if the whole community were to educate his children. But we have seen that a community of goods is desired most urgently in times of over-population. Hence, here it would make the evil greater yet, by increasing consumption and diminishing production. Where there are now one thousand wealthy persons, and one hundred thousand proletarians, there would be, after one generation, no one wealthy and two hundred thousand proletarians. Misery and want would be universal.(488) For the purpose of giving the crowd a very agreeable,(489) but rather short-lived period of pleasure, a period simply of transition, almost all that constitutes the wealth of a nation, all the higher goods of life, would have to be cast to the waves, and henceforth all men would have to content themselves with the gratifications afforded by potatoes, brandy and the pleasures of the most sensual of appetites. And then, the equal education of all, demanded by the communists, would have no result but this, that no one would acquire a higher scientific training.(490) But, after all, there lurks concealed in communism much more of envy than is generally supposed. Section LXXXII. The Organization Of Labor. Most theoretical adherents of the doctrine of a community of goods, feeling(491) more or less the weight of the above objections, have supplemented it with the idea of an organization of labor(492) or the centralized superintendence of all production and consumption, either by the government already existing, or by one to be created anew. Such a government would be, of course, a despotism such as the world has scarcely yet seen, a Cæsaro-Papacy, usurping both the place and power of Father of the universal Family.(493) But the evils mentioned above would be entailed none the less. Every incentive which now moves man to industry or frugality would disappear, and nothing remain but universal philanthrophy; or, if you will, but patriotism, virtues which are not wanting even now. Even guardianship of the government newly created would be carried on in a very loose manner; for it would be exercised without any feeling of personal interest, even in the most favorable case supposable. It is well known and easily understood, that state industries are never engaged in, in the long run, with the same zeal, nor crowned with the same success, as competing private industries. It is well known, too, how intimate the connection is between the political freedom of a people and their economic production; that, for instance, England’s greater wealth, as compared with that of Turkey, depends, most largely, on the freedom that obtains in the former country and the servitude that prevails in the latter.(494) And we may inquire just here, what the result would be, if the despotism of government should go ten times farther that it has ever gone in Turkey, when, moreover, the despot who led the state, was not an individual with