(c) In the early days communistic colonies or experiments were proposed and also established by both socialists

and anarchists.

(d) It has not been more than two or three decades since these two ideals became distinct in the minds of their followers. As late as the middle '80's, men who were anarchists thought and called themselves socialists. A belief in anarchism is based upon the doctrine of Individualism carried to its logical conclusion. Anarchism places the rights and interests of the individual above those of society and leads finally to the ideal of no government. Socialism, on the other hand, is collectivism. From its point of view the rights and interests of society are paramount and must be conserved under all circumstances. Socialism proposes an ideal state in which the collectivity, acting through the government, carries on the production and exchange of wealth, as well as the greatest possible number of other activities consistent with the welfare of the people. In brief, from the standpoint of the socialists the government is to be all in all, while from that of the anarchists it is to be non-existent; the individual is to do everything.

The two ideals also differ on the subject of religion and the family relation. Anarchism, denying all authority, divine as well as temporal, leads logically to an acceptance of the idea of free love and to a denial of the authority of the Church. It claims that the individual is above the State and the Church, and that consequently he should not be forced to obey the mandates of either. Socialism, on the other hand, is not opposed to religion, although there are some socialists, as there are some Democrats and some Republicans, who are infidels or even atheists. Socialist congresses and party declarations have steadfastly maintained that religion is a matter with which the socialist party does not concern itself. It is a question that should be settled solely by the individual. The prevalent conviction that socialism is atheistic is due, no doubt, to the fact that a large number of socialists oppose, not religion, but the activity of the Church in behalf of the interests of the capitalist

class and in opposition to economic and political reforms. Nor is socialism opposed to the home and the monogamous family, although a few radical and eccentric socialists have expressed ideas to the contrary. The socialists hold that the home is being broken up because of the industrial and social conditions which prevail under capitalism. The employment of women and children in factories and stores, the low wages and long hours, the highly unsatisfactory housing conditions of the working class, the "he" towns of the West and the "she" towns of the East, all make for the breaking up of the home. The socialists argue that only under socialism would it be possible to have more and better homes and consequently a better family relation. Higher wages, a shorter work day, steady employment, the elimination of profits from the industrial world, all of which they claim would come with socialism, would aid greatly in developing a higher and more ideal home life for the people. There are two general groups of anarchists: (1) the Individualist or Philosophical Anarchists, and (2) the Anarchist Communists. Briefly, the former believe in the peaceful propagation of anarchistic doctrines, and maintain that a stage of anarchism will come as the result of the gradual extension of the laissez-faire policy on the part of the government. The latter advocate the use of violent and revolutionary measures as a means of bringing about the desired ideal.

Nihilism is often confused with both socialism and anarchism, but strictly speaking it is neither. As Kirkup has pointed out (History of Socialism, pp. 257-258), the name of nihilism "is often erroneously applied to the whole revolutionary movement" in Russia, although it should properly be restricted to the agitations of the period 1855-1870. The nihilists bowed before no authority of any kind, and accepted no principle on faith. "They weighed political institutions and social reforms, religion and the family, in the balances of that negative criticism, which was their prevailing characteristic, and they found them all wanting. With revolutionary impatience they rejected everything that had come down from the past, good and bad alike. They had no respect for art or poetry, sentiment or ro

mance." They were interested in the matters of "daily bread for all" and an elementary education for the common people. Socialism is not Communism. Under socialism, although there would be collective ownership of the means of production and exchange, there would still be private ownership of income. Communism, however, goes one step further and proposes common ownership of income. It usually advocates equality in the division of the products of society. Socialism, on the other hand, is opposed to any and all schemes of "dividing up." Communism also differs from socialism in that those who believe in it do not accept the doctrines of the evolutionary development of society or of the necessity of appealing primarily to the working class in order to bring about the adoption of communistic ideas.

