[ p. 38 ]
The great crisis which has been ravaging the world since the beginning of the twentieth century, which had broken out ona large scale in 1914, and the third phase of which we are now traversing, has not yet been explained clearly enough. A great many economic, political, financial, technical and moral explanations have been offered by various thinkers and writers. All of them are right from their particular points of view, but they all refer only to a partial phenomenon and do not give an indication of the real origin of this world catastrophe, which, in spite of the complexity of its effects, is not very difficult to reveal.
During the past 150 years, two powerful streams have engulfed the human race and have dragged it into different directions with irresistible force.
One of these streams is the industrial evolution. The enormous development of industry, which started at the beginning of the nineteenth century and was destined to raise the material welfare of humanity to a level undreamed of up to then, has for its fundamental and ruling character an imperious tendency towards universalism. The quickened [ p. 39 ] rhythm of economics, the expansion of its activity over the entire world, mass production, rationalization, communications and exchange, are not the invention of some liberal or internationalist. They are the essential condition and the basis of any increase in wealth.
This process in history has freely followed its natural course to the moment when the population in Europe grew to such proportions that it was impossible for the peoples to exist under the old economic formulae, without lowering the standard of living. The conquests made during the nineteenth century, which were those of industrial progress, were unquestionably decisive and appear as a phenomenon unique in the history of the world. A century of scientific work and technical progress plus international organization of economy have simply turned to ridicule the old theory that predicted the exhaustion of natural resources and announced famine in the near future as the inevitable fate of the ever-increasing human race.
The providing for humanity of goods in current use and the concession of sufficient leisure profitably used for instruction were before the world wars technically and economically assured, in spite of the continual increase of the population, to such a degree that it would have been impossible to imagine it a hundred years before.
The maintenance and continuation of this progress towards material welfare, economic freedom and cultural achievements depend on a division of labor, rigorously adhered to not only in the heart of each enterprise, but also in the different industries and among the nations, which signifies [ p. 40 ] the distribution of production in the most appropriate places, with freedom of exchange and freedom of migration.
At approximately the same time when this unique process in industrial evolution started, a new ideal was conceived on the basis of the conception of the French Revolution, an ideal which has rooted itself always more deeply in the human soul and mind to such a point that it has become the most powerful religion of our time: Nationalism. In its very nature, nationalism, as understood and cultivated today, aspires to particularization, to differentiation, and divides up humanity more and more rigidly into small units.
These two powerful currents, the integrating evolution of industrialism and the differentiating evolution of nationalism, dominating our epoch, while acting as fire and water, are now tumultuously clashing, and the explosion and conflagration through which we are passing are the consequences of this shock.
The crisis through which we are struggling is a crisis of nationalism and of industrialism. It exploded in July, 1914, and it will terminate cither with the collapse of Western industrial civilization, or with the destruction of nationalism as a basis of policy. Such is the alternative that is offered to us.
Nationalism, product of the French Revolution, was in its beginning a high ideal of humanity. Its aim was to liberate the peoples from the domination of absolutism, to proclaim their independence, to transfer the symbol of sovereignty from the king to the people, and to achieve a [ p. 41 ] social order resting on the principles of equality, liberty and justice.
At the end of the eighteenth century, nationalism, as it was conceived by the first founders of modern democracy, was a tremendous step forward. It meant the broadening of the fundaments of the state from one man or a small group to the entire nation. It was the basis of individual freedom, of the rule of law, of free elections, of representative government.
But once established as a basic principle of policy, nationalism had the same fate as all other closed revolutionary ideals, once they ceased to be an ideal and became reality. “The sovereignty of the nation’—a tremendous achievement 150 years ago when industrial progress was still in childhood—began to hurt the realities of the economic life in the second part of the nineteenth century. And since that time, like all social ideals which become dogmas, it has been the greatest obstacle to further progress. It became the popular fate of the uncultured masses, the expression of the lowest instincts of mass inferiority complex, and its defenders are the most intolerant priests of a dogmatic religion we have ever had on this earth.
Nationalism is not a political conception. It does not represent a human ideal any more. Itis the principal expression of powerful interests. It possesses all the criteria of a rigorously dogmatic religion, deeply rooted in the soul—deeper than all the disciplines that we readily call religions. The ideals and symbols of nationalism, like the notion of “motherland,” “flag,” “national anthem,” are typical taboos, which today in the highly civilized countries it is more dangerous [ p. 42 ] to touch than the taboos of the savage cannibals of the South Seas. No man, no party dares to touch these relics; no one dares to criticize them. Nevertheless, it must be said that their exalted cult is one of the central roots of the evils of our time.
