with its own principles.  Again, it has preached that the society which is to exert control must be democratic, if the control is to be, as it must be, self-control:  it has taught that such democratic self-control must primarily be exerted in democratic local self-government:  it has emphasised the need of reconciling democratic control with expert guidance.  While it has never advocated ’direct action’ or the avoidance of political activity, while on the contrary, it has advocated the conquest of social reforms on the fields of parliamentary and municipal government, it has not defended the State as it is, but has rather urged the need for a State which is based on democracy tempered by respect for the ‘expert.’  In this way Socialism of the Fabian type has made representative democracy its creed.  It has adopted the sound position that democracy flourishes in that form of state in which people freely produce, thanks to an equality of educational opportunity, and freely choose, thanks to a wide and active suffrage, their own members for their guidance, and, since they have freely produced and chosen them, give them freely and fully the honour of their trust.  And thus Socialists like Mr. Sidney Webb and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald have not coquetted with primary democracy, which has always had a magnetic attraction for Socialists.  The doctrine that the people itself governs directly through obedient agents—­the doctrine of mandate and plebiscite, of referendum and initiative—­is not the doctrine of the best English Socialism.”  Mr. Barker next explains that behind these ideas lies “an organic theory of society,” that society is regarded as “an organic unity with a real ‘general will’ of its own,” and after stating that “the development of Liberalism, during the last few years, shows considerable traces of Fabian influence,” concludes the subject with the words “Collectivism of the Fabian order was the dominant form of Socialism in England till within the last three of four years.”  Of the movement of Guild Socialists and others which he deems to have replaced it I shall speak later.

I have ventured to quote from Mr. Barker at some length because his summary of Fabian doctrine seems to me (with the exception noted) to be both correct and excellent, and it is safer to borrow from a writer quite unconnected with the Society an estimate of its place in the history of English political thought, rather than to offer my own necessarily prejudiced opinion of its achievements.

* * * * *

But I must revert again to the Fabian “method.”  “Make Socialists,” said Mr. Wells in “Faults of the Fabian,” “and you will achieve Socialism.  There is no other way”; and Mr. Wells in his enthusiasm anticipated a society of ten thousand Fabians as the result of a year’s propaganda.  Will Socialism come through the making of Socialists?

If so, Socialism has made but little progress in England, since the number who profess and call themselves Socialist is still insignificant.  The foregoing pages have shown in the words of a student of political thought how Socialism has been made in England in quite another way.