ON THE ASCENDENCY OF A CAPITALIST CLASS THE CAPITALIST CLASS -- ITS LACK OF CASTE SENTIMENT -- INWHAT SENSE "THE FITTEST" -- MORAL TRAITS -- HOW FAR BASED ON SERVICE --AUTOCRATIC AND DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES IN THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY -- REASONSFOR EXPECTING AN INCREASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE -- SOCIAL POWER INGENERAL -- ORGANIZING CAPACITY -- NATURE AND SOURCE OF CAPITALIST POWER-- POWER OVER THE PRESS AND OVER PUBLIC SENTIMENT -- UPPER CLASS ATMOSPHERESINCE in our age commerce and industry absorb most of the practical energy of the people， the men that are foremost in these activities have a certain ascendancy， similar to that of warriors in a military age.
Although this sort of men is not sharply marked off， it is well enough indicated by the term capitalist or capitalist-manager class； the large owner of capital being usually more or less of a manager also， while the large salaries and other gains of successful managers soon make them capitalists.
It is not quite accurate to speak of the group in question as the rich， because， at a given time， a large part of its most vigorous membership is as yet without wealth？though in a way to get it梐nd， on the other hand， mane of the actual possessors of wealth are personally idle or ineffective.
The essential thing is a social tendency or system of ideas generated in the accumulation of wealth and having for its nucleus the more active and successful leaders of commerce and industry.
(257)
That these are a very small class in proportion to their power is apparent， but not， perhaps， in itself， so fatal a defect in the system that permits it as many imagine. In so far as concentration of control means that wealth is in the hands of those who understand how to use it for the common good， and do in fact so use it， much may be said in its favor. We are all eager to entrust our property to those who will make it profitable to us； and society， under any system that could be devised， must probably do the same.
But we may well ask whether there is not some more adequate means than we now have of getting this trust faithfully executed.
For better or for worse， concentration is probably inevitable in any society that has a vast， mobile wealth subject to competition； and the actual inequality is perhaps not much greater than that of political power， which is supposed to be equally distributed by general suffrage. The truth is that equality of power or influence， in any sphere of life， is inconsistent with the free working of human forces， which is ever creating differences， some of which are useful to society and some harmful. A true freedom， a reasonable equality， aims to conserve the former and abolish or limit the latter.
The sentiment of the class is not aristocratic in the ordinary sense.
Although its members endeavor to secure their possessions to their children， there is little of the spirit of hereditary caste， which， indeed， is uncongenial to commerce. Freedom of opportunity is the ideal in this as in other parts of American society， and educational or I other opportunities designed to maintain or increase it are (258) sincerely approved and supported. There is， in fact， an almost inevitable dualism which makes it natural that a man should strive to aggrandize himself， his family and isd class even though he truly wishes for greater equality of privilege. He floats on two currents， and as a man and a brother may be glad of restraints upon his own class which are in the interest of justice.
The ideal of freedom prevalent in the managing class is， however， somewhat narrow and hardly hospitable to the group self-assertion of the less privileged classes. The labor movement has made its way by its energy and reasonableness in the face of a rather general mistrust and opposition梥ometimes justified by its aberrations梠n the part of the masters of industry. Yet even in this regard， as it comes to be seen that organization is an element of fair play， and as experience shows that union may become an instrument of stability， a broader sentiment makes headway.
Like everything else that has power in human life， the money-strong represent， in some sense， the survival of the fittest梟ot necessarily of the best. That is， their success， certainly no guaranty of righteousness， does prove a certain adaptation to conditions， those who get rich being in general the ablest， for this purpose， of the many who devote their energies to it with about the same opportunities. They are not necessarily the ablest in other regards， since only certain kinds of ability count in making money；other kinds， and those often the highest such as devotion to intellectual or moral ideals， being even a hindrance. Men of genius will seldom shine in this way， (259) because， as a rule， only a somewhat commonplace mind will give itself whole-heartedly to the commercial ideal.
There is much likeness in the persons and methods by which， in all ages， the cruder sort of power is acquired. When the military system is ascendent over the industrial it is acquired in one way， when property is secure from force in another， but this makes less difference than might be supposed.
In either case it is not mere personal prowess， with the sword or with the tool， that gains large success， but power in organization. Aggressiveness， single-minded devotion to the end and， above all， organizing faculty梩hese were the methods of Clovis and Pepin and William of Normandy， as they are of our rulers of finance. And now， as formerly， much of the power that is alive in such men falls by inheritance into weaker hands.