MIA > Archive > Boudin > Socialism and War
It has often been charged that the Socialists — or at least those old offenders, the “orthodox” Socialists — see nothing in history but the play of “blind economic forces”, leaving no room for any spiritual or ideal forces or motives. And since the outbreak of the present war the charge has been made in our own press that in discussing this war the “orthodox” Socialists see only low material forces and fail to recognize the higher ideal motives, etc. The very title of this lecture is a sufficient refutation of the charge of the failure to recognize any so-called ideal motives for or causes of this war. But I must warn you against a possible misunderstanding: please do not imagine that I believe the present war to have had a double set of causes, one economic and one ideologic. On the contrary, I believe that at bottom there is only one set of causes: the economic changes which I have endeavored to describe and explain in my last lecture.
But these economic forces do not work either automatically or mechanically. They work through the medium of human beings,— and the entire complex machinery of the human organism, both individual and social, comes into play. The Good Book says that Man does not live by bread alone. In the course of his eventful history on this planet he has developed a taste for certain delicacies, certain faculties besides those of digesting his food, and certain wants besides those of filling his stomach or his pocket. In a word, he has certain mental and spiritual faculties and wants alongside of the more material ones. This has led the great majority of people to the belief in the dual character of human nature, dividing it into a “higher” or spiritual part, and a “lower” or material one, into a “body” and a “soul”. Having thus split up the human entity into two, the philosophers began to quarrel as to which rules which: the “materialists” claimed that the “lower” element of human nature rules the higher one, [that] the body is supreme over the soul; while the “idealists” claimed that the soul always manages to get on top, and that it is therefore the power that “makes history”. Then came the compromisers, who are not wanting anywhere, and tried to compromise by putting the two halves of human nature on terms of equality side by side, sometimes helping each other and sometimes counteracting one another in the business of shaping human conduct and making history. It is the belief that “orthodox” Socialists are “materialists” in the above sense, that has brought upon them the reproaches of some “idealists” or eclectics for the alleged neglect of “ideal” causes or motives in appraising historical events generally and the present war in particular.
Now, I am neither an “idealist” nor a “materialist” in the above sense. Nor yet an eclectic. I have no occasion to belong to any of the said denominations, because I do not start out by splitting up human nature and dividing it into upper and lower regions. I take it as one harmonious whole, notwithstanding its multifarious complexity of functions and wants. The great harmonizer of human nature is a certain faculty with which man is endowed, which the great German poet Schiller described as the capacity “of transforming the work of necessity into a work of his free choice and of raising the physical necessity into a moral one.” This faculty permits the individual to see his material needs in the glamour of spiritual and moral ones.
To this should be added another thing, which the great German poet may have overlooked. And that is the fact that the individual neither creates his own world, nor does he dwell there alone; both his physical (material) as well as his moral (spiritual) necessities are fashioned for him by the society in which he lives. And it is this society, as a whole, which possesses that remarkable faculty of which Schiller speaks, of “raising the physical necessity into a moral one”. And when society has thus raised its physical necessities into moral ones, the seeming contradiction between the rule of the material forces in history which is plain to any discerning eye and the high motives and lofty ideals which, it is equally plain, have actuated so many of the great actors in the important historical dramas — a contradiction which has baffled so many historians — entirely disappears. For society’s physical necessity has become the individual’s moral necessity, for which he is ready to sacrifice his individual physical necessities and comforts in a transport of pure idealism.
In my last lecture I endeavored to explain the present war from the point of view of society’s physical necessities. In the present lecture I shall show you how this material necessity had been raised into a moral one, and attempt to explain this war from the point of view of the individual’s moral necessities. The “moral” or “spiritual” conceptions, as distinguished from material or economic ones, used in the discussions of this war, are those of nationalism, racial affinity, and culture. We shall do well, therefore, to begin our discourse with a historical examination of the development of the conceptions or ideas of Nation, Race, and Culture.
The conception of the Nation, in our sense of the word, is of comparatively modern origin. During the Middle Ages there was no such thing in Christian Europe. When order emerged in Europe from the chaos of the great migrations, by the establishment of the feudal system, European society was, on the one hand, broken up into innumerable small fragments, each leading a separate existence; and, on the other, these innumerable fragments of humanity formed one common group, referred to collectively as Christendom.
