In the World War Germany displayed tremendous _power_. Restraining our
emotions as much as possible, let us endeavor to analyse that power with
mathematical dispassionateness.
Why did Germany display more power than any other single nation? Because
in the establishment of her “ethics,” her political system, and her
economic structure, Germany availed herself, in larger measure than any
other nation, of scientific achievements and scientific methods. It is a
very common, very erroneous, and very harmful belief that war was created
solely by a “war-lord.” Every idea or movement doubtless originates with
somebody but back of such “originations” or initiations there are favoring
conditions, forces and impulsions. The stage is set by life and the ages;
the actor enters and the show begins. In the instance in question, the
stage was set by our whole modern system of civilization. The war lords
were the “Deus ex machina”—the show was a real one—a tragedy.
The true origin of this war must be looked for in the economic field. Our
economic system is the very complicated result of all our creeds,
philosophies and social customs. It is therefore impossible to understand
the working of the economic forces without understanding the foundation
upon which this system of forces is based. A short list of works on the
subject is given at the end of this book. A plain statement here will be
enough.
Germany was committed to a policy of indefinite industrial expansion. This
artificial expansion had reached its limits. Germany was on the verge of
bankruptcy. Only a victorious war could avoid a national catastrophe; she
played her last card, and lost despite her gigantic power, the greatest
ever displayed by any nation. The leading European states were not able to
overpower her for a long time. This writing is not intended as an apology
for Germany, much less to praise her or her war lords. German purposes
were nationally narrow and nationally selfish to the root; her methods
were inhuman but Germany displayed power; and without the understanding of
power, Human Engineering is impossible.
It is possibly a fault of the writer’s military training, but it seems to
him that the “General Staff” point of view has as much claim to
consideration as any other among the many different interpretations of
history—perhaps it has more. It is not the primary aim of the general
staff to “fight,” very far from it. Their primary aim is “victory” and all
the better if victory be possible without a fight. Strategy, brain-work,
intelligence, knowledge of facts—these are the chief weapons; brutal
fighting is only a last resort. It is highly important to bear that in
mind. Soldiers and engineers do not argue—they act. Germany affords the
first example of a philosophy or a society having for its main purpose the
generating of power to “do things.” It seems only reasonable and
intelligent to analyse the history of the war from the engineer’s point of
view, which, in this case, happens to coincide with the military point of
view. It must be clearly understood that the modern general staff, or
military, point of view has very little or nothing to do with the romance
or poetry of war. War to-day is a grim business—but “business” before all
else. It has to mobilize all the resources of a nation and generate power
to the limit of its capacity. The conduct of war to-day is a technological
affair—its methods have to be engineering methods. To crush an obstacle,
there is need of a giant hammer, and the more mass that can be given it
and the greater the force put behind it, the more deadly will be the blow.
Prior to the World War technology had not been mobilized on so vast a
scale nor confronted with a task so gigantic. Mobilized technology has
revealed and demonstrated the fact that it is possible to generate almost
unlimited power and has shown the way to do it; at the same time it has
demonstrated the measureless potency of engineering and our utter
helplessness without it. Technology is comparatively a new science; by
some it is called a “semi-science” because it deals primarily with the
application of science to practical issues. But when it became necessary
“to do things,” an engineer had to be called; the general staff had to
adopt his view, and all other practices and traditions were bent to his
ideas.
I have already repeatedly pointed out that the progress of technology
proceeds according to a law like that of a rapidly increasing geometrical
progression, and I have stressed the danger of inattention to any
phenomena, force or movement that conforms to such a law. We have only to
recollect the story of the simple but very greedy farmer who was very
happy to make a contract with a laborer for a month’s work, paying him
only one cent the first day, twice as much the second, twice for the
third, and so on to the end. Behold! The bill for the month ran into
millions of dollars and the farmer was ruined. Such is the deadly secret
of the geometrical progression. Violent readjustments await any society
whose ethics, jurisprudence and the like do not keep pace with the
developments of engineering.
Engineers are the wizards who, using the results of scientific research,
can subjugate or release the concealed powers of nature. The supreme
factor is the use of the mind—the exponential function of time—the
time-binding energy of man. From that we have to take our start because
that is the source of human power.
