Socialism As It Is

W >> William English Walling >> Socialism As It Is

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45

For a number of years the fight against militarism, and incidentally
against possible wars, has occupied the chief attention of international
Socialist congresses. While the Stuttgart Congress (1907) did not accept
the proposal of the French delegates that in case of war an
international strike and insurrection should be declared, the closing
part of the resolution adopted was definitely intended to suggest such
action by rehearsing with approval the various cases where the working
people had already made steps in that direction, and by advising still
more revolutionary action in the future, as indicated in the words
italicized.

"The International," it said, "is unable to prescribe one set mode
of action to the working classes; this must of necessity be
different in different lands, varying with time and place. But it
is clearly its duty to encourage the working classes everywhere in
their opposition to militarism. As a matter of fact, since the last
International Congress, the working classes have adopted various
ways of fighting militarism, by refusing grants for military and
naval armaments, and by striving to organize armies on democratic
lines. They have been successful in preventing outbreaks of war, or
in putting an end to existing war, or the rumor of war. We may
mention the agreement entered into between the English and French
trade-unions after the Fashoda incident, for the purpose of
maintaining peace and for reestablishing friendly relations between
England and France; the policy of the Social-Democratic parties in
the French and German Parliaments during the Morocco crisis, and
the peaceful declarations which the Socialists in both countries
sent each other; the common action of the Austrian and Italian
Socialists, gathered at Trieste, with a view to avoiding a conflict
between the two powers; the great efforts made by the Socialists of
Sweden to prevent an attack on Norway; and lastly, the heroic
sacrifices made by the Socialist workers and peasants of Russia and
Poland in the struggle against the war demon let loose by the Czar,
in their efforts to put an end to their ravages, and at the same
time _to utilize the crisis_ for the liberation of the country and
its workers.

"All efforts bear testimony to the growing power of the proletariat
and to its absolute determination to do all it can in order to
obtain peace. The action of the working classes in this direction
will be even more successful when public opinion is influenced to a
greater degree than at present, and _when the workingmen's parties
in different lands are directed and instructed by the
International_." And finally it was decided _to try to take
advantage of_ the profound disturbances caused by every war to
_hasten the abolition of capitalist rule_.

The International Congress of 1910 referred back to the Socialist
parties of the various countries for further consideration a resolution
proposed by the French and English delegates which declared: "Among the
means to be used in order to prevent and hinder war, the Congress
considers as particularly efficacious the general strike, especially in
the industries that supply war with its implements (arms and ammunition,
transport, etc.), as well as propaganda and popular action in their
active forms."

This resolution is now under discussion. In referring it to the national
parties, the International Socialist Bureau reminded them that the
practical measure the authors of the amendment had principally in view
was "the strike of workingmen who were employed in delivering war
material." The Germans opposed the resolution on the ground that a
strike of this kind, guarded against by the government, would have to
become general, and that during the martial law of war times it would
necessarily mean tremendous violence. They contended that a more
effective means of preventing war, _until the Socialists are stronger_,
is to vote down all taxes and appropriations for armies and navies. And
they accused the British Labourites who supported this resolution of
having failed to vote against war supplies, while the Germans and their
supporters had. This accusation was true, as against the British
Labourites, but did not apply against the French and other Socialists
who were for the resolution.

We can obtain a key to this situation only by examining the varying
motives of reformists and revolutionaries. The French reformists,
followers of Jaures, are so anxious for peace, that, notwithstanding the
fact that many capitalists, probably a majority, now also favor it, they
are ready to have the working people make the most terrible sacrifices
for this semi-capitalistic purpose. (See Part II, Chapter V.) The
Germans realize that the capitalists themselves have more and more
reasons for avoiding wars, and, being satisfied with their present
political prospects, do not propose to risk them--or their necks--for
any such object. The French _revolutionaries_, on the other hand, favor
extreme measures, not to preserve a capitalistic peace, but to develop
the general strike, to paralyze armies, and encourage their
demoralization and dissolution. They want to parallel all plans for
mobilization by plans for insurrection, and to force armies to disclose
their true purpose, which they believe is not war at all, but the
arbitrary and violent suppression of popular movements.

Whether capitalism or Socialism puts an end to _war_, Socialists
generally are agreed their success may ultimately depend on their
ability to find some way to put a check to _militarism_. The chief means
by which this is likely to be accomplished, they believe, is by the
spread of Socialism and the education of youth and even of children in
the principles of international working-class solidarity, _always to put
the humanity as a whole above one's country_, always to despise and
revolt against all kinds of government by violence. Karl Liebknecht
remarks that "it is already recognized that every Social-Democrat
educates his children to be Social-Democrats." But he says that this is
not sufficient. Social-Democratic parents do their best, but the
Socialist public must aid them to do better. In other words, the
greatest hope for Socialism, in its campaign against militarism as in
all else it undertakes, lies in education.

