English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

largely chronological but partly topical, can be slightly annoying, as when the famous Osborne judgment is described twice (p. 125 and p. 167). This, it must be granted, is a fault hard to avoid without the risk of misunderstanding at one place or another. Generally, the point which emerges most strongly from the work is the absence of a definitely socialist base in the early Labour party. This was not simply a matter of neglecting to adopt a socialist campaign program until 1918. The dominant figures in the founding of the Labour party deliberately avoided calling their organization socialist, because they wanted it to include nonsocialist trade unionists interested in strictly workingclass legislation. Reid makes clear that this policy persisted in parliamentary Labour ranks, at least until World War I changed the entire intellectual and political climate. During this pre-1914 period there existed the same left-wing opposition to a reformist leadership which has characterized the Labour party even since. No more in the early period than in our own time was the socialist left able to seize control. The question that almost always occurs to the student of the Labour party is why the British have such a phenomenon and the Americans do not. Professor Reid raises the question in his preface, and the body of his book provides material for inferential answers. Among the striking factors, which Pelling has stressed even more than Reid, was the inability or unwillingness of the Liberals to absorb the political aspirations of the labor movement. This was not so significantly a failure of the Liberals to socialize their program, since many of the Labour party founders were not socialists anyway, as it was a failure to welcome enough of the new men of labor to political leadership. The kind of class consciousness which thus caused British labor leaders to seek political careers in their own movement seems clearly different from the American situation. LEON D. EPSTEIN

Britain Views Our Industrial Relations. By Mark J. Fitzgerald, c.s.c, Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1957, pp. 221.