Brain Work and Manual Work 

PETER KROPOTKIN

First Published: The Nineteenth Century, March 1890, pp. 456-475
Source: Archive.org

Note: Kropotkin was a frequent contributor to The Nineteenth Century. He was their regular correspondent for science news, and used the journal to issue his book Mutual Aid in serial form, as well as many articles on other topics. Brain Work and Manual Work was later published in lightly edited form as Chapter 8 of Fields, Factories, and Workshops

Transcription/Markup/Notes: by Graham Seaman for MIA, Jan 2021.

In olden times, men of science, and especially those who have done most to forward the growth of natural philosophy, did not despise manual work and handicraft. Galileo made his telescopes with his own hands. Newton learned in his boyhood the art of managing tools; he exercised his young mind in contriving most ingenious machines, and when he began his researches in optics he was able himself to grind the lenses for his instruments and himself to make the well-known telescope which, for its time, was a fine piece of workmanship. Leibnitz was fond of inventing machines: windmills and carriages to he moved without horses preoccupied his mind as much as mathematical and philosophical speculations. Linnæus became a botanist while helping his father — a practical gardener — in his daily work. In short, with our great geniuses handicraft was no obstacle to abstract researches — it rather favoured them. On the other hand, if the workers of old found but few opportunities for mastering science, many of them had, at least, their intelligences stimulated by the very variety of work which was performed in the then unspecialised workshops; and some of them had the benefit of familiar intercourse with men of science. Watt and Rennie were friends with Professor Robinson; Brindley, the road-maker, despite his fourteen-pence-a-day wages, enjoyed intercourse with educated society, and thus developed his remarkable engineering faculties; the son of a well-to-do family could ‘idle’ at a wheelwright’s shop, so as to become later on a Smeaton or a Stephenson.

We have changed all that. Under the pretext of division of labour, we have sharply separated the brain worker from the manual worker. The masses of the workmen do not receive more scientific education than their grandfathers did; but they have been deprived of the education of even the small workshop, while their boys and girls are driven into a mine, or a factory, from the age of thirteen, and there they soon forget the little they may have learned at school. As to the scientists, they despise manual labour. How few of them would be able to make a telescope, or even a plainer instrument? Most of them are not capable of even designing a scientific instrument, and when they have given a vague suggestion to the instrument-maker they leave it with him to invent the apparatus they need. Nay, they have raised the contempt of manual labour to the height of a theory. ‘The scientist,’ they say, ‘must discover the laws of Nature, the civil engineer must apply them, and the worker must execute in steel or wood, in iron or stone, the patterns devised by the engineer. He must work with machines invented for him not by him. No matter if he does not understand them and cannot improve them: the scientist and the scientific engineer will take care of the progress of science and industry.’

It may be objected that nevertheless there is a class of men who belong to none of the above three divisions. When young, they have been manual workers, and some of them continue to be; but, owing to some happy circumstances, they have succeeded in acquiring some scientific knowledge, and thus they have combined science with handicraft. Surely there are. such men; happily enough there is a nucleus of men who have escaped the so-much-advocated specialisation of labour, and it is precisely to them that industry owes its chief recent inventions. But they are the exceptions; they are the irregulars – the Cossacks who have broken the ranks and pierced the screens so carefully erected between the classes. And they are so few, in comparison with the ever-growing requirements of industry — and of science as well, as I am about to prove — that all over the world we hear complaints about the scarcity of precisely such men.

What is the meaning, in fact, of the outcry for technical education which has been raised at one and the same time in this country, in France, in Germany, in the States, and in Russia, if it does not express a general dissatisfaction with the present division into scientists, scientific engineers, and workers? Listen to those who know industry, and you will see that the substance of their complaints is this: ‘The worker whose task has been specialised by the permanent division of labour has lost the intellectual interest in his labour, and it is especially so in the great industries: he has lost his inventive powers. Formerly, he invented very much. Manual workers — not scientists nor trained engineers — have invented, or brought to perfection, the prime motors and all that mass of machinery which has revolutionised industry for the last hundred years. But since the great factory has prevailed, the worker, depressed by the monotony of his work, invents no more. What can a weaver invent who merely supervises four looms, without knowing anything either about their complicated movements or how the machines grew to be what they are? What can a man invent who is condemned for life to bind together the ends of two threads with the greatest celerity, and knows nothing beyond making a knot? At the outset of modem industry, three generations of workers have invented; now they cease to do so. As to the inventions of the engineers, specially trained for devising machines, they are either devoid of genius or not practical enough. Those ‘nearly to nothings’ of which Sir Frederick Bramwell spoke recently at Bath[a] are missing in their inventions — those nothings which can be learned in the workshop only, and which permitted a Murdoch and the Soho workers to make a practical engine of Watt’s schemes. None but he who knows the machine — not in its drawings and models only, hut in its breathing and throbbings — who unconsciously thinks of it while standing by it, can really improve it. Smeaton and Newcomen surely were excellent engineers; but in their engines a boy had to open the steam valve at each stroke of the piston; and it was one of those boys who once managed to connect the valve with the remainder of the machine, so as to make it open automatically, while he ran away to play with other boys. Hut in the modem machinery there is no room left for naïve improvements of that kind. Scientific education on a wide scale has become necessary for further inventions, and that education is refused to the workers. So that there is no issue out of the difficulty unless scientific education and handicraft are combined together — unless integration of knowledge takes the place of the present divisions. Such is the real substance of the present movement in favour of technical education. But, instead of bringing to public consciousness the, perhaps, unconscious motives of the present discontent, instead of widening the views of the discontented and discussing the problem to its full extent, the mouthpieces of the movement do not mostly rise above the shopkeeper’s view of the question. Some of them indulge in jingo talk about crushing all foreign industries out of competition, while the others see in technical education nothing but a means of somewhat improving the flesh-machine of the factory and of transferring a few workers into the upper class of trained engineers.

Such an ideal may satisfy them, but it cannot satisfy those who keep in view the combined interests of science and industry, and consider both as a means for raising humanity to a higher level. We maintain that in the interests of both science and industry, as well as of society as a whole, every human being, without distinction of birth, ought to receive such an education as would enable him, or her, to combine a thorough knowledge of science with a thorough knowledge of handicraft. We fully recognise the necessity of specialisation of knowledge, but we maintain that specialisation must follow general education, and that general education must be given in science and handicraft alike. To the division of society into brain-workers and manual workers we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities; and instead of ‘technical education,’ which means the maintenance of the present division between brain work and manual work, we advocate the éducation intégrale or complete education, which means the disappearance of that pernicious distinction. Plainly stated, the aims of the school under this system ought to be the following: To give such an education that, on leaving school at the age of eighteen or twenty, each boy and each girl should be endowed with a thorough knowledge of science — such a knowledge as might enable them to be useful workers in science — and, at the same time, to give them a general knowledge of what constitutes the bases of technical training, and such a skill in some special trade as would enable each of them to take his or her place in the grand world of the manual production of wealth. I know that many will find that aim too largo, or even impossible to attain, but I hope that if they have the patience to read the following pages, they will see that we require nothing beyond what can be easily attained. In fact, it has been attained; and what has been done on a small scale could be done on a wider scale, were it not for the economical and social causes w4iich prevent any serious reform from being accomplished in our miserably organised society.

The experiment has been made at the Moscow Technical School for twenty consecutive years, with many hundreds of boys; and the testimonies of the most competent judges at the exhibitions of Brussels, Philadelphia, Vienna, and Paris are to the effect that the experiment has been a success.[b] The Moscow school admits boys not older than fifteen, and it requires from boys of that age nothing but a substantial knowledge of geometry and algebra, together with the usual knowledge of their mother tongue; younger pupils are received in the preparatory classes. The school is divided into two sections — the mechanical and the chemical; but as I personally know the former only (it is also the more important in our case), so I shall limit my remarks to the education given in the mechanical section. Well, after a five or six years’ stay at the school, the students leave it with a thorough knowledge of higher mathematics, physics, mechanics, and connected sciences so thorough, indeed, that it is not second to that acquired in the best mathematical faculties of the best European universities. When myself a student of the mathematical faculty of the St. Peterburg University, I had the opportunity of comparing their knowledge with our own. I saw the courses of higher geometry compiled by some students of the technical school for the use of their comrades; I admired the facility with which they applied the integral calculus to dynamical problems; and I came to the conclusion that while we, university students, had more knowledge of a general character (for instance, in mathematical astronomy), they, the students of the school, were much more advanced in higher geometry, and especially in the applications of higher mathematics to the most intricate problems of dynamics, the theories of heat and elasticity. But while we, the students of the# university, hardly knew the use of our hands, the students of the school fabricated with their own hands, and without the help of professional workmen, fine steam-engines, from the heavy boiler to the last finely turned screw, agricultural machinery, and scientific apparatus — all for the trade — and they received the highest awards for the work of their hands at the international exhibitions. They were scientifically educated skilled workers — workers with university education — highly appreciated even by the Russian manufacturers who so much distrust science.

Now, the methods by which these wonderful results were achieved were these: In science, learning from memory was not in honour, while independent research was favoured by all means. Science was taught hand in hand with its applications, and what was learned in the schoolroom was applied in the workshop. Great attention was paid to the highest abstractions of geometry as a means for developing imagination and research. As to the teaching of handicraft, the methods were quite different from those which proved a failure at the Cornell University, and differed, in fact, from those used in most technical schools. The student was not sent to a workshop to learn some special handicraft and to earn his existence as soon as possible, but the teaching of technical skill was prosecuted — according to a scheme elaborated by the founder of the school, M. Dellavos, and now applied also at Chicago – in the same systematical way as laboratory work is taught in the modern universities. It is evident that drawing was considered as the first step in technical education. Then the student was brought, first, to the carpenter’s workshop, or rather laboratory, and there he was thoroughly taught to execute all kinds of carpentry and joinery. No efforts were spared in order to bring the pupil to a certain perfection in that branch — the real basis of all trades. Later on, he was transferred to the turner’s workshop, where he was taught to make in wood the patterns of those things which he would have to make in metal in the following workshops. The foundry followed, and there he was taught to cast those parts of machines which he had prepared in wood; and it was only after he had gone through the first three stages that he was admitted to the smith’s and engineering workshops. Such was the system which English readers will find described in full in a recent work by Mr. Ham,(1) and which has been introduced, in its technical part, in the Chicago Manual Training School. As for the perfection of the mechanical work of the students, I cannot do better than to refer to the reports of the juries at the above-named exhibitions.

