We grant that with the development of commodity
production a class of free persons without property arose
in antiquity, who were called by the Romans proletarians.
And in connection therewith endeavours to abolish or
alleviate many social inequalities manifested themselves
betimes. But the proletariat of old was quite different
from the modern variety, and modern Socialism is equally
different from antique Socialism.

There are historians who believe they find in the Rome
of Julius Cæsar the same proletariat as in modern
London, Paris, or Berlin. In reality, however, the
modern proletariat has undergone manifold changes
during the short space of 400 years it has existed, in
accordance with concurrent economic development. The
proletariat of to-day is markedly dissimilar from the
proletariat of 1848, and much more numerous are its
variations from its prototype in the days of Utopia, when
Capital had but just entered on its economic revolution,
and feudalism still wielded an extensive power over the
economic life of the masses of the people.

The new ideas, prompted by the new interests, had
not discarded the vestments of modes of thinking derived
from feudalism, and the latter persisted as traditional
illusions long after the main props of its material founda-
tion had been knocked away.

The peculiar character of that time would necessarily
colour the socialism which then arose. More was a child of
his age; he could not overstep its limits, but it testifies
to his perspicacity, and perhaps also to his instinct, that
he already perceived the problems inherent in social
development.

The bases of his socialism are modern, but they are
overlaid by so much that is not modern that it is often
extremely difficult to reveal them. While More's socialism
is at no point reactionary in its tendency, inasmuch as

-2-