No More Learning

The freudized ex-neurasthenic, oh well, pass it for the neurasthenic, but the general results of Freud are Dostoievskian duds, worrying about their own unimportant innards with the deep attention of Jim drunk occupied with the crumb on his weskit.
I see no advantage in this system over the ancient Roman legion, NO individual worth saving is likely to be wrecked by a reasonable and limited obedience practised to given ends and for limited
? andfor MUSSOLINI IOI
periods. So much for commandments to the militia as superior to psychic sessions for the debilitated.
That which makes a man forget his bellyache (physical or psychic) is probably as healthy as con- centration of his attention on the analysis of the products or educts of a stomach-pump.
Modern ignorance, fostered and intensified by practically all university systems has succeeded in obliterating or in dimming the old distinction in Rodolpho Agricola's. De Dialectica.
Verbal composition is committed, " ut doceat, ut moveat, ut delectet. "
Verbal composition exists to three ends, to teach, to move and to please. You do not aid either literary or philosophical discussion by criticizing one sort with criteria properly applied to the other.
\Y/e know that the German university system was perverted from the search for truth (material truth in natural research) into a vast machine for conduct- ing the mental segment of the nation A W A Y from actual problems, getting them embedded and out of the way of the tyrants.
American subsidized universities have become anodyne in the departments that " don't matter," i. e. those where the subject has not or need not have any direct incidence on life.
\Y/hen it comes to economic study the interference of the controllers is less covered.
I am no longer " in touch. " I know that pro- fessors are occasionally " fired. " I have heard that the ladies' Vassar once had a curiosity in the form of a heavy endowment " for as long as nothing con- trary to protective tariffwas taught there. "
The instinct of self-preservation, obviously THE great passion in the bureaucratic booZUM, leads
? 1 0 2 JEFFERSON
often towards the anodyne. Such is the nature of bureaucracy. Once IN, it is hardly possible to b~ ousted for incompetence. So long as you aren't noticed you STAY there, promotion is in any case slow. Soft paws, quiet steps, look and listen.
This has even bred the careerist in scholarship, the man who carefully studies WHAT KIND of anodyne bunk will lead him upward in the system, or best assure hi& income.
I have met various specimens, one definitely pro- ducing bunk to " get ahead," another mildly dis- contented with the dullness of work which was at any rate safe, and couldn't by any stretch of fancy lead one into an opinion on anything save its own dullness and, by comparison with any intellectual pursuit, its lack of use. Naturally he felt the need of his income.
Thus ultimately the makers of catalogues, etc. , undeniably useful but undeniably giving a very low YIELD in intellectual life, or to the intellectual life of the nation.
In fact the idea of intellectual life IN an American University is usually presented as a joke by people with what is called a sense of humour.
When an experiment is made or advocated it is usually attributed (often correctly) to "cranks. "
A crank in " this pragmatical pig of a world '' as Wm. Yeats has ultimately come to designate the Celto-Saxon segments of the planet, is any rpan having ANY other ambition save that of saving his own skin from the tanners.
An inventor stops being a crank when he has made, i. e. acquired, money, or when he has been exploited by someone who has.
Henry Ford is the best possible type of crank (taken in hisfort interie~~r),Henry himsdf was visible
? andfor MUSSOLINI 10}
in his early days, but once inside the caterpillared tank of success his mental make-up is forgotten.
The fact that it often takes a series of two, three, or four cranks to get a thing done blinds the general reader to the utility of the successive com- ponents. .
"C'est beau. " said Fernand Leger in the best defence of the French republic I have ever heard. "C'est beau, it is good to look at because it works without there being anyone of interest or import- ance, any ' great man ' necessary to make it func- tion. "
It's " beau " a1I right, but dear old Fernand wasn't looking at the Comite des Forge$, which might appear to come nearer to being the real government of France than the gents in the Deputes and the figurehead at the Elysees. The Comite has got its dictatorship and its one-party system.
All without? public responsibility. ? Our own country when finally betrayed by Wilson also showed from its secret internal workings, not only the financiers who had some sort of responsibility, private if not public, but the lo~~the figure of State Militia " Colonel " House skulking from here to there with no responsibility whatsodamn- ever.
