_Socialism._—The opposite extreme is the assumption that common wants are of supreme importance and common judgment absolutely efficient. Under the name of “communism” it stands in direct contrast with anarchy. Anarchists and communists may unite upon a platform of a single plank, opposition to existing institutions; but in all ideals and purposes and plans for future welfare they are absolutely opposed to each other. The natural community of interests so evident in society gives a fair basis for the general principles of communism. No doubt the welfare of all is the interest of each, and the world is growing to recognize it. Among a group of beings perfectly wise and virtuous there could be no clashing of either interests or judgment. The ideal of Louis Blanc, “From every man according to his powers, to every man according to his wants,” would represent the natural activity of such a group. But in application to humanity, as it is and is bound to be by its weakness and waywardness, it seems abstractly ideal. In fact it is only roughly applicable in ends to be served, and suggests almost nothing as to ways and means. Like the golden rule, it applies to the disposition and purpose of the actor, but leaves the acts to be decided by individual judgment. The numerous phases of opinion in application of this principle cannot be presented even by name in this short chapter. They are worthy of study as indicating a growth of opinion and sentiment in recognition of the mutual dependence of all human beings. They are also worthy of study as indicating how arbitrary a zealot may become in enforcing his opinions upon others. All of them are grouped somewhat loosely under the name of “socialism,” but there are many gradations in the supremacy of the social ideal over the individual welfare. There are also many shades of opinion as to how the final result of social supremacy shall be reached. Many are expecting a revolution by force of arms to establish the ideals of the leaders. More are opportunists, snatching every opportunity in legislation, in decision of courts, and in executive power, to apply their methods. Under the name of “collectivism” appeals are made to the multitude to combine their energies under leadership: first, to overcome present restraints; and then to secure combined action in all modes of production and consumption. “Nationalism” is more familiar to our thought in the United States, as embracing the aim of a somewhat noisy party to bring about the compulsory organization of all industries under the control of the nation, even to placing all property and all methods of consumption under an official despotism.