fatiguing than the labor of the ancient slave, and even were he to
succeed in obtaining the eight-hour system and twelve-and-sixpence
a day, still has the worst of it, because he manufactures objects
which he will never use or enjoy;--he is not working for himself;
he works in order to gratify the luxurious and idle, to increase
the wealth of the capitalist, the mill-owner, or manufacturer. He
knows that all this goes on in a world where men acknowledge certain
propositions such as the economic principle that labor is wealth,
that it is an act of injustice to employ another man's labor for
one's own benefit, that an illegal act is punishable by law, in a
world, moreover, where the doctrine of Christ is professed,--that
doctrine which teaches us that all men are brothers, and that it
is the duty of a man to serve his neighbor and to take no unfair
advantage of him.
He realizes all this, and must suffer keenly from the shocking
contradiction between the world as it should be and the world as
it is. "According to what I am told and what I hear men profess,"
says a working-man to himself, "I ought to be a free man equal to
any other man, and loved; I am a slave, hated and despised." Then
he in his turn is filled with hatred, and seeks to escape from his
position, to overthrow the enemy that oppresses him, and to get the
upper hand himself.
They say: "It is wrong for a workman to wish himself in the place
of a capitalist, or for a poor man to envy the rich." But this is
false. If this were a world where God had ordained masters and
slaves, rich and poor, it would be wrong for the working-man or the
poor man to wish himself in the place of the rich: but this is not
so; he wishes it in a world which professes the doctrine of the
gospel, whose first principle is embodied in the relation of the
son to the Father, and consequently of fraternity and equality.
And however reluctant men may be to acknowledge it, they cannot
deny that one of the first conditions of Christian life is love,
expressed, not in words, but in deeds.
The man of education suffers even more from these inconsistencies. If
he has any faith whatever he believes, perhaps, in fraternity,--at
least in the sentiment humanity; and if not in the sentiment
humanity, then in justice; and if not in justice, then surely
in science; and he cannot help knowing all the while that
the conditions of his life are opposed to every principle of
Christianity, humanity, justice, and science.
He knows that the habits of life in which he has been bred, and
whose abandonment would cause him much discomfort, can only be
supported by the weary and often suicidal labor of the down-trodden
working-class--that is, by the open infraction of those principles
of Christianity, humanity, justice, and even of science (political
science), in which he professes to believe. He affirms his faith
in the principles of fraternity, humanity, justice, and political
science, and yet the oppression of the working-class is an
indispensable factor in his daily life, and he constantly employs it
to attain his own ends in spite of his principles; and he not only
lives in this manner, but he devotes all his energies to maintain a
system which is directly opposed to all his beliefs.
We are brothers: but every morning my brother or my sister performs
for me the most menial offices. We are brothers: but I must have
my morning cigar, my sugar, my mirror, or what not,--objects whose
manufacture has often cost my brothers and sisters their health,
yet I do not for that reason forbear to use these things; on the
contrary, I even demand them. We are brothers: and yet I support
myself by working in some bank, commercial house, or shop, and am
always trying to raise the price of the necessities of life for
my brothers and sisters. We are brothers: I receive a salary for
judging, convicting, and punishing the thief or the prostitute,
whose existence is the natural outcome of my own system of life, and
I fully realize that I should neither condemn nor punish. We are all
brothers: yet I make my living by collecting taxes from the poor,
that the rich may live in luxury and idleness. We are brothers:
and yet I receive a salary for preaching a pseudo-Christian
doctrine, in which I do not myself believe, thus hindering men from
discovering the true one; I receive a salary as priest or bishop for
deceiving people in a matter which is of vital importance to them.
We are brothers: but I make my brother pay for all my services,
whether I write books for him, educate him, or prescribe for him
as a physician. We are all brothers: but I receive a salary for
fitting myself to be a murderer, for learning the art of war, or for
manufacturing arms and ammunition and building fortresses.
The whole existence of our upper classes is utterly contradictory,
and the more sensitive a man's nature the more painful is the
incongruity.
A man with a sensitive conscience can enjoy no peace of mind in such
a life. Even supposing that he succeeds in stifling the reproaches
of his conscience, he is still unable to conquer his fears.
Those men and women of the dominant classes who have hardened
themselves, and have succeeded in stifling their consciences,
must still suffer through their fear of the hatred they inspire.
They are quite well aware of its existence among the laboring
classes; they know that it can never die; they know, too, that
the working-men realize the deceits practised upon them, and the
abuses that they endure; that they have started organizations to
throw off the yoke, and to take vengeance on their oppressors. The
happiness of the upper classes is poisoned by fear of the impending
calamity, foreshadowed by the unions, the strikes, and First of
May demonstrations. Recognizing the calamity that threatens them,
their fear turns to defiance and hatred. They know that if they
relax for one moment in this conflict with the oppressed, they are
lost, because their slaves, already embittered, grow more and more
so with every day's oppression. The oppressors, though they may
see it, cannot cease to oppress. They realize that they themselves
are doomed from the moment they abate one jot of their severity.
So they go on in their career of oppression, notwithstanding their
affectation of interest in the welfare of the working-men, the
eight-hour system, the laws restricting the labor of women and
children, the pensions, and the rewards. All this is mere pretense,
or at best the natural anxiety of the master to keep his slave in
good condition; but the slave remains a slave all the while, and the
master, who cannot live without the slave, is less willing than ever
to set him free. The governing classes find themselves in regard to
the working-men very much in the position of one who has overthrown
his opponent, and who holds him down, not so much because he does
not choose to let him escape, but because he knows that should he
for one moment lose his hold on him, he would lose his own life, for
the vanquished man is infuriated, and holds a knife in his hand.
Hence our wealthy classes, whether their consciences be tender or
hardened, cannot enjoy the advantages they have wrung from the poor,
as did the ancients, who were convinced of the justice of their
position. All the pleasures of life are poisoned either by remorse
or fear.
Such is the economic inconsistency. Still more striking is that of
the civil power.
A man is trained first of all in habits of obedience to state laws.
At the present time every act of our lives is under the supervision
of the State, and in accordance with its dictates a man marries and
is divorced, rears his children, and in some countries accepts the
religion it prescribes. What is this law, then, that determines the
life of mankind? Do men believe in it? Do they consider it true? Not
at all. In most cases they recognize its injustice, they despise
it, and yet they obey it. It was fit that the ancients should obey
their law. It was chiefly religious, and they sincerely believed
it to be the only true law, to which all men owed obedience. Is
that the case with us? We cannot refuse to acknowledge that the
law of our State is not the eternal law, but only one of the many
laws of many states, all equally imperfect, and frequently wholly
false and unjust,--a law that has been openly discussed in all its
aspects by the public press. It was fit that the Hebrew should obey
his laws, since he never doubted that the finger of God Himself
had traced them; or for the Roman, who believed that he received
them from the nymph Egeria; or even for those peoples who believed
that the rulers who made the laws were anointed of God, or that
legislative assemblies have both the will and the ability to devise
laws as good as possible. But we know that laws are the offspring
of party conflicts, false dealing, and the greed of gain, that they
are not, and can never be, the depository of true justice; and
therefore it is impossible for people of the present day to believe
that obedience to civil or state laws can ever satisfy the rational
demands of human nature. Men have long since realized that there
is no sense in obeying a law whose honesty is more than doubtful,
and therefore they must suffer when, though privately denying its
prerogative, they still conform to it. When a man's whole life is
held in bondage by laws whose injustice, cruelty, and artificiality
he plainly discerns, and yet is compelled to obey these laws under
penalty of punishment, he must suffer; it cannot be otherwise.
We recognize the disadvantages of custom-houses and import duties,
but we are yet obliged to pay them; we see the folly of supporting
the court and its numerous officials, we admit the harmful influence
of church preaching, and still we are compelled to support both; we
also admit the cruel and iniquitous punishments inflicted by the
courts, and yet we play our part in them; we acknowledge that the
distribution of land is wrong and immoral, but we have to submit to
it; and despite the fact that we deny the necessity for armies or
warfare, we are made to bear the heavy burden of supporting armies
and waging war.
These contradictions, however, are but trifling in comparison with
the one which confronts us in the problem of our international
relations, and which cries aloud for solution, since both human
reason and human life are at stake, and this is the antagonism
between the Christian faith and war.
We, Christian nations, whose spiritual life is one and the same,
who welcome the birth of every wholesome and profitable thought
with joy and pride, from whatsoever quarter of the globe it may
spring, regardless of race or creed; we, who love not only the
philanthropists, the poets, the philosophers, and the scientists
of other lands; we, who take as much pride in the heroism of a
Father Damien as if it was our own; we, who love the French, the
Germans, the Americans, and the English, not only esteeming their
qualities, but ready to meet them with cordial friendship; we, who
not only would be shocked to consider war with them in the light of
an exploit,--when we picture to ourselves the possibility that at
some future day a difference may arise between us that can only be
reconciled by murder, and that any one of us may be called upon to
play his part in an inevitable tragedy,--we shudder at the thought.
It was well enough for a Hebrew, a Greek, or a Roman to maintain
the independence of his country by murder, and even to subdue other
nations by the same means, because he firmly believed himself a
member of the one favored people beloved by God, and that all the
others were Philistines and barbarians. Also, in the times of the
Middle Ages men might well have held these opinions, and even they
who lived toward the end of the last century and at the beginning
of this. But we, whatever provocation may be offered us, we cannot
possibly believe as they did; and this difficulty is so painful for
us in these times that it has become impossible to live without
trying to solve it.
"We live in a time replete with contradictions," writes Count
Komarovsky, the Professor of International Law, in his learned
treatise. "Everywhere the tone of the public press seems to indicate
a general desire for peace, and shows the need of it for all
nations. And the representatives of the government, in their private
as well as in their public capacity, in parliamentary speeches and
diplomatic negotiations, express themselves in the same temper.
Nevertheless, the governments increase the military force year after
year, impose new taxes, negotiate loans, and will leave as a legacy
to future generations the responsibilities of the present mistaken
policy. How are the word and the deed at variance!
"By way of justification the governments claim that all their
armaments and the consequent outlay are simply defensive in their
character, but to the uninitiated the question naturally suggests
itself: Whence is to come the attack if all the great powers are
devoting themselves _to a defensive policy_? It certainly looks as
if each one of them lived in hourly expectation of attack from his
neighbor, and the consequence is a strife between the different
governments to surpass each other in strength. The very existence of
this spirit of rivalry favors the chances of war: the nations, no
longer able to support the increased armament, will sooner or later
prefer open war to the tension in which they live and the ruin which
menaces them, so that the slightest pretext will avail to kindle
in Europe the conflagration of a general war. It is a mistake to
suppose that such a crisis will heal the political and economic ills
under which we groan. The experience of late wars shows us that each
one served only to exacerbate the animosity of the nations against
each other, to increase the unbearable burden of military despotism,
and has involved the political and economic situation of Europe in a
more melancholy and pitiable plight than ever."