The inhabitants of the different parts of the continent may have had some characteristics common only to the dwellers within a certain geographical area, which distinguished them from those making their home in a different part of the continent. But those characteristics were not strong enough to unite the dwellers of any large geographical area into what we would call a Nation, or to mark them as quite alien to those living elsewhere. The masses of the lower strata of the population were broken up locally into small groups, each forming a separate political entity, and each having a language, and often a religion, of its own. On the other hand, the upper crust, the carriers of whatever intellectual life there was then in Europe, formed one nation, with a common culture,— they had one religion, one language, and one literature. This unity of the whole of Christendom in everything that was not merely a local custom, it was symbolized by the Pope and the Emperor,— one representing the spiritual and the other the political unity of all Christian Europe.
Towards the close of the Middle Ages, with the beginning of the development of our modern commercial and industrial era — the breaking up of the old feudal order and the substitution therefor of what has come to be known as the bourgeois or capitalist economic system — this social and political aspect of Europe began to change. On the one hand the local differences began to disappear, making great bodies of people spread over large areas of land more akin to each other in manners, customs, religious observances, language, and modes of thought. On the other hand, the spiritual and political unity of the upper crust of Christendom began to break up. Capitalism needed larger economic units for its development. The small groups therefore began to coalesce and amalgamate into larger units which would permit the larger economic life which is the characteristic of the new era. But this very process of coalescence and centralization into larger economic units had as a necessary corollary a process of separation and division, separating and dividing the larger groups, when formed, from each other. The same process that made people within a certain large territory more akin to each other, of necessity made them more different and distinct from people outside this territory and inhabiting some other large district, whose dwellers were acquiring a homogeneous character of their own.
This double process of coalescence and division usually found its limits and lines of demarcation — marking off the territories within which the process of coalescence and between which the process of separation should proceed — in some well-defined geographical characteristics of the European continent. The sea and the great mountain-ranges usually marked the boundaries of the several divisions into which Europe was to break up. The dwellers within these boundaries were separated from the rest of Europe and started on the road towards the formation of one political, economic, social, and linguistic group — towards the formation of the Modern Nation.
Thus arose the Modern European nations, each with its own language and separate and distinct social, political, and economic life: England, France, Spain, the Scandinavian countries, Russia, Italy and Germany.
With the breaking up of the homogeneity of Europe and the formation of separate nations, each constituting a separate political state, there began to develop separate and distinct national cultures in place of the common European culture which prevailed during the Middle Ages. The first great manifestation of this new development was the Reformation. Contrary to the assurances of our school histories and similar sources of information, the Reformation was least of all a religious movement. In so far as it did not directly aim at economic results, it was essentially a political movement resulting from economic conditions.
On its formal side — that is in the separation of the “reformed” churches from the Church of Rome, and the denial of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff — the reformation was merely a solemn registering of the fact that Europe had broken up into separate nations. That each of these nations, having a separate economic life, must also constitute separate political, spiritual, and intellectual entities. That henceforth there would be no common church and no common language, as well as no common empire. The Roman Emperor, the Roman Pope, and the Latin Bible had all become anachronisms, survivals of a common nation-less Europe, and must all go. Henceforth each Nation was to have its own independent political head paying no allegiance to any Emperor; its own independent church paying no tribute and recognizing no sovereign outside of its own national jurisdiction; and its own literature, with the vernacular Bible as a symbol of its freedom from Latin tutelage.
The independence of national development secured in the Reformation, while registering the act of separation, was itself a means of furthering it, and the development of Europe has continued along national lines during the entire formative period of Capitalism.
This formative period of Capitalism, the period when the different sections into which Europe broke up at the close of the Middle Ages were developing their own independent economic existence along capitalist-industrial lines, is the first of the two warlike periods of Capitalism of which I spoke in my last lecture. The wars of this period were conducted, principally, for what might be called natural territorial limits; that is to say, for the establishment of political units which would be economically self-sufficient and independent.
For this purpose it was necessary that the political unit — the “country” — should be of sufficient size to give the development of the economic forces elbow-room. And since freedom of intercourse is one of the essentials of economic development along capitalistic lines, the larger the area comprised within a given political unit the better. There was, therefore, a general striving to bring within the domain of one political unit everything that could be easily communicated with,— the sea and mountain ranges being considered natural boundaries. At the same time it was necessary to so arrange the boundaries of the political unit as to contain “within its own four corners” the raw materials for its industries and the other accessories of production. And as natural wealth in raw materials and other accessories of production is not evenly distributed on the surface of our globe, it was sometimes found necessary to break through the so-called natural boundaries in order to make the political unit self-sufficient economically. As great mountain ranges formed impassable barriers, the only way of supplying the deficiency of a country in natural wealth would be to establish over-sea colonies in regions rich in the particular article in which the home country was deficient. This could, of course, be done only when a country was bounded on the sea at least at some point.
