simply join because pressure to do so is put upon them by their
"masters." The press-gangs of old exist no longer, but substitutes for
them revive in subtler form. Many large landlords, for instance, have
given notice to a percentage of their gamekeepers, gardeners, park
employees, and the like, to the effect that their services are no
longer required, but that if they enlist in the ranks now they will be
reinstated in their masters' service again when the war is over ("if
still alive" is, we presume, understood). Large numbers of manufacturing
and other firms have notified their workmen and clerks in similar terms.
This means pretty serious economic pressure. A man in the prime of life,
suddenly ousted from his job, and with no prospect either of finding a
similar job elsewhere or of learning any new one, is in a pretty fix.
His only certain refuge lies in the fact that he can be taught to use a
rifle in a few weeks; and in a few weeks perhaps it becomes clear to him
that to accept that offer and the pay that goes with it--poor as it
is--is his only chance.
There are others, again--perhaps a very large number--who do not care
much about the war in itself, and probably have only the vaguest notion
of what it is all about, but for them to join the ranks means adventure,
comradeship, the open air--all fascinating things; and they hail the
prospect with joy as an escape from intolerable dullness--from the
monotony of the desk and the stuffy office, from the dreary round and
mechanical routine of the factory bench, from the depressing environment
of "home" and domestic squalor.
I must confess--though I have no general prejudice in favour of
war--that I have been much struck, since the outbreak of the present
one, by the altered look of crowds of young men whom I personally
know--who are now drilling or otherwise preparing for it. The gay look
on their faces, the blood in their cheeks, the upright carriage and
quick, elate step--when compared with the hang-dog, sallow, dull
creatures I knew before--all testify to the working of some magic
influence.
As I say, I do not think that this influence in most cases has much to
do with enthusiasm for the "cause" or any mere lust of "battle" (happily
indeed for the most part they do not for a moment realize what modern
battle means). It is simply escape from the hateful conditions of
present-day commercialism and its hideous wage-slavery into something
like the normal life of young manhood--a life in the open under the wide
sky, blood-stirring enterprise, risk if you will, co-operation and
_camaraderie_. These are the inviting, beckoning things, the things
which swing the balance down--even though hardships, low pay, and high
chances of injury and death are thrown in the opposite scale.
Nevertheless, and despite these other considerations, there does
certainly remain, in this as in other wars, a fair number of men among
those who enlist who are _bonâ fide_ inspired by some Ideal which they
feel to be worth fighting for. It may be Patriotism or love of their
country; it may be "to put down militarism"; it may be Religion or
Honour or what not. And it is fine that it should be so. They may in
cases be deluded, or mistaken about facts; the ideal they fight for may
be childish (as in the mediaeval Crusades); still, even so it is fine
that people should be willing to give their lives for an idea--that they
should be capable of being inspired by a vision. Humanity has at least
advanced as far as that.
I suppose patriotism, or love of country--when it comes to its full
realization, as in the case of invasion by an enemy, is the most
powerful and tremendous of such ideals, sweeping everything before it.
It represents something ingrained in the blood. In that case all the
other motives for fighting--economic or what not--disappear and are
swallowed up. Material life and social conditions under a German
government might externally be as comfortable and prosperous as under
our own, but for most of us something in the soul would wither and
sicken at the thought.
Anyhow, whatever the motives may be which urge _individuals_ into
war--whether sheer necessity or patriotism, or the prospect of wages or
distinction, or the love of adventure--a nation or a people in order to
fight _must_ have a "cause" to fight for, something which its public
opinion, its leaders, and its Press can appropriate--some phrase which
it can inscribe on its shield: be it "Country" or "God" or "Freedom from
Tyranny," or "Culture _versus_ Barbarism." It must have some such cry,
else obviously it could not fight with any whole-heartedness or any
force.
