{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_29393/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_29393","id":"gutenberg_29393","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29393","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Industrial policy","United States -- Social conditions -- 1865-1918"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBarbara Weinstock Lectures on The Morals of Trade\n\nSOCIAL JUSTICE WITHOUT SOCIALISM.\nBy John Bates Clark.\n\nTHE CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIVATE MONOPOLY AND GOOD CITIZENSHIP.\nBy John Graham Brooks.\n\nCOMMERCIALISM AND JOURNALISM.\nBy Hamilton Holt.\n\nTHE BUSINESS CAREER IN ITS PUBLIC RELATIONS.\nBy Albert Shaw.\n\n\n\n\nSOCIAL JUSTICE WITHOUT SOCIALISM\n\n\n\nBY\n\nJOHN BATES CLARK\n\nPROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AT\nCOLUMBIA UNIVERSITY\n\n\n\nBOSTON AND NEW YORK\nHOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY\nThe Riverside Press Cambridge\n1914\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1914, BY THE REGENTS OF THE\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA\n\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n_Published April 1914_\n\n\n\n\nBARBARA WEINSTOCK\nLECTURES ON THE MORALS OF TRADE\n\nThis series will contain essays by representative scholars and men of\naffairs dealing with the various phases of the moral law in its bearing\non business life under the new economic order, first delivered at the\nUniversity of California on the Weinstock foundation.\n\n\n\n\nSOCIAL JUSTICE WITHOUT SOCIALISM\n\n\nIt is currently reported that the late King Edward once said, \"We are\nall Socialists, now\": and if the term \"Socialism\" meant to-day what His\nMajesty probably meant by it, many of us could truthfully make a\nsimilar statement. Without any doubt, we could do so if we attached to\nthe term the meaning which it had when it was first invented. It came\ninto use in the thirties of the last century, and expressed a certain\ndisappointment over the result of political reform. The bill which gave\nmore men the right to vote did not give them higher wages. The\nconditions of labor were deplorable before the Reform Bill was passed\nand they continued to be so for some time afterwards. A merely\npolitical change, therefore, was not all that was wanted, and it was\nnecessary to carry democracy into a social sphere in order to improve\nthe condition of the poorer classes. The term \"Socialism,\" therefore,\nwas chosen to describe a play of forces that would act in this way on\nsociety itself, and was an excellent term for describing this right and\njust tendency. The name was quickly adopted by those with whose\npractical plans most of us do not agree; but its original idea was\ndemocracy carried into business, and at present that is the dominant\ntendency of all successful parties. For six months we have been living\nunder what may be called \"triumphant democracy,\" not because the\nDemocratic Party has beaten its rivals and come into control of the\nGovernment, but for a much deeper reason, namely, that a democracy\ncarried into industrial life is the dominating principle of every\npolitical body that can hope for success. Every party must show by its\naction that it values the man more than the dollar. To this extent we\nare all democrats and wish the Government to act for the people as well\nas to be controlled by the people.\n\nWhen we differ, it is in deciding on the means to carry out our common\npurpose; and here we differ very widely. Some would use the power of\nthe State to correct and improve our system of industry, and these\nconstitute a party of reform. Others would abolish that system and\nsubstitute something untried. For private capital they would put public\ncapital and for private management, public management--either in the\nwhole field of industry or in that great part of it where large capital\nrules. These are Socialists in the modern and current sense of the\nterm.\n\nOne difference of view which was formerly very sharp is now scarcely\ntraceable. Every one knows that we must invoke the aid of the State in\norder to make industry what it should be. The rule that would bid the\nState keep its hands off the entire field of business, the extreme\n_laissez-faire_ policy once dominant in literature and thought, now\nfinds few persons bold enough to advocate it or foolish enough to\nbelieve in it. In a very chastened form, however, the spirit that would\nput a reasonable limit on what the State shall be asked to do happily\ndoes survive and is powerful. It seeks a golden mean between letting\nthe State do nothing and asking it to do everything. It is this plan of\naction that I shall try to outline, and it will appear that even this\nplan requires that the State should do very much. Under an inert\ngovernment the industrial system would suffer irreparably.