,,the ,,acquisitive ,,society    ,,by   
,r4 ,h4 ,,tawney   ,,fellow ,,of        
,,balliol ,,college1 ,,oxford2 ,,late   
,,member   ,,of ,,the ,,coal ,,industry 
,,commission     ,,new ,,york           
,,harcourt1 ,,brace ,,and ,,company     
,,copyright1 #aibj1 ,,by  ,,harcourt1   
,,brace ,,and ,,howe1 ,,inc4            
,,printed ,,in ,,the ,u4 ,s4 ,a4 ,,by   
,,the ,,quinn  ,,boden ,,company        
,,rahway1 ,n4 ,j4     ,,contents        
,,chapter      ,i  ,,introductory       
,,ii  ,,rights ,,and ,,functions   ,,iii
  ,,the ,,acquisitive ,,society    ,,iv 
,,the ,,nemesis ,,of ,,industrialism    
,v  ,,property ,,and ,,creative ,,work  
,,vi  ,,the ,,functional ,,society      
,,vii  ,,industry ,,as ,a ,,profession  
,,viii  ,,the ,,vicious ,,circle    ,,ix
  ,,the ,,condition ,,of ,,efficiency   
,x  ,,the ,,position ,,of ,,the ,,brain 
,,worker    ,,xi  ,,porro ,,unum        
,,necessarium     ,the author desires to
 express his acknowledgments to the     
,editor of the ,hibbert ,journal for    

permission to reprint an article which  
appeared in it4     #a  ,,the           
,,acquisitive ,,society   ,i            
,,introductory  ,it is a commonplace    
that the characteristic virtue of       
,englishmen is their power of sustained 
practical activity1 and their           
characteristic vice a reluctance to test
 the quality of that activity by        
reference to principles4  ,they are     
incurious as to theory1 take            
fundamentals for granted1 and are more  
interested in the state of the roads    
than in their place on the map4  ,and it
 might fairly be argued that in ordinary
 times that combination of intellectual 
tameness with practical energy is       
sufficiently serviceable to explain1 if 
not to justify1 the equanimity with     
which its possessors bear the criticism 
of more mentally adventurous nations4   
,it is the mood of those who have made  
their bargain with fate and are content 
to take what it offers without          
re-opening the deal4  ,it leaves the    

mind free to concentrate undisturbed    
upon profitable activities1 because it  
is not distracted by a taste for        
unprofitable speculations4  ,most       
generations1 it might be said1 walk in a
 path which they neither make1 nor      
discover1 but accept2 the main thing is 
that they should march4  ,the blinkers  
worn by ,englishmen enable them to trot 
all the more steadily along the beaten  
#b road1 without being disturbed by     
curiosity as to their destination4  ,but
 if the medicine of the constitution    
ought not to be made its daily food1    
neither can its daily food be made its  
medicine4  ,there are times which are   
not ordinary1 and in such times it is   
not enough to follow the road4  ,it is  
necessary to know where it leads1 and1  
if it leads nowhere1 to follow another4 
,the search for another involves        
reflection1 which is uncongenial to the 
bustling people who describe themselves 
as practical1 because they take things  
as they are and leave them as they are4 

,but the practical thing for a traveler 
who is uncertain of his path is not to  
proceed with the utmost rapidity in the 
wrong direction3 it is to consider how  
to find the right one4  ,and the        
practical thing for a nation which has  
stumbled upon one of the turning-points 
of history is not to behave as though   
nothing very important were involved1 as
 if it did not matter whether it turned 
to the right or to the left1 went up    
hill or down dale1 provided that it     
continued doing with a little more      
energy what it has done hitherto2 but to
 consider whether what it has done      
hitherto is wise1 and1 if it is not     
wise1 to alter it4  ,when the broken    
ends of its industry1 its politics1 its 
social organization1 have to be pieced  
together after a catastrophe1 it must   
make a decision2 for it makes a decision
 even if it refuses to decide4  ,if it  
is to make a decision which will wear1  
it must travel beyond the philosophy    
momentarily in favor with the           

proprietors of its newspapers4  ,unless 
it is to move with the energetic        
futility of a squirrel in a revolving   
cage1 it must have a clear apprehension 
both of the #c deficiency of what is1   
and of the character of what ought to   
be4  ,and to obtain this apprehension it
 must appeal to some standard more      
stable than the momentary exigencies of 
its commerce or industry or social life1
 and judge them by it4  ,it must1 in    
short1 have recourse to ,principles4    
,such considerations are1 perhaps1 not  
altogether irrelevant at a time when    
facts have forced upon ,englishmen the  
reconsideration of their social         
institutions which no appeal to theory  
could induce them to undertake4  ,an    
appeal to principles is the condition of
 any considerable reconstruction of     
society1 because social institutions are
 the visible expression of the scale of 
moral values which rules the minds of   
individuals1 and it is impossible to    
alter institutions without altering that

 moral valuation4  ,parliament1         
industrial organizations1 the whole     
complex machinery through which society 
expresses itself1 is a mill which grinds
 only what is put into it1 and when     
nothing is put into it grinds air4      
,there are many1 of course1 who desire  
no alteration1 and who1 when it is      
attempted1 will oppose it4 ,they have   
found the existing economic order       
profitable in the past4 ,they desire    
only such changes as will insure that it
 is equally profitable in the future4   
,quand le ,roi avait bu1 la ,pologne    
etait ivre4  ,they are genuinely unable 
to understand why their countrymen      
cannot bask happily by the fire which   
warms themselves1 and ask1 like the     
,french farmer-general3--,when          
everything goes so happily1 why trouble 
to change it8  ,such persons are to be  
pitied1 for they lack the social quality
 which is #d proper to man4  ,but they  
do not need argument2 for ,heaven has   
denied them one of the faculties        

required to apprehend it4  ,there are   
others1 however1 who are conscious of   
the desire for a new social order1 but  
who yet do not grasp the implications of
 their own desire4  ,men may genuinely  
sympathize with the demand for a radical
 change4  ,they may be conscious of     
social evils and sincerely anxious to   
remove them4  ,they may set up a new    
department1 and appoint new officials1  
and invent a new name to express their  
resolution to effect something more     
drastic than reform1 and less disturbing
 than revolution4  ,but unless they will
 take the pains1 not only to act1 but to
 reflect1 they end by effecting nothing4
  ,for they deliver themselves bound to 
those who think they are practical1     
because they take their philosophy so   
much for granted as to be unconscious of
 its implications1 and directly they try
 to act1 that philosophy re-asserts     
itself1 and serves as an overruling     
force which presses their action more   
deeply into the old channels4  ,unhappy 

man that ,i am2 who shall deliver me    
from the body of this death8  ,when they
 desire to place their economic life on 
a better foundation1 they repeat1 like  
parrots1 the word ,productivity1 because
 that is the word that rises first in   
their minds2 regardless of the fact that
 productivity is the foundation on which
 it is based already1 that increased    
productivity is the one characteristic  
achievement of the age before the war1  
as religion was of the ,middle ,ages or 
art of classical ,athens1 and that it is
 precisely in the century which has seen
 the greatest increase in #e            
productivity since the fall of the      
,roman ,empire that economic discontent 
has been most acute4  ,when they are    
touched by social compunction1 they can 
think of nothing more original than the 
diminution of poverty1 because poverty1 
being the opposite of the riches which  
they value most1 seems to them the most 
terrible of human afflictions4  ,they do
 not understand that poverty is a       

symptom and a consequence of social     
disorder1 while the disorder itself is  
something at once more fundamental and  
more incorrigible1 and that the quality 
in their social life which causes it to 
demoralize a few by excessive riches1 is
 also the quality which causes it to    
demoralize many by excessive poverty4   
,but increased production is important4 
,of course it is6  ,that plenty is good 
and scarcity evil--it needs no ghost    
from the graves of the past five years  
to tell us that4  ,but plenty depends   
upon co-operative effort1 and           
co-operation upon moral principles4     
,and moral principles are what the      
prophets of this dispensation despise4  
,so the world continues in scarcity1    
because it is too grasping and too      
short-sighted to seek that which maketh 
men to be of one mind in a house4  ,the 
well-intentioned schemes for social     
reorganization put forward by its       
commercial teachers are abortive1       
because they endeavor to combine        

incompatibles1 and1 if they disturb     
everything1 settle nothing4  ,they are  
like a man who1 when he finds that his  
shoddy boots wear badly1 orders a pair  
two sizes larger instead of a pair of   
good leather1 or who makes up for       
putting a bad sixpence in the plate on  
,sunday by putting in a bad shilling the
 next4  ,and when their fit of feverish 
energy #f has spent itself1 and there is
 nothing to show for it except          
disillusionment1 they cry that reform is
 impracticable1 and blame human nature1 
when what they ought to blame is        
themselves4  ,yet all the time the      
principles upon which industry should be
 based are simple1 however difficult it 
may be to apply them2 and if they are   
overlooked it is not because they are   
difficult1 but because they are         
elementary4  ,they are simple because   
industry is simple4  ,an industry1 when 
all is said1 is1 in its essence1 nothing
 more mysterious than a body of men     
associated1 in various degrees of       

competition and co-operation1 to win    
their living by providing the community 
with some service which it requires4    
,organize it as you will1 let it be a   
group of craftsmen laboring with hammer 
and chisel1 or peasants plowing their   
own fields1 or armies of mechanics of a 
hundred different trades constructing   
ships which are miracles of complexity  
with machines which are the climax of   
centuries of invention1 its function is 
service1 its method is association4     
,because its function is service1 an    
industry as a whole has rights and      
duties towards the community1 the       
abrogation of which involves privilege4 
,because its method is association1 the 
different parties within it have rights 
and duties towards each other2 and the  
neglect or perversion of these involves 
oppression4  ,the conditions of a right 
organization of industry are1 therefore1
 permanent1 unchanging1 and capable of  
being apprehended by the most elementary
 intelligence1 provided it will read the

 nature of its countrymen in the large  
outlines of history1 not in the         
bloodless #g abstractions of experts4   
,the first is that it should be         
subordinated to the community in such a 
way as to render the best service       
technically possible1 that those who    
render no service should not be paid at 
all1 because it is of the essence of a  
function that it should find its meaning
 in the satisfaction1 not of itself1 but
 of the end which it serves4  ,the      
second is that its direction and        
government should be in the hands of    
persons who are responsible to those who
 are directed and governed1 because it  
is the condition of economic freedom    
that men should not be ruled by an      
authority which they cannot control4    
,the industrial problem1 in fact1 is a  
problem of right1 not merely of material
 misery1 and because it is a problem of 
right it is most acute among those      
sections of the working classes whose   
material misery is least4  ,it is a     

question1 first of ,function1 and       
secondly of ,freedom4     #h  ,,ii      
,,rights ,,and ,,functions  ,a function 
may be defined as an activity which     
embodies and expresses the idea of      
social purpose4  ,the essence of it is  
that the agent does not perform it      
merely for personal gain or to gratify  
himself1 but recognizes that he is      
responsible for its discharge to some   
higher authority4  ,the purpose of      
industry is obvious4  ,it is to supply  
man with things which are necessary1    
useful or beautiful1 and thus to bring  
life to body or spirit4  ,in so far as  
it is governed by this end1 it is among 
the most important of human activities4 
,in so far as it is diverted from it1 it
 may be harmless1 amusing1 or even      
exhilarating to those who carry it on1  
but it possesses no more social         
significance than the orderly business  
of ants and bees1 the strutting of      
peacocks1 or the struggles of           
carnivorous animals over carrion4  ,men 

have normally appreciated this fact1    
however unwilling or unable they may    
have been to act upon it2 and therefore 
from time to time1 in so far as they    
have been able to control the forces of 
violence and greed1 they have adopted   
various expedients for emphasizing the  
social quality of economic activity4    
,it is not easy1 however1 to emphasize  
it effectively1 because to do so        
requires a constant effort of will1     
against which egotistical instincts are 
in rebellion1 and because1 if that will 
is to prevail1 it must be embodied in   
some social #i and political            
organization1 which may itself become so
 arbitrary1 tyrannical and corrupt as to
 thwart the performance of function     
instead of promoting it4  ,when this    
process of degeneration has gone far1 as
 in most ,european countries it had by  
the middle of the eighteenth century1   
the indispensable thing is to break the 
dead organization up and to clear the   
ground4  ,in the course of doing so1 the

 individual is emancipated and his      
rights are enlarged2 but the idea of    
social purpose is discredited by the    
discredit justly attaching to the       
obsolete order in which it is embodied4 
,it is not surprising1 therefore1 that  
in the new industrial societies which   
arose on the ruins of the old regime the
 dominant note should have been the     
insistence upon individual rights1      
irrespective of any social purpose to   
which their exercise contributed4  ,the 
economic expansion which concentrated   
population on the coal-measures was1 in 
essence1 an immense movement of         
colonization drifting from the south and
 east to the north and west2 and it was 
natural that in those regions of        
,england1 as in the ,american           
settlements1 the characteristic         
philosophy should be that of the pioneer
 and the mining camp4  ,the change of   
social quality was profound4  ,but in   
,england1 at least1 it was gradual1 and 
the industrial revolution1 though       

catastrophic in its effects1 was only   
the visible climax of generations of    
subtle moral change4  ,the rise of      
modern economic relations1 which may be 
dated in ,england from the latter half  
of the seventeenth century1 was         
coincident with the growth of a         
political theory which replaced the     
conception of purpose by that of        
mechanism4  ,during a great part of     
history men had #aj found the           
significance of their social order in   
its relation to the universal purposes  
of religion4  ,it stood as one rung in a
 ladder which stretched from hell to    
,paradise1 and the classes who composed 
it were the hands1 the feet1 the head of
 a corporate body which was itself a    
microcosm imperfectly reflecting a      
larger universe4  ,when the ,reformation
 made the ,church a department of the   
secular government1 it undermined the   
already enfeebled spiritual forces which
 had erected that sublime1 but too much 
elaborated1 synthesis4  ,but its        

influence remained for nearly a century 
after the roots which fed it had been   
severed4  ,it was the atmosphere into   
which men were born1 and from which1    
however practical1 or even              
,machiavellian1 they could not easily   
disengage their spirits4  ,nor was it   
inconvenient for the new statecraft to  
see the weight of a traditional         
religious sanction added to its own     
concern in the subordination of all     
classes and interests to the common end1
 of which it conceived itself1 and      
during the greater part of the sixteenth
 century was commonly conceived1 to be  
the guardian4  ,the lines of the social 
structure were no longer supposed to    
reproduce in miniature the plan of a    
universal order4  ,but common habits1   
common traditions and beliefs1 common   
pressure from above gave them a unity of
 direction1 which restrained the forces 
of individual variation and lateral     
expansion2 and the center towards which 
they converged1 formerly a ,church      

possessing some of the characteristics  
of a ,state1 was now a ,state that had  
clothed itself with many of the         
attributes of a ,church4  ,the          
difference between the ,england of      
,shakespeare1 #aa still visited by the  
ghosts of the ,middle ,ages1 and the    
,england which merged in #agjj from the 
fierce polemics of the last two         
generations1 was a difference of social 
and political theory even more than of  
constitutional and political            
arrangements4  ,not only the facts1 but 
the minds which appraised them1 were    
profoundly modified4  ,the essence of   
the change was the disappearance of the 
idea that social institutions and       
economic activities were related to     
common ends1 which gave them their      
significance and which served as their  
criterion4  ,in the eighteenth century  
both the ,state and the ,church had     
abdicated that part of the sphere which 
had consisted in the maintenance of a   
common body of social ethics2 what was  

left of it was repression of a class1   
not the discipline of a nation4         
,opinion ceased to regard social        
institutions and economic activity as   
amenable1 like personal conduct1 to     
moral criteria1 because it was no longer
 influenced by the spectacle of         
institutions which1 arbitrary1          
capricious1 and often corrupt in their  
practical operation1 had been the       
outward symbol and expression of the    
subordination of life to purposes       
transcending private interests4  ,that  
part of government which had been       
concerned with social administration1 if
 it did not end1 became at least        
obsolescent4  ,for such democracy as had
 existed in the ,middle ,ages was dead1 
and the democracy of the ,revolution was
 not yet born1 so that government passed
 into the lethargic hand of classes who 
wielded the power of the ,state in the  
interests of an irresponsible           
aristocracy4  ,and the ,church was even 
more remote from the daily life of      

mankind than the ,state4 ,philanthropy  
abounded2 but religion1 #ab once the    
greatest social force1 had become a     
thing as private and individual as the  
estate of the squire or the working     
clothes of the laborer4  ,there were    
special dispensations and occasional    
interventions1 like the acts of a       
monarch who reprieved a criminal or     
signed an order for his execution4  ,but
 what was familiar1 and human and       
lovable--what was ,christian in         
,christianity had largely disappeared4  
,god had been thrust into the frigid    
altitudes of infinite space4  ,there was
 a limited monarchy in ,heaven1 as well 
as upon earth4  ,providence was the     
spectator of the curious machine which  
it had constructed and set in motion1   
but the operation of which it was       
neither able nor willing to control4    
,like the occasional intervention of the
 ,crown in the proceedings of           
,parliament1 its wisdom was revealed in 
the infrequency of its interference4    

,the natural consequence of the         
abdication of authorities which had     
stood1 however imperfectly1 for a common
 purpose in social organization1 was the
 gradual disappearance from social      
thought of the idea of purpose itself4  
,its place in the eighteenth century was
 taken by the idea of mechanism4  ,the  
conception of men as united to each     
other1 and of all mankind as united to  
,god1 by mutual obligations arising from
 their relation to a common end1 which  
vaguely conceived and imperfectly       
realized1 had been the keystone holding 
together the social fabric1 ceased to be
 impressed upon men's minds1 when       
,church and ,state withdrew from the    
center of social life to its            
circumference4 ,what remained when the  
keystone of the arch was removed1 was   
private rights and private interests1   
the materials of a society rather #ac   
than a society itself4  ,these rights   
and interests were the natural order    
which had been distorted by the         

ambitions of kings and priests1 and     
which emerged when the artificial       
super-structure disappeared1 because    
they were the creation1 not of man1 but 
of ,nature herself4 ,they had been      
regarded in the past as relative to some
 public end1 whether religion or        
national welfare4  ,henceforward they   
were thought to be absolute and         
indefeasible1 and to stand by their own 
virtue4 ,they were the ultimate         
political and social reality2 and since 
they were the ultimate reality1 they    
were not subordinate to other aspects of
 society1 but other aspects of society  
were subordinate to them4  ,the ,state  
could not encroach upon these rights1   
for the ,state existed for their        
maintenance4  ,they determined the      
relation of classes1 for the most       
obvious and fundamental of all rights   
was property--property absolute and     
unconditioned--and those who possessed  
it were regarded as the natural         
governors of those who did not4         

,society arose from their exercise1     
through the contracts of individual with
 individual4  ,it fulfilled its object  
in so far as1 by maintaining contractual
 freedom1 it secured full scope for     
their unfettered exercise4  ,it failed  
in so far as1 like the ,french monarchy1
 it overrode them by the use of an      
arbitrary authority4  ,thus conceived1  
society assumed something of the        
appearance of a great joint-stock       
company1 in which political power and   
the receipt of dividends were justly    
assigned to those who held the most     
numerous shares4  ,the currents of      
social activity did not converge upon   
common ends1 but were dispersed through 
a multitude of channels1 #ad created by 
the private interests of the individuals
 who composed society4  ,but in their   
very variety and spontaneity1 in the    
very absence of any attempt to relate   
them to a larger purpose than that of   
the individual1 lay the best security of
 its attainment4  ,there is a mysticism 

of reason as well as of emotion1 and the
 eighteenth century found1 in the       
beneficence of natural instincts1 a     
substitute for the ,god whom it had     
expelled from contact with society1 and 
did not hesitate to identify them4      
,thus ,god and nature planned the       
general frame   ,and bade self-love and 
social be the same4   ,the result of    
such ideas in the world of practice was 
a society which was ruled by law1 not by
 the caprice of ,governments1 but which 
recognized no moral limitation on the   
pursuit by individuals of their economic
 self-interest4  ,in the world of       
thought1 it was a political philosophy  
which made rights the foundation of the 
social order1 and which considered the  
discharge of obligations1 when it       
considered it at all1 as emerging by an 
inevitable process from their free      
exercise4 ,the first famous exponent of 
this philosophy was ,locke1 in whom the 
dominant conception is the              
indefeasibility of private rights1 not  

the pre-ordained harmony between private
 rights and public welfare4  ,in the    
great ,french writers who prepared the  
way for the ,revolution1 while believing
 that they were the servants of an      
enlightened absolutism1 there is an     
almost equal emphasis upon the sanctity 
of rights and upon the infallibility of 
the #ae alchemy by which the pursuit of 
private ends is transmuted into the     
attainment of public good4  ,though     
their writings reveal the influence of  
the conception of society as a          
self-adjusting mechanism1 which         
afterwards became the most              
characteristic note of the ,english     
individualism1 what the ,french         
,revolution burned into the mind of     
,europe was the former not the latter4  
,in ,england the idea of right had been 
negative and defensive1 a barrier to the
 encroachment of ,governments4  ,the    
,french leapt to the attack from        
trenches which the ,english had been    
content to defend1 and in ,france the   

idea became affirmative and militant1   
not a weapon of defense1 but a principle
 of social organization4  ,the attempt  
to refound society upon rights1 and     
rights springing not from musty         
charters1 but from the very nature of   
man himself1 was at once the triumph and
 the limitation of the ,revolution4  ,it
 gave it the enthusiasm and infectious  
power of religion4  ,what happened in   
,england might seem at first sight to   
have been precisely the reverse4        
,english practical men1 whose thoughts  
were pitched in a lower key1 were a     
little shocked by the pomp and          
brilliance of that tremendous creed4    
,they had scanty sympathy with the      
absolute affirmations of ,france4  ,what
 captured their imagination was not the 
right to liberty1 which made no appeal  
to their commercial instincts1 but the  
expediency of liberty1 which did2 and   
when the ,revolution had revealed the   
explosive power of the idea of natural  
right1 they sought some less menacing   

formula4  ,it had been offered them     
first by ,adam ,smith and his           
precursors1 who showed how the mechanism
 of economic life #af converted as with 
an invisible hand1 the exercise of      
individual rights into the instrument of
 public good4 ,bentham1 who despised    
metaphysical subtleties1 and thought the
 ,declaration of the ,rights of ,man as 
absurd as any other dogmatic religion1  
completed the new orientation by        
supplying the final criterion of        
political institutions in the principle 
of ,utility4 ,henceforward emphasis was 
transferred from the right of the       
individual to exercise his freedom as he
 pleased to the expediency of an        
undisturbed exercise of freedom to      
society4  ,the change is significant4   
,it is the difference between the       
universal and equal citizenship of      
,france1 with its five million peasant  
proprietors1 and the organized          
inequality of ,england established      
solidly upon class traditions and class 

institutions2 the descent from hope to  
resignation1 from the fire and passion  
of an age of illimitable vistas to the  
monotonous beat of the factory engine1  
from ,turgot and ,condorcet to the      
melancholy mathematical creed of        
,bentham and ,ricardo and ,james ,mill4 
,mankind has1 at least1 this superiority
 over its philosophers1 that great      
movements spring from the heart and     
embody a faith2 not the nice adjustments
 of the hedonistic calculus4  ,so in the
 name of the rights of property ,france 
abolished in three years a great mass of
 property rights which1 under the old   
regime had robbed the peasant of part of
 the produce of his labor1 and the      
social transformation survived a whole  
world of political changes4  ,in        
,england the glad tidings of democracy  
were broken too discreetly to reach the 
ears of the hind in the furrow or the   
shepherd on the hill2 #ag there were    
political changes without a social      
transformation4  ,the doctrine of       

,utility1 though trenchant in the sphere
 of politics1 involved no considerable  
interference with the fundamentals of   
the social fabric4 ,its exponents were  
principally concerned with the removal  
of political abuses and legal anomalies4
  ,they attacked sinecures and pensions 
and the criminal code and the procedure 
of the law courts4  ,but they touched   
only the surface of social institutions4
  ,they thought it a monstrous injustice
 that the citizen should pay one-tenth  
of his income in taxation to an idle    
,government1 but quite reasonable that  
he should pay one-fifth of it in rent to
 an idle landlord4  ,the difference1    
neverthelesss1 was one of emphasis and  
expression1 not of principle4  ,it      
mattered very little in practice whether
 private property and unfettered        
economic freedom were stated1 as in     
,france1 to be natural rights1 or       
whether1 as in ,england1 they were      
merely assumed once for all to be       
expedient4  ,in either case they were   

taken for granted as the fundamentals   
upon which social organization was to be
 based1 and about which no further      
argument was admissible4  ,though       
,bentham argued that rights were derived
 from utility1 not from nature1 he did  
not push his analysis so far as to argue
 that any particular right was relative 
to any particular function1 and thus    
endorsed indiscriminately rights which  
were not accompanied by service as well 
as rights which were4  ,while eschewing1
 in short1 the phraseology of natural   
rights1 the ,english ,utilitarians      
retained something not unlike the       
substance of them4  ,for they assumed   
that private property in #ah land1 and  
the private ownership of capital1 were  
natural institutions1 and gave them1    
indeed1 a new lease of life1 by proving 
to their own satisfaction that social   
well-being must result from their       
continued exercise4  ,their negative was
 as important as their positive         
teaching4 ,it was a conductor which     

diverted the lightning4  ,behind their  
political theory1 behind the practical  
conduct1 which as always1 continues to  
express theory long after it has been   
discredited in the world of thought1 lay
 the acceptance of absolute rights to   
property and to economic freedom as the 
unquestioned center of social           
organization4  ,the result of that      
attitude was momentous4  ,the motive and
 inspiration of the ,liberal ,movement  
of the eighteenth century had been the  
attack on ,privilege4  ,but the creed   
which had exorcised the specter of      
agrarian feudalism haunting village and 
chateau in ,france1 was impotent to     
disarm the new ogre of industrialism    
which was stretching its limbs in the   
north of ,england4  ,when1 shorn of its 
splendors and illusions1 liberalism     
triumphed in ,england in #ahcb1 it      
carried without criticism into the new  
world of capitalist industry categories 
of private property and freedom of      
contract which had been forged in the   

simpler economic environment of the     
pre-industrial era4  ,in ,england these 
categories are being bent and twisted   
till they are no longer recognizable1   
and will1 in time1 be made harmless4    
,in ,america1 where necessity compelled 
the crystallization of principles in a  
constitution1 they have the rigidity of 
an iron jacket4  ,the magnificent       
formulae in which a society of farmers  
#ai and master craftsmen enshrined its  
philosophy of freedom are in danger of  
becoming fetters used by an             
,anglo-,saxon business aristocracy to   
bind insurgent movements on the part of 
an immigrant and semi-servile           
proletariat4     #bj  ,,iii  ,,the      
,,acquisitive ,,society  ,this doctrine 
has been qualified in practice by       
particular limitations to avert         
particular evils and to meet exceptional
 emergencies4  ,but it is limited in    
special cases precisely because its     
general validity is regarded as beyond  
controversy1 and1 up to the eve of the  

present war1 it was the working faith of
 modern economic civilization4  ,what it
 implies is1 that the foundation of     
society is found1 not in functions1 but 
in rights2 that rights are not deducible
 from the discharge of functions1 so    
that the acquisition of wealth and the  
enjoyment of property are contingent    
upon the performances of services1 but  
that the individual enters the world    
equipped with rights to the free        
disposal of his property and the pursuit
 of his economic self-interest1 and that
 these rights are anterior to1 and      
independent of1 any service which he may
 render4  ,true1 the service of society 
will1 in fact1 it is assumed1 result    
from their exercise4  ,but it is not the
 primary motive and criterion of        
industry1 but a secondary consequence1  
which emerges incidentally through the  
exercise of rights1 a consequence which 
is attained1 indeed1 in practice1 but   
which is attained without being sought4 
,it is not the end at which economic    

activity aims1 or the standard by which 
it is judged1 but a by-product1 as      
coal-tar is a by-product of the #ba     
manufacture of gas2 whether that        
by-product appears or not1 it is not    
proposed that the rights themselves     
should be abdicated4  ,for they are     
regarded1 not as a conditional trust1   
but as a property1 which may1 indeed1   
give way to the special exigencies of   
extraordinary emergencies1 but which    
resumes its sway when the emergency is  
over1 and in normal times is above      
discussion4  ,that conception is written
 large over the history of the          
nineteenth century1 both in ,england and
 in ,america4  ,the doctrine which it   
inherited was that property was held by 
an absolute right on an individual      
basis1 and to this fundamental it added 
another1 which can be traced in         
principle far back into history1 but    
which grew to its full stature only     
after the rise of capitalist industry1  
that societies act both unfairly and    

unwisely when they limit opportunities  
of economic enterprise4  ,hence every   
attempt to impose obligations as a      
condition of the tenure of property or  
of the exercise of economic activity has
 been met by uncompromising resistance4 
,the story of the struggle between      
humanitarian sentiment and the theory of
 property transmitted from the          
eighteenth century is familiar4  ,no one
 has forgotten the opposition offered in
 the name of the rights of property to  
factory legislation1 to housing reform1 
to interference with the adulteration of
 goods1 even to the compulsory          
sanitation of private houses4  ,may ,i  
not do what ,i like with my own8 was the
 answer to the proposal to require a    
minimum standard of safety and          
sanitation from the owners of mills and 
houses4  ,even to #bb this day1 while an
 ,english urban landlord can cramp or   
distort the development of a whole city 
by withholding land except at fancy     
prices1 ,english municipalities are     

without adequate powers of compulsory   
purchase1 and must either pay through   
the nose or see thousands of their      
members overcrowded4  ,the whole body of
 procedure by which they may acquire    
land1 or indeed new powers of any kind1 
has been carefully designed by lawyers  
to protect owners of property against   
the possibility that their private      
rights may be subordinated to the public
 interest1 because their rights are     
thought to be primary and absolute and  
public interests secondary and          
contingent4  ,no one needs to be        
reminded1 again1 of the influence of the
 same doctrine in the sphere of         
taxation4  ,thus the income tax was     
excused as a temporary measure1 because 
the normal society was conceived to be  
one in which the individual spent his   
whole income for himself and owed no    
obligations to society on account of it4
  ,the death duties were denounced as   
robbery1 because they implied that the  
right to benefit by inheritance was     

conditional upon a social sanction4     
,the ,budget of #aiji created a storm1  
not because the taxation of land was    
heavy--in amount the land-taxes were    
trifling--but because it was felt to    
involve the doctrine that property is   
not an absolute right1 but that it may  
properly be accompanied by special      
obligations1 a doctrine which1 if       
carried to its logical conclusion1 would
 destroy its sanctity by making         
ownership no longer absolute but        
conditional4  #bc  ,such an implication 
seems intolerable to an influential body
 of public opinion1 because it has been 
accustomed to regard the free disposal  
of property and the unlimited           
exploitation of economic opportunities1 
as rights which are absolute and        
unconditioned4  ,on the whole1 until    
recently1 this opinion had few          
antagonists who could not be ignored4   
,as a consequence the maintenance of    
property rights has not been seriously  
threatened even in those cases in which 

it is evident that no service is        
discharged1 directly or indirectly1 by  
their exercise4  ,no one supposes1 that 
the owner of urban land1 performs qua   
owner1 any function4  ,he has a right of
 private taxation2 that is all4  ,but   
the private ownership of urban land is  
as secure to-day as it was a century    
ago2 and ,lord ,hugh ,cecil1 in his     
interesting little book on              
,conservatism1 declares that whether    
private property is mischievous or not1 
society cannot interfere with it1       
because to interfere with it is theft1  
and theft is wicked4  ,no one supposes  
that it is for the public good that     
large areas of land should be used for  
parks and game4  ,but our country       
gentlemen are still settled heavily upon
 their villages and still slay their    
thousands4  ,no one can argue that a    
monopolist is impelled by an invisible  
hand to serve the public interest4  ,but
 over a considerable field of industry  
competition1 as the recent ,report on   