The thing is a psychological necessity. Every one, when he gets into a
quarrel, justifies himself and accuses the other party. He puts his own
conduct in an ideal light, and the conduct of his opponent in the
reverse! Doubtless if we were all angels and could impartially enter
into all the origins of the quarrel, we should not fight, because to
"understand" would be to "forgive"; but as we have not reached that
stage, and as we cannot even explain why we are quarrelling--the matter
being so complex--we are fain to adopt a phrase and fight on the
strength of that. It is useless to call this hypocrisy. It is a
psychological necessity. It is the same necessity which makes a mistress
dismiss her maid on the score of a broken teapot, though really she has
no end of secret grievances against her; or which makes the man of
science condense the endless complexity of certain physical phenomena
into a neat but lying formula which he calls a _Law of Nature_. He could
not possibly give all the real facts, and so he uses a phrase.
In war, therefore, each nation adopts a motto as its reason for
fighting. Sometimes the two opposing nations both adopt the same motto I
England and Germany both inscribe on their banners: "Culture _versus_
Barbarism." Each believes in its own good faith, and each accuses the
other of hypocrisy.
In a sense this is all right, and could not be better. It does not so
much matter which is really the most cultured nation, England or
Germany, as that each should really _believe_ that it is fighting in the
cause of Culture. Then, so fighting for what it knows to be a good
cause, the wounds and death endured and the national losses and
depletion are not such sad and dreadful things as they at first appear.
They liberate the soul of the individual; they liberate the soul of the
nation. They are sacrifices made for an ideal; and (provided they are
truly such) the God within is well-pleased and comes one step nearer to
his incarnation. Whatever inner thing you make sacrifices for, the same
will in time appear visibly in your life--blessing or cursing you.
Therefore, beware I and take good care as to what that inner thing
really is.
Such is the meaning of the use of a phrase or "battle-cry"; but we have,
indeed, to be on our guard against _how_ we use it. It can so easily
become a piece of cant or hypocrisy. It can so easily be engineered by
ruling cliques and classes for their own purposes--to persuade and
compel the people to fight _their_ battles. The politicians get us (for
reasons which they do not explain) into a nice little entanglement
--perhaps with some tribe of savages, perhaps with a great
European Power; and before the nation knows where it is it finds itself
committed to a campaign which may develop and become a serious war. Then
there is no alternative but for Ministers to repair to a certain Cabinet
where the well-dried formulae they need are kept hanging, and select one
for their use. It may be "Women and Children," or it may be "Immoral
Savages," or it may be "Empire," or it may be "Our Word of Honour."
Having selected the right one, and duly displayed and advertised it,
they have little difficulty in making the nation rise to the bait, and
fight whatever battles they desire.
Since the early beginnings of the human race we can perceive the same
processes in operation. We can almost guess the grade of advancement
reached among primitive tribes by simply taking note of their _totems_.
These were emblems of the things which held the mind of the tribe, as
admirable or terrible, with which it was proud to identify itself--the
fox, for instance, or the bear, the kangaroo, or the eagle. To be worthy
of _such ideals_ men fought. Later, every little people, every knightly,
family, every group of adventurers, adopted a device for its shield, a
motto for its flag, a figure of some kind, human, or more often animal.
Even the modern nations have not got much farther; and we can judge of
_their_ stage of advancement by the beasts of prey they, flaunt on their
banners or the deep-throat curses which resound in their national
anthems.
But surely the time has now come--even with this world-war--when the
great heart of the peoples will wake up to the savagery and the folly
perpetrated in their names. The people, who, although they enjoy a
"scrap" now and then, are essentially peaceful, essentially friendly,
all the world over; who in the intervals of slaughter offer cigarettes
to their foes, and tenderly dress their enemies' wounds; whose worst and
age-long sin it is that they allow themselves so easily to be dominated
and led by, ambitious and greedy schemers--surely it is time that they
should wake up and throw off these sham governments--these governments
that are three-quarters class-scheming and fraud and only one-quarter
genuine expressions of public spirit--and declare the heart of
solidarity that is within them.
