ls of the
leaders. More are opportunists, snatching every opportunity in
legislation, in decision of courts, and in executive power, to apply their
methods.

Under the name of "collectivism" appeals are made to the multitude to
combine their energies under leadership: first, to overcome present
restraints; and then to secure combined action in all modes of production
and consumption. "Nationalism" is more familiar to our thought in the
United States, as embracing the aim of a somewhat noisy party to bring
about the compulsory organization of all industries under the control of
the nation, even to placing all property and all methods of consumption
under an official despotism.

Few recognize the actual logic of their views as compelling complete
subjection of every individual to others' judgment, and fewer still have
any idea of the official machinery needed for such control. The great
majority are satisfied in seeing evils which might be cured by greater
social accord, expecting at once to vote into existence the necessary
machinery. Most of these are misled into considering wealth and its uses
to be the chief elements of welfare. They forget that wealth is only a
means of accomplishing one's purposes toward his fellows and himself. The
greed of power and position and praise are far stronger as evil motives
than greed of wealth. If wealth were distributed by omniscient wisdom and
power according to the maxim of Louis Blanc, the higher welfare would
still be as far away as ever, unless the same omniscience should control
all actions. Such control by outward force would banish the very idea of
virtue, the highest of all welfare.

It is easy to see that every form of socialism, in practical methods,
involves a leveling process inconsistent with human nature and its
surroundings. Equality of environments is possible only by reducing all to
the lowest condition. Equality of aspirations reduces all toward the most
brutal of the race. Even equality of efficiency reduces all to the power
of the least efficient. So the whole range of method, assuming equality of
wealth as important to welfare, lowers the welfare of the whole by
destroying the best abilities and the best capacities for enjoyment in
order to prevent inequality.

And yet it has not been proved that equality in any of these particulars
is desirable. It is equally beyond proof that actual equality is possible.
The most absolute communism implies the greatest ineq