"Contemporary Europe keeps under arms nine millions of men," says
Enrico Ferri, "and a reserve force of fifteen millions, at a cost
of four milliards of francs a year. By increasing its armament
it paralyzes more and more the springs of social and individual
welfare, and may be compared to a man who, in order to obtain
weapons, condemns himself to anæmia, thereby depriving himself of
the strength to use the weapons he is accumulating, whose weight
will eventually overpower him."
The same idea has been expressed by Charles Booth, in his address
delivered in London, July 26, 1887, before the Association for the
Reform and Codification of National Laws. Having mentioned the same
numbers,--over nine millions in active service and fifteen millions
in reserve, and the enormous sums required to support these armies
and armaments,--he says, in substance: "These numbers represent
but a small part of the actual expenditure, because outside of the
expenses enumerated in the budgets of the nations we must take
into consideration the great losses to society from the removal
of so many able-bodied men, lost to industry in all its branches,
and moreover, the interest on the enormous sums spent in military
preparations, which yield no returns. As might be expected, the
constantly increasing national debts are the inevitable result of
these outlays in preparation for war. By far the greater proportion
of the debt of Europe has been contracted for munitions of war.
The sum total is four milliards of pounds, or forty milliards of
roubles, and these debts are increasing every year."
Komarovsky, whom we lately quoted, says elsewhere: "We are living
in hard times. Everywhere we hear complaints of the stagnation of
commerce and industry, and of the wretched economical situation.
They tell us of the hard conditions of life among the laboring
classes and the general impoverishment of the people. But regardless
of this, governments, determined to maintain their independence, go
to the utmost limits of folly. Additional taxes are levied on every
side, and the financial oppression of the people knows no bounds.
If we glance at the budgets of European states for the last hundred
years, we shall be struck with their constantly increasing figures.
How can we explain this abnormal condition that sooner or later
threatens to overwhelm us with inevitable bankruptcy?
"Most assuredly it is caused by the expense of maintaining armies,
which absorbs one-third, or even one-half, of the budget of all
European nations. The saddest part of it, however, is that there is
no end to this increase of budgets and consequent impoverishment of
the masses. What is socialism but a protest against the abnormal
situation in which the majority of mankind of our continent finds
itself?"
"We are being ruined," says Frédéric Passy, in a paper read before
the last Peace Congress in London (1890), "to enable us to take part
in the senseless wars of the future, or to pay the interest of debts
left us by the criminal and insane wars and contests of the past. We
shall perish with hunger, to have success in murder."
Going on to speak of the opinion of France in regard to this
matter, he says: "We believe that now, a hundred years after the
proclamation formulating the belief in the rights of men and
citizens, the time has come to declare the rights of nations and
to repudiate once and for all time those undertakings of fraud and
violence, which, under the name of conquests, are actually crimes
against humanity, and which, however much the pride of nations or
the ambition of monarchs may seek to justify them, serve only to
enervate the conquerors."
"I am always very much surprised at the way religion is carried on
in this country," says Sir Wilfred Lawson before the same Congress.
"You send a boy to the Sunday-school, and you tell him: 'My dear
boy, you must love your enemies; if any boy strikes you, don't
strike him again; try to reform him by loving him.' Well, the boy
goes to the Sunday-school till he is fourteen or fifteen years of
age, and then his friends say, 'Put him in the army.' What has he to
do in the army? Why, not love his enemies, but whenever he sees an
enemy, to run him through the body with a bayonet is the nature of
all religious teaching in this country. I do not think that that is
a very good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if
it is a good thing for the boy to love his enemy, it is a good thing
for the man to love his enemy."...
And later!
"In Europe great Christian nations keep among them 28,000,000 of
armed men to settle quarrels by killing one another, instead of
by arguing. This is what the Christian nations of the world are
doing at this moment. It is a very expensive way also; for in a
publication which I saw--I believe it was correct--it was made
out that since the year 1812 these nations had spent the almost
incredible amount of 1,500,000,000 of money in preparing and
settling their quarrels by killing one another. Now it seems to
me that with that state of things one of two positions must be
accepted,--either that Christianity is a failure, or that those
who profess to expound Christianity have failed in expounding it
properly."
"So long as our men-of-war are not disarmed and our army not
disbanded, we have no right to be called a Christian nation," said
Mr. F. L. Wilson.
In a conversation in regard to the duty of Christian ministers in
the matter of preaching against war, Mr. G. D. Bartlett remarked,
among other things:--
"If I understand the Scriptures, I say that men are only playing
with Christianity when they ignore this question.... I have lived
a long life, I have heard many sermons, and I can say without any
exaggeration that I never heard universal peace recommended from
the pulpit half a dozen times in my life.... Some twenty years
ago I happened to stand in a drawing-room where there were forty
or fifty people, and I dared to make the proposition that war was
incompatible with Christianity. They looked upon me as an arrant
fanatic. The idea that we could get on without war was regarded as
unmitigated weakness and folly."
A Catholic priest, the Abbé Defourny, has spoken in a similar
spirit. "One of the first commandments of the eternal law, engraved
in every man's conscience," says the Abbé Defourny, "forbids a man
to take his neighbor's life or shed his blood" (without sufficient
cause, being forced to it by stress of circumstance). "This is a
commandment more deeply engraved in the human heart than all the
others.... But as soon as it becomes a question of war, that is,
a question of the wholesale shedding of human blood, men in these
days do not wait for a sufficient cause. Those who are active in
war forget to ask themselves if there is any justification for the
numerous manslaughters that take place, whether they are just or
unjust, legal or illegal, innocent or criminal, or whether they
break the principal law that forbids us to commit murder" (without
just cause). "Their conscience is silent.... War has ceased to be a
matter connected with morality. The soldier, amid all the fatigues
and dangers he undergoes, knows no joy but conquest, no sorrow but
defeat. Don't tell me that they serve the country. A great genius
has long ago answered this statement in words that have since become
a proverb: 'Take away justice, and what is then a nation but a great
band of robbers? And is not a band of robbers in itself a small
state? They, too, have their laws. They, too, fight for booty, and
even honor.'
"The aim of this organization" (it was a question of establishing
international tribunals) "is to influence the European nations until
they cease to be nations of thieves, and their armies bands of
robbers. Yes, our armies are nothing less than a rabble of slaves
belonging to one or two monarchs and their ministers, who, as we all
know, rule them tyrannically and without any responsibility other
than nominal, as we know.
"It is the characteristic of a slave that he is a tool in the hands
of his master. Such are the soldiers, officers, and generals, who
at the beck of their sovereign go forth to slay or to be slain.
There is a military slavery, and it is the worst of all slaveries,
particularly now, when by means of conscription it forges chains for
the necks of all the free and strong men of the nation, in order to
use them as instruments of murder, to make them executioners and
butchers of human flesh, since that is the sole reason why they are
drafted and drilled....
"Two or three potentates in their cabinets make treaties, without
protocols, without publicity, and therefore without responsibility,
sending men to the slaughter.
"'Protests against increased armaments began before our time,' said
Signor E. G. Moneta. Listen to Montesquieu: 'France' (for France we
might now substitute Europe) 'is perishing from an overgrown army. A
new disease is spreading throughout Europe. It has affected kings,
and obliges them to maintain an incredible number of troops. It is
like a rash, and therefore contagious; for no sooner does one nation
increase its troops than all the others follow suit. Nothing can
result from this condition of affairs but general calamity.
"'Each government maintains as many troops as it would require if
its people were threatened with destruction, and this state of
tension is called peace. Europe is in truth ruined. If private
individuals were reduced to such straits as these, the richest man
among them would be practically destitute. The wealth of the world
and its commerce are in our hands, and yet we are poor.'
"This was written almost 150 years ago. It seems like a picture of
the present. One thing alone has changed--the form of government.
In the time of Montesquieu it was said that the reason for the
maintenance of large armies might be found in the unlimited power of
kings, who carried on war in the hope of increasing their private
property and their glory.
"Then it was said: 'Ah! if the people could but choose
representatives who would have a right to refuse the governments
when they called for soldiers and money--there would be an end of
a military policy.' Now, almost everywhere in Europe there are
representative governments, and still the military expenditure in
preparation for war has increased in frightful proportion.
"It looks as though the folly of the rulers had passed into the
ruling classes. Now they no longer fight because one king has
been rude to another king's mistress, as in the time of Louis
XIV., but by exaggerating the importance of national dignity
and patriotism,--emotions which are natural and honorable in
themselves,--and exciting the public opinion of one country against
the other, until they have arrived at such a pitch of sensitiveness
that it is enough to say, for instance (even were the report to
prove false), one country has refused to receive the ambassador
of another, to precipitate the most frightful and disastrous war.
Europe maintains under arms at the present time more soldiers than
were in the field during the great wars of Napoleon. Every citizen
on our continent, with a few exceptions, is forced to spend several
years in the barracks. Fortresses, arsenals, men-of-war are built,
new firearms are invented, which in a short time are replaced by
others, because science, which should always be devoted to the
promotion of human welfare, contributes, it must be regretfully
acknowledged, to human destruction, inventing ever new means of
killing greater numbers of men in the shortest possible time.
"In these stupendous preparations for slaughter, and in the
maintenance of these vast numbers of troops, hundreds of millions
are yearly expended--sums that would suffice to educate the masses,
and to carry on the most important works of public improvement,
thereby contributing toward a perfect solution of the social problem.
"Therefore, notwithstanding all our scientific victories, Europe
finds herself in this respect not one whit better off than she was
in the most barbarous times of the Middle Ages. Every one laments
a state of things which is neither war nor peace, and longs to be
delivered from it. The heads of governments emphatically affirm
that they desire peace, and eagerly emulate each other in their
pacific utterances, but almost immediately thereafter they propose
to the legislative assemblies measures for increasing the armament,
asserting that they take these precautions for the preservation of
peace.
"But this is not the sort of peace we care for, and the nations
are not deceived by it. True peace has for its foundation mutual
confidence, whereas these appalling armaments show, if not a
declared hostility, at least a secret distrust among the different
nations. What should we say of a man who, wishing to show his
friendly feelings to his neighbor, should invite him to consider a
certain scheme, holding a loaded pistol while he unfolds it before
him?
"It is this monstrous contradiction between the assurances of peace
and the military policy of the governments, that good citizens wish
to put an end to, at any cost."
One is amazed to learn that there are 60,000 suicides reported in
Europe, not including Turkey and Russia, every year, and these are
all well-substantiated cases; but it would be far more remarkable
if the number were less. Any man in these times who investigates the
antagonism between his convictions and his actions, finds himself
in a desperate plight. Setting aside the many other contradictions
between actual life and conviction which abound in the life of a
man of the present day, to view the military situation in Europe in
the light of its profession of Christianity is enough to make a man
doubt the existence of human reason, and drive him to escape from a
barbarous and insane world by putting an end to his own life. This
inconsistency, which is the very quintessence of all the others, is
so shocking, that one can only go on living and taking any part in
it, by dint of trying not to think about it,--to forget it all.