\n\nThe thing first to be rescued is competition--meaning that healthful\nrivalry between different producers which has always been the guaranty\nof technical progress. That such progress has gone on with bewildering\nrapidity since the invention of the steam engine is nowhere denied; and\nneither is it denied that competition of the normal kind--the effort of\nrivals to excel in productive processes--has caused it. It has\nmultiplied the product of labor here tenfold, there, twentyfold, and\nelsewhere a hundredfold and more.\n\nThis increased power to produce has rescued us from an appalling evil.\nWithout it, such a crowding of population as some countries have\nexperienced would have carried their peoples to and below the\nstarvation level. Machinery now enables us to live; and if\nworld-crowding were to go on in the future as it has done, and the\ntechnical progress should cease, many of us could not live. Poverty\nwould increase till its cruelest effects would be realized and lives\nenough would be crushed out to enable the survivors to get a living. Of\nall conditions of human happiness, the one which is most underestimated\nis progress in power to produce. Hardly any of those who would\nrevolutionize the industrial State, and not all of those who would\nreform it, have any conception of the importance of this progress. It\nis the _sine qua non_ of any hopeful outlook for the future of mankind.\n\nI am to speak, however, of _justice_ in the business relations of life,\nand it might seem that this shut out the mere question of general\nprosperity. The most obvious issue between different social classes\nconcerns the division of whatever income exists. Whatever there is, be\nit large or small, may be divided rightly or wrongly; but I am not able\nto see that the mere division of it exhausts the application of the\nprinciple of justice. While it is clearly wrong for one party to\nplunder another, it is almost as clearly wrong for one party to reduce\nthe general income and so, in a sense, rob everybody. A party that\nshould systematically hinder production and reduce its fruits would rob\na myriad of honest laborers who are ill prepared to stand this loss and\nhave a perfect right to be protected from it.\n\nEvery man, woman, and child has a right to demand that the powers that\nbe remove hindrances in the way of production, and not only allow the\ngeneral income to be large and grow larger, but do everything that they\npossibly can do to make it grow larger. It is an unjust act to reduce\ngeneral earnings, even though no one is singled out for particular\ninjury. On this ground we insist on trust legislation, tariff reform,\nthe conservation of natural resources, etc. I am prepared to claim that\nit is in this spirit that we demand that private initiative, which has\ngiven us the amount of prosperity that we have thus far obtained, shall\nbe enabled to continue its work without being supplanted by monopoly.\nIn a general way I should include public monopoly as well as private\namong the things which would put a damper on the progress of\nimprovement and lessen the income on which the comfort of laborers in\nthe near future will be dependent. Monopoly of any sort is hostile to\nimprovement, and in this chiefly lies the menace which it holds for\nmankind.\n\nIt is a fairly safe prediction that, if a public monopoly were to exist\nin every part of the industrial field, the _per capita_ income would\ngrow less, and that it would be only a question of time, and a short\ntime at that, when the laborers would be worse off than they are now.\nThough, at the outset, they might absorb the entire incomes of the\nwell-to-do classes, the amount thus gained would shrink in their hands\nuntil their position would be worse than their present one. They would\nhave pulled down the capitalists without more than a momentary benefit\nfor themselves and with a prospect of soon sinking to a lower level\nthan as a class they have thus far reached.\n\nThe impulse to revolutionize the system comes from the belief that it\nis irreclaimably bad. The first thing to be done is to see how much\nreclaiming the system is capable of; and the only sure way to test this\nquestion is to use all our power in the effort to improve it. When all\nsuch efforts shall have failed, it will be time for desperate measures.\n\nOur industrial system has many faults:--here we are happily agreed. It\nis the inferences we draw from this fact that are different. The one\nthat I draw is like one which is recorded in a famous case in\nantiquity. When the Macedonian armies seemed about to overwhelm Greece,\nDemosthenes encouraged the Athenians by this very sound bit of\nphilosophy: \"The worst fact in our past affords the brightest hope for\nour future. It is the fact that our misfortunes have come because of\nour own faults. If they had come when we were doing our best, there\nwould be no hope for us.