MIA > Archive > Boudin > Socialism and War
I stated in my last lecture that, rightly understood, the basic theories of Socialism contain within themselves a theory of race and nationality, and therefore a theory of peace and war, which is totally different from and opposed to the current bourgeois or nationalistic theories on the same subject. And at the same time I stated that such a theory had never been clearly elaborated, nor any definite rules of conduct based thereon established, and that when the war came the vast majority of Socialists acted not on any Socialist theory but on the current nationalistic theory just as if there had been no Socialist theory. It would seem, on the one hand, somewhat presumptuous in one man to assert that he is in possession of the true interpretation of the principles of Socialism, which escaped the notice of the vast majority of Socialists and their intellectual leaders, even if he should admit a few other individuals into a sort of qualified partnership with himself in the possession of this precious truth. On the other hand, such a truth would of necessity seem to be of rather doubtful character: a truth that is neither clearly understood nor acted upon is certainly far from being a living truth, the kind of truth worthy of the name.
In answer to the first objection to the acceptance of what I have stated I will say that truth and the knowledge of truth— which is really one and the same thing, as truth only lives by its recognition and has no existence outside of it— grow as part of the general development of the human species, and their growth depends entirely on the circumstances and conditions of that development. Not only are new ideas, new modes of thought— what we call new truths— the result of new social developments; but all the implications of radically new modes of thought only come to the surface, at least so as to become generally cognizable, with the development of particular conditions and the occurrence of the particular facts of life to which they are to be applied and which serve to accentuate them. The Socialist theories of race and nationality, war and peace, very naturally only developed slowly as the conditions of life called for their application, except perhaps in the minds of some theoreticians and there only fragmentarily. The full scope and import of these theories can only be studied and understood now, under the enlightening influence of the present war. And there can be no doubt but that the present war will bring forth an enormous amount of Socialist literature which will serve to bring this phase of Socialist theory into clear relief,— these lectures being part of a general effort now undoubtedly making in all parts of the world.
As to the second objection, I may say that I can safely take my appeal from formal statements and resolutions to the general, I might almost say instinctive belief, current everywhere before the war, among Socialists and non-Socialists alike, that the Socialists would somehow or other prevent the war, or at least would not willingly participate in it. This almost universal expectation— and the feeling of surprise, disappointment and indignation which followed its failure of realization— must have had some basis of fact, some unconscious or half-conscious evaluation of the Socialist movement and its theory which was dimly present in the minds of all, even though it never reached the stage of full articulation. There must have been something which made the world put a different valuation on the Socialist declarations in favor of peace, from the valuation it placed on similar declarations emanating from the bourgeois pacifists. It is this which gives point to the sneers leveled at the Socialists shooting at their “comrades” while no one would think of sneering at the Christians for shooting at their “brothers in Christ” and getting “infidels” to help them in the shooting. By an almost universal consensus of opinion the Socialists’ professions of peace were regarded as something more than a mere pious wish or an outward coat of veneer, meant only for dress-parade and of no account in the actual “business of life.” They were supposed to mean real business, to be an integral part of the actuality of the Socialist labor movement.
The basis of this universal belief in the sincerity and the actuality-quality of the Socialist peace program is to be found in the Class Struggle, which is both the theory and the practice of the modern p labor movement. The theory of the class struggle is in absolute and irreconcilable opposition to the nationalistic theory of patriotism,— while its practice makes the practice of the patriotic virtues utterly impossible.
The theory of the Class Struggle is not merely a statement of fact as to the division of our present society into hostile classes struggling with one another for the good things in life and for the control of the institutions of organized society which control the distribution of these things. It is primarily a historical theory, an attempt to explain the progress of mankind and the means whereby this progress is brought about. As such it denies the role ascribed to race and nationality as factors of human progress by the nationalistic theory, and considers these entities mere incidents in the evolution of mankind, brought forth at a certain stage of this evolution and bound to disappear with it.
Briefly stated, the position of those who believe in the Class-struggle theory of progress— which is my position, and, I believe, the position of all true Socialists— is this: In the first place, there is no such thing as a Superior or an Inferior race. All races are alike, with respect to their essential qualities,— that is in their capability to develop along those lines that we call civilization. Different races may at any given time be at different stages of this development, but they are all equally capable of achieving the highest point of this process of evolution. In other words the differences between them are of the degree of development and not those of an essential kind or substantive quality, so to say. It follows logically from this, (although this logical correlation has not always been recognized), that there are no separate national cultures, but only one human Civilization; that the so-called differences of national culture among nations at the same stage of civilization, are mere differences of local color, unessential and unenduring in character, and bound to disappear with the disappearance of the particular mode of life which has produced them.
This position is not exactly novel. It is in fact a further development and consolidation (to use an expression that has become familiar since the beginning of this war) of the theoretical position achieved during the peaceful epoch of capitalism of which I spoke in one of the earlier lectures. This is one of the instances when we Socialists stand for the achievements of bourgeois-capitalist civilization— achievements of the vigorous “classic” age of that order of things and the accompanying ideology— as against the reactionary tendencies of its own later and more decrepit age. But we Socialists are never stand-patters. And so we do not simply stand pat on the achievements of capitalist civilization at its best, but are ready to develop them further to their logical conclusions and in consonance with the general trend of evolution. We do not, therefore, merely take our stand on the essential equality of all races and nations, and the absence of any distinctive cultures; different in kind and therefore liable to differ in quality. We go a step further and say that while civilization is common to all mankind, this civilization is improving in quality and reaches higher levels as mankind surmounts the inherited difficulties of historic differences and approaches a common type superior to all localisms. Our goal is, therefore, not cosmopolitanism, a state when different cultures merely dwell side by side, but true internationalism, when all national cultural differences will be merged in a higher, pan-human, culture.
Now, I realize that I am treading here on extremely dangerous ground, for I am now bucking up not only against the nationalistic prejudice but also against the dread of many good souls in our midst against so-called “levelling”. It is curious how even people who can see the utter absurdity of the “levelling” charge when brought against the economic and social aspects of Socialism, will still consider it a valid objection to a common, non-local, and non-national, culture. Somehow they cannot divest themselves of the absurd notion that a common, non-national, culture, means a less varied, monotonous, poor kind of culture, at least from the artistic point of view. As a matter of fact such fears are utterly groundless, and we need not resort to hypothetical speculations as to a future state in order to convince ourselves of this. It is sufficient to examine intelligently the well-authenticated facts of the historic past. And we need not delve far into history either; it is sufficient to study the epoch of European history which closed but yesterday.
