party made up of persons in whom the habit of thought is relatively marked, (4) a set of measures and policies in regard to social questions. Still other shades of meaning and combinations of ideas appear, but through all this variety runs a connecting thought. I believe the central and essential definition of socialism to be of the character of the first of these four. Socialism as an abstract principle is reliance on the associative qualities of human nature for the motives of action in social affairs.

An ideal solution of a terminological problem is attained when a central thought is reached, around which all the other senses can be grouped and which invests each of the subordinate members with its true significance as parts of a related group. It is this more fundamental and therefore more enduring definition, I take it, that we as social students should now seek, rather than any more accidental and temporarily conspicuous meaning of the term socialism.

Assuming a common understanding as to the principles of scientific terminology, we may put our question thus: how can these principles be most effectively applied to the definition of socialism, a thought of great complexity, a word of manifold usage? We may test the definition of socialism with reference to its etymology, its history, and its competitors for favor.

The etymology of socialism is very simple and apparent. Socialism clearly is related to social in exactly the same way that individualism is related to individual. The two are indispensable counterparts in our vocabulary, just as are idealism and materialism in philosophy, or as idealism and realism in art. Back of, and fundamental in, the terms is the thought of the motives to action upon which we rely, or to which we look, in bringing about a result felt to be good. We may at once eliminate from consideration any definition that implies that socialism is love of fellow man, while individualism is its converse, a self-seeking with intent to injure. That begs the whole question involved and many other questions. A most unselfish person may, in the particular situation, be individualisticly inclined, believing that a mistake may be made in social engineering by miscalculating the tensile strength of our social materials, that is, by assuming a capacity for self-sacrifice far in excess of reality. One is individualistic whenever one protests against underestimating the innate, universal motives of self-interest as making up a part, at least, of human nature. One is socialistic, on the other hand,

whenever one warns against the fallacy of assuming that the socially educated and disciplined human nature, as contrasted with innate faculty, is fixed in quality from age to age, or is incapable of development by training, by exercise, and by the cultivation of new standards of morality.

Between the two concepts are divided all the motives of social conduct, those proceeding from the fundamental instinct of selfpreservation, and those proceeding from the little less fundamental and ancient self-forgetful instincts of parenthood, sex idealism, duty and loyalty to fellows.

The appeal to the history of the word socialism will hardly support the exclusive claim of any one definition. I take it that the word was first applied in the early nineteenth century to the utopian ideas of such men as Fourier, Cabet, etc., and then to the community experiments their disciples attempted. As late as 1870 appeared Noyes' book with a title in this sense, "A history of American socialisms." Marx and Engels condemned this kind of socialism and were careful to call their own idea communism, and these two words, socialism and communism, somehow between 1850 and about 1880 pretty nearly changed places and meanings. Yet throughout Continental Europe the change is far from complete or exact. Communism as Marx used the term, is known in Germany by his followers and others, less as socialism than as social-democracy. The term socialism has been and is still applied with varying adjectives to very different groups of people and tendencies of thought, such as Christian socialism, Catholic socialism, socialism of the chair, state socialism, etc. The only definition of socialism that unites consistently and logically these various historical meanings is the one here suggested.

Let us compare our definition with its main competitors for favor, of which there evidently are two: (a) socialism as designating a particular political party; (b) socialism as designating a particular political program or goal.

(a) Just now in America a political party is attempting, as appears in one of the definitions quoted by Mr. Martin, to appropriate the terms socialist and socialism. It hardly needs argument to show that the designation of a political party by the name of a general political principle gives necessarily a temporary, superficial, inaccurate meaning, unsuited to scientific purposes. Party names are chosen because of their sentimental ap

peal, their vote-getting power, their emphasis of a passing political situation. The Democratic party, the Republican party (democracy, republicanism), who thinks of treating these words as used in a fundamental sense? It is a subject of jest that a partisan Democrat may be a plutocrat, an aristocrat, an oligarch, or even a socialist at heart. Lincoln, the greatest of Republicans in the partisan sense, was, in the deeper sense, the best democrat our land has known in public life. It would indeed be a misfortune if the word socialism, which so clearly is needed in the family group of terms along with republicanism, democracy, individualism, etc., as general principles, should be perverted to any less fundamental meaning. The attempt to lend a greater definiteness by limiting the word socialism to the political party dominated by the intellectual disciples of Marx, would be peculiarly unfortunate just at this time, when the dissent from the Marxian economic value-theory and materialistic philosophy is daily growing in the ranks of social-democracy. That party should be described as radical socialism, or Marxian socialism, or political socialism, according to the varying emphasis.

