materialism is one-sided. The way it is expounded in relation to capitalism is not wholly wrong, but it is partial, incomplete and vague. The conception of capitalism itself is indefinite. Assuredly, there were wars long before the capitalist system, and nobody has shown in what measure this system engenders or develops war. Are we to understand by “capitalism” the economic system as a whole? Or finance, financiers and bankers in particular? Or heavy industry? If so, in what countries? Capitalism exists in all countries, and thus capitalism would be fighting capitalism. Then which capitalism is the decisive factor? We are brought back to the main question—which of the belligerent parties took the offensive and which were on the defensive?—a point of great weight in determining the character of the war.
Nobody doubts that economic interest or, more precisely, auri sacra fames, has always been an incentive to war; but other motives also play their part. Do not historians, including Marxist historians, constantly maintain that, in modern times, States and their rulers and leading statesmen have waged war to increase their power, authority and prestige, to extend their territories at the expense of neighbours, to subjugate peoples and to acquire colonies? Large States are taxed with “Imperialism”; and, as aims of offensive war, love of power, ambition, greed, racial and national hatreds are alleged.
Nor is it enough to explain the world war as a result of nationalism. Otherwise, we should have again to ask—what nationalism? There is nationalism in all countries. What is the substance of the nationalism that is supposed to have caused the war? Who attacked and who merely resisted attack? Certainly national antagonisms were among the causes of the war, but one cannot regard them as its sole cause. Economic and other motives entered into it. The peoples themselves were not legal parties to it but were involved in it indirectly in so far as they were organized into and represented by States. The States themselves did not appear to pursue a solely national policy; they were influenced by all kinds of complicated factors—dynastic aims, the interest of Governments, the influence of statesmen and politicians, of journalists, of Parliaments, of parties and of various intellectual tendencies. It is precisely the task of history and of the philosophy of history—which will have to be sounder than the pan-German and nationalist philosophy—to establish with scientific precision who directed and determined the policy of a State, who took the decision at a given moment and for what reasons.
