I say that the line of least resistance, if it be followed, leads a Capitalist State to transform itself into a Servile State. I propose to show that this comes about from the fact that not a _Distributive_ but a _Collectivist_ solution is the easiest for a Capitalist State to aim at, and that yet, in the very act of attempting _Collectivism_, what results is not Collectivism at all, but the servitude of the many, and the confirmation in their present privilege of the few; that is, the Servile State. * * * * * Men to whom the institution of slavery is abhorrent propose for the remedy of Capitalism one of two reforms. Either they would put property into the hands of most citizens, so dividing land and capital that a determining number of families in the State were possessed of the means of production; or they would put those means of production into the hands of the political officers of the community, to be held in trust for the advantage of all. The first solution may be called the attempted establishment of the /Distributive State/. The second may be called the attempted establishment of the /Collectivist State/. Those who favour the first course are the Conservatives or Traditionalists. They are men who respect and would, if possible, preserve the old forms of Christian European life. They know that property was thus distributed throughout the State during the happiest periods of our past history; they also know that where it is properly distributed to-day, you have greater social sanity and ease than elsewhere. In general, those who would re-establish, if possible, the Distributive State in the place of, and as a remedy for, the vices and unrest of Capitalism, are men concerned with known realities, and having for their ideal a condition of society which experience has tested and proved both stable and good. They are then, of the two schools of reformers, the more _practical_ in the sense that they deal more than do the Collectivists (called also Socialists) with things which either are or have been in actual existence. But they are less practical in another sense (as we shall see in a moment) from the fact that the stage of the disease with which they are dealing does not readily lend itself to such a reaction as they propose.