not the important certainty. The important certainty is that wherever and whenever such an unbalanced condition is allowed to arise as that which exists in England today, a voting program similar to that which has been paraded in this country as the program of the British Labor Party is certain to be adopted. Though it lacks a single constructive feature, though it is made up exclusively of scraps of Marxian jargon, catch phrases, and shibboleths, nevertheless it is the kind of program which any class is likely to adopt in its own interest when it for the first time concludes that it can outvote other classes and control the state.

The fighting program. It is sometimes affirmed that the labor program in England is more "advanced" than that of the American laborers. By the same token the program of the Russian laborers is more "advanced" than that of the British. The disproportion of the wageworkers to other urban classes is also greater in Russia than in England, as it is in England than in the United States. That is to say, there are fewer technicians, business men, capitalists, and also smaller accumulations of productive capital and fewer productive establishments calling for men, in proportion to the number of men available to run them, in Russia than in England, and in England than in the United States. This disproportion puts the Russian laborers, particularly the great mass of ignorant and unskilled laborers, at a still greater disadvantage in bargaining, but gives them vastly greater strength in other ways.

Numbers give strength not only in voting but also in fighting. Fighting, provided victory is certain and overwhelming, is a shorter cut to what is wanted than voting. To be sure it may, like other short cuts, not work well in the long run, but it looks like a quicker method of getting possession of accumulated wealth than the voting program, as the voting program is quicker than the program of industry, thrift, and sound investing.

Where the numerical strength of the wageworkers is not overwhelming, fighting may prove expensive even though ultimate success looks pretty certain. Voting looks like a cheaper

program than killing. But where numerical strength is so overwhelming as to make victory in fighting not only certain but cheap, because of the absence of power of effective resistance on the part of other classes, the fighting program is pretty certain to be adopted, provided there is no moral restraint or economic wisdom to lead people to adopt a more constructive program.

It is useless to point out to a great mass of ignorant and unskilled labor that even though they have the power to take possession, with very little fighting, of the accumulated wealth of the country, still they would better not do it because, in the long run, they will lose more than they will gain by it. If they were capable of appreciating such arguments they would not be ignorant and unskilled laborers. Men are not ignorant and unskilled laborers in industry and at the same time farsighted statesmen in politics. They are just as ignorant and shortsighted with respect to public as with respect to private affairs. There is therefore no safeguard against the fighting program except the prevention of the development of a large class of ignorant and unskilled laborers. If such a class exists, there will be trouble; if it does not exist, there will not be any danger of a fighting labor program.

Therefore we may conclude that/whenever and wherever a nation becomes so unbalanced occupationally as Russia, the \fighting program is certain to be the dominant labor program! In short, we in this country can have any one of these four programs which we choose to have. If we balance things up none of the other programs will become dominant or dangerous. If things become slightly unbalanced some kind of collectivebargaining program is certain to grow out of the situation. If they become somewhat more unbalanced a voting program is certain to become the dominant program supported by the numerically superior class, whose numerical superiority makes it weak on the market but strong at the polls. If they become still more unbalanced the numerically superior class, finding itself hopelessly weak on the market but overwhelmingly strong in the use of physical force, will use its strength to take what it wants.

An authoritarian program. The most widespread of the various authoritarian movements is that which goes under the name of socialism. It has never received the support of a majority of the voters, or even a large minority, in any country; but it has a vigorous organization of propagandists in practically every country. The only real victories it has won have been those of physical force, where, as in Russia and, for a short time, as in Hungary, a violent minority cowed the majority into submission. Even the violent minority in Russia, when faced with the necessity of producing enough to feed and clothe the people, was forced to give up most of its socialism and return, in part at least, to private property, especially in land. Because of the activity of its advocates and the vigor of its propaganda, it is necessary to understand what socialism is and what its advocates are driving at.

"Socialism" and "communism" have shifted meanings. The term "socialism" has a variety of meanings, though there are certain elements common to every definition. During the last seventy-five years the meanings attached to "socialism" and "communism" have been shifted. That which is now known as socialism was formerly known as communism. Karl Marx, who is regarded as the great apostle of modern socialism, called himself a communist. On the other hand, "socialism" was applied to general schemes for social amelioration which did not involve any fundamental change in the organization of society. Communism, however, fell into disrepute, and its followers discarded the name and began calling themselves socialists. Since the World War socialism has, in turn, fallen into disrepute and communism is again the dominant form of revolutionary propaganda.

There is a tendency for partisans of any program or movement to define their program in the most favorable terms possible. This applies to socialists as well as to other propagandists. Sometimes this tendency leads to a definition of socialism which does not define, but which includes the opponents as well as the proponents of socialism. When it is said, for example, that socialism teaches the doctrine that only he who produces shall consume, it may be replied, "So also does individualism"--and practically every other ism that has anything to do with the production and distribution of wealth. When it is said that socialism teaches the doctrine of equality of opportunity it may be replied, "So also does individualism" -and all the other isms.

The difference between a socialist and a nonsocialist. In order to define socialism we must find something which will completely distinguish the socialist from the nonsocialist. The only definition that will do this is the following: A socialist is one who believes that the community, the public, or the government should own and operate the means of production, leaving to individuals the ownership of most articles of consumption. By the means of production are meant practically all that is

included under the names "land" and "capital,"-farms, factories, railroads, mercantile houses, and office buildings would all be included; under the program of socialism all these things would be owned and operated by the community, the public, or the government. This would mean that almost every individual would be in the employ of the government in one way or another. Since there would be no private enterprise, no one could start a farm, a factory, a store, or any business enterprise of his own. Since no one could start any such enterprise, no one could be employed by a private employer. Since no one could be either in his own employ or in the employ of any private organization, everyone who expected an income would have to be in the employ of the government.

There is some difference of opinion among socialists as to how far this principle of government ownership and operation should extend. Some profess to be willing to stop with trusts and monopolies. This, however, is populism rather than socialism. It is based not on a theory of capital but on a theory of monopoly. Many people who favor the private ownership of capital are opposed to monopoly and believe that the best way to curb monopoly is to turn all monopolistic enterprises over to the state. Such a person might utterly reject all socialistic theories respecting capital. Moreover, every thoroughgoing socialist really bases his conclusions on his theory of capital. The work of Karl Marx, on "Capital," has been called the Bible of the modern socialist. This book pays very little attention to the question of monopoly; it consists almost entirely of an attack upon capital and capitalistic production. From Marx's point of view it is not monopolized capital, but capital as such, that gives its owner the power to exploit and defraud other people. The capital belonging to a farmer as well as that belonging to a great trust, to a small manufacturer as well as to a large manufacturer, to the driver of a jitney bus as well as to a streetcar company, is to be owned and operated by the public.

Socialism is not populism. On the other hand, the slogan "Let the nation own the trusts" has nothing to do with capital