As I pointed out in an earlier lecture, the face of Europe was not so very long ago covered by a multitude of tribes, each having its own characteristics of speech, dress, and manner, which marked it off and set it apart from all other tribes. These tribes have now disappeared and their place has been taken by a few great nations. Will any one say that European culture, its literature, its art, have become poorer on that account?
Or, perhaps your fancy cannot carry you so far back so as to make the comparison. Take, then, the Germany of yesterday as an illustration. After emerging from the tribal state Germany still continued broken up into a number of fragments: Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons, Hessians, Hanoverians, etc., etc., and not merely in the sense that politically these sub-divisions of the German people were independent of each other, but in the sense that there existed many particular patriotisms as a concomitant of these separate political entities. This condition continued until within the memory of living men. And their consolidation was opposed much on the same grounds, as the consolidation of all nations into a common, nation-less, humanity is being opposed now, that is to say, for “cultural” reasons. The Bavarian and the Saxon, the Swab and the Hessian, and the rest, were afraid that the culture of the world would grow poorer by the disappearance of the distinctive individuality of the three dozen different Germanic “cultures” and their merger into one “leveling” German culture.
Have these fears been justified? Has German culture grown poorer, or has the world at large lost any valuable cultural element by the disappearance of the duodez cultures of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, or even of the largest unit of them all? Ask the world of art and letters. Nay, ask these same former duodez particularists. Ask any one of the present day shouters for German Kultur, whether Germany has lost in culture since the particular culture of the shouter’s fatherland of fifty years ago, be it Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, or Saxe-Meiningen, has been merged in the general culture of Germany.
These examples prove two things: First, that it is utterly absurd to assume an intimate relation between certain political boundaries, which may be the result of historic accident, even if they coincide with some particular twist of the tongue, and human culture. Second, that the amalgamation of smaller units into larger ones is a means of progress and does not in any way retard or otherwise injuriously affect human culture. That, on the contrary, such amalgamations tend to broaden the vision and quicken the intellect, which of necessity results in a richer life and therefore in a richer culture.
To that extent nations have been the means of advancing culture. But to that extent only. Having reached the nation-stage, to insist on remaining at it is not merely to refuse to go forward but it inevitably means an attempt to go backward. Nationalism is as reactionary now, even from a purely cultural point of view, as was German particularism two generations ago.
But Socialist theory does not stop merely denying the nationalistic theory of progress. We have a theory of progress of our own, which we substitute for the national theory. The substance of our theory— which is a part of the theory of the class-struggle— consists in the claim that social classes and the struggle between them are a means of furthering the general progress of humanity. We believe that the fundamental division of the human species is not along racial or national lines, but along class lines, and that the great struggles which led to those social transformations which we call human progress were struggles along the class line of division. There is such wide-spread misconception of the Class Struggle theory that I think it worth while to spend a few minutes in giving you a general outline of this theory, as a clear understanding of this theory is necessary to an understanding of what I believe to be the true Socialist position on the problem of peace and war.
As commonly understood the theory of the Class Struggle “teaches” that Society is divided into two classes— the capitalist class and the working class— and that these two classes are, or should be, in a life-and-death struggle with each other. This notion of the Class Struggle theory may be considered a fairly correct approximation of one element in that theory. But it does not exhaust its meaning by far. Indeed, as so stated, it leaves out its most essential feature. For this theory is not merely a statement of things as they are in our society, but a generalization of all past history, a theory of historical progress, a philosophy of history. This philosophy may be thus summarized:
Ever since human society has been based on private property, which means practically ever since there has been any written history recording the progress of mankind, this society has been divided into classes, the upper classes always representing a certain social economy, and being in control of the principal instruments of production and distribution of that economy. These different social classes are in a continual struggle among themselves; not merely the upper classes with the lower, but the upper classes among themselves, each one of them struggling to make its economy the dominant economy of the community or nation and make every other economy subservient to it. In this struggle for economic supremacy each class endeavors to gain control of the political power of the community in order to use the entire collective power of the social organism to further its own cause. More than that: each class tries to give the social organism institutions of organization— as best suits the economic order— that is, it tries to establish a political order which represents itself.[a] Each class therefore represents a distinct economic and political order of things, which implies also a distinct moral and intellectual outlook upon the world. In other words,— a distinct phase of civilization or culture.
The important classes, representing as they do, different social economies, appear on the historical arena successively. The appearance of a new class upon the arena of human history therefore means not only a new struggle but the beginning of a new epoch, a new advance, in our civilization.
At first blush there seems to be a striking analogy between this theory and the nationalistic theory. The same idea of advance by struggle between different cultures or phases of civilization. The same idea of a certain part of the human species being the carrier of a certain culture or phase of civilization, and the necessity of that particular portion of mankind obtaining political dominion over the rest of mankind in order to permit the entire human race to take a step further on the road of progress by giving this particular culture or form of civilization the upper hand in the struggle of ideas and points of view. It would seem in fact that all that we Socialists did, in our boasted advance upon the nationalistic point of view, was to substitute the class for the nation. But upon a closer examination of the subject we shall find that the substitution of the class for the nation as the carrier of progress involves a fundamental change of view in the outlook upon the world and its meaning, and has a most far-reaching effect upon the decision of all practical problems with which we are confronted in our daily life, both as individuals and as members of an organized community, including the great problem just now engrossing the attention of the entire civilized world,— the problem of peace and war.
In the first place, the nationalist theory is a conservative one, if not actually reactionary; while the Class Struggle theory is evolutionary and progressive. The Nationalist looks upon the world through the naive eyes of the author of the Book of Genesis, as the same was understood before any attempts were made to square its story of Creation with the results of modern science: The Creator, in his wisdom, created a number of nationalities, and endowed each of them with certain characteristics and capabilities; some were intended to serve and others to rule; the ruling nationalities were each made the carrier of a certain brand of culture; and these nationalities are therefore by the law of their creation and existence to carry on a struggle for the supremacy of particular cultures.