The Moscow Technical School surely is not an ideal school. It totally neglects the humanitarian education of the young men. But we must recognise that the Moscow experiment — not to speak of hundreds of other partial experiments — has perfectly well proved the possibility of combining a scientific education of a very high standard with the education which is necessary for becoming an excellent skilled labourer. It has proved, moreover, that the best means for producing really good skilled labourers is to seize the bull by the horns — to grasp the educational problem in its great features, instead of trying to give some special skill in some handicraft, together with some scraps of knowledge in some branch of some science. And it has shown also what can be obtained, without over-pressure, if a rational economy of the scholar’s time is always kept in view, and theory goes hand in hand with practice. Viewed in this light, the Moscow results do not seem extraordinary at all, and still better results may be expected if the same principles are applied from the earliest years of education. Waste of time is the leading feature of our present education. Not only are we taught a mass of rubbish, but what is not rubbish is taught so as to make us waste as much time as possible. Our present methods of teaching originate from a time when the accomplishments required from an educated person were extremely limited; and they have been maintained, notwithstanding the immense increase of knowledge which must be conveyed to the scholar’s mind since science has so much widened its former limits. Hence the over-pressure in schools, and hence, also, the urgent necessity of totally revising both the subjects and the methods of teaching, according to the new wants and to the examples already given here and there, by separate schools and separate teachers.

It is evident that the years of childhood ought not to be spent so uselessly as they are now. German teachers have shown how the very plays of children can be made instrumental in conveying to the childish mind some concrete knowledge in both geometry and mathematics. The children who have made the squares of the theorem of Pythagoras out of pieces of coloured cardboard, will not look at the theorem, when it comes in geometry, as on a mere instrument of torture devised by the teachers; and the less so if they apply it as the carpenters do. Complicated problems of arithmetic, which so much harassed us in our boyhood, are easily solved by children seven and eight years old, if they arc put in the shape of interesting puzzles. And if the Kindergarten — German teachers often make of it a kind of barrack in which each movement of the child is regulated beforehand — has often become a small prison for the little ones, the idea which presided at its foundation is nevertheless true. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine, without having tried it, how many sound notions of nature, habits of classification, and taste for natural sciences can be conveyed to the children’s minds; and, if a series of concentric courses adapted to the various phases of development of the human being were generally accepted in education, the first series in all sciences, save sociology, could be taught before the age of ten or twelve, so as to give a general idea of the universe, the earth and its inhabitants, the chief physical, chemical, zoological, and botanical phenomena, leaving the discovery of the laws of those phenomena to the next series of deeper and more specialised studies. On the other side, we all know how children like to make toys themselves, how they gladly imitate the work of full-grown people if they see them at work in the workshop or the building-yard. But the parents either stupidly paralyse that passion, or do not know how to utilise it. Most of them despise manual work and prefer sending their children to the study of Roman history, or of Franklin’s teachings about saving money, to seeing them at a work which is good for the ‘lower classes only.’ They thus do their best to render subsequent learning the more difficult.

And then come the school years, and time is wasted again to an incredible extent. Take, for instance, mathematics, which everyone ought to know, because it is the basis of all subsequent education, and which so few really learn in our schools. In geometry time is foolishly wasted by using a method which merely consists in committing geometry to memory. In most cases, the boy reads again and again the proof of a theorem till his memory has retained the succession of reasonings. Therefore, nine boys out of ten, if asked to prove an elementary theorem two years after having left the school, will be unable to do it, unless mathematics is their specialty. They will forget which auxiliary lines to draw, and they never have been taught to discover the proofs by themselves. No wonder that later on they find such difficulties in applying geometry to physics, that their progress is despairingly sluggish, and that so few master higher mathematics. There is, however, the other method which permits progress, as a whole, at a much speedier rate, and under which he who once has learned geometry will know it all his life long. Under this system, each theorem is put as a problem; its solution is never given beforehand, and the pupil is induced to find it by himself. Thus, if some preliminary exercises with the rule and the compass have been made, there is not one boy or girl, oat of twenty or more, who will not be able to find the means of drawing an angle which is equal to a given angle, and to prove their equality, after a few suggestions from the teacher; and if the subsequent problems are given in a systematic succession (there are excellent text-books for the purpose), and the teacher does not press his pupils to go faster than they can go at the beginning, they advance from one problem to the next with an astonishing facility, the only difficulty being to bring the pupil to solve the first problem and thus to acquire confidence in his own reasoning. Moreover, each abstract geometrical truth must be impressed on the mind in its concrete form as well. As soon as the pupils have solved a few problems on paper, they must solve them on the playing-ground with a few sticks and a string, and they must apply their knowledge in the workshop. Only then will the geometrical lines acquire a concrete meaning in the childrens minds; only then will they see that the teacher is playing no tricks when he asks them to solve problems with the rule and the compass, without resorting to the protractor; only then will they know geometry. ‘Through the eyes and the hand to the brain’ — that is the true principle of economy of time in teaching. I remember as if it were yesterday, how geometry suddenly acquired for me a new meaning, and how this new meaning facilitated all ulterior studies. It was as we were mastering a Montgolfier balloon, and I remarked that the angles at the summits of each of the twenty strips of paper out of which the balloon was going to be made must cover less than the fifth part of a right angle each. I remember, next, bow the sines and the tangents ceased to be mere cabalistic signs when they permitted us to calculate the length of a stick in a working profile of a fortification; and how geometry in space became plain when we began to make on a small scale a bastion with embrasures and barbettes – an occupation which obviously was soon prohibited on account of the state into which we brought our clothes. ‘You look like navvies,’ was the reproach addressed to us by our intelligent educators, while we were proud precisely of being navvies — and of discovering the use of geometry.

By compelling our children to study real things from mere graphical representations, instead of making those things themselves, we compel them to waste the most precious time; we uselessly worry their minds; we accustom them to the worst methods of learning; we kill independent thought in the bud; and very seldom we succeed in conveying a real knowledge of what we are teaching. Superficiality, parrot-like repetition, slavishness and inertia of mind are the results of our education. We do not teach our children how to learn. The very beginnings of science are taught on the same pernicious system. In most schools, even arithmetic is taught in the abstract way, and mere rules are stuffed into the poor little heads. The idea of a unit, which is arbitrary and can be changed at will in our measurement (the match, the box of matches, the dozen of boxes, or the gross; the metre, the centimetre, the kilometre, and so on), is not impressed on the mind, and therefore, when the children come to the decimal fractions they are at a loss to understand them;, whereas in France, where the decimal system of measures and money is a matter of daily life, even those workers who have received the plainest elementary education are quite familiar with decimals. To represent twenty-five centimes, or twenty-five centimetres, they write ‘ zero twenty-five,’ while most of my readers surely remember how this same zero at the head of a row of figures puzzled them in their boyhood. We do also what we can to render algebra unintelligible, and our children spend one year before they have learned what is not algebra at all, but a mere system of abbreviations, which can be learned by the way, if it is taught together with arithmetic.

The waste of time in physics is merely revolting. While young people very easily understand the principles of chemistry and its formulae, as soon as they themselves make the first experiments with a few glasses and tubes, they mostly find the greatest difficulties in grasping the mechanical introduction into physics, partly because they do not know geometry, and especially because they are merely shown costly machines instead of being induced to make themselves plain apparatus for illustrating the phenomena they study. Instead of learning the laws of force with plain instruments which a boy of ten can easily make, they learn them from mere drawings, in a purely abstract fashion. Instead of making themselves an Atwood’s machine with a broomstick and the wheel of an old clock, or verifying the laws of falling bodies with a key gliding on an inclined string, they are shown a complicated apparatus, and in most cases the teacher himself does not know how to explain to them the principle of the apparatus, and indulges in irrelevant details. And so it goes on from the beginning to the end, with but a few honourable exceptions(2).

If waste of time is characteristic of our methods of teaching science, it is characteristic as well of the methods used for teaching handicraft. We know how years are wasted when a boy serves his apprenticeship in a workshop; but the same reproach can be addressed, to a great extent, to those technical schools which endeavour at once to teach some special handicraft, instead of resorting to the broader and surer methods of systematical teaching. Just as there are in science some notions and methods which are preparatory to the study of all sciences, so there are also some fundamental notions and methods preparatory to the special study of any handicraft. Reuleaux has shown in that delightful book, the Theoretische Kinematik, that there is, so to say, a philosophy of all possible machinery. Each machine, however complicated, can be reduced to a few elements — plates, cylinders, discs, cones, and so on — as well as to a few tools — chisels, saws, rollers, hammers, &c.; and,however complicated its movements, they can be decomposed into a few modifications of motion, such as the transformation of circular motion into a rectilinear, and the like, with a number of intermediate links. So also each handicraft can be decomposed into a number 6f elements. In each trade one must know how to make a plate with parallel surfaces, a cylinder, a disc, a square and a round hole; how to manage a limited number of tools, all tools being mere modifications of less than a dozen types; and how to transform one kind of motion into another. This is the foundation of all mechanical handicrafts; so that the knowledge of how to make in wood those primary elements, how to manage the chief tools in wood-work, and how to transform various kinds of motion, ought to be considered as the very basis for the subsequent teaching of all possible kinds of mechanical handicraft. The pupil who has acquired that skill already knows one good half of all possible trades. Besides, none can be a good worker in science unless he is in possession of good methods of scientific research; unless he has learned to observe, to describe with exactitude, to discover mutual relations between facts seemingly disconnected, to make hypotheses and to verify them, to reason upon cause and effect, and so on. And none can be a good manual worker unless he has been accustomed to the good methods of handicraft altogether. He must grow accustomed to conceive the subject of his thoughts in a concrete form, to draw it, or to model, to hate badly kept tools and bad methods of work, to give to everything a fine touch of finish, to derive artistic enjoyment from the contemplation of gracious forms and combinations of colours, and dissatisfaction from what is ugly. Be it handicraft, science, or art, the chief aim of the school is not to make a specialist from a beginner, but to teach him the elements of knowledge and the good methods of work, and, above all, to give him that general inspiration which will induce him, later on, to put in whatever he does a sincere longing for truth, to like what is beautiful both as to form and contents; to feel the necessity of being a useful unit amidst other human units, and thus to feel his heart at unison with the rest of humanity.

