tion. The principle was maintained with a fanatical energy of conviction that made it almost respectable. Almost, but not quite, for there were never lacking prophets, like Ruskin and Carlyle, to lift up voices in protest against this school of economics, and to proclaim its fundamental principle not only unchristian but inhuman. Though at first few would listen to such protests, an increasing number of people came to see that if the science of economics can be divorced from ethics, it should not be.

Free competition and laissez faire held the field a long time, however, triumphant if not undisputed; and under the sway of such ideas the capitalistic system developed rapidly. It had its beginnings, as we have seen, in the rise of commerce during the later Middle Ages, and progressed with only moderate rapidity until the nineteenth century. Then it advanced by leaps and bounds. The reason for this sudden increase was the number of inventions made late in the eighteenth century of machinery, to which steam could be applied as a motive power, among the earliest of which were the spinning-jenny and the power-loom. This combination of steam and machinery enormously increased production, through the rise of the modern factory. Hundreds of costly machines and thousands of busy laborers, assembled under one roof, have substituted socialized production for individual production.

Hitherto, hand labor had been on the whole distinctly favorable to individualism in production, and had consequently retarded the development of Capitalism. Machine labor was, on the whole, fatal to individualism in production, and made socialized production and Capitalism inevitable. Thenceforth society tended to divide

a

into two classes, the employers and the employed distinction that had previously existed, but that now tended to become universal and to harden gradually into castes. It was and still is possible, in theory, for any of the employed class to rise and become employers; and for any of the employer class to fall back among the employed; and the theory is justified by a certain number of cases of both kinds. But, taking each class as a whole, status tends to become fixed by birth, and passage from one class to the other becomes increasingly difficult and infrequent. It is likewise theoretically possible for any male child born in the United States, if he lives, to become President; but a laborer's chance of becoming a capitalist is nearly as remote as that of his becoming President.

And yet men are told, with tiresome iteration, as they have been told for generations, that any man can by diligence and frugality rise to wealth and power. Theoretically this is true of any given man, but it is mathematically impossible for the mass. Under present social conditions, for one to be rich many must remain poor. The Pennsylvania Railroad has many thousands of employees, but only one president, and the other highly profitable posts are few. No matter how diligent, all of the employees cannot rise to the chief posts, until one and one somehow make ten. It is not the fault of the poor that they do not rise, though some of the poor may be at fault; it is in the nature of present conditions that only an exceptional few can rise. And the number of those who can "get on" by any amount of skill and exertion relatively decreases with the increasing scale of modern enterprise. A generation ago, in a small business

where half a dozen clerks were employed, one of them might without much difficulty in time become a member of the firm; but put the same man now in a great department store among five thousand fellows, and what is his chance of ultimate membership in the firm? It is precisely because the present system virtually denies advancement to thrift and industry, save to a fortunate few, that its injustice is so keenly felt.

While labor was thus becoming socialized, Capitalism continued to increase along the line of individualism. Free competition was at first necessary to the development of the system, and was found to be thoroughly advantageous up to a certain point. Only through unrestricted rivalry could some men, superior in a certain shrewdness, in power of organization, in commercial instinct, become employers of their fellows on a small scale at first, then on a large scale and by exploiting the labor of the less shrewd obtain the lion's share of the profits, and so build up a great industrial concern and great fortune. This was perfectly honest, according to the prevailing ethical standards, by no means incompatible with strict integrity and even with generous philanthropy, as those words were then understood. Ethical standards are beginning to change, and men are coming to question whether this method of acquiring wealth is in accord with fundamental equity whether the socalled "captain of industry" deserves the great share of what is produced that he has so far succeeded in annexing.

While Capitalism was thus developing, free competition in labor was essential to its interests, that is, laborers must be permitted and encouraged to bid against each other for jobs, which would go to the lowest bidder,

not the highest. But this was as much against the interest of the laborer as it was favorable to the employer. Such free competition was a very one-sided affair, for the theory that the laborer was also free, if he did not like the terms offered by one employer to seek employment elsewhere was only valid on paper, not in actual life. In the beginning of the factory system, when the amount of capital invested was small and new enterprises were easily begun on a small scale, when individual hand labor was still not impossible, though every day becoming less profitable, the employer and the employed bargained on something like equal terms. But to-day, with hand labor practically obsolete, with vast aggregations of capital invested in manufacturing plants, with men and women employed by hundreds and even by thousands in a single concern, to talk of the workman's "freedom of contract" is either silly or a deliberate attempt to deceive. The modern workman, not by statute law, but by the iron law of necessity, is as strictly bound to the factory as ever serf was to the soil. The condition of the proletarian is hardly better than serfdom in fact, whatever it may be in theory. Wage slavery is more profitable to the capitalist than chattel slavery or serfdom, but how much better it is for the worker is an unsolved question.

Absolute freedom is admittedly incompatible with life in a society, for such life of itself imposes strict obligations, from which none can free himself or be freed. But equality of opportunity to live and labor and enjoy is at least conceivable, whether realizable or not. It is promised men by the existing social order, but what is the fact? The only means of obtaining a livelihood is, for the great majority of those who toil with their hands,

to obtain employment in the shop or factory, and often only a single shop is available. The employer holds in his hands, all but absolutely, the means of support - if he withholds a job, it means suffering, perhaps starvation, for the laborer. When he deals with a worker singly, he is master of the situation, and may dictate terms that the worker must accept. The worker seeking a job under such conditions bargains with his hands tied. His freedom is fairly comparable to that of the man of whom the highwayman demands, "Your money or your life!" Of course the man is perfectly free to keep his purse and lose his life. Just so free is a man out of work, with wife and children looking to him for bread, to refuse work when the owner of the shop says, "Take this wage or none!" He is free to refuse the work and starve. If this is freedom, what would slavery be like?

It should not be forgotten, of course, that all employers have not been grasping and heartless, but it is average human nature to take advantage of the chance to make a good bargain, and to get all that may legally be had for one's money. And besides, employers who would willingly pay higher wages are often compelled to pay the lower, because otherwise they could not sell their product in competition with the less considerate employer. Only by collective dealing with the employer through their unions have workers been able to better their position and obtain something approaching justice. Otherwise there is freedom of contract only on the side of the capitalist. He controls the instruments of production, and the proletarian can find work only on the capitalist's terms. And while the proletarian must have work, the capitalist will at worst suffer financial loss if he fails to