The Class Struggle theory does not look to Genesis but to Darwin and Science for an explanation of the existence of races and nations and their different endowments and characteristics. It believes in the theory of evolution and applies it to social phenomena. Races are the result of the natural conditions of the existence of the human race in different natural environments, and nations are the result of these “natural” conditions plus the social conditions under which the different groups of the human family live and work. Neither is a permanent entity. Both are subject to change and transformation when the conditions of their existence change. And these conditions, particularly the social conditions, do constantly change. But not only are race and nation changeable entities, class, likewise, is a changing entity; its existence being the result of social evolution and its character constantly undergoing a process of evolution.
This difference in the point of view as to the origin and character of the divisions existing in the human family has a direct bearing upon the subject which is uppermost in our minds to-day: the nationalist theory is warlike, while the Class Struggle theory is peaceful.
We have seen that the basic idea of nationalism is that the Creator has created different nationalities, carriers of different cultures, and set them to fight each other. The idea of one Chosen People, the carrier of the Culture, is not only the logical corollary of this basic idea, but is practically inseparable from it. And the idea of a Chosen People is inseparable from the ideas of war, conquest, dominion. The Chosen People of Genesis and what follows it are a warlike, ferocious, conquering, exterminating, people. Their God is the conquering Lord of Hosts,— the cruel, ruthless War Lord. And properly so: The Culture can be established only on the ruins of the inferior cultures contesting its supremacy. It must exterminate them root and branch. What matters it, if in the process some, or even many, human lives are destroyed? Destruction is the law of life, and the progress of the species is worth any sacrifice. Particularly, if the sacrifice is of inferior human beings and it rebounds to the welfare of the superior race, the Chosen People. And the modern adepts of the Chosen People idea, with its cultural mission, have shown in theory and practice the acceptance of the idea that the War Lord and his ways are still the proper, if not the only, means of carrying out this cultural mission.
The Class Struggle theory stands in absolute contrast to this. Not only are there no inferior races or nations: there are no inherently inferior classes. The class representing the old and antiquated order of things, the class against whom the new and progressive class is fighting, does not consist of inferior individuals, individuals in themselves less useful or less worthy members of the social organism. It is only their social position within a certain social order that makes the rising class fight them. The fight can, therefore, never be directed against them as individuals, there can be no personal hatred against them, and therefore no desire to encompass their destruction. The fight is merely against their social position; and that not with a view of supplanting them, but for the purpose of abolishing that position itself and place them in a position of equality with the members of the attacking class. The class struggle is, therefore, from the point of view of the attacking force, not a fight for superiority but for equality.
Furthermore, even as a class the class attacked is not supposed to be an inferior class, in the eyes of the attacking class;— but merely a superannuated class, a class that has outlived its usefulness. As was already pointed out, the Class Struggle theory, when rightly understood, ascribes to each class an important historical part, a cultural mission. And while each succeeding class represents a higher phase of civilization, it does not mean that the earlier one was of less importance in the general development of human civilization. Its domination is to be abolished, but it is to be neither hated nor despised.
And this brings us to the most important difference between the national and the class point of view with respect to the “enemy culture”. We have already seen that the nationalist superior culture fights to destroy its opponents. That is perfectly proper from its point of view, because the enemy culture is an utterly alien and antagonistic entity. Not so with class culture. From the point of view of the Class Struggle theory, the new culture, represented by the rising class, is not something utterly alien to nor something entirely independent of the culture of the class which it is fighting. On the contrary, it is intimately connected with it, being merely a further step in the same process of development. With all its enmity to the order to be abolished, it does not mean to destroy it entirely, only certain of its attributes. The good that it has brought, the real cultural advances that it has made, are to be retained and made permanent.
The enemy class is to be fought and its social dominion abolished, but its cultural work is not to be destroyed.
In fact its cultural mission is to be helped along, whenever it needs our assistance in order to accomplish this task. And whenever the enemy class should prove false to its own ideals and cultural mission, and abandon its historical task in the advancement of civilization, it becomes our mission to accomplish this task and finish the work thus left undone.
But there is another important distinction between the historico-cultural conceptions of Nationalism on the one hand, and the Class Struggle theory, adopted by Socialism, on the other. A distinction which colors the entire outlook upon the world and its doings, and therefore of the greatest practical importance. It is this:
According to the Nationalist-Imperialist idea of historical progress, races and nations have not only always existed, but will always exist. This is the only possible modus vivendi of the human species. The nations were put there not merely to fight for supremacy, but also to preserve their identity. And this applies to superior and inferior races alike, to conquering as well as vanquished nations. The super-race or super-nation is to impose its will and culture upon the other races and nations, but it must not assimilate them, absorb them into its own body, on pain of itself degenerating and losing that position in the world for which it was intended by the act of Creation. I have already mentioned the fact that according to the nationalistic theory the chosen race or nation is the only carrier of its particular culture. The inferior races and nations may accept it by submitting to it and live under its beneficent rule, but they can never become its living carriers and propagators. Purity of race is itself a sign of superiority, while “mongrel” races are necessarily inferior. The maintenance of the chosen race or nation in its pristine purity is therefore the first commandment in the nationalist code.
The practical ideal of the nationalist philosophy is the perpetuation of races and nationalities with their existing divisions into superior and inferior, ruling and servile; the perpetuation of strife among them in its double aspect of an attempt by all the so-called superior nations to enslave the inferior ones, and of the struggle of the alleged superior nations among themselves for first place, for domination of the entire world. In other words— the perpetuation of war.
