MIA > Archive > Bax > Catechism
You referred just now to the struggle between races as being one of the typical forms in which the struggle for existence, resulting in the survival of the fittest, has manifested itself. Surely this struggle between races is a matter of vital importance to-day, with the intense commercial rivalries between modern civilised nations. How are these international struggles to be eliminated? What is the Socialist view as to future international relations?
Socialism is essentially international. It recognises no distinction between the various nations comprising the modern civilised world. “My country, right or wrong,” the expression of modern patriotism, is the very antithesis of Socialism. It is the most sacred duty of the Socialist to prevent his country from going wrong. But if he cannot prevent it, if it allows itself to be seduced into dealing unjustly with other countries, then the Socialist naturally wishes for the defeat and punishment of his country. For it is necessary to remember that Socialism is utterly opposed to imperialism, which would reduce as many nations, as possible under the flag of one nation and the domination of a particular race. Even where such agglomerations of nations under the flag of the strongest take place pacifically, it is equally opposed to the internationalism of Socialism or Social- Democracy. This internationalism means liberty and equality between nations as between individuals, and amalgamation as soon as feasible and as close as possible under the Red Flag of Social-Democracy, which does not recognise national distinctions or the division of progressive humanity into nations and races. The universal international organisation, as manifested in its representative, or governing body, may reasonably, take its rise from an international court of arbitration, originally established to settle disputes between nations, and gradually tending to absorb new functions previously exercised by the various national legislatures.
But what is the attitude of Socialism towards backward races, savage and barbaric peoples who are to-day outside the civilised world?
The position of Socialism towards these races is one of absolute non-interference. We hold that they should be left entirely alone to develop themselves in the natural order of things; which they must inevitably do or die out. This is the attitude of Socialism towards these races, not only from considerations of justice, or on abstract ethical grounds, but also for Socialist economic reasons, as the expansion of capitalism beyond its present limits means the buttressing of the present system of society and the extension of its lease of life. For this reason all the Socialist parties of the world have by instinct thrown the whole force of their opposition against colonial expansion in any form or shape. Socialists are in this respect eminently “Little Englanders,” “Little Francers,” and “Little Germaners.”
But is it not natural that civilised nations should protect those of their members who go among the savage and barbaric races as missionaries, traders, explorers, and others whose ostensible object it is to spread Christian civilisation, among them?
Yes, it is perfectly natural, from the point of view of the dominant classes, who to-day control the destinies of the civilised world; and it is also natural for the barbaric races to resent having the religion, the shoddy wares, and other disagreeable products of civilisation forced upon them, and to give practical form to this resentment. It is rather the duty of Socialists to support the barbaric races in their resistance to aggression, than to acquiesce in the fraudulent pretences by which the people referred to insinuate themselves into favour among those whom it is their object to betray.
What do you mean by fraudulent pretences in the case, say, of missionaries?
The object of the explorer is to spy out the land; to find means of entry for the future operations of the trader and the exploiter. The missionary is the John the Baptist of the capitalist, who goes to prepare the way before him. The trader follows the explorer and the missionary, to secure for the capitalist class as much of the produce of the country as he can grab, and to establish as large a market as circumstances will permit. Last of all comes the general and establishes a “protectorate” over the country by means of “military operations.”
But surely many missionaries are sincere in their belief that they are conferring a benefit upon these unenlightened peoples, by devoting themselves to preaching the Gospel among them?
Generations ago, this may have been to a large extent the case; and even now occasional instances will be found to which this remark would apply. But now-a-days missionaries are, generally speaking, the conscious or, at best, the semi-conscious tools of their masters – the churchwardens, deacons, and religious world generally, who wish to find secure markets for the products of their factories, and profitable outlets for their surplus capital, the industrial exploitation of the land, in the shape of mines, railway concessions, etc. We have seen in the past how the missionaries have been the lever by which a quarrel with China was concocted; and this convenient habit of picking quarrels is by no means the least of the services the missionaries render to the capitalists.
Previous chapter – Top of the page – Next chapter
Last updated on 16.6.2004