X.[20]

Just as the idea of revolution is identified with the ideas of murder

and destruction, in the same way the internationalism of the workers

is identified with anti-patriotism. There is in the latter case as in

the former a fundamental error, and it remains for me to show that,

theoretically and practically, the identification of the

internationalism of labor with anti-patriotism is unjustifiable. And,

to begin with, he who says internationalism says internationalism, and

does not say anti-nationalism; consequently, you see at once that no

one ought--either to approve or condemn it--to use the word,

internationalism, to express what it does not mean and what other

words do mean.

Instead of allowing ourselves to be led astray by our various

fantastic notions, let us here as elsewhere examine the facts and see

what conclusions they impose upon us. Socialism flows from the facts,

it follows them and does not precede them. This is the truth to which

we must constantly return, which we must never forget. Now, the facts

show us, _bon gre mal gre_, two things: on the one hand, the existence

of countries (fatherlands); on the other, the existence, in every

social stratum, of an international solidarity.

It is with countries as with classes; some deny the existence of the

former, others of the latter. Now, in reason it is no more possible to

deny the existence of the country (fatherland) than the existence of

classes in that country. It is all right to look forward to the day

when national patriotism shall be swallowed up in world-wide

brotherhood, when classes shall vanish in human solidarity, but while

waiting for the facts to turn this noble ideal into a reality, we

must, in both cases, adapt ourselves to the facts as they actually are

at present. To wish to suppress them (classes, etc.) does not suppress

them, to protest against their existence does not at all prevent them

from existing and, so long as countries and classes shall exist, it

will be necessary for us, not to deny their existence in declamations

in the Bryan-McKinley style, but to adapt our tactics to the facts

which are the consequences of their existence.

Just as the feeling of national solidarity is added to the feeling of

family solidarity, without destroying the latter, in the same way the

relatively new sentiment of international solidarity is added to the

former which is still retained. A new sentiment springing from a new

situation does not annihilate the older sentiments and emotions as

long as the conditions that gave them birth continue to exist, and

families and nations are still in existence.

The tendency toward internationalism was inaugurated by capital. In

obedience to its own law of continuous growth, it has, more and more,

substituted international commerce for national trade. It has created

industries whose raw materials come from abroad and whose products

require, for an outlet, the universal or world market. It has thus

developed the reciprocal interdependence of nations, no one of which

to-day can live without the aid of the others.

Capitalist internationalism, moreover, pursues its ends with stern

remorselessness. In order to lower national wages and gain greater

profits, the capitalist does not hesitate to deprive his

fellow-countrymen of work, and to import, to compete with them on the

labor market, foreigners wonted by greater poverty to a lower standard

of living, and therefore able and willing to work for lower wages. To

prohibit them, not from employing foreigners, but from paying them

less than the national rate of wages is the only effective means of

meeting this evil. On the other hand, provided he sees a goodly profit

in the transaction, the capitalist never hesitates to loan money or

sell military supplies to a foreign country, though he thus increases

its power to wage war against his own.

This international character, assumed by capital in all its forms, is,

in its effects, co-extensive with the domain of human affairs. And so,

as M. Aulard declared in a lecture about which there has been too much

talk: "There are no national boundaries for reason and science * * *

They are neither French, nor English, nor German, but international

and human." How, therefore, can the workingmen be justly reproached

for taking the road on which everything and everybody has started, and

along which the capitalists have preceded them? Face to face with the

international domination of capital, they have come to understand, in

all civilized nations, the common character, the oneness, of their own

interests. They are everywhere the victims of the same kind of

exploitation, due everywhere to the same cause. The same facts have

suggested to them the same demands, the same means and tactics to

attain the same goal. International exploitation has thus given birth

to an ever growing international solidarity among the workers who

resist its encroachments. And the international concurrence of the

workers is publicly declared by the world-wide celebration of the

First day of May.

Notwithstanding the most sincere sentiment of international solidarity

on both sides, the workingmen of two countries may still have to fight

against each other. This is one of the numerous contradictions--and

one of the most horrible--inherent in the capitalist regime, which is

condemned to aspire to peace and to unchain the horrid dogs of war.

While, for example, commerce on the world market requires peace, the

bitterness of competition on that market begets conflicts. * * * *

* * * * *

To safeguard the little independence left to them as laborers, the

workers have been led by the state of affairs, by actual conditions,

as were the business men before them, to be internationalists; but

they are patriots, and must be patriots only whenever their

country--be it France or America--is menaced by danger from abroad.

I hope you now see that the internationalism of the workers and the

socialists cannot, by any possibility lead to anti-patriotism. These

are two distinct ideas which cannot be legitimately confounded, no

matter what the object of this confusion. Our internationalism and our

patriotism spring from two wholly distinct categories of facts, and

different facts logically necessitate different solutions, logic

consisting, here and everywhere, in adapting the solution to the facts

and not in applying the same solution indiscriminately to all sorts of

facts.

To sum up, workingmen and socialists ought to be internationalists in

their relations with their toiling comrades when the interests of

labor are at stake in times of peace, patriots and Frenchmen before

all when France, our country shall be, if it must be, in danger of

war, conscious always of the duty to be performed, conscious, if need

be, especially in victory, of the duty of respecting in the case of

others, especially the conquered, the rights that they claim for

themselves.

* * * * *

I have finished. That is all that socialism means. I have taken pains

to set it forth in its entirety, free from both the attenuations and

the exaggerations by which it is often mutilated or disfigured, but

which seem to me to have no foundation in reality. Its goal is the

socialization of the means of labor which have already manifested

collective tendencies--either in their mode of ownership or in the

mode of their employment as exploiting agencies--and the abolition of

classes. Its means, the transference to the political battlefield of

the Class Struggle, the existence of which it is compelled to

acknowledge. It must, for the time being, be resolved to preserve

legality at home and peace abroad, but equally energetically

determined to tolerate no measure that will make the situation of the

toilers more intolerable, to preserve republican institutions intact

and to defend the national territory against all foreign foes.

Socialism, Revolution and Internationalism · 第 20 / 23 题