I cannot prove: namely, that it’s a put-onnfrom beginning to end. His definitionnof the new class is so laudatory as tonbe absurd. It includes all those with annalleged monopoly on culture, rationality,nand universal compassion. But is itnreally a class he describes, or attributesnof an imaginary perfect being? The newnclass is further made to resemble divinitynin its omnipresence, for it somehownmanages to embrace Ukrainian Baptists,nSoviet commissars, and Jane Fonda allnwithin a single circle of grace. Bankersnand industrialists are alleged to havennothing to do with rational thought andndiscourse, unlike academically certifiedngurus and group sensitivity teachersnwho apparently do.nMy point is not that Gouldner trivializesna controversial topic, but that hendoes so in an utterly ludicrous fashion.nAnd perhaps (who knows.’) voila landrolerie! For who can believe that any­none of universal culture would takenmore than a hundred pages of unspeakablyntedious prose, punctuated by anmedieval division into theses, to statena single self-serving opinion.’ Whetherntrue or not, I shall choose to believe it’sna spoof and that those who praise Gouldner’snbook are secretly in the know. Anynalternative explanation for its productionnand success is simply too unsettlingnto consider. It might be mentioned thatnthis volume forms the second part ofna widely touted trilogy prepared in defensenof the Marxist dialectic* Thisndatum, one hopes, may some day benuseful in winning a game of trivia. Dn*One overriding and predictable task ofnthe trilogy is to demonstrate how Marx wasnright as an historical analyst, even thoughnnot the workers, but the new class, willnnow save capitalists and communist societiesnfrom oppression.nPort-Wine ConservatismnBenjamin A. Rogge: Can CapitalismnSurvive?; Liberty Press; Indianapolis,nIndiana.nby Otto J. ScottnIt is inherently fallacious to criticizena speech from the viewpoint of literature,nfor oratory dominates a realm ofnits own. The public purpose of a speechnmay be to promote or defend somenspecial position, but the speaker—tonplease his audience —must bend hisntalents toward uniting them in sympathynwith himself. The words may benlofty and even wise, but the psychologynof public speaking is closer to the stagenthan it is to literature.nFor that reason speeches are the favoritenvehicles of politicians. They arenwell aware that the most successfulnspeaker is not necessarily the man withnOtto Scott, writer and critic, is a frequentncontributor to these pages.nS4inChronicles of Cttlturcnthe best arguments, but the man bestnable to project an intelligent and sympatheticnpersonality. FDR, a snob ofnthe worst sort, who persistently regardednmost other human beings as his inferiors,ncould project so warm and democraticna radio personality that he seducednvirtually an entire generation into suspendingntheir critical faculties. Yet therenis nobody I know—not even the mostnanachronistic relics—who would todaynsit down with a collection of FDR’snspeeches in order to restore their faithnin New Deal ideas.nPublishers know this, but they arentradesmen and know that books arenpurchased for a variety of reasons. Theynissue the collected speeches of famousnmen not because they expect them tonattract readers forever, but becausenlibraries like to fill their shelves withnsuch trophies. In time such shelves attractnmagpie scholars in search of anpertinent quote. Before that final stage,nhowever, collections of well-receivednnnspeeches are apt to command fairly goodnsales as long as the orator is still active:nboth his friends and enemies are apt tonbuy the collection.nOne should not be surprised, therefore,nthat Dr. Rogge’s speeches, deliverednbefore nearly a score of audiencesnin as many years, should be publishednby the Liberty Press. There is everyngood reason why the speeches of a conservativeneconomist should be as availablenin every well-stocked public andnprivate library and academic mill asnare the effusions of frothy liberals ofnleftist tih.nIt would be cruel, some might say, tonapply the yardsticks of literature andnlater events to these productions—butnthese are cruel times. At no time sincenWestern civilization overcame the forestsnand animals of Europe, and creatednits diverse cities and cultures, have itsnheirs been so deeply menaced—or divided.nWe are in the position of Byzantium—afternAlexius debased the bezantnand thereby opened the chute which sentncommerce, military strength and finallynthe empire spinning downward to oblivion.nSuppose savants had then appearednto define Alexius’ errors—and theirnrepair? Would Byzantium have survived?nThe question is unanswerable,nexcepting by analogy. We are, after all,nin a position analogous to that ofnAlexius’ Byzantines. Our currency isndebased and our credit is fading, ourncommerce is dwindling with our militarynstrength; our rulers are repeatingnthe mistakes of bygone barbarians. Butnunlike Alexius we have savants at handnwho have an unparalleled knowledgenof the lessons of history. We turn towardnsuch an established scholar as Dr.nRogge with hope.nThat hope is lured by the title of hisnfirst speech, and of his collectednspeeches: Can Capitalism Survive?nRogge uses the doleful prediction ofnJoseph Schumpeter as a springboard:nhe who said capitalism will collapsenunder the weight of its very success.nThat success will be so great, saidnSchumpeter, that people will forget itsn