forms of deceptive conflict, and even the jealousies and heartburnings which result from many forms of persuasive conflict, have so impressed certain sensitive spirits as to cause them to revolt against the very idea of competition in any form. Such people ought never to play croquet, because there is competition even there. An election is as truly competitive as any form of business.

Universality of struggle. During the entire life of man on this planet he has had to struggle in one way or another. The reason why we are here to-day is because our ancestors were successful in their struggles. They succeeded in living and reproducing their kind in spite of all the enemies and dangers which surrounded them. One reason why they struggled so successfully was that they were valiant enough to wage their fight with vigor and with spirit. That spirit we have inherited to such an extent that we cannot even amuse ourselves without some kind of competition or struggle. It is as the breath of life to our nostrils. It will be well for us if we can harness this spirit to productive work rather than allow it to waste itself in destruction, deception, or even in some fruitless kinds of persuasion. The nation which succeeds best in so harnessing this spirit to production is the nation which should normally grow rapidly in wealth, prosperity, and power.

Again, the great fact of scarcity, together with the fact, pointed out in the preceding chapter, that we all prefer some people to others, makes some form of competition inevitable and eternal. As pointed out in Chapter II, when there is not enough of a certain thing to go around and satisfy everybody, all those who prefer themselves and their own families to their rivals and their families will struggle to get their share of the scarce article. When there are not enough of the high offices to go round, there will be a similar struggle to get them. These facts have always been present in human society and always must remain, from the very nature of man and of the universe in which he finds himself. From the very nature of

the case we cannot all be leaders. If we were, there would be no followers. We would all rather lead than follow; we would rather command than obey. Therefore we shall always struggle for leadership and command. Nor can there be wealth enough to go around and satisfy everyone. If there were, wealth would cease to exist as wealth. Whenever you find a thing so abundant as that, it has ceased to count as wealth. Only those things are wealth of which we can say that more is better than less. So long as we would rather have more of a certain article than less of it, we shall strive to get more. Competition, or struggle, is therefore unavoidable. The thing to do is to make the most of it and to turn it, so far as possible, into productive channels and out of the destructive and deceptive channels.

The spirit in which one competes. In assuming the universality and permanence of competition in some form it is not necessary to exclude such things as love, friendship, neighborliness, and coöperation. Competitors in a friendly game may be none the less friendly because they are competing. It is only when they care more for victory or the prize of victory than they do for friendship that there is any conflict between competition and friendship. The cure for this, however, is not the abolition of competition, but the learning to care for the right things and to evaluate things properly. When men care more for money, which is the immediate prize of economic competition than for honor, friendship, or justice, then competition is likely to be ruthless and destructive. When men care more for offices, the immediate prize of political competition, than for the welfare of the country or the peace of the neighborhood, a political campaign is likely to become a ruthless and destructive game. And when football men care more for victory than for sport or honor, football becomes a game unfit for gentlemen. In all these cases the evil does not inhere in competition itself but in the false system of valuations in the minds of the competitors.

So long as business men realize that there are other things more precious than money, so long as politicians realize that there are other things more important than winning offices, so long as football men realize that there are other things greater than victory, all these forms of competition are thoroughly compatible with the most sincere friendship.

It has been pointed out many times that the struggle for the life of others is just as real a fact in life as the struggle for the life of self, that mutual aid is as real as mutual antagonism, and that coöperation has a place in our economic system as well as competition. All this is true, but it must not be allowed to obscure the fact that competition is a very real thing also. Back of these apparent contradictions lies the very important fact that human interests are sometimes harmonious, and sometimes antagonistic, — that they are never wholly one or the other. Where the interests of men harmonize, there is and always will be coöperation, provided they are wise enough to understand it; where their interests conflict, there is and always will be competition.

Coöperation a form af competition. Even coöperation, as it is generally practiced, is only a method of competing more effectively. There is coöperation among the members of an athletic team. Their teamwork consists in working together smoothly and effectively, but the purpose of this teamwork, or coöperation, is to enable them to compete more effectively against the opposing team. It would be difficult to find or to name an instance of coöperation which did not, directly or indirectly, enable the coöperators to compete more successfully than they were able to do when working alone as individuals. It is really the principle of teamwork applied to business competition. Within the coöperating group, as within the athletic team, competition among members is reduced. But competition between coöperating groups, or between the group and those outside the group, is quite as sharp as it would be if there were no coöperative groups. Again, when a coöperative

group becomes large, there arises within the group a certain amount of competition for offices and other advantages.

Coöperation is an excellent thing under certain conditions, and wherever the conditions call for it, every reasonable effort should be made to encourage it; but the encouragement should be given with a full understanding of its limitations and of its real relation to the competitive process. More coöperative societies have failed than have succeeded. One of the principal reasons for failure has been that the promoters have imagined that there was in coöperation something inherently superior to competition, and that it ought to be substituted for competition anywhere and everywhere. The truth seems to be that coöperation is called for only under certain special conditions where teamwork is required in order to secure large results.

Where coöperation is successful. A careful study of coöperation will show that it has seldom succeeded in the field of production. Its chief successes have been achieved in merchandizing, that is, in buying and selling. Except among a few religious societies, which are held together by a powerful religious sentiment, the author does not know of a single case where cooperative farming has succeeded. By coöperative farming is meant the running of the productive work of growing crops under a coöperative system. There are many cases, however, in which groups of farmers have coöperated in buying and selling, in marketing their products, in purchasing their supplies, and in securing capital on advantageous terms. There are also many cases in which they have coöperated in running creameries, cheese factories, and grain elevators. These are parts of their marketing system. Again, it must be remembered that the farmers do not themselves operate these establishments. They own them and they furnish the capital to run them, but they hire others to manage them and to do the work. The men who work in these establishments are not coöperators, but receive wages and salaries precisely as they would if the establishments were owned by private individuals.

Two fields for business competition. There is a fundamental reason why coöperative enterprises have not flourished in the field of production as often as they have in the field of buying and selling. This reason is found in the two kinds of business competition, — competitive production and competitive bargaining. Competitive production always works well; competitive bargaining sometimes works well and sometimes works badly. Since competitive production always works well, the need for coöperative production is never sufficient to justify its existence. No one has a sufficiently strong motive to induce him to give his time and energy to the running of a coöperative society in the field of production. Since there are no evils connected with competitive production, there is not enough to be gained by coöperative production to lead anyone to sacrifice his time and effort in order to make it succeed.

In the field of competitive bargaining, however, evils frequently spring up. Where a small and compact body of dealers are buying from a large and widely scattered body of producers, the latter are at a great disadvantage in the bargaining process. Where this is the case it is necessary for the producers to get together in a coöperative organization in order to bargain on equal terms with the dealers. Where there is such a need as this, someone will have a motive that is sufficiently strong to induce him to give his time and attention, to sit up nights, to labor in season and out of season, to keep the coöperative society together and make it succeed. Without some such motive as this, coöperation has seldom or never succeeded.

Competitive consumption. There is another kind of competition which always works badly. It is even worse than competitive bargaining. It may be called competitive consumption. By competitive consumption is meant a rivalry in display, in ostentation, in the effort to outshine or to outdress all one's neighbors, or at least not to be outshone or outdressed by them. This is not business competition, however,