MODERN CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS BY THOMAS WILSON FELLOW OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OXFORD LONDON ACMILLAN & CO. LTD 1905PRINT&D IN GREAT BRITAINPREFACE A so0x in defence of capitalism by a teacher of economics will be deemed eccentric by those who believe that all economists are Socialists nqwadays. The growth of this strange myth may be partly due to the fact that those economists who are Socialists have written so many more books and articles for the general reader than those who retain a strong belief in private enterprise ; but it is largely the outcome of a good deal of confusion in the use of terms. If a “*Socialist” is one who dislikes extreme inequality of imtcome or of opportunity, then I suppose all economists ae “* Socialists”; it is a very different matter, however, if “ Socialism ” is taken to mean the destruction of private enterprise and the public ownership of all the means of productiona Similarly, if the title of “planner” can be earned by Yoporting an active policy to maintain a high leyel of employment, then it may be true that all economists are “planners”; but they are not all “ planners ” by any means if “ planning ” implies the abandonment of the price mechanism and the profit motive in favour of aythoritarian production programmes enforced by means of controls. Even Lord Keynes has been described as a “ socialistic planner ”, which must surely be regarded as a surprising label for that great liberal economist. The same ambiguity may lead to some confusion in working out the political implicdtions of an attack on nationalisation and pervasive planning. All political parties, apart from the Communist and Fascist Parties, contain strong progressive and liberal elements, and I am well aware that ‘some members of the Socialist Party would resent the v