As for avoiding the monotony of work which would result from the pupil always making mere cylinders and discs, and never making machines or other useful things, there are thousands of means for avoiding that want of interest, and one of them, in use at Moscow, is worthy of notice. It is not to give work for mere exercise, but to utilise everything which the pupil makes, from his very first steps. Bo you remember how you were delighted, in your childhood, if your work was utilised, be it only as a part of something useful? So they do at Moscow. Each plank planed by the pupils is utilised as a part of some machine in some of the other workshops. When a pupil comes to the engineering workshop, and he is set to make a quadrangular block of iron with parallel and perpendicular surfaces, the block has an interest in his eyes, because, when he has finished it, verified its angles and surfaces, and corrected its defects, the block is not thrown under the bank — it is given to a more advanced pupil, who makes a handle to it, paints the whole, and sends it to the shop of the school as a presse papier. The systematical teaching thus receives the necessary attractiveness(3).

It is evident that celerity of work is a most important factor in production. So it might be asked if, under the above system, the necessary speed of work could be obtained. But there are two kinds of celerity. There is the celerity which we see in a lace-manufactory; full-grown men, with shivering hands and heads, are feverishly binding together the ends of two threads from the remnants of cotton-yarn in the bobbins; you hardly can follow their movements. But the very fact of requiring such kind of rapid work is the condemnation of the factory system. What has remained of the human being in those shivering bodies? What will be their outcome? Why this waste of human force, when it could produce ten times the value of the odd rests of yarn? This kind of celerity is required exclusively because of the cheapness of the factory slaves; so let us hope that no school will ever aim at this kind of quickness in work. But there is also the time-saving celerity of the well-trained worker, and this is surely achieved best by the kind of education which we advocate. However plain his work, the educated worker makes it better and quicker than the uneducated. Observe, for instance, how a good worker proceeds in cutting anything — say a piece of cardboard — and compare his movements with those of an improperly trained worker. The latter seizes the cardboard, takes the tool as it is, traces a line in a haphazard way, and begins to cut; half-way he is tired, and when he has finished his work is worth nothing; whereas, the former will examine his tool and improve it if necessary; he will trace the line with exactitude, secure both cardboard and rule, keep the tool in the right way, cut quite easily, and give you a piece of good work. That is the true time-saving celerity, the most appropriate for economising human labour; and the best means for attaining it is an education of the most superior kind. The great masters painted with an astonishing rapidity; but their rapid work was the result of a great development of intelligence and imagination, of a keen sense of beauty, of a fine perception of colours. And that is the kind of rapid work which humanity is in need of.

Much more ought to be said as regards the duties of the school but I hasten to say a few words more as to the desirability of the kind of education briefly sketched in the preceding pages. Certainly, I do not cherish the illusion that a thorough reform in education, or in any of the issues indicated in my preceding papers, will be made as long as the civilised nations remain under the present narrowly egotistic system of production and consumption. All we can expect, as long as the present conditions last, is to have some microscopical attempts at reforming here and there on a small scale — attempts which necessarily will prove to be far below the expected results, because of the impossibility of reforming on a small scale when so intimate a connection exists between the manifold functions of a civilised nation. But the energy of the reconstructive genius of society depends precisely upon the depths of its conception as to what ought to be done, and how; and the necessity of recasting education is one of those necessities which are most comprehensible to all, and are most appropriate for inspiring society with those ideals, without which stagnation or even decay are unavoidable. So let us suppose that a community — a city, or a territory which has, at least, a few millions of inhabitants — gives the above-sketched education to all its children, without distinction of birth (and we are rich enough to permit us the luxury of such an education), without asking anything in return from the children but what they will give when they have become producers of wealth. Suppose such an education is given, and analyse its probable consequences. I will not insist upon the increase of wealth which would result from having a young army of educated and well-trained producers; nor shall I insist upon the social benefits which would be derived from erasing the present distinction between the brain workers anti the manual workers, and from thus reaching the concordance of interest and harmony so much wanted in our times of social struggles. I shall not dwell upon the fulness of life which would result for each separate individual, if he were enabled to enjoy the use of both his mental and bodily powers; nor upon the advantages of raising manual labour to the place of honour it ought to occupy in society, instead of being a stamp of inferiority, as it is now. Nor shall I insist upon the disappearance of the present misery and degradation, with all their consequences — vice, crime, prisons, price of blood, denunciation, and the like — which necessarily would follow. In short, I will not touch now the great social question, upon which so much has been written and so much remains to be written yet. I merely intend to point out in these pages the benefits which science itself would derive from the change.

Some will say, of course, that to reduce the scientists to the rôle of manual workers would mean the decay of science and genius. But those who will take into account the following considerations probably will agree that the result ought to be the reverse — namely, such a revival of science and art, and such a progress in industry, as we only can faintly foresee from what we know about the times of the Renaissance. It has become a commonplace to speak with emphasis about the progress of science during the nineteenth century; and it is evident that our century, if compared with centuries past, has much to be proud of. But, if we take into account that most of the problems which our century has solved already had been indicated, and their solutions foreseen, a hundred years ago, we must admit that the progress was not so rapid as might have been expected, and that something hampered it. The mechanical theory of heat was very well foreseen in the last century by Rumford and Humphry Davy, and even in Russia it was advocated by Lomonosoff.(4) However, much more than half a century elapsed before the theory reappeared in science. Lamarck, and even Linnæus, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, and several others were fully aware of the variability of species; they were opening the way for the construction of biology on the principles of variation; but here, again, half a century was wasted before the variability of species was brought again to the front; and we all remember how Darwin’s ideas were carried on and forced on the attention of university people, chiefly by persons who were not professional scientists themselves; and yet in Darwin’s hands the theory of evolution surely was narrowed, owing to the overwhelming importance given to only one factor of evolution. For many years past, astronomy has been needing a careful revision of the Kant and Laplace’s hypothesis; but no theory is yet forthcoming which would compel general acceptance. Geology surely has made wonderful progress in the reconstitution of the palaeontological record, but dynamical geology progresses at a despairingly slow rate; the theory of the igneous origin of granite and other unstratified crystalline rocks is still taught in the universities, although the field geologists cannot reconcile it with the contradictory facts, and they are abandoning it in Germany and Russia; while all future progress in the great question as to the laws of distribution of living organisms on the surface of the earth is hampered by the want of knowledge as to the extension of glaciation during the Quaternary epoch.(5) In short, in each branch of science a revision of the current theories as well as new wide generalisations are wanted. And if the revision requires some of that inspiration of genius which moved Galileo and Newton, and which depends in its appearance upon general causes of human development, it requires also an increase in the number of scientific workers. When facts contradictory to current theories become numerous, the theories must be revised (we saw it in Darwin’s case), and simple intelligent workers in science are required to accumulate them.

Immense regions of the earth still remain unexplored; the study of the geographical distribution of animals and plants meets with stumbling-blocks at every step. Travellers cross continents, and do not know even how to determine the latitude nor how to manage a barometer. Physiology, both of plants and animals, psycho-physiology, and the psychological faculties of man and animals are so many branches of knowledge requiring more data of the simplest description. History remains a fable convenue chiefly because it wants fresh ideas, but also because it wants scientifically thinking workers to reconstitute the life of past centuries in the same way as Thorold Rogers or Augustin Thierry have done it for separate epochs. In short, there is not one single science which does not suffer in its development from a want of men and women endowed with a philosophical conception of the universe, ready to apply their forces of investigation in a given field, however limited, and having leisure for devoting themselves to scientific pursuits. In a community such as we suppose, thousands of workers would be ready to answer any appeal for exploration. Darwin spent almost thirty years in gathering and analysing facts for the elaboration of the theory of the origin of species. Had he lived in such a society as we suppose, he simply would have made an appeal to volunteers for facts and partial exploration, and thousands of explorers would have answered his appeal. Scores of societies would have come to life to debate and to solve each of the partial problems involved in the theory, and in ten years the theory would have been verified; all those factors of evolution which only now begin to receive due attention would have appeared in their full light. The rate of scientific progress would have been tenfold; and if the individual would not have the same claim on posterity’s gratitude as he has now, the unknown mass would have done the work with more speed and with more prospect for ulterior advance than the individual could do in his lifetime. Mr. Murray’s dictionary is an illustration of that kind of work — the work of the future.[c]

However, there is another feature of modern >science which speaks more strongly yet in favour of the change we advocate. While industry, especially by the end of the last century and during the first part of the present, has been investing on such a scale as to revolutionise the very face of the earth, science has been losing its inventive powers. Scientists invent no more, or very little. Is it not striking, indeed, that the steam-engine, even in its leading principles, the railway-engine, the steamboat, the telephone, the phonograph, the weaving-machine, the lace-machine, the lighthouse, the macadamised road, photography in black and in colours, and thousands of less important things, have not been invented by professional scientists, although none of them would have refused to associate his name with any of the named inventions? Men who hardly had received any education at school, who had merely stolen the crumbs of knowledge from the tables of the rich; men who made their experiments with the most primitive means — the attorney-clerk Smeaton, the instrument-maker Watt, the engine-brakesman Stephenson, the jeweller’s apprentice Fulton, the millwright Rennie, the mason Telford, and hundreds of others whose very names remain unknown, were, as Mr. Smiles justly says, ‘the real makers of modern civilisation’; while the professional scientists, provided with all means for acquiring knowledge and experimenting, have invented little in the formidable array of implements, machines, and prime-motors which has shown to humanity how to utilise and to manage the forces of nature.(6) The fact is striking, but its explanation is very simple: those men — the Watts and the Stephenson — knew something which the savants do not know — they knew the use of their hands; their surroundings stimulated their inventive powers; they knew machines, their leading principles, and their work; they had breathed the atmosphere of the workshop and the building-yard.

We know how the scientists will meet the reproach. They will say:– ‘We discover the laws of Nature, let others apply them; it is a simple division of labour.’ But such a rejoinder would be utterly untrue. The march of progress is quite the reverse, because in a hundred cases against one the mechanical invention comes before the discovery of the scientific law. It was not the dynamical theory of heat which came before the steam-engine — it followed it. When thousands of engines already were transforming heat into motion under the eyes of thousands of scientists, and when they had done so for half a century, or more; when thousands of trains, stopped by powerful brakes, were disengaging heat and spreading thousands of sparks on the rails at their approach to the stations; when all over the civilisational world heavy hammers and perforators were rendering burning hot the masses of iron they were hammering and perforating — then, and then only, a doctor, Mayer, ventured to bring out the mechanical theory of heat with all its consequences; and yet the scientists almost drove him to madness by obstinately clinging to their mysterious caloric fluid. When every engine was illustrating the impossibility of utilising all the heat disengaged by a given amount of burnt fuel, then came the law of Clausius. When all over the world industry already was transforming motion into heat, sound, light, and electricity, and each one into each other, then only came Grove’s theory of the ‘correlation of physical forces.’ It was not the theory of electricity which gave us the telegraph. When the telegraph was invented, all we knew about electricity was but a few facts more or less badly arranged in our books; the theory of electricity is not ready yet; if still waits for its Newton, notwithstanding the brilliant attempts of late years. Even the empirical knowledge of the laws of electrical currents was in its infancy when a few hold men laid a cable at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, despite the warnings of the authorised men of science.