What can it mean? We are Christians, who not only profess to love
one another, but are actually leading one common life; our pulses
beat in harmony; we meet each other in love and sympathy, deriving
support and counsel from our mutual intercourse. Were it not for
this sympathy life would have no meaning. But at any moment some
demented ruler may utter a few rash words, to which another gives
reply, and lo! I am ordered to march at the risk of my life, to slay
those who have never injured me, whom I really love. And it is no
remote contingency, but an inevitable climax for which we are all
preparing ourselves.
Fully to realize this is enough to drive one to madness and to
suicide, and this is but too common an occurrence, especially among
soldiers.
A moment's reflection shows us why this seems an inevitable
conclusion.
It explains the frightful intensity with which men plunge into all
kinds of dissipation,--wine, tobacco, cards, newspaper reading,
travel, all manner of shows and pleasures. They pursue all these
amusements in deadly earnest, as if they were serious avocations,
as indeed they are. If men possessed none of these distractions,
half of them would kill themselves out of hand, for to live a life
that is made up of contradictions is simply unbearable, and such is
the life that most of us lead at the present day. We are living in
direct contradiction to our inmost convictions. This contradiction
is evident both in economic and in political relations; it
is manifested most unmistakably in the inconsistency of the
acknowledgment of the Christian law of brotherly love and military
conscription, which obliges men to hold themselves in readiness
to take each other's lives,--in short, every man to be at once a
Christian and a gladiator.
CHAPTER VI
ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TOWARD WAR
Men do not endeavor to destroy the contradiction between life
and consciousness by a change of life, but educated men use
all their power to stifle the demands of consciousness and to
justify their lives, and thus degrade society to a condition
worse than pagan, to a state of primeval savagery--Uncertainty
of the attitude of our leading men toward war, universal
armament, and general military conscription--Those who regard
war as an accidental political phenomenon easily to be remedied
by external measures--The Peace Congress--Article in the Revue
des Revues--Proposition of Maxime du Camp--Significance of
Courts of Arbitration and Disarmament--Relations of governments
to these, and the business they pursue--Those who regard war as
a cruel inevitable phenomenon--Maupassant--Rod--Those who regard
it as indispensable, even useful--Camille Doucet, Claretie,
Zola, Vogüé.
The contradictions of life and of consciousness may be solved in two
ways: by change of life, or by change of consciousness; and it would
seem as if there could be no hesitation in a choice between the two.
When a man acknowledges a deed to be evil he may refrain from the
deed itself, but he can never cease to regard it as evil. Indeed,
the whole world might cease from evil-doing, and yet have no power
to transform, or even to check for a season, the progress of
knowledge in regard to that which is evil, and which ought not to
exist. One would think that the alternative of a change of life to
accord with consciousness might be settled without question, and
that it would therefore seem unavoidable for the Christian world of
the present day to abandon those pagan forms which it condemns, and
regulate its life by the Christian precepts which it acknowledges.
Such would be the result were it not for the principle of inertia
(a principle no less unalterable in human life than in the world
of matter), which finds its expression in the psychological law
defined in the gospel by the words: "Men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil" (John iii. 19). Most persons,
in conformity to this principle, do not use their reason in order
to ascertain the truth, but rather to persuade themselves that they
possess it, and that their daily life, which is pleasant for them,
is in harmony with the precepts of truth.
Slavery conflicted with all the moral principles taught by Plato
and Aristotle, and yet neither of them perceived this, because the
disavowal of slavery must have destroyed that life by which they
lived. And the same thing is repeated in our times.
The division of mankind into two classes, the existence of political
and military injustice, is opposed to all those moral principles
which our society professes, and yet the most progressive and
cultivated men of the age seem not to perceive this.
Almost every educated man at the present day is striving
unconsciously to preserve the old-time conception of society, which
justifies his attitude, and to conceal from others and from himself
its inconsistencies, chief among which is the necessity of adopting
the Christian ideal, which is subversive of the very structure of
our social existence. It is this antiquated social system, in which
they no longer believe, because it is really a thing of the past,
that men are trying to uphold.
Contemporary literature, philosophical, political, and
artistic,--all contemporary literature affords a striking proof
of the truth of my statement. What wealth of imagination, what
form and color, what erudition and art, but what a lack of serious
purpose, what reluctance to face any exact thought! Ambiguity of
expression, indirect allusion, witticisms, vague reflection, but no
straightforward or candid dealing with the subject they treat of,
namely, life.
Indeed, our writers treat of obscenities and improprieties; in the
guise of refined paradox they convey suggestions which thrust men
back to primeval savagery, to the lowest dregs, not only of pagan
life, but animal life, which we outlived 5000 years ago. Delivering
themselves from the Christian life-conception, which for some simply
interferes with the accustomed current of their lives, while for
others it interferes with certain advantages, men must of necessity
return to the pagan life-conception and to the doctrines to which it
gave rise. Not only are patriotism and the rights of the aristocracy
preached at the present time as they used to be 2000 years ago, but
also the coarsest epicureanism and sensuality, with this difference
only,--that the teachers of old believed in the doctrines they
taught, whereas those of the present day neither do nor can possess
any faith in what they utter, because there is no longer any sense
in it. When the ground is shifting under our feet, we cannot stand
still, we must either recede or advance. It sounds exaggerated to
say that the enlightened men of our time, the advanced thinkers, are
speciously degrading society, plunging it into a condition worse
than pagan,--into a state of primeval barbarism.
In no other matter has this tendency of the leading men of our
time been so plainly shown as in their attitude toward that
phenomenon in which at present all the inconsistency of social life
is concentrated,--toward war, universal armament, and military
conscription.
The equivocal, if not unscrupulous, attitude of the educated men
of our time toward this question is a striking one. It may be
stated from three points of view. Some regard this phenomenon as
an accidental state of affairs, which has sprung from the peculiar
political situation of Europe, and believe it to be susceptible
of adjustment by diplomatic and international mediation, without
injury to the structure of nations. Others look upon it as something
appalling and cruel, fatal yet unavoidable,--like disease or
death. Still others, in cold blood, calmly pronounce war to be an
indispensable, salutary, and therefore desirable event.
Men may differ in their views in regard to this matter, but all
discuss it as something with which the will of the individuals who
are to take part in it has nothing whatever to do; therefore they
do not even admit the natural question which presents itself to
most men; viz., "Is it my duty to take part in it?" In the opinion
of these judges there is no reason in such a question, and every
man, whatever may be his personal prejudices in regard to war, must
submit in this matter to the demands of the ruling powers.
The attitude of those in the first category, who expect deliverance
from war by means of diplomatic and international mediation, is
well defined in the results of the London Peace Congress, and in
an article, together with letters concerning war from prominent
writers, which may be found in the _Revue des Revues_ (No. 8, 1891).
These are the results of the Congress.
Having collected from all parts of the globe the opinions of
scientists, both written and oral, the Congress, opening with a _Te
Deum_ in the cathedral, and closing with a dinner and speeches,
listened for five days to numerous addresses, and arrived at the
following conclusions:--
Resolution I. The Congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood
of man involves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of
nations, in which, the true interests of all are acknowledged to
be identical. The Congress is convinced that the true basis for an
enduring peace will be found in the application by nations of this
great principle in all their relations one to another.
II. The Congress recognizes the important influence which
Christianity exercises upon the moral and political progress of
mankind, and earnestly urges upon ministers of the gospel and other
teachers of religion and morality the duty of setting forth these
principles of Peace and Good-will, which occupy such a central
place in the teaching of Jesus Christ, of philosophers and of
moralists, and _it recommends that the third Sunday in December in
each year be set apart for that purpose_.
III. The Congress expresses its opinion that all teachers of history
should call the attention of the young to the grave evils inflicted
on mankind in all ages by war, and to the fact that such war has
been waged, as a rule, for most inadequate causes.
IV. The Congress protests against the use of military drill in
connection with the physical exercises of schools, and suggests
the formation of brigades for saving life rather than any of
quasi-military character; and it urges the desirability of
impressing on the Board of Examiners, who formulate the questions
for examination, the propriety of guiding the minds of children into
the principles of Peace.
V. The Congress holds that the doctrine of the universal rights
of man requires that aboriginal and weaker races shall be guarded
from injustice and fraud when brought into contact with civilized
peoples, alike as to their territories, their liberties, and their
property, and that they shall be shielded from the vices which are
so prevalent among the so-called advanced races of men. It further
expresses its conviction that there should be concert of action
among the nations for the accomplishment of these ends. The Congress
desires to express its hearty appreciation of the conclusions
arrived at by the late Anti-Slavery Conference, held in Brussels,
for the amelioration of the condition of the peoples of Africa.
VI. The Congress believes that the warlike prejudices and traditions
which are still fostered in the various nationalities, and the
misrepresentations by leaders of public opinion in legislative
assemblies, or through the press, are not infrequently indirect
causes of war. The Congress is therefore of opinion that these ends
should be counteracted by the publication of accurate statements
and information that would tend to the removal of misunderstanding
amongst nations, and recommends to the Inter-Parliamentary
Committee the importance of considering the question of starting an
international newspaper, which should have such a purpose as one of
its primary objects.
VII. The Congress proposes to the Inter-Parliamentary Conference
that the utmost support should be given to every project for the
unification of weights and measures, of coinage, tariffs, postal
and telegraphic arrangements, means of transport, etc., which would
assist in constituting a commercial, industrial, and scientific
union of the peoples.
VIII. In view of the vast moral and social influence of woman, the
Congress urges upon every woman throughout the world to sustain, as
wife, mother, sister, or citizen, the things that make for peace,
as otherwise she incurs grave responsibilities for the continuance
of the systems of war and militarism, which not only desolate
but corrupt the home-life of the nation. To concentrate and to
practically apply this influence, the Congress recommends that
women should unite themselves with societies for the promotion of
international peace.
IX. This Congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform
Association and other similar societies in Europe and America should
unite in convoking at an early date a conference to consider the
best means of establishing equitable commercial relations between
States by the reduction of import duties as a step toward Free
Trade. The Congress feels that it can affirm that the whole of
Europe desires Peace, and is impatiently waiting for the moment when
it shall see the end of those crushing armaments which, under the
plea of defense, become in their turn a danger, by keeping alive
mutual distrust, and are, at the same time, the cause of the general
economic disturbance which stands in the way of settling in a
satisfactory manner the problems of labor and poverty, which should
take precedence of all others.
X. This Congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would be
the best guarantee of _Peace_, and would lead to the solution,
in the general interest, of those questions which now must divide
States, expresses the wish that a Congress of Representatives of
all the States of Europe may be assembled as soon as possible to
consider the means of effecting a gradual general disarmament, which
already seems feasible.
