link between these free individualities, to build a rose window that
shall concentre their multiple trends, to compose a symphony from out
their various voices. The United States is made up of elements drawn
from all the nations of the world. Let the richness of the structure
help you to understand the essence of all these nations, to realise the
harmony of their intellectual energies!--To-day, in the Old World, we
witness the deplorable and foolish antagonism displayed by national
individualities, near neighbours and close kin, distinguished only by
trifling shades like France and Germany, repudiating one another,
longing for one another's destruction. Parochial disputes about which
the human mind is eager to achieve self-mutilation! For my part I cry
aloud, not merely that the intellectual ideal of a single nation is too
narrow for me; I declare that the ideal of a reconciled western world
would be too narrow for me; I declare that the ideal of a united Europe
would still be too narrow for me. The hour has come in which man, truly
healthy and truly alive, must deliberately turn his footsteps towards
the ideal of a universal humanity, wherein the European races of the Old
World and of the New will join hands with the representatives of the
ancient and now rejuvenescent civilisations of Asia--of India and of
China. A universal humanity with a common spiritual treasury. All these
splendid types of mankind are mutually complementary. The thought of the
future must be a synthesis of the great thoughts of the entire universe.
America lies between the two oceans which lave the two continents;
America is at the centre of the life of the world. Let it be the mission
of all that is best in America to cement this fecund union!
To sum up, we ask of you two things, writers and thinkers of America. We
ask, first of all, that you should defend freedom, that you should
safeguard its conquests and extend them: political freedom and mental
freedom, an unceasing renewal of life through freedom, through this
great and ever-flowing river of the mind.
In the second place, we await from you that you should bring to pass, on
behalf of the world, a harmony of diverse liberties; a symphonic
expression of associated individualities, of associated races, of
associated civilisations, of mankind at once integral and free.
You have splendid opportunities: you have an exuberant young life; you
have wide areas of virgin land. Your day has just begun. You are not
wearied by the toil of a previous day. You are unencumbered by the
heritage of the past. All that comes down to you from the past is a
voice like the sound of many waters, the voice of a great herald whose
work seems a homeric foreshadowing of the task that awaits you. I speak
of the American master, Walt Whitman.--Surge et age.
"Revue mensuelle," Geneva, February, 1917.
XII
FREE VOICES FROM AMERICA
I have often deplored that during the war the Swiss press has failed to
play the great part which was assigned to it. I have not hesitated to
express my regret to Swiss journalists of my acquaintance. I do not
reproach the Swiss periodicals for their lack of impartiality. It is
natural, it is human, to have preferences, and to show them
passionately. We have all the less reason to complain seeing that (at
least among the Latin Swiss) the preferences are in our favour.
My chief grievance is that, since the beginning of the war, our Swiss
friends have failed to keep us fully informed of what is going on around
us. We do not ask a friend to judge for us; when we are carried away by
passion, we do not ask him to be wiser than we are. But if he is in a
position to see and know things that are hidden from us, we have a right
to reproach him if he leaves us in ignorance. He does us wrong, for
through his fault we are likely to fall into errors of judgment and are
likely to act wrongly.
Neutral countries enjoy an inestimable advantage. They can look the
problems of the war in the face, in a way that is utterly impossible to
the belligerent nations. Above all, the neutrals enjoy the advantage of
being able to speak freely, a piece of good fortune which they fail to
esteem at its true value. Switzerland, in the very centre of the
battlefield, between the fighting camps, with inhabitants drawn from
three of the belligerent stocks, is peculiarly favoured. I have had
occasion to perceive and to profit by the wealth of information at the
disposal of the Swiss. Hither, from all parts of Europe, comes an
abundance of news, evidence, printed matter.
Yet the Swiss press makes little use of this abundance. With few
exceptions, Swiss periodicals are content to reproduce the official
bulletins from the armies, and the semi-official statements issued by
agencies that are open to suspicion, statements inspired by the
governments or by the occult forces which to-day have far more governing
power than the nominal heads of governments. Rarely do we find that the
Swiss papers subject these interested statements to critical discussion.
