exploited population, it will appear that their condition does not vary directly with the form of exploitation but is affected by other influences as well. It is ordinarily assumed that each succeeding system necessarily ushers in better conditions for labor, but this is not uniformly true. After the industrial revolution the condition of wage labor was more grievous than the lot of the better class of slaves. The fact is that the wage system provided greater possibilities for development, but did not automatically introduce better conditions. Under all methods of utilization, the improvement of the condition of the exploited has depended upon a relative scarcity of laborers available on the one hand, and upon the growth of humanitarian sentiments on the other hand; that is, upon an economic cause and a psychological cause. The improvement arising from the scarcity of labor and its consequent increase in value has been a cause rather than a result of the change in the economic system.

That the growth of humanitarian sentiments has been a strong supplementary influence in improving the conditions of labor is shown by the fact that the improvement was greatest in those cases where the exploited came into closest contact with their superiors, and where public opinion could be most easily aroused. The improvement in the condition of slaves, as well as in that of wage earners after the industrial revolution, was brought about through a series of legislative acts rather than through the operation of economic forces alone. It seems evident that the condition of the exploited does not improve through the exclusive operation of economic forces, although changed economic conditions may have provided the original impulse. Increased sympathy has hastened and supported the improvement, if it has not originated it.

At any given time the degree of subordination of the exploited is the result both of the development of humanitarian sentiments and of the form of production; and of these forces, the former seems to determine more immediately the actual condition of the exploited, while the latter sets broad limits to the possibilities of exploitation. Exploitation is possible under the wage system, as it is under other systems of production; and it will disappear only when all classes have freedom of opportunity in the preparation for and choice of occupations, and when their labor will ensure them a livelihood consistent with the standards of the time. When labor is greatly restricted from any cause, such as scarcity of funds, or inability to migrate, or to choose a suitable occupation, the opportunity for exploitation is present; and sympathy between economic classes is not so widespread that employers will refrain from taking advantage of the opportunity whenever it appears. The attainment of this economic freedom will mark the final dissolution of the class system and the triumph of the system of division of labor.

Results of Exploitation on Society as a Whole. Produces classes. While the effects of the utilization of men vary with the form and degree of subjection, many of its results are more or less in evidence in all forms of subjection. The most obvious effect of exploitation is that it produces classes. In early stages of civilization the class system had its advantages, for it permitted the formation of large societies and at the same time supplied moderately strong social cohesion. It has even been maintained that slavery enforced discipline and habits of industry; that without coercion habits of continuous labor would never have been acquired. The importance of this result, however, seems to have been greatly overestimated. It is quite true that slaves worked much harder than they would have done had they been free to direct their own labor to the satisfaction of their own wants; and through compulsion they may have acquired some habits of industry, though the student is somewhat disappointed when he seeks verification of such a theory among the negroes of the South. Indeed it is impossible to believe that, among the great mass of mankind, ability to labor can be traced back to the early discipline of slavery. Slavery has been much more common in hot countries than in cold, and according to this theory we should expect to find labor more intense and continuous where the slave régime had been most extensive; but the reverse is the case. As a matter of fact, although labor may be forced by external means, willingness to work may also come from an inner motive, – the satisfaction of one's wants, - and when the environment is unfriendly so that wants are

satisfied with difficulty, the ability to labor may be acquired without external compulsion.

The system of forcing one class in society to do the necessary work for all did result in brilliant, if not enduring, civilizations. Such a system doubtless affords opportunity for social development, but it does not ensure it. It frees a whole class from the necessity of satisfying their material wants, thus permitting them, though not compelling them, to develop cultural activities. History shows that under these circumstances a few respond to the opportunities, while the many do not. Therefore for the purpose of producing a high civilization such a system is a wasteful one and not nearly so effective as the system of division of labor, where all must follow their chosen occupations. On the whole the gentle stimulus of necessity acts in a beneficial way on the majority of mankind in causing them to select those callings for which they show promise of success and to continue diligently in their chosen pursuits.

The conclusion here then, like that in the previous chapter, is that, while the class system performed a useful service in early stages of progress, under present conditions it is not only an inferior basis of social organization but its persistence acts as an obstacle to the perfection of social relations.

