Book Reviews 713 dichotomy which still characterises much Anglo-American theorising between notions of democracy as a process and celebrations of the outcomes it generates. Along the way, he illustrates the limitations of crude majoritarian interpretations of this principle. His conclusion is, however, surprising. Stressing the principle of equality of respect for other moral agents, Harrison suggests that this 'means adoption of an external perspective which gives independent reasons for following the m a j o r i t y . . , equality of respect.also means that there are certain things which a majority must not do' (p. 232). He therefore offers a particular conception of equality, one which is informed by the principle of impartiality, as the underlying normative basis for democracy. It is here that the book's underlying motivation is revealed: this is a bold reply to the creeping logic of anti-foundationalist arguments in political philosophy, as well as an attempt to disentangle some of the hazy and confused thinking about democracy evident in contemporary political discourse. Democracy, in this account, is underpinned by normative foundations (though these are by no means obvious or uncontested) which secure a number of intermediate goods--equality, knowledge and autonomy above all. This particular foundationalist claim is less than convincing, however, partly because such arguments have to be made more extensively than is the case here in the sceptical philosophical climate of today. More importantly, the author glosses issues around the importance and quality of discussion and deliberation within the democratic process. According to Michael Walzer, for example, 'what counts is argument among the citizens. Democracy puts a premium on speech ...'.~ One might extend this argument to include the complex and constitutive role of language within the democratic process: as feminist theorists have observed, control over the linguistic agenda is an important block to the achievement of equality, even within an apparently democratic culture. These arguments suggest that the impartiality which Harrison seeks is harder to achieve, both philosophically and actually, and more problematic to define than he allows. Against the author's professed intentions, therefore, his text may prove more effective in its demonstration of the difficulties involved in fixing the normative foundations of democracy than in its attempt to prove that such foundations can be discovered. Michael Kenny University of Sheffield NOTES 1. M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice, Basic Books, New York, 1983, p. 304. A Future for Socialism, John E. Roemer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 178 pp., $29.95 H.B., $16.95 P.B. The collapse of Soviet-style authoritarian collectivism has fortunately not affected the quantity and quality of recent historical and economic studies which critically reevaluate the lessons of the communist paradigm. While Marxism-Leninism has, hopefully, met its final demise, egalitarian protests against the persisting disparities of wealth and wellbeing in capitalist societies continue to give systematic expression to the desire for greater social justice. Volume 21, No. 5, September, 1955 714 Book Reviews John Roemer's insightful study stands squarely within this tradition of radical egalitarianism. The noted political economist is a founding member of the eclectic school of 'analytical Marxism', which emerged in the late 1970s and includes such prominent names as G.A. Cohen, John Elster, and Adam Przeworski. Having abandoned much of his orthodox Marxist view without giving up his egalitarian ideals, Roemer has wisely joined the growing chorus of democratic socialists in declaring the Soviet model of socialism dead. A Future for Socialism continues Roemer's discussion of the feasibility of 'market socialism', the subject of his previous book, Market Socialism: The Current Debate, edited with P. Bardhan. Originally conceived by the German-Polish political economist Oskar Lange as an alternative socialism to the 'state socialism' of the Soviet model, market socialism sought to combine market competition and democratic economic planning to counteract the formation of economic monopolies. As Roemer points out, Lange's proposals were hotly debated by prominent economists like Freidrich von Hayek and Kenneth Arrow, and, in modified versions, were adopted by contemporary 'market socialists' like Janos Kornai, Wlodzimierz Brus, and Alec Nove. Exhibiting the analytical Marxist's penchant for abstracting and schematizing in search of basic principles, Roemer introduces his own model, one which seeks to combine the strengths of the market system with those of socialism by assigning to publicly-controlled banks the task of monitoring the management of firms without depending upon a highly concentrated ownership of stock. Subsequent chapters of the book examine government-initiated processes of investment planning and problems of economic efficiency. For a political theorist like myself, the most interesting chapters