The ruling of men is the effort to direct the individual actions of many persons toward some end.  This end theoretically should be the greatest good of all, but no human group has ever reached this ideal because of ignorance and selfishness.  The simplest object would be rule for the Pleasure of One, namely the Ruler; or of the Few—­his favorites; or of many—­the Rich, the Privileged, the Powerful.  Democratic movements inside groups and nations are always taking place and they are the efforts to increase the number of beneficiaries of the ruling.  In 18th century Europe, the effort became so broad and sweeping that an attempt was made at universal expression and the philosophy of the movement said that if All ruled they would rule for All and thus Universal Good was sought through Universal Suffrage.

The unrealized difficulty of this program lay in the widespread ignorance.  The mass of men, even of the more intelligent men, not only knew little about each other but less about the action of men in groups and the technique of industry in general.  They could only apply universal suffrage, therefore, to the things they knew or knew partially:  they knew personal and menial service, individual craftsmanship, agriculture and barter, taxes or the taking of private property for public ends and the rent of land.  With these matters then they attempted to deal.  Under the cry of “Freedom” they greatly relaxed the grip of selfish interests by restricting menial service, securing the right of property in handiwork and regulating public taxes; distributing land ownership and freeing trade and barter.

While they were doing this against stubborn resistance, a whole new organization of work suddenly appeared.  The suddenness of this “Industrial Revolution” of the 19th century was partly fortuitous—­in the case of Watt’s teakettle—­partly a natural development, as in the matter of spinning, but largely the determination of powerful and intelligent individuals to secure the benefits of privileged persons, as in the case of foreign slave trade.

The result was on the one hand a vast and unexampled development of industry.  Life and civilization in the late 19th and early 20th century were Industry in its whole conception, language, and accomplishment:  the object of life was to make goods.  Now before this giant aspect of things, the new democracy stood aghast and impotent.  It could not rule because it did not understand:  an invincible kingdom of trade, business, and commerce ruled the world, and before its threshold stood the Freedom of 18th century philosophy warding the way.  Some of the very ones who were freed from the tyranny of the Middle Age became the tyrants of the industrial age.

There came a reaction.  Men sneered at “democracy” and politics, and brought forth Fate and Philanthropy to rule the world—­Fate which gave divine right to rule to the Captains of Industry and their created Millionaires; Philanthropy which organized vast schemes of relief to stop at least the flow of blood in the vaster wounds which industry was making.