revolution wrought during his own lifetime outside of the stock exchange in English social economy. 6. Tentative world-economy.-In the opening section of my sixth chapter, sec. 41, I call attention to the societal reconstruction of Europe and the modern world which was then beginning. A tentative cosmopolitan world-economy was inaugurated during the decades of the birth of English radical liberalism of Richard Cobden and John Bright. In thought men have of course risen to an actually possible world-economy. But we must reserve indefinitely any declaration that we have today attained any actually existing, harmonious world-economy, except in the cautious and tentative hope we may entertain that a potential economic internationalism is now forming, that is, has been formulating, especially since the Napoleonic era, which will perchance ultimately replace the absorbing present potent basis of economic nationalism. In sec. 42, under the title "Ricardian Economics and Bourgeois Democracy, That Is, Burgess Democracy," I direct attention to the commanding influence which men of wealth and the leaders of industry and commerce attained and maintained during those same decades. That commanding influence has been maintained since then. But it has often met with notice of check by the sullen notes of dissent that began to arise respecting the inequities of the existing system of the distribution of wealth and some notes of dissent in the presence of the happy-go-lucky optimism of the Ricardian economics which in our time, although retaining its vigor and its logic, has nevertheless been forced to replace its earlier creed of optimism with a more serious and somber creed of meliorism in lieu of an audacious optimism in the face of social distress. The ultimate triumph of the political economy of the working over the political economy of the bourgeois was foreshadowedbut must we not say unconsciously?—by Karl Marx in his inaugural address delivered September 28, 1864. This fact is noted by Simchovitch. I agree with Simchovitch in his utterance that "Marx's For comments on Marx's repudiation of his own increasing misery theory, see Simchovitch's Marxism versus Socialism (New York, 1913); also found in Political Science Quarterly, XXIV, 252–53. claim to fame rests precisely upon his refusal to traffic in eternal varieties. His economic laws are laws of capitalistic production only." In sec. 43, chap. vi, I introduce a review or summary of measurable tendencies toward the formation and growth of an economic internationalism which, although at work since the Napoleonic era, has been particularly active since about the middle of the nineteenth century. The second half of the nineteenth century was notable also for the growth and development of a great co-operative movement accompanied by experiments in social legislation on a large scale, followed also by some bold efforts to develop a system of social politics in which social welfare and social insurance have formed central topics of discussion and legislative action. I am aware that contemporary students of these nineteenth-century activities which I have grouped respectively as the co-operative movement of England and as the movement for Socialpolitik in Germany, were generally wont to contrast with each other as resting on essentially conflicting principles and as destined to opposing goals. But in a re-reading of these movements and in the intenser light of the most recent decades, especially from the period since about 1885 or 1890 until the outbreak of the European conflict, these dominating aspects of nineteenth-century economic theory and economic organization representing English and German or Continental methods of approach to the same problems are dealt with in more detail in secs. 44 and 45, respectively, of my Modern Economics. These two sections exhibit and analyze two tendencies of approach to the same problems. These two lines of approach were clearly showing signs of union and agreement when the great European conflict suddenly arrested a steadily growing co-operation toward the realizing of social justice and economic internationalism. In this period from 1850 to 1914 English and German schools of economic science were likewise in process of being welded together Cited by Simchovitch in Political Science Quarterly, XXIV, 254. If the facts contradict the theory we must deny the facts or repudiate the theory. Marx was accustomed to deny the theory when he found it contradictory to facts. In the cases where he does not do this, we must do it for him. We can and should do it for him in some other phases of Marx's reasoning by pointing it out wherever his own logical conclusions or postulates are contradicted by the facts. in the adoption of common measures for the promotion of the general welfare as shown in secs. 44 and 45, and in economic science and philosophy as shown in sec. 46 of the sixth chapter. As noted above, during the first period of modern economics, mercantilism held universal sway in Europe during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. During that period, in sec. 30 of chap. iv, attention was called to the special development of cameralism as itself a phase of mercantilism. But its additional significance was then only barely indicated, without further reference to cameralism except for a mere mention of Justi and Sonnenfels in sec. 35, until in sec. 41 the German historical school was named as the most important of the several schools of dissenters from the English classical political economy of the closing and opening decades respectively of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. The German historical schools of dissent from the English classical political economy were themselves at the same time the logical successors and the lineal descendants of the German orthodox economics—namely, cameralism; while those German economists who accepted the Smithian-Ricardian economics of Richard Cobden and John Bright were known in and out of Germany as the Manchester school, das Manchestertum. If an alignment of the economists of the several