XI. This Congress, considering that the timidity of a single Power
or other cause might delay indefinitely the convocation of the
above-mentioned Congress, is of the opinion that the Government
which should first dismiss any considerable number of soldiers would
confer a signal benefit on Europe and mankind, because it would
oblige other Governments, urged on by public opinion, to follow its
example, and by the moral force of this accomplished fact would have
increased rather than diminished the conditions of its national
defense.
XII. This Congress, considering the question of disarmament, as
well as the Peace question generally, depends upon public opinion,
recommends the Peace Societies here represented, and all friends of
Peace, to carry on an active propaganda among the people, especially
at the time of Parliamentary elections, in order that the electors
should give their votes to those candidates who have included in
their programme Peace, Disarmament, and Arbitration.
XIII. This Congress congratulates the friends of Peace on the
resolution adopted by the International American Conference
(with the exception of the representatives of Chili and Mexico)
at Washington in April last, by which it was recommended that
arbitration should be obligatory in all controversies concerning
diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories,
indemnities, right of navigation, and the validity, construction,
and enforcement of treaties, and in all other causes, whatever
their origin, nature, or occasion, except only those which, in the
judgment of any of the nations involved in the controversy, may
imperil its independence.
XIV. This Congress respectfully recommends this resolution to the
statesmen of Europe, and expresses the ardent desire that treaties
in similar terms be speedily entered into between the other nations
of the world.
XV. This Congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption
by the Spanish Senate, on June 18th last, of a project of law
authorizing the Government to negotiate general or special treaties
of arbitration for the settlement of all disputes, except those
relating to the independence and internal government of the States
affected; also at the adoption of resolutions to a like effect
by the Norwegian Storthing on March 6th last, and by the Italian
Chamber on July 11th.
XVI. That a committee of five be appointed to prepare and address
communications, in the name of the Congress, to the principal
religious, political, economical, labor, and peace organizations
in civilized countries, requesting them to send petitions to the
governmental authorities of their respective countries, praying that
measures be taken for the formation of suitable tribunals for the
adjudication of international questions, so as to avoid the resort
to war.
XVII. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all Peace Societies is
the establishment of juridical order between nations:
(2) That neutralization by international treaties constitutes a step
toward this juridical state, and lessens the number of districts in
which war can be carried on:
This Congress recommends a larger extension of the rule of
neutralization, and expresses the wish:--
(1) That all treaties which at present assure to certain States
the benefit of neutrality remain in force, or, if necessary, be
amended in a manner to render the neutrality more effective, either
by extending neutralization to the whole of the State, of which
a part only may be neutralized, or by ordering the demolition of
fortresses, which constitute rather a peril than a guarantee for
neutrality.
(2) That new treaties, provided that they are in harmony with the
wishes of the populations concerned, be concluded for establishing
the neutralization of other States.
XVIII. The Committee Section proposes:--
(1) That the next Congress be held immediately before or immediately
after the next session of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and at
the same places.
(2) That the question of an international Peace Emblem be postponed
_sine die_.
(3) The adoption of the following resolutions:--
(_a_) Resolved, that we express our satisfaction at the formal and
official overtures of the Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America, addressed to the highest representatives of each church
organization in Christendom, inviting the same to unite with itself
in a general conference, the object of which shall be to promote the
substitution of international arbitration for war.
(_b_) That this Congress, assembled in London from the 14th to
the 19th July, desires to express its profound reverence for the
memory of Aurelio Salfi, the great Italian jurist, a member of the
Committee of the International League of Peace and Liberty.
(4) That the memorial to the various heads of the civilized States
adopted by this Congress, and signed by the President, should, so
far as practicable, be presented to each Power by an influential
deputation.
(5) That the Organization Committee be empowered to make the needful
verbal emendations in the papers and resolutions presented.
(6) That the following resolutions be adopted:--
(_a_) A resolution of thanks to the Presidents of the various
sittings of the Congress.
(_b_) A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretary, and the
members of the Bureau of this Congress.
(_c_) A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of the
sectional committees.
(_d_) A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. Dr.
Reuan Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon, for their pulpit addresses
before the Congress, and that they be requested to furnish copies
of the same for publication; and also Stamford Hall Congregational
Church for the use of those buildings for public services.
(_e_) A letter of thanks to Her Majesty for permission to visit
Windsor Castle.
(_f_) And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady
Mayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends who have
extended their hospitality to the members of the Congress.
XIX. This Congress places on record a heartfelt expression of
gratitude to Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and concord
which have characterized the meetings of the Assembly, in which so
many men and women of varied nations, creeds, tongues, and races
have gathered in closest coöperation; and in the conclusion of
the labors of this Congress, it expresses its firm and unshaken
belief in the ultimate triumph of the cause of _Peace_, and of the
principles which have been advocated at these meetings.
* * * * *
The fundamental idea of the Congress is--firstly, that it is
necessary to disseminate by all means among all men the belief that
war is not advantageous for mankind, and that peace is a great
benefit; and secondly, to influence governments, impressing upon
them the advantages and necessity of disarmament.
To accomplish the first end, the Congress advises teachers of
history, women, and ministers of the gospel, to teach people, every
third Sunday of December, the evils of war and the benefits of
peace; to accomplish the second, the Congress addresses itself to
governments, suggesting to them disarmament and arbitration.
To preach the evils of war and the benefits of peace! But the evils
of war are so well known to men, that from the earliest ages the
most welcome greeting was always: "Peace be unto you!"
Not only Christians but all pagans were fully aware of the benefits
of peace and of the evils of war thousands of years ago, so that the
advice to the ministers of the gospel to preach against the evils
of war and to advocate the benefits of peace every third Sunday in
December is quite superfluous.
A real Christian cannot do otherwise than preach thus, constantly,
as long as he lives. But if there are those who are called
Christians, or Christian preachers, who do not do this, there must
be a cause for it, and so long as this cause exists no advice will
avail. Still less effective will be the advice to governments
to disband armies and have recourse to International Courts of
Arbitration. Governments know very well all the difficulties and
burdens of conscription and of maintaining armies, and if in the
face of such difficulties and burdens they still continue to do
so, it is evident that they have no means of doing otherwise, and
the advice of a Congress could in no way bring about a change.
But scientists will not admit this, and still hope to find some
combination of influences by means of which those governments which
make war may be induced to restrain themselves.
"Is it possible to avoid war?" writes a scientist in the _Revue des
Revues_ (No. 8 of 1891). "All agree in recognizing the fact that
if war should ever break out in Europe, its consequences would be
similar to those of the great invasions. It would imperil the very
existence of nations; it would be bloody, atrocious, desperate. This
consideration, and the consideration of the terrible nature of the
engines of destruction at the command of modern science, retards
its declaration and temporarily maintains the present system,--a
system which might be continued indefinitely, if it were not for the
enormous expenses that burden the European nations and threaten to
culminate in disasters fully equal to those occasioned by war.
"Impressed with these thoughts, men of all nationalities have
sought for means to arrest, or at least to diminish, the shocking
consequences of the carnage that threatens us.
"Such are the questions which are to be debated by the next Congress
of Universal Peace to be held in Rome, which have already been
discussed in a recently published pamphlet on Disarmament.
"Unfortunately, it is quite certain that with the present
organization of the greater number of the European states, isolated
one from the other and controlled by different interests, the
absolute cessation of war is an illusion which it would be folly to
cherish. Still, the adoption of somewhat wiser rules and regulations
in regard to these international duels would at least tend to
limit their horrors. It is equally Utopian to build one's hope on
projects of disarmament, whose execution, owing to considerations of
a national character, which exist in the minds of all our readers,
is practically impossible." (This probably means that France cannot
disarm until she has retaliated.) "Public opinion is not prepared
to accept them, and, furthermore, the international relations make
it impossible to adopt them. Disarmament demanded by one nation
of another, under conditions imperiling its security, would be
equivalent to a declaration of war.
"Still, we must admit that an exchange of opinions between the
nations interested may to a certain extent aid in establishing an
international understanding, and also contribute to lessen the
military expenses that now crush European nations, to the great
detriment of the solution of social questions, the necessity of the
solution of which is realized by each nation individually, under the
penalty of being confronted by a civil war, due to the efforts made
to prevent a foreign one.
"One may at least hope for a decrease of the enormous expenses
necessary for the present military organization, which is maintained
for the purpose of invading a foreign territory in twenty-four
hours, or of a decisive battle a week after the declaration of war."
It ought not to be possible for one nation to attack another and
take possession of its territory within twenty-four hours. This
practical sentiment was expressed by Maxime du Camp, and is the
conclusion of his study of the subject.
Maxime du Camp offers the following propositions:--
"1st. A Diplomatic Congress, to assemble every year.
"2d. No war to be declared until two months after the incident
which gave rise to it." (Here the difficulty lies in determining
the nature of the incident that kindled the war--that is, every
declaration of war is caused by several circumstances, and it would
be necessary to determine from which one the two months are to be
reckoned.)
"3d. No war shall be declared until the vote of the people shall
have been taken.
"4th. Hostilities must not begin until a month after the declaration
of war."
"_No war shall be declared_ ..." etc. But who is to _prevent_
hostilities _beginning_? Who will compel men to do this or that?
Who will compel governments to wait a certain stated time? Other
nations. But all the other nations are in the very same position,
requiring to be restrained and kept within bounds, in other words,
_coerced_. And who will _coerce_ them? And how is it to be done?
By public opinion. But if public opinion has sufficient influence
to force a nation to postpone its action until a stated time, this
public opinion can prevent it from waging war at any time.
But, it is said, there might be a balance of power, which would
oblige nations to restrain themselves. This very experiment has been
and is still being tried; this was the object of the Holy Alliance,
the League of Peace, etc.
But all would agree to this, it is said. If all would agree to this,
then wars would cease, and there would be no need of Courts of
Appeal or of Arbitration.
"A Court of Arbitration would take the place of war. Disputes would
be decided by a Board of Arbitrators, like that which pronounced
on the Alabama claims. The Pope has been requested to decide the
question concerning the Caroline Islands: Switzerland, Belgium,
Denmark, and Holland have declared that they prefer the decision of
a Court of Arbitration to war."
I believe Monaco has expressed a similar wish. It is a pity that
Germany, Russia, Austria, and France have thus far shown no sign of
imitating their example.
It is astonishing how easily men can deceive themselves when they
feel inclined.
The governments will agree to allow their disputes to be decided
by a Board of Arbitration and to dismiss their armies. The trouble
between Russia and Poland, England and Ireland, Austria and the
Czechs, Turkey and the Slavs, France and Germany, will be settled
by mutual consent. This is very much like suggesting to merchants
and bankers that they shall sell at cost price, and devote their
services gratuitously to the distribution of property.
