WAR—WHAT FOR?

Evening Star, Issue 22106, 13 August 1935, Page 12

WAR—WHAT FOR?

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your comment to my letter of the 7th is typical of the attitude taken up by capitalist society as a whole. You ridicule the idea of “ Sane reason ” playing any part in the preservation of humanity. Let, me ask just what must eventually win out and bring about a peaceful understanding —sane reason, as I suggest, coupled with complete international understanding, or, as your footnote conveys, rearmament and the upholding of nationalism? You make reference to the probable war between Italy and Abyssinia. This war, like the last one, is being fought to further capitalist interests and the slaughter is only possible because of the definite lack of ,sane reason and understanding. You point out that the attitude taken by Abyssinia is a defensive one, but why not ask the cause of Abyssinia even having to go to wat P Capitalist society has so' warped the minds of young Fascist Italy that it is quite unable to reason for itself. We see the manhood of this country as mere controlled minds, robots of war, ordered out to find new markets, in an endeavour to preserve the inevitable crash, and at the same, time, through the deaths involved, help to liquidate the terrible unemployment problem existing in all capitalist countries, and non-existent in one country only—that huge territory occupying one-sixth of the globe, where private property and profits do not exist.

This question is one of vital importance, more so to-day than ever before, as another war will not only mean the slaughter of the nations’ armies, but the wholesale extermination of women and children.* In my letter I endeavoured to point out that the one and only way to prevent this is through Ihe cultivation of international understanding. This, of course, means the total abolition of nationalism and Imperialism, which can only be defined in short as “ power and greed.” Let me express the views of one of our greatest international thinkers of today, Albert Einstein, in his ‘ International Series of Open Letters,’ regarding war. “As one immune from nationalistic views, I personally see a way of dealing with the aspect of the problem by the setting up with international consent of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. This quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation in a certain measure of its principle of action, its sovereignty, that is to say, and it ■ is clear beyond doubt that no other road can lead to security. The ill success of all the efforts made to date leave no room for doubt that strong forces are at work which are hostile to any limitation of national sovereignty. I have specially in mind that small, but determined; group active in every nation, composed of individuals, who, indifferent to social consideration and interests, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms simply as an occasion to advance their interests and enlarge their personal authority. Many will ask why these armament manufacturers can possibly have so great a force over the majority of the people, as they are in the minority. An obvious answer to this question would seem that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the school and Press, usually the church, as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organise and sway, the emotions of the masses and make its tool of them.” And, again, that modern psychologist, Sigmund Freud: “ Regarding the world to-day, there is but one sure way of ending war, and that is the establishment by common consent of a central control which will have the last word in every conflict of interest.” Where are we, however, going to get “ common consent ” in society based on private profits first and last? Have we not had sufficient illustration over the last few years, in particular the complete breakdown of the world economic conference, which definitely shows us how impossible common consent is, and, again, the recent withdrawals from the League of Nations? . The reasons why this common consent is not possible are only too obvious. Will anyone dispute (of course they will) that the only method, therefore, is as outlined by Einstein, and hundreds of other great thinkers of to-day, such as - Bertrand Russell, Bernard Shaw, C. M. Joad, John Strachey, Harold Laski, intellectual men not concerned with private property or vested interests, but definitely concerned with the preservation of culture and civilisation.

You ask me, sir, would I acknowledge there may be defensive wars. Has there yet been a war which was not supposedly a defensive one? Again, you ask me of my pacific attitude if I were a Russian and threatened by war. I ask you, has any country done more for peace than the Soviet? Did Russia not put forward a proposal in the latter part of 1927 asking for complete, immediate, universal, simultaneous disarmament, and what hearing did she get

from those Powers who had private interests .to protect. Your questions are the only ones the capitalist statesman is capable of putting forward to protect his vested interests. This, however, does not prevent people asking “ why,” and many more are ashing “why ” to-day than in 1914.—1 am* etc., S. Mueqtjeen. August 13.

[lt is absurd to say that we ridiculed “ sane reason playing any part in the preservation of humanity.” We asked our correspondent two questions, which he does not answer: Would he be a pacifist if he were an Abyssinian or a Russian? Nationalism is not dependent upon Capitalism. Scotland fought for its nationalism when it was the poorest country on earth, and Abyssinia has declared its intention of doing so to-day-Russia discountenanced nationalism, and is going back to it, without, however, renouncing internationalism. We have excised from our correspondent’s letter a quantity of eloquence, proceeding only from a one-sided view i of the subject.—Ed. E.S.]