Search

The modern democratic theorist is adversely criti cized on all sides. Consequently, the performance of the five main tasks of democratic theory is not easily undertaken. These tasks include, first, integration of the values, facts, and policies of a democratic society; second, clarification of the values that civilized men ought to live by; third, illumination of the way a democratic society actually conducts its business; fourth, prudent guidance in grappling with the real problems of political life; fifth, stimulation of significant normative, em pirical, and prudential research. A major hindrance in the performance of these tasks is the dread of the sin of Procrustes, the sin of stretching or mutilating political reality in order to make the world conform to a radical theory. Reaction against this dread has led some conservative thinkers to a shotgun attack on political theory which often fails to distinguish be tween radical-totalitarian and liberal-democratic theory. Care ful analysis of this attack suggests that there is room for a sane, sagacious, activistic liberal-democratic theory between a dan gerous radical theory and an unrealistic conservative philosophy.

In this paper we presuppose a familiarity with the terminology and the basic results of radical theory, all of which can be found in Divinsky [2].

Given an arbitrary associative ring R we consider the ring R[x] of polynomials over R in the commutative indeterminate x. For each radical property S we define the function S* which assigns to each ring R the idealof R. It is shown that the property SA (that a ring R be equal to S*(R)) is a radical property. If S is semiprime, then SA is semiprime also. If S is a special radical, then SA is a special radical. SA is always contained in S. A necessary and sufficient condition that S and SA coincide is given.The results are generalized in the last section to include extensions of R other than R[x], One such extension is the semigroup ring R[A], where A is a semigroup with an identity adjoined.

There is still a perilous tendency towards dualism in Shelley studies. Those preoccupied by the poet’s ‘symbols’ maintain, or assume, that what is worth attention on the profoundest level in his work is to be sought in domes of poetic consciousness, veils of unreality, and caves of gnostic power; Professor Grabo has made it clear that he regards even Shelley’s use of science as ultimately mystical. Those concerned with his social interests, on the other hand, concentrate on biography and Radical theory, and will not touch the symbols at any price.

Many authorities criticize American medicine for being under-organized and inefficient. Their proposed solutions involve varying degrees of industrialization and larger groups of physicians practicing together. A central malaise in American life today, however, is depersonalization, and the radical analysis of our society calls for smaller, less rigid units of service. In the long run these may be more efficient than larger units planned by the cost-accounting method. Medical care, being a personal service, may develop dis-economies of scale early on. Any reform of American medicine must be based not only on the need to get care to all people, but also on growing demand of all citizens, especially the young, for personal, humanistic services.