The Socialist movement, even if it becomes some day capable of forcing
concessions from the capitalists through their fear of a social
overturn, depends first, last, and always upon its ability to teach and
to train and to organize the masses of the people to solve their own
problems without governmental or capitalistic aid, and to understand
that, in order to solve them successfully, they must be able to take
broad and far-sighted views of all the political and economic problems
of the time.

Especially Socialists undertake to enlighten the masses on the part
played by war in history and in recent times--not because wars are
necessarily impending, but because the war talk is an excuse for armies
that really serve another purpose. For Socialists believe that the rule
of society by economic classes, and rule by war or brute force, in the
Socialist view, are one and the same thing. No Socialist has expressed
this view more clearly or forcefully than Mr. George R. Kirkpatrick, in
his recent book, "War--What For?" Addressed to the heart as well as to
the head, and based upon all the most important of the previous attacks
on militarism war, whether Socialist or not, it may be doubted whether
any non-Socialist could have presented as powerful an argument. Mr.
Kirkpatrick gives the following interesting outline of the typical
Socialist view of the development of primitive warfare into modern
militarism and of slavery into the present industrial system (here
abbreviated):--

"For a long time in these intertribal wars it was the practice to
take no prisoners (except the younger women), but to kill, kill,
kill, because the conquerors had no use for the captive men. When,
however, society had developed industrially to a stage enabling the
victors to make use of live men as work animals, _that new
industrial condition produced a new idea_--one of the greatest and
most revolutionary ideas that ever flashed into the human brain;
and that idea was simply this: A live man is worth more than a dead
one, if you can make use of him as a _work animal_. When
industrially it became practicable for the conquerors to make use
of live men captured in war, it rapidly became the custom to take
prisoners, save them alive, beat them into submission--tame
them--and thus have them for work animals, human work animals.

"Here the human ox, yoked to the burdens of the world, started
through the centuries, centuries wet with tears and red with blood
and fire.

"Thus originated a _class_ of workers, the _working class_.

"Thus also originated the _ruling_ class. Thus originated the
'leading citizens.'

"Thus originally, in war, the workers fell into the bottomless gulf
of misery. It was thus that war opened wide the devouring jaws of
hell for the workers.

"Thus was human society long ago divided into industrial
classes--into _two_ industrial classes.

"Of course the interests of these two classes were in fundamental
conflict, and thus originated the class struggle.

"Of course the ruling class were in complete possession and control
of all the powers of government--and of course they had _sense
enough to use the powers of government to defend their own class
interests_.

"Of course the ruling class made all the laws and controlled all
institutions in the interests of the ruling class--naturally."[281]

With all other international and revolutionary Socialists, Mr.
Kirkpatrick believes that when the masses are educated to see the truth
of this view and have learned the true nature of modern industry, class
government, and armies, they will put an end to them. He concludes:--

"The working class men _inside_ and _outside_ the _army_ are
confused.

"They do not understand.

"But they will understand.

"AND WHEN THEY DO UNDERSTAND, their class loyalty and class pride
will astonish the world. They will stand erect in their vast class
strength and defend--THEMSELVES. They will cease to coax and tease;
they will make _demands_--unitedly. They will desert the armory;
they will spike every cannon on earth; they will scorn the
commander; they will never club nor bayonet another striker; and
in the legislatures of the world they will shear the fatted
parasites from the political and industrial body of society."[282]

Here we have both the Socialist point of view and a glimpse of the
passionate feeling that accompanies it. "War--What For?" has been
circulated by scores of thousands among the working people and in the
army and navy.

In countries like America and England, where there is no compulsory
service, the practical objective of such agitation is to prevent
enlistment. In France, Belgium, and Italy, where there is compulsory
service, the Socialists for years have been preaching openly desertion
and insubordination.

Complaint against this anti-military propaganda is general in United
States army and navy circles. Recently a general in Southern California
was said by the press to have reported to Washington that the
distribution of one circular had dissuaded many men from joining the
army. The circular, which was published, was attributed, whether rightly
or not we do not know, to Jack London. It ran in part:--

"Young men, the lowest aim in your life is to be a soldier. The
good soldier never tries to distinguish right from wrong. He never
thinks; he never reasons; he only obeys. If he is ordered to fire
on his fellow citizens, on his friends, on his neighbors, on his
relatives, he obeys without hesitation. If he is ordered to fire
down a crowded street when the poor are clamoring for bread, he
obeys, and sees the gray hair of age stained with blood and the
life tide gushing from the breast of women, feeling neither remorse
nor sympathy. If he is ordered off as one of a firing squad to
execute a hero or benefactor, he fires without hesitation, though
he knows that the bullet will pierce the noblest heart that ever
beat in a human breast.

