EV

INTRODUCTION

THEORY AND PRACTICE

1. The Ordeal of Fire

VERY theory of human conduct must withstand the fires of experience. Otherwise it is a useless theory. The philosophies of nations and of individuals are constantly reshaped in the light of events. At some times the process is gradual; at other times great crises menace, and the most momentous consequences hang upon the decision.

The war that swept over Europe in the summer of 1914 soon resolved itself into a struggle between the English and the Germans. Two types of culture were brought into conflict. The names most often applied to these types are "individualism" and "socialism."

Unfortunately the words are not accurately descriptive, nor are they mutually exclusive. England is to a degree socialistic, while individualism finds a place in every phase of German life. Furthermore, the English variety of individualism is almost as far from Spencerian individualism as the German variety of socialism is far from Marxian Socialism. At the same time the words convey an idea that is firmly fixed in the public mind. The United States, as the offspring of England, is committed, by heredity

and by training, to espouse the cause of "individualism" and "freedom" wherever they appear.

The people of the United States are in sympathy with the Allies for many reasons, and among them is the strongly marked feeling that the United States is a lineal descendant of individualized, democratic England.

At that point several questions present themselves. What is individualism? Is it right or true? Will it work?

Spencerian individualism regarded the human being as the basic unit of society. Intellectually, that premise is sound. Biologically and socially, it is unsound. The human being uses his mind as an individual, but he cannot reproduce himself without a mate. The biologic unit is therefore a male and female. Speaking in terms of race perpetuation, "individualism" must refer to the unit of a man and a woman.

Socially, the unit is the family. Society depends for its future upon the care given by a man and a woman to their offspring. The family, in its home, thus becomes the center of social life; hence individualism, in social terms, relates to a family.

The idea of the individual unit may be carried further into social life-to the community, town, city—that has an individuality of its own, quite as clearly marked as the individuality of a human being. The same idea may be carried into industrial life, where railroads, telephone systems, factories,

mines, and stores, employing hundreds and thousands of persons, are operated as units. In the industrial city, the railroad organization or the factory organization, the individual human being is helpless and useless unless he is willing to co-operate actively in making the work of the whole group a success. No individual can manage a city, a railroad or a factory unless there are others who will subordinate themselves to his direction. Speaking in terms of modern community or of modern industrial life, the individual human being does not count. The thing that does count is the group, working in intelligent harmony. The individualism of the Industrial Régime is an individualism of large units of co-operating workers.

The same thought may be amplified in the case of the human body. The body is an individual, composed of numerous individual organs, which, in turn, are composed of numerous individual cells. The hand is a unit; each finger is a unit; the nerves, capillaries, bones and hairs of the fingers are units, as are the cells of which they are all composed.

English individualism deals with the individual human being-it is intellectual individualism. Thinking in such terms, and applying their thought to the affairs of the state, the English-speaking world built up a social system on the supposition that the greatest sum of human happiness and nobility can be thus secured.

2. Intellectual Individualism

Can a

Will intellectual individualism work? nation succeed that permits the individual citizens of which it is composed to extend the field of their activities so long as they do not interfere with their fellows? Some light is thrown on that question by the events that have transpired in Europe during the past few decades.

The author holds no brief for either England or Germany, nor will any effort be made to discuss the war of 1914. The one problem that will be presented at this point relates to the experience which England has had with the intellectual individualism that has been made the corner-stone of her social philosophy. This does not in any way involve the question of the success of the system adopted by Germany. It merely raises the issues that are involved in the experiences of England and suggests some of the problems that America must face if she follows the English example.

Many people assumed that the war of 1914 would end quickly and easily. There was, throughout England, an easy optimism. A few weeks, at most a few months, and all would be over. The German fleet swept from the seas, the Austrians humbled, Germany pushed back from Paris, Belgian soil freed from the invader-all this was to be accomplished by the army and navy, with that deliberate dispatch which for time out of mind had marked the triumphs of British arms. Weeks drew them

selves into months and months into years. During the frightful interval, criticisms were piled high. The members of the cabinet, the field leaders, and the other officers of administration all came in for their share of censure. Here and there a voice was raised, crying that England was suffering-nay, some even said dying-of individualism.

Is individualism a disease? Will nations die of it? We, in America, have it in generous plenty. Will it prove fatal to the United States? Has it been a curse in England?

3. The Industrial Régime in England and the

United States

The same forces that have placed the industrial leaders of England in a dominant position have placed the industrial leaders of the United States in a dominant position. The position occupied by the American leaders is perhaps a little more dizzy, because in one sense it is higher and less secure. In the main, however, the individualistic doctrines advanced in both countries have led both in the same direction and toward the same end-the preeminence of industrial power.

The sub-title of this book, "The Industrial Régime," was chosen with a purpose. First, it is perfectly evident to even the casual observer that the ruling power in the world today is the power of industry. The word "Régime" is used in recognition of this rulership or leadership of industry.