"He will pay a large proportion of his rent-rate outgoings to the State and Municipality, and less to the landlord. Ultimately he will pay it all to the State or Municipality, and as a voter help to determine how it shall be spent, and the landlord will become a government stockholder. Practically he will get his rent returned to him in public service. "He will speedily begin to get better-educated, better-fed, and better-trained workers, so that he will get money value for the higher wages he pays. "He will get a regular, safe, cheap supply of power and material. He will get cheaper and more efficient internal and external transit. "He will be under an organized scientific State, which will naturally pursue a vigorous scientific collective policy in support of the national trade. "He will be less of an adventurer and more of a citizen."[13] Mr. Churchill while denying any sympathy for Socialism, as both he and the majority of Socialists understand it, frankly avows himself a collectivist. "The whole tendency of civilization," he says, "is towards the multiplication of the collective functions of society. The ever growing complications of civilizations create for us new services which have to be undertaken by the State, and create for us an expansion of the existing services. There is a growing feeling, which I entirely share, against allowing those services which are in the nature of monopolies to pass into private hands. [Mr. Churchill has expressed the regret that the railways are not in the hands of the State.] There is a pretty steady determination, which I am convinced will become effective in the present Parliament to intercept _all_ future unearned increment, which may arise from the increase in the speculative value of the land."[14] (Italics mine.) Mr. Churchill's declared intention ultimately "to intercept _all_ future unearned increment" of the land is certainly a tremendous step towards collectivism, as it would ultimately involve the nationalization of perhaps a third of the total wealth of society. With railways and monopolies of all kinds also in government hands, a very large part of the industrial capital of the country would be owned by the State, and, though all agricultural capital, and therefore the larger part of the total, remained in private hands, we are certainly justified in calling such a state of society _capitalist collectivism_.