_The Union of capitalism, anti-semitism, anti-democracy with
nationalism._
I am under no illusion concerning the solidity of certain among these
unions. Although the conservative passions fully comprehend their
immense interest in identifying themselves with national passion and
thereby benefiting by its popularity, although one may even admit
that they have been caught in their own net and have become sincere
in this feeling, yet it is none the less true that conservatism
(chiefly capitalism) is essentially something entirely different
from patriotism, and that this difference, whose manifestations in
the course of history have been innumerable (how many times have the
bourgeoisie treated with foreigners when they thought it was to their
interests!) may once again display itself. It is easy to imagine that
the French bourgeoisie would turn against France if they thought their
patrimony was being too seriously threatened by the legislation of
the Republic. This may already be seen in the case of families who,
in recent years, have exported their capital abroad. I may say the
same thing of monarchist passion. It is easy to imagine that certain
followers of that passion might one day decide to work against a nation
which decisively and finally rejects the system they propose. I think
I observe this when I see monarchist writers publishing that ‘from the
Spree to the Mekong, the whole world knows that France is in a state of
weakness bordering upon disintegration’. However, such things are still
exceptional, and those who are responsible for them would refuse to
admit--perhaps sincerely--that they meant to harm their nation.
Moreover, the bourgeoisie have another interest in keeping up
nationalism and the fear of war. These feelings create a sort of
permanent military spirit in a nation. More precisely, they create in
the people a disposition to accept the existing hierarchy, to obey
orders, to recognize superiors, i.e. the very things required of
them by those who wish them to continue in a state of service. The
confused perception of this truth inspires the bourgeoisie with that
curious ill-humour they display towards every attempt at international
agreement, in whatever form this may be presented by the governments.
This ill-humour (they declare) arises from the fact that they consider
it simple-minded and imprudent to believe in the extinction of national
hatreds. At bottom, it arises from the fact that _they do not want this
extinction to occur_. They know that the maintenance of these hatreds
will cost the lives of their children, but they do not hesitate to
make the sacrifice, if by doing so they retain possession of their
property[173] and their power over their servants. Here is a grandeur
of egotism which is perhaps insufficiently appreciated.