Disgust with Wilson, unimpeached, bred a re- action against having " a strong? man in the White House " and we suffered the three deficients, and Heaven knows what the present (as H. Mencken defines him) " weak sister " will offer us.
The problem of democracy is whether its alleged system, its dejure system, ? can still be handled by the men of good will; whether real issues as distinct from red herrings CAN be forced into the legislatures (House and Senate), and whether a sufficiently active
? 1 0 4 JEFFERSON
segment of the public can be still persuaded to combine and compel its elected delegates to act decently in an even moderately intelligent manner.
Damn the bolsheviki as much as you like, the Russian projects have served as stimuli BOTH to Italy and to America. Our democratic system is, for the first time, on trial against systems professing greater care for national welfare.
It becomes increasingly difficult to show WHY great schemes, Muscle Shoals etc. , should be ex- ploited for the benefit of someone in particular instead of for the nation as a whole.
It becomes, in fact it has become, utterly im- possible to show that the personal resilience of the individual is less, or the scope of individual action, his fields of initiative, is any more limited, under Mussolini than under our pretendedly: republican system.
The challenge of Mussolini to America is simply:
Do the driving ideas of Jefferson, Quincy Adams, Van Buren, or whoever else there is in the creditable pages of our history, FUNCTION actt~ai! J in the America ofthis decade to the extent that theyfunction in Ita{y under
the DUCE?
The writer's opinion is that they DON'T, and that nothing but vigorous realignment will make them, and that if, or when, they are made so to function, Mussolini will have acted as stimulus, will have entered into American history, as Lenin has entered into world history.
That don't, or don't necessarily, mean an importa- tion of the details of mechanisms and forms more adapted to Italy or to Russia than to the desert of Arizona or to the temperament of farms back of
? andfor MUSSOLINI xo,
Baaaston. Butitdoesdefinitelymeananorientation of will.
The power lust of Wilson was that of a diseased and unbalanced man who before arriving at the White House had had little experience of the world. The job of being a college president in a fresh- water town, the petty hypocrisies necessary to being an example to the young, are about as good pre- paration for political life as that of being abbot in
a monastery.
? XXVII
P AIDEUMA
I AM not laying pretence to impartiality, neither do I believe a certain kind of impartiality makes the best record. I know of no more unpleasant figure inhistorythanthelateFranzJosef. Usuallyapublic detestable has some private offset. But of this nullity there is not even record of private pleasant- ness. And if there's anything in Frobenius' mode of thinking, a people who could tolerate such an emperor and an emperor who could put up with such furniture we~e well ready for the ash-can.
Brancusi is not an Italian, nor have the Italians a Brancusi. It would be difficult to defend the contemporary pubk. muniments in ANY country. Germany is wholly avenged on France by the American marble atrocity at . . . A bile specialist would be puzzled by the stone slop in the Luxem- bourg Garden.
I do not think the best men are excluded in Italy, some of the sane principles are already accepted, the idea o f steel, aluminium, glass, contemporary material, is accepted.
St. Ella died before the new era, but it is per- fectly on the cards that IF he has left any designs suitable for public construction they might any day be used, not only as architect's plans but as memorial to St. Ella.
xo6
? JEFFERSON andfor MUSSOLINI 107
Any smart schoolboy can make fun of some detail or other in Marinetti's campaigns, but the same clever sneer-sprouter would find it much more difficult to match the mass record of Marinetti's life, even if you limit it to his campaigning for public education in resthetics and omit the political ges- tures,whichanygoodwritermightenvy. Youmust judge the whole man by the mass of the man's results.
As with d'Annunzio, anyone can repeat jokes about hairwash, but until the dilettante writer has ? held up the combined rascals of Europe, he had best confine his criticism of Gabriele to questions
of stylistic embroidery.
. I do not believe I am any more impressed by
rhetoric than is Mr. Hemingway, I may have a greater capacity for, or sympathy with, general ideas (prq_vided they have a bearing on what I consider good action) but Gabriele as aviator has shown just as much nerve as any of dear Hem's pet bull- bashers.