European countries were to be attempted with the predominant English and German groups respectively, there would result fairly general agreement in classing the Italian with the German and Austrian on account of their isolation along with Germany and Austria after 1500, as noted in sec. 27 of Modern Economics. The French economists and others bordering on the Atlantic would be recognized as English in tendency, as J. B. Say and Frederic Bastist, for example, notably are. But this contrast between English and Continental economists has largely disappeared since the closing decades of the nineteenth century, a period during which economic internationalism has made great progress, and lines of distinction between nations on economic subjects have been vanishing more and more, while a unitary economic science then began its process of building with contributions from both hemispheres, north and south, east and west. The inauguration of a larger world-economy thus had made a beginning in the late eighteenth-century movement. It was heralded in England by her commercial imperialism and the industrial revolution; these are described in the fifth chapter. The sixth chapter is now entitled "A Tentative World-Economy, 1814-1914." With the Napoleonic Wars a world-economy of an older sort was then replaced merely by the beginning of a new chapter in worldeconomy. The addition of another chapter beyond 1914 now lies in the future, and cannot now be written. In the opening sections of a seventh chapter, secs. 47-49, some possible beginnings of that new chapter are definitely intimated. The discovery of the New World, the Western Hemisphere, and the further mastery by man of East and West, have given increasing indications since the mediaeval period of a new and completer world-economy. World-economy has come into process of development in a new sense by the inauguration of machine production and its increasingly fixed and growing world-market, which for more than a century has been making its conquests from decade to decade and from country to country. The present tendencies are now actively represented in large-scale production and in the formulation of international trade agreements. It is to events such as these, and not to signs of the cessation of wars, that we must turn for forms of a contemporary developing world-economy. A possible league of nations to enforce the peace of the world may have its promise for the future. But nevertheless the establishment of worldeconomy cannot mean an end of national warfare any more than the establishment of modern national economy meant the total cessation of civil war. The philosopher in our day, as in Plato's, must view phenomena from a lofty eminence. PART II THE LARGER SOCIAL SCIENCE C. THE LARGER SOCIAL SCIENCE AND OPEN QUESTIONS OF 1. The Aristotelian historico-ethical social-science sociology.-In our day psychology and sociology are each striving to construct a more general interpretation of human society, in more objective terms than those employed by the older philosophy. The new methods of modern science have resulted in a more objective, a more concrete, and a historical interpretation of the truths of moral life. These new methods of science have tended at once to restore and further to broaden economic inquiry by prosecuting it on the Aristotelian and historical lines of inquiry which were entered long ago; as, for example, in the politics of Aristotle, in the development of the Roman system of civil law, and in that remarkable system of reasoned expediency and policy which characterized the foremost representatives and spokesmen of the Christian church in its formative period, as exemplified in Fathers of the early church like Origen and Augustine, or in popes like Leo the Great and Gregory the Great. The objective ethical bases of their reasoning may be illustrated by anyone for himself who can find the time, command the insight, and possess the patience to read that great piece of apologetics known as De civitate Dei. Anyone, however, may easily possess himself of an equally 'Augustin, or Augustine, finished his work, De civitate Dei, about the year 426. His argument is that pagans are censurable for attributing the calamities of the world, and specifically the sack of Rome by the Goths under the lead of Alaric in 410 A.D., to the Christian religion and its prohibition of the worship of the pagan gods. Augustine eloquently urged that the cruelties which occurred in the sack of Rome were in accordance with the custom of war at that time, whereas the acts of clemency at that time resulted from the influence of the Christ's name; Augustine further observed that advantage and disadvantage often indiscriminately accrue to good and wicked men alike. The bishop of Hippo, Africa, at one time professor of rhetoric in Milan, Italy, quoted Virgil and Horace as freely as Peter and James or the Psalms of the Old Testament to corroborate an observation of his own. Augustine clearly recognized what in our day we should call natural causes; he shows that the calamities of Rome were due to the corruption and vice into which the Romans had fallen and into which they were even then being plunged deeper and deeper. So his argument runs for the most part through his first seven books. In his eighth book he undertakes an account of the 'Socratic and Platonic philosophy and lashes the doctrine of Apuleius that demons should be worshiped as mediators between gods and men, as Wycliffe in the fourteenth century argued in his De dominio, needed no mediators of the sort which certain sages of mediaeval church and state were then passionately urging. The eighth book is especially obscure. In order to follow the rational ratiocination of Augustine throughout the twenty books of De civitate Dei, it is to be sure as necessary, but it is no more necessary, to eliminate the out-worn psychology of Augustine than it is necessary to eliminate the out-worn psychology of many of the religious conceptions of Plato and Aristotle before we can successfully modernize the Republic of Plato or the Politics of Aristotle, before |