\" Now the evils of our own social system which\nresult from mistakes or faults are just such a ground of hope. Every\nsuch evil which can be cited describes one possible reform, and the\nlonger the list of evils, the greater is the sum total of gain which we\ncan make by doing away with them. If we cite them all _seriatim_, what\nimpression shall we get? Will it merely show how badly off we are? Will\nit make us despair for our future? On the contrary, it should fill us\nwith hope for the future. We start from the fact that we have thus far\nsurvived in spite of the faults. The worst off among us is above\nstarvation and most of us are in a tolerable state. If we can remove\nthe evils that exist, we shall make our state very much more than\ntolerable. The greatness of the evils measures the gain from removing\nthem. Every single one that is removed improves the status of our\npeople. We can take, as it were, a social account of stock, measure our\npresent state, measure the extent to which we can improve it by putting\nan end to one bad influence, count the number of such bad influences,\nand so get an estimate of the gains of carrying out a complete\nreformatory programme. It will show an enormous possibility of\nimprovement.\n\nIn the struggle for reforms we have the great middle class with us. All\nhonest capitalists, great and small alike, are natural allies of honest\nlabor, and they are interested mainly in the same reforms as are the\nmembers of the working-class. If we recognize a necessity for a\nstruggle of classes, it is not one that marshals labor against all\nwealth. The contention is rather between honest wealth allied with\nhonest labor, on the one hand, and dishonest wealth on the other; and\nin a contest so aligned, victory for the former party means social\njustice.\n\nThere is a preliminary reform to be carried through as a condition of\nsecuring most of the others. Who can estimate the benefit which would\ncome from merely making our Government what it purports to\nbe--government by the people? The initiative, the referendum, the\nrecall, the short ballot, direct primaries, and proportionate\nrepresentation are all designed to transfer power from rings and bosses\nto the people themselves. If they actually do it, as sooner or later\nthose or kindred measures probably will, they will so far restore the\ndemocracy of our earlier and simpler days as to make us look back on\nthe rule of rings and bosses as on a nightmare of the past. When the\nGovernment is thus really controlled by the people we can count on\nhaving its full power exerted for them.\n\nWhat are a few of the things that we shall then try to get?\n\nThe working day is too long. In some occupations it covers far too many\nhours, and in most occupations it covers more than it ideally should.\nThere are doubtless some industries in which hours might be reduced\nwith no lessening of wages, because profits are large enough to bear\nsome reduction. In these cases a strong union might get either more pay\nfor a day of the present length or the present rate for a shorter day.\nA universal reduction of the period of labor would have to mean a\nreduction of the product of industry, and without immediate\nimprovements in method of production it would entail smaller wages.\nImprovements, however, might soon obviate that necessity. With\nmachinery growing more and more efficient, the day may be shortened\nwith no diminution of wages; and the natural effect of increasing power\nto produce has always been some shortening of labor-time coupled with\nsome enlargement of pay. Within the last one hundred years the period\nof daily labor in some types of manufacturing has come to cover only a\nlittle over one third of the twenty-four hours, instead of more nearly\ntwo thirds; while the earnings have become much larger than they were\nat the beginning of the period. Normally this progress should continue,\nand long before the dawn of the twenty-first century we should see work\nstill less severe, less prolonged, and better paid. Where, as in some\ndepartments of steel-making, labor in two shifts continues through the\ntwenty-four hours, there is a chance to make this gain without\nappreciable waiting; and elsewhere it should be possible to make it\nwithout waiting for the twenty-first century to come much nearer than\nit is.\n\nDangerous and injurious occupations still continue; and our country is\nslower than others in remedying this trouble. Many safeguards that are\neasily obtainable are neglected. Protection for the workers and\nindemnities for injuries when they occur can be insured by well-made\nlaws, properly enforced. Sanitary regulations and pure-food laws need\nto be strengthened and more fully enforced.\n\nOur protective tariff bears heavily on the poor man. His wardrobe\ncontains little or nothing that is made of wool, and he may well sigh\nfor the mixed cotton and shoddy of earlier days. Our import duties,\nwhich do, indeed, try to spare his dinner-pail, should be made to spare\nhis wardrobe and the modest comforts of his life.\n\nCommercial crises still occur and are followed by hard times; and while\na really wise reform of money and banking would not wholly prevent\nthem, it would greatly mitigate their severity.[1]\n\n      [1] This was written before the recent reforms of import duties\n      and of the banking system had been enacted.\n\nEmergency employment is desperately needed when hard times come.\nEuropean Governments excel our own in providing it, but it is entirely\npossible to adopt their methods and improve on them.