and will be had before all else, but where more than that is comparatively useless, a deficiency in the quantity must necessitate a rise in value, a rise in what people would be willing to offer, and a superfluity a fall, and even a rapid fall—if all is to be consumed. The fall could only be prevented by the State setting aside for future needs the superfluity from a prosperous harvest; the former could not be prevented by the State, because so long as private arrangements could be made between parties, the persons with the strongest desires would find means to get as much as they wanted. The rise of value might, however, be mitigated to the general good by the State's preventing certain speculators and monopolists taking advantage of the deficiency and turning it to their special profit. Wherever there are rings, combinations or syndicates controlling a necessary of life, who would thus have the power of aggravating a real scarcity, and by acting on the fear or imagination might create a greater rise than otherwise would take place, or who might produce an artificial scarcity, the State, by controlling such, or stepping into their place, could minimize the evils of the scarcity, and prevent a great rise of value to the general advantage, especially if it had saved from former years. But it could not keep values fixed unless it could alter human nature.

IV.

THUS, then, finally the Marxian theory of value and "theoretical basis of Socialism" is vicious as a theory and inapplicable in practice: the values of things in a

Socialistic community would have to be arbitrarily fixed by the authorities. Even when arbitrarily fixed they could not be kept so, any more than now, though it would be necessary to keep them fixed, much more than now. There is no principle of distribution contained in the theory of value, because to get the value of any product, the comparative worth of the different kinds of labour must be presupposed. The values of things cannot be pronounced till we have already decided how many times skilled labour is more than unskilled. The principle of distribution is assumed, when we lay down the proportion between the different kinds of skilled and common labour. If my skilled labour is rated three times common labour, then my day's labour, or my year's labour, will command three times as much, that is, the Law of Distribution is already assumed, and, as before said, it must be assumed arbitrarily, since there is no common measure of the comparative quantities of labour. I by no means say that Socialism, even in the form. of Collectivism, might not lay down some principle or scheme of distribution juster than the present, and which might be practically applicable. I only say that there is none contained in Marx's principles or in his theory of value, while the one vaguely foreshadowed by some Collectivists of something like a rude equality would be absolutely impracticable, though if it could even conceivably be carried out by a relentless despotism, in which chiefs more ascetic than St. Just or Robespierre, and officials more incorruptible, all willingly accepted the rule of equal shares, and determined to carry it out, the

result would be to bring society speedily to poverty, and to send civilization back to its cradle.

The equality would certainly not bring liberty with it, still less fraternity. It would not bring contentment nor peace, assuming that human nature. had so far changed as to acquiesce in the thing even for a short space of time.

I by no means imply that the great inequality of the present system is all for the best; nor that the existing distribution of wealth, dependent partly on Free Contracts, partly on our property laws, is ideally just or perfect; far from it; but it is better and juster than the rule of equality would be, which is one principle of distribution proposed by the Socialists, while it is at least practicable, which cannot be said of the other Socialist principle of, "To each in proportion to his works."

A better distribution than the present, and having more reference to equality, is possible, without breaking so completely with the present system as Collectivism proposes. It can be done by the State; by taxation, legislation, and otherwise, while still leaving large Freedom of enterprise, as well as Freedom of Contract between employer and employed. And though equality of reward would be bad, something like equality of start and of opportunity would be good, and could be secured for the competitors by the State. The State, moreover, in its own interest and for the general good, could favour Nature's inequalities, even at the risk of levelling a little social inequalities or the inequalities of fortune; it could sift out and select Talent of all kinds, even assisting it if

necessary by funds for the purpose, without looking for any other return than the natural results to Society of this educated ability. It could even, by extended State management, and by an enlarged public service, provide places for the best, without largely curtailing private enterprise.

A Society in which, at all events, the shares of each would make a nearer approach to "fairness," in which the evils of Freedom of Contract, of private property and of competition would be tempered by considerations of Justice, is possible, without any need of adventuring into the terra incognita of the Collectivist State, in which we should all get either equal shares, or shares fixed entirely arbitrarily by State functionaries; and in which, while much would be doubtful and at hazard, it is most probable that the working classes, even with Rent and Interest thrown into the general Wage Dividend, and the present great Wages of Management of employers cut down, would not after all secure so large a share as they do under the present system, imperfect as it may be.

CHAPTER VII.

IN THE SOCIALIST STATE (continued).

THE SUPPRESSION OF MONEY AND MARKETS.

1.

IT is the special boast of the new Socialism that it would effectually kill all the parasites of industry which riot to-day under the abused name of Freedom of Industry or are sheltered under our property laws. First would go the landlord, the land becoming collective property, then the capitalist employer, who, however, as regards his profits, is rather viewed as the spoliator of the labourer than a parasite of industry. Next will go the mostly unnecessary middleman, who interposes between producers and consumers, and by his profits swells the price on the latter for little or no real service. Then by the abolition of markets in general and market prices, the chance of the general speculator and cornerer will be gone; by the suppression of private enterprise and investments, and by the consequent abolition of the stock and share market the financier, the company promoter, the director, the monopolist, the "rentier," the speculator on the stock exchange, and numerous other types will lose their opportunities; and, lastly,