From decade to decade the meaning of the term socialism undergoes such marked changes and even at any one point of time different writers assign so many different meanings to the term that in order to make any progress in a discussion of it, it is essential to frame a definition for oneself. Because of the variety of definitions it is easily possible that of two persons whose views upon all subjects relating to socialism are practically identical one should consider himself a socialist and the other should consider himself an opponent of socialism. The late General Walker, writing in 1887, distinguished between socialism and communism as follows: "Communism confines itself mainly, if not exclusively, to the one subject matter - wealth. On the other hand, Socialism, conspicuously, in all its manifestations, in all lands where it has appeared, asserts its claim to control every interest of human society, to enlist for its purposes every form of energy. So far as wealth becomes the subject matter both of communism, on the one hand, and of socialism, on the other, we note a difference of treatment. Communism, in general, regards wealth as produced, and confines itself to effecting an equal, or what it esteems an equitable, distribution. Socialism, on the other hand, gives its first and chief attention to the production of wealth; and, passing lightly over the questions of distribution, with or without assent to the doctrine of an equal division among producers, it asserts the right to inquire into and control the consumption of wealth for the general good, whether through sumptuary laws and regulations, or through taxation for public expenditure."

To-day economists seek to escape confusion by discarding entirely the term communism. But Professor Taussig, writing in 1911 of communistic societies, said : "Usually, too, the societies have had a religious basis. But this also is not an essential characteristic; some have been frankly unreligious. It is true that those infused with a religious spirit have lasted longest, and have been most successful both in worldly and in spiritual ways." And in writing of socialism at the same time Professor Taussig said: "It proposes a complete transformation of all society. . . . This transformation is to be economic only; or, at least, accompanied by other changes only so far as they may result inevitably from those of an economic sort." Comparing these extracts from Walker and Taussig one might be led to infer that between 1887 and 1911 a religious element had been introduced into communism even though in an unessential way, and that socialism, which was in 1887 a religious as well as an economic movement, has become by 1911 a purely economic movement or practically so. Professor Seligman, in his edition of 1914, says, "The communists demand the complete abolition of all private property; the socialists ask for the abolition of private property in the means of production while retaining it in the articles of consumption." Again, comparing Walker's views with those of Seligman, it would seem that between 1887 and 1914 socialism had lost its interest in consumption, since Professor Seligman implies that under the socialist regime consumption is not to be restricted.

Not only among the professors of economics but among the leaders of socialism as well, there has been a confusion in the meaning of socialism. Many of the earlier so-called scientific socialists had much to say of materialism and ir-religion and some of them advocated a weakening of family ties. On the other hand, many present day socialists consider that socialism is purely an economic affair and that it has nothing to do, at least nothing directly, with materialism or religion or free love. This difference of viewpoint is well brought out in John Spargo's "Spiritual Significance of Socialism." "I know perfectly well," says Spargo, "that there are many socialists who make this mistake and who regard every interpretation of socialism other than the purely economic with distrust and derision. They conceive of socialism as a matter of economics simply; deny all ideals and boast of their selfishness. Often by a strange perversity they make their creed narrow and forbidding, repelling many who would otherwise be disposed to join them."