INTRODUCTION.
In the preparation of this text the author has endeavored to apply the principles of economic science to some of the more important problems of the modern industrial world, and especially those now confronting the people of the United States. He has attempted in doing this above all to make the text practical. The student or teacher of economics will recognize at once that the sections are arranged into groups corresponding with the traditional divisions of economic text-books into production and distribution (land, capital and organization, and labor), consumption, exchange, and the relation of the government to the individual. It is hoped that the text may not be without profit and interest to the general reader as well as the students of the La Salle Extension University.
I. THE MODERN INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM.
We shall probably get the clearest idea of the complexity of our modern industrial society if we contrast it briefly with the simpler state of social organization which preceded it. For this purpose we may take the English manor of the eleventh century. At that time England
was a purely agricultural country, and the whole country was divided into manors, of which the lord was regarded as the owner, under feudal conditions, while those who cultivated the land were his tenants. These tenants—villeins and cotters—worked on the lord’s land two or three days in the week, and the rest of the time cultivated their own holdings. The whole of the land of the manor, both that of the lord and that of the tenants, was cultivated on an elaborate system of joint labor. The land was divided into strips of about half an acre each, and a man’s holding might consist of a dozen or more of these strips scattered about in different parts of the manor. This was done in order to secure equality in the fertility and location of each man’s land. At that time the prevailing method of agriculture was known as the three-field system, in which one field, comprising about one-third of the manor and containing a portion of the scattered strips of the lord and every tenant, was planted with wheat, a second field comprising another third of the cultivated land was planted with barley or oats, while the third field was left fallow. The second year saw the second stage of this three-year rotation, one-third of the manor lying fallow each year to recuperate from this exhausting method of cropping; artificial manures were unknown.
Now the significant characteristics of such a manorial society were three. First, it was economically self-sufficient, that is, practically everything that was needed or was consumed on the manor was produced there. There was no need of intercourse with the outside world and there was little contact with it. Salt, iron, and millstones were almost the only things that the inhabitants of such a manor had to buy from outsiders. Consequently there was no production of goods for a market, little money, and almost no trade. The few things that were purchased were paid for at prices fixed by custom. Secondly, agriculture was carried on under a system of joint labor, and
under customary methods which did not change from generation to generation. It is clear that as long as all the land of the manor was thrown together, for purposes of cultivation, into fields on which were planted wheat or barley or which lay fallow, no one individual could cultivate his land differently from his neighbors. Indeed, the holdings of the different tenants were not even separated by fences, but only by ridges of grass. On the land which lay fallow the cattle were turned out to graze; if any man had attempted to plant a new crop the third year, his neighbors’ cattle would have devoured it under such a system. Production was regulated absolutely by custom, and no opportunity was given for the development of the inventiveness or initiative of the progressive individual. Thirdly, the tenants were personally unfree, that is, they did not have the liberty of moving freely from place to place, but were bound to the soil which they cultivated. A man could not freely choose either his occupation or his residence. There was no mobility or freedom of movement. Labor was wholly or partly compulsory, and on terms rigidly fixed by custom or by superior authority.
Such a society differs from that of today in almost every point, and offers a startling proof of how far we have progressed in the past eight or nine hundred years. For many of these characteristics, however, we do not need to go back to the English mediaeval manor; the plantation of the South two generations ago, with its system of slave labor, furnishes an illustration more familiar to most of us. With such a condition of industrial development we may now profitably contrast our own of the twentieth century. The chief characteristics of the modern industrial system are the institutions of private property, of competition, and of personal liberty.
The institution of private property is so familiar to us and so fundamental in modern economic life, that we commonly regard it as a natural right. Nevertheless, private
property, like most other economic institutions, is the result of a long evolution. Primitive man can hardly have had the conception of private property, and when it did begin to emerge, it was at first confined to movables. Indeed we may say that on the mediaeval English manor the private ownership of land did not yet exist in the modern sense. It was found however that, when each cultivator was permitted to fence in his holding and to call it his own, he cultivated it much more carefully and produced much more. Inclosure led to private property in land and to individual freedom in its use. Today in the United States the possession and transfer of landed property is almost as easy as that of movables. Private property must be justified on the ground of social utility, because under this method of control so much more is produced than under any system of commercial ownership yet tried. But there are not wanting objectors who contend that limits should be placed upon this institution, and that the right of use, of bequest, and possibly of unlimited acquisition should be brought under social control. The beneficence of private property turns largely upon the existence of competition and individual liberty and to these we must now turn.