s ever greater as civilization advances--and socialism
is merely the formal statement of this ultimate social fact.[252]

There is a divinity that hedges certain words. A sacred terror warns the
profane off them as off something that might blast the beholder's sight.
In fact it is so, and even a clear-sighted person may be blinded by such
a word. Of these words none is more typical than the word "socialism."
Not so very long ago a prominent public man, of high intelligence, but
evidently susceptible to the terror-striking influence of words, went to
Glasgow to deliver an address on Social Reform. He warned his hearers
against Socialism, and told them that, though so much talked about, it
had not made one inch of progress; of practical Socialism or
Collectivism there were no signs at all. Yet, as some of his hearers
pointed out, he gave his address in a municipally owned hall,
illuminated by municipal lights, to an audience which had largely
arrived in municipal tramcars travelling through streets owned,
maintained, and guarded by the municipality. This audience was largely
educated in State schools, in which their children nowadays can receive
not only free education and free books, but, if necessary, free food and
free medical inspection and treatment. Moreover, the members of this
same audience thus assured of the non-existence of Socialism, are
entitled to free treatment in the municipal hospital, should an
infective disease overtake them; the municipality provides them freely
with concerts and picture galleries, golf courses and swimming ponds;
and in old age, finally, if duly qualified, they receive a State
pension. Now all these measures are socialistic, and Socialism is
nothing more or less than a complicated web of such measures; the
socialistic State, as some have put it, is simply a great national
co-operative association of which the Government is the board of
managers.

It is said by some who disclaim any tendency to Socialism, that what
they desire is not the State-ownership of the means of production, but
State-regulation. Let the State, in the interests of the community, keep
a firm control over the individualistic exploitation of capital, let it
tax capital as far as may be desirable in the interests of the
community. But beyond this, capital, as well as land, is sacred. The
distinction thus assumed is not, however, valid. The very people who
make this distinction are often enthusiastic advocates of an