The name of ‘applied science’ is quite misleading, because, in the great majority of cases, invention, far from being an application of science, on the contrary creates a new branch of science. The American bridges were no application of the theory of elasticity; they came before the theory, and all we can say in favour of science is, that in this special branch, theory and practice developed in a parallel way, helping one another. It was not the theory of the explosives which led to the discovery of gunpowder; gunpowder was in use for centuries before the action of the gases in a gun was submitted to scientific analysis. And so on. The great processes of metallurgy; the alloys and the properties they acquire from the addition of very small amounts of some metals or metalloids; the recent revival of electric lighting; nay, even the weather forecasts which truly deserved the reproach of being ‘unscientific’ when they were started by an old Jack tar, Fitzroy — all these could be mentioned as instances in point. Of course, we, have a number of cases in which the discovery, or the invention, was a mere application of a scientific law (cases like the discovery of the planet Neptune), but in the immense majority of cases the discovery, or the invention, is unscientific to begin with. It belongs much more to the domain of art — art taking the precedence over science, as Helmholtz has so well shown in one of his popular lectures — and only after the invention has been made, science comes to interpret it. It is obvious that each invention avails itself of the previously accumulated knowledge and modes of thought; but in most cases it makes a start in advance upon what is known; it makes a leap in the unknown, and thus opens a quite new series of facts for investigation. This character of invention, which is to make a start in advance of former knowledge, instead of merely applying a law, makes it identical, as to the processes of mind, with discovery; and, therefore, people who are slow in invention are also slow in discovery.

In most cases, the inventor, however inspired by the general state of science at a given moment, starts with a very few settled facts at his disposal. The scientific facts taken into account for inventing the steam-engine, or the telegraph, or the phonograph were strikingly elementary. So that we can affirm that what we presently know is already sufficient for resolving any of the great problems which stand in the order of the day — prime-motors without the use of steam, the storage of energy, the transmission of force, or the flying-machine. If these problems are not yet solved, it is merely because of the want of inventive genius, the scarcity of educated men endowed with it, and the present divorce between science and industry. On the one side, we have men who are endowed with capacities for invention, but have neither the necessary scientific knowledge nor the means for experimenting during long years; and, on the other side, we have men endowed with knowledge and facilities for experimenting, but devoid of inventive genius, owing to their education and to the surroundings they live in — not to speak of the patent system, which divides and scatters the efforts of the inventors instead of combining them.

The flight of genius which has characterised the workers at the outset of modern industry has been missing in our professional scientists. And they will not recover it as long as they remain strangers to the world, amidst their dusty bookshelves; as long as they are not workers themselves, amidst other workers, at the blaze of the iron furnace, at the machine in the factory, at the turning-lathe in the engineering workshop; sailors amidst sailors on the sea, and fishers in the fishing boat, wood-cutters in the forest, tillers of the soil in the field. Our teachers in art have repeatedly told us of late that we must not expect a revival of art as long as handicraft remains what it is; they have shown how Greek and mediæval art were daughters of handicraft, how one was feeding the other. The same is true with regard to handicraft and science; their separation is the decay of both. As to the grand inspirations which unhappily have been so much neglected in most of the recent discussions about art — and which are missing in science as well — these can be expected only when humanity, breaking its present bonds, shall make a new start in the higher principles of human solidarity, doing away with the present duality of moral sense and philosophy.

It is evident, however, that all men and women cannot equally enjoy the pursuit of scientific work. The variety of inclinations is such that some will find more pleasure in science, some others in art, and others again in some of the numberless branches of the production of wealth. But, whatever the occupations preferred by everyone, everyone will be the more useful in his own branch if he is in possession of a serious scientific knowledge. And, whosoever he might be — scientist or artist, physicist or surgeon, chemist or sociologist, historian or poet — he would be the gainer if he spent a part of his life in the workshop or the farm (the workshop and the farm), if he were in contact with humanity in its daily work, and had the satisfaction of knowing that he himself discharges his duties as an unprivileged producer of wealth. How much better the historian and the sociologist would understand humanity if they knew it, not in books only, not in a few of its representatives, but as a whole, in its daily life, daily work, and daily affairs! How much more medicine would trust to hygiene, and how much less to prescriptions, if the young doctors were the nurses of the sick and the nurses received the education of the doctors of our time! And how would gain the poet in his feeling of the beauties of nature, how much better would he know the human heart, if he met the rising sun amidst the tillers of the soil, himself tiller; if he fought against the storm with the sailors on board ship; if he knew the poetry of labour and rest, sorrow and joy, struggle and conquest! Greift nur hinein in’s volle Menschenleben! Goethe said; Ein jeder lebt’s — nicht vielen ist’s bekannt.[d] But how few poets follow his advice!

The so-called division of labour has grown under a system which condemned the masses to toil all the day long, and all the life long, at the same wearisome kind of labour. But if we take into account how few are the real producers of wealth in our present society, and how squandered is their labour, we must recognise that Franklin was right in saying that to work five hours a day would generally do for supplying each member of a civilised nation with the comfort now accessible for the few only, provided everybody took his due share in production. But we have made some progress since Franklin’s times, not to say a word of further progress. More than one-half of the working day would thus remain to everyone for the pursuit of art, science, or any hobby he might choose to like; and his work in those fields would be the more profitable if he spent the other half of the day in productive work — if art and science were followed from mere inclination, not for mercantile purposes. Moreover, a community organised on the principles of all being workers would be rich enough to consider that every man and woman, after having reached a certain age — say, of forty or more — ought to be relieved from the moral obligation of taking a direct part in the performance of the necessary manual work, so as to be able entirely to devote himself or herself to whatever he or she chooses in the domain of art, or science, or any kind of work. Free pursuit in new branches of art and knowledge, free creation, and free development thus might be fully guaranteed. And such a community would not know misery amidst wealth; it would not know the duality of conscience which permeates our life and stifles every noble effort. It would freely take its flight towards the highest regions of progress compatible with human nature. But it is not by resorting to such poor means as some training of the hand in a handicraft school, or some teaching of husbandry under the name of Slöjd,[e] that great things are achieved. Great problems must be faced in their full greatness.

P. KROPOTKIN
POSTSCRIPT

Since the above was written I have had the pleasure of visiting the Gordon College at Aberdeen. There I found the system described in the preceding pages had been applied with full success, for some years, under the direction of Dr. Ogilvie. It is the Moscow, or Chicago, system on a limited scale.[f]

While receiving substantial scientific education, the pupils are also trained in the workshops — but not for one special trade, as it unhappily too often is the case. They pass through the carpenters’ workshop, the casting in metals, and the engineering workshop; and in each of these they learn the foundations of each of the three trades, sufficiently well for supplying the school itself with a number of useful things. Besides, as far as I could ascertain from what I saw in the geographical and physical classes, as also in the chemical laboratory, the system of ‘through the hand to the brain,’ and vice-versa, is in full swing, and it is attended with the best success. The boys work with the physical instruments, and they study geography in the field, instruments in hands, as well as in the class-room. Some of their surveys filled with joy my geographer’s heart. It is evident that the Gordon College’s industrial department is not a mere copy of any foreign school; on the contrary, I should permit myself to suggest that if Aberdeen has made that excellent move towards combining science with handicraft, the move was a natural outcome of what has been practised long since, on a smaller scale, in the Aberdeen daily schools.

1. Manual Training as the solution of Social and Industrial Problems, by Ch. H. Ham, London: Blackie & Son. 1886. I can add that like results have been achieved again at the Krasnoufimsk Realschule in the province of Orenburg, especially with regard to agriculture and agricultural machinery. The achievements of the school, however, are so interesting that they deserve more than a short mention.[Back]

2. Take, for instance, the description of Atwood’s machine in any course of elementary physics. You will find great attention to the wheels on which the axle of the pulley is made to lie , hollow boxes, plates and rings, the clock, and other accessories will be mentioned before one word is said upon the leading idea of the machine, which is to slacken the motion of a falling body by making a falling body of small weight move a heavier body which is in the state of inertia, gravity acting on it in two opposite directions. That was the inventor’s idea; and if it is made clear, the pupils see at once that to suspend two bodies of equal weight over a pulley, and to make them move by adding a small weight to one of them, is one of the means (and a good one) for slackening the motion during the falling; they see that the friction of the pulley must be reduced to a minimum, either by using the two pairs of wheels, which so much puzzle the textbook makers, or by any other means; that the clock is a luxury, and the ’plates and rings’ are mere accessories: in short, that Atwood’s idea can be realised with the wheel of a clock fastened, as a pulley, to a wall, or on the top of a broomstick secured in a vertical position. In this case, the pupils will understand the idea of the machine of its inventor, and they will accustom themselves to separate the leading idea from the accessories; while in the other case they merely look with curiosity at the tricks performed by the teacher with a complicated machine, and the few who finally understand it spend a quantity of time in the effort.[Back]

3. The sale of the pupils’ work is not insignificant, especially when they reach the higher classes, and make steam-engines. Therefore the Moscow school, when I knew it, was one of the cheapest in the world. It gave boarding and education at a very low fee. But imagine such a school connected with a farm school, which grows food and exchanges it at its cost price. What will be the cost of education then?[Back]

