July

First

CONTENTS

TenCentsNew Review

A C R I T I C A L SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL S O C I A L I S M

VOL. III. 10c a copy Published on tke first and fifteenth of the month. $1.50 a Year No. 9

PAGEA POLICY FOR A NEUTRALS' LEAGUE 97

Moses Oppenheimer.CURRENT AFFAIRS 99

L. B. Boudin.MORGAN'S "ANCIENT SOCIETY" 101

Robert H. Lowie.GERMANY'S FOREIGN POLICY BASED ON HER HOME POLICY? 104

William English Walling.A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE 106

Mrs. Chas. Edward Russell.To ABOLISH WAR 108

J. William Lloyd.

PAGE. 109THE CASE FOR RUSSIAN VICTORY.

John Spargo.

BOOK REVIEWS IllFABIAN SOCIALISM AND COLLECTIVISM; CASE AGAINST ENGLAND

A SOCIALIST DIGEST 112ECONOMIC CAUSES OF WAR; A XEW INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS

AND TERMS OF PEACE; GERMAN-AMERICAN CRISIS; BRITISH IM-PERIALISM; VORWAERTS AGAINST THE GERMAN PARTY; JAURES ONPROBLEMS OF WAR AND PEACE; HAASE'S VOLTE-FACE.

CORRESPONDENCE 117From Ralph G. Grey; ilorris Lunch.

Copyright, 1915, by the New Review Publishing Ass'tt. Reprint permitted if credit is given.

A Policy for a Neutrals' LeagueBy Moses Oppenheimer

THE President has solemnly announced that hepurposes to hold Germany to "strict account-ability" for the loss of American lives on the

Lusitania. As far as public opinion is reflected inour press Mr. Wilson's position is pretty generallyapproved. We will not tolerate wanton destructionof American lives by outsiders.

As for such destruction at home, that is anotherstory. When war on labor was waged in Coloradoand women and babies were murdered in the tentcolony at Ludlow, Mr. Wilson, through a confidentialspokesman, remonstrated mildly at 26 Broadway.He sent no ultimatum about holding the responsibleparties to "strict accountability." John D. Rocke-feller Jr.'s brusk refusal to argue the case terminatedthe campaign of interior diplomacy.

The killing of thousands of colored people underthe black flag of Judge Lynch is likewise passed overwithout the cry of "strict accountability." Whenstrikers or Negroes are killed on American soil, thesacredness of human life does not become an issueof war. For such cases we have a soothing formula:state rights. That ghost of past decades, we know,is never permitted to interfere with Big Business.It is, however, still serviceable as an excuse for over-looking the wrongs of the under dog. Public Opinion

as voiced by the general press accepts this excuserather gracefully.

Thus the conviction is forced upon us that in thecase of the Lusitania the sacredness of human lifeis not the real issue. Something else is: The safetyof peaceable intercourse on the Highway of Civiliza-tion, the Seas.

In recognizing the tremendous importance of thatissue, the civilized nations have joined hands in put-ting down piracy as a crime against all mankind.They have agreed in outlawing certain practices inocean warfare known as privateering. The wholecurrent of international understanding has tendedtoward keeping the highway of the water safe andsecure for peaceable intercourse.

And now the war throws down the gauntlet toall the world in an attempt to destroy all that hasbeen achieved by centuries of struggle. "War neces-sities" are put in the scale as against all the de-mands of civilization. Safety of peaceable inter-course on the ocean is sharply challenged.

In maintaining such safety all elements of modernsociety are vitally interested, Labor as well as Cap-ital. From some viewpoints, the interests of Laborcall for particular consideration.

Under modern capitalism the workers are torn

98NEW REVIEW

loose from the soil. They have become a homeless,shifting element of society compelled to migratefrom place to place in the quest of marketing theironly possession, their labor power. The modern mi-gration of workers is a far greater movement thanthe historical migration at the beginning of the me-dieval period. The workers must insist that thehighways of the world should be kept safe and se-cure for their peaceful travel. Their interest alsorequires safety of intercourse for the product oftheir toil. If such safety is denied, their chance ofselling their labor power becomes impaired. Suffer-ing and starvation stare them in the face. So thathere, at any rate, their interests are closely alliedto the interests of their masters.

This view of the situation must be obvious to theworkers of this country, among whom there aremany millions from all corners of the earth. Inthe field of Labor, Capitalism has become a levellerof nationalism and race divisions. It is weldingtogether the masses in a community of interests.

While the European war has made use of the oldnational and racial feelings in luring the workersto natural slaughter, the community of workingclass interests will sooner or later again assert it-self. The causes that created internationalism inthe past have not ceased to operate .

Meanwhile, the American working class faces asituation pregnant with the danger of war. It willbe called upon to assist in securing the safety ofpeaceable international intercourse. Hence it mustconsider whether war is necessary to achieve thatend.

If there remained no other way than war, a greatdeal might be said in advocating that extremecourse. Civilization puts down the highwayman onland. It is a measure of social welfare generallyapproved. It must also take up the problem of put-ting down the highwayman on water.

To accomplish that end war seems by no meansthe only method. There is another. We have latelyheard a great deal about the formation of a Leagueof Neutrals in which the United States should andcould take the lead. But no definite policy has beenoutlined by which such a League could make its de-mands effective. In the background we find alwayslurking War.

Statesmanship should create such a League atonce. It should proclaim as its aim the safety ofpeaceable intercourse on the waterways of the world.It should serve notice on all those concerned thatany government interfering with such safety there-by assumes the part of the unsocial highwayman andplaces itself in the position of an enemy of mankind,an outlaw. The League of Neutrals, drawing theconsequences, could declare such an outlaw cut offfrom all intercourse with the rest of the peacefulworld.

In plain language, the offense should be met withthe most rigid excommunication.

Organized religion has frequently resorted to thatweapon with most telling resultts. Organized Laborhas used it under the name Boycott.

An international Boycott relentlessly applied couldbe developed into a weapon of such tremendouspower that no offender could long withstand its pres-sure. The international highwayman could beforced to surrender without firing a shot.

Such a strict boycott on a gigantic scale wouldobviously act as a two-edged weapon. In modernsociety the cutting off of all intercourse must inflictlosses both ways. But so does war. The boycottdeclared by a League of Neutrals would in fact be abloodless war.

Let us assume a concrete case, that of the TeutonicAllies. At present, Scandinavia, Holland and Swit-zerland still afford opportunities for intercourse. Ifthe countries in question join an effective Leagueof Neutrals, the frontiers could be almost hermetic-ally closed. The pressure would become unbearable.Once before in history, during the wars of theFrench Revolution, a League of Neutrals was formedto secure more safety on the ocean. The violent anduntimely death of Czar Paul I interefered with its de-velopment. Still, that is no reason why a similareffort under more enlightened leadership could notsuccessfully secure its highly desirable objects.

What a grim joke of history it would be if theBoycott, so vehemently condemned as weapon inthe hands of Labor, should now be recognized as themost useful engine of peace! And yet, rabbis,priests, and parsons anxious to join the processioncould quote Holy Writ: "The stone rejected by thebuilders has become the corner stone"!

BOARD OF EDITORS

Frank BohnWilliam E. BohnLouis B. BoudinFloyd DellW. E. B. Du BoisMax EastmanLouis C. Fraina.Felix GrendonIsaac A. Hourwich

Paul KennadayRobert Rives La MonteArthur LivingstonRobert H. LowieHelen MarotJoseph MichaelMoses OppenheimerHerman SimpsonWm. English Walling

ADVISORY COUNCIL

Arthur BullardGeorge Allan EnglandCharlotte Perkins OilmanArturo GiovanittiReginald W. KaufmannHarry W. LaidlerAustin LewisJohn Macy

Gustavus MyersMary White OvingtonWilliam J. RobinsonCharles P. SteinmetzJ. G. Phelps StokesHorace TraubelJohn Kenneth TurnerAlbert. Sonnichsen

Published by the New Review Publishing Association256 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY

ALEXANDER ERASER JULIUS HEIMAN LOUIS C. FRAINAPresident Treasurer '^^cretary

Subscription $1.50 a year in United States and Mexico; six months,$0.75. $1.75 in Canada and $2.00 in foreien countries. Single

copies, 10 cents.

Entered at the New York fast-office as second-class mail matter.

CURRENT AFFAIRS 99

Current AffairsBy L. B. Boudin

Magna Charta—700 Years Later

THE air is full of rejoicing. Seven hundredyears ago the English people received their"Great Charter" from Xing John. As

sharers in the "great inheritance" of English free-dom, we naturally consider the celebration our own,and so let the glad shouts resound in the air.

But the celebration of the great historic eventwhich we share with England does not make usoblivious to the actualities of the present which areall our own. The celebration of Magna Chartaobtained by the English people in June, 1215, atRunnymede, is, therefore obscured, outshouted, andrelegated to the rear, by the celebration of theMagna Charta obtained by the American people inJune, 1915, at Trenton, New Jersey.

On June 3 of this year of Grace, 1915, the UnitedStates District Court of Trenton, N. J., handed downits decision in the Steel Trust case, which decisionhas been greeted with shouts of joy from Maine toCalifornia and from the Great Lakes to the Gulf ofMexico, as the "Magna Charta of Good Business";and these shouts will be heard long after the celebra-tion of the centenary of King John's charter will havebeen forgotten. And very properly so. King Johnis dead, and so is his old "Charter." But the Courtwhich handed down the Steel Trust decision is aliving power, and it is its charter that "Good Busi-ness' is going to do good business under.

There are those who claim that old Magna Chartagave everything to the English Barons, and noth-ing to the English people. And it is barely possiblethat an inspection of the new Magna Charta mayreveal the fact that it gives everything to the Amer-ican Barons and nothing to the American people.But of this some other time. Just now I am inter-ested not so much in what the new "Charter" con-tains, as in the manner in which it was obtained;not so much in what it gives, but the way it wasgiven. And in this connection a comparison withthe manner in which the old Charter was given isvery interesting. It will show some remarkablesimilarities; but also at least one very striking dif-ference, showing the shifting of the centre of gravityof the body politic, the lodgment of the "sovereignpower" of the State.

At the time Magna Charta was asked for andgranted, England was an absolute monarchy. Free-dom was unknown to the English nation. The Kingwas master. In him all the powers of the State,"the sovereignty of the realm" resided. There wasno liberty, but there were "liberties," that is, privi-leges, which some of the English King's subjects en-

joyed as an act of grace from him. When the Eng-lish Barons felt aggrieved by the actions of KingJohn they did not think of appealing from King Johnto his people, for the monarchical idea was as sacredto them as it was to King John himself. For thesame reason they did not dream of taking their Lib-erty by force, although they were not averse ofteaching King John a lesson in "good government"so as to compel him to grant them the liberties theyasked. So they marched in force to Runnymede,presented their petition, and received their grantof "liberties" in the form of the Great Charter,which was simply an enumeration of privilegesgranted the Barons by the King.

Seven hundred years have passed since then. Weat least have done away with the monarchy. Thesovereignty of our State no longer resides in a King.But we still have no democracy. The sovereigntyof our State does not, as yet, reside in the people,although the people have been fooled by the form ofour government into the belief that such is the fact.Our Barons no longer apply to a King for their"charter." But neither do they apply to the people—although nominally the people are sovereign. Thesovereign power which was once lodged in the Kingis now lodged in the Courts. An Oligarchy has re-placed the monarchy. When the American Barons—Steel, Coal or any other—want "good laws" to do"good business" under, they do not apply to the rep-resentatives of the people in Congress assembled,but to the Courts. For it is in the Courts thatpower resides.

Hence the jubilation over the Magna Charta ofTrenton, a jubilation which is not merely a shout ofjoy, but also a challenge to, and a taunt of, theAmerican people, who are utterly powerless to doanything if they should happen not to like the"Charter" which the Courts have granted to theAmerican Barons. As one of the chief spokesmenof the American Barons put it:

"It ivould be useless to pass such a law (that is, alaw changing the 'Magna Charta of Good Busi-ness'). The Supreme Court has had its lesson inbusiness economy, and such a law would not surviveits first test."

The Supreme Court has had its lesson,—thatsettles it. The American people don't count.

Don Quixote and Talcum Powder}

M R. BRYAN has managed to raise quite a tem-pest by his resignation. And if his purpose

had been to get again into the limelight, as a pre-liminary to the next Presidential campaign, he hascertainly achieved his purpose. The fact that mostof the newspaper comment is adverse is of no par-ticular account, it's the fact of newspaper talk ofsome kind that counts. Mr. Bryan had been quiteforgotten during the three years that have elapsedsince the Baltimore Convention. Now he is a na-

100NEW REVIEW

tional figure again. And we ought to be thankfulfor it. Things had come to such a dead level, inour political life, that even Mr. Bryan is a relief.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bryan chose to make his re-entry into public life in a manner which not onlymakes of him a national figure again, but threatensto make of him a Socialist hero. Not that that is aparticularly difficult feat. Mr. Hearst managed itseveral times. So we might be disposed to lookupon it with equanimity, if it were not for the factthat these are exceedingly serious times, and mis-takes are likely to have particularly grave conse-quences.

So it is up to us Socialists to consider Mr. Bryanseriously,—and examine his action upon the merits,giving him credit for honesty of purpose and for-getting all about its possible relation to the nextPresidential Campaign.

The first impression that one gains from a read-ing of Mr. Brayn's statement, giving to the Amer-ican people and the world at large his reasons forresigning the shelf upon which he had been tuckedaway for more than two years, is that that famousknight Don Quixote de la Mancha had risen fromhis grave, valiantly riding astride his famous don-key Rosinante. Not the martial knight, indeed, buta pacific Don Quixote; one who has imbibed thedoctrine of non-resistance, which can accomplish forpeace exactly as much as the exploits of Cervantes'hero did for martial ends.

