practical or reasonable. But the public provision of libraries and galleries, and of things that can be best enjoyed in common, not only enlarges the background of the citizen's life and adds to his possessions, but suggests a reasonable limit to the accumulation of property; as it would most certainly give a social direction to art, when it could minister to the needs of a nation rather than the ostentation of the few. And the same may be said of public parks, means of transit, and the like-all in the direction of levelling those inequalities of property which serve no social purpose. Whether, then, property be regarded as a "means of self-expression," or as "materials for enjoyment," the Collectivist ideal may be said to lie in the direction, not of denying, but of affirming and satisfying the need; and the Socialists criticise the distribution of property under individualistic institutions just from the point of view of its failure to satisfy a need of human nature. Mr. Bosanquet, for instance, really expresses the Socialist's position when he says: "The real cause of complaint today, I take it, is not the presence, but the absence of property, together with the suggestion that its presence may be the cause of its absence." He points out, moreover, that the principle of unearned private property and the principle of Communism really meet in the common rejection of the idea of earning, of some quasi-competitive relation of salary to value or energy of service-in fact, of the organization of Society upon a basis of labor, which is the ideal of Socialism. Similarly he puts himself at the point of view of the Socialist when he says: "The true principles of State interference with acquisition-and alienation-would refer to their tendency, if any, to prevent acquisition of property on the part of other members of society," a principle which omits nothing in Collectivist requirements, and opens up a series of far-reaching considerations.†

Socialism and Competition.

I have already endeavored to show that Socialism is a method of social selection according to social worth (in the widest sense): that it desires to extend the possibilities of usefulness to as many as possible, and would measure reward by the efficiency of socially valuable work. The differences in reward would, however, be of less account in proportion as social consideration and recognition, and the collective privileges and opportunities of civilization, are extended to any kind of worker, and as the motives to personal accumulation are reduced within social limits. Indeed, it is a question whether the conven

In "Some Aspects of the Social Problem," which originally suggested this paper. Cf. The "Land Nationalization" propaganda generally. For the sake of their economic case, as also for purposes of political propaganda, it is regrettable that modern Socialism gives more prominence, in its theory, to "Capital" than to "Land" -but of the works of Achille Loria and his school.

Cf. Mill ("Autobiography") and Marshall ("Principles ") on the "Motives to Collective Action"; also Sidney Webb's "Difficulties of Individualism" (Fabian Tract No. 69). "A social system devised to encourage 'the art of establishing the maximum inequality over our neighbors'-as Ruskin puts it-appears destined to be replaced, wherever this is possible, by one based on salaried public service, with the stímulus of duty and esteem, instead of that of fortune-making."

tional idea of reward is relevant to the system of industry contemplated by the Socialist, a system under which the freest industrial motive-the motive of work for work's and enjoyment's sake, the stimulus of self-expression-could be extended from the highest to the humblest industry. The incompatibility of pure industrial motive with our modern industrial system is, indeed, as Ruskin and Morris and Wagner have witnessed, its profoundest condemnation.

The Benefits of Commercial Competition.

It is not to be denied that competitive private enterprise may develop character and discharge social services. But the character and the services are of a partial and inferior type: partial, because a few grow out of proportion to the rest, and therefore in a narrow and anti-social direction; inferior, because the character of the economically strong is not of the highest type; if it is of a type fittest to survive in a commercial and non-social world, it is not the fittest to survive in a moral and social order. And what can one say about the quality of products and standard of consumption? Is it as such directed to evolve and elevate life? Matthew Arnold's description of an upper class materialized, a middle class vulgarized, and a lower class brutalized, is a fairly accurate description of modern commercial types.

Competition and Population.

