The Commonweal/Volume 1/Number 1/Imperialism v. Socialism

by Ernest Belfort Bax

IMPERIALISM v. SOCIALISM.

We seem at the present time to have arrived at the acute stage of the colonial fever which during the past three or four years has afflicted the various powers of Europe. Germany is vying with France, England with both, in the haste to seize upon “unoccupied” (illegible text) and to establish “protectorates”—the cant diplomatic for (illegible text) annexation—over uncivilised peoples. “The rivalry among the (illegible text) for their share of the world market” (to quote the words of our manifesto) must now, one would think, have discovered itself to (illegible text) the casual newspaper reader as the only meaning the (illegible text) “diplomacy” and “foreign policy” any longer possess. (illegible text) jealousy between the courts of Europe, once the sole and (illegible text) recently the main cause of national enmity and war, has in (illegible text) been superseded bu the jealousy between the great capitalists (illegible text) various nationalities. The flunkey-patriot, zealous of his country's honour, dances as readily to-day to the pipe of capitalist freed as he did before to that of royal intrigue, let it but sound the (illegible text) of (illegible text) hatred. In both cases he makes the running for the (illegible text) parties. But where the interested party is the wealthiest and most powerful class, able to pay for “patriotic” articles by the yard, and “patriotic” speeches by the hour, “patriotism” is apt to assume the form of a chronic endemic. Such it is to-day, and as such, mocks the futile efforts of the well-meaning but singularly ingenious clique of middle-class philanthropists, who are naïve enough to take the governmental ring at its word when it pretends its only object in undertaking “expeditions” to be the rescue of “Christian heroes” or the relief of garrisons, which have no right to be in a position to want relieving. War, jingoism—otherwise patriotism—are indeed past cure while the economic basis of society remains unchanged, but only so far; and hence we call on all sincere friends of peace to leave their tinkering “peace societies” and join our Socialist League, remembering that all commercial wars—and what modern wars are not directly or indirectly commercial?—are the necessary outcome of the dominant civilisation. We conjure them to reflect that such wars must necessarily increase in proportion to the concentration of capital in private hands—i.e., in proportion as the commercial activity of the world is intensified, and the need for markets becomes more pressing. Markets, markets, markets! Who shall deny that this is the drone-bass ever welling up from beneath the shrill bawling of “pioneers of civilisation,” “avengers of national honour,” “purveyors of gospel light,” “restorers of order;” in short, beneath the hundred and one cuckoo cries with which the “market classes” seek to smother it or to vary its monotony? It seems well-nigh impossible there can be men so blind as not to see through these sickening hypocrises of the governing classes, so thin as they are.

But we would, above all, earnestly urge the workers in future to consider “patriotism” from this point of view. The end of all foreign policy, as of colonial extension, is to provide fields for the relief of native surplus capital and merchandise, and to keep out the foreigner. But how, we ask, does this benefit the workers at the best? They are allowed, maybe, the privilege of being shipped across seas, there to help to make the capitalist and land-grabber rich. Some few here and there may, indeed, succeed, in a colony which is quite new, in becoming wealthy exploiters in their turn. But the immense majority remain wage-slaves as before. In proportion to the advancing prosperity of the colony—as prosperity is conceived in the world of to-day—is its (illegible text) poverty. Sydney, Melbourne, San Francisco, Chicago, and the leading Australian and new American cities generally, exhibit pre(illegible text) the same conditions as the cities of the Old World. And how (illegible text) it be otherwise, since the same causes are at work? To crown dependencies like India, which are held unblushingly as magazines for ⟨the⟩ aristocratic and middle classes to plunder at their will, it is only (illegible text) to barely allude in a socialist journal.

This, then, is the empire which the blood and sinew of the workers are squandered to maintain and extend. With room enough and to (illegible text) in the Irish Islands for all their inhabitants to live a comfortable life, ever fresh lands are sought for exploitation, ever now populations for pillage. It matters not even that colonies (illegible text) established could accommodate more than a hundred times their present inhabitants; still the vampire Imperialism sucks in fresh territory year by year. Populations to rob and enslave; markets to shoot bad wares into; lands to invest capital upon: to obtain these is the be-all and end-all of modern statesmanship. For this has the stock-jobbers' republic of France waged war successfully on Tunis, Madagascar, Tonquin, and China; for this does the congress sit at Berlin, partitioning the plunder of Central Africa in advance; for this does Bismarck seize Angra Pequena, New Ireland, and Samoa; for this the (illegible text) fanatic and heroic restorer of corrupt Chinese despotism reluctantly (?) consents to go to Khartoum on a pacific mission, collects a body of adventurers on his arrival, proceeds to attack the surrounding tribes, and then howls for British troops to protect him; for this, lastly, is Lord Wolseley sent with an expedition in response up the Nile.

And now a word as to the attitude of socialists toward the imperial question. For the socialist the word frontier does not exist; for his love of country, as such, is no nobler sentiment than love of class. The blustering “patriot,” big with England's glory, is precisely on a level with the bloated plutocrat, proud to belong to that great “middle class,” which he assures you is “the backbone of the nation.” Race-pride and class-pride are, from the standpoint of socialism, involved in the same condemnation. The establishment of socialism, therefore, on any national or race basis is out of the question. Tall talk about the “Anglo-Saxon race,” or “the great democracies of English-speaking peoples, in union with the more ancient democracy of England,” by combination and determined effort securing for themselves “the leadership in the social changes and reforms (sic) which are close at hand,” can but disgust the socialist who is at once logical and honest.

No, the foreign policy of the great internationalist socialist party must be to break up these hideous race monopolies called (illegible text), beginning in each case at home. Hence everything which (illegible text) for the disruption and disintegration of the empire to which he belongs must be welcomed by the socialist as an ally. It is his duty to urge on any movement tending in any way to dislocate ⟨the⟩ commercial relations of the world, knowing that every shock the (illegible text)mplex commercial system suffers weakens it and brings its (illegible text) nearer. This is the negative side of the foreign policy of (illegible text). The positive is embraced in a single sentence: to con(illegible text) the union of the several national sections on the basis of firm (illegible text) friendship, steadfast adherence to definite principle, and (illegible text) to present a solid front to the enemy.

E. BELFORT BAX