Destroys the honor of labor. One of the objectionable results of the exploitation of men is that it tends to destroy the honor of labor, according to the principle that honor in labor results, not from the character of the work, but from the character of the persons who customarily perform it. If a particular kind of work is habitually performed by an inferior class, such as slaves, that work comes to be despised by all higher classes. The reason for this is that all things which are intimately and exclusively connected with a class become a part of it; therefore tasks performed by inferiors must be avoided by superiors if the social line of demarcation between classes is to remain distinct. This attitude has had an important effect upon labor, because it has tended to destroy the dignity of all kinds of work performed by slaves or inferiors. In the highly developed Greek civilization, where most of the necessary tasks were performed by slaves, Plato naively maintained that philosophy was the only really honorable pursuit. In mediaeval times, in those societies having an inherited nobility, trade was held in contempt, warfare and religion furnishing the occupations most highly esteemed. After that great social upheaval known as the French Revolution, the occupations of the former nobility shrank in popular esteem, while those of the industrial class, because of its growing prosperity, took on new dignity. The same phenomenon appears in a curious way today in our own country in the labor of immigrants, whose social standing appears to be graded roughly according to length of residence here. In districts where immigrants form no considerable part of the population, physical labor, both skilled and unskilled, is performed by native Americans without a thought as to whether it is honorable or not. In districts where immigrants became numerous enough to appropriate gradually the unskilled occupations, these came to be regarded as inferior work by the natives. When other nationalities gradually replaced some of the earlier immigrants, a rough distinction again arose in the relative dignity of different kinds of unskilled labor corresponding to the fancied differences in social position of the different nationalities employed in them.

The social status of the worker is not, however, the only standard for estimating the desirability of different occupations. Even if all social prejudice were removed, not all occupations would be held in equal esteem. Some kinds of work are in themselves more useful than others socially, and some kinds have a more educative effect on the individual. It would be desirable if each form of labor were judged on the basis of its worth to society rather than according to external considerations resulting from artificial class distinctions.

Interferes with free association. Another result of class distinctions is its limitation of the range and intensity of association. The stimulus to social progress arising out of a wide range of association on a rough basis of equality is generally understood. If sharp class distinctions exist, association between classes is either greatly restricted or it is too constrained to produce the best social results. When association is among unequals the sentiments of authority and submission predominate, and neither party is in an attịtude to profit greatly by the rela

tionship. Any intimate association is likely to be limited to members of a class. And this is objectionable for two reasons: first, because the size of a class in any particular district is likely to be small; and, secondly, because members of the same class are similarly educated, and have the same ideals and prejudices; and association limited to similar individuals tends to strengthen pre-existing beliefs and confirm class prejudices, instead of providing broader ideals and more tolerant views. Under the system of division of labor individuals with different kinds of training and diverse points of view associate on terms of equality, and the contacts resulting are more stimulating. Causes class conflicts. Finally, social subordinations tend to

. retard the growth of sympathy and to provoke class conflicts. The existence of superior and inferior classes, whether they rest upon birth, or conquest, or property, fosters a sense of a superiority determined by other reasons than those of individual merit. This feeling is intensified by the absence of intimate association already noted in the preceding section. Social isolation engenders suspicion. The whole class relation promotes consciousness of dissimilarity of character and ideals. If the belief that people are fundamentally unlike becomes deeply rooted, and if there is little genuine acquaintance to dispel this illusion, sympathy and friendly feelings have little encouragement to grow.

However, it must not be assumed that class antagonisms result entirely from lack of acquaintance and sympathy, and that they are wholly imaginary. The economic interests in different classes are actually opposed to the extent that exploitation exists. Therefore class oppositions usually have a real as well as a fancied basis; and, while they may remain latent for a time, the danger of open conflict is always present. Such a condition is a continual menace to a group. Opposition is most dangerous when society is divided into two sharply contrasted classes, and is least dangerous when there is continuous gradation from the highest to the lowest class. Then the middle class serves to bridge the chasm between the rich and the poor; and the lowest class does not feel so keenly its inferior position, for ordinary distinctions are not entirely rigid, considerable opportunity existing for improvement in social status.