At the same time the sea was indispensable as a means of intercourse with the outside world, the world which was the market for the products of the countries’ soil and manufactories. Hence the struggle of inland countries in this formative stage of Capitalism for the extension of their boundaries almost invariably assumes the form of a march to the sea.
Politically, that is, internally, this formative period of Capitalism is characterized by the consolidation and centralization of governmental power,— by the growth of absolutist monarchical institutions. In this connection it may be well to point out that the opinion so prevalent in our intellectual circles, and so often expressed in print since the outbreak of the present war, that monarchy is a remnant of feudalism, is anything but intelligent. As a matter of fact, feudalism is absolutely guiltless of the offense of establishing the institution of absolute monarchy. As far as Modern Europe at least is concerned that institution is due entirely to the political activities of the bourgeoisie. During the formative period of Capitalism of which I have just spoken, the rising industrial bourgeoisie created the institution of absolute monarchy as a means, on the one hand, of abolishing feudal restrictions upon trade and industry, and, on the other, of consolidating large areas into one political and economic unit and of successfully marching to the sea.
But [with] feudalism overthrown and Capitalism firmly established — the National territory self-sufficient, industrially, and the sea freely and easily accessible — the bourgeoisie becomes peaceful and settles down to develop its home industries,— manufacturing textiles.
Ideologically the reign of textiles is characterized by what might be called, collectively, “liberal ideas”. “Liberalism”, as a system or circle of ideas means: politically,— republicanism and democracy; in the domain of international relations,— the “open door” and peaceful cosmopolitanism; in philosophy,— classical political economy and utilitarianism. Culture and civilization — which have been growing nationalistic since the break-up of the European community of the Middle Ages, the disappearance of the universal Latin literature, and the creation of separate national churches and literatures, reflecting the national life and national struggles — again become the common heritage of humanity. Only, the concept of humanity now becomes much broader than during the Middle Ages, when it was practically limited to Christendom. “Humanity” now means what the term implies — the entire human race; and culture and civilization not only lose their narrow nationalistic character, but they become truly universal, making no distinctions on account of race, religion, or color.
The three branches or divisions of the “liberal” view of life which I have indicated — its ideas of political institutions, international relations, and the laws governing human relations generally — are closely knit together and form one organic whole. The demand of the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie for a republican form of government and democratic political institutions generally, on the one hand, and the peaceful cosmopolitanism of their international policy, on the other, were not mere accidents of “personal union”, (to borrow a term from European public law), but two phases of the same cast of ideas. And both were only the logical consequence of their view of the laws which governed the basic relation of man to man,— the relation of producing and consuming social wealth.
The general view of the world, developed during the classic age of Capitalism, under the aegis of textiles, may be summarized as follows:
The economic activities of man are subject to certain natural and immutable laws, which shape the conduct of the individual and his relations to his fellow-men in society. These laws dictate to the individual the best — most profitable — course for him to follow in his economic activities, and the individual follows them, therefore, freely and eagerly in his natural desire to get all he can out of this world for himself. But this world of ours, instead of being a “vale of tears”, a place of misery and suffering, as we had been told by some ascetic moralizers, is in reality so happily arranged and organized that when every individual follows his own selfish bent of always looking out for himself, there results a perfectly harmonious whole which redounds to the benefit and prosperity of society at large and every individual member thereof. The selfishness and acquisitiveness of individuals, instead of clashing with the interests of their fellow-members in society, are really of great benefit to them.
There is only one pre-requisite to this happy result; and that is, that the individuals should be enlightened enough to understand their own real and permanent interests, so that they may not act from a mistaken notion as to what that interest really is and thereby injure themselves as well as their fellow-men. Practically all of the misery which the human race suffered in the past, and to which a large portion of it is still subject, is due, on the one hand, to such mistaken notions by individuals as to what their own true interests require, leading them to act in a manner injurious to themselves and to others, and, on the other hand, to a failure to understand the true character of the natural laws governing the economic relations of men, resulting in attempts to interfere with their own free play by man-made laws. This last circumstance is the most important. For when left to himself man will soon come to understand his own true interests; and the harm resulting from individual mistakes as to what is good for one’s self is comparatively small and negligible. The real source of human misery is, therefore, the attempt by organized society to interfere with the free play of the natural laws of economics, due to ignorance of their true character.