,trusts shows1 has been replaced by     
combination1 and combinations are       
allowed the same unfettered freedom as  
individuals in the exploitation of      
economic opportunities4  ,no one really 
believes that the production of coal    
depends upon the payment of #bd mining  
royalties or that ships will not go to  
and fro unless ship-owners can earn     
fifty per cent4 upon their capital4     
,but coal mines1 or rather the coal     
miner1 still pay royalties1 and         
ship-owners still make fortunes and are 
made ,peers4  ,at the very moment when  
everybody is talking about the          
importance of increasing the output of  
wealth1 the last question1 apparently1  
which it occurs to any statesman to ask 
is why wealth should be squandered on   
futile activities1 and in expenditure   
which is either disproportionate to     
service or made for no service at all4  
,so inveterate1 indeed1 has become the  
practice of payment in virtue of        
property rights1 without even the       

pretense of any service being rendered1 
that when1 in a national emergency1 it  
is proposed to extract oil from the     
ground1 the ,government actually        
proposes that every gallon shall pay a  
tax to landowners who never even        
suspected its existence1 and the        
ingenuous proprietors are full of pained
 astonishment at any one questioning    
whether the nation is under moral       
obligation to endow them further4 ,such 
rights are1 strictly speaking1          
privileges4  ,for the definition of a   
privilege is a right to which no        
corresponding function is attached4     
,the enjoyment of property and the      
direction of industry are considered1 in
 short1 to require no social            
justification1 because they are regarded
 as rights which stand by their own     
virtue1 not functions to be judged by   
the success with which they contribute  
to a social purpose4  ,to-day that      
doctrine1 if intellectually discredited1
 is still the practical foundation of   

social #be organization4  ,how slowly it
 yields even to the most insistent      
demonstration of its inadequacy is shown
 by the attitude which the heads of the 
business world have adopted to the      
restrictions imposed on economic        
activity during the war4  ,the control  
of railways1 mines and shipping1 the    
distribution of raw materials through a 
public department instead of through    
competing merchants1 the regulation of  
prices1 the attempts to check           
profiteering--the detailed application  
of these measures may have been         
effective or ineffective1 wise or       
injudicious4  ,it is evident1 indeed1   
that some of them have been foolish1    
like the restriction of imports when the
 world has five years' destruction to   
repair1 and that others1 if sound in    
conception1 have been questionable in   
their execution4  ,if they were attacked
 on the ground that they obstruct the   
efficient performance of function--if   
the leaders of industry came forward and

 said generally1 as some1 to their      
honor1 have3--,we accept your policy1   
but we will improve its execution2 we   
desire payment for service and service  
only and will help the state to see that
 it pays for nothing else--there might  
be controversy as to the facts1 but     
there could be none as to the principle4
  ,in reality1 however1 the gravamen of 
the charges brought against these       
restrictions appears generally to be    
precisely the opposite4  ,they are      
denounced by most of their critics not  
because they limit the opportunity of   
service1 but because they diminish the  
opportunity for gain1 not because they  
prevent the trader enriching the        
community1 but because they make it #bf 
more difficult for him to enrich        
himself2 not1 in short1 because they    
have failed to convert economic activity
 into a social function1 but because    
they have come too near succeeding4 ,if 
the financial adviser to the ,coal      
,controller may be trusted1 the         

shareholders in coal mines would appear 
to have done fairly well during the war4
  ,but the proposal to limit their      
profits to #a_/b per ton is described by
 ,lord ,gainford as sheer robbery and   
confiscation4  ,with some honorable     
exceptions1 what is demanded is that in 
the future as in the past the directors 
of industry should be free to handle it 
as an enterprise conducted for their own
 convenience or advancement1 instead of 
being compelled1 as they have been      
partially compelled during the war1 to  
subordinate it to a social purpose4     
,for to admit that the criterion of     
commerce and industry is its success in 
discharging a social purpose is at once 
to turn property and economic activity  
from rights which are absolute into     
rights which are contingent and         
derivative1 because it is to affirm that
 they are relative to functions and that
 they may justly be revoked when the    
functions are not performed4  ,it is1 in
 short1 to imply that property and      

economic activity exist to promote the  
ends of society1 whereas hitherto       
society has been regarded in the world  
of business as existing to promote them4
 ,to those who hold their position1 not 
as functionaries1 but by virtue of their
 success in making industry contribute  
to their own wealth and social          
influence1 such a reversal of means and 
ends appears little less than a         
revolution4  ,for it means that they    
must justify before a social tribunal   
#bg rights which they have hitherto     
taken for granted as part of an order   
which is above criticism4  ,during the  
greater part of the nineteenth century  
the significance of the opposition      
between the two principles of individual
 rights and social functions was masked 
by the doctrine of the inevitable       
harmony between private interests and   
public good4  ,competition1 it was      
argued1 was an effective substitute for 
honesty4  ,to-day that subsidiary       
doctrine has fallen to pieces under     

criticism2 few now would profess        
adherence to the compound of economic   
optimism and moral bankruptcy which led 
a nineteenth century economist to say3  
,greed is held in check by greed1 and   
the desire for gain sets limits to      
itself4  ,the disposition to regard     
individual rights as the center and     
pivot of society is still1 however1 the 
most powerful element in political      
thought and the practical foundation of 
industrial organization4  ,the laborious
 refutation of the doctrine that private
 and public interests are co-incident1  
and that man's self-love is ,god's      
,providence1 which was the excuse of the
 last century for its worship of        
economic egotism1 has achieved1 in fact1
 surprisingly small results4  ,economic 
egotism is still worshiped2 and it is   
worshiped because that doctrine was not 
really the center of the position4  ,it 
was an outwork1 not the citadel1 and now
 that the outwork has been captured1 the
 citadel is still to win4  ,what gives  

its special quality and character1 its  
toughness and cohesion1 to the          
industrial system built up in the last  
century and a half1 is not its exploded 
theory of economic harmonies4  ,it is   
the doctrine that #bh economic rights   
are anterior to1 and independent of     
economic functions1 that they stand by  
their own virtue1 and need adduce no    
higher credentials4  ,the practical     
result of it is that economic rights    
remain1 whether economic functions are  
performed or not4  ,they remain to-day  
in a more menacing form than in the age 
of early industrialism4  ,for those who 
control industry no longer compete but  
combine1 and the rivalry between        
property in capital and property in land
 has long since ended4  ,the basis of   
the ,new ,conservatism appears to be a  
determination so to organize society1   
both by political and economic action1  
as to make it secure against every      
attempt to extinguish payments which are
 made1 not for service1 but because the 

owners possess a right to extract income
 without it4  ,hence the fusion of the  
two traditional parties1 the proposed   
strengthening of the second chamber1 the
 return to protection1 the swift        
conversion of rival industrialists to   
the advantages of monopoly1 and the     
attempts to buy off with concessions the
 more influential section of the working
 classes4  ,revolutions1 as a long and  
bitter experience reveals1 are apt to   
take their color from the regime which  
they overthrow4  ,is it any wonder that 
the creed which affirms the absolute    
rights of property should sometimes be  
met with a counter-affirmation of the   
absolute rights of labor1 less          
anti-social1 indeed1 and inhuman1 but   
almost as dogmatic1 almost as intolerant
 and thoughtless as itself8   ,a society
 which aimed at making the acquisition  
of wealth contingent upon the discharge 
of social #bi obligations1 which sought 
to proportion remuneration to service   
and denied it to those by whom no       

service was performed1 which inquired   
first not what men possess but what they
 can make or create or achieve1 might be
 called a ,functional ,society1 because 
in such a society the main subject of   
social emphasis would be the performance
 of functions4  ,but such a society does
 not exist1 even as a remote ideal1 in  
the modern world1 though something like 
it has hung1 an unrealized theory1      
before men's minds in the past4 ,modern 
societies aim at protecting economic    
rights1 while leaving economic          
functions1 except in moments of abnormal
 emergency1 to fulfil themselves4  ,the 
motive which gives color and quality to 
their public institutions1 to their     
policy and political thought1 is not the
 attempt to secure the fulfilment of    
tasks undertaken for the public service1
 but to increase the opportunities open 
to individuals of attaining the objects 
which they conceive to be advantageous  
to themselves4  ,if asked the end or    
criterion of social organization1 they  

would give an answer reminiscent of the 
formula the greatest happiness of the   
greatest number4  ,but to say that the  
end of social institutions is happiness1
 is to say that they have no common end 
at all4  ,for happiness is individual1  
and to make happiness the object of     
society is to resolve society itself    
into the ambitions of numberless        
individuals1 each directed towards the  
attainment of some personal purpose4    
,such societies may be called           
,acquisitive ,societies1 because their  
whole tendency and interest and         
preoccupation is to promote the         
acquisition of wealth4  ,the #cj appeal 
of this conception must be powerful1 for
 it has laid the whole modern world     
under its spell4  ,since ,england first 
revealed the possibilities of           
industrialism1 it has gone from strength
 to strength1 and as industrial         
civilization invades countries hitherto 
remote from it1 as ,russia and ,japan   
and ,india and ,china are drawn into its

 orbit1 each decade sees a fresh        
extension of its influence4  ,the secret
 of its triumph is obvious4  ,it is an  
invitation to men to use the powers with
 which they have been endowed by nature 
or society1 by skill or energy or       
relentless egotism or mere good fortune1
 without inquiring whether there is any 
principle by which their exercise should
 be limited4  ,it assumes the social    
organization which determines the       
opportunities which different classes   
shall in fact possess1 and concentrates 
attention upon the right of those who   
possess or can acquire power to make the
 fullest use of it for their own        
self-advancement4  ,by fixing men's     
minds1 not upon the discharge of social 
obligations1 which restricts their      
energy1 because it defines the goal to  
which it should be directed1 but upon   
the exercise of the right to pursue     
their own self-interest1 it offers      
unlimited scope for the acquisition of  
riches1 and therefore gives free play to

 one of the most powerful of human      
instincts4  ,to the strong it promises  
unfettered freedom for the exercise of  
their strength2 to the weak the hope    
that they too one day may be strong4    
,before the eyes of both it suspends a  
golden prize1 which not all can attain1 
but for which each may strive1 the      
enchanting vision of infinite expansion4
  ,it assures men that there are no ends
 other #ca than their ends1 no law other
 than their desires1 no limit other than
 that which they think advisable4  ,thus
 it makes the individual the center of  
his own universe1 and dissolves moral   
principles into a choice of expediences4
  ,and it immensely simplifies the      
problems of social life in complex      
communities4  ,for it relieves them of  
the necessity of discriminating between 
different types of economic activity and
 different sources of wealth1 between   
enterprise and avarice1 energy and      
unscrupulous greed1 property which is   
legitimate and property which is theft1 

the just enjoyment of the fruits of     
labor and the idle parasitism of birth  
or fortune1 because it treats all       
economic activities as standing upon the
 same level1 and suggests that excess or
 defect1 waste or superfluity1 require  
no conscious effort of the social will  
to avert them1 but are corrected almost 
automatically by the mechanical play of 
economic forces4  ,under the impulse of 
such ideas men do not become religious  
or wise or artistic2 for religion and   
wisdom and art imply the acceptance of  
limitations4  ,but they become powerful 
and rich4  ,they inherit the earth and  
change the face of nature1 if they do   
not possess their own souls2 and they   
have that appearance of freedom which   
consists in the absence of obstacles    
between opportunities for               
self-advancement and those whom birth or
 wealth or talent or good fortune has   
placed in a position to seize them4  ,it
 is not difficult either for individuals
 or for societies to achieve their      

object1 if that object be sufficiently  
limited and immediate1 and if they are  
not distracted from its #cb pursuit by  
other considerations4  ,the temper which
 dedicates itself to the cultivation of 
opportunities1 and leaves obligations to
 take care of themselves1 is set upon an
 object which is at once simple and     
practicable4  ,the eighteenth century   
defined it4  ,the twentieth century has 
very largely attained it4  ,or1 if it   
has not attained it1 it has at least    
grasped the possibilities of its        
attainment4  ,the national output of    
wealth per head of population is        
estimated to have been approximately    
#bjj in #aiad4  ,unless mankind chooses 
to continue the sacrifice of prosperity 
to the ambitions and terrors of         
nationalism1 it is possible that by the 
year #bjjj it may be doubled4     #cc   
,,iv  ,,the ,,nemesis ,,of              
,,industrialism  ,such happiness is not 
remote from achievement4  ,in the course
 of achieving it1 however1 the world has

 been confronted by a group of          
unexpected consequences1 which are the  
cause of its malaise1 as the obstruction
 of economic opportunity was the cause  
of social malaise in the eighteenth     
century4  ,and these consequences are   
not1 as is often suggested1 accidental  
mal-adjustments1 but flow naturally from
 its dominant principle3 so that there  
is a sense in which the cause of its    
perplexity is not its failure1 but the  
quality of its success1 and its light   
itself a kind of darkness4  ,the will to
 economic power1 if it is sufficiently  
single-minded1 brings riches4  ,but if  
it is single-minded it destroys the     
moral restraints which ought to         
condition the pursuit of riches1 and    
therefore also makes the pursuit of     
riches meaningless4 ,for what gives     
meaning to economic activity1 as to any 
other activity is1 as we have said1 the 
purpose to which it is directed4  ,but  
the faith upon which our economic       
civilization reposes1 the faith that    

riches are not a means but an end1      
implies that all economic activity is   
equally estimable1 whether it is        
subordinated to a social purpose or not4
  ,hence it divorces gain from service1 
and justifies rewards for which no      
function is performed1 or which are out 
of all proportion to it4  ,wealth in    
modern societies is distributed         
according to #cd opportunity2 and while 
opportunity depends partly upon talent  
and energy1 it depends still more upon  
birth1 social position1 access to       
education and inherited wealth2 in a    
word1 upon property4  ,for talent and   
energy can create opportunity4  ,but    
property need only wait for it4 ,it is  
the sleeping partner who draws the      
dividends which the firm produces1 the  
residuary legatee who always claims his 
share in the estate4  ,because rewards  
are divorced from services1 so that what
 is prized most is not riches obtained  
in return for labor but riches the      
economic origin of which1 being regarded

 as sordid1 is concealed1 two results   
follow4  ,the first is the creation of a
 class of pensioners upon industry1 who 
levy toll upon its product1 but         
contribute nothing to its increase1 and 
who are not merely tolerated1 but       
applauded and admired and protected with
 assiduous care1 as though the secret of
 prosperity resided in them4  ,they are 
admired because in the absence of any   
principle of discrimination between     
incomes which are payment for functions 
and incomes which are not1 all incomes1 
merely because they represent wealth1   
stand on the same level of appreciation1
 and are estimated solely by their      
magnitude1 so that in all societies     
which have accepted industrialism there 
is an upper layer which claims the      
enjoyment of social life1 while it      
repudiates its responsibilities4 ,the   
rentier and his ways1 how familiar they 
were in ,england before the war6  ,a    
public school and then club life in     
,oxford and ,cambridge1 and then another

 club in town2 ,london in ,june1 when   
,london is pleasant1 the moors in       
,august1 and pheasants in ,october1     
,cannes in #ce ,december and hunting in 
,february and ,march2 and a whole world 
of rising bourgeoisie eager to imitate  
them1 sedulous to make their expensive  
watches keep time with this preposterous
 calendar6  ,the second consequence is  
the degradation of those who labor1 but 
who do not by their labor command large 
rewards2 that is of the great majority  
of mankind4  ,and this degradation      
follows inevitably from the refusal of  
men to give the purpose of industry the 
first place in their thought about it4  
,when they do that1 when their minds are
 set upon the fact that the meaning of  
industry is the service of man1 all who 
labor appear to them honorable1 because 
all who labor serve1 and the distinction
 which separates those who serve from   
those who merely spend is so crucial and
 fundamental as to obliterate all minor 
distinctions based on differences of    

income4  ,but when the criterion of     
function is forgotten1 the only         
criterion which remains is that of      
wealth1 and an ,acquisitive ,society    
reverences the possession of wealth1 as 
a ,functional ,society would honor1 even
 in the person of the humblest and most 
laborious craftsman1 the arts of        
creation4  ,so wealth becomes the       
foundation of public esteem1 and the    
mass of men who labor1 but who do not   
acquire wealth1 are thought to be vulgar
 and meaningless and insignificant      
compared with the few who acquire wealth
 by good fortune1 or by the skilful use 
of economic opportunities4  ,they come  
to be regarded1 not as the ends for     
which alone it is worth while to produce
 wealth at all1 but as the instruments  
of its #cf acquisition by a world that  
declines to be soiled by contact with   
what is thought to be the dull and      
sordid business of labor4  ,they are not
 happy1 for the reward of all but the   
very mean is not merely money1 but the  

esteem of their fellow-men1 and they    
know they are not esteemed1 as soldiers1
 for example1 are esteemed1 though it is
 because they give their lives to making
 civilization that there is a           
civilization which it is worth while for
 soldiers to defend4  ,they are not     
esteemed1 because the admiration of     
society is directed towards those who   
get1 not towards those who give2 and    
though workmen give much they get       
little4  ,and the rentiers whom they    
support are not happy2 for in discarding
 the idea of function1 which sets a     
limit to the acquisition of riches1 they
 have also discarded the principle which
 alone give riches their meaning4       
,hence unless they can persuade         
themselves that to be rich is in itself 
meritorious1 they may bask in social    
admiration1 but they are unable to      
esteem themselves4  ,for they have      
abolished the principle which makes     
activity significant1 and therefore     
estimable4  ,they are1 indeed1 more     

truly pitiable than some of those who   
envy them4  ,for like the spirits in the
 ,inferno1 they are punished by the     
attainment of their desires4  ,a society
 ruled by these notions is necessarily  
the victim of an irrational inequality4 
,to escape such inequality it is        
necessary to recognize that there is    
some principle which ought to limit the 
gains of particular classes and         
particular individuals1 because gains   
drawn from certain sources or exceeding 
certain amounts are illegitimate4 ,but  
such a limitation implies a #cg standard
 of discrimination1 which is            
inconsistent with the assumption that   
each man has a right to what he can get1
 irrespective of any service rendered   
for it4  ,thus privilege1 which was to  
have been exorcised by the gospel of    
#aghi1 returns in a new guise1 the      
creature no longer of unequal legal     
rights thwarting the natural exercise of
 equal powers of hand and brain1 but of 
unequal powers springing from the       

exercise of equal rights in a world     
where property and inherited wealth and 
the apparatus of class institutions have
 made opportunities unequal4            
,inequality1 again1 leads to the        
mis-direction of production4  ,for1     
since the demand of one income of       
,l#ej1jjj is as powerful a magnet as the
 demand of #ejj incomes of ,l#ajj1 it   
diverts energy from the creation of     
wealth to the multiplication of         
luxuries1 so that1 for example1 while   
one-tenth of the people of ,england are 
overcrowded1 a considerable part of them
 are engaged1 not in supplying that     
deficiency1 but in making rich men's    
hotels1 luxurious yachts1 and motorcars 
like that used by the ,secretary of     
,state for ,war1 with an interior inlaid
 with silver in quartered mahogany1 and 
upholstered in fawn suede and morocco1  
which was recently bought by a suburban 
capitalist1 by way of encouraging useful
 industries and rebuking public         
extravagance with an example of private 

economy1 for the trifling sum of        
#ad1jjj4  ,thus part of the goods which 
are annually produced1 and which are    
called wealth1 is1 strictly speaking1   
waste1 because it consists of articles  
which1 though reckoned as part of the   
income of the nation1 either should not 
have been produced until other articles 
had already #ch been produced in        
sufficient abundance1 or should not have
 been produced at all4  ,and some part  
of the population is employed in making 
goods which no man can make with        
happiness1 or indeed without loss of    
self-respect1 because he knows that they
 had much better not be made2 and that  
his life is wasted in making them4      
,everybody recognizes that the army     
contractor who1 in time of war1 set     
several hundred navvies to dig an       
artificial lake in his grounds1 was not 
adding to1 but subtracting from1 the    
wealth of the nation4  ,but in time of  
peace many hundred thousand workmen1 if 
they are not digging ponds1 are doing   

work which is equally foolish and       
wasteful2 though1 in peace1 as in war1  
there is important work1 which is       
waiting to be done1 and which is        
neglected4  ,it is neglected because1   
while the effective demand of the mass  
of men is only too small1 there is a    
small class which wears several men's   
clothes1 eats several men's dinners1    
occupies several families' houses1 and  
lives several men's lives4  ,as long as 
a minority has so large an income that  
part of it1 if spent at all1 must be    
spent on trivialities1 so long will part
 of the human energy and mechanical     
equipment of the nation be diverted from
 serious work1 which enriches it1 to    
making trivialities1 which impoverishes 
it1 since they can only be made at the  
cost of not making other things4  ,and  
if the peers and millionaires who are   
now preaching the duty of production to 
miners and dock laborers desire that    
more wealth1 not more waste1 should be  
produced1 the simplest way in which they

 can achieve their aim is to transfer to
 the public their whole incomes over    
7say7 #e1jjj a year1 in order that it   
may #ci be spent in setting to work1 not
 gardeners1 chauffeurs1 domestic        
servants and shopkeepers in the ,west   
,end of ,london1 but builders1 mechanics
 and teachers4  ,so to those who clamor1
 as many now do1 ,produce6  ,produce6   
one simple question may be              
addressed3--,produce what8  ,food1      
clothing1 house-room1 art1 knowledge8   
,by all means6  ,but if the nation is   
scantily furnished with these things had
 it not better stop producing a good    
many others which fill shop windows in  
,regent ,street8  ,if it desires to     
re-equip its industries with machinery  
and its railways with wagons1 had it not
 better refrain from holding exhibitions
 designed to encourage rich men to      
re-equip themselves with motor-cars8    
,what can be more childish than to urge 
the necessity that productive power     
should be increased1 if part of the     

productive power which exists already is
 misapplied8  ,is not less production of
 futilities as important as1 indeed a   
condition of1 more production of things 
of moment8  ,would not ,spend less on   
private luxuries be as wise a cry as    
produce more8  ,yet this result of      
inequality1 again1 is a phenomenon which
 cannot be prevented1 or checked1 or    
even recognized by a society which      
excludes the idea of purpose from its   
social arrangements and industrial      
activity4  ,for to recognize it is to   
admit that there is a principle superior
 to the mechanical play of economic     
forces1 which ought to determine the    
relative importance of different        
occupations1 and thus to abandon the    
view that all riches1 however composed1 
are an end1 and that all economic       
activity is equally justifiable4  #dj   
,the rejection of the idea of purpose   
involves another consequence which every
 one laments1 but which no one can      
prevent1 except by abandoning the belief

 that the free exercise of rights is the
 main interest of society and the       
discharge of obligations a secondary and
 incidental consequence which may be    
left to take care of itself4  ,it is    
that social life is turned into a scene 
of fierce antagonisms and that a        
considerable part of industry is carried
 on in the intervals of a disguised     
social war4  ,the idea that industrial  
peace can be secured merely by the      
exercise of tact and forbearance is     
based on the idea that there is a       
fundamental identity of interest between
 the different groups engaged in it1    
which is occasionally interrupted by    
regrettable misunderstandings4  ,both   
the one idea and the other are an       
illusion4 ,the disputes which matter are
 not caused by a misunderstanding of    
identity of interests1 but by a better  
understanding of diversity of interests4
  ,though a formal declaration of war is
 an episode1 the conditions which issue 
in a declaration of war are permanent2  

and what makes them permanent is the    
conception of industry which also makes 
inequality and functionless incomes     
permanent4  ,it is the denial that      
industry has any end or purpose other   
than the satisfaction of those engaged  
in it4  ,that motive produces industrial
 warfare1 not as a regrettable incident1
 but as an inevitable result4  ,it      
produces industrial war1 because its    
teaching is that each individual or     
group has a right to what they can get1 
and denies that there is any principle1 
other than the mechanism of the market1 
which determines what #da they ought to 
get4  ,for1 since the income available  
for distribution is limited1 and since1 
therefore1 when certain limits have been
 passed1 what one group gains another   
group must lose1 it is evident that if  
the relative incomes of different groups
 are not to be determined by their      
functions1 there is no method other than
 mutual self-assertion which is left to 
determine them4  ,self-interest1 indeed1

 may cause them to refrain from using   
their full strength to enforce their    
claims1 and1 in so far as this happens1 
peace is secured in industry1 as men    
have attempted to secure it in          
international affairs1 by a balance of  
power4  ,but the maintenance of such a  
peace is contingent upon the estimate of
 the parties to it that they have more  
to lose than to gain by an overt        
struggle1 and is not the result of their
 acceptance of any standard of          
remuneration as an equitable settlement 
of their claims4  ,hence it is          
precarious1 insincere and short4  ,it is
 without finality1 because there can be 
no finality in the mere addition of     
increments of income1 any more than in  
the gratification of any other desire   
for material goods4 ,when demands are   
conceded the old struggle recommences   
upon a new level1 and will always       
recommence as long as men seek to end it
 merely by increasing remuneration1 not 
by finding a principle upon which all   

remuneration1 whether large or small1   
should be based4  ,such a principle is  
offered by the idea of function1 because
 its application would eliminate the    
surpluses which are the subject of      
contention1 and would make it evident   
that remuneration is based upon service1
 #db not upon chance or privilege or the
 power to use opportunities to drive a  
hard bargain4  ,but the idea of function
 is incompatible with the doctrine that 
every person and organization have an   
unlimited right to exploit their        
economic opportunities as fully as they 
please1 which is the working faith of   
modern industry2 and1 since it is not   
accepted1 men resign themselves to the  
settlement of the issue by force1 or    
propose that the ,state should supersede
 the force of private associations by   
the use of its force1 as though the     
absence of a principle could be         
compensated by a new kind of machinery4 
,yet all the time the true cause of     
industrial warfare is as simple as the  

true cause of international warfare4    
,it is that if men recognize no law     
superior to their desires1 then they    
must fight when their desires collide4  
,for though groups or nations which are 
at issue with each other may be willing 
to submit to a principle which is       
superior to them both1 there is no      
reason why they should submit to each   
other4  ,hence the idea1 which is       
popular with rich men1 that industrial  
disputes would disappear if only the    
output of wealth were doubled1 and every
 one were twice as well off1 not only is
 refuted by all practical experience1   
but is in its very nature founded upon  
an illusion4  ,for the question is one  
not of amounts but of proportions2 and  
men will fight to be paid #abj a week1  
instead of #hj1 as readily as they will 
fight to be paid #bj instead of #af1 as 
long as there is no reason why they     
should be paid #hj instead of #abj1 and 
as long as other men who do not work are
 paid anything #dc at all4  ,if miners  

demanded higher wages when every        
superfluous charge upon coal-getting had
 been eliminated1 there would be a      
principle with which to meet their      
claim1 the principle that one group of  
workers ought not to encroach upon the  
livelihood of others4  ,but as long as  
mineral owners extract royalties1 and   
exceptionally productive mines pay      
thirty per cent4 to absentee            
shareholders1 there is no valid answer  
to a demand for higher wages4 ,for if   
the community pays anything at all to   
those who do not work1 it can afford to 
pay more to those who do4  ,the naive   
complaint1 that workmen are never       
satisfied1 is1 therefore1 strictly true4
  ,it is true1 not only of workmen1 but 
of all classes in a society which       
conducts its affairs on the principle   
that wealth1 instead of being           
proportioned to function1 belongs to    
those who can get it4  ,they are never  
satisfied1 nor can they be satisfied4   
,for as long as they make that principle

 the guide of their individual lives and
 of their social order1 nothing short of
 infinity could bring them satisfaction4
   ,so here1 again1 the prevalent       
insistence upon rights1 and prevalent   
neglect of functions1 brings men into a 
vicious circle which they cannot escape1
 without escaping from the false        
philosophy which dominates them4  ,but  
it does something more4  ,it makes that 
philosophy itself seem plausible and    
exhilarating1 and a rule not only for   
industry1 in which it had its birth1 but
 for politics and culture and religion  
and the whole compass of social life4   
,the possibility that one aspect of     
human life may be so exaggerated as to  
overshadow1 #dd and in time to atrophy1 
every other1 has been made familiar to  
,englishmen by the example of ,prussian 
militarism4  ,militarism is the         
characteristic1 not of an army1 but of a
 society4  ,its essence is not any      
particular quality or scale of military 
preparation1 but a state of mind1 which1

 in its concentration on one particular 
element in social life1 ends finally by 
exalting it until it becomes the arbiter
 of all the rest4  ,the purpose for     
which military forces exist is          
forgotten4 ,they are thought to stand by
 their own right and to need no         
justification4  ,instead of being       
regarded as an instrument which is      
necessary in an imperfect world1 they   
are elevated into an object of          
superstitious veneration1 as though the 
world would be a poor insipid place     
without them1 so that political         
institutions and social arrangements and
 intellect and morality and religion are
 crushed into a mold made to fit one    
activity1 which in a sane society is a  
subordinate activity1 like the police1  
or the maintenance of prisons1 or the   
cleansing of sewers1 but which in a     
militarist state is a kind of mystical  
epitome of society itself4  ,militarism1
 as ,englishmen see plainly enough1 is  
fetich worship4  ,it is the prostration 

of men's souls before1 and the          
laceration of their bodies to appease1  
an idol4  ,what they do not see is that 
their reverence for economic activity   
and industry and what is called business
 is also fetich worship1 and that in    
their devotion to that idol they torture
 themselves as needlessly and indulge in
 the same meaningless antics as the     
,prussians did in their worship of      
militarism4 ,for what the military      
tradition and spirit have done for      
,prussia1 #de with the result of        
creating militarism1 the commercial     
tradition and spirit have done for      
,england1 with the result of creating   
industrialism4  ,industrialism is no    
more a necessary characteristic of an   
economically developed society than     
militarism is a necessary characteristic
 of a nation which maintains military   
forces4  ,it is no more the result of   
applying science to industry than       
militarism is the result of the         
application of science to war1 and the  

idea that it is something inevitable in 
a community which uses coal and iron and
 machinery1 so far from being the truth1
 is itself a product of the perversion  
of mind which industrialism produces4   
,men may use what mechanical instruments
 they please and be none the worse for  
their use4 ,what kills their souls is   
when they allow their instruments to use
 them4  ,the essence of industrialism1  
in short1 is not any particular method  
of industry1 but a particular estimate  
of the importance of industry1 which    
results in it being thought the only    
thing that is important at all1 so that 
it is elevated from the subordinate     
place which it should occupy among human
 interests and activities into being the
 standard by which all other interests  
and activities are judged4  ,when a     
,cabinet ,minister declares that the    
greatness of this country depends upon  
the volume of its exports1 so that      
,france1 with exports comparatively     
little1 and ,elizabethan ,england1 which

 exported next to nothing1 are          
presumably to be pitied as altogether   
inferior civilizations1 that is         
,industrialism4  ,it is the confusion of
 one minor department of life with the  
#df whole of life4  ,when manufacturers 
cry and cut themselves with knives1     
because it is proposed that boys and    
girls of fourteen shall attend school   
for eight hours a week1 and the         
,president of the ,board of ,education  
is so gravely impressed by their        
apprehensions1 that he at once allows   
the hours to be reduced to seven1 that  
is ,industrialism4  ,it is fetich       
worship4  ,when the ,government obtains 
money for a war1 which costs #bh1jjj1jjj
 a day1 by closing the ,museums1 which  
cost #hj1jjj a year1 that is            
,industrialism4  ,it is a contempt for  
all interests which do not contribute   
obviously to economic activity4  ,when  
the ,press clamors that the one thing   
needed to make this island an ,arcadia  
is productivity1 and more productivity1 

and yet more productivity1 that is      
,industrialism4  ,it is the confusion of
 means with ends4  ,men will always     
confuse means with ends if they are     
without any clear conception that it is 
the ends1 not the means1 which          
matter--if they allow their minds to    
slip from the fact that it is the social
 purpose of industry which gives it     
meaning and makes it worth while to     
carry it on at all4  ,and when they do  
that1 they will turn their whole world  
upside down1 because they do not see the
 poles upon which it ought to move4  ,so
 when1 like ,england1 they are          
thoroughly industrialized1 they behave  
like ,germany1 which was thoroughly     
militarized4  ,they talk as though man  
existed for industry1 instead of        
industry existing for man1 as the       
,prussians talked of man existing for   
war4  ,they resent any activity which is
 not colored by the predominant         
interest1 because it seems a rival to   
it4  ,so they #dg destroy religion and  

art and morality1 which cannot exist    
unless they are disinterested2 and      
having destroyed these1 which are the   
end1 for the sake of industry1 which is 
a means1 they make their industry itself
 what they make their cities1 a desert  
of unnatural dreariness1 which only     
forgetfulness can make endurable1 and   
which only excitement can enable them to
 forget4  ,torn by suspicions and       
recriminations1 avid of power1 and      
oblivious of duties1 desiring peace1 but
 unable to seek peace and ensue it1     
because unwilling to surrender the creed
 which is the cause of war1 to what can 
one compare such a society but to the   
international world1 which also has been
 called a society and which also is     
social in nothing but name8  ,and the   
comparison is more than a play upon     
words4 ,it is an analogy which has its  
roots in the facts of history4  ,it is  
not a chance that the last two          
centuries1 which saw the new growth of a
 new system of industry1 saw also the   

growth of the system of international   
politics which came to a climax in the  
period from #ahgj to #aiad4  ,both the  
one and the other are the expression of 
the same spirit and move in obedience to
 similar laws4  ,the essence of the     
former was the repudiation of any       
authority superior to the individual    
reason4  ,it left men free to follow    
their own interests or ambitions or     
appetites1 untrammeled by subordination 
to any common center of allegiance4     
,the essence of the latter was the      
repudiation of any authority superior to
 the sovereign state1 which again was   
conceived as a compact self-contained   
unit--a unit #dh which would lose its   
very essence if it lost its independence
 of other states4  ,just as the one     
emancipated economic activity from a    
mesh of antiquated traditions1 so the   
other emancipated nations from arbitrary
 subordination to alien races or        
,governments1 and turned them into      
nationalities with a right to work out  

their own destiny4  ,nationalism is1 in 
fact1 the counterpart among nations of  
what individualism is within them4  ,it 
has similar origins and tendencies1     
similar triumphs and defects4  ,for     
nationalism1 like individualism1 lays   
its emphasis on the rights of separate  
units1 not on their subordination to    
common obligations1 though its units are
 races or nations1 not individual men4  
,like individualism it appeals to the   
self-assertive instincts1 to which it   
promises opportunities of unlimited     
expansion4  ,like individualism it is a 
force of immense explosive power1 the   
just claims of which must be conceded   
before it is possible to invoke any     
alternative principle to control its    
operations4 ,for one cannot impose a    
supernational authority upon irritated  
or discontented or oppressed            
nationalities any more than one can     
subordinate economic motives to the     
control of society1 until society has   
recognized that there is a sphere which 