Of course the essence of commerce and banking consists in buying
cheap and selling dear, and therefore the suggestion to sell at cost
price and the consequent overthrow of money amounts to a proposal of
self-destruction.
The same is true in regard to governments.
The suggestion to governments to desist from violence, and to adjust
all differences by arbitration, would be to recommend a suicidal
policy, and no government would ever agree to that. Learned men
found societies (there are more than one hundred of them), they
assemble in Congresses (like those held in London and Paris and the
one which is to be held in Rome), they read essays, hold banquets,
make speeches, edit journals devoted to the subject, and by all
these means they endeavor to prove that the strain upon nations who
are obliged to support millions of soldiers has become so severe
that something must be done about it; that this armament is opposed
to the character, the aims, and the wishes of the populations;
but they seem to think that if they consume a good deal of paper,
and devote a good deal of eloquence to the subject, that they may
succeed in conciliating opposing parties and conflicting interests,
and at last effect the suppression of war.
When I was a child I was told that if I wished to catch a bird I
must put salt on its tail. I took a handful and went in pursuit of
the birds, but I saw at once that if I could sprinkle salt on their
tails I could catch them, and that what I had been told was only a
joke. Those who read essays and works on Courts of Arbitration and
the disarmament of nations must feel very much the same.
If it were possible to sprinkle salt on a bird's tail it would be
tantamount to saying that the bird could not fly, and therefore it
would be no effort to catch it. If a bird has wings and does not
wish to be caught, it will not allow any salt to be put on its tail,
for it is the nature of a bird to fly. Likewise it is the nature
of a government not to be ruled, but to rule its subjects. And a
government rightly is named such only when it is able to rule its
subjects, and not be ruled by them. This, therefore, is its constant
aim, and it will never voluntarily resign its power. And as it
derives its power from the army it will never give up the army, nor
will it ever renounce that for which the army is designed,--war.
The misapprehension springs from the fact that the learned jurists,
deceiving themselves as well as others, depict in their books an
ideal of government,--not as it really is, an assembly of men who
oppress their fellow-citizens, but in accordance with the scientific
postulate, as a body of men who act as the representatives of the
rest of the nation. They have gone on repeating this to others
so long that they have ended by believing it themselves, and
they really seem to think that justice is one of the duties of
governments. History, however, shows us that governments, as seen
from the reign of Cæsar to those of the two Napoleons and Prince
Bismarck, are in their very essence a violation of justice; a man or
a body of men having at command an army of trained soldiers, deluded
creatures who are ready for any violence, and through whose agency
they govern the State, will have no keen sense of the obligation of
justice. Therefore governments will never consent to diminish the
number of those well-trained and submissive servants, who constitute
their power and influence.
Such is the attitude of certain scientists toward that
self-contradiction under which the world groans, and such are their
expedients for its relief. Tell these scientists that the question
deals only with the personal relations of each individual toward
the moral and religious question, and then ask them what they think
of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of taking part in the general
conscription, and their sole reply will be a shrug of the shoulders;
they will not even deign to give a thought to your question. Their
way of solving the difficulty is to make speeches, write books,
choose their presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries; assembled
in a body, to hold forth in one city or another. They think that
the result of their efforts will be to induce governments to
cease to recruit soldiers, on whom all their power depends; they
expect that their appeals will be heard, and that armies will be
disbanded, leaving governments defenseless, not only in the presence
of neighbors, but of their subjects; that they, like highwaymen
who, having bound their defenseless victims in order to rob them,
no sooner hear the outcries of pain than they loosen the rope that
causes it, and let their prisoners go free.
And there really are men who believe in this, who spend their time
in promoting Leagues of Peace, in delivering addresses, and in
writing books; and of course the governments sympathize with it all,
pretending that they approve of it; just as they pretend to support
temperance, while they actually derive the larger part of their
income from intemperance; just as they pretend to maintain liberty
of the constitution, when it is the absence of liberty to which they
owe their power; just as they pretend to care for the improvement
of the laboring classes, while on oppression of the workman rest
the very foundations of the State; just as they pretend to uphold
Christianity, when Christianity is subversive of every government.
In order to accomplish these ends they have long since instituted
laws in regard to intemperance that can never avail to destroy it;
educational projects that not only do not prevent the spread of
ignorance, but do everything to increase it; decrees in the name
of liberty that are no restraint upon despotism; measures for the
benefit of the working-man which will never liberate him from
slavery; they have established a Christianity which serves to prop
the government rather than destroy it. And now another interest
is added to their cares,--the promotion of peace. Governments,
or rather those rulers who are going about at present with their
ministers of state, making up their minds on such radical questions
as, for instance, whether the slaughter of millions shall begin
this year or next,--they are quite well assured that discussions on
peace are not going to prevent them from sending millions of men to
slaughter whenever they see fit to do so. They like to hear these
discussions, they encourage them, and even take part themselves.
It does no harm to the government; on the contrary, it is useful, by
way of diverting observation from that radical question: When a man
is drafted, ought he or ought he not to fulfil his military duty?
Thanks to all these unions and congresses, peace will presently be
established; meanwhile put on your uniforms, and be prepared to
worry and harass each other for our benefit, say the governments.
And the scientists, the essayists, and the promoters of congresses
take the same view.
This is one way of looking at it, and so advantageous for the State
that all prudent governments encourage it.
* * * * *
The way another class has of regarding it is more tragic. They
declare that although it is the fate of humanity to be forever
striving after love and peace, it is nevertheless abnormal and
inconsistent. Those who affirm this are mostly the sensitive men of
genius, who see and realize all the horror, folly, and cruelty of
war, but by some strange turn of mind never look about them for any
means of escape, but who seem to take a morbid delight in realizing
to the utmost the desperate condition of mankind. The view of the
famous French writer, Maupassant, on the subject of war, affords a
noteworthy example of this kind. Gazing from his yacht upon a drill
and target-practice of French soldiers, the following thoughts arise
in his mind:--
"I have but to think of the word 'war' and a paralyzing sense
of horror creeps over me, as though I were listening to stories
of witchcraft, or tales of the Inquisition, or of things
abominable, monstrous, unnatural, of ages past.
"When people talk of cannibals we smile contemptuously with a
sense of superiority to such savages. But who are the savages,
the true savages? Those who fight that they may drive off the
conquered, or those who fight for the pure pleasure of killing?
Those sharp-shooters running over yonder are destined to be
killed like a flock of sheep who are driven by the butcher to
the slaughter-house. Those men will fall on some battlefield
with a sabre-cut in the head, or with a ball through the heart.
Yet they are young men, who might have done useful work. Their
fathers are old and poor; their mothers, who have idolized them
for twenty years as only mothers can idolize, will learn after
six months, or perhaps a year, that the son, the baby, the
grown-up child on whom so much love and pains were lavished,
who was reared at such an expense, has been torn by a bullet,
trampled under foot, or crushed by a cavalry charge, and finally
flung like a dead dog into some ditch. Why must her boy, her
beautiful, her only boy, the hope and pride of her life, why
must he be killed? She knows not; she can but ask why.
"War!... The fighting!... The murdering!... The slaughter of
men!... And to-day, with all our wisdom, civilization, with the
advancement of science, the degree of philosophy to which the
human spirit has attained, we have schools where the art of
murder, of aiming with deadly accuracy and killing large numbers
of men at a distance, is actually taught, killing poor, harmless
devils who have families to support, killing them without even
the pretext of the law.
"_It is stupefying that the people do not rise up in arms
against the governments. What difference is there between
monarchies and republics? It is stupefying that society does not
revolt as a unit at the very sound of the word war._
"Alas! we shall never be free from oppression of the hateful,
hideous customs, the criminal prejudices, and the ferocious
impulses of our barbarous ancestors, for we are beasts; and
beasts we shall remain, moved by our instincts and susceptible
of no improvement.
"Any one but Victor Hugo would have been banished when he
uttered his sublime cry of freedom and truth:--
"'To-day force is called violence, and the nations condemn it;
they inveigh against war. Civilization, listening to the appeal
of humanity, undertakes the case and prepares the accusation
against the victors and the generals. The nations begin to
understand that the magnitude of a crime cannot lessen its
wickedness; that if it be criminal to kill one man, the killing
of numbers cannot be regarded in the light of extenuation; that
if it be shameful to steal, it cannot be glorious to lead an
invading army.
"'Let us proclaim these absolute truths, let us dishonor the
name of war!'
"But the wrath and indignation of the poet are all in vain,"
continues Maupassant. "War is more honored than ever.
"A clever expert in this business, a genius in the art of
murder, Von Moltke, once made to a peace-delegate the following
astonishing reply:--
"'War is sacred; it is a divine institution; it fosters
every lofty and noble sentiment in the human heart: honor,
self-sacrifice, virtue, courage, and saves men, so to speak,
from settling into the most shocking materialism.'
"Assembling in herds by the hundred thousand, marching night and
day without rest, with no time for thought or for study, never
to read, learning nothing, of no use whatsoever to any living
being, rotting with filth, sleeping in the mud, living like a
wild beast in a perennial state of stupidity, plundering cities,
burning villages, ruining whole nations; then to encounter
another mountain of human flesh, rush upon it, cause rivers
of blood to flow, and strew the fields with the dead and the
dying, all stained with the muddy and reddened soil, to have
one's limbs severed, one's brain scattered as wanton waste, and
to perish in the corner of a field while one's aged parents,
one's wife and children, are dying of hunger at home,--this
is what it means to be saved from falling into the grossest
materialism!
"Soldiers are the scourge of the world. We struggle against
nature, ignorance, all kinds of obstacles, in the effort to make
our wretched lives more endurable. There are men, scientists
and philanthropists, who devote their whole lives to benefit
their fellow-men, seeking to improve their condition. They
pursue their efforts tirelessly, adding discovery to discovery,
expanding the human intelligence, enriching science, opening
new fields of knowledge, day by day increasing the well-being,
comfort, and vigor of their country.
"Then war comes upon the scene, and in six months all the
results of twenty years of patient labor and of human genius are
gone forever, crushed by victorious generals.
"And this is what they mean when they speak of man's rescue from
materialism!
"We have seen war. We have seen men maddened; returned to the
condition of the brutes, we have seen them kill in wanton sport,
out of terror, or for mere bravado and show. Where right exists
no longer, and law is dead, where all sense of justice has
been lost, we have seen innocent men shot down on the highway,
because they were timid and thus excited suspicion. We have
seen dogs chained to their masters' doors killed by way of
target-practice, we have seen cows lying in a field fired at by
the mitrailleuses, just for the fun of shooting at something.
"And this is what they call saving men from the most shocking
materialism!
"To invade a country, to kill the man who defends his home
because he wears a blouse and does not wear a _kepi_, to burn
the dwellings of starving wretches, to ruin or plunder a man's
household goods, to drink the wine found in the cellars, to
violate the women found in the streets, consume millions of
francs in powder, and to leave misery and cholera in their track.
