by international competition, must join hands to effect their own emancipation.

The attempt to carry on an international organisation failed, as we have seen; but the appeal was not lost. In one country after another the propaganda took root and spread, and by degrees the working classes began to accept it. Germany led the way, and the trade unions, which developed rather quickly there in the sixties, became an important agency. But the claim constantly made on behalf of the Marxian revival of Socialism that it was a spontaneous Labour movement, and therefore distinguished as such from the earlier phase, is quite untenable. The leading spirits in the second period-Marx, Engels, Lassalle and Liebknecht-no more belonged to the proletariate or the working classes than the leaders in the first period. They appealed to Labour and to some extent realised the importance of organising it. And so did the earliest Socialists in England. The notion that the latter were all Utopians and engaged in promoting impracticable schemes and founding little model communities is an historical error due to insufficient research and the mistaken belief, repeated in numerous text-books, that Robert Owen represented the whole movement. We have already seen that the English intellectual school had got all the essential economics of the Marxian doctrine quite clear long before Marx, who took his arguments from them. They also appealed to the working classes to organise and emancipate themselves by throwing off the yoke of private Capitalism, and that by constitutional political action, wherein they were more modern than Marx. In 1831 a 'National Union of the Working Classes' was formed in London for this purpose with the motto 'Each for all and all for each;" members paid at first a penny and afterwards twopence a month. For some time it was very active; it had several branches and held weekly meetings. But it was not a spontaneous Labour movement in spite of its name; the organisers did not belong to the working classes, who responded indifferently to the agitation. They were not yet sufficiently used to organisation. That only came by the slow and painful growth of trade-unionism, which really was a spontaneous Labour movement. The great advantage possessed by the revival of Socialism in this

connexion was the more advanced stage of Labour organisation; it has climbed on the back of the trade unions. That is clear from the fact that it did not make any appreciable way with the working classes until tradeunionism was finally established and growing vigorously. The failure of the International shows that Socialism had little organising power of its own among them, and its subsequent growth in different countries on different lines shows where the organising power really lay. What the Marxian doctrine contributed was a common inspiration. International activity was only resumed after an interval of several years, and then it took the form of discussion at Congresses, which gathered together the several national units instead of organising them from a centre. These meetings, started in 1889, and subsequently continued at irregular intervals, are now held every three years under the name of the 'Red International.'

With regard to the third point mentioned above as characterising the modern movement-namely, its political character-the influence of Marx is less clear. His theory of the historical chain of events and of evolutionary change is more in keeping with constitutional than with violent action; but, for himself, he remained under the domination of the violently revolutionary ideas with which he had become saturated by passing through a revolutionary epoch at a very impressionable age, and he confidently looked forward to a catastrophic overthrow of the existing order. Hence his remark that he was not really a Marxian. The Communist Manifesto announced violent revolution in the plainest terms.

'Communists do not stoop to dissemble their opinions and their aims. They loudly proclaim that these aims cannot be attained without the violent overthrow of the whole existing social order. Let the ruling classes tremble at the thought of a communist revolution.'

Considering that this manifesto has been a sort of Koran to the Socialists, and is so to this day—especially to those who have never read it—the popular conception of Socialism as a violent menace to every existing institution is thoroughly justified. That is not the course the movement has pursued or is pursuing as a whole. The revolutionary element, represented by the Anarchists,

has been generally overshadowed by the constitutional parties representing Collectivism. Both appeal to Marx, and can find support in his inconsistent utterances, which cannot be reconciled. The truth is that he never thought out the future. He devoted himself to explaining the past and the present, and to proving that they lead inevitably to a certain future, but what that was and how it was to be attained he only intimated in general terms, leaving his successors to quarrel over it, which they have done ever since.

