a kaleidoscopic jumble, quite bewildering. The head lilac, or pink, or grey with a black crown, combined with under tailcoverts white and green, yellow, brown, or pink, rest of under parts green, yellow, white, and the upper parts varying between green, grey and yellow. And yet, by paying attention to one part at a time, it is possible so to arrange the species as to show the drift of these changes; for instance, changes from green through yellow towards red; pink or red instead of lilac; an unmistakable tendency of the under parts to become white, beginning perhaps with a grey wash or with whitish tips to the green feathers, until such a strikingly handsome species as P. jambu is produced; pure white below, with a pink blush on the lower neck and chest; the whole head deep pink-red, all the rest of the upper parts pure green and the under tailcoverts rich cinnamon-brown. Just as with the Parrots, there are among these pigeons some with an ancestral humble dress, others with an abundance of colours with jarring, even vulgar, effects, and lastly some beauties in perfect taste, crowning efforts which have been effected by the suppression of superfluous colours.

It is safe to say that multi- and richly-coloured birds have gained their truly harmonious dress only through many vicissitudes. It looks as if Nature had first to exhaust all the possibilities before approaching something like perfection. The genus Ptilopus has an enormous range, comprising Australia and hundreds of large and small islands, where the kaleidoscopic game has been and is being played incessantly, with the result that there are now some seventy species to whose welfare it does not matter in the least whether the under tailcoverts are pink or yellow, and it is against countless odds that in two distant lands the same combinations are hit upon. Such a large genus is but the expression of the making of species in very active operation and freed from the control of selection.

Art. 7.-SOCIALISM.

II. ITS PRESENT POSITION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS.

1. Modern Socialism. By R. C. K. Ensor. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1910.

London and

2. Socialism and the Social Movement. By Werner Sombart. Translated by M. Epstein, Ph.D. London: Dent, 1909.

3. A Critical Examination of Socialism. By W. H. Mallock. London: Murray, 1908.

4. Collectivism. By P. Leroy Beaulieu.

Sir Arthur Clay. London: Murray, 1908.

Translated by

5. Das Philosophisch-ökonomische System des Marxismus. Von Dr Emil Hammacher. Leipzig: Duncker und

Humblot, 1909.

6. Socialism and Religion. By the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam, the Rev. Percy Dearmer, the Rev. John Clifford and John Woolman. London: A. C. Fifield, 1908. 7. Report of Tenth Annual Conference of the Labour Party, February 9, 1910. London: The Labour Party.

8. The Socialist Annual for 1910. London: Twentieth Century Press.

IN the previous article Socialism was regarded as a particular and extreme manifestation of a great fermentative process which is changing our views of life and causing us to attribute to physical and material conditions a new importance unrecognised in the earlier stages of our civilisation. This change is general; it is both older and wider than Socialism, and it has manifested itself in many directions quite independent of that movement and altogether apart from the economic structure of society, which is the particular concern of Socialism, if the term is to have any definite meaning at all. Further, the rise of Socialism was traced from its earliest antecedents through the first period of organisation and failure in the second quarter of the nineteenth century down to its revival under the influence of Marx. If any exact date is to be assigned to the beginning of the new movement it must be the year 1864, when the International Workmen's

* 'Quarterly Review,' April 1910.

Association was founded in London by Marx; but very little came of it for years, and the Association itself expired of inanition in 1876 after a struggling existence marked chiefly by the inevitable conflict between the Collectivist and the Anarchist types of Socialism represented by Marx and Bakunin respectively. It was after this that the movement began to make effective progress, slowly at first but with increasing momentum down to a recent period.