? XXVIII
" OF BEING RULED "
T H E last state of degradation whether of a democratized or of a non-democratized people is that in which they begin to wail to be dominated. DISTINGUISH between fascism which is organ- ization, with the organizer at its head, to whom the power has not been GIVEN, but who has organized the power, and the state of America, where the Press howls that we should GIVE power to Roose- velt, i. e. , to a weak man, or a man generally sup- posed to be weak, a man who has shown NO UNDERSTANDING whatsoever, and no know- ledge whatsoever of contemporary actuality. One can't tell whether this howl proceeds from terror- ized banderlog, or from pimps paid so to howl in the interests of the hidden coup d'etat-ists' but this will to give up one's rights is at the opposite pole from the action of the fascio in 192. 1-2. when their drive was precisely to maintain order and a state of civilization and NOT to have it overridden by one party or diddled into nonentity by corruption.
The degradation in America is phenomenal in that legally the machinery for local resilience EXISTS, all the cadres, frames for local organization are nicely plotted out, many of them have functioned, but the populace AND the intelligentsia are now too lazy, cowardly or ignorant to make any use of them.
108
? JEFFERSON andfor MUSSOLINI 109
Occasionally South Dakota or some incult western state informs the world that it has its own legislature, but the efforts of this kind are neither coherent nor very enlightened.
Why it should be supposed that a " soviet " would function where extant deliberative bodies do not is somewhat beyond me. Simply: the soviet is not the direct line for the U. S. A. Half the energy required to change a state legislature into a soviet would recharge the extant form and make it function IF there were the prerequisite skill and knowledge.
And in any case you can't GIVE power. Give authority to a nincompoop and you merely step into chaos. Which is presumably what the fishers in troubled waters desire, ever and always desire.
The extent to which you can even DELEGA TE power is probably limited by laws as definite as those which govern the strength of current you can send through an electric wire of given thickness and texture.
Democracy is composed one-third of peasant pessimism, one-third of laissez-aller, of utter in- difference.
You do not give power to a soft-head like Harding by making him president, any more than you could make Coolidge into an intellect. " Al," who as a journalist demonstrates once a week his unfitness for a place even in the cabinet, gave a touching tribute to Coolidge, on the lines of " Vaaal, he vas a goot schmoker. " Cal wasn't a demagogue, how noble of him to avoid that pitfall and confute the detractors of democracy. Cal got' on by a very simple predestined process. He never aroused ANY one's inferiority complex. Ditto Harding.
Ditto,presumably,Rooseveltthesecond. Nothing is more frequent in committee work and in demo-
? IIO JEFFERSON
cratic wangles and even in choosing editors than for a man who is strongish but not strong enough, to boost up some wobbler whom he thinks he can ~ide. Wilson was a great disappointment to some of his backers, as Taft to Theodore.
As I learned from my meeting with Griffiths: A leader who is not supported by legal machinery is more bound by the general will o f his party than an elected official who has legal forms to fall back on.
Mussolini has steadily refused to be called any- thing save " Leader , (Duce) or " Head of the Government," the term dictator has been applied by foreign envy, as the Tories were called catde- stealers. It does not represent the Duce's funda- mental conception of his role.
His authority comes, as Eirugina proclaimed authority comes, " from right reason , and. from the general fascist conviction that he is more likely to be right than anyone else is.
In the commandments to the militia this phrase is no more than the President being Supreme Chief of the American Armies in war time or any general on the field having full commanding powers. Or rather, it is more, in the sense that the militia are given a reason for their obedience.
? XXIX KUNG
As to the mysteries of genius, I am reproved for citing Confucius, though the Ta Hio is only thirty- two pages long. I am told the reader won't have a copy and that I ought to print it in an appendix, OR tell the reader what it means. Truly, people desire a great deal for very little.
The doctrine of Confucius is:
That you bring order into your surroundings by
bringing it first into yourself; by knowing the
motives of your acts.
