33. THE "COLLECTIVE MIND"

ated to its authority. Moreover, in this view of the matter, the continuance of Socialism, after it has once been established, will be possible only upon the condition that the required, and as yet undeveloped, directing intelligence be renewed from generation to generation, and be permanently entrusted with the responsibilities of government.

Mr. Wells says, without qualification, that what is needed for the realization of the Socialist's ideals is—

"the collective mind of humanity, the soul and moral being of mankind" (p. 277).

Again he says :—

"Now it is only under an intelligent collective mind that any of the dreams of these constructive professions can attain an effective realization" (p. 281).

And he shows great discernment in saying of the "classic Socialism" of Karl Marx, that "it has no psychology." That would be, indeed, a fatal lack in any economic system that is to command the approval of the influential sections of the community.

It is not entirely clear just what Mr. Wells means by the "collective mind of humanity," and perhaps he does not quite know himself, seeing that the thing does not as yet exist, or at least has not yet been localized. But it is clear enough that Mr. Wells perceives the need of superhuman intellectual endowments for the proper management of the affairs of a consolidated Humanity. Some towering genius must be at the head of such a system if it is not to fall immediately to pieces. The “collective responsibility,” incident to the “collective ownership” of all land and public utilities, certainly demands a corresponding and commensurate “collective intelligence.” Where, then, is it to come from; and, when it arrives, how is it to secure authority over the affairs of “collective humanity”?

Mr. Wells suggests that the needed intelligence is to be developed by teaching; and he defines “Human Nature” as a plastic, “teachable” thing (p. 219). But this suggestion raises the further questions—What sort of doctrine is required for the development of the collective intelligence? Whence are to come the teachers who are to instruct the people therein? And what force will constrain the “sovereign people” to submit to such instruction until the collective intelligence shall have been developed? The answers to these questions are by no means obvious.

Mr. Wells is not a Socialist of the ordinary fatalistic sort—one that regards the coming of Socialism as the inevitable outworking of a blind and impersonal evolutionary process. On the contrary, he plainly discerns and clearly describes some very formidable obstacles in its path. The first of these has been already noticed, namely, the lack of the intellectual ability and capacity required for the management of

PEOPLE AS THEY ARE the "ideal Socialist State,"—that gigantic and complex political institution that is to own, develop, administer, and operate all land and industries incident thereto (mining, agriculture, etc.), and all public utilities, to supervise the health of the entire community, to superintend the education of children, etc.

Then again, Mr. Wells is keen enough to see, and frank enough to say, that one of the chief obstacles in the way of the organization and proper management of such a stupendous and complicated institution as the "Socialistic State," lies in the present constitution of human nature. As to this he says:—

"With people just as they are now, with their prejudices, their ignorances, their misapprehensions, their unchecked vanities and greeds and jealousies, their crude and misguided instincts, their irrational traditions, NO SOCIALIST STATE CAN EXIST, no better State can exist than the one we now have with all its squalor and cruelty" (p. 219).

This is a great deal for a Socialist to admit; and it is quite enough, we should suppose, to destroy Mr. Wells' influence with the masses of the "sovereign people." Moreover, since Mr. Wells so clearly perceives that no better social order than that we now have is possible so long as human nature remains what it now is, we should expect him to reach the logical conclusion that an essential pre-requisite to the attainment of his ideal State is a change of human nature.

But he quite illogically concludes from his premises that what is needed by humanity is, not a change of nature, but a "change of ideas" (p. 219).

What Mr. Wells says in effect is, that "the people" have the right to the ownership of all land, public utilities, productive appliances, etc., and have the right to govern their own affairs, but that they are as yet unfit to be invested with these rights, because (1) so long as human nature remains what it now is, no better State is possible than that which now exists; and (2) collective humanity lacks the "collective intelligence," which is absolutely needed for the management of such a vast and intricate social system as the Socialists propose. And Mr. Wells knows of no way of effecting the needed change in human nature, and of developing the needed "collective intelligence," except by sound teaching.

