vity, and more productivity, and
yet more productivity, that is Industrialism. It is the confusion of
means with ends.

Men will always confuse means with ends if they are without any clear
conception that it is the ends, not the means, which matter--if they
allow their minds to slip from the fact that it is the social purpose
of industry which gives it meaning and makes it worth while to carry it
on at all. And when they do that, they will turn their whole world
upside down, because they do not see the poles upon which it ought to
move. So when, like England, they are thoroughly industrialized, they
behave like Germany, which was thoroughly militarized. They talk as
though man existed for industry, instead of industry existing for man,
as the Prussians talked of man existing for war. They resent any
activity which is not colored by the predominant interest, because it
seems a rival to it. So they {47} destroy religion and art and
morality, which cannot exist unless they are disinterested; and having
destroyed these, which are the end, for the sake of industry, which is
a means, they make their industry itself what they make their cities, a
desert of unnatural dreariness, which only forgetfulness can make
endurable, and which only excitement can enable them to forget.

Torn by suspicions and recriminations, avid of power, and oblivious of
duties, desiring peace, but unable to "seek peace and ensue it,"
because unwilling to surrender the creed which is the cause of war, to
what can one compare such a society but to the international world,
which also has been called a society and which also is social in
nothing but name? And the comparison is more than a play upon words.
It is an analogy which has its roots in the facts of history. It is
not a chance that the last two centuries, which saw the new growth of a
new system of industry, saw also the growth of the system of
international politics which came to a climax in the period from 1870
to 1914. Both the one and the other are the expression of the same
spirit and move in obedience to similar laws. The essence of the
former was the repudiation of any authority superior to the individual
reason. It left men free to follow their own interests or ambitions or
appetites, untrammeled by subordination to any common center of
allegiance. The essence of the latter was the repudiation of any
authority superior to the sovereign state, which again was conceived as
a co