they may legitimately occupy4  ,and1    
like individualism1 if pushed to its    
logical conclusion1 it is               
self-destructive4  ,for as nationalism1 
in its brilliant youth1 begins as a     
claim that nations1 because they are    
spiritual beings1 shall determine       
themselves1 and passes too often into a 
claim that they shall dominate others1  
so individualism begins by asserting the
 right of men to #di make of their own  
lives what they can1 and ends by        
condoning the subjection of the majority
 of men to the few whom good fortune or 
special opportunity or privilege have   
enabled most successfully to use their  
rights4  ,they rose together4  ,it is   
probable that1 if ever they decline1    
they will decline together4  ,for life  
cannot be cut in compartments4  ,in the 
long run the world reaps in war what it 
sows in peace4  ,and to expect that     
international rivalry can be exorcised  
as long as the industrial order within  
each nation is such as to give success  

to those whose existence is a struggle  
for self-aggrandizement is a dream which
 has not even the merit of being        
beautiful4  ,so the perversion of       
nationalism is imperialism1 as the      
perversion of individualism is          
industrialism4  ,and the perversion     
comes1 not through any flaw or vice in  
human nature1 but by the force of the   
idea1 because the principle is defective
 and reveals its defects as it reveals  
its power4  ,for it asserts that the    
rights of nations and individuals are   
absolute1 which is false1 instead of    
asserting that they are absolute in     
their own sphere1 but that their sphere 
itself is contingent upon the part which
 they play in the community of nations  
and individuals1 which is true4  ,thus  
it constrains them to a career of       
indefinite expansion1 in which they     
devour continents and oceans1 law1      
morality and religion1 and last of all  
their own souls1 in an attempt to attain
 infinity by the addition to themselves 

of all that is finite4  ,in the meantime
 their rivals1 and their subjects1 and  
they themselves are conscious of the    
danger of opposing forces1 and seek to  
#ej purchase security and to avoid a    
collision by organizing a balance of    
power4 ,but the balance1 whether in     
international politics or in industry1  
is unstable1 because it reposes not on  
the common recognition of a principle by
 which the claims of nations and        
individuals are limited1 but on an      
attempt to find an equipoise which may  
avoid a conflict without adjuring the   
assertion of unlimited claims4  ,no such
 equipoise can be found1 because1 in a  
world where the possibilities of        
increasing military or industrial power 
are illimitable1 no such equipoise can  
exist4  ,thus1 as long as men move on   
this plane1 there is no solution4  ,they
 can obtain peace only by surrendering  
the claim to the unfettered exercise of 
their rights1 which is the cause of war4
  ,what we have been witnessing1 in     

short1 during the past five years1 both 
in international affairs and in         
industry1 is the breakdown of the       
organization of society on the basis of 
rights divorced from obligations4       
,sooner or later the collapse was       
inevitable1 because the basis was too   
narrow4 ,for a right is simply a power  
which is secured by legal sanctions1 a  
capacity1 as the lawyers define it1     
residing in one man1 of controlling1    
with the assistance of the ,state1 the  
action of others1 and a right should not
 be absolute for the same reason that a 
power should not be absolute4  ,no doubt
 it is better that individuals should   
have absolute rights than that the      
,state or the ,government should have   
them2 and it was the reaction against   
the abuses of absolute power by the     
,state which led in the eighteenth      
century to the declaration of the       
absolute rights of individuals4  #ea    
,the most obvious defense against the   
assertion of one extreme was the        

assertion of the other4  ,because       
,governments and the relics of feudalism
 had encroached upon the property of    
individuals it was affirmed that the    
right of property was absolute2 because 
they had strangled enterprise1 it was   
affirmed that every man had a natural   
right to conduct his business as he     
pleased4 ,but1 in reality1 both the one 
assertion and the other are false1 and1 
if applied to practice1 must lead to    
disaster4  ,the ,state has no absolute  
rights2 they are limited by its         
commission4  ,the individual has no     
absolute rights2 they are relative to   
the function which he performs in the   
community of which he is a member1      
because1 unless they are so limited1 the
 consequences must be something in the  
nature of private war4  ,all rights1 in 
short1 are conditional and derivative1  
because all power should be conditional 
and derivative4  ,they are derived from 
the end or purpose of the society in    
which they exist4 ,they are conditional 

on being used to contribute to the      
attainment of that end1 not to thwart   
it4  ,and this means in practice that1  
if society is to be healthy1 men must   
regard themselves not as the owners of  
rights1 but as trustees for the         
discharge of functions and the          
instruments of a social purpose4     #eb
  ,v  ,,property ,,and ,,creative ,,work
  ,the application of the principle that
 society should be organized upon the   
basis of functions1 is not recondite1   
but simple and direct4  ,it offers in   
the first place1 a standard for         
discriminating between those types of   
private property which are legitimate   
and those which are not4 ,during the    
last century and a half1 political      
thought has oscillated between two      
conceptions of property1 both of which1 
in their different ways1 are            
extravagant4  ,on the one hand1 the     
practical foundation of social          
organization has been the doctrine that 
the particular forms of private property

 which exist at any moment are a thing  
sacred and inviolable1 that anything may
 properly become the object of property 
rights1 and that1 when it does1 the     
title to it is absolute and             
unconditioned4  ,the modern industrial  
system took shape in an age when this   
theory of property was triumphant4  ,the
 ,american ,constitution and the ,french
 ,declaration of the ,rights of ,man    
both treated property as one of the     
fundamental rights which ,governments   
exist to protect4  ,the ,english        
,revolution of #afhh1 undogmatic and    
reticent though it was1 had in effect   
done the same4  ,the great              
individualists from ,locke to ,turgot1  
,adam ,smith and ,bentham all repeated1 
in different language1 a similar        
conception4  ,though what gave the      
,revolution its #ec diabolical character
 in the eyes of the ,english upper      
classes was its treatment of property1  
the dogma of the sanctity of private    
property was maintained as tenaciously  

by ,french ,jacobins as by ,english     
,tories2 and the theory that property is
 an absolute1 which is held by many     
modern ,conservatives1 is identical1 if 
only they knew it1 with that not only of
 the men of #aghi1 but of the           
,convention itself4  ,on the other hand1
 the attack has been almost as          
undiscriminating as the defense4        
,private property has been the central  
position against which the social       
movement of the last hundred years has  
directed its forces4  ,the criticism of 
it has ranged from an imaginative       
communism in the most elementary and    
personal of necessaries1 to prosaic and 
partially realized proposals to transfer
 certain kinds of property from private 
to public ownership1 or to limit their  
exploitation by restrictions imposed by 
the ,state4  ,but1 however varying in   
emphasis and in method1 the general note
 of what may conveniently be called the 
,socialist criticism of property is what
 the word ,socialism itself implies4    

,its essence is the statement that the  
economic evils of society are primarily 
due to the unregulated operation1 under 
modern conditions of industrial         
organization1 of the institution of     
private property4  ,the divergence of   
opinion is natural1 since in most       
discussions of property the opposing    
theorists have usually been discussing  
different things4  ,property is the most
 ambiguous of categories4  ,it covers a 
multitude of rights which have nothing  
in common except that they are exercised
 by persons and enforced by the ,state4 
#ed ,apart from these formal            
characteristics1 they vary indefinitely 
in economic character1 in social effect1
 and in moral justification4  ,they may 
be conditional like the grant of patent 
rights1 or absolute like the ownership  
of ground rents1 terminable like        
copyright1 or permanent like a freehold1
 as comprehensive as sovereignty or as  
restricted as an easement1 as intimate  
and personal as the ownership of clothes

 and books1 or as remote and intangible 
as shares in a gold mine or rubber      
plantation4 ,it is idle1 therefore1 to  
present a case for or against private   
property without specifying the         
particular forms of property to which   
reference is made1 and the journalist   
who says that private property is the   
foundation of civilization agrees with  
,proudhon1 who said it was theft1 in    
this respect at least that1 without     
further definition1 the words of both   
are meaningless4  ,arguments which      
support or demolish certain kinds of    
property may have no application to     
others2 considerations which are        
conclusive in one stage of economic     
organization may be almost irrelevant in
 the next4  ,the course of wisdom is    
neither to attack private property in   
general nor to defend it in general2 for
 things are not similar in quality1     
merely because they are identical in    
name4  ,it is to discriminate between   
the various concrete embodiments of     

what1 in itself1 is1 after all1 little  
more than an abstraction4  ,the origin  
and development of different kinds of   
proprietary rights is not material to   
this discussion4  ,whatever may have    
been the historical process by which    
they have been established and          
recognized1 the #ee rationale of private
 property traditional in ,england is    
that which sees in it the security that 
each man will reap where he has sown4   
,if ,i despair of enjoying the fruits of
 labor1 said ,bentham1 repeating what   
were in all essentials the arguments of 
,locke1 ,i shall only live from day to  
day2 ,i shall not undertake labors which
 will only benefit my enemies4          
,property1 it is argued1 is a moral     
right1 and not merely a legal right1    
because it insures that the producer    
will not be deprived by violence of the 
result of his efforts4  ,the period from
 which that doctrine was inherited      
differed from our own in three obvious1 
but significant1 respects4  ,property in

 land and in the simple capital used in 
most industries was widely distributed4 
,before the rise of capitalist          
agriculture and capitalist industry1 the
 ownership1 or at any rate the secure   
and effective occupation1 of land and   
tools by those who used them1 was a     
condition precedent to effective work in
 the field or in the workshop4  ,the    
forces which threatened property were   
the fiscal policy of ,governments and in
 some countries1 for example ,france1   
the decaying relics of feudalism4  ,the 
interference both of the one and of the 
other involved the sacrifice of those   
who carried on useful labor to those who
 did not4  ,to resist them was to       
protect not only property but industry1 
which was indissolubly connected with   
it4  ,too often1 indeed1 resistance was 
ineffective4 ,accustomed to the misery  
of the rural proprietor in ,france1     
,voltaire remarked with astonishment    
that in ,england the peasant may be     
rich1 and does not fear to increase the 

number of his beasts or to cover his    
roof with tiles4  ,and #ef the ,english 
,parliamentarians and the ,french       
philosophers who made the inviolability 
of property rights the center of their  
political theory1 when they defended    
those who owned1 were incidentally1 if  
sometimes unintentionally1 defending    
those who labored4  ,they were          
protecting the yeoman or the master     
craftsman or the merchant from seeing   
the fruits of his toil squandered by the
 hangers-on at ,st4 ,james or the       
courtly parasites of ,versailles4  ,in  
such circumstances the doctrine which   
found the justification of private      
property in the fact that it enabled the
 industrious man to reap where he had   
sown1 was not a paradox1 but1 as far as 
the mass of the population was          
concerned1 almost a truism4  ,property  
was defended as the most sacred of      
rights4  ,but it was defended as a right
 which was not only widely exercised1   
but which was indispensable to the      

performance of the active function of   
providing food and clothing4  ,for it   
consisted predominantly of one of two   
types1 land or tools which were used by 
the owner for the purpose of production1
 and personal possessions which were the
 necessities or amenities of civilized  
existence4  ,the former had its         
rationale in the fact that the land of  
the peasant or the tools of the         
craftsman were the condition of his     
rendering the economic services which   
society required2 the latter because    
furniture and clothes are indispensable 
to a life of decency and comfort4  ,the 
proprietary rights--and1 of course1 they
 were numerous--which had their source1 
not in work1 but in predatory force1    
were protected from criticism by the    
wide distribution of some kind #eg of   
property among the mass of the          
population1 and in ,england1 at least1  
the cruder of them were gradually       
whittled down4  ,when property in land  
and what simple capital existed were    

generally diffused among all classes of 
society1 when1 in most parts of         
,england1 the typical workman was not a 
laborer but a peasant or small master1  
who could point to the strips which he  
had plowed or the cloth which he had    
woven1 when the greater part of the     
wealth passing at death consisted of    
land1 household furniture and a stock in
 trade which was hardly distinguishable 
from it1 the moral justification of the 
title to property was self-evident4  ,it
 was obviously1 what theorists said that
 it was1 and plain men knew it to be1   
the labor spent in producing1 acquiring 
and administering it4  ,such property   
was not a burden upon society1 but a    
condition of its health and efficiency1 
and indeed1 of its continued existence4 
,to protect it was to maintain the      
organization through which public       
necessities were supplied4  ,if1 as in  
,tudor ,england1 the peasant was evicted
 from his holding to make room for      
sheep1 or crushed1 as in eighteenth     

century ,france1 by arbitrary taxation  
and seigneurial dues1 land went out of  
cultivation and the whole community was 
short of food4 ,if the tools of the     
carpenter or smith were seized1 plows   
were not repaired or horses shod4       
,hence1 before the rise of a commercial 
civilization1 it was the mark of        
statesmanship1 alike in the ,england of 
the ,tudors and in the ,france of ,henry
 ,,iv1 to cherish the small             
property-owner even to the point of     
offending the great4  ,popular sentiment
 idealized the #eh yeoman--the ,joseph  
of the country who keeps the poor from  
starving--not merely because he owned   
property1 but because he worked on it1  
denounced that bringing of the livings  
of many into the hands of one1 which    
capitalist societies regard with        
equanimity as an inevitable1 and1       
apparently1 a laudable result of        
economic development1 cursed the usurer 
who took advantage of his neighbor's    
necessities to live without labor1 was  

shocked by the callous indifference to  
public welfare shown by those who not   
having before their eyes either ,god or 
the profit and advantage of the realm1  
have enclosed with hedges and dykes     
towns and hamlets1 and was sufficiently 
powerful to compel ,governments to      
intervene to prevent the laying of field
 to field1 and the engrossing of        
looms--to set limits1 in short1 to the  
scale to which property might grow4     
,when ,bacon1 who commended ,henry ,,vii
 for protecting the tenant right of the 
small farmer1 and pleaded in the ,house 
of ,commons for more drastic land       
legislation1 wrote ,wealth is like muck4
  ,it is not good but if it be spread1  
he was expressing in an epigram what was
 the commonplace of every writer on     
politics from ,fortescue at the end of  
the fifteenth century to ,harrington in 
the middle of the seventeenth4  ,the    
modern conservative1 who is inclined to 
take au pied de la lettre the vigorous  
argument in which ,lord ,hugh ,cecil    

denounces the doctrine that the         
maintenance of proprietary rights ought 
to be contingent upon the use to which  
they are put1 may be reminded that ,lord
 ,hugh's own theory is of a kind to make
 his ancestors turn in their graves4    
,of the two members of the #ei family   
who achieved distinction before the     
nineteenth century1 the elder advised   
the ,crown to prevent landlords evicting
 tenants1 and actually proposed to fix a
 pecuniary maximum to the property which
 different classes might possess1 while 
the younger attacked enclosing in       
,parliament1 and carried legislation    
compelling landlords to build cottages1 
to let them with small holdings1 and to 
plow up pasture4  ,william and ,robert  
,cecil were sagacious and responsible   
men1 and their view that the protection 
of property should be accompanied by the
 enforcement of obligations upon its    
owners was shared by most of their      
contemporaries4  ,the idea that the     
institution of private property involves

 the right of the owner to use it1 or   
refrain from using it1 in such a way as 
he may please1 and that its principal   
significance is to supply him with an   
income1 irrespective of any duties which
 he may discharge1 would not have been  
understood by most public men of that   
age1 and1 if understood1 would have been
 repudiated with indignation by the more
 reputable among them4  ,they found the 
meaning of property in the public       
purposes to which it contributed1       
whether they were the production of     
food1 as among the peasantry1 or the    
management of public affairs1 as among  
the gentry1 and hesitated neither to    
maintain those kinds of property which  
met these obligations nor to repress    
those uses of it which appeared likely  
to conflict with them4  ,property was to
 be an aid to creative work1 not an     
alternative to it4  ,the patentee was   
secured protection for a new invention1 
in order to secure him the fruits of his
 own brain1 but the monopolist who grew 

#fj fat on the industry of others was to
 be put down4  ,the law of the village  
bound the peasant to use his land1 not  
as he himself might find most           
profitable1 but to grow the corn the    
village needed4  ,long after political  
changes had made direct interference    
impracticable1 even the higher ranks of 
,english landowners continued to        
discharge1 however capriciously and     
tyrannically1 duties which were vaguely 
felt to be the contribution which they  
made to the public service in virtue of 
their estates4  ,when as in ,france1 the
 obligations of ownership were          
repudiated almost as completely as they 
have been by the owner of to-day1       
nemesis came in an onslaught upon the   
position of a noblesse which had        
retained its rights and abdicated its   
functions4  ,property reposed1 in short1
 not merely upon convenience1 or the    
appetite for gain1 but on a moral       
principle4  ,it was protected not only  
for the sake of those who owned1 but for

 the sake of those who worked and of    
those for whom their work provided4  ,it
 was protected1 because1 without        
security for property1 wealth could not 
be produced or the business of society  
carried on4   ,whatever the future may  
contain1 the past has shown no more     
excellent social order than that in     
which the mass of the people were the   
masters of the holdings which they      
plowed and of the tools with which they 
worked1 and could boast1 with the       
,english freeholder1 that it is a       
quietness to a man's mind to live upon  
his own and to know his heir certain4   
,with this conception of property and   
its practical expression in social      
institutions those who urge that society
 should be #fa organized on the basis of
 function have no quarrel4  ,it is in   
agreement with their own doctrine1 since
 it justifies property by reference to  
the services which it enables its owner 
to perform4  ,all that they need ask is 
that it should be carried to its logical

 conclusion4  ,for the argument has     
evidently more than one edge4  ,if it   
justifies certain types of property1 it 
condemns others2 and in the conditions  
of modern industrial civilization1 what 
it justifies is less than what it       
condemns4  ,the truth is1 indeed1 that  
this theory of property and the         
institutions in which it is embodied    
have survived into an age in which the  
whole structure of society is radically 
different from that in which it was     
formulated1 and which made it a valid   
argument1 if not for all1 at least for  
the most common and characteristic kinds
 of property4 ,it is not merely that the
 ownership of any substantial share in  
the national wealth is concentrated     
to-day in the hands of a few hundred    
thousand families1 and that at the end  
of an age which began with an           
affirmation of the rights of property1  
proprietary rights are1 in fact1 far    
from being widely distributed4  ,nor is 
it merely that what makes property      

insecure to-day is not the arbitrary    
taxation of unconstitutional monarchies 
or the privileges of an idle noblesse1  
but the insatiable expansion and        
aggregation of property itself1 which   
menaces with absorption all property    
less than the greatest1 the small       
master1 the little shopkeeper1 the      
country bank1 and has turned the mass of
 mankind into a proletariat working     
under the agents and for the profit of  
those who own4  ,the characteristic     
fact1 which differentiates most #fb     
modern property from that of the        
pre-industrial age1 and which turns     
against it the very reasoning by which  
formerly it was supported1 is that in   
modern economic conditions ownership is 
not active1 but passive1 that to most of
 those who own property to-day it is not
 a means of work but an instrument for  
the acquisition of gain or the exercise 
of power1 and that there is no guarantee
 that gain bears any relation to        
service1 or power to responsibility4    

,for property which can be regarded as a
 condition of the performance of        
function1 like the tools of the         
craftsman1 or the holding of the        
peasant1 or the personal possessions    
which contribute to a life of health and
 efficiency1 forms an insignificant     
proportion1 as far as its value is      
concerned1 of the property rights       
existing at present4  ,in modern        
industrial societies the great mass of  
property consists1 as the annual review 
of wealth passing at death reveals1     
neither of personal acquisitions such as
 household furniture1 nor of the owner's
 stock-in-trade1 but of rights of       
various kinds1 such as royalties1       
ground-rents1 and1 above all1 of course 
shares in industrial undertakings which 
yield an income irrespective of any     
personal service rendered by their      
owners4 ,ownership and use are normally 
divorced4  ,the greater part of modern  
property has been attenuated to a       
pecuniary lien or bond on the product of

 industry which carries with it a right 
to payment1 but which is normally valued
 precisely because it relieves the owner
 from any obligation to perform a       
positive or constructive function4      
,such property may be called passive    
property1 or property for acquisition1  
for exploitation1 or for power1 #fc to  
distinguish it from the property which  
is actively used by its owner for the   
conduct of his profession or the upkeep 
of his household4  ,to the lawyer the   
first is1 of course1 as fully property  
as the second4  ,it is questionable1    
however1 whether economists shall call  
it ,property at all1 and not rather1 as 
,mr4 ,hobson has suggested1 ,improperty1
 since it is not identical with the     
rights which secure the owner the       
produce of his toil1 but is opposite of 
them4  ,a classification of proprietary 
rights based upon this difference would 
be instructive4  ,if they were arranged 
according to the closeness with which   
they approximate to one or other of     

these two extremes1 it would be found   
that they were spread along a line      
stretching from property which is       
obviously the payment for1 and condition
 of1 personal services1 to property     
which is merely a right to payment from 
the services rendered by others1 in fact
 a private tax4  ,the rough order which 
would emerge1 if all details and        
qualification were omitted1 might be    
something as follows3--  #a4  ,property 
in payments made for personal services4 
#b4  ,property in personal possessions  
necessary to health and comfort4  #c4   
,property in land and tools used by     
their owners4  #d4  ,property in        
copyright and patent rights owned by    
authors and inventors4  #e4  ,property  
in pure interest1 including much        
agricultural rent4  #f4  ,property in   
profits of luck and good fortune3       
quasi-rents4  #g4  ,property in monopoly
 profits4  #fd  #h4  ,property in urban 
ground rents4  #i4  ,property in        
royalties4  ,the first four kinds of    

property obviously accompany1 and in    
some sense condition1 the performance of
 work4  ,the last four obviously do not4
 ,pure interest has some affinities with
 both4  ,it represents a necessary      
economic cost1 the equivalent of which  
must be born1 whatever the legal        
arrangements under which property is    
held1 and is thus unlike the property   
represented by profits 7other than the  
equivalent of salaries and payment for  
necessary risk71 urban ground-rents and 
royalties4  ,it relieves the recipient  
from personal services1 and thus        
resembles them4  ,the crucial question  
for any society is1 under which each of 
these two broad groups of categories the
 greater part 7measured in value7 of the
 proprietary rights which it maintains  
are at any given moment to be found4    
,if they fall in the first group        
creative work will be encouraged and    
idleness will be depressed2 if they fall
 in the second1 the result will be the  
reverse4  ,the facts vary widely from   

age to age and from country to country4 
,nor have they ever been fully revealed2
 for the lords of the jungle do not hunt
 by daylight4  ,it is probable1 at      
least1 that in the ,england of #aeej to 
#agej1 a larger proportion of the       
existing property consisted of land and 
tools used by their owners than either  
in contemporary ,france1 where feudal   
dues absorbed a considerable proportion 
of the peasants' income1 or than in the 
,england of #ahjj to #ahej1 where the   
new capitalist manufacturers made       
hundreds per cent4 while manual workers 
were goaded by starvation into          
ineffectual #fe revolt4  ,it is probable
 that in the nineteenth century1 thanks 
to the ,revolution1 ,france and ,england
 changed places1 and that in this       
respect not only ,ireland but the       
,british ,dominions resemble the former 
rather than the latter4  ,the           
transformation can be studied best of   
all in the ,united ,states1 in parts of 
which the population of peasant         

proprietors and small masters of the    
early nineteenth century were replaced  
in three generations by a propertyless  
proletariat and a capitalist plutocracy4
  ,the abolition of the economic        
privileges of agrarian feudalism1 which1
 under the name of equality1 was the    
driving force of the ,french            
,revolution1 and which has taken place1 
in one form or another1 in all countries
 touched by its influence1 has been     
largely counter-balanced since #ahjj by 
the growth of the inequalities springing
 from ,industrialism4  ,in ,england the 
general effect of recent economic       
development has been to swell           
proprietary rights which entitle the    
owners to payment without work1 and to  
diminish those which can properly be    
described as functional4  ,the expansion
 of the former1 and the process by which
 the simpler forms of property have been
 merged in them1 are movements the      
significance of which it is hardly      
possible to over-estimate4  ,there is1  

of course1 a considerable body of       
property which is still of the older    
type4  ,but though working landlords1   
and capitalists who manage their own    
businesses1 are still in the aggregate a
 numerous body1 the organization for    
which they stand is not that which is   
most representative of the modern       
economic world4  ,the general tendency  
for the ownership and administration of 
#ff property to be separated1 the       
general refinement of property into a   
claim on goods produced by an unknown   
worker1 is as unmistakable as the growth
 of capitalist industry and urban       
civilization themselves4  ,villages are 
turned into towns and property in land  
changes from the holding worked by a    
farmer or the estate administered by a  
landlord into rents1 which are          
advertised and bought and sold like any 
other investment4  ,mines are opened and
 the rights of the landowner are        
converted into a tribute for every ton  
of coal which is brought to the surface4

  ,as joint-stock companies take the    
place of the individual enterprise which
 was typical of the earlier years of the
 factory system1 organization passes    
from the employer who both owns and     
manages his business1 into the hands of 
salaried officials1 and again the mass  
of property-owners is swollen by the    
multiplication of rentiers who put their
 wealth at the disposal of industry1 but
 who have no other connection with it4  
,the change is taking place in our day  
most conspicuously1 perhaps1 through the
 displacement in retail trade of the    
small shopkeeper by the multiple store1 
and the substitution in manufacturing   
industry of combines and amalgamations  
for separate businesses conducted by    
competing employers4 ,and1 of course1 it
 is not only by economic development    
that such claims are created4  ,out of  
the eater came forth meat1 and out of   
the strong came forth sweetness4  ,it is
 probable that war1 which in barbarous  
ages used to be blamed as destructive of

 property1 has recently created more    
titles to property than almost all other
 causes put together4  ,infinitely      
diverse as are these proprietary rights1
 they #fg have the common characteristic
 of being so entirely separated from the
 actual objects over which they are     
exercised1 so rarified and generalized1 
as to be analogous almost to a form of  
currency rather than to the property    
which is so closely united to its owner 
as to seem a part of him4  ,their       
isolation from the rough environment of 
economic life1 where the material       
objects of which they are the symbol are
 shaped and handled1 is their charm4    
,it is also their danger4  ,the hold    
which a class has upon the future       
depends on the function which it        
performs4 ,what nature demands is work3 
few working aristocracies1 however      
tyrannical1 have fallen2 few            
functionless aristocracies have         
survived4 ,in society1 as in the world  
of organic life1 atrophy is but one     

stage removed from death4  ,in          
proportion as the landowner becomes a   
mere rentier and industry is conducted1 
not by the rude energy of the competing 
employers who dominated its infancy1 but
 by the salaried servants of            
shareholders1 the argument for private  
property which reposes on the           
impossibility of finding any            
organization to supersede them loses its
 application1 for they are already      
superseded4  ,whatever may be the       
justification of these types of         
property1 it cannot be that which was   
given for the property of the peasant or
 the craftsman4  ,it cannot be that they
 are necessary in order to secure to    
each man the fruits of his own labor4   
,for if a legal right which gives       
#bjj1jjj a year to a mineral owner in   
the ,north of ,england and to a ground  
landlord in ,london secures the fruits  
of labor at all1 the fruits are the     
proprietor's and the labor that of some 
one else4 ,property #fh has no more     

insidious enemies than those            
well-meaning anarchists who1 by         
defending all forms of it as equally    
valid1 involve the institution in the   
discredit attaching to its              
extravagances4  ,in reality1 whatever   
conclusion may be drawn from the fact1  
the greater part of modern property1    
whether1 like mineral rights and urban  
ground-rents1 it is merely a form of    
private taxation which the law allows   
certain persons to levy on the industry 
of others1 or whether1 like property in 
capital1 it consists of rights to       
payment for instruments which the       
capitalist cannot himself use but puts  
at the disposal of those who can1 has as
 its essential feature that it confers  
upon its owners income unaccompanied by 
personal service4  ,in this respect the 
ownership of land and the ownership of  
capital are normally similar1 though    
from other points of view their         
differences are important4  ,to the     
economist rent and interest are         

distinguished by the fact that the      
latter1 though it is often accompanied  
by surplus elements which are merged    
with it in dividends1 is the price of an
 instrument of production which would   
not be forthcoming for industry if the  
price were not paid1 while the former is
 a differential surplus which does not  
affect the supply4  ,to the business    
community and the solicitor land and    
capital are equally investments1 between
 which1 since they possess the common   
characteristic of yielding income       
without labor1 it is inequitable to     
discriminate2 and though their          
significance as economic categories may 
be different1 their effect as social    
institutions is the same4  ,it is to    
separate property from creative ability1
 and to divide society into two classes1
 of which one has its #fi primary       
interest in passive ownership1 while the
 other is mainly dependent upon active  
work4  ,hence the real analogy to many  
kinds of modern property is not the     

simple property of the small land-owner 
or the craftsman1 still less the        
household goods and dear domestic       
amenities1 which is what the word       
suggests to the guileless minds of      
clerks and shopkeepers1 and which       
stampede them into displaying the       
ferocity of terrified sheep when the cry
 is raised that ,property is threatened4
  ,it is the feudal dues which robbed   
the ,french peasant of part of his      
produce till the ,revolution abolished  
them4  ,how do royalties differ from    
quintaines and lods et ventes8  ,they   
are similar in their origin and similar 
in being a tax levied on each increment 
of wealth which labor produces4 ,how do 
urban ground-rents differ from the      
payments which were made to ,english    
sinecurists before the ,reform ,bill of 
#ahcb8  ,they are equally tribute paid  
by those who work to those who do not4  
,if the monopoly profits of the owner of
 banalites1 whose tenant must grind corn
 at his mill and make wine at his press1

 were an intolerable oppression1 what is
 the sanctity attaching to the monopoly 
profits of the capitalists1 who1 as the 
,report of the ,government ,committee on
 trusts tells us1 in soap1 tobacco1     
wallpaper1 salt1 cement and in the      
textile trades 444 are in a position to 
control output and prices or1 in other  
words1 can compel the consumer to buy   
from them1 at the figure they fix1 on   
pain of not buying at all8  ,all these  
rights--royalties1 ground-rents1        
monopoly profits--are ,property4  ,the  
criticism most fatal to them is not that
 of ,socialists4  ,it is contained in   
the #gj arguments by which property is  
usually defended4  ,for if the meaning  
of the institution is to encourage      
industry by securing that the worker    
shall receive the produce of his toil1  
then precisely in proportion as it is   
important to preserve the property which
 a man has in the results of his own    
efforts1 is it important to abolish that
 which he has in the results of the     

efforts of some one else4  ,the         
considerations which justify ownership  
as a function are those which condemn it
 as a tax4  ,property is not theft1 but 
a good deal of theft becomes property4  
,the owner of royalties who1 when asked 
why he should be paid ,l#ej1jjj a year  
from minerals which he has neither      
discovered nor developed nor worked but 
only owned1 replies ,but it's ,property6
 may feel all the awe which his language
 suggests4  ,but in reality he is       
behaving like the snake which sinks into
 its background by pretending that it is
 the dead branch of a tree1 or the      
lunatic who tried to catch rabbits by   
sitting behind a hedge and making a     
noise like a turnip4  ,he is practising 
protective--and sometimes               
aggressive--mimicry4  ,his sentiments   
about property are those of the simple  
toiler who fears that what he has sown  
another may reap4  ,his claim is to be  
allowed to continue to reap what another
 has sown4  ,it is sometimes suggested  

that the less attractive characteristics
 of our industrial civilization1 its    
combination of luxury and squalor1 its  
class divisions and class warfare1 are  
accidental maladjustments which are not 
rooted in the center of its being1 but  
are excrescences which economic progress
 itself may in time be expected to      
correct4  ,that agreeable optimism will 
not survive an #ga examination of the   
operation of the institution of private 
property in land and capital in         
industrialized communities4  ,in        
countries where land is widely          
distributed1 in ,france or in ,ireland1 
its effect may be to produce a general  
diffusion of wealth among a rural middle
 class who at once work and own4  ,in   
countries where the development of      
industrial organization has separated   
the ownership of property and the       
performance of work1 the normal effect  
of private property is to transfer to   
functionless owners the surplus arising 
from the more fertile sites1 the better 

machinery1 the more elaborate           
organization4  ,no clearer              
exemplifications of this law of rent has
 been given than the figures supplied to
 the ,coal ,industry ,commission by ,sir
 ,arthur ,lowes ,dickenson1 which showed
 that in a given quarter the costs per  
ton of producing coal varied from #c4ab 
to #ab per ton1 and the profits from nil
 to #d4ab4  ,the distribution in        
dividends to shareholders of the surplus
 accruing from the working of richer and
 more accessible seams1 from special    
opportunities and access to markets1    
from superior machinery1 management and 
organization1 involves the establishment
 of ,privilege as a national            
institution1 as much as the most        
arbitrary exactions of a feudal         
seigneur4  ,it is the foundation of an  
inequality which is not accidental or   
temporary1 but necessary and permanent4 
,and on this inequality is erected the  
whole apparatus of class institutions1  
which make not only the income1 but the 

housing1 education1 health and manners1 
indeed the very physical appearance of  
different classes of ,englishmen almost 
as different from each other as though  
the minority were #gb alien settlers    
established amid the rude civilization  
of a race of impoverished aborigines4   
,so the justification of private        
property traditional in ,england1 which 
saw in it the security that each man    
would enjoy the fruits of his own labor1
 though largely applicable to the age in
 which it was formulated1 has undergone 
the fate of most political theories4    
,it has been refuted not by the         
doctrines of rival philosophers1 but by 
the prosaic course of economic          
development4  ,as far as the mass of    
mankind are concerned1 the need which   
private property other than personal    
possessions does still often satisfy1   
though imperfectly and precariously1 is 
the need for security4  ,to the small   
investors1 who are the majority of      
property-owners1 though owning only an  

insignificant fraction of the property  
in existence1 its meaning is simple4    
,it is not wealth or power1 or even     
leisure from work4  ,it is safety4      
,they work hard4  ,they save a little   
money for old age1 or for sickness1 or  
for their children4  ,they invest it1   
and the interest stands between them and
 all that they dread most4  ,their      
savings are of convenience to industry1 
the income from them is convenient to   
themselves4  ,why1 they ask1 should we  
not reap in old age the advantage of    
energy and thrift in youth8  ,and this  
hunger for security is so imperious that
 those who suffer most from the abuses  
of property1 as well as those who1 if   
they could profit by them1 would be     
least inclined to do so1 will tolerate  
and even defend them1 for fear lest the 
knife which trims dead matter should cut
 into the quick4  ,they have seen too   
many men drown to be #gc critical of dry
 land1 though it be an inhospitable     
rock4  ,they are haunted by the         

nightmare of the future1 and1 if a      
burglar broke it1 would welcome a       
burglar4  ,this need for security is    
fundamental1 and almost the gravest     
indictment of our civilization is that  
the mass of mankind are without it4     
,property is one way of organizing it4  
,it is quite comprehensible therefore1  
that the instrument should be confused  
with the end1 and that any proposal to  
modify it should create dismay4  ,in the
 past1 human beings1 roads1 bridges and 
ferries1 civil1 judicial and clerical   
offices1 and commissions in the army    
have all been private property4         
,whenever it was proposed to abolish the
 rights exercised over them1 it was     
protested that their removal would      
involve the destruction of an           
institution in which thrifty men had    
invested their savings1 and on which    
they depended for protection amid the   
chances of life and for comfort in old  
age4  ,in fact1 however1 property is not
 the only method of assuring the future1

 nor1 when it is the way selected1 is   
security dependent upon the maintenance 
of all the rights which are at present  
normally involved in ownership4  ,in so 
far as its psychological foundation is  
the necessity for securing an income    
which is stable and certain1 which is   
forthcoming when its recipient cannot   
work1 and which can be used to provide  
for those who cannot provide for        
themselves1 what is really demanded is  
not the command over the fluctuating    
proceeds of some particular undertaking1
 which accompanies the ownership of     
capital1 but the security which is      
offered by an annuity4 ,property is the 
instrument1 security is the object1 and 
when some alternative way is forthcoming
 #gd of providing the latter1 it does   
not appear in practice that any loss of 
confidence1 or freedom or independence  
is caused by the absence of the former4 
,hence not only the manual workers1 who 
since the rise of capitalism1 have      
rarely in ,england been able to         

accumulate property sufficient to act as
 a guarantee of income when their period
 of active earning is past1 but also the
 middle and professional classes1       
increasingly seek security to-day1 not  
in investment1 but in insurance against 
sickness and death1 in the purchase of  
annuities1 or in what is in effect the  
same thing1 the accumulation of part of 
their salary towards a pension which is 
paid when their salary ceases4  ,the    
professional man may buy shares in the  
hope of making a profit on the          
transaction4  ,but when what he desires 
to buy is security1 the form which his  
investment takes is usually one kind or 
another of insurance4  ,the teacher1 or 
nurse1 or government servant looks      
forward to a pension4  ,women1 who fifty
 years ago would have been regarded as  
dependent almost as completely as if    
femininity were an incurable disease    
with which they had been born1 and whose
 fathers1 unless rich men1 would have   
been tormented with anxiety for fear    

lest they should not save sufficient to 
provide for them1 now receive an        
education1 support themselves in        
professions1 and save in the same way4  
,it is still only in comparatively few  
cases that this type of provision is    
made2 almost all wage-earners outside   
government employment1 and many in it1  
as well as large numbers of professional
 men1 have nothing to fall back upon in 
sickness or old age4  ,but that does not
 alter the fact #ge that1 when it is    
made1 it meets the need for security1   
which1 apart1 of course1 from personal  
possessions and household furniture1 is 
the principal meaning of property to by 
far the largest element in the          
population1 and that it meets it more   
completely and certainly than property  
itself4  ,nor1 indeed1 even when        
property is the instrument used to      
provide for the future1 is such         
provision dependent upon the maintenance
 in its entirety of the whole body of   
rights which accompany ownership to-day4