(b) The other widely favored competing definition is that of socialism as the ideal plan or program of political reform, by which all private property and competitive industry is to be abolished. I long held this definition and attempted to use it consistently, but the difficulties it creates are so many it would require a book to describe them. This definition is surely quite arbitrarily and artificially limited as compared with the etymology of the word socialism. It leaves quite without description and without any uniting term, the various historical forms. It is quite inapplicable to a large proportion of those persons who now call themselves and are by others called socialists-even to a very large proportion of the ten million voters of the Socialist party ticket throughout the world. The attempt to frame the definition in absolute terms is almost self-destructive, as appears clearly in this discussion.

Interwoven with the foregoing argument has been the suggestion of the test of our definition by the two great canons of terminology, expediency and economy. Our scientific definition must be in accord with ordinary usage so far as possible, but it is impossible to make it accord with all usage, for usage is multifarious and inconsistent. We must choose the central fundamental thought, that which takes account of the various specific forms of definition.

We must choose that social concept which in a changing society has in it enough elasticity and vitality to be capable of accommodation to and growth in changing conditions. We must if possible choose a meaning that is logically and conveniently related to other fundamental terms in the language. All these tests are met by this, and by no other definition proposed. It answers all the questions put in the opening paper. Are you in your attitude toward this or that proposal a socialist or an individualist? Are the present changes in public opinion in a socialistic or in an individualistic direction? These and many other uses of the term may and must be made every day. To adopt a narrow and partisan definition is to leave a notable gap in our vocabulary of social discussion. Socialism is a large and significant term. Let us free it from petty prejudices and temporary misconceptions and fit it for a larger social usefulness.

T. N. CARVER: On a certain page in Kidd's "Social Evolution" there is a collection of definitions of religion. There seems to be no uniformity among them until one discovers that the definitions fall into two general classes: first, those which try to define religion as it actually exists as an objective fact in the world; the other includes those which try to define religion as the author thinks it ought to be—that is, an ideal religion, or a pure religion. Any collection of definitions of socialism will fall into the same two classes. The first will include those which describe socialism after finding what socialists are actually advocating in their talks to one another. A definition of this kind will describe socialism as it actually exists as a working force in our political life. Another class of definitions will include those which socialists give us when they are trying to make it seem attractive to economists and other people.

There is a great difference between socialism as it is preached to the working classes, or as it is found in the socialistic journals which appeal to the working classes, and the socialism which is defined before an academic or scientific body such as this. Any one who will take the trouble to read the propagandist literature of socialism will find that nine out of every ten, or possibly ninetynine out of every hundred, books, articles, or speeches propose nothing short of complete common, or public, or government ownership of all means of production. They do not mince mat

ters; they propose the whole program, not necessarily to be carried out instantly or all at once, but they leave no doubt that sooner or later, at once or gradually as the case may be, nothing short of complete public ownership of all capital is to be secured.

Again, their economic theories would compel them to go to this end, even though they deny that they are proposing such a scheme as a practical measure. Any one who denies that interest is earned, or contends that all interest is the result of exploitation, could not stop short of that complete program. It would be illogical to take away some capital and leave other capital in the hands of private owners who would continue to receive interest. Of course there might be some very minute forms of capital which it would not pay the government to bother with. Jackknives, lawn mowers, and the like, might be left in the hands of private owners, not because they have any right to them or to the service which such tools render, but merely because they are too small and insignificant for the government to bother with. There would probably be less loss to allow this much exploitation than to go to the expense and trouble of handling such things by government authority.

Therefore, it seems to me that socialism is a pretty definite program, and not a mere tendency, nor a frame of mind, nor an attitude toward things in general. The term socialism is one of those exclusive terms, like vegetarianism. One is not a vegetarian by reason of the fact that he eats vegetables; he is a vegetarian only when he refuses to eat anything else. One is not a socialist by reason of the fact that he believes in some forms of government enterprise, such as schools and the post office; he is a socialist only when he believes in nothing else but government enterprise. I may not even be said to be tending toward vegetarianism when I pass up my plate for more potatoes; I am merely proposing to eat vegetables. Nor is the state tending toward socialism when it proposes some new form of public enterprise, which under the conditions of time and place seems to call for government enterprise. Nor is the physician inconsistent who denounces vegetarianism and at the same time prescribes for some patient a little less meat and a little more vegetable food. In the same way it would be improper to accuse a statesman of inconsistency merely because he one day denounces socialism and the next day approves the government's doing something new.