.

They Have Failed

"The truth is that the so-called social sciences are not sciences at all."

So declared Dr. Harold W. Dodds, president of Princeton University, at a recent gathering of educators. Undoubtedly the doctor referred to the methods pursued in our accredited schools of learning. From this viewpoint there can be no quarrel with his statement. Neither can there be any doubt, therefore, that these institutions offer no hope for a solution of our social problems. For, to assume that social phenomena are traceable to no immutable principles or laws, such as prevail and are recognized to prevail in the physical sciences, la merely to admit that in this field our tradition-blinded professors have refused to learn anything.

"Scientific research," he went on, "has returned no clear objective answer to such problems as the stupendous puzzle of business depression" -- and he names some other problems which are political in nature but manifestly arise from economic maladjustment. Scientific research! By which the learned one evidently means figures and charts and graphs and other such records of facts and trends resulting from accepted premises, and which therefore can never reveal causes. He is disheartened because his laboratory records do not disclose fundamental principles, when his experiment started with the assumption that there can be no fundamental principles. How naive!

In none of the physical sciences do our professors reject in advance the possibility of immutable principle, or natural laws. In none of these sciences do they refuse to agree upon basic terminology. In none of them do they block their minds with accepted prejudices. In studying social problems they do all these things. Therefore, while they make progress in the physical sciences, in the social sciences they quickly sink into the quagmire they choose for their footing.

It is for that very reason that, as Dr. Dodds deplores, faith in a science of society has not penetrated to the man in the street. Indeed, how could anyone have faith in the maze of meaningless and contradictory terms with which our social science text books abound? Even the professors who write them have no faith in them; each one writes a different book for his course. And the students who study under these professors reject what they have been taught as soon as they come in contact with reality.

The man in the street, untrammeled by prejudice, seeking truth and willing to follow it wherever it leads, will develop a science of society. Although he knows not why, he has wisely rejected the professor's "science." They have failed.

Dull -- But How Important?

Chairman O'Mahoney of the Temporary National Economic Committee ("monopoly committee" to you) promises a two-year "dull but important" inquiry into the operation, of the American economic system. From the reports of the opening days of testimony offered by experts we are inclined :to accept unreservedly the first part of the description.

Dr. Isador Lubin, Federal Commissioner of Labor Statistics, offered voluminous figures to prove that the only way to step up our national production is to increase the income of 54 per cent of the nation's families who live on less than $1250 a year. How, he did not say.

Dr. Willard L. Thorp, Commerce Department economist, cited the Aluminum Corporation of America as a single concern dominating its field. He did not say that this domination is possible only because of its control of natural resources.

Leon Henderson, W. P. A. economist, said that the main question to consider was, "Why have we not had full utilization of our magnificent resources?" That's very promising. Maybe the inquiry will disclose, before its two years are up, something "important."

La Belle France

Dictatorship does not necessarily follow from a false economy. Poverty does. Political democracy may obtain, in form at least, long after all semblance of human rights has been wiped out by the bureaucracies that flow from a monopolistic economy.

Some weeks ago the government of France -- under "emergency powers" -- issued in one fell swoop fifty-eight decrees affecting the life of every citizen. Whenever a government goes in for wholesale law-making one expects a batch of new levies on the production of its people. As a result of these "emergency" measures, Frenchmen will pay more for coffee, sugar, tobacco, wine, alcohol, gasoline, telephone calls, bus and subway rides and postage. (Note that where utilities are owned by the government they serve as another instrument of taxation.) Higher income taxes are also provided for.

News reports indicate that these decrees forecast a "three-year-recovery" period, during which, the government hopes, production will be increased by making it easier for business to get capital and by lengthening the work-week.

The proposal to lengthen the workweek is being opposed by the Popular Front -- a conglomeration of befuddled socialists of all shades. The forty-hour, five-day week has so decreased production that French economy is on the precipice. The conservatives ask the French worker to work harder; the Popular Front demand more taxation of the "rich" to make up the deficit, overlooking the fact that the rich have nothing to tax when production stops.

The upshot of this increased taxation will be less, not more, production, for every levy has the immediate tendency of reducing productive enterprise. This will m"an less wages, more poverty -- and then more governmental bureaucracies to take care of the poor, more decrees robbing the producers of their wealth. Nobody thinks of abolishing all taxes, all restrictions on production, and collecting rent for the social needs of the people. That would be freedom, which neither Marxists nor monopolists desire.

The use of the military to suppress strikes is merely an incident in the political process resulting from underlying economic forces. France may for a long time continue to be ostensibly a democracy. Some day the impoverished people will lend a willing ear to a loud-mouthed promiser -- and France will go the way of all democracies.

Uncle Sam Gypped

Press reports indicate that the reciprocal trade agreements entered into by the governments of Great Britain, Canada and the United States will increase the trade between these nations by about ten percent.

Any increase of trade between people is indeed a step toward civilization, and is to be hailed as such. We were not permitted to witness the six months of "horse trading" that preceded the consummation of these agreements. It would have been an intellectual treat to have heard the arguments advanced by the monopolists (or their representatives) against freeing their respective nationals from all restrictions on their desire to trade with one another. Or, did the question of the well-being of peoples enter into the negotiations at all?

However, as is usual in international agreements, America got the worst of the deal. Our exports affected by the agreements have in past years run to approximately $441,000,000; our imports to about $262,500,000. Thus, we have agreed to increase our shipment abroad of things we have a superabundance of, but we have not agreed to take back an equivalent in value of things we need.

Our Yankee "shrewdness" has again betrayed the American people. We have again followed .the false theory that it is better to sell than to buy -- that to send things away is better than to receive things.

Secretary Hull undoubtedly knows better. But one statesman does not make a government.