essities, and
equally so that autocracies and aristocracies and plutocracies should be
negligent of and impatient about social reform.

But Benham did come to realize this broader conflict between worker and
director, between poor man and possessor, between resentful humanity and
enterprise, between unwilling toil and unearned opportunity. It is a far
profounder and subtler conflict than any other in human affairs. "I can
foresee a time," he wrote, "when the greater national and racial hatreds
may all be so weakened as to be no longer a considerable source of human
limitation and misery, when the suspicions of complexion and language
and social habit are allayed, and when the element of hatred and
aggression may be clean washed out of most religious cults, but I do not
begin to imagine a time, because I cannot imagine a method, when there
will not be great friction between those who employ, those who direct
collective action, and those whose part it is to be the rank and file in
industrialism. This, I know, is a limitation upon my confidence due
very largely to the restricted nature of my knowledge of this sort of
organization. Very probably resentment and suspicion in the mass and
self-seeking and dishonesty in the fortunate few are not so deeply
seated, so necessary as they seem to be, and if men can be cheerfully
obedient and modestly directive in war time, there is no reason why
ultimately they should not be so in the business of peace. But I do not
understand the elements of the methods by which this state of affairs
can be brought about.

"If I were to confess this much to an intelligent working man I know
that at once he would answer 'Socialism,' but Socialism is no more a
solution of this problem than eating is a solution when one is lost in
the wilderness and hungry. Of course everybody with any intelligence
wants Socialism, everybody, that is to say, wants to see all human
efforts directed to the common good and a common end, but brought face
to face with practical problems Socialism betrays a vast insufficiency
of practical suggestions. I do not say that Socialism would not work,
but I do say that so far Socialists have failed to convince me that
they could work it. The substitution of a stupid official for a greedy
proprietor may mean a vanished dividend, a limited output and no
other human advantage whatever. Socialism is in itself a mere eloquent
gesture, inspiring, encouraging, perhaps, but beyond that n