Not so for the Socialist theory of the Class Struggle. The class is not an essential and immutable element of progress in this theory in the same sense that the Nation is in the nationalist theory. I have already pointed out the fact that according to our theory classes are not eternal, but that each class is destined to occupy the historical arena only for a given time, accomplishing its historical mission, which is only a temporary phase of the evolution of the entire species, and then disappearing within the bowels of the human race which gave it birth. I must now call your attention to another important feature of our theory: Not only is each class merely a passing phenomenon of human evolution, but progress-by-means-of-the-class-struggle is itself only a phase of human evolution, the class struggle being the means of human progress only during a certain epoch of the history of the species,— the epoch in which private property is the basis of the social-economic order. There were epochs of human history when society was not divided into classes, and when human progress was therefore effected without the intervention of the class struggle. And we are looking forward to a time when classes will again disappear, and when human progress will be effected by other and more peaceful means than the struggle of the classes. Instead of preaching or teaching a perpetual struggle of the classes, the most essential feature, the cardinal doctrine, of the Class-Struggle theory is the abolition of classes and of the class struggle.
Applying these theoretical distinctions to practical problems we find the following differences of policy between the Nationalists and the Socialists:
The Nationalist is a reactionary or conservative, while the Socialist is a progressive. The Nationalist does not merely look backward for the purpose of discovering the origin of races and nations in the act of Creation, but also to discover his ideal of the future. His future lies in the past. It is in the past that the race or nation existed in unquestioned purity. It was then that its true characteristics, its essential qualities, its true spirit, manifested themselves— in its old and time-honored institutions. It is therefore his manifest duty to strive to preserve these institutions; and the older the institution the greater the duty of preservation. To conserve the past, with its outlived and outworn institutions, is the practical program of Nationalism. And wherever the old and hoary institutions have been encroached upon and their efficiency impaired by recent innovations, this program includes not merely conservation of what is, but also a retracing of steps in order to regain what was. Conservatism is followed logically by reaction.
A glance at the world around us, and a look into the history of the past fifty years, will prove the correctness of this assertion. I stated in one of the preceding lectures that the republican-democratic form of government was an essential element of bourgeois-capitalistic philosophy during its peaceful-cosmopolitan epoch, when that philosophy reached its highest cultural level. During the fifty years or so that have passed since, there has been considerable filling and backing, and considerable retracing of steps in that particular. Instead of forging forward towards a realization of its ideals, the bourgeoisie, under the influence of the Imperialistic trend, has entirely abandoned its demand for a republican form of government, not only as a practical program but as an ideal. At no time within the past century and a half were monarchical institutions so popular among the “educated classes” as at the present time. This is particularly true of those parts of Western Europe where republicanism was strongest half-a-century ago.
Some of us old-fashioned Americans who have failed to read the signs of the times may have been rather surprised to hear Prof. Münsterberg of Harvard tell us soon after the outbreak of the present war that in Germany they considered a republic “reactionary”; that not only did they (that is, the German educated classes) not aspire towards a republic, but that they would consider the introduction of the republican form of government as a relapse into a lower cultural level. Perhaps some of us even jumped to the conclusion that the learned Professor was libeling his countrymen. But to those who are familiar with the latest fruits and flowers of Imperialistic culture, there was nothing new or startling in the gentleman’s declaration. His was the true voice of the new trend. A new trend which is not peculiar to Germany, but is common to all of up-to-date Europe. And while this trend is stronger in Germany than elsewhere, the difference is merely one of degree and not of kind. As the foremost representative of the modern Imperialistic spirit, as the principal expounder of the race-nationalistic theories which form its base, Germany naturally leads in this march backwards. But the others follow, and not so very far behind either.
The only ones that have refused to follow were those portions of the working class who, following the leadership of the Socialist theorists, accepted the doctrines of the Class Struggle philosophy and the practical program dictated thereby. Facing forward, they care very little for the cast-off clothes of the past; nor have they any particular attachment for present-day institutions either because of their age or supposed connection with a particular national spirit or so-called genius of the race. Furthermore, believing in a steady forward march of the human race as a whole, they do believe in the achievements of the entire human race, including certain forms of social and economic life, which we ought to maintain and develop further. Among these are republican and democratic forms of government. The Socialist part of the working class therefore considers itself in duty bound to cherish the ideal of, and carry on the struggle for, republicanism and democracy wherever and whenever the bourgeoisie, the class whose mission it was to introduce these forms of government into modern society, has gone back on them.
And here I must stop for a moment in order to explain what, according to the Class Struggle theory, was the historic mission of the capitalist class— in the broader meaning of those words which makes them co-terminous with the word bourgeoisie— as that has an intimate relation with our position on the war question as I understand it.
Briefly speaking, the historic mission of the capitalist class was to establish political liberty and freedom of economic intercourse. I do not want to be misunderstood: I do not use the word “mission” in the same sense as the nationalistic theorists use that word,— in a teleologic sense. What I want to say is this: In order to fully develop those economic forces which gave birth to and attained their development during the epoch known as the capitalistic era, two things were necessary: personal, and economic freedom. The capitalist class needed these two things in order to overthrow the political rule of the feudal class, which preceded it in the rulership of society, and abolish the economic order known as feudalism. These two things therefore became the essential features of its ideology,— its way of looking upon the world. Driven by its economic interests, and its ideals born of those interests, it strove to accomplish these two purposes, which, when accomplished, constituted an absolute and permanent gain for human civilization.
By “economic freedom” I mean here freedom of economic intercourse, which must be reckoned among the great achievements of capitalism, along with political liberty. For freedom of economic intercourse, both within the nation and between nations, is absolutely necessary for a full and rational development of all the economic forces latent within our social system. Unfortunately, the capitalist class fully accomplished these achievements only in theory, and not in practice. For a short time and in a limited area it came near accomplishing it fully, when it suddenly halted and turned back upon itself.
The working class, which considers itself the heir to all of the cultural achievements of the past, which it must use as a foundation in building its own cultural edifice in the future, therefore finds that the two cultural ideals of capitalism have been placed by fate in its keeping. Besides doing its own work proper it must carry to a finish the task left unfinished by the capitalist class, as well as protect against all attack whatever has already been accomplished.
Now, what is the application of the theoretical positions of those who accept the Class-Struggle Theory of evolution to the subject of war?
