Revisionists. (See articles REVISIONISTS and BERNSTEIN, their main leader.) In Germany and most countries they are becoming the majority.

The second main school of Socialists do not accept the class-conscious position and usually do not belong to avowed Socialist parties, tho often voting the Socialist ticket, and are therefore not considered true Socialists by the other school. But since they do accept the general Socialist aim and work for it in the way they consider wisest; and since, too, they are a very large number, and perhaps even a majority of those calling themselves Socialists, they believe that they have a perfect right to the name, altho not of the party. This school is frankly and avowedly opportunist, believing in working for Socialism through any party and in any way that at any given time and place will best promote the common end. They form probably the majority of the working classes of Great Britain and the U. S., the majority of the whole population of New Zealand and Australia, a large number of working men in all countries, and also in all countries a very considerable and rapidly growing number of the so-called intellectual and middle classes. To them, as to all Socialists, socialism is an historic, economic, and fundamentally revolutionary change in the constitution of society. They do not limit the movement, however, to any form, nor to the efforts of any one class, tho they recognize that undoubtedly a large and probably at least a quantitatively leading portion of the movement will be played by the working classes. Most of them believe that in almost all countries there should be and will be developed new independent parties, working for socialism, and perhaps under its name, tho not of necessity so, yet on a wider basis than existing Socialist parties. The most advanced actual carrying out of this view is in New Zealand and in some English municipalities. The best known and most influential group advocating this view is the English Fabian Society (q. v.), whence it is often called Fabian Socialism. general school, too, is subdivided into many varieties of view, for which see the opening paragraph of this article. Such Socialists, however, all deny that the particular economic interpretation of history adopted by Karl Marx, identified with his name, and developed by his followers, is the only scientific view. While they accept much of the Marxist view, they deny emphatically that that view is correctly called "Scientific Socialism." Only gradually, they assert, and by incorporating many views and various elements, are we slowly and partially working out a scientific interpretation of history and of social phe

nomena.

Forms of Socialism

This

It belongs also to this view, and is, indeed, admitted by Socialists of the orthodox type, that while the aims of socialism and even general methods may be one, details must differ in different countries. There is no Socialist system for society, because socialism is not a system, but an evolution, a tendency, It is as flexible in its a principle. form as it is definite in the principle. Any system that would carry out its principle is socialistic. In Germany to-day its chief aim is national development. In France it makes less of the nation and more of the commune. In Belgium it comes very near to cooperation, and yet is socialism not cooperation. In England it is municipal, and in a growing degree

parliamentary. In the U. S. it will probably follow our political divisions of states, counties, municipalities, townships, and the nation. Socialism, therefore, is not Fourierism, nor Marxism, nor Bellamyism. Says Sidney Webb: "It seems almost impossible to bring people to understand that the abstract word socialism denotes, like radicalism, not an elaborate plan of society, but a principle of social action."

All Socialists, too, are agreed that many elements often identified in the popular mind with socialism have no necessary connections with it. A report of the Fabian Society says:

The object of the Fabian Society is to persuade the English people to make their political constitution thoroughly democratic and so to socialize their industries as to make the livelihood of the people entirely independent of private capitalism. The Fabian Society endeavors to pursue its Socialist and democratic objects with complete singleness of aim. For example:

It has no distinctive opinions on the marriage question, religion, art, abstract economics, historic evolution, currency, or any other subject than its own special business of practical democracy and socialism.

Professor Schäffle, in his "Quintessence of Socialism," shows that some Socialists believe in and practise free love-some individualists also do-but that socialism as a system has no necessary connection with loose family relationships. Many Socialists believe that only socialism can save the family. Nor is there more authority for identifying socialism with anarchy. Theoretically, the two are opposites, and practically they are opposed.

