with some justification, Socialism was looked upon as antithetical to
Liberalism. But the antithesis is purely relative and breaks down as
we approach the common origin and foundation of the two doctrines, for
we find that the opposition is one of method, not of purpose. The end
is the same for both, viz., the welfare of the individual members of
society. The difference lies in the fact that Liberalism would be
guided to its goal by liberty, whereas Socialism strives to attain it
by the collective organization of production. There is therefore no
antithesis nor even a divergence as to the nature and scope of the
state and the relation of individuals to society. There is only a
difference of evaluation of the means for bringing about these ends
and establishing these relations, which difference depends entirely on
the different economic conditions which prevailed at the time when the
various doctrines were formulated. Liberalism arose and began to
thrive in the period of small industry; Socialism grew with the rise
of industrialism and of world-wide capitalism. The dissension
therefore between these two points of view, or the antithesis, if we
wish so to call it, is limited to the economic field. Socialism is at
odds with Liberalism only on the question of the organization of
production and of the division of wealth. In religious, intellectual,
and moral matters it is liberal, as it is liberal and democratic in
its politics. Even the anti-liberalism and anti-democracy of
Bolshevism are in themselves purely contingent. For Bolshevism is
opposed to Liberalism only in so far as the former is revolutionary,
not in its socialistic aspect. For if the opposition of the Bolsheviki
to liberal and democratic doctrines were to continue, as now seems
more and more probable, the result might be a complete break between
Bolshevism and Socialism notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate
aims of both are identical.