That you can bring about better world govern-
ment by amelioration of the internal govern-
ment of your nation.
That private gain is not prosperity, but that the
treasure of a nation is its equity.
That hoarding is not prosperity and that people
should employ their resources.
One should respect intelligence, " the luminous
principle of reason," the faculties of others, one should look to a constant renovation.
" Make it new, make it new as the young grass shoot. "
One should not be content with the second-rate, applying in all of these the first principle, namely the beginning with what is nearest to hand, that is, one's own motives and intelligence. You could further assert that Kung taught that organization is
II. Z
? JEFFERSON andfor MUSSOLIN! I I 3
not forced on to things or on to a nation from the outside inward, but that the centre holds by attrac- tion.
" The humane ruler acquires respect by his spP. nd- ing, the inhumane, disrespect, by his taking. "
Shallow critics fail to understand ideas because they look on ideas as a stasis, a statement in a given position, and fail to look where it leads. The people who fail to take interest in Kung fail, I think, because they never observe WHA T Confucian thinking leads to.
For 2,500 years, whenever there has been order in China or in any part of China, you can look for a Confucian at the root of it.
Conf~<<ill. t on "La rivoiJ~Zione fonlin~~a. "
King Tfhing T'ang on Government. Pari of the in. tfriplion on the king'r bath-tub filed by K1111g in the Ta Hio II. I.
The first ideogr11111 (on the right) sho111. t tht fauisl axe for the dearing a111ay o f rubbi. th (left half) tht tr11, organit vegtlable rtntlllal. The . tt(()nd ideograph i. t tht . t1111sign, day,
"renovate, day by day rene111. "
. The verb is ll. ftd in phrases: to p111 a111ay old habit, the daily intrtase ofplanl. t, tmprolle the stale of, restor1.
? XXX
JEFFERSON has a reputation for having made excessive statements, which might happen to any voluble man i f a few o f his remarks were perpetually considered apart from their context, and apart from the occasions when they were published and the contrary excess they were designed to correct.
The " free and equal " is limited by the passive verb "born," it was directed against special privi- leges of those " first-born " and to those whose legal fathers were Dukes, Earls, etc.
There is not the least shadow of suspicion that T. J. ever supposed that men remained equal or were biologically equal, or had a right to equality save in opportunity and before the law.
Like every leader and constructor in human history he tried to bring a certain number of men up to a certain level, by elimination of certain defects.
The so-called intellectual or spiritual leader guns after defects at long range, the political constructor goes for those which are the worst damned im- mediate nuisances.
Apart from the Declaration of Independence to which T. J. gave the final form, Jefferson's doctrines might be divided into.
A. WhathethoughtgoodforthenewAmerican republic.
B. What he considered sound principles for the state.
II4
? JEFFERSON andfor MUSSOLINI I I,
As to this second division.
I. He disbelieved in hereditary privilege, i. e.
he thought men should govern by reason of their inherent qualities and not because they were sons of papa.
" 0 poca digna nobilta di sangue," as Dante had once, and some time previously, remarked.
2. He thought that a nation had no right to con- tract debts that couldn't be reasonably paid within the lifetime of the parties contracting.
Which is part of. his main contention that THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LIVING. 3. That everything that can be done by informal and individual effort should be so done and that the state should govern only where and when
necessary. .
4? He was the? champion of " free speech " but
suggested that newspapers be printed in three sections, the first and VERY BRIEF section to be headed "FACTS," the second to be headed " Probabilities," and the third part to be headed " Lies.
"
Given this limitation I think the Duce might be inclined to agree with him.
? 5? He believed in peace, but he believed still more strongly in maintaining peace UNTIL America was strong enough to stand a war without disaster, and when war came in I 8u he expected the Ameri- can army to win it. Though the frigates did most of the work. .
6. His fight for the " constitution " was a fight against John Marshall, and against the reactionaries who believed in the British Constitution. There was no question of his resisting any. further DEVELOPMENTS in government based on the experience of I 50 years of democracy, . Ioo years of
? II6 JEFFERSON
Marxian arguments and of machinery, or twenty years of industrial engineering.