But upon a more careful consideration of Mr.Bryan's pronunciamento, and reading it in thelight of the Second Note to Germany, which drewhis fire, we must become convinced that our firstimpression was wrong. We were doing both Tolstoyand Don Quixote an injustice; Tolstoy's blood pul-sated too rapidly to admit of his calmly waiting"until the stress of war is over" for the "settlement"of the question whether the German military ma-chine can go on torpedoing Lusitanias. And theKnight of La Mancha was entirely too much theman of action to believe in "continuing negotia-tions" as a means of solving difficult problems. Be-sides, we were not accounting for Mr. Bryan. Forif Mr. Bryan was really anxious to "continue nego-tiations" until the war was over, nothing was bettercalculated to do so than our Second Note, of whichit was truly said that it smelled more of talcumpowder than of gun-powder.

The fact is that Mr. Wilson was backing down.Not because he had re-joined Mr. Bryan in "humblyfollowing the Prince of Peace," but because ourreally "responsible people" don't want to go to warjust now. There are a number of reasons for it,the most important of which is that some of us aremaking much more money by our staying out ofwar. Even our armament manufacturers couldgain nothing, and possibly lose a lot, by our going towar. As it is, they cannot turn out enough arms

to supply the demand. If we are to have a warof our own, they would rather have it come whenthe demand for arms from abroad will become slack.What they, in common with most of our "respon-sible people," really want is not war, but a warscare. That can best be produced not by drawingthe sword but by rattling it a bit and then applyingsome soft soap and talcum powder, which will makeit possible to "continue negotiations" indefinitely.So that if Mr. Bryan wanted further negotiationshe could have safely remained on his shelf for an-other year at least. What made him kick over thetraces?

This might have remained a mystery had not Mr.Bryan himself revealed it in his "Appeal to the Ger-man-Americans." That document shows that not-withstanding Mr. Bryan's avowed Tolstoyanism andhis ostentatious following the Prince of Peace, he isnot at all averse to military glory and of showinghis "patriotism" in this popular fashion. Here wehave "the same old Bill." It will be recalled that in1898 Mr. Brayn's ardent anti-imperialism did notprevent him from emulating the example of thatarch-imperialist, Mr. Roosevelt, in heading a vol-unteer regiment in as purely an imperialistic waras ever there was. And while he did not participatewith Mr. Roosevelt in the actual fighting,—for heseems to have always believed in "continued nego-tiations," and the smell of talkum powder alwayspleased him more than that of gun-powder,—he atleast shared with him the title of "Colonel."

Seventeen years, and the battles of many elec-toral campaigns, do not seem to have cooled Mr.Bryan's ardor for "doing his duty as a patriot," andearning some glory in the field of international re-lations. So when Mr. Wilson struck a popular chordin his first Lusitania Note, Mr. Bryan became en-vious and wanted some patriotic laurels for himself.Then he bethought himself of the time-honoredAmerican practice of twisting the British Lion'stail.

If Wilson was to have the glory of making theGerman Eagle scream, why shouldn't Bryan havethe glory of making the British Lion roar? So heinsisted on a Note to England. And when he couldn'thave his way he resigned. This gave him a chanceof issuing the Appeal to German-Americans,—andothers;—showing how much he thought of patriot-ism, how great a patriot he was himself, and whatgreat efforts he was making to take care of Amer-ican business and property.

Incidentally he managed to inject into Mr. Wil-son's Second Note the only explosive that it nowcontains. The outside world, which doesn't knowour Mr. Bryan, cannot help thinking that there mustbe some dynamite in that missive, even if they don'tsee it—for, otherwise, why should Mr. Bryan re-sign? And in international relations nothing is sodangerous as the suspicion of danger.

Morgan's "Ancient Society"By Robert H. Lowie

N O ethnological work has probably reached alarger audience than Lewis H. Morgan's An-cient Society. Historians, sociologists, econ-

omists, philosophers, have been profoundly influ-enced in their views of primitive life by Morgan'stheories, and the enthusiastic espousal of these doc-trines by Engels and Bebel has made his name ahousehold word in Socialistic circles.

Morgan's services to ethnology are assuredlyneither few nor slight. He combined the inestimableadvantage of an intimate personal knowledge of oneprimitive people with a lively theoretical interest inthe problems of cultural development and a keenflair for significant phenomena that had been over-looked or ignored by his predecessors. However, hewrote his most popular book in 1877 when an inten-sive systematic ethnographical survey of the globehad barely begun, when indeed hardly a single primi-tive tribe was thoroughly known in all its aspects,and when the rise of Darwinism had given an im-petus to the construction of artificial evolutionaryschemes. Moreover, Morgan shared with other menof markedly synthetic tendency a certain lack of so-briety and of logical rigor. Under these circum-stances it is simply absurd to treat his Ancient So-ciety as the last word in ethnology. The one-timegroveling before the letter of Morgan's teaching hasindeed produced a strong reaction on the part ofsome recent students, who have been betrayed intoquite unwarrantable contempt for his ethnologicalachievement. The layman who has steeped himselfin Morgan's atmosphere is thus likely to lose hisbearings when he chances on some such stray gustof criticism. In the following paragraphs I hope togive some first aid to the flounderers. I will selectfor discussion the three points on which Morgan ismost frequently quoted as an authority: (1) hisgeneral view of cultural development; (2) his con-ception of the one-sided kin group ("gens") ; (3) hisviews on the development of the family. I hope tomake clear in every case what are the elements ofpermanent value in Morgan's treatment and whatelements have become antiquated.

I.Morgan's least original and least valuable contri-

bution is embodied in his scheme of ethnical periods.He divided the history of human development intothree periods labeled savagery, barbarism, and civili-zation, respectively; and subdivided the first two intoa lower, middle, and upper status. Civilization wassaid to begin with the use of a phonetic alphabet, andbarbarism with the practice of pottery; the upperstatus of savagery commenced with the use of the

bow and arrow, and the other divisions were definedby traits of similar type.

What first strikes us in this outline is the arbi-trary character of the criteria used for grading cul-tures. No ethnologist would now place the Polyne-sians with their highly developed political communi-ties and their extraordinary artistic ability on alower level than the rudest North American abo-rigines simply because the latter used the bow andarrow and the Polynesians did not. By laying stresson arts and customs arbitrarily ignored by Morganwe should have a transvaluation of values that wouldvery largely alter his scheme of evolution. If wechose complexity of social arrangements as a stand-ard, the Australians, whom Morgan places in themiddle status of savagery, would have to be ratedfar above the majority of North American tribes,who are ranked by our author in the upper status ofsavagery and the lower status of barbarism. Again,if we graded peoples by their skill at basketry ratherthan by their pottery, some of the otherwise crudeCalifornian natives would suddenly rise to a veryhigh rung in the scale. Judged by their knowledgeof the iron technique, the African Negroes wouldtower immeasurably above all the aborigines of theNew World, yet if we substitute architecturalachievement as our guide the palm would have to beawarded to the American Indians. There are, to besure, tribes like the Bushmen which are so obviouslydeficient in almost every phase of culture as to makea decided impression of inferiority, and these wouldbe rated as culturally low by every ethnologist. Butexcept in the roughest way no grading is possiblebecause marked advancement in one line may be ac-companied with obvious backwardness in others, andthere is no way of objectively testing to which crite-rion we should yield precedence.

Owing to the available archaeological evidencethere can of course be no doubt as to the gradual de-velopment and generally increasing complexity ofhuman culture. In this, but only in this very gen-eral sense, Morgan was right and did good pioneerservice. But he was quite wrong in assuming thatcultural evolution, so far as it was not checked bydifferences in the natural environment, must followthe same course, that the development of human in-stitutions was predetermined, as he put it, "by thenatural logic of the human mind and the necessarylimitations of its powers." Though the essentialpsychic unity of mankind is generally admitted, thepossibilities of reacting to the same stimuli are notso narrowly limited as Morgan supposed. Nothing,for example, may seem more natural than that cat-

101

102NEW REVIEW

tie-raisers should milk their cows and eat beef. Yetamong many Asiatic tribes, the Japanese included,milking is practically tabooed, while among SouthAfrican Bantu tribes milk forms a staple diet, butthe meat of the cattle is only eaten on exceptionaloccasions.

But even if there were a strong tendency towardthe production of similar cultural traits all over theglobe, we have to reckon with another factor thathas come to be recognized as of greater and evergreater significance during the last two decades andthat obscures the tendency toward uniform develop-ment,—the fact of cultural borrowing. It has beenclearly shown that when alien tribes meet, culturalpossessions are freely borrowed from one group tothe other. This being so, we can no longer representthe history of any one tribe by a single line purport-ing to represent a law of cultural growth. If sucha tribe should practise the arts of weaving and pot-tery, for example, the latter may have been intro-duced from the outside and then we should have noright to say that the tribe had risen to the potterystage, i. e., to Morgan's lower status of barbarism,by some inherent necessity. We cannot say with anydegree of assurance, to turn to another example, thatJapan would have developed European civilizationif that civilization had not been impressed upon herfrom without. Whether she would, is a question forthe metaphysician rather than the scientist. Theethnologist can only state the fact that all th? cul-tures he studies show evidence of complex origin.This being so, he must in the first place analyze theminto their constituents. But, whether a certain peo-ple adopt a certain trait from another or not, is inlarge measure a matter of historical accident, andthere seems little prospect of discovering a generallaw for the innumerable complications that have re-sulted from accidents of this sort. Accordingly, eth-nology has turned aside from the attempt to outlinea general scheme of evolution along a single line andseeks instead to reconstruct for every area and tribeits individual history of development.

II.By a "gens" Morgan understood a social unit com-

posed of a supposed female ancestor and her chil-dren, together with the children of her female de-scendants through females; or of a male ancestorand his children, together with the children of hismale descendants through males. In America theterm "gens" is now generally restricted to the sec-ond type of social unit with patrilineal descent, whilea social unit with maternal descent is called a "clan."I will adopt this usage, referring to both clans andgentes as "one-sided kin groups."

Morgan assumed that the human race passedthrough a stage when brothers and sisters intermar-ried in a group. At a somewhat higher level, he ar-gued, such marriages were prevented by organizing

society into kin groups of the type defined above andabsolutely prohibiting marriage within the groups,i. e., making them exogamous. In other words, Mor-gan held that the restrictions on what we considerincestuous marriage came in with the one-sided kingroup and did not exist at a certain cultural stageof earlier date.

It is impossible even to indicate here all the rele-vant problems. Suffice it to say that Morgan (1)assumed that the clan preceded the gens because inthe early days of society fatherhood was uncertairtand descent could be traced only through the mother;and (2) regarded the one-sided exogamous kin group(except in Polynesia, where he merely noted a rudi-mentary foreshadowing of this unit) as a well-nighuniversal institution of human society. To these twopoints I must at present confine myself.

In regard to the first problem it cannot be saidthat Morgan's view is antiquated since it is stillshared by a great many sociologists and ethnologists.Nevertheless, even adherents of this doctrine nowmake an important distinction. They still hold thata gens never develops into a clan while there is goodevidence of the reverse change; but they no longerinsist that every gens must have developed out of anearlier clan. Indeed, there is not the faintest em-pirical proof that certain tribes in North Americawhich reckon descent through the father ever traceddescent in the matrilineal way. Accordingly, Ameri-can ethnologists such as Swanton, Goldenweiser, andthe present writer, deny that Morgan's sequence rep-resents a universal law of development. In fairnessit should be stated that most students of Australiacontinue to regard the clan organization as moreprimitive than that based on paternal descent andthat Rivers makes the same assumption for Mela-nesia. The belief in the necessary priority of theclan, however, has been seriously shaken.

An even more important question relates to thepractical universality of the exogamous kin group atan early stage of civilization. Here again the NorthAmerican data are especially significant, for amongthe Indians it is precisely the tribes of crudest cul-ture, the natives of California, the Plateau, andMackenzie River areas, that lack any trace of theclan or gens while most of the agricultural peopleswith highly complex ceremonial activities, such asthe Iroquois, Southern Siouan, and Pueblo Indians,also possess a clan or gentile organization. In otherparts of the globe there are likewise very backwardtribes, for example in New Guinea, among whichthe exogamous unit has never been observed.

These facts may be fitted into Morgan's scheme byeither one of two hypotheses. It may be assumedthat the tribes now lacking exogamous divisions for-merly had them but lost the organization. How-ever, this is a purely gratuitous supposition, withoutthe ?lieht<?st evidence and rendered in the highest

MORGAN'S "ANCIENT SOCIETY" 103

degree improbable by the large number of cases thatform an exception to Morgan's rule. Secondly, theseexceptional cases may be conceived as representinga cultural stage antedating the institution of clans.But on this theory they ought to represent the great-est looseness of marital relations among blood-rela-tives, while as a matter of fact in each and every oneof the tribes in question there are very definite rulesagainst the marriage of closely related kin. Accord-ingly the facts cannot be squared with Morgan'stheory. Tribes of a crude culture exist which haveno clans or gentes, yet they are not so low as to lackstringent rules against incestuous unions.

This last-mentioned fact indicates a fatal narrow-ness in Morgan's view of primitive society. Mor-gan's was a distinctly monistic type of mind. Henaturally tended to conceive all social units of primi-tive tribes as genetically connected with the exoga-mous kin group. Thus, he regarded the Australianclasses as incipient clans and the moieties or phrat-ries of North America as merely overgrown and sub-divided exogamous units. Today we view the Aus-tralian class-system as an institution sni generis;and we should regard it as possible that moiety (orphratry) and clan or gens were in a number of casesof distinct origin. Moreover, restrictions on mar-riage occurring where there are no clans or gentesprove the existence of some sort of family conceptdistinct from the notion of exogamous kin groups,while among the Indians of the North Pacific coasta caste system is found coexisting with exogamouskin groups. Instead of all primitive society beingmodeled on the one clan pattern, we thus find a muchgreater variety than Morgan allowed for in his ac-count of primitive social organization.