The features which broadly characterise the advance of Socialism during the last thirty years, as an organised movement having for its object the economic reconstruction of society, are its wide international range, the effective participation of the working classes, and, with certain exceptions, a growing reliance on political action accompanied by the growth of political strength. In all these points the influence of Marx's leadership and inspiration can be traced in some measure, but the international character of the movement was especially his work. The earlier forms of Socialism were confined to England and France, except for some transplanted experiments in America, and they were quite independent even in those two countries. The international note was first loudly struck by the Communist Manifesto drawn up in 1847 by Marx and Engels and issued in several languages. It was itself international in origin, having been issued in Brussels but arranged in London by German Socialists who were refugees from Paris, and it called on the 'proletarians' of all lands to unite. The conception of a common interest independent of nationality follows from the theory of the class war, which formed the historical basis of Marx's doctrine, as explained in the previous article. In itself it was not new; the class antagonism between capitalists and wage-earners had been recognised as an economic development years before in England and that between workers and the idle rich in France. But neither its historical significance, the idea of which Marx derived from Hegel, nor its international application had been perceived; these must be credited to the new teaching, and both were fruitful. The manifesto pointed out that the interests of the proletariate were class interests common to all countries, and that the members of this class, scattered as they were in different lands and divided Vol. 213.-No. 424.

M

by international competition, must join hands to effect their own emancipation.

The attempt to carry on an international organisation failed, as we have seen; but the appeal was not lost. In one country after another the propaganda took root and spread, and by degrees the working classes began to accept it. Germany led the way, and the trade unions, which developed rather quickly there in the sixties, became an important agency. But the claim constantly made on behalf of the Marxian revival of Socialism that it was a spontaneous Labour movement, and therefore distinguished as such from the earlier phase, is quite untenable. The leading spirits in the second period-Marx, Engels, Lassalle and Liebknecht-no more belonged to the proletariate or the working classes than the leaders in the first period. They appealed to Labour and to some extent realised the importance of organising it. And so did the earliest Socialists in England. The notion that the latter were all Utopians and engaged in promoting impracticable schemes and founding little model communities is an historical error due to insufficient research and the mistaken belief, repeated in numerous text-books, that Robert Owen represented the whole movement. We have already seen that the English intellectual school had got all the essential economics of the Marxian doctrine quite clear long before Marx, who took his arguments from them. They also appealed to the working classes to organise and emancipate themselves by throwing off the yoke of private Capitalism, and that by constitutional political action, wherein they were more modern than Marx. In 1831 a 'National Union of the Working Classes' was formed in London for this purpose with the motto 'Each for all and all for each;' members paid at first a penny and afterwards twopence a month. For some time it was very active; it had several branches and held weekly meetings. But it was not a spontaneous Labour movement in spite of its name; the organisers did not belong to the working classes, who responded indifferently to the agitation. They were not yet sufficiently used to organisation. That only came by the slow and painful growth of trade-unionism, which really was a spontaneous Labour movement. The great advantage possessed by the revival of Socialism in this

connexion was the more advanced stage of Labour organisation; it has climbed on the back of the trade unions. That is clear from the fact that it did not make any appreciable way with the working classes until tradeunionism was finally established and growing vigorously. The failure of the International shows that Socialism had little organising power of its own among them, and its subsequent growth in different countries on different lines shows where the organising power really lay. What the Marxian doctrine contributed was a common inspiration. International activity was only resumed after an interval of several years, and then it took the form of discussion at Congresses, which gathered together the several national units instead of organising them from a centre. These meetings, started in 1889, and subsequently continued at irregular intervals, are now held every three years under the name of the 'Red International.'

With regard to the third point mentioned above as characterising the modern movement-namely, its political character-the influence of Marx is less clear. His theory of the historical chain of events and of evolutionary change is more in keeping with constitutional than with violent action; but, for himself, he remained under the domination of the violently revolutionary ideas with which he had become saturated by passing through a revolutionary epoch at a very impressionable age, and he confidently looked forward to a catastrophic overthrow of the existing order. Hence his remark that he was not really a Marxian. The Communist Manifesto announced violent revolution in the plainest terms.

'Communists do not stoop to dissemble their opinions and their aims. They loudly proclaim that these aims cannot be attained without the violent overthrow of the whole existing social order. Let the ruling classes tremble at the thought of a communist revolution.'

Considering that this manifesto has been a sort of Koran to the Socialists, and is so to this day-especially to those who have never read it-the popular conception of Socialism as a violent menace to every existing institution is thoroughly justified. That is not the course the movement has pursued or is pursuing as a whole. The revolutionary element, represented by the Anarchists,