In the final years of the Nineteenth Century, when Sidney and Beatrice Webb crystallized parts of their research and of current thought in the terms “Method of Collective Bargaining” and “Method of Legal Enactment”, the ideas embodied in those terms were the foci of hot debates among working people and their leaders in the greater part of the western world. Gompers and his lieutenants in the adolescent American Federation of Labor (AFL) had convinced themselves that the federal character of the government of the United States plus the power of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional formed an insurmountable roadblock to comprehensive, effective use of legal enactment; but the dissenting voices were by no means muted. The leaders of the burgeoning “New Unionism” in England sought to combine more militant collective bargaining with more emphasis on attempts to secure protective legislation - to the evident displeasure of adherents of the aging “New Model”. In France, the infant General Confederation of Labor (CGT) scornfully rejected both of the Webbs' methods in favor of revolutionary syndicalism. And in Germany the workers' movements strode forward uncowed by the stick of Bismarck's anti-Socialist law and unseduced by the carrot of his social legislation.

On January 8, 1893, the voters in the second electoral district, Department of the Tarn, cast ballots in a partial election of more than local interest. The Marquis de Solages had resigned his seat in the Chamber of Deputies on the previous October 14 during the bitterness generated by the strike against his Carmaux coal company. The socialists of the district, at first with considerable hesitation, nominated as their candidate Jean Jaurés, who had emerged as the outstanding champion of the Carmaux miners in 1892. When he carried the election against Héral, his chief opponent, by a vote of 5317 to 4843, it meant the return to Parliament of the man who emerged as one of the three most important socialists in the prewar Republic.

Comment Marx travaillait-il? La question prend une importance toute spéciale si l'on convient que seule une étude de genèse pourrait nous éclairer, non seulement sur le sens réel des oeuvres inachevées ou posthumes, mais encore, à n'en pas douter, sur l'ensemble de l'oeuvre.

Aucun examen de détail n'a été tenté pour étudier une méthode de travail que l'on sait ou devine pourtant toute personnelle, et, plus particulièrement, opposée à celle de Hegel. Un critique russe ayant commenté la methode dialectique de Marx, celui-ci ajoute à la seconde edition du Capital les réflexions que voici: «…le procédé d'exposition doit se distvnguci formellement du procédé d'investigation. A l'investigation de faire la matière sienne dans tous ses détails, d'en analyser les diverses formes de développement, et de découvrir leur lien intime.

In my Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete I suggested the possibility that the Dorians of the historical period entered as masters into a “caste-system” first established, according to a tradition reported by Aristotle, in Minoan times; and further, that the original Dorian land settlement was the product of the amalgamation of two systems: the native system of land tenure was adapted to the tribal institutions of the conquerors. The present article is an attempt to clarify these two propositions by presenting some of the relevant arguments. For the propositions themselves seem fundamental to a proper understanding of the conservative character of the economic and social structure of the Cretan aristocratic cities in the historical period, as compared with the radical transformation of the democratic states, and, in particular, of Athens.