III.Morgan's speculations on the evolution of the fam-

ily have aroused the hottest criticism, yet they areconnected with one of the most notable achievementsin the history of ethnology,—his discovery of theclassificatory system of relationship. Having notedthe fact that the Iroquois terms for "father,'r"mother," etc., do not designate single individualsbut whole classes of individuals, such as all thefather's brothers and all the mother's sisters as wellas the father and mother respectively, Morgan after-wards found that this was not a peculiarity confinedto the Iroquois but shared by many North Americantribes. Through indefatigable study and correspond-ence he established the fact that this classificatorysystem also occurs in Africa, India, Australia, andOceania. The wide distribution of this form of kin-ship nomenclature among wholly unrelated peoplesremains one of the basic facts of comparative so-ciology.

Among classificatory systems Morgan recognizedtwo types. In those of Hawaii and other Polynesiangroups, which were simpler and therefore seemed

more ancient, no distinction was drawn between thefather, the father's brother and the mother'sbrother; nor between the mother, the mother's sisterand the father's sister. In the systems of NorthAmerica and India no distinction was drawn be-tween father and father's brother, or betweenmother and mother's sister, but the mother's brotherwas sharply distinguished from the father, and thefather's sister from the mother, through the use ofadditional terms. Morgan concluded that the Poly-nesian system was a relic of the hypothetical customof brother-sister marriage; the Hawaiians, for ex-ample, called their father's sister "mother" becauseat one time a man had exercised marital rights overhis sister. In the North American and Indian sys-tems he saw the effect of restrictions on this primi-tive looseness: when a man no longer cohabited withhis sister, his children ceased to class her with themother; on the other hand, the father's brothers re-mained "fathers" since they continued to share oneanother's wives.

Lack of space prevents adequate treatment of thismost abstruse of ethnological topics; I can only statea few of the results without entering into the courseof the argument. In the first place, Rivers has fur-nished good evidence for the view that the Hawaiiannomenclature was not primitive but arose throughlater simplification of a terminology of the morecomplex North American type. Corroborative testi-mony from Siberia has been supplied by Sternberg.Secondly, it does not follow necessarily that indi-viduals must have shared wives because they aredesignated by the same term: this term may simplydesignate the status of a man, his marital poten-tialities. If, for example, a tribe is divided into ex-ogamous moieties, the fact that a person calls hisfather's brother "father" may simply mean thatthere is one term in the language to denote any malemember of moiety A and the generation of thespeaker's mother. It may denote that the person ad-dressed might marry the speaker's mother withoutinfringing the exogamous rule, but not that he ac-tually has1 access to her.

In the most general aspect of the question, how-ever, Morgan was right. Though his particular in-ferences from kinship terminologies are largely mistaken, the principle that these nomenclatures areconnected with social phenomena of some sort, thatthey are not merely capricious creations of humanpsychology, is sound. It has only recently beenproved from Oceanian material by Rivers, whoshows that the classificatory system is probably con-nected with exogamy,—a theory already suggestedby Tylor and even gropingly divined by Morgan him-self. I have satisfied myself that this theory holdsfor North America, that there is in other words acorrelation between the classificatory kinship sys-tems and exogamous divisions. Morgan thus de-

104NEW REVIEW

serves credit not merely for having unearthed a re-condite cultural trait and established its distribution,but also for seeing that this trait was a matter ofsociological importance. The precise extent to whichthe systems of kinship reflect sociological conditionis a moot-question. Rivers regards all elements ofkinship terminology as sociologically determined,Kroeber once denied any such connection but is saidto have altered his views in the light of Rivers' re-cent investigations, though his change of mind hasnot yet found printed expression. I incline to thegolden middle course,—holding that many termino-logical features are determined by social causes, suchas forms of marriage, while others must be acceptedas simply psychologico-linguistic products lacking asociological foundation.

IV.

It must be clear from the foregoing remarks thatthis is not an attempt to depreciate Morgan'sachievement. His Ancient Society remains a land-

mark in the history of ethnology, but it is a workthat can nowadays be most profitably read by thespecialist. The layman is likely to derive very wrongnotions from it, just as he would get a very imper-fect conception of modern views of evolution orheredity from Darwin's Origin of Species. In theabsence of good, popular, up-to-date books on eth-nology the general reader must be referred to specialpapers. I suggest the following for those interestedin the problems of exogamy and kinship systems:Heinrich Cunow, "Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe und derFamilie" (Erganzungshefte zur Neuen Zeit, No.14) ; W. H. R. Rivers, Kinship and Social Organi-sation (London, 1914) ; A. A. Goldenweiser, "TheSocial Organization of the Indians of North Amer-ica" (Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1914, pp. 411-436) ; Robert H. Lowie, "Social Organization" (TheAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1914, pp. 68-97).The modern point of view in regard to culturalstages is presented in Boas's The Mind of PrimitiveMan (New York, 1911, pp. 174-196).

Is Germany's Foreign PolicyBased on Her Home Policy?

By William English Walling

BERNHARDI, we were told, does not represent

Germany—in spite of the 110,000 copies ofhis leading works sold in that country.

Treitschke, though he was the most influential ofhistorians in a country where history is one of theinstruments of government, was opposed by otherhistorians scarcely less influential. Wilhelm II. wasinherited by Germany, without any consultation ofthe nation, and the country has shown on severaloccasions that he does not always represent it.

Who, then, speaks for Germany? Has anyone abetter right than the man who has recently servedfor nine years as Chancellor of the Empire and whohas now been sent on the most momentous missionever entrusted to a German, that of persuadingItaly to remain neutral in order that Germany mayhave some slight chance of holding her own in thepresent war? Von Buelow probably voices the viewsof the German nation. He is certainly responsiblein what he writes, and he has expressed himself atlength in his "Imperial Germany."*

Von Buelow begins his book with a quotation fromTreitschke and refers to him several times—whichshows that the cynical historian is after all a livinginfluence. But Von Buelow is undoubtedly more rep-resentative of the totality of German opinion. He is

* "Imperial Germany," published by Dodd, Mead & Co.—$1.50.

more liberal than Treitschke in political thought andmore conservative in utterance. Moreover, while heis a strong believer in the importance of "ideas," heis also a practical statesman and an opportunist, andso deals almost entirely with realities.

With Von Buelow the first of realities is war. Onhis first page we learn that Germany became one ofthe Great Powers of Europe "after three gloriousand successful campaigns," while on the third weare told that the union of the German States wasaccomplished first of all "by the force of Germanarms." Commerce and industry have flourished sogreatly in Germany only because peace was pre-served by the strength of her armaments and theywill be able to thrive in the future only if her arma-ments are maintained "in undiminished strength."Oversea traffic especially has been "growing evergreater under the protection of the German navy."

Similar views to these prevail in Great Britainand even in some quarters in America. But howmany Englishmen or Americans would go so far asendorse the celebrated Von Moltke view of war,which Von Buelow quotes and adopts as his own:

"Permanent peace is a dream and not even abeautiful one. But war is an essential element ofGod's scheme of the world."

And how many responsible public men, outside of

GERMAN FOREIGN AND HOME POLICY 105

Germany, would agree with these other expressionsof Von Buelow's:

"In the struggle between nations one nation is thehammer and the other is the anvil; one is the victorand the other the vanquished.

"It is a law of life and development in history,that where two civilizations meet thev fight for as-cendancy."

The reader may well exclaim: "God help the Al-satians, Danes, Poles, Slavs, and Italians that fallinto the power of such men as these! Two civiliza-tions cannot even "meet" amicably! There is nosuch thing as a genuine peace among nations!

Von Buelow supports his views largely on thepractical basis of German national egoism, of Ger-many's economic and political needs, without refer-ence to those of other nations. But he is also a manof ideas, and for his ideas he apppeals to history.As Lowell would say, he tries to "unlock the portalsof the future with the bloody key of the past." Andhis historical references give us a key to his ownunderlying thought and motive.

He is not satisfied to appeal to recent times, whenthe nations have become more or less civilized anddemocratic. He dwells upon periods centuries past.His opening quotation from Treitschke refers toevents of a semi-barbarous period, eight hundredand a thousand years ago. He speaks of "the un-flinching purpose of the Hohenzollern dynasty forcenturies," and he settles the question of the con-quered provinces of France and Poland by similarreferences. Germany's recent expansion to the westis justified because in the seventh and succeedingcenturies the Germans had penetrated into "theheart of France," and these territories were once "inpart national German land." Conquest to the east isdefended because these territories were long des-tined to become German land, since Germany hasmoved for "a thousand years" in the direction ofPoland!

We are not surprised to hear from such a manthat Germany will not give up Alsace-Lorraine, eventhough the peace of Europe can be secured in noother way, nor to read his bold assertion thatFrance's desire for these provinces is dictated notby sound "national egoism," but by mere "nationalidealism." He goes back a thousand years to jus-tify German aims, he will now allow the French togo back forty-five years to justify French aims.

Similarly Austrian Italy was to remain indefinitelyunder German rule in spite of the fact that it would"always remain a sore point." Von Buelow franklydeclares that "Austria and Italy can only be eitherallies or enemies." How does he feel about thesewar-like statements now? We imagine"the Italianwar party has not overlooked them.

Von Buelow scarcely claims that his war policy ismerely defensive. The purpose of the German navyis to prevent any "interruption" in the development

of Germany's world policy. In the Balkan crisis theGerman sword was thrown into the scale of Euro-pean decision only "indirectly for the preservationof European peace" but "directly in support of ourAustro-Hungarian ally" and "above all for the sakeof German credit and the maintenance of our posi-tion in the world."

After the present war had already begun Germanapologists in America claimed that its main purposewas to abolish British dominion of the sea. VonBuelow makes it clear that the German aim is ratherto establish German dominion. He will be satisfiedwith no other sea power or combination of powers,even if it includes the United States.

But half of Von Buelow's book is given to a studyof how to keep the German people in tutelage, howto prevent the rise of the democratic party. And hejustifies his aggressive war policy chiefly by its valuein "uniting" the German people and keeping theirminds on foreign expansion rather than on domesticproblems. For these problems, we may point out,include the democratization of Germany and theabolition of the landlord class, represented by VonBuelow, together with the expropriation of the semi-feudal estates upon which this class and the wholesystem rests—the same measure that was carried outso effectively by the French in 1789.

From the people Buelow asks only one thing po-litically—submission. He will brook no popular"opposition to the Government and rulers." Insteadof political interest in domestic affairs he prescribesfor the people "the clash of German pride and senseof honor with the resistance and demands of foreignnations" (my italics). In other words, hostility andaggression towards other nations are the avowedbasis of German home policy—they are indispensableto the "rulers." It is the duty of the government,Von Buelow tells us, not "to concede new politicalrights to parliament," but to evolve the above "na-tional" policy.

For, like the rest of Germany's ruling class, VonBuelow cynically opposes all political progress: "Inmy eyes," he says, "the dividing line between therights of the Crown and of Parliament are immut-ably fixed," and he is, therefore, against "alterationsin the sphere of constitutional law."

That is, the German constitution is perfect and itsbenefits are to be extended by force of arms to thepeoples of new territories. This is absolutely essen-tial, for the benefits of this constitution are so illappreciated at home that aggression abroad is theonly means by which the German people can be pre-vented from demanding a change.

There is only one problem of the first importanceVon Buelow overlooks: What will happen to thePrussian system at home and abroad in case the pol-icy of aggression against other nations fails? Is itnot possible that the German people, in such anevent, will turn their attention to home affairs?

106NEW REVIEW

A Motion to SubstituteBy Mrs. Charles Edward Russell

[The editors of the NEW REVIEW are not in agreementwith the proposals advanced in the article. We publish it asan invitation to the discussion of ideas seemingly held bymany American radicals and Socialists.]

IN every movement as in every household comes

a time to clean house. A time to look overthe accumulations of years and see how many

of them fit into present needs and how many oughtto be cleared out and discarded to make room fornew necessities. A movement or a household thatresents this sort of occasional examination andrenovation is in a bad way. It is in danger of set-tling down into dust and dogma, of losing its abilityto adapt itself to present day conditions and toserve present day needs.

In every household, and in every movement, somemembers are always cheerfully ready to pitch outupon the dump-heap articles that appear to haveoutlived their usefulness and other more conserva-tive members oppose, actively or passively, this af-front upon their cherished sentiments and posses-sions.

The combination of Spring Season and BetweenElections affords the household of the SocialistParty a period seasonable for house cleaning andI hereby purpose to be that rash member of thefamily that suggests discarding two of the cherishedhousehold possessions.

The articles that I nominate for the dump-heapare Class Struggle and Class Consciousness.

* * *Having paused for the initial storm of indignation

and denunciation to subside and for the HeresyHunters to snatch for the Articles of the Constitu-tion in order to consider expulsion proceedings, Ishall now endeavor to state—(not in Marxian termswith which I am unfamiliar but in common sensehousehold terms with which I am familiar), myreasons for desiring to dispose of the above longcherished articles of faith.

If I desire to bring friendly associates across mythreshold I endeavor in every legitimate way tomake my household attractive to them. If I openmy doors in invitation as a House for the People Ido not display upon my doorstep objects repellantto those that I urge to come in.

It is entirely possible that I have no hospitableinclinations toward the world and his wife and pre-fer rather to maintain a rigidly exclusive attitude.I have a superior brain, I am capable of readingand understanding the Communist Manifesto, I be-long to an Exclusive Cult called the Socialist Party.By rigidly shutting my doors in the face of all per-sons that do not spontaneously think and believe

as I do I am able to maintain intellectual caste andexhibit my mental superiority. Intellectual Snob-bery is a possible attitude of mind.

Assuming however that we desire the Socialistmovement to become extensive and inclusive (insteadof intensive and exclusive) and that we regard itas something other than a cloister in which to pre-serve our own mental superiority from the barbarianworld outside, what steps shall we take to makeinviting our House for the People? What articlesshould we keep for their use and regard and whichshould we discard?

We should keep all those that serve any purposeor for which they can be induced to have any re-gard. We should be willing to discard, let us say,an ugly, useless, broken down piece of furniture,that serves no purpose, clutters up space and givesthe whole house an inharmonious and unattractiveappearance.