The true remedy, therefore, for all human ills, is to let well-enough alone; to permit the beautiful symphony of our economic world to be played by the instruments naturally attuned thereto, undisturbed by any interference from the outside. And the only condition for the Millennium is enlightenment sufficient to prevent such interference. The economic laws of nature are not only immutable, but omnipresent and all-pervasive. They are independent of time and space. In their presence all human beings are equal,— all being subject to their power and influence, without distinction as to race, religion, or color. Potentially all human beings are alike; for all are not merely subject to the same economic laws, but all have the fundamental faculty of acting under the influence of these laws in a manner not only beneficial to themselves but to humanity at large. They are all properly attuned by nature to participate in the economic symphony, which is merely another name for civilization. Civilization is our name for the material conditions of well-being brought about by the free play of the economic laws of nature, taken together with the enlightenment which leads to the abolition of all artificial restrictions upon these laws, thus giving them free scope. This civilization is, therefore, the common heritage of mankind; being nothing more than the natural condition of mankind, unhampered by any artificially created barriers to its natural progress. Fundamentally, all men are equal; all individuals within each nation, and all nations within the human species.
Of course, there are nations and races at different stages of civilization. So there are individuals within each civilized nation at different stages of enlightenment. But these differences are merely of degree, not of kind. It is simply a question of the awakening of the latent faculties inborn in humanity, or the degree of such awakening. Not only are the races which we rank lowest in the scale of civilization naturally capable of attaining the highest pinnacles of this civilization; but the labor of doing so would not be so very arduous, as they are in the fortunate position of not being hampered by a large accumulation of historical rubbish of a semi-civilization, consisting mainly of artificially created barriers to the free play of economic laws, which must be swept away before true civilization is attained.
The “politics” of this view of the world of human interests are simple. At “home” — in the internal management of the nation — the government should be republican in form and democratic in substance. But above all, have as little of it as possible. Since Nature has been good enough to provide a set of laws for the government of the human race which work so well, the best thing that society can do is to let nature put in the good work of her laws, and permit the individual to work out his own salvation by obeying nature’s directions. The only thing man can do in this connection is to reinforce nature’s commands by punishing those who foolishly break her laws. In short, government has only police duties to perform, watching against any infractions of nature’s code of laws. Of course, it would be a good thing if organized society could help nature along by providing means of enlightening the hitherto unenlightened as to the meaning of her laws — education. But even enlightenment should not be forced upon the unwilling by compulsory means. Nature has herself provided such magnificent incentives and rewards for enlightenment, and the dangers from artificial laws and compulsions of any kind are so great, that it is advisable to rather take a chance on a possible small dose of ignorance than on compulsory education.
And the same policy applies to international relations. Nations, like individuals, should enjoy equality in the “family of nations”. And the only thing essential in their intercourse is freedom from artificial barriers. In a world of free trade each nation will be able to work out its own destiny; and while acting economically from purely utilitarian motives, will contribute to the general welfare of humanity. This equality of treatment should be accorded to not only the so-called civilized nations, but also to those on a lower plane of development. And while it may be advisable to lend a backward nation a helping hand, leading her on the road to a higher civilization by according her means of education and enlightenment, this should not be done by forcible means. The interests of civilization should be left to the free action of economic laws in a world of free intercourse between nations living on terms of equality.
The “liberal” view of the world, which I have just sketched, with its democratic-cosmopolitan politics, was the ideologic expression of the economic practice of manufacturing and selling textiles. And it prevailed as long as its economic basis was secure. With the passing of textiles passed also Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Herbert Spencer,— who but yesterday were the great pillars upon which rested the temple of bourgeois ideology. New times require new Gods,— and new priests to minister to them. Our Iron Age has its own God,— Moloch, the God of Iron and Steel. And Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Herbert Spencer were superceded by a new set of priests and prophets, who serve the new God after a new fashion and preach to the faithful a new creed.