Not only is commercial competition inferior in form, but it is directly responsible for an increase in quantity over quality of population. The idea that unchecked competition makes for the natural selection of the fittest population is singularly optimistic. It is just that part of the population which has nothing to lose that is most reckless in propagating itself. The fear of falling below the standard of comfort at one end of the social scale, and the hopelessness of ever reaching it at the other, combine to increase the quantity of population at the cost of its quality. And what is a loss to society is a gain to the sweater; he is directly interested in the lowering of the standard of life, and in the competition of cheap labor; and the sweater is a normal product of commercial competition. Collectivism deliberately aims at the maintenance and elevation of the standard of life, and at such an organization of industry as would not enable one class of the community to be interested in the overproduction of another. It treats the "population question" as a problem of quality.

Socialism and Progress.

There are, of course, many other aspects of Socialism than its adequacy to the requirements of a moral and social idea; that is, of the principle of a progressive social life. It may be thought that Socialism is essentially a movement from below, a class movement; but it is characteristic of modern Socialism that its protagonists, in this country at any rate, approach the problem from the scientific rather than the popular view; they are middle class theorists. And the future of the movement will depend upon the extent to

which it will be recognized that Socialism is not simply a working man's, or an unemployed, or a poor man's question. There are, indeed, signs of a distinct rupture between the Socialism of the street and the Socialism of the chair; the last can afford to be patient, and to deprecate hasty and unscientific remedies. It may be that the two sides may drift farther and farther apart, and that scientific Socialism may come to enjoy the unpopularity of the Charity Organization Society. All that I am, however, concerned to maintain is that there is a scientific Socialism which does attempt to treat life as a whole, and has no less care for character than the most rigorous idealist; and I believe I am also right in thinking that this is the characteristic and dominant type of Socialism at the present day. It may not be its dominant idea in the future, but it is the idea that is wanted for the time, the idea that is relevant, and it is with relevant ideas that the social moralist is concerned.

Other Moral Aspects: Socialism and Religion.

There are, again, other moral aspects than those with which I have been concerned. I have said nothing as to the moral sentiment of Socialism, nothing as to the creation of a deeper sense of public duty. I have taken for granted the sentiment, and confined myself to its mode of action, or the more or less completely realized moral idea of Socialism, and tried to see how it works, or whether it is a working idea at all. The question of moral dynamics lies behind this, and the question of faith-as the religious sentimentstill further behind. Perhaps in an anxiety to divorce Socialism from sentimentality, we may appear to be divorcing it from sentiment. But the sentiment of Socialism must rest on a high degree of intellectual force and imagination, if it is not to be altogether vague and void. There is no cheap way, or royal road, to the Religion of Humanity, though there may be many helps to it short of a reflective philosophy. But it would be idle to deny that Socialism involves a change which would be almost a revolution in the moral and religious attitude of the majority of mankind. We may agree with Mill that it is impossible to define with any sort of precision the coming modification of moral and religious ideas. We may further, however, agree that it will rest (as Comte said) upon the solidarity of mankind (as represented by the Idea of the State), and that "there are two things which are likely to lead men to invest this with the moral authority of a religion; first, they will become more and more impressed by the awful fact that a piece of conduct to-day may prove a curse to men and women scores and even hundreds of years after the author is dead; and second, they will more and more feel that they can only satisfy their sentiment of gratitude to seen or unseen benefactors, can only repay the untold benefits they have inherited, by diligently maintaining the traditions of service." This is the true positive spirit, and in something like it we must seek the moral dynamics of Socialism.

John Morley's "Miscellanies"; "The Death of Mr. Mill." Cf. also the passage on Socialistic sentiment in Mill's "Autobiography."

Secr FAB

22

tional idea of reward is relevant to the system of industry contemplated by the Socialist, a system under which the freest industrial motive-the motive of work for work's and enjoyment's sake, the stimulus of self-expression-could be extended from the highest to the humblest industry. The incompatibility of pure industrial motive with our modern industrial system is, indeed, as Ruskin and Morris and Wagner have witnessed, its profoundest condemnation.

The Benefits of Commercial Competition.