Why should we be willing to discard this appur-tenance?

Because it is unattractive, it is unsound, it is un-necessary.

Why do I desire to discard Class Struggle andClass Consciousness?

Because they are unattractive, they are unsound,they are unnecessary.

They are unattractive because they do not har-monize with the rest of our mental furnishings,—in other words, our Ideals. We assume to preachthe gospel of Universal Brotherhood. Our red flagis symbolic of the red blood common to the veinsof all mankind. Then in the next breath we insistupon an unbridgeable "class division" between manand man.

They are unsound because there is scarcely anyhuman being that can be honestly classified in thatway. I doubt whether there is in existence oneperson that can be lined up accurately and entirelyon either one side or the other of the imaginaryline labelled "class division."

Suppose a wage worker to have but $5 depositedin a postal savings bank. Then to the extent of $5he is a "capitalist," is he not? To the extent of $5he is appropriating the product of some otherworker's toil and to the extent of $5 he belongs tothe "Capitalist Class." Is he to be excluded fromthe Socialist Party?

In this case however you say that his economicinterests as a laborer outweigh his economic inter-ests as a capitalist. True. Then suppose in timehe acquires $500 or $1000 in the savings bank. Doeshe then step over to the other side of the imaginary

A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE 107

line and join the "Capitalist Class"? And if so,when?

The existence of a Middle Class has always beenrecognized, orthodox Marxians will now remind me,but is a comparatively unimportant and negligiblefactor in the social structure.

Without stopping to argue whether it is or is not,or to discuss the fact that, notwithstanding our pro-letarian formulae, it is among the middle class thatthe Socialist propaganda in America is making itsbest advance today, let us try to imagine a true,typical "class conscious" proletarian who has noteven $5 at interest in a savings bank.

Such a one takes in hand his $1.50 in wages andhe goes to a shoe store, let us say, to buy one of hischildren a pair of shoes. What kind of shoes doeshe buy? He buys the cheapest. Necessarily so.Does he demand a union label? Nine times out often he does not. The tenth time he may demand it,but if the union label goods are higher than the non-union label goods he will buy the cheaper.

His "class interests" as a wage worker shouldhave determined him to buy the label goods. Buthis "class interests" as a potential capitalist, i.e.,a consumer, forced him to buy the cheapest goods,although by so doing he betrayed his "class inter-ests" as a wage worker. Is he to be expelled fromthe Socialist Party?

If not, is there any more reason or logic in thevarious proposals to exclude from Socialist member-ship various members of the army and police forcefor instance, on the ground that their "class inter-ests" are wrong; or to refuse in campaigns offersof sympathetic support and co-operation on theground that these are not "class-consciously" offered?

And this brings me finally to my basic contention.Most assuredly there exists between Capital and

Labor an uncompromising and irreconcilable con-flict. So long as the same product of industry mustfurnish the interest and dividends of capital andthe wages and salaries of labor this essential con-flict is bound to endure and Property Rights arebound to clash in bitter hostility against HumanRights.

But this conflict is between the FORCE of Capitaland the FORCE of Labor. Not between the CLASSof Capital and the CLASS of Labor.

In the cases that I have instanced above there isall of the essential conflict between Capital andLabor that the most orthodox of Marxians coulddesire. This is no Civic Federation brief that "theinterests of capital and labor are identical." Theyare not. They are irreconcilably opposed. But theconflict is one of Forces, not of Classes. Classesdenotes aggregations of opposing persons, whereasthe conflict may and usually does take place, as Ihave illustrated above, in the same person.

Therefore, it is not the CLASS of Capital against

which we must wage war, but the FORCE of Cap-ital.

I have endeavored to prove that the doctrine of"Class Conflict" is essentially unsound and I thinkI have succeeded in proving at the same time thatit is unnecessary. By the simple substitution of theword Force for Class (of a Power or Principle in-stead of an aggregate of persons) we maintain ouressential doctrine and avoid the antagonism thatreference to the "class struggle" always arouses inan American audience.

This antagonism is based, I have come after muchobservation to believe, upon the instinctive feelingon the part of the American auditor that "classstruggle" is unsound. Whether or not it was soundin the time and land of Marx and Engels I am notenough of an authority upon history to say. Butit is unsound in America today. And the averageAmerican citizen, though he has no education ineconomics whatever and has never been trained tothink in that field, has an instinctive aversion tocant and an instinctive ability to distinguish betweenthe unsound and the genuine.

If then the Socialist Party of America has notlost its ability to distinguish between formula andfact I therefore move to amend by substitution inits platform, program and propaganda the phrasesForce of Capital and Force of Labor for CapitalistClass and Laboring Class.

After all I am not insisting upon pitching out theantiquated piece of furniture to which I took ex-ception but am willing to compromise upon remodel-ling it and bringing it up to date.

A familiar experience in household controversy!Here are two or three arguments in favor of my

motion to substitute.1.—So long as we insist upon maintaining an

arbitrary and imaginary "class division" we alienatesupport that we might as well have. Either theSocialist movement is a purely proletarian move-ment or it is not. If it is, let us confine its member-ship exclusively to pure and simple proletarians (ifsuch persons can be found) and bar out every onethat has $5 or $2 in a savings bank.

If it is not a purely proletarian movement let usdrop the pretence that it is, let us call it a HUMANstruggle instead of a CLASS struggle, stop sneer-ing at "Intellectuals," "Bourgeosie," "Reformers"and the like and welcome the support of all personsthat manifest an honest, decent, altruistic impulseto regard human welfare as of more importancethan property welfare, without stopping to probeinto and examine their "class consciousness."

2.—If we fail to revise our formulae to squarewith the facts and insist upon keeping the presentmisleading terminology we shall alienate not onlysupport that we might get but much that we alreadyhave.

Is it not true that if we insist upon lining up

108NEW REVIEW

individuals on one side or the other of this arbitrary"class" line we give the true Capitalist, (assumingagain that such a person exists) an enormoustactical advantage ? The large employer of labor hasbut to throw out to his employees some such paltrysop as "profit sharing," "opportunity to buy stockin the company" and the like, and to a man theyfeel that if "class interests" determine a divisionline their place must be on the side of property.

3.—The "Class Struggle" and "Class Conscious-ness" formulae are inconsistent with fundamentalSocialist Philosophy. Socialist philosophy assertsthat it does not concern itself with persons, that itdeals in fundamental, economic principles. Thenwhy waste so much energy in the effort to classifypersons?

All of the evil in the world is impersonal. It isa Force, (or an alleged force) not an entity. In thescriptures the spiritual idea of evil was personifiedby the Devil, just as the spiritual idea of good waspersonified by God, only because the prophets andapostles were talking to mental children and neededthese figures to make their ideas understood.

Then instead of lining up well-disposed personson opposite sides of an imaginary "class" line todenounce and attack one another, why not wipe outthis useless, imaginary division line, re-arrange ourformations on the same side and so present a unitedfront in attacking and overcoming the commonenemy, Capitalism, (not Capitalists) which is theroot and source of all economic evil.

To Abolish WarBy J. William Lloyd

THE causes of war are:

Business greed and jealousies—the competi-tive, profit system.

Monarchical, aristocratic and militaristic ambitionand greed.

The doctrine that nations, through their diplo-mats, representatives and executives, are justified indoing things that would be dishonorable or criminalbetween individuals.

The absence of democracy—the ignorance andhelplessness of citizens in general—the fact thatgovernments are not servants, as they should be, butrulers, and that therefore it is to their interest todeceive, exploit, embroil and wield the people fortheir own interests.

Religious prejudice.Color prejudice.Race and national prejudices—of language, cus-

toms, etc.

The lust for conquest, domination.The defenselessness of certain peoples, tempting

the lust of conquest in others.The love of liberty, rebelling against tyranny.The masculine love of fighting for its own sake—

the sub-conscious survival and unsuspected opera-tion of military psychology in the average man,everywhere.

In brief, the causes of war are greed, ambition,prejudice, tyranny, helplessness and combativeness.

To abolish war:Business must first be socialized, competition

abolished, free-trade made universal, the land be-long to the people.

Democracy must be made universal, manhood andwomanhood suffage universal, with initiative, refer-endum and recall. Aristocracies of hereditary no-bilities and hereditary rulers abolished.

Military castes abolished.Education made universal and approximately

equal throughout the world.Every State must be autonomous, constituted

what it is by the referendum vote of a majority ofits inhabitants, united with others in free federa-tions for mutual advantage, but free to secede.

National ethics made identical with those of theindividual by national and international law.

Secret diplomacy, secret treaties, condemned byinternational law.

Religious hatred abolished.Color hatred abolished.Race prejudice abolished.All nations armed, in the person of all competent

individual citizens, for defense purely, on the Swissplan or some modification of it; it being expresslyguaranteed that no citizen shall be required to usehis arms against his fellow-citizens, or in offensiveforeign war, without his full consent.

All nations confederated on an agreement to sub-mit all disputes between them to decision by inter-national arbitration; all pledging themselves equallyto enforce this agreement and such decisions byboycotts (on travel, migration, trade, etc.) first, orby arms if necessary.

The neutralizing of the military psychology bymoral education and by woman's influence on publiclife and ethics.

Internationalism to be made the universal ideal—cultivated in children and in public opinion exactlyas nationalism now is, but more especially and effec-tively by developing the truth that differences andvariations in individuals and in nations, races, aredesirable, profitable, admirable, in feature, color,dress, taste, customs, language, religion, everything,provided liberty be not thereby invaded.

In brief, to abolish war we must have co-opera-tion, education, international honor, internationalsympathy, and the liberty, strength and supremacyof the citizen.

The Case for Russian VictoryBy John Spargo

i.

THE sentiments and ideals which make it im-possible for us to sympathize with Prussian-ized Germany oblige us to look with sus-

picion and fear upon Russia, that mighty despotismof Eastern Europe. Our hearts have been laceratedby the stories of infamous brutality—all too wellauthenticated—which have come from the terribleEmpire of the Knout. From Siberia's bleak exilewe have heard the cries of the noblest souls of Rus-sia—the Tchernichevskys, Kropotkins, Breshkov-skys and Gershunia. From Poland and Finland wehave heard the groans of the oppressed victims ofremorseless tyranny. The horrors of the cursed"Pale" and of the many pogroms at Kishinev andelsewhere have shocked the whole civilized worldand made the name of Russia synonymous withbrutal despotism and infamous oppression.

The supporters of Germany and Austria have notbeen slow to capitalize this fear and hatred of Rus-sia and to turn it to good account in the wonder-fully organized far-reaching campaign for influenc-ing American public opinion which they have beencarrying on. They point to the Russian "menace"and argue that the defeat of Germany and Austriawould be of very little advantage to any power ex-cept Russia. Any increase of Russian prestige orpower, they say, must inevitably mean an increaseof Russian despotism, with all that that implies inthe way of brutal oppression. "How can you sup-port the Russian barbarians?" we are asked.

II.It has been my good fortune to know many of the

victims of Russian despotism—among them SergiusStepniak, Nicholas Tchaykovsky, Peter Kropotkin,Leo Deutsch, Maxim Gorky and Catherine Bresh-kovsky. During the last twenty years it has beenmy lot to be associated with numerous protestsagainst Tsarism and with numerous efforts to ad-vance the cause of Freedom in Russia.

Moreover, I was born in England and there re-ceived my early political education. Because I be-longed to the extreme Left of English radicalism,hatred of Russian despotism naturally became partof my very nature. Like all young Englishmen ofthe radical school, I early learned to hate and fearRussian absolution, while admiring the Russia ofDostoyevsky and Tolstoy and of Stepniak and therevolutionary spirit. It was part of my intellectualand moral heritage that no democratic governmentought to enter into any treaties or alliances with theEmpire of the Knout. Since coming to this countryI have urged that, to mark our abhorrence of mas-

sacres like that of Kishinev, and the oppression ofPoles, Jews and Finns, we ought to withdraw ourrepresentatives from the Russian court and refuseto maintain diplomatic relations with a power sobarbarous.

It cannot be said, therefore, that I am unawareof, or indifferent to, the terrible indictment of Rus-sia to which the friends of Germany and Austriaappeal. Nevertheless, it is my profound belief thatthe cause of freedom, of enlightenment and democ-racy will be advanced, and not retarded, as a conse-quence of Russian victory. Furthermore, I believethat the triumph of democracy in Eastern Europeis wholly dependent upon a decisive victory of Rus-sian arms which will insure her the freedom of theStraits of Constantinople, unjustly and unwiselyclosed to her by treaties.

III.By way of passing, let me remark that no candid

and intelligent German ought to criticize France orEngland for making an ally of Russia. There is nota little insincerity in the German protest. I cannotforget that Kaiserdom and Tsardom have alwaysbeen closely allied. So true is this that it has longbeen a maxim, both in German and Russian radicalcircles, that the German government was the mainsupporter of Russian absolutism. Dr. Liebknecht—heroic son of heroic sire!—did well to remind hiscolleagues of that fact. During every revolutionaryagitation in Russia, when her revolutionary heroescould find asylum in France, Italy, Switzerland andEngland, the German government invariably deniedthem that asylum in Germany and handed them overto the Russian authorities whenever they were foundon German soil. German Socialists have been im-prisoned for speaking ill of the Tsar.

I cannot forget that in the partition and dismem-berment of poor Poland Russia and Prussia wereallies. Nor that Germany has treated the Poles un-der her rule as badly as Russia ever did. Nor thatit was the powerful friendship of Russia whichenabled Prussia to defeat and humiliate France in1871. Can our German friends have forgotten thatRussia, under Alexander II., prevented Austria andItaly from joining in the struggle, and that theEmperor William wrote to the Tsar that he owed toHis Majesty "the happy issue of the conflict" andvowing that he would never forget the obligation?Have they forgotten how, in 1875, Bismarck againappealed to Russia to repeat the good offices of 1870-71, promising in return the co-operation of Germanyin the furtherance of Russia's designs in the East?