Most modern Socialists oppose communism (q. v.), ordinary local cooperation, and the establishment of communistic colonies. Some Socialists believe that under certain conditions local experiments in these directions may be wise as temporary means of education or of economic living, and where cooperation has got an established hold, as in England and Belgium, Socialists are learning the wisdom of working with the cooperators (see COOPERATION), but where local cooperation experiments or colonies are put forth as in themselves a sufficient ideal to work for, or where they are attempted, as they often have been in the U. S., under conditions too weak to compete against the competitive civilization with which they are surrounded, Socialists oppose such efforts as reactionary and unwise. It follows once more from the evolutionary idea that Socialists to-day spend little time in dreaming of the future. To the future the future may be left. Content with a firm grasp on their central aim Socialists are learning more and more to concentrate their efforts on the present political battle, and to leave the details of the future to the decision of circumstances. Says Mr. Kidd, speaking of this policy ("Social Evolution," p. 206):

We have not now to deal with mere abstract and transcendental theories, but with a clearly defined movement in practical politics, appealing to some of the deepest instincts of a large proportion of the voting population, and professing to provide a program likely in the future to stand more on its own merits in opposition to all other programs whatever.

Socialists, however, urge that there is not only an evolution of socialism but an evolution toward socialism. Many Socialists, indeed, believe that this is the most important portion of the development. Such Socialists point to and rejoice in the steady growth of monopolies, trusts, and concentrated wealth on the one hand, coupled, on the other hand, with the steady advance of democratic tendencies among the masses of all coun

aggression at the hands of the physical bully or giant, has so developed, not a perfect but a comparative physical freedom, and made possible a competition higher than physical, so government should protect the economically weak from the hands of economic giants and bullies, should introduce cooperation in place of competition, and so make possible a competition higher than economic. As in Periclean Athens (see ATHENS), Socialistic legislation for the free citizens made it possible for them to live without economic competition or stress, it freed the individual to compete in art, beauty, literature, philosophy, and so produced an amount of individuality elsewhere unapproached in the world. In no country in the civilized world is there so little developed socialism as in the U. S., and in no country in the world is there such concentration of economic power and such rule by money over all classes of society. Under socialism, relieved from the necessity of concentrating all energies on getting a living (as is largely necessary to-day in the U. S., even for the well-to-do), a man can be free to think his own thoughts, to live his own life, to do his own deeds, to be free. This is the fundamental claim of socialism.

It is said in answer to this that economic production will thereby be decreased, since it would take away from the worker the spur of selfinterest, which is declared to be the main economic spur of the world. The U. S. is adduced as economically the most productive, inventive, and progressive country of the world. It is declared that here wages are the highest, prosperity the most diffused, economic security the greatest, and therefore there is here, in this sense at least, the greatest possible freedom. It is argued that only by our captains of industry being allowed the spur of enormous gains have they developed the great systems of industry which have brought such prosperity to the many. To limit the possible returns of great capitalists, we are told, would be to kill the goose that lays the golden egg for the whole community. In Germany, and to a less extent in Great Britain and other countries where the operations of capitalists are more fettered by legislation, more or less socialistic, we are reminded that there has been no such progressive industrialism and production as in the U. S.

Socialism

and Production

To this it is argued by Socialists that it is true the U.S.-commencing her national life on a new continent, and with unlimited natural resources, at a time when economic competition was in its first full swing, and giving away for nothing, to the few who could make use of them, vast privileges and franchises which have become, as population grew, of enormous value-has developed an economic production elsewhere unequaled. It is true that this has brought a substantial prosperity to many. It is true also that unwise legislation and the fettering of industrial initiative would undoubtedly lessen such production. But this does not prove that wise legislation and a gradual socialistic organization of society would lessen production. The modern country which undoubtedly has made the most rapid progress in economic production next to the U. S. is Germany, the large country where there has also been the greatest amount of socialistic legislation. Indeed, while the U. S. has doubtless produced the greatest number of millionaires and material product, it is not proven that, considering prices of