\n\nOur natural resources have been wasted in a prodigal way. Forests have\nbeen recklessly cut, fires been invited and the soil itself has been\nsacrificed. Natural gas and oil have been burned with no regard for the\nfuture. Coal and other minerals have not been husbanded. It should be\npossible for us to cease to play the spendthrift with the patrimony\nthat nature has given to us.\n\nWe have the beginnings of a parcel post, but we need a more highly\ndeveloped one that will come nearer to the standards maintained in\nother countries. With it we need telephone and telegraph systems that\ncan be universally used.\n\nIn our larger cities, we are struggling to get rapid transit and shall\nhave to continue the struggle; but we ought to have, with urban\nrailroads, subways, and the like, measures that would reduce the amount\nof traveling that has to be done between homes and places of labor. A\nfree use of the principle of \"eminent domain\" would make it possible to\nacquire land for carrying out any policy of general beneficence, and\nthat, too, without robbing the owners of it. By resorting to this\nmeasure much of the manufacturing which exposes great cities to\nimminent danger of conflagration might and should be moved bodily to\noutlying districts.\n\nOf all industrial abuses of the past the cruelest has been the crushing\nof the life of young children by hard and prolonged labor. We are\nmaking headway in removing this evil, but much still remains to be\ngained; and a vast amount is to be gained by a comprehensive policy for\nimproving the status of working-women.\n\nSocial justice demands some effective means of getting legal justice.\nWe have courts, certainly. Do they give the service that we need and,\nin particular, do they give it to the poor? We do not here impugn the\nmotives of judges. Generally speaking, they are honest; but the whole\nsystem of court procedure is hampered by detailed statutes and\ntechnical rules, that mean an amount of cost and delay which in itself\nis the very quintessence of injustice. A citizen is offered a choice\nbetween submitting to the wrong inflicted by a fellow-citizen and\naccepting the wrong inflicted by a dilatory and crushingly costly legal\nprocedure. We probably excel some nations in the rightfulness of the\ndecisions we can get if we live long enough and have money enough to\nget them; but there are few civilized nations that do not excel us in\nthe rapidity and cheapness of the process. A Chinese student in\nColumbia University served, during the first year of his residence in\nNew York, as judge of Chinatown, and, by giving up only the Saturday\nevening of each week to the service, he settled the disputes which\narose between Chinese residents. As he was learned in the principles of\nConfucius, I doubt not he settled them justly, and many a time in that\nsame city I have sighed for his services for native Americans.\n\nThe line of division between labor and capital ought not always to be\nthe sharp boundary that it is. Labor should be enabled to acquire a\nmodest share of capital and to invest it securely. Protection for small\ninvestments is urgently needed, and would do much to change a\nproletariat into an independent working-class. This is an essential\nfeature of the social system we wish for and work for. The man who\nhereafter shall correspond to Longfellow's \"village blacksmith\" will\nperhaps be the owner of a hundred shares in some corporation. In\nagriculture small holdings may always survive; but there may be large\nones also, and in that case the farmer of the future may have either\nfive acres and a hoe, or forty acres and a mule, or a hundred and sixty\nacres and a reaper, or an undivided share in a thousand acres and a\ntraction engine.\n\nIf we could carry through even the reforms thus far enumerated, it\nwould make us feel as if we had been lifted from a slough and placed on\na plateau abounding in air and sunlight; but if we stopped with this,\nwe should leave much to be desired. There are still more pressing\nmeasures to be enacted.\n\nNearly the greatest evil we are facing is monopoly. This is not the\nuniversal view. Though there are few who approve of monopoly, there are\nthose who regard it with toleration and think that, if we accept it and\nregulate prices under it, we shall fare sufficiently well. As yet, it\nis in an incipient stage of development and has by no means revealed\nits full power for evil. If we let it grow freely, we shall find later\nwhat it is capable of. Wise measures, adopted even now, will come early\nenough to prevent it from ever growing to maturity.\n\nWith the steel trust, the Standard Oil trust, and other combinations\nbefore our eyes, it seems an absurdity to speak of monopolies as being\nin an incipient stage. Is it possible that anything whatever which\nthese great combinations represent can be nipped in the bud? Are they\nnot already in the fullest flower, and big and mature as they are ever\nlikely to be? The companies themselves, with their vast material\nplants, certainly are so. What we are talking about, however, is not\nthe mere size of the companies, but _the element of monopoly that is in\nthem_. Have they such a power that they can safely charge anything they\nplease for their products? Is it as though they were licensed by the\nGovernment to be the sole makers and vendors of their special wares?