What is patriotism? Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of
childhood's recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations? Is it the place
where, in childlike naivete, we would watch the fleeting clouds, and wonder why
we, too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard
glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one "an eye should be,"
piercing the very depths of our little souls? Is it the place where we would
listen to the music of the birds, and long to have wings to fly, even as they,
to distant lands? Or the place where we would sit at mother's knee, enraptured
by wonderful tales of great deeds and conquests? In short, is it love for the
spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a happy,
joyous, and playful childhood?
If that were
patriotism, few American men of today could be called upon to be patriotic,
since the place of play has been turned into factory, mill, and mine, while
deafening sounds of machinery have replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we
longer hear the tales of great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today
are but those of sorrow, tears, and grief.
What, then, is
patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said
Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines
patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale
murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing
than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a
trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average
workingman.
Gustave Hervé, another
great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more
injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion
originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when
primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for
either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than
himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various
other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition
artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a
superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his
arrogance and conceit.
Indeed, conceit,
arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate.
Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one
surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on
some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more
intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore,
the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the
attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.
The inhabitants of the
other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early
infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the
Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached
manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the
Lord himself to defend his country
against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we
are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It
is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred
million dollars. Just think of it--four hundred million dollars taken from the
produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to
patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in
America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in
France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not squandor
with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton
slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible to send
messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap
befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the
Russian revolutionists.
It is a patriotism that
will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying thousands of lives in
Mexico, or that will even aid in arresting Mexican revolutionists on American
soil and keep them incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest
cause or reason.
But, then, patriotism
is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the
people. It reminds one of the historic wisdom of Frederick the Great, the bosom
friend of Voltaire, who said: "Religion is a fraud, but it must be
maintained for the masses."
That patriotism is
rather a costly institution, no one will doubt after considering the following
statistics. The progressive increase of the expenditures for the leading armies
and navies of the world during the last quarter of a century is a fact of such
gravity as to startle every thoughtful student of economic problems. It may be
briefly indicated by dividing the time from 1881 to 1905 into five-year
periods, and noting the disbursements of several great nations for army and
navy purposes during the first and last of those periods. From the first to the
last of the periods noted the expenditures of Great Britain increased from
$2,101,848,936 to $4,143,226,885, those of France from $3,324,500,000 to
$3,455,109,900, those of Germany from $725,000,200 to $2,700,375,600, those of
the United States from $1,275,500,750 to $2,650,900,450, those of Russia from
$1,900,975,500 to $5,250,445,100, those of Italy from $1,600,975,750 to
$1,755,500,100, and those of Japan from $182,900,500 to $700,925,475.
The military
expenditures of each of the nations mentioned increased in each of the
five-year periods under review. During the entire interval from 1881 to 1905
Great Britain's outlay for her army increased fourfold, that of the United
States was tripled, Russia's was doubled, that of Germany increased 35 per
cent., that of France about 15 per cent., and that of Japan nearly 500 per
cent. If we compare the expenditures of these nations upon their armies with their
total expenditures for all the twenty-five years ending with 1905, the
proportion rose as follows:
In Great Britain from
20 per cent. to 37; in the United States from 15 to 23; in France from 16 to
18; in Italy from 12 to 15; in Japan from 12 to 14. On the other hand, it is
interesting to note that the proportion in Germany decreased from about 58 per
cent. to 25, the decrease being due to the enormous increase in the imperial
expenditures for other purposes, the fact being that the army expenditures for
the period of 190I-5 were higher than for any five-year period preceding.
Statistics show that the countries in which army expenditures are greatest, in
proportion to the total national revenues, are Great Britain, the United
States, Japan, France, and Italy, in the order named.
The showing as to the
cost of great navies is equally impressive. During the twenty-five years ending
with 1905 naval expenditures increased approximately as follows: Great Britain,
300 per cent.; France 60 per cent.; Germany 600 per cent.; the United States
525 per cent.; Russia 300 per cent.; Italy 250 per cent.; and Japan, 700 per
cent. With the exception of Great Britain, the United States spends more for
naval purposes than any other nation, and this expenditure bears also a larger
proportion to the entire national disbursements than that of any other power.
