(3) A third objection to socialism, that corruption would be increased, is a much-debated point.  There would be, as now, opportunity for falsification of accounts and embezzlement.  Individual promotions would too often hinge upon personal friendship or favors received.  The enormous administrative machinery would open up all sorts of new avenues to personal gain at the expense of others, which unprincipled men would be quick to take advantage of.  But, on the other hand, no great private fortunes or wealthy corporations would exist to bribe, and no such money-prizes would exist to be won by bribery as are common in our present system.  There would be no temptation to adulterate goods, and less of a temptation to award contracts or franchises to friends -since there would be no private profit in it.  What supports our political rings today is, above all, the existence of the “interests” wealthy corporations that are making profits enough to spare large sums for “influencing” legislation; these “interests” would no longer exist.  On the whole, then, the amount and direction of corruption under socialism is unpredictable; but its possibility should give us pause.  The other general objections to socialism are probably less serious; some of them complete misapprehensions.  It is certainly not anti-Christian; on the contrary, there are those who believe that it is the necessary the Christian spirit.[Footnote:  Cf, for example, W. Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis.] It is not “materialistic” any more than any industrial system must necessarily be.  It would not necessarily destroy private property or lessen human freedom, except in the one matter that it would prevent private ownership of the instruments of industrial production and destroy the freedom to conduct business to private advantage.  But it is clear that it would involve us in all sorts of complicated and delicate problems of detail which would require generations for satisfactory solution and which might never be satisfactorily solved.  And it might, of course, lead to other difficulties now unforeseen, graver and more difficult to meet than we now realize.  Surely, then, it is not to be lightly undertaken, and not to be undertaken as a mere revolt of the lower classes against their industrial masters.  It must be worked out in great detail, and contrasted with every possible alternative, before cautious statesmen will consent to its adoption.  For it would mean a revolutionary change of enormous proportions; and it would not be easy to revert to the earlier order.  Our political machinery, under which the vast industrial system would come, must first be reconstructed and made efficient.  Religion and public education must be strengthened to meet the new demands upon character and intelligence.  It is earnestly to be hoped that if socialism comes, it will come not by revolution, as the result of a class struggle, but by evolution and a general consent, the result of long and careful public discussion.  In the writer’s opinion, present steps must be along the line of government regulation, with socialism as the possible, but as yet by no means certain, eventual outcome.  In any case, there is no simple and sweeping panacea for our industrial ills; the patient thought and experimentation and effort of generations will be required before a satisfactory and stable equilibrium is attained.