Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

countries towards it. Its only task will be to look for a basis on which Socialists can take action to secure peace.

The object of the Conference will therefore be as follows: To influence the opinion of the peoples in neutral countries in such a way that it shall be exerted in favor of a settlement which will guarantee a lasting peace, and, further, to strive for a united effort to secure: (1) That no changes of frontiers shall take place at the end of the war by which the right of self-government by the nations shall be lessened; (2) the restriction of military armaments, and (3) the establishment of a responsible International Arbitration Court.

The parliamentary groups of the Socialist Parties which take part in the Conference will be asked to lay addresses before the governments of their respective countries urging that they should take steps to bring about the finish of the war, perhaps through the joint action of all the governments of neutral states.

TROELSTRA'S PEACE PLAN

Troelstra, who attended the Conference as one of the Dutch delegates, had favored, in a meeting held in Holland on January 2d, two additional points:

(1) Abolition of the Right of Capture at Sea, and (2) The Opening of All Colonies to all the Powers. These points, similar to those later proposed by Dernburg, were not included, doubtless because they are directed against Great Britain. But nearly all Socialists, including many of those of Great Britain, would favor the first point, and all, with the exception of the British, would favor the second-provided they are accompanied by equally important demands-such as the independence of Alsace-Lorraine and German Poland, and the democratization of government, directed mainly against the present rulers of Germany.

Both of Troelstra's points are of vast importance. The first, taken in connection with the proposal of the American Party to internationalize strategic waterways, would mean the neutralization of the seas (see Chapter

XXX). The second would mean the neutralization of backward territories. Put into effect together they would mean the end of imperialism.

CRITICISM BY SPANISH SOCIALISTS

The programme adopted for the Copenhagen Congress immediately aroused the opposition of the Socialists of the Allied and neutral Powers, including the Spanish Party.

Our quotation from the Spanish Socialists shows that they believe it is the duty of all the Socialists of all neutral countries to give their moral support wholly to the more democratic and less militaristic nations, and that Socialism, even in Germany, would lose by a German victory or a drawn war, and will gain only by German defeat.

But the Spanish go farther. They are not willing to forget the position of the German Socialist majority, and they regard the effort of the Dutch and Scandinavians to prevent the Socialists at the Peace Conference from discussing "the causes of the war" as a cloak to cover their toleration of the German Socialists' support of the war. Therefore, they opposed the holding of the Conference:

In reply to communications received from the Socialist Parties of Holland, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland, and the United States, the National Committee of the Spanish Socialist Party declare that they welcome the interchange of communications between the parties of the various countries as proving that, notwithstanding the war, sentiments of solidarity exist among the workers of all nations.

They are compelled to examine into the causes of the war, the situation which it has created, and the consequences which will follow.

They find two influences, so to speak, entering into this sanguinary conflict. The one which has provoked the war

is the most thorough expression of imperialism; the other, though guided by capitalist interest, is less under the influence of imperialism, and is therefore imbued with a more democratic spirit.

If Austro-German imperialism is victorious, Socialism will receive a setback; if the Allies triumph, the Socialist cause will make great progress even in Austria and Germany.

The National Council is not in favor of an International Conference at the present time.

CRITICISM OF CONFERENCE BY LONGUET

A profound difference of opinion between Socialist Parties appeared. Jean Longuet, writing on October 19th in L'Humanité, for the French Party, denounced the plan of a peace conference at a time when the Germans were triumphant and were occupying Belgium and a considerable part of France, and his statement was later indorsed by the Party Executive. (See Chapter XXII.)

His argument was:

The Socialists of the United States are following up, in fact, are developing, the idea which predominated at the Italian-Swiss Conference at Lugano. Like our comrades in those neighboring countries, while animated with the most sincere and most noble internationalist spirit, they do not understand that their initiative is inopportune, and does not take into account the exact position of the problem at the present hour.

