the morrow of the upheaval. That, however, is not his method. He approaches Socialism as Hannibal crossed the Alps, and all he has to prove is that his theory is rational, that it is justified by modern tendencies which have not yet worked themselves out, that its criticisms on the existing condition of things are accurate and open out a practical way of social development. He can quite properly argue that the details must be settled by experience—the experimental method—and that it is vain to construct a complete social fabric theoretically, when the various elements which must enter into it will have to be made, tested and valued by the knowledge that will be gained whilst it is being built.
There are certain general considerations regarding these details which, however, may be profitably discussed with a view to ascertaining whether there are any fundamental grounds for the conclusion that the Socialist state must remain for ever a mere figment of the sentimental imagination.
1. Ability.
Let us consider first of all the objection that under Socialism the mechanism of production must remain fixed, that invention will be impossible, and that labour will not be put to more and more efficient use.
With this point in mind, Mr. Mallock—to whom I must refer somewhat frequently in this chapter, because he is the only writer in this country who has undertaken a systematic