True, within the last twenty years the military

109

110NEW REVIEW

class in Germany has indulged in much criticismand abuse of Russia. Ever since the unscrupulousBismarck betrayed, in 1878, the Russia to whoseTsar the Prussian ruler had written, signing him-self "Your ever grateful friend," Russia had refusedto be Germany's catspaw. Hence the abuse of Russia.During the weeks which elapsed between the assas-sination of the Austrian Crown Prince and the out-break of war, the war party in Germany played itstrump card by appealing to the fear of Russia. Thebarbarism of the great Russian Empire was depictedas a menace to the integrity of Germany, "Russia isthe enemy! Down with Russia! Down with ty-ranny!" That appeal swept even the Socialists offtheir feet. At least, all the spokesmen of the Ger-man Socialist majority—Scheidemann, Sudekum—have pointed to the Russian "menace" as justifi-cation for their support of the government. Howpoor an excuse! On the very day that the GermanSocialist majority decided to vote in favor of thewar budget, August 3, the great Socialist daily,Vorwarts, ridiculed most mercilessly the "patriots"who were howling for a war of "freedom againstRussia." Vorwarts pointed out that it was not trueto say that Russia was a stronghold of reaction;that it had become a stronghold of revolutionarypassion and aspiration. And, in any case, the Ger-man government, which had constantly punishedGerman Socialists for "insulting the Tsar" had noright to appeal to German workers to war againstthat Tsar.

What a mocking commentary upon the subsequentaction of the Socialist majority that editorial ofAugust 3 makes!

IV.When, in 1878, Russia, relying upon the Drei-

kaiserbund, sought, at the Congress of Berlin, thesupport of Bismarck for her demands that "honestbroker" ignored Germany's debt to Russia and lefther in the lurch. Consequently, Russia was deniedthat which she had so long coveted, a free outletfrom the Black Sea for her commerce and her im-mense crops, and a passage for her fleet to theMediterranean.

Had the result of the Berlin Congress been other-wise, had Russia either been permitted to take Con-stantinople, the key to the Dardanelles, or guaran-teed the freedom of the Straits of Constantinople,her subsequent history must have been very differentfrom that which has made us fear and hate the veryname of Russia. Of this much we may be fairlycertain. Possession of an outlet from the Black Seawould have inaugurated an industrial revolution inRussia. Her immense natural resources, especiallyher vast deposits of coal, iron and petroleum, wouldhave been developed, and a large part of her im-mense peasant class would have been transformedinto an industrial proletariat.

There is no reason to believe that these changes

would have been unattended by evil consequences.The economic revolution would not have been anunmixed blessing. Just as the industrial revolutionof the 18th Century in England brought about manydistressing social evils, so, it is likely, many dis-tressing evils would have accompanied the indus-trial revolution in Russia.

But one thing is certain, namely, that the neces-sities of economic development would have shatteredthe feudalism of the Empire. Absolutism is incom-patible with the conditions of modern industry.Freedom of movement is an essential condition ofthat mobility of labor without which no considerablefactory system could be built up. Universal populareducation is likewise necessary, as the experience ofall industrial countries has shown. Capitalist ex-pansion would have shattered despotism and bu-reaucracy far more quickly and effectively than allthe terrorist dynamite imaginable.

Above all, the persecution of the Jews—in itsworst forms, at least, would have been obviated.There would, in all probability, never have been apogrom and the "Pale" would have ceased to existlong before this. Narrow racial antipathies aremelted in the fierce fires of modern industrialism.The enormous demand for labor would have madethe restrictions under which the Jews live anomalousand impossible.

When we bear in mind the great revolutionarysentiment in Russia, the spiritual background, it iseasy to believe that the growth of political democ-racy in Russia would have kept pace with the eco-nomic advance. By this time, I believe, Russiawould have been not only a great industrial nation,but likewise one of the most free and democraticnations in the world. The British government pro-tected Turkey and thwarted Russia. And becauseof that policy—which now appears so shortsightedand mistaken—Russia has been economically com-pelled to remain a feudal empire.

Because I believe this, and because I believe, fur-ther, that there can never be anything like democ-racy in Russia except as a corollary of a great eco-nomic expansion, I have come to hope that in thiswar she will achieve a decisive victory and get theoutlet to the Mediterranean which she must have inorder to become a great capitalist nation. If sheacquires Constantinople—even if she takes the wholeof European Turkey and forces the Ottoman Empireto keep within the boundaries of Asia, its properplace—that victory will not strengthen the reac-tionary ruling class of Russia; it will not add newstrength and vitality to the despotism of the Ro-manoffs.

On the contrary, it will strengthen and make in-vincible the class whose historic role it is to destroyabsolutism and to lay the foundations for a generousdemocracy.

FABIAN SOCIALISM AND COLLECTIVISM 111

Book ReviewsFabian Socialism and the

Collectivist Trend

I N at least two of its aspects FabianSocialism is constructive. (1)When it studies existing demo-

cratic institutions and projects theirprobable explanation in the future asin the recent supplements of the NewStatesmen by Sidney Webb, and (2)when it makes a collection of collecti-vist data, frankly ignoring democracy,and even politics in general as in thebook of Emil Davies.1

Davies calmly assumes that all mod-ern collectivism is sooner or later dem-ocratic in its character. But even tothe democratic and radical Socialist,Davies' book and the facts to whichhe calls attention have the utmost im-portance.

Davies admits that the inception ofcollectivism is far from democratic.That it arises chiefly from the "neces-sity for further revenue on the part ofthe state or city," which he does notdeny is a form of indirect taxation."For protection against monopoly,"which he does not deny is demandedlargely by competitive business inter-ests and small traders, and from "thenatural extension of existing State ormunicipally owned undertakings, bythe addition of fresh branches of pro-duction or services." He does not denythat the present state and cities are inthe hands of the business interests,though he seems to assume that theyare governed by the people.

However, the Socialist will agreethat this tendency towards collectivismis capable of being used sooner or laterby the lower classes in their own inter-ests. This is seen very clearly in viewof the enormous collectivist stridesDavies is able to show in practicallyevery modern country. We shall takeonly a few points by way of illustra-tion. Undoubtedly the most importantindustrial function nationalized up tothe present has been the railroads.The near future promises not only fur-ther railway nationalization in GreatBritain and the United States, but alsoa nationalization of transportation atsea. Before our recent shipping billDavies predicted steps in this direction,and the pressure of business men whoare shippers is greater than ever in thiscountry at the present moment. Daviescalls attention to the fact that Aus-tralia, New Zealand, and South Africaare already considering such measures.And the enormous subsidies alreadygranted by Great Britain and other

1 The Collectivist State in the Malting, Lon-don: G. Bell & Sons.

countries, which will doubtless be in-creased after the war, may bring aboutpartial or complete nationalization inother countries. As transportation isthe very basis of modern industry, theimportance of this step cannot be over-stated.

Equally significant is the tendencytowards nationalization and municipal-ization of land, since such a large partof the increase of wealth takes theshape of a rise in land values. InGermany some of the principal towns,such as Stettin, own more than halfthe land on which they stand. Whilestill larger places, such as Cologne,Breslau, Strassburg, Aix-la-Chapelleand Wiesbaden, own more than one-third. The value of the land ownedby Frankfort is fifteen million dollars.Some smaller places have gone muchfurther. Ulm in Wurtemburg ownsthree-fourths of the land on which itstands and pays no taxes. Because ofthe ownership of land there are 526districts in Bavaria and 121 in Badenwhich are absolutely free of local landtaxes.

Incidentally we might remark thatthis fact shows that collectivism inland up to the present time has all gonefor the benefit of the tax-paying partof the population. Indeed Daviesquotes the remark of the Burgomasterof a small Baden town:

"The enjoyment of the public landalso enforces the love of home and isa dam against the tide of social demo-cracy."

The Fabian authority does not makea reply to this argument but seems toconsider it a joke. This is very strangein view of the fact that he referselsewhere in his book, as a high au-thority, to a pamphlet on Municipaliza-tion, by Sidney Webb, in which it isdeclared that the use of municipalprofits for the relief of local taxationmeans that municipalization is in vainfrom a democratic standpoint. Ofcourse the Socialist point of view isthat municipalization of land or of anypublic service is of value, because, iftaxes on the wealth are first abolished,they may later be restored.

Indeed the municipalization of landshows clearly the nature of the wholemovement—under present political con-ditions. In Klingenberg in LowerFranconia, Freudenstadt in Wurtem-berg, and Hagenau (Alsace), the house-holders are even given dividends fromthe municipally owned land. Doesthis not clearly suggest that no matterhow far collectivism goes, it will al-ways be possible to divide its profitsamong the favored few as long as themany consent to such a dispensation?

The wide extension of municipal landownership is by no means limited toGermany. In 1912 Paris invested fortymillion dollars in municipal dwellingsto be rented, while Buenos Ayres un-dertook to build ten thousand working-men's homes at the rate of two thou-sand a year. Manchester and Glasgowactually furnished flats to people oflimited means.

Besides drawing attention to more orless well-known facts such as the usualgovernmental ownership of forests, thewide spread governmental operation ofcoal mines, Davies refers to a numberof governmental activities less widelyknown. For example: the partial gov-ernmental ownership of the oil fields ofthe Argentine Republic; the control ofwater power on a large scale in Ger-many, Austria, Norway, Switzerlandand other countries; the Japanese andHungarian steel works; the municipalownership of drug stores in Russia andItaly.

Davies' enumeration seems to be fair-ly complete. But it is remarkable thathe does not admit even the most re-actionary State Socialist policy hastaken away anything from the Social-istic value of nationalization. He notesthe fact, for example, that the StateRailways of Prussia have contributedfour hundred and fifty million dollarsto the national exchequer, and disap-proves of it, but he is by no meansready to say that such a policy, if itgoes far enough, might rob the peopleeven worse than a system of privateownership—though this is obviously thefact. Davies' book then has a doublevalue—it reviews the tendencies of thepresent, and it gives us one of themost remarkable illustrations of theFabian psychology yet recorded.

WILLIAM ENGLISH WALLING.

Case Against England

IN this publication, undoubtedly themost valuable anti-British publi-cation since the outbreak of the

war, are collected the statements oftwelve British authorities, it is a radi-cal jury; six out of the twelve are So-cialists and two or three others areadvanced radicals—although the testi-mony of the London Times is also in-cluded with good effect. The Socialistsare: Bernard Shaw, J. Ramsay Mac-Donald, Philip Snowden, A. FennerBrockway, Clifford Allen, and TheLabour Leader.

Every document in the pamphlet isvaluable; every one shows that the mo-

1 The Anglo-German Case Tried By a Jury ofEnglishmen. The Fatherland. New York.

112NEW REVIEW

tives and policy of the British govern-ment were not as they were officiallyrepresented to be. The most valuablefrom this as well as every other stand-point, is the article from The LabourLeader, "How the War Came." So-cialists and radical democrats do notquestion the purely capitalistic motivesthat move the British government.There is no need for pointing them outhere. But the pamphlet has anothervalue. All the Socialist articles andalso those by two well known pacifists,C. H. Norman, and E. D. Morel, takewhat Socialists called before the pres-ent war, the bourgeois pacifist point ofview—that is the point of view of Nor-man Angell and Jane Addams. TheLabour Leader article also contains anexcellent brief statement of the Socialadaptation of this doctrine. The par-tisan bitterness of the I. L. P. organagainst British Imperialism is so greatthat it adopts the basic argument ofthe German militarists, indorses theproposition that the invasion of Europeby Attila and the Huns was inevitableand that the present German need forexpansion is similar!

"The enormous expansions in Ger-many of both industry and populationsince 1871 compelled her to shape herforeign policy with an eye upon theworld and not on Europe alone. Shewas subject to the same kind of inter-nal pressure which in earlier times ledto those eruptions of migration whichhave given us our present national andracial distributions of population."

The Labour Leader admits that theBritish were less prepared for warthan the Germans. But it concludesthat the British were less competentinstead of concluding that this unpre-paredness is evidence that the Britishgovernment was less aggressive inbringing on the war than that of Ger-many.

The Labour Leader praises the Ger-man system as being more efficient notonly in military, but in civil life. Itoverlooks entirely all the vast litera-ture of the German Socialists where itis pointed out that this civil efficiencyhas been secured at the cost of democ-racy, and asserts that the only respectin which Germany is more militaristicthan France is that it is more efficient—thus ignoring completely the militaryadvantages due to autocracy as assert-ed by the German militarists and freelycriticized by all democratic peoples.

Perhaps the most astounding state-ment of The Labour Leader is its con-clusion that the "Germanic Allianceand the Entente were respectively dom-inated by bitterly opposed racial in-flences," giving this racial antagonismas the principal cause of the war.Here is a definite abandonment of theeconomic point of view.

J. D.

A Socialist DigestEliminating Economic Causes of War

AT last a common-sense business-

like movement has been inaugu-rated against war. Up to the

present we have had nothing but a re-hashing of the sentimental bourgeoispacifism of 1850. At last business-menhave formed a "Society for the Elim-ination of the Economic Causes ofWar." Socialists will not expect the so-ciety to end war, but it may succeedin educating "public opinion," and lin-ing-up the middle classes and small-business men in support of the big busi-ness policy that is headed in the direc-tion of " a trust of nations," or rathera trust of the ruling financial powersof the leading nations.

The new society absolutely rejectsboth militarism and pacifism. Pacifism,it contends, is merely "a form of na-tional stand-patism." Pacifism meansthat the law of nations rests upon pres-ent possessions. Against militarismand pacifism the society advocates in-ternationalism.

It declares:"Europe's war is easily analyzed as

to its basic causes—it is purely eco-nomic. It is sharp, bitter, bloody com-petition, in a national sense.

"One side stands for militarism—which is simply barbarism carried overinto the twentieth century.

"If the world is to be ruled by mili-tarism, it means that every nation mustbe armed to the teeth, with war al-ways inevitable.