Communism usually takes the form of colony or community experiments, and is most frequently known as Utopian Socialism. In the United States it is represented by a long line of unsuccessful attempts to introduce the colony mode of life, and reached its point of greatest popularity in the Bellamy or Nationalist movement during the later '80's and early '90's. Socialism is not Social Reform. · The present day sees a widespread interest in social reform measures in all countries. Social reform contains the dominant features of capitalism, i.e. the private ownership of industry and the two economically antagonistic classes, the workers and the capitalists. It seeks to remove only the more flagrant evils of capitalism. Its advocates propose such remedial measures as labor and factory legislation, municipal and political reforms, and an extension of the functions and powers of the government. Socialism, on the other hand, would supplant capitalism by a state of society in which there would be a democratically organized collective ownership and operation of the means of production and exchange. It proposes a complete and radical change from our present system, but only by peaceful means.

For a number of years social reform measures were vigorously opposed by socialists, but of late there has been considerable discussion regarding the necessity or advisability of using such

"halfway" means as a method of gradually bringing about the socialist state. But even though some of the socialists, possibly a majority, take this position, they differ from the social reformers in that they consider such measures only as a means to an end, the end being socialism, while the reformers look upon these measures as an end in themselves and feel that their adoption would result in the improvement and retention of the present system of capitalistic industry through the removal of its more glaring evils.

Socialism is not the Single Tax. The advocates of the single tax propose to abolish all taxes save one, a single tax levied upon the value of land exclusive of improvements. It is claimed that such a tax would be just and expedient; that it would greatly increase production by exempting improvements from taxation; that it would abolish speculation in land; that it would be simple and easy of administration; and that it would materially assist by bringing about a more equitable distribution of wealth. The single taxers accept the doctrine of laissez-faire, and consequently believe in Individualism, Competition, and Free Trade.

It is argued by the opponents of the tax that it would be difficult to administer; that it would not supply a sufficient revenue for the government; that it would be unjust because it would tax only the landowners; that it would tend to weaken the idea of private ownership of land; and that it would lead ultimately to the government ownership of land with private use or cultivation.

Contrasting the single tax with socialism, it is to be noted that the advocates of the former recognize only one form of exploitation, rent, and but one oppressor, the landlord, both of which they would abolish. Socialists, on the other hand, argue that profits and interest, as well as rent, are forms of exploitation and can be gotten rid of only by abolishing the private ownership of industry. Thus, logically, the socialists should believe in the nationalization of land, and some of them do; but it is in connection with this question of what to do with the land that the ideas of the socialists are most indefinite, diverse, and

14

impossible of classification. The single taxers would retain the dominant features of capitalism with its economic classes, with competition between the industrial units, and with private ownership of industry and the consequent exploitation of the workers, all of which the socialists seek to abolish. The single taxers also differ from the socialists in that they do not recognize the existence of the class struggle.

ON FAMILIAR STYLE1

WILLIAM HAZLITT

It is not easy to write a familiar style. Many people mistake a familiar for a vulgar style, and suppose that to write without affectation is to write at random. On the contrary, there is nothing that requires more precision, and, if I may so say, purity of expression, than the style I am speaking of. It utterly rejects not only all unmeaning pomp, but all low, cant phrases, and loose, unconnected, slipshod allusions. It is not to take the first word that offers, but the best word in common use; it is not to throw words together in any combinations we please, but to follow and avail ourselves of the true idiom of the language. To write a genuine familiar or truly English style, is to write as any one would speak in common conversation who had a thorough command and choice of words, or who could discourse with ease, force, and perspicuity, setting aside all pedantic and oratorical flourishes. Or to give another illustration, to write naturally is the same thing in regard to common conversation as to read naturally is in regard to common speech. It does not follow that it is an easy thing to give the true accent and inflection to the words you utter, because you do not attempt to rise above the level of ordinary life and colloquial speaking. You do not assume indeed the solemnity of the pulpit, or the tone of stage declamation: neither are you at liberty to gabble on at a venture, without emphasis or discretion, or to resort to

1 From Table Talk.