was imposed on them by their principles: in fact, how as the formation of a society of free men conceivable if it was not taken for granted that individuals had not already acquired the capacity of guiding themselves? Politicians assert that this is a very naïve idea, and that the world will enjoy all the happiness it can desire on the day when messengers of the new Gospel are able to profit from the advantages that power procures; nothing will be impossible for a State which turns the editors of Humanité into princes. If in that time it is considered useful to have free men, they will be manufactured by a few good laws; but it is doubtful if the friends and shareholders of Jaurès will find that necessary; it will be sufficient for them if they have servants and taxpayers.
The new school is rapidly differentiating itself from official Socialism in recognising the necessity of the improvement of morals.[1] It is thus customary for the dignitaries of Parliamentary Socialism to accuse it of anarchical tendencies; for my part, I should not object to acknowledge myself as an anarchist in this respect, since Parliamentary Socialism professes a contempt for morality equalled only by that which the vilest representatives of the stockbroking middle class have for it.
The new school also has sometimes been reproached with returning to the dreams of the Utopists. This criticism shows how much our adversaries misunderstand the works of the old Socialists as well as the present situation. The aim of the early Socialists was to build up ethical ideas capable of influencing the feelings of the upper classes, in such a way as to make them sympathise with those who in pity are called "the disinherited classes," and of inducing them to make some sacrifice in favour of their unfortunate brethren. The writers of
- ↑ This is what Benedetto Croce pointed out in the Critica of July 17, 1907, pp. 317–319. This writer is well known in Italy as a remarkably acute critic and philosopher.