4. In an otherwise also remarkable memoir on the Arctic Regions.[Back]>

5. The rate of progress in the recently so popular Glacial Period question was strikingly slow. Already Venetz in 1821 and Esmarck in 1823, had explained the erratic phenomenon by the glaciation of Europe. Agassis came forth with the theory of glaciation of the Alps, the Jura mountains, and Scotland, about 1840; and five years later, Guyot had published his maps of the routes followed by Alpine boulders. But forty-two years elapsed after Venetz wrote, before one geologist of mark (Lyell) dared timidly lo accept his theory, even to a limited extent — the most interesting fact being that Guyot’s maps, considered as irrelevant in 1843, were recognised as conclusive after 1863. Even now — half a century after Agassiz’s first work — Agassiz’s views are not yet either refuted or generally accepted. So also Forbes’s views upon the plasticity of ice. Let me add, by the way, that the whole polemics as to the viscosity of ice is a striking instance of how facts, scientific terms, and experimental methods quite familiar to building engineers, were ignored by the scientists who took part in the polemics. If those facts, terms and methods were taken into account, the polemics would not have raged for years with no result. Like instances, to show how science suffers from a want of acquaintance with facts and methods of experimenting well known to engineers, florists, cattle-breeders, and so on, could be produced in numbers.[Back]

6. Chemistry is, to a great extent, an exception to the rule. Is it not because the chemist is so much of the manual worker?[Back]
Additional Notes by MIA

a. Sir Frederick Bramwell, civil engineer and newly appointed President of the British Association, gave a speech in Bath on 5th September 1888 in praise of civil engineering. One of his themes was the importance of the practicing engineer noticing the “next-to-nothing” which had a major effect – such as the doping of conductors with tiny amounts of impurities to improve conductivity. The speech was reported in the Pall Mall Gazette for 6 September 1888 (pp. 11-12).[Back]

b. Kropotkin added a footnote to this essay in Factories, Fields, and Workshops stating: ‘With the reaction which began after 1881, under the reign of Alexander III., this school was “reformed”; that means that all the spirit and the system of the school were destroyed.’ The Institure itself still exists as the Moscow State Technical University, and the original teaching methods developed were influential in the development of in the development of MIT and other American technical schools (see Wikipedia).[Back]

c. James Murray asked the public to submit sample quotations for the Oxford English Dictionary; an early example of crowsourcing, he received up to 1,000 slips a day (see Wikipedia). [Back]

d. Faust, Part 1, Prelude, lines 167-8 “Grasp the life of man complete! Everyone lives, though it seldom is confessed”. [Back]

e. The Slöjd system of education in handicrafts (generally known as ‘Sloyd’ in English) was invented in Finland in 1865 and is still part of the Swedish national curriculum (See: Wikipedia).[Back]

f. Now Robert Gordon University; the original system was based on work done by the local Mechanics’ Institution. Some of the history is available from the university archives.[Back]

JOSEPH DIETZGEN

Born near Cologne in 1828, Joseph Dietzgen worked most of his life as a tanner. A self-educated man, he participated in the Revolution of 1848 where he first read the writings of Karl Marx and became one of his supporters. Exiled from Germany after the failed revolution, he spent time in both America and Russia, where he wrote his most famous work The Nature of Human Brain Work, published in 1869, before returning to Germany. In 1884 he moved to the United States for the third and last time after being imprisoned in Germany for his political writing. He became editor of the anarchist Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung when it’s previous editors were hung by the State in response to the Haymarket bombings. When he died 2 years later he was buried beside them in Chicago.

\

• 

  The Nature of Human Brain Work

  An Introduction to Dialectics

  By Joseph Dietzgen and Larry Gambone     July 2010

  Called by Marx “The Philosopher of Socialism,” Joseph Dietzgen was a pioneer of dialectical materialism and a fundamental influence on anarchist and socialist thought who we would do well not to forget.

  LEARN MORE

THE POSITIVE OUTCOME
OF PHILOSOPHY

The Nature of Human Brain Work
Letters on Logic. The Positive
Outcome of Philosophy
BYJOSEPH DIETZGEN

 

TRANSLATED BY ERNEST UNTERMANN

 

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY DR. ANTON PANNEKOEK
TRANSLATED BY ERNEST UNTERMANN

---

Edited by Eugene Dietzgen and Joseph Dietzgen, Jr.

---

CHICAGO
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
1906

Joseph Dietzgen - 

Radical Chains

The historic split between anarchism and socialism has had a debilitating effect on the workers movement, and Joseph Dietzgen was one of those individuals who sought to lessen the opposition of these tendencies. What he promoted was not an abstract reconciliation which failed to recognise real differences, although he held that these were in any case exaggerated, but a real reconciliation based on the transcending of opposition through the transformation and supersession of existing standpoints.

 From Radical Chains no.3

Author
Radical Chains
Submitted by sgel on June 17, 2011

JOSEPH DIETZGEN

Joseph Dietzgen died in mid-sentence. It was a pleasant Sunday afternoon, June 15, 1888 1 , and after sharing a bottle of wine and a good dinner, Dietzgen was vivaciously expounding his views on the labour movement and the imminent collapse of capitalism to an acquaintance of his son. To the end, Dietzgen remained a class-conscious communist, an opponent of all conventional understandings, whose appeal for currents and tendencies of the workers movement that rebelled against orthodoxy will be readily understood.

It was Dietzgen and not Plekhanov who coined the term 'dialectical materialism', first using it in his articles for the socialist press in the 1870s, several years before Plekhanov had identified publicly as a marxist. This is the man who Marx introduced to the 1872 conference of the IWMA at the Hague as 'our philosopher' and who Engels accredited with having discovered dialectics 'in a remarkable manner and utterly independent of us and even of Hegel'. Yet, in the 1920s and 1930s he was systematically written out of the history of the working class movement.

Dietzgen was born in Blankenberg, near Cologne on December 9, 1828, the eldest son of a well-to-do master tanner. Having taught himself to speak and read fluent French at an early age, he became attracted to socialism by a study of the French economists. On reading the Communist Manifesto in 1851, however, his socialism acquired a class basis. During the 1848 revolutions he had already played the role of agitator, addressing peasants from a chair standing in the main street of his village, but in 1849 political reaction drove him to emigrate to America. He stayed there for two years working as a journeyman tanner, a painter, a teacher, and just tramping across America, acquiring the English language as he went.

By 1851, however, he had returned to work in his father's shop in Uckerath and in 1853 he married a devout Roman Catholic. Over the next three decades he lived and worked in Germany, America and Russia and despite his success in business devoted only half of each day to material gain, spending the rest in diligent study. From 1869 to 1881 Dietzgen was active in the socialist movement in Germany, contributing a large number of articles to the social democratic press in that country and elsewhere. His son, Eugen, emigrated to America in 1880 and Joseph followed in June 1884, settling there permanently.

This move might have been at least partially influenced by the same considerations that had led Marx to move the headquarters of the International to New York in 1872 as is indicated by a passage from a letter Joseph wrote to his son in 1881: The United States will in my opinion remain the land of the future, within bourgeois society. By means of the competition of the New World, the oppressive atmosphere of Europe will be cleared'. Shortly after his arrival in America, Dietzgen accepted editorship of Der Sozialist, the organ of the Socialist Labour Party in New York, but in 1886 moved to Chicago. From Chicago Dietzgen was to write reports on the local situation for Der Sozialist in New York.

1886 marked the high point of the struggle for the eight hour day in America and the struggle was particularly intense in Chicago. May 1 1886 was set as the date on which the eight hour day would be imposed and on that and following days there took place large workers' demonstrations which, in Chicago, were particularly impressive. On May 4 a bomb was thrown at police officers in Haymarket Square, Chicago, and this was used as a pretext for mass arrests. Amongst others the editors of the Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung, were arrested, charged with instigating riot and throwing the bomb, condemned to death and hanged.

Responding to these events, the National Committee of the American Socialist Labour Party repudiated all connection with anarchism and anarchists. Joseph Dietzgen, however, immediately offered his services to the anarchists and even began to identify publicly as an anarchist, although, not without important qualification. The Administration Board of the Socialist Publishing Society accepted his offer and he was unanimously elected chief editor of its three papers - the Arbeiterzeitung, Fackel, and Vorbote. When his report on the Haymarket events was rejected by Der Sozialist because it contradicted the official line of the National Committee of the SLP, Dietzgen attacked both in a number of articles in the Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung. His position as chief editor, was only temporary but he continued to contribute to the Arbeiterzeitung until his death in 1888. Fittingly, he was buried in the same grave as the Haymarket martyrs.

The historic split between anarchism and socialism has had a debilitating effect on the workers movement, and Joseph Dietzgen was one of those individuals who sought to lessen the opposition of these tendencies. What he promoted was not an abstract reconciliation which failed to recognise real differences, although he held that these were in any case exaggerated, but a real reconciliation based on the transcending of opposition through the transformation and supersession of existing standpoints. This is hinted at in a letter he wrote to a friend on April 20, 1886: 'For my part, I lay very little weight on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist, because it seems to me that too much is made of this difference. If the anarchists have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists are blessed with cowards. For this reason I care as much for the one as for the other. The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, which will of itself bring about a reconciliation'.

This approach flowed from Dietzgen's understanding of transition as a discontinuous process and was rooted in his particular conception of dialectics. According to Dietzgen: 'we shall not arrive at the new society without serious struggles. I even think that we shall not get along without disorderly uproar, without "anarchy". I believe in "anarchy" as a stage in transition. Dyed in the wool anarchists pretend that anarchism is the final stage of society. To that extent they are madcaps, who think they are the most radical people. But we are the real radicals who work for the communist order. The final aim is socialist order, not anarchist disorder' (Letter, June 9, 1886).

Dietzgen's politics flowed from his conception of dialectics. Here we will look only at some of those aspects of his thought that exerted an influence over the development of proletarian theory. Our principle concern here is Dietzgen's insistence on the real and material nature of ideas and his recognition of the need for the proletariat to formulate its own autonomous understandings.

To properly understand Dietzgen's philosophy it is necessary to consider the social and ideological context to which it was a response. This was significantly different from the one from which communist theory originally emerged. In the 1840s Marx had, in the context of the revolutionary movement of the young European proletariat, confronted a particular ideological milieu, of which post-hegelian idealism and classical political economy were the dominant intellectual expressions. To the extent that Marx dealt overtly with philosophy, therefore, he tended to concentrate his fire on idealism and said little of his differences with 18th century materialism. In the period after 1850 the revolutionary initiative of the proletariat had subsided. The proletariat appeared to be passive, subjugated by its material conditions of existence. At the same time, the enormous development of the natural sciences, and especially of evolutionary theory, had led to a resurgence of reductive materialism as the basis of bourgeois ideology. Conditions were ripe for the penetration of bourgeois materialism into communist theory.

Marx's critique of idealism was appropriated in a one-sided fashion, and his stress on the material basis of thought appropriated in such a way as to relegate ideas and consciousness to the status of mere epiphenomena. The apparent domination of the proletariat by its conditions of existence explained the absence of revolution. It also formed the basis for the domination of intellectuals within the movement and the reproduction of the division of mental and manual labour.

