So far we have been considering what is true in the contention that capitalism causes modern wars.It is time now to look at the other side, and to ask ourselves whether the abolition of capitalism would, by itself, be sufficient to prevent war.
I do not myself believe that this is the case.The outlook of both Socialists and Anarchists seems to me, in this respect as in some others, to be unduly divorced from the fundamental instincts of human nature.There were wars before there was capital- ism, and fighting is habitual among animals.The power of the Press in promoting war is entirely due to the fact that it is able to appeal to certain instincts.Man is naturally competitive, acquisitive, and, in a greater or less degree, pugnacious.When the Press tells him that so-and-so is his enemy, a whole set of instincts in him responds to the suggestion.It is natural to most men to suppose that they have enemies and to find a certain fulfillment of their nature when they embark upon a contest.What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires--desires of which he himself is often unconscious.If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence isoverwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.The origin of myths is explained in this way, and much of what is currently believed in international affairs is no better than myth.Although capitalism affords in modern society the channel by which the instinct of pugnacity finds its outlet, there is reason to fear that, if this channel were closed, some other would be found, unless education and environment were so changed as enormously to diminish the strength of the competitive instinct.If an economic reorganization can effect this it may pro- vide a real safeguard against war, but if not, it is to be feared that the hopes of universal peace will prove delusive.
The abolition of capitalism might, and very likely would, greatly diminish the incentives to war which are derived from the Press and from the desire of finance to find new fields for investment in undeveloped countries, but those which are derived from the instinct of command and the impatience of opposition might remain, though perhaps in a less virulent form than at present.A democracy which has power is almost always more bellicose than one which is excluded from its due share in the government.The internationalism of Marx is based upon the assumption that the proletariat everywhere are oppressed by the ruling classes.The last words of the Communist Manifesto embody this idea--Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.They have a world to win.Working men of all countries, unite!
So long as the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains, it is not likely that their enmity will be directed against other proletarians.If the world had developed as Marx expected, the kind of internationalism which he foresaw might have inspired a universal social revolution.Russia, which devel- oped more nearly than any other country upon the lines of his system, has had a revolution of the kind which he expected.If the development in other countries had been similar, it is highly probable that this revolution would have spread throughout the civilized world.The proletariat of all countries might have united against the capitalists as theircommon enemy, and in the bond of an identical hatred they might for the moment have been free from hatred toward each other.Even then, this ground of union would have ceased with their victory, and on the morrow of the social revolution the old national rivalries might have revived.There is no alchemy by which a universal harmony can be produced out of hatred.Those who have been inspired to action by the doctrine of the class war will have acquired the habit of hatred, and will instinctively seek new enemies when the old ones have been vanquished.
But in actual fact the psychology of the working man in any of the Western democracies is totally unlike that which is assumed in the Communist Manifesto.He does not by any means feel that he has nothing to lose but his chains, nor indeed is this true.The chains which bind Asia and Africa in subjection to Europe are partly riveted by him.He is himself part of a great system of tyranny and exploitation.Universal freedom would remove, not only his own chains, which are comparatively light, but the far heavier chains which he has helped to fasten upon the subject races of the world.
Not only do the working men of a country like England have a share in the benefit accruing from the exploitation of inferior races, but many among them also have their part in the capitalist system.The funds of Trade Unions and Friendly Societies are invested in ordinary undertakings, such as railways; many of the better-paid wage-earners have put their savings into government securities; and almost all who are politically active feel themselves part of the forces that determine public policy, through the power of the Labor Party and the greater unions.Owing to these causes their outlook on life has become to a considerable extent impregnated with capitalism and as their sense of power has grown, their nationalism has increased.This must continue to be true of any internationalism which is based upon hatred of the capitalist and adherence to the doctrine of the class war.Something more positive and constructive than this is needed if governing democracies are not to inherit the vices of governing classes in the past.