The new creed — the creed of Imperialism — bears to the new practice, the practice of selling iron and steel through military and diplomatic “agents”, the same relation that the old, “liberal” creed bore to the old practice of selling textiles peacefully through ordinary traveling salesmen by under-bidding your competitor. It is the raising of the physical necessity of selling iron and steel into a moral one. That does not mean that the moral pretensions of the new creed are necessarily hypocritical. On the contrary, it may be taken for granted that individually and psychologically considered the followers of this creed often act from as “lofty” and “ideal” motives as their predecessors of the “liberal” school, or as any high-minded “idealist” of whom we have any record. We are simply witnessing the transformation of social necessity into individual morality.
I shall therefore endeavor to give you a description and exposition of this new creed as I see it, without any attempt at passing any moral judgment upon it, but simply giving you my explanation for its existence. I must say a word of warning however in this connection: The creed being a new one, its votaries have not yet had the time to systematize it. Its gospels have not yet all been written, and those that have been written have not yet all been collected and brought into proper relation to one another. Its Bible is still fragmentary. What I shall present to you here is, therefore, only my own systematization and elucidation of this creed as I gather it from the fragmentary writings and scattered remains of its apostles that have come under my observation. Another thing: It must not be assumed that this creed suddenly emerged from the brain of an Imperialist Apostle fully panoplied, like Minerva from Jove’s forehead. Nor that all those whom we may properly class as Imperialists have carefully thought out all the positions, implications, and logical consequences of the different articles of this creed. The truth is that the Imperialist Creed is still in the making, and its different articles have not yet been settled by any Holy Imperialist Synod. But its essential characteristics and general tendency have become sufficiently marked to permit of fairly accurate description.
Now, the cardinal point of the Imperialist philosophy, the basic position upon which everything else depends, is the denial of the liberal idea of natural economic laws operating, automatically, upon all human beings. Or, viewing the matter from a different angle, it denies the essential equality of the different races of the human species. Not merely their equality of present condition, but the possibility of their common development along certain lines of culture and civilization. That is to say, the Imperialist denies that all the races of humanity are endowed with the same capacity for development, the capacity for developing the same civilization under the same circumstances. According to this philosophy, the Creator, in making the human species, created it in different molds which we term races, and endowed these races differently, setting before them separate goals and outlining for them different courses of development. And these endowments, goals, and courses, are not merely different, but of unequal value. Some races are, therefore, superior to others. Or rather, there is one “superior” and a number of “inferior” races. The superior race was destined to rule the world, and therefore cast in heroic mold and endowed with kingly or aristocratic characteristics; while the other, the inferior races, were created after a different pattern, of inferior clay, and endowed with common plebeian characteristics, such as befit races destined forever to remain subject and subordinate in the scheme of things to the rule and tutelage of the superior race. The obvious mark of distinction between the races is the color of the skin: the white race was intended by the Creator not only to rule the world generally, but to lord it over its brethren of a darker hue.
The implications of this theory of creation are obvious. The “inferior races”, which means the generality of mankind outside the few hundred millions of the white race, have practically no rights which we need respect. They have no right to independence, because they were meant by their Creator to be subject-races, and bow to our will. They have no right to be permitted to work out their own destiny, because their destiny is given in the color of their skin — the destiny of slavery and subjection — and they could not possibly attain any other destiny no matter how much freedom we gave them. Furthermore, we have no right to give the inferior races their freedom,— that is, leave them alone to work out their own salvation. The rulership of the earth and the inhabitants thereof given to the White Race by God Almighty is not a mere privilege which it may exercise or discard at pleasure, but a duty which it cannot shirk. The White Race can no more voluntarily renounce its right to rule, than the “inferior” races can escape their destiny to be ruled. It must —
“Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Oh, slowly!) toward the light:—
Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
This story, with variations, is told us over and over again; not only in song but in ponderous volumes of a highly respectable, scientific appearance, and with all the outward apparatus of great learning. And usually the variations are considerably to the disadvantage of the “inferior races”. The poet of Imperialism at least holds out the hope that the “inferior races” may turn “slowly toward the light”, and places upon the White Man a sort of duty of ultimately leading them “from bondage”. Not so for the scholars of Imperialism and its statesmen: to them the destiny of the “inferior races” holds no ray of hope; they are mere beasts of burden, to do the drudgery in working out the White Man’s “higher destiny”, and the only duty of the White Man towards them is to treat them as should a good master.
