It will be recalled that within the 16 “industrial” unions in the ÖGB there are sections and sub-sections. These divisions are reflected in the agreements. For instance, among those supplied to me by Proksch for the Metal and Mine Workers Union are ones for “coal and iron mining,” for “non-coal mining”, for the “iron and metal manufacturing and fabricating industry and trade [Gewerbe] of Austria”, for the “[manual] workers in electricity-supplying undertakings of Austria”, and for the “scythe and sickle industry”. In all five instances the pacts are nationwide and the partners are one or more employer associations, the ÖGB, and the union. In all except that for the scythe and sickle industry all workers other than commercial apprentices are included; in it they too are covered. Each agreement is of indefinite duration but may be terminated by either partner after a notice period of three months. This notice may be given only on the last day of any calendar month by means of a registered letter. Negotiations for renewal or alteration are to take place within the notice period. Under this arrangement Austrians appear to believe that no-strike, no-lockout clauses make little or no sense; at any rate, they do not appear. Nor is there any provision about grievances and their adjustment, or about the interpretation of the contract. In conformity with legal prescriptions, these matters are left to the works councils (shop steward if no council exists), the labor courts, or the conciliation offices.

One summer's day, 22 June 1841, fifty-nine year-old John Minter Morgan launched a scheme to establish “self-supporting villages” under the superintendence of the Established Church. It was a stirring attempt to rouse the Establishment to its responsibilities in the face of the Owenite challenge, and it secured a respectable response. An admiral (Sir G. Scott), a general (George Norton Eden) and a respectable muster of clergy, mainly from the Ham, East Sheen and West Molesely districts, all rallied to hear what was afoot.

Moses Hess wurde am 21. Januar 1812 zu Bonn im Hause Nr. 807 in der Judengasse geboren. Seine Vorfahren lassen sich väterlicherseits bis zu seinem Urgrossvater und mütterlicherseits bis zu seinem Grossvater zurückverfolgen. Das Geburtsjahr seines Urgrossvaters, David (auch Tebli) Hess ist unbekannt. Er wurde in Abterode, Kr. Eschwege, Hessen-Nassau, geboren, und war Oberrabbiner der Gemeinde Mannheim. In der Rabbinengeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts ist ereine vielgenannte Persönlichkeit, da er in dem langwierigen Clever Ehescheidungsprozess (1766) eine wichtige Rolle spielte. Er ist im Jahre 1767 in Mannheim gestorben. Sein Sohn Nathan David Hess (geb. 1756 in Mannheim) lebte als Kolonialwarenhändler in Bonn, woer ein ortsansässiges Mädchen, Eva Wetzlar, heiratete. Aus dieser Ehe entsprang David Hess (geb. 1790 in Bonn), der Vater unseres Moses. Er verbrachte seine Jugendjahre in Bonn, wo er am Geschäfte seines Vaters mitarbeitete. Im Jahre 1794 zogen die Franzosen ein, und mit ihrem Erscheinen änderte sich radikal die Stellung der Juden im Rheinlande. Die Franzosen gewährten ihnen vollständige Emanzipation, auch das Recht ausserhalb des Ghettos zu wohnen und Grundbesitz zu erwerben. Deshalb erschienen sie den Juden als ihre Befreier. Die Sympathie der Juden für die Franzosen ist um so verständlicher, als bei der Besitznahme der Rheinlande durch Preussen (1815), diese vollständige Emanzipation beträchtlich eingeschränkt wurde. Finanziell ging es der Familie Hess recht kümmerlich, da das Kolonialwarengeschäft durch die Kontinentalsperre litt. Um 1810 heiratete der zwanzigjährige David Hess die um vier Jahre ältere Helene (Jeannette) Flörsheim, geboren 1786 in Bockenheim (bei Frankfurt am Main), woihr Vater Moses Flörsheim Rabbiner war. Über ihre ferneren Vorfahren ist nur bekannt, dass sich unter ihnen ein rabbinischer Schriftsteller befand, der aus Polen nach Deutschland flüchtete um seine Frau den Verfolgungen eines Edelmannes zu entziehen.

Few Western historians of Russian Revolutionary thought have shown much interest in the Decembrist movement. Its two risings of December 1825 and January 1826, unprepared and ineptly executed, are indeed of little importance. For years a group of young men, representatives of the “conscience-stricken gentry” and mostly army officers, had as members of a secret society hoped for, and finally attempted, the overthrow of Tsarism by means of a military revolt. Nicholas I was thorough, the suppression was cruel and complete, it inaugurated an era of material and moral stagnation.

In some passages of the Ṛgveda, the Upaniṣads, the Mahābhārata and the Pali canon there are references to a casteless millennium of equality, plenty and piety which was supposed to have existed in some remote unrecorded antiquity. It was the golden age of kṛta or satyayuga when there was only one caste of deva (gods) or Brāhmaṇa, when people called no goods their own nor women their chattels, when crops were produced without toil and all were pious and happy. The legendary Uttarakurus of the far north were a model of this Arcadian society of godly men who lived in their natural virtue, rich in physical and moral wealth without any disabilities of sex and distinctions of property and, consequently, who received the blessings of God in the form of timely rain and juicy harvest (Mbh. VI. 6. 13; Dīghanikāya, xxxii. 7).