“Economics (which officially holds the analysis of labor-problems) has been allowed to devote itself almost entirely to the production of goods, and to neglect entirely the consumption of goods and human organic welfare.  The lip-homage given by orthodox economics to the field of consumption seems to be inspired merely by the feeling that disaster might overcome production if workers were starved or business men discouraged. . . .  So, while official economic science tinkers at its transient institutions which flourish in one decade and pass out in the next, abnormal and behavioristic psychology, physiology, psychiatry, are building in their laboratories, by induction from human specimens of modern economic life, a standard of human values and an elucidation of behavior fundamentals which alone we must use in our legislative or personal modification of modern civilization.  It does not seem an overstatement to say that orthodox economics has cleanly overlooked two of the most important generalizations about human life which can be phrased, and those are,—­

“That human life is dynamic, that change, movement, evolution, are its basic characteristics.

“That self-expression, and therefore freedom of choice and movement, are prerequisites to a satisfying human state.”

After giving a description of the instincts he writes:—­

“The importance to me of the following description of the innate tendencies or instincts lies in their relation to my main explanation of economic behavior which is,—­

“First, that these tendencies are persistent, are far less warped or modified by the environment than we believe; that they function quite as they have for several hundred thousand years; that they, as motives, in their various normal or perverted habit-form, can at times dominate singly the entire behavior, and act as if they were a clear character dominant.

“Secondly, that if the environment through any of the conventional instruments of repression, such as religious orthodoxy, university mental discipline, economic inferiority, imprisonment, physical disfigurement,—­such as short stature, hare-lip, etc.,—­repress the full psychological expression in the field of these tendencies, then a psychic revolt, slipping into abnormal mental functioning, takes place, and society accuses the revolutionist of being either willfully inefficient, alcoholic, a syndicalist, supersensitive, an agnostic, or insane.”

I hesitate somewhat to give his programme as set forth in this paper.  I have already mentioned that it was written in the spring of 1917, and hurriedly.  In referring to this very paper in a letter from New York, he said, “Of course it is written in part to call out comments, and so the statements are strong and unmodified.”  Let that fact, then, be borne in mind, and also the fact that he may have altered his views somewhat in the light of his further studies and readings—­although again, such studies may only have strengthened the following ideas.  I cannot now trust to my memory for what discussions we may have had on the subject.