Page:Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism.djvu/251

placed, it is evident that to the most fearless belongs the victory, and the most intrepid is undoubtedly the one which, without stopping half way, accepts principles with their consequences. To the socialists, then, must be awarded a definitive victory in this discussion.

The rigorous logic which they claim to make use of, and of which they have made an ostentatious display in their controversies with the liberal school, have acquired for them a considerable reputation for being logical and consistent, which, if it is up to a certain point justly due them, is far from being fully so. To be more logical than the most illogical and contradictory of all the schools, is but a slight distinction, and one of little importance. The socialists must establish their reputation upon higher grounds, if they would really merit it. They must not only demonstrate that they are relatively logical and consistent, but they must also be so absolutely. Then they must not only prove that their reasoning is absolutely logical and consistent, but that it is also founded on true premises; because, to be logical and consistent In error, is only a special manner of being illogical and inconsistent. There can be no true logic nor real consistency except in absolute truth.

Now socialism fails to meet either of these conditions. It is contradictory because it is not one, as is shown by the variety of its schools, which are symbolic of the diversity of its doctrines; and it is inconsistent, because, like the liberal school, it refuses to accept, though not to the same extent, all the consequences arising from its principles; and finally, it is untrue, for its premises are false, and the inferences deduced from them are absurd.

That socialism cannot accept all the consequences of