In the period 1881-5, the expenditure for the United States navy was $6.20 out
of each $100 appropriated for all national purposes; the amount rose to $6.60
for the next five-year period, to $8.10 for the next, to $11.70 for the next,
and to $16.40 for 1901-5. It is morally certain that the outlay for the current
period of five years will show a still further increase.
The rising cost of
militarism may be still further illustrated by computing it as a per capita tax
on population. From the first to the last of the five-year periods taken as the
basis for the comparisons here given, it has risen as follows: In Great
Britain, from $18.47 to $52.50; in France, from $19.66 to $23.62; in Germany,
from $10.17 to $15.51; in the United States, from $5.62 to $13.64; in Russia,
from $6.14 to $8.37; in Italy, from $9.59 to $11.24, and in Japan from 86 cents
to $3.11.
It is in connection
with this rough estimate of cost per capita that the economic burden of
militarism is most appreciable. The irresistible conclusion from available data
is that the increase of expenditure for army and navy purposes is rapidly
surpassing the growth of population in each of the countries considered in the
present calculation. In other words, a continuation of the increased demands of
militarism threatens each of those nations with a progressive exhaustion both
of men and resources.
The awful waste that
patriotism necessitates ought to be sufficient to cure the man of even average
intelligence from this disease. Yet patriotism demands still more. The people
are urged to be patriotic and for that luxury they pay, not only by supporting
their "defenders," but even by sacrificing their own children.
Patriotism requires allegiance to the flag, which means obedience and readiness
to kill father, mother, brother, sister.
The usual contention
is that we need a standing army to protect the country from foreign invasion.
Every intelligent man and woman knows, however, that this is a myth maintained
to frighten and coerce the foolish. The governments of the world, knowing each
other's interests, do not invade each other. They have learned that they can
gain much more by international arbitration of disputes than by war and
conquest. Indeed, as Carlyle said, "War is a quarrel between two thieves
too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one
village and another village, stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns,
and let them loose like wild beasts against each other."
It does not require
much wisdom to trace every war back to a similar cause. Let us take our own
Spanish-American war, supposedly a great and patriotic event in the history of
the United States. How our hearts burned with indignation against the atrocious
Spaniards! True, our indignation did not flare up spontaneously. It was
nurtured by months of newspaper agitation, and long after Butcher Weyler had
killed off many noble Cubans and outraged many Cuban women. Still, in justice
to the American Nation be it said, it did grow indignant and was willing to
fight, and that it fought bravely. But when the smoke was over, the dead
buried, and the cost of the war came back to the people in an increase in the
price of commodities and rent--that is, when we sobered up from our patriotic
spree it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the Spanish-American war was
the consideration of the price of sugar; or, to be more explicit, that the
lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the
interests of American capitalists, which were threatened by the Spanish
government. That this is not an exaggeration, but is based on absolute facts
and figures, is best proven by the attitude of the American government to Cuban
labor. When Cuba was firmly in the clutches of the United States, the very
soldiers sent to liberate Cuba were ordered to shoot Cuban workingmen during
the great cigarmakers' strike, which took place shortly after the war.
Nor do we stand alone
in waging war for such causes. The curtain is beginning to be lifted on the
motives of the terrible Russo-Japanese war, which cost so much blood and tears.
And we see again that back of the fierce Moloch of war stands the still fiercer
god of Commercialism. Kuropatkin, the Russian Minister of War during the
Russo-Japanese struggle, has revealed the true secret behind the latter. The
Tsar and his Grand Dukes, having invested money in Corean concessions, the war
was forced for the sole purpose of speedily accumulating large fortunes.
The contention that a
standing army and navy is the best security of peace is about as logical as the
claim that the most peaceful citizen is he who goes about heavily armed. The
experience of every-day life fully proves that the armed individual is
invariably anxious to try his strength. The same is historically true of
governments. Really peaceful countries do not waste life and energy in war
preparations, With the result that peace is maintained.