Ifa man says loudly and publicly five times daily: “I am the greatest man in the world,” everybody will laugh at him, and believe that he is mad. But if he expresses the same psychopathological impulse in the plural and says publicly five times daily: “We are the greatest nation in the world,” then he is sure to be regarded as a great patriot and statesman, and will attract the admiration not only of his own nation, but of all mankind.
During the past century three different organizations have tried to fight nationalism without any success: The Catholic Church, the liberal movements, and the international workers’ organization.
The eternal ideal of Christianity (which expresses itself in the belief in one sole divinity and in the postulate of peace on this earth) is in absolute contradiction to the ideal of nationalism—this modern religion which rests in reality on the division of humanity into several groups according to origin, race, language and sovereignty, according to the adoration by each nation of a particular god.
The state of affairs that prevails at the present moment in the world would be justly characterized, from the religious point of view, by the term “polytheism.” The modern religion of nationalism has driven the Christian faith from the soul of man, and although he goes to mass and attends ceremonies of the Christian Church, the real god to [ p. 43 ] whom he is above all devoted, in whom he has faith, for whom he is ready to fight and give his life, is not the one God of universal Christianity, but the goddess—“Nation.”
These gods faithfully resemble the pagan gods of the preChristian era. They insist upon the recognition of their race and the hatred of other races. They insist upon war and victory, and they claim vengeance if, instead of victory, it is defeat which comes. England has her god, like France, like the United States, like Germany and Italy; the Russians and the Czechs have theirs, as do the Poles, the Argentines and the Japanese. No matter how small a nation is, it has its own national god.
All these nations hide their pagan instincts under the cloak of Christianity. In all countries nationalism is regarded as a “Christian policy.” Everywhere the pagan spirit is cultivated under the moral shield of Christianity falsely interpreted. On all the battlefields where wars rage, Christian priests march before the troops, carrying the symbol of the Son of God—this Son of God who sought peace and love—and it is with the same formula that they bless the two opposing camps that are ready to unleash the fury of their national-pagan passions.
It is undeniable that such a state of affairs must be intolerable to every real Christian, and it is also undeniable that the Church has the greatest interest in seeing its great universal ideal—monotheism—realized, not only in heaven but also on earth amongst peoples.
Unfortunately, the Christian churches, having been frightened by the progress of science, industry and liberalism, thought that their material interests were identical [ p. 44 ] with those forces which were opposing human progress. Frightened by the excesses of the industrial and democratic evolution, as characterized by the doctrines of free masonry and the religious persecutions in Soviet Russia, they lined up more and more with the nationalist forces, until they found themselves, in this great human struggle, allied in many parts of the world with the forces of Fascism, the very essence of which is anti-Christian. Though the policy of the Church is essentially conservative and anti-revolutionary, the leaders of the Christian faith will soon have to realize that they are going to destroy the very principles of Christianity, if they identify themselves for purely material reasons with the various nationalisms which are today fighting in the name of their own particular national gods. Under no condition can the earthly corollary of the ideals of man created in the image of God, charity, tolerance and mercy be racial persecutions, zoological materialism, concentration camps and a cult of aggressive militarism.
The second force which tried to dam the disastrous consequences of dogmatic nationalism was the liberal elements which at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century were rather influential among the bourgeoisie of all countries. These elements understood that the state of affairs engendered by nationalism could not be durable, and they strove to break national antagonisms and to bring the peoples together by agreements, treaties and mutual understanding. These tendencies were strongly developed during the years following the First World War and their great achievement was the creation of the League of Nations.
[ p. 45 ]
During a certain period, when Briand and Stresemann dominated the international scene, one could almost have believed that they would accomplish their ends. But they failed, justly struck by the iron law, because there are antagonisms, which with the best will in the world and even with the most subtle diplomacy, will not allow themselves to be broken, and because it is impossible to reconcile in treaties and agreements basically irreconcilable forces.
Some people, above all the Anglo-American democracies, harbor even today this ideal which they consider as realizable: voluntary and pacific co-operation of the various sovereign states relying on the “good will” of the peoples. They have stubbornly refused to make any efforts towards a more unified international organization which would bring a weakening of national sovereignty, an international legislation, an international force, commitments, guarantees and sanctions. They proclaimed as the sole basis of work in common the “good will” of the peoples existing or to be created.
