of opinion, at all fully representative, and during 1919 and 1920 there were numerous secessions from it, until it came to consist principally of the British Labour party, the German Social Democratic party (Majority Socialists), and the Socialist parties of a number of small countries such as Sweden, Poland, Belgium and Holland. A number of Socialist parties held aloof both from the Second and from the Third International, and these bodies in 1920 formed a provisional International "Working Union," of which the aim was the reconstitution at a later stage of a fully representative and inclusive Socialist International. This provisional body, sometimes known as the "Vienna Interna- tional," includes the British Independent Labour party, the Ger- man Independent Socialist party, the French and Swiss Socialist parties, and a number of others. The Italian Socialists were in 1921 unconnected with any of the three Internationals.
There can be no doubt that the division of opinion in the Socialist ranks which is reflected in these divisions in national and international organization is very profound. With the growth of parliamentary representation, the political Socialist parties of the various countries have been becoming steadily more moderate and constitutional in their outlook. But the Moscow revolution, accomplished by insurrectionary methods and by " proletarian " direct action, represented a challenge to the censtitutional political attitude of the more orthodox Socialist parties. Those which have rallied to the call of Moscow profess to be the only true inheritors of the Marxian tradition and the legitimate successors of the International Working Men's Association, or " First International," of 1864. It is still im- possible in 1921 to forecast the result of the conflicts between this section and the older Socialist parties; but it seems likely that the divisions which have come into existence will be to a con- siderable extent permanent, even if the ultimate point of cleav- age has not yet been discovered.
James Bonar on p. 301 of vol. 25 defines Socialism as "that policy or theory which aims at securing by the action of the cen- tral democratic authority a better distribution and, in due subor- dination thereunto, a better production of wealth than now pre- vails." It will be clear from what has been said above that this definition is certainly no longer adequate or correct in 1921, even if it could be regarded as adequate at the time at which it was made. It is as true now as then that all schools of Socialism are united in seeking a better distribution and also a better pro- duction of wealth; but it cannot be assumed that this is sought solely or even mainly "through the action of the central dem- ocratic authority," or that many Socialists would agree that any such body as a " central democratic body " exists in the com- munity as it is organized to-day. Any present-day definition of Socialism would certainly have to emphasize the fact that it seeks not merely a better distribution and production of wealth, but a fundamental reorganization in the whole system of organized Society, political as well as economic. At the time when Bonar wrote, Socialists, especially in Great Britain, were largely en- gaged in combating the still prevalent doctrines of laissez-faire politicians and economists, and in seeking to emphasize the necessity for a greater measure of collective regulation of the social and economic life of the' community. In Great Britain, more than elsewhere, many Socialists came to regard the politi- cal State, or machinery of government, as the principal instru- ment of this regulation, and to look forward to the transition to Socialism mainly through the nationalization, or transference to State ownership, of all vital industries and services, together with an extension of municipal ownership in the sphere of local public-utility services. This idea of the form of the transition to Socialism fitted in well with the stress which was laid, dur- ing the 'nineties and the earlier years of the 2oth century, upon political action. This period witnessed the formation, first of the Independent Labour party, and then in 190x3 of the Labour Representation Committee, which subsequently became the Labour party. It was also the period during which the Fabian Society, with its propaganda of political permeation, largely influenced British Socialism, and diverted it from the Marxism of its earlier development in' the 'eighties.
But from 1910 onwards new currents of opinion were increas- ingly affecting these accepted dogmas of Socialism, both in Great Britain and elsewhere. Important, in this connexion, is the rise of the Syndicalist movement in France, which was at its zenith in the earlier years of the 2oth century, and of the Social- ist Labour party and the Industrial Workers of the World in the United States of America. There were important differences between the standpoints of French Syndicalism, which was de- rived largely from the semi-Anarchist doctrines of Proudhon and his school, and American Industrial Unionism, based by Daniel De Leon and his followers upon the large-scale and " trustified"" American capitalist system. But they were alike in stressing rather the economic than the political character of the transi- tion to a Socialist system, and in demanding more aggressive action by the workers in the industrial field. In Great Britain and in other European countries these doctrines, although they were not accepted in their completeness, exercised a powerful influence, seen especially in Great Britain in the rise of the Guild Socialist movement after 1912 (see GUILD SOCIALISM).
Whereas Syndicalism and, in some of its forms, Industrial Unionism directly challenged the utility of Socialist political action and demanded an exclusive concentration upon the indus- trial field, the Guild Socialists never took up this attitude, but sought, without disparaging political action, to secure an intensi- fication of industrial activity, and in particular a change in the attitude of Socialists towards the problem of industrial control. Their influence in this direction has extended far beyond their own ranks, and it is not too much to say that the effect of the various movements possessing largely an industrial character Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, Guild Socialism, etc. has been to bring about a revolution in Socialist thinking on this question. It is no longer assumed by Socialists that nationaliza- tion is necessarily desirable, or that the transference of industry to the State, even if it be accomplished by a political victory of Socialists, furnishes an adequate solution of the industrial prob- lem. Most Socialists are agreed in desiring, in a greater or less degree, as an integral part of any Socialist system, the control of the administration of industry by the organized workers by hand and brain who are engaged in it.
Nor has this change in the attitude of Socialists towards the problem of industry been without its effect in other spheres of policy. As Socialism passed from its earlier revolutionary into its middle purely constitutional and political phase, it came gradually to be assumed that the realization of Socialism would involve only the capture of political power by the Socialist par- ties and the use of the existing machinery of Society modified perhaps in certain particulars, but remaining essentially the same for socialist instead of for individualist ends. There is now acute division of opinion on this question; but most Social- ists are far more ready than in 1910 to agree that the realization of Socialism would involve not a mere conquest of political power and the assumption of control over the machinery of government by the workers, but also a profound transformation in the ma- chinery of government itself. By Lenin and the Communists (see Lenin's The State and Revolution for the best statement of this point of view) the State is regarded as purely a " capitalist organ," the tool of a dominant class in Society. In the words of The Communist Manifesto, they regard the State as "an Executive Committee for administering the affairs of the whole governing class." Such an instrument, essentially coercive in its character, will in their view become unnecessary with the reali- zation of Sociah'sm. During the transitional period of " dictator- ship " the " proletariat " will indeed require an instrument fully as coercive as the capitalist State. But the Communist view of the existing machinery of the State cannot be adapted for this purpose, but must be destroyed and replaced by a " quasi-State " based definitely and exclusively upon the power of the workers themselves. Gradually, as the realization of Socialism comes nearer, they hold that this " quasi-State " will " wither away " and give place to a free organization of Society in which "government," which they understand to imply a system based on coercion, will be replaced by " administration." Even among those Socialists
