one of the pressing problems of the day in the United States. Yet, whether we adopt the German method, or one of the numerous other methods which have been suggested, the difficulties are immense; while to do nothing will probably be an impossibility at no distant day. The structure of society under socialism is such that it solves the problem.

Private monopoly, with all its difficulties, manifestly disappears under socialism. So we can take up one problem of the day after another, and we shall find that socialism provides a solution for them. We can question whether socialism can be made to work in practice or not; but we cannot well deny that if socialism is practicable, it brings with it the solution of these questions.

CHAPTER VII.

SERVICES WHICH THE AGITATION OF SOCIALISM HAS RENDERED.

THE statement has already been made that we may look at the strength of socialism from two standpoints: First, from the standpoint of a program of complete social reconstruction, and second, from the standpoint of socialistic agitation. We pass now from the first standpoint to the second, and consider the benefits which the agitation of socialism has brought us.

First, we may mention the general awakening of conscience, with respect to social conditions, which it has produced. Probably there never was a time when, generally speaking, the consciences of men were so sensitive with regard to the lot of the poor and unfortunate as at the present day; and this is very largely the direct, and also the indirect, effect of the activity of socialism, for it has promoted the discussion of all economic questions from an ethical standpoint. Even the non-ethical socialism has had this effect, because it has largely lost its non-ethical character when it has been brought under the requirements of practical agitation. What socialism really desires is that the economic life should be entirely subordinate to the other departments of social life. It wishes leisure and opportunity for the cultivation of the higher faculties. Socialism has thus performed an important service in showing what may, at least conceivably, be accomplished by making a struggle for material interests merely a basis of higher things.

Socialism has aided men to picture to themselves an ideal society, and has familiarized them with the idea of social change and progress. This has resulted in a widespread desire to move in the direction of the ideal, and to approximate it as nearly as may be. The result has been that a needed interest in economic questions has been awakened among anti-socialists as well as socialists.

Formerly an excessive emphasis was laid on the individual side of economic life, and this was the outcome of the individualistic philosophy of the latter part of the eighteenth century. Socialism has laid a needed emphasis upon the social side of economic life. When new measures and projects are brought forward, socialism teaches us to look at them from the standpoint of society as a whole, and not from that of individual promoters merely. It is not meant to be said that this was impossible without socialism, but attention is called simply to the undoubted fact that socialism was needed to familiarize us with the point of view which one gets from looking at economic questions from the standpoint of society as a whole. Even up to the present day, we, in the United States, are accustomed to regard projects and measures simply from the standpoint of the immediate interests of a few.

A few men wish a charter for a street railway, or a steam railway, or they desire the privilege of furnishing gas to a city. It is evident that the project will promote the interests of those immediately concerned, and usually they receive what they desire almost without conditions. When, however, enterprises of this sort are viewed from the standpoint of society as a whole, we begin to ask ourselves whether society could not do better than to hand over to private individuals, or corporations, such impor

tant services without conditions of any sort. But, as soon as the question is asked, a divergence appears between public and private interests. It is seen, for example, that even with private enterprises it is better to have a limited than an unlimited charter, in order that society may, at some future time, have the right to take hold of the enterprise, and manage it directly, or that it may sell the privilege to persons willing to pay for it its market price. Reflection upon the bearings of such enterprise, when viewed from the standpoint of society, reveals, furthermore, the injustice in society of giving away privileges to a few persons, which have a pecuniary significance, based upon the fact that they yield a surplus over and above the returns to labor and to capital. If socialism had, early in our history, familiarized us with thoughts of this kind, it would have saved to the people of the United States hundreds of millions of dollars. The claim is made, by one long familiar with the finances of New York City, that the value of franchises given away in that city, and thus enriching the few at the expense of the many, would be sufficient to defray all the expenses of the government of New York City. While this does not seem so bad when the matter is viewed simply from the standpoint of the individual, viewed from the standpoint of society, it appears like a wicked robbery of the public, and we see that there is not a working woman in New York City who has not virtually been robbed for the benefit of a favored few; for, had the public interest been guarded, it would be easy to have three-cent street-car fares in New York City or on each fare to have surplus of two cents to be employed for public purposes, in the benefits of which all would share. If we take up one class of undertakings

after another, and view them from the standpoint of socialism, we shall find light thrown upon the public interests. Socialism has thus a high educational value. But the question is naturally raised by socialism, whether industrial undertakings shall be at all handed over to private individuals or corporations. Socialism claims that society, as a whole, should provide for the satisfaction of economic wants; and while, very generally, this claim has not been admitted with reference to industry as a whole, new light has been thrown upon the industrial functions of government, as one industry after another has been studied from the social standpoint. There are now large classes who will go at least part way with the socialists. As the result of socialism, in part at least, we have a better classification of industrial undertakings, showing us that these undertakings differ among themselves in material respects, and that the advantages of private industry do not hold equally for them all.

The foregoing is only one respect in which socialism. has modified, fortunately, the older political economy. It has compelled an examination of the social order itself. Older economists took simply for granted the fundamental features of the existing social order. Private property, freedom of person, free contract, and vested interests were assumed as a mere matter of course. Socialists criticised these institutions, and the result has been a careful, analytical, and historical examination of them. This examination has revealed the fact that they themselves are growths, developing like other institutions, and capable of beneficial modifications. The criticisms of socialism have also led to a re-examination of the doctrines of value and price, with great advantage to politi