spoliation and competition. Co-operative production will not do, even if State-aided. It would prolong the reign of competition, and the competitive system must wholly cease.

Collectivism is, they say, the only system that is thorough-going, coherent, and logical, as opposed to the different partial stop-gap systems,-co-operation, legislative interference, etc.,--which would be either wholly futile, or barely temporary palliatives. As opposed to the existing system, it is the only one at once rational and founded on justice. The land and the mineral wealth beneath it, should evidently belong to all. They were Nature's gift to the human race, no more intended to be appropriated by a few than the common sunlight, air, or water. And in like manner as regards the instruments for the production of the means of life. In former times, the land did actually belong to the community, and in a time not remote the instruments of production did belong to the workers. It is not so now. The agricultural labourer on the land has become divorced from ownership: the labourer in the towns no longer possesses the instruments of his craft. He is dependent on the will and the employment of another for his livelihood. The capital which enables the capitalist to employ him, moreover, is itself the result of the spoliation of labourers past and present. These are great evils, for which Collectivism is the only remedy that would be at once just, efficacious, and that would bring finality with it.

Moreover, it is in harmony with existing facts and steadily growing tendencies all pointing to it. The State already occupies, to the general advantage and

satisfaction, a portion of the field of enterprise and industry, within which competition is abolished. Let it occupy the entire field. It already regulates, and it tends ever more and more to regulate, the industries it does not occupy which are carried on in factories, mines, and workshops. Let it put an end to the evil necessity of regulating by substituting its own action for the private enterprise that requires so much regulating to protect the labourers or the public. Let it organize all the necessary labour as it already does a part, and let it apportion their shares to all according to the rules of justice.

II.

SUCH are the two kinds of Socialism that chiefly concerns us, the one begun and extending, the other existing only as aim and ideal. With respect to this second, or Collectivism, which aims at extending and universalizing the first, or State Socialism, as the State may not have the will or desire to go so far, or not to do so at once, or soon, we are led to a further division of Socialists into the Revolutionary Socialists, who aim at altering the existing State by getting the control of it by violence, and thereafter animating it by their own revolutionary spirit in order to effect their purposes; and the Opportunist or Evolutionary Socialists, who think the existing State slowly improved or widened in its functions, or even taking it as it stands with its present disposition and the opportunities offered by the existing diversity of party interests, may serve to bring in Socialism by

instalments. The programme of the Evolutionary Collectivists coincides to some extent with that of the State Socialists, though the latter does not specifically aim at collective ownership, or at any more definite aim than greater justice or greater equality, whether of condition or of opportunity.

The Revolutionary Socialists, not numerous in England, but powerful on the Continent, think it hopeless to expect anything from middle-class Parliaments, composed largely of rich men, or men in sympathy with these, whose interests are opposed to the changes they have in view. They think the struggle between the rich and poor must be endless so long as the rich hold the Government, make the laws, and direct the policy of the State; and for the poor an endless struggle is endless defeat. Events or a crisis must be forced and soon. It is a question which concerns the present generation, when an opportunity arises. Force has been the great hastener of events, the sword the great severer of hopeless knots. Great movements have invariably led to the sword, and great issues have been always settled by it, not by appeals to reason, conscience, or humanity. And the great quarrel between rich and poor, capital and labour, between the dominant classes and the hungry people can be settled in no other way. The antagonism of interests is too great, the evils suffered by the many, and their sense of injustice, daily deepening, is too great, to allow them to wait. It is idle to expect the rich to surrender property or position of their own accord; if the working classes do not conquer them, and do not unite for the purpose,

they will never be better. The rich will hold them in subjection for ever. It is for them who have strength and justice on their side to force the present position; and that requires Revolution.

The other Socialists are more practical. They distrust sudden and violent revolutions, which take one step forward and two backward, by leading to extreme reaction. They think that the State is in all civilized countries becoming more suitable for the attainment of their ends, is becoming more socialistic and more democratic. They think that, by further political reforms, by the introduction into Parliament or Chamber, of men of culture, conscience, and capacity, men of public spirit, or even men expressly sent to advocate the interests of labour, they can get more and more socialistic measures passed. They reckon, too, on the great influence of impartial outside forces on public opinion, and the changed sentiment appearing in literature, in the press, the churches, and even in law as judicially interpreted, and apart from legislation.

In England Socialism, so far as it comes in at all, will probably come in this way. Our system of party government will give it certain opportunities. Each party will take up a portion of the Socialist programme. The Tory landowner will defend the workers in the great towns against the oppression of Capital, while the Liberal employer will take up the cause of the agricultural labourer in the country. The capitalist will see no objection to additional taxation on landed property, and he will assist the tenant farmers in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, to become owners of

their holdings without too rigidly regarding the landlord's rights; while the landlords will be willing to lessen the working hours of the labourers, to inquire into and remedy their grievances, and to try experiments on their behalf at the cost of the capitalist, as well as to extend Employers' Liabilities, and make it less easy for the "corsairs of commerce," the bucanneers of industry, the great Monopolist and Company Promoter to prey on the property of the weak and unwary. It is possible, too, that the great outside interests, as the Church, Law, Literature, so far as they are independent, may throw their weight against both landlords and capitalists, as well from a sense of justice as to conciliate the Fourth Estate. It would be rather a change of policy, at least on the part of the two former, but, if not quite from considerations of justice, it may be thought prudent to be on the side of the growing power that may one day be supreme, and thus all things duly considered, the prospects of Socialism, bound up as they are with Democracy, are not other than hopeful in these countries.

In France, where class antagonism is deep, where the people are fiery and warlike, where each generation in Paris since the Revolution has been once at least behind the barricade, the introduction of Socialism may not improbably be attempted once again by the sword; a course very unlikely to lead to the Socialists' goal, unless, indeed, the new Cæsar which the resulting chaos would probably necessitate, should be imbued with Socialistic sentiments, and should try to realize part of their programme.

In Germany, where, though Socialism is widely