\nBusiness men know that this is not the case; and that something puts a\ncheck on their action. They can make their prices higher than they\nshould be--higher than it is for the interest of the country to have\nthem; but they cannot make them as high as they would be under a real\nand secure monopoly. The point I am making is that we can destroy such\nmonopolistic power as they have. We can liberate competition, which\nhas, in the main, afforded reasonable prices, and has also guaranteed\nthat progress which is indispensable for maintaining a human life that\nis worth living. It is to-day the only means of insuring a constantly\nincreasing power over nature--an ability to turn out, in greater and\ngreater abundance, the things which make life comfortable.\n\nThese combinations now possess a power which it is highly perilous to\nlet them keep. They can disable their rivals by foul play, which would\nbe impossible under proper rules of the ring. By securing control of\nraw materials, by selling goods below cost in the territory where a\nsmall rival is operating and keeping up the prices everywhere else, by\nforcing merchants to boycott independent manufacturers, by getting, in\nspite of laws and commissions, some advantages from railroads, and by\nother similar practices, they can drive competitors out of business.\nYet every one of these practices can be defined and prohibited, and\nresorting to any of them can be, if not wholly prevented, at least made\nso perilous that the practices will become extinct.\n\nIt is possible to give to every competitor a fair field and no favor,\nand, in so doing, to infuse again into the industrial system the life\nand vigor which competition guarantees. This and only this will insure\nthat progress in production itself which is the _sine qua non_ of\nfuture comfort. It may then be expected that inventions will continue,\nthat machines will become more perfect, and that the power of society\nto pay wages will grow larger. Labor will then be the heir of the\ncenturies, and under proper laws can claim and get its inheritance. If\nthe world crowds itself fuller and fuller of population and progress at\nthe same time stagnates, nothing can prevent an increase of poverty\nunrelieved by any bright outlook. Technical progress, power to make two\nblades of grass grow where one grows now, and to do it in the various\ndepartments where men labor, is the sole condition of a sound hope for\nthe future of the wage-earner. It will be as necessary under Socialism\nas under the present system; but under Socialism it will be difficult\nto get. In so far as it is possible to judge, it depends on the\npreservation of normal competition in the general economic field.\n\nLeaders of the Industrial Workers of the World have recently announced\nan intention of forcing the hours of labor downward from ten hours per\nday to eight, six, and finally, four, while at the same time the pay\nwill be forced up in a more or less corresponding ratio. They have also\nannounced an intention of making capital useless to its owners, by\ncrippling its productive power, and so making it easier to seize it. It\ngoes without saying that a four-hour day and high wages can never come\nby a war which destroys most of the income to be divided. Make the\nfigures more moderate and allow time enough for it, and it may be made\nto come by the diametrically opposite plan of making industry more and\nmore fruitful. The ten-hour day succeeded the twelve- or fourteen-hour\none of former times in exactly that way.\n\nThe division of the social income is of vital importance as well as the\ngeneral size of it. I have claimed for the regulation of monopoly that\nit is nearly the greatest of possible reforms. Perhaps the very\ngreatest is a change in the mode of adjusting wages. They are fixed at\npresent in a rough-and-ready way, though not without some reference to\nwhat labor produces and what employers can pay, and not, therefore,\nwithout the action of a principle which makes, in a powerful way, for\njustice. Any method, however, which involves many strikes and lockouts,\nis bad economically and worse morally. The contests are always costly,\nand they easily run into violent warfare; but underneath all these\nstruggles and the hates and horrors that result, there is working, if\nwe will see it, a law that makes for peace founded on justice. It tends\nin the direction of a fair division of products between employers and\nemployed, and if it could work entirely without hindrances, would\nactually give to every laborer substantially what he produces. In the\nmidst of all prevalent abuses this basic law asserts itself like a law\nof gravitation, and so long as monopoly is excluded and competition is\nfree,--so long as both labor and capital can move without hindrance to\nthe points at which they can create the largest products and get the\nlargest rewards--its action cannot be stopped, while that of the forces\nthat