[Letter] September 25,1891,Smith College [to F.H. Giddings]

September 25, 1891, Smith College

Dear Friend,
       Thanks. You
strongly confirm my view
as to the inherent nonsense
of writing about cost of
distribution in the
scientific sense. I think
they want an article on
the cost entailed on
the consuming public by
the mercantile operation of
dividing products purchased
in bulk, and carrying
them in limited quantities
to the users. That is,
they have deliberately
planned to use the word
Distribution in a series
of sub-articles under one
general head in two
widely different ways. I
have entered a protest, and
said that if such an
article is to be written
some one else must,
in the nature of this case,
write it.
 I really do not
think I had social
classes such as the rich,
the middle class and the
lower classes in view in
the Phil. of Wealth; but
I do see that there are
two independent classifications
in the case. It is careless
to suppose that wage earners
are poor, capitalists rich,
etc. (From the first) I
do see that much confusion
has resulted from such
carelessness. The economic
classification deals not
with real men but with
industrial functionaries of
an ideal kind. "The laborer"
is composite, made up of
a lot of real persons who
are also capitalists and
entrepreneurs in many cases.
The entrepreneurs is composite,
and so is the capitalist.
 On the other hand if we
take real men as the subject
we find them discharging
numerous functions. The
ideal functionaries are
composite in personnel, and
the real men are composite
in function. I had an idea
in mind in this frequent use of
the word 'social' in the Phil. of
W. connected with the
organic nature of industrial
society and one that I intend
to emphasize in connection with
the complete analysis of distribution
in continuation of the Quarterly article.
 The reply to Walker is in type. I
wonder to what extent it will strike other men as meeting the needs
of the case. I made it very mild in manner, but intended to have it
fortiter in
re; with
what success
I do not know.
I think his
points are
met.

     Yours Very Truly,
          J. B. Clark