"This is what they mean by saving men from the most shocking
materialism!
"What have military men ever done to prove that they possess the
smallest degree of intelligence? Nothing whatever. What have
they invented? The cannon and the musket; nothing more.
"Has not the inventor of the wheelbarrow, by the simple and
practical contrivance of a wheel and a couple of boards,
accomplished more than the inventor of modern fortification?
"What has Greece bequeathed to the world? Its literature and its
marbles. Was she great because she conquered, or because she
produced? Was it the Persian invasion that saved Greece from
succumbing to the most shocking materialism?
"Did the invasions of the Barbarians save and regenerate Rome?
"Did Napoleon I. continue the great intellectual movement
started by the philosophers at the end of the last century?
"Very well, then; can it be a matter of surprise, since
governments usurp the rights of life and death over the people,
that the people from time to time assume the right of life and
death over their governments?
"They defend themselves, and they have the right. No man has an
inalienable right to govern others. It is allowable only when it
promotes the welfare of the governed. It is as much the duty of
those who govern to avoid war as it is that of a captain of a
ship to avoid shipwreck.
"When a captain has lost his ship he is indicted, and if he
is found to have been careless or even incompetent, he is
convicted. As soon as war has been declared why should not the
people sit in judgment upon the act of the government?
"If they could once be made to understand the power that would
be theirs, _if they were the judges of the rulers who lead them
on to slay their fellow-men, if they refused to allow themselves
to be needlessly slaughtered, if they were to turn their weapons
against the very men who have put them into their hands--that
day would see the last of war.... But never will that day
arrive."_--"Sur l'Eau."
The author perceives the full horror of war, realizes that the
government is its author, that government forces men to go slay, or
be slain, when there is no need for it; he realizes that the men who
make up the armies might turn their weapons against the government
and demand a reckoning. Still the author does not believe that this
will ever happen, or that there is any possible deliverance from the
existing condition of affairs.
He grants that the result of war is shocking, but he believes it
to be inevitable; assuming that the never ceasing requisition of
soldiers on the part of government is as inevitable as death, then
wars must follow as a matter of course.
These are the words of a writer of talent, endowed with a faculty of
vividly realizing his subject, which is the essence of the poetic
gift. He shows us all the cruel contradictions between creed and
deed; but since he fails to offer a solution, it is evident that
he feels that such a contradiction must exist, and regards it as a
contribution to the romantic tragedy of life. Another and an equally
gifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints with colors still more vivid the
cruelty and folly of the present situation, but he, like Maupassant,
feels the influence of the dramatic element, and neither suggests a
remedy nor anticipates any change.
"Why do we toil? Why do we plan and hope to execute? And how
can one even love one's neighbor in these troublous times,
when the morrow is nothing but a menace?... Everything that
we have begun, our ripening schemes, our plans for work, the
little good that we might accomplish, will it not all be swept
away by the storm that is gathering?... Everywhere the soil
quakes beneath our feet, and threatening clouds hang low on the
horizon. Ah! if we had nothing more to fear than the bugbear of
the Revolution!... Unable to conceive a society worse than our
own, I am more inclined to distrust than to fear the one that
may replace it, and if I should suffer in consequence of the
change, I should console myself with the reflection that the
executioners of the present were victims of the past, and the
hope of a change for the better would make me endure the worst.
But it is not this remote danger which alarms me. I see another
close at hand and far more cruel, since it is both unjustifiable
and irrational, and nothing good can come out of it. Day by day
the chances of war are weighed, and day by day they become more
pitiless.
"The human mind refuses to believe in the catastrophe which even
now looms up before us, and which the close of this century
must surely witness, a catastrophe which will put an end to all
the progress of our age, and yet we must try to realize it.
Science has devoted all her energy these twenty years to the
invention of destructive weapons, and soon a few cannon-balls
will suffice to destroy an army;[10] not the few thousands of
wretched mercenaries, whose life-blood has been bought and paid
for, but whole nations are about to exterminate each other;
during conscription their time is stolen from them in order to
steal their lives with more certainty. By way of stimulating a
thirst for blood mutual animosities are excited, and gentle,
kind-hearted men allow themselves to be deluded, and it will
not be long before they attack each other with all the ferocity
of wild beasts; multitudes of peace-loving citizens will obey
a foolish command, God only knows on what pretext,--some
stupid frontier quarrel, perhaps, or it may be some colonial
mercantile interest.... They will go like a flock of sheep to
the slaughter, yet knowing where they go, conscious that they
are leaving their wives and their children to suffer hunger;
anxious, but unable to resist the enticement of those plausible
and treacherous words that have been trumpeted into their ears.
_Unresistingly they go; although they form a mass and a force,
they fail to realize the extent of their power, and that if
they were all agreed they might establish the reign of reason
and fraternity_, instead of lending themselves to the barbarous
trickeries of diplomacy.
[10] The book was published a year ago, and since then dozens
of new weapons and smokeless powder have been invented for the
annihilation of mankind.--AUTHOR.
"So self-deceived are they that bloodshed takes on the aspect of
duty, and they implore the blessing of God upon their sanguinary
hopes. As they march, they trample underfoot the harvests which
they themselves have planted, burning the cities which they have
helped to build, with songs, shouts of enthusiasm, and music.
And their sons will raise a statue to those who have slain them
by the most approved methods.... The fate of a whole generation
hangs on the hour when some saturnine politician shall make the
sign, and the nations will rush upon each other. We know that
the noblest among us will be cut down, and that our affairs
will go to destruction. _We know this, we tremble in anger, yet
are powerless._ We have been caught in a snare of bureaucracy
and waste paper from which we can only escape by measures too
energetic for us. We belong to the laws which we have made for
our protection, and which oppress us. _We are nothing more
than the creatures of that antinomic abstraction, the State,
which makes of each individual a slave in the name of all, each
individual of which all, taken separately, would desire the
exact contrary of what he will be made to do._
"And if it were but the sacrifice of a single generation! But
many other interests are involved.
"Paid orators, demagogues, taking advantage of the passions
of the masses and of the simple-minded who are dazzled by
high-sounding phrases, have so embittered national hatreds
that to-morrow's war will decide the fate of a race: one of
the component parts of the modern world is threatened; the
vanquished nation will morally disappear; it matters not which
chances to be the victim, a power will disappear (as though
there had ever been one too many for the good). A new Europe
will then be established on a basis so unjust, so brutal, so
bloodstained, that it cannot fail to be worse than that of
to-day,--more iniquitous, more barbarous, and more aggressive....
"Thus a fearful depression hangs over us. We are like men
dashing up and down a narrow passageway, with muskets pointed at
us from all the roofs. We work like sailors executing their last
manœuver after the ship has begun to sink. Our pleasures are
those of the prisoner to whom a choice dish is offered a quarter
of an hour before his execution. Anxiety paralyzes our thought,
and the utmost we can do is to wonder, as we con the vague
utterances of ministers, or construe the meaning of the words
of monarchs, or turn over those ascribed to the diplomatists,
retailed at random by the newspapers, never sure of their
information, whether all this is to happen to-morrow or the day
after, whether it is this year or next that we are all to be
killed. In truth, one might seek in vain throughout the pages
of history for an epoch more unsettled or more pregnant with
anxiety."--"Le Sens de la Vie."
He shows us that the power is really in the hands of those who allow
themselves to be destroyed, in the hands of separate individuals who
compose the mass; that the root of all evil is the State. It would
seem as if the contradiction between one's faith and one's actual
life had reached its utmost limit, and that the solution could not
be far to seek.
But the author is of a different opinion. All that he sees in
this is the tragedy of human life, and having given us a detailed
description of the horror of this state of things, he perceives
no reason why human life should not be spent in the midst of this
horror. Such are the views of the second class of writers, who
consider only the fatalistic and tragic side of war.
There is still another view, and this is the one held by men who
have lost all conscience, and are consequently dead to common sense
and human feeling.
To this class belong Moltke, whose opinions are quoted by
Maupassant, and nearly all military men who have been taught to
believe this cruel superstition, who are supported by it, and who
naturally regard war not only as an inevitable evil, but as a
necessary and even profitable occupation. And there are civilians
too, scientists, men of refinement and education, who hold very much
the same views.
The famous academician Doucet, in reply to a query of the editor of
the _Revue des Revues_ in regard to his opinions on war, replies as
follows in the number containing letters concerning war:[11]--
"DEAR SIR,--When you ask of the least belligerent of all the
academicians if he is a partizan of war, his reply is already
given. Unfortunately you yourself classify the peaceful
contemplations which inspire your fellow-countrymen at the
present hour as idle visions.
"Ever since I was born I have always heard good men protesting
against this shocking custom of international carnage. All
recognize this evil and lament it. But where is its remedy?
"The effort to suppress duelling has often been made. It seems
to be so easy. Far from it. All that has been accomplished
toward achieving this noble purpose amounts to nothing, nor
will it ever amount to more. Against war and duelling the
congresses of the two hemispheres vote in vain. Superior to all
arbitrations, conventions, and legislations will ever remain
human honor, which has always demanded the duel, and national
interests, which have always called for war. Nevertheless, I
wish with all my heart that the Universal Peace Congress may
succeed at last in its difficult and honorable task.--Accept the
assurance, etc.,
"CAMILLE DOUCET."
[11] _La Revue des Revues_, "La guerre, état de la question, jugé
par nos grands hommes contemporains."--TR.
It amounts to this, that honor obliges men to fight, that it is for
the interest of nations that they should attack and destroy one
another, and that all endeavors to abolish war can but excite a
smile.
Jules Claretie expresses himself in similar terms:--
"DEAR SIR,--A sensible man can have but one opinion on the
question of war and peace. Humanity was created to live--to
live for the purpose of perfecting its existence by peaceful
labor. The mutual relations of cordiality which are promoted and
preached by the Universal Congress of Peace may be but a dream
perhaps, yet certainly is the most delightful of dreams. The
vision of the land of promise is ever before the eyes, and upon
the soil of the future the harvest will ripen, secure from the
plowing of the projectile, or the crushing of cannon-wheels.
But, alas!... Since philosophers and philanthropists are not the
rulers of mankind, it is fit that our soldiers should guard our
frontiers and our homes, and their weapons, skilfully wielded,
are perhaps the surest guarantees of the peace we love so well.
Peace is given only to the strong and the courageous.--Accept
the assurances of, etc.,
"JULES CLARETIE."
The substance of this is, that there is no harm in talking about
what no one intends to do, and what ought not in any event to be
done. When fighting is in order, there is no alternative but to
fight.
