If society is divided into two classes only, differences of opinion on all subjects are likely to follow a horizontal line of cleavage. If there are more classes, and particularly if the classes are large, vertical divisions are more common and society will divide differently on different questions, thus relieving the intensity of the antagonism between economic classes. Oppositions in a two-class society may become so intense as to threaten its existence. For instance the socialistic appeal for the laborers of all countries to unite would imply a dangerous social cleavage, putting class interests ahead of group interests. But, fortunately, experience in the late war seemed to indicate that group loyalty was actually stronger than class loyalty. That opposition between groups should decline and be replaced by a greater amount of friendly coöperation is obviously enough in accord with the needs of the time and should be encouraged; but it should not be accomplished by increasing class conflict so as to threaten the integrity of any one group.

The evil effects of class distinctions are much more evident now than they were in earlier stages of civilization. When societies were small and sympathy was confined to the members of a group, conquests of one group by another were inevitable; and exploitation of the conquered was a great advance over extermination. The gain consisted, not so much in improvement in the condition of individual captives, as in the new type of social organization which grew out of it. Compared with the tribal system of society the class system offered great possibilities of advance, though, compared with the perfected system of division of labor, it is a cumbersome and wasteful system.

Results of Exploitation upon Classes Themselves. The results of the economic utilization of men thus far given apply to societies as a whole. In addition, certain specific effects on the different classes in society remain to be considered. First, however, it may be well to give a more exact characterization of classes as they exist in advanced industrial countries so that the term classes will not be misinterpreted. Society may be divided into many strata or layers; but, for the present purpose, it will suffice to distinguish three main classes. The highest class consists of all those persons who can maintain their high

standards of living with incomes from accumulated wealth. The middle class consists of those who depend upon their labor to maintain their standards of living, but who have free choice of occupation. And the lowest class is made up of those who depend upon their labor for their living, but who have not free choice of occupation. According to this division the middle class presents the normal condition in society and is the only one consistent with the ideal of democracy. Both the others are survivals of the system of exploitation and are out of harmony with the organization and ideals of a society based on division of labor.

Dangers of a leisure class. Members of the highest class in society, being removed from the immediate struggle for life, do not feel the incentives for activity which actuate other classes, nor do they always feel the responsibilities pertaining to their position. The results are unfortunate. Persons who are freed from the necessity for work are likely to devote their time to the pursuit of pleasure. And if the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake is carried to excess, it involves a dissipation of energy which may mean little more than a social waste of force, but which may extend even to individual and social degeneracy. Now conduct which is either frivolous or vicious is much more serious in the highest class than in other classes, because an economic upper class is often regarded as a socially superior class, and its acts are therefore much more liable to imitation than those of an inferior class.

In addition to the possibility of individual demoralization in an idle upper class, there is likely to be dissipation of wealth. The wealth of such a class, being usually inherited, is not valued so intelligently as earned wealth, and therefore may be easily wasted, or at least employed to only a small degree in the public service. The waste or misuse of wealth in modern times is chiefly of income. Sources of income and methods of investment now are of such a nature that loss of capital itself has come to be less common than was formerly the case. Dissipation then, both of individual energy and of wealth, is the danger from a leisure class. The fact that occasional members of the upper class possess a strong sense of responsibility and devote

both their time and their wealth to social service does not offer a sufficient justification for the existence of a leisure class. The decisive point is that the majority do not feel their responsibility; hence there is much greater waste of wealth and of energy than would be the case if all were obliged to engage in some useful occupation instead of inheriting from their ancestors an unprofitable leisure. Under any social system a highest class or stratum in society is bound to exist; but the advantage would be much greater if this class corresponded to actual personal ability and achievement instead of being determined by the test of inheritance of wealth.

Evils of poverty. Evils resulting from the existence of the lowest class in society are even more serious than those due to the highest class. As members of the lowest class have not free choice of occupations, they overcrowd the unskilled employments and thereby reduce wages, producing poverty and dependence. Now poverty is a social menace, not merely because of the dangerously low standards of living which result, but also because such a large proportion of laborers are unable to develop to their highest efficiency and render society their maximum service. Thus poverty causes a loss to society of much potential energy and also generates social ills, which too often must be classed as contagious. For the present purpose the point is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that social statistics, such as those relating to births, deaths, drunkenness, and crime, vary widely between the poorest and the wealthiest classes.

