SOCIAL IDEALS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21153, 9 April 1932, Page 1 (Supplement)

SOCIAL IDEALS.

" INTERNATIONALISM."

BY VILLE.

Not long ago there was published this from a sermon: "The days of national independence and self-sufficiency are at an end; whether we liko it or not, we are forced to-day to live internationally." The preacher quoted another speaker, who declared: "We are trying to live internationally without being morally or spiritually fit to do so." It is evident' that each speaker had in mind something far different from those political concepts of internationalism that occupied tho minds of people in all countries in the days before the war and that, even in these later days, have made fugitive appearances in ono form or another in the utterances of certain publicists. Behind all the theories and ideals of internationalism, so called, there is implied the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of mankind. 'lbis doctrine is as old as civilised man. It is cardinal to the Christian faith, and the ideals of internationalism are its logical outcome expressed in terms of the social and political relationships of civilised States. The merit of international Socialism, not to be denied even by those of us who detest the body of Socialist philosophy, is that in the years immediately preceding the war it had made these ideals peculiarly its own, and had implanted them, particularly in continental Europe, as a living faith in multitudes of earnest men and women.

And so, in the dark days of August, 1914, when an anxious world listened in vain for the voice which somehow was to avert impending doom, it was to the faith and sincerity of international Socialism, and not to the power of organised Christianity, that it turned for the word of authority. How little either political dogma or religious faith was able to influence the sequence of events was revealed when tho German armies struck for the frontiers of Belgium. Growing Sense of Solidarity.

There can be no question of tho extent to which, in tho immediate pre-war years, the ideals of internationalism had impregnated the mind of democracy in many countries. In Europe it had long passed the stage at which it was accounted a peculiar and eccentric propaganda. To :;n earlier generation St. Simon the Frenchman had preached it from the high ground of religion. Marx the German had reduced the theory to purely material elements and had made it the creed of a class in revolt based on the identity of proletarian interests. Tho growing senso of international solidarity, the oneness of peoples, the fundamental fraternity of all mankind—these were the splendid visionings that wore to rouse the free peoples of Europe to effective protest at the iirst threat of international conflict. How futile such a faith was to prove could have been tragically foretold by any careful student of the discussions at the International Socialist Congresses of Stuttgart (1907), Copenhagen (1910) and Basle (1912). Here, in the very sanctuaries of the internationalist gospel, it had been found impossible to agree upon any formula which would effectively reconcile divergent conceptions of national interests with tho internationalist ideal. Jauros and Bebel, Frenchman and German, mouthed the same shibboleth but did not mean the same thing. Such resolutions as wero passed represented pitiable compromises framed to cover the latent or open conflict of view. With the coming of Armageddon, prewar internationalism died suddenly and violently under tho shock of arms. That its concepts had no intellectual significance was made tragically manifest on the outbreak of hostilities. They had never been closely analysed or precisely defined. Now that the world, through its Governments, is seeking means of international co-operation, as a masure of selfinterest not less than at the behest of a quickening international conscience, it is well to consider the cause which made inevitable the sterility of the pre-war internationalist movement among peoples.

Denationalisation. Pre-war internationalism had identified its ideals with anti-nationalism. It ignored, if it did not denounce, that natural love of country which is quite compatible with tho instinct of human brotherhood and " the family of nations." It assumed all patriotism to be, in its nature, chauvinistic; it declared that the tiue lover of his kind could recognise no special obligation to his own or any particular country; it was tainted with a too literal acceptance of the Marxian creed that " the working classes have no fatherland;" it echoed too glibly- the talk of tho sinister Bakunin about " the abolition of frontiers."

The passing of nations and their replacement by a world organisation, undisturbed by the lingual and cultural distinctions which divide the world into national groups, was its shadowy concept of universal order. This was, perhaps, not' so much anti-national as a-national—-tho negation of nationalism. But in its essence it was dangerously akin to anarchism. It postulated processes of denationalisation which are in open conflict with tho instinct of personal patriotism and the principle of national entities. Neither the economic internationalism of finance nor the intellectual. internationalism of science and literature extinguishes national feeling. Even tho internationalism of Labour does not eliminate national consciousness. Marx prophesied that th© development' of international industry and commerce would tend to identity of industrial processes and to " uniformity in modes of life " and consequently to tho disappearance of national peculiarities and contrasts of national feeling and patriotism. His prophesies show little sign of fulfilment today. National consciousness persists and flourishes.

National Units Necessary. It must continue to do so, for the culture of national units is essential to the richer diversity and growth of human life. The records of history, and the lifo of to-day, testify that tho abiding things of civilisation are rooted in distinctive national characteristics and inheritances, which have become tho common possessions of tho race. It was tho basic psychological error of pre-war internationalism that it gave these considerations no con ntenance.

To-day our idealists stand with their feet on firmer ground. It may bo that tho League of Nations in its halting movements toward international understanding is illustrating the quotation that " Wo are trying to live internationally without being morally or spiritually fit to do so." But, at any rate, it is facing facts.

Tho future of the world rests not on tho disappearance of national entities, but upon tho increasing co-operation of free and fraternal nationalities for world purposes and to world ends of civilised peaco and progress. Only by recognit ion of this fact may tho spiritual quality of tho internationalist ideal function to beneficent ends. "Wo need," says Dr. L. P. Jacks, " some means of promoting internationalism which will not bring us into fatal collision with the principle of nationality." Along any other line lies failure.