Against this background, the importance of Dietzgen's philosophy to certain sections of the labour movement can be readily understood. For Dietzgen, ideas and thoughts were every bit as real and material as physical matter. As he put it in The Nature of Human Brainwork (1969): 'We make the distinction between thinking and being. We distinguish between the object of sense perception and its mental image. Nevertheless the intangible object is also material and real'. As Anton Pannekoek noted in his 'Introduction' to the 1902 edition of The Positive Outcome of Philosophy, Dietzgen had extended the concept of matter to include 'everything that exists and furnishes material for thought, including thoughts and imaginations'.

What Pannekoek and others derived from Dietzgen was an appreciation of the material nature of ideology and the importance of theoretical struggle, not conceived abstractly, but as an integral part of the transition process (B.Shepherd, Radical Chains 2). Pannekoek's appropriation of Dietzgen thus supported a conception of transition as an interrupted process in which conscious struggle overthrows ideological encumbrances as part of a developing totality of class confrontation and class formation. The appropriation of Dietzgen by Pannekoek and others exerted a strong influence over the development of communist theory in Holland. What the Dutch marxists found in Dietzgen was an essential corrective to the mechanical materialism that dominated the socialist movement of the time and a way to recover the original spirit of the historical materialist method. It not only permitted a critical orientation towards Kautsky in the period before 1914, but underwrote the opposition of sections of the communist left, in particular the German KAPD, to the Comintern in the '20s and '30s.

Partly as a result of a popularisation campaign in which Pannekoek played an important role, Dietzgens philosophy came to be appropriated by working class activists in 'several countries in the period before the First World War. This process of dissemination was furthered by the publication in English of a large portion of Dietzgen's work in two volumes - The Positive Outcome of Philosophy and Philosophical Essays - by Charles Kerr & Co of Chicago in 1906.

In America, the appropriation of Dietzgen was associated specifically with the IWW, while in Britain it became part of the long tradition of independent proletarian self-education. Sometimes dogmatic in character, and in some respects also elitist, this current, with its clear recognition of the organic connection of knowledge and power, was a militant response to the bourgeois appropriation of thought. Indeed, in Dietzgen, the working class militant found an injunction 'not to acquiesce in this appropriation any longer, not to submit any more to the harangues of public opinion, but to resume thinking for ourselves. (TNOHB). Workers who aspired to class knowledge and class power could only be inspired by Dietzgen's assault on the division of intellectual and manual labour.

It should be no surprise that Dietzgen's works constituted the principal texts for courses in philosophy at the autonomous labour colleges that emerged from the split of the Plebs League from Ruskin College and the WEA in 1909 (See Binns and Officer in Radical Chains 1). Dietzgen's works had a wide readership. Maurice Dobb, reminiscing on his experiences as a labour college lecturer, was later to observe in his patronising way: 'if one stayed overnight ... in a South Wales miner's household, there were his works ... in a prominent place and treated with reverence as a sacred text' (MacIntyre, A Proletarian Science, Cambridge University Press, 1981).

In his important study of British marxism in the period after the October Revolution, Stuart MacIntyre has tried to explain the popularity of Dietzgen's work in terms of what he calls 'the absence of any more authoritative alternative based on the writings of Marx and Engels'. Dietzgen was not, however, superseded in any natural and inevitable way by the appearance of the early philosophical writings of Marx or even those of Engels. Rather, dietzgenism was purposely destroyed by the intervention of bright young university men into the labour college movement under the new conditions of consciousness imposed by the October Revolution and by the stalinisation of the CPGB in the aftermath of its failure. We see here not a natural progression to a higher truth but the conscious suppression of proletarian self-education.

The entry of bourgeois intellectuals like Dobb, Postgate and Phillips Price into the Plebs League brought with it an assault on dialectics in general and Dietzgen in particular. Like Pannekoek, but from a different class perspective, Dobb and others recognised in Dietzgen a firm basis for resistance to the penetration of middle class materialism into proletarian theory. Hence their opposition. Thus in 1923 Dobb was to -urge students to 'get away from mid-19th century philosophy and academic dissertations about the absolute, and get just a few clear and essential notions about the scientific method and modem science'. In this he was supported by Postgate who suggested that 'we abandon Dietzgen teaching altogether and respectfully, but firmly, put old Joseph on the shelf (MacIntyre).

Within the CPGB, the publication in English of Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism in 1927 also fuelled an attack upon dietzgenism. In this text Lenin had taken issue with some of Dietzgen's arguments which he believed had led Dietzgen to find favour with such 'reactionary philosophers' as Mach and Avenarius. Although not entirely hostile to the totality of Dietzgen's thought, Lenin thought that Dietzgen's insistence on the real and material existence of ideas was 'a muddle' and, worse, an idealistic deviation. To the extent that Lenin's views on materialism became CPGB orthodoxy, so dietzgenism became regarded as heresy. Partly due to Lenin's own ambivalence towards Dietzgen, the attack did not lead to the wholesale vilification of Dietzgen himself, but despite some audacious fence-sitting in relation to Dietzgen's views, his followers were hounded. These included Fred Casey, a lecturer at the Manchester Labour College, and author of Beginning with the Beginner, (Plebs, 1920; reprinted in Capital and Class 7) and Thinking (1922). In his Dialectics (1936), for example, T A Jackson attacked the 'idealistic bemuddlement' of Fred Casey whom he termed the 'High Priest of neo-Dietzgenism'. Some of Casey's ideas may have been eccentric, but no more so than those of his detractors. If his intellectual and personal eccentricities increased over the years, this is in large part due to his isolation and the refusal of dialogue imposed by the CPGB, and in this respect Casey's life parallels that of another self-educated worker radical of the period, Guy Aldred..

What prompted the resistance of the dietzgenites to the imposition of 'soviet marxism' was not what Stuart MacIntyre describes as a reluctance of 'disciples' to 'accept their master's relegation to a relatively minor role in the Marxist pantheon'. It flowed, rather, from a healthy aversion to the reimposition of the division of intellectual and manual labour through subordination to orthodoxy, a process whose consequences for the workers movement have been unambiguously disastrous.

D.Gorman

1libcom note: this is an error, he actually died on April 15, 1888

International Slide Rule Museum (ISRM)
ISRM is the world's largest free digital repository of all things concerning slide rules and other math artifacts.
As of 2023, ISRM is celebrating its 20th Anniversary!

Dietzgen slide rules 

Dietzgen 1742 20 inch - Phillips
REF L04
https://www.sliderulemuseum.com/Dietzgen.htm

This American slide rule manufacturer was founded in 1885 by Eugene Dietzgen. The first manufacturing company opened in 1893 producing T-squares, wooden triangles, drawing boards, hectograph inks, surveying instruments, blue print and Van Dyke papers, Dietzgen's historic line of engineering products. 

In 1908 the company acquired its own drafting instruments factory in Germany and introduced their "Lifetime Service Policy" on drafting Instruments. The company later OEM'ed slide rules from Faber-Castell and other engineering items and drafting instruments from Germany (Ecobra) and from Japan (Ricoh) for the American Market. Often mistaken for K&E slide rules, as many parts are interchangeable as the physical dimensions and construction are similar. The main factory and head office was in Chicago, Illinois, and branch offices were in New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles.

Dietzgen slide rules with aluminum stocks (such as the 1738 Multilog Type-M) were manufactured by Ecobra in Germany. Both companies were involved in their respective war efforts during WWII (Dietzgen was a US company, Ecobra a German one). After the war, Dietzgen began selling Ecobra rules as an exclusive branded U.S. distributer until the 1970s, when Dietzgen bought Ecobra. Ref: Bill Wheaton, a long-time Dietzgen employee, Dieter von Jezierski, and Eric Marcotte. Models with bamboo stocks (such as the 1737 DecimalTrig) were made by Ricoh.

CANADA
Demand for skilled trades is soaring. So what's standing in the way of more apprenticeships?

Story by Jessica Wong • CBC

Though he once considered dropping out of school, Grade 12 student Nathan Godet says he's now showing up early thanks to an engaging course that marks the first time he's ever enjoyed going to class.

The 17-year-old says his construction industry co-op course has reinforced his interest in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) industry — which he'd already been familiar with through family — and helped pinpoint a specialty to pursue: gas technician work.

"I don't believe I would have been in school right now without this program," said Godet. "I'd probably be working minimum wage right now."

Classmate Khate Agne says the co-op course — where Toronto District School Board students learn at carefully selected construction sites — has helped broaden their horizons and offered the Grade 11 student a peek into different career paths.

"I could go to university, but slowly I've actually been starting to lean into … skilled trades," said the 17-year-old, who has a budding interest in carpentry and construction management.

Canadians nearing retirement outnumber young people entering the working world, and demand for a new generation of skilled trades workers is soaring. Amid record high job vacancies in sectors like construction and manufacturing, new registrations for apprenticeship programs have risen, according to Statistics Canada. But the programs took a major hit during the pandemic, and apprenticeships and trade certifications have yet to catch up to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Provinces have responded to this labour shortfall in a variety of ways.

B.C. is boosting apprenticeship and foundation training seats, while Alberta is investing in skilled trades training for women. Last week, Ontario unveiled a mandatory technological education credit for high school students and is allowing young people to begin apprenticeships full-time starting in Grade 11.

But there are still several problems that need to be tackled, according to educators in the trades.


Toronto teacher Elvy Moro says the Step to Construction co-op lets students determine in just a few weeks' time whether a particular trade fits. 'The power of that is phenomenal.'

© CBC

Teacher shortage

Elvy Moro, one of the two teachers leading Godet and Agne's Step to Construction co-op class, has seen rising interest in the program over the past 17 years, as Canada's need for younger tradespeople has increased.

His students sample many jobs in just a few months — they might spend a couple of weeks on-site with carpenters, followed by time with construction craft workers, sheet metal experts, electricians, plumbers and so forth. He calls it a phenomenally engaging, hands-on experience that helps many students figure out what fits.

"Our philosophy is to expose them to as much as possible and then give them that opportunity to make those important decisions in life — and help them to make the right decision," Moro said.

But a key barrier standing in the way of these courses is a lack of educators, says Matthew Bradley, TDSB's co-ordinator for the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program (OYAP), who popped into Moro's class last week.

