The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-05-23
Reviewed by
BENNETT STEVENS


THIS is the book that was loudly
1 heralded by the publishers as
putting Marx, Spengler. the tech
nocrats and the brain trust to
shame. A pretentiOus tome Of al
most 500 pages written in Mum
ford's sonorous style. it seeks to
evaluate the effects Of the machine
on civilization and on personality
since the 10th century. The author
adapts from anthropOlogy high
sounding designations, which an
thropologists are already discarding
as unsatisfactory, and analyses the
development Of machine civilization
through three periods: the eotech-
mic, which is the preparatory period
extending until 1850 and which is
characterized by the use Of water
and wood the paleotechnic, in
which coal and iron are the basis
Of production; and the recent pc
riod, the neotechnic, in which these
are supplemented by electricity and
alloys.
Contending that the science, art,
philosophy and social life Of any
period are all intimately related to
its technology, without clarifying
the nature of these relationships
in the manner Of a historical ma
terialist, Mumford ponti1cally APP
praises them ALL The major por-
ton of the book is a Synthesis of
historical materials which are by no
means as original as the authors
top-lofty presentation suggests. but
which have not previously been
readily available in English.
Supplanting Marx is very big
order, which cannot be filed by
MuInford, who is an eclectic with a
confused middle-class outlook His
interpretations are largely an elab-
Grafton Of the views Of the Eng
lish reformist, Patrick Geddes, but
Itered by ideas borrowed from Web
len, Sombart and Max Weber. Here
and there Marks Capital" has left
its impress as in the vivid descrip-
ton Of the degrading effects of ma
chimes upon the working class I'M
der capitalism and in the authors
remarks that Western society is re-
| lapsing at critical points into pre-
civilized modes of thought, feeling
and action because it has acqui-
esced too easily in the dehumaniZa-
/ ton of society through capitalist
exploitation and military conquest"
He sees that capitalism, which once
played an important part in the de-
velopment Of technics, now remains
the chief obstacle to it's improve
ment.
So Mumford argues that capital
ism must go. But he makes haste
to assure his readers that they
should not associate him with those
horrible Bolsheviks. He is not afraid
Of the term Communism. No sirl
But he italicizes his qualifying ex-
PLANTATION that Communism as
used here does not imply the par
ticular 18th century theology, the
messianic absolutism and the mar
rowly militaristic tactics to which
the official Communist parties usu-
ally cling, nor does it imply a slav-
ish imitation of the political meth
DDS and social institutions of So
Wet Russia, however admirable So
Wet courage and discipline may be. &"
He wants instead, a polite, re-
| spectacle basic communism" pat
termed after the vague utopia Of
Bellany, supplemented by all the
naturalization schemes now being
advocated by capitalist planners,
most Of which were the stock in
trade of the now forgotten techno-
Gratis: conversion Of energy is to
be increased, production econo-
mixed, consumption normalized and
creation socialized. He observes
that to achieve these ends re
vision" of the moral, legal and po-
4 litical basis of the productive sys-
/ TEN is necessary, and so he declares
himself in favor Of revolution"
Again don't misunderstood him. He
safely repudiates the use of "nilitar-
1 istic tactics" by which alone the
working class, under the leadership
of the Communists, will be able to