both the pleasures and comforts of life, the ordinary workingman has much, if any, more joy of life in the U. S. than in Germany. It must be remembered, too, that the U. S. has had the enormous advantage of a continental domain calling for settlers and for capital to develop transit, etc., for those settlers. Whether the U. S., with these economic advantages, but the development of a strong central government controlling private initiative and operating the public utilities for the good of all, might not have developed a still greater economic production, is at least an open question. For her capitalistic production in any case the U. S. has paid an enormous price, in a government corrupted by gigantic corporations (see CORRUPTION), business demoralized by dealings at which the world stands aghast, adulterations of food, drugs, and materials, from which we are only beginning to be saved by socialistic legislation; purchasers robbed. by prices which largely take away the benefit of high wages, charges for public service of transit, light, telegraph, telephone, expressage, the highest in the world, and also in many ways the most reckless of human life and careless of the public good. It is doubtful if the difference between the natural production and the number of millionaires in the U. S. and Germany is worth this frightful cost. In very many important respects Germany is ahead. New Zealand (q. v.), again, tho a small country, is making important economic advance under the most socialistic institutions of the world. The country has yet to be found where economic production has been lessened by socialistic legislation.

That the asserted lack of invention and expansion of public conveniences in socialistic countries is not due to their socialism, but to general racial characteristics, is shown, too, by the fact that this lack of progress exists quite as much in realms not at all affected by the socialistic laws, while Public Ownership in these countries has in every case largely produced expansion and improvement. (See PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.)

It is not true that government production is expensive compared with private operations, save in those municipalities and states corrupted by private corporations working through party bosses. (See CORRUPTION.) Public ownership and operation is winning its way around the world on its economic merits. (See PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.)

Nor is it true again that public ownership is less progressive than private. In any given country where both systems have been tried, Public as in street-railways, lighting, etc., Ownership the public-owned services have been More proven the most progressive. (See PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.) In the U. S. Progressive than Private the post-office has been far more Monopolies progressive than the private Western Union Telegraph Company. (See POSTAL SERVICE.) Our public schools are almost universally superior to private schools, our state universities to private universities, except for a very few very highly endowed beneficiaries of vast private wealth. Patents (q. v.) are repeatedly bought up by private companies to prevent their being put on the market.

Socialists, too, deny that hope of economic gain is the greatest spur to inventiveness and action.

The greatest inventions of the world have not been made for gain. Socialists do not propose to abolish competition, only to substitute competi

The desire to excel, the joy in creative work, the longing to improve, the eagerness to win social approval, the instinct of benevolence-all these will start into full life, and will serve at once as the stimulus to labor and the reward of excellence. It is instructive to notice that these very forces may already be seen at work in every case in which subsistence is secured, and they alone supply the stimulus to action. The soldier's subsistence is certain, and does not depend on his exertions. At once he becomes susceptible to appeals to his patriotism, to his esprit de corps, to the honor of his flag; he will dare anything for glory, and value a bit of bronze, which is the "reward of valor," far more than a hundred times its weight in gold. Yet many of the private soldiers come from the worst of the population; and military glory and success in murder are but poor objects to aim at. If so much can be done under circumstances so unpromising, what may we not hope from nobler aspirations? Or take the eagerness, self-denial, and strenuous effort thrown by young men into their mere games! The desire to be captain of the Oxford eleven, stroke of the Cambridge boat, victor in the foot-race or the leaping-in a word, the desire to excel-is strong enough to impel the exertions which often ruin physical health. Everywhere we see the multiform desires of humanity assert themselves when once livelihood is secure.

Socialism Necessary to Pure Government

The second main argument is that socialism will purify government. To day it is becoming very generally admitted that the main cause and source of governmental corruption is the great corporation or monopoly, whose need of franchises and favorable legislation is the corrupt politician's stock in trade, and the chance Ito sell which, under one form or another, is the one thing which attracts him into politics and makes it worth while for him to organize a ring and control elections. Compare article CORRUPTION, P. 326, where Mr. Steffens is quoted as saying, "Not the politician then, not the bribe-taker, but the bribe-giver, the man we are so proud of, our successful business man-he is the source and sustenance of our bad government. The captain of industry is the man to catch." Socialism would do away with these sources of corruption by taking economic power from the few and giving it to the many. Socialism would interest the good man in government. Says Prof. R. T. Ěly (The Christian Union, Oct. 9, 1890):

We are reversing the order of nature in planning to reform city government first and then to carry out changes and to make improvements in behalf of the poorer classes. Let any one name a city where this policy has been successfully pursued. I know of none. . .

