Patriotism was necessary for the formation, out of heterogeneous
nationalities, of strong, united kingdoms, protected against the
barbarians. But as soon as the Christian enlightenment transformed
all these kingdoms alike from within, by giving them the same
foundations, patriotism not only became unnecessary, but was also
the one barrier against that union of the nations for which they are
prepared by dint of their Christian consciousness.
Patriotism is in our time the cruel tradition of a long-gone-by
period of time, which holds itself only through inertia and
because the governments and the ruling classes feel that with
this patriotism is connected not only their power, but also their
existence, and so with care and cunning and violence rouse and
sustain it in the nations. Patriotism is in our time like the
scaffolding, which at one time was necessary for the construction of
the walls of a building, but which now, though it only interferes
with the proper use of the building, is not taken down, because its
existence is advantageous for some persons.
Among the Christian nations there has for a long time ceased to
exist any cause for discord, and there can be no such cause. It is
even impossible to imagine why and how Russian and German labourers,
who peacefully work together near the border and in the capital
cities, should begin to quarrel among themselves. And much less
can we imagine any hostility between, let us say, a Kazán peasant,
who supplies a German with corn, and the German, who supplies him
with scythes and machines, and similarly among French, German, and
Italian labourers. It is even ridiculous to talk of quarrels among
the scholars, artists, writers of various nationalities, who live
by the same interests, that are independent of nationality and the
state structure.
But the governments cannot leave the nations alone, that is, in
peaceful relations among themselves, because the chief, if not the
only justification of the existence of the governments consists in
making peace between the nations, that is, in allaying their hostile
relations. And so the governments provoke these hostile relations
under the guise of patriotism, and then make it appear that they are
making peace among the nations. It is something like what a gipsy
does, who pours some pepper under his horse's tail, and lashes it in
the stall, and then leads it out, while hanging on to the bridle,
pretending that he has the hardest time to restrain the mettled
horse.
We are assured that the governments are concerned about preserving
the peace among the nations. In what way do they preserve this peace?
People are living along the Rhine in peaceful intercourse among
themselves,--suddenly, in consequence of all kinds of disputes and
intrigues between the kings and emperors, war breaks out, and the
French government finds it necessary to recognize some of these
inhabitants as Frenchmen. Ages pass, men have become accustomed
to this state of affairs; again there begin hostilities between
the governments of the great nations, and war breaks out on the
slightest pretence, and the Germans find it necessary to recognize
these inhabitants once more as Germans, and in all the French and
the Germans ill-will flames up toward one another. Or Germans
and Russians are living peacefully near the border, peacefully
exchanging their labour and the products of labour, and suddenly the
same institutions which exist only in the name of the pacification
of the nations begin to quarrel, to do one foolish thing after
another, and are not able to invent anything better than the
coarsest childish method of self-inflicted punishment, if only they
can thus have their will and do something nasty to their adversary
(which in this case is especially advantageous, since not those who
start a customs war, but others, suffer from it); thus the Customs
War between Russia and Germany was lately started. Then, with the
aid of the newspapers, there flames up a malevolent feeling, which
is still farther fanned by the Franco-Russian celebrations, and
which, before we know it, may lead to a sanguinary war.
I have cited the last two examples of the manner in which the
governments affect the people by rousing in them a hostile
feeling toward other nations, because they are contemporary; but
there is not one war in all history, which was not provoked by
the governments, by the governments alone, independently of the
advantages to the nations, to which war, even if it is successful,
is always harmful.
The governments assure the nations that they are in danger of an
incursion from other nations and from internal enemies, and that the
only salvation from this danger consists in the slavish obedience
of the nations to their governments. This is most obvious in the
time of revolutions and dictatorships, and this takes place at all
times and in all places, wherever there is power. Every government
explains its existence and justifies all its violence by insisting
that, if it did not exist, things would be worse. By assuring the
nations that they are in danger, the governments subject them to
themselves. When the nations submit to the governments, these
governments compel these nations to attack the other nations. In
this manner the nations find confirmed the assurances of their
governments in regard to the danger from being attacked by other
nations.
_Divide et impera._
Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most unquestionable
significance is for the rulers nothing but a tool for attaining
their ambitious and selfish ends, and for the ruled a renunciation
of human dignity, reason, conscience, and a slavish submission
to those who are in power. Thus is patriotism actually preached,
wherever it is preached.
Patriotism is slavery.
The advocates of peace through arbitration judge like this: two
animals cannot divide their prey otherwise than by fighting, as do
children, barbarians, and barbarous nations. But sensible people
settle their differences by discussion, conviction, the transmission
of the solution of the question to disinterested, sensible men. Even
thus must the sensible nations of our time act. These reflections
seem quite correct. The nations of our time have reached an age of
discretion, are not hostile to one another, and should be able to
settle their differences in a peaceable manner. But the reflection
is correct only in reference to the nations, to the nations alone,
if they were not under the power of their governments. But the
nations which submit to their governments cannot be sensible,
because submission to the governments is already a sign of the
greatest senselessness.
How can we talk of the sensibleness of men who promise in advance to
do everything (including the murder of men) which the government,
that is, certain men who have accidentally come to hold this
position, may command them to do?
Men who are able to accept such a duty of unflinching submission to
what certain strangers will, from St. Petersburg, Vienna, Paris,
command them to do, cannot be sensible, and the governments, that
is, the men who possess such power, can still less be sensible,
and cannot help abusing it,--they cannot help losing their minds
from such a senselessly terrible power. For that reason the peace
among the nations cannot be attained by any sensible means, through
conventions, through arbitrations, so long as there exists a
submission to the governments, which is always senseless and always
pernicious.
But the submission of men to the governments will always exist,
so long as there is any patriotism, because every power is based
on patriotism, that is, on the readiness of men, for the sake of
defending their nation, their country, that is, the state, against
supposed dangers that are threatening it, to submit to the power.
On this patriotism was based the power of the French kings over the
whole nation previous to the Revolution; on the same patriotism
was based the power of the Committee of Public Safety after the
Revolution; on the same patriotism was reared the power of Napoleon
(as consul and as emperor); and on the same patriotism, after the
downfall of Napoleon, was established the power of the Bourbons,
and later of the Republic, and of Louis Philippe, and again of the
Republic, and again of Bonaparte, and again of the Republic, and on
the same patriotism came very near being established the power of
Mr. Boulanger.
It is terrible to say so, but there does not exist, and there has
not existed, a case of aggregate violence committed by one set of
men against another which has not been committed in the name of
patriotism. In the name of patriotism the Russians fought with
the French, and the French with the Russians, and in the name of
patriotism the Russians and the French are now preparing themselves
to wage war against the Germans,--to fight from two flanks. But war
is not all,--in the name of patriotism the Russians crush the Poles,
and the Germans the Slavs; in the name of patriotism the Communists
killed the Versaillians, and the Versaillians, the Communists.