point.

FOOTNOTES:

[248] In the narrow sense Socialism is identical with the definite
economic doctrine of the Collectivistic organization of the productive
and distributive work of society. It also possesses, as Bosanquet
remarks (in an essay on "Individualism and Socialism," in _The
Civilization of Christendom_), "a deeper meaning as a name for a human
tendency that is operative throughout history." Every Collectivist is a
Socialist, but not every Socialist would admit that he is a
Collectivist. "Moral Socialism," however, though not identical with
"Economic Socialism," tends to involve it.

[249] The term "Individualism," like the term "Socialism," is used in
varying senses, and is not, therefore, satisfactory to everyone. Thus
E.F.B. Fell (_The Foundations of Liberty_, 1908), regarding
"Individualism," as a merely negative term, prefers the term
"Personalism," to denote a more positive ideal. There is, however, by no
means as any necessity to consider "Individualism," a more negative term
than "Socialism."

[250] The inspiring appeal of Socialism to ardent minds is no doubt
ethical. "The ethics of Socialism," says Kirkup, "are closely akin to
the ethics of Christianity, if not identical with them." That, perhaps,
is why Socialism is so attractive to some minds, so repugnant to others.

[251] This idea was elaborated by Eimer in an appendix to his _Organic
Evolution_ on the idea of the individual in the animal kingdom.

[252] The term "socialism" is said to date from about the year 1835.
Leroux claimed that he invented it, in opposition to the term
"individualism," but at that period it had become so necessary and so
obvious a term that it is difficult to say positively by whom it was
first used.

[253] An important point which the Individualist may fairly bring forward
in this connection is the tendency of Socialism to repress the energy of
the best worker among its officials at the expense of the public. Alike
in government offices at Whitehall and in municipal offices in the town
halls there is a certain proportion of workers who find pleasure in
putting forth their best energies at high pressure. But the majority
take care that work shall be carried on at low pressure, and that the
output shall not exceed a certain understood minimum. They ensure this
by making things uncomfortable for the workers who exceed that minimum.
The gravity of this evil is scarcely yet realized. It could probably be
counterac