 ,property is not simple but complex4   
,that of a man who has invested his     
savings as an ordinary shareholder      
comprises at least three rights1 the    
right to interest1 the right to profits1
 the right to control4  ,in so far as   
what is desired is the guarantee for the
 maintenance of a stable income1 not the
 acquisition of additional wealth       
without labor--in so far as his motive  
is not gain but security--the need is   
met by interest on capital4  ,it has no 
necessary connection either with the    
right to residuary profits or the right 
to control the management of the        
undertaking from which the profits are  
derived1 both of which are vested to-day
 in the shareholder4  ,if all that were 
desired were to use property as an      
instrument for purchasing security1 the 
obvious course--from the point of view  
of the investor desiring to insure his  
future the safest course--would be to   
assimilate his position as far as       
possible to that of a debenture holder  

or mortgagee1 who obtains the stable    
income which is his motive for          
investment1 but who neither incurs the  
risks nor receives the profits of the   
speculator4  ,to insist that the        
elaborate apparatus of proprietary      
rights which #gf distributes dividends  
of thirty per cent to the shareholders  
in ,coats1 and several thousands a year 
to the owner of mineral royalties and   
ground-rents1 and then allows them to   
transmit the bulk of gains which they   
have not earned to descendants who in   
their turn will thus be relieved from   
the necessity of earning1 must be       
maintained for the sake of the widow and
 the orphan1 the vast majority of whom  
have neither and would gladly part with 
them all for a safe annuity if they had1
 is1 to say the least of it1            
extravagantly mal-a-propos4  ,it is like
 pitching a man into the water because  
he expresses a wish for a bath1 or      
presenting a tiger cub to a householder 
who is plagued with mice1 on the ground 

that tigers and cats both belong to the 
genus felis4  ,the tiger hunts for      
itself not for its masters1 and when    
game is scarce will hunt them4  ,the    
classes who own little or no property   
may reverence it because it is security4
  ,but the classes who own much prize it
 for quite different reasons1 and laugh 
in their sleeve at the innocence which  
supposes that anything as vulgar as the 
savings of the petite bourgeoisie have1 
except at elections1 any interest for   
them4 ,they prize it because it is the  
order which quarters them on the        
community and which provides for the    
maintenance of a leisure class at the   
public expense4  ,possession1 said the  
,egoist1 without obligation to the      
object possessed1 approaches felicity4  
,functionless property appears natural  
to those who believe that society should
 be organized for the acquisition of    
private wealth1 and attacks upon it     
perverse or malicious1 because the      
question which they ask of any          

institution is1 ,what does it yield8    
,and such property yields much #gg to   
those who own it4  ,those1 however1 who 
hold that social unity and effective    
work are possible only if society is    
organized and wealth distributed on the 
basis of function1 will ask of an       
institution1 not1 ,what dividends does  
it pay8 but ,what service does it       
perform8  ,to them the fact that much   
property yields income irrespective of  
any service which is performed or       
obligation which is recognized by its   
owners will appear not a quality but a  
vice4  ,they will see in the social     
confusion which it produces1 payments   
disproportionate to service here1 and   
payments without any service at all     
there1 and dissatisfaction everywhere1 a
 convincing confirmation of their       
argument that to build on a foundation  
of rights and of rights alone is to     
build on a quicksand4  ,from the        
portentous exaggeration into an absolute
 of what once was1 and still might be1 a

 sane and social institution most other 
social evils follow the power of those  
who do not work over those who do1 the  
alternate subservience and              
rebelliousness of those who work towards
 those who do not1 the starving of      
science and thought and creative effort 
for fear that expenditure upon them     
should impinge on the comfort of the    
sluggard and the faineant1 and the      
arrangement of society in most of its   
subsidiary activities to suit the       
convenience not of those who work       
usefully but of those who spend gaily1  
so that the most hideous1 desolate and  
parsimonious places in the country are  
those in which the greatest wealth is   
produced1 the ,clyde valley1 or the     
cotton towns of ,lancashire1 or the     
mining villages of ,scotland and ,wales1
 and the gayest and most luxurious #gh  
those in which it is consumed4  ,from   
the point of view of social health and  
economic efficiency1 society should     
obtain its material equipment at the    

cheapest price possible1 and after      
providing for depreciation and expansion
 should distribute the whole product to 
its working members and their           
dependents4  ,what happens at present1  
however1 is that its workers are hired  
at the cheapest price which the market  
7as modified by organization7 allows1   
and that the surplus1 somewhat          
diminished by taxation1 is distributed  
to the owners of property4  ,profits may
 vary in a given year from a loss to    
#ajj per cent4  ,but wages are fixed at 
a level which will enable the marginal  
firm to continue producing one year with
 another2 and the surplus1 even when due
 partly to efficient management1 goes   
neither to managers nor manual workers1 
but to shareholders4  ,the meaning of   
the process becomes startlingly apparent
 when1 as in ,lancashire to-day1 large  
blocks of capital change hands at a     
period of abnormal activity4  ,the      
existing shareholders receive the       
equivalent of the capitalized           

expectation of future profits4  ,the    
workers1 as workers1 do not participate 
in the immense increment in value2 and  
when1 in the future1 they demand an     
advance in wages1 they will be met by   
the answer that profits1 which before   
the transaction would have been reckoned
 large1 yield shareholders after it only
 a low rate of interest on their        
investment4  ,the truth is that whereas 
in earlier ages the protection of       
property was normally the protection of 
work1 the relationship between them has 
come in the course of the economic      
development of the last two centuries to
 #gi be very nearly reversed4  ,the two 
elements which compose civilization are 
active effort and passive property1 the 
labor of human things and the tools     
which human beings use4  ,of these two  
elements those who supply the first     
maintain and improve it1 those who own  
the second normally dictate its         
character1 its development and its      
administration4  ,hence1 though         

politically free1 the mass of mankind   
live in effect under rules imposed to   
protect the interests of the small      
section among them whose primary concern
 is ownership4  ,from this subordination
 of creative activity to passive        
property1 the worker who depends upon   
his brains1 the organizer1 inventor1    
teacher or doctor suffers almost as much
 embarrassment as the craftsman4  ,the  
real economic cleavage is not1 as is    
often said1 between employers and       
employed1 but between all who do        
constructive work1 from scientist to    
laborer1 on the one hand1 and all whose 
main interest is the preservation of    
existing proprietary rights upon the    
other1 irrespective of whether they     
contribute to constructive work or not4 
,if1 therefore1 under the modern        
conditions which have concentrated any  
substantial share of property in the    
hands of a small minority of the        
population1 the world is to be governed 
for the advantages of those who own1 it 

is only incidentally and by accident    
that the results will be agreeable to   
those who work4  ,in practice there is a
 constant collision between them4       
,turned into another channel1 half the  
wealth distributed in dividends to      
functionless shareholders1 could secure 
every child a good education up to #ah1 
could re-endow ,english ,universities1  
and 7since more efficient production is 
#hj important7 could equip ,english     
industries for more efficient           
production4  ,half the ingenuity now    
applied to the protection of property   
could have made most industrial diseases
 as rare as smallpox1 and most ,english 
cities into places of health and even of
 beauty4  ,what stands in the way is the
 doctrine that the rights of property   
are absolute1 irrespective of any social
 function which its owners may perform4 
,so the laws which are most stringently 
enforced are still the laws which       
protect property1 though the protection 
of property is no longer likely to be   

equivalent to the protection of work1   
and the interests which govern industry 
and predominate in public affairs are   
proprietary interests4  ,a mill-owner   
may poison or mangle a generation of    
operatives2 but his brother magistrates 
will let him off with a caution or a    
nominal fine to poison and mangle the   
next4  ,for he is an owner of property4 
,a landowner may draw rents from slums  
in which young children die at the rate 
of #bjj per #ajjj2 but he will be none  
the less welcome in polite society4     
,for property has no obligations and    
therefore can do no wrong4  ,urban land 
may be held from the market on the      
outskirts of cities in which human      
beings are living three to a room1 and  
rural land may be used for sport when   
villagers are leaving it to overcrowd   
them still more4  ,no public authority  
intervenes1 for both are property4  ,to 
those who believe that institutions     
which repudiate all moral significance  
must sooner or later collapse1 a society

 which confuses the protection of       
property with the preservation of its   
functionless perversions will appear as 
precarious as that which has left the   
memorials of its #ha tasteless frivolity
 and more tasteless ostentation in the  
gardens of ,versailles4  ,do men love   
peace8  ,they will see the greatest     
enemy of social unity in rights which   
involve no obligation to co-operate for 
the service of society4  ,do they value 
equality8  ,property rights which       
dispense their owners from the common   
human necessity of labor make inequality
 an institution permeating every corner 
of society1 from the distribution of    
material wealth to the training of      
intellect itself4  ,do they desire      
greater industrial efficiency8  ,there  
is no more fatal obstacle to efficiency 
than the revelation that idleness has   
the same privileges as industry1 and    
that for every additional blow with the 
pick or hammer an additional profit will
 be distributed among shareholders who  

wield neither4  ,indeed1 functionless   
property is the greatest enemy of       
legitimate property itself4  ,it is the 
parasite which kills the organism that  
produced it4  ,bad money drives out     
good1 and1 as the history of the last   
two hundred years shows1 when property  
for acquisition or power and property   
for service or for use jostle each other
 freely in the market1 without          
restrictions such as some legal systems 
have imposed on alienation and          
inheritance1 the latter tends normally  
to be absorbed by the former1 because it
 has less resisting power4  ,thus       
functionless property grows1 and as it  
grows it undermines the creative energy 
which produced property and which in    
earlier ages it protected4  ,it cannot  
unite men1 for what unites them is the  
bond of service to a common purpose1 and
 that bond it repudiates1 since its very
 #hb essence is the maintenance of      
rights irrespective of service4  ,it    
cannot create2 it can only spend1 so    

that the number of scientists1          
inventors1 artists or men of letters who
 have sprung in the course of the last  
century from hereditary riches can be   
numbered on one hand4  ,it values       
neither culture nor beauty1 but only the
 power which belongs to wealth and the  
ostentation which is the symbol of it4  
,so those who dread these qualities1    
energy and thought and the creative     
spirit--and they are many--will not     
discriminate1 as we have tried to       
discriminate1 between different types   
and kinds of property1 in order that    
they may preserve those which are       
legitimate and abolish those which are  
not4  ,they will endeavor to preserve   
all private property1 even in its most  
degenerate forms4  ,and those who value 
those things will try to promote them by
 relieving property of its perversions1 
and thus enabling it to return to its   
true nature4  ,they will not desire to  
establish any visionary communism1 for  
they will realize that the free disposal

 of a sufficiency of personal           
possessions is the condition of a       
healthy and self-respecting life1 and   
will seek to distribute more widely the 
property rights which make them to-day  
the privilege of a minority4  ,but they 
will refuse to submit to the naive      
philosophy which would treat all        
proprietary rights as equal in sanctity 
merely because they are identical in    
name4  ,they will distinguish sharply   
between property which is used by its   
owner for the conduct of his profession 
or the upkeep of his household1 and     
property which is merely a claim on     
wealth produced by another's labor4     
,they will insist that #hc property is  
moral and healthy only when it is used  
as a condition not of idleness but of   
activity1 and when it involves the      
discharge of definite personal          
obligations4  ,they will endeavor1 in   
short1 to base it upon the principle of 
function4     #hd  ,,vi  ,,the          
,,functional ,,society  ,the application

 to property and industry of the        
principle of function is compatible with
 several different types of social      
organization1 and is as unlikely as more
 important revelations to be the secret 
of those who cry ,lo here6 and ,lo      
there6  ,the essential thing is that men
 should fix their minds upon the idea of
 purpose1 and give that idea            
pre-eminence over all subsidiary issues4
  ,if1 as is patent1 the purpose of     
industry is to provide the material     
foundation of a good social life1 then  
any measure which makes that provision  
more effective1 so long as it does not  
conflict with some still more important 
purpose1 is wise1 and any institution   
which thwarts or encumbers it is        
foolish4  ,it is foolish1 for example1  
to cripple education1 as it is crippled 
in ,england for the sake of industry2   
for one of the uses of industry is to   
provide the wealth which may make       
possible better education4  ,it is      
foolish to maintain property rights for 

which no service is performed1 for      
payment without service is waste2 and if
 it is true1 as statisticians affirm1   
that1 even were income equally divided1 
income per head would be small1 then it 
is all the more foolish1 for sailors in 
a boat have no room for first-class     
passengers1 and it is all the more      
important that none of the small        
national income should be misapplied4   
,it is foolish to leave the direction of
 industry #he in the hands of servants  
of private property-owners who          
themselves know nothing about it but its
 balance sheets1 because this is to     
divert it from the performance of       
service to the acquisition of gain1 and 
to subordinate those who do creative    
work to those who do not4  ,the course  
of wisdom in the affairs of industry is1
 after all1 what it is in any other     
department of organized life4  ,it is to
 consider the end for which economic    
activity is carried on and then to adapt
 economic organization to it4  ,it is to

 pay for service and for service only1  
and when capital is hired to make sure  
that it is hired at the cheapest        
possible price4  ,it is to place the    
responsibility for organizing industry  
on the shoulders of those who work and  
use1 not of those who own1 because      
production is the business of the       
producer and the proper person to see   
that he discharges his business is the  
consumer for whom1 and not for the owner
 of property1 it ought to be carried on4
  ,above all it is to insist that all   
industries shall be conducted in        
complete publicity as to costs and      
profits1 because publicity ought to be  
the antiseptic both of economic and     
political abuses1 and no man can have   
confidence in his neighbor unless both  
work in the light4  ,as far as property 
is concerned1 such a policy would       
possess two edges4 ,on the one hand1 it 
would aim at abolishing those forms of  
property in which ownership is divorced 
from obligations4  ,on the other hand1  

it would seek to encourage those forms  
of economic organization under which the
 worker1 whether owner or not1 is free  
to carry on his work without sharing its
 control or its profits with the mere   
rentier4 ,thus1 if in certain #hf       
spheres it involved an extension of     
public ownership1 it would in others    
foster an extension of private property4
 ,for it is not private ownership1 but  
private ownership divorced from work1   
which is corrupting to the principle of 
industry2 and the idea of some          
socialists that private property in land
 or capital is necessarily mischievous  
is a piece of scholastic pedantry as    
absurd as that of those conservatives   
who would invest all property with some 
kind of mysterious sanctity4  ,it all   
depends what sort of property it is and 
for what purpose it is used4  ,provided 
that the ,state retains its eminent     
domain1 and controls alienation1 as it  
does under the ,homestead laws of the   
,dominions1 with sufficient stringency  

to prevent the creation of a class of   
functionless property-owners1 there is  
no inconsistency between encouraging    
simultaneously a multiplication of      
peasant farmers and small masters who   
own their own farms or shops1 and the   
abolition of private ownership in those 
industries1 unfortunately to-day the    
most conspicuous1 in which the private  
owner is an absentee shareholder4       
,indeed1 the second reform would help   
the first4  ,in so far as the community 
tolerates functionless property it makes
 difficult1 if not impossible1 the      
restoration of the small master in      
agriculture or in industry1 who cannot  
easily hold his own in a world dominated
 by great estates or capitalist finance4
  ,in so far as it abolishes those kinds
 of property which are merely parasitic1
 it facilitates the restoration of the  
small property-owner in those kinds of  
industry for which small ownership is   
adapted4  ,a socialistic policy towards 
the former is not #hg antagonistic to   

the distributive state1 but1 in modern  
economic conditions1 a necessary        
preliminary to it1 and if by ,property  
is meant the personal possessions which 
the word suggests to nine-tenths of the 
population1 the object of socialists is 
not to undermine property but to protect
 and increase it4  ,the boundary between
 large scale and small scale production 
will always be uncertain and            
fluctuating1 depending1 as it does1 on  
technical conditions which cannot be    
foreseen3 a cheapening of electrical    
power1 for example1 might result in the 
decentralization of manufactures1 as    
steam resulted in their concentration4  
,the fundamental issue1 however1 is not 
between different scales of ownership1  
but between ownership of different      
kinds1 not between the large farmer or  
master and the small1 but between       
property which is used for work and     
property which yields income without it4
  ,the ,irish landlord was abolished1   
not because he owned a large scale1 but 

because he was an owner and nothing     
more2 if1 and when ,english             
land-ownership has been equally         
attenuated1 as in towns it already has  
been1 it will deserve to meet the same  
fate4  ,once the issue of the character 
of ownership has been settled1 the      
question of the size of the economic    
unit can be left to settle itself4  ,the
 first step1 then1 towards the          
organization of economic life for the   
performance of function is to abolish   
those types of private property in      
return for which no function is         
performed4  ,the man who lives by owning
 without working is necessarily         
supported by the industry of some one   
else1 and is1 therefore1 too expensive a
 luxury to be encouraged4 ,though he    
deserves to be #hh treated with the     
leniency which ought to be1 and usually 
is not1 shown to those who have been    
brought up from infancy to any other    
disreputable trade1 indulgence to       
individuals must not condone the        

institution of which both they and their
 neighbors are the victims4  ,judged by 
this standard1 certain kinds of property
 are obviously anti-social4  ,the rights
 in virtue of which the owner of the    
surface is entitled to levy a tax1      
called a royalty1 on every ton of coal  
which the miner brings to the surface1  
to levy another tax1 called a way-leave1
 on every ton of coal transported under 
the surface of his land though its      
amenity and value may be quite          
unaffected1 to distort1 if he pleases1  
the development of a whole district by  
refusing access to the minerals except  
upon his own terms1 and to cause some   
#c1ejj to #d1jjj million tons to be     
wasted in barriers between different    
properties1 while he in the meantime    
contributes to a chorus of lamentation  
over the wickedness of the miners in not
 producing more tons of coal for the    
public and incidentally more private    
taxes for himself--all this adds an     
agreeable touch of humor to the drab    

quality of our industrial civilization  
for which mineral owners deserve perhaps
 some recognition1 though not the       
#djj1jjj odd a year which is paid to    
each of the four leading players1 or the
 #bd1jjj1jjj a year which is distributed
 among the crowd4  ,the alchemy by which
 a gentleman who has never seen a coal  
mine distills the contents of that place
 of gloom into elegant chambers in      
,london and a place in the country is   
not the monopoly of royalty owners4  ,a 
similar feat of prestidigitation is     
performed by the #hi owner of urban     
ground-rents4  ,in rural districts some 
landlords1 perhaps many landlords1 are  
partners in the hazardous and difficult 
business of agriculture1 and1 though    
they may often exercise a power which is
 socially excessive1 the position which 
they hold and the income which they     
receive are1 in part at last1 a return  
for the functions which they perform4   
,the ownership of urban land has been   
refined till of that crude ore only the 

pure gold is left4  ,it is the perfect  
sinecure1 for the only function it      
involves is that of collecting its      
profits1 and in an age when the struggle
 of ,liberalism against sinecures was   
still sufficiently recent to stir some  
chords of memory1 the last and greatest 
of liberal thinkers drew the obvious    
deduction4  ,the reasons which form the 
justification 444 of property in land1  
wrote ,mill in #ahdh1 are valid only in 
so far as the proprietor of land is its 
improver4444  ,in no sound theory of    
private property was it ever            
contemplated that the proprietor of land
 should be merely a sinecurist quartered
 on it4  ,urban ground-rents and        
royalties are1 in fact1 as the ,prime   
,minister in his unregenerate days      
suggested1 a tax which some persons are 
permitted by the law to levy upon the   
industry of others4  ,they differ from  
public taxation only in that their      
amount increases in proportion not to   
the nation's need of revenue but to its 

need of the coal and space on which they
 are levied1 that their growth inures to
 private gain not to public benefit1 and
 that if the proceeds are wasted on     
frivolous expenditure no one has any    
right to complain1 because the          
arrangement by which ,lord ,smith spends
 wealth produced by ,mr4 ,brown on      
objects which do no good to either is   
part #ij of the system which1 under the 
name of private property1 ,mr4 ,brown as
 well as ,lord ,smith have learned to   
regard as essential to the higher       
welfare of mankind4  ,but if we accept  
the principle of function we shall ask  
what is the purpose of this arrangement1
 and for what end the inhabitants of1   
for example1 ,london pay #fd1jjj1jjj a  
year to their ground landlords4  ,and if
 we find that it is for no purpose and  
no end1 but that these things are like  
the horseshoes and nails which the ,city
 of ,london presents to the ,crown on   
account of land in the ,parish of ,st4  
,clement ,danes1 then we shall not deal 

harshly with a quaint historical        
survival1 but neither shall we allow it 
to distract us from the business of the 
present1 as though there had been       
history but there were not history any  
longer4  ,we shall close these channels 
through which wealth leaks away by      
resuming the ownership of minerals and  
of urban land1 as some communities in   
the ,british ,dominions and on the      
,continent of ,europe have resumed it   
already4  ,we shall secure that such    
large accumulations as remain change    
hands at least once in every generation1
 by increasing our taxes on inheritance 
till what passes to the heir is little  
more than personal possessions1 not the 
right to a tribute from industry which1 
though qualified by death-duties1 is    
what the son of a rich man inherits     
to-day4  ,we shall treat mineral owners 
and land-owners1 in short1 as ,plato    
would have treated the poets1 whom in   
their ability to make something out of  
nothing and to bewitch mankind with     

words they a little resemble1 and crown 
them with flowers and usher them        
politely out of the ,state4     #ia     
,,vii  ,,industry ,,as ,a ,,profession  
,rights without functions are like the  
shades in ,homer which drank blood but  
scattered trembling at the voice of a   
man4  ,to extinguish royalties and urban
 ground-rents is merely to explode a    
superstition4  ,it needs as little--and 
as much--resolution as to put one's hand
 through any other ghost4  ,in all      
industries except the diminishing number
 in which the capitalist is himself the 
manager1 property in capital is almost  
equally passive4  ,almost1 but not      
quite4  ,for1 though the majority of its
 owners do not themselves exercise any  
positive function1 they appoint those   
who do4  ,it is true1 of course1 that   
the question of how capital is to be    
owned is distinct from the question of  
how it is to be administered1 and that  
the former can be settled without       
prejudice to the latter4  ,to infer1    

because shareholders own capital which  
is indispensable to industry1 that      
therefore industry is dependent upon the
 maintenance of capital in the hands of 
shareholders1 to write1 with some       
economists1 as though1 if private       
property in capital were further        
attenuated or abolished altogether1 the 
constructive energy of the managers who 
may own capital or may not1 but rarely1 
in the more important industries1 own   
more than a small fraction of it1 must  
necessarily be impaired1 is to be guilty
 of a robust non-sequitur and to ignore 
the most obvious facts of #ib           
contemporary industry4  ,the less the   
mere capitalist talks about the         
necessity for the consumer of an        
efficient organization of industry1 the 
better2 for1 whatever the future of     
industry may be1 an efficient           
organization is likely to have no room  
for him4  ,but though shareholders do   
not govern1 they reign1 at least to the 
extent of saying once a year le roy le  

veult4  ,if their rights are pared down 
or extinguished1 the necessity for some 
organ to exercise them will still       
remain4  ,and the question of the       
ownership of capital has this much in   
common with the question of industrial  
organization1 that the problem of the   
constitution under which industry is to 
be conducted is common to both4  ,that  
constitution must be sought by          
considering how industry can be         
organized to express most perfectly the 
principle of purpose4  ,the application 
to industry of the principle of purpose 
is simple1 however difficult it may be  
to give effect to it4  ,it is to turn it
 into a ,profession4  ,a ,profession may
 be defined most simply as a trade which
 is organized1 incompletely1 no doubt1  
but genuinely1 for the performance of   
function4  ,it is not simply a          
collection of individuals who get a     
living for themselves by the same kind  
of work4  ,nor is it merely a group     
which is organized exclusively for the  

economic protection of its members1     
though that is normally among its       
purposes4 ,it is a body of men who carry
 on their work in accordance with rules 
designed to enforce certain standards   
both for the better protection of its   
members and for the better service of   
the public4  ,the standards which it    
maintains may be high or low3 all       
professions have some rules which       
protect the interests #ic of the        
community and others which are an       
imposition on it4  ,its essence is that 
it assumes certain responsibilities for 
the competence of its members or the    
quality of its wares1 and that it       
deliberately prohibits certain kinds of 
conduct on the ground that1 though they 
may be profitable to the individual1    
they are calculated to bring into       
disrepute the organization to which he  
belongs4  ,while some of its rules are  
trade union regulations designed        
primarily to prevent the economic       
standards of the profession being       

lowered by unscrupulous competition1    
others have as their main object to     
secure that no member of the profession 
shall have any but a purely professional
 interest in his work1 by excluding the 
incentive of speculative profit4  ,the  
conception implied in the words         
unprofessional conduct is1 therefore1   
the exact opposite of the theory and    
practice which assume that the service  
of the public is best secured by the    
unrestricted pursuit on the part of     
rival traders of their pecuniary        
self-interest1 within such limits as the
 law allows4  ,it is significant that at
 the time when the professional classes 
had deified free competition as the     
arbiter of commerce and industry1 they  
did not dream of applying it to the     
occupations in which they themselves    
were primarily interested1 but          
maintained1 and indeed1 elaborated      
machinery through which a professional  
conscience might find expression4  ,the 
rules themselves may sometimes appear to

 the layman arbitrary and ill-conceived4
  ,but their object is clear4  ,it is to
 impose on the profession itself the    
obligation of maintaining the quality of
 the service1 and to prevent its common 
purpose being frustrated through #id the
 undue influence of the motive of       
pecuniary gain upon the necessities or  
cupidity of the individual4  ,the       
difference between industry as it exists
 to-day and a profession is1 then1      
simple and unmistakable4  ,the essence  
of the former is that its only criterion
 is the financial return which it offers
 to its shareholders4  ,the essence of  
the latter1 is that1 though men enter it
 for the sake of livelihood1 the measure
 of their success is the service which  
they perform1 not the gains which they  
amass4  ,they may1 as in the case of a  
successful doctor1 grow rich2 but the   
meaning of their profession1 both for   
themselves and for the public1 is not   
that they make money but that they make 
health1 or safety1 or knowledge1 or good

 government or good law4  ,they depend  
on it for their income1 but they do not 
consider that any conduct which         
increases their income is on that       
account good4  ,and while a             
boot-manufacturer who retires with half 
a million is counted to have achieved   
success1 whether the boots which he made
 were of leather or brown paper1 a civil
 servant who did the same would be      
impeached4  ,so1 if they are doctors1   
they recognize that there are certain   
kinds of conduct which cannot be        
practised1 however large the fee offered
 for them1 because they are             
unprofessional2 if scholars and         
teachers1 that it is wrong to make money
 by deliberately deceiving the public1  
as is done by makers of patent          
medicines1 however much the public may  
clamor to be deceived2 if judges or     
public servants1 that they must not     
increase their incomes by selling       
justice for money2 if soldiers1 that the
 service comes first1 and their private 

inclinations1 #ie even the reasonable   
preference of life to death1 second4    
,every country has its traitors1 every  
army its deserters1 and every profession
 its blacklegs4 ,to idealize the        
professional spirit would be very       
absurd2 it has its sordid side1 and1 if 
it is to be fostered in industry1       
safeguards will be needed to check its  
excesses4  ,but there is all the        
difference between maintaining a        
standard which is occasionally          
abandoned1 and affirming as the central 
truth of existence that there is no     
standard to maintain4  ,the meaning of a
 profession is that it makes the        
traitors the exception1 not as they are 
in industry1 the rule4  ,it makes them  
the exception by upholding as the       
criterion of success the end for which  
the profession1 whatever it may be1 is  
carried on1 and subordinating the       
inclination1 appetites and ambitions of 
individuals to the rules of an          
organization which has as its object to 

promote the performance of function4    
,there is no sharp line between the     
professions and the industries4  ,a     
hundred years ago the trade of teaching1
 which to-day is on the whole an        
honorable public service1 was rather a  
vulgar speculation upon public          
credulity2 if ,mr4 ,squeers was a       
caricature1 the ,oxford of ,gibbon and  
,adam ,smith was a solid port-fed       
reality2 no local authority could have  
performed one-tenth of the duties which 
are carried out by a modern municipal   
corporation every day1 because there was
 no body of public servants to perform  
them1 and such as there were took       
bribes4 ,it is conceivable1 at least1   
that some branches of medicine might    
have developed on the lines of          
industrial capitalism1 with hospitals as
 factories1 #if doctors hired at        
competitive wages as their hands1 large 
dividends paid to shareholders by       
catering for the rich1 and the poor1 who
 do not offer a profitable market1      

supplied with an inferior service or    
with no service at all4  ,the idea that 
there is some mysterious difference     
between making munitions of war and     
firing them1 between building schools   
and teaching in them when built1 between
 providing food and providing health1   
which makes it at once inevitable and   
laudable that the former should be      
carried on with a single eye to         
pecuniary gain1 while the latter are    
conducted by professional men who expect
 to be paid for service but who neither 
watch for windfalls nor raise their fees
 merely because there are more sick to  
be cured1 more children to be taught1 or
 more enemies to be resisted1 is an     
illusion only less astonishing than that
 the leaders of industry should welcome 
the insult as an honor and wear their   
humiliation as a kind of halo4  ,the    
work of making boots or building a house
 is in itself no more degrading than    
that of curing the sick or teaching the 
ignorant4  ,it is as necessary and      

