the unskilled laboring classes. Charles Booth in his study of labor in London brought out the fact that classes A and B, the semi-criminal and casual laborers, were merely a drag on the classes above them, and their complete elimination would be a relief to the poorest class of laborers.

Their efficiency should be raised. A reduction in the numbers of unskilled laborers, however, is not by itself sufficient, for it would probably restrict production. To be effective other measures would have to be instituted to make the change advantageous, not merely to the lowest grade of laborers, but also to society as a whole, for reforms which aim to improve the condition of one class at the expense of the rest of society are likely to be ephemeral, and may even intensify class antagonisms. If the reforms prove to be beneficial to society as a whole, or at least if they are not detrimental to other classes than the one in question, they may be continuous; and social oppositions may decline at the same time. A decrease in the proportion of unskilled laborers should therefore be accompanied by an increase in productive power; that is, the increase in the value of labor should be attained not merely through greater scarcity but also through increased productivity, if the permanent interests of industry and of society are to be considered. This second aim can be accomplished through educational measures of the broadest description, including not merely the channel of public school education but all forms of social service and social influence which may help to raise standards of living, increase ambition and self-reliance, and improve the morale of unskilled labor.

Capital should be increased. These measures if put into operation simultaneously would tend to increase efficiency of labor at the same time that the numbers in the laboring class were relatively decreasing. Thus the total productive force of society would probably not be lessened, though it would be altered and might become therefore a restriction on industry. To obviate this difficulty the above reforms should be accompanied by still another movement, that is, the increase and cheapening of capital, so that capital could be substituted for labor in the lowest paid occupations as labor became scarcer and dearer. If capital were used in place of some of the least

skilled forms of labor, where the processes were purely automatic, machinery would help to raise labor to a higher level instead of lowering it through direct competition, provided the increased education of laborers enabled them to perform the higher grades of work. The necessary increase of capital should be obtained through the discouragement of luxurious expenditure on the part of the rich and the transfer of the wealth saved to productive purposes.

These three changes, the decrease in the number of laborers, the improvement in their productive capacity, and the increase of capital, if carried on at the same time, would ameliorate greatly the conditions of the lowest class of laborers, would not cripple industry, and would not injure the wider social interests. It is not maintained that such a comprehensive reform would not inconvenience industry, for all changes, even improvements, are disturbances even though they prove temporary ones; but it would not seriously retard industry, because the changes would necessarily be slow, giving industry ample time for readjustments.

It is a cardinal principle of some schools of reformers that any improvement in the condition of the lowest class can be effected only by means of an entire reorganization of the industrial system, and such reformers direct their efforts towards that end as an immediate objective. If we draw our conclusions, however, from the past history of the exploited classes, it is not so certain that improvement in the condition of labor has always been the result of the reorganization of the economic system. It has in fact more often proved to be the cause. And it is probable that in the future also any material change in the organization of industry will occur as a consequence of the improved condition of labor, rather than as a prerequisite to it. Such a reorganization will be the part of a necessary readjustment to the changed conditions made by the superior position and intelligence of labor.

Special privilege should be abolished. The task of dislodging the highest class from its position of advantage is easier in some ways and more difficult in other ways, than that of elevating the position of the lowest class. The measures themselves are simpler and rather more easily executed. But, whereas generally the poorer classes will coöperate cordially in the work of their own

advancement, it is only to be expected that the rich will strongly oppose all measures which threaten their dominant position. As the great majority of the leisure class have obtained their positions through monopoly, or some other form of special privilege, it is evident that the levelling process should begin with the abolition of all forms of special privilege. The measures required for this reform may not be so easy of execution at the start, for not all forms of special privilege are evident on the surface. But it does seem clear that the preservation of a democracy requires not merely freedom in the preparation for work but absolute equality in the conditions under which industry is carried on.

If special privilege however could be withdrawn entirely, it would affect only the future and would not touch those who have already acquired their wealth. They could probably be controlled sufficiently for the needs of society by the use of strongly progressive income and inheritance taxes, possibly supplemented by consumption taxes; for, as has just been pointed out, the checking of luxurious expenditure is desirable so that the wealth saved may be used to increase capital for the production of necessities. Anything in the nature of a violent revolution, or the confiscation of wealth by any means except through the use of the regular machinery of taxation, would probably be unnecessary as well as undesirable.

Conclusion. Such measures as those here outlined would improve the economic conditions of the lowest class, and would raise the average of their intelligence and productivity. It would also eliminate or alter the most objectionable forms of employment by substituting more capital for labor in industry. In addition it would lessen the numbers of the idle and parasitic and would therefore increase the total productive force of society, and more especially that factor which directs industry and gives employment to labor. But above all, society as a whole would gain because the more equal distribution of wealth would increase well-being and the sum total of human happiness. And society would also profit by the substitution of the perfected form of the division of labor for the class system which arouses antagonisms and reduces human efficiency. And finally it may be added that, by means of the methods outlined, these reforms could be accomplished by gradual steps without recourse to revolutionary means which would disrupt society and lead to severe social reactions.

REFERENCES FOR COLLATERAL READING BÜCHER, C., Industrial Evolution, Ch. 9. CAIRNES, J. E., The Slave Power. CALLENDER, G. S., Selections from the Economic History of the

United States, Ch. 15. CARVER, T. N., Social Justice, Chs. 10 and 14. INGRAM, J. K., History of Slavery and Serfdom. National Bureau of Economic Research, Income in the United States. PATTEN, S., New Basis of Civilization. Ross, E. A., Principles of Sociology, Ch. 18. SELIGMAN, E. R. A., Principles of Economics, Ch. 11. TAUSSIG, F. W., Principles of Economics, Vol. II, Ch. 54. TENNEY, A. A., Social Democracy and Population. VEBLEN, T., Theory of the Leisure Class. WARD, C. O., The Ancient Lowly.

CHAPTER XIII

THE STATE

The second manifestation of the desire for self-preservation is to be found in the institution of the state. In primitive times conditions of food supply and the need of defence were the chief factors in determining aggregrations of populations. In ethnic groups blood relationship formed the basis of organization, but environmental conditions determined the size of the group.

The Nature of the State. Professor Ashley has defined the state as “a body of people occupying a fairly definite territory with an organized government, who are in no essential subject to any outside power.” But this, and other definitions by political scientists, lay chief stress on the fact of sovereignty. From the social point of view it will suffice to define the state as the supreme organization of all the individuals in a given area to promote the general welfare by united action. The fundamental qualities of a state appear in the inclusiveness of its organization, and in the superiority of its authority over all individuals and other organizations, rather than in the nature of its activities. Hence a definition of a state cannot set limits to the latter. Some states engage in few activities, others in many. A political group may embark in entirely new enterprises, and those enterprises may be successful or unsuccessful; but the fact of undertaking them would not affect its character as a state.

The Range of State Activities. The most diverse views are held concerning the proper activities of states. The more conservative theorists would limit state activities to the protection of its citizens and of its territory from the attacks of foreign powers, and to the maintenance of order within; while the more radical look to the state for the maintenance or regulation of all the most important phases of economic and social life. No general principle can be formulated concerning the proper