The past decade has seen an overwhelming rise in demand for skilled tradespeople, as well as lucrative wages for the most coveted of them, but Bradley points out that this coincided with a doubling of the teacher-training period from one to two years for new Ontario educators. This is why he says it's become less attractive for an experienced journeyperson to switch to newbie teacher — not to mention the significant pay cut he says comes with that switch.


'We need parents, we need guidance counselors, we need teachers and students to all understand the value of the apprenticeship pathway,' says Matt Bradley, the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program co-ordinator for the Toronto District School Board.

© Nazima Walji/CBC

"All across the province, there are widespread vacancies in shops like this because they don't have a qualified teacher," he explained, noting that better recognition of trades work experience for teachers in training and starting pay more comparable to what they made as skilled tradespeople would help more people to consider making the switch.

Raising the profile of the pathway to the skilled trades is also imperative, according to Bradley.

"Most people aren't aware about apprenticeship at all," he noted, calling it a common misconception among parents, students and the wider community that university and college are the only options after high school.

"From B.C. to Alberta, Ontario and the Maritimes, everyone is screaming for more skilled tradespeople," he said. "We need employers, we need parents, we need guidance counsellors, we need teachers and students to all understand the value of the apprenticeship pathway."

Framing skilled trades as 'sexy'

Mandy Rennehan saw opportunity in the construction trades 30 years ago as a teen in Yarmouth, N.S. At the time, no one encouraged her in that direction despite her early interest and aptitude. Still, she forged ahead.

"Nobody at the high schools, none of my people around me were telling me — especially being female — to go into the skilled trades, because that's not where [people] were going to be revered. That's not where they were going to be praised," the construction mogul and host of HGTV's Trading Up with Mandy Rennehan recalled, in an interview from Naples, Fla.

These days, the founder and CEO of retail construction and maintenance company Freshco channels her decades of experience and passion for the skilled trades into advocating for them and dispelling the stigmas that can surround them. Like, for instance, the ideas that trades careers are back-breaking menial work, provide little intellectual stimulation, or that they're simply not for women.

Rennehan describes tradespeople as polymaths that Canadians should value and be proud of and says what's really needed is for the trades to be shown "for the sexy, essential industry it is, full of opportunities."

Robotics, computer simulators, artificial intelligence, advanced tools and new technologies are transforming these careers in exciting ways that she says should command more respect and attention.

In turn, Rennehan says, the sectors themselves must double down on policies and workflows that make the trades a place where women and diverse communities feel they belong.

She believes the young apprentices of today will change the trades from within since they've learned more about racism, discrimination and the importance of tolerance, equality and inclusion than prior generations.

"More women and more young men who come into the trades [valuing equality] is really going to help the industry."


Rennehan wants to see workplaces improve policies and workflows to make the skilled trades somewhere women and diverse communities feel they belong. Young people joining today will change these industries from within, she says.

© CBC

Ongoing learning, training 'super critical'

After running his own repair shop for nearly two decades, Mike Bocsik returned to Camosun College, his Victoria alma mater, where he's spent the past 12 years as an automotive instructor.

In his experience, today's students want to be fully engaged in what they're learning and are hungry for depth, detail and up-to-date industry developments. According to Bocsik, that means instructors have to be "on their game."

Regardless of how long tradespeople have been working, he points out that they need regular, ongoing training to keep up with technological advancements — which arrive nearly every quarter for the automotive industry.

"If you let things stagnate, you're going to [fall] behind," he said. "It's super critical to continue with the upgrading and just move forward."

Bocsik says his students "want to start doing something right now," which works out well, since he says employers in the industry are constantly approaching the college looking for new apprentices.

He believes the education sector and trades industries should collaborate to create more outlets and facilities for students to learn and get hands-on experience to get started in jobs quickly.

Some programs — like Camosun's automotive training that covers the rapidly expanding electric vehicle industry — currently have wait lists several years long.

Another initiative Bocsik would like to see happen soon is more opportunities for veteran journeypeople — including those nearing retirement — to pass on their decades of knowledge and guide younger colleagues toward full and satisfying careers.

While he says the best path for the sector going forward would be to focus on the idea of the trades a career as opposed to just a job, Bocsik also notes the current labour shortage means apprentices can get work quickly.

"If you want it, you're going to get it."

One Good Turn (book)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses of the term, see One Good Turn (disambiguation).

One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw is a book published in 2000 by Canadian architect, professor and writer Witold Rybczynski.^[1]

The idea for the book came in 1999 when an editor at The New York Times Magazine asked Rybczynski to write a short essay on the best and most useful common tool of the previous 1000 years. Rybczynski took the assignment, but as he researched the history of the items in his workshop – hammers and saws, levels and planes – he found that most dated well back into antiquity. At the point of giving up, he asked his wife for ideas. She answered: "You always need a screwdriver for something."

Rybczynski discovered that the screwdriver is a relatively new addition to the toolbox, an invention of the Late Middle Ages in Europe and the only major mechanical device not independently invented by the Chinese. Leonardo da Vinci was there at the start, designing a number of screw-cutting machines with interchangeable gears. Nevertheless, it took generations for the screw (and with it, the screwdriver and lathe) to come into general use, and it was not until modern times that improvements such as slotted screws came into being. Rybczynski spends some time discussing the Canadian invention, the Robertson screwdriver.

External links[edit]

• "Presentation by Rybczynski on One Good Turn". 2000-09-13.

References[edit]

1. ^ Rybczynski, Witold (2000), One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw, Scribner, ISBN 978-0-684-86729-8, LCCN 00036988, OCLC 462234518. Various republications (paperback, e-book, braille, etc).

REVIEWS
One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw
by Witold Rybczynski

It started last year with a call from a New York Times editor with his eye on the millennium. Would Witold Rybczynski care to pen an essay celebrating the Best Tool of the last 1,000 years? If Rybczynski was at first a little reluctant – why couldn’t he essay Best Architect or Best City? – the former Montreal architect, who now teaches urbanism at the University of Pennsylvania, soon warmed to his subject. But which tool was Best? Sifting the contents of his box of hand tools, he considered the handsaw, the tape measure, the carpenter’s brace. Necessary all, but somehow none was quite momentous enough. Likewise the screwdriver, which got Rybczynski’s wife’s vote, but not his. At first.

The first books Rybczynski consulted told him that the screwdriver was one of the last additions to the woodworker’s arsenal. And yet the deeper he dug, the more evidence he discovered suggesting that this wasn’t so. Leading the way back all the way to Archimedes, “the Father of the Screw,” Rybczynski visits with Diderot and Dürer; offers a potted history of buttons; explores the rise of the arquebus; and tells the story of a mostly unheralded screwdriver hero, the Canadian inventor Peter Robertson.

One Good Turn looks a slender book, and it might seem all the more so lined up against the biography of Frederick Law Olmsted that foregoes it in the Rybczynski bibliography. Subtitled “America in the Nineteenth Century,” A Clearing in the Distance was Simon Schama-esque in its cultural scope, with Rybczynski using his subject as a lens through which to gaze on a nation in a crucial moment in its history.

If this book isn’t quite so ambitious, it’s an altogether charming slice of arcana, written with an elegance that won’t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Rybczynski’s earlier work – The Most Beautiful House in the World, say, or his inquiries into the ideas of home and the weekend. One Good Turn is a fascinating and delightfully dense mix of detective story, social study, historical anecdote, and industrial evolution that transcends the humble tool box.

A Short History Of Screws

By Jon Vara

Many familiar carpentry tools and materials have ancient roots. As author Witold Rybczynski points out in his engaging One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw (Touchstone Books, 2000), squares, plumb lines, chalk lines, levels, and toothed saws were all well-known to the builders of the Egyptian pyramids. Chisels, axes, hammers, and nails date back at least to the Bronze Age. The Romans invented the plane and forged-iron nails, and relied on nuts and bolts to assemble the portable wooden A-frames used for lifting heavy objects.

Medieval armorers used multi-tool-like devices similar to the one shown here to adjust and repair plate armor worn by knights. That's a screwdriver blade at lower right.

Somehow, though, the Romans never developed the screw. The first known examples seem to date from the 15th century, when armorers and gunsmiths used them to fasten the metal mechanical parts of early firearms to their wooden stocks. Because screws were made by hand and were not commonplace, screwdrivers (or "turnscrews," as they were called until well into the 19th century) were evidently not taken very seriously. In describing one of the earliest known screwdrivers - which appeared on an armorer's combination tool that also included a hammer, wire cutter, and nail puller - Rybczynski notes sadly that it "resembles the kind of gimcrack household gadget that is sold by Hammacher Schlemmer."

Widespread use of screws for carpentry didn't become practical until after 1760, when two English brothers, Job and William Wyatt, patented the first screw-making machinery. The Wyatts' factory was bad news for a class of workers called "girders," who had previously worked in their cottages laboriously hand-filing threads onto screw blanks hammered out by local blacksmiths. But it meant more and better work for finish carpenters - especially in combination with the mass-produced butt hinge, another innovation that appeared at about the same time. Unlike the earlier strap hinges, which were roughly fastened with clinched nails, the newer butt hinges called for skillful fitting and had to be screwed in place.

Further innovations followed. Machine-made screws had blunt ends until 1859, when a Providence, R.I., mechanic named Cullen Whipple patented a method of producing pointed screws. Decades later, Canadian inventor Peter L. Robertson and American Henry L. Phillips separately improved the screw's other end, replacing the traditional slot with a square socket - still known as the Robertson head - and the familiar cross-shaped recess of the Phillips head. In the 1950s, Illinois fire-protection engineer Paul Quigg and a team of co-workers at the U.S. Gypsum Corp. perfected the drywall screw.

While arguably a more efficient design than the cross-shaped Phillips head, the square-drive Robertson head screw - shown here in a 1907 patent application - is much less common today. That's probably because inventor Peter Robertson opted not to license the design to other screw manufacturers, as Henry Phillips did.

Long story short, the screw has, over the past 600 years, made up for its late start. One is struck, when reading Rybczynski's book, by the painstakingly incremental nature of invention - even when the item being invented is as humble and seemingly simple as the common screw. It makes you wonder: What other obvious ideas for hardware are floating out there, as yet unconceived? Will future carpenters be joining pieces of lumber with some sort of fastener that's as far advanced beyond the screw as the screw is from the nail?

Marine biologist highlights the importance of seaweed in new children's book

Story by CBC/Radio-Canada • May 4, 2023

Seaweed: not so pleasant when it brushes against your leg while swimming, pretty smelly when it's washed ashore, and even smellier when your roommate roasts it in the oven late at night.