The leaders and high priests of the world have used the name of
Christianity to bless their own nefarious works with, till the soul is
sick at the very sound of the word; but surely the time has come when
the peoples themselves out of their own heart will proclaim the advent
of the Son of Man--conscious of it, indeed, as a great light of
brotherhood shining within them, even amid the clouds of race-enmity and
ignorance, and will deny once for all the gospel of world-empire and
conquest which has so long been foisted on them for insidiously selfish
ends.
An empire based on brotherhood--a holy _human_ empire of the World,
including all races and colours in a common unity and equality--yes! But
these shoddy empires based on militarism and commercialism, and built up
in order to secure the unclean ascendancy of two outworn and effete
classes over the rest of mankind--a thousand times no! That
dispensation, thank Heaven! is past. "These fatuous empires with their
parade of power and their absolute lack of any real policy--this British
Lion, this Russian Bear, these German, French, and American
Eagles--these birds and beasts of prey--with their barbaric notions of
Greed and War, their impossible armaments, and their swift financial
ruin impending--will fall and be rent asunder. The hollow masks of them
will perish. And the sooner the better. But underneath surely there will
be rejoicing, for it will be found that so after all the real peoples of
the earth have come one degree nearer together--yes, one degree nearer
together."
FOOTNOTES:
[22] In Servia, for instance, which many folk doubtless regard as a
benighted country, more than four-fifths of the people are peasant
farmers and cultivate lands belonging to their own families. "These
holdings cannot be sold or mortgaged entire; the law forbids the
alienation for debt of a peasant's cottage, his garden or courtyard, his
plough, the last few acres of his land, and the cattle necessary for
working his farm." [Encycl. Brit.] In 1910 there were altogether _five
hundred_ agricultural co-operative societies in Servia.
IX
CONSCRIPTION
_December_, 1914.
While protesting, as I have already done, against forced military
service, it must still be admitted that the argument in favour of it
retains a certain validity: to the extent, namely, that every one owes a
duty of some kind to his own people, that it is mean to accept all the
advantages of citizenship--security, protection, settled conditions of
life, and so forth--and still to refuse to make sacrifice for one's
country in a time of distress or danger. It is difficult of course for
any one to trace all the threads and fibres which have worked themselves
into his life from his own homeland--as it is difficult for a child to
trace all the qualities of blood that it owes to its mother; but there
they are, and though some of these native inheritances and conditions
may not really be to a man's liking, yet he can hardly refuse to
acknowledge them, or to confess the debt of gratitude that he owes to
the land of his birth.
Granting all this, however, most fully, there still remains a long
stretch from this admission to that of forced military service. The
drawbacks to this latter are many. In the first place compulsion anyhow
is bad. A voluntary citizen army may be all right; but to _compel_ a man
to fight, whether he will or not--in violation, perhaps, of his
conscience, of his instinct, of his temperament--is an inexcusable
outrage on his rights as a human being. In the second place it is gross
folly; for a man who fights devoid of freewill and against his
conscience, against his temperament, cannot possibly make a good
fighter. An army of such recusants, however large, would be useless; and
even a few mixed with the others do, as a matter of fact, greatly lower
the efficiency of the whole force associated with them. In the third
place compulsion means compulsion by a Government, and Government, at
any rate to-day, means class-rule. Forced military service means service
under and subjection to a Class. That means Wars carried on abroad to
serve the interests, often iniquitous enough, of the Few; and military
operations entered into at home to suppress popular discontent or to
confirm class-power. To none of these things could any high-minded man
of democratic temper consent. There are other drawbacks, but these will
do to begin with.
On the other hand, if we reject enforced militarism are we to throw
overboard the idea of "national service" altogether?
