Thesocialisticdisaffectionhasbeensetdowntoenvy，classhatred，discontentwiththeirownlotbycomparisonwiththatofothers，andtoamistakenviewoftheirowninterests。Thiscriticismmaybewellenoughasfarasitgoes，butitdoesnottouchsocialisminthoserespectsinwhichitdiffersfromothermovementsintowhichthisrangeofmotivesenters；thatistosay，ittouches，notthespecifictraitsofsocialism，butthecommonfeaturesofpopulardiscontent。Historyshowsmanysuchmovementsofdiscontent，pushedonbyrealorfanciedprivationandiniquity；andpastexperiencerecordedinhistoryshouldleadustoexpectthat，undertheguidanceofsuchmotivesandsuchreasoningasiscurrentlyimputedtothesocialistsbytheirconservativecritics，themalcontentswoulddemandaredistributionofproperty，areorganizationofownershiponsuchnewlinesaswouldfavorthediscontentedclasses。Butsuchisnotthetrendofsocialisticthinking。Itlookstothedisappearanceofpropertyrightsratherthantheirredistribution。Theentirerangeofdoctrinescoveredbythetheoryofdistributioninthereceivedeconomicsisessentiallyandcharacteristicallyneglectedbythemodernsocialistspeculations。19*
Theperplexityofthosewhoprotestagainstasupposedlyimminentsocialisticsubversionofpropertyrightsisofatwofoldkind:1Theabsenceofproprietaryrightsisincomprehensible，andalivingtogetherinsocietywithoutdefinedownershipofthemeansoflivingisheldtobeimpracticable；ownershipofgoods，intheapprehensionoftheconservativecritics，isinvolvedinthepresenceofgoods。2
Ownershipofthemeansoflivingisaninalienablerightofman，ethicallyinevitable；thecancelmentofpropertyrightsisfelttoviolateafundamentalprincipleofmorals。Allthis，ofcourse，proceedsontheassumptionthattheinstitutionofownershipcannotbeabrogated，asbeinganelementalfunctionofhumannatureandanintegralfactorintheorderofthingsinwhichhumanlifebelongs。
Tothemodernsocialistallthisiscomingtobelessandlessconvincing。Inthisrespectthereisafairlywellmarkedprogressivechangeintheattitudeoftheprofessedsocialists。
Theirpositionisprogressivelylesscapableofbeingformulatedasabusinessproposition；theirdemandsareprogressivelymoredifficulttostateintheformofapecuniaryclaim。Theclaimtothefullproductoflabor，whichoncefilledalargeplaceinsocialisticclamorsandhadagreatcarryingforceduringtheearlierthree-quartersofthenineteenthcentury，hasgraduallyfallenintoabeyance，bothwiththeagitatorsandtheadherentsofthepropaganda，duringthelastgeneration。To-daythisclaimisanafterthoughtintheadvocate’spresentationofsocialism，morefrequentlythanitisapointofdeparturefortheargument，anditismademoreofbytheproselytes，whohavecarriedthemetaphysicsofitoverfromthecurrentcommonsenseofthebusinesscommunity，thanbythesocialistsofconfirmedstanding。
Theclaimtothefullproductisanarticleofnatural-rightsdogma，andassuchitisareminiscenceoftheinstitutionalsituationfromwhichsocialismdeparts，ratherthanafeatureoftheprospectivesituationtowhichsocialisticsentimentlooks。
Thelikeobsolescenceofthesenseofequityinownershipisvisibleintheattitudetakenbystrikersinthelarge，mechanicallyorganizedindustries，outsideoftheranksofavowedsocialism。Thesestrikersarelessandlessdeterredbyconsiderationsofvestedrights，propertyrights，owner’sinterests，andthelike。Theprinciplethatamanmaydowhathewillwithhisownislosingitsbindingforcewithlargeclassesinthecommunity，apparentlybecausethespiritualgroundonwhichreststhenotionof“hisown“isbeingcutawaybythelatter-dayexperienceoftheseclasses。Abridgmentofproprietarydiscretion，confiscationofproprietaryrights，isgrowinggraduallylessrepugnanttotheindustrialpopulace；andthequestionofindemnityforeventuallossismoreandmorefallingintoneglect。Withthesocialisticelementthequestionisnot，whatshallbedoneinthewayofreadjustmentofpropertyclaims，butwhatistobedonetoabolishthem。20*
Thequestionofequityorinequityinthedistributionofwealthpresumesthevalidityofownershiprightsonsomebasisorother，oratleastitpresumesthevalidityofsomebasisonwhichtheclaimsofownershipmaybediscussed。Ownershipisthemajorpremiseofanyargumentastotheequityofdistribution，anditisthismajorpremisethatisbeingforgottenbytheclassesamongwhomsocialisticsentimentisgaining。Equityinthisconnectionseemsnottobelongintherepertoryofsocialistconcepts。Itisatthispoint-thepointofacommongroundofargument-thatthediscrepancyoccurswhichstandsintheway，notonlyofaneventualagreementbetweenthesocialistsandtheirconservativecritics，butevenoftheirmeetingoneanother’sreasoningwithanysubstantialeffect。Intheequipmentofcommon-senseideasonthebasisofwhichtheconservativesreasononthismatter，thereisincludedtheconventionalarticleofownership，asaprimefact；inthecommon-sensebasisofsocialisticthinkingthisconventionalpremisehasnosecureplace。Thereis，therefore，adiscrepancyinrespectofthemetaphysicsunderlyingtheknowledgeandreasoningofthetwopartiestothecontroversy，andtheoutlookforacommonunderstandingisaccordinglyvain。Nosubstantialagreementuponapointofknowledgeorconvictionispossiblebetweenpersonswhoproceedfromdisparatepreconceptions。