7? He did not jeopardize his power by untimely :fights for his " higher beliefs " at a time when it would have been impossible to carry them into practical effect. I can think of only two such "ideals," one the abolition of slavery, and the other the far more distant ethics of debt.
8. His expressions re finance are not always less explicit than Van Buren's. Vide this passage re Gallatin:
" I know he derived immense convenience from it (the Bank) because they gave the effect of ubiquity to his money. Money jn New Orleans or Maine was at his command, and by their agency transformed in an instant into money in London, in Paris, Amsterdam, or Canton. He was, therefore, cordial tothebank. Ioftenpressedhimtodividethepublic deposits among all the respectable banks, being indignant myself at the open hostility of that institution to a government on whose treasures they were fattening. "
This paragraph was manifestly written neither by a fanatic blinded to the use, nor by a simpleton blind to the abuses, of financing. He goes on to stigmatize the attacks on Gallatin as intended to " drive from the administration the ablest man except the president. "
Simple and perfectly just statement, showing well- developed sense of the gerarchia (hierarchy) in nature. 9? Freedom from cliche in economic speculation
shows in a letter to Crawford (1816). Perhaps only Ia" New" economist can appreciate it to the full:
and if the national bills issued be bottomed (as is indispensable) on pledges of specific taxes for their redemption within certain
". . .
? ? andfor MUSSOLINI 117
and moderate epochs, and be of proper denomina- tions for circulation, no interest on them would be necessary or just, because they would answer to every one of the purposes of the metallic money withdrawn and replaced by them. "
Io. As for government SUPERVISION of fin- ance, I find this in the "Anas, (Vol. I, page 2. 77) (All references to Memorial Assn. Edtn. of I9o5) re the First Bank of the U. S. :
" While the government remained at Phila- delphia a selection of members of both Houses were constantly kept as directors who, on every occasion interesting to that institution, or to the views of the federal head voted at the will of that head; and together with the stock-holding members, could always make the federal vote that of the majority. "
This was the bank in Federal hands, i. e. , opposed to Jefferson, but an " engine of " Hamilton during Washington's administration. That is to say:
during the first administrations there was national control of the nationalfinances. This ceased when the administration changed WITHOUT there being a corresponding change in the control of the bank.
Thereafter the fights against the First and Second Banks of the U. S. were fights to keep the control of the nation's finance out of control by a clique and to attain the use of the national resources for the benefit of the whole nation.
Most of the " great questions " (local improve- ments, etc. ) grouped along this main issue: grafters vs. the men ofpublic spirit, with a surprisingly small percentage of cases where there was a difference of opin~oil as to what was really for the good of the public.
II. ToEppesinI8I3heclearlyexpressestheview
? u S JEFFERSON
that the nation should own its paper money and condemns the abuse of the individual states in handing over this function to private banks.
" Issued bills . . . bearing no interest . . . never depreciated a single farthing. "
u. "No one has a natural right to the trade of a money-lender, but he who has money to lend. " So obvious, so simple, so supposed by the lay reader to represent an actual state of things even now, but so devastating an impediment to banking malpractice as habitual during the whole of all our
present lives.
All o f which drags us deep into special discussion
and probably has no place in a book of this general nature.
But the serious student of economics is recom- mended to study the series of letters to Eppes.
Again on nth September, 1813:
IF THE UNITED STATES were in possession of the circulating medium AS THEY OUGHT TO BE, they could redeem what they could borrow dollar for dollar and in ten annual instalments, whereas the USURPATION OF THAT FUND by bank paper, obliging them to borrow elsewhere at 1! %, two dollars are required to reimburse one.
He had read Hume and Adam Smith and notes that S. is the chief advocate of paper circulation on the sole condition that it be stricdy regulated.
I 3. Taken in this order the following paragraph sounds almost like an echo of the Duce (hysteron proteron):
" Here are a set of people for instance who have bestowed on us the great blessing of run- ning in our debt about two hundred millions of dollars, without our knowing who they are, where they
? andfor MUSSOLINI x19
are, or what property they have to pay this debt when called on. " .