therefore as honorable4  ,it should be  
at least equally bound by rules which   
have as their object to maintain the    
standards of professional service4  ,it 
should be at least equally free from the
 vulgar subordination of moral standards
 to financial interests4  ,if industry  
is to be organized as a profession1 two 
changes are requisite1 one negative and 
one positive4  ,the first1 is that it   
should cease to be conducted by the     
agents of property-owners for the       
advantage of property-owners1 #ig and   
should be carried on1 instead1 for the  
service of the public4  ,the second1 is 
that1 subject to rigorous public        
supervision1 the responsibility for the 
maintenance of the service should rest  
upon the shoulders of those1 from       
organizer and scientist to laborer1 by  
whom1 in effect1 the work is conducted4 
,the first change is necessary because  
the conduct of industry for the public  
advantage is impossible as long as the  
ultimate authority over its management  

is vested in those whose only connection
 with it1 and interest in it1 is the    
pursuit of gain4  ,as industry is at    
present organized1 its profits and its  
control belong by law to that element in
 it which has least to do with its      
success4  ,under the joint-stock        
organization which has become normal in 
all the more important industries except
 agriculture1 it is managed by the      
salaried agents of those by whom the    
property is owned4  ,it is successful if
 it returns large sums to shareholders1 
and unsuccessful if it does not4  ,if an
 opportunity presents itself to increase
 dividends by practices which           
deteriorate the service or degrade the  
workers1 the officials who administer   
industry act strictly within their duty 
if they seize it1 for they are the      
servants of their employers1 and their  
obligation to their employers is to     
provide dividends not to provide        
service4  ,but the owners of the        
property are1 qua property-owners       

functionless1 not in the sense1 of      
course1 that the tools of which they are
 proprietors are not useful1 but in the 
sense that since work and ownership are 
increasingly separated1 the efficient   
use of the tools is not dependent on the
 maintenance of the proprietary rights  
exercised over them4  #ih ,of course    
there are many managing directors who   
both own capital and administer the     
business4  ,but it is none the less the 
case that most shareholders in most     
large industries are normally           
shareholders and nothing more4  ,nor is 
their economic interest identical1 as is
 sometimes assumed1 with that of the    
general public4  ,a society is rich when
 material goods1 including capital1 are 
cheap1 and human beings dear3 indeed the
 word riches has no other meaning4  ,the
 interest of those who own the property 
used in industry1 though not1 of course1
 of the managers who administer industry
 and who themselves are servants1 and   
often very ill-paid servants at that1 is

 that their capital should be dear and  
human beings cheap4  ,hence1 if the     
industry is such as to yield a          
considerable return1 or if one unit in  
the industry1 owing to some special     
advantage1 produces more cheaply than   
its neighbors1 while selling at the same
 price1 or if a revival of trade raises 
prices1 or if supplies are controlled by
 one of the combines which are now the  
rule in many of the more important      
industries1 the resulting surplus       
normally passes neither to the managers1
 nor to the other employees1 nor to the 
public1 but to the shareholders4  ,such 
an arrangement is preposterous in the   
literal sense of being the reverse of   
that which would be established by      
considerations of equity and common     
sense1 and gives rise 7among other      
things7 to what is called the struggle  
between labor and capital4  ,the phrase 
is apposite1 since it is as absurd as   
the relations of which it is intended to
 be a description4  ,to deplore         

ill-feeling or to advocate #ii harmony  
between labor and capital is as rational
 as to lament the bitterness between    
carpenters and hammers or to promote a  
mission for restoring amity between     
mankind and its boots4  ,the only       
significance of these cliches is that   
their repetition tends to muffle their  
inanity1 even to the point of persuading
 sensible men that capital employs      
labor1 much as our pagan ancestors      
imagined that the other pieces of wood  
and iron1 which they deified in their   
day1 sent their crops and won their     
battles4  ,when men have gone so far as 
to talk as though their idols have come 
to life1 it is time that some one broke 
them4  ,labor consists of persons1      
capital of things4  ,the only use of    
things is to be applied to the service  
of persons4  ,the business of persons is
 to see that they are there to use1 and 
that no more than need be is paid for   
using them4  ,thus the application to   
industry of the principle of function   

involves an alteration of proprietary   
rights1 because those rights do not     
contribute1 as they now are1 to the end 
which industry exists to serve4 ,what   
gives unity to any activity1 what alone 
can reconcile the conflicting claims of 
the different groups engaged in it1 is  
the purpose for which it is carried on4 
,if men have no common goal it is no    
wonder that they should fall out by the 
way1 nor are they likely to be          
reconciled by a redistribution of their 
provisions4  ,if they are not content   
both to be servants1 one or other must  
be master1 and it is idle to suppose    
that mastership can be held in a state  
of suspense between the two4  ,there can
 be a division of functions between     
different grades of workers1 or between 
worker and consumer1 and each can #ajj  
have in his own sphere the authority    
needed to enable him to fill it4  ,but  
there cannot be a division of functions 
between the worker and the owner who is 
owner and nothing else1 for what        

function does such an owner perform8    
,the provision of capital8  ,then pay   
him the sum needed to secure the use of 
his capital1 but neither pay him more   
nor admit him to a position of authority
 over production for which merely as an 
owner he is not qualified4  ,for this   
reason1 while an equilibrium between    
worker and manager is possible1 because 
both are workers1 that which it is      
sought to establish between worker and  
owner is not4  ,it is like the proposal 
of the ,germans to negotiate with       
,belgium from ,brussels4  ,their        
proposals may be excellent3 but it is   
not evident why they are where they are1
 or how1 since they do not contribute to
 production1 they come to be putting    
forward proposals at all4  ,as long as  
they are in territory where they have no
 business to be1 their excellence as    
individuals will be overlooked in       
annoyance at the system which puts them 
where they are4  ,it is fortunate       
indeed1 if nothing worse than this      

happens4  ,for one way of solving the   
problem of the conflict of rights in    
industry is not to base rights on       
functions1 as we propose1 but to base   
them on force4 ,it is to re-establish in
 some veiled and decorous form the      
institution of slavery1 by making labor 
compulsory4  ,in nearly all countries a 
concerted refusal to work has been made 
at one time or another a criminal       
offense4  ,there are to-day parts of the
 world in which ,european capitalists1  
unchecked by any public opinion or      
authority #aja independent of           
themselves1 are free to impose almost   
what terms they please upon workmen of  
ignorant and helpless races4  ,in those 
districts of ,america where capitalism  
still retains its primitive lawlessness1
 the same result appears to be produced 
upon immigrant workmen by the threat of 
violence4  ,in such circumstances the   
conflict of rights which finds          
expression in industrial warfare does   
not arise1 because the rights of one    

party have been extinguished4  ,the     
simplicity of the remedy is so          
attractive that it is not surprising    
that the ,governments of industrial     
nations should coquet from time to time 
with the policy of compulsory           
arbitration4 ,after all1 it is pleaded1 
it is only analogous to the action of a 
supernational authority which should use
 its common force to prevent the        
outbreak of war4  ,in reality1          
compulsory arbitration is the opposite  
of any policy which such an authority   
could pursue either with justice or with
 hope of success4  ,for it takes for    
granted the stability of existing       
relationships and intervenes to adjust  
incidental disputes upon the assumption 
that their equity is recognized and     
their permanence desired4  ,in industry1
 however1 the equity of existing        
relationships is precisely the point at 
issue4  ,a ,league of ,nations which    
adjusted between a subject race and its 
oppressors1 between ,slavs and ,magyars1

 or the inhabitants of what was once    
,prussian ,poland and the ,prussian     
,government1 on the assumption that the 
subordination of ,slavs to ,magyars and 
,poles to ,prussians was part of an     
unchangeable order1 would rightly be    
resisted by all those who think liberty 
more precious than peace4  ,a ,state    
which1 in the #ajb name of peace1 should
 make the concerted cessation of work a 
legal offense would be guilty of a      
similar betrayal of freedom4  ,it would 
be solving the conflict of rights       
between those who own and those who work
 by abolishing the rights of those who  
work4   ,so here again1 unless we are   
prepared to re-establish some form of   
forced labor1 we reach an impasse4  ,but
 it is an impasse only in so long as we 
regard the proprietary rights of those  
who own the capital used in industry as 
absolute and an end in themselves4  ,if1
 instead of assuming that all property1 
merely because it is property1 is       
equally sacred1 we ask what is the      

purpose for which capital is used1 what 
is its function1 we shall realize that  
it is not an end but a means to an end1 
and that its function is to serve and   
assist 7as the economists tell us7 the  
labor of human beings1 not the function 
of human beings to serve those who      
happen to own it4  ,and from this truth 
two consequences follow4  ,the first is 
that since capital is a thing1 which    
ought to be used to help industry as a  
man may use a bicycle to get more       
quickly to his work1 it ought1 when it  
is employed1 to be employed on the      
cheapest terms possible4  ,the second is
 that those who own it should no more   
control production than a man who lets a
 house controls the meals which shall be
 cooked in the kitchen1 or the man who  
lets a boat the speed at which the      
rowers shall pull4  ,in other words1    
capital should always be got at cost    
price1 which means1 unless the ,state   
finds it wise1 as it very well may1 to  
own the capital used in certain         

industries1 it should be paid the lowest
 interest #ajc for which it can be      
obtained1 but should carry no right     
either to residuary dividends or to the 
control of industry4  ,there are1 in    
theory1 five ways by which the control  
of industry by the agents of private    
property-owners can be terminated4      
,they may be expropriated without       
compensation4  ,they may voluntarily    
surrender it4 ,they may be frozen out by
 action on the part of the working      
personnel1 which itself undertakes such 
functions1 if any1 as they have         
performed1 and makes them superfluous by
 conducting production without their    
assistance4  ,their proprietary interest
 may be limited or attenuated to such a 
degree that they become mere rentiers1  
who are guaranteed a fixed payment      
analogous to that of the                
debenture-holder1 but who receive no    
profits and bear no responsibility for  
the organization of industry4  ,they may
 be bought out4  ,the first alternative 

is exemplified by the historical        
confiscations of the past1 such as1 for 
instance1 by the seizure of             
ecclesiastical property by the ruling   
classes of ,england1 ,scotland and most 
other ,protestant states4 ,the second   
has rarely1 if ever1 been tried--the    
nearest approach to it1 perhaps1 was the
 famous abdication of ,august #dth1     
#aghi4  ,the third is the method        
apparently contemplated by the building 
guilds which are now in process of      
formation in ,great ,britain4  ,the     
fourth method of treating the capitalist
 is followed by the co-operative        
movement4  ,it is also that proposed by 
the committee of employers and          
trade-unionists in the building industry
 over which ,mr4 ,foster presided1 and  
which proposed that employers should be 
paid a fixed salary1 and a fixed rate of
 #ajd interest on their capital1 but    
that all surplus profits should be      
pooled and administered by a central    
body representing employers and workers4

  ,the fifth has repeatedly been        
practised by municipalities1 and        
somewhat less often by national         
governments4  ,which of these           
alternative methods of removing industry
 from the control of the property-owner 
is adopted is a matter of expediency to 
be decided in each particular case4     
,nationalization1 therefore1 which is   
sometimes advanced as the only method of
 extinguishing proprietary rights1 is   
merely one species of a considerable    
genus4  ,it can be used1 of course1 to  
produce the desired result4  ,but there 
are some industries1 at any rate1 in    
which nationalization is not necessary  
in order to bring it about1 and since it
 is at best a cumbrous process1 when    
other methods are possible1 other       
methods should be used4 ,nationalization
 is a means to an end1 not an end in    
itself4  ,properly conceived its object 
is not to establish state management of 
industry1 but to remove the dead hand of
 private ownership1 when the private    

owner has ceased to perform any positive
 function4  ,it is unfortunate1         
therefore1 that the abolition of        
obstructive property rights1 which is   
indispensable1 should have been         
identified with a single formula1 which 
may be applied with advantage in the    
special circumstances of some           
industries1 but need not necessarily be 
applied in all4  ,ownership is not a    
right1 but a bundle of rights1 and it is
 possible to strip them off piecemeal as
 well as to strike them off             
simultaneously4  ,the ownership of      
capital involves1 as we have said1 three
 main claims2 the right to interest as  
the price of capital1 the right to #aje 
profits1 and the right to control1 in   
virtue of which managers and workmen are
 the servants of shareholders4  ,these  
rights in their fullest degree are not  
the invariable accompaniment of         
ownership1 nor need they necessarily    
co-exist4  ,the ingenuity of financiers 
long ago devised methods of grading     

stock in such a way that the ownership  
of some carries full control1 while that
 of others does not1 that some bear all 
the risk and are entitled to all the    
profits1 while others are limited in    
respect to both4  ,all are property1 but
 not all carry proprietary rights of the
 same degree4  ,as long as the private  
ownership of industrial capital remains1
 the object of reformers should be to   
attenuate its influence by insisting    
that it shall be paid not more than a   
rate of interest fixed in advance1 and  
that it should carry with it no right of
 control4  ,in such circumstances the   
position of the ordinary shareholder    
would approximate to that of the owner  
of debentures2 the property in the      
industry would be converted into a      
mortgage on its profits1 while the      
control of its administration and all   
profits in excess of the minimum would  
remain to be vested elsewhere4  ,so1 of 
course1 would the risks4 ,but risks are 
of two kinds1 those of the individual   

business and those of the industry4     
,the former are much heavier than the   
latter1 for though a coal mine is a     
speculative investment1 coal mining is  
not1 and as long as each business is    
managed as a separate unit1 the payments
 made to shareholders must cover both4  
,if the ownership of capital in each    
industry were unified1 which does not   
mean centralized1 those risks which are 
incidental to individual competition    
would be #ajf eliminated1 and the credit
 of each unit would be that of the      
whole4  ,such a change in the character 
of ownership would have three           
advantages4  ,it would abolish the      
government of industry by property4 ,it 
would end the payment of profits to     
functionless shareholders by turning    
them into creditors paid a fixed rate of
 interest4  ,it would lay the only      
possible foundations for industrial     
peace by making it possible to convert  
industry into a profession carried on by
 all grades of workers for the service  

of the public1 not for the gain of those
 who own capital4  ,the organization    
which it would produce will be          
described1 of course1 as impracticable4 
,it is interesting1 therefore1 to find  
it is that which experience has led     
practical men to suggest as a remedy for
 the disorders of one of the most       
important of national industries1 that  
of building4  ,the question before the  
,committee of employers and workmen1    
which issued last ,august a ,report upon
 the ,building ,trade1 was ,scientific  
,management and the ,reduction of       
,costs4#a  ,these are not phrases which 
suggest an economic revolution2 but it  
is something little short of a          
revolution that the signatories of the  
report propose4  ,for1 as soon as they  
came to grips with the problem1 they    
found that it was impossible to handle  
it effectively without reconstituting   
the general fabric of industrial        
relationships which is its setting4     
,why is the service supplied by the     

industry ineffective8  ,partly because  
the workers do not give their full      
energies to the performance of their    
part in production4  #ajg ,why do they  
not give their best energies8  ,because 
of the fear of unemployment1 the        
disinclination of the operatives to make
 unlimited profit for private employers1
 the lack of interest evinced by        
operatives owing to their               
non-participation in control1           
inefficiency both managerial and        
operative4  ,how are these psychological
 obstacles to efficiency to be          
counteracted8  ,by increased supervision
 and speeding up1 by the allurements of 
a premium bonus system1 or the other    
devices by which men who are too        
ingenious to have imagination or moral  
insight would bully or cajole poor human
 nature into doing what--if only the    
systems they invent would let it6--it   
desires to do1 simple duties and honest 
work8  ,not at all4  ,by turning the    
building of houses into what teaching   

now is1 and ,mr4 ,squeers thought it    
could never be1 an honorable profession4
  ,we believe1 they write1 that the     
great task of our ,industrial ,council  
is to develop an entirely new system of 
industrial control by the members of the
 industry itself--the actual producers1 
whether by hand or brain1 and to bring  
them into co-operation with the ,state  
as the central representative of the    
community whom they are organized to    
serve4  ,instead of unlimited profits1  
so indispensable as an incentive to     
efficiency1 the employer is to be paid a
 salary for his services as manager1 and
 a rate of interest on his capital which
 is to be both fixed and 7unless he     
fails to earn it through his own        
inefficiency7 guaranteed2 anything in   
excess of it1 any profits in fact1 which
 in other industries are distributed as 
dividends to shareholders1 he is to #ajh
 surrender to a central fund to be      
administered by employers and workmen   
for the benefit of the industry as a    

whole4  ,instead of the financial       
standing of each firm being treated as  
an inscrutable mystery to the public1   
with the result that it is sometimes a  
mystery to itself1 there is to be a     
system of public costing and audit1 on  
the basis of which the industry will    
assume a collective liability for those 
firms which are shown to be competently 
managed4  ,instead of the workers being 
dismissed in slack times to struggle    
along as best they can1 they are to be  
maintained from a fund raised by a levy 
on employers and administered by the    
trade unions4 ,there is to be publicity 
as to costs and profits1 open dealing   
and honest work and mutual helpfulness1 
instead of the competition which the    
nineteenth century regarded as an       
efficient substitute for them4 ,capital 
is not to employ labor4  ,labor1 which  
includes managerial labor1 is to employ 
capital2 and to employ it at the        
cheapest rate at which1 in the          
circumstances of the trade1 it can be   

got4  ,if it employs it so successfully 
that there is a surplus when it has been
 fairly paid for its own services1 then 
that surplus is not to be divided among 
shareholders1 for1 when they have been  
paid interest1 they have been paid their
 due2 it is to be used to equip the     
industry to provide still more effective
 service in the future4  ,so here we    
have the majority of a body of practical
 men1 who care nothing for socialist    
theories1 proposing to establish        
organized ,public ,service in the       
,building ,industry1 recommending1 in   
short1 that their industry shall be     
turned into a profession4  ,and they do 
it1 it #aji will be observed1 by just   
that functional organization1 just that 
conversion of full proprietary rights   
into a mortgage secured 7as far as      
efficient firms are concerned7 on the   
industry as a whole1 just that          
transference of the control of          
production from the owner of capital to 
those whose business is production1     

which we saw is necessary if industry is
 to be organized for the performance of 
service1 not for the pecuniary advantage
 of those who hold proprietary rights4  
,their ,report is of the first          
importance as offering a policy for     
attenuating private property in capital 
in the important group of industries in 
which private ownership1 in one form or 
another1 is likely for some considerable
 time to continue1 and a valuable       
service would be rendered by any one who
 would work out in detail the           
application of its principle to other   
trades4  ,not1 of course1 that this is  
the only way1 or in highly capitalized  
industries the most feasible way1 in    
which the change can be brought about4  
,had the movement against the control of
 production by property taken place     
before the rise of limited companies1 in
 which ownership is separated from      
management1 the transition to the       
organization of industry as a profession
 might also have taken place1 as the    

employers and workmen in the building   
trade propose that it should1 by        
limiting the rights of private ownership
 without abolishing it4  ,but that is   
not what has actually happened1 and     
therefore the proposals of the building 
trade are not of universal application4 
,it is possible to retain private       
ownership in building and in industries 
like building1 #aaj while changing its  
character1 precisely because in building
 the employer is normally not merely an 
owner1 but something else as well4 ,he  
is a manager2 that is1 he is a workman4 
,and because he is a workman1 whose     
interests1 and still more whose         
professional spirit as a workman may    
often outweigh his interests and merely 
financial spirit as an owner1 he can    
form part of the productive organization
 of the industry1 after his rights as an
 owner have been trimmed and limited4   
,but that dual position is abnormal1 and
 in the highly organized industries is  
becoming more abnormal every year4  ,in 

coal1 in cotton1 in ship-building1 in   
many branches of engineering the owner  
of capital is not1 as he is in building1
 an organizer or manager4  ,his         
connection with the industry and        
interest in it is purely financial4  ,he
 is an owner and nothing more4  ,and    
because his interest is merely          
financial1 so that his concern is       
dividends and production only as a means
 to dividends1 he cannot be worked into 
an organization of industry which vests 
administration in a body representing   
all grades of producers1 or producers   
and consumers together1 for he has no   
purpose in common with them2 so that    
while joint councils between workers and
 managers may succeed1 joint councils   
between workers and owners or agents of 
owners1 like most of the so-called      
,whitley ,councils1 will not1 because   
the necessity for the mere owner is     
itself one of the points in dispute4    
,the master builder1 who owns the       
capital used1 can be included1 not qua  

capitalist1 but qua builder1 if he      
surrenders some of the rights of        
ownership1 as the ,building ,industry   
,committee proposed that he should4     
,but #aaa if the shareholder in a       
colliery or a shipyard abdicates the    
control and unlimited profits to which1 
qua capitalist1 he is at present        
entitled1 he abdicates everything that  
makes him what he is1 and has no other  
standing in the industry4  ,he cannot   
share1 like the master builder1 in its  
management1 because he has no           
qualifications which would enable him to
 do so4  ,his object is profit2 and if  
industry is to become1 as employers and 
workers in the building trade propose1  
an organized public service1 then its   
subordination to the shareholder whose  
object is profit1 is1 as they clearly   
see1 precisely what must be eliminated4 
,the master builders propose to give it 
up4  ,they can do so because they have  
their place in the industry in virtue of
 their function as workmen4  ,but if the

 shareholder gave it up1 he would have  
no place at all4  ,hence in coal mining1
 where ownership and management are     
sharply separated1 the owners will not  
admit the bare possibility of any system
 in which the control of the            
administration of the mines is shared   
between the management and the miners4  
,i am authorized to state on behalf of  
the ,mining ,association1 ,lord         
,gainford1 the chief witness on behalf  
of the mine-owners1 informed the ,coal  
,commission1 that if the owners are not 
to be left complete executive control   
they will decline to accept the         
responsibility for carrying on the      
industry4#b  ,so the mine-owners blow   
away in a sentence the whole body of    
plausible make-believe which rests on   
the idea that1 while private ownership  
remains #aab unaltered1 industrial      
harmony can be produced by the magic    
formula of joint control4  ,and they are
 right4  ,the representatives of workmen
 and shareholders1 in mining and in     

other industries1 can meet and negotiate
 and discuss4  ,but joint administration
 of the shareholders' property by a body
 representing shareholders and workmen  
is impossible1 because there is no      
purpose in common between them4  ,for   
the only purpose which could unite all  
persons engaged in industry1 and        
overrule their particular and divergent 
interests1 is the provision of service4 
,and the object of shareholders1 the    
whole significance and metier of        
industry to them1 is not the provision  
of service but the provision of         
dividends4   ,in industries where       
management is divorced from ownership1  
as in most of the highly organized      
trades it is to-day1 there is no obvious
 halfway house1 therefore1 between the  
retention of the present system and the 
complete extrusion of the capitalist    
from the control of production4  ,the   
change in the character of ownership1   
which is necessary in order that coal or
 textiles and ship-building may be      

organized as professions for the service
 of the public1 cannot easily spring    
from within4  ,the stroke needed to     
liberate them from the control of the   
property-owner must come from without4  
,in theory it might be struck by action 
on the part of organized workers1 who   
would abolish residuary profits and the 
right of control by the mere procedure  
of refusing to work as long as they were
 maintained1 on the historical analogy  
offered by peasants who have destroyed  
#aac predatory property in the past by  
declining to pay its dues and admit its 
government1 in which case ,parliament   
would intervene only to register the    
community's assent to the fait accompli4
  ,in practice1 however1 the conditions 
of modern industry being what they are1 
that course1 apart from its other       
disadvantages1 is so unlikely to be     
attempted1 or1 if attempted1 to succeed1
 that it can be neglected4  ,the        
alternative to it is that the change in 
the character of property should be     

affected by legislation in virtue of    
which the rights of ownership in an     
industry are bought out simultaneously4 
,in either case1 though the procedure is
 different1 the result of the change1   
once it is accomplished1 is the same4   
,private property in capital1 in the    
sense of the right to profits and       
control1 is abolished4  ,what remains of
 it is1 at most1 a mortgage in favor of 
the previous proprietors1 a dead leaf   
which is preserved1 though the sap of   
industry no longer feeds it1 as long as 
it is not thought worth while to strike 
it off4  ,and since the capital needed  
to maintain and equip a modern industry 
could not be provided by any one group  
of workers1 even were it desirable on   
other grounds that they should step     
completely into the position of the     
present owners1 the complex of rights   
which constitutes ownership remains to  
be shared between them and whatever     
organ may act on behalf of the general  
community4  ,the former1 for example1   

may be the heir of the present owners as
 far as the control of the routine and  
administration of industry is concerned3
 the latter may succeed to their right  
to dispose of residuary profits4  ,the  
elements composing property1 have1 in   
fact1 to be #aad disentangled3 and the  
fact that to-day1 under the common name 
of ownership1 several different powers  
are vested in identical hands1 must not 
be allowed to obscure the probability   
that1 once private property in capital  
has been abolished1 it may be expedient 
to re-allocate those powers in detail as
 well as to transfer them en bloc4  ,the
 essence of a profession is1 as we have 
suggested1 that its members organize    
themselves for the performance of       
function4  ,it is essential therefore1  
if industry is to be professionalized1  
that the abolition of functionless      
property should not be interpreted to   
imply a continuance under public        
ownership of the absence of             
responsibility on the part of the       

personnel of industry1 which is the     
normal accompaniment of private         
ownership working through the           
wage-system4  ,it is the more important 
to emphasize that point1 because such an
 implication has sometimes been conveyed
 in the past by some of those who have  
presented the case for some such change 
in the character of ownership as has    
been urged above4  ,the name consecrated
 by custom to the transformation of     
property by public and external action  
is nationalization4  ,but               
nationalization is a word which is      
neither very felicitous nor free from   
ambiguity4  ,properly used1 it means    
merely ownership by a body representing 
the nation4  ,but it has come in        
practice to be used as equivalent to a  
particular method of administration1    
under which officials employed by the   
,state step into the position of the    
present directors of industry1 and      
exercise all the power which they       
exercised4 ,so those who desire to      

maintain the system under which industry
 is carried on1 not as a profession #aae
 serving the public1 but for the        
advantage of shareholders1 attack       
nationalization on the ground that state
 management is necessarily inefficient1 
and tremble with apprehension whenever  
they post a letter in a letter-box2 and 
those who desire to change it reply that
 state services are efficient and praise
 ,god whenever they use a telephone2 as 
though either private or public         
administration had certain peculiar and 
unalterable characteristics1 instead of 
depending for its quality1 like an army 
or railway company or school1 and all   
other undertakings1 public and private  
alike1 not on whether those who conduct 
it are private officials or state       
officials1 but on whether they are      
properly trained for their work and can 
command the good will and confidence of 
their subordinates4  ,the arguments on  
both sides are ingenious1 but in reality
 nearly all of them are beside the      

point4  ,the merits of nationalization  
do not stand or fall with the efficiency
 or inefficiency of existing state      
departments as administrators of        
industry4  ,for nationalization1 which  
means public ownership1 is compatible   
with several different types of         
management4  ,the constitution of the   
industry may be unitary1 as is 7for     
example7 that of the post-office4  ,or  
it may be federal1 as was that designed 
by ,mr4 ,justice ,sankey for the ,coal  
,industry4 ,administration may be       
centralized or decentralized4  ,the     
authorities to whom it is intrusted may 
be composed of representatives of the   
consumers1 or of representatives of     
professional associations1 or of state  
officials1 or of all three in several   
different proportions4 ,executive work  
may be placed in the hands of civil #aaf
 servants1 trained1 recruited and       
promoted as in the existing state       
departments1 or a new service may be    
created with a procedure and standards  

of its own4  ,it may be subject to      
,treasury control1 or it may be         
financially autonomous4  ,the problem   
is1 in fact1 of a familiar1 though      
difficult1 order4  ,it is one of        
constitution-making4  ,it is commonly   
assumed by controversialists that the   
organization and management of a        
nationalized industry must1 for some    
undefined reason1 be similar to that of 
the post-office4  ,one might as         
reasonably suggest that the pattern     
exemplar of private enterprise must be  
the ,steel ,corporation or the ,imperial
 ,tobacco ,company4  ,the administrative
 systems obtaining in a society which   
has nationalized its foundation         
industries will1 in fact1 be as various 
as in one that resigns them to private  
ownership2 and to discuss their relative
 advantages without defining what       
particular type of each is the subject  
of reference is to-day as unhelpful as  
to approach a modern political problem  
in terms of the ,aristotelian           

classification of constitutions4  ,the  
highly abstract dialectics as to        
enterprise1 initiative1 bureaucracy1 red
 tape1 democratic control1 state        
management1 which fill the press of     
countries occupied with industrial      
problems1 really belong to the dark ages
 of economic thought4  ,the first task  
of the student1 whatever his personal   
conclusions1 is1 it may be suggested1 to
 contribute what he can to the          
restoration of sanity by insisting that 
instead of the argument being conducted 
with the counters of a highly inflated  
and rapidly depreciating verbal         
currency1 the exact situation1 #aag in  
so far as is possible1 shall be stated  
as it is2 uncertainties 7of which there 
are many7 shall be treated as uncertain1
 and the precise meaning of alternative 
proposals shall be strictly defined4    
,not the least of the merits of ,mr4    
,justice ,sankey's report was that1 by  
stating in great detail the type of     
organization which he recommended for   

the ,coal ,industry1 he imparted a new  
precision and reality into the whole    
discussion4  ,whether his conclusions   
are accepted or not1 it is from the     
basis of clearly defined proposals such 
as his that the future discussion of    
these problems must proceed4  ,it may   
not find a solution4 ,it will at least  
do something to create the temper in    
which alone a reasonable solution can be
 sought4  ,nationalization1 then1 is not
 an end1 but a means to an end1 and when
 the question of ownership has been     
settled the question of administration  
remains for solution4  ,as a means it is
 likely to be indispensable in those    
industries in which the rights of       
private proprietors cannot easily be    
modified without the action of the      
,state1 just as the purchase of land by 
county councils is a necessary step to  
the establishment of small holders1 when
 landowners will not voluntarily part   
with their property for the purpose4    
,but the object in purchasing land is to

 establish small holders1 not to set up 
farms administered by state officials2  
and the object of nationalizing mining  
or railways or the manufacture of steel 
should not be to establish any          
particular form of state management1 but
 to release those who do constructive   
work from the control of those whose    
sole interest is pecuniary gain1 in     
order that they may be free to #aah     
apply their energies to the true purpose
 of industry1 which is the provision of 
service1 not the provision of dividends4
  ,when the transference of property has
 taken place1 it will probably be found 
that the necessary provision for the    
government of industry will involve not 
merely the freedom of the producers to  
produce1 but the creation of machinery  
through which the consumer1 for whom he 
produces1 can express his wishes and    
criticize the way in which they are met1
 as at present he normally cannot4  ,but
 that is the second stage in the process
 of reorganizing industry for the       

performance of function1 not the first4 
,the first is to free it from           
subordination to the pecuniary interests
 of the owner of property1 because they 
are the magnetic pole which sets all the
 compasses wrong1 and which causes      
industry1 however swiftly it may        
progress1 to progress in the wrong      
direction4  ,nor does this change in the
 character of property involve a breach 
with the existing order so sharp as to  
be impracticable4  ,the phraseology of  
political controversy continues to      
reproduce the conventional antitheses of
 the early nineteenth century2 private  
enterprise and public ownership are     
still contrasted with each other as     
light with darkness or darkness with    
light4  ,but1 in reality1 behind the    
formal shell of the traditional legal   
system the elements of a new body of    
relationship have already been prepared1
 and find piece-meal application through
 policies devised1 not by socialists1   
but by men who repeat the formulae of   

individualism1 at the very moment when  
they are undermining it4  ,the          
,esch-,cummins ,act in ,america1 the    
#aai ,act establishing a ,ministry of   
,transport in ,england1 ,sir ,arthur    
,duckham's scheme for the organization  
of the coal mines1 the proposals with   
regard to the coal industry of the      
,british ,government itself1 appear to  
have the common characteristic of       
retaining private ownership in name1    
while attenuating it in fact1 by placing
 its operators under the supervision1   
accompanied sometimes by a financial    
guarantee1 of a public authority4       
,schemes of this general character      
appear1 indeed1 to be the first         
instinctive reaction produced by the    
discovery that private enterprise is no 
longer functioning effectively2 it is   
probable that they possess certain      
merits of a technical order analogous to
 those associated with the amalgamation 
of competing firms into a single        
combination4  ,it is questionable1      

however1 whether the compromise which   
they represent is permanently tenable4  
,what1 after all1 it may be asked1 are  
the advantages of private ownership when
 it has been pared down to the point    
which policies of this order propose8   
,may not the owner whose rights they are
 designed to protect not unreasonably   
reply to their authors1 ,thank you for  
nothing8  ,individual enterprise has its
 merits3 so also1 perhaps1 has public   
ownership4  ,but1 by the time these     
schemes have done with it1 not much     
remains of the simple and obvious system
 of natural liberty1 while their        
inventors are precluded from appealing  
to the motives which are emphasized by  
advocates of nationalization4  ,it is   
one thing to be an entrepreneur with a  
world of adventure and unlimited        
profits--if they can be achieved--before
 one4  ,it is quite another to be a     
director of a railway company or coal   
#abj corporation with a minimum rate of 
profit guaranteed by the ,state1 and a  

maximum rate of profit which cannot be  
exceeded4  ,hybrids are apt to be       
sterile4  ,it may be questioned whether1
 in drawing the teeth of private        
capitalism1 this type of compromise does
 not draw out most of its virtues as    
well4  ,so1 when a certain stage of     
economic development has been reached1  
private ownership1 by the admission of  
its defenders1 can no longer be         
tolerated in the only form in which it  
is free to display the characteristic1  
and quite genuine1 advantages for the   
sake of which it used to be defended4   
,and1 as step by step it is whittled    
down by tacit concessions to the        
practical necessity of protecting the   
consumer1 or eliminating waste1 or      
meeting the claims of the workers1      
public ownership becomes1 not only on   
social grounds1 but for reasons of      
economic efficiency1 the alternative to 
a type of private ownership which       
appears to carry with it few rights of  
ownership and to be singularly devoid of

 privacy4  ,inevitably and unfortunately
 the change must be gradual4  ,but it   
should be continuous4  ,when1 as in the 
last few years1 the ,state has acquired 
the ownership of great masses of        
industrial capital1 it should retain it1
 instead of surrendering it to private  
capitalists1 who protest at once that it
 will be managed so inefficiently that  
it will not pay and managed so          
efficiently that it will undersell them4
  ,when estates are being broken up and 
sold1 as they are at present1 public    
bodies should enter the market and      
acquire them4  ,most important of all1  
the ridiculous barrier1 inherited from  
an age in which municipal corporations  
were corrupt oligarchies1 which #aba at 
present prevents ,england's ,local      
,authorities from acquiring property in 
land and industrial capital1 except for 
purposes specified by ,act of           
,parliament1 should be abolished1 and   
they should be free to undertake such   
services as the citizens may desire4    