Émile Zola, the most popular novelist in Europe, gives utterance to
his views on the subject of war in the following terms:--
"I look upon war as a fatal necessity which seems to us
indispensable because of its close connection with human nature
and all creation. Would that it might be postponed as long as
possible! Nevertheless a time will come when we shall be forced
to fight. At this moment I am regarding the subject from the
universal standpoint, and am not hinting at our unfriendly
relations with Germany, which are but a trifling incident in the
world's history. I affirm that war is useful and necessary,
since it is one of the conditions of human existence. The
fighting instinct is to be found not only among the different
tribes and peoples, but in domestic and private life as
well. It is one of the chief elements of progress, and every
advancing step taken by mankind up to the present time has been
accompanied by bloodshed.
"Men have talked, and still do talk, of disarmament; and yet
disarmament is utterly impossible, for even though it were
possible, we should be compelled to renounce it. It is only an
armed nation that can be powerful and great. I believe that a
general disarmament would be followed by a moral degradation,
assuming the form of a widespread effeminacy which would impede
the progress of humanity. Warlike nations have always been
vigorous. The military art has contributed to the development
of other arts. History shows us this. In Athens and Rome, for
instance, commerce, industry, and literature reached their
highest development when these cities ruled the world by the
force of arms. And nearer to our own time we found an example
in the reign of Louis XIV. The wars of the great king, so far
from impeding the advance of arts and sciences, seemed rather to
promote and to favor their progress."
War is useful!
But chief among the advocates of these views, and the most talented
of all the writers of this tendency, is the academician Vogüé, who,
in an article on the military section of the Exhibition of 1889,
writes as follows:--
"On the Esplanade des Invalides, the center of exotic and
colonial structures, a building of a more severe order stands
out from the midst of the picturesque bazaar; these various
fragments of our terrestrial globe adjoin the palace of war. A
magnificent theme and antithesis for humanitarian rhetoric which
never loses a chance to lament a juxtaposition of this kind, and
to utter its 'this will kill that' [_ceci tuera cela_[12]];
that the confederacy of nations brought about by science and
labor will overpower the military instinct. Let it cherish this
vision of a golden age, caressing it with fond hopes. We have
no objection; but should it ever be realized, it would very
soon become an age of corruption. History teaches us that the
former has been accomplished by the means of the latter, that
blood is necessary to hasten and to seal the confederacy of
nations. In our own time the natural sciences have strengthened
the mysterious law which revealed itself to Joseph de Maistre
through the inspiration of his genius and meditation on
primordial dogmas; he saw how the world would redeem its
hereditary fall by offering a sacrifice. Science shows us that
the world is made better by struggle and violent selection;
this affirmation of the same law, with varied utterance, comes
from two sources. It is by no means a pleasant one. The laws
of the world, however, are not established for our pleasure,
but for our perfection. Let us then enter this necessary and
indispensable palace of war, and we shall have the opportunity
to observe how our most inveterate instinct, losing nothing
of its power, is transformed in its adaptation to the various
demands of historical moments."
[12] Words taken from Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame," where he says that
printing will kill architecture.--AUTHOR.
This idea, namely, that the proof of the necessity of war may
be found in the writings of De Maistre and of Darwin, two great
thinkers, as he calls them, pleases Vogüé so much that he repeats it.
"Sir," he writes to the editor of the _Revue des Revues_, "you ask
my opinion in regard to the possible success of the Universal Peace
Congress. I believe, with Darwin, that vehement struggle is the
law governing all being, and I believe, with Joseph de Maistre,
that it is a divine law,--two different modes of characterizing
the same principle. If, contrary to all expectations, a certain
fraction of humanity--for example, all the civilized West--should
succeed in arresting the issue of this law, the more primitive races
would execute it against us; in these races the voice of nature
would prevail over human intellect. And they would succeed, because
the certainty of _peace_--I do not say peace, but the absolute
_certainty of peace_--would in less than half a century produce a
corruption and a decadence in men more destructive than the worst of
wars. I believe that one should act in regard to war--that criminal
law of humanity--as in regard to all criminal laws: modify it, or
endeavor to make its execution as rare as possible, and use every
means in our power to render it superfluous. But experience of all
history teaches us that it cannot be suppressed, so long as there
shall be found on earth two men, bread, money, and a woman between
them. I should be very glad if the Congress could prove to me the
contrary; but I doubt if it can disprove history, and the law of God
and of nature.--Accept my assurance, etc.,
"E. M. DE VOGÜÉ."
This may be summed up as follows: History and nature, God and man,
show us that so long as there are two men left on earth, and the
stakes are bread, money, and woman, just so long there will be war.
That is, that no amount of civilization will ever destroy that
abnormal concept of life which makes it impossible for men to divide
bread, money (of all absurdities), and woman without a fight. It is
odd that people meet in congresses and hold forth as to the best
method of catching birds by putting salt on their tails, although
they must know that this can never be done! It is astonishing that
men like Rod, Maupassant, and others, clearly realizing all the
horrors of war, and all the contradictions that ensue from men not
doing what they ought to do, and what it would be to their advantage
to do, who bemoan the tragedy of life, and yet fail to see that
this tragic element would vanish as soon as men ceased to discuss a
subject which should not be discussed, and ceased to do that which
is both painful and repulsive for them to do!
One may wonder at them; but men who, like Vogüé and others, believe
in the law of evolution, and look upon war as not only unavoidable,
but even useful, and therefore desirable,--such men are fairly
shocking, horrible in their moral aberration. The former at least
declare that they hate evil and love good, but the latter believe
there is neither good nor evil.
All this discussion of the possibility of establishing peace instead
of continual warfare is but the mischievous sentimentalism of idle
talkers. There is a law of evolution which seems to prove that I
must live and do wrong. What, then, can I do? I am an educated
man,--I am familiar with the doctrine of evolution; hence it follows
that I shall work evil. "Entrons au palais de la guerre." There is a
law of evolution, and therefore there can be no real evil; and one
must live one's life and leave the rest to the law of evolution.
This is the last expression of refined civilization; it is with
this idea that the educated classes at the present day deaden their
conscience.
The desire of these classes to preserve their favorite theories and
the life that they have built up on them can go no further. They
lie, and by their specious arguments deceive themselves as well as
others, obscuring and deadening their intuitive perceptions.
Rather than adapt their lives to their consciousness, they try by
every means to befog and to silence it. But the light shines in the
darkness, and even now it begins to dawn.
CHAPTER VII
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MILITARY CONSCRIPTION
General military conscription is not a political accident, but
the extreme limit of contradiction contained in the social
life-conception--Rise of power in society--The basis of power
is personal violence--The organization of armed men, an army,
is required by power to enable it to accomplish violence--The
rise of power in society, that is, of violence, destroys by
degrees the social life-conception--Attitude of power toward
the masses, that is to say, the oppressed--Governments endeavor
to make workmen believe in the necessity of State violence for
their preservation from external foes--But the army is needed
principally to defend government from its own subjects, the
oppressed working-men--Address of Caprivi--All the privileges of
the ruling classes are assured by violence--Increase of armies
leads to a general military conscription--General military
conscription destroys all the advantages of social life which it
is the duty of the State to guard--General military conscription
is the extreme limit of obedience, as it demands in the name of
the State the abnegation of all that may be dear to man--Is the
State needed?--The sacrifices which it requires from citizens
through the general military conscription have no longer any
basis--Hence it is more advantageous for man to rebel against
the demands of the State than to submit to them.
The efforts which the educated men of the upper classes are making
to silence the growing consciousness that the present system of
life must be changed, are constantly on the increase, while life
itself, continuing to develop and to become more complex without
changing its direction, as it increases the incongruities and
suffering of human existence, brings men to the extreme limit of
this contradiction. An example of this uttermost limit is found in
the general military conscription.
It is usually supposed that this conscription, together with the
increasing armaments and the consequent increase of the taxes and
national debts of all countries, are the accidental results of a
certain crisis in European affairs, which might be obviated by
certain political combinations, without change of the interior life.
This is utterly erroneous. The general conscription is nothing
but an internal contradiction which has crept into the social
life-conception, and which has only become evident because it has
arrived at its utmost limits at a period when men have attained a
certain degree of material development.
The social life-conception transfers the significance of life
from the individual to mankind in general, through the unbroken
continuity of the family, the tribe, and the State.
According to the social life-conception it is supposed that as the
significance of life is comprised in the sum total of mankind, each
individual will of his own accord sacrifice his interests to those
of the whole. This in fact has always been the case with certain
aggregates, like the family or the tribe.
In consequence of custom, transmitted by education and confirmed by
religious suggestion, and without compulsion, the individual merges
his interests in those of the group, and sacrifices himself for the
benefit of the whole.
But the more complex became societies, the larger they
grew,--conquest especially contributing to unite men in social
organizations,--the more individuals would be found striving to
attain their ends at the expense of their fellow-men; and thus the
necessity for subjugation by power, or, in other words, by violence,
became more and more frequent.
The advocates of the social life-conception usually attempt to
combine the idea of authority, otherwise violence, with that of
moral influence; but such a union is utterly impossible.
The result of moral influence upon man is to change his desires,
so that he willingly complies with what is required of him. A man
who yields to moral influence takes pleasure in conforming his
actions to its laws; whereas authority, as the word is commonly
understood, is a means of coercion, by which a man is forced to act
in opposition to his wishes. A man who submits to authority does not
do as he pleases, he yields to compulsion, and in order to force
a man to do something for which he has an aversion, the threat of
physical violence, or violence itself, must be employed: he may be
deprived of his liberty, flogged, mutilated, or he may be threatened
with these punishments. And this is what constitutes power both in
the past and in the present.
Despite the unremitting efforts of rulers to conceal these facts,
and to attribute a different significance to authority, it simply
means the rope and chain wherewith a man is bound and dragged, the
lash wherewith he is flogged, the knife or ax wherewith his limbs,
nose, ears, and head are hewed off. Authority is either the menace
or the perpetration of these acts. This was the practice in the
times of Nero and Genghis Khan, and is still in force even in the
most liberal governments, like the republics of France and America.
If men submit to authority, it is only because they fear that if
they were to resist, they would be subjected to violence. All the
requisitions of the State, such as the payment of taxes and the
fulfilment of public duties, the submission to penalties in the form
of exile, fines, etc., to which men seem to yield voluntarily, are
always enforced by the physical threat or the reality of physical
punishment.
Physical violence is the basis of authority.
It is the military organization that makes it possible to inflict
physical violence, that organization wherein the entire armed force
acts as one man, obeying a single will. This assemblage of armed
men, submitting to one will, forms what is called an army. The army
has ever been and still is the basis of an authority, vested in
the commanding generals; and the most engrossing interest of every
sovereign, from the Roman Cæsars to the Russian and German emperors,
has always been to protect and flatter the army, for they realize
that when the army is on their side, power is also in their hands.
It is the drilling and the increase of the troops required for
the maintenance of authority which has brought into the social
life-conception an element of dissolution.
