ii8 The Special Sociological Errors 



sistence for the victim? War does not procure 

 any subsistence for him. On the contrary it 

 causes the victim to lose that which he had pro- 

 duced by his labour, and which the conqueror 

 seizes from him. As soon as we bring it to the 

 test of concrete facts, therefore, Comte's statement 

 breaks down in two ways. For the conqueror, 

 war is not the most simple method of procuring 

 subsistence, but is a very complex means, involving 

 first production by the vanquished and second 

 robbery by the conqueror; and in the case of the 

 vanquished it is not a means of procuring sub- 

 sistence at all. 



In the sciences of astronomy or physics an 

 obligation is felt to observe the facts closely and 

 to make direct observations, but when we pass into 

 the social realm, this obligation is no longer felt. 

 Theory is abstracted from all contact with con- 

 crete facts and the most superficial association of 

 ideas is considered sufficient. 



To the aboriginal Indians, looking across the 

 river at the cornfields of a neighbouring tribe, 

 and not sufficiently trained in the science of 

 economics to envisage the complete process of 

 production, war may seem the simplest means 

 of procuring subsistence. 



But a scientific sociology ought to be sufficiently 

 advanced to recognize that the simplest means of 

 procuring subsistence is by productive labour, and 

 to take account of the primary processes of pro- 

 duction as well as the secondary processes such as 



