Socialism … is gaining ground in the most powerful and advanced countries, the object of which is to admit the poorer sections to a gradually increasing share in power and to impose increasing State control over means of production. (…) This movement has been at work for some time in England, France and the USA, and there can be no doubt that it has brought about a certain amount of improvement and amelioration in the condition of the poor in those countries.
The values of Socialism serve only the Socialists
These benefits have been secured through the operation of Socialism as practised in those countries, but they are confined mainly to the people of those countries. No doubt the people seem very anxious to extend these benefits to other countries, but at the same time they are not willing to contemplate any diminution in the power and influence which they at present exercise over other countries.
Take the case of India. A great deal of sympathy is professed and perhaps even felt for her, but all efforts to improve Indian conditions are circumscribed by the consideration that European interests in India should suffer no hardship. Their attitude towards India is like that of a kind master towards domestic animals. He takes pleasure in feeding his stock well, but is careful that this should not be permitted to affect adversely his own standard of living. Similarly, when any concessions are proposed to be granted to India, care is taken that these should not affect prejudicially any Imperial interests. The British are naturally anxious that the standard of living of their own workers should not fall. For, in that case they would themselves fall to the level of countries like India or Afghanistan. (…)
Socialism is a secret ally of Imperialism
This movement suffers from two serious defects. In the first place, its sympathies are confined to the people of the respective countries which have adopted it. They are not universal. In other words, it is the secret ally of Imperialism, but professes sympathy with Internationalism, merely to make sure that other nations should not outstrip those which have put faith in the movement.
Socialism does not tend to spiritual needs
The second defect, from which it suffers, is that the movement is purely secular and has no religious aspect whatever, so that even if the first defect is removed and the movement is made truly international, the religious side will remain completely neglected. This movement ignores the fact that spiritual needs require to be attended to even more urgently than purely physical needs.