industrial populations which would most obviously benefit by Socialism
have, in the main, adopted it, in spite of the opposition of
employers. The plain truth is that Socialism does not arouse the same
passionate interest in the average citizen as is roused by nationality
and used to be roused by religion. It is not unlikely that things may
change in this respect: we may be approaching a period of economic
civil wars comparable to that of the religious civil wars that
followed the Reformation. In such a period, nationalism is submerged
by party: British and German Socialists, or British and German
capitalists, will feel more kinship with each other than with
compatriots of the opposite political camp. But when that day comes,
there will be no difficulty, in highly industrial countries, in
securing Socialist majorities; if Socialism is not then carried
without bloodshed, it will be due to the unconstitutional action of
the rich, not to the need of revolutionary violence on the part of the
advocates of the proletariat. Whether such a state of opinion grows up
or not depends mainly upon the stubbornness or conciliatoriness of the
possessing classes, and, conversely, upon the moderation or violence
of those who desire fundamental economic change. The majority which
Bolsheviks regard as unattainable is chiefly prevented by the
ruthlessness of their own tactics.

Apart from all arguments of detail, there are two broad objections to
violent revolution in a democratic community. The first is that, when
once the principle of respecting majorities as expressed at the
ballot-box is abandoned, there is no reason to suppose that victory
will be secured by the particular minority to which one happens to
belong. There are many minorities besides Communists: religious
minorities, teetotal minorities, militarist minorities, capitalist
minorities. Any one of these could adopt the method of obtaining power