masses for long periods of time.

The immediate effect of the failure of socialism is the encouragement of
_individualism_, for indeed some of the arguments against the former are
arguments in favour of the latter. Individualism opens up a new life, a
life which is free, joyous, and unconventional.

But can individualism give a meaning and value to life as a whole? Man
cannot from his own resources produce a high ideal which compels him to
fight for higher development, and it is not possible for him from an
individualistic standpoint to regard himself as a manifestation of a
larger life. His whole life must be spent in the improvement of his own
condition. Even in the case of strongly marked personalities, they can
never get beyond themselves and their own subjective states, for they
must always live upon themselves, and eternally reflect upon their own
doings.

But such a view of life cannot satisfy man; he is a contemplative being,
and he must find some all-inclusive whole, of which he is a part. If he
fails to find it, life for him must become a blank, and he must fall a
prey to boredom and satiety. Man's life is not to be confined to his own
particular sphere, his life must extend far beyond that--he must concern
himself with the infinite in the universe; "He must view life--nay,
more, he must live it--in the light of this larger whole." A life based
upon individualism then, will seem, even in the case of strong
personalities, to be extremely narrow. How much more so will this be
true of the ordinary man, who takes little interest in his own
individuality, or pleasure in its development?

Thus it is that both forms of humanistic culture--socialism and