It is not to be denied that competitive private enterprise may develop character and discharge social services. But the character and the services are of a partial and inferior type: partial, because a few grow out of proportion to the rest, and therefore in a narrow and anti-social direction; inferior, because the character of the economically strong is not of the highest type; if it is of a type fittest to survive in a commercial and non-social world, it is not the fittest to survive in a moral and social order. And what can one say about the quality of products and standard of consumption? Is it as such directed to evolve and elevate life? Matthew Arnold's description of an upper class materialized, a middle class vulgarized, and a lower class brutalized, is a fairly accurate description of modern commercial types.

Competition and Population.

Not only is commercial competition inferior in form, but it is directly responsible for an increase in quantity over quality of population. The idea that unchecked competition makes for the natural selection of the fittest population is singularly optimistic. It is just that part of the population which has nothing to lose that is most reckless in propagating itself. The fear of falling below the standard of comfort at one end of the social scale, and the hopelessness of ever reaching it at the other, combine to increase the quantity of population at the cost of its quality. And what is a loss to society is gain to the sweater; he is directly interested in the lowering of the standard of life, and in the competition of cheap labor; and the sweater is a normal product of commercial competition. Collectivism deliberately aims at the maintenance and elevation of the standard of life, and at such an organization of industry as would not enable one class of the community to be interested in the overproduction of another. It treats the "population question" as a problem of quality.

Socialism and Progress.

There are, of course, many other aspects of Socialism than its adequacy to the requirements of a moral and social idea; that is, of the principle of a progressive social life. It may be thought that Socialism is essentially a movement from below, a class movement; but it is characteristic of modern Socialism that its protagonists, in this country at any rate, approach the problem from the scientific rather than the popular view; they are middle class theorists. And the future of the movement will depend upon the extent to

which it will be recognized that Socialism is not simply a working man's, or an unemployed, or a poor man's question. There are, indeed, signs of a distinct rupture between the Socialism of the street and the Socialism of the chair; the last can afford to be patient, and to deprecate hasty and unscientific remedies. It may be that the two sides may drift farther and farther apart, and that scientific Socialism may come to enjoy the unpopularity of the Charity Organization Society. All that I am, however, concerned to maintain is that there is a scientific Socialism which does attempt to treat life as a whole, and has no less care for character than the most rigorous idealist; and I believe I am also right in thinking that this is the characteristic and dominant type of Socialism at the present day. It may not be its dominant idea in the future, but it is the idea that is wanted for the time, the idea that is relevant, and it with relevant ideas that the social moralist is concerned.

Other Moral Aspects: Socialism and Religion. There are, again, other moral aspects than those with which I have been concerned. I have said nothing as to the moral sentiment of Socialism, nothing as to the creation of a deeper sense of public duty. I have taken for granted the sentiment, and confined myself to its mode of action, or the more or less completely realized moral idea of Socialism, and tried to see how it works, or whether it is a working idea at all. The question of moral dynamics lies behind this, and the question of faith-as the religious sentimentstill further behind. Perhaps in an anxiety to divorce Socialism from sentimentality, we may appear to be divorcing it from sentiment. But the sentiment of Socialism must rest on a high degree of intellectual force and imagination, if it is not to be altogether vague and void. There is no cheap way, or royal road, to the Religion of Humanity, though there may be many helps to it short of a reflective philosophy. But it would be idle to deny that Socialism involves a change which would be almost a revolution in the moral and religious attitude of the majority of mankind. We may agree with Mill that it is impossible to define with any sort of precision the coming modification of moral and religious ideas. We may further, however, agree that it will rest (as Comte said) upon the solidarity of mankind (as represented by the Idea of the State), and that "there are two things which are likely to lead men to invest this with the moral authority of a religion; first, they will become more and more impressed by the awful fact that a piece of conduct to-day may prove a curse to men and women scores and even hundreds of years after the author is dead; and second, they will more and more feel that they can only satisfy their sentiment of gratitude to seen or unseen benefactors, can only repay the untold benefits they have inherited, by diligently maintaining the traditions of service." This is the true positive spirit, and in something like it we must seek the moral dynamics of Socialism.

John Morley's "Miscellanies": "The Death of Mr. Mill." Cf. also the passage Socialistic sentiment in Mill's "Autobiography."