Power. War is the last argument of kings, and all It is a curious and most interesting phenomenon that in France and Great Britain, two eminently non-aggressive countries, the Socialists do all in their power to disarm the nation, whilst in Germany, which can hardly be described as non-aggressive, the Socialists are patriotic and are ready to go to war, not only for the defence but also for the aggrandisement of their country. Numerous declarations to that effect made by the leading German Socialists are on record, and the following extract is characteristic of their attitude: "That Germany be armed to the teeth, possessing a strong fleet, is of the utmost importance to the working men. What damages our exports damages them also, and working men have the most pressing interest in securing prosperity for our export trade, be it even by force of arms. Owing to her development, Germany may perhaps be obliged to maintain her position sword in hand. Only he who is under the protection of his guns can dominate the markets, and in the fight for markets German working men may come before the alternative either of perishing or of forcing their entrance into markets sword in hand." 2 In the spring of 1907 the leading German Socialist paper wrote in a weighty article on the Peace Conference 1 Quelch, Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, p. 3 f. 2 Sozialistische Monatshefte, December 1899. at The Hague: "The conception that war is only a product of human unreason is on the same level as the idea that revolutions are only mental aberrations of the masses. War is rooted in the opposing interests of the nations, as are revolutions in the opposing interests of the classes." 1 A comparison of German Socialism with English Socialism shows that English Socialism is more violen: and far less patriotic than German Socialism. German Socialists love their country. Most British Socialists apparently love only themselves. Vorwärts, March 10, 1907. 1 CHAPTER XIV SOCIALISM AND THE MONARCHY THE first of the "Immediate Reforms" demanded in the official programme of the Social-Democratic Federation is the "Abolition of the Monarchy." That that demand has been made so crudely and that it has been given so prominent a position cannot surprise anybody who is acquainted with British Socialism. "Socialists are essentially thorough-going Republicans. Socialism, which aims at political and economic equality, is radically inconsistent with any other political form whatever than that of Republicanism. Monarchy and Socialism, or Empire and Socialism, are incompatible and inconceivable. Socialism involves political and economic equality, while Monarchy or Empire essentially imply domination and inequality." "As in the political history of the race the logical development of progress was found in the abolition of the institution of monarchy and not in its mere restriction, so in industrial history the culminating point to which all efforts must at last converge lies in the abolition of the capitalist class, and not in the mere restriction of its powers. The Socialist Labour Party, recognising these two phases of human development, unites them in its programme, and seeks to give them a concrete embodiment by its demand for a Socialist Republic." 3 1 See Appendix. 2 Bax and Quelch, A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 37. 3 Platform, Constitutions, Rules, and Standing Orders, Socialist Labour Party, pp. 2, 3. Most Socialists describe all monarchs as the drones of society, and habitually refer to crowned heads either as "loafers" or as "Royal paupers, able-bodied and outdoor." 1 "If the people were of my mind they would not tolerate for twelve months that the Royal paupers should wear robes and have every luxury, and the honest. industrious aged poor should wear rags and eat a crust of be imprisoned for being hungry." (Has ever anybody Great Britain, or in any other country, been imprisone "for being hungry"?) ir "Is it possible that this degrading monarchical superstition can survive in England much longer? Has the schoolmaster now been abroad so long in vain? WE the English people never take their destinies into their own hands and close the long era of monarchical and aristocratic robbery? Are we never to have a Gover ment that can hear the bitter cry of the outcast, and hearing, act? We know the goal. The goal is the Democratic Republic. "3 Many further extracts regarding English and foreign monarchs might be given, but they are so indescribably coarse and so offensive-even the late Queen is most shamelessly slandered, abused, and calumniated-ths: they are hardly fit for publication, and their authors shall be nameless. 'See The Socialist Annual, 1907, p. 25. 2 Glyde, Britain's Disgrace, p. 9. 3 Davidson, The New Book of Kings, p. 107. سان CHAPTER XV SOCIALIST VIEWS ON PARLIAMENT AND THE NATIONAL THE opinion of most Socialists with regard to the British Parliament is well summed up in the phrase "Parliament a way to the Democracy? Why, 'tis not a road at all, but only a barricade across our road."1 It will be seen in this and the following Chapter that Socialism means either to capture and hold that barricade or to pull it I down. Let us take note of some representative Socialist opinions on the British Parliament. "The House of Commons is a machine elaborately contrived by the exploiting classes to serve their own ends. In the race for Parliamentary seats the wisest and the best are nowhere. They are rarely even permitted to start. The prizes are for the richest, the most unscrupulous, cunning, and pushing. And without a complete revolution in our ideas regarding the objects as well as the methods of legislation, it must always remain so."2 "Parliament is appointed, we are told, to fulfil the will of the nation. Then why doesn't it do it? If it has a job to do, why does it stand day after day, week after week, year after year, cackling, cackling, cackling about it? Can the mind of man conceive anything more intensely ridiculous than this Thompson, Hail Referendum, p. 3. 2 Davidson, The Old Order and the New, p. 99. P |