disturb it can be so. In this is the most inspiriting fact for the\nsocial reformer. If there are \"inspiration points\" on the mountain-tops\nof science, as well as on those of nature, this is one of them, and it\nis reached whenever a man discovers that in a highly imperfect society\nthe fundamental law makes for justice, that it is impossible to prevent\nit from working and that it is entirely possible to remove the\nhindrances it encounters and let it have the first play. Nature is\nbehind the reformer, often unseen, always efficient, and, in the end,\nresistless. To get a glimpse of what it can do and what man can help it\ndo is to get a vision of the kingdoms of the earth, and the glory of\nthem--a glory that may come from a moral redemption of the economic\nsystem. It is a redemption that man and nature can together bring about\nif only man himself is worthy of this alliance.\n\nDifferences of mere interest between the various social classes are\ninevitable. There will never be a time when, in the division of any\ncommon property, the mere bald interests of the claimants are alike.\nWhen two fishermen own one boat and fish together, each one is\ninterested in taking the whole catch. They divide, however, by a fair\nrule and live in peace. Any similar division may proceed in harmony if\nwhat the parties want is justice. Till recently American workmen have\nlived with their employers without hating them; and if wages can be\nfixed now by some appeal to the principle of justice, they can live\nwith them in that way again. This means a better method of adjudicating\nclaims than by a crude test of strength. There is no time to discuss a\nscheme by which this can be done. I must claim that it can be done, and\ntake the responsibility of proving it when more time is available.\nThere are beginnings of a good method in New Zealand, in Australia, and\nin Canada, and the point I am making now is that if we get a plan which\nworks well in the United States, we shall save a deplorable waste and\ndo more to revive the spirit of fraternity than we can by any measure\never attempted. Struggles of classes there may be, as there are between\nbuyers and sellers everywhere; but this need not make the parties\nenemies. Its effects do not need to extend to the heart and character\nand to put distrust and hatred in the place of confidence and good\nwill. The moral effects of this reform will be the best ones, but the\neconomic effects also will be vast and beneficent.\n\nI am not predicting a complete millennium merely as the result of the\nreforms I have described. That would require also the moral perfection\nof the human race. Not a little moral improvement is to be expected as\nthe effect of these measures, but it is too much to claim that they\nwill repress all vice and crime, reclaim all criminals, and give to\nthe race generally a keen devotion to duty. A belief in a State where\neven this will be realized is deeply implanted in human nature, and\nSocialism itself might easily get a major premise from it. The\nsyllogism would run thus: (1) A better State is bound to come. (2) It\ncannot come under the system of private capital. (3) Therefore that\nsystem must be abolished. So would we all say if the minor premise were\ntrue--\"The good State is impossible under private capital.\" We claim\nthat it is possible and that we can see how to realize it. We can trace\nthe forces which, without revolution, will make work lighter, pay\nbetter. We also can make a syllogism, and it reads thus: (1) The\npresent State is tolerable. (2) Every reform will make it better, and\nthere are many to be made. (3) The coming State will be whatever we\nhave wit and energy enough to make it.\n\nOur plea for the justice of the coming system will not convince any man\nwho starts with the assertion that capital ought to have _no_ return\nwhatever, and that interest is robbery, and that the men who bring\nempty hands to the mill should take all the product of it. To most\nmen's instinctive judgment this view does not appeal. The general\nverdict is that it is right for capital to get something.\n\nIf we are fishing together from the shore and I make a canoe which\nmultiplies my catch by five, I have a right to the extra return which\nmy new instrument gives me. If my neighbor asks me to lend it to him\nand I do so, I deprive myself of the extra product I have been getting\nby means of it, and it is right for him to pay me interest on the cost\nof the boat. He can do it and make money by the transaction. If his\ncatch is now five times what it was, he can afford to pay me a part of\nthe extra return and still be better off than he was before.\n\nIf my share is still large, other men will make boats and offer them\nfor hire. They will compete in lending them till a modest percentage of\nthe cost is all that any owner can get. The borrowers will then get the\nmajor benefit. This implies competition and shows the necessity of\npreserving it.\n\nIf, in lieu of lending my canoe, I persuade another man to take it and\nfish for me, I shall have to give him more fish than he was originally\ncatching; and the more the boats multiply, the larger the share which\nwill have to be given to the men who are hired to work them, and the\nsmaller the share which will be kept by the owner of any one boat.