However, the clamor
for an increased army and navy is not due to any foreign danger. It is owing to
the dread of the growing discontent of the masses and of the international
spirit among the workers. It is to meet the internal enemy that the Powers of
various countries are preparing themselves; an enemy, who, once awakened to
consciousness, will prove more dangerous than any foreign invader.
The powers that have
for centuries been engaged in enslaving the masses have made a thorough study
of their psychology. They know that the people at large are like children whose
despair, sorrow, and tears can be turned into joy with a little toy. And the
more gorgeously the toy is dressed, the louder the colors, the more it will
appeal to the million-headed child.
An army and navy
represents the people's toys. To make them more attractive and acceptable,
hundreds and thousands of dollars are being spent for the display of these
toys. That was the purpose of the American government in equipping a fleet and
sending it along the Pacific coast, that every American citizen should be made
to feel the pride and glory of the United States. The city of San Francisco
spent one hundred thousand dollars for the entertainment of the fleet; Los
Angeles, sixty thousand; Seattle and Tacoma, about one hundred thousand. To
entertain the fleet, did I say? To dine and wine a few superior officers, while
the "brave boys" had to mutiny to get sufficient food. Yes, two
hundred and sixty thousand dollars were spent on fireworks, theatre parties,
and revelries, at a time when men, women, and child}en through the breadth and
length of the country were starving in the streets; when thousands of
unemployed were ready to sell their labor at any price.
Two hundred and sixty
thousand dollars! What could not have been accomplished with such an enormous
sum? But instead of bread and shelter, the children of those cities were taken
to see the fleet, that it may remain, as one of the newspapers said, "a
lasting memory for the child."
A wonderful thing to
remember, is it not? The implements of civilized slaughter. If the mind of the
child is to be poisoned with such memories, what hope is there for a true
realization of human brotherhood?
We Americans claim to
be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we
go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from
flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or
lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the
attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride
at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and
that it will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.
Such is the logic of
patriotism.
Considering the evil
results that patriotism is fraught with for the average man, it is as nothing
compared with the insult and injury that patriotism heaps upon the soldier
himself,--that poor, deluded victim of superstition and ignorance. He, the
savior of his country, the protector of his nation,--what has patriotism in
store for him? A life of slavish submission, vice, and perversion, during
peace; a life of danger, exposure, and death, during war.
While on a recent
lecture tour in San Francisco, I visited the Presidio, the most beautiful spot
overlooking the Bay and Golden Gate Park. Its purpose should have been
playgrounds for children, gardens and music for the recreation of the weary.
Instead it is made ugly, dull, and gray by barracks,--barracks wherein the rich
would not allow their dogs to dwell. In these miserable shanties soldiers are
herded like cattle; here they waste their young days, polishing the boots and
brass buttons of their superior officers. Here, too, I saw the distinction of
classes: sturdy sons of a free Republic, drawn up in line like convicts,
saluting every passing shrimp of a lieutenant. American equality, degrading
manhood and elevating the uniform!
Barrack life further
tends to develop tendencies of sexual perversion. It is gradually producing
along this line results similar to European military conditions. Havelock
Ellis, the noted writer on sex psychology, has made a thorough study of the
subject. I quote: "Some of the barracks are great centers of male
prostitution.... The number of soldiers who prostitute themselves is greater
than we are willing to believe. It is no exaggeration to say that in certain
regiments the presumption is in favor of the venality of the majority of the
men.... On summer evenings Hyde Park and the neighborhood of Albert Gate are
full of guardsmen and others plying a lively trade, and with little disguise,
in uniform or out.... In most cases the proceeds form a comfortable addition to
Tommy Atkins' pocket money."
To what extent this
perversion has eaten its way into the army and navy can best be judged from the
fact that special houses exist for this form of prostitution. The practice is
not limited to England; it is universal. "Soldiers are no less sought
after in France than in England or in Germany, and special houses for military
prostitution exist both in Paris and the garrison towns."
Had Mr. Havelock Ellis
included America in his investigation of sex perversion, he would have found
that the same conditions prevail in our army and navy as in those of other
countries. The growth of the standing army inevitably adds to the spread of sex
perversion; the barracks are the incubators.
