628 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G (l.). 



with the desirability of such interference where it is not absolutely 

 necessary. The strength of the modern sociahstic movement does not 

 depend upon any superiority of collective ownership over individual 

 fer se. This may be a demonstrable fact, but it is to individual owner- 

 ship of capital under certain conditions — which are the inevitable 

 concomitants of modern industrialism, and which are becoming every 

 day more and more intensified — that the bulk of the people object. 

 No doubt a number of those who favor collectivism hold the opinion 

 that there is a virtue in what is known as socialism that makes it pre- 

 ferable to individualism under all circumstances. But the majority 

 do not share such an opinion. 



The people see on every side evidences of the enormous aggrega- 

 tion of capital in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. They 

 see the lands of the country in the hands of a few. They see that fair 

 competition against such persons is out of the question, and that com- 

 petition of any kind is possible only under terms which these few 

 dictate. They see that, while extolling the virtues of competition to 

 the skies, the great capitalists have, after ruthlessly exterminating 

 those rivals with whom they could not come to terms, or with whom 

 they did not desire to do so, abandoned competition and adopted co- 

 operation. If the field in which these combines operated was small, the 

 problem, though important, would not be vital. But over almost the 

 whole sphere of production these new conditions have displaced, or are 

 rapidly displacing, the old. The question is not whether free competi- 

 tion makes better citizens than co-operation, for competition does not 

 exist wherever industrial methods have most highly developed. In 

 America, where the most efficient methods of production have been 

 adopted, at least one-third of the whole community are engaged in 

 industries in which there is no competition amongst the employers. 



The State, that is to say, the people, interfere under these circum- 

 stances for exactly the same reasons that actuated them in putting 

 down piracy or garotting, or coining, or sweating, or in taking over the 

 control of prisons, asylums, hospitals, and the care of the aged. 



So much for the facts and general principles, and now a word or 

 two as to the extent to which this interference should go, and its efEects 

 upon individual national character. 



First, as to the extent of the interference. This will depend very 

 largely upon the rate of development of industrial methods. 



The State will consider the advisableness of taking over an in- 

 dustry, or group of industries, only when it has reached a stage where 

 free competition is no longer possible, and when the carrying on of the 

 industry by a few individuals exercising an actual or virtual monopoly 

 is incompatible with the welfare of the employes who would have but 

 one employer to whom they could sell their labor, and of the general 

 public, to whom there would be but one seller of any particular com- 

 modity. I assume that, unless these conditions were present, the State 

 would not take over the industry itself, although it might, of course, 

 attempt to regulate it by suitable legislation. Other factors will, no 

 doubt, be taken into consideration, but those conditions I have men- 

 tioned may be regarded as conditions precedent. 