Hardly ever do we find contrasted views; hardly ever are we enabled to
listen to independent voices from the opposing trenches.[17] Thus
official truth, dictated by the powers that be, is imposed upon the
masses with the potency of a dogma. Thought concerning the war has a
catholicity which will not permit heresy to exist. Such a development is
strange in Switzerland, and above all in this republic of Geneva, whose
historic origins and whose reasons for existence were free opposition
and fertilising heresy.
I do not propose to study the psychological causes of the suppression of
thoughts which conflict with official dogma. I am inclined to think that
partisan feeling is of less effect in this matter than, in some,
ignorance of the facts and lack of critical faculty, and in others,
really well-informed persons, failure to verify alleged facts, or an
unwillingness to correct the errors of an overwrought public
opinion--errors which, quite unknown to themselves, they really desire
to believe. It is easier, and at the same time it is safer, to rest
content with the news supplied from house to house by the great
purveyors, rather than put oneself to the pains of going to the fountain
head in order to revise or to supplement current information.
These errors and these lacunae are serious, however they originate, as
the public is beginning to realise.[18] It is perfectly natural that the
ideas of this or that social or political party, in one or other of the
belligerent nations, should conflict with the ideas of this or that
journal in a neutral land. No one need be surprised that such a neutral
journal should openly express its dissent. Vigilant criticism would be
equally in place. But it is not permissible that a neutral journal
should ignore or distort everything of which it disapproves.
Is it not intolerable, for example, that we should know nothing about
the Russian revolution except from news items issued from governmental
sources (non-russian for the most part), or from hostile partisans eager
to calumniate all the forward groups? Is it not intolerable that the
great Swiss periodicals should never give an open platform to the
persons thus vilified, not even in the case of such a man as Maxim
Gorki, whose genius and intellectual candour are the glory of European
letters? Once more, is it not intolerable that the French socialist
minority should be systematically left out of the picture, should be
regarded as non-existent by the journals of French-speaking Switzerland?
Is it not monstrous that these same journals, during the last three
years, have maintained absolute silence concerning the British
opposition, or, if they have referred to it at all, have done so in the
most contemptuous terms? For we have to remember that those who voice
this opposition bear some of the greatest names in British thought, such
as Bertrand Russell, Bernard Shaw, Israel Zangwill, Norman Angell, and
E. D. Morel; we have to remember that its views find expression in
vigorous periodicals, in numerous pamphlets, and in books some of which
excel in value anything that during the same period has been written in
Switzerland and in France!
Nevertheless, in the long run, the staying powers of the British
opposition have got the better of national barriers; the thought of this
opposition has made its way into France, where some of the leading
spirits are now fully aware of this English work and of these English
struggles. With regret I have to record that the Swiss press has played
no part in promoting the mutual understanding, and I imagine that
neither the French nor the British will forget the fact.
The same thing has happened in the United States of America. The Swiss
periodicals have been delighted to publish whatever the powers that be
have sent them for publication; but, as usual, the opposition has been
forgotten or scoffed at. When by chance a semi-official telegram from
New York, meticulously reproduced (unless it has been obligingly
paraphrased and provided with a sensational headline), makes some
reference to the opposition, it is only that we may be inspired with
contempt. It would appear that any one on the other side of the Atlantic
who proclaims himself a pacifist, even if it be on Christian grounds, is
looked upon as a traitor, as working in the hire of the enemy. This no
longer arouses our surprise. The experiences of the last three years
have been such that nothing can now surprise us. But we have likewise
lost all power of trust. Having learned that those who desire truth will
vainly wait for it to come to them, we set out to seek truth for
ourselves wherever it may be found. When there is no drinking water in
the house, we must e'en go to the well.
To-day let us listen to the words of the opposition in America, as
expressed by one of the boldest of the periodicals serving that
movement, "The Masses" of New York.[19]
Here expression is given to non-official truth, and this, also, is no
more than part of the truth. But we have the right to know the whole
truth, be it pleasant or unpleasant. It is even our duty to know it,
unless we are poltroons who fear to look reality in the face. You need
not search the files of "The Masses" for records of greatness that has
been lavished in the war! We know all about this, anyhow, from the
official reports with which we are deluged. What we do not sufficiently
know, what people do not wish to know, is the material and moral
unhappiness, the injustice, the oppression which, as Bertrand Russell
points out, are for each nation the obverse of every war, however
just.--That is why, as far as America is concerned, we must consult the
uncompromising periodical which I am about to quote.