It is self-evident that those who accept the theory of the Class Struggle cannot possibly be for war in the same sense and for the same reasons that the Nationalists may be, and usually are, for war. War is, at best, carried on by a nation for national purposes. Denying as the Socialists of that school do the importance or legitimacy of the national purposes, they cannot, of course, favor such wars. Whatever valid argument the Nationalist may advance on behalf of war, applies, from the Class Struggle point of view, only to “the war of the classes”, but not to war among nations. They cannot, therefore, have any valid reason for the awful destruction of life and property which war occasions, and must therefore be opposed to war for purely humanitarian reasons. The humanitarian point of view is in itself a perfectly legitimate one, and is the only one naturally taken by us when there are no reasons sufficient to outweigh it. The nationalistic philosophy presents such outweighing reasons in the “national interest”. Take away the validity of the “national interest” reason from our feeling and our judgment, and we are thrown back on our common humanity, supported by our personal interest which is nearly always against war because of the great sacrifices which it brings with it. I am speaking, of course, of really popular wars, in which the number of those who go into the war either because of an excess of “fighting blood” or because of actual pecuniary interest must be a negligible quantity.
But the Socialists who accept the Class Struggle theory of progress must be opposed to war for other than purely humanitarian reasons. In fact, all the valid reasons which the nationalist advances in favor of war are to the Socialist so many reasons why he should be opposed to it. Nay, all the reasons which the nationalist can advance in favor of the peaceful acquisition of power by his nation, whenever peaceful acquisition of power is possible, are to the Socialist so many additional reasons why he should be opposed to war.
I have already stated that whatever valid reasons the nationalists may advance in favor of war apply, from the Socialist point of view, only to “the war of the classes”. It goes therefore without saying that whatever valid ground there may be, from the nationalistic point of view, for the desire to increase the power and extend the influence of one’s nation by “peaceful” means, that is all means short of actual wholesale destruction of lives and property, are, from the Socialist point of view, so many grounds for the desire to increase the power and extend the influence of one’s class. From the Class Struggle point of view the class does in fact occupy, for the time being, that is as long as society is divided into classes, the same place that the nation does in the most ultra-nationalistic philosophy. The welfare of his class is a “good citizen’s” chief concern. The good class-patriot will therefore labor incessantly for the increase of the power and the extension of the influence of his class. Paraphrasing the national-patriot he says: “My class may it ever be right, but right or wrong my class”. And when it comes to the choice of means in order to further the cause of his class, he again follows the lead of the good national-patriot and says: “I shall use peaceful means if I can, but any means that will serve the purpose if I must”. The class-interest is paramount to him to any other consideration, just as the national interest is paramount to any other consideration from the standpoint of the national patriot.
But national wars are always opposed to the class-interests of those engaged in the class-struggle from below, wherever “the war of the classes” is in progress; just as the class-war is opposed to the national interest when a national war is in progress. The divisions along class lines on the one hand and national lines on the other are fundamentally antagonistic to each other. It may be stated as a general proposition, to which only few, if any, exceptions can be found, that their interests are in deadly antagonism, in the sense that whatever intensifies one line of demarcation— strengthens one line of division— necessarily impairs and weakens the other line of division. War conducted along one line of division necessarily crosses, and therefore impedes, war conducted along the other line of division.
When the present war broke out, the national interests which dictated and directed it immediately demanded a cessation of the class war as detrimental to the prosecution of the national war. And those who accepted the nationalistic point of view in this war agreed to suspend the class-war, as a subordinate struggle, in view of the presence of the national war, which they consider the paramount struggle. And, assuming the paramountcy of the division along national lines over the division along class lines, and therefore of the national interest over the class interest, this action was absolutely correct. The “Burgfrieden”, as the suspension of hostilities along class lines is called in Germany, is an official acknowledgment of two things: first, that the two struggles— national struggle and class struggle— cross each other’s path, interfere with each other, are inimical one to another; and, second, that the national struggle is recognized as of basic importance, besides which the class struggle is a mere family squabble.
And just as the Burgfrieden— interclass peace— is the logical position for those who believe in the paramountcy of the national struggle and therefore of national interests, so is international peace the only possible position of those who acknowledge the paramountcy of the division along class lines, and therefore of the class struggle and of class interests.
Just as the national interest demands the suspension of the class struggle in order to effect the unity of the nation, which it considers not only necessary to actual success in the national war but the only basis for a real national war; so the class interest demands the absolute suspension of all national hostilities, the unity of the class irrespective of conflicting national interests, as the only basis upon which the class struggle can be conducted either logically or successfully. It is because of this that the call “Workers of the World Unite!” has become the battle-cry of the working class when it consciously entered upon the warpath in the class struggle now waging in our society.
Active, unrelenting opposition to war, irrespective of the demands of so-called “national interests’’, is therefore the “natural state” of the Socialist who accepts the Class Struggle theory. Believing as he does that the basic division of mankind is along class lines, and that it is that division which counts principally in all questions affecting the progress of humanity, the so-called “national interests” seem to him a snare and a delusion. A snare, because instead of promoting progress, the division which is the foundation of these interests lies across its path and interferes with the prosecution of the struggle which really does promote progress,— the class struggle. And a delusion, because there is in reality no such thing as a “national interest”, in the sense of an interest which affects equally the entire nation and the preservation of which is equally important to all classes within the nation.
Under certain exceptional circumstances all the classes within a nation may have a common interest in a certain result, which each may consider desirable from its own point of view. But such common interest is not therefore or necessarily a truly national interest, that is an interest which reposes in or adheres to the nation qua nation. And, therefore even when working for such a common end, the class point of view which makes this end desirable for the members of each class must never be lost sight of. If the class point of view is lost sight of, and the national point of view adopted in such a case, infinite harm is likely to result to the under-class struggling for supremacy and therefore interested in pushing the class fight. Let me give you an illustration: Suppose that the carnage of the war in the Western battle area had caused the plague to appear in Belgium and Northern France. The civil population of Belgium as well as the German army of invasion now occupying Belgium, would be interested in stopping the ravages of the plague. These inimical parts of the present population of Belgium would then have the common object of exterminating the plague germ, or whatever else has to be done in order to stop the further progress of the scourge. But it is evident that this would neither unite the inimical portions of the present population of Belgium into one harmonious whole, nor would it turn this community of interest into an identity or solidarity of interest.