The generally constitutional character of present-day Socialism is sufficiently proved by the facts that it is represented in nearly all European countries by regular parliamentary parties, and that its strength is usually measured by the success of Socialist candidates at the polls or, more accurately, by the number of votes given them at General Elections. The following table is taken from the 'Socialist Annual' for 1910, published by the Social-democratic party in England. The accuracy of some of the figures is open to dispute; but it is sometimes difficult to estimate the number of votes cast for s particular party, and the position of individual members is sometimes doubtful. The table is given as representing the estimates of Socialists themselves.

PARLIAMENTARY STRENGTH OF SOCIALISM.

There have been three General Elections since this table was compiled-in the United Kingdom, France and

Spain. The net result has been to increase Socialist representation somewhat, but in England, or more correctly Great Britain, it has had rather a set-back. In France, the Unified or Collective Socialists, with about the same number of votes as at the previous election, gained twenty seats, and in Spain one Socialist Deputy was elected to the Cortes for the first time. In the United States the Socialists cast about half-a-million votes at the last Presidential election, and they have representatives in some State Legislatures.

It is impossible to estimate with numerical precision the real political strength of Socialism, because there are so many shades of opinion and no clear line of demarcation. The ambiguous relations between tradeunionists and Socialists in the British Labour party are one instance. In the French Chamber there are several more or less Socialistic parties-Socialist Radicals, Independent Socialists and Unified Socialists; and in some other countries similar ill-defined sections exist. But the broad fact emerges that Socialism has become a political force. It has reached that position quite recently and by rapid strides, practically within the last twenty years. Germany leads; the movement there is older, more deliberately and consistently political and more homogeneous than elsewhere. That lies in the character of the people, who are more accustomed to authority, discipline, and ordered action than any other. The theoretical character of the Marxian doctrine, which is a thoroughly German production, also appeals to them more; they understand it better and cling to it more steadily than the more independent or impulsive peoples of different race. Handed down in person, it has been a great bond of union. The Social-democratic party, which elected two members to the Reichstag in 1871, has managed to hold together, though not without difficulty, ever since. Its great accession of voting strength occurred between 1887 and 1903, when the number of seats secured rose at successive elections from eleven to eighty-one, and the votes from 760,000 to 3,000,000. The previous rate of progress was not maintained at the last election in 1907, when the votes only increased by 250,000 and the number of seats secured fell to forty-three.

Modern Socialism in France dates from 1876, when

M. Guesde returned from five years' exile full of the Marxian doctrine, which he has preached ever since. The parliamentary movement did not begin till 1885, and only reached substantial strength in 1893, when the various Socialist parties polled 440,000 votes and elected forty-three deputies; in 1889 they had seven. In 1906 the votes had risen to about 900,000 and the seats to fiftyfour. More lucky than the German Social Democrats, who at the last election lost heavily in seats on an increased aggregate poll, their French comrades, as already stated, gained twenty seats at the election this year with an increase of some 100,000 votes, and now number seventyfour. But on account of the numerous and kaleidoscopic changes in the composition of the French Socialist parties, caused by alternate dissensions and agreements, the figures of earlier and later years are not strictly comparable. In 1905 most of the warring sections came to terms, chiefly through the influence of M. Jaurès, an independent or moderate Socialist, and formed a united parti socialiste with a defined programme, which considerably simplified the situation; but there are still independent Socialist deputies, who represent a milder type. There is, however, no doubt that Socialism is a much stronger parliamentary force in France than in Germany, whatever the relative numbers may be; the general atmosphere of the Chamber is more favourable. Since 1899, when for the first time a professed Socialist became a Cabinet Minister in the person of M. Millerand, there have been Socialists in the Government; and last year, when M. Briand became Prime Minister, the chief office for the first time fell into their hands. The French Government now contains three nominal Socialists. They are all denounced, with the usual wealth of invective, as renegades, which is not the least instructive point in the situation. As soon as any Socialist secures a position of serious responsibility, whether he be a Burns or a Briand, he becomes a 'renegade.'

In Great Britain the revival came later. The first signs of it only date from 1881, when the Social Democratic Federation was founded, though without the word 'Social,' which was adopted in 1883. The inspiration was wholly German and Marxian. As a political movement Socialism did not make perceptible progress