cism may be well enough aa far as it goes, but i it does not touch socialism in tboae respects in which it differs from other movements into which this range of motives enters; that is to say, it touches, not the specific traits of socialism, but the common features of popular discontent. History shows many such movements of discontent, pushed on by real or fancied privation and iniquity ; and past experience recorded in history should lead us to expect that, under the guidance
initltuted) ordei of nature, the keynote of which ia an inalienable freedom and equality of the individual, quite in the eighteentli-centuiy spirit. It is in this aense an oSahoot of the Romantic school oE thought. Anarebiam la a d« jure scheme, which talces no account of mechanical eii^Dcles but rests \Ia case alLosetber on anthropomorphic postulates of natural rights. It is, from the natural-rights standpoint, subetantially sound, though senselessly extreme.
What may be called the normal socialism, socialism of Ibe later, more dangerous, and more perplexing, kind, does not buUd on the received metaphysical basis of the " natural order." It demands a reconatmction of the social fabric, but It does not know on what lines the reconstruction is to be carried out. The natural righUof the IndlTidual are not accepted as the stnndard (except by certain large bodies of neophytes, eapecially rural American, who are carrying under socialist mottoes the burden of animoalties and preconceptiona that once made populism), but nothlog definite Es put In the place of this outworn standard. The socialists of the line. In so tar as there is any consensus among them, profess that the mechanical exigencies of the industrial system must decide what the social structure is to be, but beyond this vague generality they have llttls to offer. And this mechanical standardization can manifestly afford no basis for legislation on civil rights. Indeed, it ia difficult to see how any scheme of civil rights, much or litUe, can find a place in a socialistic reorgan-