And don’t imagine that this is a distinction without a difference. On the contrary, the difference is a deep-rooted one and likely to have very important practical results. Supposing it were discovered that the surest and most effective way of combating the plague would be for the German army to withdraw from Belgium, a real identity of interests would of course make the German army withdraw at once, but a mere community of interest in fighting the plague wouldn’t. Again, suppose that the ravages of the plague were particularly strong in the army camps, so that there was danger of the army becoming so weakened as to be compelled to withdraw into Germany. A real identity of interest would evidently dictate to the Belgians an entirely different policy from the mere community of interest in fighting a common enemy. Woe to the side that would mistake community for identity of interests! You may be sure the German army wouldn’t. The upper-dog never does.
In the foregoing I have attempted to give the Socialist position on war generally and uninfluenced by local conditions; the Socialist position as it would be in a case where the issue between national struggle and class struggle would be squarely presented by the absence of complicating circumstances. But in the actual world of fact issues are very seldom presented in a simple form. In most cases issues are obscured by extraneous matter, and complicated by secondary issues. As far as the subject which we are now discussing is concerned the issue may be complicated, principally, by three kinds of facts or considerations: (1) Facts relating to the stage of development of the countries coming into question in any particular war, and the influence that the war may have on the development of those liberties which, as I have pointed out before, we Socialists regard as the cultural achievement of the capitalist epoch to be cherished and preserved for the future in the countries affected by the war. (2) Facts relating to the condition and development of nationalistic tendencies, and the manner in which they would be affected by the war, or by a particular manner of its termination. (3) General considerations of justice, and the influence that the war may have on the general development of the principles of liberty.
To take up the last class of facts first: As I have already stated, the Socialists do not believe in any superior and inferior races. They therefore cannot see any reason for the subjection of one race or nation by another. On the other hand their ideal looks towards a time when there will be no struggle and no subjection of any kind of one part of the human race by another. They even want to abdicate the predominance of their own class after it shall have achieved supremacy in order to accomplish this result. Any kind of subjection, and for whatever cause, be it sex, race, color, religion, or “previous condition of servitude”, is equally abhorrent to them. They therefore believe in national freedom, in the right of each nation to be master of its own destinies, so long as nations do exist. This includes political, economic, as well as spiritual and intellectual freedom.
And they are ready to go to war for it when necessary. That is why the Socialists have always been in sympathy with all “wars of liberation”, although they well knew that a “war of liberation” always meant to the great masses of the people the liberation from a “foreign yoke” so that they might be exploited by their own ruling class. It must be stated, however, that by reason of this latter fact, which made the “liberty” in question a pure fiction, the Socialists’ enthusiasm for a “war of liberation” always depended largely on whether or not it accorded with the development of liberal institutions generally, and the requirements of the class struggle. To the same category, although somewhat exceptional in its facts, belongs our Civil War, which was on the part of the North a “War of Liberation” for the Negro race in its results at least. It therefore evoked the enthusiastic support of Karl Marx, who did much to uphold the cause of the North by marshaling on its behalf the advanced portion of the English working class, at a time when the ruling classes of England were favoring the South, and although the immediate interests of the English workingmen were on the same side. Such wars are now, however, practically a thing of the past; at least until the dawn of a new revolutionary epoch.
A fair example of the first class of cases referred to by me above is the situation in Europe as it existed immediately prior to and at the time of the Crimean War, when Marx was in favor of a war by the Western European powers against Russia. As I have already stated in my last lecture the differences in the economic development between Russia and the West of Europe, and their international balance of power as it then was, seemed to Marx to demand a war by a Western European coalition against Russia, as a means of insuring the unhindered development of free institutions in Western Europe. I have already pointed out, in the same lecture, that European conditions have changed so much since the Crimean War, that a war against Russia is now in no way different from a war against any other “civilized” nation. And I may add here that the general situation the world over is now such that no war could be planned that would serve to advance the cause of free institutions either in any of the warring countries or anywhere else in the world. On the contrary, the most probable, if not the inevitable result, of any war waged at this time would be a considerable strengthening of the powers of reaction everywhere, and almost of all naturally in the warring countries. The present war has already furnished abundant proof of the correctness of this assertion. And I venture to assert that we have not seen the end of it yet, nor the worst of it.
The present war also furnishes indisputable proof, if any proof were indeed necessary, that every war serves to accentuate national divisions, intensifies national animosities wherever they existed before and creates new ones where none existed before, and generally gives new life and impetus to the nationalistic spirit; and, correspondingly, lowers the vitality of the forces carrying on the class struggle on behalf of the working class.
It may therefore be confidently asserted that no matter what causes Socialists may have had for desiring war in the past,— in our own day and generation, at least, no combination of circumstances is at all likely to arise which could outweigh the great objections which Socialists must have to war. The present-day policy of Socialism must therefore be unalterable opposition to all wars of aggression.
And not only before war has broken out, but all the time.
And now as to defensive wars. I have already stated that up to the present war the rule of action most widely accepted among Socialists was based on the distinction between wars of aggression and defensive wars. Its greatest champion was Bebel, and it found its classic expression in his announcement, that— “Wenn wir werden angegriffen dann wehren wir uns”,— if we are attacked we shall defend ourselves. I have also mentioned already the criticism which Kautsky passed on the distinction between aggressive and defensive war as a rule of action. Since the commencement of the present war it has been repeatedly stated that this war has conclusively demonstrated the untenableness of that distinction. These statements, usually made by the apologists of Germany and of the conduct of the German Socialists in this war, must not be confused with Kautsky’s criticism of Bebel’s position at the Jena Congress.
Kautsky’s contention was that Bebel’s distinction was an unserviceable one in practice, because of the fact that if we adhered strictly to the policy that “if we are attacked we shall defend ourselves” it lies easily within the power of any government, particularly such a government as the German Government which can back up its lies by a forcible suppression of the truth, to make an aggressive war appear to the majority of the working class as a defensive one, and thus drag us into an aggressive war. He therefore sought for a rule of conduct which would leave us our liberty of action even in case of a defensive war. The present German apologists do exactly the reverse. Asserting that the present war has demonstrated the lack of all distinction between wars of aggression and defensive wars, they proceed to disclaim any obligation on the part of Socialists to refrain from engaging in any kind of war. In other words, they dwell on Kautsky’s criticism of the distinction between aggressive and defensive wars not for the purpose of emancipating ourselves from a doctrinaire rule of action which might in practice turn us over bound hand and foot to our enemies, the militarists; but for the purpose of throwing aside all restraint of Socialist principle or policy, so that we may join in the militarist revels even to the extent of joining in avowedly aggressive wars. We know that the devil can quote Scripture. Socialist opportunists who chafe under the restraints imposed upon their conduct by Socialist principles are past masters in quoting Marx, Engels, and other Socialist authorities, to cover up their— from a Socialist point of view— thoroughly disreputable conduct.