This ideal is full of contradictions. If the so-called good will of the peoples existed or were possible as a basis of international relations, it would truly be useless and unnecessary to change or to improve the present organization of the world. Any agreement, treaty or law would be unnecessary if the actions of men or nations were based on what we imagine under the term “good will.”
But independently of this simplification of the argument, one has no reason to doubt that each nation is animated by the utmost good will and that it has nothing in view which it does not deem to be just when sitting with the other [ p. 46 ] nations around a conference table. It remains a fact that, in spite of that, the machine does not work.
The reason is clear enough. The idea of “good will” is a figment of the imagination from which nothing can be drawn. Goethe defines in his Faust, the nature of the devil as “a part of that power that constantly wishes Evil but which constantly creates Good.” Man is at the precisely opposite pole to Mephistopheles. He is a part of that force which constantly wishes Good but which, however, constantly does Evil.
There are no men—if one existed, he would be considered a rare exception—whose actions are inspired solely by evil motives; that is to say, who do not wish well for themselves but who wish ill to their neighbour; who do not wish to defend their own cause which they feel just, but who merely want to destroy the cause of the others. The greatest criminal does not commit a crime to bring harm to others, but in order to secure an advantage to himself, and to carry out an impulse which at a given time appears to him to be right. In spite of this “good will” of men, which unquestionably exists, a social order cannot be imagined without laws of universal force and without compulsory submission of individuals to these laws.
There is no difference whatever between the community of man and the community of nations. No nation taken individually wishes to do harm to the other. All are serving their “justified national interests”; all “defend their country”; all wish “to defend themselves against aggression.” It is precisely this deep conviction of the righteousness of one’s own interests and demands that has brought the [ p. 47 ] actual chaos and which has rendered its solution impossible. We must try to see clearly into this intricate relationship of motives and acts. We must tread the field of the policy of reality, acknowledge the existing facts and justly gauge the possibilities.
A “rapprochement” between the various sovereign states founded on the principle of nationality and animated by nationalism is impossible. It is pure Utopia. All the attempts at an international rapprochement clashed with the power of nationalism which permits no important concession, either political or economic, without which “international collaboration based on good will” cannot be realized.
One must choose: Either one holds the conception of the national sovereign state which necessarily leads to isolation, to autarchy and ultimately to conflicts and to war; or one wishes to realize an international or at least continental or regional organization which could assure peace and facilitate economic progress. In the latter case, one must get away from the religion of nationalism and its international consequences.
The liberal forces, which during the past decades have become more and more dogmatic, will hardly be in a position to accomplish this fact. They have lost their power in the field of domestic policies because they have converted the ideals of liberalism into a rigid and dogmatic conservative program, thus giving to their adversaries the weapon with which to destroy them. Their views on the organization of international life is just as contradictory to their own principles, as they render to those nations which are opposed to their views the possibility and the means of destroying [ p. 48 ] the democratic peoples who still hold the fundamental ideals of liberalism.
The third and perhaps the most important force which fought nationalism, was the “Internationale” of the Socialist workingmen parties. The proletariat recognized a long time ago that its emancipation could not be attained except by grouping, and it organized its movement on an international basis. Following the motto “Workers of the World Unite,” a powerful world-wide party was to be created. It was to realize in all countries the Socialist program in conformity with communal directives.
Already before the First World War, the Socialist Parties were highly developed and making headway. They made considerable progress after the war when, in neatly all European countries, the bourgeois parties with a militaristic, conservative doctrine were breaking up. Millions of men, not only workingmen, but also representatives of the peasantry, of the middle classes and of the intellectuals, belonged to the Socialist Parties from which alone they expected a panacea. After many years of socialistic development and domination, these parties found themselves decadent in nearly all countries. Everywhere they were forced by the discontented masses to give up the capital position which took them so long’ to conquer.
The policies of the Socialist Parties during the last twenty years brought the greatest deception to the large masses. A great popular movement, which in the beginning gave rise to all hopes, was destroyed when it came into contact with the harshness of reality. The reason why the Socialist Parties were unable to realize even partially their programs, [ p. 49 ] and why they were abandoned so quickly by their followers, is that the “Internationale” was only a fiction.