\n_Under a normal condition, multiplying capital means in itself higher\nwages._ Higher wages mean that laborers, in the end, begin to get boats\nof their own, or shares in boats, and that the laboring-class and the\ncapitalist class are more and more merged. Invention--that is, devising\nand introducing canoes--and accumulation of capital--that is, active\ncanoe-building--mean for laborers higher pay and a chance to save\ncapital.\n\nDo you tell me that this is a primitive State, an Eden of the past and\nhopelessly vanished from the present earth; that it is a lost Paradise\nwhose gates are forever barred? The whole point of the economic study\nof which I have given the briefest outline is that it is practicable to\ncreate in complex modern life the most essential condition of this\nprimitive life--its tendency toward justice. In the Scriptures the\nprimitive Eden was a garden, but the New Jerusalem is a city. What we\nhave before us for study is a vast centralized economic system\nsuggesting the city; and we have to see what can be made of it.\n\nIt is something extremely good. The late Edward Atkinson was fond of\nsaying that, if improvements are allowed to do their best, the time\nwill come when, as he expressed it, \"it will not pay to be rich.\" The\nworkers will be so comfortable that the care of a great capital will\nmore than offset any additional comfort a man can get by owning it.\nGrotesquely exaggerated as this claim may appear to be, it was based on\nserious economic study. There are forces at work which, if they have\nfree play, will carry human life very far in the direction of the State\nso described, with its comfort, contentment, and fraternity.\n\nThat fraternity is possible in spite of sharp contention is clear\nwhenever athletic teams meet and celebrate a game which has been a\nvictory for one and a defeat for the other; and the parties that\ncontend in the great industrial field may be equally brotherly if they\nplay fairly. Foul play always means enmity, and fair play, friendship.\nThe finest possible type of character grows up in the course of keen\nbut honorable rivalry. The noblest manhood that can anywhere be\ndeveloped would come from competing vigorously in the market and living\ntogether as brothers when the contest closes. The beaten man may not\nenjoy his defeat, but he may act rightly and feel rightly toward the\nvictor. Develop in these economic contests the sense of justice--let\nboth parties seek to follow a rule of right--and men's hearts, at\nleast, will not need to be embittered. You will then see a contest,\nwhich, when it is waged with bombs and bludgeons, looks like a Sheol,\nso changed that it shall open the way to a transformed world and make\nthe hope of a future Eden no day-dream, but a scientific deduction from\ncosmic law. We may build a new earth out of the difficult material we\nhave to work with, and cause justice and kindness to rule in the very\nplace where strife now holds sway. A New Jerusalem may actually arise\nout of the fierce contentions of the modern market. The wrath of men\nmay praise God and his Kingdom may come, not in spite of, but by means\nof the contests of the economic sphere.\n\nSocialism can have no monopoly of beatific visions. It offers much in\nthat direction. It draws a picture of a future State of great riches\nand general equality; and the picture is glorified by a vision of\ngeneral brotherhood. To some this seems more attractive than any other\nwhich imagination can create. I confess to a preference for a prospect\nwhich assures, before all else, the continuance of progress, and shows\nhumanity striving to make forward steps and actually making them so\nlong as the universe shall exist. As between a stationary paradise and\na progressive purgatory, I should prefer the latter, for the sake of\nthe permanent well-being of the human race; but what I should choose in\npreference to either is a progressive paradise. The capacity for\nfurther improvement is the essential trait of the best condition now in\nsight. The reformer can point to his delectable mountains and trace an\nunending route to and over them, as they rise range beyond range and\nlose themselves in the distance. Men are, in general, following the\nroute, and each generation advances beyond the point attained by its\npredecessor. Every step is forward and upward, and the nearest goal\nwill soon be reached and passed. Our descendants will reach a better\nand more distant goal and then press on to something remoter and still\nbetter. Again and again barriers seemingly insurmountable will be\npassed. The impossibility of to-day will be the reality of to-morrow,\nand the dazzling vision of to-day will be the reality of the future and\nthe starting-point for still grander achievements.\n\n\nThe Riverside Press\nCAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS\nU . S . A","title":"Social Justice Without Socialism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6188}