But such a theory cannot stop just there. In the form in which we have just presented it — making one grand distinction between the White Race and the rest of the human species — this theory is neither logical nor sufficient for the purpose of “raising into a moral necessity” the “physical” necessities of the iron and steel business.
There is no logical reason why the human species should be divided into two divisions — white and non-white — and the dividing process then stopping. Why should the great divisions not be subdivided further? There is absolutely nothing in the color of the skin which should make it the only mark of distinction: the color of the eyes or of the hair, and many other things might serve such a purpose just as well. Besides, there might be marks of distinction of quite a different order — spiritual, instead of merely physical. Particularly, within the aristocratic White Race itself, singled out by the Creator to lord it spiritually over the rest of mankind.
And the practice of Imperialism proves that there must be such further distinctions. The White Man’s burden is, of course, a thankless job — as Kipling assures us. And yet we find the different branches of the White Race, called nations, vying with each other in their enthusiasm for a chance to carry it. And not only that, but they are actually ready to jump at each other’s throats and slaughter each other in their efforts to monopolize as much of this “burden” as possible. The grand division into white-superior and non-white-inferior races supplies the justification of slaughtering “inferior” human beings of the non-white races in the process of carrying out the pre-ordained scheme of giving the White Man the rulership of the world; but it fails to supply a justification for the slaughter of fellow-white-men, all of whom have a common interest as against the “inferior races”, but no apparent divergent interests among themselves.
And, as Goethe said long ago, “am Anfang war die Tat” — “the Practice is the Thing.” So the theory received a further extension and elaboration which made it at once more logical and more serviceable.
In its fully developed form, the philosophy or creed of Imperialism does not lay any particular stress on the sharp division between the White and the other races of the earlier days of this theory, but rather emphasizes the distinctions between the different nations of the same race, particularly the White race. And although the general terminology, particularly the word “race”, is still used, the meaning given to the terms is quite different. Instead of one “superior” White race, there are now many White “races” — the word “race” being now practically synonymous with “nation” — and the distinctions between the subdivisions of the White race are as deep-seated and all-important as those between the White race as a whole and the colored or “inferior” races. The term “inferior” itself has now lost its original, somewhat technical meaning, of non-white, and assumed its etymological meaning. Every race is “inferior” to The Race. The other White races may not be quite as inferior as the colored races, but this is a comparatively unimportant detail in the scheme of Creation and the course of History. The all-important fact is that the Creator in his wisdom has singled out one particular race, the Race par excellence, and has set it upon a course of development whose particular object and destined mission it is to serve as an embodiment of the particular virtues and characteristics which the Creator intended to finally prevail in the world. None of the other races or nations, whether white or colored, have any of these special characteristics or possess any of these particular virtues. And while there may be degrees of inferiority, and some other white races may possess virtues and characteristics of their own which make them in a way superior when compared with other, more inferior races; all are just “inferior” and on a common plane when compared to the one Chosen People, whose mission and destiny it is to be the carrier of The Virtues.
The logical corollary to this theory of created races, is the negation of a common human civilization. Not only is civilization not common to all humanity in the sense that not all the branches of the human species have attained, or can ever attain, to the same level of civilization; but in the more important sense that there are such fundamental differences between the “civilizations” of the different races and nations which have achieved the same — or what has hitherto been considered the same — level of civilization, as to make these “civilizations” essentially foreign to each other. The differences being not of degree, but of kind; so that one race or nation can never achieve the civilization of another race or nation. At least, not to the extent of becoming an active carrier or propagator thereof; although it may submit thereto and in some passive way acquire its virtues at least sufficiently to enjoy its benefits.
In order to emphasize this point and in a measure at least explain its mysteries, a new term has been coined; or, rather, a new meaning has been given to the old term “culture”, and a new distinction drawn between it and the term “civilization”. According to the most approved Imperialist use of these terms, the term “civilization” refers to external and material achievements, while the term “culture” is reserved for the qualities and achievements of the spirit. Bearing this distinction in mind, the Imperialist philosophy asserts that many races and nations may have a common civilization, but not a common Culture. Further, that Culture is the thing — in so far as the world and its destinies are concerned — and that the nations which we were wont to regard as upon an equal plane of civilization — taking the word in its broader meaning, which includes things spiritual as well as material — are really of different value and worth as far as the Historical Process is concerned. For while they are all on the same level of “civilization”, in the new, restricted sense, they still are the carriers of different cultures — only one of them being the carrier of the real Culture, the Culture par excellence, which is destined to rule (and redeem) the world.