,the objection to public ownership1 in  
so far as it is intelligent1 is in      
reality largely an objection to         
over-centralization4  ,but the remedy   
for over-centralization1 is not the     
maintenance of functionless property in 
private hands1 but the decentralized    
ownership of public property1 and when  
,birmingham and ,manchester and ,leeds  
are the little republics which they     
should be1 there is no reason to        
anticipate that they will tremble at a  
whisper from ,whitehall4  ,these things 
should be done steadily and continuously
 quite apart from the special cases like
 that of the mines and railways1 where  
the private ownership of capital is     
stated by the experts to have been      
responsible for intolerable waste1 or   
the manufacture of ornaments            
,transcriber's note3 armaments8 and     
alcoholic liquor1 which are politically 
and socially too dangerous to be left in
 private hands4 ,they should be done not
 in order to establish a single form of 

bureaucratic management1 but in order to
 release the industry from the          
domination of proprietary interests1    
which1 whatever the form of management1 
are not merely troublesome in detail but
 vicious in principle1 because they     
divert it from the performance of       
function to the acquisition of gain4    
,if at the same time private ownership  
is shaken1 as recently it has been1 by  
action on the part of particular groups 
of workers1 so much the better4  ,there 
are more ways of killing a cat than #abb
 drowning it in cream1 and it is all the
 more likely to choose the cream if they
 are explained to it4  ,but the two     
methods are complementary1 not          
alternative1 and the attempt to found   
rival schools on an imaginary           
incompatibility between them is a bad   
case of the odium sociologicum which    
afflicts reformers4    #a ,reprinted in 
,the ,industrial ,council for the       
,building ,industry4  #b ,coal ,industry
 ,commission1 ,minutes of ,evidence1    

,vol4 ,i1 p4 #bejf4     #abc  ,,viii    
,,the ,,vicious ,,circle  ,what form of 
management should replace the           
administration of industry by the agents
 of shareholders8  ,what is most likely 
to hold it to its main purpose1 and to  
be least at the mercy of predatory      
interests and functionless              
supernumeraries1 and of the alternations
 of sullen dissatisfaction and spasmodic
 revolt which at present distract it8   
,whatever the system upon which industry
 is administered1 one thing is certain4 
,its economic processes and results must
 be public1 because only if they are    
public can it be known whether the      
service of industry is vigilant1        
effective and honorable1 whether its    
purpose is being realized and its       
function carried out4  ,the defense of  
secrecy in business resembles the       
defense of adulteration on the ground   
that it is a legitimate weapon of       
competition2 indeed it has even less    
justification than that famous doctrine1

 for the condition of effective         
competition is publicity1 and one motive
 for secrecy is to prevent it4  ,those  
who conduct industry at the present time
 and who are most emphatic that1 as the 
,duke of ,wellington said of the        
unreformed ,house of ,commons1 they have
 never read or heard of any measure up  
to the present moment which can in any  
degree satisfy the mind that the method 
of conducting it can in any way be      
improved1 are also those apparently who1
 with some #abd honorable exceptions1   
are most reluctant that the full facts  
about it should be known4  ,and it is   
crucial that they should be known4  ,it 
is crucial not only because1 in the     
present ignorance of the real economic  
situation1 all industrial disagreements 
tend inevitably to be battles in the    
dark1 in which ignorant armies clash by 
night1 but because1 unless there is     
complete publicity as to profits and    
costs1 it is impossible to form any     
judgment either of the reasonableness of

 the prices which are charged or of the 
claims to remuneration of the different 
parties engaged in production4  ,for    
balance sheets1 with their opportunities
 for concealing profits1 give no clear  
light upon the first1 and no light at   
all upon the second4  ,and so1 when the 
facts come out1 the public is aghast at 
revelations which show that industry is 
conducted with bewildering financial    
extravagance4  ,if the full facts had   
been published1 as they should have     
been1 quarter by quarter1 these         
revelations would probably not have been
 made at all1 because publicity itself  
would have been an antiseptic and there 
would have been nothing sensational to  
reveal4  ,the events of the last few    
years are a lesson which should need no 
repetition4  ,the ,government1 surprised
 at the price charged for making shells 
at a time when its soldiers were ordered
 by ,headquarters not to fire more than 
a few rounds per day1 whatever the need 
for retaliation1 because there were not 

more than a few to fire1 establishes a  
costing department to analyze the       
estimates submitted by manufacturers and
 to compare them1 item by item1 with the
 costs in its own factories4  ,it finds 
that1 through the mere pooling of       
knowledge1 #abe some of the reductions  
made in the price of shells and similar 
munitions1 as the ,chartered ,accountant
 employed by the ,department tells us1  
have been as high as #ej of the original
 price4  ,the household consumer        
grumbles at the price of coal4  ,for    
once in a way1 amid a storm of          
indignation from influential persons    
engaged in the industry1 the facts are  
published4 ,and what do they show8      
,that1 after #b_/f has been added to the
 already high price of coal because the 
poorer mines are alleged not to be      
paying their way1 #ba of the output     
examined by the ,commission was produced
 at a profit of #a_/- to #c_/- per ton1 
#cb at a profit of #c_/- to #e_/-1 #ac  
at a profit of #e_/- to #g_/-1 and #ad  

at a profit of #g_/- per ton and over1  
while the profits of distributors in    
,london alone amount in the aggregate to
 over #c1bjj1jjj1 and the co-operative  
movement1 which aims not at profit1 but 
at service1 distributes household coal  
at a cost of from #b_/- to #d_/- less   
per ton than is charged by the coal     
trade6#a  ,but these are exceptions4    
,they may be4  ,it is possible that in  
the industries1 in which1 as the recent 
,committee on ,trusts has told us1      
powerful ,combinations or               
,consolidations of one kind or another  
are in a position effectively to control
 output and prices1 not only costs are  
cut to the bare minimum but profits are 
inconsiderable4  ,but then why insist on
 this humiliating tradition of secrecy  
with regard to them1 when every one who 
uses their products1 and every one who  
renders honest service to production1   
stands to gain by publicity8  ,if       
industry is to become a profession1     
whatever its #abf management1 the first 

of its professional rules should be1 as 
,sir ,john ,mann told the ,coal         
,commission1 that all cards should be   
placed on the table4  ,if it were the   
duty of a ,public ,department to publish
 quarterly exact returns as to costs of 
production and profits in all the firms 
throughout an industry1 the gain in mere
 productive efficiency1 which should    
appeal to our enthusiasts for output1   
would be considerable2 for the          
organization whose costs were least     
would become the standard with which all
 other types of organization would be   
compared4  ,the gain in morale1 which is
 also1 absurd though it may seem1 a     
condition of efficiency1 would be       
incalculable4  ,for industry would be   
conducted in the light of day4  ,its    
costs1 necessary or unnecessary1 the    
distribution of the return to it1       
reasonable or capricious1 would be a    
matter of common knowledge4  ,it would  
be held to its purpose by the mere      
impossibility of persuading those who   

make its products or those who consume  
them to acquiesce1 as they acquiesce    
now1 in expenditure which is meaningless
 because it has contributed nothing to  
the service which the industry exists to
 perform4  ,the organization of industry
 as a profession does not involve only  
the abolition of functionless property1 
and the maintenance of publicity as the 
indispensable condition of a standard of
 professional honor4  ,it implies also  
that those who perform its work should  
undertake that its work is performed    
effectively4  ,it means that they should
 not merely be held to the service of   
the public by fear of personal          
inconvenience or penalties1 but that    
they should treat the discharge of      
professional #abg responsibilities as an
 obligation attaching not only to a     
small elite of intellectuals1 managers  
or bosses1 who perform the technical    
work of business management1 but as     
implied by the mere entry into the      
industry and as resting on the corporate

 consent and initiative of the rank and 
file of workers4  ,it is precisely1     
indeed1 in the degree to which that     
obligation is interpreted as attaching  
to all workers1 and not merely to a     
select class1 that the difference       
between the existing industrial order1  
collectivism and the organization of    
industry as a profession resides4  ,the 
first involves the utilization of human 
beings for the purpose of private gain2 
the second their utilization for the    
purpose of public service2 the third the
 association in the service of the      
public of their professional pride1     
solidarity and organization4  ,the      
difference in administrative machinery  
between the second and third might not  
be considerable4  ,both involve the     
drastic limitation or transference to   
the public of the proprietary rights of 
the existing owners of industrial       
capital4  ,both would necessitate       
machinery for bringing the opinion of   
the consumers to bear upon the service  

supplied them by the industry4  ,the    
difference consists in the manner in    
which the obligations of the producer to
 the public are conceived4  ,he may     
either be the executant of orders       
transmitted to him by its agents2 or he 
may1 through his organization1 himself  
take a positive part in determining what
 those orders should be4  ,in the former
 case he is responsible for his own     
work1 but not for anything else4  ,if he
 hews his stint of coal1 it is no       
business of his whether the pit is a    
#abh failure2 if he puts in the normal  
number of rivets1 he disclaims all      
further interest in the price or the    
sea-worthiness of the ship4  ,in the    
latter his function embraces something  
more than the performance of the        
specialized piece of work allotted to   
him4  ,it includes also a responsibility
 for the success of the undertaking as a
 whole4  ,and since responsibility is   
impossible without power1 his position  
would involve at least so much power as 

is needed to secure that he can affect  
in practice the conduct of the industry4
  ,it is this collective liability for  
the maintenance of a certain quality of 
service which is1 indeed1 the           
distinguishing feature of a profession4 
,it is compatible with several different
 kinds of government1 or indeed1 when   
the unit of production is not a group1  
but an individual1 with hardly any      
government at all4  ,what it does       
involve is that the individual1 merely  
by entering the profession should have  
committed himself to certain obligations
 in respect of its conduct1 and that the
 professional organization1 whatever it 
may be1 should have sufficient power to 
enable it to maintain them4  ,the demand
 for the participation of the workers in
 the control of industry is usually     
advanced in the name of the producer1 as
 a plea for economic freedom or         
industrial democracy4  ,political       
freedom1 writes the ,final ,report of   
the ,united ,states ,commission of      

,industrial ,relations1 which was       
presented in #aiaf1 can exist only where
 there is industrial freedom4444  ,there
 are now within the body of our         
,republic industrial communities which  
are virtually ,principalities1          
oppressive to those dependent upon them 
for a livelihood #abi and a dreadful    
menace to the peace and welfare of the  
nation4  ,the vanity of ,englishmen may 
soften the shadows and heighten the     
lights4  ,but the concentration of      
authority is too deeply rooted in the   
very essence of ,capitalism for         
differences in the degree of the        
arbitrariness with which it is exercised
 to be other than trivial4  ,the control
 of a large works does1 in fact1 confer 
a kind of private jurisdiction in       
matters concerning the life and         
livelihood of the workers1 which1 as the
 ,united ,states' ,commission suggests1 
may properly be described as industrial 
feudalism4  ,it is not easy to          
understand how the traditional liberties

 of ,englishmen are compatible with an  
organization of industry which1 except  
in so far as it has been qualified by   
law or trade unionism1 permits          
populations almost as large as those of 
some famous cities of the past to be    
controlled in their rising up and lying 
down1 in their work1 economic           
opportunities1 and social life by the   
decisions of a ,committee of            
half-a-dozen ,directors4  ,the most     
conservative thinkers recognize that the
 present organization of industry is    
intolerable in the sacrifice of liberty 
which it entails upon the producer4     
,but each effort which he makes to      
emancipate himself is met by a protest  
that if the existing system is          
incompatible with freedom1 it at least  
secures efficient service1 and that     
efficient service is threatened by      
movements which aim at placing a greater
 measure of industrial control in the   
hands of the workers4  ,the attempt to  
drive a wedge between the producer and  

the consumer is obviously the cue of all
 the interests which are conscious that 
by themselves they are unable to hold   
back #acj the flood4  ,it is natural1   
therefore1 that during the last few     
months they should have concentrated    
their efforts upon representing that    
every advance in the demands and in the 
power of any particular group of workers
 is a new imposition upon the general   
body of the public4  ,eminent persons1  
who are not obviously producing more    
than they consume1 explain to the       
working classes that unless they produce
 more they must consume less4  ,highly  
syndicated combinations warn the public 
against the menace of predatory         
syndicalism4  ,the owners of mines and  
minerals1 in their new role as          
protectors of the poor1 lament the      
selfishness of the miners1 as though    
nothing but pure philanthropy had       
hitherto caused profits and royalties to
 be reluctantly accepted by themselves4 
,the assumption upon which this body of 

argument rests is simple4  ,it is that  
the existing organization of industry is
 the safeguard of productive efficiency1
 and that from every attempt to alter it
 the workers themselves lose more as    
consumers than they can gain as         
producers4  ,the world has been drained 
of its wealth and demands abundance of  
goods4  ,the workers demand a larger    
income1 greater leisure1 and a more     
secure and dignified status4  ,these two
 demands1 it is argued1 are             
contradictory4  ,for how can the        
consumer be supplied with cheap goods1  
if1 as a worker1 he insists on higher   
wages and shorter hours8  ,and how can  
the worker secure these conditions1 if  
as a consumer1 he demands cheap goods8  
,so industry1 it is thought1 moves in a 
vicious circle of shorter hours and     
higher wages and less production1 which 
in time must mean #aca longer hours and 
lower wages2 and every one receives     
less1 because every one demands more4   
,the picture is plausible1 but it is    

fallacious4  ,it is fallacious not      
merely in its crude assumption that a   
rise in wages necessarily involves an   
increase in costs1 but for another and  
more fundamental reason4  ,in reality   
the cause of economic confusion is not  
that the demands of producer and        
consumer meet in blunt opposition2 for1 
if they did1 their incompatibility1 when
 they were incompatible1 would be       
obvious1 and neither could deny his     
responsibility to the other1 however    
much he might seek to evade it4  ,it is 
that they do not1 but that1 as industry 
is organized to-day1 what the worker    
foregoes the general body of consumers  
does not necessarily gain1 and what the 
consumer pays the general body of       
workers does not necessarily receive4   
,if the circle is vicious1 its vice is  
not that it is closed1 but that it is   
always half open1 so that part of       
production leaks away in consumption    
which adds nothing to productive        
energies1 and that the producer1 because

 he knows this1 does not fully use even 
the productive energy which he commands4
  ,it is the consciousness of this leak 
which sets every one at cross purposes4 
,no conceivable system of industrial    
organization can secure industrial      
peace1 if by peace is meant a complete  
absence of disagreement4  ,what could be
 secured would be that disagreements    
should not flare up into a beacon of    
class warfare4  ,if every member of a   
group puts something into a common pool 
on condition of taking something out1   
they may still quarrel about the size of
 the shares1 as children quarrel #acb   
over cake2 but if the total is known and
 the claims admitted1 that is all they  
can quarrel about1 and1 since they all  
stand on the same footing1 any one who  
holds out for more than his fellows must
 show some good reason why he should get
 it4  ,but in industry the claims are   
not all admitted1 for those who put     
nothing in demand to take something out2
 both the total to be divided and the   

proportion in which the division takes  
place are sedulously concealed2 and     
those who preside over the distribution 
of the pool and control what is paid out
 of it have a direct interest in        
securing as large a share as possible   
for themselves and in allotting as small
 a share as possible to others4  ,if one
 contributor takes less1 so far from it 
being evident that the gain will go to  
some one who has put something in and   
has as good a right as himself1 it may  
go to some one who has put in nothing   
and has no right at all4  ,if another   
claims more1 he may secure it1 without  
plundering a fellow-worker1 at the      
expense of a sleeping partner who is    
believed to plunder both4  ,in practice1
 since there is no clear principle      
determining what they ought to take1    
both take all that they can get4  ,in   
such circumstances denunciations of the 
producer for exploiting the consumer    
miss the mark4  ,they are inevitably    
regarded as an economic version of the  

military device used by armies which    
advance behind a screen of women and    
children1 and then protest at the       
brutality of the enemy in shooting      
non-combatants4  ,they are interpreted  
as evidence1 not that a section of the  
producers are exploiting the remainder1 
but that a minority of property-owners1 
which is in opposition to #acc both1 can
 use its economic power to make efforts 
directed against those who consume much 
and produce little rebound on those who 
consume little and produce much4  ,and  
the grievance1 of which the ,press makes
 so much1 that some workers may be      
taking too large a share compared with  
others1 is masked by the much greater   
grievance1 of which it says nothing     
whatever1 that some idlers take any     
share at all4  ,the abolition of        
payments which are made without any     
corresponding economic service is thus  
one of the indispensable conditions both
 of economic efficiency and industrial  
peace1 because their existence prevents 

different classes of workers from       
restraining each other1 by uniting them 
all against the common enemy4  ,either  
the principle of industry is that of    
function1 in which case slack work is   
only less immoral than no work at all2  
or it is that of grab1 in which case    
there is no morality in the matter4     
,but it cannot be both4  ,and it is     
useless either for property-owners or   
for ,governments to lament the mote in  
the eye of the trade unions as long as1 
by insisting on the maintenance of      
functionless property1 they decline to  
remove the beam in their own4  ,the     
truth is that only workers can prevent  
the abuse of power by workers1 because  
only workers are recognized as          
possessing any title to have their      
claims considered4  ,and the first step 
to preventing the exploitation of the   
consumer by the producer is simple4  ,it
 is to turn all men into producers1 and 
thus to remove the temptation for       
particular groups of workers to force   

their claims at the expense of the      
public1 by removing the valid excuse    
that such gains as they may get are #acd
 taken from those who at present have no
 right to them1 because they are        
disproportionate to service or obtained 
for no service at all4  ,indeed1 if work
 were the only title to payment1 the    
danger of the community being exploited 
by highly organized groups of producers 
would largely disappear4  ,for1 when no 
payments were made to non-producers1    
there would be no debatable ground for  
which to struggle1 and it would become  
evident that if any one group of        
producers took more1 another must put up
 with less4  ,under such conditions a   
body of workers who used their strong   
strategic position to extort extravagant
 terms for themselves at the expense of 
their fellow-workers might properly be  
described as exploiting the community4  
,but at present such a statement is     
meaningless4  ,it is meaningless because
 before the community can be exploited  

the community must exist1 and its       
existence in the sphere of economics is 
to-day not a fact but only an           
aspiration4  ,the procedure by which1   
whenever any section of workers advance 
demands which are regarded as           
inconvenient by their masters1 they are 
denounced as a band of anarchists who   
are preying on the public may be a      
convenient weapon in an emergency1 but1 
once it is submitted to analysis1 it is 
logically self-destructive4  ,it has    
been applied within recent years1 to the
 postmen1 to the engineers1 to the      
policemen1 to the miners and to the     
railway men1 a population with their    
dependents1 of some eight million       
persons2 and in the case of the last two
 the whole body of organized labor made 
common cause with those of whose        
exorbitant demands it was alleged to be 
the victim4 ,but when these #ace workers
 and their sympathizers are deducted1   
what is the community which remains8    
,it is a naive arithmetic which produces

 a total by subtracting one by one all  
the items which compose it2 and the art 
which discovers the public interest by  
eliminating the interests of successive 
sections of the public smacks of the    
rhetorician rather than of the          
statesman4  ,the truth is that at       
present it is idle to seek to resist the
 demands of any group of workers by     
appeals to the interests of society1    
because to-day1 as long as the economic 
plane alone is considered1 there is not 
one society but two1 which dwell        
together in uneasy juxtaposition1 like  
,sinbad and the ,old ,man of the ,sea1  
but which in spirit1 in ideals1 and in  
economic interest1 are worlds asunder4  
,there is the society of those who live 
by labor1 whatever their craft or       
profession1 and the society of those who
 live on it4  ,all the latter cannot    
command the sacrifices or the loyalty   
which are due to the former1 for they   
have no title which will bear           
inspection4  ,the instinct to ignore    

that tragic division instead of ending  
it is amiable1 and sometimes generous4  
,but it is a sentimentality which is    
like the morbid optimism of the         
consumptive who dares not admit even to 
himself the virulence of his disease4   
,as long as the division exists1 the    
general body of workers1 while it may   
suffer from the struggles of any one    
group within it1 nevertheless supports  
them by its sympathy1 because all are   
interested in the results of the contest
 carried on by each4  ,different        
sections of workers will exercise mutual
 restraint only when the termination of 
the #acf struggle leaves them face to   
face with each other1 and not as now1   
with the common enemy4  ,the ideal of a 
united society in which no one group    
uses its power to encroach upon the     
standards of another is1 in short1      
unattainable1 except through the        
preliminary abolition of functionless   
property4  ,those to whom a leisure     
class is part of an immutable order     

without which civilization is           
inconceivable1 dare not admit1 even to  
themselves1 that the world is poorer1   
not richer1 because of its existence4   
,so1 when1 as now it is important that  
productive energy should be fully used1 
they stamp and cry1 and write to ,the   
,times about the necessity for increased
 production1 though all the time they   
themselves1 their way of life and       
expenditure1 and their very existence as
 a leisure class1 are among the causes  
why production is not increased4  ,in   
all their economic plans they make one  
reservation1 that1 however necessitous  
the world may be1 it shall still support
 them4  ,but men who work do not make   
that reservation1 nor is there any      
reason why they should2 and appeals to  
them to produce more wealth because the 
public needs it usually fall upon deaf  
ears1 even when such appeals are not    
involved in the ignorance and           
misapprehensions which often            
characterize them4  ,for the workman is 

not the servant of the consumer1 for    
whose sake greater production is        
demanded1 but of shareholders1 whose    
primary aim is dividends1 and to whom   
all production1 however futile or       
frivolous1 so long as it yields         
dividends1 is the same4  ,it is useless 
to urge that he should produce more     
wealth for the #acg community1 unless at
 the same time he is assured that it is 
the community which will benefit in     
proportion as more wealth is produced4  
,if every unnecessary charge upon       
coal-getting had been eliminated1 it    
would be reasonable that the miners     
should set a much needed example by     
refusing to extort better terms for     
themselves at the expense of the public4
  ,but there is no reason why they      
should work for lower wages or longer   
hours as long as those who are to-day   
responsible for the management of the   
industry conduct it with the            
extravagance and waste stigmatized by   
the most eminent official witness before

 the ,coal ,commission1 or why the      
consumer should grumble at the rapacity 
of the miner as long as he allows       
himself to be mulcted by swollen        
profits1 the costs of an ineffective    
organization1 and unnecessary payments  
to superfluous middlemen4  ,if to-day   
the miner or any other workman produces 
more1 he has no guarantee that the      
result will be lower prices rather than 
higher dividends and larger royalties1  
any more than1 as a workman1 he can     
determine the quality of the wares which
 his employer supplies to customers1 or 
the price at which they are sold4  ,nor1
 as long as he is directly the servant  
of a profit-making company1 and only    
indirectly the servant of the community1
 can any such guarantee be offered him4 
,it can be offered only in so far as he 
stands in an immediate and direct       
relation to the public for whom industry
 is carried on1 so that1 when all costs 
have been met1 any surplus will pass to 
it1 and not to private individuals4  ,it

 will be accepted only in so far as the 
workers in each industry are not merely 
servants executing orders1 but #ach     
themselves have a collective            
responsibility for the character of the 
service1 and can use their organizations
 not merely to protect themselves       
against exploitation1 but to make       
positive contributions to the           
administration and development of their 
industry4    #a ,coal ,industry         
,commission1 ,minutes of ,evidence1 pp4 
#ibfa-i4     #aci  ,,ix  ,,the          
,,condition ,,of ,,efficiency  ,thus it 
is not only for the sake of the         
producers1 on whom the old industrial   
order weighed most heavily1 that a new  
industrial order is needed4  ,it is     
needed for the sake of the consumers1   
because the ability on which the old    
industrial order prided itself most and 
which is flaunted most as an argument   
against change1 the ability to serve    
them effectively1 is itself visibly     
breaking down4  ,it is breaking down at 

what was always its most vulnerable     
point1 the control of the human beings  
whom1 with characteristic indifference  
to all but their economic significance1 
it distilled for its own purposes into  
an abstraction called ,labor4  ,the     
first symptom of its collapse is what   
the first symptom of economic collapses 
has usually been in the past--the       
failure of customary stimuli to evoke   
their customary response in human       
effort4  ,till that failure is          
recognized and industry reorganized so  
that new stimuli may have free play1 the
 collapse will not correct itself1 but1 
doubtless with spasmodic revivals and   
flickerings of energy1 will continue and
 accelerate4  ,the cause of it is       
simple4  ,it is that those whose        
business it is to direct economic       
activity are increasingly incapable of  
directing the men upon whom economic    
activity depends4 ,the fault is not that
 of individuals1 but of a system1 of    
,industrialism itself4  #adj ,during the

 greater part of the nineteenth century 
industry was driven by two forces1      
hunger and fear1 and the employer       
commanded them both4  ,he could grant or
 withhold employment as he pleased4  ,if
 men revolted against his terms he could
 dismiss them1 and if they were         
dismissed what confronted them was      
starvation or the workhouse4  ,authority
 was centralized2 its instruments were  
passive2 the one thing which they       
dreaded was unemployment4  ,and since   
they could neither prevent its          
occurrence nor do more than a little to 
mitigate its horrors when it occurred1  
they submitted to a discipline which    
they could not resist1 and industry     
pursued its course through their passive
 acquiescence in a power which could    
crush them individually if they         
attempted to oppose it4  ,that system   
might be lauded as efficient or         
denounced as inhuman4  ,but1 at least1  
as its admirers were never tired of     
pointing out1 it worked4 ,and1 like the 

,prussian ,state1 which alike in its    
virtues and deficiencies it not a little
 resembled1 as long as it worked it     
survived denunciations of its methods1  
as a strong man will throw off a        
disease4  ,but to-day it is ceasing to  
have even the qualities of its defects4 
,it is ceasing to be efficient4  ,it no 
longer secures the ever-increasing      
output of wealth which it offered in its
 golden prime1 and which enabled it to  
silence criticism by an imposing        
spectacle of material success4  ,though 
it still works1 it works unevenly1 amid 
constant friction and jolts and         
stoppages1 without the confidence of the
 public and without full confidence even
 in itself1 a tyrant who must intrigue  
and cajole where formerly he commanded1 
a gaoler who1 if not yet #ada deprived  
of whip1 dare only administer moderate  
chastisement1 and who1 though he still  
protests that he alone can keep the     
treadmill moving and get the corn       
ground1 is compelled to surrender so    

much of his authority as to make it     
questionable whether he is worth his    
keep4  ,for the instruments through     
which ,capitalism exercised discipline  
are one by one being taken from it4  ,it
 cannot pay what wages it likes or work 
what hours it likes4  ,in well-organized
 industries the power of arbitrary      
dismissal1 the very center of its       
authority1 is being shaken1 because men 
will no longer tolerate a system which  
makes their livelihood dependent on the 
caprices of an individual4  ,in all     
industries alike the time is not far    
distant when the dread of starvation can
 no longer be used to cow dissatisfied  
workers into submission1 because the    
public will no longer allow involuntary 
unemployment to result in starvation4   
,and if ,capitalism is losing its       
control of men's bodies1 still more has 
it lost its command of their minds4     
,the product of a civilization which    
regarded the poor as instruments1 at    
worst of the luxuries1 at best of the   

virtues1 of the rich1 its psychological 
foundation fifty years ago was an       
ignorance in the mass of mankind which  
led them to reverence as wisdom the very
 follies of their masters1 and an almost
 animal incapacity for responsibility4  
,education and experience have destroyed
 the passivity which was the condition  
of the perpetuation of industrial       
government in the hands of an oligarchy 
of private capitalists4  ,the workman of
 to-day has as little belief in the     
intellectual superiority of many of     
those who direct industry as he has in  
the morality of #adb the system4  ,it   
appears to him to be not only           
oppressive1 but wasteful1 unintelligent 
and inefficient4  ,in the light of his  
own experience in the factory and the   
mine1 he regards the claim of the       
capitalist to be the self-appointed     
guardian of public interests as a piece 
of sanctimonious hypocrisy4  ,for he    
sees every day that efficiency is       
sacrificed to shortsighted financial    

interests2 and while as a man he is     
outraged by the inhumanity of the       
industrial order1 as a professional who 
knows the difference between good work  
and bad he has a growing contempt at    
once for its misplaced parsimony and its
 misplaced extravagance1 for the whole  
apparatus of adulteration1 advertisement
 and quackery which seems inseparable   
from the pursuit of profit as the main  
standard of industrial success4  ,so    
,capitalism no longer secures strenuous 
work by fear1 for it is ceasing to be   
formidable4  ,and it cannot secure it by
 respect1 for it has ceased to be       
respected4  ,and the very victories by  
which it seeks to reassert its waning   
prestige are more disastrous than       
defeats4 ,employers may congratulate    
themselves that they have maintained    
intact their right to freedom of        
management1 or opposed successfully a   
demand for public ownership1 or broken a
 movement for higher wages and shorter  
hours4  ,but what is success in a trade 

dispute or in a political struggle is   
often a defeat in the workshop3 the     
workmen may have lost1 but it does not  
follow that their employers1 still less 
that the public1 which is principally   
composed of workmen1 have won4  ,for the
 object of industry is to produce goods1
 and to produce them at the lowest cost 
in human effort4  #adc ,but there is no 
alchemy which will secure efficient     
production from the resentment or       
distrust of men who feel contempt for   
the order under which they work4  ,it is
 a commonplace that credit is the       
foundation of industry4  ,but credit is 
a matter of psychology1 and the workman 
has his psychology as well as the       
capitalist4  ,if confidence is necessary
 to the investment of capital1          
confidence is not less necessary to the 
effective performance of labor by men   
whose sole livelihood depends upon it4  
,if they are not yet strong enough to   
impose their will1 they are strong      
enough to resist when their masters     

would impose theirs4  ,they may work    
rather than strike4  ,but they will work
 to escape dismissal1 not for the       
greater glory of a system in which they 
do not believe2 and1 if they are        
dismissed1 those who take their place   
will do the same4  ,that this is one    
cause of a low output has been stated   
both by employers and workers in the    
building industry1 and by the           
representatives of the miners before the
 ,coal ,commission4  ,it was reiterated 
with impressive emphasis by ,mr4        
,justice ,sankey4  ,nor is it seriously 
contested by employers themselves4      
,what else1 indeed1 do their repeated   
denunciations of restriction of output  
mean except that they have failed to    
organize industry so as to secure the   
efficient service which it is their     
special function to provide8  ,nor is it
 appropriate to the situation to indulge
 in full-blooded denunciations of the   
selfishness of the working classes4  ,to
 draw an indictment against a whole     

nation is a procedure which is as       
impossible in industry as it is in      
politics4  ,institutions must be adapted
 to human nature1 not #add human nature 
to institutions4  ,if the effect of the 
industrial system is such that a large  
and increasing number of ordinary men   
and women find that it offers them no   
adequate motive for economic effort1 it 
is mere pedantry to denounce men and    
women instead of amending the system4   
,thus the time has come when absolutism 
in industry may still win its battles1  
but loses the campaign1 and loses it on 
the very ground of economic efficiency  
which was of its own selection4  ,in the
 period of transition1 while economic   
activity is distracted by the struggle  
between those who have the name and     
habit of power1 but no longer the full  
reality of it1 and those who are daily  
winning more of the reality of power but
 are not yet its recognized             
repositories1 it is the consumer who    
suffers4  ,he has neither the service of

 docile obedience1 nor the service of   
intelligent co-operation4  ,for slavery 
will work--as long as the slaves will   
let it2 and freedom will work when men  
have learned to be free2 but what will  
not work is a combination of the two4   
,so the public goes short of coal not   
only because of the technical           
deficiencies of the system under which  
it is raised and distributed1 but       
because the system itself has lost its  
driving force--because the coal owners  
can no longer persuade the miners into  
producing more dividends for them and   
more royalties for the owners of        
minerals1 while the public cannot appeal
 to them to put their whole power into  
serving itself1 because it has chosen   
that they should be the servants1 not of
 itself1 but of shareholders4  ,and1    
this dilemma is not1 as some suppose1   
temporary1 #ade the aftermath of war1 or
 peculiar to the coal industry1 as      
though the miners alone were the        
children of sin which in the last few   