Psychological results. In addition to the unfortunate physical effects of class divisions, undesirable psychological traits have developed in both the lowest and highest classes. The subordination and dependence of the lowest class have engendered in them an attitude of subservience, inconsistent with that independent manhood essential to a true democracy. On the other hand, the wealthy develop an attitude of self-importance not necessarily warranted by personal merit, but which is rather a reaction from superior external surroundings. . This attitude may persist as self-satisfaction and self-sufficiency, or it may become exaggerated into arrogance inconsistent with law and order, or into contempt for the propertyless which increases

class hatred. It is not unnatural that mental attributes should correspond to rank and external surroundings, though it would be preferable to have them correspond to personal merit. Mental attitudes have a strong reactionary effect on character. Neither arrogance nor servility are democratic qualities, but self-confidence of a reasonable degree, or even moderate humility, are tolerable if they represent character. When real achievement determines social position mental attitudes will represent normal individual differences and they will be neither extreme nor antagonistic.

Just as an uppermost stratum in society will develop under any circumstances, so will there be formed a lowest stratum; and here again social welfare demands that the lowest stratum, like the highest, shall be based upon individual qualities. This cannot be under the restrictions imposed by poverty. It will be possible only when larger opportunities permit a more natural differentiation of the population. That the members of the lowest class should inherit their social position is no more desirable than that those in the highest class should inherit theirs, for such inheritance serves to perpetuate and even to exaggerate existing differences. The lowest class, by some means or other, should be made to feel a greater incentive than any other class for improving its condition. It seems now to show the least concern.

Present Distribution of Classes. If a curve should be drawn representing present day society according to incomes, the figure would resemble roughly an inverted top with a very long apex. Under an ideal system of wealth distribution it would conform to the bell-shaped curve of normal variation. The figure representing the present distribution of population should be altered in two respects to conform to the ideal. The points of the curve representing the extremes of wealth and poverty are too far apart and should be compressed, and the bulge in the curve representing the largest number of incomes is too low, – that is, social well-being requires a larger income for the mean of the population.

The Elimination of Classes. The movement for greater equality in society and for the elimination of artificial class distinctions, involves the whole labor problem and is without doubt the most important issue of the time. A brief consideration of the methods of solving this problem will be offered here even at the risk of exceeding the limits of theoretical sociology.

Any positive action taken by society should not be in the nature of arbitrary measures to reduce class distinctions, but should merely supplement or assist the natural forces already working towards equality. It has previously been pointed out that improvement in the condition of the lowest class has in the past resulted from a relative decrease in the numbers of the exploited, combined with a growing sentiment of humanity; and it is possible that over a long period of time these forces by themselves would cause improvement in the condition of unskilled labor without the need of instituting any definite measures of reform, although the change would be slow and uncertain.

The proportionate numbers of the lowest class should be lessened. Improvement in the condition of the lowest class could be accelerated by various measures. The most obvious would be to decrease the relative numbers of the unskilled. As Professor Carver has so clearly pointed out, the factor in production which is relatively scarce will be most highly paid; therefore, if it is desired to increase the reward of labor, the labor factor should be made scarcer compared to land and capital. In the United States this end may be gained more easily than in some of the older countries owing to the fact that our labor supply comes from abroad as well as from the natural increase in the population. A restriction in the rate of immigration would therefore reduce the proportion of unskilled laborers and increase the value of their services. A similar result would be obtained by more stringent regulations with regard to child labor and, in some instances, with regard to the labor of women. It would also be advantageous to the lowest grade of laborers in the long run if the school age were gradually raised. Such a measure would not only lessen the competition for positions, but would increase the intelligence and productive powers of the young when they were ready for employment. And finally, every measure restricting the numbers of the defective and delinquent classes would result in lightening the burdens of