(examines the process of evolution in industry and the stage which it has so far reached.)

and now let us consider the process of industrial evolution. we shall find it to be exactly the same thing, reproducing the changes in another field of activity. you may picture two gigantic waves sweeping over the ocean. in some places the waves are far apart, and in other places they are closer together; for a time they may mingle, and perhaps their bases always mingle. it would be easy for a critic to point out how political affairs play a leading part in industrial evolution, and vice versa; it would be easy to argue that property rules the political state, or again, that the main function of the political state is to protect property. as i have said, man has to fight his enemies, and he has to seek food, and often he has to do the two things at the same time; but nevertheless, broadly speaking, we observe two great waves, sweeping over human society, and most of the time these waves are clearly separated and easily distinguished.

industry in a savage tribe is, like government, simple and uniform; all the members of the tribe get their living in the same way. one may be a little more expert as a fisherman, another as a gatherer of cocoanuts, but the fisherman gathers cocoanuts and the cocoanut-gatherer fishes. in the days of primitive communism there is little economic strife and little change; but as slavery comes in, and the private property system, there begins industrial war—the members of the tribe trade with one another, and argue over prices, and gradually some get the better of others, they accumulate slaves and goods, and later on they appropriate the land to their private use. of course, the men who do this are often the rulers of the tribe, and so politics and industry are mixed; but even assuming that the state never interfered, assuming that the government allowed business affairs to work themselves out in their own way, the tendency of competition is always to end in monopoly. the big fish eat the little fish, the strong gain advantage over the weak, the rich grow richer, and the poor grow relatively poorer. as the amount of trading increases, and men specialize in the arts of bargaining, we see again and again how money concentrates in the hands of a few. it does this, even when the political state tries to prevent it; as, for example, when the princes and dukes of the middle ages would torture the jewish money-lenders and take away their treasure, but the jews never failed to grow rich again.

it is when political evolution has completed itself, and a republic has been set up, that a free field is given to economic forces to work themselves out to their logical end. we have seen this in the united states, where we all started pretty much on the same economic level, and where political tyranny has had little hold. our civilization is a civilization of the trader—the business man, as we call him; and we see how big business absorbs little business, and grows constantly larger and more powerful. we are familiar with what we call "graft," the use by business men of the powers of government to get trade advantage for themselves, and we have a school of old-time thinkers, calling themselves "jeffersonian democrats," who insist that if only there had never been any government favors, economic equality and democracy would have endured forever in our country. but it is my opinion that government has done far more to prevent monopoly and special privilege in business than to favor it; and nevertheless, monopoly has grown.

in other words, the tendency toward concentration in business, the absorption of the small business by the big business, is an irresistible natural process, which neither can be nor should be hindered. the condition of competition, whether in politics or in industry, is never a permanent one, and can never be made permanent; it is a struggle which automatically brings itself to an end. large-scale production and distribution is more economical than small-scale, and big business has irresistible advantages of credit and permanence over little business. as we shall presently show, the blind and indiscriminate production of goods under the competitive system leads to the glutting of markets and to industrial crises. at such times the weaker concerns are weeded out and the strong ones take their trade; and as a result, we have the modern great corporation, the most powerful machine of production yet devised by man, and which corresponds in every aspect to the monarchy in political society.

we are accustomed to speak of our "captains of industry," our "coal kings," and "beef barons" and "lords of steel," and we think we are using metaphors; but the universality of these metaphors points to a fundamental truth in them. as a matter of fact, our modern captain of industry fills in the economic world exactly the same functions as were filled in ancient days by the head of a feudal state. he has won his power in a similar struggle, and he holds it by similar methods. he rules over an organization of human beings, arranged, economically speaking, in grades and classes, with their authorities and privileges and duties precisely determined, as under the "ancient régime." and just as king louis said, "i am the state," so mr. armour considers that he is armour & co., and mr. morgan considers that he is the house of morgan, and that the business exists for him and is controlled by him under divine authority.

if i am correct in my analysis of the situation, this process of industrial evolution is destined to complete itself, as in the case of the political state. the subject populations of industry are becoming more and more discontented with their servitude, more and more resentful of that authority which compels them to labor while others reap the benefit. they are organizing themselves, and preparing for a social transformation which will parallel in every detail the revolution by which our ancestors overthrew the authority of king george iii over the american colonies, and made inhabitants of those colonies no longer subjects of a king, but free and equal citizens of a republic. i expect to see a change throughout the world, which will take the great instruments of production which we call corporations and trusts, out of the hands of their present private owners, and make them the property, either of the entire community, or of those who do the work in them. this change is the "social revolution," and when it has completed itself, we shall have in that society an industrial republic, a form of business management which constitutes economic democracy.

