former are constantly saying, in effect, "Increase the national dividend, and all will be well"; the latter, "The national dividend is fairly sufficient were it but divided equitably." The former are for the most part of the individualistic, the latter of the socialistic type.
As an instance of the former point of view, I may cite the words of Mr. A. J. Balfour, who, at a Conference of the National Union of Conservative Associations held at Sunderland on 14th November, 1894, said: "Those who represented society as if it consisted of two sections disputing over their share of the general produce were utterly mistaken as to the real bearing of the great social problem. We had to consider that the produce of the country was not a fixed quantity, of which, if the employers got more, the employed would get less, or if the employed got more, the employers would get less. The real question for the working-classes of this country was not primarily or fundamentally a question of division: it was a question of production." As an instance of the second point of view, take the following: "The absurdity of the notion of raising the poor without, to a corresponding degree, depressing the rich will be obvious."—"Principles of Socialism made plain," by Frank F airman (William Reeves, 83 Charing Cross Road, W.C.), page 33.
I have already shown, and I hope to make this contention yet more clear, that there is a path along which sooner or later, both the Individualist and the Socialist must inevitably travel; for I have made it abundantly clear that on a small scale society may readily become more individualistic than now—if by Individualism is meant a society in which there is fuller and freer opportunity for its members to do and to produce what they