"The other stands for pacificism—which is simply a form of nationalstand-patism.

"If this policy is to prevail, manynations will be deprived of a fair op-portunity—and sooner or later, war isinevitable.

"The United States stands for inter-nationalism, which is firmly opposedboth to militarism and pacificism.

"Internationalism tends toward realworld peace—an end to war, to thepreparations for war, and to the look-ing forward to war.

"Internationalism stands for theprinciple of democracy applied to in-ternational affairs. This means an in-ternational commercial alliance, traderoutes under joint control, and the'open-door' policy.

"Internationalism applied to worldaffairs means international co-opera-tion.

"It can abolish war by accomplish-ing peaceably the results which warnow achieves at such appalling sacri-fice and cost.

"This world cannot remain neutral

—it cannot run away from its prob-lems.

"Internationalism is the solution—it provides the enlightened way of do-ing the things which are now soughtthrough war.

The new society is on a sound eco-nomic basis. Its peace program whichfollows is purely economic, and is ad-dressed to 'Business Interests':

"The surest way to prevent war isto remove the temptation to war. Thiscan be done only by providing themeans by which nations can secure andretain peacefully, through some repre-sentative organization, the ends whichthey would otherwise seek to securethrough war. Although the world can-not remain in statu quo, there must bea more efficient means of determiningpolicies and bringing about changesthan by resort to war.

"It is generally agreed that thecauses of war in modern times arelargely matters of commerce and trade.Hence the first step must be the neutral-ization of the seas. There may, how-ever, be other things to consider.Tariffs, for instance, are virtually con-tracts which nations make with oneanother. If, under a certain tariff, thenations build up certain trade, has anyone of the nations a moral right tochange its tariffs without the consentof at least a majority of the others?The same principle applies to interna-tional shipping, banking, immigration,etc. Is it not because nations can nowmake laws which may ruin competingnations, that these nations are nowfighting for more colonies and greaterworld power?

"The present disturbed condition ofthe world's trade makes this a favor-able moment for the consideration ofsome plan to eliminate the economiccauses of war. The neutralization oftrade routes and the prevention of ad-ditional legislation by any one nationagainst the people or trade of any othercountry, excepting by consent of a rep-resentative international commission,supported by international force, pre-sents such a method.

"This plan provides security and op-portunity for all, eliminates the neces-sity for the control of trade routes byany one power and the opposition tosuch control by any other. It provideswhat perhaps no other plan does, anincentive to states to combine. Nationswill naturally combine to protect theneutrality of trade routes and the jointregulation of the extension of national

GERMAN-AMERICAN CRISIS 112

barriers—once such neutrality and jointregulation have been secured—as theeasiest and cheapest method of protec-tion. Commercial alliance appealswhere political alliance does not.

"The plan involves the yielding ofsome so-called sovereign rights; but

this is more than offset by an ultimateadvantage of almost incalculable value.Unless nations are willing to join in amovement for international protectionthey must continue to compete in expen-ditures for national defense. There isno half-way ground."

A New Socialist International Congress andthe Terms of Peace

AN international congress of So-cialists is to be attempted atThe Hague early in July. All

the neutral countries will be repre-sented, and delegations have alreadybeen selected to represent England andGermany, but it is not yet certain thatRussia, France, and Belgium will par-ticipate. The Russian Socialist leadershave accepted the invitation subject tocertain special conditions.

The Belgian leader, M. Vandervelde,has refused point blank to have any-thing to do with any conference inwhich Germany participates. TheFrench Socialists and syndicalists alsodeclined the invitation in the first place.Austria and Hungary will be repre-sented if it is possible for their dele-gates to get through Germany for thispurpose.

The leading German delegates willbe Scheidemann and Bernstein. TheEnglish delegates, although alreadychosen, have not been announced.They include, however, representativesof both pro-war and anti-war move-ments in the British Labor party.

The preliminary organization of thecongress is in charge of the Swiss So-cialists. The tentative platform, whichis understood to have received the ap-proval of committees in Germany, Aus-tria, England, Italy and the Scandina-vian countries, contains the followingdemands relating to the European war:

"Evacuation of Belgian and Frenchterritory and indemnity to Belgium.

"Immediate limitation of armamentsby all countries, with a view to ulti-mately abolishing altogether all armedforces of individual states.

"Obligatory arbitration and concilia-tion in cases of disputes between states.

"Absolute right of all small national-ities to decide their future destiny;this decision to be made a matter ofreferendum in which all adult malesand females shall participate." (Ouritalics.)

The new conference was originallyproposed by the Swiss to be held atThe Hague on May 30th. For this con-ference Grenlich, the Swiss leader, hadprepared a most interesting program.

Greulich takes the German as op-posed to the French view that the"weaknesses and failures of brotherparties are to be forgotten."

He advocates the participation ofneutral nations in the peace negotia-

tions and a very radical and definitedisarmament program—both extremelyimportant innovations in Socialist peaceprograms.

The central point of his program isthe formation of a United States ofEurope in which armies and arma-ments are to be strictly limited and allfortifications destroyed. This latterproposition—for the first time—pro-poses an effective counterweight to theotherwise anti-British demand for neu-tralization of the seas.

The economic program for the newUnited States of Europe is especiallyimportant. There is to be a commoncontrol of foreign affairs through acentral parliament. All tariffs are tobe abolished and all persons and goodsgiven a free access to the sea, whichis to be neutralized. To prevent financ-ciers' control all banks are to be na-tionalized whether operating at homeor abroad—thus avoiding financiers'wars. All national debts are to bepaid off—which would involve ofcourse heavy graduated income and in-heritance taxes. Greulich, strangely,favors the abolition of all land taxes.

German-American Crisis

SINCE President Wilson's secondnote to Germany, the AmericanSocialist press continues to take

the American side of the controversy,while still strenuously opposing war.This applies to the German Socialistpress in America also. The New YorkVolkszeitung declared Germany's an-swer to Wilson's first note as "in noway satisfactory." It said further atthis time:

"The situation created by the Germananswer is certainly critical. A nega-tive answer from the American Govern-ment which absolutely insists upon itsrights may create a breach that willlead us into war."

The Volkszeitung expressed its reliefat Wilson's second note as follows:

"In view of the moderated form ofWilson's note there can be no questionthat, while insisting upon the originaldemands, he is seeking to bring about apeaceful solution of the differences."The Volkszeitung expresses no regretover this repetition of the original de-mands.

The Milwaukee Leader is also in

favor of maintaining. Wilson's presentpolicy, but it seems to be a little morepositive, since it justifies the exporta-tion of arms. It writes as follows:

"It would be very foolish for theUnited States, if it can possibly avoidit, to permit itself to be mixed up inthe world's war. By keeping out andsaving their money, the Americans whodo things will be in a most advantage-ous position in competing for theworld's markets. Their competitorswill be crippled and burdened with debt.It is for this very reason that therewould be great rejoicing in Europe ifthe United States could be involved.It would equalize competition after thewar shall be concluded if Uncle Samshould have a wooden leg.

"The American people are not cow-ards. There are just as many patriotshere as there are in Germany or Franceor England. It would be no troublewhatever to recruit a volunteer army.Even the terrors of typhoid and em-balmed beef are not great enough tokeep the American patriot from rally-ing to his country's defense. But justnow it isn't good business. There ismore money in selling supplies to thebelligerents than in equipping an armyto keep the door open in China or toavenge the sinking of a tank steamerin the North Sea.

"Neutrality demands that the Alliesshall pay for their ammunition andGermany for what it can get."

There has also been no demand inVorwaerts or on the part of the GermanParty that we cease our exportation ofarms.

The German Socialists seem to be al-most unanimous in condemning thesinking of the Lusitania. Bernstein'sable and courageous statement in Vor-waerts, already mentioned by the cables,has now reached us in full. It con-tains the following extremely signifi-cant passages, all the more valuable inview of the obvious limitations causedby the censorship. Bernstein says:

"The opinions that reach us fromthose countries which have, up to thepresent, remained out of the world war,leave no doubt that in proportion asone side outbids the other in measuresof retaliation, it strengthens the hos-tility of these countries." (Our italics.)

Bernstein then says that the time hascome when thoughtful persons every-where fear that the war will lead tothe mutual exhaustion of both sides andthat it should be stopped before thattime arrives:

"But it is to be feared that this willbe postponed again and again when-ever either side resorts to some newform of retaliation. A glance at thepress of that nation where this retail-

114NEW REVIEW

ation policy has perhaps the warmestand -most influential advocates leaves nodoubt. A single week has perhaps post-poned the chance of success for months.Let all those who have forgotten thatan exaggerated patriotism is very dan-

gerous bear this in mind."The words in italics refer to Ger-

many. The week of which Bernsteinspeaks is the week of the Lusitania in-cident and the "ill-advised comments ofGerman newspapers."

A German and an English View ofBritish Imperialism

SINCE the beginning of the war two

important studies of British im-perialism have reached us from

Germany; one is contained in the vo-umes of Rohrbach, the authority onGerman imperialism. The other, in aspecial supplement to Die Neue Zeit,published at the end of last July, andwritten by J. B. Askew, a well-knownBritish Socialist long resident in Ber-lin. Rohrbach, in German World Poli-cies, tells us of England's purposes asthey were already shaping themselvesin 1912:

"England's purpose was the creationof a solid and unbroken empire fromSouth Africa to Australia, and the di-vision of Turkey. Germany was tohave no voice in the necessary rear-rangements. If she objected, she wasto be deprived of her African posses-sions, of her fleet, and, if possible, alsoof Alsace-Lorraine.

"The ultimate aim of England isnothing less than the absorption intothe empire of all the countries betweenthe Nile and the Indus."

We need not doubt that these are,indeed, the imperialistic aims of theBritish government, whether in con-servative or liberal hands. Rohrbach,however, aside from his practical ad-mission of the relative inferiority ofGerman to British imperialism—paysan unwilling tribute to the semi-demo-cratic character of the latter—as far aswhite people are concerned. There isnothing in the German record parallelto the British treatment of their recentenemies, the Boers, and Rohrbach says:

"The more independent the formerBoers grow in the administration oftheir internal affairs, the more readilywill they declare themselves willing tobe and to remain a powerful member ofthe great English world empire."

As Rohrbach favors keeping the col-ored races in permanent subjection, heis unable to attack the British empireat its weak spot, from the democraticstandpoint, namely, its treatment of thecolored races. Askew fulfills this taskperfectly. He says that to call theBritish empire democratic or semi-democratic is absurd:

"In speaking of the democratic Brit-ish empire just one little trifle is for-

gotten; that is, the natives, againstwhom the English are only a small andvery thin upper layer. A democraticimperialism would mean that this ma-jority would not only be protectedagainst injustice, but would be givenan equal influence in the politics of theempire. The empire then is a democ-racy only if regarded from the stand-point of the whites. In reality it is anaristocracy of the privileged just as thedemocracy of Athens was. That it willever evolve into a real democracy no-body believes. . . .

"And as to the protection of the na-tives by imperial government at thepresent time: if the imperial govern-ment really set to work to prescribetheir conduct in this question to theindependent colonies, then the colonyconcerned would immediately declare it-self independent. The imperial govern-ment can issue such orders only to adependent colony, that is, to one inwhich there is no democracy. Andeven there it would be possible only inexceptional and extreme cases to ac-complish anything important againstthe will of the white colonists."

It is hardly necessary to mention theevidence Askew brings together in sup-port of these undeniable propositions.But it is worth while to point out thatAskew is troubled by the fear that eventhe Socialists of the British empire areunlikely to demand the application ofdemocracy to the colored races.

"How a Socialist society will regulatethe question of civilization in the trop-ics we cannot say. Only one thing isclear: the most strenuous watchfulnesswill be necessary if the old slavery isnot introduced under every variety ofbeautiful sounding names [that is, evenunder Socialism]."

The only practical argument Askewcan bring up against the introductionof tropical slavery under Socialism isthat if it is introduced in the tropics itmay also be applied at home. This issurely possible but it is by no meanscertain. Assume that a method shouldbe found by which slavery shall be lim-ited strictly to the colored peoples, andthat even its indirect results should beavoided as far as the whites are con-cerned—what then?

Gompers vs. Bryan

CONVENTIONS of the American

Federation of Labor have uni-formly shown that when Mr.

Gompers deliberately takes a positionhe usually represents from 80 to 90per cent, of the organized labor of thecountry. His opposition to Bryan, whoalso claims to represent labor, is thenextremely important.

In the immense amount of literatureMr. Bryan put forth in the week fol-lowing his resignation, a large part ofthe public probably failed to note thereal issue that rose between him andMr. Gompers.

At the same meeting at which theGompers letter was read in \vhich hedefined the attitude of American laborunionism on the war, Bryan made twostatements which put his position in anutshell. He is a nationalist andrejects internationalism. He refusesto cede one jot of American sovereigntyeven for the purpose of forming a fed-eration of nations. He is a pacifist, buthe refuses to cede the smallest part ofnational sovereignty even for the causeof peace. The passages referred to areas follows:

"But even if we were willing to re-pudiate the advice of Washington andsurrender the Doctrine of Monroe,would the people be willing so to amendthe Constitution as to transfer from ourCongress to European nations the rightto declare war? The right to declarewar is vested in Congress; the planproposed by 'the League to EnforcePeace' would vest the power to declarewar in a group of nations in which wecould not, of course, exercise a control-ling influence. To depart from thisposition and join a group of nations inan agreement, by the terms of whichwe let them declare war for us andbind ourselves to furnish our quota ofmen and money for the enforcement ofdecrees which may not represent thewishes of our people, would not be anascent to a higher plane; it would be adescent and would impair our influenceand jeopardize our moral prestige."

Against this ultra-nationalist posi-tion, Gompers claims that Americanlabor would in the last extremity placecertain principles for which the inter-national labor movement stands evenabove peace. He says:

"I am not willing to have either thelabor movement or our men and womenplaced in a false position. The UnitedStates will not voluntarily enter intothe present European war. Of that Iam confident. We shall keep out of itif we possibly can with any degree offaithfulness to the fundamental prin-ciples of justice, freedom and safety.