Imperialist and militarist Germany-whoever else may be responsible-more than all the other states desired this war, and has solely and with premeditated will precipitated this frightful horror upon the world-this struggle of blood and iron, not of words.

The most formidable military machinery has been thrown by her into innocent Belgium, and into France, which was peaceable from one end to the other, both doomed to destruction and pillage. It is the Borinage, the districts of Liège and Charleroi, that admirable industrial center and nursery of Socialism; it is our departments of the Nord, the Ardennes, the Pas-de-Calais, the Aisne, the Somme-these

densely-populated regions where dwells a vast factory and mine proletariat on whom our political and economic action had had the greatest effect-which have been devastated to the full, bruised and cruelly ravaged.

In face of so much ruin and mourning it is Germany which has remained intact, whose territory at least has not yet known the horrors of invasion. It is the abominable pride of the squire-caste (the Junkers), the great pan-German industrials and the Bismarckian professors, rendered anxious certainly by the "untameable resistance" of our admirable little soldiers, to which the Times alluded, which is still unbeaten. What peace negotiations could be entered upon under these conditions, after so much blood has been spilt, so many tears shed, and no definite result obtained?

On the other side of the Atlantic they do not perhaps sufficiently realize this situation. Even among sincere friends of France like A. M. Simons, who writes to me "that the scandalous propaganda of the German agents in the United States has revolted American sentiment, which is now almost wholly on the side of France," and understands that it is necessary to finish altogether with Prussian militarism, while at the same time not desiring to see the "German people humiliated, nor the German nation dismembered"; yet he believes in the utility of the Congress.

In order to carry out even the programme outlined by Comrade Simons, to crush the enemy of Europe's liberty-as alas! the German people up to now have not wished or not been able to do it-we must continue the struggle until a definite result has been obtained. We must continue it without savage hatred, without stupid chauvinism, without any spirit of barbaric revenge, but with force and dignity, to safeguard our republican France, and to create a new Europe.

Only after that will we be able to speak of common action by the Socialists of all countries to establish international peace on definite foundations. Then international Socialism I will make its voice heard.

HOW HALF THE FRENCH LABOR UNIONS FAVORED THE CON

FERENCE

On the question of peace, however, the French labor unionists, whose members, in overwhelming majority,

are Socialists, were by no means unanimous. Our next document shows that on the 6th of December, in a meeting of the National Committee of the General Confederation of Labor, there were 22 votes against participating in the proposed Socialist Peace Conference at Copenhagen, against twenty in favor of participation and two abstentions. Evidently, the minority felt very strongly on the subject, for one of its leaders, Pierre Monatte, editor of La Vie Ouvrière, until it suspended because of the war, and representative from the Department of Gard in the Committee, has since resigned, with the following statement of his reasons:

On the 22d of November, the Secretary of the Confederation announced to the committee an invitation to the Conference of neutral countries to take place at Copenhagen on the 6th of December. I made the following motion: "That the General Confederation of Labor should reply by showing the Scandinavian Socialists that while it would be impossible for us to send a delegate, we should follow their efforts for peace with the greatest sympathy, and that we hope for the success of the Copenhagen Conference! At the session of the 29th of November the Federation of the Metal Workers brought up a resolution with a preamble in the same spirit, which I hastened to support. On the 6th of December the National Committee of the Confederation had three propositions before it: the first, by the Building Federation, requiring that no reply should be made; a second, by Luquet, comprising important restrictions and the agreement of the General Confederation of Labor and the party on a common reply. [This probably refers to the demand that the causes of the war be discussed, including the grounds upon which the German Party supports the war]; the third proposition, that of the Metal Workers' Federation. The committee considered first on the proposition of the Building Federation, adopting it by 22 votes to 20, and two extensions.

There is no question that the proposition of the Metal Workers' Federation would have been beaten on the 6th of December by a strong majority.

Thus once more the appeals of Socialists in favor of peace

« AnteriorContinuar »