I think not. The way out is fairly clear and obvious. Let it be
understood that there _is_ such a thing as national or public service,
to which (within the limits of individual conscience and capacity) every
one is bound to respond. Let it be understood that at a certain age, say
from sixteen to eighteen (but the period would no doubt be a movable
one) every one, boy or girl, rich or poor, shall go through a course of
training fitting him or her for healthy and effective citizenship. This
would include _first of all_ bodily exercises and drill (needed by
almost all, but especially in the present day by town workers), all
sorts of scouting-work, familiarity with Nature, camp and outdoor life;
then all kinds of elementary and necessary trades, like agriculture in
some form or other, metal-work, wood-work, cloth-work, tailoring,
bootmaking; then such things as rifle-shooting, ambulance-work, nursing,
cookery, and so on. Let it be understood that _every one_, male or
female, rich or poor, learned or ignorant, is expected to qualify--not
in the whole programme, but first of all and as far as humanly possible
in the primary condition of physical health and development, and then
after that in some one, at any rate, of the above-mentioned or similar
trades--so that in case of general need or distress he can do
_something_ of use. That would at least be an approach to a valuable and
reasonable institution.
As things are it is appalling to think of the abject futility and
_uselessness_ of vast classes in all the modern nations of to-day,--but
perhaps especially in our own nation. Think of the populations of our
drawing-rooms, of our well-to-do clubs, of our universities, of our
commercial and professional offices, whose occupations, whatever they
are, are entirely remote from the direct needs and meanings of life; or
again of the vast masses who inhabit the mean streets of our great
towns, ignorant, ill-grown, unskilled, and in a chronic state of most
precarious and uncertain employment. What would these populations do in
any case of national crisis--say in a case of serious war or famine or
huge bankruptcy of trade or multitudinous invasion by Chinese or
Japanese, or of total collapse of credit and industry? With a few
brilliant exceptions they would collapse too. They could not feed
themselves, clothe themselves, or defend themselves; they could not
build shelters from the storm, or make tools or weapons of any kind for
their own use; they would be unable to nurse each other in illness or
cook for each other in health. A tribe of Arabs or a commando of Boer
farmers would be far more competent than they.
But the said deficiency, which would be painfully illustrated by a
serious crisis, is there equally in ordinary humdrum times of peace. The
crippled and idiotic life which would bring disaster _then_ is
undermining our very existence _now_. Is it not time that a sensible
nation should look to it that every one of its members, when adult,
should at least be healthy, well-fed, and well-grown, and that each
should not only be decently developed in himself or herself, but should
be capable of bearing a useful part of some kind in the life of the
nation? Is it not time that the nation should place _first of all_ on
its programme the creation of capable and healthy citizens? Can a nation
be really effective, really strong, really secure, without this? I do
not seem to doubt a large _willingness_ among our people to-day for
mutual service and helpfulness--I believe a vast number of our young
women of the well-to-do type are at this moment deeply regretting their
inability to do anything except knit superfluous mufflers--but was there
ever in the history of the world such huge, such wide-flooding
_incompetence_? The willingness of the well-to-do classes may be judged
from their readiness to come forward with subscriptions, their
incompetence from the fact that they have _nothing else to offer_: that
is, that all they can offer is to set _some one else_ (by means of their
money) to do useful work in their place. They cannot themselves nurse
wounded soldiers, or make boots for them, or build huts or weave
blankets; they cannot help in housing or building schemes, or in schemes
for the reclaiming and cultivation of waste lands; they cannot grow corn
or bake bread or cook simple meals for the assistance of the indigent or
the aged or the feeble, because they understand none of these things;
but they can _pay some one else_ to do them--that is, they can divert
some of the money, which they have already taken from the workers, to
setting the latter toiling again! But what use would that be on the day
when our monetary system broke down--as it nearly did at the
commencement of this war? What use would it be on some critical day when
a hostile invasion called every competent man and woman to do the work
of defence absolutely necessary at the moment? What use would it be in
the hour when complete commercial dislocation caused downright famine?
Who would look at offers of money then? Could the nation Carry this vast
mass of incompetents and idlers on its back then; and can it reasonably
be expected to do so now?
A terrible and serious crisis, as I have already said, awaits us--even
when the War is over--a crisis probably worse than that which we are
passing through now. We have to remember the debts that are being piled
up. If the nations are staggering along now under the enormous load of
idlers and parasites living on interest, how will it be then? Unless we
can reorganize our Western societies on a real foundation of actual
life, of practical capacity, of honest and square living, and of mutual
help instead of mutual robbery, they will infallibly collapse, or pass
into strange and alien hands. Now is the critical moment when with the
enormous powers of production which we wield it may be possible to make
a new start, and base the social life of the future on a generous
recognition of the fellowship of all. How many times have the
civilizations of the past, ignoring this salvation, gone down into the
gulf! Can we find a better hope for our civilization to-day?
