of the people conscious of themselves and of their higher right and destiny. But beyond democracy lies autarchy—the self-government of each individual—the absence of formal government—the era of absolute freedom—the dream of the individualist. That time lies very far away in the future, a long way farther than many seem to think. For it is simply unthinkable until after a long period of democracy shall have fitted the race to do without formal government. It is the fatal weakness of all individualists that they seem to want to avoid democracy. They want to jump clear across the gap which that form of government is meant to fill. Indeed, there are several classes of individualists, and they are all a unit in not wanting to give democracy a chance. They say: "We shall lose our freedom if you inaugurate a government in which all the people have to be considered." Individualists have no faith in the people. Moreover, they fail to take into account the fact that the only chance people have of becoming fit for ideal self-government is by the experience of democracy. That a democratic government would make mistakes is doubtless true, but the mistakes of democracy are of more value than the successes of plutocracy. And there is no sign of fitness for the era of individualism unless and until there is manifest a determination to secure for the whole people by united collective action the rights and privileges of the weakest and lowest. The very desire for an individualistic regime at once is in itself evidence of the absence of fitness for such a regime.
Now, the change from plutocratic to democratic government will mean, in my judgment, a complete and radical revolution. I can conceive of no change more radical than that would be. Plutocracy and democracy can no more mix than oil and water. They have nothing in common. The complete triumph of plutocracy would mean the obliteration of democracy, and vice versa. The change to democracy involves the greatest moral and ethical change that is conceivable. Under a democracy the interests of wealth cannot be considered. The pursuit of profit, which is the very soul of our present system, will not exist—cannot exist in a democracy. Under the latter the interests of men will be supreme. Under the former the interests of the dollar everywhere and always outweigh those of the man. Under a democracy everything would be changed. Strikingly true would that be in the sphere of education. Plutocracy has ordained that education shall proceed from the motive of fitting the individual to gain a living, to accumulate and manage private property. Practically everything is made to bend to that purpose. By common consent, reading, writing and arithmetic are now regarded as the fundamentals of an education. To be sure, we are trying to break away from that idea, but we do not succeed, and we can never hope to succeed so long as we maintain a system of things under
