In 1917, in the midst of war, the internationalist ideals of the old Second Socialist International came close to achieving an unparalleled diplomatic triumph of non-governmental initiative by bringing together responsible political leaders of the left from the countries of opposing belligerents to discuss peace terms with neutrals on neutral ground at Stockholm.

It is the basic contention of this paper that intensification of Negro occupational eviction from 1860–1910 imposed another limitation on the Negro in addition to “job ceiling”. The term job ceiling, logically, connotes a prescribed set of trades or occupations, restricted exclusively to a group with ascribed social and economic status, and offers almost no upgrading. Negro eviction from the trades adds another restriction to his already low status, since, the Negro was now not limited in his opportunity to rise in the occupational scale – “job ceiling” – but jobs formerly relegated to him as low-grade Negro jobs were taken away from him – “eviction” – when whites entered into competition for them. This happened when (a) immigrants arrives who did not think such jobs normally beneath their dignity and (b) when native-born whites suffered unemployment.

Marx a lu pendant près de sept ans les ouvrages des économistes et en a fait des extraits, souvent annotés, qui emplissent une quarantaine de cahiers. En 1851, il se croit, avec quelque apparence de raison, au bout de ses recherches, et s'apprête à rédiger l'oeuvre méditée. L'accueil des éditeurs allemands ne l'y encourage guère. Malade, sans ressources, il se voit offrir la correspondance européenne d'un grand quotidien new-yorkais et accepte avec empressement. Le problème est d'écrire en anglais. Il aura recours à Engels et signera les articles que son anti lui enverra pendant plusieurs mois de Manchester.

The notion that the German liberals of 1848 failed because they were mere men of ideas and hence incapable of managing the grim realities of power politics has become dogma. We tend to accept this interpretation unthinkingly, I suspect, because it fits so well our modern anti-idealist bias in favor of the “practical realist” in politics – one, that is to say, who is adept at maneuvering safely among existing forces without attempting to add the force of ideals and hope. In his recent and excellent book, however, Mr. Theodore S. Hamerow has shown that the liberals of 1848 failed not because they were impractical but because they were too practical. Indeed, so single-mindedly did the liberals push their own practical political and economic interest, Mr. Hamerow informs us, that they cut off their ties with those classes – the peasants and workers – whose violence had made the revolutions successful.