* * * * *
Max Eastman, the editor, is the soul of "The Masses." He fills it with
his thought and his energy. The two last issues to reach me, those of
June and July, 1917, contain no less than six articles from his pen. All
wage implacable warfare against militarism and blind nationalism. Nowise
duped by official declamations, Eastman declares that this war is not a
war for democracy. The real struggle for liberty will come after the
war.[20] In the United States, as in Europe, the war has been the work
of capitalists, and of a group of intellectuals, clerical and lay.[21]
Max Eastman insists on the part played by the intellectuals, whilst his
collaborator John Reed emphasises the part played by the capitalists.
Similar economic and moral phenomena have been apparent in the Old World
and in the New. In the United States, as in Europe, many socialists
support the war. A number of them (notably Upton Sinclair, with whom I
am personally acquainted, and whose moral sincerity and idealist spirit
I fully appreciate) have adopted this strange militarism. They champion
universal conscription, in the hope that after the "war for democracy"
"the socialist movement will know how to 'employ such a disciplined
army' in building the co-operative commonwealth."[22]
As for the men of religion, they have rushed headlong into the fray. At
a meeting of Methodist ministers in New York, one of them, a pastor from
Bridgeport, Connecticut, straightforwardly declared, "If I must choose
between my country and my God, I have made up my mind to choose God." He
was hooted and threatened by the other members of the assembly, five
hundred in number; was denounced as a traitor. Newel Dwight Hillis,
preaching in the Henry Ward Beecher church, said: "All God's teachings
concerning forgiveness must be abrogated as far as Germany is concerned.
When the Germans have been shot I will forgive them their atrocities.
But if we agree to forgive Germany after the war, I shall think that the
world has gone mad."
Billy Sunday, a sort of howling dervish, sprung from heaven knows where,
brays to huge crowds a militarist gospel. He spouts his sermons like a
sewer disgorging filth; he calls upon the Good Old God (who is
apparently to be found in other places besides Berlin), buttonholes him,
enrols him willy-nilly. A cartoon of Boardman Robinson's shows Billy
Sunday arrayed as a recruiting sergeant, dragging Christ by a halter and
shouting: "I got him! He's plumb dippy over going to war." Fashionable
folk, ladies included, are infatuated with this preacher; they delight
to debase themselves in God's company. The ministers of religion, too,
are on Billy Sunday's side. The exceptions may be counted on the fingers
of one hand. Most notable among the exceptions is the pastor of the
church of the Messiah in New York, John Haynes Holmes by name, from whom
I had the honour of receiving a magnificent letter in February, 1917,
just before the United States entered the war. In its July number "The
Masses" published an admirable declaration issued by Holmes to his
flock. It was entitled, What shall I do? He refuses to exclude any
nation from the human community. The church of the Messiah will not
respond to any militarist appeal. His conscience constrains him to
refuse conscription. He will obey his conscience at any cost. "God
helping me, I can no otherwise."--Those who resist the war madness
constitute a little Church where persons of all parties make common
cause, Christians, atheists, Quakers, artists, socialists, etc. Hailing
from all points of the compass, and holding the most conflicting ideas,
they share only one article of faith, that of the war against war. This
common creed suffices to bring them into closer association than the
associations they had with their friends of yesterday, with their
brothers by blood, by religion, or by profession.[23] Thus did Christ
pass to and fro among the men of Judea, detaching those who believed in
him from their families, from their class, from all their past life.--In
the United States, as in Europe, young men are far less possessed with
the war spirit than their elders. A striking example comes from Columbia
University. Here, while the professors were conferring on General Joffre
the degree of doctor of literature, the students assembled to pass a
unanimous resolution against answering the call of military
conscription.[24] This exposed the voters to the penalty of
imprisonment. For they manage things with a heavy hand in the classic
land of liberty. Many American citizens have been thrown into gaol, and
others, we are informed, have been immured in lunatic asylums, for
having expressed their disapproval of the war. The recruiting sergeants
go wherever they please, even forcing their way into meetings of the
workers and maltreating all who resist them.[25] Under the rubric A
Week's War "The Masses" records all the brutalities, all the blows,
wounds, and murders, to which the war has already led in America. We may
well ask to what extremes of violence these antipacifist repressions
will some day be carried. The alleged freedom of speech in the United
States would appear to be pure humbug. "In actual fact," exclaims Max
Eastman, "freedom of speech has never existed." It is by law
established. "But in practice there reigns a contempt for law, to the
advantage of the strong and to the detriment of the weak." We have long
known this through the revelations of the Italian and Russian socialist
press, in connection with the scandalous sentences passed on working
men. Do pacifists give trouble? They are arrested as anarchists! Does a
periodical refuse to bow to the opinion of the state? It is suppressed
without parley; or sometimes, by a more refined procedure, it is
prosecuted for obscenity![26] And so on.