As a matter of fact, far from proving that there is really no difference between aggressive and defensive war, the present war has proven just the contrary. There can be no doubt but that the decidedly unfriendly feeling against Germany which now prevails all over the world is due in a measure at least to the fact that the world believes Germany to have been the aggressor in the present war. And the strong feeling of resentment prevalent among Socialists the world over against the German Socialists over their conduct in this war, a feeling which pervades circles hitherto most friendly to the German Socialists, is due almost entirely to the fact that they are believed to have engaged in aggressive war. All the protestations of Germany and of German Socialists that this is a defensive war on Germany’s part could not affect the world’s judgment, arrived at without great difficulty, on the question of fact as to who is the aggressor in this war. Nor could any specious arguments to the effect that there really is no difference between aggressive and defensive war affect our instinctive feeling to the contrary and the consequent judgment of the world at large, including the Socialists, on the moral questions involved.
That does not mean, however, that from a Socialist point of view every defensive war is right,— that we can subscribe to the rule that “if we are attacked we shall defend ourselves”. And quite aside from the fact that this rule may be impracticable as a guide to action, as pointed out by Kautsky. The real trouble with this rule is that it is wrong in principle. It is based on the nationalistic principle that the “nation” or “country” must be preserved in all its vigor and power; any attack upon it must therefore be repelled, as it is likely to diminish that power. But once you cast the nationalist principle aside, and substitute class-interest for national interest as the basic principle determining conduct, why should the members of the working class go to war with other members of the working class in order to defend the power of their respective “nations”. Marx said that the working man has no country. Nor has it any nation. In the sense in which the words “country” and “nation” are used by nationalistic patriots,— that is to say in the sense that their “power” is his power, which it is in his interest to defend.
Why, for instance, should English workingmen go to the defence of “their country” if the United States were to attack England for the purpose of taking away Canada? What interest has the English working class in the “power” of the British Empire which expresses itself in the possession of Canada, Egypt, South Africa, or India,— that would not only be worth the sacrifices which a great war entails upon the working class of the country engaged in war, but also the weakening of the working class generally by a war among its different local divisions, which is equivalent to “civil war” in the domain of national interests? Similarly, why should French workingmen go to the defence of “their country” in order to preserve their “national power” which expresses itself in the possession of Algiers, Morocco, or Tunis,— if France should be attacked by some power coveting the same? And why should the German working class rush to the defence of Germany if that “country” should be attacked by Japan for the purpose of wresting from it Kiau-chau, or by England for the purpose of dispossessing it from Southwest or Southeast Africa, or even by Russia for the purpose of despoiling it of the Polish Province of Posen? What interest have German workingmen in “Germany’s” possession of Posen, even though it has been part of Prussia and therefore of “Germany” for more than a hundred years?
In general what interest has the working class of any country in the so-called “power” or “greatness” of that “nation” or that “country”, which would make it worth— to paraphrase a famous saying of Bismarck— the bones of a single workingman?
Evidently the fact that “we” are attacked does not at all impose upon us the duty of defending “ourselves”. As a matter of fact, we, that is the working class, are never attacked, in any war, for we have nothing worth taking; and we never defend ourselves, nor anything belonging to us.
Does that mean that the members of the working class have no interest whatever in their country, and that they need not, or should not, defend it under any circumstances? Not at all. But it does mean that they have no interest in the ordinary sense to preserve; no such material interest as the capitalists or members of the middle class have, nor such spiritual interests as the nationalists profess to have. His interest is a broadly human one, although it is dictated by his class interests and the necessities and requirements of the class struggle. I have already pointed out that, broadly speaking, the interests of the working class engaged in the class struggle and the interests of humanity and progress are identical. Identical, not in the Pickwickian or Nietzschean sense of the nationalists, according to which it is to the interest of humanity that the vast majority of humankind should be degraded into an enormous pedestal upon which a Super-man or Super-nation could stand up in his or its glory, but in a real human and commonsense way. The human ideal of those engaged in the class struggle on the side of the working class therefore abhors all and any kind of subjection and exploitation of man by his fellow-men, including the subjection and exploitation of one race or nation by another.
Furthermore, any inequality among human beings and the subjection of any part of the human family by another interferes in a very real and practical sense with the successful prosecution of the class struggle. Such subjections and inequalities lead to struggles which cross the path and tend to obscure, hamper, and delay, the class struggle of the working class and its successful issue. As long as nations do exist in fact and in the consciousness of people, the class struggle can only be carried on successfully within free nations. A nation, or part of a nation, subject to the enforced dominion of an alien nation is unfit for the class struggle, because that struggle is obscured and complicated by the national struggle which is inevitable in such a case.
The working class of any nation or country is therefore vitally interested, in preserving the freedom from alien dominion of that nation or country. And the Socialist is ready to go to war in order to defend that freedom. His readiness to go to war in defence of his country is however strictly limited by his desire to preserve this national freedom. The words “nation” and “country” therefore have for him a different meaning from that currently given to them. To begin with he draws a distinction between his nation or country and its government. An attack upon the armed force of “his” government is not necessarily an attack upon his nation or country. Nor is an invasion of his “national territory” as the same is shown on the map necessarily an attack upon his nation or country. The invasion by the United States of Canada, for instance, would not, from his point of view be an attack upon the English Nation nor the invasion of an Englishman’s country. Nor would the invasion by Russia of the German Province of Posen inhabited by Poles be an attack upon the German Nation or the invasion of a German’s country.
