| Transcript |
22
decades. The history of this period proves irrefutably
that it was the seizure of colonies, the plunder of foreign
lands, and the struggle between competitors for markets
that formed the main pivot upon which turned the policy
of the two groups of powers at present at war*
As applied to wars, the fundamental proposition of
dialectics, so shamelessly distorted by Plekhanov to
please the bourgeoisie, consists in that "war is merely
a continuation of politics by other (namely by violent)
means.1 ' Thus it is formulated by Clausewitz,f one
of the great writers on questions of military history,
whose ideas have been fructified by Hegel. Such was
always the point of view of Marx and Engels, who
regarded every war as a continuation of the policy of
certain interested powers—-and of divers classes within
it—at a given time.
* " The War of Steel and Gold," by Brailsford (London, 1914. The
book bears the date March, 1914), the English pacifist who is even prone
to masquerade as a Socialist, is very instructive. The author recognises
clearly that in a general way nationalist questions occupy a secondary
place, and that they have already been solved (p. 35); that they do not
constitute the main point, and that " the typical question for contemporary diplomacy " (p. 36) is the Bagdad railway, furnishing it with rails,
mines in Morocco, and so forth. The author rightly regards as one of the
'* most instructive " incidents in the latest history of European diplomacy
the struggle of the French patriots and English imperialists against the
attempts of Caillaux (in 1911 and 1913) to become reconciled to Germany
on the basis of an agreement concerning the demarkation of colonial
spheres of interest and concerning the admission of German securities to
the Paris Stock Exchange. The English and French bourgeoisie rendered
this attempt abortive (pp. 38-40). The object of imperialism is to export
capital to the weaker countries (p. 74). In 1899 the profits on this capital
in England amounted to £90,000,000-£100,000,000 (Giffen), and to
£140,000,000 in 1909 (Paish). Lloyd George, in a recent speech, reckoned
these profits, let us add, at £200,000,000. Shady dealings with, and bribery
of. Turkish nobility, soft jobs for sons in India and Egypt—these are
things that matter Cpp. 85-87). An insignificant majority derives gain
from armaments and wars, but it is supported by society and by financiers,
whereas the adherents of peace are supported by a divided population
(p. 93). A pacifist who, to-day, talks of peace and disarmament, tome frnow turns out to be a member of a party which is completely dependent upon war contractors (p. 161). If the Triple Entente turns out
to be the more powerful it will capture Morocco and divide Persia; if
the Triple Alliance turns out to be the more powerful it will take Tripoli,
consolidate its position in Bosnia, and subdue Turkey (p. 167). London
and Paris advanced millions to Russia in 1906, and thus assisted Tsarism
to crush the liberation movement (pp. 225-8): at the present time England
helps Prussia to throttle Persia (p. 229). Itussia instigated the Balkan
war (p. 230). Of course there is nothing fresh in all this. These facts
are known to all and have been repeated a thousand times in the Socialist
Press of the whole world. On the eve of the war an English bourgeois
sees all these things with surprising clearness. In the face of these simple
and commonly known facts, what indecent nonsense, what unbearable
hypocrisy, what sickening falsehoods are Plekhanov and Petresov's theories
concerning the culpability of Germany, or the theories of Kautsky concerning " possibilities" of disarmament and a lusting peace under
capitalism.
t Carl von Clausewitz. " Voin Kriege,' works, vol. i., p. 28. See vol.
iii., pp. 139-140: "Everyone knows that wars aro provoked only by the
political relations which exist between governments and nations; generally
people imagine that when war begins these relations cease, and that
quite a different situation arises, subject to its own special laws. We
assert the reverse: war is but a continuation of the political relations;
through the employment of other means."
|
