and erect a new one in its stead—or at least put in much tinkering, seeking a better co-ordination of parts.

But if there is no question that the industrial machine runs with much groaning and lamenting, there is equally no question that it runs with considerable speed. Tremendous power is applied and, incredible as it sounds, this power is applied at almost every part, joint, connection, or process. Perhaps it were wiser to use the plural and say great powers are applied, for there are many of them—these motives to industrial activity. For the present it will suffice to indicate that one of the most important of these motive forces is appeal to self-interest. And what of the guidance of this industrial machine? Discussion of this phase of the matter must be postponed. The responsible agents are a motley array: producer, consumer, entrepreneur, technical expert, government, financier, property-holder, inventor, and many others.

Economic literature, in considering the activities of man in gratifying his wants, commonly treats these activities as made up of three significant factors or processes: (a) the production of economic goods-generally called "the productive process"; (b) the apportionment, or sharing, of these goods among the members of society— generally called "the distributive process"; (c) the consumption of these goods. All these processes occur in, and are largely determined by, the environment, both physical and social.

Clearly these factors or processes may be operative under varying conditions in varying organizations of society. Under household economy, for example, all three go on within the bounds of the family group without what we call exchange and without much contact with people outside, at least in economic matters. Under socialism or communism the essential functions of production, distribution, and consumption would, of course, have to be performed, but the scheme. of organization would be different from that of household economy or of modern industrialism. We shall need to sketch the outlines of the scheme of organization in each case.

QUESTIONS

I. "We should see the relation of the structure and operations of industrial society to the great social fact of the scarcity of economic goods." Cite a series of social problems and institutions either arising from the scarcity of economic goods or related to that scarcity. In which of these is the business man interested, either directly or indirectly?

2. "To attain better satisfaction of our wants, we might do one or more of several things: (a) diminish the number of our wants; (b) change the character of our wants, e.g., develop altruism; (c) provide for larger production and better distribution of economic goods." Are any of these being done today? On what part of the problem is the business man working? Is he, generally speaking, conscious of the fact that he is working at any part of the problem?

3. Try to estimate how large a portion of our life is given over to the attempt to gratify economic wants.

4. What factors determine whether man will have an easy or a difficult "struggle with nature"?

5. Work through the "mechanisms and devices" of modern industrial society listed on page 4. Just how can each of these be regarded as a device which man has adopted in his struggle with nature? Did he adopt these devices consciously?

6. Is there really a structure in this industrial society of ours? What proofs or evidences of real system and structure can you cite?

7. How do you account for the fact that quite a few people insist that there is little or no structure? Is this mere exaggeration?

8. "Formerly people gratified their wants directly, i.e., they produced what they consumed. Nowadays specialists pour products-wealth and services-into a vast social reservoir and then draw from this reservoir the things they consume." Does this seem to you substantially true? Name some of the specialists. What determines the amount each of us can draw from the reservoir? Do the "laws" of wages ever determine this amount?

9. "All persons engaging in economic activity are really engaged in satisfying human wants. Formerly men satisfied all their wants in a direct method. Now they specialize and exchange and thus co-operate in satisfying human wants even though they are not conscious of the fact." Is this true?

10. "The business man thinks he is engaged in getting a living. He is. He is also engaged in a vast co-operative enterprise as large as all industrial society." Is this true? If it is, has it always been true? Are all "ways of getting a living" forms of what we call "business"?

11. "Ways of getting a living may be classified as pro-social, non-social, and anti-social." Explain what this means. Cite illustrations of each.

12. Will my success in getting a living be in direct proportion to my contribution to the progress of society in the "struggle with nature"? Is it possible that I may succeed by actually harming society? Will society permit me to do this? Can it prevent my doing it?

13. What is meant by social control? Are the following agencies of control: religion, custom, law, government, public opinion, codes of ethics?

Does a trade union exercise social control? Does a caste system? Does an employers' association? Does a business men's club? Try to distinguish between formal and informal social control; between conscious and unconscious social control. Cite illustrations of each form. Is our want-satisfying activity subject to social control? 14. Explain the significance of each word in the phrase "individual exchange co-operation."

15. Describe the structure of the "industrialism" of household economy. What would be the essential features of a socialistic régime? In just what main particulars would it be different from the present order? Go through your list of mechanisms and devices, asking whether each would be found in household economy, in socialism, in communism. 16. "Our co-operation today is regulated by exchange; under household economy it was regulated by authority." What does this mean? How would it be regulated under socialism? under communism? under the régime of an omniscient benevolent despot?

17. "Our society is a co-operative society." Was household economy co-operative? Would socialism and communism be co-operative? 18. "Our society is an exchange society." Would this be true of household economy? of socialism? of communism?