The German philosophy, as a whole, has its definite place in the history
of philosophy; and the first thing to consider are those philosophic
writers who directly and indirectly have contributed to the building up of
German power. Hegel greatly affected the building up of the German
mind—strange as it may seem; but Hegel was greatly under the influence of
the work of Fichte, and Fichte in turn under that of Spinoza. All of them
were, in a way, mathematicians in their methods and philosophy, as much as
they could be in their time. I said “strange,” because it is significant
that the mathematical part of their philosophy was just the part which
built up the German power. But if we look into it, it is not strange.
It had to be so, because mathematical and mechanical methods are the only
ones by which power can be understood and built. Hegel in 1805 lectured on
history of philosophy, pure mathematics and natural law. It would be hard
to find a better combination for a philosophy of power. That is precisely
what this philosophy was. It influenced not only German philosophy but
even German theology, and through these channels it sank deep into the
national consciousness. It affected every phase of life. An immense cult
of disciples arose. Each one added something to that philosophy of power.
One of the most brilliant representatives of this movement is Professor
Oswald, who in his _Monist Sermons_ gave the famous advice: “Do not waste
energy but give it value.” The German understanding of the great value of
technology directly applied that principle to their philosophy, law,
ethics, politics, and so on.
With increase of population, the problem of the State becomes more and
more pressing. There are many theories about the state. For the purpose of
the moment it is important to realize that a state is the governing center
of an accumulation of human beings—of time-binding powers—increasing
exponential functions of time. These powers, though the same in kind,
differ in degree and in respect of individuality. If they are to be united
so as to constitute a whole, they must be given a common aim; they must,
so to speak, be reduced to a common base; if they be respectively _X__m_,
_Y__n_, _Z__p_, and so on, we can not unite them and compute the whole by
adding the exponents; but if we give them a common base—a common aim or
purpose—then we can readily represent the magnitudes of the whole
constituted by them; if we take _X_ to be their common aim or base, then,
if _Y_ = _aX_, _Z_ = _bX_, and so on, we shall have:
_X__m_ × _Y__n_ × _Z__p_ ... = _X__m_ × _a__n_ × _X__n_ × _b__p_ × _X__p_
... = (_a__n_ × _b__p_ ...)_X__m+n+p_ ...
The last expression, where the parenthetical coefficient is the product of
individualities, serves to represent the united powers of all in terms of
_X_, the common base, purpose or aim.
Let us look at the matter in another way. One mechanical “horse-power” is
less than the power of one living horse. One living horse can do more work
than one mechanical horse-power, but in using more than one living horse
at one time we get less work than by using the same number of mechanical
horse-powers; the reason is very obvious. The mechanical horse-powers are
the same in kind, equal, and constant, but living horses differ in
character, they are not equal, and each one is a variable. Hence
mechanical horse-powers can be added or multiplied arithmetically, but the
powers of living horses can not, except very roughly; the living horses of
a team interfere with each other; they do not pull together, as we say,
and energy is lost.
The German mathematical philosophy or theory of the state did not express
itself in just this way, but the foregoing gives a clue to it. Germany
united the powers of living men and women and children; it gave them a
common base; it gave them one common “social” mood and aim; they all
became consolidated in service of that which is called the State; they
studied and taught for the State; they worked, lived and died for the
State: the State was their idol, King and God.
Such was the aim of German philosophy, theology, law and science. The
establishment of ONE AIM for all was the decisive factor. It is obvious
that if we want to inspire 60 Millions of individuals with one aim, this
aim can not be private or personal. It must be a higher aim, collective,
general, impersonal, in some way uniting and including all personal aims.
I shall call it simply a _collective_ aim. But collective aims may differ
profoundly in kind; out of personal or egoistic aims there grows a series
of collective aims, increasing in generality, such as: (1) Family aims;
(2) association, congregation, club aims; (3) class or professional aims;
(4) national or race aims; and finally (5) HUMAN AIMS—the natural aims for
the time-binding class of life. The fatal error of German political
philosophy was an error of aim—her aim was too low—too narrow—the welfare
of a state instead of the welfare of Humanity.
