mainly as a consumer; the second, exemplified in embryonic form in James's theory of moral equivalence, conceived of the individual mainly as a producer. In its nineteenth-century form, however, the ideology of producerism no longer addressed the conditions of twentieth-century capitalism. A revival of small-scale production seemed unlikely, and some other form of demanding discipline, some other means of instilling a sense of unswerving devotion to an honorable calling, would have to be found. The search defeated many of those who sympathized with its objectives, and who therefore lapsed into a vague and milky communitarianism that avoided the whole problem of modern work and its discontents.

It is interesting that William James, who described himself as a "rabid individualist" and seldom wrote on social questions, contributed so much more to an understanding of the great social questions of the twentieth century, even in this one little essay, than those who worried incessantly about the decline of "community." The heroic ideal, seemingly resistant to any sort of social application, turned out to speak more incisively to social issues, if often very obliquely, than more fully elaborated social philosophies. In order to see how some of its possibilities could be more fully realized, we must turn to the philosopher of syndicalism, Georges Sorel, who acknowledged intellectual indebtedness to James—with far more justification than Mussolini—and whose work can be read as a more highly developed version of the Jamesian theory of moral equivalence. ^*

____________________

*

Not that Sorel was influenced by the ideal of "moral equivalents" as such. James's essay appeared after Sorel had completed all three of his most important works (all of which came out between 1906 and 1908): Reflections on Violence, The Illusions of Progress, and The Decomposition of Marxism. What Sorel took from James was the philosophy of pragmatism in general, which complemented what he had also learned from Bergson, and more specifically James's view of the "cash value" of religion as moral heroism. It is interesting to note that his admiration for James did not extend to the concept of a "pluralistic universe." Writing to Croce in 1910, he astutely observed, "In the mind of William James, pluralism seems to have the function of explaining the existence of evil in the world; the fact of evil poses some difficulties for philosophers with optimistic leanings (as are the English and Americans); they account for it in a crude way by assuming that there are several worlds and several gods. (Varieties of Religious Experience has an intimation of

-303-