The aim of authority, and its consequent justification, is to
restrain those men who are endeavoring, by methods which are
detrimental to those of mankind in general, to promote their own
interests. But whether authority has been acquired by force of arms,
or by hereditary succession, or by election, men who have gained
authority are in no way different from their fellow-men; they are
just like all others, not inclined to waive their own interests in
favor of the many, but, since they hold power in their hands, are
more likely to make the interests of the many give way to their
own. Whatever measures may have been devised by way of restraining
those in authority who might seek their own ends at the expense of
the public, or to vest authority in the hands of infallible men, no
satisfactory results have as yet been attained.
Attributing divine right to kings, hereditary succession, election;
congresses, parliaments, and senates;--none of these have ever
yet proved effectual. Everybody knows that no expedient has
ever succeeded either in committing authority into the hands of
infallible men, or of preventing its abuses. On the contrary, we
know that men who have the authority, be they emperors, ministers of
State, chiefs of police, or even policemen, always are more liable,
because of their position, to become immoral,--that is, to put their
own private interests before those of the public,--than men who do
not possess such an authority; and this is inevitable.
The social life-conception could be justified only while all
men voluntarily sacrificed their private interests to those of
the public in general; but no sooner did men appear who refused
to sacrifice their interests, than authority, in other words,
violence, was required to restrain these men. Thus there entered
into the social life-conception, and the organization based on it,
a principle containing within itself the germs of dissolution,--the
principle of authority, or the tyranny of the few over the many.
In order that the authority held by certain men might fulfil its
object, which is to restrain those who are trying to further their
own interests to the detriment of society in general, it would be
necessary to have it in the hands of infallible men, as is supposed
to be the case in China, or as it was believed to be in the Middle
Ages, and is even at the present time by those who have faith in
consecration by unction. It is only under such conditions that the
social organization can be justified.
But as no such conditions exist, and, furthermore, as men who are
in authority, from the very fact of its possession, must ever be
far from being saints, the social organization that is based upon
authority cannot possibly have any justification.
If there ever was a time when a low standard of morality, and the
general tendency of men toward violence, called for an authority
possessing the power to restrict this violence, an authority whose
existence may have been an advantage,--that is, when the violence
of the State was less than the violence of individuals toward
each other,--we cannot help seeing now that this prerogative of
the State, when violence no longer exists, cannot go on forever.
Morals improved in proportion to the gradual decrease of individual
violence, while the prerogative of authority lost ground in measure
as it became corrupted by the possession of unbridled power.
The entire history of the last 2000 years will have been told
when we have described this change in the relations between the
moral development of man and the demoralization of governments.
In its simplest form it runs thus: men lived together in tribes,
in families, and in races, and were at enmity one with another;
they employed violence, they spread desolation, they murdered one
another. Thus devastation was on a scale both great and small: man
fought with man, tribe with tribe, family with family, race with
race, nation with nation. The larger and more powerful communities
absorbed the weaker ones; and the greater and more vigorous became
the aggregation of men, the more seldom did one hear of acts
of violence within these communities, and the more secure the
continuity of their existence appeared.
When the members of a tribe or a family unite together to form one
community, they are naturally less hostile to each other, and the
tribes and families are not so likely to die out; while among the
citizens of a State subjected to one authority the contentions seem
even less frequent, and hence is the life of the State on a basis
still more assured.
These fusions into larger and larger aggregates took place, not
because men realized that it would be to their advantage, as is
illustrated by the fable that tells of the falling of the Varegs in
Russia, but are due rather to natural growth on the one hand, and
struggle and conquest on the other.
When conquest was achieved, the authority of the conqueror put
an end to internal strife, and the social life-conception was
justified. But this justification is only temporary. Internal feuds
cease only when the pressure of authority is brought to bear with
greater weight upon individuals formerly inimical to one another.
The violence of the internal struggle, not annihilated by authority,
is the offspring of authority itself. Authority is in the hands
of men who, like all the rest, are ever ready to sacrifice the
common weal if their own personal interests are at stake; with the
sole difference that these men, encountering no resistance from
the oppressed, are wholly subject to the corrupting influence of
authority itself.
Therefore it is that the evil principle of violence relegated
to authority is ever increasing, and the evil becomes in time
worse than that which it is supposed to control: whereas, in the
individual members of society, the inclination to violence is always
diminishing, and the violence of authority becomes less and less
necessary.
As its power increases in measure of its duration, State authority,
though it may eradicate internal violence, introduces into life
other and new forms of violence, always increasing in intensity.
And though the violence of authority in the State is less striking
than that of individual members of society toward each other, its
principal manifestation being not that of strife, but of oppression,
it exists none the less, and in the highest degree.
It cannot be otherwise; for not only does the possession of
authority corrupt men, but, either from design or unconsciously,
rulers are always striving to reduce their subjects to the lowest
degree of weakness,--for the more feeble the subject, the less the
effort required to subdue him.
Therefore violence employed against the oppressed is pushed to its
utmost limit, just stopping short of killing the hen that lays the
golden egg. But if the hen has ceased to lay, like the American
Indians, the Fiji Islanders, or the Negroes, then it is killed,
despite the sincere protests of the philanthropists against that
mode of procedure.
The most conclusive proof of this assertion, at the present time, is
the position of the working-men, who are in truth simply vanquished
men.
Despite all the pretended efforts of the upper classes to lighten
their position, all the working-men of the world are subjected to an
immutable iron rule, which prescribes that they shall have scarcely
enough to live upon, in order that their necessities may urge them
to unremitting toil, the fruits of which are to be enjoyed by their
masters, in other words, their conquerors.
It has always been the case that, after the long continuance and
growth of power, the advantages accruing to those who have submitted
to it have failed, while the disadvantages have multiplied.
Thus it is and thus it always has been, under whatsoever form of
government the nation may have lived; only that where despotism
prevails authority is confined to a limited number of oppressors,
and violence takes on a ruder form, while in the constitutional
monarchies, and in the republics of France and America, authority
is distributed among a greater number of oppressors, and its
manifestations are less rude; but the result, in which the
disadvantages of dominion are greater than the advantages, and the
method--reduction of the oppressed to the lowest possible degree of
abjection, for the benefit of the oppressors, remain ever the same.
Such has been the position of all the oppressed, but until lately
they have been unaware of the fact, and for the most part have
innocently believed that governments were instituted for their
benefit, to preserve them from destruction, and that to permit the
idea that men might live without governments would be a thought
sacrilegious beyond expression; it would be the doctrine of anarchy,
with all its attendant horrors.
Men believed, as in something so thoroughly proved that it needed no
further testimony, that as all nations had hitherto developed into
the State form, this was to remain the indispensable condition for
the development of mankind forever.
And so it has gone on for hundreds, nay, thousands of years, and the
governments, that is to say, their representatives, have endeavored,
and still go on endeavoring, to preserve this delusion among the
people.
As it was during the time of the Roman emperors, so it is now.
Although the idea of the uselessness, and even of the detriment,
of power enters more and more into the consciousness of men, it
might endure forever, if governments did not think it necessary to
increase the armies in order to support their authority.
It is the popular belief that governments increase armies as a
means of defense against other nations, forgetting that troops are
principally needed by governments to protect them against their own
enslaved subjects.
This has always been necessary, and has grown more so with the
spread of education, the increase of intercourse among different
nationalities; and at the present time, in view of the communist,
socialist, anarchist, and labor movements, it is a more urgent
necessity than ever. Governments realize this fact, and increase
their principal means of defense,--the disciplined army.[13]
[13] That the abuse of authority exists in America, despite the
small number of troops, by no means refutes our argument; on the
contrary, it serves rather as a testimony in its favor. In America
there are fewer troops than in other States, and nowhere do we find
less oppression of the downtrodden classes, and nowhere have men
come so near to the abolition of governmental abuses, and even of
government itself. However, it is in America that, owing to the
growing unity among the working-men, voices have been heard, more
and more frequently of late, calling for an increase of troops,
and this when no foreign invasion threatens the States. The ruling
classes are fully aware that an army of 50,000 men is insufficient,
and, having lost confidence in Pinkerton's forces, they believe that
their salvation can only be secured by the increase of the army.
It was but recently that in the German Reichstag, in giving the
reason why more money was needed to increase the pay of the
subaltern officers, the German Chancellor answered candidly that
trusty subaltern officers are needed in order to fight against
socialism. Caprivi put into words what every one knows, although
it has been carefully concealed from the people. The reason why
the Swiss and Scottish Guards were hired to protect the popes and
the French kings, and why the Russian regiments are so carefully
shuffled, is in order that those which are posted in the interior
may be recruited by men from the borders, and those on the borders
by men from the interior. The meaning of Caprivi's reply, translated
into simple, everyday language, means that money is needed, not to
repel a foreign enemy, but to bribe the subaltern officers to hold
themselves in readiness to act against the oppressed working-men.
Caprivi incidentally expressed what every man knows--or if he does
not know it he feels it--namely, that the existing system of life is
such as it is, not because it is natural for it to be so, or that
the people are content to have it so, but because violence on the
part of governments, the army, with its bribed subaltern officers,
its captains and generals, sustains it.
If a working-man has no land, if he is not allowed to enjoy the
natural right possessed by every man, to draw from the soil the
means of subsistence for himself and his family, it is not so
because the people oppose it, but because the right to grant or
to withhold this privilege from working-men is given to certain
individuals--namely, to the landed proprietors. And this unnatural
order of things is maintained by the troops. If the enormous wealth
earned and saved by working-men is not regarded as common property,
but as something to be enjoyed by the chosen few; if certain men
are invested with the power of levying taxes on labor, and with
the right of using that money for whatsoever purposes they deem
necessary; if the strikes of the working-men are suppressed, and
the trusts of the capitalists are encouraged; if certain men are
allowed to choose in the matter of religious and civil education
and the instruction of children; if to certain others the right
is given to frame laws which all men must obey, and if they are
to enjoy the control of human life and property,--all this is not
because the people wish it, or because it has come about in the
course of nature, but because the governments will have it so for
their own advantage and that of the ruling classes; and all this is
accomplished by means of physical violence.
If every man is not yet aware of this, he will find it out whenever
attempts are made to change the present order of things.
And therefore all the governments and the ruling classes stand in
need of troops above all things, in order to maintain a system of
life which, far from having developed from the needs of the people,
is often detrimental to them, and is only advantageous for the
government and the ruling classes.
Every government requires troops to enforce obedience, that it may
profit by the labor of its subjects. But no government exists alone:
side by side with it stands the government of the adjacent country,
which is also profiting by the enforced labor of its subjects, and
ever ready to pounce upon its neighbor and take possession of the
goods which it has won from the labor of its own subjects. Hence it
is that every government needs an army, not only for home use, but
to guard its plunder from foreign depredations. Thus each government
finds itself obliged to outdo its neighbor in the increase of its
army, and, as Montesquieu said one hundred and fifty years ago, the
expansion of armies is a veritable contagion.
One State makes additions to its army in order to overawe its own
subjects; its neighbor takes alarm, and straightway follows the
example.