nership of railways, mines, the tools of
production. The ideal socialistic state would be so organized, along
these lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he
produces, the non-producer nothing.

This principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous
associated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on
the fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into
conflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current
socialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as
such can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually
interpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on
a belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is
equal.

Any one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such
a belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of
biology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of
socialism?

Apparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made
up of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of
the intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they
too often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in
order to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will
naturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group
which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely
to.

Before criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider
some of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.

1. It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the
individual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of
socialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what
eugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern
eugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no
interference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own
inclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect
measures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable
methods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited
to grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal
liberty can not be applied without stultifying it.

It is indeed unfortunate that there are a few sincere advocates of