Published: International Socialist Review, Vol. 16, No. 8. February 1916. Pages 496-499.
Transcription/Markup: Bill Wright, November, 2022.
Now that socialism has failed in Europe, and there can be little doubt but that American socialism would have failed under similar conditions, it is very essential to study the problem of war in a more fundamental way, than is possible in the daily press and at public meetings.
It, therefore, is an important event, that a book has been published, dealing with the theory and practice of this subject.[a] The name and reputation of Comrade Boudin guarantee that “Socialism and War” deals with the problem in a thorough manner on good Marxian principles, his book on “The Theoretical System of [Karl] Marx,” originally published in this Review, ranging among the best in international literature. As it seems that this latter study has been more appreciated in Europe (German translation), than it has on this side of the ocean, I feel inclined to advise the comrades to read or reread this book, which will greatly add to the better understanding of “Socialism and War.” Especially the chapter on “concentration of capital” and the remarks on the ideologies of the middle-classes, will prove of advantage to understand what is said now, about the ideologic causes of the war. The dealing with some of the fundamental features of modern imperialism in a publication some ten years ago, and especially what is said on the subject of waste, as a means to secure another respite for our bankrupt economic system, is very remarkable and has lost none of its value since that time.
The present book from the same author has certain shortcomings on account of its being prepared for oral delivery, and the first chapter, that is, “clearing the ground,” rather than preparing the minds, might discourage the reader to his disadvantage.
The second chapter, however, gives a solid basis to the problem, and treats imperialism much more broadly than as a colonial problem, in its real meaning of a new phase in capitalism.
The fundamental change in society is symbolized by the supremacy of iron production over that of textiles, accompanied by the abolishment of free trade in favor of monopolies and of the bourgeois democracy and republicanism in favor of autocracy. The economic results of the “surplus production,” more especially of iron and steel, and the necessity to get rid of these products in foreign markets of lower economic development, are so prevailing in our social life, that it requires a new orientation all over the line of our practical class struggle methods.
The third chapter on “ideologic causes” is a complement to the second and treats the same problem by the same Marxian methods from the ideological side. There are given some very excellent historical comments. In view of much embarrassing phraseology on nationalism, dealing with “nature” and “instincts,” it is refreshing to read what comrade Boudin has to tell about the historical development and the relative youth of the “nations” and national feeling. We remember, how in the Feudal Middle Age the economic groups were only small and at the same time the cultural unit embraced the greater part of Europe, controlled by the Christian church. It is inspiring to study the period of embryonic capitalism, in which at the same time that larger economic units were required, the cultural unit was broken by the Reformation, demanding freedom from Rome and independent national churches.
The outcome of this process was the development of national “states” and in this period of consolidation, capitalism had its first warlike period, to the effect of building up strong economic units with natural boundaries, sufficient raw materials, and outlets to the sea. The political form of this period is a strong absolutistic monarchy, which by no means is a feudal rest, but a new capitalist institution, required in this state of development.
After the consolidation of the nations as capitalist units, there is a relative peaceful period of internal growth, with textiles as the leading industries, and it is interesting to see how this period of free trade and liberalism, reflects in the political ideals of bourgeois democracy and republicanism and on the cultural side even, tends to dissolve the nation into a humanitarian ideal. We here have an example of how the ideas are not always slow followers of economic conditions, but may rush far in advance, to dissipate, when the economic conditions prove to have changed in another direction. Long before any real democracy was realized in practical politics, the imperialistic period was roughly settled with all ideals of bourgeois democracy.
The necessity to sell iron and steel to nations of lower economic development, changed free trade into monopolies, and at the same time this “physical necessity of selling iron and steel, was raised into a moral one.” Nations and races are no longer considered on an equal footing; there are assumed to be superior nations and cultures and subject races. The utilitarian maxim of “the greatest good to the greatest number,” falls before the philosophy of Nietzsche’s the “grand race of supermen.” The culture of the one race or nation must triumph, and its iron be sold all over the world. This struggle for world power does away with all ideals of democracy and republics, it demands a strong government and strong militarism, not only in Germany, but all over the world, including the United States.
