Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lieves that it was caused by a combination of worldwide commercialism and German militarism; he hopes peace will not be made until the latter is done away with, but he believes that commercial capitalism will require a more drastic remedy. His discussion of this question we summarize in Chapter XXX.

In the New York Call of September 14th, Russell points to the greed for easy profits from colonies as one of the chief motives for war on the part of the German capitalists and their Kaiser:

"In the event of another war like that of 1870, France would be shorn of these valuable possessions, which would then become German. More colonies meant more commerce, more commerce meant more profits, more profits meant more power. That way the pressure inevitably tended, and even if no one had ever designed war nor intended it, under the existing system war was certain.

"The apparent destiny of German commercialism, exalted by its many victories, was to annex the French colonies, to enlarge with Germany's enlarged borders, and to raise Germany above all competitors to the supreme commercial command of the world. It saw nothing but easy victories, added provinces, and added business. Controlling a great part of the press, and moving hand in hand with a government sympathetic and lusting for war, it dragged the sane part of Germany into the struggle, and down came the red deluge."

Capitalistic greed alone is not an adequate explanation. The political structure is an equally important factor. German imperialism is a fusion of capitalistic ambitions and militaristic delusions. It can flourish only in a country subject to an oligarchy headed by the Kaiser:

"It was so here. For many years men that knew better have acquiesced in the surviving feudalism that is expressed in monarchical institutions. We have tried to convince ourselves that if a nation had some kind of delegate assembly, a parliament, or a reichstag, meeting to pass some laws and fiddle about the skirts of government, why, all was well enough, though it still retained kaiser or king.

"What difference does it make? we said. It is but a name.

Each nation to its own taste. How smart is this kaiser and how clever is that king! There can be democracy in an empire, we said, and as truly might we have said that we could breathe in a vacuum or from darkness draw light. "What difference does it make? We can see the difference."

THE NEW YORK "CALL"

In an August editorial the New York Call thus excuses the action of the German Socialist Party:

An unwilling man is caught in the war machine, and his being a Socialist makes no more difference than if in times of "peace" he were caught in the capitalist factory machine, as is the actual fact. But because a Socialist is forced to become a soldier it no more militates against his intention to destroy capitalism than when he is forced to become a wage slave and serve it in that capacity.

Our European comrades have done their best. Temporarily they have failed, but their turn will come soon, when militarism and capitalism commence to devour themselves.

German Socialists have taken the stand that it was necessary to repel the Russian invasion; that Russia, as a reactionary power, threatened the Socialist cause more than any other factor. But this does not mean that they have been reconciled to German imperialism and militarism. It is, in their minds, a case of choosing the least of two evils, and no Socialist is hypocritical enough to make a virtue out of necessity.

After Liebknecht had refused to vote for the second war loan, however, the Call changed its attitude, indorsing his position as against that of the party majority.

An editorial of September 12th, moreover, contended that the war was brought on by modern international capitalism in its struggle against the pre-capitalistic government of Germany:

Practically every influential paper in America takes the position that peace is not yet desirable, even were it pos

sible. They all, of course, protest they love peace and are eager for it, but they don't want peace that isn't put on what they call "a lasting basis." It is better to have the war go on. And it is not difficult to see that their advocacy of the continuance of war is based on the belief that the Kaiser is now getting the worst of it, and that his ultimate defeat is assured. If it were not so, they would advocate instant peace at almost any price. 1. They are all saying exactly what the organs of the English, the French, the Russians, the Belgians, and other Allies, and even "neutrals" like Spain, Portugal, and Italy, are saying. Whether it is true or not may be left open to opinion. But the real question is, How comes this strange unanimity?

[ocr errors]

Capitalism from the very beginning has decreed the doom of the Kaiser and his imperialism, and its spokesmen are now beginning to show their hands and talk freely of the necessity of his downfall. The general rejection of peace at this particular time can mean nothing else, and it is but one of the innumerable proofs of the existence of this project. Capitalism is telling us that the Kaiser must go, and that there will be no peace until he does.

The motives of the world's financiers, according to a Sunday Call article, were, first, to subject the German military oligarchy to international capitalism, and second, to remove the danger that it might lead to a Socialist revolution.

[ocr errors]

THE AMERICAN SOCIALIST" INDORSES LIEBKNECHT

In its issue of January 9, 1915, the official organ of the American Party also indorsed the stand taken by Liebknecht, in contrast to that of the German Party, in the following important editorial:

Out

Karl Liebknecht's voice has again spanned the seas. of the wreckage of civilization that is now being strewn over Europe, while millions of men continue retrograding to savagery, we hear him pleading for peace.

While the toilers of every nation at war have rallied to

the cry of nationalism; while the masses have forgotten their allegiance to their own interests and enlisted in the cause of the oppressors, Liebknecht still stands where he stood before this carnage was inaugurated—he stands forth before all the world as the uncompromising foe of war.

He has been called "the bravest man in Europe." It did take courage to war on militarism while the nations still slumbered at peace upon their heavy armaments. It takes greater courage now to assail the master class when every word so uttered may be labeled treason.

The Socialist movement of the world right now needs both courage and consistency. If some of the Socialists of Europe have for the moment been won to participation in the blood feast, their acts are inconsistent with the teachings of Socialism. Time and the courageous action and example of such men as Liebknecht will win the Socialist army back to consistency.

Socialist principles and teachings are not at fault. It is as Liebknecht says in his peace message to the world:

"Many Socialists blame our principles for our present failure. It is not our principles which have failed, but the representatives of those principles."

From week to week, as this cruel war drags on, there is an increasingly noticeable return to consistency among the European workers who became very inconsistent in their action when they joined the armies of Kaiser, King, and Czar back in August.

In opposing war and militarism, Liebknecht is consistent. All Socialists in the least aiding the European war are inconsistent. When all Socialists become as consistent as Liebknecht then the death knell of war will be heard over the world, the reign of the oppressors will come to an end, and civilization will undergo a new birth.

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE SMALLER NEUTRAL COUNTRIES

WE give documents illustrating the position of the Socialists of all the more important neutral countries. The Dutch, it will be seen, who were at first hostile to the German Party, later seemed to favor its position. In Switzerland a similar change occurred, and the Swiss Party Congress shows that the majority there, opposed by the French Swiss and a few Germans, also favors leniency toward the German Socialist majority. In Sweden, on the other hand, the anti-Russian attitude of the ruling class has thrown the leader, Branting, on the anti-German side, while in Roumania it is doubtless the strong tendency of the government toward the Allies that has brought the Socialists to lean so strongly in the opposite direction-though the proximity of the Czarism is an equally important cause. The Spanish Socialist leader, and the sole representative in the Cortes, while naturally declaring for Spanish neutrality, is very strongly in favor of the Allies.

HOLLAND

We quote the following from an editorial of Het Volk, the central daily organ of the Social Democratic Party of Holland, August 8, 1914:

We must assume that our German comrades did not protest, with all their might, against the violation of Luxemburg's neutrality and Belgium's independence. In 1870 Bebel and Liebknecht refrained from giving their support. But they

« AnteriorContinuar »