upon the adoption of the peace programme by a sufficient number of nations, or by nations of sufficient power so that the international police force developed by the terms of the programme shall be adequate to insure the protection of the disarmed.

(2) No increase in existing armaments under any circumstances.

(3) Pending complete disarmament the abolition of the manufacture of armaments and munitions of war for private profit.

(4) International ownership and control of strategic waterways, such as the Dardanelles, Straits of Gibraltar, and the Suez, Panama, and Kiel Canals.

(5) Neutralization of the seas.

IV. Extension of democracy.

(1) Political democracy.

(a) The declaration of offensive war to be made only by direct vote of the people.

(b) Abolition of secret diplomacy and the democratic control of foreign policies.

(c) Universal suffrage, including woman suffrage.

(2) Industrial democracy.

Radical social changes in all countries to eliminate the economic causes of war, such as:

(a) Federation of the working classes of the world in a league of peace.

(b) Socialization of the national resources, public utilities, and fundamental equipment of industry of the nations. (c) Elimination of all unearned income.

(d) Immediate and progressive amelioration of the conditions of labor.

V. Immediate action.

(1) Efforts to be made in every nation to secure the official adoption of the above programme by the governing bodies at the earliest possible date. The adoption of the programme (contingent upon its acceptance by a sufficient number of the nations to insure its success) to be immediately announced to the world as a standing offer of federation.

(2) The federation of all the possible peace forces that can be united in behalf of the above programme for active propaganda among all nations.

(3) Efforts through the International and the national

organizations of the Socialist Party of all nations to secure universal co-operation of all Socialist and labor organizations in the above programme.

This is a practical programme directed toward the future. Its conclusions, however, as to most of the practical matters with which it is concerned, are based on the general idea contained in the preamble. This idea is that the so-called "Imperialism" is the fundamental, if not the sole cause of war. The economic hostility between the nations is attributed exclusively to the capitalists, and capitalism is held to be solely responsible for war. On the other hand, it is very clearly implied-and indeed follows necessarily as part of this generalization-that there is no conflict even of immediate economic interests between the wage-earners of the various nations, as asserted by the Socialist authority Otto Bauer (see Chapter II).

It is not the purpose of the editor of this volume himself to discuss any of these questions. But we may point out that a large number of Socialists now take a contrary view, as a number of our quotations have shown. It is extremely important to recall this fact. We shall proceed to point out how many Socialists disagree with some of the points of this programme in detail, but we must first note that very many disagree with it as a whole, in view of the fact that it is based on the above assumption, which they hold to be largely, though not of course entirely, fallacious.

This peace programme of the National Executive Committee of the American Socialist Party contains both a general peace policy and a policy for the present war. The latter, entitled "terms of peace at close of present war," adopts the German view, advocated by Bernstein and Kautsky, that there should be no in

demnities, making no exception in favor of Belgium, and limits the application of plebiscites to territories conquered in the present war, but does not apply them to all territories in dispute, or to territories wholly or partly inhabited by alien nationalities. This position as to plebiscites is also that of the Germans, as against that of the British.

As these two points constitute the whole of the "terms of peace at close of present war," it is clear that the whole of the immediate peace policy of the N. E. C. programme takes the view of the German Socialists as opposed to that of the British Socialists of the anti-war faction.

The general part of the programme might be taken at first glance as a summary of all the means proposed by the Socialists of the various countries for making peace permanent. And it does contain a number of these means, including one of the most important: neutralization of the seas (another object of the German, as opposed to the British Government-though a legitimate one from the Socialist standpoint). It takes up the subject of disarmament, but proposes only the very difficult plan of international action, rejecting Kautsky's suggestion that the coerced disarmament of certain nations be used as a lever for general disarmament. Nor does it take up Troelstra's extremely important proposal for the neutralization of colonies.

The preamble to the programme also fails either to mention high protective tariffs as one of the very greatest causes of the conflict of national economic interests, or to suggest the remedy-international treaties lowering these tariffs. Yet this evil has always been emphasized by the Socialists of all countries, and was proposed as one of the most important Socialist peace policies by Kautsky-and given all possible weight

in one of the most important and widely read Socialist statements made since the war (see above).

The need is emphasized of a democratic control over diplomacy, and universal suffrage is advocated. But it is not stated that a democratic control over diplomacy requires, in some countries, something more than universal suffrage, namely democratic government and the abolition of absolutism-as the British Socialists point out (see the I. L. P. Programme).

This programme, moreover, does not mention either of the remedies against war which engaged the almost exclusive attention of Socialists for a quarter century and up to the very month when the present struggle began-the international general strike and the refusal to vote military supplies in parliaments. In this respect, as in its opposition to indemnities, its limitation of plebiscites, its failure to demand the abolition of Absolutism, and its desire for peace at the present moment (when Germany has the best of it), the programme follows the same lines as the policy of the majority of the German Party, for in 1913 the German Party had already voted money for military supplies.

And, finally, this programme says nothing about the menace of a general revolution, involving all the guilty governments, which was unanimously indorsed by the world's Socialists in Basel, as late as 1912. This is also in accord with the German Socialist position. For all their publications make it clear that although the majority of German Socialists probably still favor and expect a democratic revolution in Russia-they no longer desire or expect such a revolution in Germany.

But perhaps the most significant omission is the failure to take up Kautsky's suggestion that a decisive defeat of one side or the other is probable in this war and desirable from the Socialist standpoint as alone

promising those radical changes Socialists desire. Disarmament, for example, could thus be forced upon the defeated, as he points out, and this would serve as an opening wedge as well as a practical ground for introducing this policy gradually also in the victorious countries, with the Socialists' aid.

CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSED PEACE PLAN BY A. M. SIMONS

We next give the views of one of the largest groups of the opponents of this peace programme, best represented by A. M. Simons. As editor of the American Socialist, in which the peace plan appeared, he was given half a page (an equal space) in that publication. Simons was formerly a member of the National Executive Committee of the Party, and is perhaps the leading Party editor, since before his connection with the American Socialist, he was editor of the International Socialist Review, of the Chicago Daily Socialist, and of the Coming Nation. The extreme importance attached to the above peace programme by Simons and those Socialists who agree with him is best known by his article in the New York Sunday Call (January 10th).

The following are the chief passages of the Sunday Call article, which was entitled "Compromising with Hell":

On this question of war and peace the Socialists of the older nations have made a blunder so horrible that they have involved you and me and every one of us, and our children for years to come, unless we cut loose from their teachings and profit by their terrible mistakes.

It was not last August that they made their mistake. Then they only took the final step on the road they began when they first tried to prove they were not "fatherlandless rascals" and "sans-patrie." When Bebel talked of "shouldering a rifle in defense of his fatherland," when even Jaurès wavered in his opposition to militarism and offered an "alternative plan”