It is clear, I think, that any nation that wants to stand the shock of
events in the future, and to hold its own in the vast flux of racial and
political changes which is coming on the world, will have to found its
life, not on theories and views, or on the shifting sands of literature
and fashion, but on the solid rock of the real _material_ capability of
its citizens, and on their willingness, their readiness to help each
other--their ingrained instinct of mutual service. A conscript army,
forced upon us by a government and becoming inevitably a tool for the
use of a governing class, we do not want and we will not have; but a
nation of capable men and women, who know what life is and are prepared
to meet it at all points--who will in many cases make a free gift of
their capital and land for such purposes as I have just outlined--we
_must_ have. Personally I would not even here--though the need is a
crying one--advocate downright compulsion; but I would make these things
a part of the recognized system of education, with appropriate
regulations and the strongest recommendations and inducements to every
individual to fall in and co-operate with them. Thus in time an urgent
public opinion might be formed which would brand as disgraceful the
conduct of any person who refused to qualify himself for useful
service, or who, when qualified, deliberately refused to respond to the
call for such service, if needed. Under such conditions the question of
military defence would solve itself. Thousands and thousands of men
would of their own free choice at an early age and during a certain
period qualify themselves in military matters; other thousands, men and
women, would qualify in nursing or ambulance work; other millions,
again, would be prepared to aid in transport work, or in the production
of food, clothing, shelter, and the thousand and one necessaries of
life. No one would be called upon to do work which he had not chosen, no
one would be forced to take up an activity which was hateful to him, yet
all would feel that what they could do and did do would be helpful to
the other ranks and ranges, and would be _solidaire_ with the rest of
the nation. Such a nation would be sane and prosperous in time of peace,
and absolutely safe and impregnable in the hour of danger.
X
HOW SHALL THE PLAGUE BE STAYED?
_Christmas_, 1914.
People ask what new arrangements of diplomacy or revivals of
Christianity--what alliances, _ententes_, leagues of peace, Hague
tribunals, regulation of armaments, weeks of prayer, or tons of
Christmas puddings sent into the enemies' camps--will finally scotch
this pestilence of war. And there is no answer, because the answer is
too close at hand for us to see it.
Nothing but the general abandonment of the system of living on the
labour of others will avail. _There is no other way_. This, whether as
between individuals or as between nations, is--and has been since the
beginning of the world--the root-cause of war. Early and primitive wars
were for this--to raid crops and cattle, to carry off slaves on whose
toil the conquerors could subsist; and the latest wars are the same. To
acquire rubber concessions, gold-mines, diamond-mines, where coloured
labour may be exploited to its bitterest extreme; to secure colonies and
outlying lands, where giant capitalist enterprises (with either white or
coloured labour) may make huge dividends out of the raising of minerals
and other industrial products; to crush any other Power which stands in
the way of these greedy and inhuman ambitions--such are the objects of
wars to-day. And we do not see the cause of the sore because it is so
near to us, because it is in our blood. The whole private life of the
commercial and capitalist classes (who stand as the representatives of
the nations to-day) is founded on the same principle. As individuals our
one object is to find some worker or group of workers whose labour value
we can appropriate. Look at the endless columns of stock and share
quotations in the daily papers, and consider the armies of those who
scan these lists over their breakfast-tables with the one view of
finding some-where an industrial concern whose slave-driven toilers
will yield the shareholder 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 per cent, on his capital.
Undisguised and shameless parasitism is the order, or disorder, of our
days. The rapacity of beasts of prey is in our social life but thinly
veiled--thinly veiled indeed by a wash of "Christian" sentiment and by a
network of philanthropic institutions for the supposed benefit of the
very victims whom we have robbed.