Aside from the sexual
effects of barrack life, it also tends to unfit the soldier for useful labor
after leaving the army. Men, skilled in a trade, seldom enter the army or navy,
but even they, after a military experience, find themselves totally unfitted
for their former occupations. Having acquired habits of idleness and a taste
for excitement and adventure, no peaceful pursuit can content them. Released
from the army, they can turn to no useful work. But it is usually the social
riff-raff, discharged prisoners and the like, whom either the struggle for life
or their own inclination drives into the ranks. These, their military term
over, again turn to their former life of crime, more brutalized and degraded
than before. It is a well-known fact that in our prisons there is a goodly
number of ex-soldiers; while, on the other hand, the army and navy are to a
great extent plied with ex-convicts.
Of all the evil
results I have just described none seems to me so detrimental to human
integrity as the spirit patriotism has produced in the case of Private William
Buwalda. Because he foolishly believed that one can be a soldier and exercise
his rights as a man at the same time, the military authorities punished him
severely. True, he had served his country fifteen years, during which time his
record was unimpeachable. According to Gen. Funston, who reduced Buwalda's
sentence to three years, "the first duty of an officer or an enlisted man
is unquestioned obedience and loyalty to the government, and it makes no
difference whether he approves of that government or not." Thus Funston
stamps the true character of allegiance. According to him, entrance into the
army abrogates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
What a strange
development of patriotism that turns a thinking being into a loyal machine!
In justification of
this most outrageous sentence of Buwalda, Gen. Funston tells the American
people that the soldier's action was "a serious crime equal to
treason." Now, what did this "terrible crime" really consist of?
Simply in this: William Buwalda was one of fifteen hundred people who attended
a public meeting in San Francisco; and, oh, horrors, he shook hands with the
speaker, Emma Goldman. A terrible crime, indeed, which the General calls
"a great military offense, infinitely worse than desertion."
Can there be a greater
indictment against patriotism than that it will thus brand a man a criminal,
throw him into prison, and rob him of the results of fifteen years of faithful
service?
Buwalda gave to his
country the best years of his life and his very manhood. But all that was as
nothing. Patriotism is inexorable and, like all insatiable monsters, demands
all or nothing. It does not admit that a soldier is also a human being, who has
a right to his own feelings and opinions, his own inclinations and ideas. No,
patriotism can not admit of that. That is the lesson which Buwalda was made to
learn; made to learn at a rather costly, though not at a useless price. When he
returned to freedom, he had lost his position in the army, but he regained his
self-respect. After all, that is worth three years of imprisonment.
A writer on the
military conditions of America, in a recent article, commented on the power of
the military man over the civilian in Germany. He said, among other things,
that if our Republic had no other meaning than to guarantee all citizens equal
rights, it would have just cause for existence. I am convinced that the writer
was not in Colorado during the patriotic régime of General Bell. He probably would
have changed his mind had he seen how, in the name of patriotism and the
Republic, men were thrown into bull-pens, dragged about, driven across the
border, and subjected to all kinds of indignities. Nor is that Colorado
incident the only one in the growth of military power in the United States.
There is hardly a strike where troops and militia do not come to the rescue of
those in power, and where they do not act as arrogantly and brutally as do the
men wearing the Kaiser's uniform. Then, too, we have the Dick military law. Had
the writer forgotten that?
A great misfortune
with most of our writers is that they are absolutely ignorant on current
events, or that, lacking honesty, they will not speak of these matters. And so
it has come to pass that the Dick military law was rushed through Congress with
little discussion and still less publicity,--a law which gives the President
the power to turn a peaceful citizen into a bloodthirsty man-killer, supposedly
for the defense of the country, in reality for the protection of the interests
of that particular party whose mouthpiece the President happens to be.
