92 THE COMING OF SOCIALISM 



unanimous on one point. Both those who advocate and 

 those who resist the extension of the business functions 

 of a municipality or State consider that such extension can 

 be effected only by limiting the range of individual enter- 

 prise. It seems too obvious for discussion that the more 

 the organised community undertakes to possess, or control, 

 or do, the narrower the sphere of individual activity, 

 enterprise, and ownership. But, while Socialists and Indi- 

 vidualists agree as to the effects of the extension of the 

 communal powers, they differ as to their practical value. 

 The former welcome the extension on the ground that it 

 would limit the individual's opportunity for doing wrong ; 

 the latter oppose it on the ground that it must limit the 

 individual's opportunity for doing right. 



Public ownership of the means of production is advo- 

 cated, not merely or primarily because the community 

 would show greater enterprise, or be economically a more 

 efficient producer than the private person, but because it 

 seems to be the only means within our power of avoiding 

 the manifold evils which spring from the cupidity that 

 comes of irresponsible private ownership. The word 

 " State," we are told, has taken to itself new connotations 

 "the State idea has changed its content. Whatever 

 State control may have meant fifty years ago> it never 

 meant hostility to private property as such. Now, for 

 us, and for as far ahead as we can see, it means this and 

 little else." x 



Public ownership is resisted on the same ground. The 

 individualist insists, sometimes wrongly and sometimes 

 rightly, that communal production is wasteful and eco- 

 nomically inefficient. But his real objection to it does 



1 Fabian Essays, p. 208. 



