that organized in 1848 by Mr. John H. Noyes deserves mention. The community was started in Vermont, but soon moved to Oneida, New York, where it existed under a communistic plan until 1879, when its members abandoned communism and organized as a joint-stock company under the name of the Oneida Community.

Another communistic experiment that attracted wide attention was organized by Mr. Robert Owen at New Harmony, Indiana. Owen came to this country from England in 1822. He had wealth, enthusiasm, and ability. If communism were ever to succeed this was its opportunity. It failed after two years.

Socialism.-Socialism and anarchism have little in common. The socialist would increase authority, while the anarchist would abolish it. The anarchist considers socialism as "state capitalism," and he is opposed to all capitalism.

There are many forms of socialism, but they all agree in certain fundamentals. These are the common ownership and operation of the chief material means of production. Under a socialistic state most persons would be employed by the government, would be paid wages, not necessarily equal, and could spend them as they wished, except that they could not establish factories or other agencies for the production of wealth. Most socialists would not object to such small matters as a private person selling a part of the products of a garden, selling a few eggs or doing odd jobs in his spare time. Some socialists would prohibit all private production of utilities, but the tendency among socialists is to consider small matters as of no consequence. Mr. John Spargo, an American socialist,

describes the program of the most moderate socialists, as follows: "The new society must include at least the following: (1) Ownership of all natural resources, such as land, mines, forests, oil-wells, and so on; (2) operation of all the means of transportation and communication, other than those of purely personal service; (3) operation of all industrial production involving large capital and associated labor, except when carried on by voluntary, democratic co-operation; (4) organization of all labor essential to the public service, such as the building of schools, hospitals, docks, bridges, sewers, and the like; the construction of all the machinery and plants requisite to the social production and distribution, and of all things necessary for the maintenance of those engaged in such public service as the national defense, and all who are the wards of the State; (5) a monopoly of the monetary and credit functions, including coinage, mortgaging, and the extension of credit to private enterprise. With these economic activities undertaken by the State, a pure democracy differing vitally from all the class-dominated states of history, private enterprise would by no means be excluded, but limited to an extent making the exploitation of public interests and needs for private gain impossible." Most socialists object to Spargo's program as leaving too much to private initiative.

Arguments for Socialism Examined.-The method of socialists is to attack the present industrial order. They claim that "nine-tenths of the wealth of the nation is controlled by one-tenth of the people" and that every year shows a greater concentration of ownership of wealth. Such statements have frequently been made, but not

proved. The facts, as disclosed by the income-tax returns of 1918, are different. The returns of net income show that people with incomes of $5,000 or less received 59 per cent of the total incomes reported, and those whose incomes were over $5,000 a year received 41 per cent. It might therefore seem that though only 10.83 per cent of those reporting had incomes of over $5,000 their total incomes were 41 per cent of the net incomes reported. However, this is not the whole story. The total net incomes reported amounted to less than $16,000,000,ooo and this 'is certainly less than the annual income produced by the industries of the United States. The difference between the amounts reported and the actual product of all industry is explained by the fact that income taxes were paid by only 4,425,114 persons, or about I in 22 of the population. A large number of people whose income was small were exempted from making returns and many others made no returns. It is easier for a person of small income to escape the income tax than for a person of large income. With these facts taken into consideration, it is estimated that 89 per cent of the total income goes to those whose incomes are less than $5,000. This does not show a great concentration in the ownership of wealth. So far as the laboring classes are concerned, wages both as measured in money and in purchasing power have steadily increased in the last 40 years, a fact which the socialists cannot deny.

The socialists also claim that labor does not get the full product of its toil but is the victim of exploitation. For example, if a laborer produces with the aid of a machine articles which sell for $500 and the laborer receives in

wages $300 the socialists say he is robbed of $200. The owner of the machine, they say, should be the people. This does not prove that the laborer would himself receive more under socialism, and he might get less. The socialist forgets that saving was necessary to produce the machine, that the inventor and maker of the machine are entitled to their rewards, and that the manager of the industry and many others must have some consideration. Moreover, if a dozen men are working to produce one article, who can tell what part of the value of the article is produced by any one man? Socialists talk about distributive justice, but fail to agree among themselves as to what is justice.

Another criticism of the present industrial order is concerned with the evils of competition. Under the competitive system there is much waste. For example, a half dozen milk wagons go over a route which might be served by one. Competition has more serious evils than waste. It causes men to adulterate food, use child labor, and sometimes oppress workmen. The standard of the worst, it is alleged, tends to become the standard of all employers.

There are many faults in the present industrial system, but legislation can remedy most of them. Will socialism improve matters? Some industries might be organized under the socialistic plan, but not the most important of all American industries, that of farming. The competitive system gives an incentive to the farmer to rise early and work late and he does not consider himself a victim of exploitation. Would socialism furnish an incentive equal to self-interest? Most people think not. His income would not depend upon his own work. His work being isolated could not be supervised unless there should be an

inspector for each farm and a corps of inspectors for the inspectors. The endeavor to socialize the farms of Russia failed. There is every reason to suppose that such attempts will always fail.

A favorite argument of the socialist is that under the present industrial régime many people have no chance. Wealth and poverty depend upon the accident of birth. Some start life with great advantages; others have little or no chance of success. There is truth in this statement, but less truth than ever before. Child labor is being abolished, parks and playgrounds give a better life for the young, tenement-house reform has done much to benefit housing conditions, intoxicating liquors will soon be unobtainable for beverage purposes, every child can now obtain an education, and almost every boy or girl who really so wishes may obtain a college education. Socialists picture the socialistic state in too bright colors and see only the gloom in the present. America is still the land of opportunity and was never more so than to-day.

Summary. In this chapter we have examined three radical programs for economic changes. Henry George was not a socialist. He believed in the present industrial system, but thought it needed the single tax to make it perfect. His chief arguments are: (1) Rent is an unearned income; (2) taxing land to its full rental value would prevent withholding land from use for speculative purposes; (3) by abolishing all other taxes industry would be promoted. We have seen that rent is not the only "unearned increment" and hence it would be unfair to take all of the rent of land and not tax other unearned incomes. Moreover, much of the value of rural land has