slightest hesitation is fatal; the man who lags behind to lend a helping hand never catches up; the man who lifts the weak, carries the old, sits by the side of the sick, is a fool. Nature's competition is a battle in which no quarter is given.

Why should man compete so blindly, so mercilessly? Why should we seek to make it a law of the industrial world that only the young, the strong, the vigorous shall find employment?

Why should it be a law of the commercial world that only the big, the rich, the powerful shall survive?

Because that is the natural order of things it does not follow it should be the human.

The human law should be not the survival of the strong, but the survival of all, of the best there is in all, and, oftentimes, there is more of good, more of real value to humanity in the weak than in the strong.

The decrepit body may be of little use to nature, but to mankind it may possess a priceless content, and even though the aged are a burden from a material point of view, they are needed to develop those qualities of sympathy and unselfishness, of devotion, and love that lift men toward the angels.

No, competition-true competition-is not the mere striving of two men to get the same job, the same customer, the same material advantage-it must be something finer and better than that.

V

Toward contests for industrial success the attitude of the American public is that of the eager spectator at a prize fight-the fiercer, the bloodier the contest the better; the slightest sign of relaxation on the part of either contestant, the slightest sign of a disposition to quit is greeted

with howls of derision, the fight must go to the limit, there must be no let-up before the final blow, and the greater the punishment received by both the more successful the event -from a sporting point of view.

With just that indifference to the fate of the individual does the public watch two merchants or manufacturers struggle for supremacy. Everybody knows the contest cannot last long, that one or the other, perhaps both men, will go into bankruptcy to the detriment of creditors, employees, families. Everybody knows that when one is disposed of somebody—and that "somebody" is the public-must pay the cost of the wasteful rivalry, that, in the long run, no good can result from men trying to ruin each other by selling goods below cost, yet if the two try to get together to put an end to the disastrous competition they are liable to prosecution as criminals. If they organize a company to own and operate both their stores or factories the combination is a monopoly, or in restraint of trade, and a violation of law. The public, like the spectator at the prize fight, howls in anger at the slightest sign of cessation of hostilities before a "knock-out."

That sort of competition is not worth while. It is not worth fostering and preserving. It savors of the dark ages of progress, of those primitive and savage conditions when the weak were abandoned, the old were killed. It is a curious persistence of a natural, a biological law in the industrial world long after man in his social and moral relations has advanced to higher and finer ideals.

Morality has made progress in every department of human thought save that of economics. Ethical standards have been set up in every branch of human activity save that of making money.

VI

Of all the rivalries in which man engages brute competition in the production and distribution of wealth is the most contemptible, since it is the most sordid, a mere money-making proposition, unrelieved by a single higher consideration.

This is not the fault of competition-of rivalry as such -but of our industrial economy. There is nothing inherently wrong in rivalry in the large sense of the term; on the contrary, it is a most powerful incentive toward perfection, ethical, æsthetic, and material; it is the most powerful incentive toward coöperation, which is the foundation of progress.

Rivalry-competition in its broadest significance is the earnest, intelligent, friendly striving of man with man to attain results beneficial to both; it is neither relentless nor indifferent; it is neither vicious nor vindictive, it is not inconsiderate, nor is it wholly selfish; it is not mechanical, but human, and should be, therefore, sympathetic.

CHAPTER III

COMPETITION IS WAR, AND "WAR IS HELL"

I

Academic definitions do not help much toward ascertaining what competition really is.

One says it is the "aspiration of two or more persons to the same office, dignity, or other advantage," which is about as illuminating as to say it is a—word.

A little more specifically it is said to be, "the rivalry which exists between manufacturers, merchants, etc., whether concerning the quality of their products, their merchandise, etc., or concerning prices, with a view to sharing the profits of the same branch of commerce, industry, etc." 1

'A writer in the last edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Competition, in the sense in which the word is still used in many economic works, is merely a special case of the struggle for survival, and, from its limitation, does not go far toward explaining the actual working of modern institutions. To buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest; to secure cheapness by lowering the expenses of production; to adopt the less expensive rather than the more expensive method of obtaining a given result-these and other maxims are as old as human society. Competition, in the Darwinian sense, is characteristic, not only of modern industrial states, but of all living organisms; in the narrower sense of the 'higgling of the market,' as found on the Stock Exchange, in the markets of old towns, in medieval fairs and Oriental bazaars. In modern countries it takes myriads of forms, from the sweating of parasitic trades to the organization of scientific research. Economic motives, again, are as varied as the forms of competition and their development is coeval with that of human society.

"They have to be interpreted in every age in relation to the state of society, the other notions or ideals with which they are associated, the kind of action they inspire and the means through which they operate. Apparently the same economic notions have led in the same age and

A better definition is that it is "The effort of different individuals engaged in the same line of activity each to benefit himself, generally at the other's expense, by rendering increased service to outside parties." 1

A German writer separates the struggle for existence into two divisions, (a) struggles for domination, and (b) struggles for annihilation. "The struggle between buyer and seller in a bargain is of the former sort; each tries to make the other serve him as fully as possible, but does not desire his annihilation. The struggle between different buyers, or between different sellers, is of the latter class; each is desiring to get rid of the other so far as he can. Competition, then, is the legalized form of the struggle for annihilation in modern life. Legalized because of its tendency to benefit an indefinite number of third parties, and thus become a means of collective economy of force and of general benefit to society." 2

II

Why is it so difficult to define competition? Why are the definitions suggested so vague in terms they include almost every motive that controls human effort?

in the same nation to monopoly and individual enterprise, protection and free trade, law and anarchy. In our own time they have inspired both the formation of trade combinations and attempts to break them up, hostility to all forms of state interference, and a belief in collectivism."

1

"Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology," edited by James Mark Baldwin, Ph.D. The definition and article are by President A. T. Hadley, of Yale, who goes on to say: "Important as the term 'competition' is, there have been few attempts to define it." It is not taken up in Malthus' "Definitions." Mill lays down important propositions about its action, but seems to assume the fundamental meaning of the term as self-evident. Walker defines it by antithesis, as opposed to combination, custom, statement. Marshall says: "The strict meaning of competition seems to be the racing of one person against another with special reference to the bidding for the sale or purchase of anything."

Article above referred to.