stance, in the presence of the highly vaunted individualism of Spencer.
To many it has seemed that the philosopher of Derby is the only ideological athlete of the second half of the nineteenth century who is worthy to compete with the prophets of collectivism. His name has become the bulwark of the bourgeoisie. His critique of the state has provided material for propagandist pamphlets. His evolutionary formula has been wielded against the dogmas of equality and historical materialism. In the shadow of his synthesis conservatives have felt themselves secure. The Man versus the State has been the delight of laissez-faire politicians. His Data of Ethics has lulled the hearts of those whose egotism is not yet dead.
What cries of protest went up when Ferri, moved by a cowardly mania for finding allies and supports for socialism, tried to drag Spencer behind the triumphal chariot of collectivism!
Yet no one has seriously raised the question whether Spencer could rightly be called an individualist. No one has sought to discover whether the spirit of Spencer's philosophy is in accord with our most immediate purposes. We have read the chapters in which he justifies egotism and inveighs against the domination of the state, and we have read no further. In so doing, we have done ill.