Stilltheconservativereformersandtheiconoclastshaveagooddealincommon。Theprevalenthabitofmindofbothclassesisahybridproductofconventionalprinciplesandmatter-of-factinsight。Butthesetwocontrastedgroundsofopinionandaspirationarepresentinunequaldegreesinthetwocontrastedclasses；intheconservativestheconventionalgroundsoffinalitydominateandbeardownthematter-of-factknowledgeofthings，whiletheconverseistrueoftheiconoclasts。Contrastedwithearliertimesandotherculturalregionstheconsensus，thegeneraldrift，ofthemodernWesterncultureasawholeisofaniconoclasticcharacter；whiletheclasscontrasthereinquestionliesonlywithintherangeofthisWesternculturalconsensus。Asoneortheotherofthetwocontrastedproclivities-recoursetoconventionalprecedentsandrecoursetomatter-of-factinsight-
gainsandoverbalancestheother，thegeneralculturalmovementwilldrifttowardamoreconservativearchaic，conventionalpositionortowardamoreiconoclastic，materialisticposition。
Duringmoderntimestheculturaldrifthassetinthelatterdirection。Withduebutnotlargeexceptions，theeffectivebodyofthemodernpopulationhasbeengrowingmorematter-of-factintheirthinking，lessromantic，lessidealisticintheiraspirations，lessboundbymetaphysicalconsiderationsintheirviewofhumanrelations，lessmannerly，lessdevout。
Thediscrepancybetweentheconservativesandtheiconoclastsneednotbetakentomeanthatthetwocontrastedclassesaremovinginoppositedirections，noreveninwidelydivergentdirections。Neitherclasscanproperlybesaidtobereactionary。21*Takengenerally，bothwingshavebeenmovinginthedirectionofamoreimpersonal，morematter-of-fact，lessconventionalpointofview。Inthiscompositeculturalgrowththematter-of-facthabitofmindhasonthewholebeengainingattheexpenseoftheconventional，andtheconventionalpremisesthathavebeenretainedhavealsocometobearmoreofamatter-of-factcharacter，-as，e。g。，inthesupersessionoffeudalisticortheocraticprinciplesoflawbynaturalrights。Sothatthepositionforwhichtheeffectivebodyofconservativesnowstandisnotinsubstanceaveryarchaicone。Itisamorematter-of-factposition，lesscloselyboundbyauthenticconventions，thanthepositioneffectivelyoccupiedbytheiconoclasticwingahundredyearsago。
Throughoutthemodernculturalcomplexthereisasomewhatvariable，scatteringshiftingofgroundtoamorematter-of-factbasis。Thedirectionofspiritualgrowthorchangeismuchthesamethroughoutthegeneralbodyofthepopulation；buttherateofchange，therateatwhichmatter-of-factidealsaresupersedingidealsofconventionalauthenticity，isnotthesameforallclasses。Hencetheclassdiscrepancyherespokenof。Thecoefficientofchangeissomuchlargerinthevulgar，industrialclassesasprogressivelytowidentheculturalintervalbetweenthemandtheconservativesintherespectwhichishereinquestion。Andtheresultingdiscrepancyofinstitutionalaimsandidealsmayhavenonethelessseriousconsequencesforbeingduetoadifferentialrateofmovementratherthantoadivergentculturaltrend。
Inthisdifferentialrateofmovementthedeparturefromtheancientlandmarkshasnowgonesofarorisreachingsuchapointamongthesocialisticvulgarastoplacetheirthinkingsubstantiallyonaplaneofmaterialmatteroffact，particularlyasregardseconomicinstitutions。Whereasintheconservativeclassesthechangeisnotyetlargeenoughtotakethemofftheplaneofreceivedconventionaltruth，particularlyasregardseconomicinstitutionsandsuchsocialquestionsasareofaneconomiccomplexion。Inthecaseoftheformerthischangeinhabitofmindhasbeensoconsiderableas，ineffect，toconstituteachangeinkind；crudematteroffacthascometobethedominantnoteoftheirattitude，andconventionalauthenticityhasbeenrelegatedtoasubsidiaryplace；thatistosay，thechangeisofarevolutionarycharacter。Inthecaseoftheconservativeclasses，sofarastouchestheinstitutionalnotionshereunderinquiry，thecorrespondingchangehasnotyetgonesofarastoamounttoachangeinkind；itisnotofarevolutionarynature。Theviewscurrentamongtherespectableclassesonthesemattersstill，ineffect，runontheancientlevelsonwhichwerebuiltupthepecuniaryinstitutionsaboutwhichthecontroversycircles。Forthepresentthereneedbenoapprehensionthatthemorerespectableclasseswillreachamaturerevolutionaryframeofmind。Thedisciplineoftheirdailylifedoesnot，onthewhole，favorsucharesult。