Our writer claims that
militarism can never become such a power in America as abroad, since it is
voluntary with us, while compulsory in the Old World. Two very important facts,
however, the gentleman forgets to consider. First, that conscription has
created in Europe a deep-seated hatred of militarism among all classes of
society. Thousands of young recruits enlist under protest and, once in the
army, they will use every possible means to desert. Second, that it is the
compulsory feature of militarism which has created a tremendous anti-militarist
movement, feared by European Powers far more than anything else. After all, the
greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism. The very moment the latter is
undermined, capitalism will totter. True, we have no conscription; that is, men
are not usually forced to enlist in the army, but we have developed a far more
exacting and rigid force--necessity. Is it not a fact that during industrial
depressions there is a tremendous increase in the number of enlistments? The
trade of militarism may not be either lucrative or honorable, but it is better
than tramping the country in search of work, standing in the bread line, or
sleeping in municipal lodging houses. After all, it means thirteen dollars per
month, three meals a day, and a place to sleep. Yet even necessity is not
sufficiently strong a factor to bring into the army an element of character and
manhood. No wonder our military authorities complain of the "poor
material" enlisting in the army and navy. This admission is a very
encouraging sign. It proves that there is still enough of the spirit of
independence and love of liberty left in the average American to risk
starvation rather than don the uniform.
Thinking men and women
the world over are beginning to realize that patriotism is too narrow and
limited a conception to meet the necessities of our time. The centralization of
power has brought into being an international feeling of solidarity among the
oppressed nations of the world; a solidarity which represents a greater harmony
of interests between the workingman of America and his brothers abroad than
between the American miner and his exploiting compatriot; a solidarity which
fears not foreign invasion, because it is bringing all the workers to the point
when they will say to their masters, "Go and do your own killing. We have
done it long enough for you."
This solidarity is
awakening the consciousness of even the soldiers, they, too, being flesh of the
flesh of the great human family. A solidarity that has proven infallible more
than once during past struggles, and which has been the impetus inducing the
Parisian soldiers, during the Commune of 1871, to refuse to obey when ordered
to shoot their brothers. It has given courage to the men who mutinied on
Russian warships during recent years. It will eventually bring about the
uprising of all the oppressed and downtrodden against their international
exploiters.
The proletariat of
Europe has realized the great force of that solidarity and has, as a result,
inaugurated a war against patriotism and its bloody spectre, militarism.
Thousands of men fill the prisons of France, Germany, Russia, and the
Scandinavian countries, because they dared to defy the ancient superstition.
Nor is the movement limited to the working class; it has embraced
representatives in all stations of life, its chief exponents being men and
women prominent in art, science, and letters.
America will have to
follow suit. The spirit of militarism has already permeated all walks of life.
Indeed, I am convinced that militarism is growing a greater danger here than
anywhere else, because of the many bribes capitalism holds out to those whom it
wishes to destroy.
The beginning has
already been made in the schools. Evidently the government holds to the
Jesuitical conception, "Give me the child mind, and I will mould the
man." Children are trained in military tactics, the glory of military
achievements extolled in the curriculum, and the youthful minds perverted to
suit the government. Further, the youth of the country is appealed to in
glaring posters to join the army and navy. "A fine chance to see the world!"
cries the governmental huckster. Thus innocent boys are morally shanghaied into
patriotism, and the military Moloch strides conquering through the Nation.
The American
workingman has suffered so much at the hands of the soldier, State and Federal,
that he is quite justified in his disgust with, and his opposition to, the
uniformed parasite. However, mere denunciation will not solve this great
problem. What we need is a propaganda of education for the soldier:
antipatriotic literature that will enlighten him as to the real horrors of his
trade, and that will awaken his consciousness to his true relation to the man
to whose labor he owes his very existence. It is precisely this that the
authorities fear most. It is already high treason for a soldier to attend a
radical meeting. No doubt they will also stamp it high treason for a soldier to
read a radical pamphlet. But, then, has not authority from time immemorial
stamped every step of progress as treasonable? Those, however, who earnestly
strive for social reconstruction can well afford to face all that; for it is
probably even more important to carry the truth into the barracks than into the
factory. When we have undermined the patriotic lie, we shall have cleared the
path for that great structure wherein all nationalities shall be united into a
universal brotherhood, --a truly FREE SOCIETY.
0 сэтгэгдэл:
Post a Comment