I4. He did not believe that "public debt is a public blessing. "
I s. He is Confucian in a letter to T. Cooper, January I8I4, on the vast value of internal com- merce and the disproportionate interest taken in foreign.
I6. To J. Adams, July ISIS, he speaks of "Napoleon knowing nothing of commerce, poli- tical economy or civil government. "
The first two are strictures confirmed by reput- able record, though one may rather doubt whether Mr. Jefferson would have left the third had he revised the letter, . or rather, he wouldn't have omitted it, but would have defined his meaning.
? XXXI THE SOIL
YOU cannot found any permanent system on American special practice between I 776 and I 900. The peasants of Europe had wanted land, land in America down to my own time was free to anyone who would take the trouble to go where open land was and cultivate it.
Needless to say Europe had not known any such state of affairs, even during the epoch of . tribal migrations.
The error presumably was that the ownership was not limited to the time during which the "? claim " was actually used.
Q. Adams wanted to reserve the national riches for the nation, for higher developments, scientific research, etc.
As said, this would have delayed the settlement of the continent indefinitely, the other party wanted land QUICK and indulged in no fancies of fore- sight. One of the lures of cultivating I 6o acres was the chance to sell it later and go somewhere else.
Thus as usual in history the root is overlooked. Half mankind from myopia don't see, and when there is a gang of scoundrels, managing demos they learn to erect false dilemmas, camouflage, smoke- screens, political issues " made " simply to divert the electorate and keep them from discovering the real issues. Thus the utter and drivelling imbecility
1. 10
? JEFFERSON andfor MUSSOLINI 12. 1
of the XVIII amendment in our distressed father- land, and the bunkum about national ownership of coal-mines and three-quarters of all liberal and tory proposals. in England.
The point is that for over a century the American government indulged in? a continual donation of land. Not a share out or division of the national land or certificates of claim on the land proportion- ately, but 16o acres or a variant for special kinds* of land, timber, mining, to prospective USERS.
It should be obvious that with this vast resource no great "ECON01viY '' or precision was needed in running the country.
Nevertheless human greed and imbecility made a crisis. Pass over the difficulties of starting the republic 1786 to 1810. By 1830 the nation existed. Land was obviously and spectacularly abundant. Marxian "value" lying potential in LABOUR needed no demonstration. AND YET they had inflation, panic, and all the theatrical adjuncts of contemporary "post-war" 1920 to 1930 Europe, America and the Occident.
The First Bank having gone anti-national, i. e. having been national as a federalist institution WHEN the federalists were "IN," remained federalist when the Je. ffersonians came into office, and no longer represented the. national will in finance. It was annihilated. A second bank was
rigged up after another war.
It took all Jackson's military popular prestige
and Van Buren's brains and persistence to get the nation out of its talons. Van Buren wrote out the story in 186o and it stayed unprinted till 1920.
The story in SCARE HEADS:
Immigrants started out with paper money which ? Limits from 640 desert to a bit over five acres mio. ing.
? 12. 2. JEFFERSON
was "good money," and found it worthless at the end of their journey.
The Bank issued " racers," i. e. drafts that took several months or weeks to get from one part of the country to another and were replaced with more paper.
There was a "boom," i. e. the market value of land measured in " money " rose beyond all p-ossibility of yield, exactly as industrial shares rose in market value in U. S. A. 1928, not from worth of yield, product, or anything else save the chance of selling the paper quick to some other sucker at a higher price.
The same excitement, "optimism," Sat-Eve- Post-ism, slogans of Wall Street, same short-sight re essentials such as impossibi1ity that land would yield without being worked, impossibility of deliv- ering produce at a distance without means of com- munication-vide England in Africa, post-war, encouragement of British suckers to GROW tobacco: lack of market 1930, as lack of transport I 830. But the same underlying equations, AND the same banking manceuvres.
Same variety of " statesman " yelling hurrah for high finance, either from muddleheadedness or in hope of immediate personal gain or advantage.