In the fourth chapter, dealing with the immediate causes of the war, statistical figures are given to show the increase in the production of iron and steel, especially in Germany. This means surplus production, and German plans of a Bagdad railroad, which interferes with the interests of England as a world power, and demands the supremacy of Germany on the Balkans.
From that time dates the beginning of the entente between England, France and Russia and war becomes inevitable, unless one or another of the capitalist combinations should refrain from world power or labor should interfere. A series of diplomatic defeats for Germany, the victory of Serbia over Bulgaria in the second Balkan war, the prospective strengthening of Russian militarism by its re-organization, the growing force of France and England, the fear that Italy should withdraw and Turkey should be weakened to exhaustion, and at the same time the feeling of Germany at the height of its military power, leads to the fatal decision.
What is said about the position of Russia as being “purely nationalistic” is less convincing. For although Russia certainly has not yet consolidated as a national unity, it seems difficult to deny that its foreign policy has strong imperialistic features. The struggle for seaports is as well important from an imperialistic as from a nationalistic point of view and the policy against Persia and in Mongolia can hardly be explained as a purely national consolidation. In fact, as soon as capitalism has entered its imperialistic phase, no big nation can stay aside, although, of course, every country has imperialistic problems of its own brand, according to the state of economic development, as well as to the geographical and historical position of each nation.
But this remark does not affect the value of this chapter as a whole, in which excellent illustrations are given of the results of modern imperialism as a general world policy. And those who take the trouble of reading care-phrases of the warring parties, “culture” and “liberty,” both cover most direct material interests.
The last chapters, “War and the Socialists” and “Socialist Versus Bourgeois Theories,” form together an attempt to give a new theory and practice for socialists as to this most vital problem of war and militarism.
Rejecting the purely humanitarian as well as the militarist standpoint, the author states that wars have been engines of human progress in the past. Socialists not only accept the necessity of revolutionary wars under certain circumstances, but even a bourgeois war against Russia has been approved by Marx and other socialists some fifty years ago. Comrade Boudin, however, proves in a very efficient way that circumstances have changed since then. What may have been true in the first period of capitalist development, when capitalism was progressive and had to be helped in its fight against feudalism, is no longer true today. To give his own words: “The time when the bourgeois could go to war for liberty and progress is past, never to return.” Therefore, socialism has to be opposed to every war of aggression, even after such a war has broken out.”
But what about a defensive war?
After stating that the socialist action in the present war in all countries has been on ordinary bourgeois nationalistic considerations, Comrade Boudin tries to construct the principles that ought to guide socialists in this matter. He points out that nationalism, as a bourgeois principle of human progress, is absolutely opposed to our principle of human progress by means of the class struggles. His comparison of both principles is very illuminating— the one leading to reaction and permanent war, the other to evolution and peace through the abolition of classes.
Indeed, the class struggle, as a philosophy of the history of socialism, based on private property, has to solve the problem of peace and war. Socialists, therefore, never can favor national wars. For them the class takes the place of the nation as a factor of human progress. Says Boudin: “National wars are always opposed to the class struggle from below” and “Nowadays no war could be planned that would serve to advance the cause of free institutions.” “Every war means considerable strengthening of reaction, accentuates national divisions, etc.” “The class struggle demands international peace, active, unrelenting opposition to war, irrespective of so-called national interests.”
So far, so good; but after having done away with “national interests” we are taught that there are “complicating circumstances” which may lead us to participate in a nationalistic bourgeois war, though not guided by our own nationalistic interests. Not every defensive war is considered right. We are not to defend our government as such, nor even our territory or the world power of our bourgeoisie. But socialists are opposed to subjection of any kind; also of one nation over another. They believe in national freedom and “they are ready to go to war for it” when necessary, not only in order to save their own country, but they must be willing to save other nations that are threatened as well. This certainly means a big job, if we include in our protection also the less capitalistically developed countries. The principal reason given for this readiness to go to war is that subjection leads to strengthening of nationalism among the subjected nations and so indirectly to the weakening of the class struggle. After having rejected nationalism as a reason for labor to go to war, it is advocated to join war in order to protect our fellow workers against their own future nationalism. We have to bear in mind, however, that every war between modern nations nowadays is bound to become imperialistic— to become a struggle for world power— no matter what the accompanying results to nationalism. To prevent our fellow workers from becoming reactionary when subjected we are urged to voluntarily participate in imperialistic wars of our masters.
