Dominated by the habits which it has generated， we all of us， even the agitators， uphold the existing order without knowing it.There may， of course， be sudden changes due to the fall of what has long been rotten， but I see little cause to suppose that the timbers of our system are in this condition： they are rough and unlovely， but far from weak.
Another conservative condition is that economic solid--arity which makes the welfare of all classes hang together， so that any general disturbance causes suffering to all， and more to the weak than to the strong.A sudden change' however reasonable its direction， must in this way discredit its authors and bring about reaction.Thee hand-working classes may get much less of the economic product than they ought to； but they are not so badly off that they cannot be worse， and， unless they lose their heads， will always unite with other classes to preserve that state of order which is the guaranty of what they have.Anarchy would benefit no one， unless criminals， and anything resembling a general strike I take to be a childish expedient not likely to be countenanced by the more sober and hardheaded leaders of the labor movement.All solid betterment of the workers must be based on and get its nourishment from the existing system of production， which must only gradually be changed， however defective it may be.The success of strikes， and of all similar tactics， depends， in the nature of things， on their being partial， and drawing support from the undisturbed remainder of the process.It is the same principle of mingling stability with improvement which governs progress everywhere.
And， finally， effective organization on the part of the less privileged classes goes along with intelligence， with training in orderly methods of self-assertion， and with education in the necessity of patience and compromise.The more real power they get， the more conservatively， as a rule， they use it.Where free speech exists there will always be a noisy party advocating precipitate change (and a timid party who are afraid of them)， but the more the people are trained in real democracy the less will be the influence of this element.
Whatever divisions there may be in our society， it is quite enough an organic whole to unite in casting out tendencies that are clearly anarchic.
And it is also evident that such tendencies are to be looked for at least as much among the rich as among the poor.If we have at one extreme anarchists who would like to despoil other people， we have， at the other， monopolists and financiers who actually do so.
It is a common opinion that the sway of riches over the human mind is greater in our time than previously， and greater in America than elsewhere.
How far is this really the case ？
To understand this matter we must not forget that the ardor of the chase梐s in a fox hunt梞ay have little to do with the value of the quarry.The former， certainly， was never so great in the pursuit of wealth as here and now；chiefly because the commercial trend of the times， due to a variety of causes， supplies unequalled opportunities and incitements to engage in the money-game.In this， therefore， the competitive zeal of an energetic people finds its main expression.But to say that wealth stands for more in the inner thought of men， that to have or not to have it makes a greater intrinsic difference， is another and a questionable proposition， which I am inclined to think opposite to the truth.Such spiritual value as personal wealth has comes from its power over the means of spiritual development.
It is， therefore， diminished by everything which tends to make those means common property： and the new order has this tendency.When money was the only way to education， to choice of occupation， to books， leisure and variety of intercourse， it was essential to the intellectual life； there was no belonging to the cultured class without it.But with free schools and libraries， the diffusion of magazines and newspapers， cheap travel， less stupefying labor and shorter hours， culture opportunity is more and more extended， and the best goods of life are opened， if not to all， yet to an ever-growing proportion.Men of the humblest occupations can and do become gentlemen and scholars.Indeed， people are coming more and more to think that exclusive advantages are uncongenial to real culture， since the deepest insight into humanity can belong only to those who share and reflect upon the common life.
The effect is that wealth is shorn of much of that prestige of knowledge， breeding and opportunity which always meant more than its material power.
The intellectual and spiritual centre of gravity， like the political， sinks clown into the masses of the people.Though our rich are rich beyond the dreams of avarice， they mean less to the inner life of the time， exercise less spiritual authority， perhaps， than the corresponding class in any older society.They are the objects of popular curiosity， resentment， admiration or envy， rather than the moral deference given to a real aristocracy.They are not taken too seriously.Indeed， there could be no better proof that the rich are no overwhelming power with us than the amount of good-natured ridicule expended upon them.Were they really a dominant order， the ridicule， if ventured at all， would not be good-natured.Their ascendancy is great when compared with a theory of equality梐nd in this sense the remarks in the last chapter should be understood 梑ut small compared with that of the ruling classes of the Old World.