VORWAERTS AGAINST THE GERMAN PARTY 115

"If, despite our reserve and self-control, we shall be dragged into it,whether we like it or not, there will bebut one position for us to take, andthat is, to be true to ourselves, true toour fellows, true to the highest idealsof humanity for which our movementstands.

"Who deplores the struggles whichresulted in the wringing from an unwil-

ling King the Magna Charta? Who isthere who has one harsh word to utteragainst the men who were engaged inthe Eevolution to make the Declarationof Independence and the republic of theUnited States actualities? Who nowcondemns Abraham Lincoln in the fightwhich he and the men of his time con-tested for the abolition of human slav-ery and the maintenance of the Union?"

Vorwaerts Against the German Party and LaborUnions

"¥ TORWAERTS claims that the next\ Party congress will show that

it represents the majority ofthe Party. Of course this will dependupon the results of the war. But atthe present moment there is little ques-tion that the majority of the Partyorganization stands against Vorwaerts.It is equally clear that Vorwaerts rep-resents a very large section, perhapsnot far from half of the Party.

The monthly organ of the Revision-ists, Die Sozialistishe Monatshefte, haspublished a very elaborate and bitterattack on Vorwaerts, by Winnig, amember of the Reichstag, in which heaccuses the Party organ not only ofopposing the majority of the Reich-stag Group, but also of being cool andindifferent towards the labor unions.To this Vorwaerts replies:

"That Vorwaerts in the judgment ofSocialist politics did not allow itselfto be guided by the daily decisions ofvarious Party organs which were gov-erned by the overwhelming power ofevents, but by the theory which theParty had built up and protected forhalf a century and followed the well-knit decisions of the official congressesof the German and international So-cialist democracy is an entirely normalcourse."

But by far the most important partof Vorwaerts' defense is its treatmentof its attitude towards the laborunions. For it reaches the extremelysignificant conclusion that the Partvhas to pursue its own course even ifthe majority of the labor unions op-pose it. It is true this was the posi-tion of the Party when its present pro-gram was prepared at Erfurt in 1891and for several years afterwards. Butfor the last fifteen years at least theParty has been almost without excep-tion in thorough accord with theunions. In recent years the laborunion leaders have dominated theParty Executive, and since the presentwar matters have passed entirely intotheir hands.

Vorwaerts centers its attack mainlyagainst the labor union leaders, butthis is the familiar course taken whenthere is an agreement between the So-

cialist Party and the labor unions. Itsays:

"Winnig speaks of the labor unionsand means the political plans and illu-sions of certain labor union leaders.Winnig is himself a labor union leaderand clearly holds himself as the mouth-piece of the circle of labor union lead-ers. Now we have already seen froma quotation from one of Winnig'sarticles that he is striving for a newinternational Socialist policy with anew spiritual content and new forms.The same is true of his national laborpolitics. For Winnig the old social-democratic theory has been outgrown—•the war has helped a new social reform,nationalistic Socialist labor policy tobe born."

After quoting a passage whichshows that Winnig, representing theGerman labor union leaders, is pre-paring to take a pro-governmental atti-tude in internal as well as in foreignpolitics, Vorwaerts says:

"These great changes in the labormovement have prepared a new foun-dation for the spiritual life of theworking class. On the surface of themovement outworn forms and concep-tions still rule, forms and conceptionswhich had their historical justificationin the time of a heroic struggle againsta whole world of enemies.

"With the negation of the state, therepresentatives of the working classcould no longer avoid a feeling of re-sponsibility, in which was included afeeling of citizenship; denied, cursed,and despised at the beginning, it never-theless grew stronger and continued tospread.

"That resulted in a change in thepoint of view, which did not at firstcome to the consciousness and neededa longer time or a great catastropheto bring it to life. . . ."

Vorwaerts defines its own positionon- the question of the labor union in-fluence in politics:

"Here we see formulated (in Win-nig's article) the conversion of Win-nig to a new Socialism of a bourgeoisnationalistic social reform stamp, to atrade union politics after the model ofBritish trade unionism.

"And the central organ of the PartyIVorwaerts), which regards this So-cialism as being nothing else than afateful, and blameworthy retrogressioninto bourgeois ideas which were for-merly despised and attacked withoutmercy, and therefore rejects it as amatter of duty, is now accused of hos-tility to the labor unions!

"That is a very simple and polem-ical trick. For the very simplestmember of the labor union knows thatthe labor unions as such have nothingwhatever in common with revisionistillusions and the politics of a part oftheir leaders. Quite contrary. Onecan do no better service to the unionsthan to warn their members againstthe political aberrations of certainlabor union leaders."

Now comes the significant conclud-ing paragraph in which Vorwaerts de-mands that the Party continue its pre-vious course, with the unions if pos-sible, without them if necessary. Itsays:

"The politics of the Social Democracyis determined by the Party. All otherinfluences, even if they hide behind asupposedly labor union policy, must bedecisively rejected, and for the con-duct of the organs of the Party theprogram and resolutions of the Partyare authoritative, but not the wishesof certain labor leaders."

This passage seems clearly to indi-cate that even if the labor unions defi-nitely support their leaders in theirpresent nationalistic social reform and"Labor Party" policy, Vorwaerts andthe large section of the Socialist Partyrepresented by it wil* continue on itspresent course—namely, that whichhas hitherto been known as the So-cialist policy.

Vorwaerts issued a still more explicitdeclaration of independence on behalfof the Party against labor unions afew days later in answer to an attackby Karl Legien, head of the GermanConfederation of Labor Unionists.Vorwaerts declared.

"In the politics of the Social Demo-cratic Party we do not recognize anylabor union leaders, but only Partycomrades; therefore we have fully re-pudiated Winnig's effort to formulate aspecial kind of labor union politics.

"The conduct of the wage struggle isthe business of the unionists. Also inthe realm of social legislation the Partywill always attach the highest import-ance to the unionists and desire of thelabor unions. But the politics of theParty as a whole can be determinedonly by the Party itself. The laborunion members inside of the Party havea title to vote only as Party comrades,not as representatives of the unions."

A vote taken within the SocialistReichstag group at the time when itvoted in favor of the third war loan

116NEW REVIEW

in March, indicates, according to Vor-waerts, that the majority faction ispreparing to abandon its traditionaloppositional tactics permanently—thatis even after the war. The Reichstaggroup refused by a vote of sixty tothirty-four to declare that it was vot-ing for the whole governmental budgeton this occasion "exclusively under thepressure of the war loan" or that"nothing was to be regarded as changedas to the principle of rejecting budgetsgenerally."

It is well known that the principleof rejecting budgets has been the back-bone of the Socialist Party policy inGermany, being its method of demon-strating fundamental opposition to thegovernment.

The majority faction of the Partyhowever, gives another interpretation

to the vote above referred to. It de-clares that on this occasion the ma-jority refused only to say that the votefor the budget was not to be regardedas "a vote of confidence," or as "aprecedent for the future." Even inthis interpretation the action taken isnovel and important. It not only sug-gests that a vote of confidence in thegovernment was probably intended, butalso that it was intended to serve asa precedent for support to the govern-ment in the future, under other condi-tions. But the majority went furtherin their interpretation of this action.They refused to declare that the warwas not a precedent only because thatthis should be taken as a matter ofcourse. Vorwaerts however claims thatno such explanation of the majorityaction was given at the time the votewas taken.

The Last Views of Jaures on Problems of Warand Peace

WHERE would Jaures stand if

he had lived after the out-break of the present war?

There is much division of opinion onthis question. The French Socialistsare unanimous in claiming that hewould be a member of the French Cab-inet. A posthumous article publishedin I'Humanite is the last important ex-pression from his pen, and gives usall the light we need on the question.Jaures wrote:

"Solicitude for peace does not in theleast exclude, does not in the least di-minish, in Socialism, the solicitude fornational independence. And it is not,if I may say so, a theoretic solicitudeexpressing itself in general and ineffi-cacious formulas; it is a solicitude verypositive, very precise, and truly or-ganic.

"It may almost be said that whatcharacterizes the present period inFrance is the interest that the prole-tariat, that Socialism takes in NationalDefense. It was an inevitable move-ment; for it is impossible for a greatparty to demand from a nation that itshould transform its social institutions,if it does not invite it at the same timeto insure its independence against allexterior intervention, against all vio-lence or every threat from without.

"In proportion, then, as the SocialistParty grows, it is led to define itsviews on the Army as an institution,and to propose the form of army whichseems to conform the best with a mod-ern democracy in quest of social justicein a Europe still exposed to all risks.The law of three years has had thiscurious effect; it has quickened in theSocialist Party, in the working class,the study of military problems. The

Party has learned that it is not enoughfor it to criticise, but that it must, inaddition, give to the nation guaranteesof security superior to those which ex-ist at present. Thence comes the ne-cessity to analyze the terms of theproblem, to define what is to-day therole of the forces actually in barracks,what the role of the reserves, and whatought to be the role of both to-morrow.

"Just as the Socialist Party has aprecise plan of military organization,so it has a precise plan for diplomaticconduct, and, if I may say so, for theorganization of the world at peace. Toaffirm the will for peace would be ofno use if it were not known on whatfoundations this peace should rest. Tospeak of international arbitration forall conflicts would be vain if it werenot known what rights and principlesshould inspire the awards. Such decis-ions would indeed be both arbitraryand hazardous; that is, they would beviolence in another form; and from thisjudicial disorder the most brutal formsof violence would not be slow to beborn again.

"In the judgment which they give onthese events, in the conduct which theyadvise, Socialists are inspired with atriple thought. First they desire thatthe peoples who have undergone theviolences of conquest should be endowedwith guarantees of liberty, and withinstitutions of autonomy which wouldpermit them to develop, to think, to actaccording to their own genius, withoutthe necessity of rearranging or break-ing by force the framework created byforce. They do not admit that therights of nationalities can ever be pre-scribed; but they think that the meansof claiming and of realizing these

rights can vary, just as do the condi-tions of civilization themselves, as wellas the political conditions of the world.

"Democracy is a great new forcewhich furnishes, even for nationalproblems, new solutions. Certainly theIrish, oppressed, expropriated, starvedby aristocratic England, have vmorethan once had recourse to violence. Inthe past they committed more andmore "outrages"; but now, with thegrowth of English democracy, Irelandhas no need to have recourse to a na-tional rising or to constitute itself intoa separate political State. To obtainHome Rule nothing more has beenneeded than to exercise a continuousaction in the English Parliament. Letthe democracy be entirely realized inRussia and Finland's liberties will bere-established; Finland, having re-gained its full autonomy in the greatcommon liberty, would ask for nothingbetter than to remain associated withthe immense life of the freed Russianpeople. Let the democracy be entirelyrealized in Russia!, in Germany, inAustro-Hungary, and the problem ofPoland, the problem of Schleswig, ofAlsace-Lorraine, of Bosnia-Herzego-vina and Croatia are solved without thepeople having been thrown against oneanother, without an appeal having beenmade to the sword. The direction ofSocialist effort throughout the worldis very distinct. It may be said withcertainty that in this effort is the solu-tion of the difficult problems whichweigh on Europe, and only in it.

"The most 'nationalist' of Frenchmen,the most jingo, recognize this truthsince they proclaim that they do notwish in any case to take the initiativein a war, that they do not meditate any'revenge,' and that it was only fromconsiderations of defense that they de-manded the three years' law. Well,now, if it only depends on them, if Ger-many does not take the initiative inaggression, years will pass, generationsand centuries will pass without theproblem of Alsace-Lorraine arising.Thus would come about its eternalabandonment if the problem had noother solution than force. The prog-ress of democracy and Socialism opensthe one single way to a solution.

"Our second principle, our secondrule, is that Europe can and o_ght topursue its economic expansion over theworld without threatening the inde-pendence of States and without com-mitting violence against the peoples.Wisdom and equity alike demand it.To divide up Turkey would be not onlyto commit an outrage; it would also beto awaken through the whole extent ofAsia Minor the bitter rivalries of Eu-ropean governments. To dismember ortry to dismember China would be not

CORRESPONDENCE 117

only to commit a crime, to arrest theformation of a great organism whichis trying to adapt itself to the condi-tions of life of the modern world; itwould also be to start a formidableconflict between the diverse Europeanambitions. It is true that the appar-ently most convenient procedure forgreedy appetites is to cut up, to con-quer, to enslave. It is, or au least itappears, more troublesome to bind one-self to a long and slow economic pene-tration, and to develop business rela-tions with all the peoples without beingbrutal to them, without being offensive.But if this task is more difficult, it isalso higher and more fruitful.

"It is best, and this is the third ruleproposed by the Socialists, to negotiatean entente of European peoples for afree association of industrial, commer-cial, and financial undertakings whichtends towards a better management ofthis planet. No protective barriers, nomonopoly; but a co-operation in whicheach national group will have an influ-ence proportional to its real effort inthe matter of the work which it has de-cided to put into the enterprise."

Haase's Volte-Face

H AASE and Bernstein are amongthose who now oppose the Ger-man government. Haase, it

will be remembered, is one of the twochairmen of the Party and read thefamous declaration supporting theKaiser on the 4th of August. It issaid on excellent authority that he wasagainst the action taken at that time.We have given his speech in the Reich-stag on March 18th. Far more out-spoken was a speech given at a Social-ist meeting in Frankfort in April.Then Haase said:

"I take the ground that no creditswhatever should be granted to the gov-ernment. Our programme, which de-mands that we should not leave theFatherland unprotected, has nothing todo with this question. In 1870 Bebel,together with Liebknecht, refused tovote on this question in spite of hisrepeatedly emphasized love of the Fath-erland. We do not wish to desert theFatherland, to declare a general strike,or to do anything whatever. Every-body has to fulfill his duty as a citi-zen. But it does not follow from thisthat it was our duty to vote for thecredits. That would mean a declara-tion of bankruptcy of our previous pol-icy. Previously we had refused allcredits to the government, in spite ofthe fact that our sons became soldiers.We are also doing our duty in the warto-day. But if I vote 'yes' in Parlia-ment, I justify the policy of the govern-ment and am responsible for it. Is

there not a contradiction between ourassent to-day and our previous con-duct. We have always insisted thatarmaments lead to trouble, and when

the trouble came we took the responsi-bility for it. To be sure, we deniedthat responsibility in our declaration,but our action was otherwise."