This certainly is a fatal situation and Comrade Boudin, who perfectly sees the imminent danger resulting from imperialistic war to socialism, has to take recourse to Utopian expectations that are in a strange contrast to the rest of his arguments. Labor is expected to support one or another capitalist war, “only as long as necessary for the purpose.” Labor has to ask guarantees from their government “that war will not be turned into one of aggression;” labor has to keep up “educational propaganda” and a “special propaganda against a war of aggression;” it has to do its “regular socialist work” during the war, “keep on the class struggle,” “prevent atrocities and passions,” “terminate the war at the right moment,” “secure a real peace,” etc.
And when we have succeeded in all these superhuman efforts this will have been accomplished in order to prevent some of the wage slaves from getting another master, while we fear that these workers will have so little class consciousness that, being nationally subjected, they will stop fighting capitalism in order to give all their energy to some national action, together with their most direct exploiters. If nationalism is so much stronger than the class struggle, the experiment in joining a bourgeois imperialistic war will prove all the more dangerous.
It seems difficult to understand how a comrade with such a profound knowledge of historical conditions and who, no doubt, is one of the ablest interpreters of Marxian methods, should fail to draw the practical conclusion as to the present situation. Part of the trouble seems to be that Marx approved war, be it under fully different conditions. We are no pacifists, and as long as capitalism was fighting feudal influences labor could join in this fight; indeed, labor has done most of the fighting in bourgeois revolutions. This, however, was participating in a class struggle of a foregoing economic period, helping the capitalist class to become an enemy worthy of our defeat.
Now that capitalism is full grown and overgrown, we have to fight a class struggle of our own, and nothing but this class struggle has to solve the problem of war and peace. To join a capitalist war under present conditions means to join our enemy, and it is utterly absurd to keep up the class struggle and at the same time to give it up.
But we are opposed to national or other subjection, Comrade Boudin objects. Indeed, we are opposed to a great many subjections, including class subjection, but we have our own methods in fighting them and should not rely upon joining our enemies. If there is national subjection, the socialists of the subjecting nation will have to join their oppressed comrades in fighting the government and this will be the only way of liberating them. If the subjected workers are not class conscious enough to join the general cause, we will have to double our propaganda and our action. But even under the worst circumstances a revolutionary movement against the oppressive government would have the support of the subjected workers.
All over the world we move from democracy towards reaction, oppression and militarism. This means that the [theory of the] “one reactionary mass”[b] is going to be every day more according to practice when vital problems like imperialism are involved, and we will have to arrange accordingly.
As I see it, the conclusion from the study of Comrade Boudin, which every socialist ought to read carefully, should logically be opposition to the bitter end to every bourgeois war in this period of capitalist development, be it aggressive or defensive; be it among full grown capitalist nations or against nations of a lower economic condition; no matter whether war is only threatening or has already broken out. And this opposition on class struggle principles will have to be organized in the only way labor can act— by using its economic power in public demonstrations and, if necessary, in strikes and revolt.
S. J. Rutgers
a. Available to read on the Marxists Internet Archive.
b. "One reactionary mass" refers to a theory and agitational slogan originally coined by Ferdinand Lassalle. Lassalle and his posthumous followers believed that only the proletariat could be relied upon to support progressive social change; all other classes, including the poorer, downwardly mobile sections of the petty bourgeoisie, therefore formed "one reactionary mass" united in defense of the existing social order. Karl Marx was opposed to this analysis, most notably in his Critique of the Gotha Program, but social developments in the decades after his death led many Marxists to reevaluate Lassalle's slogan.