In all countries where they came to power, the Socialist Parties followed a nationalist policy. All the attempts made with a view to realizing the economic policy of the Socialist program failed as soon as they were subordinated to nationalism, and if something was accomplished, it was only a few achievements of social policy that Bismarck or Lloyd George could just as easily have instituted as the Socialist leaders.
On the other hand, they contemplated an “international rapprochement,” conceived on the lines of the liberal wishful thinkers. Never did they dare to fight nationalism in their own country, or they did not wish to. The consequences of this policy, which intended to conquer antagonisms which could not be conquered, have been the lack of success by Socialist governments and those upholding Socialism. The ultra-nationalist and militarist spirit knew in a few years an astounding rebirth. The economic crisis had become catastrophic. The workers, of which the party was supposed to be the real representative, had fallen into astill greater misery. Unemployment rapidly increased, and not only the sympathizers, but many of the original leaders of the Socialist Parties, went over into the camp of the National-Fascist Parties.
The psychology of this process is extremely simple. The power exercised over a long period of years met with no success. The leaders who were nationalists—but not so much so that they could compete with the real apostles of nationalism—threw all the blame on the “foreigners,” on the [ p. 50 ] other nations, who were interfering with their policies. It is only natural that the masses rapidly followed the demagogues who fought with all the strength of their hatred “the other nations” and their own democratic government, feeble and without any success to its credit. The Socialist Parties failed because they did not understand that at the present stage of industrial development all the problems raised by the social question can only be solved on the international plan.
So we have witnessed during the past years the triumph of nationalism over Christianity, liberalism and socialism— over all those forces which were opposing it.
Today the world is ruled everywhere by nationalistic forces. The division between nations and their isolation was pushed to an absurd limit, and it is hardly possible to go further in this direction. This ecstasy of nationalism means its end. It is characteristic that even one of the greatest exponents of modern nationalism, Benito Mussolini, when he was still capable of expressing his own views, felt that nationalism, in the actual stage of political and economic development, is no longer a stimulant. He wrote in an article before he attacked Ethiopia, the following phrases: “Nationality as a principle and as the bond in the levelling formation has become the great dynamic force which has contributed to the growth of modern Europe. This force, however, soon ceases to be centripetal; it threatens to change into a centrifugal force and become a factor of disjuncture if it is not held in a state of reasonable equilibrium. It is impossible to exercise complete human justice towards every human instinct and every pride of race. The United States [ p. 51 ] has shown that it is possible to transform into a national formation old sentiments of hatred in one or two generations, if the races, which formerly were animated by an atavistic enmity transmitted from father to son, are united.”
Nationalism has actually reached the beginning of its end. It has destroyed and decomposed all that human mind, all that human work had conceived. The absurdity of nationalism is best characterized by the fact that we possess today the technical means of crossing the Atlantic Ocean in seven hours, but it takes seven months to obtain a visa.
Nationalism does not wish to achieve the union of humanity on the basis of 95 per cent of its common characteristics, but to divide it on the basis of 5 per cent of its differentiation. It is the spiritual conception in absolute contradiction to all the conquests realized in the course of the last century. It is the faith which wants to revive the pre-Christian era. It is the enemy of man and is anti-Christian. It is reactionary and makes impossible any progress towards welfare. It is born of terror and fear, of suspicion and mistrust and vanity. It is the most evil epidemic which has attacked humanity. It is the expression of a collective inferiority complex.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the noble feeling, of the love of one’s own country, of real patriotism, of which it is a distortion, just as pathological drunkenness is a perversion of the enjoyment of a glass of wine.
It must be understood that there exist only two realities— the individual and humanity. All other classifications into castes, tribes, classes, religions, races and nations are arbitrary, artificial and superficial.
[ p. 52 ]
Nobody can say that these segregations of mankind on whatever basis are fundamental from whatever viewpoint. Frenchmen, Germans and Italians are Swiss patriots. And African Negroes, yellow Chinese, redskin Indians, blueeyed Irish, dark-haired Greeks and blond Scandinavians are living harmoniously together, with the same feeling of devotion to their country—the United States of America.
We naturally cannot make the skin of the Negro white, and cannot do away with the use of the German language. But we can abolish the principle that it is this arbitrary classification of mankind into races or nationalities which remains the basis of sovereign states. Once we understand this problem and suppress the principle of nationality as the foundation of states, nationalist wars will stop just as automatically as religious wars stopped at the moment when religion was separated from the state and ceased to be its foundation.