. Roman imperialism makes its appearance at the time when the order of the ancient East was passing away. The time was ripe for a new order, represented by Roman civilization on the one hand and by the further development of Christian thought on the other. When Rome declines the counter-movement sets in with the rise of Mohammedanism in the seventh century of our era. The Arabs overrun the West and are stopped with difficulty at the borders of France. To the imperialistic ambitions of ancient empires there is added, in the case of the Arabs, the religious zeal to convert the whole world into a mosque, in which the cry was to resound, "Allah is God, and Mohammed is his Prophet." Henceforth, East and West, symbolized by the Cross and the Crescent, become rivals for the possession of the world. The Crusades, stretching across two centuries-the eleventh and twelfth-represent in their ultimate analysis the attempt of the West to keep the control of the East, but the Crescent triumphs, and under the leadership of the Turks the