Max Eastman's chief collaborator, John Reed, endeavours to throw light
on the preponderating role played by American capitalism in the war. In
an article which adopts as title that of Norman Angell's book _The Great
Illusion_, Reed declares that the pretence of fighting kings is maudlin,
and that Money is the true king. Putting his finger on the sore spot, he
adduces figures showing the colossal profits made by the great American
companies. Under the bizarre title _The Myth of American Fatness_,[27]
he shows that it is not, as Europe fancies, the American nation which
battens on the war, but only two per cent of the population.
Ninety-eight per cent of the inhabitants of the States are thin folk,
and grow thinner daily. During the years 1912 to 1916, wages increased
nine per cent, whilst the cost of food increased seventy-four per cent
during the years 1915 and 1916. From 1913 to 1917, the general rise in
prices was 85.32 per cent (flour 69 per cent, eggs 61 per cent, potatoes
224 per cent! Between January 1915 and January 1917, the rise in the
price of coal was from $5 to $8.75 per ton). The bulk of the population
has suffered cruelly, and serious hunger strikes have taken place in New
York. Of course the European press has either said nothing about these
or has ascribed them to German plots.
During the years 1914 to 1916, there occurred an increase of five
hundred per cent in the dividends paid by twenty-four of the largest
companies (steel, cast iron, leather, sugar, railways, electricity,
chemical products, etc.). The dividend of the Bethlehem Steel
Corporation rose from $5,122,703 in 1914 to $43,593,968 in 1916. The
dividend of the United States Steel Corporation rose from $81,216,985 in
1914 to $281,531,730 in 1916. During the years 1914 and 1915, the number
of wealthy persons in the United States increased as follows: From 60 to
120 in the case of those with a private income exceeding one million
dollars; from 114 to 209 in the case of those with a private income
ranging from half a million to one million dollars; while the number of
those whose income ranged from one hundred thousand to half a million
dollars was doubled.[28] In incomes below one hundred thousand dollars,
there has been no notable increase. John Reed adds: "There are limits to
the patience of the common people. Beware revolts!"
The first article in the July number of "The Masses" is a message to the
citizens of the United States entitled _War and Individual Liberty_,
penned by Bertrand Russell, the distinguished English philosopher and
mathematician. It is dated February 21, 1917, prior to the U.S.
