KEIR HARDIE

Keir Hardie is regarded as the founder of the Independent Labor Party. Though, like MacDonald, a supporter also of the Labor Party, he is often found in conflict with the majority of the latter organization. He represents the I. L. P. as such, and his position is, therefore, more radical than that of the Labor Party or of MacDonald, who has on more than one occasion voted with the Labor Party against the I. L. P. (of which organization, however, he is also one of the leading members).

An early statement of Hardie's in the Labor Leader is remarkable, in that it goes so far in its attack on the pro-war party of England as to seem to indorse the central position of the pro-war party of Germany.

Let anybody take a map of Europe and look at the position of Germany: on the one side Russia with her millions of trained soldiers and unlimited population to draw upon [its traditional policy for over a hundred years has been to reduce Prussia to impotence, so that the Slav may reign supreme], on the other side France, smarting under her defeat and the loss of her two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, in 1870. For a number of years past these two militarisms have had a close and cordial alliance. What was it that brought the Czardom of Russia into alliance with the free republic of France? One object, and one alone, to crush Germany between them. German armaments, and the German army, were primarily intended to protect herself and her interests against these two open enemies.

A second article sent to the American Socialist (official organ of the American Party) in December, bristles with important statements-for Keir Hardie has been the most eminent of labor members of the British Parliament for the last twenty years.

Apparently, some of these statements are identical with those of the German Government itself; nor will

any Socialist deny that others of these utterances represent the prevailing Socialist standpoint. This is especially true of Hardie's opening expressions with regard to Russia.

Let us look for a moment at the reasons which led the party to come to its decision anent the policy which led to the war. We fight as the allies of France and Russia. At the close of the Russo-Japanese War in 1906 the Russian Empire was bankrupt in every sense of the word. Her reason for making peace with Japan was more financial than military. Russia for over half a century had been the great outcast state among European nations.

From the days of the Crimean War in the middle of last century down to 1906 not a cent of money could be got on loan in Europe to aid the finances of Russia. She was loathed and abhorred, not only for her aggressiveness, but also for her treatment of her subject races, such as Finland and Poland, and her red-handed, ruthless suppression of every reform movement.

Who is there that has not shuddered over the tales of Siberia, over the tortures and unspeakable atrocities of her prisons and dungeons? Prince Kropotkin in a damp stone dungeon under the sea, where his very gums rotted, and his teeth fell from his mouth! That was Russia!

At the close of the war with Japan, as I have said, she was bankrupt financially, and an outcast from the nations of Europe; successful revolution was being waged within her borders, her army and navy were honeycombed with sedition, and prepared to join with the revolutionary movement in the overthrow of the Czar and all he stood for.

Who, then, came to the rescue of Russia, loaned her money, gave her moral prestige, and a standing among the nations of Europe? Great Britain. Why was it done? To re-establish that old worn-out fetish of what is known as the "balance of power." Our government formed its understanding and laid its plans with Russia, the monster of iniquity, and with France, to check the growth of Germany.

Six years ago Mr. Lloyd George declared in a speech that Germany in creating a navy was only doing so for her own defense, and that England in her place would do exactly the

same.

The "German menace" had no existence until after we had formed our alliance with Russia. That was the origin of the present war, and the whole policy of Great Britain since, and its secret diplomacy, have been on the side of creating the circumstances and the situation which made the war inevitable.

One of the most popular justifications for the war in England has been the cry that we are out to protect Belgium. If that were the object it has failed. The neutrality of Belgium, which was guaranteed by treaty in 1839, was not made with the consent of, but rather in the teeth of the most bitter opposition from, the Belgian nation. That treaty was not made to protect Belgium, but to suit the plans of the great nations of that day. When the Belgians were struggling so heroically in the defense of their country at the beginning of the present war, neither French nor British troops were there to help them to protect their neutrality and independence.