19. "There is a high degree of organization and relatively little waste within the business unit. In society as a whole, however, there is chaos and waste." What reasons can you allege for this state of affairs? When you reflect upon the charges of inefficiency within business units uttered by management experts, do you subscribe to the quotation?

20. Think of the "industrial machine" under the three headings power, parts, co-ordination of parts. Against which of the three are most of the charges of inefficiency made today? Suppose we had socialism; would the quotation in the preceding question apply? What should you guess would be the effect of socialism upon power, parts, and co-ordination of parts? How would it do to have an omniscient benevolent despot ruling industrial society?

21. Explain carefully what is meant by production; by distribution; by consumption. In which of these is the business man interested? 22. Are the following enterprises productive: cold storage; the express business; storage of ice; making of chairs; a retail candy business? What form of utility results from each activity here listed?

23. "A good is not fully produced until it is in the hands of the ultimate consumer." Is this true?

24. Enumerate the factors of production. What general conditions make for abundant production?

25. If you had to choose between the following propositions, which would you accept? (a) "Men consume in order to produce." (b) "Men pro

duce in order to consume." Is either one correct? Why do men engage in business?

26. Give five illustrations of free goods; five of economic goods. What is the distinction between wealth and services?

27. We hear much of the motives to industrial activity. Make a list of these motives. See selections Nos. 100-104.

B. Scarcity and Economic Activity

1. THE ECONOMIC STRUGGLE'

Of course, the first and most obvious reason for the scarcity of goods is that nature has not provided them in sufficient abundance to satisfy all the people who want them. Of some things, it is true, she is bounteous in her supply; but of others she is niggardly. Things which are so bountifully supplied as to satisfy all who want them do not figure as wealth, or economic goods, because we do not need to economize in their use. But things which are scantily supplied must be meted out and made to go as far as possible. That is what it means to economize. Because we must practice economy with respect to them they are called economic goods or wealth. In fact, the whole economic system of society, the whole system of production, of valuation, of exchange, of distribution, and of consumption is concerned with this class of goods toward increasing their supply and making the existing supply go as far as possible in the satisfaction of wants.

The fact that there are human wants for whose satisfaction nature does not provide in sufficient abundance-in other words, the fact of scarcity signifies that man is, to that extent at least, out of harmony with nature. The desire for fuel, for clothing, and for shelter grows out of the fact that the climate is more severe than our bodies are fitted to endure, and this alone argues a very considerable lack of harmony. The lack is only emphasized by the fact that it is necessary for us to labor and to endure fatigue in order to provide ourselves with these means of protecting our bodies against the rigors of nature. That labor also which is expended in the production of food means nothing if not that there are more mouths to be fed, in certain regions at least, than nature has herself provided for. She must therefore be subjugated and compelled to yield larger returns than she is willing

'Adapted by permission from T. N. Carver, "The Economic Basis of the Problem of Evil," Harvard Theological Review, I (1908), 98-1II.

to do of her own accord. And that expanding multitude of desires, of appetites, and of passions which drive us as with whips; which send us to the ends of the earth after gewgaws with which to bedeck our bodies and after new means of tickling the five senses; which make us strive to outshine our neighbors, or at least not to be outshone by them-these even more than our normal wants show how widely we have fallen out of any natural harmony which may supposedly have existed in the past.

Viewed from this standpoint, the whole economic struggle becomes an effort to attain to a harmony which does not naturally exist. As is well known, the characteristic difference between the non-economizing animals, on the one hand, and man, the economizer, on the other, is that in the process of adaptation the animals are passively adapted to their environment, whereas man assumes the active rôle in attempting to adapt his environment to himself. If the climate is cold, animals must develop fur or blubber, but man builds fires, constructs shelters, and manufactures clothing. If there are enemies to fight against, the animals must develop claws or fangs, horns or hoofs, whereas man makes bows and arrows, or guns and ammunition. The whole evolutionary process, both passive and active, both biological and economic, is a development away from less toward greater adaptation, from less toward greater harmony between the species and its environment.

That phase of the disharmony between man and nature which takes the form of scarcity gives rise also to a disharmony between man and man. Where there is scarcity there will be two men wanting the same thing; and where two men want the same thing there is an antagonism of interests. Where there is an antagonism of interests between man and man there will be questions to be settled, questions of right and wrong, of justice and of injustice; and these questions could not arise under any other condition. The antagonism of interests is, in other words, what gives rise to a moral problem, and it is, therefore, about the most fundamental fact in sociology and moral philosophy.

This does not overlook the fact that there are many harmonies between man and man, as there are between man and nature. There may be innumerable cases where all human interests harmonize, but these give rise to no problem, and therefore we do not need to concern ourselves with them. But where interests are antagonistic and trouble is constantly arising, we are compelled to concern ourselves