give effect to the emulative rather than the competitive element is co-operation; and this is a word which signifies a great Christian principle. We have seen that on this principle the Church of Christ is built up. That we are members one of another, that each member is bound to care for the others, that the social organism is in its entirety to minister to every constituent, and that every constituent is to supply vital force to the organism, are postulates of Christianity. There is, therefore, a welcome waiting for the extension of the idea of co-operation—an idea with which is connected the harmonious development of happy and healthy life. Social co-operation has two sides-production and distribution. The data relating to the one side are not sufficient to warrant generalisations; for, whilst experiments-some successful and some unsuccessful—have been made, they have been as yet on a very limited scale. But, in distribution, the success has been conspicuous. In 1862, the sales of co-operative societies in the United Kingdom did not amount to two and a half millions sterling; in 1900, they amounted to more than seventy-seven millions sterling, and the profits, by which nearly two millions of members were benefited, were between eight and nine Co-operative Societies. 257 millions sterling.1 Here there is "an automatic system of self-help" which commends itself to the favour of all who desire to uplift the poor and oppressed. Let it be remembered that the results recorded have been accomplished by voluntary effort. The societies have won their victory by competition, by the good work they have done, by the good commodities which they have sold, by the steady growth of confidence in their objects and in their management. Their expansion illustrates the possibilities of a vigorous social collectivism, which, without attempting to repress competition, offers a higher mark and level, and, through the development of opinion 1 The report submitted to the Co-operative Congress at Middleborough on May 27 is most satisfactory, as is evident from the figures presented. In 1899 the number of members in Great Britain and Ireland was 1,729,976; in 1900 it was 1,827,653. In the 'Spectator' of June 1 it is said: "A satisfactory state of affairs prevails in the productive societies, though room for expansion exists in this department. The report on co-operative agriculture is less satisfactory, as, from various causes, the agriculturists of the country seem to be much slower to recognise the benefits of cooperative action than are those in Ireland. The figures with regard to co-operative credit banks, again, show that Ireland leads the way with a membership of 2943 and a capital of £5679, as against a membership of 1330 and a capital of £4859 for England and Scotland combined. It is stated, however, that the benefits of these banks, the members of which are working men and women of various occupations, are now being more and more appreciated." R in regard to it, and of facilities for realising it, restrains the excesses of the competing spirit within the channels of a healthy energy. But socialism looks to co-operation, not as a rule voluntarily accepted and supported by the choice of free men, but as the compulsory method by which all labour is to be done, and all gain for the State and the individual unit is to be reaped. It is the agency of the one capitalist, the State, in all kinds of production - mills, factories, foundries, ironworks, coal-mines, &c. All instruments, tools, machinery, are to be the property of the collective capitalist, which shall divide to every man according as he labours. None are to compete, all are to serve. are to be waged; for, wages imply contracts for labour, and such contracts are to be abolished. Each is to have what is allotted to him as the None value of his produce. "Compulsory minima" may be supplemented by "honorific inducements," but any wealth granted must be spent only on consumable things. Is it too much to affirm that the scheme carried consistently out to its utmost limits is impossible? If it were possible, the experience of great systems which are monopolies suggests that there would be a lack in initiative, in readiness to adopt improvements involving departures from rules and ways that have been fixed. To all State action a "circumlocution office" is attached, and, in every department, workers accustomed to arrangements with which they are familiar might interpose obstacles to new modes and machineries; and would they not have a right to do so? How are social labours and values to be estimated? Dr Schäffle pertinently asks, "Whether the common wealth of the socialists would be able to cope with the enormous socialistic book-keeping, and to estimate correctly heterogeneous labour according to socialistic units of labour-time?" And, after all, a civilisation, such as that of the twentieth century, has a wealth and a variety of which socialism takes little account, and which a proletariat State, with a vulture-like eye to material good, might omit from its purview, "reducing the colours of life in number and robbing them of their vividness." It is said that new forces will be called out and new potencies will be operative. Some, in their scepticism, may be disposed to return Hotspur's answer to the boast of Glendower "I can call spirits from the vasty deep.' But will they come when you do call for them?'" 1 Quintessence, p. 70. 260 CHAPTER XII. MORAL AND RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF SOCIALISM. THE criticism to which the previous chapter was devoted indicates the grounds on which assent is withheld from the economic positions of socialism. The judgment condemns these as unsound and impracticable, even though the mind is sympathetic with the endeavour to elevate the permanent conditions of the toiling masses, and though it recognises many elements of truth in the ideal of society and of the State. But from the Christian standpoint the outlook is wider than that of economics. The contention of some is, that the question at issue should not be complicated by a reference to moral and religious interests, that the purview of socialism does not extend beyond the range of politics, and that only as a social-political system should it be considered and tested. This contention will not hold. The political and the ethical cannot be put asunder. Any and every constitution of |