This，insubstance，isalsotheviewtakenbythesocialisticrevolutionaries，particularlybythosethatareofMarxianantecedents。Itisapointofconvictionwiththem，thoughnotwhollyofreasonedconviction，thatthesocialisticmovementis，inthenatureofthecase，aproletarianmovement，inwhichtherespectable，thatistosaythepecuniarilycompetent，classescanhavenoorganicparteveniftheytry。Itisheld，ineffect，thatthewell-to-doare，byforceoftheireconomiccircumstances，incapableofassimilatingthesocialistideas。Theargumentheresetforthmayservetoenforcethisview，butwithadifference。Insteadofcontrastingthewell-to-dowiththeindigent，thelineofdemarcationbetweenthoseavailableforthesocialistpropagandaandthosenotsoavailableisrathertobedrawnbetweentheclassesemployedintheindustrialandthoseemployedinthepecuniaryoccupations。Itisaquestionnotsomuchofpossessionsasofemployments；notofrelativewealth，butofwork。Itisaquestionofworkbecauseitisaquestionofhabitsofthought，andworkshapesthehabitsofthought。Thesocialiststhemselvesconstruethedistinctiontobeadistinctioninrespectofhabitsofthought；andhabitsofthoughtaremadebyhabitsofliferatherthanbyalegalrelationtoaccumulatedgoods。Thislegalrelationmaycountmateriallyinshapingtheanimusoftheseveraleconomicclasses；
butitappearsnottobecompetentofitselftoexplainthelimitationsobservableinthespreadofsocialisticsentiment。
Thesocialisticdisaffectionshowsacurioustendencytooverruncertainclassesandtomisscertainothers。Themenintheskilledmechanicaltradesarepeculiarlyliabletoit，whileattheextremeofimmunityisprobablytheprofessionofthelaw。
Bankersandotherlikeclassesofbusinessmen，togetherwithclergymenandpoliticians，arealsotobeheldfreeofseriousaspersion；similarly，thegreatbodyoftheruralpopulationareimmune，includingthepopulationofthecountrytowns，andinaneminentdegreethesmallfarmersoftheremotercountrydistricts；22*soalsothedelinquentclassesofthecitiesandthepopulaceofhalf-civilizedandbarbarouscountries。Thebodyofunskilledlaborers，especiallythosenotassociatedwiththemenintheskilledmechanicaltrades，arenotseriouslyaffected。
Thecentresofsocialisticdisaffectionarethemoreimportantindustrialtowns，andtheeffectivenucleusofthesocialisticmalcontentsismadeupofthemoreintelligentbodyofworkmeninthehighlyorganizedandspecializedindustries。Notthatsocialismdoesnotspreadinvirulentformoutsidethisnarrowrange，butatafartherremovefromthecentreofdispersionitappearsrathersporadicallyanduncertainly，whilewithinthisfielditisfairlyendemic。Asregardstheeducatedclasses，socialisticviewsareparticularlylikelytocropoutamongthemeninthematerialsciences。
TheadvocatesofthenewcreedhavemadelittleheadwayamongtheruralclassesofEurope，whetherpeasantfarmersorfarmlaborers。Theruralproletariathashithertoprovedvirtuallyimpermeable。23*Thedisciplineoftheirdailylifeleavestheirspiritundisturbedontheplaneofconventionalityandanthropomorphism，andthechangestowhichtheyaspireliewithinthescopeoftheconventionalitieswhichhavegrownoutofthesecircumstancesoftheirlifeandwhichexpressthehabitofmindenforcedbythesecircumstances。
Withoutclaimingthatthisexplanationiscompetenttocoverthecaseofsocialisminallitsbearings，itmaybepointedoutthatthissocialisticbiashaseffectivelyspreadamongthepeopleonlywithinthelastquarterofacentury，whichisalsoapproximatelytheperiodsincewhichthemachineprocessandthemechanicalstandardizationofindustryhasreacheditsfullerdevelopment，bothasregardstheextentofitsfieldandasregardstheextentofitstechnologicalrequirements；thatitisfoundinvigorousgrowthonlyinthosecommunitiesandparticularlyamongthoseclasseswhoselifeiscloselyregulatedbythemachinetechnology；andthatthedisciplineofthismachinetechnologyispeculiarlydesignedtoinculcatesuchiconoclastichabitsofthoughtascometoaheadinthesocialisticbias。Socialism，insofarasthetermmeansthesubversionoftheeconomicfoundationsofmodernculture，occursonlysporadicallyanddubiouslyoutsidethelimits，intimeandspace，ofthedisciplineofthemachinetechnology。Whileamongthoseclasseswhoseeverydaylifeschoolsthemtodotheirhabitualseriousthinkingintermsofmaterialcauseandeffect，thepreconceptionsofownershipareapparentlybecomingobsolescentthroughdisuseandthroughsupersessionbyothermethodsofapprehendingthings。24*