To Amanda Swinimer, it's also part of her "office" and her livelihood

Swinimer is a professional seaweed harvester and a marine biologist based on Vancouver Island.

She's also an author — and recently published a children's book highlighting how important seaweed is for nutrition, and for protecting the planet against climate change.
A day in the life

As a seaweed harvester, Swinimer says her days vary depending on which type of seaweed she's after.

But she typically starts by putting on a thick wetsuit with a hood, and gloves and boots. She packs up her mesh harvest bags, grabs her mask, fins and snorkel, and heads to the beach.

Then, she snorkels out into the ocean, about 150 metres offshore.

When harvesting bull kelp, she trims the blades off the plants, avoiding cutting the stipe — the large part at the bottom. If she keeps those intact, she says, the plant will regenerate.

Swinimer then packs the blades into her mesh bags and hauls them back to the beach, before going back out to do it all over again.

"It's a remarkable place that I get to call my office where I work," she said. "There's all kinds of creatures that I've interacted with over the years."

The most impressive sea creature she's come across was a Giant Pacific octopus, she says.

"I noticed out of the peripheral of my mask this red colour. It was the head of an octopus and it was about the size of my pillow on my bed, like huge."

Sustainability

Creatures like the octopus rely on seaweed for survival in one way or other, Swinimer said.

According to the Marine Conservation Society, seaweed produces about 70 per cent of the world's oxygen.

The society says seaweed also absorbs carbon dioxide more efficiently than trees.

"They're just really, really critical in keeping climate change from running amok and more than it already is and nourishing every single species in the ocean, from the tiny zooplankton all the way up to the orca," Swinimer said.


Kelp forests act as an important carbon store as they filter the ocean's water, and provide habitat for marine animals.© Canadian Pacifico Seaweed

Nutrition

Seaweed is also packed with vitamins and minerals, and contains healthy fatty acids, according to Swinimer.

"People have been using seaweeds as medicines and to support health for thousands of years," she said.

As for how to best eat it, it depends on the kind of seaweed you're using, she says. Her favourite is dried dulse, on its own.


Bull kelp is a type of seaweed or kelp that can be found on B.C. coasts

© Forage & Feast/CBC

"Not all seaweeds are edible," Swinimer adds — but none are poisonous, either.

However, Health Canada has advised against consuming hijiki seaweed, due to high levels of inorganic arsenic.

Education for kids

All these points and more are things Swinimer wants to highlight to young readers in her book, The Science and Superpowers of Seaweed: A Guide for Kids.

"I teach people all the way from young kids to college and university students," she told North by Northwest host Margaret Gallagher.

"So many kids, when they're exposed to seaweed, they become really, really interested and excited about it. But a lot of kids just never get that chance."

Lac La Croix First Nation in northwestern Ontario reaches 'transformational' land claim settlement

Story by Sarah Law • May 5, 2023

Ontario Minister of Indigenous Affairs Greg Rickford signs the commemorative document of the Lac La Croix First Nation treaty land entitlement settlement agreement, with Lac La Croix First Nation Chief Carrie Atatise-Norwegian and Marcus Powlowski MP for Thunder Bay-Rainy River.© Flavia Mussio

Asettlement agreement was signed this week between Lac La Croix First Nation and the Ontario and federal governments, more than 20 years after the First Nation submitted its treaty land entitlement claim.

The semi-remote First Nation is about 320 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay along the Ontario-Minnesota border. It has a registered population of 489 and residents primarily speak Anishinaabemowin.

The settlement resolves a longstanding claim that Lac La Croix did not receive all the lands owed to it under Treaty 3, which was signed in 1873.

Now, 150 years later, a historical wrong has been addressed, said the First Nation's chief, Carrie Atatise-Norwegian.

Altogether, Lac La Croix is receiving $131.3 million in compensation: $118.2 million from the federal government and the remaining $13.1 million from Ontario.

This makes up for the amount of land the First Nation lost in the 1873 agreement, plus the loss of economic benefits that land would have produced, Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP Marcus Powlowski told CBC News.

"That land that was once Indigenous land through the treaty process has become the land for non-Indigenous people," he said. "We've all benefited over the years and now we owe them for some of the things which were supposed to have been in the agreement where we reneged."

Here's the timeline of the settlement process:
2002: Lac La Croix First Nation submits settlement claim to Ontario, federal government.
2011: Ontario and federal governments accept the claim for negotiation
November 2022: Lac La Croix ratifies the settlement agreement
December 2022: Ontario's minister of Indigenous affairs executes the settlement agreement
February 2023: Canada's minister of Crown–Indigenous relations executes the settlement agreement
May 2023: The settlement agreement is signed by all three parties

Grand Council Treaty 3 spans from west of Thunder Bay to north of Sioux Lookout, along the international border, to Manitoba. It is made up of 28 First Nations.

There are many Treaty 3 land settlement agreements currently underway, including Couchiching First Nation, Mitaanjigamiing First Nation and Grassy Narrows First Nation, said Powlowski. Many of the claims under Treaty 3 are related to damages caused by flooding.

"I don't think this is going to be the last announcement related to Treaty 3 in the near future," he said.

A commemorative signing was held Tuesday in the First Nation's Roundhouse with Powlowski, Chief Atatise-Norwegian, and provincial Minister of Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs Greg Rickford.

"It's very memorable, it's historical, it's transformational for our community to have achieved this and to have reached this point," Atatise-Norwegian told CBC News.

It's been both an exciting and emotional time for the First Nation. Negotiations have gone through multiple chiefs and councillors over the years, with involvement from community members and elders, many of whom have passed away since the claim was first submitted, she said.

"It changes and transforms the dynamics of our community in so many aspects, I mean, from an individual standpoint to a collective and community standpoint, it changes our entire economy," Atatise-Norwegian said.

Public consultation has been a top priority when looking at how to best use the settlement money, to meet the community's current needs and those of future generations. Under the community's trust agreement, members identified investments in youth and housing as top priorities.

Some projects on the horizon include:
A new youth centre.
Upgrades to youth facilities, playgrounds and the baseball field.
A new Pow Wow Arbour.
Major renovations and new housing developments.

"We're very excited about the opportunities that are forthcoming," said Atatise-Norwegian.

Since the start of January 2016 to the end of January 2023, the federal government has said it has resolved 241 claims, totalling nearly $7.5 billion in compensation. The Ontario government has settled 63 land claims/other agreements since 1983.

Museum offers over $25,000 reward for anyone who can deliver space rock that fell to Earth

Story by Chris Knight • Tuesday, May 16, 2023

The Maine Mineral and Gem Museum, home to this Martian meteorite, is looking for more space rocks.© Provided by National Post

An organization in Maine has posted a US$25,000 reward for anyone who can capture and deliver an extraterrestrial that recently fell to Earth. The fugitive has been described as heavy, metallic, possibly magnetic and weighing at least a kilogram.

On April 8, a fireball was seen streaking through the sky during daylight hours over Washington County in Maine. NASA tracked the object and predicted that fragments of the meteorite had landed near the U.S.-Canadian border, likely in a forested region near the towns of Waite, Me., and Canoose, N.B.

The Maine Mineral and Gem Museum then put out a Facebook post, advertising a US$25,000 reward for “the first 1 kilogram specimen found from the event.” The museum is able to test specimens for identification, though it notes there is a cost for this. “Reward is open to our Canadian neighbors as well,” it adds.

The space rock could easily be worth its weight in gold, which is currently selling for about US$6,500. But the rough terrain could hamper the search.

Roberto Vargas, a meteorite hunter who has visited several continents in search of his quarry, told the BBC this week that he’d been to the area twice and plans a third trip. “It’s heavily wooded, it’s super muddy,” he said. The University of Alberta has a useful primer on meteorites to aid any would-be seekers.

The Maine Mineral and Gem Museum is proud of its collection of space rocks, advertising itself as home of “the largest piece of Mars on Earth” – a 14.5 kilo chunk of the Red Planet – as well as an extensive collection of lunar meteorites.

But meteorites are not easy to find. In 2016, the museum advertised a US$20,000 reward for a one-kilo portion of a meteorite that was predicted to have landed near Rangely, Me., south of the Quebec border. No one was able to claim the prize.

Surfing gator seen relaxing at Alabama beach amid the waves

Surfing gator seen relaxing 

There are plenty of alligators in Alabama. But how many enjoy a day at the beach?

One such unlikely critter was spotted riding the waves recently on Dauphin Island, bobbing calmly near the human beachgoers sunbathing and wading.

Matt Harvill, a 27-year-old Mobile resident, came across the lengthy gator on May 7 while at the beach taking pregnancy announcement photos with his girlfriend.

He said the reptile seemed to be enjoying the sun and gently breaking waves, attracting several beachgoers to get a closer look — but not too close.

“It didn’t hiss, charge or open its mouth at all,” Harvill said. “It seemed like it was kind of spectating and seeing what was going on.”

Harvill snapped photos and videos of the gator to show family and friends. His post on Facebook garnered 3,000 shares.

“The things you never think you’ll see,” he wrote in the caption. “First time seeing a gator on Dauphin Island. Heading towards the west end be careful y’all.”

Alligators are found throughout Alabama in saltwater bayous and estuaries, said Marianne Gauldin, outreach coordinator for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

“It is not unusual to see them in the Gulf of Mexico as they can tolerate a variety of salinity levels,” she said in an email. “They are aquatic and cover long distances as they forage for prey items.”

Harvill said he’s seen things like jellyfish or a dark fin slicing through the Gulf waters, but never an alligator.

“I didn’t want to step foot in the water after that!” he said.

Beatrice Dupuy, The Associated Press

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

THE REASON WHY THE GATOR WAS BASKING

Gators hit the beaches in the Gulf Coast during breeding season

 

WWLTV   May 16, 2023

This time of year, beaches along the Mississippi Gulf Coast are filled with people enjoying the sun, sand and surf. 

Saturday, visitors in Waveland shared the beach with an unusual visitor: a six-to-seven-foot alligator. 

Chef Kevin Belton from WWL-TV spotted the gator while walking his dogs along the water.

“Saturday morning, we were walking on the beach in Waveland and all of a sudden, I’m like, wait is that a trash bag, is that a log,” Belton said. “As we got a little closer, I realized it was an alligator, sunning itself.” 

Just last week, a picture of a large alligator on the west end of Dauphin Island beach in Alabama went viral.