become powerful. The appeal to self-interest of the masses is proper in its own place, but that is not suffi cient. The one who overlooks the capacity in man for self-sacrifice and devotion to others, excludes social facts as real as any which can be mentioned, and, moreover, facts nowhere seen more plainly than in the history of socialism itself.

CHAPTER II.

ALLEGED, BUT NOT VALID, OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM.

WHEN We survey the various current arguments against socialism, we are obliged to divide them into two classes. By far the more numerous class of arguments is composed of those which rest upon either misapprehension or wilful misrepresentation. They are not arguments which can be advanced by any one who is at the same time intelligent and ingenuous. Arguments of the second class, however, are arguments which are advanced by those who fully understand what socialism means, and feel that socialism should be treated honestly. They constitute the serious objections to socialism, pointing out the difficulties which stand in the way of its realization. Each writer who is opposed to socialism will have a different view with regard to the weightiest objections to its proposals. But it is the purpose of the author of the present work to present those objections to socialism which seem to him to have most weight.

It may first of all be well to give some little attention to the arguments against socialism which cannot be regarded as valid. Of course, it would require a book much longer than the present work to take up one after the other all these fallacious and misleading arguments; but a few of the more common objections of the kind named will be discussed briefly, by way of illustration.

When we survey the various arguments against social

ism in different countries, we cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that that is held to be a valid objection in one country which is not so regarded in another country. An illustration is afforded by free public schools. German writers, and until recently English writers, have regarded the proposal of the socialists to abolish tuition fees as decidedly objectionable. There may be differences of opinion among Americans, but undoubtedly a vast majority of the citizens of the United States give to free schools their cordial indorsement, regard them as one of the bulwarks of the republic, and attack vigorously any one who attempts to undermine them. On the other hand, the idea of public ownership and management of railways is regarded by many Americans as the chief weakness in the program of socialism, while Germans, as a rule, regard such ownership and management as something desirable. They tell us that the test of experience has settled the question for them. These illustrations suggest caution, and a careful survey of the operation of existing institutions in different lands.

The failure of communistic experiments in the United States and elsewhere is often urged as an objection against modern socialism; but, in reality, these experi ments, while more or less instructive, throw little light Some of them have upon the socialism of to-day. But had all

succeeded; most of them have failed. failed, that would scarcely constitute an argument of weight against proposals like those which we are called upon to consider. The earlier communism of this cen tury represented ideals which find their basis in an earlier stage of industrial development; in so far, at any rate, as this communism attempted to propose something for universal adoption. The communistic village based

upon voluntary agreement corresponded to a period of production on a small scale, when each large household group could hope to become economically almost self-sufficient. When production is carried on on a vast national and international scale, the socialism proposed must be national and international. The difficulties in the way of a communistic village are sufficiently apparent when one views them in the light of past experience, or when one examines the methods of production and distribution of the present time. A communistic village must be dependent at the present moment, when production is carried on for exchange, upon outsiders who have no connection with communism, and who are often bitterly opposed to it. Railways and telegraphs may be adduced as simply two important illustrations of many which might be mentioned. The management of these enterprises, privately owned and operated, cannot be expected to conform to the requirements of communistic settle ments. Moreover, such settlements would not afford the freedom of movement and the possibilities of organization and reorganization which are required at the present day. When socialism is nationally organized, a man can move about the country to find the place which is most agreeable to him, and for which he is best adapted. Whatever his talents and his acquisitions, they are not lost to the socialistic state because he moves from one city to another. The condition of things is exactly the reverse in a communistic village. It is quite conceivable that the man who is most essential to the life and industries of such a village in the North may find it necessary, on account of his health, to move to Florida, and he thus becomes lost to communism. Moreover, in any communistic village there will very likely fail to be a right

assortment of men and women for industrial organization. There may be too many of one kind and too few of another, and it is not possible freely to draw in from the outside world, and to give to the outside world, and still preserve communism.

These are simply a few obvious difficulties in the way of earlier communism, which had reference perhaps as much to the advantages of associated consumption, as to the economies of production on a vast scale: and these difficulties, with others which will occur on reflection, clearly render the earlier communism inadequate. This is conceded as freely by the modern socialist as by anyone. Consequently we find socialists in the United States issuing a pamphlet aiming to discourage any movement in the direction of a communistic village; and the Fabians of England steadily setting their faces against any separate settlements. In a lecture on the Progress of Collectivism, as reported in the Fabian News of February, 1894, Mr. Sidney Webb says of the Fabians, that from the beginning they discountenanced proposals to establish utopian communities, and have never seen reason to alter their opinion. Modern socialism does not preach a doctrine of separation, but aims to change the whole structure of modern society.

A socialistic state, under the auspices of the Jesuits, was established in Paraguay in the seventeenth century, and lasted for a hundred years or more, when it fell to pieces, owing to foreign conquest. This failure has been adduced as an argument against modern socialism, but a little reflection will show that it has no bearing on the case; and we can only wonder that this state survived so long, and was ultimately overthrown by a foreign power. The kind of socialism which was established in Paraguay