declaration of war, but could not be published before July. Russell
recalls the self-sacrifice of the conscientious objectors in Britain,
and the persecutions to which they have been exposed. He extols their
faith (a faith for which he himself suffered). The cause of individual
liberty is, he declares, the highest of all. Since the middle ages, the
power of the state has grown unceasingly. It is now maintained that the
state is entitled to dictate opinions to all, men and women. Prisons,
emptied of criminals, who have been sent to the front in uniform to take
part in the killing, are filled with honest men who refuse to be
soldiers and to kill. A tyrannical society which has no place for rebels
is a society condemned in advance. First of all its progress will be
arrested, and then it will become retrogressive. The medieval church at
least had, as counterpoise, the resistance of the Franciscans and of the
reformers. The modern state has broken everything that resists its
power; it has made around itself a void, an abyss wherein it will
perish. Militarism is the modern state's instrument of oppression, just
as dogma was the instrument of the church.--What is this state, before
which all cringe? How absurd to speak of it as an impersonal authority,
to invest it with a quasi-sacred character! The state consists of a few
elderly gentlemen, for the most part of less than average ability, for
they are cut off from the new life of the masses. Hitherto, the United
States has been the freest of the nations. She has reached a critical
hour, not for herself merely, but for the world at large, which regards
her with tense anxiety. Let America beware. Even a just war may give
rise to all possible iniquities. Vestiges of ancient fierceness linger
within us; the human animal licks its chops as it watches the
gladiatorial combats. We veil these cannibal appetites under
highsounding names, speaking of Right and of Liberty. The last hope of
our day lies in youth. Let youth claim for the future the individual's
prerogative to judge good and evil for himself, to be the arbiter of his
own conduct.
Side by side with these serious words, a large place, in the combat of
thought, is given to humour, that bright and beauteous weapon. Charles
Scott Wood writes amusing Voltairian dialogues. Here we see Billy Sunday
in heaven, filling the place with clamour. He preaches a sermon full of
Billingsgate, a sermon addressed to God, represented as an old gentleman
with suave and distinguished manners, a little tired, speaking softly.
St. Peter is instructed to enforce a new divine ordinance, for God,
weary of the insipid company of simple souls, has decided that only
persons of intelligence are to be admitted to paradise in future.
Consequently no one killed in the war will pass the gate, except the
Poles, who claim no merit for being sacrificed, but say they were
sacrificed against their will.
Louis Untermeyer contributes poems. A number of excellent book reviews
and several columns of theatrical criticism deal with questions of the
hour. Among the works referred to, I may mention two of great
originality: a book filled with bold paradox by Thorstein Veblen,
entitled _Peace? An Inquiry into the Nature of Peace_; a Russian play in
four acts by Artsibashev, _War_, depicting the cycle of the war in a
family and the wastage of souls which it involves.
Finally we have vigorous drawings, the work of satirists of the pencil.
R. Kempf, Boardman Robinson, and George Bellows, enliven the magazine
with their pungent visions and their cutting words. Kempf shows us War
crushing in his embrace France, England, and Germany, crying out: "Come
on in, America, the blood's fine!" The four linked figures are dancing
on a sea of blood in which corpses are floating.--A few pages further
on, Boardman Robinson shows Liberty in the background weeping. In front
stands Uncle Sam, wearing handcuffs (censorship) and leg-irons, the
cannon-ball of conscription drags at the chain. He is described as being
"All ready to fight for Liberty."--George Bellows' design depicts a
chained Christ in prison. He is "incarcerated for the use of language
calculated to dissuade citizens from entering the United States
armies."--Finally, upon a heap of dead, the two sole survivors are seen
savagely cutting one another to pieces. They are Turkey and Japan. The
legend runs: "1920: still fighting for civilisation." This design is by
H. R. Chamberlain.
* * * * *
Thus fight, across the seas, a few independent spirits. Freedom,
clearness, courage, and humour, are rare virtues. Still more rarely do
we find them united, in days of folly and enslavement. In the American
opposition, these virtues take the palm.
I do not pretend that the opposition is impartial. It, likewise, is
influenced by passion, so that it fails to recognise the moral forces
animating the other side. The combined wretchedness and greatness of
these tragical days lies in the fact that both parties are drawn to the
fight by lofty, though conflicting ideals, which endeavour to slay one
another while volleying abuse at one another like Homer's heroes. We, at
least, claim the right of doing justice even to our adversaries, even to
the champions of the war which we loath. We know how much idealism, how
much intense moral feeling, have been poured out on behalf of this
sinister cause. We are aware that in this respect the United States has
been no less spendthrift than Britain and France. But we wish people to
give respectful hearing to the voices from the other side, from the
peace party. Since the apostles of peace are few in number, since they
are oppressed, they have all the more right to demand the esteem of the
world. Everything rages against these bold men: the formidable power of
the armed states; the baying of the press; the frenzy of blinded and
drunken public opinion.