In the case of Germany, the national aim was equivalent to the state aim.
German philosophy made the “state” equivalent to the “good” and equivalent
to “power.” Of course such philosophy influenced the whole national life
in every detail; in consequence Germany proclaimed herself the first
nation of the world, and this soon evolved into a plan for the conquest of
the world. The German General Staff as an institution had, par excellence,
as its aim and first object, “power,” “concentration of power” and
“efficiency.” It took the leadership in all branches of life and industry.
Militarism and industrialism are almost synonymous from the mechanical
point of view; they are both of them power. They both have to use the same
scientific methods and in the _present_ conditions of the world they are
dependent upon each other, for war cannot be waged without strong
industries. Here we have to face the fact that geometrically progressing
industry can not live without new markets, which under present conditions
have been largely acquired, directly or indirectly, by the power of the
army; and this has been the case with Germany. If we curse Germany for
being a “military nation” we can, with no less justice, curse her for
being a _completely_ “industrialized nation.” If we add to that her
nationally selfish and narrow national aim, we will readily understand
this “world peach.” Those who have tasted it know something of its
sweetness.
There is no need to go into further details. Special books give us all the
data. That which is of interest is the impersonal fact that what was the
_strength_ and _power_ of Germany is the best possible illustration we
have had of what science and a sort of mathematical philosophy are able to
accomplish, even when directed, not to the welfare of Humanity, but to
that of a relatively small group of people. The above-cited political
philosophies had a very pronounced effect upon Marx. One of the branches
of socialism is the so-called state socialism. State socialists, as the
name indicates, believe that the state should assume the most important
functions in society. It is obvious that in monarchical countries where
“god-given” rulers represent the state, such a theory is not unwelcome, as
it gives the rulers an opportunity to show a sort of “advanced
liberalism,” which serves to strengthen their power. The astute Bismarck
can not be suspected of being a progressionist in the modern sense but,
being a product of German culture and philosophy, all his ideals were
those of a strong state. He was a proclaimed advocate of state socialism.
Since 1879 at least, Bismarck was considered almost the leading spirit of
paternal state socialism. He was a believer and promoter of the close
relation of the state and the railways, keeping always in view a thorough
nationalization which he finally accomplished. This fact eliminated from
German public life all that phase of corruption which private ownership of
railroads brings in any country, the railroad being the very life of any
country.
To sum up: Germany applied the most scientific methods to build up her
national power; she understood the elements of “power,” for they were
disclosed to her by her science and her philosophy. She applied
technological methods in every part of her civil life, and thus built her
gigantic power. Her industrial life followed the military way; her
military strength was built on industrial power. And so the vicious
circle. Germany adopted a _collective_ aim instead of a personal
individualistic aim, and because of this broader aim, she was able to
mobilize and to keep mobilized all her moral, political and industrial
forces for long years before the war. The direct effect of this system of
continuous mobilization was over-production. For this she desperately
needed new markets. The cheapest and quickest way to acquire them, if they
were not to be grabbed otherwise, was to conquer them by a victorious war.
Her plans progressed according to the program, all except the victory in
the battle fields.
This war was a calamity of unprecedented magnitude for the world and it is
our duty to study it dispassionately and learn the lesson of it, if we do
not want to be moral accomplices of this great modern crime, by letting
the world drift into an even worse catastrophe. We have to arouse
ourselves from our inertia and go to the bottom of this problem and
analyse it ruthlessly, no matter whether the analysis be pleasant or not.
We must value everyone of our “ten sacred dead” at least as much as we
value one rabbit killed in scientific laboratories, and take the lesson to
heart or be prepared for a repetition of world slaughter.
If Human Engineering had been established long ago our social system would
have been different, our civilization would have been much higher, this
war would have been avoided. We do not need to delude ourselves. The World
War was the result of badly balanced social and economic forces. The world
needs other “balances of power” than such as are devised by lawyers and
politicians, by single-selfish or group-selfish interests. Humanity is
reaching out for a science and art of human guidance based upon a right
understanding of human nature.