How far the general reader can be expected to analysethefactsIdon'tknow. Howfaritispossible in any way to abbreviate Van Buren's evidence I don't know. He was one of the best court lawyers that the world has known, in cases now obscure in a " far " country, in the little city of Albany, etc. , the patient but per-lucid style, the orderly grouping of his facts, probably worth a fortune as model and study to any young barrister with serious intentions, but the despair of anyone who
? andfor MUSSOLINI u3
wants to " give the broad lines " or further to " simplify " the subject.
Perhaps the reader will take my " word " assum- ing that the. proof can be found in Van's auto- biography. (Report of the American Historical Association I 9I 8 published Government Printing Offices, Washington, I92. o. )
? The Bank was milking the nation, the bank had at its disposal resources colossally outweighing any material resources controllable by President Jack- son. These resources were used not only financially but politically. The American treasury was depen- dent on the Bank, as is the British Treasury now on the Bank of England. ?
The colossal percentage of real power which is contained IN THE FINANCIAL POWER of the country was in the hands of irresponsible persons, largely in Mr. Biddle's, caring not one jot nor one tittle about the public weal. Possibly, in fact probably, excited by the idea of profits for himself and his shareholders. But void utterly of the great imagination, or the great moral ambition, which
leads men to desire a true relation between the fact and the financial representation of the fact, i. e. as a first step toward economic justice, which latter is no more impossible or inconceivable than the just functioning of machines in a power-house.
Take note that we are a hundred years further on. We have had a century's experience in the pre- cisions of machinery. A lot of people in Van's day still believed in the divine right of kings, they still? believed that the Prince of Wales or Wurtemberg was " ~etter" than Mr. Tyler or Signor Marconi. They were used to having Dukes and Earlsenjoying one set of laws while John, Bob and Henry had to
get along with a different set. Engb. nd was still.
? 1. 2. 4 JEFFERSON and/or MUSSOLINI
hanging for theft of a sheep during the first part of Van's lifetime. No peers suffered the penalty. What I mean is that the objection to dispropor- tionate legal privilege was no more ingrained then, than objection to disproportionate financial privilege is ingrained in our time.
Nevertheless the people did vote out the Bank. " Van " as president had to bear the whole weight of the deflation, Tyler was man enough not to give way.
The treasury was made free, and remained so till the slithering Wilson erected a " board. " Naturally the banking power at once sefout to find other ways of de facto government.
And their ways are marked on the chart of recurrent " panics " with all the fancy mathematics to prove and predict 'em.
But C. H. Douglas' suggestions of democratic control of credit or the suggestion that members of both Houses should at least sit in, or be present at, meetings of the Federal Control Board cannot be regarded as revolutionary, or lacking a precedent. They would be a return to the de/acto status of the First Bank of U. S. in the time o President Wash- ington.
Such suggestions are an annoyance only on the theory that members and senators on that board might ultimately represent the welfare of the people composing the nation.
? XXXII P ARTY
I KNOW we have a "two-party system" and Russia and Italy have a one-party system, but Jefferson governed for twenty-four years in a de
facto one-party condition. Quincy Adams did NOT represent return to federalism and . . the one party (Jeffersonian) continued through the twelve years of Jackson-Van Buren.
I offer the hypothesis that: When a single mind is sufficiendy ahead of the mass a one-party system is bound to occur aJ actuality w:Qatever the details of form in administration.
Secondly, when a corrupt oligarchy of any nature controls a country, they will very probably set up in theory a two-party system, controlling both
of these parties, one of which will be " solid and conservative " and the other as silly as possible. Y ou will hear o f the " swing o f the pendulum,"' and of going out of office in times of difficulty in order to let the other side get the " blame " or the " un- popularity. " ?
One might speculate as to how far any great constructive activity CAN occur . save under a de facto one-party system.
In times of great de facto change in material con- ditions~ how likely or necessarily is a de facto one- party state to occur?
As I write this (February I9H) the fascist govern- us
? u6 JEFFERSON andfor MUSSOLINI
ment has taken the lead over others in Europe and America, recommending that where factories need less work they reduce the number of hours per day either for all or for special sets of men, rather than reduce the number of men employed.