Suchergebnisse

Many social theories have been called scientific, but no one has insisted more than Marx on the scientific nature of his system of thought. It is the purpose of this article to examine the ambitious claim of Marxism to be the only real science of society. Dialectical materialism may be omitted from consideration since it concerns not science but philosophy (or even metaphysics), and in any case it is the Marxist social theory, or historical materialism, for which the claim of science is most insistently made.There is no need to give here the details of Marx's historical materialism. The main point to be kept in mind is Marx's assumption, lying behind the entire body of his theory, that history and society move according to a pattern of knowable laws, the so-called "laws of motion" of society; and that Marx claims to have done nothing more than to have laid bare these laws. If Marx is right he obviously ranks as the greatest social scientist of all time. If he is not right he is a misguided and fanatical genius who has led man's thought up a long blind alley.A preliminary word on the application of scientific methods to the study of society may not be out of place. The purposes of study, whether in the natural or social sciences, are the same: to explain how, to accomplish a practical result, or to predict. These three criteria may also be used to test a scientific theory. There are of course certain special difficulties in the social sciences, difficulties arising (to select from many reasons) because of the nature of the data, or because inference may so easily be confused with fact, or because merely studying the behaviour of people and publishing the results may affect the very behaviour being studied.

Adequate descriptive accounts of the Newfoundland fisheries have more than once been given, and it would be superfluous to attempt another within the limits of this note. Only a few of the essential features of the industry need be called to mind as background to a more analytical discussion of its problems and prospects.Newfoundland and codfish have been almost synonymous terms for 450 years, ever since John Cabot brought back to Europe his reports of the teeming fish in the vicinity of the island. Although with the passing years other fisheries have been developed, especially herring, lobster, salmon, seal, and whale, the cod fishery remains by far the most important branch. The other fisheries, although in the aggregate important, are still subsidiary and for the most part are followed by men who are cod fishermen as well.The economic importance of the fisheries derives chiefly from the fact that together they form an industry which easily takes the lead in giving employment. It may even now be true that a majority (although not a large one) of the population depends either directly or indirectly upon the fisheries for its main source of livelihood. Over the long run, the number of fishermen seems to be decreasing. In 1935 the number was about the same as in 1891, and shows a considerable decline from the numbers engaged in the intervening census years. During and since the recent war there has been considerable fluctuation in the numbers of fishermen, but there appear to be somewhat fewer today than in 1935.

In view of Newfoundland's long tradition of separation from Canada, and its rich heritage of anti-confederation feeling, how does it happen that union has come about on March 31 of this year? The answer is best seen as it emerges from the background of recent events in Newfoundland.Faced with imminent default in the early nineteen-thirties, the Newfoundland government resorted to all the traditional tactics, such as reductions in the salaries of civil servants and teachers, and increases in the rates of the customs tariff; and under the spur of necessity resorted to more ingenious measures. The stream of willing foreign lenders had dried up by 1932, and the government fell back upon temporary loans from Canadian banks, upon a deal with the Imperial Oil Company, and upon joint advances from the governments of the United Kingdom and Canada. When to these was added a controller of the treasury, Newfoundland had in fact lost full control of its finances, and hence of its political destiny, even before self-government was formally abrogated.It was in the midst of this desperate situation in 1933 that the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Amulree was appointed, at Newfoundland's request, "to examine into the island's future and finances." The Commission duly found bankruptcy imminent, and the debt burden beyond the capacity of the island to carry. Newfoundland's public debt had grown but slowly in the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth. Including $13 million added for war purposes, by the beginning of the nineteen-twenties, the debt stood at only $43 million. More spectacular increases occurred after 1920, the total debt being more than doubled in the space of twelve years. Throughout this period the average annual deficit was some $2 million, including losses on operation of the railway system which, early in the decade, passed from private hands to government ownership. The current deficits, together with capital expenditures upon public works, were covered by borrowing from abroad at interest rates from 5 to 6½ per cent, to the extent that in each year some $4.8 million was added to the public debt, which by 1933 reached nearly $100 million. This was the period when, according to the Amulree Commission, the country "was sunk in waste and extravagance," and displayed "a reckless disregard for the dictates of financial prudence."