the "Conflict is irrepressible," between labor and
individualized capital; and that the conflict will be fatal to
liberty, unless a remedy is found under the law of our national
evolution. This remedy that law gives as follows: That the people must
defend their liberties and "the rise of the individual," against this
industrial despotism of money kings, railroad barons, political
bosses, etc., better than they defended themselves against the foreign
tyrants in 1775, or the slaveocrats of 1861,--to-wit, by organizing an
army for their _peaceful_ protection and safety--_A free Army of
Industry_--before an army _for war_ shall be needed, and as its
preventive.

But this name, "Army of Industry," fills our peaceful Mr. Savage with
horror--a remedy worse than the disease? For thus he lets off his
second charge:--

"2. Military Socialism, such as Mr. Edward Bellamy advocates, would be
only another name for universal despotism, in which the individual, if
not an officer, would only count one in the ranks. It would be the
paradise of officialism on the one hand, and helpless subordination on
the other."

Mr. Savage has been taking novels and poetry literally, and has gone
into a fright at a ghost raised by his own excited imagination; or
else, he makes an objection out of a figure of speech because hard up
for a real one. Who does not see that an "industrial army" has nothing
to do with a military army, or a military despotism, except to prevent
both. There is no war, military compulsion, or "military" at all, in
the army of peace. The word "army" is short poetry for the order,
economy, punctuality, and reliable co-operation and co, not
_sub_-ordination of the public administration of industries. Remember
that we are in America, where this administration will be quite
different from that proposed in Europe where the Revolution of 1776
was not, and where "government" is one of divine right, authority, and
force, and covers the all of life from the cradle to the grave.

Nationalism is purely an American product, to be exercised as a
popular benefit, and having no mainspring or motive power but that. It
is the co-operation and co-ordination of equal partners, and while by
a figure of speech _fraternalism_ might be used to describe it,
_paternalism_ can never be properly so used. When Mr. Savage says, or
implies otherwise, he is simply imposing upon, or trading upon an
ignorance he ought to correct. He must know that the atte