“IT IS OUR WAR"

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 May 1917, Page 8

“IT IS OUR WAR"

VIEWS OF LEAPING SOCIALISTS. "A fight Against militarism.” (Py Professor Archibald T. Strong.) The following article by Professor Arcin’, bald T. Strong, of Melbourne University, is reprinted from the “Melbourne Herald” :

In some quarters of this community it Rooms still to be assumed that Socialism implies an adherence to peacc-at-any-prieo, and that consequently it is inconsistent with true socialistic convictions to render Rapport to any kind of war. This seems to me to bo a complete fallacy, and one closely connected with that other fallacy, that the present war is “a capitalists’ war.” In Australia wo are all of us apt to get into narrow grooves of thought, and it is always refreshing to see what European thinkers are saying, and thus once more to regain the main current. It is noteworthy that some of the loading Socialists in the world have for the time being completely renounced tboiv aspirations for peace, and have thrown themselves on the side of the Allies, realising that their cause implies the struggle of freedom and civilisation against barbarism and the most tyrannous rotuv lion. These men have taken the view that no one can attain his ideal through

inaction, and that it is a man's pact to take sides in the eternal struggle between that which makes for evil, and that which is steadily making for good, oven if it has not yet been able fully to realise if. No man has over preached peace more earnestly and constantly than Anatole Franco, a wholehearted Socialist, and probably the greatest living man of letters. Yet since the beginning of the present war this great thinker, now over seventy years of age. lias declared that no peace is possible till the forces of barbarism have been broken, and as ho is unable to bear arms himself, be has offered his services to the French Government, and is now editing a military newspaper. Everyone knows the part which Wells ha.fi played since the beginning of the war, in endeavouring to vendor help towards the cause of the Allies._ lie has given Shaw a trouncing for his writings; but even Shaw himself, as he now proudly claims, was before the war in favour of strengthening England’s military forces, and for nil his faults ho has certainly not.

since the war, sunk utterly into the slough uf pacificism. That most forcible Socialist, Blatchford, was one of the first men to warn England of the German peril, and to urge that instant steps be taken to meet it. In Franca the pacificist, Hene, and the leading Socialist, Ouesde, arc solidly behind their country, ami against the Hnns, and an equally strong stand Inis been taken by the eminent Belgian Socialist, Vandeveido. The same conviction is held by that most brilliant and learned of Australian Socialists, Mr Maurice Blackburn. It is indeed quite a mistake to think that Socialism necessarily means entire pacificism, and the mock acceptance of armed brutality. In 1848, Karl Marx advocated war against Russia, which he considered at that date to be the greatest stronghold of location in Europe, (u 1870 the great German Socialist, Engels, was prepared to light for France against the aggression of his own country, and was on 1 v dissuaded from doinjj so by Marx, who believed that Ins action might, perhaps, be misinterpreted by France herself. During the American Civil War, thou, sands of German Socialists, as we have been recently reminded by leading American Socialistic writers, took up arms for the North against the Slave Power of the •South. “The war for the Union became their war.” Similar instances might be multiplied almost to infinity but it will be even more instructive to glance for a, moment at the opinion regarding the present war recently endorsed by H. M. Hyiidniaii, one of the greatest Socialists whom the world possesses to-day, and leader of the British Socialist Party._ Messrs Hyndman and Belfort Bax, in an article published in the December number of “The English Review,” point out that: K, is only a minority of Socialists who favour the extreme doctrinaire dogma that all wars in modern times arise out of capitalism and capitalist antagonism, and that, therefore, Socialists should take no part in them whatever, even when national freedom and national independence arc at stake. The majority, on the other hand, contend, and act upon the contention, that by no means all modern wars are capitalist wars, or duo to capitalist antagonism, and that, even if they were, capitalism plus foreign militarist domination, or racial repression, is worse than domestic capitalism by The

former opinion is in opposition to the decisions of International Socialist Con. •tresses; the latter is in accordance with them. The fallacy actuating the minority arises, so he clear!v shows, from their aceeptanee of the Marxian or materialistic view of history, which believes that every event occurring in the world is the prndnefc of blind economic forces working vntblessly upon mankind in society,_which “is thereby reduced to a collection of merely sentient automata, unconsciously dominated, from generation to generation, hv economic circumstances,’ outside of their own cognition or control.” Hyudvnan illustrates the Marxian theory at considerable length in Marx’s own words, and then proceeds to refute it, which he has little difficulty in doing. For my own part, 1 find it impossible to see why even those who accept this doctrine should find themselves more opposed to participation in a just war than to participation in any other form of righteous effort. Hvndman, however, points out that to say that all warfare is due to economic factors, is the most ludicrous of fallacies. Some wars, he shows, arc indeed to be

jpp» ascribed to such onuses, ami he cites instnnces of these. But he proves that on the other hand history bristles with instances of warfare which can in no sense bo ascribed to economic pressure, Some of the roost terrible conflagrations the world has over seen have been due, not to such causes at all but to the antagonisms of race, religion, customs, and so on. In this connection he cites the early movement of Mohammedanism, and Peter the Hermit’s Crusade, which no sane person

would ascribe to the economics of the time. The present war, ho goes on to show, is likewise not a capitalists’ war in its origin—not a carefully prepared struggle of capitalists’ aggression against rival capitalists. On the contrary, it is directly due to the jealousy felt by German Jnukerdom. representing the war party, for German capitalism which ensued peace, and was making enormous strides through it ; It is the final effort of Prussian militarism to retain its predominance at home by conquest and annexation abroad. The Junkers wore losing ground ; war might enable them to recover what they had lost and a good deal more. Therefore, foreign war* was deliberately engineered in order to save the domestic situation. Hence the intrigues of this Camarilla, around the Kaiser and his family, as well as in every capital in Europe, hence iiie constant and at last successful efforts to