months they have been described to be4  
,it is permanent2 it has spread far2    
and1 as sleeping spirits are stirred    
into life by education and one industry 
after another develops a strong         
corporate consciousness1 it will spread 
further4  ,nor will it be resolved by   
lamentations or menaces or denunciations
 of leaders whose only significance is  
that they say openly what plain men feel
 privately4  ,for the matter at bottom  
is one of psychology4  ,what has        
happened is that the motives on which   
the industrial system relied for several
 generations to secure efficiency1      
secure it no longer4  ,and it is as     
impossible to restore them1 to revive by
 mere exhortation the complex of hopes  
and fears and ignorance and patient     
credulity and passive acquiescence1     
which together made men1 fifty years    
ago1 plastic instruments in the hands of
 industrialism1 as to restore innocence 
to any others of those who have eaten of
 the tree of knowledge4  ,the ideal of  

some intelligent and respectable        
business men1 the restoration of the    
golden sixties1 when workmen were docile
 and confiding1 and trade unions were   
still half illegal1 and foreign         
competition meant ,english competition  
in foreign countries1 and prices were   
rising a little and not rising too much1
 is the one ,utopia which can never be  
realized4  ,the ,king may walk naked as 
long as his courtiers protest that he is
 clad2 but when a child or a fool has   
broken the spell a tailor is more       
important than all their admiration4 ,if
 the public1 which suffers from the     
slackening of economic activity1 #adf   
desires to end its malaise1 it will not 
laud as admirable and all-sufficient the
 operation of motives which are plainly 
ceasing to move4  ,it will seek to      
liberate new motives and to enlist them 
in its service4  ,it will endeavor to   
find an alternative to incentives which 
were always degrading1 to those who used
 them as much as to those upon whom they

 were used1 and which now are adequate  
incentives no longer4 ,and the          
alternative to the discipline which     
,capitalism exercised through its       
instruments of unemployment and         
starvation is the self-discipline of    
responsibility and professional pride4  
,so the demand which aims at stronger   
organization1 fuller responsibility1    
larger powers for the sake of the       
producer as a condition of economic     
liberty1 the demand for freedom1 is not 
antithetic to the demand for more       
effective work and increased output     
which is being made in the interests of 
the consumer4  ,it is complementary to  
it1 as the insistence by a body of      
professional men1 whether doctors or    
university teachers1 on the maintenance 
of their professional independence and  
dignity against attempts to cheapen the 
service is not hostile to an efficient  
service1 but1 in the long run1 a        
condition of it4  ,the course of wisdom 
for the consumer would be to hasten1 so 

far as he can1 the transition4  ,for1 as
 at present conducted1 industry is      
working against the grain4  ,it is      
compassing sea and land in its efforts  
to overcome1 by ingenious financial and 
technical expedients1 obstacles which   
should never have existed4  ,it is      
trying to produce its results by        
conquering professional feeling instead 
of using it4  ,it is carrying not only  
its inevitable economic burdens1 but an 
ever increasing #adg load of ill will   
and skepticism4 ,it has in fact shot the
 bird which caused the wind to blow and 
goes about its business with the corpse 
round its neck4  ,compared with that    
psychological incubus1 the technical    
deficiencies of industry1 serious though
 they often are1 are a bagatelle1 and   
the business men who preach the gospel  
of production without offering any plan 
for dealing with what is now the central
 fact in the economic situation1        
resemble a ,christian apologist who     
should avoid disturbing the equanimity  

of his audience by carefully omitting   
all reference either to the fall of man 
or the scheme of salvation4  ,if it is  
desired to increase the output of       
wealth1 it is not a paradox1 but the    
statement of an elementary economic     
truism to say that active and           
constructive co-operation on the part of
 the rank and file of workers would do  
more to contribute to that result than  
the discovery of a new coal-field or a  
generation of scientific invention4     
,the first condition of enlisting on the
 side of constructive work the          
professional feeling which is now       
apathetic1 or even hostile to it1 is to 
secure that when it is given its results
 accrue to the public1 not to the owner 
of property in capital1 in land1 or in  
other resources4 ,for this reason the   
attenuation of the rights at present    
involved in the private ownership of    
industrial capital1 or their complete   
abolition1 is not the demand of         
idealogues1 but an indispensable element

 in a policy of economic efficiency1    
since it is the condition of the most   
effective functioning of the human      
beings upon whom1 though1 like other    
truisms1 it is often forgotten1 #adh    
economic efficiency ultimately depends4 
,but it is only one element4            
,co-operation may range from mere       
acquiescence to a vigilant and zealous  
initiative4  ,the criterion of an       
effective system of administration is   
that it should succeed in enlisting in  
the conduct of industry the latent      
forces of professional pride to which   
the present industrial order makes      
little appeal1 and which1 indeed1       
,capitalism1 in its war upon trade union
 organization1 endeavored for many years
 to stamp out altogether4  ,nor does the
 efficacy of such an appeal repose upon 
the assumption of that change in human  
nature1 which is the triumphant reductio
 ad absurdum advanced by those who are  
least satisfied with the working of     
human nature as it is4  ,what it does   

involve is that certain elementary facts
 should be taken into account1 instead  
of1 as at present1 being ignored4  ,that
 all work is distasteful and that every 
man desires to secure the largest income
 with the least effort may be as        
axiomatic as it is assumed to be4  ,but 
in practice it makes all the difference 
to the attitude of the individual       
whether the collective sentiment of the 
group to which he belongs is on the side
 of effort or against it1 and what      
standard of effort it sets4  ,that1 as  
employers complain1 the public opinion  
of considerable groups of workers is    
against an intensification of effort as 
long as part of its result is increased 
dividends for shareholders1 is no doubt1
 as far as mere efficiency is concerned1
 the gravest indictment of the existing 
industrial order4 ,but1 even when public
 ownership has taken the place of       
private capitalism1 its ability to      
command #adi effective service will     
depend ultimately upon its success in   

securing not merely that professional   
feeling is no longer an opposing force1 
but that it is actively enlisted upon   
the side of maintaining the highest     
possible standard of efficiency which   
can reasonably be demanded4  ,to put the
 matter concretely1 while the existing  
ownership of mines is a positive        
inducement to inefficient work1 public  
ownership administered by a bureaucracy1
 if it would remove the technical       
deficiencies emphasized by ,sir ,richard
 ,redmayne as inseparable from the      
separate administration of #c1jjj pits  
by #a1ejj different companies1 would be 
only too likely to miss a capital       
advantage which a different type of     
administration would secure4  ,it would 
lose both the assistance to be derived  
from the technical knowledge of         
practical men who know by daily         
experience the points at which the      
details of administration can be        
improved1 and the stimulus to efficiency
 springing from the corporate pride of a

 profession which is responsible for    
maintaining and improving the character 
of its service4  ,professional spirit is
 a force like gravitation1 which in     
itself is neither good nor bad1 but     
which the engineer uses1 when he can1 to
 do his work for him4  ,if it is foolish
 to idealize it1 it is equally          
shortsighted to neglect it4  ,in what   
are described par excellence as the     
services it has always been recognized  
that esprit de corps is the foundation  
of efficiency1 and all means1 some wise 
and some mischievous1 are used to       
encourage it3 in practice1 indeed1 the  
power upon which the country relied as  
its main safeguard in an emergency was  
the professional zeal of the navy and   
nothing else4  ,nor is #aej that spirit 
peculiar to the professions which are   
concerned with war4  ,it is a matter of 
common training1 common                 
responsibilities1 and common dangers4   
,in all cases where difficult and       
disagreeable work is to be done1 the    

force which elicits it is normally not  
merely money1 but the public opinion and
 tradition of the little society in     
which the individual moves1 and in the  
esteem of which he finds that which men 
value in success4  ,to ignore that most 
powerful of stimuli as it is ignored    
to-day1 and then to lament that the     
efforts which it produces are not       
forthcoming1 is the climax of           
perversity4  ,to aim at eliminating from
 industry the growth and action of      
corporate feeling1 for fear lest an     
organized body of producers should      
exploit the public1 is a plausible      
policy4  ,but it is short-sighted4  ,it 
is to pour away the baby with the bath1 
and to lower the quality of the service 
in an attempt to safeguard it4  ,a wise 
system of administration would recognize
 that professional solidarity can do    
much of its work for it more effectively
 than it can do it itself1 because the  
spirit of his profession is part of the 
individual and not a force outside him1 

and would make it its object to enlist  
that temper in the public service4  ,it 
is only by that policy1 indeed1 that the
 elaboration of cumbrous regulations to 
prevent men doing what they should not1 
with the incidental result of sometimes 
preventing them from doing what they    
should--it is only by that policy that  
what is mechanical and obstructive in   
bureaucracy can be averted4  ,for       
industry cannot run without laws4  ,it  
must either control itself by           
professional standards1 or it must be   
controlled by officials who are not of  
the #aea craft and who1 however zealous 
and well-meaning1 can hardly have the   
feel of it in their fingers4  ,public   
control and criticism are indispensable4
  ,but they should not be too detailed1 
or they defeat themselves4  ,it would be
 better that1 once fair standards have  
been established1 the professional      
organization should check offenses      
against prices and quality than that it 
should be necessary for the ,state to do

 so4  ,the alternative to minute        
external supervision is supervision from
 within by men who become imbued with   
the public obligations of their trade in
 the very process of learning it4  ,it  
is1 in short1 professional in industry4 
,for this reason collectivism by itself 
is too simple a solution4  ,its failure 
is likely to be that of other           
rationalist systems4    ,dann hat er die
 ,theile in seiner ,hand1   ,fehlt      
leider6 nur das geistige ,band4  ,if    
industrial reorganization is to be a    
living reality1 and not merely a plan   
upon paper1 its aim must be to secure   
not only that industry is carried on for
 the service of the public1 but that it 
shall be carried on with the active     
co-operation of the organizations of    
producers4  ,but co-operation involves  
responsibility1 and responsibility      
involves power4  ,it is idle to expect  
that men will give their best to any    
system which they do not trust1 or that 
they will trust any system in the       

control of which they do not share4     
,their ability to carry professional    
obligations depends upon the power which
 they possess to remove the obstacles   
which prevent those obligations from    
being discharged1 and upon their        
willingness1 when they possess the      
power1 to use it4  #aeb  ,two causes    
appear to have hampered the committees  
which were established in connection    
with coal mines during the war to       
increase the output of coal4  ,one was  
the reluctance of some of them to       
discharge the invidious task of imposing
 penalties for absenteeism on their     
fellow-workmen4  ,the other was the     
exclusion of faults of management from  
the control of many committees4  ,in    
some cases all went well till they      
demanded that1 if the miners were       
penalized for absenteeism which was due 
to them1 the management should be       
penalized similarly when men who desired
 to work were sent home because1 as a   
result of defective organization1 there 

was no work for them to do4 ,their      
demand was resisted as interference with
 the management1 and the attempt to     
enforce regularity of attendance broke  
down4  ,nor1 to take another example    
from the same industry1 is it to be     
expected that the weight of the miners' 
organization will be thrown on to the   
side of greater production1 if it has no
 power to insist on the removal of the  
defects of equipment and organization1  
the shortage of trams1 rails1 tubs and  
timber1 the creaming of the pits by the 
working of easily got coal to their     
future detriment1 their wasteful layout 
caused by the vagaries of separate      
ownership1 by which at present the      
output is reduced4  ,the public cannot  
have it both ways4  ,if it allows       
workmen to be treated as hands it cannot
 claim the service of their wills and   
their brains4  ,if it desires them to   
show the zeal of skilled professionals1 
it must secure that they have sufficient
 power to allow of their discharging    

professional responsibilities4  ,in     
order that workmen may abolish any      
restrictions on output which #aec may be
 imposed by them1 they must be able to  
insist on the abolition of the          
restrictions1 more mischievous because  
more effective1 which1 as the ,committee
 on ,trusts has recently told us1 are   
imposed by organizations of employers4  
,in order that the miners' leaders1     
instead of merely bargaining as to      
wages1 hours and working conditions1 may
 be able to appeal to their members to  
increase the supply of coal1 they must  
be in a position to secure the removal  
of the causes of low output which are   
due to the deficiencies of the          
management1 and which are to-day a far  
more serious obstacle than any          
reluctance on the part of the miner4    
,if the workmen in the building trade   
are to take combined action to          
accelerate production1 they must as a   
body be consulted as to the purpose to  
which their energy is to be applied1 and

 must not be expected to build          
fashionable houses1 when what are       
required are six-roomed cottages to     
house families which are at present     
living with three persons to a room4    
,it is deplorable1 indeed1 that any     
human beings should consent to degrade  
themselves by producing the articles    
which a considerable number of workmen  
turn out to-day1 boots which are partly 
brown paper1 and furniture which is not 
fit to use4  ,the revenge of outraged   
humanity is certain1 though it is not   
always obvious2 and the penalty paid by 
the consumer for tolerating an          
organization of industry which1 in the  
name of efficiency1 destroyed the       
responsibility of the workman1 is that  
the service with which he is provided is
 not even efficient4 ,he has always paid
 it1 though he has not seen it1 in      
quality4  ,to-day he is beginning to    
#aed realize that he is likely to pay it
 in quantity as well4  ,if the public is
 to get efficient service1 it can get it

 only from human beings1 with the       
initiative and caprices of human beings4
  ,it will get it1 in short1 in so far  
as it treats industry as a responsible  
profession4  ,the collective            
responsibility of the workers for the   
maintenance of the standards of their   
profession is1 then1 the alternative to 
the discipline which ,capitalism        
exercised in the past1 and which is now 
breaking down4  ,it involves a          
fundamental change in the position both 
of employers and of trade unions4  ,as  
long as the direction of industry is in 
the hands of property-owners or their   
agents1 who are concerned to extract    
from it the maximum profit for          
themselves1 a trade union is necessarily
 a defensive organization4  ,absorbed1  
on the one hand1 in the struggle to     
resist the downward thrust of           
,capitalism upon the workers' standard  
of life1 and denounced1 on the other1 if
 it presumes1 to interfere with         
management1 even when management is most

 obviously inefficient1 it is an        
opposition which never becomes a        
government and which has neither the    
will nor the power to assume            
responsibility for the quality of the   
service offered to the consumer4  ,if   
the abolition of functionless property  
transferred the control of production to
 bodies representing those who perform  
constructive work and those who consume 
the goods produced1 the relation of the 
worker to the public would no longer be 
indirect but immediate1 and associations
 which are now purely defensive would be
 in a position not merely to criticize  
and oppose but to advise1 to initiate   
and to enforce upon their own members   
the obligations of the craft4  #aee  ,it
 is obvious that in such circumstances  
the service offered the consumer1       
however carefully safeguarded by his    
representation on the authorities       
controlling each industry1 would depend 
primarily upon the success of           
professional organizations in finding a 

substitute for the discipline exercised 
to-day by the agents of property-owners4
  ,it would be necessary for them to    
maintain by their own action the zeal1  
efficiency and professional pride which1
 when the barbarous weapons of the      
nineteenth century have been discarded1 
would be the only guarantee of a high   
level of production4  ,nor1 once this   
new function has been made possible for 
professional organizations1 is there any
 extravagance in expecting them to      
perform it with reasonable competence4  
,how far economic motives are balked    
to-day and could be strengthened by a   
different type of industrial            
organization1 to what extent1 and under 
what conditions1 it is possible to      
enlist in the services of industry      
motives which are not purely economic1  
can be ascertained only after a study of
 the psychology of work which has not   
yet been made4  ,such a study1 to be of 
value1 must start by abandoning the     
conventional assumptions1 popularized by

 economic textbooks and accepted as     
self-evident by practical men1 that the 
motives to effort are simple and        
constant in character1 like the pressure
 of steam in a boiler1 that they are    
identical throughout all ranges of      
economic activity1 from the stock       
exchange to the shunting of wagons or   
laying of bricks1 and that they can be  
elicited and strengthened only by       
directly economic incentives4  ,in so   
far as motives in industry have been    
considered hitherto1 it has usually been
 done #aef by writers who1 like most    
exponents of scientific management1 have
 started by assuming that the categories
 of business psychology could be offered
 with equal success to all classes of   
workers and to all types of productive  
work4  ,those categories appear to be   
derived from a simplified analysis of   
the mental processes of the company     
promoter1 financier or investor1 and    
their validity as an interpretation of  
the motives and habits which determine  

the attitude to his work of the         
bricklayer1 the miner1 the dock laborer 
or the engineer1 is precisely the point 
in question4  ,clearly there are certain
 types of industry to which they are    
only partially relevant4  ,it can hardly
 be assumed1 for example1 that the      
degree of skill and energy brought to   
his work by a surgeon1 a scientific     
investigator1 a teacher1 a medical      
officer of health1 an ,indian civil     
servant and a peasant proprietor are    
capable of being expressed precisely and
 to the same degree in terms of the     
economic advantage which those different
 occupations offer4  ,obviously those   
who pursue them are influenced to some  
considerable1 though uncertain1 extent  
by economic incentives4  ,obviously1    
again1 the precise character of each    
process or step in the exercise of their
 respective avocations1 the performance 
of an operation1 the carrying out of a  
piece of investigation1 the selection of
 a particular type of educational       

method1 the preparation of a report1 the
 decision of a case or the care of live 
stock1 is not immediately dependent upon
 an exact calculation of pecuniary gain 
or loss4  ,what appears to be the case  
is that in certain walks of life1 while 
the occupation is chosen after a        
consideration of #aeg its economic      
advantages1 and while economic reasons  
exact the minimum degree of activity    
needed to avert dismissal from it or    
failure1 the actual level of energy or  
proficiency displayed depend largely    
upon conditions of a different order4   
,among them are the character of the    
training received before and after      
entering the occupation1 the customary  
standard of effort demanded by the      
public opinion of one's fellows1 the    
desire for the esteem of the small      
circle in which the individual moves and
 to be recognized as having made good   
and not to have failed1 interest in     
one's work1 ranging from devotion to a  
determination to do justice to it1 the  

pride of the craftsman1 the tradition of
 the service4  ,it would be foolish to  
suggest that any considerable body of   
men are uninfluenced by economic        
considerations4  ,but to represent them 
as amenable to such incentives only is  
to give a quite unreal and bookish      
picture of the actual conditions under  
which the work of the world is carried  
on4  ,how large a part such             
considerations play varies from one     
occupation to another1 according to the 
character of the work which it does and 
the manner in which it is organized4    
,in what is called par excellence       
industry1 calculations of pecuniary gain
 and loss are more powerful than in most
 of the so-called professions1 though   
even in industry they are more          
constantly present to the minds of the  
business men who direct it1 than to     
those of the managers and technicians1  
most of whom are paid fixed salaries1 or
 to the rank and file of wage-workers4  
,in the professions of teaching and     

medicine1 in many branches of the #aeh  
public service1 the necessary qualities 
are secured1 without the intervention of
 the capitalist employer1 partly by     
pecuniary incentives1 partly by training
 and education1 partly by the acceptance
 on the part of those entering them of  
the traditional obligations of their    
profession as part of the normal        
framework of their working lives4  ,but 
this difference is not constant and     
unalterable4  ,it springs from the      
manner in which different types of      
occupation are organized1 on the        
training which they offer1 and the      
morale which they cultivate among their 
members4  ,the psychology of a vocation 
can in fact be changed2 new motives can 
be elicited1 provided steps are taken to
 allow them free expression4  ,it is as 
feasible to turn building into an       
organized profession1 with a relatively 
high code of public honor1 as it was to 
do the same for medicine or teaching4   
,the truth is that we ought radically to

 revise the presuppositions as to human 
motives on which current presentations  
of economic theory are ordinarily       
founded and in terms of which the       
discussion of economic question is      
usually carried on4  ,the assumption    
that the stimulus of imminent personal  
want is either the only spur1 or a      
sufficient spur1 to productive effort is
 a relic of a crude psychology which has
 little warrant either in past history  
or in present experience4  ,it derives  
what plausibility it possesses from a   
confusion between work in the sense of  
the lowest quantum of activity needed to
 escape actual starvation1 and the work 
which is given1 irrespective of the fact
 that elementary wants may already have 
been satisfied1 through the natural     
disposition of ordinary men to maintain1
 and of extraordinary #aei men to       
improve upon1 the level of exertion     
accepted as reasonable by the public    
opinion of the group of which they are  
members4  ,it is the old difference1    

forgotten by society as often as it is  
learned1 between the labor of the free  
man and that of the slave4  ,economic   
fear may secure the minimum effort      
needed to escape economic penalties4    
,what1 however1 has made progress       
possible in the past1 and what1 it may  
be suggested1 matters to the world      
to-day1 is not the bare minimum which is
 required to avoid actual want1 but the 
capacity of men to bring to bear upon   
their tasks a degree of energy1 which1  
while it can be stimulated by economic  
incentives1 yields results far in excess
 of any which are necessary merely to   
avoid the extremes of hunger or         
destitution4  ,that capacity is a matter
 of training1 tradition and habit1 at   
least as much as of pecuniary stimulus1 
and the ability of a professional       
association representing the public     
opinion of a group of workers to raise  
it is1 therefore1 considerable4  ,once  
industry has been liberated from its    
subservience to the interests of the    

functionless property-owner1 it is in   
this sphere that trade unions may be    
expected increasingly to find their     
function4  ,its importance both for the 
general interests of the community and  
for the special interests of particular 
groups of workers can hardly be         
exaggerated4  ,technical knowledge and  
managerial skill are likely to be       
available as readily for a committee    
appointed by the workers in an industry 
as for a committee appointed1 as now1 by
 the shareholders4  ,but it is more and 
more evident to-day that the crux of the
 economic situation is not #afj the     
technical deficiencies of industrial    
organization1 but the growing inability 
of those who direct industry to command 
the active good will of the personnel4  
,their co-operation is promised by the  
conversion of industry into a profession
 serving the public1 and promised1 as   
far as can be judged1 by that alone4    
,nor is the assumption of the new and   
often disagreeable obligations of       

internal discipline and public          
responsibility one which trade unionism 
can afford1 once the change is          
accomplished1 to shirk1 however alien   
they may be to its present traditions4  
,for ultimately1 if by slow degrees1    
power follows the ability to wield it2  
authority goes with function4  ,the     
workers cannot have it both ways4  ,they
 must choose whether to assume the      
responsibility for industrial discipline
 and become free1 or to repudiate it and
 continue to be serfs4  ,if1 organized  
as professional bodies1 they can provide
 a more effective service than that     
which is now1 with increasing           
difficulty1 extorted by the agents of   
capital1 they will have made good their 
hold upon the future4  ,if they cannot1 
they will remain among the less         
calculable instruments of production    
which many of them are to-day4  ,the    
instinct of mankind warns it against    
accepting at their face value spiritual 
demands which cannot justify themselves 

by practical achievements4  ,and the    
road along which the organized workers1 
like any other class1 must climb to     
power1 starts from the provision of a   
more effective economic service than    
their masters1 as their grip upon       
industry becomes increasingly           
vacillating and uncertain1 are able to  
supply4     #afa  ,x  ,,the ,,position  
,,of ,,the ,,brain ,,worker  ,the       
conversion of industry into a profession
 will involve at least as great a change
 in the position of the management as in
 that of the manual workers4  ,as each  
industry is organized for the           
performance of function1 the employer   
will cease to be a profit maker and     
become what1 in so far as he holds his  
position by a reputable title1 he       
already is1 one workman among others4   
,in some industries1 where the manager  
is a capitalist as well1 the alteration 
may take place through such a limitation
 of his interest as a capitalist as it  
has been proposed by employers and      

workers to introduce into the building  
industry4  ,in others1 where the whole  
work of administration rests on the     
shoulders of salaried managers1 it has  
already in part been carried out4  ,the 
economic conditions of this change have1
 indeed1 been prepared by the separation
 of ownership from management1 and by   
the growth of an intellectual           
proletariat to whom the scientific and  
managerial work of industry is          
increasingly intrusted4  ,the           
concentration of businesses1 the        
elaboration of organization1 and the    
developments springing from the         
application of science to industry have 
resulted in the multiplication of a body
 of industrial brain workers who make   
the old classifications into employers  
and workmen1 which is still current in  
common speech1 an absurdly #afb         
misleading description of the industrial
 system as it exists to-day4  ,to       
complete the transformation all that is 
needed is that this new class of        

officials1 who fifty years ago were     
almost unknown1 should recognize that   
they1 like the manual workers1 are the  
victims of the domination of property1  
and that both professional pride and    
economic interest require that they     
should throw in their lot with the rest 
of those who are engaged in constructive
 work4  ,their position to-day is often1
 indeed1 very far from being a happy    
one4  ,many of them1 like some mine     
managers1 are miserably paid4  ,their   
tenure of their posts is sometimes      
highly insecure4  ,their opportunities  
for promotion may be few1 and           
distributed with a singular             
capriciousness4  ,they see the prizes of
 industry awarded by favoritism1 or by  
the nepotism which results in the head  
of a business unloading upon it a family
 of sons whom it would be economical to 
pay to keep out of it1 and which1       
indignantly denounced on the rare       
occasions on which it occurs in the     
public service1 is so much the rule in  

private industry that no one even       
questions its propriety4  ,during the   
war they have found that1 while the     
organized workers have secured advances1
 their own salaries have often remained 
almost stationary1 because they have    
been too genteel to take part in trade  
unionism1 and that to-day they are      
sometimes paid less than the men for    
whose work they are supposed to be      
responsible4  ,regarded by the workmen  
as the hangers-on of the masters1 and by
 their employers as one section among   
the rest of the hands1 they have the    
odium of capitalism without its power or
 its profits4  #afc  ,from the          
conversion of industry into a profession
 those who at present do its            
intellectual work have as much to gain  
as the manual workers4 ,for the         
principle of function1 for which we have
 pleaded as the basis of industrial     
organization1 supplies the only         
intelligible standard by which the      
powers and duties of the different      

groups engaged in industry can be       
determined4  ,at the present time no    
such standard exists4  ,the social order
 of the pre-industrial era1 of which    
faint traces have survived in the forms 
of academic organization1 was marked by 
a careful grading of the successive     
stages in the progress from apprentice  
to master1 each of which was            
distinguished by clearly defined rights 
and duties1 varying from grade to grade 
and together forming a hierarchy of     
functions4  ,the industrial system which
 developed in the course of the         
nineteenth century did not admit any    
principle of organization other than the
 convenience of the individual1 who by  
enterprise1 skill1 good fortune1        
unscrupulous energy or mere nepotism1   
happened at any moment to be in a       
position to wield economic authority4   
,his powers were what he could exercise2
 his rights were what at any time he    
could assert4 ,the ,lancashire          
mill-owner of the fifties was1 like the 

,cyclops1 a law unto himself4  ,hence1  
since subordination and discipline are  
indispensable in any complex            
undertaking1 the subordination which    
emerged in industry was that of servant 
to master1 and the discipline such as   
economic strength could impose upon     
economic weakness4  ,the alternative to 
the allocation of power by the struggle 
of individuals for self-aggrandizement  
is its #afd allocation according to     
function1 that each group in the complex
 process of production should wield so  
much authority as1 and no more authority
 than1 is needed to enable it to perform
 the special duties for which it is     
responsible4  ,an organization of       
industry based on this principle does   
not imply the merging of specialized    
economic functions in an                
undifferentiated industrial democracy1  
or the obliteration of the brain workers
 beneath the sheer mass of artisans and 
laborers4  ,but it is incompatible with 
the unlimited exercise of economic power

 by any class or individual4  ,it would 
have as its fundamental rule that the   
only powers which a man can exercise are
 those conferred upon him in virtue of  
his office4  ,there would be            
subordination4  ,but it would be        
profoundly different from that which    
exists to-day4  ,for it would not be the
 subordination of one man to another1   
but of all men to the purpose for which 
industry is carried on4  ,there would be
 authority4 ,but it would not be the    
authority of the individual who imposes 
rules in virtue of his economic power   
for the attainment of his economic      
advantage4  ,it would be the authority  
springing from the necessity of         
combining different duties to attain a  
common end4  ,there would be discipline4
  ,but it would be the discipline       
involved in pursuing that end1 not the  
discipline enforced upon one man for the
 convenience or profit of another4      
,under such an organization of industry 
the brain worker might expect1 as never 

before1 to come to his own4  ,he would  
be estimated and promoted by his        
capacity1 not by his means4  ,he would  
be less likely than at present to find  
doors closed to him because of poverty4 
,his #afe judges would be his           
colleagues1 not an owner of property    
intent on dividends4  ,he would not     
suffer from the perversion of values    
which rates the talent and energy by    
which wealth is created lower than the  
possession of property1 which is at best
 their pensioner and at worst the       
spend-thrift of what intelligence has   
produced4  ,in a society organized for  
the encouragement of creative activity  
those who are esteemed most highly will 
be those who create1 as in a world      
organized for enjoyment they are those  
who own4  ,such considerations are too  
general and abstract to carry           
conviction4 ,greater concreteness may be
 given them by comparing the present    
position of mine-managers with that     
which they would occupy were effect     

given to ,mr4 ,justice ,sankey's scheme 
for the nationalization of the ,coal    
,industry4  ,a body of technicians who  
are weighing the probable effects of    
such a reorganization will naturally    
consider them in relation both to their 
own professional prospects and to the   
efficiency of the service of which they 
are the working heads4  ,they will      
properly take into account questions of 
salaries1 pensions1 security of status  
and promotion4  ,at the same time they  
will wish to be satisfied as to points  
which1 though not less important1 are   
less easily defined4 ,under which       
system1 private or public ownership1    
will they have most personal discretion 
or authority over the conduct of matters
 within their professional competence8  
,under which will they have the best    
guarantees that their special knowledge 
will carry due weight1 and that1 when   
handling matters of art1 they will not  
be overridden or obstructed by amateurs8
  #aff  ,as far as the specific case of 

the ,coal ,industry is concerned the    
question of security and salaries need  
hardly be discussed4  ,the greatest     
admirer of the present system would not 
argue that security of status is among  
the advantages which it offers to its   
employees4  ,it is notorious that in    
some districts1 at least1 managers are  
liable to be dismissed1 however         
professionally competent they may be1 if
 they express in public views which are 
not approved by the directors of their  
company4  ,indeed1 the criticism which  
is normally made on the public services1
 and made not wholly without reason1 is 
that the security which they offer is   
excessive4  ,on the question of salaries
 rather more than one-half of the       
colliery companies of ,great ,britain   
themselves supplied figures to the ,coal
 ,industry ,commission4#a  ,if their    
returns may be trusted1 it would appear 
that mine-managers are paid1 as a class1
 salaries the parsimony of which is the 
more surprising in view of the emphasis 

laid1 and quite properly laid1 by the   
mine-owners on the managers'            
responsibilities4  ,the service of the  
,state does not normally offer1 and     
ought not to offer1 financial prizes    
comparable with those of private        
industry4  ,but it is improbable1 had   
the mines been its property during #afg 
the last ten years1 that more than      
one-half the managers would have been in
 receipt of salaries of under ,l#cja per
 year1 and of less than ,l#ejj in #aiai1
 by which time prices had more than     
doubled1 and the aggregate profits of   
the mine-owners 7of which the greater   
part was1 however1 taken by the ,state  
in taxation7 had amounted in five years 
to ,l#afj1jjj1jjj4  ,it would be        
misleading to suggest that the salaries 
paid to mine-managers are typical of    
private industry1 nor need it be denied 
that the probable effect of turning an  
industry into a public service would be 
to reduce the size of the largest prizes
 at present offered4  ,what is to be    

expected is that the lower and medium   
salaries would be raised1 and the       
largest somewhat diminished4  ,it is    
hardly to be denied1 at any rate1 that  
the majority of brain workers in        
industry have nothing to fear on        
financial grounds from such a change as 
is proposed by ,mr4 ,justice ,sankey4   
,under the normal organization of       
industry1 profits1 it cannot be too     
often insisted1 do not go to them but to
 shareholders4  ,there does not appear  
to be any reason to suppose that the    
salaries of managers in the mines making
 more than #e_/- profit a ton were any  
larger than those making under #c_/-4   
,the financial aspect of the change is  
not1 however1 the only point which a    
group of managers or technicians have to
 consider4  ,they have also to weigh its
 effect on their professional status4   
,will they have as much freedom1        
initiative and authority in the service 
of the community as under private       
ownership8  ,how that question is       

answered depends upon the form given to 
the administrative system through which 
a public service is #afh conducted4  ,it
 is possible to conceive an arrangement 
under which the life of a mine-manager  
would be made a burden to him by        
perpetual recalcitrance on the part of  
the men at the pit for which he is      
responsible4  ,it is possible to        
conceive one under which he would be    
hampered to the point of paralysis by   
irritating interference from a          
bureaucracy at headquarters4  ,in the   
past some managers of co-operative      
workshops suffered1 it would seem1 from 
the former3 many officers of ,employment
 ,exchanges are the victims1 unless     
common rumor is misleading1 of the      
latter4  ,it is quite legitimate1 indeed
 it is indispensable1 that these dangers
 should be emphasized4 ,the problem of  
reorganizing industry is1 as has been   
said above1 a problem of constitution   
making4  ,it is likely to be handled    
successfully only if the defects to     

which different types of constitutional 
machinery are likely to be liable are   
pointed out in advance4  ,once1 however1
 these dangers are realized1 to devise  
precautions against them appears to be a
 comparatively simple matter4 ,if ,mr4  
,justice ,sankey's proposals be taken as
 a concrete example of the position     
which would be occupied by the managers 
in a nationalized industry1 it will be  
seen that they do not involve either of 
the two dangers which are pointed out   
above4  ,the manager will1 it is true1  
work with a ,local ,mining ,council or  
pit committee1 which is to meet         
fortnightly1 or oftener if need be1 to  
advise the manager on all questions     
concerning the direction and safety of  
the mine1 and if the manager refuses to 
take the advice of the ,local ,mining   
,council on any question concerning the 
safety and health of the mine1 such     
question shall be referred to #afi the  
,district ,mining ,council4  ,it is true
 also that1 once such a ,local ,mining  