"A good soldier is a blind, heartless, soulless, murderous machine.
He is not a man. He is not even a brute, for brutes only kill in
self-defense. All that is human in him, all that is divine in him,
all that constitutes the man, has been sworn away when he took the
enlistment roll. His mind, conscience, aye, his very soul, is in
the keeping of his officer."

This language will appeal to many as extremely violent, yet it is no
stronger than that of Tolstoi, while Bernard Shaw used almost identical
expressions in his Preface to "John Bull's Other Island," without
anybody suggesting that they were treasonable.

"The soldier," said Shaw, "is an anachronism of which we must get
rid. Among people who are proof against the suggestions of romantic
fiction there can no longer be any question of the fact that
military service produces moral imbecility, ferocity, and
cowardice.... For permanent work the soldier is worse than useless;
such efficiency as he has is the result of dehumanization and
disablement. His whole training tends to make him a weakling. He
has the easiest of lives; he has no freedom and no responsibility.
He is politically and socially a child, with rations instead of
rights, treated like a child, punished like a child, dressed
prettily and washed and combed like a child, excused for outbreaks
like a child, forbidden to marry like a child, and called Tommy
like a child. He has no real work to keep him from going mad except
housemaid's work."

Mr. Shaw's words are identical with those that are preached by
Socialists every day, especially on the Continent.

"No soldier is asked to think for himself," he says, "to judge for
himself, to consult his own honor and manhood, to dread any
consequence except the consequence of punishment to his own person.
The rules are plain and simple; the ceremonies of respect and
submission are as easy and mechanical as a prayer wheel, the orders
are always to be obeyed thoughtlessly, however inept or
dishonorable they may be.... No doubt this weakness is just what
the military system aims at, its ideal soldier being, not a
complete man, but a docile unit or cannon fodder which can be
trusted to respond promptly and certainly to the external stimulus
of a shouted order, and is intimidated to the pitch of being afraid
to run away from a battle."

Nor is Mr. Shaw less sparing to the officer, and he represents in this
case also the most unanimous Socialist view:--

"If he [the officer] calls his men dogs," says Shaw, "and perverts
a musketry drill order to make them kneel to him as an act of
personal humiliation, and thereby provokes a mutiny among men not
yet thoroughly broken in to the abjectness of the military
condition, he is not, as might be expected, shot, but, at the
worst, reprimanded, whilst the leader of the mutiny, instead of
getting the Victoria Cross and a public testimonial, is condemned
to five years' penal servitude by Lynch Law (technically called
martial law) administered by a trade union of officers."

Like all Socialists, Mr. Shaw recognizes that the evils of militarism
rest even more heavily on subject peoples than on the soldiers,
citizens, or taxpayers of the dominating races. He says of the officer
he has been describing, who is humane and intelligent in civil life,
that in his military capacity he will frantically declare that "he dare
not walk about in a foreign country unless every crime of violence
against an Englishman in uniform is punished by the bombardment and
destruction of a whole village, or the wholesale flogging and execution
of every native in the neighborhood; and also that unless he and his
fellow officers have power, without the intervention of a jury, to
punish the slightest self-assertion or hesitation to obey orders,
however grossly insulting or disastrous those orders may be, with
sentences which are reserved in civil life for the worst crimes, he
cannot secure the obedience and respect of his men, and the country
would accordingly lose all of its colonies and dependencies, and be
helplessly conquered in the German invasion which he confidently expects
to occur in the course of a fortnight or so."

"That is to say," Mr. Shaw continues, "in so far as he is an
ordinary gentleman he behaves sensibly and courageously; and in so
far as he is a military man he gives way without shame to the
grossest folly, cruelty, and poltroonery. If any other profession
in the world had been stained by those vices and by false witness,
forgery, swindling, torture, compulsion of men's families to attend
their executions, digging up and mutilation of dead enemies, all of
which is only added to the devastation proper to its own business,
as the military profession has been within recent memory in
England, France, and the United States of America (to mention no
other countries), it would be very difficult to induce men of
capacity and character to enter it. And in England, it is, in fact,
largely dependent for its recruits on the refuse of industrial
life, and for its officers on the aristocratic and plutocratic
refuse of political and diplomatic life, who join the army and pay
for their positions in the more or less fashionable clubs which the
regimental messes provide them with--clubs, which, by the way,
occasionally figure in ragging scandals as circles of extremely
coarse moral character."[283]

It is not surprising that those who view armies in this light preach
desertion and insubordination. A recent cable dispatch sums up some of
the results of the activity in this direction of the French Federation
of Labor with its million members, and of the Socialist Party with its
still larger following:--

"Last year there were 13,500 desertions and 53,000 who refused to
answer their call to military service. Loss to France in 1910, two
army corps. These figures are given by _La France Militaire_, a
soldiers' newspaper. In a fund called '_le sou du soldat et des
insoumis_,' the idea was to develop antimilitarism and
antipatriotism. Five per cent, on the subscriptions of the
workmen, belonging to the labor unions, was ordered to be set apart
for this fund. The conscripts before departing were requested to
leave the name of their regiment and their number so that sums of
money might be sent to them for antimilitary propaganda in the
barracks. For eight years that sort of thing has been going on, but
things never reached to the extent they do now.