of Roemer's book are those that discuss the relationship between democracy, equality, ownership, and socialism. Here, the author spells out his radical egalitarian perspective aiming at a 'revision of standard views of what constitutes socialism' [1]. Roemer's focus on the 'equality of opportunity for self-realization and welfare' contributes nicely to a discussion on the 'meaning of socialism' that has gripped socialists of all stripes and shades, at least since the emergence of Eduard Bernstein's 'Marxist revisionism' a hundred years ago. However, in discussing the objectives of socialism along 'a specifically Marxist conception of human flourishing' [11], Roemer unfortunately remains partially a captive of the pre1989 Marxist-dominated socialist paradigm which inevitably equates 'socialism' with 'Marxism'. At the same time, however, the author also defends a 'liberal egalitarian creed', which, at its core, consists of 'the ethical condemnation of capitalism' [15]. Though offering an economically more sophisticated version of revisionism than Bernstein, the philosophical foundations underlying Roemer's redistributive measures in favor of his brand of 'market socialism' do not go much beyond Bernstein's innovative arguments presented a century ago: like the 'Father of Revisionism', Roemer relies on fundamentally ethical arguments for socialism. This is not to say that both Bernstein and Roemer are wrong; quite to the contrary, I would maintain that ethically inspired forms of socialism remain the only viable options for a possible 'socialist future'. Nonetheless, today's democratic socialists must take Bernstein's groundbreaking project further and give up attempts to reconcile Marxism with ethics--thereby unequivocally removing their legitimate ethical justification of 'socialism' from the iron grip of Marxist necessity. Questionable 'revisions' will no longer do. Rejecting dogmatic Marxist economic and historical categories, Roemer's study is certainly a step in the direction of a more liberal redefinition of socialism. Indeed, written in the author's characteristically lucid and pithy style, A Future for Socialism deserves a wide audience. Overall, the book makes a very good case for Roemer's optimistic History o f European Ideas Book Reviews 715 assumption that democratic socialism will 'remain an ideal worth pursuing and a possibility in the real world', t Manfred Steger Rutgers University NOTE 1. M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic Books, 1983), p.304. The Collected Letters of W.B. Yeats, Volume III, 1901-1904. Edited by John Kelly and Ronald Schuchard (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1994), pp. liv + 781, £35.00. The first volume of Yeats' Letters, which covered the period 1865-1895, was justly hailed as an example of impeccable scholarship. Edited by Dr. John Kelly and Professor Ronald Schuchard (the new Director of the Yeats Summer School), this third volume, which is the second to be published and covers the period 1901-1904, is also a model example of contemporary scholarship: every addressee is identified; allusions of all kinds are explicated; the Index is thorough; there is a useful Introduction; and the format used by the Clarendon Press is generous. Yeats was an inveterate letter-writer, so that this volume covering four years comes to nearly 700 pages. The addressees are many, the most notable being Lady Gregory, Frank Fay, Maud Gonne, John Quinn, and George Russell. The dominant theme in these Letters is that of the theatre. Those who have reservations about Yeats' plays should read through this volume, in which the lyric poet has clearly become a dramatist who is preoccupied with the theatre in general; with a national theatre for Ireland; with practical stagecraft; with his own plays; and with the plays of others, notably Synge. Given that the theatre is, fundamentally, a collaborative art, we see Yeats' debt to Lady Gregory---of Where There is Nothing, he says 'I offer you a book which is part your o w n ' - - t o Gordon Craig's concept of scenery, to Frank Fay's knowledge of acting technique. Yeats' assertion that 'I believe myself to be a dramatist' is shown to be correct by the plays he wrote during this period: Cathleen Ni Houlihan, The King's Threshold, On Baile's Strand. He is already moving towards the mature symbolism of later plays: 'I would try and make a theatre where realism would be impossible'. What is not sufficiently understood about this type of play is that it looks back to the Greeks and forward to Beckett. Indeed Beckett's assessment of Shaw, Yeats, Synge, and O'Casey is irresistible: I wouldn't suggest that G.B.S. is not a great playwright, whatever that is when it's at home. What I would do is give the whole unupsettable apple-cart for a sup of the Hawk's Well, or the Saint's, or a whiff of Juno, to go no further. Four other important topics are dealt with in these Letters: Yeats' nationalism; his first reading of Nietzsche; Maud Gonne's marriage to MacBride; and Yeats' extended trip to America in 1903-04. Volume 21, No. 5, September, 1955