Luxemburg was also crossed by German troops. Not a stone was displaced, nor the hair of a single head injured, nor was the fact more than merely mentioned in the British press, although Luxemburg is a protected state exactly the same as Belgium. And when one remembers Britain's attitude towards small states in South Africa, in Persia, in Egypt, in India, and elsewhere, it requires a very imaginative person to swallow the absurd statement that we are at war to protect the rights and liberties of Belgium. As a matter of fact, France has simply used Belgium to suit her own military necessities, and our Foreign Office has aided and abetted the crime.

I now turn for a moment to the position taken by the Independent Labor Party, which, as it is now universally known, is a Socialist organization affiliated to the Labor Party, on the same basis as are the great trade unions of England.

It cordially approved the policy set forth in the resolutions of the Labor Party [of August 5th and 6th-see above]. When, however, it was invited to take part in a recruiting campaign with the two capitalist parties, appearing on the same platform with them, and making itself responsible for all the blatant nonsense that is being talked as a reason for being at war, it at once declined.

It felt that, under the circumstances, to have done anything else would have been inconsistent with its position as a section

of the international Socialist movement. It realized that the object of those who promoted the war in Europe was certainly not love for Socialism or the working class.

We knew that already the growth of the Socialist Parties, particularly in France and Germany, was speedily bringing about the downfall of militarism in both countries, that in France the government could not be carried on without the sanction at least of the Socialist Party in the Chamber of Deputies, and the recent action of the government in extending the period of service in the army from two to three years had for all practical purposes been abandoned.

In Germany also there was a corresponding growth. When the German army was increased the only way in which the proposal could be financed was to place a direct levy upon capital, instead of the usual terms. Five years, ten years from now, and the Socialists of those two countries would have been in a position to compel their respective governments to settle such outstanding questions as those of Alsace and Lorraine and come to an amicable understanding one with the other. But that outlook has gone past forever, and capitalist militarism is giving itself a fresh lease of power, not only in France and Germany, but also in England.

In France the reactionary forces, Royalist and Catholic, are laying their plans for power at the end of the war. In England Lord Roberts has declared that the war makes inevitably for conscription. Russia is a great territory, rich in mineral and other forms of wealth, but poor and without capital. Germany, like England, has had great prosperity and an ever expanding trade. The British manufacturer wants to "smash" German trade and get it for himself.

The British and French millionaires want Russia opened up so that they may find fresh investments for their ever increasing wealth. And so they employ skilled diplomats, and create armies and navies to achieve their ends, and all the time they are fooling the workers in supporting their political parties and slaughtering each other when called upon to do so. We Socialists of the Independent Labor Party will oppose the whole system, whether in war or peace.

I conclude by saying that Great Britain is not in this war to protect Belgium, or to put down militarism. Our Foreign Office, in secret and unknown to the nation, so involved us in agreements with Russia and France in order to preserve the

ill-omened balance of power, that, as the official documents clearly prove, we were practically forced to join in war the moment it suited the purpose of Russia that there should be

war.

Russia is the one country that will emerge from the conflict with increased prestige. It is the one power that can crush Germany, and no one will say it is fighting for democracy. (Our italics.)

H. M. HYNDMAN

The position of the British Socialist Party, as our documents of Part III demonstrated, is radically different from that of the I. L. P., and its best-known leader, H. M. Hyndman, has been a life-long antagonist of Keir Hardie. With the well-known Socialist writer and editor, Robert Blatchford (author of Merrie England and editor of the Clarion), he has for years preached the necessity of being prepared against Germany and the need of conscription-not only against Germany, but also in order to make of every citizen a trained soldier who could be used in the future for the purposes of a Socialist revolution. As Hyndman has been a special student of foreign relations we quote briefly from three of his statements. The first shows that, although he agrees with Hardie, in large part, as to Russia, he disagrees radically as to Belgium. He writes:

"We of the B. S. P., however completely some of us may have been convinced for years past of the detestable truculence of German militarism, were at one with the extremest of pacificists in our determination to avert war, if it was at all possible to do so. That is the reason why, as a party, we took our full share in the great peace demonstration in Trafalgar Square. That is why we joined with our comrades in every European country in their declarations against war, as injurious to the workers of the world."

But after the invasion of Belgium the party's position, like