'embroil Austria and Russia against their will in (ho trouble arising out of the Serajcvo assassination : hence (lie sudden at, tack upon f'elei uni as a preliminary to the crushing of France; lienee also the miscalculation about the attitude of F.nghmd. which the Junkers could not understand. With regard to the ultimate issue of (he. present, struggle, it is worth while to let TTyndman speak for himself at some length, as it is highly important- that, Australian Socialists should hav> in his own words the opinion of this great Socialist, leader :—- Victory for such a Power would inevitably bring about a long set-back, not only to Socialism in Germany, but to democracy all over F.urone. For that democracy, as well as Socialism, will be attacked and repressed if the Prnsso-German army wins is apparent from what is already to he soon in Germany itself. Prussia, the headquarters of Juukerdom and militarism, bristles with reaction. Her political system and methods of election are entirely behind the times. So far, also, notwithstanding the great and growing power of

Sofia I Democracy in Berlin and through- I out Prussia, it has been found impoa- I siblo to introduce reforms. Not only so, i but reaction has gained ground in the i south In Saxony, where Social-Demo- i civic,' had made most effective use of uui- i versa! suffrage, that democratic right had ' actually been taken away from the people, i and no’ effective protest was made by So. ' rial-Democrats against this high-handed i action of the reactionary minority. As the Social-Democrat poll mounted up, at General Election, after General Election, the Junkers openly threatened to suppress universal suffrage throughout the i Empire in the same way. Should they 1 win the war they will carry out this po- < Hey in peace, and the countries they i conquer, annex or put under tutelage 1 will be subject in like manner to the rule > of the sabre. Culture is only useful in I the minds of the Junkers in so far as it < enables them to dominate and oppress, i Triumphant abroad, they will he the des- > pots of Central and Western Europe. < 1 have repeatedly pointed out. since 1 the beginning of this war, that one of i the strongest indictments of Germany's f schemes and methods is supplied by the I condemnation of neutral countries, which i have no self.interest in condemning her. I but do so because they regard her to day as the great foe of human progress and i freedom. This condemnation is eloqn- < cntly voiced by the leading American So- 1 cialist, Floyd Dell, in an article on 1 militarism, published in the “Socialist * War Manual,’’ a publication issued by “The New Review,” of New York. Mr. : Doll points out that it is only since the 1 present war that Socialists have realised ' how groat a menace Prussian milita";.-m ' lias been to their plans; and with this, ’ he adds, should come another realisation, * that the duty of the Socialist movement to smash militarism is more important f than we ever guessed. Nothing can he J done, nothing that lias been done can stand, programmes of social reform and I of revolution alike are futile, until the I menace of militarism is driven from the •) worldFor the rest, ] may allow Mr. Dell to 1 apeak for himself: — ’ To some people it may seem ridiculous 1 to conceive of a war against militarism. ' Yet more than anything else in the light ; of our Socialist purposes, the war eon- ] rlm-lod 1> \ ■ I A! I ■v' a n:i i net I IdrilßiliV ;k- 1

stum's the aspect of a war against militarism. At least we can believe that the crushing of the Power which has forced militarism in Europe. and which stands before the world as a •treat example of a militaristic nation, would leave the way clear for a thoroii”h. determined and ellicient campaign blazoned to (lie four ends of the (‘arth, we most be prepared for a period of militaristic enterprise too desperate for sanity to hold out against. It is a tragic necessity now to crush by force of arms the great exponent of the virtues of militarism. The defeating of 'Germany is a task in which the Allies should have our Socialist sympathies. In a very real sense this is "our war.” -* Mr. Dell proceeds to correct the impression that “Socialists do not believe in war.” On the contrary, ho says that they are ready to meet the supreme test of a conviction, to kill and he killed for it; and this, not only for their ultimate ideal, but for something smaller, something that will help towards the rea'nation of that ideal without at once aciuev

mg it. No progress, he says, can be nl - tained on this earth except through its ugly and evil things, and he concludes • It is our high privilege as Socialists to face this truth and admit it. It is be. cause we have seen .mankind working through these dreadful agencies toward happiness that we arc Socialists Only through these things, we know, can happiness come to the human race. We cannot turn from lids last, honor of Armageddon. We must think about it ; and perhaps fight in it. It is our war. It is just as well that Australian Socialists should have the truth declared to them by writers of their own persuasion, and I would like once more to remind them that it is not myself, but their own great thinker, Hyndman. who has told them that the majority of Socialists believe to-dav that lids war is their war, and that tins belief is in accordance with the decision of the International Socialist Congresses.