Before leaving this fascinating subject it should be noted that in the terminology of Imperialism purely intellectual achievements are classed with the external or material things, and not with the spiritual; [they] are therefore part of “civilization” and not of “culture”. Just what culture in the new sense is, has never been defined; and it is considered to be something really indefinable. It is a mystical quality inborn in a race or nation, constituting its essence; a sort of metaphysical entity, like the Kantian “Ding an sich”, which can only be described negatively, but which has, nevertheless, very positive and serious results. Its principal sphere of operations is History. It is here that it makes itself felt, and it is here that its characteristics may be observed and studied.
Perhaps the most important conclusion drawn by the Imperialists themselves from these considerations, is that a nation’s institutions are not part of its “civilization” but of its “culture”. The point is very important, as it is determinative of the “home politics” of this movement. It may perhaps best be evaluated when compared with the old “liberal” ideas on the subject. According to the “liberal” theory the development of humanity towards a higher civilization develops, as part of this “civilizing” process, a higher form of political institutions — republican-democratic — which all nations are bound to adopt when they reach the high level of civilization for which these institutions are appropriate. In fact, these institutions are themselves powerful engines of civilization, and whenever and wherever adopted aid materially the further course of development.
This the new philosophy denies; and it insists that political institutions are not part of the common “civilization” of mankind, but of its separate and distinct “cultures”. Republican and democratic institutions are not part and parcel of, nor do they correspond to, any higher degree of civilization than aristocratic or monarchical ones. Nor are republican and democratic institutions better per se than aristocratic or monarchical ones. On the contrary, a nation whose “culture” is not republican or democratic and whose “genius” has not evolved any such institutions, would be going backwards and betray its own “spirit” if it were to adopt such institutions. In fact, when history is consulted it will be found that republican and democratic institutions in any nation with a “culture” fit to survive, may, on the whole, be considered a mark of inferiority, unless they be merely the manifestations of a temporary “liberal” aberration, of an ailment whose chief symptom is a failure to appreciate “the true meaning of empire.”
The truly Chosen People has therefore either never adopted such institutions, or will soon discard them as “incompatible” with its destiny of World-Empire. The Chosen People is a Superman among nations, and must strive to dominate the world. But a nation cannot successfully play the Superman among nations, while it is governed on the principle of the equality of all men. Imperialism must begin at home. But it is a world-philosophy which knows no basic distinctions between “at home” and “abroad”. The entire world and its destinies are encompassed within its vision. And it dreams no mean dreams.
It rejects wholly, as mean and petty, the ideas of the “liberal-utilitarians” about “the greatest good to the greatest number.” This world was not created for the low and petty bourgeois idea of insuring good, middle-class living conditions for a “level” mass of humanity. The real purpose of creation was to carry out the aesthetically beautiful idea of developing a giant race of Supermen as its crowning glory. This race of Supermen, which shall possess the most remarkable Spirit, endowed with rare and indescribable qualities, shall develop a Culture which shall be the greatest testimonial to the wonderful wisdom and power of the Creator.
To this end and purpose the Creator has singled out the Chosen People, and endowed it, as a race or nation, with those wonderful qualities which make the essence of its Spirit. Of course, it is not every mean individual member thereof that possesses these great qualities, but the Race or Nation as such, in its collective capacity. For the time being these qualities are incarnated in the Supermen within the Nation, its great geniuses who are especially destined to carry out the purpose of the Creator by “leading” the Chosen People on its historical course of destiny, gloriously superior to the vulgar considerations of the mere material well-being of the masses of the people.
For the Destiny of The Nation is to diffuse its “Culture” among the nations, exterminating the cultures which it may find opposing its own, so as to bring dominion to the only true Culture, for the greater glory of God. In order to accomplish its mission — from which it is a mortal offense to shrink — the Chosen People must seek to subdue the entire world politically and dominate it economically. For experience has shown that “Culture” follows the flag. History teaches us this lesson: that inferior races or nations, whether white or colored, fail to appreciate the beauties of a higher culture, and are utterly unable to acquire it even passively, unless and until they have been forcibly placed under the political tutelage and economic domination of the superior race whose culture is to be extended. In this connection it must be remembered that its language is a nation’s most characteristically national means of expression. In fact it is part of its own flesh and blood, and possesses some of those very mystic qualities which constitute the essence of the national character and the basis of its special Culture. The most potent means, therefore, of spreading the culture of any given nation among alien peoples is to make them use the language of that nation. But that can only be done when the nation of the higher Culture politically dominates the peoples among whom this culture is to be spread. And in this material world of ours political dominion is inseparable from economic dominion. Hence, the cultural mission of the Nation becomes of necessity a striving to dominate the entire world economically and politically — a striving for World-Empire.
