Thus the shadow of hunger, in a world which never needs to be hungry, drives us to war and murder and hate.  But why does hunger shadow so vast a mass of men?  Manifestly because in the great organizing of men for work a few of the participants come out with more wealth than they can possibly use, while a vast number emerge with less than can decently support life.  In earlier economic stages we defended this as the reward of Thrift and Sacrifice, and as the punishment of Ignorance and Crime.  To this the answer is sharp:  Sacrifice calls for no such reward and Ignorance deserves no such punishment.  The chief meaning of our present thinking is that the disproportion between wealth and poverty today cannot be adequately accounted for by the thrift and ignorance of the rich and the poor.

Yesterday we righted one great mistake when we realized that the ownership of the laborer did not tend to increase production.  The world at large had learned this long since, but black slavery arose again in America as an inexplicable anachronism, a wilful crime.  The freeing of the black slaves freed America.  Today we are challenging another ownership,-the ownership of materials which go to make the goods we need.  Private ownership of land, tools, and raw materials may at one stage of economic development be a method of stimulating production and one which does not greatly interfere with equitable distribution.  When, however, the intricacy and length of technical production increased, the ownership of these things becomes a monopoly, which easily makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Today, therefore, we are challenging this ownership; we are demanding general consent as to what materials shall be privately owned and as to how materials shall be used.  We are rapidly approaching the day when we shall repudiate all private property in raw materials and tools and demand that distribution hinge, not on the power of those who monopolize the materials, but on the needs of the mass of men.

Can we do this and still make sufficient goods, justly gauge the needs of men, and rightly decide who are to be considered “men”?  How do we arrange to accomplish these things today?  Somebody decides whose wants should be satisfied.  Somebody organizes industry so as to satisfy these wants.  What is to hinder the same ability and foresight from being used in the future as in the past?  The amount and kind of human ability necessary need not be decreased,—­it may even be vastly increased, with proper encouragement and rewards.  Are we today evoking the necessary ability?  On the contrary, it is not the Inventor, the Manager, and the Thinker who today are reaping the great rewards of industry, but rather the Gambler and the Highwayman.  Rightly-organized industry might easily save the Gambler’s Profit and the Monopolist’s Interest and by paying a more discriminating reward in wealth and honor bring to the service of the state more ability and sacrifice than we can today command.  If we do away with interest and profit, consider the savings that could be made; but above all, think how great the revolution would be when we ask the mysterious Somebody to decide in the light of public opinion whose wants should be satisfied.  This is the great and real revolution that is coming in future industry.