the history of the world's political revolutions has been written almost exclusively by aristocratic or bourgeois historians; that is to say, by men who, whatever their attitude toward political democracy, have no conception of industrial democracy, and believe that industrial strife and enslavement are the normal conditions of life. if, however, you will read kropotkin's "great french revolution," you will be interested to discover how important a part was played in this revolution by economic forces. underneath the political discontent of the merchants and middle classes lay a vast mass of social discontent of the peasants and workers. it was the masses of the people who made the revolution, but it was the middle classes who seized it and turned it to their own ends, putting down attempts toward economic equality, and confining the changes, so far as possible, to the political field.

and everywhere throughout history, if you study revolutions, you find that same thing happening. you find, for example, martin luther fighting for the right to preach the word of god without consulting the pope; but when the peasants of germany rose and sought to set themselves free from feudal landlords, luther turned against them, and called upon the princes to shoot them down. "the ass needs to be beaten, and the populace needs to be controlled with a strong hand." the landlords and propertied classes of england were willing to restrict the power of the king, and to give the vote to the educated and well-to-do; but from the time of jack cade to our own they shoot down the poor.

but meantime, the industrial process continues; the modern factory system brings the workers together in larger and larger groups, and teaches them the lesson of class consciousness. so the time of the workers draws near. the first attempt in modern times to accomplish the social revolution and set up industrial democracy was in the paris commune. when the french empire collapsed, after the war with germany in 1871, the workers of paris seized control. they were massacred, some 50,000 of them, and the propertied classes of france established the present bourgeois republic, which has now become the bulwark of reaction throughout the continent of europe.

next came the russian revolution of 1905, and this was an interesting illustration of the relation between the two waves of social progress. russia was a backward country industrially, and according to theory not at all prepared for the social revolution. but nowadays the thoughts of men circulate all over the world, and the exiles from russia had absorbed marxian ideas, and were not prepared to accept a purely political freedom. so in 1905, after the japanese war, when the people rose and forced the czar to grant a parliament, the extremists made an effort to accomplish the social revolution at the same time. the peasants began to demand the land, and the workers the factories; whereupon the capitalists and middle classes, who wanted a parliament, but did not want socialism, went over to the side of reaction, and both the political and social revolutions were crushed.

but then came the great war, for which russia with her incompetent government and her undeveloped industry was unprepared. the strain of it broke her down long before the other allies, and in the universal suffering and ruin the russian people were again forced to rise. the political revolution was accomplished, the czar was imprisoned, and the douma reigned supreme. middle class liberalism throughout the world gave its blessings to this revolution, and hastened to welcome a new political democracy to the society of nations. but then occurred what to orthodox democratic opinion has been the most terrifying spectacle in human history. the russian people had been driven too far towards starvation and despair; the masses had been too embittered, and they rose again, overthrowing not only their czar and their grand dukes, but their capitalists and land-owners. for the first time in history the social revolution established itself, and the workers were in control of a great state. ever since then we have seen exactly what we saw in europe from 1789 onward, when the first political republic was established, and all the monarchies and empires of the world banded themselves together to stamp it out. we have witnessed a campaign of war, blockade, intrigue and propaganda against the soviet government of russia, all pretending to be carried on in the name of the russian people, and for the purpose of saving them from suffering—but all obviously based upon one consideration and one alone, the fear that an effort at industrial self-government might possibly prove to be a success.

whether or not the soviets will prove permanent, no one can say. but this much is certain; just as the french revolution sent a thrill around the world, and planted in the hearts of the common people the wonderful dream of freedom from kings and ruling classes, just so the russian revolution has brought to the working masses the dream of freedom from masters and landlords. everywhere in capitalist society this ferment is working, and in one country after another we see the first pangs of the new birth. also we see capitalists and landlords, who once found "democracy," "free speech" and "equality before the law" useful formulas to break down the power of kings and aristocrats, now repudiating their old-time beliefs, and going back to the frankest reaction. we see, in our own "land of the free," the government refusing to reprint the declaration of independence during the war, and arresting men for quoting from it and circulating it; we even see the department of justice refusing to allow people to reprint the sermon on the mount!