When civil-service reformers in New York come before the people with large and generous plans of reform, with a program including adequate school accommodations, strict enforcement of the compulsory education law, better sanitary measures, public ownership and management of gas and electric-light plants, playgrounds for children, public parks in crowded sections, and strict enforcement of laws for the protection of working children, and when leading citizens pledge themselves to these reforms they will arouse an enthusiasm which will sweep the city.

Another fundamental fact is that the program which I propose will, when carried out, arouse municipal pride and selfrespect. It will awaken what you may call a self-consciousness. Cities with us do not, as it were, respect themselves. They are like men who have lost their self-respect, while they are despised by private corporations, whose tool they become.

This has been the actual result of public ownership in England and wherever tried. Birmingham, where this phase of the movement largely began, had up to its inception the reputation of being one of the most corrupt boroughs in England. Since that policy has been developed it often has been spoken of as "the best governed city in the world." It is a natural result. When

a city or state does large things for its citizens, the citizens naturally take a healthy and proper interest in it. Complete civic purity is not developed in a day; but no one hears much of gross civic scandals where public ownership is highly developed. Corruption breeds almost solely where the ordinary citizen has little interest in the government and private interests have enormous favors to gain from corrupt councilors or officials.

As for the continually asserted argument that socialism would better liberty by putting all life under the control of a bureaucracy, it is to be said that this is based on an utter misunderstanding of what socialism is. Socialism is everywhere, in practice, constructive and positive, not negative. It says you may have cheap postage, transit, higher wages, better homes. It does not forbid private railroads, but introduces nationalized railroads so much cheaper and better that private roads disappear. This is socialism as it is actually evolving. Its bureaucracy is a myth of its opponents, based on some foolish outgrown Socialist Utopias.

The supreme argument for socialism, however, is that it will produce not only freer but a higher type of men and women. Those who argue that we need economic competition because character is so developed forget that competition develops strength primarily in that field of effort only in which the competition takes place. Character tends to be what men strive for. If men concentrate attention on industrial competition, they tend to develop materialism and shrewdness. This is exactly what we have to-day. Artists complain that commercialism is killing art; religionists say we are growing material; the bourgeois middle class boast of our material prosperity. It is the natural result of industrial competition. Under socialism, if men seek to serve the public it will produce a higher character.

Socialism

Character

Once competition was mainly physical. With naked hand or rudest club men fought for existence; later, with poisoned arrow and hurtling spear they battled for the best fisheries and the richest hunting-grounds. Productive It produced physical individuality, of a Higher the physical giant, the Nimrods, the Achilles, the Agamemnons, kings of men. Then came a competition a little more intellectual, producing an Alexander, a Richard Cœur de Lion, finally a Napoleon. Next came the modern world where men battle, not with poisoned spears, but with poisoned groceries; not with clubs and spears, but, like bulls and bears, with cornerings of the market and tricks of stock. It has produced the Jay Gould and the Baron Rothschild. Now comes socialism, and says, Let us cooperate in industry, and compete only to see who shall best serve the public. Is it not easy to see what kind of an individuality it will gradually produce? The development of species by environment is one of the commonplaces of science to-day, as brilliantly shown by Mrs. Gilman (q. v.) and proven by most careful scientists.

Germany, where government does so much, has produced the best trained and most effective public servants.

The assertion is often made, nevertheless, that Socialists are materialistic, irreligious, free-lovers, disrespecters of property, etc., etc.

Mr. Lecky's "Democracy and Liberty" argues that the sense of right and wrong is the basis of the respect for property and for the obligation of