In this struggle for “the higher good”, the nation cannot brook any opposition, and it must use all means at its command. If it falters in its course, if it does not dare to use any available means, out of cowardice or considerations of petty bourgeois “morality”, it is doomed; for it has thereby proven that it lacks real superiority, that it is not a Superman among nations. It is the essential characteristic of a Superman among individuals that he is superior to the considerations of common morality. He has his own morality, the pivotal consideration of which is success. Everything that furthers his cause, brings him success, is moral. For he is but an instrument of Destiny working out the Higher Will, which cannot be obtained by merely human morality. The same is true of Nations. The Superman among nations not only has the right, but is commanded, to disregard ordinary morality. Whatever furthers its course is moral. Whatever or whoever obstructs its course obstructs the progress of humanity to its ultimate goal, and is therefore immoral or criminal.
Since the beginning of the present war many good people woke up with a start to find very responsible German scientists, men of letters, and statesmen, declaring, in effect, that the German people were superior to every other people on earth, and that warlike aggression on the part of Germany against its neighbors is justified by the mission of the German people to spread its “Culture” among the other and inferior nations. Good people usually wake up with a start, for the reason that “good people” usually do not wake up until very late and until something very startling (to them) happens to wake them up. That is what makes them “good”, by definition. Those who wake up early are classed among “dreamers”, “visionaries”, “Utopians”, etc. As a matter of fact, there was nothing startling about these declarations; except, perhaps, their extremely brusque form. Their substance had been announced to the world time and again in quite unmistakable, if more polite, language.
And it should be noted here, “for the record”, that these announcements have been received with an ever-increasing amount of respect and favor. In fact, the basic ideas underlying these declarations were already becoming quite popular. So much so, that to those who have followed the rise and progress of these ideas it must seem quite amazing how the same “good people” who acclaimed these very announcements — when made in polite language and with the learned apparatus of a pseudo-science — as the last word in science, should be so startled and show so much resentment when they were made with directness and brusqueness, which the extraordinary situation should certainly excuse if not fully justify.
It must also be added here that, while Germany was in the lead in developing this new philosophy or creed, and perhaps far ahead of the other nations in popularizing it, she was not alone in this good work. Much has been said since the beginning of this war about Treitschke, Nietzsche, and other German apostles of the new creed; and the impression has been created that their Imperialistic philosophy is an exclusively German product and has its adherents only among the citizens of the Fatherland. This is unfair to Germany as well as to the Imperialistic philosophy. The philosophy of Imperialism is a general phenomenon of the highly developed capitalistic countries, and has had its apostles and propagandists in France and England as well as in Germany. It may be noted here as significant in this connection, that Houston Stewart Chamberlain, one of its great “scientific” exponents, is a born Englishman, although a German by adoption; and that while he wrote his great treatise expounding this theory, in his adopted German tongue, and it was in Germany that it achieved its greatest popularity, it was translated into his native English under high auspices and achieved considerable popularity in England also.
This is true not only of this philosophy in general, but practically of all of its details. It may strike us, for instance, as rather strange that a scientist like Prof. Münsterberg should assert that Germany would be taking a step backward if she were to exchange her semi-autocratic and semi-feudal monarchical form of government for a more democratic and republican form. And we are likely to assume that this is a purely German mode of thought, due to the teachings of that same Treitschke and those other awful Germans whom the war has brought to our notice. A study of the intellectual development of Europe during the last half, and particularly during the last quarter century, will disclose, however, that the apostasy from republicanism is quite a general phenomenon among the up-to-date intellectuals of that quarter of the globe, and that the monarchical and aristocratic principles have been growing steadily in favor. Furthermore, if we scrutinize carefully American intellectual development for a generation past, we shall find that the intellectual current away from democracy and republicanism and towards aristocracy and monarchy, has been wafted across the Atlantic and has made visible inroads upon our own political ideas.
Last updated on 24 October 2022