II.

THE tendency to the concentration of capital, then, does exist as a fact, and Socialism might conceivably come as the end of the tendency; only it will not come as the result of its concentration in the hands of a few mammoth millionaires, for the tendency is not towards such in any country save the United States, and even there the tendency is not marked, or it only shows itself in comparatively few instances. It might conceivably come as the result of a universal syndicate and monopolistic régime, which, if the monopolists greatly abused their position, might necessitate the State either to regulate stringently or itself to occupy and undertake those industries whose abuses proved incorrigible. But if a partial Socialism came in this way, it would give the present system a much longer lease of life, both because the process of monopolistic occupation will probably be slow, and because the capitalists of a given country will not be, as Marx prognosticated, a small number, but hundreds of thousands, probably millions, who would oppose a very powerful resistance to State occupation of a given industry, unless where such occupation was manifestly beneficial for the great majority.

The great multitude interested, the great number of owners of capital, whether in large or small portions, including the more intelligent artisans, would certainly make it difficult or impossible to expropriate them, would indefinitely delay the process, and only those industries could be taken over by the State the

functions of which were discharged to the detriment of the community.

If indeed every province of production, distribution, and transport were occupied by syndicates and monopolies; if they abused the natural strength of the monopolist's position by raising prices to the utmost, and especially prices of the prime necessaries, while at the same time trying to reduce wages to the lowest point; if, in short, they were animated solely by egoism, and without conscience, or humanity, or public spirit, the public outside the industrial world, the large and intelligent middle class outside the industrial class, would probably side with the labouring class in pressing on the Government the suppression of the worst of them and the undertaking of their functions.

But, in the first place, the universal occupation of the industrial field by monopolies, and the extinction of competition, is very far off; in the second place, where any large combinations show too much corporate selfishness they can be pulled up by State supervision, and in certain cases great potential combinations can be nipped in the bud, their formation can be prevented by the State refusing permission to the companies to unite as “contrary to public policy' or to public interest; because a company is, in a certain sense, a creation of the State, as is likewise a Union, and neither should exist, or receive permission of the State to come into being, if deemed likely to prove inimical to the general weal, so that the State could always check early or altogether the formation of possibly objectionable unions. Where, as

in a case like that of railways, they were necessary, it would not be desirable to prevent their formation; they could always be checked if they abused their position, and conditions should always be attached to the concession of powers and privileges to them. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that the industrial field will ever be occupied by a few colossal and irresponsible syndicates, or that the State will be driven to substitute itself for them, save possibly in a very few

cases.

Lastly, the Syndicates would have to be devoid not only of conscience, humanity, public spirit, but also, what we can less easily suppose to be absent, common sense and prudence, if they tried to extort the highest prices in cases of necessaries supposed to be controlled by them, or, on the other hand, to reduce wages to the lowest point, on the ground that labourers had no alternative work; such would be dangerous policy for themselves, though no doubt there would be a temptation to it which might prove too great for some employers. Only in such a case. of abuse would the State be called upon to interfere and either strictly regulate or itself undertake the function abused.

But the result of these several considerations is to put off universal Socialism indefinitely as a natural evolution, and points merely to the introduction of such partial applications of State Socialism as peremptory public exigence may require, in those cases where a social function could not be entrusted to private enterprise, whether monopolistic or competitive.

III.

THERE is also the tendency on the part of the labourers to co-operative effort, from which some people expect the elevation of the labourers and the composing of the quarrel between capital and labour by merging the two; and this tendency does certainly cxist; it is, moreover, in the direction of Socialism in the widest sense of the word; only it is a much slower tendency, and a smaller one, more especially in the field of production, as already stated. Of the two tendencies, one to co-operation on the part of labour, and one to the spread and consolidation of companies on the part of capital, the former will not develop fast enough. The company will develop much faster, and Socialism might much sooner come as the term of that evolution unchecked than through co-operation. But the one might be restrained by the State; the other might be quickened; the State might become the working man's bank, to some extent, as it has been the creditor of the farmer in Ireland; it might lend at market rate, say at 3 or 3 per cent., to such associations of workers as had saved a moiety of capital, if they could show the likelihood of success in their projected enterprise. But as this point has already been considered, it is not necessary to enlarge on it here any further than to say that the working classes, now that they have got so much political power, may not improbably press for some State assistance to increase the number of owners of capital, especially as the results of unaided efforts must be extremely small and slow.

What political action to improve their economical position they may take cannot be precisely stated. It is by no means likely that they will ever combine to demand a maximum working day in England. They will not ask the help of the State for the purpose; nor will they, with the Socialists, ask it to fix a minimum of wages, which they can if they choose themselves fix through Trades Unions. They may ask for the nationalization of the land; though it is not clear, if landlords were compensated, what they would gain by it beyond the creation of small farmers, the granting of allotments to agricultural or other labourers, as an occupation for slack times; all of which may be secured otherwise: so that it is not easy to forecast the resultant line of action of the working classes, more especially as the interests of the skilled and unskilled labourers are not always identical, however the desires for higher wages and fewer hours may be common to both.

IV.

THUS far as to the existing tendencies. As to the final goal, it is very difficult to say what it will be, or what the end in which society will rest (if, indeed, it ever attains to rest other than provisional equilibrium). And it is difficult because of the new and unforeseen factors that arise in the course of an everexpanding evolution which might upset our calculations; new factors, industrial, social, moral, religious; new physical discoveries, like steam or electricity, that might revolutionize industry; new moral or religious forces that might revolutionize manners, and