CorrespondenceEngland and the War

To the NEW REVIEW:

THE high standard reached by theNEW REVIEW, due to the qualityof its articles and editing, will

not be maintained if articles like "TheWar in England" in your April num-ber become typical of the REVIEWAny critical reader, whatever his bias,can see that this article is simply anti-English, and represents no other prin-ciple or opinion whatever.

It is no affair of mine to defendCapitalism or Capitalistic Govern-ments, but I think it is time that somesober-minded Socialist protested againstthe absurd exaggerations and false-hoods that are often used in the nameof Socialism, and against the degrada-tion of the NEW REVIEW by an articleas foolish as it is false.

Socialism implies scientific thoughtand analysis. Many Socialists are try-ing to make the facts of the great warfit some theory, and are yielding topassion and prejudice as much as anynon-Socialists. This violation of scien-tific methods will inevitably react onthe Socialist movement, dulling itsvision and stultifying its efforts.

Evidently the writer has a veryslight acquaintance with England, theEnglish people and recent English his-tory, and, I assume, on the strengthof a short residence in England, hemakes the most sweeping assertions andreckless criticisms as to what is goingon there. The first misrepresentationis the assertion that England aims atand exerts supremacy on the Continentof Europe. What other nation in Eu-rope would admit this supremacy, nowor at any time in history? What thewriter says here of England might withequal justice be said of any of theother first-class powers. The aim ofthe European nations on the whole,England included, has always been toprevent the threatened supremacy ofany one of their number, and this warpretty obviously evidences this fact.

The next misrepresentation dealswith Belgium and the Congo. TheCongo Free State was established andguaranteed by the Concert of Europe,and the late King Leopold of Belgiumwas made its ruler, but the people ofBelgium. As the writer says, "atrocityter, either constitutionally or actually,and were no more responsible for itsmisgovernment than other peoples.England had no more chance of annex-

ing the Congo, and no more desire toattempt it, in opposition to the Concertof Europe, than of attempting to annexBelgium. As Mr. Isay says, "atrocityyarns" were circulated in Englandabout the Congo; and there was veryconsiderable agitation to try to movethe English Government to take actionto stop the atrocities. But the EnglishGovernment, "looking slyly around fora chance to seize the Congo," couldonly and with difficulty be stirred tomake mild representations to the Bel-gian and European governments, whichwere equally responsible.

"When the war started, England didnot expect a protracted struggle." Thewriter invents as he goes along, mak-ing assertions and accusations atrandom. Nothing could be wilder orless according to the known facts thanthis statement. In order to picturewith effect the "venom and hatred andwild desire for revenge" in England,he has to invent "their sweet sleep ofsecurity" and "sudden awakening."One would think that a pro-Germanwould be willing to leave accusationsof venom, hatred &c., alone; the con-trast in this respect between the utter-ances of public men in Germany andEngland being remarkable. Alsohe might have been better advisedto leave the treatment of aliens' ques-tion alone, and not invite thereby com-parison with Germany. Undoubtedlythere was a considerable, and oftenfoolish, agitation in England on thesubject, but it was only to be expectedin view of Germany's remarkable spysystem and the injury it was workingto England and the extra difficulty anddanger it imposed on English opera-tions. But, if detention in decent con-ditions can be called "persecution andrevenge," what name must be given tothe German treatment of enemy civil-ians, or military prisoners for thatmatter?

The paragraph on the attitude ofEnglish women is characteristic. Hewants to abuse them so he guesses hisway along,, saying what venomousthings come to his tongue. The atti-tude of women in other countries, heassumes, is fairly reasonable, but herein England they are of course of thevilest. No responsible writer wouldput such silly guesses on paper. It isthe very hysterical hatred he accusesthe English of. In searching roundfor more evil allegations against Eng-land, he invents, for American consump-

118NEW REVIEW

tion, English hatred of the French, "be-cause they have not beaten the Ger-mans," and of the Belgians, becausehundreds of thousands of their refu-gees in England " are an uncomfortablereminder of the plight of Belgium."Could an honest critic pen such stuff?Certainly it can deceive no one whois not wanting to be deceived.

And the paragraph on the treatmentof the Belgian refugees! How cap-tious and deliberately misleading! Ifthey are fed, it is "grudgingly." Ifthey are given work, it is "to trans-mute Belgian misery into Englishprofit."

Is it not the function of Capitalismeverywhere to transmute the misery ofthe workers into the profits of themaster-class? Can hundreds of thou-sands of refugees be suddenly broughtinto a foreign country and be madeperfectly comfortable, when the ma-jority of the native population are suf-fering the hard conditions of the warcrisis? But any lie is good enough inthe name of Socialism and it is againstthis debauching of Socialism I protest.

The writer has discovered a new"cause of the war," namely to deliverthe Liberal Government in Englandfrom its awkward position on the HomeRule question! Even the British Social-ists are using "venom and hatred"against Germany. He uses these wordsso frequently, one wonders that it hasnot occurred to him that he is readinghis own German venom and hatred intoother people's attitudes.

There is an amazing statement ofthis new student of English problems:—"The middle-class is very small incomparison with other countries."What! Napoleon's "nation of shop-keepers" with its large mass of popu-lation between the aristocracy and theproletariat!

Lastly, he rails against the BritishNavy, as tho' it were the sole dangerin the world. "The British fleet todayis the monster that rules the worldand strangles other nations in theirefforts at competition." A fine sound-ing accusation, but in what sense isit true? As far as trade goes, free-trade England encourages competitionmore than any other country. But thenavy prevents other countries, that isGermany, from seizing British Colonies.Hence these tears!

"But we need not despair," says ourworthy enemy of Britain. "The daywill come when the British world-em-pire will cease." The other nationsshould cease their internecial strifeand unite to destroy the British menace.I suppose that all Socialists hope forthe abolition of Capitalism by an in-ternational proletarian movement, butthis writer, in his ravings about nation-alism and inter-nationalism and "na-tionalistic internationalism," only re-

veals his own bitter nationalism.If we look to the solidarity of the

workers of the world as the hope ofescape from the chaos of capitalist in-dustry, it is only to realize the stillhigher ideal of the solidarity of humansociety. In this appalling catastrophethat is overwhelming European so-ciety, I cannot forget the one-ness ofthe human race, and I resent the cal-lous sneer, the cheap accusations, theshallow ridicule that are cast, in thename of Socialism, against the greatlysuffering peoples of the old countries,because, forsooth, they are under Cap-italist governments.

RALPH G. GREY.Thoburn, B. C., Canada.

An Answer to Debs

To the NEW REVIEW:It was with some shocking surprise

that I read the words of Eugene V.Debs on "The Sinking of the Lusi-tania"; it shows that not only the com-rades of Europe but also some of ourbest comrades here in America havelost their balance because of the war.

To get excited over the sinking ofsome "innocents" (as though the sol-diers in the fields are more guilty thanthe women and children passengers) ata time when murder and pillage is theorder of the day, when one people aretrying to starve another, and each sideis bent on destroying the other at anycost, was surely not to be expected ofone that saw people cast into hell notonly in times of international war, buton every occasion whenever they de-manded a little consideration from theruling classes.

Is the Lusitania incident worse thanthe one of Ludlow?

Again, if "triumphant Prussian mili-tarism" is a menace to all the world,"the U. S. of A. not excepted," thenwhy would Comrade Debs "not have theU. S. declare war on the Kaiser?" Is itnot our duty to help destroy the menaceas quickly as possible? Surely Com-rade Debs would not shirk in upholdingcivilization (?) and let others fight hisbattles! In this cruel game of extermi-nation every one of the belligerentsdoes what seems best to accomplish hisend and it is time that we here inAmerica stop getting excited over thecruelties perpetrated abroad, but paya little more attention to the crueltiesperpetrated upon us at home by ourown ruling class and try to preventsuch massacres as Ludlow, Calumet,Paint Creek and many others fromvisiting us again.

As for the war, let them fight it outand let us fight for the Co-operativeCommonwealth.

MORRIS LUNCH.Washington, D. C.

Special LiteraryNumber

July 15th

This issue will consist of 32pages—8 pages more than usual—and will contain literary arti-cles and a splendid array ofbook reviews.

of theNew Review

SPECIAL CUT RATESNew Iiview,The Masses,

lipbrtati(1 yew) 1.50 )

ClDk Ball

New ReviewThe Inter. Socialist Review,

The American Magazine,New Review

New ReviewCritic and Guide,. . . (Wm. J. Robinson, M.D..

Editor)

New Review,Current Opinion, . . .

1.501.00

New Review,The Survey,

New Review, . . ."Songs of Labor" .

New Review " 1.50"Theoretical System of ,. ,«,

Karl Man, -^(.by L. B. Boudin) *••«

Ask us for Combinations on any Magazine

Send all subscriptions to

NEW REVIEW "The Indispensable Socialist Magazine"

256 BROADWAY, NEW YORK

ADVERTISING SECTION

PEARSON'Sis the only Magazine

of its kindThis is why:—Three years ago Pearson's decided tobe a free magazine.

This is what it did:—ABANDONED FANCY COVERSCUT OUT COLORED PICTURESADOPTED PLAIN PAPER

This was the purpose:—A plain form would enable the mag-azine to live on its income from sub-scriptions and monthly sales. Itwould not have to consider the effecton advertisers when it wan ted to printthe truth about any public question.

This was the result:—Pearson's now prints the truth aboutsome question which affects your wel-fare in every issue. It prints factswhich no magazine that de-pends on advertising could"afford'' to print.And, with all this, Pearsons still printsas much fiction and entertainmentarticles as other magazines. If youwant plain facts instead of prettypictures buy a copy on the newsstand for 15 cents, or subscribe bythe year for $1.50.

By special arrangement with Pear-son's we are able to make you thefollowing clubbing offer.

SPECIAL OFFER:NEW REVIEW,! Yr. $1.50 ourrricePEARSON'S, 1 Yr.$1.50

NEW REVIEW256 Broadway New York City

MAKE YOUR DOLLAR GO FARIf you are a Canadian comrade rap-port Cotton'i Weekly, pnblUhed atCowannville, P. Q. Price 50 cent*per year. la clubs of 4 or more Mcent* for 40 Week*. 17. 8. ratei $1.00per year.

If you are as American comrade tap-port tie Appeal to Season, Glrard,Kantas. Price 50 centi per year.In olnbi of 4 or more 25 centi for40 weeks. Canadian rate* $1.00 peryear.

COTTON'S WEEKLY

A Newspaper of the Labor Movement.

BIG SPECIAL NUMBERSaturday, July Thirty-first

CELEBRATING

THE TENTH ANNIVERSARYof the

Industrial Workers of the World

AN issue of sixteen pages of the large magazine style.Illustrated with selected drawings and cartoons.

Special articles from the many men and women prom-inent in our industrial union movement, here, abroadand in jail. Touching past achievements—but moreparticularly a running narrative of the present, and avision of the future of labor. An issue you will wantto read, to preserve, and have a»few more copies to passon. Single copies five cents each. Orders for quanti-ties will be accepted until July 20th at special ratesfurnished on application.

BETTER STILL—SEND A DOLLAR BILL TODAY AT OUR RISKAND RECEIVE SOLIDARITY EACH SATURDAY FOR ONE YEAR

ADDRESS

Third Floor—112 Hamilton Av., Cleveland, 0.

Reedy's MlRRORWM. MARIONIREEDY, Editor & Prop.

THE "DON'T CARE" WEEKLY

Original * Unique * Pungent

$2.00 PER YEAR SAMPLE SENT

St. Louis, Mo.

Artists'Materials

PictureFrames

Colors and Boards of all makesS. HALPERN

3 East 30th St., near Fifth Av«.NEW YORK CITY

Patronize NEW REVIEW Advertisers

amtfestoDr. Anton Pannekoek writes of this new book

by Dr. Herman Gorter of Holland, on

Imperialism, World War and Social JJemocracy

now being published in Germany, and

which will be off our presses July First:

"This book may be considered the Manifesto of the new revolutionary move-ment that is arising out of the ruins of the old Social Democracy, as it broke downin the great European crisis.

"This work is not the product of one man but rather of a group, a party. Itis the European expression of the Left Wing of the great socialist movement,represented in Holland by the Social Democratic Party.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Gorter was already known as one of the chiefs ofthe young literary movement in Europe. His poetical works are valued as amongthe best in Holland.

"Dr. Gorter has written several books for socialist propaganda. His 'Social-ism and Anarchism' arose from the older fights with Anarchism; his Principlesof Socialism' belong to the best of our propagandist^ literature; his work on the'Materialistic Conception of History,' has been translated into German and hasbeen sold there in many thousands of copies because it is the best popular explan-ation of this Marxian theory."

The S. D. P. of Holland, of which Dr. Gorter is a member, was the specialorganization of the same tendencies that constituted the Left Wing in Germany.The NEW MANIFESTO of the rising revolutionary Socialism originated in Hol-land.

"IMPERIALISM, WORLD WAR AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY" is theManifesto of the tendency for which Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxembourg and theLeft Wings in the socialist groups all over the world are fighting.

It is the

NEW MANIFESTO OF REAL SOCIALISM!Price, postpaid, 50 cents; sent with a yearly subscription to

the INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST REVIEW for $1.25. Askto have your subscription start with the first instalment of Prof.J. Howard Moore's course in popular biology, "Savage Survivals".

Address: CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY341 E. Ohio Street, CHICAGO, ILL.

i