not themselves been considered, others are accepted because their grounds have been examined.

When we say, "Men used to think the world was flat," or "I thought you went to the house," we express belief: something is accepted, held to, acquiesced in, or affirmed. But such thoughts may mean a supposition accepted without reference to its real grounds. These may be adequate, they may not; but their value with reference to the support they afford the belief has not been considered.

Such thoughts grow up unconsciously and without reference to the attainment of correct belief. They are picked up - we know not how. From obscure sources and by unnoticed channels they insinuate themselves into acceptance and become unconsciously a part of our mental furniture. Tradition, instruction, imitation- all of which depend upon authority in some form, or appeal to our own advantage, or fall in with a strong passion are responsible for them. Such thoughts are prejudices, that is, prejudgments, not judgments proper that rest upon a survey of evidence.

IV. Thoughts that result in belief have an importance attached to them which leads to reflective thought, to conscious inquiry into the nature, conditions, and bearings of the belief. To think of whales and camels in the clouds is to entertain ourselves with fancies, terminable at our pleasure, which do not lead to any belief in particular. But to think of the world as flat is to ascribe a quality to a real thing as its real property. This conclusion denotes a connection among things and hence is not, like imaginative thought, plastic to our mood. Belief in the world's flatness commits him who holds it to thinking in certain specific ways of other objects, such as the heavenly bodies, antipodes, the possibility of navigation. It prescribes to him actions in accordance with his conception of these objects.

The consequences of a belief upon other beliefs and upon behavior may be so important, then, that men are forced to consider the grounds or reasons of their belief and its logical consequences. This means reflective thought— thought in its eulogistic and emphatic sense.

Men thought the world was flat until Columbus thought it to be round: The earlier thought was a belief held because men had not the energy or the courage to question what those about them accepted and taught, especially as it was suggested and seemingly confirmed by obvious and sensible facts. The thought of Columbus was a reasoned conclusion. It marked the close of study into facts, of scrutiny and revision of evidence, of working out the implications of various hypotheses, and of comparing these theoretical results with one another and with known facts. Because Columbus did not accept unhesitatingly the current traditional theory, because he doubted and inquired, he arrived at his thought. Skeptical of what, from long habit, seemed most certain, and credulous of what seemed impossible, he went on thinking until he could produce evidence for both his confidence and his disbelief. Even if his conclusion had finally turned out wrong, it would have been a different sort of belief from those it antagonized, because it was reached by a different method. Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought. Any one of the first three kinds of thought may elicit this type; but once begun, it is a conscious and voluntary effort to establish belief upon a firm basis of reasons.

SOCIALISM: ITS DEFINITION AND DIFFERENTIATION FROM OTHER SCHEMES OF SOCIAL BETTERMENT 1

1

IRA B. CROSS

It is difficult accurately to define or to use the word "socialism," because, as ordinarily used, it may refer, and that correctly, to three distinct things: (1) to a certain set of principles or theories; (2) to a movement, usually a political party, whose members advocate those theories and are eager to attain

1 From Essentials of Socialism. The Macmillan Company, 1912. Reprinted by permission.

the goal which the latter represent; and (3) to the prophesied stage of society (socialism), the next after capitalism, which the members of the above movement are striving to bring about. Thus the stage of socialism, or the socialistic state, is the goal of the socialist movement, a movement based upon the principles or theories of socialism.