,council is formally established1 the   
manager will find it necessary to win   
its confidence1 to lead by persuasion1  
not by mere driving1 to establish1 in   
short1 the same relationships of        
comradeship and good will as ought to   
exist between the colleagues in any     
common undertaking4  ,but in all this   
there is nothing to undermine his       
authority1 unless authority be          
understood to mean an arbitrary power   
which no man is fit to exercise1 and    
which few men1 in their sober moments1  
would claim4  ,the manager will be      
appointed by1 and responsible to1 not   
the men whose work he supervises1 but   
the ,district ,mining ,council1 which   
controls all the pits in a district1 and
 on that council he will be represented4
  ,nor will he be at the mercy of a     
distant clerkocracy1 overwhelming him   
with circulars and overriding his expert
 knowledge with impracticable mandates  
devised in ,london4  ,the very kernel of
 the schemes advanced both by ,justice  

,sankey and by the ,miners' ,federation 
is decentralized administration within  
the framework of a national system4     
,there is no question of managing the   
industry from ,whitehall4  ,the         
characteristics of different coal-fields
 vary so widely that reliance on local  
knowledge and experience are essential1 
and it is to local knowledge and        
experience that it is proposed to       
intrust the administration of the       
industry4  ,the constitution which is   
recommended is1 in short1 not ,unitary  
but ,federal4  ,there will be a division
 of functions and power between central 
authorities and district authorities4   
,the former will lay down general rules 
as to those matters which must          
necessarily #agj be dealt with on a     
national basis4 ,the latter will        
administer the industry within their own
 districts1 and1 as long as they comply 
with those rules and provide their quota
 of coal1 will possess local autonomy   
and will follow the method of working   

the pits which they think best suited to
 local conditions4  ,thus interpreted1  
public ownership does not appear to     
confront the brain worker with the      
danger of unintelligent interference    
with his special technique1 of which he 
is1 quite naturally1 apprehensive4  ,it 
offers him1 indeed1 far larger          
opportunities of professional           
development than are open to all but a  
favored few to-day1 when the            
considerations of productive efficiency1
 which it is his special metier to      
promote1 are liable to be overridden by 
short-sighted financial interests       
operating through the pressure of a     
,board of ,directors who desire to show 
an immediate profit to their            
shareholders1 and who1 to obtain it1    
will cream the pit1 or work it in a way 
other than considerations of technical  
efficiency would dictate4  ,and the     
interest of the community in securing   
that the manager's professional skill is
 liberated for the service of the       

public1 is as great as his own4  ,for   
the economic developments of the last   
thirty years have made the managerial   
and technical personnel of industry the 
repositories of public responsibilities 
of quite incalculable importance1 which1
 with the best will in the world1 they  
can hardly at present discharge4 ,the   
most salient characteristic of modern   
industrial organization is that         
production is carried on under the      
general direction of business men1 who  
do not themselves necessarily know      
anything of productive processes4       
,business #aga and industry tend to an  
increasing extent to form two           
compartments1 which1 though united      
within the same economic system1 employ 
different types of personnel1 evoke     
different qualities and recognize       
different standards of efficiency and   
workmanship4  ,the technical and        
managerial staff of industry is1 of     
course1 as amenable as other men to     
economic incentives4  ,but their special

 work is production1 not finance2 and1  
provided they are not smarting under a  
sense of economic injustice1 they want1 
like most workmen1 to see the job done  
properly4  ,the business men who        
ultimately control industry are         
concerned with the promotion and        
capitalization of companies1 with       
competitive selling and the             
advertisement of wares1 the control of  
markets1 the securing of special        
advantages1 and the arrangement of      
pools1 combines and monopolies4 ,they   
are preoccupied1 in fact1 with financial
 results1 and are interested in the     
actual making of goods only in so far as
 financial results accrue from it4      
,the change in organization which has1  
to a considerable degree1 specialized   
the spheres of business and management  
is comparable in its importance to that 
which separated business and labor a    
century and a half ago4  ,it is         
specially momentous for the consumer4   
,as long as the functions of manager1   

technician and capitalist were combined1
 as in the classical era of the factory 
system1 in the single person of the     
employer1 it was not unreasonable to    
assume that profits and productive      
efficiency ran similarly together4  ,in 
such circumstances the ingenuity with   
which economists proved #agb that1 in   
obedience to the law of substitution1 he
 would choose the most economical       
process1 machine1 or type of            
organization1 wore a certain            
plausibility4  ,true1 the employer      
might1 even so1 adulterate his goods or 
exploit the labor of a helpless class of
 workers4  ,but as long as the person   
directing industry was himself primarily
 a manager1 he could hardly have the    
training1 ability or time1 even if he   
had the inclination1 to concentrate     
special attention on financial gains    
unconnected with1 or opposed to1        
progress in the arts of production1 and 
there was some justification for the    
conventional picture which represented  

the manufacturer as the guardian of the 
interests of the consumer4  ,with the   
drawing apart of the financial and      
technical departments of industry--with 
the separation of business from         
production--the link which bound profits
 to productive efficiency is tending to 
be snapped4 ,there are more ways than   
formerly of securing the former without 
achieving the latter2 and when it is    
pleaded that the interests of the       
captain of industry stimulate the       
adoption of the most economical methods 
and thus secure industrial progress1 it 
is necessary to ask economical for whom8
  ,though the organization of industry  
which is most efficient1 in the sense of
 offering the consumer the best service 
at the lowest real cost1 may be that    
which is most profitable to the firm1 it
 is also true that profits are          
constantly made in ways which have      
nothing to do with efficient production1
 and which sometimes1 indeed1 impede it4
  ,the manner in which business may find

 that the methods which pay itself best 
are those which a truly #agc scientific 
management would condemn may be         
illustrated by three examples4  ,in the 
first place1 the whole mass of profits  
which are obtained by the adroit        
capitalization of a new business1 or the
 reconstruction of one which already    
exists1 have hardly any connection with 
production at all4  ,when1 for instance1
 a ,lancashire cotton mill capitalized  
at ,l#ajj1jjj is bought by a ,london    
syndicate which re-floats it with a     
capital of ,l#ejj1jjj--not at all an    
extravagant case--what exactly has      
happened8  ,in many cases the equipment 
of the mill for production remains1     
after the process1 what it was before   
it4  ,it is1 however1 valued at a       
different figure1 because it is         
anticipated that the product of the mill
 will sell at a price which will pay a  
reasonable profit not only upon the     
lower1 but upon the higher1             
capitalization4  ,if the apparent state 

of the market and prospects of the      
industry are such that the public can be
 induced to believe this1 the promoters 
of the reconstruction find it worth     
while to recapitalize the mill on the   
new basis4  ,they make their profit not 
as manufacturers1 but as financiers4    
,they do not in any way add to the      
productive efficiency of the firm1 but  
they acquire shares which will entitle  
them to an increased return4  ,normally1
 if the market is favorable1 they part  
with the greater number of them as soon 
as they are acquired4  ,but1 whether    
they do so or not1 what has occurred is 
a process by which the business element 
in industry obtains the right to a      
larger share of the product1 without in 
any way increasing the efficiency of the
 service which is offered to the        
consumer4  ,other examples of the manner
 in which the control of #agd production
 by business cuts across the line of    
economic progress are the wastes of     
competitive industry and the profits of 

monopoly4  ,it is well known that the   
price paid by the consumer includes     
marketing costs1 which to a varying1 but
 to a large1 extent are expenses not of 
supplying the goods1 but of supplying   
them under conditions involving the     
expenses of advertisement and           
competitive distribution4  ,for the     
individual firm such expenses1 which    
enable it to absorb part of a rival's   
trade1 may be an economy3 to the        
consumer of milk or coal--to take two   
flagrant instances--they are pure loss4 
,nor1 as is sometimes assumed1 are such 
wastes confined to distribution4        
,technical reasons are stated by railway
 managers to make desirable a           
unification of railway administration   
and by mining experts of mines4  ,but1  
up to the war1 business considerations  
maintained the expensive system under   
which each railway company was operated 
as a separate system1 and still prevent 
collieries1 even collieries in the same 
district1 from being administered as    

parts of a single organization4  ,pits  
are drowned out by water1 because       
companies cannot agree to apportion     
between them the costs of a common      
drainage system2 materials are bought1  
and products sold1 separately1 because  
collieries will not combine2 small coal 
is left in to the amount of millions of 
tons because the most economical and    
technically efficient working of the    
seams is not necessarily that which     
yields the largest profit to the        
business men who control production4    
,in this instance the wide differences  
in economic strength which exist between
 different mines discourage the         
unification which is economically       
desirable2 naturally the #age directors 
of a company which owns a good thing do 
not desire to merge interests with a    
company working coal that is poor in    
quality or expensive to mine4 ,when1 as 
increasingly happens in other           
industries1 competitive wastes1 or some 
of them1 are eliminated by combination1 

there is a genuine advance in technical 
efficiency1 which must be set to the    
credit of business motives4  ,in that   
event1 however1 the divergence between  
business interests and those of the     
consumers is merely pushed one stage    
further forward2 it arises1 of course1  
over the question of prices4  ,if any   
one is disposed to think that this      
picture of the economic waste which     
accompanies the domination of production
 by business interests is overdrawn1 he 
may be invited to consider the          
criticisms upon the system passed by the
 efficiency engineers1 who are          
increasingly being called upon to advise
 as to industrial organization and      
equipment4  ,the higher officers of the 
corporation1 writes ,mr4 ,h4 ,l4 ,gantt 
of a ,public ,utility ,company          
established in ,america during the war1 
have all without exception been men of  
the 'business' type of mind1 who have   
made their success through financiering1
 buying1 selling1 etc4444  ,as a matter 

of fact it is well known that our       
industrial system has not measured up as
 we had expected4444  ,the reason for   
its falling short is undoubtedly that   
the men directing it had been trained in
 a business system operated for profits1
 and did not understand one operated    
solely for production4 ,this is no      
criticism of the men as individuals2    
they simply did not know the job1 and1  
what is worse1 they did not know that   
they did not know it4  #agf  ,in so far1
 then1 as ,business and ,management are 
separated1 the latter being employed    
under the direction of the former1 it   
cannot be assumed that the direction of 
industry is in the hands of persons     
whose primary concern is productive     
efficiency4  ,that a considerable degree
 of efficiency will result incidentally 
from the pursuit of business profits is 
not1 of course1 denied4  ,what seems to 
be true1 however1 is that the main      
interest of those directing an industry 
which has reached this stage of         

development is given to financial       
strategy and the control of markets1    
because the gains which these activities
 offer are normally so much larger than 
those accruing from the mere improvement
 of the processes of production4  ,it is
 evident1 however1 that it is precisely 
that improvement which is the main      
interest of the consumer4 ,he may       
tolerate large profits as long as they  
are thought to be the symbol of         
efficient production4  ,but what he is  
concerned with is the supply of goods1  
not the value of shares1 and when       
profits appear to be made1 not by       
efficient production1 but by skilful    
financiering or shrewd commercial       
tactics1 they no longer appear          
meritorious4  ,if1 in disgust at what he
 has learned to call profiteering1 the  
consumer seeks an alternative to a      
system under which product is controlled
 by ,business1 he can hardly find it    
except by making an ally of the         
managerial and technical personnel of   

industry4  ,they organize the service   
which he requires2 they are relatively  
little implicated1 either by material   
interest or by psychological bias1 in   
the financial methods which he          
distrusts2 they often find the control  
of their professions by business men who
 are #agg primarily financiers          
irritating in the obstruction which it  
offers to technical efficiency1 as well 
as sharp and close-fisted in the        
treatment of salaries4  ,both on public 
and professional grounds they belong to 
a group which ought to take the         
initiative in promoting a partnership   
between the producers and the public4   
,they can offer the community the       
scientific knowledge and specialized    
ability which is the most important     
condition of progress in the arts of    
production4  ,it can offer them a more  
secure and dignified status1 larger     
opportunities for the exercise of their 
special talents1 and the consciousness  
that they are giving the best of their  

work and their lives1 not to enriching a
 handful of uninspiring1 if innocuous1  
shareholders1 but to the service of the 
great body of their fellow-countrymen4  
,if the last advantage be dismissed as a
 phrase--if medical officers of health1 
directors of education1 directors of the
 co-operative wholesale be assumed to be
 quite uninfluenced by any consciousness
 of social service--the first two1 at   
any rate1 remain4  ,and they are        
considerable4  ,it is this gradual      
disengagement of managerial technique   
from financial interests which would    
appear the probable line along which the
 employer of the future will develop4   
,the substitution throughout industry of
 fixed salaries for fluctuating profits 
would1 in itself1 deprive his position  
of half the humiliating atmosphere of   
predatory enterprise which embarrasses  
to-day any man of honor who finds       
himself1 when he has been paid for his  
services1 in possession of a surplus for
 which there is no assignable reason4   

,nor1 once large incomes from profits   
have been extinguished1 need his salary 
be large1 #agh as incomes are reckoned  
to-day4  ,it is said that among the     
barbarians1 where wealth is still       
measured by cattle1 great chiefs are    
described as hundred-cow men4  ,the     
manager of a great enterprise who is    
paid #djj1jjj a year1 might similarly be
 described as a hundred-family man1     
since he receives the income of a       
hundred families4  ,it is true that     
special talent is worth any price1 and  
that a payment of #djj1jjj a year to the
 head of a business with a turnover of  
millions is economically a bagatelle4   
,but economic considerations are not the
 only considerations4  ,there is also   
the point of honor4  ,and the truth is  
that these hundred-family salaries are  
ungentlemanly4  ,when really important  
issues are at stake every one realizes  
that no decent man can stand out for his
 price4  ,a general does not haggle with
 his government for the precise         

pecuniary equivalent of his contribution
 to victory4  ,a sentry who gives the   
alarm to a sleeping battalion does not  
spend next day collecting the capital   
value of the lives he has saved2 he is  
paid #a_/- a day and is lucky if he gets
 it4  ,the commander of a ship does not 
cram himself and his belongings into the
 boats and leave the crew to scramble   
out of the wreck as best they can2 by   
the tradition of the service he is the  
last man to leave4  ,there is no reason 
why the public should insult            
manufacturers and men of business by    
treating them as though they were more  
thick-skinned than generals and more    
extravagant than privates4  ,to say that
 they are worth a good deal more than   
even the exorbitant salaries which a few
 of them get is often true4  ,but it is 
beside the point4  ,no one has any      
business to #agi expect to be paid what 
he is worth1 for what he is worth is a  
matter between his own soul and ,god4   
,what he has a right to demand1 and what

 it concerns his fellow-men to see that 
he gets1 is enough to enable him to     
perform his work4  ,when industry is    
organized on a basis of function1 that1 
and no more than that1 is what he will  
be paid4  ,to do the managers of        
industry justice1 this whining for more 
money is a vice to which they 7as       
distinct from their shareholders7 are   
not particularly prone4  ,there is no   
reason why they should be4  ,if a man   
has important work1 and enough leisure  
and income to enable him to do it       
properly1 he is in possession of as much
 happiness as is good for any of the    
children of ,adam4    #a ,the ,coal     
,mines ,department supplied the         
following figures to the ,coal ,industry
 ,commission 7,vol4 ,,iii1 ,app4 #ff74  
,they relate to #eg per cent4 of the    
collieries of the ,united ,kingdom4     
,salary1 including bonus and            
,number of ,managers   value of house   
and coal                      #aiac     
#aiai    ,l#ajj or less                 

4444444444444444444444444444444    #d   
#b   ,l#aja to ,l#bjj                   
4444444444444444444444444444444  #acd   
#c   ,l#bja to ,l#cjj                   
4444444444444444444444444444444  #bhj   
#bi   ,l#cja to ,l#djj                  
4444444444444444444444444444444  #afa   
#bea   ,l#dja to ,l#ejj                 
4444444444444444444444444444444  #cba   
#bac   ,l#eja to ,l#fjj                 
4444444444444444444444444444444   #eg   
#adf   ,l#fja and over                  
444444444444444444444444444444   #ej    
#aeb     #ahj  ,,xi  ,,porro ,,unum     
,,necessarium  ,so the organization of  
society on the basis of function1       
instead of on that of rights1 implies   
three things4  ,it means1 first1 that   
proprietary rights shall be maintained  
when they are accompanied by the        
performance of service and abolished    
when they are not4  ,it means1 second1  
that the producers shall stand in a     
direct relation to the community for    
whom production is carried on1 so that  

their responsibility to it may be       
obvious and unmistakable1 not lost1 as  
at present1 through their immediate     
subordination to shareholders whose     
interest is not service but gain4  ,it  
means1 in the third place1 that the     
obligation for the maintenance of the   
service shall rest upon the professional
 organization of those who perform it1  
and that1 subject to the supervision and
 criticism of the consumer1 those       
organizations shall exercise so much    
voice in the government of industry as  
may be needed to secure that the        
obligation is discharged4  ,it is       
obvious1 indeed1 that no change of      
system or machinery can avert those     
causes of social malaise which consist  
in the egotism1 greed1 or               
quarrelsomeness of human nature4  ,what 
it can do is to create an environment in
 which those are not the qualities which
 are encouraged4 ,it cannot secure that 
men live up to their principles4  ,what 
it can do is to establish their social  

order upon principles to which1 if they 
please1 they can #aha live up and not   
live down4  ,it cannot control their    
actions4  ,it can offer them an end on  
which to fix their minds4 ,and1 as their
 minds are1 so1 in the long run and with
 exceptions1 their practical activity   
will be4  ,the first condition of the   
right organization of industry is1 then1
 the intellectual conversion which1 in  
their distrust of principles1           
,englishmen are disposed to place last  
or to omit altogether4  ,it is that     
emphasis should be transferred from the 
opportunities which it offers           
individuals to the social functions     
which it performs2 that they should be  
clear as to its end and should judge it 
by reference to that end1 not by        
incidental consequences which are       
foreign to it1 however brilliant or     
alluring those consequences may be4     
,what gives its meaning to any activity 
which is not purely automatic is its    
purpose4 ,it is because the purpose of  

industry1 which is the conquest of      
nature for the service of man1 is       
neither adequately expressed in its     
organization nor present to the minds of
 those engaged in it1 because it is not 
regarded as a function but as an        
opportunity for personal gain or        
advancement or display1 that the        
economic life of modern societies is in 
a perpetual state of morbid irritation4 
,if the conditions which produce that   
unnatural tension are to be removed1 it 
can only be effected by the growth of a 
habit of mind which will approach       
questions of economic organization from 
the standpoint of the purpose which it  
exists to serve1 and which will apply to
 it something of the spirit expressed by
 ,bacon when he said that the work of   
man ought to be carried on for the glory
 of ,god and the relief of men's estate4
  #ahb  ,viewed from that angle issues  
which are insoluble when treated on the 
basis of rights may be found more       
susceptible of reasonable treatment4    

,for a purpose1 is1 in the first place a
 principle of limitation4  ,it          
determines the end for which1 and       
therefore the limits within which1 an   
activity is to be carried on4  ,it      
divided what is worth doing from what is
 not1 and settles the scale upon which  
what is worth doing ought to be done4   
,it is in the second place1 a principle 
of unity1 because it supplies a common  
end to which efforts can be directed1   
and submits interests1 which would      
otherwise conflict1 to the judgment of  
an over-ruling object4  ,it is1 in the  
third place1 a principle of             
apportionment or distribution4  ,it     
assigns to the different parties of     
groups engaged in a common undertaking  
the place which they are to occupy in   
carrying it out4  ,thus it establishes  
order1 not upon chance or power1 but    
upon a principle1 and bases remuneration
 not upon what men can with good fortune
 snatch for themselves nor upon what1 if
 unlucky1 they can be induced to accept1

 but upon what is appropriate to their  
function1 no more and no less1 so that  
those who perform no function receive no
 payment1 and those who contribute to   
the common end receive honourable       
payment for honourable service4         
,frate1 la nostra volonta quieta        
,virtu di carita1 che fa volerne   ,sol 
quel ch'avemo1 e d'altro non ci asseta4 
,si disiassimo esse piu superne1        
,foran discordi li nostri disiri   ,dal 
voler di colui che qui ne cerne4      99
     99     99     99     99  #ahc      
,anzi e formale ad esto beato esse      
,tenersi dentro alla divina vogli1      
,per ch'una fansi nostre vogli e stesse4
      99     99     99     99     99    
,chiaro mi fu allor com' ogni dove   ,in
 ,cielo e paradiso1 e si la grazia      
,del sommo ben d'un modo non vi piove4  
,the famous lines in which ,piccarda    
explains to ,dante the order of         
,paradise are a description of a complex
 and multiform society which is united  
by overmastering devotion to a common   

end4  ,by that end all stations are     
assigned and all activities are valued4 
,the parts derive their quality from    
their place in the system1 and are so   
permeated by the unity which they       
express that they themselves are glad to
 be forgotten1 as the ribs of an arch   
carry the eye from the floor from which 
they spring to the vault in which they  
meet and interlace4  ,such a combination
 of unity and diversity is possible only
 to a society which subordinates its    
activities to the principle of purpose4 
,for what that principle offers is not  
merely a standard for determining the   
relations of different classes and      
groups of producers1 but a scale of     
moral values4  ,above all1 it assigns to
 economic activity itself its proper    
place as the servant1 not the master1 of
 society4  ,the burden of our           
civilization is not merely1 as many     
suppose1 that the product of industry is
 ill-distributed1 or its conduct        
tyrannical1 or its operation interrupted

 by embittered disagreements4  ,it is   
that industry itself has come to hold a 
position of exclusive predominance among
 human interests1 which no single       
interest1 and least of all the provision
 of the #ahd material means of          
existence1 is fit to occupy4 ,like a    
hypochondriac who is so absorbed in the 
processes of his own digestion that he  
goes to his grave before he has begun to
 live1 industrialized communities       
neglect the very objects for which it is
 worth while to acquire riches in their 
feverish preoccupation with the means by
 which riches can be acquired4  ,that   
obsession by economic issues is as local
 and transitory as it is repulsive and  
disturbing4  ,to future generations it  
will appear as pitiable as the obsession
 of the seventeenth century by religious
 quarrels appears to-day2 indeed1 it is 
less rational1 since the object with    
which it is concerned is less important4
  ,and it is a poison which inflames    
every wound and turns each trivial      

scratch into a malignant ulcer4         
,society will not solve the particular  
problems of industry which afflict it1  
until that poison is expelled1 and it   
has learned to see industry itself in   
the right perspective4  ,if it is to do 
that1 it must rearrange its scale of    
values4  ,it must regard economic       
interests as one element in life1 not as
 the whole of life4  ,it must persuade  
its members to renounce the opportunity 
of gains which accrue without any       
corresponding service1 because the      
struggle for them keeps the whole       
community in a fever4  ,it must so      
organize industry that the instrumental 
character of economic activity is       
emphasized by its subordination to the  
social purpose for which it is carried  
on4     #ahe  ,,index     ,abolition of 
private ownership1 #adg   ,absenteeism1 
#aeb   ,absolute rights1 #ej-ea         
,absolutism in industry1 #add           
,acquisitive societies1 #bi-cb          
,administration1 #aae-aaf   ,allocation 

of power1 #afc-afd   ,american          
,constitution1 #ah-ai1 #eb   ,annuities1
 #gd   ,arbitration1 compulsory1 #aja   
,bacon1 quoted1 #eh1 #aha   ,bentham1   
#af1 #eb1 #ee   ,brain workers1 position
 of the1 #afa-aga   ,british ,coal      
,industry1 reorganization of1 #aff-aga  
,building ,guilds1 #ajc   ,building     
,trade ,report1 #ajf-aaj   ,bureaucracy1
 #aaf1 #adi    ,capitalism1 and         
production1 #agc-agf2 downward thrust   
of1 #aed2     in ,america1 #aja2 losing 
control1 #ada-adb1 #adh   ,cecil1 ,lord 
,hugh1 #bc1 #eh   ,cecil1 ,robert1 #ei  
,cecil1 ,william1 #ei   ,church and     
,state1 #aj-ac   ,coal ,industry        
,commission1 #ga1 #abf1 #acg1 #adc2     
report of1 #aff-afg   ,coal ,mines      
,committees1 #aeb   ,combinations1 #abe1
 #acj   ,committee on ,trusts1 #aec     
,competition1 #bg   ,compulsory         
arbitration1 #aja   ,confiscations1 #ajc
   ,conservatism1 the ,new1 #bh         
,consumer1 exploitation of the1 #acc-acd
   ,co-operative ,movement and cost of  

coal1 #abe    ,dante1 quoted1 #ahb-ahc  
,death ,duties1 #bb   ,democratic       
control1 #aaf   ,dickenson1 ,sir ,arthur
 ,lowes1 #ga   ,directorate control1    
#abi   ,duckham1 ,sir ,arthur1 #aai     
,duke of ,wellington1 quoted1 #abc      
,economic confusion1 cause of1 #aca-acb 
,economic discontent1 increase of1 #e   
,economic egotism1 #bg1   ,economic     
expansion1 #i   ,efficiency1 the        
condition of1 #aci-afj2 through ,esprit 
de ,corps1 #adi-aej   ,employer1 waning 
power of the1 #adj   ,england1 and      
natural right1 #ae-af2 and ,france      
contrasted1 #af-ag2     ,industrialism  
in1 #dd-dg2 ,liberal ,movement in1 #ah2 
over-crowding of population in1 #cg2    
proprietary rights in1     #fd et seq4  
,english landlordism1 #bb-bc            
,englishmen1 characteristics of1 #a-c2  
vanity of1 #abi   ,english ,revolution  
of #afhh1 #eb   ,esch-,cummins ,act1    
#aah   ,expediency1 rule of1 #af        
,feudalism1 #ah   ,fixed salaries1      
#agg-agh   ,forced labor1 #ajb          

,france1 social and industrial          
conditions in1 #af-ag2     ,feudalism   
in1 #ah2 ,revolution in1 #ae1 #fe1 #fi  
,french ,revolution1 #ae1 #fe1 #fi      
,function1 definition of1 #h2 as a basis
 for remuneration1 #da-db2     as a     
basis of social reorganization1 #ahj2   
,function and ,freedom1 #g   ,functional
 ,society1 #bi1 #hd-ij   ,functionless  
property-owners1 #gi1 #hf2 abolishment  
of1 #hg-hh2     an expensive luxury1 #hg
    ,gainford1 ,lord1 quoted1 #bf1 #aaa 
,gantt1 ,h4 ,l41 #age   ,government     
control in war time1 #be-bf             
,ground-rents1 #hi-ij1 #ia    ,hobson1  
,mr41 #fc   ,hundred-,family ,man1 #agh 
,imperial ,tobacco ,company1 #aaf       
,incomes1 #da   ,income ,tax1 #bb       
,income without service1 #fh            
,individualism1 #dh-di   ,individual    
rights1 #i   ,individual rights vs4     
social functions1 #bg   ,industrial     
problems1 #g   ,industrial              
reorganization1 #aea1 #aee   ,industrial
 revolution1 #i   ,industrial societies1

 #i   ,industrial warfare1 cause of1 and
 remedy for1 #dj-db   ,industrialism1   
#ah2 a poison1 #ahd2 compared to        
,militarism1 #dd-df2     exaggerated    
estimate of its importance1 #de-df2     
failure of present     system1 #aci-ada2
 nemesis of1 #cc-ea2 spread of1 #cj2    
tendency of1     #ca-cb   ,industry1 and
 a profession1 #id1 #ig2 as a           
profession1 #ia et seq41     #abe-abf2  
deficiencies of1 #adg2 definition of1   
#f2 how private     control of may be   
terminated1 #ajc-ajd2 and the advantages
 of such     a change1 #ajf2 ,building  
,trades' ,plan for1 #ajh1 #aaa2 motives 
in1     #aee-aei2 nationalization of1   
#ajd1 #aad-aah2 present organization    
of intolerable1 #abi2 purpose of1 #h1   
#df1 #aha2 right organization     of1   
#f-g2 the means not the end1 #df-dg     
,inheritance taxes1 #ij   ,insurance1   
#gd    ,joint control1 #aaa-aab         
,joint-stock companies1 #ff             
,joint-stock organizations1 #ig         
,labor1 absolute rights of1 #bh2 and    

capital1 #ih-ajj1 #ajh2 compulsory1     
#ajj2 control of breaking down1 #aci et 
seq42 degradation of1 #ce2     forced1  
#ajb   ,league of ,nations1 #aja        
,liberal ,movement1 #ah   ,locke1 #ad1  
#eb1 #ee    ,management divorced from   
ownership1 #aab-aac   ,mann1 ,sir ,john1
 #abf   ,militarism1 #dd-de   ,mill1    
quoted1 #hi   ,mine managers1 position  
of1 #afb1 #aff-afh   ,mining royalties1 
#bc-bd1 #hh    ,nationalism1 #dh-di     
,nationalization1 #aad1 #aag2 of the    
,coal ,industry1 #aae1 #afe1 #afh-afi   
,natural right in ,france1 #ae2 in      
,england1 #ae-af2 doctrine of1 #ba      
,officials1 position under the present  
economic system1 #afb   ,old industrial 
order a failure1 #aci2 its effect on the
 consumer1 #add   ,organization1 for    
public service instead of private gains1
 #abg   ,over-centralization1 #aba      
,ownership1 a new system of1 #aab-aad   
,pensioners1 #cd   ,poverty a symptom of
 social disorder1 #e   ,private         
enterprise and public ownership1        

#aah-abj   ,private ownership1 #abj2    
abolition of1 #adg2 of industrial       
capital1     #aje-ajf   ,private rights 
and public welfare1 #ad-ae              
,privileges1 #bd   ,producer1 obligation
 of the1 #abg-abh2 responsibility of1   
#abh   ,production1 increased1 #e2 large
 scale and small scale1 #hg2            
misdirection of1 #cg-ci2 why not        
increased1 #acf   ,productivity1 #d1 #df
   ,professional ,spirit1 the1 #adi-aej 
,profits1 and production1 #agc-agf2     
division of1 #acc   ,proletariat1 #ai1  
#fe   ,property1 absolute rights of1    
#eb1 #hj2 and creative work1 #eb et     
seq42     classification of1 #fc1 #fd2  
complexity of1 #ge2 functionless1       
#gf-gg1 #ha2     in land1 #ef-fj2 in    
rights and royalties1 #fb2 minority     
ownership     of1 #gi2 most ambiguous of
 categories1 #ec-ed2 passive ownership  
of1     #fb2 private1 #gj-gb2 protection
 of1 #gh-gj2 rights1 #ej-ea2 security   
in1     #gb-gc2 socialist fallacy       
regarding1 #hf   ,proudhon1 #ed         

,publicity of costs and profits1 #he1   
#abc-abd1 #abf1 #acb    ,redmayne1 ,sir 
,richard1 #adi   ,reformation the1      
#aj-ac2 effect on society1 #ab-ad       
,reform ,bill of #ahcb1 #fi   ,religion1
 #aj2 changes in1 #aa-ab   ,report of   
the ,united ,states ,industrial         
,commission1 #aiaf1 #abh-abi   ,riches1 
meaning of1 #ih   ,rights of ,man1      
,french ,declaration of1 the1 #af1 #eb  
,rights1 and ,functions1 #h-ai2 doctrine
 of1 #ba et seq41 #dc-dd2 without       
functions1 #fa   ,rights of the         
shareholder1 #ge   ,royalties1 #bc-bd1  
#fb   ,royalties1 and property1 #gj2    
from coal mining properties1 #hh2 a tax 
upon the industry of others1 #hi        
,sankey1 ,justice1 #aae1 #aag1 #adc1    
#afe1 #afg1 #afh1 #afi   ,security of   
income1 #gc-ge   ,service as a basis of 
remuneration1 #be1 #da-db1 #he1 #acc    
,shareholders1 #ia-ib   ,shells1 cost of
 making1 #abd-abe   ,smith1 ,adam1 #ae1 
#eb1 #ie   ,social inequality1 #cf-cg   
,social reorganizations1 schemes for1 #e

   ,social war1 #dj   ,socialism1 #ec   
,society1 duality of modern1 #ace       
,society1 functional organization of1   
#eb   ,state management1 #aaf1 #aag     
,steel ,corporation1 #aaf   ,supervision
 from within1 #aea   ,syndicalism1 #acj 
,taxation1 #bb   ,trusts1 ,report on1   
#bc    ,united ,states1 transformation  
in1 #fe   ,utilitarians1 the ,english1  
#ag   ,utility1 #af-ag    ,vicious      
,circle1 the1 #dc1 #abc-ach   ,voltaire1
 quoted1 #ee    ,wages and costs1 #aca  
,wages and profits1 #gh   ,wealth1      
acquisition of1 #bj et seq42 as         
foundation for public esteem1           
#ce-cf2 distribution of on basis of     
function1 #gg2 fallacy of increased1    
#db-de2 how to increase output of1 #adg2
 inequality of1 #cg-ch2     limitation  
of1 #cf-cg2 output of1 #cg-ch2          
production and consumption     of--a    
contrast1 #gg-gh2 waste of1 #cg-ci      
,whitley ,councils1 #aaj   ,women       
self-supporting1 #gd   ,worker and      
,spender1 #gg-gh   ,workers1 collective 

responsibility of1 #aed   ,workers'     
control1 #abh   ,workmen1 as hands1     
#aeb2 present independence of1 #ade-adf2
     responsibility of destroyed1       
#aec-aed2 servants of shareholders1     
#acf-acg2 treatment of1 #aeb-aec