But that is a criticism by the way.  Chesterton and Belloc agree with the Socialist that the present world does not give at all what they want.  They agree that it fails to do so through a wild derangement of our property relations.  They are in agreement with the common contemporary man (whose creed is stated, I think, not unfairly, but with the omission of certain important articles by Chesterton), that the derangements of our property relations are to be remedied by concerted action and in part by altered laws.  The land and all sorts of great common interests must be, if not owned, then at least controlled, managed, checked, redistributed by the State.  Our real difference is only about a little more or a little less owning.  I do not see how Belloc and Chesterton can stand for anything but a strong State as against those wild monsters of property, the strong, big private owners.  The State must be complex and powerful enough to prevent them.  State or plutocrat there is really no other practical alternative before the world at the present time.  Either we have to let the big financial adventurers, the aggregating capitalist and his Press, in a loose, informal combination, rule the earth, either we have got to stand aside from preventive legislation and leave things to work out on their present lines, or we have to construct a collective organisation sufficiently strong for the protection of the liberties of the some-day-to-be-jolly common man.  So far we go in common.  If Belloc and Chesterton are not Socialists, they are at any rate not anti-Socialists.  If they say they want an organised Christian State (which involves practically seven-tenths of the Socialist desire), then, in the face of our big common enemies, of adventurous capital, of alien Imperialism, base ambition, base intelligence, and common prejudice and ignorance, I do not mean to quarrel with them politically, so long as they force no quarrel on me.  Their organised Christian State is nearer the organised State I want than our present plutocracy.  Our ideals will fight some day, and it will be, I know, a first-rate fight, but to fight now is to let the enemy in.  When we have got all we want in common, then and only then can we afford to differ.  I have never believed that a Socialist Party could hope to form a Government in this country in my lifetime; I believe it less now than ever I did.  I don’t know if any of my Fabian colleagues entertain so remarkable a hope.  But if they do not, then unless their political aim is pure cantankerousness, they must contemplate a working political combination between the Socialist members in Parliament and just that non-capitalist section of the Liberal Party for which Chesterton and Belloc speak.  Perpetual opposition is a dishonourable aim in politics; and a man who mingles in political development with no intention of taking on responsible tasks unless he gets all his particular formulae accepted is a pervert, a victim of Irish bad example, and unfit far decent democratic institutions ...