In the ideal socialist state, all of those things employed in the production of wealth, which are used in common, would be owned collectively, while all of those things which the individual uses directly for the satisfaction of his personal wants, or which he uses in his capacity as an individual, would remain the property of the individual. Thus factories, mines, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, etc., those instruments of production which to-day are being used by millions of people, and upon which countless millions depend for a livelihood, would be owned and operated collectively under socialism; but a carpenter's tools, or a man's lawn-mower, his clothing, and many other things used solely by him, would be owned by him. The situation would differ from the present primarily in the fact that to-day the greater or more important instruments of production are owned by individuals called capitalists, who hire thousands of men to work for them, and who manage industry with an eye only to their individual profit, while under socialism the industries would be owned collectively by the workers through the medium of the government, and would be managed by them by means of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall,' with the interests of the public always in mind. Thus, under socialism, there would be no capitalist class, because there would be no private ownership of the greater means of production. Socialism, however, would not abolish capital, for there would still remain as great a need for its use in the pro

1 At present the socialists of the United States use the initiative, the referendum, and the recall in conducting the affairs of their political party, the idea being always to keep control of the organization in the hands of its dues-paying members. Strange to say, however, these staunch advocates of Democracy are bitterly opposed to the adoption of the direct primary, the reason being that they fear that some other political party, by means of it, might succeed in capturing the socialist organization as soon as it became strong enough to justify the attempt being made.

duction of wealth as exists to-day under capitalism. The only change that would occur in this connection is that capital would be collectively, instead of privately, owned.

Socialism is not government ownership, although by many people, and strange to say even by some so-called socialists, they are considered as being identical.

The socialists declare that government ownership is a reform which merely substitutes the government, controlled by the capitalists, for the capitalist as an employer of labor. It brings about only a change of taskmasters, and in many respects a most unsatisfactory change, for under government ownership the workers have less control over wages, hours, and the conditions of employment than under private ownership and operation. As a rule, governmental employees are not permitted to form trade-unions, nor can they actively participate in politics. At times of strikes, armed force can be used more effectively to compel them to return to work. The socialists also argue that any great amount of government ownership would seriously hinder the concentration of industry, and thereby prolong the life of capitalistic society by doing away with many unfair discriminations, thus enabling the small corporation to compete on an equal footing with the large corporation. It is because of these things that they ordinarily oppose government ownership, although by some it is advocated as a stepping-stone to the establishment of socialism.

The Socialist Movement must not be Confused with the Coöperative Movement. They are not the same, although the principle of coöperation lies at the very root of the socialist teachings. Socialists have consistently opposed the policy of laissez-faire both in theory and practice, and declare against all industrial competition. They do not, however, seek to abolish competition in any field other than the industrial, because they feel that under proper conditions competition tends to develop the best that lies within the individual.

The proposed socialist state is known by many as the "Cooperative Commonwealth," because in such a stage of society the principles of coöperation would be carried out to the fullest

extent. Nevertheless, there are many regards in which these two movements differ from each other. Coöperation, or the application of coöperative principles, has been tried many times in the past. Socialism has never been tried, although communistic and coöperative colonies and certain social experiments have been frequently and incorrectly referred to by the opponents of socialism as evidences of its failure and impracticability. Coöperation does not represent a stage in the evolution of society; socialists claim that socialism does. Coöperation is a social reform measure, and can and does exist side by side with capitalism. Socialism is not a reform measure and cannot exist under capitalism. Coöperation is the voluntary association of interested individuals for the purpose of carrying out some definite object, such as the establishment and operation of coöperative stores, factories, mines, and similar enterprises. Socialism is not a voluntary association of a small number of individuals. Under it all society would be organized upon a coöperative basis, the coöperation being compulsory rather than voluntary.

Socialism is not Profit-sharing. In a profit-sharing establishment, the workers have no direct control over the industry in which they are employed. They labor for a capitalist or a group of capitalists and receive at the end of the year, in addition to wages, a portion of the profits of the business. Like cooperation, profit-sharing is a social reform measure which has been tried and which is in no way opposed to the existence or the continuance of capitalism. Under socialism, there would be no capitalist class; the workers would control the industries of the nation and would work entirely for themselves, or for what would then be the same thing, society. Socialism is not Anarchism.

Although radically opposed to each other, these two ideals of the future state of society have been and still are constantly confounded with each other. This is to be explained on the following grounds:

(a) Both are based upon radical principles.

(b) The destructive arguments of both follow the same lines of thought.