Now this manifestly presupposes—first, that teachers are available and ready to teach just the sound and fruitful doctrine (whatever it may be, Mr. Wells does not formulate it) that will effect the desired transformation of human nature, and that will also develop the collective intelligence which is the sine qua non of Socialism; and, second, that the "Sovereign people" will be pleased to listen to the teachers of this (as yet unidentified) doctrine, turning a deaf ear to all others, until such time (how many years or centuries we are not told) as may be required to accomplish the above

"RIGHTS" OF THE PEOPLE stated results. But it is quite certain that the people, being "just as they are now, with their prejudices, their ignorances," etc, as described by Mr. Wells, will not hear of any such delay in the assumption and enjoyment by them of their "rights," and will not submit to the schooling of teachers such as Mr. Wells refers to—if any such there be. One of the "rights" of which the sovereign people are most jealous, and which they have learned to exercise most freely, is the right to just such teaching as pleases their itching ears.

There is no lack of teachers and teaching of this sort. Accordingly, the people "heap to themselves teachers" because they have "itching ears"; and they teach the acceptable doctrine that the people have not only the right to assume the ownership of all property for the benefit of collective humanity, but that they have also the wisdom and intelligence needed for the proper administration of the ideal Socialist state.

Mr. Wells, however, is right; and for that reason his message will not be heeded. For how may we expect that they shall do wisely who admittedly lack wisdom? The "collective humanity," as it now exists, does indeed lack both the character and the intelligence needed for the maintenance of an ideal social order. Nevertheless, Mr. Wells allies himself with those who promulgate the popular doctrine of the "rights of man," thus using his influence to precipitate the crisis wherewith society is now menaced, namely, that of being subject to force divorced from wisdom—absolute power without the intelligence needed for its proper use. Nothing worse could well be imagined.

But we have not yet mentioned the ultimate agency in which Mr. Wells confides for the accomplishment of the radical transformation which he rightly deems to be a necessary preliminary to the introduction of Socialism; and here we get a peep at Mr. Wells' religion. For the performance of this great work he looks hopefully to what he calls the "Good Will" in man. It is quite evident that, to this indefinite and shadowy agency, Mr. Wells, in his soul (which is plainly not devoid of reverence) attributes the power of a god, and he therefore reverentially writes its name with initial capitals. He sees in human conduct and human history the manifestations of a force that is "constantly working to make order out of casualty; beauty out of confusion; justice, kindliness, mercy, out of cruelty and inconsiderate pressure." We might properly join issue with this statement, inasmuch as the "force" to which Mr. Wells here refers is simply the influence exerted in human society by Christianity and the Gospel. But that is, for the moment, beside the question, for we are just now seeking the agency invoked by Mr. Wells to prepare the way for Socialism. Of this alleged "force" he says:—

"For our present purpose it will be sufficient

PRE-REQUISITES TO SOCIALISM to speak of this force that struggles and tends to make and do as GOOD WILL" (p. 5).

"There is a secular amelioration of life, and it is brought about by GOOD WILL working through the efforts of men" (p. 7).

"There is no untutored naturalness in Socialism, no uneducated blind force on our side" (then clearly Mr. Wells' god is not Evolution). "Socialism is made of struggling GOOD WILL, made out of a conflict of wills" (p. 219).

And the introduction of Socialism will be a task demanding all the energies of this deity; for, says Mr. Wells—

"if we really contemplate Socialism as our achievement, to impose guiding ideas and guiding habits, we have to co-ordinate all the Good Will that is active or latent in our world in one constructive plan" (p. 219).

We need not dwell longer upon this. If Socialism is to await the transformation of human nature, and the development of the "collective intelligence," and if these great achievements are to be accomplished by the co-ordination of all the Good Will (active or latent) in our world, in one constructive plan, it will never come. There is, in that case, no more to be feared from Mr. Wells' Socialism than from his Martians. One is just as much the product of his fertile imagination as were the others. Unhappily, the

Socialism which now menaces humanity is that which is propagated by appealing, not to the good will, but to the ill will in man. This is an appeal which is sure of a response. The masses of mankind are easily moved to envy and hatred of the prosperous classes. So long as people are "just as they now are, with their prejudices, their ignorances, and their unchecked vanities, and greeds, and jealousies," the appeals which will move them to the extent necessary to bring about a social revolution are those addressed to their prejudices, their ignorances, their vanities, greeds, and jealousies. The Socialism which is propagated by appeals of this sort is the Socialism that is to be feared.

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TRUSTS.

"THE GREAT PROBLEM OF THE AGE."

We quoted above the statement recently made by Mr. Alexander Graham Bell, that "competition as an element in business is going out, and monopolies, which are opposed to competition, are coming in." The recently-published views of this exceptionally competent observer of human affairs are worthy of further notice. Mr. Bell says:—

"The destruction of competition by powerful organizations seems to be inevitable. It is prob-