"'The comrades of the workshop count on them to spread among those
around ideas of revolt and rebellion,' is an extract from a letter
read by M. Georges Berry in Parliament, and he added that he had a
score of such letters emanating from the unions. In M. Jaures's
organ, _L Humanite_, there appeared an article on December 22,
1910, inviting all the conscripts of the Labor Federation to send
in their names so that financial aid might be sent to help them in
organizing 'insubordination and desertion.'"

When the Caillaux Ministry came into power in 1911, a large number of
the most prominent leaders of the Federation of Labor were arrested for
participation in this agitation. But for every arrest many other
unionists signed declarations favoring identical principles, and as the
whole Federation is wedded to this propaganda, it is more than doubtful
if the whole million can be arrested and the propaganda done away with.

This agitation is not directed primarily against possible war, or even
exclusively against compulsory military service. Just as the
preparations for an insurrectionary general strike in case of war tend
to break down the power and prestige of the army, even if war is never
declared, so the teaching of insubordination and desertion have the same
effect, even if the compulsory armies are replaced by a compulsory
militia, having only a few weeks of drill every year, as in Australia,
or by a voluntary militia, as in this country. The Socialist world
accepts the word of the American Socialists that a militia, if less
burdensome, and less obnoxious in many ways than a standing army, may be
just as thoroughly reactionary, and quite as hostile to the working
class. The French Socialists and unionists encourage all general and
organized movements among common soldiers. And their ideal in this
regard is reached when a whole body of soldiers, for any good cause,
revolts--especially at a time of popular demonstrations. During the wine
troubles in the south of France, a whole regiment refused to march--and
for years afterwards was toasted at Socialist gatherings.

"Military strikes" have also been frequent in Russia as well as in
France--and have received the unanimous approval of the Socialists of
all countries. No matter how small the causes, Socialists usually
justify them, because they consider military discipline in itself wholly
an evil--and the worst tyranny of capitalist government. They promote
military revolts in favor of great popular causes for a double reason,
and they also have a double motive for supporting purely military
revolts against militarism. For if Socialists are engaged in a class
war, which practically all of them believe may, and many believe must,
lead to revolution, it is as necessary to disarm the opposing classes as
it is to abolish military discipline because of its inherent evil. It is
this fact that explains the importance of all Socialist efforts against
imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, patriotism, war and armies--and
not the idea, common among Socialists, that Socialism alone can be
relied on to establish permanent international peace.

Moreover, the most successful attacks on existing governments in their
coercive and arbitrary aspects, as the Stuttgart resolution suggests
(see above), have been when there were threats of an unpopular war. The
Socialist attack is then not only leveled against war, but also against
armies. A good example is the sending of a delegation of workingmen to
Berlin by the French federation at the invitation of that of Germany at
the time of the Morocco affair (July, 1911). There the Secretary of the
associated labor councils of France, Yvetot, made a speech, the
importance of which was fully appreciated by the German government,
which ordered him to be immediately expelled. His remarks were also
appreciated by his German Socialist audience which responded to them by
stormy applause lasting several minutes. The sentiments so widely
appreciated were contained in the following remarks addressed to the
French and German governments:--

"Just try once, you blockheads, to stir up one people against the
other, to arm one people against the other, you will see if the
peoples won't make an entirely different use of the weapons you put
into their hands. Wait and see if the people don't go to war
against an entirely different enemy than you expect."

The significance of this declaration was not that it declared war
against war, but that, under a certain highly probable contingency of
the immediate future, it prepared the minds of the people for the
forceful overthrow of capitalist governments.

To the preparations of capitalist governments to revert to military rule
in the case of a successful nation-wide general strike, the Socialists
reply at present by plans for weakening and disintegrating armies. And
they do not hesitate to say that they will use more active measures if
capitalist governments persist in what seems to be their present
determination to resort to some form of military despotism when the
Socialists have won over a majority of the population to their views.

FOOTNOTES:

[277] Eugene V. Debs, "Life and Writings," p. 456.

[278] Tolstoi's Essay entitled, "Where is the Way Out?"--October, 1900.

[279] Dr. Karl Liebknecht, "Militarismus und Anti-Militarismus"
(brochure).

[280] Dr. Karl Liebknecht, "Militarismus und Anti-Militarismus",
(brochure).

[281] George R. Kirkpatrick, "War--What For?" pp. 318-325.