But there is another and even more important aspect of the class-conscious workingman’s readiness to come to the defence of his country which must not be overlooked. When he does come to the defence of his country, it is not because it is his. He is not actuated by the narrow and selfish motives of your nationalistic patriot, but by the broad “humanistic” motive that a part of the human race is threatened with subjection, and that another obstacle is being placed in the path of the final emancipation of the entire human race from the inequalities, degradations, and miseries incident to class-society.
And this, again, is not a mere metaphysical distinction without any real, practical difference. The difference is both practical and far-reaching.
The theory of nationalism and “national interests’’ in whose behalf wars are to be fought, has its logical complement in the theory of neutrality. We go to war when our “national interests” demand it. But when we have no “national interests” to preserve, we don’t care what becomes of the human race. We are not our brother’s keeper. We are neutral. So any nation may rob, pillage, destroy or subjugate any other nation without it being the least of our concerns, so long as our national interests are not in any way injuriously affected thereby.
The Socialists reject this doctrine as a monumental monstrosity,— the acme of selfishness, conceived, nurtured, and reared in the atmosphere of nationalism, an atmosphere surcharged with selfishness and deadening to all sense of justice and the higher impulses of humanity. In its place we substitute the doctrine of international solidarity. The human race is one family, in a real sense of the term. An injury to one is the concern of all. When, therefore, war is upon us, and its conditions are such that the working class of any warring nation is properly called upon to defend that nation, or any part of it, from subjugation and domination by another nation, the working class of the entire world has an interest in the defense of the nation whose independence and liberty are attacked, and it should rally to prevent the outrage.
That does not mean that in every such case the workingmen of all “neutral” countries should rush their governments to war. Like practical people we must always count the cost. Not, indeed, selfishly,— the cost to our nation or our working class, in the old nationalistic way. But the cost to the international working class, the cost to the world and its future progress. Every war, as has already been pointed out, has an injurious effect upon general progress and affects most disastrously the class struggle of the working class,— the hope of humanity. Every extension of the war usually and almost necessarily means an increase of these injurious effects. These must be carefully weighed as against the injury that is desired to be averted, to which should be added the salutary effect which true international action, based not on a chance community of interest of the different nations but on the identity of interest of the proletariat of all the nations, must have on the class-struggle, and which may compensate in whole or in part for the increased national hatreds engendered by the extension of the war.
These things should be carefully weighed, and no decision, particularly no decision in favor of war, lightly made. Where chances are to be taken we should take the chance of erring on the side of opposition to war rather than in favoring it. But whatever the decision, it must be controlled exclusively by considerations of its results upon the international working class and its struggle for emancipation. Indeed, the considerations leading to the action taken may, nay, will, have much to do with the results flowing therefrom as far as the working class is concerned. The same action may have different, or largely differing, results according to the motives which actuated it. Any action taken in an honest endeavor to act in accordance with, and in the interest of, international solidarity, and with a total exclusion of selfish national interest— no matter what the action is— must by reason of the very fact that it was intended to further the cause of internationalism, further the struggle of the working class, and give an impetus to its upward march, with all that that implies for the progress and regeneration of the entire human race.
The considerations which limit the occasions when Socialists may give their support to war, also prescribe the manner in which that support may be given. Socialists engaging in war are still Socialists,— that is to say, provided they enter into the war from Socialist and not from nationalist considerations. The reasons which actuated them in entering the war will therefore control their actions and shape their policies during the war.
To begin with, they will give the war their support only as long as that is necessary for the purpose of achieving the object which made the war a proper one from their point of view, and they will withdraw their support the moment that object is achieved. And while they are giving the war their support they will insist that it be conducted in a manner that would insure the pursuit of this object and no other. A defensive war may easily turn into an aggressive one. They must therefore be on their guard that they should not by their action inadvertently help in a war of conquest. Before giving their support to the war they must therefore exact from their government proper guarantees that the war will under no circumstances be turned into one of aggression. And while the war lasts, they must watch the manner in which it is conducted with that end in view, and keep their government to a strict accountability in that respect. In addition to that it is their duty to carry on an educational propaganda which would make the turning of the war from one of defence into one of aggression impossible should the government ever be tempted to break its promises.
At the same time they must carry on their regular Socialist work, in so far as their energies are not taken up with the special propaganda against any war of conquest. Or, rather, they should make the propaganda against a war of conquest part of their regular work in furtherance of the class-struggle, making a special effort to show the general connection between war and capitalism, and teaching the Socialist principles of internationalism which would make all wars impossible. For the class struggle and the propaganda of the principles and policies of the class struggle, must be kept up. The belief that the class struggle interferes with the successful carrying on of war is true enough, if war is to be carried on for nationalistic purposes, that is for the acquisition of power. But it is utterly false in so far as purely defensive war is concerned,— using the word defensive in the limited and circumscribed sense mentioned above. And for that very reason the carrying on of the class struggle is the best means of preserving the defensive character of the war. Besides,— the support of the war being itself only permissible as a means of furthering the class struggle, it would, of course, be utterly absurd to suspend the class struggle in order the better to carry on the war.
But this is not all. The same principles that define and limit for the Socialist the meaning of “country” and of "defensive war” also define and limit for him the meaning of the word “enemy”. The Socialist supporting a war must always bear in mind that the “enemy” against whom he is arrayed is not a certain nation or country, but a certain government, representing at most the governing class of that nation or country. Bearing this in mind will have most important practical results. It will prevent atrocities, for one. It will prevent the passions of war venting themselves on the members of the enemy nation as such either in speech or in deed. This will make it possible for the war to terminate the moment it becomes apparent that the aggressor’s lust of conquest is not likely to succeed, thereby preventing useless sacrifice of life and property on both sides. And, most important of all, it will make possible the conclusion of a real peace. Of a peace that will not merely be a cessation of armed combat, but a real cessation of all hostilities, a resumption of neighborly and friendly relations between the members of the erstwhile “enemies”, and a co-operation between them in those peaceful pursuits on which alone can be built the happiness of the human race.
a. I have revised the original wording of this sentence due to grammatical errors. The original sentence is quite cryptic:
More than that: each class tries to give the social organism
such an organization institutions— as best suits the economic
order— that is, it tries to establish such political in-which
it represents.
Last updated on 26 October 2022