that is to say, Capitalism-is based on what it holds to be the rights of private ownership, and, when Communism would make a state that would be nothing but a tremendous industrial corporation, Capitalism sharply separates government from industry and insists upon the state being a purely political entity.

To both of these theories Socialism finds itself opposed. Its opposition to Capitalism will be made clear in a succeeding chapter; although the nature of that opposition is not generally understood, its existence is nowhere doubted, and we are now concerned only with the differentiation between Socialism and the three things with which Socialism is most frequently confused.

Communism, then, demands that all men shall share and share alike; Socialism that each man shall receive in accordance with what he gives. In the Socialist's view, under society as at present organized, A owns the tools; B has the necessity to use the tools, and A pays B wages for the time B spends in working with the tools, A meanwhile keeping the article that B produced with A's tools and selling this article for a price which will reimburse A for the wages paid B and for the permission

given B to use the tools and still leave a profit that A puts into his own purse.

Now, says the Socialist, between the ownership of those tools in the first instance and the use of those tools in the second, something was produced that could be sold for more money -was of more value-than A the owner expended. That something, that surplus value, the Socialist contends, was created not by A, the owner of the tools-he was paid for his ownership out of the primary profit—but by B, who used the tools, and the profit therefore should not go to A, but to B. The Socialist grants that A may be rewarded for his ownership and for the opportunity provided B, but he maintains that B should be rewarded for his time and should receive that "surplus value" which he has created. This is the Socialistic doctrine of "the surplus value," enunciated by Karl Marx, and, when this is understood, it will be seen that Dr. Guthrie, going a step farther, has some foundation for his opinion when he says:

"Based on the Marxian formula, socialism demands, not that all shall share and share alike, but that all shall share according to sacrifice; that is, that the laborer shall get the entire product of his labor. Socialism, then,

.

differs from communism in that it rests its claims upon the merits of labor, falls back to the ethics of product. . . . Communism rests its claim upon the wants of its clientage and hence has a philanthropic and not an economic basis."

(3) Having thus seen that Socialism is neither the Anarchism nor yet the Communism. which it is so often supposed to be, there remains to be inquired into the assertion that it is Paternalism.

As applied by critics of Socialism, this term, Paternalism, means simply an absolute rule by a bureaucracy; "a scheme," as we defined it a moment ago, "for the absolute centralization of government, with a maze of legislation that would control practically all the activities of life and stamp out the individual putting an end to effort and placing a premium upon pauperism." Under its régime the home would disappear, mankind would be housed in dormitories, the men and women known, perhaps, by numbers, the ideal of the family reduced to zero, and each citizen confined to the performance of an allotted narrow task in such manner as to be no more than a small part of a great machine.

This is no overstatement of the view in

question.

Many critics have gone farther, and a few romancers-honestly believing themselves to be Socialists, though they were practically unacquainted with the political economy of Socialism-have been not far behind.

Standing as he does for governmental centralization, the Socialist protests that centralization is in no wise incompatible with a society which grants the largest possible degree of liberty and opportunity for individual development. He argues that each citizen has a right to such development, so long as that development does not infringe upon the similar right of another citizen; but that when such an infringement proceeds, the right cannot proceed.

Thus, a man has a right, according to the Socialist, to stop one sort of work and take up another; but he has no right willingly to cease all work and tax society for his support. Thus, too, a man may successfully protest against compulsory vaccination, so long as the other men in his town are not-or believe that they are not endangered thereby; but if the many become convinced that a scourge of smallpox may be prevented by general compulsory vaccination, then the protestant must succumb and the personal liberty of the one

make way for the personal liberty of the many.

Men, the Socialist continues, are of a general likeness in the essentials of human life, but of a general diversity in almost everything else. The problem of government is, therefore, to establish a synthesis between personal and social liberty, to give equal chances for individual development, while enforcing upon each individual equal obligations to all other individuals. Some of the details of the Socialistic scheme to effect this end will be considered in a later chapter; the general theory is here stated to show that the Socialist discards Paternalism.

The three popular misconceptions of Socialism are thus sufficiently cleared away to leave us free to proceed with our exposition:

(1) Socialism is not Anarchism, because Socialism demands not less government of all kinds, which Anarchism wants, but a great deal more government of the democratic kind, which Anarchism abhors.

(2) Socialism is not Communism, because Communism demands that all men share and share alike, whereas Socialism demands that each man receive in accordance with